I thought this article might be of interest to the Hatrack crowd. It's spun fairly positively, if anyone is worried. Enjoy.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
=) "Cafes beware"
"However, I would be tempted to sell my Starbucks shares if I had any - 2007 will not be the Year of the Hot Drink in a nation where Mormons are on the rise."
That was a good article. Obviously, the LDS visitors impressed this reporter. I know how he or she feels. Next they'll probably convert. =)
By the way, I'm most likely not voting for Mitt Romney either, because I'm pretty sure he's too conservative for me, but I'm looking forward to all the crazy articles people write about the beliefs of the church in the coming months. =P
[ December 24, 2006, 05:39 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The last article I read on this, I think either on CNN or Time took the "How's a Mormon going to win the Christian right when the Christian right views Mormons as cultists?" approach.
Regardless, at the end of the day they'll take a deep breath and vote for Mitt over anyone on the left. The only thing he has to worry about is them staying home.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I hesitate to make a blanket statement, but I do not believe that very many active Southern Baptists would vote for a Mormon candidate. As you've said, they may just stay home, or they many decide to vote for someone else, and this could be a big issue.
I mean, faced with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney...well, I suspect many will just stay home.
I also suspect that a great many preachers in certain denominations will skirt very close to the edge of what's legal (for retaining the church's tax exemption) in trying to explain just who not to vote for in the election.
Question: Can a candidate win the party nomination without winning the South?
2nd question: Vice-President maybe?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Just gonna point out that if you didn't vote for kerry because he's a flip flopper... don't vote for mitt. Otherwise you're a flaming hypocrit.
Full disclosure:
Being a massachusetts resident, I despise mitt. The man broke half his campaign promises, won the state because he presented himself exactly opposite what he turned out to be, and then used his governorship to bash massachusetts around the country as a way of springboarding to the presidential nomination.
Not to mention that he never really tried to "govern" so much as "present himself as a candidate for the religious right." When you're governor, you better damn well be in the state you are governing at least half the time, mitt.
Man is a complete ass. I hope he chokes.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Just gonna point out that if you didn't vote for kerry because he's a flip flopper... don't vote for mitt. Otherwise you're a flaming hypocrit.
Full disclosure:
Being a massachusetts resident, I despise mitt. The man broke half his campaign promises, won the state because he presented himself exactly opposite what he turned out to be, and then used his governorship to bash massachusetts around the country as a way of springboarding to the presidential nomination.
Not to mention that he never really tried to "govern" so much as "present himself as a candidate for the religious right." When you're governor, you better damn well be in the state you are governing at least half the time, mitt.
Man is a complete ass. I hope he chokes.
Well thank you for telling me in advance that I would be a hypocrit for supporting Mit Romney and possibly worse,
I certainly wouldn't have wanted to wander into that trap unawares!
Books closed on the question of supporting his candidacy as far as I am concerned! Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Did you call kerry a flip-flopper and decide that voting for him would be bad, on those grounds? If so, my statement applies to you... if not, then it doesn't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Did you call kerry a flip-flopper and decide that voting for him would be bad, on those grounds? If so, my statement applies to you... if not, then it doesn't.
I weighed his tendency to acutely modify his position on a number of issues when I considered who to vote for yes.
But I did it purely on the issues and how he changed his position, and why. Not because he changed his mind in the first place.
I'm sorry if he has not vigorously pursued the agenda you wished he had, I just figured if you could take the time to slur him you could take the time to be a bit more specific, and not tell ME I am a hypocrite if I consider voting for him.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'm sorry if he has not vigorously pursued the agenda you wished he had"
No no. Thats not my problem with him. My problems with him start with:
he didn't pursue the agenda that he told MA voters he would pursue.
he changed his stated views after being elected so that they align with the views espoused by the christian right.
he abandonded the state for most of his term. simply wasn't here.
he badmouthed massachusetts, you know, the state that gave him a chance to be in position to run for president? as a means of bolstering his presidential campaign.
Those aren't policy issues I have with him. they are "who is the man?" issues.
"and not tell ME I am a hypocrite if I consider voting for him."
My statement is only targetted at people who said they could not vote for kerry because of his tendency to flip flop (something he does far less then romney does), but will vote for romney despite his flip-flopping.
If you are not in that category, I'm not talking to you.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I hesitate to make a blanket statement, but I do not believe that very many active Southern Baptists would vote for a Mormon candidate. As you've said, they may just stay home, or they many decide to vote for someone else, and this could be a big issue.
I mean, faced with a choice between Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney...well, I suspect many will just stay home.
I also suspect that a great many preachers in certain denominations will skirt very close to the edge of what's legal (for retaining the church's tax exemption) in trying to explain just who not to vote for in the election.
Question: Can a candidate win the party nomination without winning the South?
2nd question: Vice-President maybe?
Bob, I'm pretty comfortable making a blanket statement based on my living in the Bible belt all my life - you can be pretty sure that Romney will not win the primaries in the Bible belt states.
VP, maybe. I don't think a Mormon VP will kill a ticket in the south. It will be interesting, no matter what.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think a Mitt v. McCain hands the south and parts of the west to McCain, which means Mitt needs to clean up in the northeast and the midwest.
It's funny though, McCain should have the western states locked up, but that's where the majority of the Mormons are, who I imagine would trip over themselves getting to the polls to vote for Romney.
I think it COULD be a close race, and in the end Romney is well positioned for a VP spot, but McCain might see him as more of a liability than a help, and dump both him and Rudy for someone like Colin Powell or Condi Rice (seriously, just draft them into the VP spot, they can hardly say no). He needs to look at who will help him win votes (yes, I'm assuming McCain will win the nomination). Romney will hurt him, as I seriously expect having a Mormon on the ticket will leave a lot of the south just staying home. The only bump he gets is in the west (Arizona, Utah). Rudy won't win him New York, in fact, it'll lose him votes, as Rudy isn't the shining halo people seem to think he is.
So McCain will have to turn somewhere else, somewhere he can pull in new votes with. That means not picking an ultra right winger, or an ultra religious person, why? Because he already has those bases covered. He's spent the last little while pandering to the right and to evangelicals, their votes in the General Election are already his. He needs to use his VP to pull moderates away from the Liberal candidate, so that means Colin Powell or Condi Rice, and in that, I give the edge to Colin Powell. He's well respected, he's black, he has more military experience than almost anyone in the US (not that McCain needs a ton of help there).
I'd say Jeb Bush, but Jeb isn't as popular anymore as he used to, not nationally anyway, not after the Terry Shaivo thing and 2000 election even. Gives his enemies too much mud to slint.
Mitt needs to come out with a real slam bang campaign to get himself onto the national radar enough to overtake McCain. He needs to present himself as the anti-Bush and anti-McCain, while setting himself up for the second coming of Republican/Conservative ideals that've fallen by the wayside in the last six years. If he can pull that off, evangelical conservatives might feel the pull a lot more than certainly Hillary or Obama will give them, and more than McCain, who is currently throwing a lot of support to the currently reviled President Bush.
Still a lot to happen in the next year.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I agree with Paul completely. Mitt lied to the voters in MA, and ended up cutting back most of the programs he claimed to support.
He is rarely even in the state, and has really been campaigning for President since before he was elected Gov or MA in the first place.
I hope he DOES win the nomination, because he will never win the Presidency.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)