Recently, columnist David Frum stated:
2012 is shaping up as an all-out battle between big donors and local activists, with the big donors coalesced around Romney and the local activists increasingly desperately shopping for somebody – anybody – else.
Others have phrased it differently . . . that Romney’s become “The Establishment” candidate, while many strong conservatives are looking for an “Anti-Establishment” candidate to rally around. Having seen this narrative develop over the last couple years has been both interesting and confusing to me, especially in light of what transpired in the 2008 GOP primary.
John McCain was the Establishment candidate last cycle, with Mitt running as a Washington outsider. Mitt even was viewed by most as “the Conservative Alternative” to McCain. Mitt garnered the endorsements of most conservative pundits, power-brokers, and politicians. Just a preliminary list included Sen Jim DeMint (SC), Sen. Judd Gregg (NH), Ann Coulter, James Bopp Jr., Sen. Orrin Hatch (UT), Judge Robert Bork, Sean Hannity, David Keene (Chariman of the American Conservatives Union), Paul Weyrich (founder of The Heritage Foundation), Bay Buchanan, Bob Jones III, Sen. Thad Cochran (MS), Laura Ingrahm, Sen. Wayne Allard (CO), Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN), Rick Santorum, Mark Levin, Rep Connie Mack IV (FL), Hugh Hewitt, Jay Sekulow, William Bennet, Lars Larson, Sheriff Joe Arpaio (R-AZ), Dennis Prager, Ross Perot, and Glenn Beck. An impressive list that could serve as a “Who’s Who” of the conservative community.
By most accounts, McCain was not a good nominee for the GOP and did not run a particularly effective campaign. Others argue that no GOP nominee could have beat Obama under the circumstances of “Bush Fatigue” and a crashing economy. Whatever the reason, “The Establishment” woke up after the terrible losses of 2008 and realized that running a moderate DC insider with “get along” politics is no way to win the presidency (a la Bob Dole, John Kerry, and Al Gore to name just a few). There was quite a bit of “wish we would have nominated Romney” feeling going around at the time.
What happened is that “The Establishment” wisened up and moved it’s support for this cycle to the right of McCain by gravitating towards DC-Outsider Mitt Romney. But in a knee-jerk and rather childish reaction to mounting establishment support for Romney, many anti-establishment types (I’m looking at you Talk Radio and conservative blogsites like HotAir and RedState!!) have thereby rejected Romney due to said establishment support. It’s as if they’re saying:
“We cannot support any candidate that has the support of ‘The Establishment.’ We don’t care that he’s never worked in DC, that he’s too rich to be bought by lobbyists, that he’s the strongest candidate to match up with Obama (as poll after poll shows), nor that we supported him in 2008 and that he hasn’t done anything since that time to become ‘less conservative.” By darn, if ‘The Establishment’ likes him, we cannot accept him and we KNOW that SOMETHING must be wrong with him! (we’ll get back to you when we finally figure out what that ‘something’ is.)”
Now, some will be quick to say that the big differnce this time is “RomneyCare” . . . that Mitt proved that he’s no true conservative because that legislation included an “individual mandate” on purchasing health insurance. Oh, you mean that law that was crafted in 2004-5 and passed in 2006 with the support of The Heritage Foundation and loads of conservatives and was the topic of discussion in the debates leading up to the 2008 election? The RomneyCare that didn’t seem to hamper your support and endorsement of him last time? Excuse me while I scratch my head for a while . . .
Observers have seen this anti-establishment community jump around in their preferred candidate between Sarah Palin, Chris Chirstie, and have even seen some flirtations with Donald Trump, Michelle Bachman, and Mitch Daniels (the latter is ironically much more of a DC insider and “establishment” guy than Mitt ever was). Tim Pawlenty hasn’t seemed to catch on with hardly anyone, but many have him at the back of their minds just in case none of these other “anti-establishment” candidates pan out. It’s almost as if they know that broad-based support will eventually coalesce around Romney, but that they just can’t bring themselves to get on board yet because of pride. That they’re instead pimping and pumping up ANYBODY else they can think of in order to put off the inevitable time when they’ll have to swallow their pride and get back on the Romney train.
Yes, there’s no doubt that the needle has been moved to the right over the past four years. But there is no logical reason that Romney should not have the strong support from the conservative community that he enjoyed last time. Those orchestrating these machinations are being both prideful and disingenuous.
__________________________________________________________________
-Dr. Fuller also blogs at Mitt Romney Central.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
You lost me at:
This is not the reality outside of the “My Man Mitt” crowd.
Mitt Romney was not and is not considered an authentic conservative by myself and most people I know. The general impression I get is that Romney is most people’s “I think he can win” candidate. That’s why everyone is looking around for someone else they can rally around and actually like.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Its not disingenuous…he cannot win!
April 26th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
This post was way too rational.
Former Adolescent. Did you not read the post backing up that statement. You can see that there were many conservatives who backed mitt as the conservative alternative.
I can understand that you yourself never considered him a conservative, but your assertion that “most people” is not supported by facts such as polls and endorsements at the time.
Again, a little too much rationality in this post.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
“There was quite a bit of “wish we would have nominated Romney” feeling going around at the time.”
I was only hearing that from Rombots. They’re good at projecting their own thoughts and then concluding their universality.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Very well crafted post Jeff. More susinct and to the point then some of your novels on health care.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Excellent post, A-freakin-men!
April 26th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
Dr:
“wish we would have nominated Romney” feeling going around at the time’
I haven’t heard anyone say that who is outside of Romney circles. Republicans had absolutely no chance of winning the Presidency after the market crashed in September. No one, not Romney, not McCain, not Abraham Lincoln with Reagan as his VP would have won in 2008.
As for the idea that the grassroots conservatives somehow owe it to Romney to support him because they did last, time, I don’t buy that either. The issues and times have changed. I’m sorry but Romneycare was no where near the issue it will be this time around because the times have changed.
I’m certainly not defending the likes of Ann Coutler, Limbaugh or Beck; I think all three of them are idiots, but saying that they should endorse Romney because of the Romney supporters belief in his inevitability. Romney supporters shouldn’t be feeling so concerned about the likes of the talk-radio crowd if he truly is as wonderful as they say. He and y’all should welcome the competition to show how good your man is.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
7:
“I’m certainly not defending the likes of Ann Coutler, Limbaugh or Beck; I think all three of them are idiots, but saying that they should endorse Romney because of the Romney supporters belief in his inevitability is foolish*”
April 26th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Jeff,
No mention of Huck? The main street folks candidate.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:44 pm
@ Beat Obama
Huck is a social conservative democrat.
We need a fiscal conservative in the White House. We need Mitt Romney.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Jonathan…he is not saying that they should endorse Romney because he may be the “inevitable” choice, but it is surprising how they supported Romney in 2008 and they have yet to explain what has caused them to speak so negatively now.
As to Romneycare, your post is exactly what is wrong with people, especially if you (or other anti-Mitt people) have ever accused Mitt of flip-flopping. Romney’s actions in Mass. again occurred in 2005 and, at the time, many conservatives supported the idea because it finally required people to be responsible for themselves and rely less on the government. (Note: new Foxnews.com story about a significant increase public’s reliance on fed. govt). However, because Dems took over the issue and distrorted it (state specific plans if wanted v. one size fits all federal program), GOP and conservatives are only now worried about Romney’s actions. The issue hasn’t changed, simply the politics and lack of understanding. I am always surprised at the hypocrisy of alleged conservatives: we bash the Dems for picking and choosing principles, yet we crucify a state (and its government employees) for doing what it thought best as we cry for state rights on other issues.
So now that Obama has taken hold of the idea of fighting wars, albeit in a distorted way that would protect America and its interests, should the GOP also abandon this issue because the politics have now changed.
You people make me sick and I sure hope that the general public is not as stupid as most of the posters on this site or we will surely have another 4 years of Obama.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
I’m one who wishes Romney would have become POTUS in 2008, but realizes it is a good thing that he wasn’t even the GOP candidate in the general election. It was a great run for Romney, but at the time he faced little name recognition among the population and he hadn’t gained very much favor among the GOP base yet. Now, a few years later, he’s been involved in the political scene and played a major role in helping several GOP candidates get elected in 2010. He’s become more familiar with the issues Americans in general are facing, and they have become more familiar with him and his take on how to fix our issues. Of all who were in the race in 2008 and are/will be in this race to come, Romney is the most effective in working with both sides of the isle to produce positive results. Say what you will about MA and its problems. Like Obama, Mitt walked into a situation that was in crisis. HOWEVER, unlike Obama, Romney was able to come up with solutions most MA politicians and citizens could agree on AND he was able to reduce the state’s deficit/debt. He cut spending, put more responsibility on the MA citizens through private sector options, rather than gov’t options and was able to generate a surplus. I don’t agree with Mitt on 100% of everything he wants for the country, but he is 100% better to have in office than Obama!
April 26th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
#11:
Ease up on the paranoia, Romney is my 2nd choice after Mitch Daniels. I don’t pretend to know enough about Romneycare or health-care for that matter, to get into a policy debate about it. What I do know is that the polls and speaking with Republican grassroots conservatives is that there is a great hesitancy on their part to embrace Romneycare. Have an issue with the grassroots, not me.
Insulting me or the other posters on this site is no way to get us to embrace your candidate.
April 26th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
This post.
1000x this post.
100% on point. Rush/Sean/Laura/Ann all either explicitly or implicitly endorsed Romney last time, and now are attempting to jack up ratings by endorsing all that is not “establishment,” or all that IS “tea party.”
Guess what, morons? YOU’RE the flip-floppers. The only people changing positions on MASSCare are YOU.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Well Johnathan, explain what you meant by the issue and times have changed? If you are unable to articulate a rationale discussion, please refrain from making comments or summaries as if it was a fact. Also, it is not a defense to explain your comments by saying it’s what other people think, especially when you do not make that initial distinction.
Also, you may want to first understand the point being made by the post before you criticize it. You embarass yourself when you argue against a conclusion that was not made.
You exemplify what many, if not most, people on this website do: lies, distortions and poor reasoning.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Smittens,
A lot of those folks came to Romney late, and reluctantly, seeing him as the only viable alternative to McCain. So it’s not like talk radio was all gung ho on Mitt. They might also have been disappointed with Mitt’s performance, spending around $218,097 per vote. So I’m not at all surprised they are looking for someone better in their eyes.
But there are business considerations, and going all in for Mitt just doesn’t feel very Tea Partyish. Just like politicians, they’ve got an audience to pander to.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
sorry: lies, distortions and/or poor reasoning
April 26th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Romney’s strength so obviously make him the superior candidate that I don’t get the appeal of any of the others. The “anyone-but-Mitt” cry is ridiculous. No one else has everything that Mitt has going for them. I honestly took a look to see if I could settle for someone else if Romney decided not to run. No one is as intelligent, eloquent, studied, successful, exemplary both privately and public, gifted in leadership. Some others have some of the qualites, but no one has them all. Romney is singularly qualified, a man for a time like this, once in a lifetime.
His detractors can dream of taking him down but then they will have to settle for something less than he is.
If only they could support someone with such energy and effort they employ to disparage Romney. Good luck to them finding such a one as this.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
ilfigo,
Don’t be an ass. Jonathan is one of the most polite and level headed commentators here.
Anyway…. what’s changed….. Tea Parties. Focus on debt and entitlements. Everyone freaking out about ObamaCare. A more strident and paranoid party.
So some good things, some bad things. The issues change every election. Last time it was war and 3 legged conservatism in the primaries. Right now, its shaping up to be the economy, deficits, and entitlements. You can also note what I wrote in #16, speculating on Talk Radio.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
#15:
Unless you’ve been living under a rock the last few years, you’ll know that the heath-care issue is now far more prominent than it was in 2008 and the Conservative base is now opposed to the idea of the mandate. Both the Romneycare and the Obamacare plans have mandates. Like Dr. Fuller points out about the Establishment moving right, so to has the conservative base. What may have passed in 2008 might not in 2012. That’s all I’m saying.
Also, kindly reframe from accusing me of lying. I post things as honestly as I see them, so don’t question my integrity.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
Tracey,
Wrong about Huck who was ALSO not the architect of the fatal RomneyCare/ObamaCare mandates, subsidies, and exchangess. That would be your Governor Romney. Thanks a lot, Mitt.
Look, the country needs jobs, lower taxes, and no RomneyCare type health care..but might settle for two of the three just to beat Obama.
Romney has all three strikes against him.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
#18,
Ann, is that you?
Pleased to have you here, Mrs. Romney. Feel free to stop by, anytime. And know that I don’t hold any personal animus towards your husband. It’s just that I don’t trust him, and some of his supporters are too much fun to goad.
Have a great day, and take care on the campaign trail!
April 26th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
MWS…how I am being an ass by asking Johnathan to correctly read the post and the conclusion that is clearly made or to explain his comments rather than merely pushing responsibility aside?
Also, he said that Romneycare should be viewed differently now because the issues and times have changed. He was not discussing Tea Party, but thanks for proving my point that few people actually read before they type.
If you are a conservative, can you truly tell me that there is no difference between state governments and federal government? Does it mean that any candidate who has served in state office will be accussed of every state decision being applied nationwide? If so, Huck will raise taxes on the nation and you can’t argue the fact by discussing Ark.’s needs or circumstances at the time.
Sadly, do most Americans understand the difference? Likely no, esp. if the alleged conservatives on this site do not understand it and continue to spew falsehoods in the hope it supports their candidate of choice.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Johnathan…so your issue is with conservatives flip-flopping on the mandate issue? That’s the point of the article. Quite ironic when it has been the self-proclaimed conservatives who have a problem with Mitt’s alleged flip-flops. I guess the Heritage Foundation is no longer conservative now that the Dems have adopted a principle and distorted it. I guess the GOP and Conservatives should no longer be for a strong military given Obama’s adoption and distortion of that principle too.
Johnathan, again if you could read you would see that I quickly altered my last line by putting “and/or”.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
I would agree that every supporter felt that way about their own candidate. Well, maybe Romney and Huck supporters. Although, I would say that many Romney and Huck supporters were glad their guy didn’t win so each would have another chance.
First point correct. I think Lincoln/Reagan would have had a good shot.
I agree that people are not obligated to support someone they supported previously. Times change and different skill sets or needs are required to meet those changes. However, I do think it is somewhat disingenuous to not support someone due to a certain issue that existed last time and for the most part hasn’t changed. Why it was conservative before to accept something and conservative now to be against it. (in only 2+ years) In this case everyone else flipped but Romney.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:18 pm
I would place you first with poor reasoning (which is obvious) and maybe distortions. However, if you decide to continue to defend your poor reasoning, it would only be do to a willingness to lie.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
You are exactly right Jeff (as usual), and it is unfortunate. I believe they will come around though. The vetting hasn’t actually started yet, and Mitt is still the most qualified, accomplished, conservative candidate out there. Don’t let the pundits get you down yet. They haven’t picked anyone yet, and I don’t think there is anyone with near the potential that Mitt has. The only real competitors Mitt has are Pawlenty and Daniels, and I think he beats both of them no problem.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Craig – do you really want to go down the factcheck trail for honesty of numbers? That is a slippery slope for you as a huck fan to be following. I’m just sayin’.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
Rush and Hannity endorsed Romney after Huckabee was eliminated in SC. The choice for them was either Romney or McCain. Rush did it on the day of the Florida primary and Hannity did it on the day of the NY primary.
The problem with Romney is that he is a politician. He has been running for the White House since he ran for governor in Massachusetts. I did not support him in 2008 because of his flip flops. When you look at his statement on Paul Ryan’s plan, it shows his problem. It is a vagualy worded statement that gives him wiggle room to say that he didn’t endorse Ryan’s plan but his bringing the issue to the forefront. Also he is Mr Business genius and he says we have low inflation? Doesn’t he do any grocery shopping or gas pumping?
The interests of big contributors are not always the interests of the country. That’s why we have crony capitalism. For example, Romney gets a lot of support from Wall Street. Main Street has serious issues with raising the debt ceiling while Wall Street is all for it. With Wall Street its all about their bottom line and to hell with Main Street who ends up paying for all this.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I have a few points to make….
I have not heard one person say that they wished Romney was our candidate in “08″ after the election outside of Romney supporters….not one.
The whole narrative about TPAW or anybody else not catching on at this point is a uninformed opinion. I have shown Gallup polls from January 2007 to May 2007 on this site that clearly indicates little movement for anybody…and that includes Huck and Mitt who were at 2% & 7%. It’s way too early to say no one will catch on other then the two (historically weak)frontrunners based upon polls. But go ahead and press the “no one person is catching on button” if it makes you feel better.
As for Romneycare and the Forbes article, I don’t know how you would answer it other then the way you did and that is basically calling the information false. Good luck keeping up that theme for the next 10 months…when the facts on the ground in MASS tells a different story. Of course everyone must be lying except the Romney supporters, is that it?
I tell you what is not false and that is the preception of Romneycare, if not the reality of itself, will keep Romney out of the White House. Doctors not taking on more patients and the patients not being able to get treated in MASS will be the first symptoms that the nation will bear because of Obamacare…
The GOP voters did not go to the town halls last winter, organize and go to the polls to defeat the DEMS just to turn around in “12″ and select Romney as the GOP nominee. Not going to happen…NO WAY!
April 26th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
#24:
I guess this is not getting through. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT I THINK ABOUT ROMNEYCARE. This is about what the conservative base thinks. Get pissy with them, not me. I’m talk about the pure politics of the health-care issue, not the implemenation of this policy or that policy. If you don’t think that the politics, just the politics, has changed since 2008, then that’s your business.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
ilfigo,
“If you are a conservative, can you truly tell me that there is no difference between state governments and federal government?”
Of course there is, but I’m not comforted by bad government at either level.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
ilfigo,
This is just my opinion, and of course, you are free to have your own, but I don’t assume that someone is stupid or dishonest just because he disagrees with me.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Person 1: “I supported Romney in 2008 but now I cannot because of RomneyCare”
Person 2: “Do you realize that RomneyCare was passed 5 years ago?”
Person 1: “Well, I don’t care. It was the model for Obamacare.”
Person 2: “But didn’t you know about this plan in 2008?”
Person 1: “Yes.”
Person 2: “You are such an idiot. Stop listening to greedy talk radio and get your head out of your @$$. Think for yourself. Who is the best choice to beat Obama? Who would be an excellent President? That’s right. Now shut your mouth.”
Person 1: “Mormon!!!! Waaaaa!!!!!! Mormon!!!!!!!!! Flip-Flopper!!!!!! Waaaaaa!!!!!”
Person 2: “You really are as predictable and stupid as I thought.”
April 26th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Jeff, you’ve hit the nail on the head so hard, I think you’ve outdone yourself (and that’s saying A LOT).
I was listening to Limbaugh this morning and heard him say something to the effect of, “Trump needs to explain himself for his past positions on abortion, health care, and Democrat donations…but I’m sure those things will work themselves out for the election.”
I couldn’t believe my ears. For all of the absolute hammering the Conservative Right has done to Romney for his past, it speaks to the pinnacle of utter hypocrisy for them to, only now, dismiss it for Donald, “SINGLE-PAYER/CANADIAN-STYLE HEALTH CARE”, Trump.
Concerning the label of “Establishment Candidate” that has been put on Romney. WTF(reak)?! Romney spends most of his life in the PRIVATE SECTOR running a business, and only 4 as a Governor, and he’s suddenly become a beltway man? I’m sorry, Gingrich is “Establishment”, McCain is “Establishment”, heck, even Paul Ryan is more “Establishment”, but not Romney – not in any shape or form.
What we are now witnessing is one enormous FLIP-FLOP by a huge chunk of the Conservative wing of the party over Mitt Romney.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
MWS, what you say about Rombots projecting their thoughts and feelings onto others is true. I do it all the time. That’s because anyone who disagrees with me is either follish or wicked or both, and I hate to think ill of others, so I give them the benefit of the doubt.
I’m nice that way.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Ben,
Just answering Tracey’s charge that Huck is any more of a “Democrat” than his precious Mittens could be.
You would have done the same.
And my FactCheck link covered each of the candidates at that debate for anyone interested in their records.
But none of our candidates are Democrats as Rombot Tracey has alleged in #10.
Btw, I was in the audience in Simi..
April 26th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“Person 1: “Mormon!!!! Waaaaa!!!!!! Mormon!!!!!!!!! Flip-Flopper!!!!!! Waaaaaa!!!!!”
34 comments and we finally get a Rombot playing the religion card. Must be getting rusty.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
It is amazing who those who claim to be conservative act like liberals when it suites their purposes. The idea of mandatory medical insurance is an old conservative idea that first came to light during the days of Richard Nixon. It continued through the ages until Obama co-opted it and twisted it. The idea of State run Mandatory Medical Insurance is a conservative principle not a liberal one.
You can debate about how to get individuals to take personal responsibility for their own health care, but simply saying that individuals show be allowed to have the people pay for their health care is a liberal principle, not conservative.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
38
That is exactly what anti-Rombots do.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
40, projection much? You flipped the mormon card implying anybody who dissents with Romney does so because he is a Mormon.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Then why is there the perception pushed by many on this site that the actions taken at the state level wil be implemented at the federal level?
Most people agree that taxes need not rise in this type of economy, but I do not hear accusations that if Huck is Pres. he will raise taxes since he did it at the state level.
Is there a negative perception of Romneycare? Yes, but it is created by falsehoods and lies. If any of you alleged conservatives, want to support that, you are free to do so. However, the continued spread of these falsehoods is either lies, distortions and/or poor reasoning.
By th way MWS, can you provide a single politician that didn’t do something that was not deemed conservative enough and therefore bad government?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
# Stephen Hall Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
“Person 1: “Mormon!!!! Waaaaa!!!!!! Mormon!!!!!!!!! Flip-Flopper!!!!!! Waaaaaa!!!!!”
34 comments and we finally get a Rombot playing the religion card. Must be getting rusty.
==============================================================================
Even though I am a Romney supporter, I don’t like playing that card unless it is true. If one speaks of Huckabee and his lot, especially in 2008, it is reasonable to question their motives, but other wise, it should be left out.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Amen Jeff. I couldnt agree more with this post. It is a bit of a flip flop for people who endorsed him 4 years ago to have their doubts about him now.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Sam,
In case you are unaware, Romney was Mormon in 2008 as well.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Again MWS, please read my comments cause your responses make no sense.
I never accussed him of being dishonest for not agreeing with me. I said he had poor reasoning or was distorting facts given that Johnathan obviously failed to fully read the post or was unable to see the clear point being made, which cause him to argue a point that was not made in the post.
I also asked him to defend his comments, not make a general statement and walk away.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Steven,
38 might be a record for them
April 26th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Oh, by the way Romney supporters, here’s some friendly advice; accusing the conservative base of flip-flopping (regardless of its merits) is not a way to endear Romney to them.
Also, it has been addressed previously but a not insignificant chunck of these base conservatives rallied to Romney as the Anybody but McCain candidate. Ann Coulter for instance, supported Duncan Hunter before he dropped out of the race and Bay Buchanan was in the Tancredo campaign.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
44
Agreed. People who do not like Romney when they used to…
THEY are the flip-floppers.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
And I think that as the year drags on and Iowa gets closer, beating Obama will be paramount in the mind of GOP voters. Most will put aside their petty differences and rally around whomever gives the GOP the best shot at beating Obama. I dont have any doubt that will be Romney. From money to organizing, to putting states like Nevada, Colorado, New Hampshire, Florida, and others in our column, it will convince many that he is the most electable candidate.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
Watch,
#36 LOL! Thank you.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
45
Hence the reason he lost in Iowa
April 26th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
CF,
For the first time I can remember I agree with you. Romney is not the establishment candidate, in fact I don’t think they have one unless Daniels enters the race. Rush is in panic mode because his Palin & Rubio are not running for different reasons. Rush,Hannitty and others are just playing Trump for their ratings. If any of them actually endorsed and backed Trump they would catch hell. I actually thought Rush was going to play up TPAW, because in his Biography he mentions TPAW as his favorite behind Palin….however Rush does not talk about TPAW at all, so I guess that is not in the cards.
Romney is not the establishment candidate.
Romney will not become the Tea Party candidate(Romneycare)
Romney is the candidate of the GOP Producers…which is an important group. However not large enough in itself to get him to the nomination
April 26th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
49, go ahead and insult the base further. Hope Romney has your attitude, as it will just make securing the nomination all the more easier for us.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
53
It seems like TPaw is getting the “silent treatment” just like Romney did in 2008.
In 2008, Romney had to buy ads because no one was talking about him..
Therefore, I think TPaw is gonna desperately need money.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Ilfigo,
“Then why is there the perception pushed by many on this site that the actions taken at the state level wil be implemented at the federal level?”
That’s not my argument.
My argument is that if he sucked in Triple-A, he’s probably going to suck in the Majors.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
“Hence the reason he lost in Iowa”
Go ahead, keep deluding yourself. The more you believe, the easier it is for us to blindside you, and Romney.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
54
Those people are not the base. Those people are sheep.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
52,
The Iowans would disagree.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
57
You KNOW it’s true. You KNOW it. But you are pretending it’s not true.
Reality is reality.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
59
They SAY they disagree.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I think we have a right to question whether or not this is happening to Romney, in part, because of his religion.
People have a right to question Romney for his Health Care plan, and they have a right to be skeptical of his flip on Abortion. But when that skepticism suddenly vanishes for another candidate who has done and said far worse than Romney on the EXACT SAME ISSUES, you have to really question what is going on.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. Is it such an evil to wonder if there isn’t some darker, more sinister bias against Romney that has nothing to do with the problems stated above?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Ilfigo,
“By th way MWS, can you provide a single politician that didn’t do something that was not deemed conservative enough and therefore bad government?”
No, nobody is perfect. Conservatism isn’t perfect. But when we assess the mistakes of politicians, we have to give a weighting to their severity. So Daniels supporting ethanol subsidies as gov of a corn state isn’t keeping me up at night. Romney attending Planned Parenthood fundraisers and appointing pro-choice judges to the MA courts would.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
61,
So you’re calling Iowans what exactly on Romney’s behalf? Don’t be shy?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Jonathan Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Oh, by the way Romney supporters, here’s some friendly advice; accusing the conservative base of flip-flopping (regardless of its merits) is not a way to endear Romney to them.
====================================================================================
Your not the base, just thought you would like to know, your positions have been liberal.
# Stephen Hall Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
49, go ahead and insult the base further. Hope Romney has your attitude, as it will just make securing the nomination all the more easier for us.
============================================
Your also not part of the base, as you have shown your liberal tendencies.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Sam:
So if we take the argument that Romney lost Iowa because of his Mormonism, then did he lose New Hampshire for the same reason? How about South Carolina? Or Florida? Or New York, California, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia or any of the other states he lost? Are all those states populated with anti-Mormons or is Iowa just an uber-special home of Mormon haters?
How about this for an idea; more people in Iowa liked Huckabee as a candidate than Romney. Now I know that’s a strange idea to grasp, but it maybe possibily has some merits…
April 26th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
“Those people are not the base. Those people are sheep.”
Good. Good. The more you insult, the better off will be.
More.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
“Your also not part of the base, as you have shown your liberal tendencies.”
How so?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
64
Not all Iowans. But enough to give Huck the win VS Romney.
Huck hammered the “Christian Leader” message and demonized Romney’s religion, and it WORKED.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
CF,
“But when that skepticism suddenly vanishes for another candidate who has done and said far worse than Romney on the EXACT SAME ISSUES, you have to really question what is going on.”
Everyone here who rips on Romney also rips on Trump. And I don’t see anyone defending Limbaugh.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Lets face a fact….
Not supporting Romney does not make you anti-mormon.
However, many who do object to Romney are anti-mormon.
If in doubt, see Huckabee’s 2008 campaign which was based on large part on Anti-Mormonism.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
66.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
#65:
Yeah you caught me. I’m a liberal. I love Obama and higher taxes, and a limp-wristed foreign policy. It just makes me warm and fuzzy all over to think about spending trillions of dollars and implementing Obamacare.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Nice post Fuller, M.D. It rounded up things that I already knew and made me look at them from a different perspective. Thank you.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Sam from MA Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
64
“Not all Iowans.”
So again, what exacly are you calling the 35% who voted for Mike then?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
# Jonathan Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Sam:
So if we take the argument that Romney lost Iowa because of his Mormonism, then did he lose New Hampshire for the same reason? How about South Carolina? Or Florida? Or New York, California, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia or any of the other states he lost? Are all those states populated with anti-Mormons or is Iowa just an uber-special home of Mormon haters?
How about this for an idea; more people in Iowa liked Huckabee as a candidate than Romney. Now I know that’s a strange idea to grasp, but it maybe possibily has some merits…
============================================================
You where going good until you brought Huckabee into the equation. Huckabee ran in part as the Anti-Mormon, in Iowa, and only a fool would disagree with that.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
66
I’m not accusing YOU or ANYONE on this site of being Mormon-haters.
What I’m saying is, plenty of lemmings got led along by Huck (the Second Coming of Jesus Christ as he would have it) and Iowa is far more socially Conservative and anti-Mormon than many of those states you listed.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“If in doubt, see Huckabee’s 2008 campaign which was based on large part on Anti-Mormonism.”
I saw no anti-Mormonism in the campaign. What I did see is a lot of Rombots in denial about how they lost, and decided to insult an entire state for it. Should you approach 2012 with the same attitude, we will win again, that much is certain.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Ilfigo,
“I never accussed him of being dishonest for not agreeing with me.”
In #26 you wrote this, apparently to Jonathan, “I would place you first with poor reasoning (which is obvious) and maybe distortions. However, if you decide to continue to defend your poor reasoning, it would only be do to a willingness to lie.”
By “poor reasoning” of course, you meant disagreeing with you.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
# Beat Obama Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Sam from MA Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:48 pm
64
“Not all Iowans.”
So again, what exacly are you calling the 35% who voted for Mike then?
=====================================================================================
Do you really think that if things would have been reversed and Huckabee had been the Mormon and Romney had been Evangelical Preacher, that the Mike still would have come out of nowhere? You are kidding aren’t you?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
I personally think that Mitt would govern just as conservatively as any of the potential contenders and would accomplish more of the conservative agenda than most. However, I get that this opinion is genuinely not shared by many for a variety of perfectly legitimate concerns that continue to be debated in forums such as this.
Having said that, I can’t pretend to know the reason for the nationally-known pundits for supporting or not supporting whom they may. It wouldn’t surprise me that some have latched onto the anti-establishment movement. What a way to select a candidate–very funny! I guess it’s more about ratings than anything else.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Its little wonder Romney lost if Rombots have that attitude.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Jon,
I find it shocking that Romney remains your second choice. I would think Romney would be about your 5th or even lower.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:54 pm
80
April 26th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
I suppose the de-generation of this thread into a food fight was predictable when the FPP asks what sinister motives might lurk in the hearts of those who haven’t embraced Romney.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Johnathan: So people can flip and no one can call them out on it. How hypocritical given many of those charge others for flip-flopping.
MWS: How did he suck in AAA? Healthcare was going to be reformed by the Mass. legislature (read the recent Boston Globe article, which media outlet cannot be called a pro-Romney outlet at all) and Romney ensured that a more conservative alternative (although not perfect) was adopted. He also kept every campaign promise.
So $500 for Planned PArenthood is worse than millions of taxpayer money. I see.
So I assume MWS that you support a litmus test for judges. Although I do not believe that is very conservative and is a bad principle (given that I actually stick to principles not only when it supports my view or candidate) that can easily be used for DEMS to push pro-abortion judges.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
# Stephen Hall Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
“If in doubt, see Huckabee’s 2008 campaign which was based on large part on Anti-Mormonism.”
I saw no anti-Mormonism in the campaign.
=====================================================================
Your either in denial or simply lying.
When Huckabee made the anti-Mormon slur, he crossed the line and for every disqualified himself for Potus (IMHO).
April 26th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Thunder,
So what are you calling those Iowans?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
“Do you really think that if things would have been reversed and Huckabee had been the Mormon and Romney had been Evangelical Preacher, that the Mike still would have come out of nowhere?”
Yes, and I will tell you why. Its because Mitt has been pegged as plastic, which Huckabee hammered him day and night on and it worked. The result was inevitable, especially with the videos of Mitt Romney’s own duplicity.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
No…again MWS please read the prior comments that are part of the thread and issue!!! He argued a claim that was not made by the posting.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Matt “MWS”
Interesting point.
Supporting ethanol subsidies as GOV does not keep me up at night, however Daniels & TPAW will both have be clear that they are in favor of cuts in subsidies in energy, and ethanol being among them. Romney attending Planned Parenthood fundraisers and appointing pro-choice judges also don’t keep me up at nights because I’m going to take Mitt’s word that he has had a change in position, which is fine. What keeps me up at night is Mitt’s doubling down on Romneycare. How in the blue hell does Romney debate Obama on Obamacare with Romneycare wrapped around his neck.
Yeahhh…yeahhh…I know there are differences but come on….nominating Romney is like taking 3 bullets out of your 6-shooter gun.
That is what truly keeps me up at night.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
87, how is it a slur when it was the truth? Mormons aren’t ashamed of what they believe, right?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:57 pm
# Stephen Hall Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Its little wonder Romney lost if Rombots have that attitude.
==============================================================
Hello!!!! Huckabee was in third place when Romney bowed out, what about Huckabee nuts attitudes?
And frankly, It is almost impossible to get the nomination first time out. Based on your logic, Reagan should not have ran the second time after losing to Ford.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Thunder,
“Do you really think that if things would have been reversed and Huckabee had been the Mormon and Romney had been Evangelical Preacher, that the Mike still would have come out of nowhere?”
I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure if things were reversed, Mitt would not have won Utah with 117% of the vote.
Why is it that when 30-40% of evangelicals vote for an evangelical, it’s “identity politics” but when 95% of Mormons vote for the Mormon, it just means they’re smarter than the rest of us?
April 26th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
88
He and I are calling some of the people who voted against Romney bigots.
BIGOTS.
OK, I said it. Some of them were BIGOTS. Not ALL of them, but a large percentage. Some of them were BIGOTS.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Stephen…do you not remember Huck’s comments on the campaign trail asking if Mormons were the ones that believed Jesus and Satan were brothers. I imagine a true question of a pastor who had preached many anti-mormon sermons at his church (years before the election) and was upset that a very wealthy family in his flock left his church for the LDS faith.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I mean, people were slipping out words that Huck was 1. a dispensionalist and 2. a theocrat.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
# Matt “MWS” Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:55 pm
I suppose the de-generation of this thread into a food fight was predictable when the FPP asks what sinister motives might lurk in the hearts of those who haven’t embraced Romney.
===============================================================
Unfortunately, it was Romney supporter who started the food fight (and I am also a Romney supporter), but it is the Huckabee supporters (among others), who continue to defend the indefensible actions of Huckabee and his supporter.
April 26th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
#83:
The fact that some of his supporters are…difficult, doesn’t mean that my opinion of the man himself has changed. I would still vote for Romney if Mitch Daniels doesn’t run, unless one of the others is really wowing.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
94
Completely useless argument. Mormons account for 10%.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Ilfigo,
“So I assume MWS that you support a litmus test for judges.”
Of course. I would never appoint or support a judge who believes in slavery, segregation, or the right to kill children.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
96, my question again, the statement is true. Is it something for mormons to be ashamed of?
95, and just who is a bigot and who wasn’t?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
100
I meant to say
“Mormons account for 10%.”
April 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
100, 103
What? I typed it perfectly, and it didn’t let me say it?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“who continue to defend the indefensible actions of Huckabee and his supporter.”
Individual mandates certainly seem defensible to you…
April 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
Mormons account for <3% of voters
April 26th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
And Bigots account for >10% of voters.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Smack…Romney implemented a conservative approach to healthcare in light of the Mass legislature (heavily Democratic like Ark.) wanting to push health care reform. He has experience, he knows what can work and what doesn’t (MassCare was not perfect for many reasons: Dem overriding vetoes).
All of the others (maybe not TPAW) can only speak on generalities and have no record. They would simply be painted as the party of NO!!
April 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
As a supporter of John McCain in “08″ I stayed out of the Mormon-Evangelical fights here on this site. I argued that McCain would split the seems and watch him do so with great delight. I can see that I’m falling in the same position this time around as well.
Timothy James Pawlenty – The 45th President Of The United States of America
America, Land of P(aw)LENTY!
April 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
“who continue to defend the indefensible actions of Huckabee and his supporter.”
like slipping words that a certain candidate was a theocrat and a dispensionalist?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Oh, look! A new poll on the front page……….
April 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
# Matt “MWS” Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Thunder,
“Do you really think that if things would have been reversed and Huckabee had been the Mormon and Romney had been Evangelical Preacher, that the Mike still would have come out of nowhere?”
I don’t know. But I’m pretty sure if things were reversed, Mitt would not have won Utah with 117% of the vote.
Why is it that when 30-40% of evangelicals vote for an evangelical, it’s “identity politics” but when 95% of Mormons vote for the Mormon, it just means they’re smarter than the rest of us?
===============================================================================
I actually agree with you to a point. However, the difference is that Romney didn’t run as the Mormon candidate, but Huckabee ran as the anti-Mormon, Evangelical candidate. Had he stuck purely to identity politics, I would not have had a problem, but when he started an under ground attack on Romney based on his religion is when he went over board. And even when he was caught red handed, his supported denied that it happened.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
105 individual mandates ARE DEFENSIBLE.
It’s a CHOICE: Either
(a) Pay taxes to hospitals to give free care to freeloaders or…
(b) Make freeloaders pay for themselves.
PICK ONE
April 26th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
#100:
But not in Utah. The question is a valid one, since you all are questioning the motives of Huckabee voters, let’s question the motives of Romney voters. If some of Huckabee’s supporters voted for him because of Romney’s religion, then wouldn’t it also be fair to assume that some of them voted for Mitt because of his religion? And if that’s so, how is the identity politics any different from one group to the other?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
“And Bigots account for >10% of voters”
would you mind pulling up the hard data behind that statement, or did you pull it out of your ass?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
MWS….if you read the post and Johnathan’s initial comment, it is full of poor reasoning (not simply disagreement). Have you seen me accuse you yet of poor reasoning despite your disagreement? Please look at the facts before you make such statements, it is quite embarassing.
I have not heard Johnathan defend those, so he would not fall into the lies.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
See 112
April 26th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
113, I call fallacy of false alternatives with that statement.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
114
Jonathan, HUCKABEE won SEVERAL states JUST because he was Baptist. But the most CRUCIAL WAS IOWA. THE FIRST CAUCUS. THE ONE MITT RELIED ON TO WIN THE NOMINATION.
Utah was a sideshow.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
118
I call an ostrich with his head in the sand on that
April 26th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
115
You think bigots account for less than 10% of voters?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 26th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
120, it seems you don’t know how to debate. Since you seem rather slow, I will spell it out for you. I choose a third option, i.e. none of the above. You were at fault giving me only two choice, when there are more than that.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
#116:
I said exactly this in my first comment on this thread:
“As for the idea that the grassroots conservatives somehow owe it to Romney to support him because they did last, time, I don’t buy that either. The issues and times have changed. I’m sorry but Romneycare was no where near the issue it will be this time around because the times have changed.”
All I meant by that (and I’ve repeated multiple times on this thread) is that the politics has changed from 2008 to 2012. I was merely pointing out that Romneycare is a sore point now between Romney and members of the conservative grassroots.
Again, disagree with my assumption, but don’t call me a liar.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
121, it seems you also don’t know the particulars of statistics, or don’t seem to have hard data to back up your claims. I daresay you are, well, a dunce.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Jonathan @ 48, Not that it matters who Ann Coulter supported, but she was all in for Romney at first until he said he thought her John Edwards “fag” comment was inappropriate. It was at that point that she switched her allegiance to Duncan Hunter.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
#125:
Ah, I remember both the John Edwards remark and her supporting Duncan Hunter, but I had forgotten that she supported Romney before going to Hunter. I just remembered her switching to Romney once it basically became a Romney v. Huckabee v. McCain contest.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Sam from MA,
I have told you before, but you don’t seem to understand.
There is no B in your quiz.
The free loaders in MASS are not paying…
…in fact they are killing you now more then ever.
Read the Forbes article today….just read it.
THERE IS NO “B”!!!!!!!!!!!
April 26th, 2011 at 4:15 pm
122, 124
I am aware that you thought there was a none of the above. My point is that you are in denial.
Also, I would not attack my intelligence or knowledge of mathematics. I am probably more well-educated than you are.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
127
People are mandated to have health insurance or pay a fine. Therefore, they ARE paying.
The ones who are not paying are the poor, who get assistance with the… wait for it…. get ready….
EXACT SAME MONEY PREVIOUSLY USED TO PAY FOR HOSPITALS GIVING FREE CARE.
Get it? Is it that hard for you?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
“I am aware that you thought there was a none of the above.”
The problem was is that you gave false alternatives, hence a fallacy.
“My point is that you are in denial.”
I can’t be in denial if the statement has no basis in reality.
“Also, I would not attack my intelligence or knowledge of mathematics. I am probably more well-educated than you are.”
Well great, use that “intelligence” and “knowledge of mathematics” to conjure up the hard data to back your claims. After all, any social scientist worth his salt has hard data to back up his statements. I am after all a budding political scientist.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Mormons don’t vote based on a candidates religion nearly as much as Evangelicals do. If that was the case, then Harry Reid would be a superstar and Huntsman would be polling even with Romney in Utah.
The reason is simple. Mormons don’t preach hate and discrimination for other religions across the pulpit on Sunday. Evangelicals do – ESPECIALLY against Mormons.
Huckabee even defended Rev Wright, even for all of his terrible, bigoted, attacks on our troops.
You can accuse us of pulling the “religion card” all you like. But the facts are the facts.
Like I said above, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. With Trump, and all of his baggage in the race, we’ve eliminating a lot of other arguments against Romney.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
129, whats the difference, the poor skimming off of the hospitals or the poor skimming off of the tax-payers?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
CF, the statistical data taken contradicts your assertation that Mormons don’t vote based on religion. After all, I can’t remember if its 95-98% of them voted for Romney, why is that?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
129
You don’t seem to get it. The poor skim off the taxpayers either way.
The DIFFERENCE IS… The people who DECIDE NOT TO buy health care, get SICK, and show up at the hospital on OUR DIME.. MUST have health insurance.
Also, the poor get doctor’s appointments instead of EMERGENCY ROOM visits.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
134
I meant 132 in my comment at 134.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
CF,
“The reason is simple. Mormons don’t preach hate and discrimination for other religions across the pulpit on Sunday. Evangelicals do”
Apparently nothing holds ‘em back from preaching that hate across the Internet on Tuesdays.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:24 pm
Sam from MA,
No you don’t get it.
It’s not the “EXACT SAME MONEY PREVIOUSLY USED TO PAY FOR HOSPITALS GIVING FREE CARE.”
It’s not even close. Read the article.
The “free loaders” who have MASSCARE insurance are going to the doctors X3..4…5 then before.
Blue Cross is getting the butts kicked…..private Insurance is getting drilled!
Doctors are not taking on any more patients…….patients waiting time has been increased.
Get you head out of you Romneyfact.com..I’m the greatest.com…Romneycare = GOD.com crap you have been reading.
Ask the doctors in MASS…just do it…..just do it….
This is how Obamacare got passed…..the complete looking away from the facts.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
CF,
When you’ve eliminated the impossible, you’re left with the possible.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
MWS and Jonathan: You ask a good question about identity politics, Romney, and his LDS support.
Speaking for myself, there is a difference. If Romney ever, and I mean even once, walked into an LDS Church building and asked for political support, we would toss him out on his ear. He likely would lose his good standing in the Church, face Church discipline, and at the least, the very least, be asked to step away from his political aspirations to come back in.
I’m serious. One of the things Mormons like about Romney is he plays by our rules. You-don’t-cash-in-on-Jesus-for-votes. Never. Ever. Never.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
To my fellow Romney supporters: to continue commenting that there was religious bigotry that influenced the 2008 election will backfire regardless whether it was true or not. Most of us saw anecdotal evidence of it. Whether it was enough to swing the election, nobody can say for sure. But, at this point in time, it is irrelevant. Let it go. It doesn’t matter if you are right. If wrong, you’re fighting a losing battle. If you’re right, what’s done is done and continuing to engage comes across conspiratorial and worse. You’ll never ever win a debate. In fact, you’ll cause for more damage than good. Let it go.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
137
I called for a doctor’s appointment today. My appointment is tomorrow.
Also, my health care is fantastic. The hospitals are excellent. The doctors are great. The individual insurance is not too expensive.
I enjoy my health care.
But most importantly… MITT ROMNEY HAS VOWED TO REPEAL OBAMACARE AND RETURN HEALTH DECISIONS TO THE STATES.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
140
Good points. The issue came up, but I am no longer talking about it.
Agreed.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
136
Oh please, I’m “preaching hate” because I point out the facts? You sound just like a Obama-loving Lib Race-Baiter.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
My question on the whole religion issue Matt & Stephen and others – is why let it be a part of the discussion? Why not shun those that try to that try to use religion as a political tool? By merely stating that “mormonism will be a hinderance to Romney” instead of leaving it alone or stating something along the lines of “it disappoints me that religion is a disqualifier” leaves you as being an instigator and bystander throwing meat to the wolves.
As Thunder stated in #112 – Romney did not use his religion as a tool to sway voters. Huckabee did, even using the pulpit (various speeches that he cloaked as sermons to garner support among the evangelicals so that he would not get in trouble with the FEC and the IRS). Mormons – to a wide % have very similar POLITICAL values. So it would make sense that Romney would garner a high % of the LDS vote. It would also make sense that Huckabee would have a similar connection w/ the evangelical community. But there is without a doubt an anti-mormon vote based on theology and nothing else (no relevance to politics).
Difference in how the religions are connected to the candidate overall.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
OK FOLKS
Romney is going to be the nominee, and he will beat Obama. So let’s enjoy the ride.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Watch,
For the record, I have no problem with religious affinity playing a role in a voter’s decision making (though as a Catholic, we’ve had some pretty bad representation for years). What I don’t like is the double standard that some people have.
There is clearly some animus here, and it obviously goes much deeper than Romney or Huck. LDS and evangelicals are two faiths that put a heavy emphasis on missionary work and winning converts. Naturally, they “hunt” each others’ grounds. That’s going to cause some competition, and some friction. I think that’s a lot of what we’re seeing here.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Sam from MA,
Did you read the Forbes article or are you set in your ROMNEYDOME?
April 26th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Wow . . . I missed all the fun (so far), eh? Darn patients just kept coming this afternoon.
Thanks for the lively responses!
As for the “no one outside of RomBot circles wishes Mitt had been our nominee” claims, I can only add my personal experience. I can’t tell you how many physicians I have spoken with here in Louisiana (none of them LDS) that, when they found out I was a Romney supporter, mentioned that he would have been a much better nominee than McCain was and that he would have picked a better VP than Palin. As I probed it turned out that most of them had voted for McCain (even a few for Obama . . . yuck!). Maybe my experience is not what others have had, but that’s just what I’ve experienced and I have heard a lot of that from Romney supporters of course. I agree with everyone though (including myself in the main post) that nobody could have beaten Obama in those circumstances. As I’ve heard Romney explain it, a presidential race is like a surfing competition. You need to have a combination of a great competitor AND a great wave to ride. The latter was missing for any GOPer.
I’m glad I got the Romney/Huckabee/Mormon/Evangelical “issues” out of my system last cycle. I would like to propose an analogy for Romney supporters. Arguing religion or Anti-Mormonism to support Mitt (or even degrade Huckabee) can be equated to arguing “birtherism” against Obama. Many are convinced that there are real issues there, but irrespective of whether there is truth or not to the claim, it distracts from Romney’s real argument to be POTUS and, simultaneously, it turns people off. Keep your eye on the prize folks!
That’s just my two cents on the comments so far.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I’ll add another thought here. I don’t see Evangelicals opposition to Romney as a bigoted/anti-Mormon reaction. Some, (from the polls it looks to like there is a hardcore 5% in the Republican Party who are really strong about this) seem genuinely concerned about electing as President a guy who comes from a religion that is heretical. Anything that tends to validate a heresy can pull people away from salvation who would otherwise have made it.
I tend to be somewhat sympathetic with this concern, not because I share it, but because it is earnest, authentic, not driven by bigotry, a perfectly valid way of prioritizing.
Since I’m LDS, and therefore the closest thing to a universalist you can get on the spectrum, I don’t see everything as a zero-sum when it comes to salvation, and I have the doctrinal advantage of being laid-back. However, sincere believers who view it differently do not have that leeway
They aren’t bigots. And it looks like Romney is wisely giving them some space this time around. It’s most respectful to just shake hands and love it that other folks have faith and opinions too.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:38 pm
139 . . . that comment is absolutely true. I’m currently serving as a Mormon Bishop and I similarly don’t bring up politics in the church building (let alone from the pulpit) . . . and I’m as pro-Romney as it gets.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
# Matt “MWS” Says:
April 26th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
LDS and evangelicals are two faiths that put a heavy emphasis on missionary work and winning converts. Naturally, they “hunt” each others’ grounds. That’s going to cause some competition, and some friction. I think that’s a lot of what we’re seeing here.
===============================================================
For the record, Mormon’s rarely ever switch religions, but many Mormon coverts where Evangelical.
“Worldwide Church membership continues to grow, reaching 12,560,869 in 2005. According to the 2005 Church statistical report, the Church has 2,701 stakes, 52,060 missionaries, and 122 temples in operation. In 2005 more than 240,000 converts joined the Church. Currently 341 missions are established throughout the world.”
http://www.mormonwiki.org/Population_and_growth_rate
“Using past patterns of growth as a baseline, religious sociologist Rodney Stark has projected an LDS population of 265 million by the year 2080. Using this projection, Stark has predicted that the LDS Church will become the next major world religion.”
April 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
****turning off politics here, and indulging my passion for theology****
Watch,
“Since I’m LDS, and therefore the closest thing to a universalist you can get on the spectrum”
LDS is universalist? As in universal salvation? Not interested in a debate, so I won’t rebut. Just an explanation, if you please.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
All Romney Supporters . . . please read comments 140 (by Hamaca) and #148 (by me) and think before you type another keystroke about Romney and religion. Just sayin . . .
April 26th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Oh and I just want to throw something out there…
Possibly the dynamic in Iowa went like this:
Huckabee (Christian Leader) was under heavy fire from Romney (Not Christian Leader) and the heavily-religious Evangelicals and others fell on the side of their more natural choice.
I think any objective observer could see my point here.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
I agree with the general premise of this post, insofar that it does seem disingenuous for a 2008 Romney supporter to not support him if that reason is Romneycare. (For instance, I’ll have a hard time with Jim DeMint if he withholds his support from Romney because of healthcare since DeMint was gaga over Romneycare in 08). However, Jonathan is absolutely correct that the politics have changed. Mitt was unlucky with Obamacare. If Obama had signed any other type of healthcare law, such as the government option they were trying to pass, Mitt would not have this problem. That being said, I have yet to be convinced that Romneycare will be the albatross that many of the punditry suggest it will be.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
155
Agreed
April 26th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
155 & 156
So the 60+% of NH GOP voters who would not vote for a candidate who implemented state level mandate Health Insurance..
…and the the 60+% of IA GOP voters who would not vote for a candidate who implemented state level mandate Health Insurance…in the last two state polls that ask this question…
…..does not provide you any evidence that Romneycare will be the albatross around Romney’s neck?
huuuuuuuummmmmm…..
I.just.don’t.understand.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
157
Those polls are not in context.
If the question in the poll was, “Could you vote for an otherwise intelligent, clean, qualified, level-headed, nice guy with a great family, Conservative beliefs, and an ability to beat Obama, but had implemented state-level mandates?”
His numbers would be much better. Romney’s task is to convince voters of the first several qualities I listed.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Smack, I can’t tell you how much respect I just lost for you by revealing that you were a McCain supporter.
April 26th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
159 . . . lol
Amen brother! From McCain supporter to “Tea-Paw.” That’s quite an ideological shift my friend (or do you think Pawlenty isn’t really a Tea-Partier and is just rushing there because that’s where there’s room for him (yes, I sarcastically note that as a Romney supporter)
April 26th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Smack, what I’m saying is that when you put a face and identity with a policy, as opposed to simply laying out a policy with no explanation whatsoever, those 60% numbers will undoubtedly go down. A blanket question in a poll (you probably haven’t noticed, but I don’t comment very much on polls because I don’t think they are worth the paper they are printed on) does not provide me with any concrete evidence of anything.
Further, Romneycare was brought up in 2008. Romney was proud of it and used it as part of his campaign. It is not as unknown as you want it to be. To be honest, I think a Governor losing his state’s credit rating will be just as if not more toxic than Romneycare, and I know you know who I’m talking about.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
Sam,
It’s conceivable that Mitt can overcome RomneyCare and The Mandate, but when 60% of voters indicate they don’t want to vote for a guy like that, then it’s an albatross.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
162
RomneyCare will hurt, no doubt. But It will not cause 60% of voters to vote against him. Not happening. Sorry.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
157 smack So the 60+% of NH GOP voters who would not vote for a candidate who implemented state level mandate Health Insurance…
Yeah, I’m sure all those NH GOP voters HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT ROMNEYCARE or it’s mandate, eh?
The majority of the population of the sate is in the Boston Media market.
They knew about RomneyCare in 2008 and he got 32% of the vote in NH.
NH voters are well informed and zoned-in on the political process. They know about RomneyCare already and the fact that you quote this isolated and leading poll question as evidence of Romney’s weakness is laughable . . . because it’s actually proof of just the opposite. People know about it AND they still support Romney.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
155
The thing is, is that the “original” hate against ObamaCare in 2009 was the Single-Payer Option. To their credit, the Republicans stood firm on that and were able to get that part out of the bill.
Once that was out of the way, the Republicans had to grab hold of something they hated in the bill – one of which was the individual mandate. While I believe this is unconstitutional and destructive to such a huge population, the mandate ALONE is by no means a Government Takeover of Health Care.
We as Republicans got muddled in 2009 over exactly what we hated about Health Reform. We need to remember that it is Government Power that we hate, not individual responsibility.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:11 pm
And even if 60% really wouldn’t vote for him because of it, the remaining 40% is more than enough to win just about any primary in the nation. Some albatross . . .
April 26th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
#165 . . . CF. We as Republicans got muddled in 2009 over exactly what we hated about Health Reform. We need to remember that it is Government Power that we hate, not individual responsibility.
Well said!
April 26th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
On top of Jeff’s comment, you ought to be more concerned about your candidate. TPaw has been in the race for more than a month, and his name recognition is not much more than it was before, if at all.
No one gets excited or inspired by TPaw’s stump speech. That means more than you think. It means less donors, less volunteers, less less less.
And a candidate with low name recognition, and one who gets little to no attention from the media, means that he will need MONEY. LOTS of money. No evidence if he can get LOTS of money he will need. We will see.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Holy S**T!! i’m switching to Daniels right now because I’m sick and tired of Romney supporters bitching about religion.
Dr. Fuller wrote an excellent post and Jonathan and Matt brought up a couple of dissenting points and you guys start attacking them. Jonathan, especially, said Romney is his #2 and has never bashed Romney (Matt is a different story but anyways). I realize this is just a microcosm of the real world but if this is how you treat people you are trying to convince to vote for Romney on here then I can only imagine how much damage you are doing to him in the real world.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
169, well said.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:17 pm
169
In the real world, people are not this disagreeable. In real conversations, reason and logic prevail.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
171, in the real world people aren’t so brave as to insult others when there isn’t a thousand mile gap between them.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
172
I never insulted anyone on this site.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Sam, I know you haven’t, and I didn’t mean to say you did, but there certainly are those on this thread who have been insulting. I was just making the point.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
I was a proud McCain supporter. I posted here at this site as greg mn. I was told for months that McCain could not win the nomination. Most of you were wrong just like you are all wrong about TPAW (with some exceptions)
I did not like Romney or Huck in “08″. My choices were Fred and Johnny and I took the guy who I thought had the fire in the gut.
TPAW has the fire and a Conservative record of achievement.
I saw Romney and Huck go down to the old man in “08″ and I will see both lose to the young, hard working, Conservative,debate crushing GOV of my beloved state of Minnesota.
Sleep on him if you all want.
You were all(most)wrong in “08″
..you will be again…..you have a great track record. hehhhhheeeehheee
April 26th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
169
In the real world, I convince people to vote for Romney based on his merits.
Online, people don’t listen based on merits. They are tied to their candidate. It becomes frustrating when you attempt to convince someone online based on merits, and all you have to show for it are petty arguments about trivial issues.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
175
lol, and how did that work out for us?
April 26th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
MWS: I thought you might be familiar with what otherwise is a fairly opaque religious term. Yes, LDS believe that the salvational work of Jesus expands far beyond the limits of this brief moment in time we call mortality. (1 Pet.3:18-20) Hell is purposeful and temporary (eternal in the sense that if you needed to spend some time there, you never forget it, and you never want to go back, and you never forget Who made it possible to escape). Heaven is not a singular reward but a spectrum of possibilities (1 Cor 15:40-42) Resurrection is literal. God loves all His children. Jesus atones for sins, learning and growth continue beyond the grave. Justice and mercy play out in ways that honor our earthly choices, respect our earthly limitations, and include, at some point along the continual existence of a soul, access to the love of God as embodied in Jesus and His redeeming work.
We do what we can with what light we have here on Earth, and trust God to provide, far beyond our vision and frail abilities to perceive, His endless and unfailing love to all of His children, in accordance with His timing and wisdom on Earth, or beyond, with very, very few exceptions.
Even though we’re heretics, we’re pretty nice about it in the way we cut everyone some slack.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
177,
McCain lost…what is your point.
Romney is even a more flawed candidate this time then in “08″
I couldn’t choose between McCain & Perfection..I had to choose between McCain and Huck,Mitt&Thompson.
Mitt screwed up on the “surge” issue.
Mitt will screw up all over the place this time as well.
Mitt is a good man, but will not stay on message because in the political world he doesn’t know who the hell he is.
Mitt’s bubble will pop in New Hampshire….just like in “08″
April 26th, 2011 at 5:34 pm
“I never insulted anyone on this site.”
Oh really?
“I am probably more well-educated than you are”
Look, I do plenty of insulting myself. Its part of politics, and has been part of politics since the 1800. However, I expect to be insulted back, and I at least don’t go around making statement that I don’t insult people when in fact, I do.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Jeff,
“They knew about RomneyCare in 2008 and he got 32% of the vote in NH.”
That leaves that remaining 60+% that don’t like the mandate.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
180
Nice try, but that is not an insult.
You questioned my intelligence. I did not question yours.
Desperate times call for desperate measures? Looks like you’ve learned from McCainHuckabee08
April 26th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
181. Matt “MWS”,
“That leaves that remaining 60+% that don’t like the mandate.”
And would that remaining 60+% include those that are “unsure/don’t know” re the mandate? Or would they be included in the 32%?
April 26th, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Watch,
“Even though we’re heretics, we’re pretty nice about it in the way we cut everyone some slack”
LOL!
Intuitively, I would think it’s harder to gin up missionary zeal if everyone’s going to turn out all right in the end, no matter what we do.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:42 pm
hamaca,
I’m not familiar with the poll, but I think they said 65% of respondents in NH said they would not vote for a candidate who supports a mandate.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:47 pm
184
I would hope that you are not implying that Mormons are heretics. Am I mistaken?
April 26th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
“I did not question yours.”
So what’s with the maniacal laugh when I asked for data behind your assertation that 10% were bigots? That was an insult in and of itself.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
186, to those of the Christian faith, Mormons are heretics.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
186. No, a Mormon did so in 178.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
I hope that I have not come across as trying to be insulting Rob.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
189
So it’s now OK to call out Mormons for being heretics.
By the same token, would you call black people the N WORD because they call themselves it? I think not.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I tried insulting Stephen Hall a few times in the past and he insulted me right back. In fact, I would have been insulted had he not insulted me.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Sam. Relax.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
This what is truly insulting…ROMNEYCARE!
Forbes
Despite the expansion of insurance coverage, people are continuing to seek routine medical care in expensive emergency rooms. Emergency room visits climbed 9%–or 3 million visits–between 2004 and 2008. The bill for uncompensated care has exceeded $400 million.
That’s only the tip of the RomneyCare cost iceberg. Originally projected to cost $1.8 billion this year, the reform effort is now expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to about $1.75 billion in 2010. Over the next 10 years, RomneyCare will likely cost $2 billion more than predicted.
Article Controls
“Massachusetts taxpayers are not only footing the bill for all this new public spending–they’re also facing higher rates for private coverage. A 2010 study published in the Forum for Health Economics & Policy found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts were increasing at a rate 3.7% slower than the national average prior to the implementation of RomneyCare. Post-overhaul, they’re increasing 5.8% faster. Annual premium hikes in the state have averaged 7.5% since 2000″
Take notice Romney supporters…your arguments fail at every level.
Every level.
Mitt is not going to the White House!
April 26th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
194
That article is bogus and takes everything out of context.
April 26th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
“Forum for Health Economics & Policy found that health insurance premiums in Massachusetts were increasing at a rate 3.7% slower than the national average prior to the implementation of RomneyCare. Post-overhaul, they’re increasing 5.8% faster.’
Remind me never to open my business up in MASS……..on second thought I won’t have to be reminded.
What a joke!
April 26th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
194. Smack, you got us. We’re busted. Thanks for opening our eyes to the truth with that, er, Fortune, no wait, Forbes, yeah that’s it, Forbes article or opinion piece. That should settle it. Any questions anyone?
April 26th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
MWS, yes, intuition would. Since we think God is really nice, and we want to imitate Him as best we can, we try really hard to be really nice too, and tell everybody how nice God is.
Except on blogs about politics when we’re ticked, and then we forget and mix it up but good along with everybody else! (and sadly we go from being exotic heretics to ordinary hypocrites).
April 26th, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Sam from MA,
Good one Sam.
Brillant!
I don’t care if Romney’s poll numbers are currently 83.652% in California…no chance of being the GOP nominee.
Romneycare is not just the albatross…..it’s the end of this candidacy.
Can’t run from this dismal record.
No way.
April 26th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
hamaca,
Here is the problem with your blasting the article because its in Forbes………the article sites Healthcare Economics & Policys…data!!!…it has documentation…….current facts!
The article has other sources of information.
This is why I call you ROMBOTS!!!
None of you read this article did you!!
Don’t let the facts get in the way of the Romney campaign….that’s how it is… isn’t it?!
Don’t try to convince on Romneycare when you can’t even look at the data.
It’s horrific
April 26th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Sam from MA: Hey! I’m the one who used the term heretic and I used it in the least pejorative way I know how . . .to describe how some folks might perceive my beliefs as a Mormon.
Nobody was trying to get in a dig or be mean and nasty. Everybody is doing fine, it’s Spring, I’m having leftovers for dinner, but other than that life is good . . .
April 26th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Smack–the fact that it’s Forbes adds to its credibility in my book. Not saying I agree with it, but it’s worth a second look because of that.
What I question is the fact that there are so many articles written for and against issues such as this, I personally can’t digest what might be truly accurate.
April 26th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Smack, you were a McCain supporter, and THAT is a dismal record. How dare you even call yourself a conservative.
April 26th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
Here’s one Romney supporter shaking his head at the (once again) high level of sarcasm and toxicity on this site. I suppose it’s to be expected when people with passion and differing opinions meet, but the discourse is very rarely polite (almost never). I wish it were.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Only 200+ comments? Come on guys, that is horrible, I was expecting a way better amount of traffic on this topic thread! Geez, you guys better get it together, things are starting to ramp up.
PATHETIC!!!!
April 26th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Jeff – I’d be fair with you. If you have a good memory, you’d recall my being active on this site in support of Romney for more than a year before the 2008 election. However, Romney has said quite a few things since then that concern me. He made some statements that showed to me that he has a bit of too much faith in the federal government. The most recent one was from his interview which was posted here on this site last week about the Obamacare. He claimed that he would make an executive order to grant waives to all 50 states. Great! He then claimed that his second step would be to repeal the Obamacare. Perfect! Now, his next claim… do you remember it? He said he would work with officials and other stakeholders to make sure the insurances cannot reject high risk clients nor the seniors. Whoa! What! Since when does Federal Government has the ability to do anything right? How can we be sure that whoever would be in the White House won’t abuse this “power”? No, there has been too many of his comments, enough to concern me greatly!
April 26th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Ogrepete, since when has political discussion EVER been “polite”? No, the true nature of politics is bruising fights, name-calling, insults, acid-tipped sarcasm, hatred, envy, blood wars, fueds, hypocrisy, hackery, and general all around mayhem, destruction, and pain.
It is simply magnificent, the art of politics. To stand amongst the dead and the defeated on the field of politcs is simply magnificent. I want more…
April 26th, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Another one, one that got me to look more careful toward Romney’s positions, was his comment about the No Child Leave Behind law toward the end of the 2008 campaign. He said he loved it – specificallly, he loved how we could have a national standard test. This is the talk that only a socialist would make. A conervative would recognize that each locality has its own needs, that the individuals are in the positions to make the contributions as they see fit. We do not need to have a national test standard. Let there be a several different tests, then if a student want to attend college, then he could take a test that is geared toward that aim. If another student want to be something else, then let him take the test that is appropriate for his future. We do not need one standard across the whole nation! Again, NLCB gave federal government too much power. He is not in favor of disbanding the department that is among the most abusive – the department of education.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Stephen,
I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed you so poetic.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
MWS, there is something about the battlefield that excites a man’s soul.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Smack … Everything was saying the same thing about immigration for McCain in 2007 (a much more salient point at the time). Look what happened there.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Stephen,
For me it’s more sport than battle, which probably accounts for my (sometimes) more flippant attitude.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
On the religion and identity politics issue, I have absolutely no problem with someone letting their religious beliefs influence the way they vote. If someone believes that voting for Romney would be an affront to God, then I say they better not vote for him. If someone feels uncomfortable voting for Romney because they have been taught in Church that Mormons are cultists, they should vote for someone they are more comfortable with. If someone feels like voting for Huckabee because he is a religious leader within the Republican party and they believe that he is the most likely to make decisions in accordance to God’s will, they should probably vote for him (although I wish they would take a closer look at his record and pattern of dishonesty before making that decision).
What I have a problem with is when a candidate uses religious ideology/identity to attack another candidate or to put themselves on a pedestal. That is not the voters’ problem, that is the candidates. I have no respect for candidates that play the identity politics game rather than the substantive policy game. There is anti
April 26th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Rombot,
But opinion was more mixed on immigration. Nobody but liberals and Rombots like The Mandate. And the Rombots wouldn’t like it either if it was Huck’s millstone.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Sorry … Let me finish:
There is anti-Mormonism out there. I spent two years in Huckabee’s home state as a Mormon missionary (while he was governor, by the way). Trust me, it exists. That is completely irrelevant to politics though until someone uses it unfairly. I believe Huckabee’s did, and for that reason he has lost all my respect. That is not the fault of Iowans, it is the fault of a dishonest, thin skinned man that will get crushed by Obama in 2012 if he happens to get the Republican nomination.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:43 pm
214 – not true at all. I worked on the hill during the immigration debate in 2007. I was right in the middle of it. The outrage over immigration was a much bigger deal than Romneycare has ever been. How can someone go from being the mortal enemy of the right in the summer prior to the nomination and then win the nomination 6 months later, and then you say Romney has no shot at all? That is just wishful thinking.
April 26th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
The candidates themselves profess to want to be respectful of each other. The supporters of the various candidates generally exhibit no such desire.
April 26th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
@215
There is also Anti-”name any religion” in Iowa. To gang up on Evangelicals in Iowa over an issue that still hasn’t been proven is uncharitable, and I am a Catholic. (you have to prove that anti-mormonism was actually on the mind of Huckabee voters in the voting booth).
Part of the problem your calling “anti-mormonism” is not actual bigotry but the fault of the LDS Church not correctly explaining Mormon Theology to non-Mormons. Also, you can’t expect folks to be pleased with any religion that has missionaries knock on their doors (Christian missionaries included), because the reality is most people in this country do not like to be solicited about anything anymore.
April 26th, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Rombot,
“The outrage over immigration was a much bigger deal than Romneycare has ever been”
Sure. But did the outrage even come close to uproar caused by ObamaCare. You see, it’s not just about what Mitt did in MA. It’s about what many people think it enabled and gave cover to; or at least his ability and standing to combat it.
April 26th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Ogre,
For me, it depends on the supporter. There are current and former supporters of all the candidates I like and respect and get along with well. In fact some of the people I like and get along with hate each other. So it depends on the person, I think, more than the candidate they support.
April 26th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Romney only got support from the conservative establishment in 2008 once it became a binary choice between he and McCain. McCain had done enough to irritate conservatives over the years that they weren’t going to support him come hell or high water. Hugh Hewitt was the only one who supported Governor Mandate before it was down to just he and McCain.
I also don’t recall too many people, other than the Romney apologists, wishing Romney were the nominee after the general. The bottom line is that the GOP was going to lose to Obama regardless of who we nominated. There was just too much momentum behind Obama.
I haven’t changed my position on Romney at all. I was opposed to him in 2008 and I will be opposed to him this year. I don’t support big-government Republicans who change positions on major policy issues.
April 26th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
“I don’t support big-government Republicans who change positions on major policy issues.”
I can think of other prospective candidates who fit that description.
April 26th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
@ 281
Nate, so you’re saying Mormons should educate people more about what they believe, but stop knocking on their doors at the same time??
And if they really believe they’re doing the will of Christ, why should they stop just because most people find it annoying?
April 26th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
218 – Which is why I didn’t gain up on them. Did you even read what I wrote?
April 26th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
219 – I am talking about Romneycare, not ObamaCare. People keep claiming there is mass outrage on the right over RomneyCare. That is just nonsense.
April 26th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Well said Fuller, you are spot on with your article. Thank you!
April 26th, 2011 at 10:08 pm
Rombot,
I know. I’m suggesting that if the two are effectively linked in the primary, then it could make ’08s immigration debate seem like a dispute over local zoning.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
@223
Do you think most people want to be educated about the Mormon faith at their doorstep on a workday? You know the answer to that. I’m saying what Rombot is internalizing as “anit-Mormonism” isn’t necessarily people being anti-mormon. I like Romney and will vote for him if he is our nominee, but this conspiratorial claim that I’ve seen since 08 about his loss in Iowas being due to anti-mormons is stupid. There is simply no visible evidence to the claim based upon the data we have and to continue to make the claim is wrong.
When it comes to the Mormon faith, I don’t think a lot of young Momron missionaries don’t understand that their missionary system is extremely outdated due to people’s work schedules and the internet. The system is one created by the LDS Church decades ago, and is not very effective.
@218
I read what you wrote. And my point still applies because unless you can get into specifics, every instance of anti-Mormonism you claim you experienced in Arkansas wasn’t necessarily anti-Mormonism.
April 27th, 2011 at 12:00 am
I’d just like to make a little observation here. If someone is so easily swayed to jump to another candidate because of what someone else said about a candidate here, I really, really think they need to check their priorities.
April 27th, 2011 at 2:54 am
Interesting views.
Those who oppose Romney because of MA health care, please summarize for me the ideological basis for that opposition.
As I understand it, people oppose individual mandates on a state level. Why?
People link Romneycare with Obamacare. Why?
People claim Romneycare is ineffective. Why?
Any other reasons? Why?
http://www.whyromney.com be posting a health care response soon. I want to make sure we have all the bases covered.
Thanks!
Ryan Larsen
April 27th, 2011 at 7:28 am
Why,
“Those who oppose Romney because of MA health care, please summarize for me the ideological basis for that opposition.”
1. Health Care reform should focus on bringing down cost, not universal insurance, like Mitt and the liberals believe.
2. Universal insurance without bringing down cost actually drives cost up, as demand and consumption for health care increases.
3. Free market solutions- such as TPaw and Daniels started, are the only chance to bring down costs, other than government rationing boards.
4. It doesn’t matter at the end of the day whether The Mandate comes from the state or the feds, if you’ve got to comply. It’s a distinction without a difference.
5. We need to ween ourselves off 3rd party payer for everything, and treating health insurance like “grocery insurance.” This is one of the biggest drivers in cost, but Mitt and Barack seem to think we need more 3rd party payer.
6. Whether it was his intention or not, RomneyCare brought more cheap abortions to more people.
Gotta’ run, I’ll be back……
April 27th, 2011 at 9:17 am
@ 228
That’s a fair response, Nate.
Outdated or not, though… if missionaries feel like they’re doing God’s will while having doors slammed on them all day, then that’s what they’re going to do. Since when were Mormons popular, anyway (or any Christian religion)?
As to blaming Mitt’s loss in Iowa on anti-mormanism… I agree that it’s certainly not the only reason Iowans didn’t all warm up to him, and I don’t believe for a second that most Iowans are bigots. The problem is that bigots do exist in every state – be they religious, race, or whatever haters. It is a tough thing to quantify, but polls do exist saying people would be “less likely” to vote for a mormon candidate. Hopefully it’s a small percentage, but would it have been enough to make the difference?? I think a lot of Mitt supporters just can’t help but wonder, ‘If Mitt were Evangelical, would he have easily won Iowa in ’08?’ The answer doesn’t really change anything, but the question just kinda hangs, ya know?
April 28th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
[...] Fuller recently published an article entitled “Moving the Needle; Why Some Conservatives Disingenuously Reject Romney”. He also published it over on Mitt Romney Central. Now I am not going to rehash what Jeff said. I [...]