Mitt Romney To Give Address On Faith
December 3rd, 2007 at 09:29am Matt Margolis
Word is that Mitt Romney will give his long awaited speech discussing his faith. He will give the speech, titled, “Faith In America,” this Thursday, at The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas
According to Romney’s campaign spokesman Kevin Madden, “This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected.”
Romney reportedly made the decision to deliver the speech last week.
Obviously, there’s been a lot of speculation about if and when Mitt would give a speech addressing his Mormon faith. I’d always felt that that he should have done it early on in the campaign, and gotten it over with before it became a bigger liability for him. So why is he making the speech this week, when he could have done it earlier? The answer is iowa.
Romney’s lead in the polls in Iowa has taken a hit, and some polls even have Mike Huckabee taking the lead. Obviously, now is the time to bring this issue front and center. The question then will be “Will it work or was it too late?”
I still believe it would have been better for Romney to address his faith earlier in the campaign, but we’ll have to wait and see how his speech will affect the evangelical Christian voters.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Religion, Republicans
48 Comments
1. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:54 am
Matt,
Interesting post and its interesting how Gov. Romney decided to time this speech. Frankly, I think negative reactions to his being a Mormon are every bit as baseless as the negative reactions to JFK’s being a Roman Catholic. If he’s elected President, he will practice his faith tradition just like every other President has. His decisions in office would need to be judged on their own merit and not through the prism of his being a Mormon.
2. Mitt Romney To Give Addre&hellip | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 am
[…] the rest here: Mitt Romney To Give Address On Faith election pollelection […]
3. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 am
Diana,
Good post.
4. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Thanks, neocon.
5. Eric T | December 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Diane
I agree with you, I think Mitt’s real issue is flip-flopping and that he is not from a REAL state. Mass. is not a prime example of core republican values or principles. Mitt would be ok as a VP. but I feel he lacks the conservatism a president needs.
6. neocon | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:05 am
Mass. is not a real state?
It clearly demonstrates that Mitt can win in an overwhelmingly Democratic stronghold. Which is important. And Romney is more conservative than Bush.
In fact, Bush has strayed several times from core values, particularly with spending.
7. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:14 am
I agree with Eric T. Personally, I have no problem with Romney being Mormon. However, the LDS church does have a strong central authority, much like the Roman and Orthodox Catholic churches. So it seems to me that some people want to know exactly how he relates to it. That was the big question people had with JFK as well. And while JFK did a masterful job at defusing the issue, I doubt he managed to get everyone to believe him. I suspect Romney is going to have an even harder time, because Mormonism isn’t yet as integrated into the entire country as Roman Catholicism was in JFK’s time.
In Romney’s case, as it was in JFK’s, his existing record on policy already indicates that he is willing to ignore the church elders. That is especially true of his record as governor of MA. But then again, he has turned his back on many of those policies. And to me, that really is the problem with Romney — it’s hard to know what he really believes. If he manages to secure the nomination, I suspect the Dems won’t attack his religion (not directly anyway). Rather, they will try to paint him as a flip-flopper, as the Reps did with Kerry.
8. Joe | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:42 am
neocon,
it doesn’t prove he can win in a Democratic state. Until this Nov when Mass elected a Dem, there were 4 straight Republican governors.
The guy is a MAJOR flip-flopper and everyone who blasted Kerry for flip-flopping in 2004 is a major league hypocrit if they vote for Romney now.
As far as his “faith speech” goes… why is it even necessary? Because it is impossible for a Republican to get the nomination if they aren’t “religious enough”.
Let’s go back to this from JFK’s address on faith:
So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again–not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me–but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish–where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source–where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials–and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
9. Joe | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
By the way… sorry, I didn’t know how to put that snippet of the speech in a gray box or even indent it like some do. I only know how to bold, italicize or put a link.
But anyway…….
10. Eric T | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
Ricorun,
You see that too? We get a cartoon of Rudy dressed up like a woman a least once a week in our local newspaper. Mitt flip-flopping all the time.
With Huckabee you got a consistent guy that doesn’t have skeletons in the closet (that anyone knows about, at least.) With that flat tax. If your paying 28% or higher now and he puts it at 23 or 21% you just got a decent size tax break.
11. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 am
Off topic, I know.
Philadelphia Boy Scouts Face Eviction Over Anti-Gay Policy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314570,00.html
“According to a letter the Boy Scouts received from City Solicitor Rome Diaz, the Boy Scouts have until Dec. 3 to sign a new lease and start paying for the use of the property, or the city will find a new tennant and the scouts will be evicted.
Diaz, who is openly gay, refused FOX News’ request for an interview.”
Well, I’m sure MS13 would be a way better organization.
Are you liberal proud of this? I had a neighbor try to destroy our Cub Scout Pack in the spring when she was president of our PTO. How would you fill the self reliance and citizenship vacuum?
12. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Joe, instead of an “i” for italics or “b” for bold, put the “boldface” between the “” and it will do the indent and the gray box for you.
13. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Sorry. “Put the word blockquote between them” is what I meant to type, Joe.
14. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Kahn,
I followed your link and read this:
This makes no sense. If they signed a 100-year lease in 1928 then why would it be about to expire 89 years later? Some FoxNEWS reporting needs to be drastically improved here.
I noted later on in the piece this interesting quote from one of the members of the Scouting group in question:
Fascinating.
15. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Eric T: You see that too?
Oh yeah. Here’s another example (which has nothing to do with faith): many people like to hammer Ted Kennedy for his opposition to the Cape Wind project. But those same people don’t seem to know that another equally strong opponent is… Mitt Romney. Or at least he was. I’m not sure where he stands on it now. As far as I know, no one has asked the question recently. It would be interesting to know, wouldn’t it?
That in itself might be considered a small thing. Then again, maybe not. But it is at least exemplary of an issue where a candidate’s stand on it is not widely known — and one which could potentially hurt him in the long run.
People hammered CNN for that YouTube debate last week. Some of the criticism is certainly appropriate. But the argument of the sort, “Republican candidates should only be asked by Republicans about issues that are important to Republicans” strikes me as self-defeating. Likewise, any Dem version of the same is self-defeating. That sort of thing leaves you with a candidate like John Kerry — someone who is popular with their own constituency on matters which appeal to them, but who ultimately gets hammered in the general. It seems to me best to do as much as possible to reveal as many of the warts and blemishes of all the candidates in the primaries as possible so that the eventual nominee is as much of a known quantity as possible. That isn’t to suggest they might not be blind-sided anyway, but it reduces the ammunition available.
16. Joe | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Works great.
17. Eric T | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I like the GOP candidates I think any are better than what the dems got. I think Mike H. can get alot more of the Dem voters with his Union endorsements. And if Hillary is the dem alot of men will vote mike, if obama is the dem alot of the old school democrats will vote mike
18. anarchist | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Isn’t Mitt Romney’s biggest accomplishment imposing Hillary style socialized healthcare on Massachusetts. Now tens of thousands of Massachusetts citizens are about to be fined this April for commiting the crime of not being able to afford health insurance. Seems like a bad system to me, can’t afford insurance, so you get fined.
19. Sunny | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
What ever happend to the separation of chuch and state our founding fathers put into the Bill of Rights and Constitution? If we cannot tell enough about a persons ethical and moral foundation based on their records, maybe we need to re-think voting for that person. But to have to justify your religious beliefs so that you can be elected is just plain wrong in the United States of America.
20. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Diana, but WE don’t give lip service to the “climate change” crowd like the Democrats do. Kind of the same hypocrite argument you use against us when there’s a gay Republican. Though of course attacking a public figure for his or her sexuality is also hypocritical.
ansC - Yep, He signed that bill that was passed by the Democrat controlled congress up there.
In some ways, it’s similar to plans being offered by Democrats. So, are you against the concept, or for it, or does it matter who’s offering it?
21. OhioOrrin | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
per Joe above,
JFK said “…and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds…”
we didn’t apply those lessons real well, did we?
22. Eric T | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
If you got a Hillary Obama ticket, it is trying to get the black vote and women vote. Mike H will appeal more to the Christian blacks and Christian women. Than most of the other candidates. I think Mike H. appeals to the working class better than the competition as well. I think his message doesn’t just target one particular tax bracket. I put my money on him, I’ll stop rambling on about him. I’m probably putting you guys to sleep with it.
23. Eric T | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Sunny
We have a right to know what the candidates believe. If you had a guy from Hamas running would’nt you like to get that out in the open before he is elected.
24. Joe | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
kahn, are you from Massachusetts? I am.
I can guarantee that Romney was pushing that universal healthcare. He wasn’t simply just signing a bill that was passed. He helped structure it.
Sunny, I couldn’t agree more.
25. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Joe,
You’re welcome!
Kahn,
I mostly put your name at the top since it might save me from being gummed by the self-styled “attack dog” Dittohead4Life (now, new-and-improved as Male Dittohead4Life) for “changing the topic”. I doubt it, but I tried.
Honestly, I’ve read your paragraph a couple of times now and I’m not seeing what your trying to say. “Lip service to the ‘climate change’ crowd”? Do you mean that Democrats aren’t doing enough to genuinely support the efforts of the “climate change crowd”? I thought Democrats were being attacked because they were supporting the “climate change crowd”.
As to the “same hypocrite argument you use against us when there’s a gay Republican”, you’ll have to point that out to me. I quoted a member of the Scout group in the news story you linked to, whose political affiliation was not stated, who made reference to other unnamed Scouts whose political affiliation was not stated. I don’t care if everyone in the Republican Party is gay or not gay. Makes no difference to me. Now, does that mean that you object to all of the sneering, gay-baiting references to John Edwards as “a preening metrosexual” or “the first woman president”?
26. Male Zampolit | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
What ever happend to the separation of chuch and state our founding fathers put into the Bill of Rights and Constitution?
Uh, read both documents, granny, and you’ll not find it in either. In fact, the words “separation” and “church” never appear anywhere in the Constitution.
How udderly ridiculous you are, sunshine…
27. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:31 pm
keef, whatever else could be said about your own particular brand of zaniness, going by the tag, “Male Zampolit” adds another dimension to it.
I thought “Dittohead4life” was more descriptive without adding the negative political connotations.
However, if you really want to mix metaphores, allow me to suggest the following: “Male Greek Zampolit Chorus of One”, lol!
28. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Joe, well yes I am. But I left decades ago.
Actually I don’t know much about the plan and would welcome a reasoned explanation. Are Democrats up there for it, or against it? Or are you for it but think we should hate Romney for it? I’m confused.
Diana Powe - sorry you’re confused. Yes, Democrats pay lip service to the climate change crowd.
1. The unions stop any real car mileage improvements from being mandated because they’re afraid of job losses.
2. Liberals have severely restricted wind mill projects nationwide because of Cape Cod. Now, say Romney agreed if you want to. But he’s not a senator. Ted Kennedy wrote the law that restricted these projects.
3. The Democratic power elite is as rich and as into oil money as anyone. Just look into their multi-billion dollar portfolios (if you can) to see that.
4. The Democratic power elite (including Gore, and Edwards, and Kerry, and… ) live lavish lifestyles. Own fleets of cars and SUV’s. Live in hugely wasteful mansions. Actually - often own more than one. And they fly on private jets constantly - the single most wasteful mode of travel outside launching rockets.
5. Did you know that outside oil, the second most polluting industry in California is the movie industry?
6. Harry Reid is one of the main obstacles to the Yuca Mountain nuclear waste facility going fully operational. Without it, people are afraid to build new (clean air) nuclear plants.
So, in summary. The Democrats and especially the Democratic power elite pollute, waste, make money from pollution, and stifle development of more efficient cars and alternative energy sources (wind and nuclear). It’s not just the elite though - unions in California and Michigan and other places are thickly involved.
It’s like 1859 Alabama complaining about the way New Hampshire textile workers are being treated.
29. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Kahn: So, in summary. The Democrats and especially the Democratic power elite pollute, waste, make money from pollution, and stifle development of more efficient cars and alternative energy sources (wind and nuclear). It’s not just the elite though - unions in California and Michigan and other places are thickly involved.
In that case, wouldn’t it behoove the Republicans to advocate that which the Democrats won’t? What’s up with that? If what you say is true, doesn’t it strike you as a golden opportunity to wrap the Dems up in their own hypocrisy?
30. Joe | December 3rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
The Health Care issue in Mass doesn’t really affect me because my job offers a decent Health Care package.
Am I for it or against it… well I am for healthcare for everyone, but I think there are better ways to do it than what has been implemented. Fining someone for NOT having it because it is too expensive seems a bit stupid.
I blame both the Dems in the state offices as well as Romney. But believe me, this is not something that showed up on Romney’s desk and he approved. He was pushing this and was very proud of getting it done. He had a big signing ceremony and everything.
You say:
1. The unions stop any real car mileage improvements from being mandated because they’re afraid of job losses.
— I haven’t looked it up, but from what I remember reading, it wasn’t the unions, it was the car manufacturers. They say it would cost too much to do.
4. The Democratic power elite (including Gore, and Edwards, and Kerry, and… ) live lavish lifestyles. Own fleets of cars and SUV’s. Live in hugely wasteful mansions. Actually - often own more than one. And they fly on private jets constantly - the single most wasteful mode of travel outside launching rockets.
— So what?? Do you have to be poor to advocate for the poor? Do you have to be handicapped to advocate for the handicapped? Do you have to be gay to advocate for gay rights? If it really bothers you that they live in big homes, then vote for Kucinich. He still lives in the house he grew up in in Cleveland.
31. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Kahn,
Thanks for the clarification. You won’t get any dispute from me that there are wealthy Democrats whose portfolios or personal peeves reflect a failure to act on efforts to address energy independence and climate change. However, are you honestly going to tell me that the various members of the Republican “power elite” don’t…
Have you seen any of those videos of Senator McCain traveling by private jet? He’s #15 on Free Republic’s list of the “2005 wealthiest politicians in DC” which had a total of 15 Republicans out of a group of 25. If people are living wastefully, it doesn’t matter what political affiliation they have.
As to pointing out Senator Reid’s alleged sin of being “one of the main obstacles to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility going fully operational” may I point out the fact that a poll conducted for the Reno Review-Journal just a few days ago showed 76% of Nevada voters are opposed to the Yucca Mountain facility? The same article has this quote:
Are you telling me that you’re criticizing Sen. Reid for representing the overwhelming majority view of his constituents on this issue? That’s a fairly interesting idea.
If the inference we’re supposed to take from you is that it’s all the Democrat’s fault we don’t have more fuel-efficient cars, more sources of alternative energy sources coming on line and less pollution, then what was the Republican Party doing for all the YEARS they controlled the White House AND both houses of Congress, cowering in craven fear of the all-powerful “Democratic power elite”?
32. Mitt Romney To Give Addre&hellip | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:15 pm
[…] post by unknown This was written by . Posted on Monday, December 3, 2007, at 8:29 am. Filed under Politics. […]
33. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Ricorun - It would, if our base bought into the climate change crap. But we don’t. So our politicians, on this particular issue can be honest. Point?
Meanwhile, YOUR side does buy this position. But apparently, your leadership does not. Point?
Joe - thanks for your position. You offer one fact - fines. What else is in it? Why did you Democrat controlled legislature agree? Can’t you elaborate?
Oh, and you’re wrong - do look it up. Did the car companies resist? Yes. But the unions were right on board with that. Sorry to highlight your ignorance. You could do some research before reposting - unless looking ignorant is not a problem for you.
Um, no I’m not against wealth. But these are the same people wanting to raise your gas taxers and make you bike to work. Whatever - you sheep.
Diana - but we’re NOT the ones peddling the climate change crap. Hence, no hypocrisy. Also - the wealthiest people in Congress, and in the country are Democrats. Yep. Gates, Hathaway, Soros Kerry, Hollywood, the Kennedy’s, and on and on. NONE of them walk the global warming walk.
So Reid agrees with his state? OK, whatever. No nuclear then.
You turn it around at us. But WE aren’t the ones who believe the climate change story - you are. But your own politicians don’t believe it either, at least its not reflected in how they live their personal and business lives. That actually bolsters OUR position by the way.
The liberal rank and file reluctance to admit this (even in a harmless venue like an anonymous blog) makes you look dishonest. It is a sign of your poor integrity. And it undermines your positional arguments. But, well NEVER admit you’re wrong if you want. It just makes you look hopelessly partisan.
34. Ricorun | December 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Ricorun - It would, if our base bought into the climate change crap. But we don’t. So our politicians, on this particular issue can be honest. Point?
Meanwhile, YOUR side does buy this position. But apparently, your leadership does not.
My side? Cute. Let me ask you, who do you intend to vote for? And what is their stand on better efficiency and alternative fuels? Granted, not many of them talk too much about global warming as their imperative. More often the talk is about the national security imperative. Fine. Whatever floats your boat. But the result is the same — to wean ourselves from foreign oil. And I suspect that once they start getting honest and looking at the cost/benefit ratios, suddenly the so-called “green alternatives” will be considered more favorably than they are now. But I’ll save my breath trying to explain it to you. I am, after all, just a dumbass.
35. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Kahn,
Reluctance to admit what? If I may be forgiven for quoting myself:
So, Republicans don’t buy into the “climate change crap”. Every single one? Not even one? Are they taken out and shot if they do?
Also, do Republicans also have no interest in (following your styling) the “energy independence crap”? Apparently you do or you wouldn’t be telling us the hard-core truth about Sen. Reid preventing us from having “new (clean air) nuclear plants”.
Now, this:
That is quite the sweeping assertion. Do you have some statistical data to back that up? As the dictum goes, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Here’s the top ten from Forbes’ list of the 400 wealthiest Americans printed in 2006:
1. William H. Gates III - Independent, based on FEC report of contributions to Republican and Democratic candidates.
2. Warren E. Buffett - Democrat, based on FEC reports.
3. Sheldon Adelson - Republican, based on FEC reports.
4. Lawrence J. Ellison - Republican, based on FEC reports.
5. Paul G. Allen - Democrat, based on FEC reports.
6. Jim C Walton - Republican, based on FEC reports.
7. Christy Walton - Independent, based on FEC report of contributions to Republican and Democratic candidates.
8. S. Robson Walton - Republican, based on FEC reports.
9. Michael Dell - Republican, based on FEC reports.
10. Alice L. Walton - Republican, based on FEC reports.
I don’t know about you, but the way I count the first 10 leaves us with a score of Republicans - 6, Democrats - 2 and Independents - 2. Since it’s your extraordinary claim, I’ll leave it to you to work through the other 390 and tally it up or cite some other non-partisan source like the Federal Election Commission to support this idea of yours.
“Anonymous blog”? My first name and last name are out there for all the world to read. You? “Khan”. Okay, who’s practicing anonymity here?
May I respectfully suggest that what makes one look “hopelessly partisan” is making sweeping statements that you know will be uncritically accepted by those who already agree with you here without any supporting neutral sources. That’s why they call it an “echo chamber”.
36. Diana Powe | December 3rd, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Khan,
I mean, come on! You grandly announce that Democratic politicians and Democratic supporters are “the wealthiest people” and, presumably, use it to cheat and connive and grab power from the poorer Republicans. However, the only person here who has offered any actual evidence is me with even a nod to the rabidly anti-Democrat Free Republic as the source of who the wealthiest politicians are (post # 31). This is the kind of thing that “undermines [our] positional arguments”? Huh?
37. Brian Gregory | December 3rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Personally, I’m surprised Romney didn’t drop his “faith” before running for a nomination that he knew would require evangelical Christian support, just like he did with his support for abortion rights and gay marriage…curious.
At least JFK was honest about his beliefs.
38. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Well rico - yes, if it makes financial sense to use alternative energy compared to foreign oil then lets do it. Absolutely. “Foreign Oil”, interesting choice of words.
Diane - yes, this is anonymous. Most people here use pseudonyms. But, a knee jerk counter attack is not the way to prove you’re open-minded. I um looked at some of your posts on other blogs and you’re not open minded, are you? Admit it, come on now - embrace your certainty and proclaim it.
!. “Study: Democrats the party of the rich”
By Donald Lambro November 23, 2007
If you don’t like the souerce, look up the referenced study.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071123/NATION/111230087/1002
Lets look at some of the congressional fortunes:
http://opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.asp?type=W&cycle=2005&filter=C
Um, those are some pretty rich Democrats at the top of the list…..
But anyways. I notice no concern with YOUR leaders private jets, wasteful mansions, and fleets of SUV’s. No concern for the windmill projects. No concern fo the lack of nuclear. Just kneejerk attacks on the minutia of my post.
Tell me, when you vote at the Democratic Primaries, do they install the ring in your nose or do you have to do that when you get home?
39. Kahn | December 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Brian, JFK was sleeping with a proven East German spy. Was he honest about that?
40. Casper | December 4th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Kahn,
I’m just curious if you really looked at your second link. It shows that 16 out of the top 25 richest congresscritters are Republican. It also shows that 14 out of the 25 poorest congresscritters are Democrats. If anything the facts run counter to your argument that Democrats are richer.
41. Diana Powe | December 4th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Kahn,
Ah, yes. The Washington Times reporting on a study conducted by the Heritage Foundation. No reason to suspect any bias there. No, sir.
However, did you actually read your source article? It didn’t say, as you have repeatedly claimed without evidence, that Democratic politicians and Democratic supporters are “the wealthiest people”. The researcher stated:
In other words, he has no data about how these wealthier households voted and is silent on the issues of Senate elections. There is correlation but no evidence of linkage which is what you need in science. Most people get up within an hour of the sun coming up but it doesn’t mean that the sun caused them to get up although it is a related event.
Then, your list of 25 members of Congress, exactly like the one I cited from Free Republic, shows what? Fifteen of the twenty-five wealthiest members of Congress are Republicans which would be 60%. Gosh, that proves your point! What was I thinking?
For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that registered Democrats all over the country, have greater wealth than registered Republicans by some percentage. This proves what? Democrats are smarter investing their money? Democrats are better educated and follow the trend of those with better educations getting better-paying jobs? People who make more money are more likely to agree with Democratic positions? What?
Finally (although you’re steadily losing points on the reading portion here), you want to tiresomely claim again that:
when what I wrote was:
So, here, let me save you the trouble. I didn’t write what I just wrote for the second time.
42. Ricorun | December 4th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Kahn: “Foreign Oil”, interesting choice of words.
Interesting or not, it’s obvious. No matter how you draw any Venn diagram containing various energy issues of national interest, that’s where they all intersect. So now, do you want to start talking about cost/benefit analyses? Do you want to talk about development or capital investment risks? Production time lines? Disposal issues?
Do I sound like a liberal? Do I fit in that neat little mental box of yours? The fact is, while I do believe that global warming (or climate change, or whatever the nom du jour) is a significant problem, it it is but one problem that leads to essentially the same solution. I have major problems with the typical liberal approach with its heavy emphasis on regulation, conservation, and taxation. Those things alone won’t work. Likewise, I have major problems with the typical conservative approach with its heavy emphasis on drilling more and mining more. Those things alone won’t work either. So, do you want to start talking about this stuff, or do you just want to keep calling people names?
43. Thrower | December 4th, 2007 at 2:06 am
Back to the Romney thread. I think this guy is a victim of the over-emphasis on religion in current politics. I think he is a very intelligent and highly competent guy who is looking more and more foolish as he spins like a top trying to realign his positions with those of the Republican base. It is unfortunate that we place a higher value on what our leaders believe than how well they reason and act.
I could care less about his religious beliefs, and I find him far more attractive as a leader than Guliani (if his wives couldn’t trust him neither can I) or Thompson (completely devoid of energy). Too bad for Romney that Kerry probably killed the species of flip flopus electus.
44. Jeremiah | December 4th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Thrower,
It’s a shame too when people try to govern and shut God out of their “reasoning” for coming to their decisions.
It just won’t work!!!
People would suffer!
Jeremiah
45. Sunny | December 4th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Male Zampolit | December 3rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
What ever happend to the separation of chuch and state our founding fathers put into the Bill of Rights and Constitution?
Uh, read both documents, granny, and you’ll not find it in either. In fact, the words “separation” and “church” never appear anywhere in the Constitution.
How udderly ridiculous you are, sunshine…”
Thank you Male Bigot. I will give you this - the words “separation of church and state” are not written verbatim in the Constitution. However, should you bother to do just a little research, you will learn that the idea of separation of church and state is identified as a First Amendment right. The Constitution also does not specifically state that you have the right to a fair trial, however, under the Sixth Amendment, we are provided such a right. And for years, the argument has been made that we have a right to privacy, although those words do not appear in the Constitution. So, mbigot, you may find me “udderly (sic) ridiculous”, however, that does not take away from the fact that when our founding fathers wrote “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”, Thomas Jefferson interpreted that to mean that there was “a wall of separation between church and state”. Now, be aware that the US Supreme Court has addressed this issue many times. And James Madison, the principal author of the US Bill of Rights believed that there was a total separation of church from state, and in fact wrote that “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States”. So, if you want to disagree with Jefferson and Madison, go ahead. But since they were heavily involved in the drafting of these important documents our country has been build on, go for it.
And Eric T (you dope) - no, it is not your right to know about someone’s religious beliefs. You have a right to know if they are honest, truthful, ethical and fit for the position of president, but when you delve into ones religious beliefs, you go to far. There are some things in our lives that a person, even a public servant, has a right to keep private. By the way, Reagan was not a very religious man. Does that mean he should not have been elected president, or did a poor job because he did not attend church on a regular basis? If you are electing a religious leader, I would say it would be an important issue. As to electing a President, I want to know - can that person lead this country with intergrity and intellectual curiosity needed to stay informed and responsible.
46. Kahn | December 4th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Dianna - yep. But look at the gap in wealth. Kohl 1/4 billion?
And note, this is just their private fortunes. Kerry’s wife is a billionaire. The numbers are actually ALL low.
Point is, you have no business claiming to be the party of the poor. Your politicians are at least the same, if not richer. Point? This was part of my hypocrisy illustration after all.
47. CallMeTeach | December 4th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Kahn - Democrats claim to be the party of the poor because they generally represent the poor population of the US - not because they themselves are poor (please tell me I didn’t have to explan that). This is generally evident in the fact the individual contrabutions of donors to political campaigns are much lower for dems than repubs - this campaign season is an annomally. And way to go Sunshine for pointing out the obvious in relation to the seperation of church and state. We tend to forget that there was a very good reason why our forfathers wanted this seperation - governments ran by religion are always tyrannical. I don’t care if it is a Muslim based, Christian based, or Jewish based government, they are all overbearing, controlling, anti-democracy, and anti-freedom. Thank God Jefferson and the rest realized this. Those who wish for more religion in Government are fools and would soon find out what living in Saudi Arabia is like. I like Huckabee mostly because he is well - likable. But he is fanatically Southern Baptist and his faith played a huge part in the way he governed Arkansas. Please research this guy before you people choose to vote for him. I like how one poster states there doesn’t seem to be any dirt on him but if you would do some dang research you would find a lot of negative things about him. Don’t rely on the MSM to tell you he is squeaky clean because he most certainly is not.
48. ddzmskmt&hellip | January 23rd, 2008 at 2:43 pm
ddzmskmt
ddzmskmt