Blogcritics Comments on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Comment by Nancy on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:35:21 EST

You must have missed the comment in Newsweek that pretty much said just what I did about why Romney won't get the nomination.

Comment by Arch Conservative on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:19:03 EST

"Should Romney get the nomination, there'll be a new wacky Mormon child bride story in the NYT every week. How supportive will pro-life Catholics and evangelicals be?" When the only other choice is Hillary? Hmm I think pro-life catholics, evangelicals and all other stripes of conservative and christian will be hopping on the Romney bandwagon faster than you can say "whitewater." I'm sorry Nancy but your highly delusional and completely unfounded fears of Romney turning us into a LDS controlled theoracy are not shared by the majority of the American population as much as you might believe they are. But then you seem to have an irrational phobia of all people of faith and not just Mormons. The fact that Romney got elected in la la looney liberaland aka MAssachusetts says something about his appeal across the spectrum and his capabilities at winning office. I can assure you that those of us opposed to Hillary will not misunderestimate her and stop at nothing to ensure she never sees the inside of the white house again. But it looks as if many in my own party are misunderestimating Mitt Romney.

Comment by Nancy on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Tue, 5 Dec 2006 11:40:33 EST

Out of curiousity, how many of the last 3 posters are Mormon? I stand by my comments, based on facts garnered by both Mormons & non-Mormons as reported in the general media. As for believing in the bible, I don't. Most of it is quasi-history, heavily mixed with propaganda & outright myth; interesting as an anthropolgical/cultural study, but not credible as fact except to the gullible or superstitious.

Comment by letmeguess on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:58:39 EST

Nancy... It seems like you are pushing the limits on the comment policy. Bigotry is showing through.

Comment by scott on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Mon, 4 Dec 2006 18:30:40 EST

Nancy has those wonderful blinders on and is exactly what she claims the Mormons to be, ignorant. It's incredible the stupidity shown by people like Nancy towards people of faith. If you believe your Bible Nancy, then you sure don't understand the teachings. Or are you just a traditional secularist?

Comment by Baronius on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Mon, 4 Dec 2006 16:34:23 EST

Nancy, do you see the press actually going after Romney's religion? I'd be happier than a horse in a countrified expression if it happened, but I don't see it happening. Maybe Christian radio and the evangelical community will raise the issue, and then the media could report about the controversy.

Comment by Nancy on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Mon, 4 Dec 2006 15:10:43 EST

Any non-Mormon even vaguely conversant with Mormon theology will go miles out of their way to avoid voting for, let alone dealing with, a Mormon. Additionally, the history of the LDS organization, both historically & recently is not exactly conducive to putting either faith or trust in them as favorable to either the US constitution or bill of rights; in fact, historically & currently, the leadership of the LDS 'church' exercise a draconian grip on their followers, and the higher the follower in either financial status or political influence, the tighter the grip exercised from Salt Lake City. THAT is precisely the reason I will never vote for any Mormon: I don't feel like electing the so-called "Prophet" of Joseph Smith, Jr. as the power behind the throne to the Presidency of the US. Interestingly, many (and it seems to me, most) rank & file Mormons don't know the history of their own organization, frankly because the leadership of the LDS church suppresses it, or does their damnedest to do so. In addition, this leadership has from the inception of the organization been involved with all kinds of unsavory, illegal, and sometimes outright murderous activities which by all indications are hardly unknown to them even today. Even other established Christian churches & sects do not recognize them, either as a church or as "christian"; their ideology is so outre & bizarre (check out the bit about "inheriting his own universe when he dies" Baronius mentions) it hovers more on the lines of the equally bizarre theology of Scientology - and I wouldn't vote for a follower of L. Ron Hubbard, either, for that matter. Few non-Mormons will vote for a Mormon exactly because they fear entangling the presidency in the mafia-like power threads & politics of the LDS group. It won't take much for this to start coming out in the wash, once Romney declares & should the MSM ever grow a set of balls to do some really hard-line reporting on current LDS politics, policies, and activities which are highly secretive, even to their own followers, except for those in the upper echelons of the group. For some basic, balanced information, go start with Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My Story". Brodie is a Mormon, and yet her very scholarly work was suppressed & she herself disciplined by the LDS leadership for presenting Smith factually instead of with the unquestioning adoration they demand from all members. In any event, Arch plainly has a maniac & manic obsession with Romney for some reason, so I doubt citing any kind of facts such as Dave does will influence his mania in the slightest.

Comment by Baronius on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Sun, 3 Dec 2006 18:32:01 EST

JR's right about people voting for the person they think will win the general election. To a point. It's one of the many "rules" of presidential elections that isn't universal, but has a kernel of truth to it. The occasional failure of such rules is what makes politics so interesting. Kerry is a good example. The strategists said that he matched up well against Bush, because of his military record. When Iowa started to get serious about two weeks before their primary (and before the Dean scream), they listened to the experts and supported Kerry. I don't think Bush followed that pattern. He had buzz from the first day he took the governorship of Texas from the Democratic hero Ann Richards. The name recognition obviously helped - although Jeb never carried that much clout. This far out from the primaries, does name recognition matter? Which is more important, public perception or expert opinion? The press loves conflict, and with a Democratic congress, that means that moderates like McCain won't be the story. Guys like Brownback will be making the news. The Mormon thing is pretty interesting. We aren't supposed to criticize people's religion, so the press will be afraid of talking about it during the primaries. Should Romney get the nomination, there'll be a new wacky Mormon child bride story in the NYT every week. How supportive will pro-life Catholics and evangelicals be? Romney describes his faith in language that a born-again Christian would use. But he believes that Jesus will give him his own planet when he dies.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:14:54 EST

Arch, I don't claim to have a finger on the pulse of the GOP constituency. I just HOPE that I do. Otherwise the party is pretty much fucked. As for Romney, I'll wait and see. Maybe he'll show something more worthwhile, but it will take a lot to overcome the basic creepiness inherent in being a mormon. Dave

Comment by Clavos on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Sat, 2 Dec 2006 17:43:06 EST

Arch, Sorry to burst your bubble, but down here in thoroughly Republican Florida Romney has little to no name recognition. He'd better schmooze up Mel Martinez soon if he wants to be a serious candidate down here.

Comment by Arch Conservative on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Sat, 2 Dec 2006 15:06:32 EST

Guiliani and MCCain sure as hell don't come nearly as close to representing the interests of true Reagan conservative GOP interests as Romney does. You're right Nalle though. Romney's nothing but a religious whacko. I mean have you been to Boston lately? You can't go two feet in that city without bumping into a statue of Joseph Smith or a Mormon church. Oh and Romney getting the MA state legislature to agree to give 10 cents on the dollar collected by the MA turnpike in tolls to the Mormoon church and also legalize polygamy was a stroke of genius. I guess once people find out about all this nationally he'll be correctly identified as the right wing religious extremist that he is huh? Give me a fucking break! I'm sorry but those of you insisting that Romney is some kind of theocrat just waiting to convert us all to Mormonism are pretty much completely ignorant of what the man is actually like in reality. I know that bringing up the fact that he's a Mormon and suggesting that this somehow means he is a whackjob who can never be elected works wonders with ignorant people but it won't fly once the nation gets to know this man. He's a regular family who believes in traditional conservative values and just happens to be Mormon. He also happens to be more intelligent and resourceful than W, Mccain and Guliani put together. Sometimes you make sense Nalle but you're obsession with Romney's mormonism as an insurmountable obstacle in his path to the presidency makes you come off as kind of ignorant. You obviously don't know too much about the man if you think this is the case. Yeah Romney's a mormon but he's also one hell of a likable guy. He's very charismatic and endearing on the idiot box and in person. And what exactly did you mean by this? "There's no reason to think he'd do the work that needs to be done to protect our rights and cut back on government spending." So I guess the fact that Romney as governor was able to realize yearly multibillion dollar state budget surpluses when having to deal with one of the most liberal democratic spend happy legislatures in the nation does not say anything about Romney's committment to conservative fiscal values and success at implementing them? You can quote all the polls in the world you want that have been done to date touting what great candidates Mccain and Guiliani are Nalle but I guarantee you that neither will win the GOP nod in 2008. You claim to have your finger on the pulse of the GOP constituency. Well I like to think I do to and the way I see it is that they thought they were getting a true Reagan like conservative in Bush and he couldn't having been anything further from that. So in 2008 they GOP base will be looking for someone in the Reagan mold and neither Rino Rudy nor Me So Moderate Mccain fits the bill.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:24:37 EST

JR, from what we could tell during the campaign George Bush DID represent our interests. Remember all those great ideas he had during the campaign? Remember how many of them he didn't follow through on? Dave

Comment by Clavos on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:44:05 EST

Maybe people who are solely concerned with making sure "their" party wins the election, to the point of voting for a candidate who doesn't represent their interests Only those voters can decide whether or not the candidate "represents their interests"...

Comment by JR on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Sat, 2 Dec 2006 00:26:29 EST

Arch Conservative: That makes no sense and anyone who is going to vote based on a poll is a dumbass. Dave Nalle: That's the best basis for voting in the primary if you want your party to win the general election. Which is exactly how the Republicans ended up with George Bush, Jr. and the Democrats ended up with John Kerry. Maybe people who are solely concerned with making sure "their" party wins the election, to the point of voting for a candidate who doesn't represent their interests, are dumbasses. They've certainly ruined the country for the rest of us.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 23:52:42 EST

I would vote against Romney because he's a Mormon and he believes in most of the negative moral values the GOP has embraced in recent years. He's a pawn of the religious right and there's no reason to think he'd do the work that needs to be done to protect our rights and cut back on government spending. He's also against gun rights and generally in favor of a 'family values' agenda which is inherently incompatible with basic civil rights. A lot of people see Romney as a RINO, but once he moves to the right as he'll have to in order to get the nomination, what's left of his positions is going to be pretty unappealing. That makes no sense and anyone who is going to vote based on a poll is a dumbass. That's the best basis for voting in the primary if you want your party to win the general election. Dave

Comment by Bozo breath on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:43:57 EST

Hillary and McCain are clear-cut favorites. Academics have proven that gamblers get it right more often that anyone ...including pollsters. Check the latest numbers. It's fascinating to watch. Note how George Allen went straight down the tubes and that helped McCain's chances.

Comment by Baronius on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:12:20 EST

Al Gore lost in 2000.

Comment by Arch Conservative on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:59:35 EST

Because of some POLLS he calls studies done two years before the election? That's a lame reason not to vote for someone. Nalle claims to love the GOP but would rather vote for someone like Guiliani who is pro abortion, pro gay marriage and has cheated on his wife rather than someone like Romney who represents and believes in traditional conservative values? That makes no sense and anyone who is going to vote based on a poll is a dumbass. You guys can slander Romney all you want but he's the man. He's the second coming of Reagan.

Comment by Clavos on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 16:21:03 EST

Um, Arch: "If they nominate Romney I'll actually vote for ANYONE the Democrats nominate except Hillary" Why? He TOLD you why in #3, man!!

Comment by Arch Conservative on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:42:18 EST

"If they nominate Romney I'll actually vote for ANYONE the Democrats nominate except Hillary" Why?

Comment by zingzing on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:28:58 EST

dave, don't try to use logic on archie. it's just not fair to his sensibilities.

Comment by Guiliani on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:22:25 EST

Fuck Arch Conservative. I hear Romney had illegals to cut his lawn.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:06:17 EST

Arch, you know I love the GOP. If they nominate Romney I'll actually vote for ANYONE the Democrats nominate except Hillary. If the demos nominate Hillary I'll vote Libertarian. I'm not alone in this. I guarantee a good 20% of the party agrees with me, and that means you can say goodbye to the White House with a Romney nomination. You know, they HAVE done studies on how various potential candidates do against each other, and Romney consistently loses to any major Democrat, while Giuliani consistently beats every major Democrat. So by supporting Romney you're saying that you'd rather run a guaranteed loser who you agree with than a moderate who might actually win. Dave

Comment by Arch Conservative on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 13:38:43 EST

Fuck Guiliani. I am so sick of hearing about him and Mccain. They can both kiss this Republican's ass. It's all about Mitt Romney. Oh and I am sick of all this America won't elect a Mormon bullshit. Didn't they say we'd never elect a Catholic when JFK ran? Trust me when Romney wins the GOP ticket in 2008 and the only other choice is that evil cunt Hillary, Romney do to her what Reagan did to that peanut eating freak Carter in 1980 in the general election.

Comment by Dave Nalle on Election 2008: 2008 Promises A Most Interesting Election

Fri, 1 Dec 2006 03:54:35 EST

Carville is just lying if he says there's no front running candidate from either party. The latest popularity poll shows Giuliani still has a commanding lead in popular approval. He also has an even more remarkable lead when comparing low disapproval ratings among voters. 2/3 of the population likes Giuliani and almost no one dislikes him. The only potential candidate with both high positives and low negatives who's anywhere near him is Obama. Dave