« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Not Defending Romney Moves to Godwin’s Law: How Seth Ellis Proves Me Right

In my morning post on Mitt Romney’s wins I noted that the press is now starting to trot out stories about the Mormon Church, its race issues, baptizing the dead, etc.

Contained in that post Seth Ellis goes there where there is pulling a David Brooks, comparing critics who I assume include me to Nazis, and violating Godwin’s Law.

So first, I win. Thanks Godwin’s Law. But look at Ellis’s comment:

First they came for the Mormons. I am disappointed that Erick would promote this story as a reason not to select Romney without pointing out how shameful of an attack this is. It is an assault on religion, and it is no different from what they did to Santorum. The only difference is that Romney its smart enough to not fall for it. We cannot stand idly by as the media continues its assault on religion.

It is exactly this sort of comment from Erick that leaves so many of us skeptical on Erick’s claim that “his Mormonism has nothing to do with it”.

Note first the “first they came for the Mormons” and see David Brooks from yesterday.

Second, note that Seth Ellis proves me right.The Democrats smell blood in the water. Romney is weak. He’s headed into the South with his negatives going up. And whether you agree or disagree, as I noted here accurately on January 24, 2012:

the secularists in the media — not the Democrats, but the media to the extent it can be separated from the Obama Machine — will spend six months creeping out independent suburban voters about Mormons, holy underwear, Kolob, postmortem baptism, and views on black people and then, as the coup de grace, Barack Obama will fire up millions of dollars of ads on Bain Capital raiding pension funds forcing the government to cover the debt so Mitt Romney could make millions whether he won or lost a deal.

It is beginning. It is beginning early because Democrats see Romney going into Southern states and more conservative states hemorrhaging and they think they might now have a chance to pick him off and get Santorum — something they did not think was possible just a month ago.

They think they can start unloading the opposition research, which will include lots of stories about the Mormon Church.

So back to Seth Ellis. He writes

I am disappointed that Erick would promote this story as a reason not to select Romney without pointing out how shameful of an attack this is.

Each day the GOP spends defending Mitt Romney’s faith, which polling of independent and secular leaning voters shows hurts Romney more with them than with evangelicals (specifically, I believe, a Pew poll on the matter), is a day the GOP is not going on offense against Barack Obama.

More troubling, the reality is that most Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians, so while the left is attacking the Mormons and the right is defending Mormons, you’re going to have a lot of Christians happy to defend Mormons, but make it all the more awkward when distancing themselves from Mormons at the same time.

Just as Santorum’s devout Catholicism will come under attack from the left, you must be nuts to think Romney’s faith won’t come under attack as well. The difference is the groups that will and will not rally will be different and potentially more disadvantageous toward Romney.

And that is the point again. The more we’re all forced to defend Romney on this issue, the more the press will focus on it, and the more our attention will be distracted away from Obama. It is not fair. But it is reality.

My opposition to Mitt Romney has nothing to do with his faith. It has everything to do with his opportunism. But I’m also not so naive as to think it will not be one more attack used by the left.

And, by the way, had hypersensitive Seth not already developed a bunker mentality I suspect many Romney supporters will soon develop, would probably recognize that that line in my post was not meant to be me attacking Mitt Romney, but pointing out that the left’s assault is already beginning. And Seth’s overreaction shows just how badly many Romney supporters are going to handle it.

I’d let him respond, but stooping to Godwin’s Law gets you banned around here.

COMMENTS

  • haners

    When is this personal vendetta against Romney going to end, EE?

    We are all losers when conservative media figures are more interested in protecting their egos than target against the real opponent, Barack Obama. Four more years of Obama means 20 years of this country tilting permanently left as the Supreme Court is at stake. Imagine the affirmative action vote with an Obama stacked Court.

  • Bill S

    What a news flash! Obama is our target? He’s going to cause problems if he stays in office? Why, I’ll bet Erick never considered the possibility. I must email him immediately with the news.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Invoking Goodwin’s Law was accurate. Ellis got banned for attention-whoring while arguing ad Hitlerum. He can go tie his shoes in cute little Nazis elsewhere.

  • haners

    I think it’s pretty clear to all that EE has crossed that line into an obsession against Romney; each argument against Romney has become more and more tenuous and stretched.

    We must unite behind the Republican nominee to defeat Obama. This is the election of a lifetime and will decide if this country remains a center-right country or a European “what can I do for you” state.

  • Aaron Gardner

    But then you seem to dense to get that point.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    And many of my friends are. I have nothing at all against Mormons. I may disagree with them on individual points of doctrine, but I could say the same about Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, or even other Presbyterians. Honestly, I don’t really care about the whole religion issue.

    My concerns about Romney are primarily things he has said in the past. Like when he said he would guarantee the “right to choose” for all women in Massachusetts. Or when he said in 2008 that he supported the assault rifle ban and would support similar legislation. Or like when he defended the individual mandate (also in 2008). These were not positions that a liberal state legislature forced him to take. These are positions he chose, he staked out, and he defended. There is a complete record of Romney, after his term as governor was over, staking out positions that were very similar to Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank. And if Barney Frank had an R after his name and won the GOP nomination, I still would not vote for him.

  • keven

    An amazing 22% of Americans according to Gallup say they are unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President. This compares to 5% for an African American and 9% for a Jewish person. Yet, this is not going to be an issue in the fall if Romney is the nominee?

    Mitt has never had an interview that I can recall that went in depth about his religion. I can never recall him being asked about the book of Mormon for example. Or ANY other controversial element of the religion.

    He has not been vetted on this topic. He gave one speech 4 years ago. He was vague in that speech. Why are we going to nominate a man that has yet to be tested on this hugely important and potentially fatal topic? Why hasn’t he been forced to discuss this issue anywhere, let alone in a tough environment?

    Do you think he won’t have to during the general election? Do you think the media will consider it a hands off topic? Obama had to answer a few questions about Rev Wright.

    The thing to remember is that Obama had to do a religion quasi-debate with McCain in 2008. He answered about 30 questions on religion. He did fairly well. Will Romney do as well answering that many religious questions?

    Anybody who thinks the topic of religion will be verboden in the fall are fools. Anybody who thinks its a good idea to nominate a candidate without vetting them on their religious views are even dumber.

  • streiff

    that’s a my imitation of a Romney supporter

  • streiff

    Romney and Obama are going to take us to the same exact location, only our handbasket will arrive on time and we’ll get stock options.

  • haners

    Calling him a bigot is a stretch, but a person who uses Mormonism to concern troll is absolutely accurate.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Sure, buddy.

  • Whacker77

    Any talk that Romney’s three point win last night has placed him in the driver’s seat is wrong. Romney faces terrible terrain as he heads into Super Tuesday and beyond. A quick look at the important states up for grab next week indicate Romney could be foundering again one week from today.

    If Santorum wins Ohio, Tennessee, and Oklahoma, Romney will have been dealt a key blow in important primary states. It will be even worse for him if Newt wins in Georgia because it will show Romney doesn’t play in the South. The remaining contests are caucus states and Romney hasn’t excelled in those so far.

    Making matters worse for Romney, the week following Super Tuesday features races in Alabama and Mississippi. If Romney underperforms on Super Tuesday, does anyone really expect him to win in the South? I don’t

    If Romney loses Ohio, Oklahoma, and Tennessee along with one or tow other caucus states, I believe his campaign will be in just as bad of a shape as it would have been had he lost Michigan, but it all depends on Ohio. If Romney wins Ohio, we’re stuck with him, if he loses Ohio and the party panicks, we could still end up with a white knight.

  • streiff

    you realize that, right?

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Romney has to figure out how to win Jacksonians. If he can’t dominate a swath of terrain that runs through TN, OH, WV, VA, and PN, he can’t beat Obama.

  • haners

    Pretty sure a ham sandwich as our nominee can still beat Obama in Oklahoma.

  • Ender

    Mormonism is not a problem for me, but will be a problem for the voters, and we are going to need to waste time to defend him on Mormonism instead of fighting Obama.

    Each excuse is more ridiculous than the previous one. If the above is not the most classic of concern trolling, I don’t know what is.

  • goodgovernance

    The ardent, hard-core Romney supporters are already freaking out and we haven’t even gotten to the general campaign yet. When they realize the independents and swing voters aren’t going to lay down a red carpet in front of Mitt, and carry him on their shoulders into the White House, we’ll once again see the bitter accusations of bigotry.

    Worse yet, because they’ll have convinced themselves stoking bigotry is the key to moving voters, they’ll start to talk up the “Kenyan” attack line again, and when that doesn’t go far enough they’ll stoop to far, far worse. Fight bigotry with more bigotry, will be their unspoken strategy.

    Ugh. Bad enough I may have to vote for Romney. Worse yet I might have to apologize for the manic antics of his supporters.

    Romney may get my vote. But he won’t get one thin dime from me, that’s for sure. I’m getting peppered with emails and letters asking for contributions, and word is he may have to dip into his own personal finances to keep his campaign afloat. But that’s the way it’s going to have to be, Mitt. You got us in this mess, you might as well pay for it, too.

  • Patrish

    There seem to be a lot of disaffected/resentful voters on the board this afternoon. After Romney formally accepts the nomination I suppose there will be an online “wake.”

  • Aaron Gardner

  • Aaron Gardner

    ..

  • keven

    What do you disagree with? Everything I said was accurate.

  • naraht

    1) Obama: Jeremiah Wright or Muslim, take your pick
    2) Romney: Mormon.
    3) Santorum: Catholic and definitely at outspoken conservative end of Catholicism
    4) Gingrich: Lutheran to Southern Baptist and then converted to Catholicism (in 2009)
    5) Paul: Went from Lutheran to Baptist (conversion?) and then whose kids were raised Episcopalian…

  • Ender

    any issue any time… And you don’t have to be a concern troll to do it :) Verb vs noun. I’ve done it before so I know.

  • Ender

    is to ignore Romney’s religion and to call those who raise it as an issue, bigots. Most of the people raising it as an issue during general campaign will be democrats anyways. Turn the bigot charge on them.

    Romney’s religion should not be an issue and could be turned into a positive if he attacks any critic as a bigot – it would be easy to have people from other faiths to come to his defense in a very public way.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I think your head is planted firmly in the sand, but that is probably me just being a bigoted Nazi.

  • Tbone

    Just sayin’.

  • Tbone

    If you criticized Scientology would you care if you were called a bigot?

    How frickin’ dumb are you people?

  • Ender

    but that’s the case with all our possible nominees. They all have plenty of things MSM will bring up. It’s a given. We should be above it and help our candidates overcome that. If we used that as criteria, RS would never want to support Newt or Rick either.

  • Tbone

    And therein lies Romney’s problem.

  • streiff

    this is just lunacy.

    You clowns have already got it to the point where you’re celebrating your man pulling off a 3 point win over RICK SANTORUM in Romney’s home state while losing 59% of the GOP vote.

    You’re calling everyone who points to the obvious fact that Romney’s religion is going to kill him with both orthodox Christian voters and non-religious voters a bigot.

    And now you’re saying that we, the people you are smearing, should help you out.

    It ain’t going to happen.

    I’m close to the point where losing to Obama is a damned small price to pay just to have Romney and his supporters go away.

  • Ender

    most decent people don’t have a problem with Mormons being Mormons. It’s not the Mormon critic’s feelings that I care about, but how it would play out on the national stage. Most decent people would side with a forceful renunciation of the anti-Mormon bigotry.

  • jon11

    where to begin…

    as people who don’t like romney are fond of pointing out, he’s been running for 5 years. He’s been the presumed nominee as far as the WH is concerned from day one, and that hasn’t changed. Dems view everyone in the field BUT romney as an absolute joke.

    Its no secret he’s a mormon. Mormon history on race relations is no secret to anyone either, so if thats the best they got they are going to need to do a lot better.

    I do agree that everyday we’re stuck defending dumb things our candidates say and do is bad day. But nothing sums up the santorum ‘surge’ better, frankly. All we’ve done since he got his little moment in the sun is defend the dumb (whether you agree with them are not, they are dumb politically) things he’s said.

    I don’t think dems are going to want to make too too big of a deal about religion and church. First, i don’t think they want the 20 years obama spent in rev wright’s pew being revisited; and second, he has a hard enough time convincing people he’s even a christian himself. I really don’t think thats something they are going to want to get into.

    Im not saying they won’t try. The left will try anything. Im just saying it won’t matter and/or will backfire.

    Obama is no position to criticize anyone’s faith.

    What troubles me about this is once again we have someone ignoring what is already happening to one of the not romney’s…ie santorum can’t talk about anything important because he’s made so many controversial statements and rush and sean are having to spend all day defending him…keep in mind that is ALREADY HAPPENING with santorum…its not a hypothetical as it is with romeny…we’re already having to waste out time defending him on his stuff.

    But we can’t have romney because the thing that is already happening to santorum MIGHT happen to Romney.

    Look, only four incumbents have been knocked off in the past 100 years so R’s have a tough slog ahead regardless of who we nominate. The media is invested in obama and will be at least as much in the tank for him as they were in 08.

    Where they are really going to hit romney is on his wealth.

    but thats i fight i want to have. I want to have the fight the wealth=theft crowd. I want to see if this country really is that far gone…that a guy who risked capital and made it honest is viewed as the villain next to the community organizer who’s never had a real job.

    Mitt may not win…but none of the other three have a prayer.

    I think the country is sick of obama and when all this dust settles and the american people are presented with a clear choice…and it doesn’t get more stark than obama and romney…the embodiment of the private sector vs the embodiment of the career politician…

    i think Romney pulls it out. I really do.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …nostalgia [and it hasn't even been two months]!

  • Ender

    are obvious to yourself but not to everyone else. That is a bit detrimental to your definition of facts. I appreciate your opinion.

  • Aaron Gardner

    And if you don’t ignore it for Mitt, well then you are worse than Hitler.

    The point is, Romney’s supporters need to learn the difference between a bigot and someone who is trying to make a tactical decision based on what we know will happen.

  • streiff

    the polls back me up on this but as they don’t comport with your world view feel free to ignore them.

    Just don’t use this site to play your silly little smear game. I won’t work.

  • streiff

    this is the stupidest idea that I’ve seen floated in blogging through now my 4th presidential campaign.

    Not only is it reprehensible on its face, not a single media outlet is going to carry it and neither will any of the center-right blogs. They might continued to get blown by NRO but Jennifer Rubin isn’t going to push this in the WaPo. I know for a fact it will never be carried on this site.

  • Ender

    but the excuses against Romney are tenuous due to his general dislike of the man. The people he supported had worse personal flaws that would hurt worse in the general election than Romney’s being a mormon, imo overrated concern.

    What you call a tactical decision to me is simply masking an intense dislike of the candidate because it’s not rational imo.

    I also am well aware of Romney’s many flaws.

  • acat

    After doing a bit of research, I never doubted where Perry stood.

    I still don’t know where Romney stands.

    Mew

  • Ender

    as this is being turned personally against me for defending my candidate. No point in continuing this discussion.

  • Aaron Gardner

    And you wonder why people are getting offended.

    You assume motive and disregard the actual arguments presented.

    That isn’t what I would call rational.

  • widobberman

    As Herman Cain would say, “I don’t have any facts to back this up, but..” I’m positive that significantly more than 22% of Americans would not vote for any Democrat, compared to the 22% saying ‘no’ to any Mormon. So the ‘anti-Mormon’ mythic hurdle is just that, a myth.

    The fact is that most of those that wouldn’t vote for a Mormon are hard-right people in reliably Red States, so Romney losing their votes in a general is not a large concern- they’ll remain Red. We’ve already seen that self-described ‘Evangelicals’ in Nevada, Florida, Arizona and New Hampshire are a very different breed than those in South Carolina. The anti-Mormon bias melted away in those states. And it is the swing states that really matter.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Such foolishness should be mocked.

  • streiff

    try to execute this brilliant “strategy” on this site. I guarantee you you’re going to get the same reception any where but one of the pathetic little Romney sites.

  • keven

    As little as 3 months ago, only 57% of people said they knew Romney was a Mormon. Its still kind of a secret. I am sure a majority of independent voters still do not know.

  • Scope

    This is a classic comment, coming from a temporary/momentary Romney gloater, who is responding to a diary talking about the premier long term disaffected/resentful poster, crying yet again because EE posts the reality of what is coming from the Dems, even before Romney has shown that he can clinch the nomination. One must use a willing suspension of disbelief to even consider that there haven’t been disaffected/resentful voters posting on these boards from the beginning of the election season for one candidate or another. It’s only happening today folks.

    BTW, who will that “online wake” be for Patrish?

  • acat

    Seriously.

    First, it’s “Perry’s dumb” or “Cain’s won fewer elections” …
    Now it’s “Bigot!”

    The way I learned it, a defense means standing your intellectual ground and pointing out the fallacies in the attack, not changing the subject.

    Mew

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Their candidate sucks.

    All they got is “your candidate sucks more”.

    They formed their best arguments on the playground while in 2nd grade during recess.

  • streiff

    you tend to hit yourself in the face a lot

  • Whacker77

    Oklahoma is important because it indicates whether Romney can win primaries in the South.

  • keven

    “”The fact is that most of those that wouldn?t vote for a Mormon are hard-right people in reliably Red States”"

    Actually, the numbers break down as followed…

    Dems-27%
    Ind-19%
    Rep-18%

    And the battlegroud area of the midwest had the highest numbers at 26% saying they were unwilling to vote for a Mormon. Not the south.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx

    The problem is that you are putting yourself in a 22% handicap right off the bat.Its hard to win 50% of 78%. Lets add the we don’t know how high the number might get if the media starts making fun of Mormonism or pointing out their beliefs. The numbers could go down or up.

  • westcoastpatriette

    He would never embarrass us or hurt the cause with his distasteful comments like Santorum does.

  • acat

    I am not, however, willing to speak for Tbone.

    Mew

  • brah

    You hate Romney. He’s not my first choice either. I’d much rather have a Jeb Bush or Bobby Jindal, but they’re not running. But now bringing up Romney’s faith as another potential roadblock to defend, in my opinion, is ridiculous. (But, then again, I’m Mormon.)

    This hatred of yours towards Romney is bordering on an obsession. We will (or at least should) rally around whoever our nominee is. I think your constant negative postings on Romney are making that more and more difficult. You seem determined to help make your prediction of Romney losing badly to Obama in November a reality.

    Hey, it’s your site, do what you like, but I would recommend you leave yourself an opening to rally around our nominee, whoever that may be.

  • renl57

    How many times has RedState insisted that we should choose our candidate without reference to how the Dems would react to the candidate?

    When some of us pointed out Gingrich’s enormous amount of baggage that the Dems could use against him, Erickson and his fans dismissed that with “Oh, the Dems will attack any candidate the GOP nominates.”

    But here is Erickson suddenly “concerned” about how the Dems will attack Romney?

    Give me a break.

    The LAST thing that Romney needs to worry about is Dems attacking his religion. Those attacks would backfire big-time, since the GOP could trot out any number of quotes from Dems that Obama shouldn’t be held accountable for anything said in Reverend Wright’s church.

    The inevitable Dem attack on Romney’s stint at Bain, painting him out as a heartless vulture capitalist, has more traction.

    Especially now that this exact same attack was initiated months ago by Perry and Gingrich.

    I don’t remember Erickson pleading with Perry and Gingrich to stop giving the Dems so much ammo against a probable GOP nominee, do you?

  • renl57

    Erick Erickson should set up a formal meeting with Markos Moulitsas (Daily KOS), and work out a common coordinated plan to keep Romney out of the White House.

    There’s no need for wasteful duplication of effort by these two men, now that RedState and Daily KOS are on the same side on this issue.

  • acat

    Not quite as good as the Smothers Brothers, but still…

    Mew

  • pdawk

    Erickson is definitely using his “concerns” over Romney to essentially justify religion bashing. It is his website and he can do whatever he wants, but the reality is that no one is going to give two rips about Romney’s religion in the general.

    The good news for Romney is that EE has basically played the black cat on whomever he has pushed. As long as he is not for Romney, Miitt should lock up the nomination in the next few weeks.

    Cue the front-pagers with their mock outrage.

  • Tbone

    nt

  • texasref

    for making me laugh out loud with a mouth full of supper.

    Where are we? And why ARE we in this handbasket? LOL

    Mussolini made the trains run on time, too!

  • Bill S

    … that there will be any “rallying”. Voting for the nominee and actively campaigning for them are two different things. I can’t speak for Erick, but I personally have no intention to actively campaign for Romney. I will vote for him, but I will not support him.

  • elayman

    a sworn allegiance to implement an agenda set by the LDS church I don’t see anything bigoted about it. A president bound by his blood oath to put the Mormon platform ahead of the Constitution for instance, should if anything be a bigger issue in the general election than it will likely turn out to be.

  • red_oakster

    A principled conservative Mormon would handle the liberal media just fine, thank you. Mike Lee would do great in Republican presidential promaries. A solid conservative would overcome the religious objections. Romney’s problem with everything is that he is not conservative.

    Romney’s much bigger challenges are things like Romneycare and his clear uneasiness with conservative principles. He is flailing because he comes off as insincere and ungrounded.

    He barely escaped with his life last night in Michigan. Next week is going to be no fun for him. If he starts losing more than he wins, Michigan will have been an ephemeral success. And he is in trouble because conservatives sense that he is not one of them. And an Ohio loss potentially is a huge deal because it would suggest that he’s in trouble in places like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania too.

  • texasref

    :-)

  • tnguy

    because of his religion is not necessarily a bigot, at least not in the way I consider someone a bigot.

    I won’t vote (knowingly) for a muslim. Or a satanist. Or a scientologist. Or a crazy person (~waves at Ron Paul~).

    Some people have issues with the mormon church and for whatever reason, believe that disqualifies Romney from getting their vote. Doesn’t mean they’re evil or even that they hate Romney or mormons. Hugh Hewitt would have multiple anuerisms from that line of thinking.

  • brah

    But, we also shouldn’t constantly tear him down.

  • brah

    :-)

  • acat

    If so, now’s the time….

    If not, then .. what’s your point?

    Mew

  • Patrish

    N/T

  • brah

    that I will vote for whomever the Republican nominee is, because the alternative is much, much worse. Romney has flaws (some big ones), but he also has some big pluses. If you’d rather have a Santorum or Gingrich (both of whom have their pluses and minuses as well), then talk them up, try to sell people on them. Some of the editors seem focused on tearing down Romney, constantly. It’s detrimental in my opinion.

  • clintonformccain

    and committing to not allowing church teachings to interfere with upholding the laws and Constitution of the United States would not make you want to throw up?

  • acat

    in this thread, it’d be considered a threadjack.

    It’d also probably make some heads around here explode, but that’s another story.

    Mew

  • elayman

    I don’t see any legitimate basis on which an oath of obedience to the Church Leadership, or if you prefer, how his faith and high standing in the church informs the way Mitt lives and makes decisions is off limits as a topic in the campaign.
    Keeping it under wraps only fuels prejudice and speculation. Americans have every right to know what guides and motivates the person who is asking them to vote him into most powerful job in the world

  • Ender

    anyone who in a general campaign attacks Romney on being a mormon, bigots. That is not foolishness. It’s one thing not to vote for Romney because he is mormon, but to attack him on that is just morally wrong.

    And I was suggesting it as something to be done if, like Eric says, it will be used against him by the Obama machine. That’s what I was referring to.

    I wasn’t talking about anyone on this site, but it is being insinuated that somehow I did and I am being attacked for it.

    As for attacking someone just for being a mormon, being morally wrong, I will stand by it. Imagine Christians being attacked just for being a Christian. I am sure many here would think it morally wrong. As would I.

  • texasref

    And another thing…At first I read your comment and saw that you said you’re a Mormon and then I saw that you said that Romney isn’t your first choice, and I’m like…egads, can it be? A Mormon red-stater who supports one of the other three candidates in the race?

    But alas and anon, alas and anon, it was not to be. False alarm. He only prefers those (conveniently) not running for president over his compatriot in religion.

    Why is it you people are obsessed with accusing those of us who don’t want Obama-lite with…obsession? I don’t hate Romney. I hate how he will say or do anything to get elected, and I hate how he is utterly lacking in principles whatsoever. But yeah he has a nice wife and kids, so there is that.

  • texasref

    I’m not necessarily agreeing with your premise, just pitching you a query.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    It might be funny.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    how does it differ from Obama ushering in the new Caliphate?

    Sorry, couldn’t resist.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    one scrap of evidence that this is what Mitt Romney has sworn to, or that he has done while in office as governor of MA.

    You kooks are too friggin funny. First, he’s too “liberal” now he’s taking blood oaths to run a theocracy?!

  • brah

    If it makes you feel any better, I supported Perry before he dropped out. But, yeah, my dream candidates would be Bobby Jindal, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Jim Demint…I’d gladly trade those 4 for the 4 we have now. But, I also realize that any of the ones we have now are much better than the alternative. And no, I don’t support Romney because he is Mormon. But I also don’t see it as a detriment that he is Mormon, as apparently many on this site do.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    a Mormon tenet (they call it an “Aticle of Faith”) is:

    “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

    The law doesn’t allow for a theocracy, as you propose.

  • redcal

    It’s not that’s he’s a flip-flopper, although he is. It’s not even his peculiar mix of Rockefeller Republican stances on the issues. It’s not the lack of a guiding philosophy in any area of politics. It’s not his past failures as a politician.

    It’s that he doesn’t seem to care about anything, has zero genuine passion as far as we’ve been able to see, and partially as a result, people don’t like him.

    Most politicians (on the right or the left) have some base of support, some people or ideas that they are looking out for. Mitt doesn’t seem to have any particular allegiance. Not even to the ‘plutocratic 1%’ that the left worries about him helping. Even these people who are donating to his campaign are doing so out of resigned obligation. They suspect that he is running for office out of resigned obligation.

    He looks like a guy applying for a resume-building job that he doesn’t really want but will make his father proud. He psychologically ‘leaks’ this all the time, in gaffes, in the up-and-down performances in debates, etc. People sense two things — entitlement, and a lack of passion — and they don’t see any good coming out of the combination but a confused, listless presidency.

    As Stephen Colbert described his vacant-stadium press conference at Ford Field: “Mitt really connected with those empty seats by also being plastic and uncomfortable”.

  • Patrish

    not allowed on this site per posting rules:http://www.redstate.com/posting-rules/

    7.

    Theories that Barack Obama is not eligible to the Presidency of the United States, or political movements based on that idea. Birthers must post their theories elsewhere.
    8. Generalized attacks on mainstream, peaceful religious beliefs and practices are forbidden. RedState.com is firstly a political website, and is not an appropriate venue for debates on comparative Christianity and Judaism.

    Thanks for your attention.

  • Patrish

    This is what happens when I try to rush against the clock. I am human.

  • brah

    The unwritten rule, the Golden Rule if you will, is: Rules don’t apply to Romney, Mormonism, or Romney supporters.

    You can call them idiots, make up crap about Mormon blood oaths, etc….even on the front page.

  • elayman

    A card carrying Temple Mormon is bound by a blood oath that takes precedent over all civil oaths to obey the Mormon Church and to put the LDS above all else.

    http://www.amazon.com/Can-Mitt-Romney-Serve-Masters/dp/1449712002

    Good details, fabulous documentation and insight/candor from a former Mormon bishop’s daughter. Read it for yourself!

  • acat

    (null)

  • SteveM

    They don’t like Romney. That’s fine. But this kind of stuff doesn’t help their cause much.

  • Creedo

    N/T

  • elayman

    Besides ,Jon is much less traditional than Mitt and in fact characterizes himself on the liberal/progressive/unorthodox end of the Mormon faith tradition, were such a designation officially recognized by the church. The less than half hearted “endorsement” I think was more than anything an effort to counter perceptions/criticisms that he was not a team player perhaps even holding out for a position in a second Obama administration.

  • texasref

    It was for his leadership experience and his ability to unite folks successfully into a strong period of economic growth.

    You got a link to any post where you said you preferred Perry over Romney? Just curious. Then you would have a lot more credibility with me.

    Brah.

    P.S.: You Romneybots are annoying not just because you’re Romneybots, but that you’re botting for him for the wrong reasons, (if there is even a right reason), and to top it all off you deny it! Birds of a feather really do flock together, I guess.

  • texasref

    all Huntsman would have had to do is say that he would support the Republican nominee.

    His lightning-bolt to the Romney camp seemed curiously inexplicable given how Hunstman is, like, conservative and stuff, and given how Romney is, like, not.

    I guess the Shi’ites and the Sunnis CAN play nicely together sometimes.

  • texasref

    Jon Huntsman. A brokered convention result we can all live with.

  • jon11

    Also, Charles Blow of the NYT times recently made a crack about ‘magic underwear” and got quite a bit of heat over it…enough so that he publicly apologized.

    I live in TN and Romney (to my surprise) is running strong here. I wouldn’t be surprised if he wins. People here arn’t that crazy about santorum. Before newt fell off the map everyone was for him but they’ve gone over to santorum reluctantly if at all.

    I really don’t understand Erick’s idea that after winning by 20 in AZ, winning michigan by 3 (but really by 8 if you exclude the UAW thugs who voted for santorum) that Romney is ‘coming into the south weakened.”

    If you think he’s weak i could understand but what is clear is that he’s coming in stronger than he was 2 days ago.

    He’ll win Ohio. You can bet the rent on that. He’ll also win Virginia (obviously as neither newt or santorum made it on the ballot) and he’ll win Mass and Vermont.

    And, as i said, i wouldn’t be surprised if he carries my state…TN. And obviously he wins idaho.

    Newt will almost certainly win georgia.

    im not sure where that leaves santorum. its going to be a rough day for him.

    But this idea that we should nominate an inferior candidate based on the chance that the left will demonize (successfully) Romney’s religion just doesn’t strike me as cogent thinking.

    they are going to have to take harry reid down with them in order to do that.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    I am one of those “card carrying temple Mormons” as well as a High Priest, same as Gov. Romney.

    You, and the “former Mormon Bishop’s daughter,” are both incorrect.

  • elayman

    But I sort of understand since Mitt was so far the front runner at the time not coming out for a longtime rival, even one unfriendly to his moderate brand of conservatism . would have looked like sour grapes or worse. Jon continually maintained throughout the campaign he would support the Republican nominee and was still dogged by questions of his allegiance to country rather the conservative movement, party, or loyalty to Obama that undermined the viability of the campaign more than almost any other factor.

  • brah

    You should have seen him enact his LDS mind control over the state legislature of Massachusetts…what a site to see!

    I must go and psych myself up for another blood letting this Sunday in temple.

  • texasref

    We’ll see on Super Tuesday just how far “off the map” he has supposedly fallen.

    if Romney gets more votes than Gingrich in TN I will eat my hat.

  • vaaztx

    ?that Mitt Romney is just like Bill Henrickson in Season 4 of Big Love and that once he gets elected he’ll reveal his secret plan to legalize plural marriage?

  • vangoghssister

    we aren’t going to call those who attack Romney for being a mormon a bigot. It’s because we, as Conservatives and (for the most part) Christian Conservatives, don’t stoop to using the tactics of the left. Calling people bigots, haters and what have you is what the left does, always, even when there’s no way it actually applies. Of course, since Romney is not a conservative and, ostensibly, you aren’t either you wouldn’t know that.

  • naraht

    While no secret, I seriously doubt that a majority of americans know about Official Declaration 2 or even that it was needed.

  • Robert_Leffingwell

    I think voters today have become way too sophisticated to give any credibility to attacks on a candidates religious beliefs, whether Mormon or Catholic. The lame stream media attacked Obama relentlessly over his religious beliefs (they even tried to portray him as a Muslim) and it didn’t hurt his electability.

    I don’t see anything about being a Mormon that would hurt Romney’s chances. His time as the executive of Massachusetts, now that’s another story.

    As far as who is a Nazi and who’s not a Nazi. It just hurts the party when the argument descends to those levels.

  • naraht

    Since Governor Romney went on his mission in 1966, the version of the Endowment Ceremoney that he first went through is different than the one today.
    The blood oaths were altered/removed in 1990.

  • minister_of_war

    Very good points indeed.

  • minister_of_war

    … since 22% in the Gallup Poll you referenced say they wouldn’t support a Mormon. In fact, due to that 22%, no Mormon in America should ever run again for any office at all. All that Mormons should do is continue to vote Republican at higher rates than any other group forever, but they should never actually run for office themselves. It’s good to have their votes, but it’s not good to have them as actual candidates & elected officials.

    As you mention, the more controversial aspects of Mormonism should be explained constantly by any & all Mormon candidates everywhere in America. It is their duty to let the rest of the country know just how kooky they are & their religion is.

    But of course, this same rule shouldn’t apply to any other candidates… well unless & until their religion reaches the dreaded 22% threshold in the Gallup Poll set by keven for when they should just give up or have to explain everything about their religion at all times & to all people.

  • Ender

    is not just a tactic but a reality. In this case it really applies. I used to say that liberals invented the term “bigot” and I would never use it. Well I still think that every time they use it, it is bunk. But some people just hate others for the wrong and immoral reasons, and I won’t overlook it and let it go unanswered.

  • trickamsterdam

    This would be a really excellent point, if you were running, say, Sen Mike Lee…I certainly would support him w/ everything I had (other than actually volunteering, I’m just a money donation + voting + internet advocate kind of guy…I’m not proud that, but I’ll admit it because it’s the truth, I don’t like meeting new people), and worst case scenario we go out in a Goldwater 1964 blaze of glory.

    But running Romney is like running Colin Powel and then playing the race card when conservatives won’t vote for him just because a bunch of people in NYC and DC decided that he’s the most electable (except in the case of Powell, he actually could get elected, and Romney can’t even do that).

    The truth is, even though people talk about Newt’s divorces even though he’s happily married and it was a long time ago, and even though they talk about birth control, even though Santorum’s just following his own religion and talking about what used to be settled law (States’ rights), we’re not supposed to talk about the fact that Mormonism might cost Romney a decent amount of votes when the MSM surrogates start pounding on it (did you know John King of CNN already openly called Romney “Governor Mormon” and the Washington Post already featured a huge story on a Holocaust hero calling on Mormons to stop baptizing the Holocaust dead? And this is when they don’t even consider Romney a major threat).

    BTW, Mormons are voting for him at like 90% or something, and it’s hard to believe they’d do that in NV or AZ if he were just some random douche liberal from MA. So, in the end, who’s kidding who here?

  • demsaresatanic

    Outstanding.

  • basokla

    Romney will not win Oklahoma next week.

    Obama will not win Oklahoma in November.

    Two of the safest bets in the history of knee-breaking.

  • texastaxpayer

    Did you smoke all your crack or do you have some left over for when you wake up??? Only a liar or a fool would post that, which are you?

  • texastaxpayer

    In 2018 when we finally get to have our primary…. Lol…

  • haners

    nt

  • krish

    Axelrod for sure will point this out in the general elections – he has already indicated that Romney has no core beliefs! Establishment keeps feeding RINOs one after the other!

    Watch out – predicting that 2016 establishment nominee will be one of the politicians who supported Romney — Christie or Tim Pawlenty – one of the RINOs!

  • minister_of_war

    So, because John King accidentally (even purposely) called Romney Governor Mormon, Mormons should be afraid of running for national office? Or because some super liberal Jewish Holocaust survivor wants to make a point about some insignificant issue about Mormonism, Mormons should be afraid to run for higher office? I don’t get where you’re going with this.

    I mean, every religion probably has something that someone else could pretend to find offensive. Just look at the liberal backlash to Santorum saying that Satan is evil. What a horrible thing for Santorum to say! How dare he talk about the Devil in such terms! The Devil is just a poor & misunderstood soul looking for a job & it’s really Bush’s fault that he’s not working right now, but to say that he’s trying to get people to do bad things is just judgmental.

    Anyway, my original point was not to “play the race card”. My point was to show how dumb the point made by keven was. And it was dumb indeed.

    But as I said, maybe keven was right & Mormons should just hide in corners, avoiding the public domain but continuing to vote for Republican candidates in masse as long as they aren’t running for anything themselves.

    Regarding this, the State of Utah is very Mormon. In 2004, Utah voted to reelect George W. Bush for President with 71.54 % of the vote. It must have only been that they voted for Bush because he’s a Mormon. Come to think of it, Huntsman used to be the Governor of Utah. He is a Mormon too. But a poll in Utah showed Huntsman losing the Utah Republican Primary to Mitt Romney by a 71 percent to 13 percent margin as recently as August 11, 2011. There could be any number of excuses for that one, but with the Huntsman family name being as golden as it is in Utah, I’m guessing that voters there must have actually really liked Romney or something.

    Then when we look at what happened in Arizona yesterday, we see that Arizonans only supported Romney because every Republican in every county in Arizona is really a Mormon, including: Gov. Jan Brewer, A.G. Tom Horne & Sen. John McCain – all really secret closet Mormons. Oh wait, it’s because when you add the establishment vote with the Mormon vote, then Romney wins. So, it’s because Romney built an evil coalition of the willing in Arizona yesterday.

  • keven

    The question was not about national office, but about the presidency. As for whether a Mormon should run for President or not, that is their business. But they should realise that they have a handicap and will be facing an uphill battle.

    I personally have no problem that Mitt Romney decided to run for President. The question is can he win and should a party evaluate the Gallup numbers and take it into consideration when picking a nominee. Should the establishment consider the importance of vetting the impact of a candidates religious beliefs when pushing said candidate?.

    I personally would vote for Mike Lee or Jason Chavetz happily for President. Although Chavetz lacks experience. I would contently vote for Oren Hatch for President, unlike others here who hate him. This is not about me however, its about the nearly one quarter of Americans who admit they would not be willing to vote for a Mormon.

    As for the question of whether a candidate for President should tell the voters their views on their religion, yep I think they should at least once be willing to be interviewed on the topic indepth with the difficult questions asked. More importantly then that personal view, I strongly believe the main stream media is going to ask extremely difficult questions about Mitt Romney’s religion whether you, I, or Mitt Romney like it or not. How will he respond? Who knows? Shouldn’t we have an idea before we nominate him? He has hid from the main stream media more then any other candidatre running.

    As for whether he is the exception to the rule, I have seen many candidates questioned about their religious views. As I said, both McCain and Obama had a religious debate. Did you watch that? Should Romney refuse to do such a debate vs Obama? Do you think a Scientologist or Jehovah’s Witness running for President would not be asked about their views on those beliefs? Mitt should not be exempted from religious questions.

    I would have slightly more hope of his eventual electability if he had effectively dealt with this already. He has not.One speech 4 years ago doesn’t cut it.

  • keven

    I never said Mormons should hide in corners or never run for President. Stop lying about what I said.

  • goodgovernance

    A couple weeks ago when Romney was down in the polls, there was chatter among the pundits about what Romney should do to improve his connection with the voters.

    A lot of people said, “Romney should talk about why he really wants to be president.” Really? Like any of his advisors didn’t think of that basic bit of campaign advice before?

    Romney really can’t talk about why he wants to be president, because there’s nothing grand or patriotic about his vision. Wanting to be president to make your dad proud, or to complete your dad’s unfinished legacy, isn’t an ignoble motivating factor, but it’s certainly not a cause that’s going to resonate with the public, because it has nothing to do with the national good.

  • texasref

    because if he can’t outperform Romney in TN then this country is farther along down the road to ruin than I thought.

  • texasref

    in Order of the Arrow, but Im young enough that by the time I got to do it, they just marked our hands with a red meat wrapping paper marker….LAME

  • texasref

    it’s kinda gettin old!

  • Martin Knight

    texastaxpayer is right; you must be on crack.

  • SoFiMil

    .

  • Ender
  • redcal

    And I say this as someone who works in so-called ‘high’ finance. It’s an area that is highly quantitative, highly profit-driven, not especially driven by vision or an externalizable passion. People are passionate, sure, but not in a way that leads others (the drive is more through competition than collaboration).

    Politics is ALL about leadership and collaboration.

    Now, entrepreneurs are (conversely) great at leadership and vision. Think Steve Jobs or Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg. These kinds of people would do quite well in politics because they have been proven to have an infectious passion that drew thousands of other people to their cause when things looked risky.

    That’s simply not true in finance, whether it’s PE (private equity), VC, HF, etc. Mitt Romney didn’t have to be great at drawing people to a risky cause at Bain Capital — Bill Bain funded it, and people at Bain knew that Romney was cautious (to a fault) and had negotiated for a fairly high baseline if Bain Capital failed and he had to return to Bain Consulting. Just consider the most successful individual in the history of modern finance — Warren Buffett. We may love his shareholder letters, but do you know what his passion is, besides making money? Probably not; I certainly don’t, and I’ve read all of his bios. These people may all be geniuses — and I am surrounded by many — but they don’t have a broad vision. Their vision is narrow and focused by definition, and that simply doesn’t connect with large numbers of people.

    Now, the only problem with the great entrepreneurs is that, while they have fantastic leadership/collaboration skills, they tend to also have somewhat contrarian views (which led to their outsized, unique success in the first place). You’d need someone who had both the passion and leadership as well as enough emotional intelligence to temper their views, make it palatable to one of the two mainstream parties. That’s a very rare combination.

    The list of businessperson political failures is as long as you want it to be – I can easily give you 4 from just my state alone: Bill Simon (CA gov, 2002), Meg Whitman (CA gov, 2010), Carly Fiorina (CA senator, 2010), Al Checchi (CA gov, 1998).

    The only notable success (that I can think of) is Mayor Mike Bloomberg, who was a true entrepreneur (more than a pure finance guy), and someone who actually did claw his way up with his eponymous terminals. And even with a net worth of 20B, the mayor still can’t pull the trigger on a presidential campaign because all of his consultants tell him he would be an irrelevant spoiler.

  • papayapicker

    Maybe Romney should just point out that he is a member of the same Church as Harry Reid, Tom Udall, Jim Matheson and Eni Faleomavaega, all DEMOCRATS. After all, he likes a lot of the same things they do.

  • papayapicker

    where that 25% that won’t vote for a Mormon hails from. Here is a list of people besides Harry Reid (Nevada) who are currently serving at the federal level:
    Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, elected in 1998.

    Newly elected Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.

    Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, elected in 2008.

    LDS members of the U.S. House

    Latter-day Saints serving in the U.S. House of Representatives include:

    Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, elected in 2002.
    Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, elected in 2008.
    Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., elected in 2000.
    Rep. Dean Heller, R-Nevada, elected in 2006.
    Rep. Wally Herger, R-Calif., elected in 1986.
    Newly elected Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.
    Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, elected in 2000.
    Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., elected in 1992.
    Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, elected in 1998.
    Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa

    WHAT??? TWO from California???

  • papayapicker

    other than Jewish do you know who have had an extermination order put out against them?

  • papayapicker

    attacking Mormons is “Christians being attacked just for being Christians.”

  • papayapicker

    I’m a Mormon who won’t vote Romney in my state primary because he’s a bit like Nancy Pelosi. He’ll use hi religion when it’s convenient and leave it behind when it’s not.

  • Ann_W

    nt

  • texasref

    nt

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Romney’s Mormon background is a ZERO, sip, nada, non-issue.

    Will the media and Dems raise it – if it helps them? EE is RIGHT to say the Democrats will go there. Yes. but then they would lie about Republicans wanting to kill granny, if it gets them votes.

    So what of it?

    He is WRONG to say that it shows Romney is weak … bzzzt. This is a lame and sorry attack that shows the Democrats to be utter hypocrites who think their own lies about evangelicals as bigots is true.

    Prove them wrong. Make it a nonissue. Move on.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    what is there to ‘vet’? He’s been in about 80 debates this go around and many questions touched on faith, religion, 1st amendment, values, family, etc.

    He’s running for President, not for pastor.

    Romney is beating Obama in latest head-to-head polling, so its obviously not fatal in any real way.

  • trickamsterdam

    I’m glad you asked, because your response was serious enough that this may get through to you, and these are important points. Even if they don’t get through to you, they may to other people. However, I am going to type it quick, because I’ve gotta go pick up my pizza (in ten minutes).

    Romney being inevitable (in the R primaries and caucuses) and electable (in the General election) are the centerpiece of his campaign.

    In other words if you were going to go to the pure center of what each candidate is selling to the R primary voters it would be:

    Romney – Electable, the ability to beat Obama. Also, since I’m going to win the Primary anyway, let’s end that now so we can concentrate our resources on Obama.

    Newt – Second most accomplished Conservative at the Fed level in the past thirty years. Balanced budgets and prosperity, which we can have again if we trust me. You’ll never have to worry when I debate Obama or the press that they’ll make me look like a fool, because I’m ready for them and him., as you’ve seen w/ my debates and interviews.

    Santorum – Social issues. A working-class hero is something to be. I don’t have any money and I’m competing so when I have money I can beat Obama. I believe in myself, otherwise why else would I be in the Race this long? So you believe in me too.

    Paul – Radical change, which will please both the Left and the Right. Don’t be afraid of me. What we’ve tried for the last 50 years hasn’t worked, so what’s there to be afraid of? I can win by appealing to the sorts of people that don’t vote (so crazy it just might work, any way I’m better than Bush).

    So as you see there, Romney’s the one who deals w/ ideas and actual resume the least, other than Paul. Except in the sense of talking about something as vacuous as how he’s a “turn around specialist”, as if that has anything to do w/ convincing people who don’t work for you to fix Entitlements.

    So, you see, anything that goes to Romney’s electability goes to his central issue for running (i.e., I can beat Obama, and then be at least a competent manager). That’s why I talk about his “electability” so much. It would be the same as questioning Paul hard on the Gold Standard.

    That’s also why Mike Lee was the example I used. You nominate Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and you know they may lose…but winning isn’t the main thing they’re selling.

    If a guy sells his ability to win (like Romney)…and then you feel he can’t win…what’s left?

    That’s the point.

    BTW, it’s largely a Character Issue w/Romney more than a liberalism issue, w/ a lot of us. We’d support a Huntsman or a Christie in the General. But Romney’s character issues w/ pathological lying and border-line socipathy w/ his Irish Setter (man-on-dog-on-roof…or is that “ruff” (dog bark) instead of roof?) make his issues in many ways not a lot different than Cain’s.

    Also, this:

    “But a poll in Utah showed Huntsman losing the Utah Republican Primary to Mitt Romney by a 71 percent to 13 percent margin as recently as August 11, 2011.” – minister of war

    Was probably the wrong decision. But then, until Romney did the (literally) 99.99% negative ads on a conservative hero in FL (a mind-blowing statement of how intellectually and morally bankrupt he is), in a winner take all state (so it didn’t matter whether he won by five points or fifteen), when he should’ve known he’d need Newt’s voters, later, I didn’t realize he was that dumb either. So everyone makes mistakes, LOL.

    PS – Romney Delenda Est