Bring Me The Head of Mitt Romney!

As an early booster of the Huckabee-helps-Rudy meme, it behooves me to note that it really doesn’t seem to be working out that way. Obviously, everything could turn on a dime if Huckabee’s boom turns out to be a bubble, but if Huck wins Iowa and Romney wins New Hampshire, it’s easy to see the race turning very quickly into a classic establishment-insurgent contest, with the rest of the candidates, Rudy included, dwindling into irrelevance. If McCain wins New Hampshire, the race stays a little more fluid, since unlike Romney, McCain probably doesn’t have enough cash or institutional support to consolidate his status as the anti-Huckabee candidate on the basis of a single primary victory. But even that scenario sets up South Carolina and Michigan as three-way races between Romney (assuming he comes in second in Iowa and New Hampshire), McCain and Huckabee, which means that Rudy will get almost no attention at all in the run-up to Florida. And even assuming that the latest Rasmussen is an outlier, his poll numbers aren’t good enough to survive his being frozen out of the horse-race coverage in the weeks leading up to the primary, while coming in third or worse in every pre-Sunshine State vote.

The smart thinking when the Giuliani campaign unveiled its Florida strategy was that Rudy needed a strong-but-sneaky second-place in at least one of the early states, if not more than one, to have any chance at taking the nomination. At this point I’d go further: No matter who wins Iowa, Huck or Romney, Rudy needs to finish ahead of Mitt in New Hampshire – either by coming in second to McCain or winning outright - or else he’s going to drop completely off the map before Florida rolls around. The combination of the Huckabee surge and the “Mormon speech” media blitz has made this feel more and more like a two-man race, and Rudy has to shake up that dynamic somehow. Since he isn’t going to steal many votes from Huckabee, he needs to build himself up as the anti-Huck, the guy the conservative establishment can turn to as a firewall against the Dogpatch hordes – and the only way to pull that off is to tear Mitt Romney down.

(See also Rich and Richelieu on this and related topics.)

Comments

At this point its Mitt Romney ! And I couldn't be any happier. I don't see Huck or Rudy uniting the party. National Review hits the stands this week and 150,000 homes...

The troops are coming to Iowa inforce for Romney ! Rudy and Huck are gone. McCain bless his heart, should have taken care of business here in Phoenix with the illegals....

Go Romney !

Posted by Scott Taylor | December 14, 2007 7:31 PM

Go Mitt!!

Posted by Daniel | December 14, 2007 7:40 PM

Lets see, we have Mitt the flip-flopper who no one can trust, and Rudy the liberal masquerading as a conservative. I'll take a guy like McCain any day who actually means what he says and sticks to his guns. Integrity and leadership mean just a little bit more to me, I guess.

Posted by Jason | December 14, 2007 7:46 PM

MITT ROMNEY IS SO AWESOME . . . he's kind of like Huckabee, but with experience, success, intelligence, and a graduate education. He's also a lot like Giuliani, but with honesty, integrity, hair, and a wife and children who aren't embarrased to support their dad.

Posted by Tony | December 14, 2007 7:52 PM

I’m baffled as to why Iowans are supporting Mike Huckabee. Huckabee says a lot of things that sound good to uninformed voters, but nobody seems to be paying attention to what this guy actually says and what his record is. Huckabee gave out over 1000 commutations and pardons. He rose over $500 million in taxes. He also supported college tuition breaks for illegal immigrants. All of this while Governor of Arkansas. Trust me, though he “sounds good” with his witty one-liners and lip service to stir the emotions…Huckabee is not the guy for the GOP.

Posted by Dan C | December 14, 2007 7:52 PM

Mitt Romney will be the next American President.

And he will be the best President this country has ever seen.

Posted by Bethie | December 14, 2007 7:55 PM

The only thing certain about Romney is this: he panders to the voters by changing his views, and he will be destroyed by whoever the Democrats nominate. I suggest you educate yourselves on Romney by checking out his record at this link:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/most_revealing_fibs_mitt_romne.html

How can anyone honestly trust this guy?

Posted by Jason | December 14, 2007 8:16 PM

I’m baffled as to why Iowans are supporting Mike Huckabee.

Because a good percentage of them -- at least the Republican ones likely to show up on caucus night -- share his religion.

I agree with Ross. Giuliani basically looks done. A classic case of bad strategy. I mean, I suppose you never know: Rudy might have enough name recognition and national stature to ignore losses in the early contests and go on to compete on Super Tuesday. But it never seems to work that way.

Unless his apparently pretty decent performance in the last debate ignites a Fred Thompson boomlet, it looks like there are three viable candidates: Romney, Huck and McCain. McCain, too, is going to look pretty irrelevant come January 9th without a first place finish in New Hampshire or a very close second to Romney.

Posted by Jasper | December 14, 2007 8:47 PM

Mitt Romney isn't a flip-flopper as the media keeps trying to portray him. He did what he thought was best for Massachusetts and actually listened to the constituents of Massachusetts (How would that be, to have a politician actually listen to their constituency?). It should also be noted that some the stances that Mitt took in Massachusetts are not very popular amongst Mormons, which only goes to show that Mitt is his own man. Nonetheless, what was good policy for Massachusetts then, may not be good policy for the whole U.S.A. now. It takes a real leader to recognize and deal with the demands of the current situation and not just ramming an obsolete personal agenda down the throats of the American public, like our current President. Furthermore, Mitt didn't make policy in a vacuum; he very effectively worked with the predominately liberal Massachusetts Legislature to enact laws that satisfy both Democrats and Republicans alike. Mitt Romney is the kind of guy we need: A man of moral convictions, and a strong negotiator.

Posted by Poli. Sci. Ph.D. Candidate | December 14, 2007 8:56 PM

Its Mitt or Huck and you know if its Huck its Hillary. Do the math and give Mitt $20.

Posted by ClubbieTim | December 14, 2007 9:24 PM

Ok, I have had it!

I am sick and damned tired of hearing 'MITT THE FLIP-FLOPPER WHOM NO ONE CAN TRUST".

Ok, it's total bs. Got it?

Mitt Romney is one of the most respected business-men on the planet. He was the CEO of the world's top Strategy Consulting Firm, he saved the Winter Olympics from financial ruin, he wiped out a 3 Billion Deficit in Blue MA in 2 years without raising taxes. He has been married and faithful to the same woman for 40 years when he could have had any hot young thing any time he wanted her.

And because he changed to pro-life from pro-choice, now we can't trust him? Are you insane?

For Gods' sake people. It's utter BS and you know it!

Posted by Bill Mitchell | December 14, 2007 11:12 PM

You know, it is pretty telling that the ONLY thing the enemies of Romney can say bad about him is that he is now pro-life.

I mean, this man's resume glows in the dark. He could take over as CEO of any Firtune 500 Company tomorrow and make them better.

No one else in the field is even close to as qualified.

Posted by Bill Mitchell, Raleigh, NC | December 14, 2007 11:16 PM

Well said Poli Sci. Ph.D candidate. I have had your opinion for a long time.

Posted by Wendy | December 14, 2007 11:18 PM

To the author,

You seem to speak seriously in terms of McCain actually winning in NH. Do you have any idea how despised McCain is among true conservatives?

McCain has NO chance in NH. Romney wins.

Posted by Bill Mitchell, Raleigh, NC | December 14, 2007 11:18 PM

I agree Bill. it's utter bs and its from people who aren't prepared to recognize his achievements. He looks like a President. He has the education, the management know how, the experience and the results. What better man to be President and based on his track record would surely become one of Americas greatest Presidents.

Posted by Mark Reardon | December 14, 2007 11:25 PM

I am pleased to see thaat there are others out there who are not just buying into the liberal media reports. Mitt Romney is by far the most experienced, best educated and most credible of any of the Republican or Democratic candidates. I cannot wait to see what he does in Washington. Come on people, lets put this man in office.

Posted by Jeremy | December 15, 2007 12:15 AM

Bill Mitchell--RIGHT ON!!!

I think the greatest test of a Man's integrity is how he treats his wife and children. Mitt's family= an American model. There you have it.

Mitt is not perfect, but he does what needs to be done to turn things around. He fought solidly for pro-life issues when the chips were down (ALL HIS ACTIONS SPEAK louder than anyone's WORDS), no one can claim a stronger fiscal policy, and he knows how to work with people to bring a consensus. He did it in business, he did it in MA, he did it in the Olympics, he did it in his own family. Why do so many bigots have such an axe to grind?? Can you not see the forest from the trees. This man equals results! Everyone else just talks the talk.

Huckabee=nice guy who cracks some good jokes and is full of witty one liners. I want substance and results from a President, not a stand up comedy show. Iowans--get it together and look at these two men's records--in all aspects. DO NOT let religion decide your vote and cause all the founding fathers to roll over in their graves. If you still think Huck is your man after honestly looking at both records, well then, more power to you.

Posted by JT | December 15, 2007 12:20 AM

I am a grown man - a lawyer, haven't cried in years. I think I will cry if Romney doesn't win. It will be the biggest mistake our country has ever made. My father knew some of the Romney family and he would stake his life on their integrity and excellence.

If anyone reading this is on the fence, please give Romney a fresh look. (you wouldn't want me to cry would you!? ; )

Posted by jmf | December 15, 2007 12:58 AM

Yeah,

His resume does glow in the dark. The flip flop thing is utter BS... Come up with something better then that.... What that oh yeah you can't, because he is solid guy.

What you see is what you get... And the real question is, How far down in the craphole have we gotten as a country when we start saying..

"Oh that Mitt Romney he is too perfect"

How can he treat his wife with so much respect?
How can he be such a good example to his boys?
How can he be so honest in his dealings with other people?

I assure folks, he is NO FAKE and we should embrace this type of guy as a society

Mitt Romney = Class act.

Posted by Scott Taylor | December 15, 2007 1:06 AM

In my view, there are only two possible candidates who could possibly win against Hillary or Obama, and that's Mitt or Rudy. Of the two, Mitt gets my vote. He's smart, presidential, and I believe comes from a sincere desire to help fix what needs fixing in Washington.

Go Mitt!

Kevin

Posted by Kevin | December 15, 2007 2:57 AM

GO ROMNEY!!!!!!

Posted by Steven Rinehart | December 15, 2007 3:00 AM

I get a kick out of those who, because Romney (like Ronald Reagan) changed his position from Pro Choice to Pro Life, want to help Rudy win, who IS STILL Pro Choice.

Now THAT is some messed up logic!

Roger

Posted by Roger F | December 15, 2007 3:00 AM

tony- "MITT ROMNEY IS SO AWESOME . . . he's kind of like Huckabee, but with experience, success, intelligence, and a graduate education."
DUDE if you actually believe that then watch out because you might be convinced when cnn reports that ron paul has strangled 51 monkeys to death in the last 5 years.
well that is taking it a little bit far..
but i think you get my point. though willard poses as a nice conservative guy he has flip flopped so many times that it makes me car sick (and i never get carsick).
the media is trying to make hickabee look bad by taking all sorts of stuff from his past and then twisting it so he looks like the bad guy.
but when you actually look into the history yourself you will see what the truth actually is.
and cnn (or any other media source) is the lier.
who wouldv'e guessed.
and i didn't start out as a "i heart huckabee" wacko. i actually was very anti huck, but i looked into the issues being brought up so i could tell people why not to vote for him.
but i was proved wrong through fair, well thought through research.
i challenge all of you Americans who have the right to FREEDOM OF THOUGHT- take the time to see what the truth is.

Posted by jack s. | December 15, 2007 3:15 AM

Questions: How many of these fawning pro-Romney commenters are Mormon? What do they think of Kolob, the planet that orbits the star behind the moon that, according to Mormon theology, gives our sun its light?

Oh, and don't call me a "bigot." Romney wears his "faith" on his sleeve and just gave a speech about his Mormonism. He opened the door, as they say on Thompson's TV show.

Posted by Charles Wilson | December 15, 2007 3:17 AM

Bill Mitchell- that might be all they can accuse him of today.
but you forgot this.
look back any amount of time and willard was a totally different guy. and not nicer.
he was the liberal.
now i don't know if your'e the kind of guy that can swallow his slick soundbites where he says that "i was wrong and iv'e changed". who knows? maybe he's sincere. but isn't that like looking at a prisoner that has a chance at getting out, and when he says, "i was wrong and i changed" you believe him?
especially when mitt has changed several times on the same issues.
and if you think he dousen't have immigration issues- really. he gave illegal immigrants that were on his lawn doing his landscaping a warning!? and then he just happened to find out the day after the debate. looks perfectly sicere. ??????!!!?
either i'm crazy or somebody else is.
and it's not us.
i think "don't quote me on this because after all i might be crazy) his name starts with w (for his reall first name).
but don't quote me on that.
:)
ps. one thing that eems icreasingly clear is huckabee's imminent victory in the primaries then his cremation of hillary or obama. especially after ed collings signing on.
God Bless you all!

Posted by jack s. | December 15, 2007 3:24 AM

Charles Wilson- right. he did kind of invite attacks. and mike huckabee almost completely ignored him.

Posted by jack s. | December 15, 2007 3:26 AM

While supporting McCain I am aware he may not get the nomination so I need a fallback choice.

I really want to like Romney (the man looks more presidential than josiah barlett) but I am so scared of his flip-flopping ways. He makes john Kerry looks like a non-flip flopper.

Huckabee seems genuine but the tuition breaks for anchor babies - gimme a break. Iowan really seem to be buying the Jim Nabors act. Nice guy but President Huckabee sounds way too odd.

Guiliani - no way! Can you imagine the ads they run that he used his taxpayer money for security to visit his mistress??! Never mind his social positions.

Thompson: He's bored himself. He's a horrible speaker. "uhuh - huhuhuh" Sigh. I was ready for Fred '08. If he can shut down liberals like that crazy moderator at the debate he may get a 2nd look from me.

Anyone left? I guess it brings be back to Romney as 2nd choice with a possible look at Thompson.

Posted by Lexie | December 15, 2007 3:31 AM

Aside from all the "ra ra for our candidate" and the "beware the evil incarnate candidate!" I agree with the underlying premise of the article, Rudy, barring some miracle that goes completely counter to the audio failure, lightning induced 'miracle' in one of those early debates Rudy is done. Nothing short of a miracle will save him.

Now for my own 'ra ra' and 'beware' views.

ra ra--Romney is the only one who has enough in all around areas, the "flip-flopping" freaks flailing about with that cliche term have so overly simplified their 'drive-by' perceptions. They betray their predetermined stance and/or their effective shallowness.

beware--Huck seems like a nice guy, but it's like Coulter says, he's the Republican answer to Jimmy Carter. Between his 'gosh, I didn't mean to malign anyone by questioning a reporter (not an authority) if they had a satanic religion or believed some whacked out stuff--I never thought a reporter from a national magazine, or his collegues, would ever publish anything that's a dubious/innocent question' and then there's the whole "NIE? Uhhh...the NIE, as in Bill NIE the CIA guy? er... Iran, bad Nukes, stop 'em. Then there's the whole nepotism thing, between his whole plea to evangelicals saying essentially 'if they don't elect an evangelical to political office then evangelical leadership has no real meaning' SEE LINKED YOUTUBE with the audio of this--

...to the whole 'gift for me, position for you, gift for me, prestige for you' I mean when your gift 'income' is double your salary for the year, and so many of those gifting individuals end up your choices, it's the GOB (Good 'ol Boy network), and frankly the GOB has a been messing up the GOP for years.

Then there's his net tax increases, I've heard the excuse that 'well the net tax burden was lower than it was under Romney or Guiliani'--well DUH it was lower, the MA libs decided to replace the tax cuts Romney did statewide with their own local tax increases. Tax burden for the state could be saying that, in spite of Huck's tax policy the localities managed some degree of fiscal responsibility. It's wrong to instantly lay these things at the feet of the state leaders when the numbers themselves are effected by several other factors beyond their reach.

Anywho, Drudge got it right, the Dems would be praising the Lord if Huckabee got the nomination.

I pray that there are enough realists in Iowa and South Carolina to keep things from staying messy any longer than they really need to be. And heaven forbid we get the overly compassionate conservative.

Posted by HiveRadical | December 15, 2007 4:12 AM

"He looks like a President." That's important to you???

Posted by Eloise | December 15, 2007 4:40 AM

Romney simply doesn't have a chance because he is Mormon. Anybody who has gone to a church that teaches the Bible has been taught that Mormonism is a cult. A cult is a group that does not have the biblical view on Jesus Christ. Romney says that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God, but that means something completely different for Mormons than for Christians.

Christians believe that Jesus is fully God and fully human. As God, He has always existed and was never created. Mormons believe that Jesus was created, along with Satan as spirit brothers. This was precisely Huckabee's comment. You can go to lds.org and see that this is taught. Therefore Mormonism is not Christian, no matter how much they want to convince us. This is just the tip of the iceberg with regard to Mormonism's heretical teachings. They differ from every Protestant group and orthodox Catholic teaching on the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the Bible and many other doctrines.

This may not matter to a non-believer, but believe me, as a pastor, neither I, nor our church, nor hundreds of thousands of other churches like ours will vote for a cult-member for President. So frankly, at this point, Huckabee is shoe-in for the nomination. Giuliani is finished. We certainly aren't going to vote for a three-time adulterer who thinks nothing of flaunting his indiscrestions. Giuliani has no character. Huckabee will surprise everyone with the wisdom of his positions.

Clinton and Obama are extremely flawed candidates and Huckabee will beat them in a landslide in the general. Huckabee will attract many Democrats and African-Americans and put together a whole new coalition of voters. If you want to learn more, stop reading the establishment media and head to www.mikehuckabee.com.

Posted by Dan | December 15, 2007 8:02 AM

Mike Huckabee was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. The Arkansas Leader.com editorialized that Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.

The Arkansas Ethics Commission held proceedings 20 times on the former governor. During his tenure, Huckabee accepted 314 gifts valued overall at more than $150,000, according to documents filed with the Arkansas secretary of state's office. (He accepted 187 gifts in his first three years as governor but was not required to report their value.)

Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned rapist Wayne DuMond's guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, DuMond murdered a women in Illinois after Huckabee set him free

Huckabee battled conservatives within his own party who were pushing for stricter state-level immigration measures, such as:.
- proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren’t federally mandated
- proof of citizenship when registering to vote
- Huckabee failed in his effort to make children of illegal immigrants eligible for state-funded scholarships and in-state tuition to Arkansas colleges.
In a1992 :U.S. Senate race, Huck advocated quarantining AIDS patients, and cutting AIDS research.
Does Huckabee subscribe to his spiritual advisor Timothy LaHay’s views of the Rapture, United Nations, and a Palestinian state?” Huck’s use of the “Christian Leader” title and his attempt to denigrate Mitt Romney’s religion is a thinly-veiled attempt to impose a religious test in violation of Article Six of the Constitution.

Mike fails on so many levels as a true conservative.

The Huckster was the keynote speaker at an anti-Mormon conference in Salt Lake City. And he knows nothing about Mormons? And the "Christian Leader" doesn't want to release his sermons?

The moniker "Huckster" is well-earned.

Posted by Bot | December 15, 2007 8:19 AM

You people swooning over Romney like teenage girls in heat really make me laugh. He's as phony as a three dollar bill.

Mittens definitely isn't going to get the nomination. Not this time around, possibly not ever. And that's a good thing.

Good for the party and good for the nation.

So be prepared to cry.

Posted by Psycheout | December 15, 2007 9:05 AM

"National Review hits the stands this week and 150,000 homes..."

And how many garbage cans?

150,000? Wow, the election's over. LOL!

Posted by Psycheout | December 15, 2007 9:07 AM

McCain has no chance of winning anywhere at all.

Guiliani still leads Romney in the polls, as he has for almost a year. I don't see why Ross thinks that Romney will be the not-Huckabee candidate. Romney is doomed because he has been trying to go after the more conservative Republicans, leaving less-conservative Republicans to Giuliani. This backfired on Romney, the more conservative Republicans won't vote for a Mormon.

It looks to me like this will be a two-man race between Huckabee and Guiliani.

Posted by Half Sigma | December 15, 2007 9:11 AM

JT wrote: I think the greatest test of a Man's integrity is how he treats his wife and children.

Wow, is that ever wrong.

Mitt's family= an American model. There you have it.

GWB's family = an American model. There you have it.

Roger F wrote: I get a kick out of those who, because Romney (like Ronald Reagan) changed his position from Pro Choice to Pro Life, want to help Rudy win, who IS STILL Pro Choice.

That's because today's conservative voters value "knowing" over thinking. Many of them believe (or believe they believe) the things their parents taught them as six-year-olds, so the notion of careful consideration leading to a change of mind is anathema to them.

Romney should have used his speech as an opportunity to wrest control of the GOP from the Dobson/Robertson axis. He could have influenced moderate conservatives by illuminating their "foibles" for all the world to see -- for instance, that Robertson, despite his popular portrayal as a once-great religious leader doddering towards senility, has been a religious bigot and nutcase since at least 1991, when he declared that he wouldn't want several mainline Protestant denominations representing him in the federal government because they had "the spirit of the Antichrist," whatever that means.

Instead, Romney sucked up. And I'm so disappointed in him.

Posted by Jay H | December 15, 2007 9:25 AM

Mitt has a HUGE credibility problem, which the Dem's will expose if he is the party's candidate.

Posted by Ruthie | December 15, 2007 10:28 AM

Charles，

I'm a Mormon and you ought to get your facts straight about the religion before you go spouting false teachings. Anti-Mormon literature is not the place to get the truth. I'm not saying blindly believe anything the church tells you, but Kolab is definately not behind the moon.

Posted by Charles | December 15, 2007 11:30 AM

The problem with them Dem's is that not one of the top 3 has ever run anything....no executive experience....

scary....

Posted by Douglas | December 15, 2007 11:44 AM

Charlie Wilson -

Mitt's support hovers around 16% nationally - Mormons make up about 2% in the whole USA. I think there is a chance that some of the Pro-Romney people on this board aren't Mormon.

However, you make no logical argument for why you should bring up Kolob, or anything else w/r/t Mitt's candidacy.

Posted by jmf | December 15, 2007 12:35 PM

"The problem with them Dem's is that not one of the top 3 has ever run anything....no executive experience...."

George W Bush had plenty of executive experience, and he turned out to be a total disaster.

Posted by mad6798j | December 15, 2007 12:50 PM

People discussing differences between Mormonism and other religions as a foundation to making a NON-RELIGIOUS decision is, in my opinion, the essence of stupidity. Not only is Mormonism a fairy tale, but SO IS CHRISTIANITY. The Bible is nothing more the same type of layered story telling phenomena that catapulted Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. This Christmas, go sit in a circle with 20 people in a room and whisper a story and have it repeated around the room just and you'll see how easy it is to embellish and destroy the original truth of the first relayed story by the time its whispered back to you. Now apply that tendency to the bible, Mormonism, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Jesus is yesterday's Joseph Smith. Just like Mohommed and Buddah. Tell enough stories through enough years, add the human need to be loved by our Creator -- and to feel special over our neighbors, and viola' -- you start as a cult and end up as a mainstream establishment religion fully responsible for thousands of years of murder, oppression and taxation. Praise God!

So who is more delusional? Romney as a new cult believer or Huckabee as a old cult idiot? I think Huckabee is more pathetic -- he thinks his brand of delusion is superior and that somehow he has a hall pass. His dependency on a 2,000 year old text is proof enough -- he believes it literally.

The new aspect of Mormonism being only 180 years old is at least an excuse for Romney whereas there's no excuse for Huckabee believing a two thousand year-old cult now shattered into a thousand cults. Methodist, Baptists -- all of you -- you are two thousand year old cult idiots.

Wake up world. We evolved from bacteria over 4 billion years on this earth -- dinos and all. Who the creator is, nobody knows. But it wasn't your 180 or 2,000 year old cult leader. Nope, it wasn't. Go make a 4 billion year time line on a piece of paper and place where 2,000 years fits in -- you'll start to get the picture.

Two hundred years from now O'Reilly will be a cult prophet famous for his martydom and Mormon's will dominate the GOP. Jesus, for all his praise, left us a big freaking mess.

All religions being equally stupid, I vote Romney for his superior business, economic, family, leadership, experience and communication skills.

Amen & Algae.

Posted by Charles London | December 15, 2007 1:12 PM

Charles Wilson,
Why don't you tell us what your religion is? If you are going to ask the commenters their religion, then you should go first. As if it matters...

Posted by Lori | December 15, 2007 2:03 PM

Evangelical pastors have demonized Mormons for several decades now, I'm sure in many cases with the best of intentions. If their members had been left on their own to observe Mormons without having been indoctrinated with the half-truths and exaggerations that originate from their pastors, they would recognize that Mormons, imperfect as they are, are very good people (I know...my wife is one). They would also see that Mormon beliefs are in many ways more "first century Christian" than what evangelicals typically follow. If the evangelical view of Jesus is the standard, why is that view based on the creeds, which are not biblical, but the product of a couple of centuries of debate that ended in a vote?

Posted by Paul | December 15, 2007 3:15 PM

romney is far and away the most qualified candidate for potus.

Posted by jbec | December 15, 2007 5:22 PM

Wow, you Romneybots are hilarious! Romney has changed his position on abortion, immigration, gay rights, Social Security, health care, gun control, and climate change... and that's just what I can recall off the top of my head! And... every single change has been in line with what most GOP primary voters believe! But you'll just go on pretending all this didn't happen, just like National Review...

Posted by Algernon | December 15, 2007 5:35 PM

Romney has succeeded at everything he has ever done. I believe he'll win the election and then be a great president from the beginning. If this country doesn't elect him, they don't deserve him.

Posted by Eli | December 15, 2007 6:23 PM

I think you anti-Romney-bots are even funnier than the Romney-bots. I think you all must be secretly working for the Clinton campaign because all you guys know how to do is yell "Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper!"

Do you guys actually think for yourselves?

Have you actually ever explored the issues?

Can you back any of what you're saying up with objective facts?

Sure you can - and for anyone that believes that, I've got this bridge that's for sale...

Vote Ron Paul 2008!

Posted by Zach | December 15, 2007 8:51 PM

This is a reply to dan at 8:02 am. You cannot possibly be a pastor because I do not sense that there is even a slight bit of charity (the pure love of Christ) in your comment. The more a person hates others and thinks they know who follows Christ and who doesn't would likely not have a spirit of love to guide them so how can you be a pastor? Do you get paid for preaching? yes you do. Please find other employment because you belong somewhere else than getting paid for preaching which by the way is contrary to the bible. Romney served as Bishop for several years and Stake president for nine years and all at no pay. worked to pay his own bills instead of collecting money for preaching. He served out of his own will and desire and love for people.
Your information is false and a bunch of lies. I have been LDS for 20+ years and you have not a clue what you are saying about us.

Posted by Bill Fitzgerald Lake Bluff,IL | December 15, 2007 9:29 PM

Algernon, taking a break from running mazes, writes: Wow, you Romneybots are hilarious! Romney has changed his position on abortion, immigration, gay rights, Social Security, health care, gun control, and climate change... and that's just what I can recall off the top of my head! And... every single change has been in line with what most GOP primary voters believe!

But don't you believe the GOP platform positions on such issues are the wiser ones? Wouldn't it be possible, therefore, for a person to move from a liberal position to a conservative one if they gave the matter thought?

Or do you instead believe in some strange form of political Calvinism, wherein free will is an illusion and a person is either born one of the conservative elect or the liberal hell-bound?

Why would anyone on either side argue for their point of view if nobody could ever be persuaded? What would be the point of commentary - including blogging?

Changing positions does not necessarily comprise "flip-flopping." Now, if Romney changes back to his older, liberal stances again, then a charge of "flip-flopping" might be of some merit -- but unless you have some actual evidence (beyond your own cynicism) that Romney's change in position was purely for political gain, then you, my modest mouse, must answer to the charge of denial of political free will.

Posted by Jay H | December 15, 2007 10:45 PM

I simply cannot trust Romney. I'd like to believe someone can honestly change their views, but when it seems you're changing them simply to get more votes (as has been the case with Romney), then I find that unflattering. I will not be voting for a candidate I don't have some faith in for this election, and the only trustworthy candidates on the GOP side are McCain and Huckabee, with the senator being my top choice. I'm just hoping that it's not too late for him at this point.

Posted by Jason | December 16, 2007 11:12 AM

[...] I'd like to believe someone can honestly change their views, but when it seems you're changing them simply to get more votes (as has been the case with Romney), [...]

Evidence?

Understand, I'm not stumping for Romney (I'm undecided at this point, but like I said before, his kowtowing to the Fundamentalist Bigot Brigade in his recent speech really disappointed me), but it's becoming clear that this charge of "flip-flopping" is really important to a lot of people. So, did he change his views because he thought about them, or purely for political gain? You say the latter. Let's hear your evidence.

Posted by Jay H | December 16, 2007 12:11 PM

Romney's campaign funds are record-setting as a presidential candidate, insofar as he's managed to bankroll his run with the least number of donors of any viable candidate. Translation? He'll be the most anti-populist president this country has ever seen. Also, that folks here are still crowing about a candidate's devotion to family in the context of the Presidency is every bit as ridiculous as the 'flip-flopping' charges. While I do appreciate Romney's temperance on social issues, the rapidly bloating income gap in this country is perhaps the largest issue we face -- a Romney presidency would do nothing but exacerbate the situation.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 16, 2007 1:38 PM

Huckabee looks IMHO to be someone who stumbled into being the vehicle for a movement. Maybe he set out to do so, maybe he didn't. But doesn't matter now. The religious right is latching on to him.

The question is how many of the foot soldiers, the precinct walkers are religious right? They are the ones who determine the nominee.

Posted by dalea | December 16, 2007 2:23 PM

"You know, it is pretty telling that the ONLY thing the enemies of Romney can say bad about him is that he is now pro-life."

Hah.. are you serious?

There's plenty that us "enemies" of Romney (it's not him, it's the entire neo-con way of thinking) find are not just wrong, but incredibly backward, naiive, deceitful and insanely dangerous.

Which is precisely why he has zero chance of doing anything other than squandering his own money on a failed campaign.

Posted by Volum | December 16, 2007 4:12 PM

Mitt Romney's spent over $50 million and polls at 15% - that's gotta hurt! LOL

Posted by David | December 16, 2007 8:58 PM

In the secret Mormon Temple ritual which Mitt Romney participated in - the Christian Pastor was depicted as being in the hire and pay of Satan . This part of the Temple ceremony was dropped in 1990 along with the mock throat slitting . Could Mitt Romney kindly apologize for representing the Christian Pastor in this way . Oh while he is at it could he please also apologize for going along with the Mormon practice of baptizing dead Jewish holocaust victims.

If the Republican party were so foolish as to nominate Mitt Romney as their Presidential candidate do you not think that the Democrats will play quite rightly on these and a host of other problem issues which he has ?

By the way dont expect many black Americans to support Romney considering he was quite happy to go along with his leadership in the Mormon organisation who taught black people were cursed but on the other hand fair skinned people are "white and delightsome" see Book of Mormon pre 1980 Edition 2Nephi 30v6 .

Posted by Andrew Price | December 16, 2007 9:02 PM

Correction:

All of you Repugnats are plain nuts.

If it's Romney OR Giuliani OR Huckabee OR McCain, it'll PROBABLY be Clinton, but it'd DEFINITELY be Obama.

Posted by digbydolben | December 16, 2007 9:04 PM

On Mike Huckabee's website: "Our December goal is to raise $1.15 million." Ron Paul managed that between breakfast and lunch today... Go Ron!

Posted by David | December 16, 2007 9:10 PM

Huck and Mitt both have made somewhat loopy jumps to try to address the compromises they made to survive in State Politics. Mitt's late life conversion to Mr Social Conservative and Huck's "Fair Tax Plan" are both attempts to deal with the rap on them. Mitt is trying to cover for being pro-choice (ie electable) in Massachusetts and Huck is trying to cover for having to raise taxes to meet budget needs in Arkansas. Neither one is terribly convincing. Do you really believe that Mitt is going to follow a 100% pro-life, anti-gay marriage agenda? Do you really think Huck is going to impose a 23% federal sales tax so he can abolish the IRS (and corporate taxes)? What I think has hurt Mitt is hasn't held onto his "base" (FiCons and ggod government types) while he chased the SoCons.

I will confess I like Huck the best of all the candidates but what I don't get is how the press natters on about his populist message without ever mentioning that the same corporations he intones darkly against in his stump speech would be tax free under his plan (it's on the fairtax.org site in plain english). It couldn't be that none of them have actually read it?

Posted by Don | December 16, 2007 10:30 PM

As a Mormon, I find it amusing how many people assume that, because Mormons profess to believe in "continuing revelation," it must follow that every bizarre interpretation of every word uttered by any Mormon official anywhere at any time in the last 200 years is "Mormon doctrine" and can be described as "what Mormons believe." Thanks to Romney, there's a lot of really strange stuff going up about Mormons on message boards these days, including this one...

For better or worse, it is not so easy for an outsider to answer the "What do real Mormons really believe?" question, and most of the stuff one reads on blogs is somewhere between "a strange, controversial point hinted at in some 19th century Mormon leader's teachings, which no honest Mormon theologian would claim to understand" and utter nonsense cooked up by an overzealous "anti-cult" crusader with no actual knowledge of Mormon beliefs. This is not to say that Mormons don't have strange beliefs. They're just different from the ones ascribed to us by our critics. :)

Most basic theological questions (How precisely will we spend our time in the afterlife? How precisely did God spend his time before creating us?) are rather poorly understood by Mormons (and everyone else). But we've been coping with this confusion for hundreds of years. And now it seems that, thanks to Romney, people want us to get it all straight in time for the 2008 presidential primaries.

How can we possibly function under this kind of time pressure? :)

Christian theologians have had thousands of years to settle these issues and they can't seem to agree on anything.

If you could give us until 2012, we might be able to explain Kolob, spirit creation, the precise relationship between God the Father and God the Son, the true meaning of life, etc.

But 2008? Come on, cut us some slack, will you? :)

Posted by Timer | December 17, 2007 1:04 AM

Can someone tell me what this is all about?

MoniQue-Tucson, AZ
12/16/2007 08:31 PM

" Remember you must be registered as a Republican for your vote to count in the primaries.

REMEMBER TO REGISTER TODAY AS A REPUBLICAN (you can switch back after the primarires).

HUCKABEE NEEDS ALL OUR VOTES!

REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN ASAP:

http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.php

all you need to do is register and it will change your status.

Deadlines depend on the state but best to do NOW to make sure your vote counts in the primaries."

I am shocked that anyone would pull for such a dishonest stunt. This is why America is in trouble. I'm embarrassed for your lack of integrity in calling for such action. I hope Huckabee is more honest than you are being.

Posted by Kay | December 17, 2007 1:10 AM

Romney's critics fit in one of two categories:

1) Democrat/Liberal. I have nothing against Dems except they know nothing about the economy, and they think Al Gore is a genius (guess what guys, he's not). The last thing this country needs is more fanatics, be it over religion or anything else. Let's be reasonable here.

If the Dems go up against a guy like Romney, they might lose. Maybe. What is Hillary going to do? Accuse him of flip-flopping? (actually just a flip, there was no flop). This guy's record puts the Democrat record to serious shame. They can't bring anyone together to get anything accomplished. Romney on the other hand has been very successful. They can't dig up any dirt on him because there isn't any. This guy's entire drawer of Mormon underwear probably doesn't have 1 skid mark. That's why liberal critics want this guy out as soon as possible. But they aren't all that worried, because of category #2

2) Evangelical Christians who have been taught by their pastors that Mormons are evil and Mormons are going straight to hell (along with anybody else who doesn't fall under a certain subset of Christianity). These are the most insecure people on the planet (aside from maybe Muslim jihadists). By the way, its funny how these evangelicals act more like they are in a cult than Mormons do. I thought Mormons were the ones supposedly in a cult.

As seen on this blog. Some of these folks outright just attack Romney's religion and say that they won't vote for him simply because he is Mormon (which sadly enough is true, religous zealots are crazy like that, but at least they are being honest).

Other evangelicals attack with the "flip-flop" label, when really they are like just like those bigots mentioned above, but are smart enough to pretend like his being Mormon isn't the reason for not supporting him. Truth is, Romney would be a wet-dream to those same people if Romney were only an evangelical, and they would defend his record along with the current Romney supporters.
----------------------------------------
It is true that Romney is probably the most capable, executive, intelligent, successful, etc. But the fact of the matter is this: Some people (especially fanatical evangelicals which are like 15% of the country) aren't smart enough to do what is best for the country, they would prefer the country to lay in ruin then let a Mormon run the country. They have been trained by their pastors to oppose anything Mormon no matter what. In fact, if Romney did get elected and ran the country well and pulled the U.S. out of the hole we are in, that would be a disaster to Evangelicals. They can't let that happen. That is how messed up these people are with their stupid religion (I live in the Midwest, I am not kidding). So, if Romney doesn't win, that is why. That 15% of the population will be more than enough to make him lose.

So here are the options:

Rudy- Too liberal to get widescale GOP support. His national support is only due to his name being known, that can only get you so far as soon as the other players get known. I personally couldn't care less about his "liberal views" as long as he runs the country conservatively (small government, lower spending, tough on crime, taxes low etc.) he'd be fine by me. But ... I am not sure if I could stand listening to that lisp for 4 years.

Huckabee- his record, late start, and ... well his record will lose him the election. Any democrat could beat him easily. While evangelicals will accuse Mormons of being the only supporters of Romney (which is a mathematical impossibility by the way), it is MUCH more likely that Evangelicals are the only supporters of Huckabee, and the only reason they support him is because he is an Evangelical. That can only get you so far. I don't think America wants someone who will divide the country like another Evangelical Christian would.

Ron Paul- I would love, LOVE a third party candidate. Just not this one. He won't win and I'm glad. Even a good third party candidate would have a really, really hard time winning.

Hillary- please no. Anything but that. She would also divide the country and get nothing accomplished. But if she gets the nomination for the Dems she probably will win, because the majority of voting America simply is not smart enough to realize that while government handouts seem free, they come at a big price.

So, I guess I am going to root for Obama. I don't agree with his policies or points of view, but the hell with it all anyways. It's better than listening to Bible thumping idiots bigoting over religion (which is what you would get if Romney wins) and its better than Hillary.

There is Thompson though. He's cool. I don't actually think he would make a good president, but I like his won't be pushed around attitude and it would have been interesting to see. He lost his support to Huckabee, (again, not because Huckabee ran the state of Arkansas well, but like I said, because he is an evangelical, nothing more).

Let's face it people. For ordinary rational people, the whole thing is really disappointing. Maybe I should just hope that it really doesn't matter who the President is.

Posted by SMP | December 17, 2007 2:47 AM

The Republican party USED to be a party of the Northeast establishment. Today its the Southern party, like the Democrats were for more than a hundred years. Like the old Democrats Republicans need to run good ole boys. Jeb Bush would be the GOP's dream candidate if he had a different last name. Since Jeb can't run we have Guiliani and Romney. What is with this? The first was the mayor of the capital of Blue America. And the other was governor of the only state to vote for McGovern. Really, neither of this guys is reflective of the modern GOP. It's like the Dems running a Texan and a guy from Idaho. It just doesn't work.

Blue state Republicans are going to be either RINOs or flip-floppers when viewed from a Red State perspective. You cannot get away from that. Of the candidates in the race, Thompson is the best in a conventional sense, but his camapaign has lacked energy, to put it mildly, and he's not going over well.

So we see a clown like Huckabee surging because there just isn't anyone else who represents the Southern GOP base.

Posted by Mike Alexander | December 17, 2007 1:34 PM

I will vote for Romney and if Huck is the nominee, I will vote democrat. He would be a total emabrrassment to America. The international community would love it! I love Romney's resume and the fact that he appears to have a brain and is not corrupted. People need to become more educated and discerning and less lazy with politics. I studies politics for years. Romney's flip-flopping is a non-issue. It is democratic practice to represent your constituents! Romney has an amazing, solid value system. I would cry to if he is not elected to office. Noone even comes close to comparing to him-past and present. He is the candidate with it all and when people meet him, they are surprised by how genuine and caring he is. He has worked hard to keep his values and to not be corrupted. Let's give him a chance!

Posted by JD Alder | December 17, 2007 7:07 PM

FYI to guy talking about Jeb Bush. Jeb, actually, bragged about Romney to all of his ex-staff and persuaded many of them to support Romney.

Posted by KL | December 17, 2007 7:11 PM

Noone can tell me that the Bush family doesn't support Romney. Romney is close with Jeb, George Sr., and with our current president. Romney is extremely well connected. It helps that he is intelligent, ambitious, rich, and has a strong moral system.

Posted by Karen | December 17, 2007 7:15 PM

Of all of the current candidates, I would be least surprised if it turned out that Mitt had a couple of dozen teenaged boys buried in his basement. Let's face it, there's something creepy about his golly-ma-I-sure-do-love-apple-pie-torture-and-Jesus-the brother-of-Lucifer persona.

Plus he locks dogs in crates and drives them across the Canadian border. The guy's got 6, maybe 7 screws loose in his carefully-dyed noggin. Of course the average Repiglican has about 24 such loose screws, so maybe he looks like a giant of mental health to them.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 17, 2007 11:33 PM

I love the combination of an admission of getting a recent prediction completely wrong - followed by another prediction of what Rudy needs to do to succeed. I agree with Mr. Douthat's analysis by the way - but of course I agreed on the original prediction as well.

Posted by Ryan | December 18, 2007 12:16 PM

Here's Mitt Romney's head on a Planned Parenthood platter... he doesn't have an apple in his mouth, but he's still a pig:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/romney-attended.html

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 18, 2007 3:32 PM