Well, as long as you’re equating my imitation of a six-year-old’s response to adaher’s in tone, I’ll accept that rebuke as fully deserved.
Mitt’s long lost twin. 
I don’t even know what you call this.
adaher, could you care to give everyone an example of an issue on which Romney has been consistent? Any issue at all, it doesn’t even have to be one that you consider particularly important (though an important one would be nice). And no, “I deserve to be President because I’m better than all the little people” doesn’t count as an issue.
dontbesojumpy’s post (#18) went through around eight different times, and I’ve deleted the clones.
I am almost fully convinced that authentic footage of Romney humping a barnyard animal would result in very little change in the polls (and the RW pundits would all undoubtedly start championing the benefits of barnyard bestiality and how it is no big deal at all). Nothing he ever says or does seems to cause a big chunk of his support to desert him.
Projector.jpg
There are many Republicans who will vote for anyone that isn’t Obama. They don’t seem to be to picky about the policies. The Republicans were desperate to find a candidate, and they really didn’t have much to choose from. Who else were they going to pick? Bachmann?
thank you for that. wtf happened? i finally just logged off to try to stop it.
this is exactly what i hate. and this is why i call his lying more sleazy.
the christian right talks about how we need more ethical leaders. they scream we are a christian nation, that our problems result from a lack of ethics or morality and that religiously grounded leaders are the solution.
when obama’s christianity was in question, it was a MAJOR issue for the right.
yet romney is NOT a christian, something all christians have to fess up to, yet suddenly the details of his religion suddenly become a non-issue to the right–because SURELY him being religious at all means he’s more ethical. which is what i said before–he plays that piety card and it makes his lies feel that much more sleazy and deceitful.
the religious right votes along partylines no matter what–but screams about ethics and religion the whole time. yet they’ll vote for the devil himself so long as he’s a rep. THIS is why any allusions to ethics really rub me the wrong way.
I’ve seen this before. I believe your post was hit by a 1920’s-style death ray.
That’s it? Holy moly, that doesn’t even qualify as scandal, much less illegality.
Bill Clinton had SCANDAL; I mean, the guy actually lied under oath while he was President! George W. Bush foisted off false intelligence to start a freakin’ war. Reagan’s administration had all kinds of scandal; anyone remember Ollie North? Come on, where’s the real scandal?
While I don’t think religion is any sort of guarantee of ethical behavior, as a matter of fact Mormons consider themselves Christians, and I believe many Christian sects have accepted them as such.
I don’t hear Romney playing the piety card. Do you have an example?
Do you know who votes along party lines? PARTISANS. On both the left and the right. Both sides try to define themselves in terms of side issues like religion, or free speech, or sexual liberty, or whatever. But ultimately, they vote for the side that holds their cultural and intellectual affinity.
For an example from the left, see Barack Obama, who continued or even accelerated many of the policies that the left hated about Bush, and yet enjoys almost undiminished support from his ‘base’. Extra-judicial killings? Check. Gitmo open? Check. Indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without trial? Check. Expanding executive power? Check. Stepping up the drug war with raids on medical marijuana offices? Check. Lack of transparency? Check.
Hell, until a few months ago Obama was even against gay marriage until he had a very fortunate conversion just before election season. That didn’t stop people like Andrew Sullivan, who claims to have left the Republican Party because of its anti-gay marriage positions, from becoming a full-throated evangelist for Obama who had exactly the same position on gay marriage as John McCain did at the time Sullivan flipped.
These aren’t small things, either. The left was in full march against Bush over his opposition to gay marriage. Gitmo was an abomination to the left. The left claimed that extra-judicial killings made Bush a war criminal who should have been tried and jailed. There were marches and demonstrations against these policies. But when Obama got in office and did exactly the same thing, the silence was deafening. And there was almost no organized support of a challenger to his Democratic nomination. The Green Party candidate can’t get noticed because she would interfere with the re-election of Obama. And so it goes.
In the end, you’re either someone who culturally and intellectually identifies with Democrats, or you identify more with Republicans. If you’re a hard core partisan about it, all this other stuff is just weaponry - rhetorical bullets to use against your opponents. Or, you may find yourself more in line with one side on a major point of philosophy of government, and therefore you find yourself unable to support the other side no matter how bad your own candidates are. You find yourself defending people who hold the same positions you attacked other people for holding last year, because they were in the other party.
It’s easy to see this hypocrisy on the other side. It’s a lot harder to see it in yourself. We’re all pretty good at rationalizing our preferences.
Are you talking about Nixon or Ford?
Not sure if this post belongs in this thread, as these aren’t things Romney has actually said in so many words (I don’t think he has anyway), but it’s coming from his camp.
[NOTE: These are New York Times links and clicking may count toward your monthly quota if you’re not an online subscriber.]
This billboard is incredibly offensive and is pitched at people who cannot think for themselves. It says “Stop Obama” and shows President Obama bending over and kissing the hand of a man in Arab garb (implying Saudi royalty). It says that when Obama took office, gas was $1.89, now it’s $3.89.
Another one says, “Friends don’t let friends get nuked,” and shows a missile labeled “Iran” aimed at Israel, wrapped in an Israeli flag. These billboards and others like them are in Florida.
this is not true. while mormons DO profess to be christian, most fundamentalist christians do not consider them as such. my father was a pentecostle preacher and actually became so angry he physically left the house when i met and befriended a mormon in college.
he is now voting for Romney, even tho he still admits Mormons cannot be be true christians.
Mormonism doesn’t jibe with New Testament scripture. this is just a fact of the matter. see here.
Mormons conflict with the Jesus Trinity aspect, which, as you might guess, is kind of the most important aspect of CHRISTianity.
I have been affiliated with a lot of christian denominations growing up, and most evangelicals consider mormonism a sort of cult. Robert Jeffress said exactly that at the 2011 Values summit.
also, according to TIME, part of Romney’s downplaying of his denominational affiliations in the southern states is due to fear it will suppress evangelical votes. the same piece explains that picking Ryan (a devout Catholic) was in part due to trying to counterbalance the religious contentions.
1.Romney just released an ad saying Obama has unleashed “a war on religion” that ends with him saying Mitt Romney “shares America’s religious values,” unlike Obama.
2.He and Ryan claim they will bring a new sense of “moral clarity” to the Presidency (Values Voters Summit, september)
-
He uses his “missionary work” (in france) as fodder for why he can understand the plight of the underprivileged.
-
he has constantly references his deep faith and fervor as merit for his leadership abilities.
-
thistalks a lot about Romney’s playing of Religion in his campaign.
-
In Colorado, Romney sent out mailers attacking Obama as being “abortions on demand” and asked people to go through their church to spread the word on this and encourage voting (for him, as the more religious choice).
there’s tons and tons and tons more…
can’t argue with any of that, but i’d like to point out i am a registered Republican.
Maddow’s on in the background right now. She led off with a piece concerning a Romney fundraiser in Texas tonight, in which he apparently will be sharing the stage with Dick Cheney and (wait for it…)
Glenn Beck.
Somehow, I have a hard time thinking Mr. Romney will be posing as someone who is unaware of any anti-abortion legislation he’d sign, someone for whom war with Iran is a last resort, and that he’ll pull the troops out of Afghanistan on Obama’s declared schedule, in front of this particular crowd. Maybe those subjects won’t even come up. Probably they won’t. But if they do, I’d be real surprised if the positions taken the candidate came anywhere near what we heard during the debates.
So, like I said before, which Romney is the real one? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
According to the Obama campaign, he’s a hardcore Tea Party right-winger. They wouldn’t lie to us, now would they?
Either will do. Nixon was evil (cite: Bob Dole), but he respected evidence and expert opinion. To take a small example, he appointed Nobel Laurette Kenneth Arrow to his Council of Economic Advisers rather than packing the group with party hacks.
I mostly had in mind the cultural atmosphere. Goldwater was considered a far-right conservative and electoral poison on the national level for example, while today many of his views sound positively moderate. The New Right/Religious Right, on whose shoulders Reagan rode to power, had a pronounced nonempirical bias- their views on evolution are a familiar example. And in foreign policy the conservative Kissinger was from the realist school: Reaganauts and their successors believed that to be too liberal and by the time GWBush came to office they believed that the US “Made its own reality.”
Nixon was a good President and a terrible human being. I don’t think most people will ever be able to accept that both of those things can be true at once, but they are.