Mitt Romney for President, MyManMitt.com
About Us
Contact Us
Donate to Mitt Romney Campaign

Mitt Romney on the Issues
Videos Mitt Romney
Help Mitt Romney




Saturday, August 18, 2007
posted by Anonymous | 2:47 PM | permalink
One debate has finally ended. Or it should now. Mitt Romney is the only candidate for the protection of traditional marriage.

Romney, of course, has been fighting for the FMA for some time as part of his larger effort regarding MA's Supreme Council's incorrect decision in Goodridge.

The positions of the other candidates have now been rounded out in this regard:

From the Thompson camp:
"Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."

McCain and Giuliani also oppose.

Why? Usually they point to federalism, claiming that it should be left up to the states to decide. After all, they say, aren't we upset about judges imposing their will on everybody else? Isn't this the same thing? The answer is: absolutely not.

The reason we get so upset about judges creating new law with the Constitution is because the proper way to create such law is have a Constitutional amendment. When a people, who are sovereign, undertake to organize themselves into a society, they have the ability to decide how they will be governed. In our case, we developed a social contract known as the Constitution. We agreed to be bound by it. We agreed on methods of changing it. No where did we agree to have it changed by judges.

We also agreed on an allocation of powers between the federal government and the states (AKA federalism). The authority for this allocation rests in the Constitution and it can be changed by the very process that we agreed on in that document itself. There is no other independent authority for that allocation other than arguments of policy.

To hide behind federalism when talking about a constitutional amendment is simply silly. It is the same as arguing that no amendment to the Constitution should ever be passed because that's not the way we originally set it up. If we had set it up as an unchangeable document, it would have never passed in the first place.

So, the real debate is whether or not the sovereign people of our country should pass an amendment protecting marriage. The arguments for protecting marriage as a social institution that is primarily for the purpose of protecting children and that seeks to secure the emotional and financial bonds of a mother and a father to their children are extensive. My purpose is not to elucidate them here.

Mitt Romney has also explained the need for a federal approach:
"Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary."

You may disagree. No worries. But if you think that the country should stick with traditional marriage, Mitt Romney is your only choice.

Thanks to Evangelicals for Mitt for the heads up.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:The Only Candidate
  • DiggThe Only Candidate
  • Fark:The Only Candidate
  • Furl:The Only Candidate
  • Ma.gnolia:The Only Candidate
  • Netscape:The Only Candidate
  • NewsVine:The Only Candidate
  • Reddit:The Only Candidate
  • Slashdot:The Only Candidate
  • StumbleUpon:The Only Candidate
  • TailRank:The Only Candidate
  • Technorati:The Only Candidate
  • YahooMyWeb:The Only Candidate

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



Friday, August 17, 2007
posted by Scott Allan | 10:31 PM | permalink
Michelle Malkin interviewed Mitt on her Hot Air site.

Part 1:


Part 2:


Scott Allan

Labels: , ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • DiggMichelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • Fark:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • Furl:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • Ma.gnolia:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • Netscape:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • NewsVine:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • Reddit:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • Slashdot:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • StumbleUpon:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • TailRank:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • Technorati:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt
  • YahooMyWeb:Michelle Malkin Interviews Mitt

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Anonymous | 7:31 PM | permalink
Romney has been holding a slight bump in the Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Polling History following his Iowa straw poll victory. Consistent with the recent USA Today poll. Now, in double digits, Romney is in third place nationally. This is all with the little bit of news coverage from the Ames Straw Poll. Imagine what winning a few states like say, Iowa, Nevada, and new Hampshire, all in a row, might do for national numbers.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:National Poll Increase
  • DiggNational Poll Increase
  • Fark:National Poll Increase
  • Furl:National Poll Increase
  • Ma.gnolia:National Poll Increase
  • Netscape:National Poll Increase
  • NewsVine:National Poll Increase
  • Reddit:National Poll Increase
  • Slashdot:National Poll Increase
  • StumbleUpon:National Poll Increase
  • TailRank:National Poll Increase
  • Technorati:National Poll Increase
  • YahooMyWeb:National Poll Increase

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 4:30 PM | permalink
"In the latest survey by the Reno Gazette-Journal, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gained 24 points to capture the lead from former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani," reports KRNV-TV out of Reno. Here are the results:
Republicans:
Romney 28 (+24 vs. 3/12 poll)
Thompson 18 (n/a)
Giuliani 18 (-20)
McCain 8 (-10)
Gingrich 4 (-9)
Huckabee 2 (n/a)

That makes 3 out of the first 6 states that Romney has a lead in right now (Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The other three are South Carolina, Florida, and Wyoming). No word of any polls out in Wyoming, but Romney has made steady progress in both South Carolina (within 5% of the lead) and Florida (+2 in the last two Rasmussen polls).

Labels: ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Nevada for Romney
  • DiggNevada for Romney
  • Fark:Nevada for Romney
  • Furl:Nevada for Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:Nevada for Romney
  • Netscape:Nevada for Romney
  • NewsVine:Nevada for Romney
  • Reddit:Nevada for Romney
  • Slashdot:Nevada for Romney
  • StumbleUpon:Nevada for Romney
  • TailRank:Nevada for Romney
  • Technorati:Nevada for Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:Nevada for Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


Don't forget about Michigan! They're thinking about pushing their primary up to Jan. 29 (the same day as Florida's). If they do, I expect that to be another big win for Mitt.



Somebody forgot to tell the folks in Nevada the results of Ames Straw Poll aren't important.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 4:05 PM | permalink
...on the Romney investment story here.

A tease:

The article's subtitle, of course, tells the story: "Campaign Insists Investments Are in Blind Trust Only." The word "insists" is a kind of code: journalists use it to suggest that the victim's "insistence" must be untrue. Here, though, there is no question about the fact that Romney's fortune--legitimately earned, as opposed to, say, John ("Fortunate Husband") Kerry's--is invested in a blind trust. This means not only that Mitt Romney doesn't control where his money is invested, he doesn't even know where it is invested. That is the whole idea: when a politician doesn't know where his money is invested, he can't be accused of taking one action or another to further his own economic interests. Which is, in any event, a silly idea when speaking of someone like Romney, one of the ten or twenty most successful businessmen in the United States.

Labels: , ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Powerline's take...
  • DiggPowerline's take...
  • Fark:Powerline's take...
  • Furl:Powerline's take...
  • Ma.gnolia:Powerline's take...
  • Netscape:Powerline's take...
  • NewsVine:Powerline's take...
  • Reddit:Powerline's take...
  • Slashdot:Powerline's take...
  • StumbleUpon:Powerline's take...
  • TailRank:Powerline's take...
  • Technorati:Powerline's take...
  • YahooMyWeb:Powerline's take...

Technorati Tags: |
 
1 Comments:


Hey People! Bill O'Reilly is conducting a poll, go there and vote for Mitt!

http://www.billoreilly.com




Thursday, August 16, 2007
posted by jason | 9:23 PM | permalink
I just got back from the Illinois Straw Poll, here are the results:

1. Mitt Romney -- 40.35%
2. Fred Thompson -- 19.96%
3. Ron Paul -- 18.87%
4. Rudy Giuliani -- 11.61%
5. John McCain -- 4.12%
6. Mike Huckabee -- 3.04%
7. Sam Brownback -- 1.08%
8. Duncan Hunter -- .65%
9. Tom Tancredo -- .33%

I have no idea of the number of votes cast although I would guess the total number of people at the picnic was 3-400. It was pouring rain, so I am sure this could account partially for the low attendance. It was at the Illinois State Fair, and the fairgrounds were empty. To his credit, Craig Romney stood out in the pouring rain and welcomed visitors and voters to the picnic, and I have a good interview of that.

While there I had the chance to meet Race42008 commenter "Bjalder" and family. I will have some videos up of the event tomorrow over at www.illinoisreview.com. I will post a couple interviews here that I did of Ron Paul supporters. It takes a while to download.

Now one point to make. I am 100% positive the Fred's campaign tried to organize for this. It didn't work. And McCain had a terrible showing, of course, not as bad as Tancredo, but still pretty bad.

Andy Mckenna, State GOP Chair had this to say:



"Congratulations to Mitt Romney, whose strong showing today indicates he has begun to put together a strong statewide organization. There's no question that Illinois' demographics closely match those of the United States and this could be an indication as to whom Illinois voters are leaning toward this coming February."
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • DiggIllinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • Fark:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • Furl:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • Ma.gnolia:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • Netscape:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • NewsVine:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • Reddit:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • Slashdot:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • StumbleUpon:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • TailRank:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • Technorati:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll
  • YahooMyWeb:Illinois State GOP Straw Poll

Technorati Tags: |
 
10 Comments:


Cue the Mitt "Bought" this straw poll comments from the ignorati in 10,9,8,7,6,.....



Better be looking behind you brutha and fellow citizen...Ron Paul's momentum is growing...enjoy your victories while they last. However, congratulations and may the best man win :P



This was taken at the state fair, so I wonder how many people from the more metro areas of Illinois were there? Still, a win is a win!



Mitt had the percentage but and American Hero, Ron Paul, had the glory. In spite of the major media blackout on Ron Paul, his mometum is staggering. Freedom, Liberty and going back to what some people call an antiquated document, the Constitution, is a message of avalanche proportions. Dr. No had a big YES from Illinois.

Larry Friend
niidji@mchsi.com
Virginia MN



Ron Paul got 174 votes.
-----
Not really a rEVOLution, now is it.



An important thing to note is that a large percentage of voters for Mitt Romney were local leaders and organizers. Hmm, do I smell a Romney victory in Illinois?



The Ames victory is starting to grab the attention of the rest of the country!

Bill O'Reilly is conducting a poll, go there and vote for Mitt!

http://www.billoreilly.com



First of all, I have to give props to Ron Paul fans for being the ultimate optimists. That being said, if a baseball player goes from hitting .030 to .100, it's a little better, but it's still a slump.

In addition, I am pretty fed up with the constitution and freedom mantra on Ron Paullites - as if to say that those who do not vote for Ron Paul do not believe in either the constitution or freedom. What a ridiculous stance to take.



Who ya gonna call...RON PAUL.!!!!
If Your Lookin For SH*T..Vote MITT!
Ron Paul For President!!!!!!
Roger



More classy Ron Paul supporters. Paul should be embarrassed.




Wednesday, August 15, 2007
posted by jason | 10:53 PM | permalink
Or so says Lowry.

First, there’s the negativity of his campaign. I don’t have any problem with negative campaigning and there’s obviously nothing wrong with Christians engaging in political and intellectual combat, but the spectacle of such a self-consciously Christian candidate running perhaps the most negative of any of the campaigns is jarring and discomfiting.


I couldn't have said it better myself.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Go Home Brownback!
  • DiggGo Home Brownback!
  • Fark:Go Home Brownback!
  • Furl:Go Home Brownback!
  • Ma.gnolia:Go Home Brownback!
  • Netscape:Go Home Brownback!
  • NewsVine:Go Home Brownback!
  • Reddit:Go Home Brownback!
  • Slashdot:Go Home Brownback!
  • StumbleUpon:Go Home Brownback!
  • TailRank:Go Home Brownback!
  • Technorati:Go Home Brownback!
  • YahooMyWeb:Go Home Brownback!

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


You can say that again :`)



After looking into his positions, I am convinced now that Mitt Romney is the best choice as president in 2008. I will do what I can here in Ohio to get him elected. Thanks for the updates on the campaign.




posted by jason | 10:47 PM | permalink
Or so says Lowry.

First, there’s the negativity of his campaign. I don’t have any problem with negative campaigning and there’s obviously nothing wrong with Christians engaging in political and intellectual combat, but the spectacle of such a self-consciously Christian candidate running perhaps the most negative of any of the campaigns is jarring and discomfiting.


I couldn't have said it better myself.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Go Home Brownback
  • DiggGo Home Brownback
  • Fark:Go Home Brownback
  • Furl:Go Home Brownback
  • Ma.gnolia:Go Home Brownback
  • Netscape:Go Home Brownback
  • NewsVine:Go Home Brownback
  • Reddit:Go Home Brownback
  • Slashdot:Go Home Brownback
  • StumbleUpon:Go Home Brownback
  • TailRank:Go Home Brownback
  • Technorati:Go Home Brownback
  • YahooMyWeb:Go Home Brownback

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 5:48 PM | permalink
Rich Lowry gives the heads up on a new South Carolina poll showing Romney making a move there.
Public Policy Polling Republican South Carolina Primary
Thompson - 22%
Giuliani - 18%
Romney - 17%
McCain - 11%
Huckabee - 7%
Brownback - 3%
Paul - 2%

Survey was done August 13 of 749 likely primary voters, and has an MoE of 3.6%.

I can’t vouch for the methods and accuracy of the poll, but it seems South Carlolinians didn’t realize they weren’t supposed to pay any attention to Iowa Straw Poll headlines. Also, Romney was ticking up a bit nationally prior to the straw poll.

For those not following the South Carolina polls (and I can't blame you for that), Romney's numbers have generally followed his national numbers, hovering around 10% on average. RCP had his average at 7.3% in South Carolina. This new poll shows a marked improvement and possibly a sign of good things to come. This also follows a national trend showing that has Romney ticking upward. The last three polls (Rasmussen, Quinipiac, and ARG) show Romney surging consistently if not spectacularly.

Justin has been the best at explaining all the horserace stuff and nuts and bolts of politicing, but it seems like Romney's old school strategy is working. South Carolina, Florida, and other states that other Republican candidates have been banking on look like Iowa and New Hampshire of a couple of months ago. Now, with the early winning, consistently spectacular debate performances, and grassroots organization, Romney is poised to take the lead in those states. Also, for all the grief that pundits gave Romney for his investment in Ames (even with a solid win), it too seems to be paying off, as Lowry seems to have noted.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • DiggRomney moving up in the SC?
  • Fark:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • Furl:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • Ma.gnolia:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • Netscape:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • NewsVine:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • Reddit:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • Slashdot:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • StumbleUpon:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • TailRank:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • Technorati:Romney moving up in the SC?
  • YahooMyWeb:Romney moving up in the SC?

Technorati Tags: |
 
10 Comments:


I knew that it was only a matter of time before my comments were thrown into the circular file. Fear not the truth will come out on Gov. Romney. Mitt needs to fess up on the abortion issue too. He needs to say "Yes I used to be pro-abortion. I know my stand on abortion probably caused thousands of Mormon girls to abort their babies. I was wrong."
Now do you think Mitt is going to make this admission? Nope, me either. His previous stand on abortion is going to hang around his neck like a 3 day old dead fish. Mitt has a record and we are going to make sure the American electorate knows all about it. Go ahead and delete this post too.



Hey Mitt hits the fan,

Logic and factual evidence are the best way to make people believe in your cause. Not making ridiculous statements like Mitt caused 1000s of Mormon girls to abort their babies.

Odd that Mitt would do that, considering he probably has never been an ecclesiastical leader for a 1000 pregnant young Mormon girls.

Why don't you post some new evidence that apparently the 18% of likely primary voters in 'conservative' South Carolina that would vote for Mitt in the primary have not seen.

Same old stupid arguments, same old non-factual data behind ridiculous claims.



Hey MHTF,

Why would Jason delete your comments? You sound like a complete nut job and the way you present your positions makes Mitt look even better to rational people.

Keep up the good work.



Sorry, troll visiting hours ended at 7:00.



Fess up on the abortion issue? Have you been following politics? Romney has been very open about how he used to be pro-choice. Heck, he even said so in this last debate.



Mitt Fan guy,

You are more than welcome to post here if you can stay of the knocking others religion. It doesn't matter if it's more LDS, Hindu, Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Shinto, Sikh, Muslim, Buddhism, Scientology, etc.

We just don't want it here.

Anything else is fine, because it seems you basically prove our point for us.



---
Pro-choice and chosing to follow the laws of a state are totally different things. There are lots of pfo-life leaders and legislators who follow the rule of law in their state.
----All current Republican Presidential candidates who are in a posititon to lead or legislate FOLLOW the law of the land including legal abortions.
------
There are some, like Ron Paul, who vote AGAINST bills that would make it illegal to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion.
-----
Mitt Romney has NEVER vetoed a pro-life or absistence education bill.
NEVER.
----
So Mitt Romney has a BETTER pro-life LEADER than Dr. Ron Paul.
----
Mitt Romney came under fire for being "cruel" when advising a young girl that abortion was not an option she should consider.
This story is on the Internet in different places, check it out for yourself.
-



McFan,

You're unreal, buddy. Bordering on complete lunatic. Provide some data. Make compelling arguments. All you do now is provide wonderful target practice for even the inexperienced. What an unfortunate lightweight!
-
Mitt's record is clear. He's the only one who's been forthright about the positions he's changed.
-
He admits to being wrong. Do you watch the debates? You can write, but can you see or read? You've missed a lot, it appears.
-
You're mention of LDS girls is ludicrous, though consistent with your style and approach.



Yes I used to be pro-abortion. I know my stand on abortion probably caused thousands of Mormon girls to abort their babies."

Not a chance. The Governor always thought abortion was wrong and always opposed it, though unfortunately he took the easy way out in Massachussetts of saying that he wouldn't impose his beliefs on others.



And he drove all the youth to alcoholism because he didn't bring in prohibition. :S




posted by Kyle Hampton | 1:12 PM | permalink
  • From abortion to nuclear pork projects, Thompson's lobbying record leaves much to be desired for conservatives. Kenneth Vogel over at the Politico has the extensive details on the nuclear blemish on Thompson's bona fides.

  • "It sounds like an effort by Giuliani to make himself seem like a hawk on immigration when, in fact, he's been a dove all along," the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Krikorian, said. More here.

Labels: , , ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:News Round-up
  • DiggNews Round-up
  • Fark:News Round-up
  • Furl:News Round-up
  • Ma.gnolia:News Round-up
  • Netscape:News Round-up
  • NewsVine:News Round-up
  • Reddit:News Round-up
  • Slashdot:News Round-up
  • StumbleUpon:News Round-up
  • TailRank:News Round-up
  • Technorati:News Round-up
  • YahooMyWeb:News Round-up

Technorati Tags: |
 
6 Comments:


Fred! is the "anybody but the Mormon" candidate and those who bought into the hype are starting to have a little buyer's remorse.
I know two Fred! supporters and one has already given up on him and the other is only luke warm about him now.



Ya gotta love ol' Mitt when he compares the campaign work that his sons are doing to the way our troops are defending this great country. Nice Mitt, Really nice. Everyone of those Romney boys were multi-millionaires the day they were born. Yet Mitt has the gall to compare them with men and women who have given their lives in defense of this country. They should make a movie about those Romney boys, maybe call it "Full Dinner Jacket."



10000 to 1 odds say you just read an article on politico... and didn't watch the clip yourself. No such comparison is mad.

Get a life, or at least move on to your next lame issue.



Here is the word for word quote from Gov. Romney "It's remarkable how we can show our support for our nation, and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I'd be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country"
How is "helping him get elected" being of service to this great country? Please explain this. That comment by Mitt is a slap in the face to every man or woman wearing the uniform. That takes alot of nerve to compare riding around Iowa in the family air conditioned Winnebago to our troops in Iraq riding around in armoured vehicles dodging road side bombs. Mitt needs to apologize and he needs to do it now or it will be another dead fish around his neck.



Fan Hitter
---
I dare you to tell us who you support for POTUS.
---
Are you ashamed of the person you support?



FanHitter-


As usual, you prove to be an uncommon ignoramous, demanding an apology that was already given. Mitt apologized for that statement a day or two after he said it. When asked about it in a subsequent interview he said it was inappropriate and that what his sons were doing was not in any way comparable to the men and women serving our country in uniform.


Mitt's comparison was off, but he recognized it. He also said something important that many trolls overlook: we have a volunteer army.




Tuesday, August 14, 2007
posted by jason | 11:01 PM | permalink
I just thought people would enjoy this. Grappelli has been a favorite of mine ever since my Beatnik uncle gave me a tape of him when I was 10.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Nothing To do With Romney
  • DiggNothing To do With Romney
  • Fark:Nothing To do With Romney
  • Furl:Nothing To do With Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:Nothing To do With Romney
  • Netscape:Nothing To do With Romney
  • NewsVine:Nothing To do With Romney
  • Reddit:Nothing To do With Romney
  • Slashdot:Nothing To do With Romney
  • StumbleUpon:Nothing To do With Romney
  • TailRank:Nothing To do With Romney
  • Technorati:Nothing To do With Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:Nothing To do With Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


This comment does relate to Romney:
Check out the latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll. here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history Thompson is falling, Giuliani is stagnant, Romney is rising and McCain is DOA. I have been eagerly waiting for Romney to break through in the national polls. It looks like Ames was worth his investment.



Nothing to do with Mitt?!?

Actually, it had a lot to do with Mitt, in my opinion.

The joy I felt and the smile that the music put on my face were very similar to what I feel when I see and hear my favorite candidate and the future President of the United States -- Mitt Romney!




posted by Kyle Hampton | 8:29 PM | permalink
Apparently that's what Chris Matthews thinks:
During an interview with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, host Chris Matthews said: "Let me ask you about [Republican presidential candidate] Mitt Romney. You know, I watched him on the [NBC] Today show this morning. He looks like a million bucks. Everything is perfect. Everything about him is perfect." As examples, Matthews cited Romney's "look," his "manner," and his "shirt," with "never rolled-up sleeves" and "the tie always tied," and asked: "That perfection -- is that the Republican Party of the 21st century? Is that what we're looking for, the perfect efficiency expert?"

(hat tip: Media Matters)

Labels: ,

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • DiggThe Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • Fark:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • Furl:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • Netscape:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • NewsVine:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • Reddit:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • Slashdot:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • StumbleUpon:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • TailRank:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • Technorati:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:The Perfect Candidate: Mitt Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
2 Comments:


It sounds to me that Chris M. has a man-crush on Mitt. Look out Mitt!



Yet another immature comment from one of the Anonymous sisters.
Hey, do you have Pricnce Albert in can? Hehehehe




posted by Kyle Hampton | 2:51 PM | permalink
A couple of thoughts from my perusal of NRO's blogs:

First, Mitt was out in front on calling out Sen. Obama's foreign policy gaffes. His line from the last debate should be repeated as a conservative mantra on exactly why Obama should not become president. That was before the latest word. Jim Geraghty sees it as a campaign killer:

When I first saw the comment on Instapundit, I thought it was an Obama aide who made an astoundingly boneheaded assessement of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. But no, it turns out it was the candidate himself:

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

Ahem.

That's it. Too many foreign policy gaffes in too short a time. Goodnight, Senator Obama. Thanks for playing.


Victor Davis Hanson, my favorite public intellectual and expert on all things foreign policy, said this:

Sen. Obama's remarks on foreign policy sound like, well, someone who just a few months ago was a local official of some sort.

In the case of Obama, one or two more of such pronouncements will either ensure Clinton the nomination (and that he is not on the ticket), or make him painfully aware that anything he says extemporaneously about foreign policy will be a disaster, and therefore he won't say anything.

We can only hope that Democrats nominate such a novice. Mitt would have no trouble dismantling him in the general election.


Second, Jonah Goldberg links to First Read's ruminations about the changed caucus date for Iowa:

Flying Blind: NBC/WSJ pollster Peter Hart (D) tells First Read that the revision of the primary calendar -- moving Iowa forward to the first few days in January -- is really the most important political event that has happened in the past few months. From his point of view, it changes the entire rhythm of the political cycle in a way that cannot be fully appreciated, maybe not until after the nominating contests are over. Hart says it would be interesting to re-play many of the past caucuses if they were held on January 5th or 7th; his guess is that Dean would have won in 2004, and that Reagan would have defeated Bush in 1980. Perhaps most significant of all is that no one will know who's up and who's down right before Iowa. No self-respecting polling company, he says, does polling between the 20th and 25th of December. So we very well might have no idea how Iowa will break until after the results are in. If Hart's right and the leader before Christmas is the leader on Caucus day, does that make the window between Thanksgiving and December 20 the three most important three weeks of the primary campaign?

Right now, moving up the calender helps Mitt. It emphasizes the need to win early and often, which Mitt has done. It also shortens the calender and makes it more difficult for others to take his lead. For some that will mean too little, too late - I'm looking your way Fred Thompson and Mike Huckabee.

I've argued before that the long campaign season has and will continue to help Mitt. He entered the race a virtual unknown. Through consistent campaigning efforts, increased numbers of visible debates (where he consistently stood out), and persistent media exposure (and perhaps a small helping from grassroots blogs like this humble one), Mitt has gained a level of name recognition where he can effectively spread his message and run an effective campaign. Thus, the long campaign season helped Mitt.

However, that campaign season is coming to a close shortly. According to First Read, the remaining time to make a move before Iowa is essentially four months. That favors Mitt, now the front-runner, who is unlikely to suffer voter fatigue from over-exposure and has the organization in place to maintain and build on his lead.

Not that we should be complacent and rest while ahead. So get out there and argue Mitt's case to all the people you can.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Variations on an NRO theme
  • DiggVariations on an NRO theme
  • Fark:Variations on an NRO theme
  • Furl:Variations on an NRO theme
  • Ma.gnolia:Variations on an NRO theme
  • Netscape:Variations on an NRO theme
  • NewsVine:Variations on an NRO theme
  • Reddit:Variations on an NRO theme
  • Slashdot:Variations on an NRO theme
  • StumbleUpon:Variations on an NRO theme
  • TailRank:Variations on an NRO theme
  • Technorati:Variations on an NRO theme
  • YahooMyWeb:Variations on an NRO theme

Technorati Tags: |
 
3 Comments:


Obama will soon be a non factor. He will not be anyones opposing candidate other than St. Hillary's. The Republican candidate will be running against Bill & Hillary Clinton. You are going to be seeing more of Bill than Hillary. Bill will start shaking his thumb in front of the camera and say, "I gonna be right there in the Oval Office with my wife and make sure she makes all of the right decisions." This election is over before it begins. You are going to get 8 more years of Bill Clinton and the voting public cant wait till he takes office again. Just remember. You heard it from me first.
p.s. There is not a chance that my opinion is going to get published here.



Just curious why Mitt is the only candidate calling Obama out on this stuff? Am I missing Rudy or Fred's comments? Mitt seems to be the only one standing up to the left. Not sure why that is, but I'm glad that he is a voice for reason. Obama has said some pretty scary stuff. What would happen if it wasn't countered? And all this from a guy who touted himself as the foriegn policy leader. Way to go Mitt!



So, if you are a fine man or woman in uniform who has been providing air support to the fine men and women in uniform on the ground in Afghanistan what do you think about that? If I didn't suspect that is what Obama really thinks, I would consider it a gaffe. Unfortunately, after the no nuclear options statement, I think that is where he really stands.

Contrast this with Romney's call for a surge of support for the troops. Romney is going to beat any democrat he goes up against.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 12:40 PM | permalink
Charles Mitchell has a great discussion about the role of Rudy's religion and of religion in general in the presidential campaign.

A tease:
That's why we don't think evangelical voters should lose sleep over the many problems we see in Mormon theology--they, unlike Governor Romney's values on issues like life and marriage, will not affect his governance. But it is something different entirely to say that theology doesn't matter--that it doesn't "direct" one's actions as an officeholder (or just as a person) at all. And we should be wary of giving credence to that view by voting for one who expounds it.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Rudy's religion
  • DiggRudy's religion
  • Fark:Rudy's religion
  • Furl:Rudy's religion
  • Ma.gnolia:Rudy's religion
  • Netscape:Rudy's religion
  • NewsVine:Rudy's religion
  • Reddit:Rudy's religion
  • Slashdot:Rudy's religion
  • StumbleUpon:Rudy's religion
  • TailRank:Rudy's religion
  • Technorati:Rudy's religion
  • YahooMyWeb:Rudy's religion

Technorati Tags: |
 
23 Comments:


I can see it now. Mitt is in NH at a Q & A session. A reporter asks, "Gov. Romney could you please tell us your temple name?" Mitt replies, "I cant tell you it's a secret." The reporter asks, Gov. Romney please tell us about the secret Mormon handshake." Mitt replies, "I cannot tell you it's a secret."
Every person in the state is going to ask himself, "I wonder how many other secrets Mitt has?"
Mitt will be sent home without any supper.
Secret handshakes, secret blood oaths, secret symbols, secret temple rituals, secret temple rooms, and even secret underwear. The reason the LDS is called a cult is because it is.



What a great example of religious bigotry.



I wonder if this insanely unethical reporter will also ask about preferred sexual positions or other absurdly personal and private information completely unrelated to the campaign.



The ignorant Bigots are out in full force again today.
------------------------

The Masons are considered a cult by some.
The Masons are considered goofy by some.
The Masons are considered Dangerous by some.
The Masons are very SECREATIVE and may, or may not have a secret handshake and secret "Lodge Name"
Since I do not know if you are a Mason, I cannot tell you.
-----
US PRESIDENTS who were Masons:
------
GEORGE WASHINGTON
JAMES MONROE
ANDREW JACKSON
JAMES KNOX POLK
JAMES BUCHANAN
ANDREW JOHNSON
JAMES ABRAM GARFIELD
WILLIAM McKINLEY
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT
WARREN GAMALIEL HARDING
FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT
HARRY S TRUMAN
GERALD RUDOLPH FORD
Lyndon B. Johnson (joined but only completed one of the three Masonic Degrees)
Believed to be Masons but membership in a SECRET Lodge has not been confirmed
THOMAS JEFFERSON
JAMES MADISON



When a candidate for national office is a card-carrying member of a cult religion it is no longer a personal matter. Mitt will have no choice but to throw in the towel. Speaking of choice. What is Mitt's position on abortion this week? It's going to be fun watching Mitt twist in the wind. Rudy wins the Iowa caucus, Rudy wins NH. Rudy wins SC. Game, Set, Match. Bye, bye Mitt.



Nice try georgiamom but the Masons are NOT a religious cult. I dont consider Masons to be cult members. If Mitt renounces the LDS cult and becomes a Mason I will vote for him. That's probably not going to happen because Mitt's pockets are being stuffed with Mormon money. The LDS is attemping to purchase this nomination. This will not be allowed to happen.



Anonymous said...
What a great example of religious bigotry.

You almost got that right. You should have written ...
What a great example of religious
truth.



You just said if he quit his church and joined the Masons you would vote for him. He would be the same exact person, so obviously he's well qualified to be president. Not that he needs your endorsement.



The Masons ARE A RELIGIOUS CULT!!!
-----
I know they are because I decided they are.
Why is it you get to go around deciding what is and what is not a cult and I don't?
---
You know what over group is a religious cult?? The BOY SCOUTS!!! They have secret meetings in the woods where they dance around fires and strange three finger salutes to each other.
They wear exclusive uniforms and act entirely different than the little boys not in their weird CULT.
----



Mitt hits the fan,

What the hell does all that temple stuff have to do with ability to govern the country?
-
By the way, if you've had sincere, friendly discussions with LDS people you will learn that they openly discuss much of what you accuse them of treating with secrecy. Ever attended an LDS temple open house? I have. I've also attended open houses for Muslims and other groups. I'd venture to guess that you have not.
-
People profoundly smarter than you have no problem with LDS people holding political office--even running for president. What makes you so special to hold such positions?



Your logic hits the fan,
-
Mitt doesn't have a monopoly on switching positions. Yet, it appears he's the only one with the integrity to point out when he has done so.
-
Rudy was for partial-birth abortions. Now he's against them. He has done more abortion-related squirming and faith-related dodging than anyone in the field. Catholic in name only. That is what this thread is about. Rudy said it himself.
-
Rudy, in case you missed it, skipped the Iowa straw poll. Likely, that will lead to finishing outside the winner's circle when the caucuses occur. He's trailing in NH.
-
It appears you're either intoxicated or fail to pay attention to recent trends.



Don't feed the Trolls! He probably got kicked off several other blogs and needs his attention quota met, however he can get it. If we ignore him he will be forced to get his jollies somewhere else. Don't worry he won't change anyone’s mind.



So... mitthitsthefan....

You get to decide who the cults are? That's great! So who else is a cult? Jehovahs Witnesses? 7th Day Adventists? Scientologists? Catholics?

Is anyone who has a secret a member of a cult? Or is it just someone who has a special place to go where others aren't invited? Or do they really have to have different underwear?

And what if I wanted to start a cult? What would I have to do? Do you need a secret hanshake for that? What about a secret knock? A password? Wow, this is starting to sound like the Rotary Club...

Anyway, let me know. Maybe I'll invite you with my secret sign... maybe the top half of a Jesus fish or something.



So... mitthitsthefan....

You get to decide who the cults are? That's great! So who else is a cult? Jehovahs Witnesses? 7th Day Adventists? Scientologists? Catholics?

Is anyone who has a secret a member of a cult? Or is it just someone who has a special place to go where others aren't invited? Or do they really have to have different underwear?

And what if I wanted to start a cult? What would I have to do? Do you need a secret hanshake for that? What about a secret knock? A password? Wow, this is starting to sound like the Rotary Club...

Anyway, let me know. Maybe I'll invite you with my secret sign... maybe the top half of a Jesus fish or something.



So... mitthitsthefan....

You get to decide who the cults are? That's great! So who else is a cult? Jehovahs Witnesses? 7th Day Adventists? Scientologists? Catholics?

Is anyone who has a secret a member of a cult? Or is it just someone who has a special place to go where others aren't invited? Or do they really have to have different underwear?

And what if I wanted to start a cult? What would I have to do? Do you need a secret hanshake for that? What about a secret knock? A password? Wow, this is starting to sound like the Rotary Club...

Anyway, let me know. Maybe I'll invite you with my secret sign... maybe the top half of a Jesus fish or something.



"Nice try georgiamom but the Masons are NOT a religious cult. I dont consider Masons to be cult members."


Comical. Why aren't Masons cultists? Because you don't consider them so. Why are Mormons cultists? Because you consider them so. This is a prime example of circular reasoning: They are because they are. Or, they aren't because they aren't. It's a falacious attempt at argumentation and simply is not based in any kind of logic (deductive or inductive). Only those as mentally inept as you could find any persuasion in your statements.


Georgiamom, on the other hand, was spot on w/an articulate and substantive comparison. Masons are more secretive than Mormons about membership, symbolism, etc. and have a history of being great statesmen. Mormon "secrets," which are completely unrelated to public policy or politics, are irrelevant in this forum and clearly give no indication of how a Mormon will act in public office. Compare Hatch & Reed.



Mormons and Mormon sympathizers always resort to name calling. That you can take to the bank.



Gay Marriage

Mr. Romney agrees with 3000 years of recorded history.
He disagrees with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and woman and our Constitution and laws should reflect that. We must remember that every child deserves a mother and a father. Like Mitt, I believe each child in America has the right to have a mother and a father.
Mr. Romney recently said “It’s unfortunate that those who choose to defend the institution of marriage are often demonized.”

I am deeply touched by Mitt’s statement.
Hazing in the U.S. Army Infantry Bootcamp is tiddly winks compared to the Hazing liberals hand out if anybody stands up and defends their conservative values in the state of Massachusetts. I can personally attest that defending the traditional definition of marriage in Massachusetts is essentially considered criminal behavior.

May the next President of the United States reflect the values of those that founded this Country and not the values of an extremist sect of the population.

Stephen Dunne
Stephen@avisionofdemocracy.com
www.avisionofdemocracy.com



I served a mission in the Yucatan peninsula and was offered food from the most humble people. One day we were eating in a house where the dirt floor in the kitchen had turned into mud from the pig pen adjacent the house and the little girl threw up worms right in front of us, as a result of this exposure. This was one of many experiences eating next to swine that made me begin to appreciate the Savior's term to not cast your pearls before swine. After reading this bigotry I think my stomach turns even more and I understand why He compared this type of attitude to swine. You mock what you don't understand. I'll stick to Proverbs 12:23 A prudent man concealeth knowledge: but the heart of fools proclaimeth foolishness and 1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Even leaders of Protestant churches at the highest levels and scholars at Harvard find many parallels of what happens in Mormom temples to those of ancient times...but then again...I shouldn't be casting anything your way...right?



Don't feed the trolls.

I think Romney's position is slowly improving. Today ARG released a new poll that has Romney with 16% of national support, placing behind Rudy. Romney has consistently been hovering between 8-10% on ARG polls. This is a huge jump.



Why some people resort to bigoted, hated, un-Christlike comments about other peoples' religions and their doctrines baffles me - especially when these same people know NOTHING about what they are talking about, do not want to take the time to understand why people believe a certain way....or, what's worse, know why people believe a certain way, but still take the time to belittle their Faith!

I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints of nearly 22 years now. I discovered in my studies of the Old and New Testaments many striking parallels between the clothing worn in the ancient temples, as described in the Bible, and the clothing and garments worn by Latter-day Saints.

Now, this question is for those who do not seek to understand, and who seek to make a mockery of something I hold as sacred...

Do you mock the Catholic priest for the clothing he wears as a symbol of his devotion, and of the covenants that he made with God? He wears that clothing as a visible reminder of those covenants he made in the Catholic priesthood.

Do you mock my broher, the Jew, for the yarmulka or their undergarments as a sign of the covenants that they have made with God in the synogogue?

Do you make a mockery of my Muslim brothers and sisters for the religious clothing that they wear?

There is also my Lutheran brother who also wears sacred clothing as part of the covenants that he has made to uphold his priesthood.

What I am about to share with all those on here what I do in the temple...uh-oh...here come those bad secrets! By the way...anyone who visits any LDS congregation knows that we talk about these things openly in our Sunday school lessons - so it's not so secret as some would say on here!

When I attend the Temple, as a Latter-day Saint, I covenant with God that I will keep my body clean from alcohol, drugs, tobacco, tatoos, body piercings, and anything else that would defile the body that God has blessed me with.

I covenant that I will never ever neglect, dictate, abuse, or mistreat my spouse - NO exceptions! Through word or deed...as there are great punishments that will come upon any man that treats his wife with any disrespect.

Likewise, I covenant that I will also never ever abuse or neglect my children!

I covenant that I will continually keep the name of Diety as sacred, to never take the Lord's name in vain for His name is holy! Watch an episode of Friends, or almost any television show or movie and see just how widely broken this commandment is done.

I covenant that I will follow Christ and keep His commandments.

I covenant that, if need be, I would die for Christ and stand as a witness to His divinity as Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

I covenant that I will serve my fellow man...to treat ALL as equals and as brothers and sisters with love and respect.

I covenant to obey the laws of the land.

I covenant to pay an honest tithing.

I covenant to render service to the widow, the broken hearted, the handicap, the prisoner.

I covenant to obey the Sabbath day. Again, we see signs all around of just how widely broken this commandment is....shopping, recreation, hunting, etc.

Now, for all these covenants and more, I am given a holy garment that will serve as a constant reminder of the covenants I've made with the Lord in His holy temple. There is nothing magical about these garments; they do not render any power; and they are not even peculiar looking. They are just there to remind me of what I have promised the Lord to do for Him, and what He has promised to do for me in return for keeping these covenants.

Do not make a mockery of something that you do not choose to understand - that is considered holy to someone else!

BTW - it would be prudent and wise for you to study the Old Testament...when Jehovah commanded the children of Israel to wear certain garments after they went through the Tabernacle in the wilderness and the permanent temples as described throughout the Bible - and these garments worn by those in the Bible, as described in great detail, resemble those worn in the temples today. So, where's the secret if it's all recorded in the Old and New Testament, and still being practiced today?



Hitthefanguy-


"Mormons and Mormon sympathizers always resort to name calling."


Not so. Of the dozen or so posters on this thread, only one Mormon sympathizer directly called names: me. The others were very civil. Also, one anti-Mormon called names: you. It seems you and I are the only two lacking the class shown by the average Mormon/Mormon sympathizer.


Here are a few of my rules for posting: (1a) Always substantively rebutt the argument to which I am responding or (1b) apologize for being wrong/inaccurate, etc. (2) Don't directly insult a poster unless he/she is a liar or a deflector.


You are a deflector. After your comically illogical argument was disected, you deflected w/circular reasoning. After I pointed that out, you deflected w/self-victimization. As far as I can tell, you're little more than an intellectually deficient bigot w/a penchant for deflection. You deserve no respect or civillity. That some have been respectful and civil anyway is a tribute to them. They give you what you don't deserve. I give you what you do.



Mr. Fan,
-
You ought to comment in ways that relate to the post. That's what most people do. You must love distractions and misdirecting discussion. Your bomb throwing is neither friendly nor productive.
-
I find it interesting that the associated post suggests that Mitt's faith poses no problem for Christians as it relates to the job at hand--the presidency. In fact, he's the candidate of choice for these guys. Surely, these evangelicals dislike Mitt's faith for other reasons: theological ones. It appears you do, too.
-
But, those concerns don't have the place you wish they did in this political context.
-
Keep working hard in your ministry or personal crusade against Joseph Smith, but get it into your head that we're not voting for theologian-in-chief. We need the best commander. This has already been debated ad nauseam.
-
Once you connect with the above principles, Mitt is a no brainer.




posted by Kyle Hampton | 11:16 AM | permalink
“When I evaluate candidates, I look first for integrity, competence, and a good, common sense philosophy of governance,” the lawmaker said. “Mitt Romney scores astoundingly high on all points.”

That's from Romney's latest endorsement, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.).

The Hill reports that Ehlers' endorsement continues to add to Romney's lead in congressional support.
Romney is edging away from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who now trails Romney 29-27, according to The Hill’s lawmaker endorsements list. The GOP presidential candidate next most endorsed by members of Congress is former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom 21 lawmakers support. Undeclared candidate Fred Thompson, former senator from Tennessee, has been endorsed by 18 members of Congress.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Another Endorsement
  • DiggAnother Endorsement
  • Fark:Another Endorsement
  • Furl:Another Endorsement
  • Ma.gnolia:Another Endorsement
  • Netscape:Another Endorsement
  • NewsVine:Another Endorsement
  • Reddit:Another Endorsement
  • Slashdot:Another Endorsement
  • StumbleUpon:Another Endorsement
  • TailRank:Another Endorsement
  • Technorati:Another Endorsement
  • YahooMyWeb:Another Endorsement

Technorati Tags: |
 
17 Comments:


Im waiting for an endorsement from GWB. Surely you can see that Bush has poisoned the well for any GOPer to get elected. Add that to Mitt's involvement in the LDS cult and you can see Mitt has zero chance of getting elected dog catcher. Stick around and you will see the "Mitt hit the fan." I will be fun to watch. Remember, you heard it from me first.



Yet he somehow managed to be elected governor. I guess that isn't as important a responsibility as dogcatcher in your estimation. Its a reflection on your warped judgment.



Hey Anonymous #1, I might be able to remember where I "heard it first" if you called yourself something other than "anonymous."

Your (and those of your sad ilk) use of the word "cult" in referencing the LDS church is just a cowardly and dishonest way of avoiding rational discourse on the subject. Now go back to sulking over how pathetic Brownback's candidacy has become.



Go to Google, type in "definition of cults," read definition, compare definition to LDS beliefs. There is your proof right in front of your nose. You are welcome.



"A system of religious beliefs and rituals." Thanks for that. Guess he is in a cult. Along with 80-plus percent of the country.



Let me assist you in understanding this with the definition of a cult. A religious group that follows a particular theological system. In the context of Christianity, and in particular, CARM, it is a group that uses the Bible but distorts the doctrines that affect salvation sufficiently to cause salvation to be unattainable. A few examples of cults are Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Christadelphians, Unity, Religious Science, The Way International, and the Moonies. (See also Cults)
. You are welcome.



So now Jesus has elected you to be judge of who attains salvation?



Who is CARM, and what makes her (or him) an expert on cults?



fan-hitter-


"A religious group that follows a particular theological system."


"A system of beliefs and rituals."


Every religion I have ever heard of falls into these categories. All of them. Every single one.


"Uses the Bible but distorts the doctrines that affect salvation sufficiently to cause salvation to be unattainable."


So, who determines the doctrine of salvation? Baptist biblical interpreters? Catholic priests? Harvard educated theologians?


Your arguments are so comically flawed and lacking that I can't stop laughing when I read them. Seriously. Hillarious.



I don't think this thread would even exist if hitsthefan knew that Chuck Norris is also a Mormon.



The Merriam-Webster online dictionary lists five different definitions of the word "cult."[12]

1. Formal religious veneration
2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents;
3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents;
4. A system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator;
5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work



I judge no one. I only report the facts.
Ohhhhhh I see "Comment moderation has been enabled." Im betting my comments are now no longer welcomed. Another play out of the Mormon play book. Destroy printing presses and censor the truth. That didnt get Joseph Smith very far nor will it further the campaign of one Mitt Romney.



Folks, please don't get into discussions with Mitt hits the Fan. He's a troll and his ilk are not welcome here. We don''t need to waste time defending anyone from his kind of smut.



This guy can't be serious...



Hitthefanguy-


Why would anyone want to censor your comments? They do Mitt and Mormonism a world of good. They are full of mean-spirited insults and totally void of logic or persuasion. The natural reactions of those reading your posts are (1) sympathy for all you are attacking and (2) disgust for you and those w/similar views.


I find it funny how you resort to self-victimization after your arguments have been throroughly dismantled. In this post you avoid a rebuttal by accusing the site manager of unfair play (even though he continues to post your nonsensical dribble). On the other thread you skip the rebuttal by plastering an unfounded generalization on Mormons/Mormon sympathizers. Don't worry though. After reading your initial arguments, little was expected from your follow-ups.



Fan scrambled your intellect,
-
We've seen your kind before. No amount of reason or gentle persuasion can work if you're unwilling.
-
The fellow at Evangelicals for Mitt can easily make the case that Mitt's religion poses no threat to America. In fact, they have embraced him as an advocate for family values. His poll numbers are consistently rising.
-
You're a small distraction. And annoying. These are objective statements. This is not name calling. Just the best use of the English language to describe your juvenile behavior.



To hitsthefan...

You missed the part where mobs came and destroyed OUR printing press.

With all that has been said concerning cults:

If it is a religious organized with extreme views not aligned with tradition, then anyone who is a follower of Christ is a cultist. His teachings that the Mosiac Law was complete is one of the largest changes of doctrine is religious history. So, that being said, you sir are a cultist.




Sunday, August 12, 2007
posted by jason | 10:17 PM | permalink
...On the Ames Straw Poll along with some predictions can be found Here.
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:My Opinion
  • DiggMy Opinion
  • Fark:My Opinion
  • Furl:My Opinion
  • Ma.gnolia:My Opinion
  • Netscape:My Opinion
  • NewsVine:My Opinion
  • Reddit:My Opinion
  • Slashdot:My Opinion
  • StumbleUpon:My Opinion
  • TailRank:My Opinion
  • Technorati:My Opinion
  • YahooMyWeb:My Opinion

Technorati Tags: |
 
0 Comments:



posted by Kyle Hampton | 6:44 PM | permalink
Generally I found myself unimpressed by the CNN/Youtube debate questions. They were generally silly and unserious to me. However, I thought there was one question that was worthy to ask the candidates:

More than anything I like the realism of the question: Why does it matter what your views on the issues are if when in power you won’t get anything done? I like to say it more like this: How effective will you be in office? It’s something that each voter should ask themselves about the candidate they prefer, because an ineffective president is little better than an opposition president. The ability to organize support for the principles you advocate is just as important as what those principles are.

Which brings me to Ames. There is nothing lucky, magic or serendipitous about Romney’s win. Winning at Ames was a simple and straight forward task: organize and facilitate your supporters to vote for you there. As many reporters have said, this was an organizational test. It showed the effectiveness of the campaigns in accomplishing their goals.

With that in mind, I think there are three things to note from the Ames results. First, the fact that two governors topped the voting is hardly surprising. Holding executive office better prepares a person not only for the role of chief executive of the nation, but also for commanding smaller organizations such as a campaign. Romney’s campaign organization mirrors his success in the private and public sectors. Romney knows how to set organizational goals and to go about accomplishing them.

Second, Huckabee’s second place finish was as much the result of luck as it was anything else. Huckabee admitted and reports have reaffirmed that Huckabee did little get his voters to the straw poll. The conclusion that most are making is that Huckabee could have brought in a lot more people had his campaign expended the effort. That is certainly possible. However, it seems just as likely that Huckabee stumbled upon a disproportionate number of his supporters there in Ames. Either way, the lack of organizational effort by the Huckabee campaign made the outcome just as much a function of luck as anything else. The fact that Huckabee’s luck beat out the organizational abilities of the other candidates is sad for the rest of the field.

Third, and most importantly, Romney has distinguished himself as the most capable candidate. It is a fair question to ask in the campaign which candidate will be the most effective executive in the White House. Some of this has to do with ideology and principles. However, as the person in the question above noted, if when they get there can’t accomplish their goals, what good are they? This is where Romney really stands out. He was able to accomplish goal after goal as governor of Massachusetts. He has been able to accomplish goal after goal in this campaign. There is no doubt that as President he would be equally effective.

Labels:

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:Lessons learned from Ames
  • DiggLessons learned from Ames
  • Fark:Lessons learned from Ames
  • Furl:Lessons learned from Ames
  • Ma.gnolia:Lessons learned from Ames
  • Netscape:Lessons learned from Ames
  • NewsVine:Lessons learned from Ames
  • Reddit:Lessons learned from Ames
  • Slashdot:Lessons learned from Ames
  • StumbleUpon:Lessons learned from Ames
  • TailRank:Lessons learned from Ames
  • Technorati:Lessons learned from Ames
  • YahooMyWeb:Lessons learned from Ames

Technorati Tags: |
 
3 Comments:


Part of Huckabee's "luck" was that Same BrownBECK organized a lot of folks, spent a lot of money and then turned into the meanest bully on the block.
This turned off some of his supporters who turned to Huck.

I suspect Sam BrownBECK paid for a good number of Huchabee's votes in the straw poll.



I have no doubt that Huckabee getting up there and jamming with his rock band helped him out, as well. Like Bill Clinton with his sax, if you can play a tune, people will follow you like the pied piper. It's an instant plus in the likeability column.



All those cuts in the film make it feel like a GAP add, but it's a good question, a question that only candidates record can answer. How can "tell" someone you won't be all talk?




posted by Jeff Fuller | 12:47 AM | permalink
There are so many that I didn't want to overload this blog with pages of photos . . . but for those interested, head on over to Iowans for Romney.

Jeff Fuller
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • DiggNew Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • Fark:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • Furl:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • Ma.gnolia:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • Netscape:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • NewsVine:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • Reddit:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • Slashdot:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • StumbleUpon:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • TailRank:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • Technorati:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney
  • YahooMyWeb:New Pics up at Iowans for Romney

Technorati Tags: |
 
12 Comments:


Anyone who tries spinning that Romney's win wasn't anything short of impressive should be reminded that Mitt could have had any size victory he wanted. He deliberately scaled back the operation because he's a nice guy. Period. There's not any point in running up the score against the second tier. I do wonder about the rumors that Mitt helped Huckabee to make sure Brownback would lose.



mitt would have lost by 400 votes to steve forbes in 2000. ouch.



I'm a hardcore Romney supporter, but I'm going to have to disagree with the comment above. Romney scaled back his effort somewhat to save some dough, and not to be a "nice guy". He IS a nice guy, but if he thought he could get a bunch more cost-effective votes, he would have.

With winning in politics . . . "THE BIGGER, THE BETTER"



Dude.

1999: Apples

2007: Oranges

Someone buy the dude a clue.



Don't forget the 100+ degree heat index. Romney said there was about a 20-25% "attrition rate" that was mostly due to the forecast of heat.



Also, the 1999 GOP was JAZZED about ousting the shameless Bill Clinton. The GOP was the party of power then. Quite a different story than now, eh?



Bigger, better, sure. But Jeff, you said it yourself that he had the largest margin of victory ever. How much bigger did it need to be, and how would it have been any better?



The whole 1999 argument is an interesting way to downplay the game. I’m just wondering why Rudy or McCain dropped out if Romney is similar to a Forbes with lots o cash in 1999 and ends up in second place. Why the fear? They both saw the risk and stayed away. Do we want a risk-averse President? But at least they’re in the race.

Fred lost my interest when he felt that staying off the island is the best way to not be voted off.

It’s hard for me to believe the overall drop in interest in Ames is because McCain and Rudy dropped, although that definately would have increased the numbers, but things aren’t as rosy for us Republicans as it was in 1999. Not as many independents like to stand with us today as back when Clinton was lying to all of us about a blue dress.



The Dud said, "mitt would have lost by 400 votes to steve forbes in 2000. ouch. "
-----
Are you really so addle as to believe that?
---
This total lack of understanding of the real world explains A LOT about you and your support of John McCain.



Five More GIs Die in Iraq. Meanwhile the Five Romney Brothers Avoid Military Service



August 12, 2007



Iraqi Sunni claims 'genocide campaign'



By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070812/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AlVxOYPdlZLBuGG2urobzjas0NUE



BAGHDAD - Iraq's most senior Sunni politician issued a desperate appeal Sunday for Arab nations to help stop what he called an "unprecedented genocide campaign" by Shiite militias armed, trained and controlled by Iran. The U.S. military reported five American soldiers were killed, apparently lured into an al-Qaida trap. Adnan al-Dulaimi said "Persians" and "Safawis," Sunni terms for Iranian Shiites, were on the brink of total control in Baghdad and soon would threaten Sunni Arab regimes which predominate in the Mideast.

"It is a war that has started in Baghdad and they will not stop there but will expand it to all Arab lands," al-Dulaimi wrote in an impassioned e-mail to The Associated Press.

Sunni Arab regimes throughout the Middle East fear the growing influence of Iran's Shiite theocracy with radical groups like Hezbollah and Hamas as well as the Syrian regime. Raising the specter of Iranian power reaching the Arab doorstep, unlikely in the near-term, betrayed al-Dulaimi's desperation.

But his fears of a Shiite takeover of Baghdad were not as farfetched. Mahdi Army militiamen have cleansed entire neighborhoods of Sunni residents and seized Sunni mosques. Day by day, hundreds have been killed and thousands have fled their homes, seeking safety in the shrinking number of majority Sunni districts.

The fighters, nominally loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, are believed to operate as death squads blamed for much of the country's sectarian slaughter.

Sunni extremists, many with al-Qaida links, are responsible too, mainly through massive bombings, often carried out by suicide attackers.

Like al-Dulaimi, the United States accuses Iran of providing the Shiite militia with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs, other weapons and training. Iran denies the allegations.

Al-Dulaimi resorted to the extremely harsh language a day after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, returned from his second visit to Tehran since taking power 14 months ago.

The outburst reflected growing anger in the Sunni establishment over perceptions of al-Maliki as a deeply biased sectarian leader with links to Iran.

"Arabs, your brothers in the land of the two rivers and in Baghdad in particular are exposed to an unprecedented genocide campaign by the militias and death squads that are directed, armed and supported by Iran," al-Dulaimi said.

And he castigated fellow Sunnis in the Middle East, saying they "did not make any move and did not even bother to denounce what is taking place against your brothers at the hands of Iranian militias and death squads."

The 75-year-old al-Dulaimi heads the Iraqi Accordance Front, the largest Sunni political bloc in parliament. The coalition of parties pulled its six Cabinet ministers from al-Maliki's Shiite-dominated government Aug. 1.

Five days later, government ministers loyal to former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite, launched a boycott of Cabinet meetings. That left the government without any Sunni Arab members, except the politically unaffiliated defense minister.

Major political figures were expected to hold a rare summit with al-Maliki this week in Baghdad to address the government crisis.

The five American soldiers were killed Saturday in Arab Jabour, a district just south of Baghdad where Shiite militiamen and al-Qaida linked fighters have battled for control and are now under attack by soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division.

Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the task force commander, said a sniper killed one soldier, then lured his comrades to a booby-trapped house where four died in an explosion when one of them stepped on a hidden bomb. Four others were wounded in the blast, Lynch told the AP.

At least 37 people were killed or found dead in sectarian violence nationwide. Nearly half of that number, 17, were tortured bodies discovered in Baghdad, officials said.

At a news conference Sunday, al-Maliki defended his Iranian sojourn and said he would continue traveling to neighboring countries and asking for help to curb violence. He was expected to be in Syria next week, but the trip has not been announced.

"Iraq has turned into the center of terrorism. Iraq will only succeed through reconciliation," he said.

Al-Dulaimi's remarks focused not on reconciliation but on Arab nationalism and perceived Iranian threats.

"I call on all Arabs — Muslims, presidents and kings and people — to intervene and urge the Iraqi government to end this crisis. I call on them to stand beside Iraqis against violence and the oppression that come to us from Iran and its agents."



Corey, The military you and your fellow liberal LOATHE is an all volunteer military.

Perhaps you could get a grown up to explain to you what the word volunteer means.



Corey

Just a question... Are you in the military? Have you been to Iraq?

Because if not you're a hypocrite.

I just got back from Iraq.

I'm voting for Romney because he actually knows the situation and has a plan that he can implement. No one else does, regardless of weather or not their children served in the military...

And speaking of... how many serious candidates have children in Iraq? Unless one of Hilary's other (previously unidentified)children are there, zero seems to be the number.

So did you have anything relevant to say, or just more mud to sling?




Sign up for MyManMitt
Enter your email address:

RSS Feed MyManMitt.com
Mitt Romney Facebook MyManMitt
Mitt Romney YouTube






Copyright 2007 MyManMitt.com