Over at Politics Daily, Matt Lewis writes “Steven Deace, Gregg Jackson, Dr. Earle Fox, Phil Magnan, and John Haskins” are gearing up for another assault on team Romney ahead of the 2012 primary season.
The group (Conservatives For Truth) are also continuing to target Conservative Christian leaders who are supportive of Mitt Romney’s campaign (they went Nuclear on Dobson in 2008). In this instance, Conservatives For Truth have targeted Tony Perkins for inviting Governor Romney to the Values Voters Summit.
I am not accusing Governor Huckabee of colluding with Conservatives for Truth, but the timing of the launch of these new attacks do appear a little suspicious, as according to Matt Lewis, the group circulated a letter highlighting Romney’s record on funding abortions during his term as Governor of Massachusetts, the same weekend Governor Huckabee made the same accusations in a speech to the Values Voters Summit.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
September 29th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Kris, I know you have banned me from your posts, so I don’t really expect this to stay here for long, but I just want to say that during the ’08 election I did a lot of research on the people who were out there – such as the ones you list here – vocally supporting Huck, and vehemently against Romney – including those who said or implied that Romney’s religion was the reason they could not support him. Remember, some of these people were even spreading lies and suspicion about the Mormon faith.
What I found was a link between Huck and the anti-Mormon religious-right leaders. Sometimes it was obvious, and sometimes it was not. But it’s not that hard to put 2 and 2 together. It would be foolish to assume Huck has cut ties with these folks. They were a big part of his success.
You are basically justified in your suspicion.
BTW. I thought your article from yesterday was quite slanted in favor of Palin, and against Romney. You glossed over and exagerated with Palin, while with Romney you took some liberties.
Oh well. I guess that everyone knows you support her.
I didn’t keep any record of the evidence I found, and I have since tried a few times to find it, but it’s not that easy anymore. I’m sure it is out there, but I just don’t have the time.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Sorry, my last paragraph is out of place.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
One more thing, Kris.
The accusation has been made by a writer at AmericanThinker.com that Ayers wrote Obama’s Dreams From My Father. It has been many months, but now the new book by Chris Anderson about the Obama’s marriage has confirmed from 2 sources that Ayers indeed did help Obama to a large degree. There is also supposed to be another unnamed person.
Since Obama has claimed that he wrote it himself, I think this is a great issue to force the MSM to confront. When I posted something about it months ago, Alex thought I was crazy, but now we know it is really true.
Maybe someone at race can look into it.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
If Romney and his team are smart (and there is no indication that they aren’t), they should have anticipated this. Romney’s heavy courting of evangelicals in 2008, is, I think in retrospect, a mistake. He couldn’t have and shouldn’t have tried to out evangelical the field when he is a Mormon from Massachusetts. Romney should go after Huckabee’s record as Governor in response; talk about how tough he was on crime, as opposed to Huckabee’s questionable pardons. Talk about ethics in contrast to Huck’s. He never has to mention Governor Huckabee, just talk about those issues, make the attacks implied, not direct and frontal.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Very good anyalais of the last election, and the stuff Huckabee pulled – and others pulled – regarding the religion issue. Romney was the man to beat, and the democrates knew they would have a very hard time doing it. So, they used Huck and his minions to get Romney gone. But alas, Romney went, but is now staging an even stronger ‘comeback’.
Read all three parts. It’s well researched and well written.
http://www.article6blog.com/
September 29th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
But Martha, if we hold Obama to one standard, should we not hold our side to the same one? I agree – it’s important to know who the ghosts are and what their points of views are.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Johnathan,
he did just that. He went after Huck’s RECORD, and huck called it a low blow. He never went after him personally. But huck took it as personal.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
LISTEN UP, REPUBLICANS! If you want to win in 2012 we need to be UNITED. Stop all this highschoolgirlish infighting.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. There is a law of diminishing returns in the employment of smear campaigns. Lies and distortions lose their sting as truth and light propagate through the medium of the body politic.
In the last campaign, more than 20,000 media reports and articles questioned whether Romney could politically overcome the stigma of being a Mormon. There will be far less in the campaign to come as these attacks will be construed to be progressively anachronistic and disingenuous. Dare one hope that the campaign of lies and distortions will generate negative returns?? That might be a bridge too far.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
#8:
But the infighting is what makes it so much fun. Seriously though, the infighting is only damaging when it prevents party faithful from rallying behind the nominee or ticket. Clinton and Obama engaged in the most sophomoric contest in recent memory, yet almost every Democrat rallied to support the Obama/Biden ticket. Republican determination to beat Obama and take back the White House will unify the GOP far more than any squabbling during the primaries.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
These folks are animated by the belief that America is a Christian nation and must be governed by Christian leaders.
America isn’t a Christian nation. America’s government is secular, not religious. These folks shouldn’t care whether Romney is Mormon, Muslim, Atheist or Rastafarian. They should care about his policies and his personal integrity.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Why isn’t this group gearing up to support their candidate of choice? Is Romney’s nomination that inevitable?
September 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Taylor, It’s his to lose at this point. but it is only 2009. They want Romney gone early, so they won’t have to deal with him later -when it will be harder for them to justify their bigtory.
So some homework. Start with the Article 6 blogs written by a two guys – an LDS man and an Evangelical. Them move on over and read the Evanglaicals for Romney. The French’s have some very interesting persepctive as well.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Well, these folks are on a jihad against Mormons in general and Romney in particular, so they are not going away.
If the fair minded folks in the GOP call them out for what they are and avoid the widespread denial that went on during the 2008 cycle (and still goes on with some people here at RACE), then the GOP should be okay and we can avoid more damage to our image…
September 29th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Here is yet another evangelical who is one of the top Romney supporters on multiple grassroots sites who used to like Mike Huckabee: http://mittromneycentral.com/about-mrc/team-mrc/rebel-ross/ It takes a lot for a lot of these evangelicals to see how much more their actions parallel with the pharisees of the Bible than with Jesus. However, that group must see the light and Romney must never give up courting them because many of Mitt’s strongest and most loyal supporters are social conservatives like http://mittromneycentral.com/about-mrc/team-mrc/rebel-ross/ Besides, Mitt is a social conservative himself, so why should he hide who he truly is?
September 29th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“Well, these folks are on a jihad against Mormons in general and Romney in particular”
You Romney bots really crack me up. Try to understand that Romney did not lose in 2008 because he was a Mormon. That had ZERO to do with his loss which was the result of his many (and recent) position changes and his cloying attempts thereby to be all things to all people. That, coupled with some of the policy disasters in Massachusetts, (chiefly RomneyCare) doomed him (and, I hate to break it to you) are even more likely (given the current climate) to doom him in 2012. The religion issue is an alibi, nothing more, for the real reasons he lost. He was not trusworthy.
Although I do not support Romney, let me offer you a piece of advice. In asserting that Romney’s 2008 loss was attributable to religious bigotry, you do two things, neither of which serves your candidate. First, you portray him as a victim, which makes him look weak, unable to overcome an obstacle. Second, in giving credence to the suggestion that his loss was attributable to religious bigotry, particularly among evangelical Christians, you insult a huge, probably decisive bloc of voters in the GOP primary without which no candidate can be nominated. I say this as someone who is not an evangelical, but who knows many of them and finds them to be among the most unbigoted people around. If you want to advance Mitt’s cause, I would lay off this line. It doesn’t help him, and it plays right into Huckabee’s hands.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Listen Zebra, if you think that it’s ok for conservatives to be attacking each other THREE YEARS before a possible election, then you are certainly out of touch with winning political strategy. Also, how does it make Romney weak if he is still fighting the good fight and seeming stronger every day despite the obvious bigotry that only someone who is purposely keeping his head in the sand could deny.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
#15 zebra,
who was trustworthy in 2008?
September 29th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
zebra. a large part of it was bigtory. Not all of it. But a large part. Do some homework. Romney was hit on the left and right for his faith. Article 6 blog points out (and I have noted same thing) it was rare to see Romney’s name in print without the “, a Mormon.”
These guys are Huck’s henchmen. Romney is not the victim. But, where did huck have to give a Kennedysque speech on the subject of faith? Hummmm? Never. And very rarely did I see “Huckabee, a baptist preacher,…”
Read some articles and get back to us.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
zebra. a large part of it was bigtory. Not all of it. But a large part. Do some homework. Romney was hit on the left and right for his faith. Article 6 blog points out (and I have noted same thing) it was rare to see Romney’s name in print without the “, a Mormon.”
These guys are Huck’s henchmen. Romney is not the victim. But, where did huck have to give a Kennedysque speech on the subject of faith? Hummmm? Never. And very rarely did I see “Huckabee, a baptist preacher,…”
Zerbra, how about you tell me about “romneycare”. We’ll see if your listening to your ‘facts’ from Huckles the clown or from Romney?
Read some articles and get back to us.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Those who say that Romney lost because of his religion are just as misguided as those who say that his religion had nothing to do with it.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Good let them wail on Romney. Romneycare makes him a flawed candidate in my eyes. However, the links between them and Huckabee are obvious. If this continue then I am striking Huckabee of my list. How is Huckabee going to govern? Use people like this to smear his opponents. Disgusting.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Zebra,
Ugly, vicious, anti-mormonism was certainly a factor in Romney’s defeat in Iowa. It was pretty clear, and Huckabee was the principle benefactor of that ugly campaign. Those are undisputed facts that you simply cannot ignore, and it looks like the same old people are at it again.
I however, have a bit more faith in people at large. I suspect Romney will remain above the fray, ignoring people who nettle him with interrogations of his stance on Abortion and Gays (just like he did at the VVS as Adam was so kind to post), and these people will marginalize themselves in the American mind. I do think that evangelical’s canabalistic attacks on Romney was a significant factor in people taking a second look at McCain and awarding him with the nomination.
Also Zebra, You are probably right about Republicans needing the Evangelicals to win, but those evangelical birthers and secret-muslimers should also realize that they have no power in achieving their good social aims if they don’t look a little towards coalition-building–that is, unless all they care about is Obama’s Birth certificate and the kind of underwear Romney wears.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“obvious bigotry”
First of all, I attacked no one. I gave you reasons for Romney’s loss in 2008. you prefer to live in the delusion that it was religious bigotry. Since I do not support Romney, it is OK with me if you continue to do it. Just know this. Jimmy Carter was not only wrong, he was politically stupid, to suggest that the opposition to Obama is race based. Obama recognized this and disavowed Carter’s opinion. First of all, there is no obvious bigotry, only a fringe group made up of people no one heard of. Second, as I said, you paint with far too broad a brush by asserting that widespread religious bigotry in the GOP (and it would have to be widespread) caused, or materially contributed to, contributed Romney’s loss. As I recall, James Dobson said some awfully nice things about Romney, both before and during the campaign. He was much harsher with Fred Thompson, as I recall. He did not endorse anyone and only endorsed Huckabee AFTER Mitt dropped out, as a last ditch effort to stop McCain.
Listen. You don’t hurt my feelings by continuing this bleat about bigotry. Most, in fact probably 90%, of the votes Romney got were from non-Mormons. It is ridiculous in the premises that the country which elected an African-American president will not elect a Mormon. And it has the double effect of insulting an important constituency in the GOP, which has the power to deny a candidate the nomination. You are damaging your candidate’s cause thereby but, since I do not support him, by all means continue.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Mike Huckabee is one of the biggest threats from within to the Republican Party. He is only interested in what he can do to advance himself and cares little about the collateral damage that comes from his attacks on fellow Republicans. If he has to sink our chances at taking back the White House in 2012, he’s fine with it just as long as he gets more delegates than Mitt Romney.
Read all about it at GOPToast. http://goptoast.blogspot.com/2009/09/mike-huckabee-secret-weapon-of.html
September 29th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
” In this instance, Conservatives For Truth have targeted Tony Perkins for inviting Governor Romney to the Values Voters Summit.” I do not know Mr. Perkins very well (I have never met him,) but if it is true that the Huckabee camp is going after him because he invited Mr. Romney, than it is a shame and Mr. Huckabee should distance himself from such characters right away or risk losing the potential of winning over undecided voters. Again, if this is true, it is dirty politics by the Huckabee camp!
September 29th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“Also Zebra, You are probably right about Republicans needing the Evangelicals to win, but those evangelical birthers and secret-muslimers should also realize that they have no power in achieving their good social aims if they don’t look a little towards coalition-building–that is, unless all they care about is Obama’s Birth certificate and the kind of underwear Romney wears.” Huh? You lost me half way through.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
To be fair, Huckabee was also consistently questioned in the debates about his faith and by journalists, but there is one difference, Huckabee made his faith an issue, while Romney tried almost desperatly to focus on the issues that were most important at the time. Journalist could sense the blood in the waters of Iowa and flocked to the ‘religious question’ because it WAS an issue that they unfortunatly exploited because of it’s drama and ratings (heck, I hated what was happening, but even so I read everything I could get my hands on at the time).
September 29th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“who was trustworthy in 2008?”
I thought Thompson was the best of that group, although his late start and lackadaisical campaign, coupled with Huckabee’s presence in the race, made it impossible for him to be nominated. His age, and the fact that he looked it, didn’t help either. But that was then. This is now.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Zebra, there is a HUGE difference between calling all opponents of the president racist and saying that a specific group of voters didn’t vote for Romney and were vocal as to why. Besides, Romney didn’t lose only because of his mormonism, but it was OBVIOUSLY a factor. Despite that, about 8 major things had to happen to cause Romney not to get the nomination.
If you want a little insight into the average Romney supporter, our largest worry is that Republican infighting and disunity will cause Obama to be re-elected. That is where our focus is and where I hope the majority of Republicans will focus.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Martha and Knickers,
You guys have quite the double standard. When Illinoisguy started attacking Palin’s religion as “weird” and something Republicans should consider before they vote in the Primary, you defended him. He did the exact thing you accuse so many evangelicals of doing, and when caught red-handed, you stood up for him and defended his religious test.
For the rest of you who are curious about how a Rombot attacked Palin for her religion, implied that Republicans should not vote for her because of it, and how other Rombots defended his religious test, start with comment #96 here:
http://race42008.com/2009/09/21/ma-healthcare-plan-a-winner-but-not-perfect/#comment-589427
Until you two condemn what Illinois did, you have no credibility when it comes to the accusations you hurl at others about “religious bigotry.”
September 29th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Ohio Joe,
I was saying that Republicans do need Evangelicals, and that Evangelicals have a lot to contribute, but if they are going to self-destruct with either Obama birth certificate/muslim conspiracies or by attacking Romney because he’s ‘not Christian’ and we are a ‘Christian’ nation after all that must be governed by ‘Christians’ then they are going to find that they are doing great harm to their other good contributions because of their fetish with craziness.
Republicans need Evangelicals, and if they are smart, Evangelicals also need to realize that they need to work with people instead of pushing their own sharia-like brand of social orthodoxy.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
MWS, there should be no religious test. I’ll take Palin over Obama every day of the week, but Romney’s my first choice.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Dan,
“MWS, there should be no religious test.”
I agree. But Illinoisguy and (apparently) Martha think differently.
Illinoisguy thinks that some of Palin’s religious beliefs are “weird” and will hurt her in the General, so Republicans shouldn’t vote for her.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
MWS,
I knew you’d be holding that little Ace up your sleeve until this moment. If they bother you so much, just ignore Martha and Knickers, I usually do unless they are able to contribute substantivly like Martha did somewhat in #1 and #3.
Also, I don’t agree with the hoopla surrounding Palin’s blessing, but, question: do you really equate people like Deace and Jackson who have manifest that they will absolutly oppose any Mormon with Illinoisguy who simply said that there was something fishy with Palin’s religion?
Look, would I vote against a muslim who believed that a caliphat was the true legitimate form of government? Of course. Religion isn’t off-limits, it’s just something that should be looked at with some openness relative to how it would affect their duties as President vis-a-vis all Americans. I don’t have any problem with Palin’s religious practices. I probably would have a problem if a Jehovah’s Witness candidate tried to outlaw organ donation.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Some of the beliefs of Mormons are “weird” in my opinion, but that’s probably mainly because I’m not that framiliar with them. I can’t speak for Illinoisguy or Martha, but I can say that Palin’s religion does not cause me to like or dislike her. I’m looking for a president, not a pastor.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
MWS,
I am a Mormon and I thought it was hypocritical to make an issue of Sarah’s religion. You sir are 100% correct!!! Critics have a habit of reading things that are not there and are blind to their own hypocrisy.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I think the founders prohibition on Religious tests in Article 6 wasn’t a command to ignore any implication any particular religious belief might have on policy.
Most mainstream religions are careful to separate religious belief with policy except in matters of moral judgement (e.g., policies that affect family, miliary affairs, capital punishment, etc.), but to wholesale prohibit members of the 4th largest church in America from participating in politics is expressly forbidden by the constitution, therefore, there is no hypocracy with my relative disinterest in Illinoisguy’s comments compared to my vehement opposition to the comments of Deace and Jackson.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
OKAY, LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL
1. These people who wrote to Perkins regarding Romney are NOT LINKED to HUCKABEE!!! They are just loud vocal people who are trying to send the religious right a message that they need to stick to a prolife, profamily candidate. Now we can argue until the cows come home that Romney was a prolife, pro-traditional family candidate in 2008. But in his previous years running for Senator and Governor of MA, he did not stand firmly as a Prolife, Pro-traditional family candidate. Hence the reason that Jackson and Deace were so against Romney. NOT BECAUSE OF HIS FAITH, BUT BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY ON THOSE TWO KEY ISSUES!
2.If Huckabee does not run in 2012, you can be sure that these same vocal people will be against Romney-because of those two key issues. They will either support Pawlenty or Palin. And their message will be the same: STAND BY THE CANDIDATE WHO IS, HAS BEEN, AND ALWAYS WILL BE A PROLIFE, PRO-TRADITIONAL FAMILY CANDIDATE.
3. The Huckabee and his supporters are BIGOTS cry is so old that it really needs to be put to bed. As we have all said on this forum, show us a present day situation that cries anti-mormon and we will take it on.
4. YES, Robertson, Perkins, Dobson, Weyrich, etc all did a disservice to the values voter meme. They all wanted to be on the winning team, they wanted to be their from the beginning so that they could have influence later on their key issues. But they all chose a candidate who was flawed in the values they championed. Dobson came on way too late and Weyrich later apologized and said he backed the wrong guy.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
I also think its not hypocritical to condem Hamas for trying to destroy Israel while looking over some of Israel’s faults when it comes to military tactics that puts palistinian civillians at risk. I’m sure Illinoisguy will not perseverate much on Palin’s religion, but let’s not lose focus on the main point of the article Kristofer posted: that people are attacking Romney based solely on his religion. I don’t think Illinoisguy’s motivated only (or at all) by animosity towards Palin’s faith.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Palin attends a mainstream, non-denomintional Christian church. Let us try not to offend the faith of 50 million people.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
The problem with the Romney supporters who keep repeating the anti-Mormon issue, is that they cannot see that their own guy is flawed. They think he is this political god. Huckabee supporters have admitted their guy has some flaws. Palin supporters admit that their gal has some flaws. Giuliani supporters admitted that their guy had flaws. And the new Pawlenty supporters admit that their guy has some flaws. But not the Romney supporters.
If you could just see that your guy Romney was flawed on the pro-life, pro-traditional family issues then you would see why people were hesitant to trust him and vote for him. If you are a Christian, and those two key issues are the most important issues for you, then you are going to vote for the guy with the best record on those two key issues. Even if the guy is not the best on other issues.
That does not make you a bigot. It makes you a principled person who stands on your convictions.
Just like if defense was your number one key issue, you would have voted for McCain, even if he wasn’t strong on other issues.
It is a balancing act-based on core convictions. Not based on religious bigotry.
And until you can see that your guy Romney was not a true social conservative than you will use any excuse to blame for his loss.
Now 2008 and going forward, Romney may be a true social conservative. But since he no longer governs any state, and since he cannot vote on any key legislative policy regarding those issues, he may struggle with trust on those social conservative issues.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Texas, I agree with the former Huckabee supporter Doug Forrester in #11 where he said:
If you don’t think these guys are motivated by anti-Mormonism then you simply haven’t done your homework.
This kind of social orthodoxy is a pretty good way of alienating anybody who might be willing to change their mind resulting in a permenantly shrinking and increasingly irrelevant minority. Thank you very much Social Orthodox party for helping elect Barack Obama.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Joseph,
“I think the founders prohibition on Religious tests in Article 6 wasn’t a command to ignore any implication any particular religious belief might have on policy.”
Sure. It was a restriction on the government, not the voter. It prohibits laws like England has, which states that no Catholic can sit on the throne. It was not meant to create a “thought crime” targeting voters. Voters are free to make their decisions on whatever basis they want; hair color, height, religion, home state, skin color, ethinicity, favorite football team, or whatever. It doesn’t matter how stupid.
For my part, I think it’s pretty dumb to disqualify a candidate in your own mind based on religion unless there is some demonstrable harm there religion would do to the country. I don’t think anyone can credibly make that case with Mormonism (or Palin’s religion), so I think people who would reject them on that basis are misguided. I wouldn’t necessarily call it “bigotry, but I don’t think it is sound reasoning.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
If Romney would have been as 100% prolife as Huckabee and as 100% pro-traditional marriage as Huckabee, then they may have endorsed Romney.
You can’t look at youtube and say that Romney had this miraclous conversion.
If anything Romney should have said that he has always personally been 100% pro-life. That he and his family would never abort a baby. However, he just can’t imagine the government making that final decision for a given woman. What if she were raped? Would we want the government forcing her to carry the baby to full term? What if she were a type 1 diabetic and it could risk her life? Would we want the government making her risk her health? Then Romney could say that he backs the 24 hour waiting period, viewing ultrasounds prior to a decision, parental consent, giving pharmacist the conscience clause so they don’t have to sell the abortion pill, etc.
Then he would have been believable. But coming to that realization at the age of 60 something just in time to run for the republican primary is just not believable. And these vocal people who are against Romney are basing it on this. Not Romney’s religion.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Texasconserv:
What part of Romney’s record as a Governor was anything but pro-life adn pro-traditional family values????
Pro-Life
Traditional Marriage
See My Clob’s site for Romney’s record and do your homework.
September 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
30. MWS. You totally misrepresented that entire thread from the other day, just like I knew you would. You are very bad at spin. Anyone here who knows IG or me or knickers including you, knows very well that we do not believe in any religious test for office. This is very disingenuous of you, to say the least.
Texas, I’m sorry to say so, but: YOU. HAVE. YOUR. HEAD. IN. THE. SAND. when it comes to your guy and his pals.
BTW – Another religious dust-up has great potential to help Palin. I suppose her fans will not mind at all if we have a repeat of 08.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Texas, please point to where Romney was not pro-traditional marriage. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find anything other than that Romney merely wants fairness for gay people – which is the way most Americans (thank heaven) feel.
The truth is that he’s fought harder for it than any other governor.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Joseph,
Even during the campaign, Romney equivocated on abortion, saying alternately that he supports an amendment banning most cases, and saying that it is a state issue. But whatever his final opinion was, it was not as pro-life as Huck’s, who would ban aboriton for all cases except life of mother. Period.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Martha,
“Anyone here who knows IG or me or knickers including you, knows very well that we do not believe in any religious test for office.”
Well, I reckon if people are interested, they can read for themselves what Illinois wrote, and how you defended him, but I stand by what I said, and think it is a fair characterization of what he wrote.
1. Did he or did he not call some of Palin’s religious beliefs “weird”?
2. Did he or did he not say that voters should “think about” this before voting, and consider how these “weird” religious beliefs would be used against her in the general election?
3. Did you or did you not defend him?
September 29th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
From a political point of view this may be the best news for Sarah Palin but for the point of view of ultimately beating Obama, not go good.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Palin worships witches and yet people won’t vote for Mitt because he is a mormon.
Only in America!
September 29th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
#46 “BTW – Another religious dust-up has great potential to help Palin. I suppose her fans will not mind at all if we have a repeat of 08.”
Name one, either on this site or in the news. One. I can name a supporter of Gov Romney’s who wouldn’t have a problem with a repeat of ’08 if she doesn’t get who she wants. You support her, in fact, and don’t see a problem in what she says at all.
As for MWS’s reference to IG’s comment, I bet he saw it as IG having a Gov Huckabee moment. “Hey, I don’t really hold it against her, but you REALLY need to look at this clip of Gov Palin with witches!” Now, I don’t think IG wants a religious test at all, but it was a pretty dirty jab at Gov Palin. If you don’t see why that would upset MWS, YOU. HAVE. YOUR. HEAD. IN. THE. SAND.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
MWS,
You’re right. Whether a candidate is black, hispanic, Catholic, or Mormon, I think it’s wrong to use those characteristics as a basis to vote against a person. The government shouldn’t be in the sphere of conscience-coersion, but that doesn’t prohibit me from using a little good old fashioned shame (which we lack too much these days) to help people see the errors of their ways.
That’s why I am so angered at people who persists in the Birthers, or Obama’s a secret muslim theme. They should be shamed by their own stupidity and errors.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Anybody with a half brain cell knows Huckabee is a bigot.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
#51:
The comment about Palin and witches is as ridiculous as Clinton not loving oral sex.
It’s called “abundant irrefutable proof”.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“Some of the beliefs of Mormons are “weird” in my opinion,”
I am not interested in the beliefs of Mormons or anyone else for that matter. I am interested in teh candidate’s positions on the issues, his commitment and his ability to lead, in that order. I think that is the case with the overwhelming majority of American voters, an even higher percentage of GOP voters and a still higher percentage of Evangelical/social conservative voters. Are there are few benighted souls who would hold Romney’s religion against him. In a country of 320 million, of course there are. the point is they are not enough to deny him (or even to materially contribute to the denial) the nomination or the election. His issue positions and people’s judgment of his trustworthiness and leadership qualities are the decisive factors, along with those of his opponent.
Trying to pin the blame, or even a material part of it on a “specific group of voters” as you say and trying to intuit their reasons as bigoted is not only unfair, but politically myopic. it simply makes no sense to alienate a segment of voters that was not hostile to Romney in 2008. As I said, Dobson had very kind words for him. But, since I do not support Romney, if you wish to continue this bizarre strategy, go ahead
September 29th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
#51 “Palin worships witches and yet people won’t vote for Mitt because he is a mormon.”
I can think of a host of reasons people didn’t vote for Gov Romney, and his being a Mormon is low on the totem pole. He had issues with Southern voters simply for being a Gov from the North (you won’t get this if you aren’t Southern, but it’s a powerful force in the South; same went for Myr Guiliani). He went after everyone he could (call them ssue ads if you want, most people took them as attacks, and that ticks people off). Yes, his being Mormon wierded some people out, but if that was the ONLY issue they had, they’d have pulled the lever for him. In case you forgot, Sen McCain had the EXACT SAME problem with these people as Gov Romney, and his voting record is pretty darn strong on pro-life issues.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
MWS,
Well, that’s true, but I think he was arguing from two different political tactical standpoints. From a judicial POV, the latter would apply, but from a populous democratic POV, then the former. He was clear that he supported an amendment from the beginning of his campaign, but that it wasn’t all that politically feasible.
My concern is that if you have to accept forcing children who were raped by their step-dad to carry babies to term in order to fit into the orthodoxy of ‘Pro-life’, I suspect you will have a very small percentage of Americans who are willing to cross that line and you’ll see forever shrinking influence and support. One reason why I think we’ve never really successfully had an Amendment leave Congress for ratification.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Heath,
“Only in America”
actually that is probably the greatest asset America has. If we were in other countries or times not with our constitution or bill of rights then maybe a Palin and a Mitt would have been sent to jail or silenced some other way long ago.
I happen to agree that it is silly and that there are plenty of reasons to like and dislike Mitt, Sarah, Mike, Tim, Barack; but their religious beliefs are neither relevant nor germane to their role as president.
BTW, it is amazing to me that people like Texas(who i happen to like a lot as a poster) still persist in the meme that Romney was anything but pro family. wasnt he the only governor who stood up to the whole pro gay marriage movement by at least attempting to get a constitutional ammendment passed at the state level overturning what the courts did. An additional note that seems to be forgotten by those supporters of the pro family movement is that without the religion that Romney belongs to and their efforts in CA we would already have the largest state in this nation as one that allows non traditional marriage.
perhaps we ought to spend less time looking at what are a few differences and start recognizing the great contributions of people such as James Dobson, Mike Huckabee, Tony Perkins, and Mitt Romney to the conservative pro family movement.
until we do that we are done for as a movement.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Joseph,
#53. Well put.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
While Romney’s Mormonism was far from the only reason for his loss, anyone who thinks it wasn’t a factor (and isn’t still with some people) has their head in the sand.
September 29th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
You people are a riot…Can we just go with a persons credentials…We can’t have another person on the job training…We need proven minded, been there actually done the deal..Not think they can run this country …Religion should not enter into this what so ever…YOU believe in Jesus. That is fine…Isn’t it??? So, now what can you do for this country?? No, yes we can!!!!…..What are your plans??? is the question? What will turn this country around??? is the question? Who can we look up to as a great role model? Who can put feet down and mean it…Who can morally withstand the buzz saws?? Who can debate Obama and beat him?? Who knows?? But this time , we better be right….Who loves this country and wants to preserve our Constitution??
September 29th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“You Romney bots really crack me up. Try to understand that Romney did not lose in 2008 because he was a Mormon. That had ZERO to do with his loss….”
Complete Bull Crap!!!!
September 29th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
#23
Zebra,
I was obvious to everyone with an honest conscience that Bigotry certainly played a role. The most obvious was when Romney had 35% in Iowa and Huck had 15%. As soon as Huck made the comment “don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?.. the polls immediately started turning his way. All the Evangelicals began huge bus movements for voter turnout and Huck won.
Within 1 months Huckabee and Romney literally switched places, due to Huckabee’s bigoted statement. Ad a Baptist minister, Huck gave the keynote speech in SLC denouncing Mormonism back in the 80s.
He was not asking a question in that interview, he was making a cunning statement. This is typical to one who is a “wolfe in sheeps clothing.” Anyone who cannot see this, is being dishonest with themselves.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
MWS,
Illinoisguy said that Palin’s association with that particular Minister was something that would be brought up in a general campaign. Period.
BTW, folks. I am fully aware that my religion is “weird”, and I don’t care who says so. It doesn’t bother me in the least. Lies and distortions for political gain bothers me – and when people start talking disqualification from higher office – that’s when I get a little hot.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Regarding my remarks in the thread MWS was eluding to, he has cast my remarks in the worst possible way. Someone else had posted an article by Max Blumenthal regarding Palin’s church affiliation with witchcraft. They also posted a video showing something that bothered me. This is what I posted.
“OJ, I’ll be careful in the way I answer this. I viewed the video link in #91 months ago, but for fear of having people come down hard on me, I didn’t share it. However, it is very troubling, to me at least. I hadn’t read the link in 90 before, but I find it even more troubling. Now, I can’t vouch for the varacity of the article, but, if true, it would be very, very damaging to any candidate once the libs began to use it. The video is obviously her standing there as this weirdo (for lack of a better term) casts devils out of her, or attempts to, or whatever.
All I’m saying is I think it would behoove you and all other supporters to read and view those two links. If they are not troubling to you, then that’s fine, but I do think we need to at least consider the ramifications of what these would mean in the hands of the Democrats. I’m sorry if you hate me for saying this. I’m not wanting to be contentious.
If you’ve already seen/read these before, then fine….I’m just thinking those that care a lot about Sarah needs to at least know these things are out there.”
I was not saying that anyone should make any type of decision based on it, but was rather expressing that the liberals may very well use it against her. If I was wrong to do so, I’m sorry, but to me it was just making sure that people were aware of that potentiality.
September 29th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
The problem here is obvious. As I read all these postings on this website the main topic of conversation is religion. What Republican primary voters should be focusing on in selecting the best candidate is competence first and foremost and where each of them stand on the issues relating to military,and economic matters. We don’t elect a Pope, we elect a President for all the people. Religion ought not to be a lithmus test for qualification to the highest office of the land. The sooner all, and I mean all Republican voters realize that the sooner a Republican will be in the White House.If not, it’ll be a long time.
September 29th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
#60
Corep,
Unfortunately that is what happens when you get all your info from “Huck’s Army.”
September 29th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
#68
“What Republican primary voters should be focusing on in selecting the best candidate is competence first and foremost”
Amen..that is why I created the site I did..so we can focus on that: http://TheCompetentConservative.com
September 29th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
“Palin worships witches and yet people won’t vote for Mitt because he is a mormon.” More of the same hypocritical Romneyite Bunk. Mrs. Palin nor Mr. Jindal worships witches no matter what some elements in the Romney camp say. Do you Romneyites want a religious war or not. I hope that you chose not and quit trashing other religions.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Ohio, don’t call that stuff Romneyite!!!!
September 29th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
#71
I don’t think that was an attack -an attack at all- on religions. It was about a video of Palin being “bewitched” if you will. Not something that look to good when played over and over again on the news.
I’d feel the same exact way if Mitt was in the situation…I’d lost tons of respect for him.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
71 – Heath is a moderate liberal who is not a U.S. citizen and will not be voting, he only likes Romney because of his education and perception of greater intelligence, whether true or not. Please don’t take comments from him as coming from the “Romney camp” as I suspect he’s usually joking, probably prefers Obama to any of our candidates and is just having a laugh at our expense most of the time. I will state for the record that I am not concerned in the slightest about what church Sarah Palin or any of our candidates attend.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Meant to say “I’d LOSE tons…”
September 29th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
So would have I competent. For Kristofer to tell us that is a normal part of a religion of 50,000,000 people is ludicrous. I grew up Protestant….and in recent years I’ve been to evangelical churches, where they praise God differently than we do…and that’s ok…I have no problem with that at all. But normal evangelical behavior is not what we saw in that video or what is described in that write up. I said before, I don’t know if what was in the write up is even factual or not, but if it is I think it would be troubling to a huge number of people.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Mitt would NEVER associate with witches. Period.
Get real getreal you don’t know me but if anyone can glean from my 25 months of commenting on here that I am a “liberal” they are losing it.
I am as centre right as you can get. I like Mitt because I agree with him on 99.9% of the issues. It’s not rocket science.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:36 am
By the way I bet I’ve been to twice as many US states as most of you natives.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:04 am
It is funny that those who use liberal talking point want to be thought of as Right of Center. Stepping foot in every one of the 50 states does not make one an American.
September 30th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Did Obama tell us the truth about his beliefs? Yes, he did, and you’ll find it on http://www.claysamerica.com along with notes on a new book THE CHANGING FACE OF DEMOCRATS available on Amazon.com, which compares 19th century libertarian Democrats with 20th century socialist Democrats.
October 1st, 2009 at 7:46 am
[...] Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for having Romney at the Value Voters Summit. (HT: race42012) Says Lewis: Whether the reason is anti-Mormon bigotry, political chicanery orchestrated by an [...]
October 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 am
Ohio Joe,
It has always seemed to me that you have tried to be fair. I hope you will continue to be so. I was really surprised you used the term Romneyites. It really dismayed me, to tell you the truth. I’m very sorry you were offended. But don’t throw us all into one sack, Ohio, Ok?
November 19th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
[...] anti-Mormon bigotry this Huckabee-aligned group has engaged in. In September of this year, Matt Lewis from Politics Daily further highlighted their campaign to discredit Governor Romney by targeting [...]