The New York Times ran a front-page story Thursday on how Mitt Romney’s being a Mormon may damage his chances as he seeks the GOP nomination. Of special concern, according to the story, are Southern evangelical Christians in early primary states who mistrust Mormonism. “Mr. Romney’s advisers,” wrote the Times, “acknowledge that . . . questions about whether Mormons are beholden to their church’s leader’s on public policy could give his opponents ammunition in the wide-open fight among Republicans to become the consensus candidate of social conservatives.”
Well, evangelicals may or may not mistrust Mormonism as a religion. But when it comes to public policy, those Mormon “church leaders” stand hard against abortion, gay marriage, gambling, and alcohol consumption—views that handily comport with those of evangelicals. The Times, in other words, has it backwards. The real concern of many social conservatives—and of the Romney campaign—is not that Romney is a tool of his socially conservative church but that as a politician he has had too liberal a record to get through the primaries.
True, as governor, Romney fought (and pretty much lost) a long, tough battle against court-imposed gay marriage in the Bay State. But as a politician, for better or worse, he has always been more of a businessman/technocrat than a red-meat guy. True again, on the issue of abortion, he claims to have had an epiphany that has made him pro-life. One of his favorites lines is that “even Reagan didn’t always hold Reaganite views on abortion.” Still, he ran for (and won) the Massachusetts governorship as a pro-choice candidate, with support from Planned Parenthood.
Romney is working hard, with some notable recent success, to win the support of evangelical leaders who cannot bring themselves to back Rudy Giuliani (pro-choice) or John McCain (whose pro-life views are widely mistrusted). But why does the New York Times not want to tell its readers that the ex-governor has, until recently, had a solidly liberal record on abortion, a record entirely at odds with the Mormon church and, incidentally, to the left of Democratic Senator Harry Reid, a fellow Mormon who is pro-life? Could it be because this information might kindle friendly interest among potential moderate voters who will believe he is really one of their own? In a perverse way, the Romney campaign could regard the Times story as a sign of success.
Caroline is going down quicker than the Pirate ship McKinney.
Put all US legislative positions up for bid on eBay, so every aspirant gets a fair shake. The Treasury can collect the proceeds and give us all tax credits.
When it began
You started in ‘ya knowin’
But then the ‘ya knowin’ got to strong
It lasted till spring
And then it became even dumber
Who’d have believed you’d “umm” so long
Hands, touchin’ hands
Uncle Ted passin’ out
Touchin’ me
Touchin’ you
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so “umm” good
I’ve been inclined
To believe they never “umm” would
But now I
Look at you at night
And you don’t seem so boney
We fill you up with Starbucks too
And when I burp
Burpin’ runs off my shoulders
How can I burp when I’m “umm” with you
Warm, touchin warm
Uncle Ted drivin’ drunk
Touchin’ me
Touchin’ me
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so “umm” good
I’ve been inclined
To believe they never “umm” would
Oh, no, no
Sweet Caroline
Good times never seemed so “umm” good
I’ve been inclined
I believe they never “umm” would
Sweet Caroline
I must confess I see no grounds for believing the aptly named Stupid Party has the wattage to capitalize on the coming Democratic wheels-off and into-the-ditch cycle.
J Rubin said: “The poll also reveals that Republicans can win back voters by opposing Democrats on several specific policies coming down the pike in 2009: card-check labor union elections, bailouts for banks and auto makers, welfare expansions and affirmative action.”
Of course the GOP can also gain from opposing Dems on “comprehensive immigration reform”, which is extremely unpopular.
But being the Stupid Party, they’ll probably decide instead that McCain’s real problem was he didn’t Hispander enough.
“Some scraps of good news for Republicans in polling about voters’ attitudes toward the two parties: “The good news is that voters are very fearful that Democrats will go too far with their liberal agenda. When voters are asked what they ‘like least about the Democrats,’ the most common answers volunteered were: ‘taxes going up,’ ‘big government,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘raise spending,’ and even ’socialism.’ These broad economic and fiscal principles appear to present the GOP with its biggest opening.”
Great insight. But now what matters is how all this gets framed. The GOP can be successful if it establishes that it is opposing these bad Democratic goals. But it will be unsuccessful if the Democrats establish, with a lot of help from their MSM water-carriers, that the GOP is opposing President Obama. Obama is much more popular than many core Democratic ideas. These Democratic ideas are popular with most of the media (which knows little about economics and thinks the New Deal is what got us out of the Great Depression), and so between the media and Obama’s individual popularity, this will be a hard battle for Republicans.
Caroline Kennedy, you know
Was yesterday’s up and coming tyro
Today she’s a pig in a poke
The latest Democrat joke
This despite all her dough
Regarding the first story, so is the criteria now having cachet and being “prepped” enough so that you seem like you have a clue in front of the camera?