Mitt Romney: unelectable?

[nursebenjamin]

Does Mitt Romney's flavor of Christianity make him unelectable to the office of President?

[micatala]

Yes, you already said you saw this in a tabloid.

And why would we put any credence in such a report?

The fact that neither of us could find anything about this on CNN speaks volume.

So does the fact that the report you cite here also throws in mention of a steamy affair by Michelle Obama.

Hmmm.


I am just wondering.


Does Rupert Murdoch own the Globe?



At any rate, yes you can find this report all over the right wing blogosphere. Again, why should we put any credence in this report? Does any legitimate news organization back up with these alleged unnamed sources from the golf course say?


And even if Bill and Obama were having a spat, why on earth would that be one of the most important stories of the campaign season?

Does it matter whether the report has any "credence" in the liberal media?

I reject the spin implied by "liberal media." The simple fact is the source you quoted has no credence with most people because it has a record of highly unreliable sensationalist journalism. It is simply not a believable source for most people, and for good reason. That has nothing to do with other media outlets, liberal or otherwise.

It is certainly no secret that there has long been much more than a "spat" between Clinton and Obama, and Clinton certainly has more credence in the Democratic Party than Obama does.

I'll accept there have been some public disagreements between Clinton and Obama. I am not sure what basis there is for saying Clinton has more "credence" than Obama, and besides, it is not an apples to apples comparison when one is in his first term and the other is long since out of office.

All Obama ever had going for him was the novelty of his dark skin, and now that that has worn off, what is left?

I reject this highly insulting and entirely unsubstantiated opinion. If the only thing Obama had going for him was his race, Jesse Jackson would long ago have been President.

Even some Democrats are saying "Anybody but Obama!"

Name a half dozen prominent democrats who have pulicly stated this.

Hillary has already said she will not serve a second term as Sec. of State if Obama is elected again.

So? It is historically unusual for any Secretary of State to serve through two terms, or even into the second term.

See http://history.state.gov/departmenthist ... ecretaries

Colin Powell: First term only for Bush.

Warren Christopher: First term only for Clinton.

James Baker did not do a full term for the first Bush.

George Schultz did go into the second term for Reagan, but was not Reagan's first Secretary, having replaced Haig.

Cyrus Vance: Less than a full term for Carter.

Williarm Pierce Rogers: One term under Nixon, replaced by Kissinger.

Prior to that, only Dean Rusk, John Foster Dulles, and Cordell Hull, who started in 1933, served more than four years.


Why should we read anything unusual into the fact that Hillary said she is not going to serve the second term?

If she has any good sense and hopes to run for the presidency in 2016, she will resign before the coming election smears her forever.

John

This statement reflects nothing but an unsubstantiated negative view of Obama, that I for one reject. Even if he lasts only one term, he will have ample reason to be proud of what he accomplished.

1) Helped prevent a complete economic melt down. The economy now seems well on the way to recovery from the worst recession in 80 years.
2) First President in many decades to enact substantial health care reform.
3) Got Osama bin Laden
4) Helped usher out Gadhafi
5) No further domestic terrorist attacks from Al-Qaeda
6) Fulfilled campaign promise to remove us from combat in Iraq.

THere are, of course, things left undone.

1) He did not close Guantanamo, as promised.
2) We are out of Iraq, but the future their is unclear.
3) Prospects in Afghanistan are not clear.
4) We also have the ongoing issues of North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan, but those have been issues for several adminstrations, even decades.
5) Health care reform arguably did not do enough to address all of the major issues, especially slowing the rate of health care inflation which is a major driver of our future project deficits.
6) While most of the current debt and deficits are due to factors beyond his control or policies he did not enact, he did contribute significantly in the short term to deficits with the stimulus package. I think this on the whole a plus and prevented further job deterioration, but there is not denying it added close to a trillion in debt out of our over 14 trillion.


Hillary may not agree with everything Obama did, or may feel she could have done better.

Frankly, I agree she would have likely been a better President. In the spring of 2008, I had a Hillary sign in my yard, not an Obama sign (even though as a registered independent I would not be participating in either primary in my state).


Still, I frankly find it highly questionable to suggest that Hillary is concerned that her association with Obama will be some kind of political liability.



And besides all that, in the same interview in which she said she would not serve a second term for Obama, she also said this was going to be her last public role.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/1 ... 36635.html

In other words, she has stated she is not interested in running for President or Vice President in 2016.

It appears the whole premise of your argument here is flawed.




I will close with this opinion, for what it is worth. If we end up with Romney vs. Obama, I will consider my major party choices better than what we had in 1980 or even 1984. I would certainly pick Romney over George Bush.

[JohnPaul]

Yay! Romney won Iowa Caucus by 8 votes!

[dianaiad]

Yay! Romney won Iowa Caucus by 8 votes!

(laughing very, very hard...)

Don't DO that when I have just sipped a bit of diet coke!

[100%atheist]

Yay! Romney won Iowa Caucus by 8 votes!

(laughing very, very hard...)

Don't DO that when I have just sipped a bit of diet coke!

I'd put it other way around, Iowans strongly supported a reported necromancer and necrophilic fetishist, who lost just 8 votes to Romney.

Frankly, I long couldn't believe that (a) the crazy story about Rick S. is true and (b) he received so much support. I just don't know, is it really common that Americans bring corpses of their dead children home so other children can play with the corpses? Maybe I can help them, I could donate their children a toy or a book to play if they are so poor.

[Goat]

Yay! Romney won Iowa Caucus by 8 votes!

(laughing very, very hard...)

Don't DO that when I have just sipped a bit of diet coke!

I'd put it other way around, Iowans strongly supported a reported necromancer and necrophilic fetishist, who lost just 8 votes to Romney.

Frankly, I long couldn't believe that (a) the crazy story about Rick S. is true and (b) he received so much support. I just don't know, is it really common that Americans bring corpses of their dead children home so other children can play with the corpses? Maybe I can help them, I could donate their children a toy or a book to play if they are so poor.

It's Iowa.. .. last time,Huckabee won.

[JohnPaul]

Yay! Romney won Iowa Caucus by 8 votes!

(laughing very, very hard...)

Don't DO that when I have just sipped a bit of diet coke!

I'd put it other way around, Iowans strongly supported a reported necromancer and necrophilic fetishist, who lost just 8 votes to Romney.

Frankly, I long couldn't believe that (a) the crazy story about Rick S. is true and (b) he received so much support. I just don't know, is it really common that Americans bring corpses of their dead children home so other children can play with the corpses? Maybe I can help them, I could donate their children a toy or a book to play if they are so poor.

100%atheist, you have repeated one of the filthiest, most obscene examples of liberal lies in recent memory. Here is a more rational description of the incident in 1996 when Rick and Karen Santorum brought their dead newborn baby home so their other children could "meet" him before taking him to the morgue:

Liberal commentator Alan Colmes made a strong bid to end his undistinguished career Monday, during a Fox News segment in which he and Rich Lowry of National Review discussed Rick Santorum’s surge in the Iowa polls.
In the course of offering his Really Deep Thoughts about why the Santorum surge
wouldn’t last, Colmes mused that people would bail on the former senator from
Pennsylvania once they "get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real."

Lowry stepped up to the plate and tore Colmes to pieces without hesitation:

What actually happened, for the benefit of anyone foolish enough to accept Alan Colmes’ warped and hateful fantasies as the final word, is that Santorum’s son Gabriel had a fatal defect detected early in the pregnancy. Rick and his wife Karen wanted to bring Gabriel into the world despite the towering odds against him, but Karen developed a potentially fatal intrauterine infection. Birth was induced prematurely, and Gabriel only survived outside the womb for a couple of hours.
The Santorums slept all night in the hospital with Gabriel, then took him home so that his brothers and sisters could meet him. The bond between the family and their lost child became the subject of a deeply personal book, Letters to Gabriel, authored by Karen Santorum. Mother Teresa wrote the forward.

[100%atheist]

Yay! Romney won Iowa Caucus by 8 votes!

(laughing very, very hard...)

Don't DO that when I have just sipped a bit of diet coke!

I'd put it other way around, Iowans strongly supported a reported necromancer and necrophilic fetishist, who lost just 8 votes to Romney.

Frankly, I long couldn't believe that (a) the crazy story about Rick S. is true and (b) he received so much support. I just don't know, is it really common that Americans bring corpses of their dead children home so other children can play with the corpses? Maybe I can help them, I could donate their children a toy or a book to play if they are so poor.

100%atheist, you have repeated one of the filthiest, most obscene examples of liberal lies in recent memory. Here is a more rational description of the incident in 1996 when Rick and Karen Santorum brought their dead newborn baby home so their other children could "meet" him before taking him to the morgue:

Liberal commentator Alan Colmes made a strong bid to end his undistinguished career Monday, during a Fox News segment in which he and Rich Lowry of National Review discussed Rick Santorum’s surge in the Iowa polls.
In the course of offering his Really Deep Thoughts about why the Santorum surge
wouldn’t last, Colmes mused that people would bail on the former senator from
Pennsylvania once they "get a load of some of the crazy things he’s said and done, like taking his two-hour-old baby when it died right after childbirth home and played with it so that his other children would know that the child was real."

Lowry stepped up to the plate and tore Colmes to pieces without hesitation:

What actually happened, for the benefit of anyone foolish enough to accept Alan Colmes’ warped and hateful fantasies as the final word, is that Santorum’s son Gabriel had a fatal defect detected early in the pregnancy. Rick and his wife Karen wanted to bring Gabriel into the world despite the towering odds against him, but Karen developed a potentially fatal intrauterine infection. Birth was induced prematurely, and Gabriel only survived outside the womb for a couple of hours.
The Santorums slept all night in the hospital with Gabriel, then took him home so that his brothers and sisters could meet him. The bond between the family and their lost child became the subject of a deeply personal book, Letters to Gabriel, authored by Karen Santorum. Mother Teresa wrote the forward.

??? So what is the lie exactly? According to every description, it is not what sane people do. It's probably okay if this was a result of a stress, but it seems it continued up to the point they even made some money out of it. They are sick people.

A dead child is a tragegy. It is not a teaching moment for your todlers in anyway, and not a reason to write a book about it. In sane falimilies, it must be a teaching moment for parents only to correct something medically or to stop hurting yourself, your children, your potential children, and use any good way of birth control up to sterilization .

[dianaiad]

A dead child is a tragegy. It is not a teaching moment for your todlers in anyway, and not a reason to write a book about it. In sane falimilies, it must be a teaching moment for parents only to correct something medically or to stop hurting yourself, your children, your potential children, and use any good way of birth control up to sterilization .[/quote]

Yes.

A dead child is a tragedy...and it's none of your business, nor your place to judge, how others handle that tragedy. As well, have you ever read 'Letters to Gabriel?"

If not, then I strongly suggest that you withhold your critical opinion of it. Writing a book is a long respected and appreciated way of dealing with tragedy...and sharing one's thoughts is another.

....and unless you are a state licensed psychiatrist, I strongly suggest that you not make judgments about what makes a family 'sane' or 'insane.' Especially since what you really mean to write is "any family that has the same culture and thinks the same way I do about the death of a baby would do the same thing I would, and everybody else is insane and horrific."

..................and it is people like you who think that RELIGION is the problem in terms of tolerance.

Gaaahhhhh.

[JohnPaul]

100%atheist wrote:

'd put it other way around, Iowans strongly supported a reported necromancer and necrophilic fetishist, who lost just 8 votes to Romney.

Is this some disgusting "liberal thing" that is going around now, or is it your own idea to accuse Rick Santorum of black magic, sorcery and witchcraft, and of being sexually attracted to his own baby's corpse? If this libel is a product of your own mind, I seriously suggest you seek professional help.

John

[100%atheist]

100%atheist wrote:

'd put it other way around, Iowans strongly supported a reported necromancer and necrophilic fetishist, who lost just 8 votes to Romney.

Is this some disgusting "liberal thing" that is going around now, or is it your own idea to accuse Rick Santorum of black magic, sorcery and witchcraft, and of being sexually attracted to his own baby's corpse? If this libel is a product of your own mind, I seriously suggest you seek professional help.

John

Do you and Diana really think that bringing dead babies home for its would-be siblings to "meet" (as you said) is a healthy idea???

In this particular case, I don't see ANY POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP OF THIS TO LIBERALISM. Believe me I would not change my opinion on it no matter what political party the candidate is. In my opinion, it is a clinical case, nothing more. Moreover, I have a couple of potential candidates among the GOP contenders who I consider similar or better qualified for office than Obama. So please take your "liberal thing" accusation back and avoid doing it again. I am a very conservative politically on a lot of things. Just a sane one.

And Diana, it IS my business what is going on in the mind of a presidential candidate especially when he decided to make it public. So you are dead wrong on this.