PDA

View Full Version : So, Mitt Romney stopped by...


alnorth
05-30-2007, 04:47 PM
As I was walking in to work, I noticed this simple little sign in the lobby saying that Mitt Romney would speak in our cafeteria in a couple hours. (Obviously I live in Iowa) No big notice weeks ahead of time, no huge company-wide e-mail, no buzzing excitement, no conversations, I was stunned. I asked a few people about it, and some were interested, but mostly it was a sigh and "oh, thats right I guess it is time for the candidates to start visiting us." Dude, if this would have been Kansas or Missouri, I dont care who it is from which party, if it was a serious high-profile candidate this would have been tremendous news, but to Iowans its more like been there, done that, I have too much work to do to be bothered to walk down a couple flights of stairs to see someone who could be the next president.

So, I walk down at the appointed hour, and noticed I didnt get there early enough, room is packed, standing-room only, but nowhere close to even 1/5th of the building. He's pretty tall, he definitely looks and speaks like a polished career politician with a decent sense of humor. A lot of his speech was a bit of the same feel-good stuff we hear from both parties, with some obligatory 9/11 and world issue stuff thrown in. I think the one thing I did like about his appearance was the way he would try to avoid giving simple vague answers to questions from the audience, favoring open honesty. For example, to a question on an obscure insurance bill in congress, "Most politicians would give a quick answer to that question that sounds good, but I havent studied that issue, and would need to read the bill before giving my opinion."

On social security, he said that it would likely be the easiest problem to solve out of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, requiring one or more of 4 possible solutions 1) Raising taxes, 2) raising the retirement age, 3) reducing the cost of living adjustment, 4) partial privitisation, with him favoring a combination of the last 3 options.

Energy, he said that he would try to steer the country towards energy independance, but this would likely take a couple decades, and require an investment of money, effort, and time similar to the manhattan and Appolo projects.

On immigration he was more vague, favoring more immigration for highly skilled workers and less for unskilled workers, but not really touching on the problem with illegals already here, amnesty, etc.

I'm still voting for McCain in the Iowa caucus next year, but if he flames out, I have a better opinion of Mitt Romney now than I did yesterday.

noa
05-30-2007, 04:59 PM
Thanks for the summary. I respect that he won't rule out raising taxes. He knows it might have to happen, like it or not, and it would be silly to make a promise he might have to break.
I think he's smooth enough to talk his way through allegations of flip-flopping.
Like other posters here have said though, he might hit a snag in the road if he starts getting tough questions about his religious beliefs.

Phobia
05-30-2007, 05:09 PM
I'll vote for the first candidate who favors reduction of goverment before raising taxes.

When a fortune 500 company is doing poorly, what's the first thing they do? Reduction in force.

Ever heard of a Reduction In Force at the federal level that didn't involve the military (the cheapest of all government employees).

StcChief
05-30-2007, 05:14 PM
Iowa is so relavent as a primary why? This should be round robin.

alnorth
05-30-2007, 05:16 PM
I'll vote for the first candidate who favors reduction of goverment before raising taxes.

When a fortune 500 company is doing poorly, what's the first thing they do? Reduction in force.

Ever heard of a Reduction In Force at the federal level that didn't involve the military (the cheapest of all government employees).

On that note, he had a funny story about the courthouses in Massachusetts. Some of the state budget folks told him that the courthouses were nearly 100 years old and would need replaced. Keeping in mind the small geographic size of the state, and thinking about how many would be needed to ensure that you could get to a courthouse by car in an hour, he figured that the state needed 6 courthouses, maybe 12 at most. When he asked how many courthouses were in the state, no one knew, and they eventually came back and told him there were 112 courthouses in little bitty Massachusetts. To sum it up, he forced the state to close and consolidate many of these courthouses, and the savings from less security and operating costs went a long way towards building the brand-new courthouses the state needed.

He also bragged about closing a huge $3 billion state budget deficit he inherited at least 3 times in the speech. He was fairly proud of that, and wanted to make damned sure everyone in the room knew what he did for the budget as governor.

Phobia
05-30-2007, 05:19 PM
On that note, he had a funny story about the courthouses in Massachusetts. Some of the state budget folks told him that the courthouses were nearly 100 years old and would need replaced. Keeping in mind the small geographic size of the state, and thinking about how many would be needed to ensure that you could get to a courthouse by car in an hour, he figured that the state needed 6 courthouses, maybe 12 at most. When he asked how many courthouses were in the state, no one knew, and they eventually came back and told him there were 112 courthouses in little bitty Massachusetts. To sum it up, he forced the state to close the vast majority of the courthouses, and the savings from less security and operating costs went a long way towards building the brand-new courthouses the state needed.

He also bragged about closing a huge $3 billion state budget deficit he inherited at least 3 times in the speech. He was fairly proud of that, and wanted to make damned sure everyone in the room knew what he did for the budget as governor.

I'm a fan.

Slick32
05-30-2007, 05:20 PM
I'll vote for the first candidate who favors reduction of goverment before raising taxes.

When a fortune 500 company is doing poorly, what's the first thing they do? Reduction in force.

Ever heard of a Reduction In Force at the federal level that didn't involve the military (the cheapest of all government employees).

The whole political format has changed over the past 20 years, the republicans and democrats have become the same in respect to big government.

There are several areas that can be cut, but something I see is the dependence on the the government for things we should be handling on the state level.

Federal mismanagement is running rampant and has since the 90's. The only way to get better is to identify all of the agencies that need rif to be part of their daily routine. We have far too many gov employees that do not do their job and cannot be fired. That's our federal unions in action. I saw first hand the federal union members trying to circumvent security procedures on a military installation because they felt they were excessive. Excessive was having to show your Photo ID to get on the base and submit to random searches.

As has been pointed out, there are many problems and I don't see any party or candidate that is up to the job.

SBK
05-30-2007, 05:37 PM
I haven't decided who I will vote for, I do know who I won't vote for, but I do like that Romney is a very successful businessman. He knows what it takes to run a business, and that's something we need in Washington.

Without business in this country everyone is screwed.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 05:48 PM
...he might hit a snag in the road if he starts getting tough questions about his religious beliefs.

Put me down as one nondenominational evangelical Christian who thinks that it's only the Democrats who would like to think that Romney's membership in the LDS Church is an insurmountable problem.

alnorth
05-30-2007, 05:59 PM
I almost forgot another funny little quip he threw out there, when he remarked that its easy for Americans to compete against Europe, because they enjoy short working hours and lots of vacation, but that economic competition with Asia is one of the biggest challenges facing us now.

noa
05-30-2007, 06:12 PM
Put me down as one nondenominational evangelical Christian who thinks that it's only the Democrats who would like to think that Romney's membership in the LDS Church is an insurmountable problem.

I don't know about that. Cochise did a good job of explaining certain incompatibilities between Mormonism and other forms of Christianity that could be problematic. Belief that God lives on a planet called Kolob (admittedly not a belief held by all Mormons), belief that only Mormons go to the celestial heaven while everyone else is relegated to the second and third tiers of heaven, belief that God had a corporeal body separate from Jesus (Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus appear as two separate beings in his vision), etc. I don't mean to offend any Mormons, and will happily be corrected if I am wrong, but I think these beliefs could be problematic for some voters.

All it would take is for some reporter to simply ask Romney if he thinks non-Mormons can go to heaven. I suspect he would never answer such a question, but if he is really pressed, it would be interesting. Once he starts describing the three tiers of heaven and where everyone will end up, he could lose some people.

Adept Havelock
05-30-2007, 06:19 PM
I don't know about that. Cochise did a good job of explaining certain incompatibilities between Mormonism and other forms of Christianity that could be problematic. Belief that God lives on a planet called Kolob (admittedly not a belief held by all Mormons), belief that only Mormons go to the celestial heaven while everyone else is relegated to the second and third tiers of heaven, belief that God had a corporeal body separate from Jesus (Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus appear as two separate beings in his vision), etc. I don't mean to offend any Mormons, and will happily be corrected if I am wrong, but I think these beliefs could be problematic for some voters.

All it would take is for some reporter to simply ask Romney if he thinks non-Mormons can go to heaven. I suspect he would never answer such a question, but if he is really pressed, it would be interesting. Once he starts describing the three tiers of heaven and where everyone will end up, he could lose some people.


Kolob?

Kobol?

I guess the Quorum of the 12 isn't the only "Mormon" element in the mythology of Battlestar Galactica.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 06:20 PM
I don't know about that. Cochise did a good job of explaining certain incompatibilities between Mormonism and other forms of Christianity that could be problematic. Belief that God lives on a planet called Kolob (admittedly not a belief held by all Mormons), belief that only Mormons go to the celestial heaven while everyone else is relegated to the second and third tiers of heaven, belief that God had a corporeal body separate from Jesus (Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus appear as two separate beings in his vision), etc. I don't mean to offend any Mormons, and will happily be corrected if I am wrong, but I think these beliefs could be problematic for some voters.

All it would take is for some reporter to simply ask Romney if he thinks non-Mormons can go to heaven. I suspect he would never answer such a question, but if he is really pressed, it would be interesting. Once he starts describing the three tiers of heaven and where everyone will end up, he could lose some people.

Yes, he could lose some if he focuses on his religion, but he probably won't.

I'm looking to elect a president, not a spiritual leader.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 07:11 PM
I'm looking to elect a president, not a spiritual leader.
:clap:

noa
05-30-2007, 07:49 PM
I'm looking to elect a president, not a spiritual leader.

Hey, I'm in 100% agreement with you. I'm just talking about other voters out there that could be a hurdle. Time will tell.

Taco John
05-30-2007, 09:22 PM
Yes, he could lose some if he focuses on his religion, but he probably won't.

I'm looking to elect a president, not a spiritual leader.



Sounds like the position of someone who grew up an athiest and converted to Christianity late in life...

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 09:33 PM
Sounds like the position of someone who grew up an athiest and converted to Christianity late in life...

No WAY.

(If you please, T.J. I'd rather not think that I'm anywhere near the lateness of my life yet.)

Phobia
05-30-2007, 09:37 PM
Sounds like the position of someone who grew up an athiest and converted to Christianity late in life...

That's my position as well and I don't fit into that category. In fact, I don't think the religion of a candidate is important at all.

Taco John
05-30-2007, 09:47 PM
No WAY.

(If you please, T.J. I'd rather not think that I'm anywhere near the lateness of my life yet.)



My bad.

Later in life.

You came at the religion, you said yourself, from a very thoughtful place, through a very thoughtful process. That's not how Evangelical Christians are raised, believe me that. Thought is an "after-thought." Faith is everything. Even when things don't make sense "scientifically," it's all a matter of faith. And life is ordered around God and church, not the other way around. You are raised as a Christian first, and a person second. Life is about God, and glorifying him in everything you do. That especially includes your vote.

I don't know how it is anywhere else, but in Idaho, where Mormons are prevalent, Evangelicals are taught that the Mormon religion is a cult created by satan himself to decieve men and trap souls. Boy Scouts are held at Mormon Stake Centers, and are seen as a recruiting tool for the mormon church. The Mormon Temple is seen as a place where satanic rituals are held.

The thought of the presidency being run from a secret office in Salt Lake City is an abhorrent thought to Idaho Evangelicals. I can't say how it is in the rest of the country. Perhaps the relationship isn't so vitriolic. But I can speak for Assembly of God, as I've been to enough churches on the west coast to know that there aren't going to be too many of them voting for either Rudy or Romney.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 10:03 PM
My bad.

Later in life.

You came at the religion, you said yourself, from a very thoughtful place, through a very thoughtful process. That's not how Evangelical Christians are raised, believe me that. Thought is an "after-thought." Faith is everything. Even when things don't make sense "scientifically," it's all a matter of faith. And life is ordered around God and church, not the other way around. You are raised as a Christian first, and a person second. Life is about God, and glorifying him in everything you do. That especially includes your vote.

I don't know how it is anywhere else, but in Idaho, where Mormons are prevalent, Evangelicals are taught that the Mormon religion is a cult created by satan himself to decieve men and trap souls. Boy Scouts are held at Mormon Stake Centers, and are seen as a recruiting tool for the mormon church. The Mormon Temple is seen as a place where satanic rituals are held.

The thought of the presidency being run from a secret office in Salt Lake City is an abhorrent thought to Idaho Evangelicals. I can't say how it is in the rest of the country. Perhaps the relationship isn't so vitriolic. But I can speak for Assembly of God, as I've been to enough churches on the west coast to know that there aren't going to be too many of them voting for either Rudy or Romney.

I left the Presbyterian Church (in part) because of some of what was said about Catholics and Mormons (also homosexuals, liberals, kids with tats and piercings, and a good bit of whatever else came up.)

It's clear to me these days that when it comes to matters of faith, I'm in no position to judge anyone else. Anyone who is seeking the truth is respectable in my eyes, and that includes atheists, for that matter. Hey, I'm down with Nightwish's neopaganism if it makes him a better person. (I still have little patience for agnostics who try to enter the conversation, but I'm working on it.)

I do separate my citizenship from my faith, however. Maybe that will change as my faith matures, but from where I stand now, I doubt it.

I know what you're getting at, though. If I was forced to identify as either an American or a Christian, I'd choose Christianity. Fortunately we don't have to make those kinds of choices here.

Cochise
05-30-2007, 10:17 PM
Lowering taxes and reducing the government would be nice if anyone was promising that. But, no one ever seems to follow through. The best you can ever do is just lower taxes and the government not growing as fast as it was before. It's better than nothing I guess, in some ways.

I don't understand the people running right now who are promising to raise taxes. When was the last time anyone put themselves in the White House by promising to raise taxes?

Last time around it was Bush vs. Kerry, make the tax cuts permanent vs. retarget them. The previous time, Bush vs. Gore, it was both promising to cut taxes because of the government surplus, with two competing plans. Before when Clinton ran for office, he said he wasn't going to raise taxes and then he ended up doing it saying after he got in office that there wasn't any way he could avoid it. Mondale promised it and got a drubbing of epic proportions. I don't see how that could ever turn out to be a winning strategy. People don't cheer for higher taxes outside of a percentage on the left.

ClevelandBronco
05-30-2007, 10:27 PM
...But I can speak for Assembly of God, as I've been to enough churches on the west coast to know that there aren't going to be too many of them voting for either Rudy or Romney.

You could be right, but those two in the GOP field put larger states than Idaho into play.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2007, 11:08 PM
I don't know how it is anywhere else, but in Idaho, where Mormons are prevalent, Evangelicals are taught that the Mormon religion is a cult created by satan himself to decieve men and trap souls.


Well, I know a Roman Catholic family who believes the same thing. They believe the same regarding Muslims...that it's spread in 700 AD was an act of Satan to destroy the true faith.

wazu
05-30-2007, 11:17 PM
...the Mormon religion is a cult created by satan himself to decieve men and trap souls.

Eh, as long as they lower taxes and shrink government, I'm cool with it.

Taco John
05-31-2007, 12:53 AM
I left the Presbyterian Church (in part) because of some of what was said about Catholics and Mormons (also homosexuals, liberals, kids with tats and piercings, and a good bit of whatever else came up.)

It's clear to me these days that when it comes to matters of faith, I'm in no position to judge anyone else. Anyone who is seeking the truth is respectable in my eyes, and that includes atheists, for that matter. Hey, I'm down with Nightwish's neopaganism if it makes him a better person. (I still have little patience for agnostics who try to enter the conversation, but I'm working on it.)

Sounds like we have very compatible beliefs with regards to how our personal views should rule our fellow man.


I do separate my citizenship from my faith, however. Maybe that will change as my faith matures, but from where I stand now, I doubt it.


How can you? If you're a Christian, you have to ask yourself in every instance, "what would Christ do?" Otherwise, what's the point of the religion? It kind of falls apart when you say "Christ can have everything else, except for my politics. Those, I'm going to be in charge of."


And don't read this wrong. I'm not trying to bust your balls about your belief or judge you in any way. I just know the script. Backwards and forwards.


I know what you're getting at, though. If I was forced to identify as either an American or a Christian, I'd choose Christianity. Fortunately we don't have to make those kinds of choices here.


Now imagine being raised with that viewpoint, and being a Rapture-oriented Christian (ie. "it's coming down, this could be the year... we're in the 11th hour, and just one tick away, and if I'm worthy I go, and if I'm not worthy, I stay"). That's the perspective of an Evangelical Christian. Let me introduce you to the point where I seperate myself from mainstream Evangelical Christianity. I no longer have the "it's going down any second now" ticker in my head. There was a lot of guilt and fear that went along with losing that son of a bitch. I didn't lose my faith. I just lost a useless tool for other men to exert control on my life with.

The way I see it, Christ will come however he comes, in whatever form he chooses to come in, and whenever he chooses to do it. A rapture-oriented Evangelical Christian would tell me that I'm not being vigilant enough in my life, and that I'm not living for God, I'm living for myself. Notice I made the "rapture-oriented" distinction? It's because that's where the real division within Christianity lies. That's where the real line is drawn between Evangelical vs. (as an Evangelical would see it) "Run of the Mill, go through the motions," "protestant" Christianity. Evangelicals are rapture-oriented. If you're not rapture-oriented, it's a good bet that you aren't a dyed-in-the-wool Evangelical Christian, and probably feel out of place around them. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they, themselves as a Christian think. I'm just trying to shed light at what's on the Evangelical script. Like I said, I know it foreward and backwards.

I'll give you a concession, of sorts, and I'll make a prediction. Hardcore Evangelicals believe that eventually we lose to either Islam or China, and they start marking and tagging us, cutting off the heads of those who profess Christianity. An Evangelical Christian might be compelled to sell out their domestic (abortion, gay marraige) principles and vote for Rudy if they are sufficiently scared of of the threat of tribulation and believe he can save us from such a fate. There is the concession. Here is the "but":
But many of them aren't going to do it without checking with their pastor.

That's where guys like Dr. Dobson get their influence, because they are popular with pastors, and influence their views.

You've got the wind-up, now here's the pitch:

I predict that like Rudy, Romney will not get the Dobson nod. He's too weak, and his Mormonism is a real problem. (The symbolism behind a Dobson/Romney endorsement would be game changing, and the fallout of that scenario is too unpredictable; There's no way Dobson is going to go there). I'm going to now go on a HUGE LIMB and further predict that Gingrich is going to get the Dobson nod, and will go on to win the Republican nomination. And finally, I'll predict that yourself, and Baby Lee, and patteu, Kotter, and Radar Chief (and whoever else) will cast their votes for Gingrich. And finally, should history unfold in front of us like this, at some point in the next 8 years, one of the aforementioned will tell me that that Dobson doesn't have any sort of major influence over who they vote for.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 05:59 AM
I predict that like Rudy, Romney will not get the Dobson nod. He's too weak, and his Mormonism is a real problem. (The symbolism behind a Dobson/Romney endorsement would be game changing, and the fallout of that scenario is too unpredictable; There's no way Dobson is going to go there). I'm going to now go on a HUGE LIMB and further predict that Gingrich is going to get the Dobson nod, and will go on to win the Republican nomination. And finally, I'll predict that yourself, and Baby Lee, and patteu, Kotter, and Radar Chief (and whoever else) will cast their votes for Gingrich. And finally, should history unfold in front of us like this, at some point in the next 8 years, one of the aforementioned will tell me that that Dobson doesn't have any sort of major influence over who they vote for.

I don't think it's such a huge limb to predict that Dobson will endorse Gingrich other than the question of whether Gingrich gets into the race or not. If he's in, I think he'd be the odds on favorite to get Dobson's endorsement (mainly because I don't see Brownback getting any traction whatsoever).

And I'll fulfill your last prophesy right now to save us all some suspense. Dobson doesn't have any sort of major influence over who I vote for. I'm not even a believer so why would he influence me? And btw, yes I'll vote for Gingrich if he get's the nomination (with or without a Dobson endorsement). I think Gingrich getting the nomination is your least likely prediction, but it could happen.

recxjake
05-31-2007, 06:41 AM
Multiple Choice Mitt.....

Cochise
05-31-2007, 08:18 AM
I don't think it's such a huge limb to predict that Dobson will endorse Gingrich other than the question of whether Gingrich gets into the race or not. If he's in, I think he'd be the odds on favorite to get Dobson's endorsement (mainly because I don't see Brownback getting any traction whatsoever).

And I'll fulfill your last prophesy right now to save us all some suspense. Dobson doesn't have any sort of major influence over who I vote for. I'm not even a believer so why would he influence me? And btw, yes I'll vote for Gingrich if he get's the nomination (with or without a Dobson endorsement). I think Gingrich getting the nomination is your least likely prediction, but it could happen.

I have gotten into this several times, but I hear Dobson on the radio often, and I've heard him say a few times that he was thinking of not endorsing a candidate. He did that in 96 because he didn't like Dole. He doesn't feel like he has to support anyone, that he has to dole out an endorsement each election cycle. I think he will endorse someone if a credible candidate meets all his expectations but he won't compromise, he'll just not endorse anyone.

Sully
05-31-2007, 08:21 AM
"Tell Mitch I said hello."

--Alan Shore

patteeu
05-31-2007, 11:29 AM
I have gotten into this several times, but I hear Dobson on the radio often, and I've heard him say a few times that he was thinking of not endorsing a candidate. He did that in 96 because he didn't like Dole. He doesn't feel like he has to support anyone, that he has to dole out an endorsement each election cycle. I think he will endorse someone if a credible candidate meets all his expectations but he won't compromise, he'll just not endorse anyone.

Sounds reasonable.

caffeinated_virus
05-31-2007, 11:40 AM
I'm still voting for McCain in the Iowa caucus next year, but if he flames out, I have a better opinion of Mitt Romney now than I did yesterday.

:LOL:

Why? McCain is as good as done. He is selling out this country with is immigration issues. Hell, he lost a ton of support recently from his hometown in AZ with the stuff he has done.

Much better candidates out there than McCain.

Cochise
05-31-2007, 11:50 AM
If it weren't for the "cede the entire US to mexico" plan, I would be in the McCain camp I think.

Radar Chief
05-31-2007, 12:08 PM
I predict that like Rudy, Romney will not get the Dobson nod. He's too weak, and his Mormonism is a real problem. (The symbolism behind a Dobson/Romney endorsement would be game changing, and the fallout of that scenario is too unpredictable; There's no way Dobson is going to go there). I'm going to now go on a HUGE LIMB and further predict that Gingrich is going to get the Dobson nod, and will go on to win the Republican nomination. And finally, I'll predict that yourself, and Baby Lee, and patteu, Kotter, and Radar Chief (and whoever else) will cast their votes for Gingrich. And finally, should history unfold in front of us like this, at some point in the next 8 years, one of the aforementioned will tell me that that Dobson doesn't have any sort of major influence over who they vote for.

I’m not much of a Gingrich fan. It’d take a Kerry or Gore type Dem candidate to swing my vote Gingrich’s way.
Dobson wouldn’t have much to do with that.

Cochise
05-31-2007, 12:19 PM
I’m not much of a Gingrich fan. It’d take a Kerry or Gore type Dem candidate to swing my vote Gingrich’s way.
Dobson wouldn’t have much to do with that.

I don't really care what he decides. I respect his opinion on most every subject but it's not like he dictates what I'm going to do.

Gingrich could get in the race, and he could turn out to be someone who is an acceptable candidate to me, and he could win the nomination, and if he won the nomination then I would vote for him over Hillary or Barry, of course. That much could turn out to be true. But it won't have a thing to do with Dobson. He doesn't tell me what to do. We share a lot of the same desires in a candidate but not all.

For one thing he said he didn't support Fred Thompson because he didn't believe he was a Christian - but I don't think that the candidate necessarily has to be one to get a vote from me. It's not like I really know 100% who is and who isn't anyway. They all claim to be religious. Bill Clinton said he was a southern Baptist!

Baby Lee
05-31-2007, 12:45 PM
How can you? If you're a Christian, you have to ask yourself in every instance, "what would Christ do?" Otherwise, what's the point of the religion? It kind of falls apart when you say "Christ can have everything else, except for my politics. Those, I'm going to be in charge of."
Depends on your take on Jesus admonishing the Jews to 'render unto Caesar."

Personally, there was a time when my church charged us to be "in this world, but not of this world." It suggests a separation between our inner selves and civic selves, another iteration of separating Church and State.

Baby Lee
05-31-2007, 12:50 PM
I'm going to now go on a HUGE LIMB and further predict that Gingrich is going to get the Dobson nod, and will go on to win the Republican nomination. And finally, I'll predict that yourself, and Baby Lee, and patteu, Kotter, and Radar Chief (and whoever else) will cast their votes for Gingrich. And finally, should history unfold in front of us like this, at some point in the next 8 years, one of the aforementioned will tell me that that Dobson doesn't have any sort of major influence over who they vote for.
Why wait 8 years? Gingrich's wonkiness and actual commitment to smaller government, evidenced by the Contract with America and the govt shutdown, already has me viewing him favorably. My reservations about him concern electability, not policy. But if the choice is him or Hillary, or Richardson, or even Obama until he reveals more about himself, I'll pull the lever for him, however he got to be the choice.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 01:08 PM
Why wait 8 years? Gingrich's wonkiness and actual commitment to smaller government, evidenced by the Contract with America and the govt shutdown, already has me viewing him favorably. My reservations about him concern electability, not policy.

:clap:

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 02:27 PM
If Gingrich wins the GOP nomination, I'll vote for a Dem, not matter who it is.
I think Gingrich is one of the most dangerous men to run for office, precisely because people think he implements smaller govt. He doesn't. He also wants curbs on internet speech and free-speech and advocates total war in the Middle-East. Not to mention he will deliver us into national healthcare and global warming laws. In his own words, Gingrich admits he's not a conservative. He is a technocrati and endorses the Toffler's book which is basically a police state.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 02:37 PM
If Gingrich wins the GOP nomination, I'll vote for a Dem, not matter who it is.
I think Gingrich is one of the most dangerous men to run for office, precisely because people think he implements smaller govt. He doesn't. He also wants curbs on internet speech and free-speech and advocates total war in the Middle-East. Not to mention he will deliver us into national healthcare and global warming laws. In his own words, Gingrich admits he's not a conservative. He is a technocrati and endorses the Toffler's book which is basically a police state.

Links?

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 03:00 PM
Links?
Sorry, I don't have the time. But I have provided them before in arguing with patteeu over his conservative credentials. You can check my archive. Was several months ago. He's a Rockefeller republican, is Mr. Peso Bailout and Nafta aficiando....and his WWIII statements are on his own site. His support for the Toffler's is supposed to be in the forward or intro to their book and he's connected to their foundation. He doesn't refer to it as I have but it's what I call it.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 03:01 PM
Sorry, I don't have the time. But I have provided them before in arguing with patteeu over his conservative credentials. You can check my archive. Was several months ago. He's a Rockefeller republican, is Mr. Peso Bailout and Nafta aficiando....and his WWIII statements are on his own site.

I'll have to go check it out.

I haven't followed him much, but his record in the mid-90's was a pretty good one and I've heard him on the radio a couple of times recently and he said all the right things...

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 03:04 PM
I'll have to go check it out.

I haven't followed him much, but his record in the mid-90's was a pretty good one and I've heard him on the radio a couple of times recently and he said all the right things...
Yes, he does say the right thing, he's very calculating and an opportunist. He knows the right emotional buttons when dealing with a Rep audience. It's what's good for Gingrich mainly. He did do some good things, but he tried to twist the arms of the Reps in the 90's on not allowing tax cuts behind closed doors etc. He didn't vote on a lot of controversial issues then too. But then he was also Speaker.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 03:06 PM
hsti...Gingrich also supported welfare for illegals in the 90's as well.

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 03:07 PM
So he's a big government b-crat, just like the rest of them?

noa
05-31-2007, 03:09 PM
Newt and Chris Dodd were on Meet the Press recently and said they were thinking about organizing a 'discussion' or 'debate' between the two of them about the war in Iraq and the War on Terror without a moderator. That would be interesting. I wonder if it will actually happen.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 03:10 PM
So he's a big government b-crat, just like the rest of them?
Yep! Most of them are these days. Like I said, things have shifted left even under the GOp. That said, both parties are becoming more and more out of touch and most people are very unhappy with the direction of this country;disgusted and fed-up with both parties.

Baby Lee
05-31-2007, 03:20 PM
I'll have to go check it out.

I haven't followed him much, but his record in the mid-90's was a pretty good one and I've heard him on the radio a couple of times recently and he said all the right things...
The people who don't say things that BeP likes are socialists, the ones who say things she'd like if Ron Paul were saying it, are socialists who are hiding behind words. BeP will lie about anyone to feed her Paul-o-mania.

Taco John
05-31-2007, 03:21 PM
My reservations about him concern electability, not policy.


Which was exactly my point if you read between the lines. Gingrich's electability concerns evaporate once he gets a Dobson blessing. He'd be the most electable candidate in the field with it. Without it, he's just a philandering hypocrite that people might be inclined to vote for if it weren't for his electability issues.

Baby Lee
05-31-2007, 03:37 PM
Which was exactly my point if you read between the lines. Gingrich's electability concerns evaporate once he gets a Dobson blessing. He'd be the most electable candidate in the field with it. Without it, he's just a philandering hypocrite that people might be inclined to vote for if it weren't for his electability issues.
You're assuming if he gets the blessing, he gets the nom.
I'm not, I'm just saying I'd support him if he got the nom, however he got it.

Silock
05-31-2007, 03:41 PM
Paul before Romney, but I'd vote for Romney if that was my only option vs. Hillary.

Taco John
05-31-2007, 03:47 PM
You're assuming if he gets the blessing, he gets the nom.
I'm not, I'm just saying I'd support him if he got the nom, however he got it.


And I'm saying he's not gettng the nom, unless he gets the blessing... Thus, your vote for Gingrich hangs in the balance, filed under "electability concerns."

Baby Lee
05-31-2007, 03:54 PM
And I'm saying he's not gettng the nom, unless he gets the blessing... Thus, your vote for Gingrich hangs in the balance, filed under "electability concerns."
I think I see where you're going. You're trying to conflate, 'Dobson has a chance at affecting what my choices are,' with 'Dobson affects who I vote for.'

htismaqe
05-31-2007, 04:02 PM
The people who don't say things that BeP likes are socialists, the ones who say things she'd like if Ron Paul were saying it, are socialists who are hiding behind words. BeP will lie about anyone to feed her Paul-o-mania.

Ron Paul happens to be my favorite candidate.

But I'm willing to be educated on the other entrants to the race, primarily because Paul has a better chance of being NBA Commissioner than PotUS.

Taco John
05-31-2007, 04:09 PM
I think I see where you're going. You're trying to conflate, 'Dobson has a chance at affecting what my choices are,' with 'Dobson affects who I vote for.'


I think I stated it rather succinctly and without equivocation.

Whether you will admit it or not, Dobson wields great influence over who you will and won't vote for in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, your vote hangs in the balance while he makes up his mind. Once he does make his mind up, that person will get the nomination, and thus your vote.

I never once said "Dobson has a chance at affecting what your choices are." Chance has nothing to do with it.

Baby Lee
05-31-2007, 04:22 PM
I think I stated it rather succinctly and without equivocation.

Whether you will admit it or not, Dobson wields great influence over who you will and won't vote for in the 2008 presidential election. In fact, your vote hangs in the balance while he makes up his mind. Once he does make his mind up, that person will get the nomination, and thus your vote.

I never once said "Dobson has a chance at affecting what your choices are." Chance has nothing to do with it.
Mongo only pawn... in game of life.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-31-2007, 04:26 PM
Mongo only pawn... in game of life.

It really is a pretty compelling argument.

Have you ever voted for a Dem in a national race?

Do you honestly believe that the RR won't have a massive say in who gets the nomination?

ClevelandBronco
05-31-2007, 04:40 PM
...Now imagine being raised with that viewpoint, and being a Rapture-oriented Christian (ie. "it's coming down, this could be the year... we're in the 11th hour, and just one tick away, and if I'm worthy I go, and if I'm not worthy, I stay"). That's the perspective of an Evangelical Christian. Let me introduce you to the point where I seperate myself from mainstream Evangelical Christianity. I no longer have the "it's going down any second now" ticker in my head. There was a lot of guilt and fear that went along with losing that son of a bitch. I didn't lose my faith. I just lost a useless tool for other men to exert control on my life with.

The way I see it, Christ will come however he comes, in whatever form he chooses to come in, and whenever he chooses to do it. A rapture-oriented Evangelical Christian would tell me that I'm not being vigilant enough in my life, and that I'm not living for God, I'm living for myself. Notice I made the "rapture-oriented" distinction? It's because that's where the real division within Christianity lies. That's where the real line is drawn between Evangelical vs. (as an Evangelical would see it) "Run of the Mill, go through the motions," "protestant" Christianity. Evangelicals are rapture-oriented. If you're not rapture-oriented, it's a good bet that you aren't a dyed-in-the-wool Evangelical Christian, and probably feel out of place around them. I'm not trying to tell anyone how they, themselves as a Christian think. I'm just trying to shed light at what's on the Evangelical script. Like I said, I know it foreward and backwards.

Yeah. I'm going to get into trouble with my Bible study group this summer. I'm set to lead a discussion on the rapture and I'm going to present some pretty good evidence that the rapture is a fiction; a complete fabrication that has no scriptural basis. My best guess: That'll be the beginning of the end for me in that group. We'll see.

I'll give you a concession, of sorts, and I'll make a prediction. Hardcore Evangelicals believe that eventually we lose to either Islam or China, and they start marking and tagging us, cutting off the heads of those who profess Christianity. An Evangelical Christian might be compelled to sell out their domestic (abortion, gay marraige) principles and vote for Rudy if they are sufficiently scared of of the threat of tribulation and believe he can save us from such a fate. There is the concession. Here is the "but":
But many of them aren't going to do it without checking with their pastor.

That's where guys like Dr. Dobson get their influence, because they are popular with pastors, and influence their views.

You've got the wind-up, now here's the pitch:

I predict that like Rudy, Romney will not get the Dobson nod. He's too weak, and his Mormonism is a real problem. (The symbolism behind a Dobson/Romney endorsement would be game changing, and the fallout of that scenario is too unpredictable; There's no way Dobson is going to go there). I'm going to now go on a HUGE LIMB and further predict that Gingrich is going to get the Dobson nod, and will go on to win the Republican nomination. And finally, I'll predict that yourself, and Baby Lee, and patteu, Kotter, and Radar Chief (and whoever else) will cast their votes for Gingrich. And finally, should history unfold in front of us like this, at some point in the next 8 years, one of the aforementioned will tell me that that Dobson doesn't have any sort of major influence over who they vote for.

That's a great point, Taco. Newt is my fantasy president (I drafted him in the first round. He's totally unelectable, but what the heck. I took my shot.), so if Dr. Dobson somehow gets him into position, I'll be happy. Well, I'll be happy until we lose the election.

Seriously, I'm still behind Rudy at this stage. He'd have the best chance in the general election to get into office. I'll always settle for some of what I desire from Rudy rather than almost nothing of what I desire from Hillary.

How would Jesus vote? I doubt he'd vote at all.

ClevelandBronco
05-31-2007, 04:45 PM
Depends on your take on Jesus admonishing the Jews to 'render unto Caesar."

Personally, there was a time when my church charged us to be "in this world, but not of this world." It suggests a separation between our inner selves and civic selves, another iteration of separating Church and State.

I wish I'd posted that..

ClevelandBronco
05-31-2007, 04:48 PM
Sorry, I don't have the time. But I have provided them before in arguing with patteeu over his conservative credentials. You can check my archive. Was several months ago. He's a Rockefeller republican, is Mr. Peso Bailout and Nafta aficiando....and his WWIII statements are on his own site. His support for the Toffler's is supposed to be in the forward or intro to their book and he's connected to their foundation. He doesn't refer to it as I have but it's what I call it.

Oh, crap. Time for me to do a bit more research.

ClevelandBronco
05-31-2007, 04:54 PM
Mongo only pawn... in game of life.

I don't often "laugh out loud" when I'm here, but I did when I read that.

http://www.hellblazer.com/media/alex_karras_mongo.JPG

Taco John
05-31-2007, 05:20 PM
Yeah. I'm going to get into trouble with my Bible study group this summer. I'm set to lead a discussion on the rapture and I'm going to present some pretty good evidence that the rapture is a fiction; a complete fabrication that has no scriptural basis. My best guess: That'll be the beginning of the end for me in that group. We'll see.


I would love to hear your views on this sometime. Theology is probably my favorite discussion topic. I can provide multiple points of scriptural support for the idea of reincarnation (or as I would rather call it, "reingeneration"). As you can guess, I'm not so popular with the Bible study crowd either. You don't get very far as a critical thinker in Evangelical circles. I was a real handful for my Sunday school teachers. I'm not guilty though. My search for truth has been and still is an honest one.



That's a great point, Taco. Newt is my fantasy president (I drafted him in the first round. He's totally unelectable, but what the heck. I took my shot.), so if Dr. Dobson somehow gets him into position, I'll be happy. Well, I'll be happy until we lose the election.

Seriously, I'm still behind Rudy at this stage. He'd have the best chance in the general election to get into office. I'll always settle for some of what I desire from Rudy rather than almost nothing of what I desire from Hillary.


Believe it or not, I could be persuaded by Newt as well. Gingrich is actually fourth on my current list of desireables...



How would Jesus vote? I doubt he'd vote at all.

That's as good a guess as any. I think you're probably right.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 06:40 PM
The people who don't say things that BeP likes are socialists, the ones who say things she'd like if Ron Paul were saying it, are socialists who are hiding behind words. BeP will lie about anyone to feed her Paul-o-mania.
That's just your spin on what I think or what my motivation is because you like him.

Second, if Paul wasn't in the race, I'd go with Duncan Hunter. I even like Romney somewhat. My top issues are the war and immigration for this race.
But there's things I like and don't like about each candidate.


Gingrich IS part of AEI who engineered the war in Iraq, the surge and are pushing for war with Iran, is part of the Cheney crowd...and that is a fact. It is also a fact that he is nicknamed Mr. Peso and did support welfare for illegals. He is a part of the problem as far as I'm concerned on my two top issues. And he has suggested govt health care and supports gw. Do your research, instead of how a candidate sounds....it's just the facts.

But you can spin it however you want.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 06:49 PM
I'll have to go check it out.

I haven't followed him much, but his record in the mid-90's was a pretty good one and I've heard him on the radio a couple of times recently and he said all the right things...

Don't take her word for it. Gingrich is not a Rockefeller Republican. He may have been at one time a long time ago, but that's ancient history.

He is for small government, but he isn't opposed to government-based solutions in some cases (which distinguishes him from small government ideologues like Ron Paul, and I don't say this as a negative about Paul because that's one of the things I like best about him), but he favors market-based approaches to problems. For a simplistic example, a liberal democrat would like a social security system where the rich support the poor retirees and the government manages the whole shebang. By contrast, Gingrich would favor a mandatory retirement program based at least in part on personal accounts. Further down the small government spectrum, the Ron Pauls of the world would like to get rid of SS altogether or as close to that as possible. Again, I say this as a supporter of Paul's peferred approach but as someone who thinks Gingrich offers a more realistic solution that moves the ball in the right direction.

Pure libertarians have good reason to see Gingrich as a proponent of big government, but for the people who operate within mainstream constraints and who choose between candidates who are in the two major parties, Gingrich qualifies as a government reformer and an advocate of keeping government as small as is practical, IMO.

He is definitely a hawk on the GWoT which really grates on BEP's nerves I'm sure.

patteeu
05-31-2007, 06:53 PM
Ron Paul happens to be my favorite candidate.

But I'm willing to be educated on the other entrants to the race, primarily because Paul has a better chance of being NBA Commissioner than PotUS.

I like Paul too except for his view of the GWoT where he and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, but when BEP says she'd vote for any democrat over Gingrich it may be misleading IMO unless opposition to the GWoT is your overriding concern. In almost every other respect, Gingrich would be closer to Paul than any of the major dem candidates.

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 08:52 PM
In almost every other respect, Gingrich would be closer to Paul than any of the major dem candidates.
ROFL You've such a good sense of humor.

It's not ancient history either. He is still is very much on a pro-Rockefellar platform, bragged in the 1990's how he wasn't really a conservative privately. What do you call welfare for illegals, nafta and being Mr. Peso?

BucEyedPea
05-31-2007, 08:57 PM
Pure conservatives have good reason to see Gingrich as a proponent of big government...

BEP is definitely a small govt conservative which really grates on patteeu's nerves I'm sure when she exposes conservatives who are really big govt NeoConservatives.
:p ;) :evil:

go bowe
06-01-2007, 12:00 PM
* * *
He is definitely a hawk on the GWoT which really grates on BEP's nerves I'm sure. the socialist newt?

geeze, not another republican socialist..

when will they stop offering up socialists to lead us?

go ron go ron go ron go ron...

right now, my favorite candidate in the republican camp is ron paul...

i think (and hope) that hussein will be able to defeat hillary in enough of the primaries to win the democrat nomination...

i would be hard pressed to vote for rudy, given all the negative stuff that has come from his mouth, in between references to 9/11...

there's something about mccain that leaves me cold...

the rest of the republican field doesn't inspire me at all...

of course, i'm not inspired by any of the candidates except ron paul and hussein...