« The Wire | Main | The Simon Worldview »

My Mitt Romney Problem (And Yours?)

03 Jan 2008 01:05 pm

Watch this ad:

"In the next ten years, we'll see more progress, more change, than the world has seen in the last ten centuries."

Mitt Romney is an immensely talented and accomplished figure. In many ways, he looks like an ideal antidote to George W. Bush – an “MBA President” who actually knows how to run a business, a Republican politician who’s smooth and articulate rather than self-conscious and tongue-tied, a conservative who’s more comfortable with meritocracy than cronyism, a would-be reformer who actually cares about policy detail. Eighteen months ago, Romney stood out as the thinking conservative’s candidate, and it seemed like every smart young right-winger I talked to was leaning his way, or even planning on going to work for him.

That was then; this is now. With five or so hours to go till the Iowa Caucuses, Mitt Romney has to be judged the frontrunner for the GOP nomination, but it's awfully hard to find anyone not named Hugh Hewitt who seems excited about the prospect. More than enough ink has been spilled on how his political inauthenticity, his consultant-ish pursuit of ideological correctness, has undermined any excitement surrounding his candidacy, replacing it with the resigned, "he's the best we can do" thinking that undergirds the NR endorsement and others like it. (David Brooks' column this weekend offers, I think, the last word on the subject.) For my part, though, the most alienating and off-putting quality of the Romney campaign hasn't been what's he’s said, but how he’s said it - the words he's chosen and the tone he's employed, which have made following the Romney campaign the equivalent of listening to nails drawn across a chalkboard.

I'm talking like ads like the above, where Romney comes across as Ray Kurzweil crossed with Joel Osteen. I'm talking about the way he sounded when he burst out with his famous "we ought to double Guantanamo" line - like an ad man proposing a brilliant new sales pitch, not a would-be President grappling with a difficult issue. I'm talking about how phony he seems when he puts on his most serious face and talks about the looming threat of an "international jihadist Caliphate." I'm not talking about his flip-flops, but the graceless way he flip-flops; as Ryan Lizza wrote, "he not only shifts positions; he often claims to be the most passionate advocate of his new stances," which makes all those (equally-passionate) old YouTube clips all the more damaging. And I'm talking about the way the off-message Mitt seems no better than the on-message Mitt: the former seems phony, but the latter ranges from tone-deaf to just plain weird.

I still think Mitt Romney might make a good President. But that's based on his resume and his record; based on the campaign he's run, I'm pulling hard against him. I've been hoping for a candidate to emerge from the Republican primary who's at once electable in November and interested in reforming the GOP; at the moment, Romney looks like loser on both counts. And by golly, he annoys the ever-living heck out of me.

Comments (123)

Romney doesn't annoy me, he inspires me. He has had an extemely successful career and family life -- two things I admire and try to emulate in my life. Additionally, he is the most qualified and competent candidate with excellent leadership skills. He is the type of person we need as President.

He named "Battlefield Earth" as his favorite book ever. His nitwit quotient is as off the charts as Huckabee's is.

All of those "smart young right-wingers" are just nerds with Big Daddy fantasies. Romney would have been Dumbya with a different accent, no more, no less.

Can we get away from this crap about "running the country like a business"? It's such a tired and pathetically wrong comparison and anyone who takes it seriously is simply stupid. If a business isn't performing you fire and hire people, you sell it, or you break it up and reconstitute it. You can't fire the citizenry, and you can't sell the country - though Dumbya and Cheney have done their best to try.

And while I wouldn't mind a partial break-up - the secession of Texas and Oklahoma, for instance - it's probably not a practical solution since it would be unfair to the 40% or so of Texans and Oklahomans who aren't insane.

Rob writes: "Additionally, he is the most qualified and competent candidate with excellent leadership skills. He is the type of person we need as President."

Plus he boxes up his dog, straps it to the van roof, and drives him to Canada!

Ruh roh!

What is with the negative tone and comments like "he annoys me"? It annoys me that the most successful and qualified candidate gets so much negative press. It is time that people start focusing more on the issues and less on the rhetoric. Romney is the most qualified and best candidate to lead America.

Hi Kathy,

Thank you for quoting me. I am glad you are focusing on the important issues like how Mitt transports his pets on vacation. The dog enjoyed the trip to Canada, so let's start addressing the issues that are important. I am sure Mitt and his dog would appreciate it.

He has had an extemely successful career and family life -- two things I admire and try to emulate in my life.

Well, that's true of John Edwards as well, and I don't see conservatives rushing to vote for the guy. Ronald Reagan had a pretty middling career before he became governor and basically a failed family life. Maybe you should reexamine your criteria for what is really important to you in a President.

I agree with you, Romney for 2008!!

I think Ross is right about Romney. His resume and accomplishments are impressive; he can sound eloquent and smooth in small doses when well-prepared (if you ignore the clips of him eloquently espousing the opposite position previously). Listening to him talk at any length is extremely irritating however. He hits the right talking points, but he does it too well; it's too smooth, too obviously rehearsed. and There's always just a little too much faux populism or cliche in his manner of expression that calls into question his sincerity.

The spot above is a perfect example: The people want to hear positive. Well, let's go positive. Does it make any sense to say more change will happen in 10 years than 10 centuries? Of course
not! But hopefully it will sound like I'm hopeful and positive because hopeful and positive people get votes. This type of condescension and patronization is deeply irritating.

Vanya,

Even though Mitt inspires me, that isn't the reason I would vote for him. I am going to vote for him because the best candidate to lead this country. Personal inspiration is just icing on the cake.

John and Ross,

Please stop with the "annoying" and "irritating" comments about Romney's style. Let's focus on the issues.

He grates on me big time.

It's not just personal style, it's that he seems the product of a marketing campaign organized by a bunch of callow MBA's in expensive suits.

If he were elected, I might actually pine for W's annoying lateral /s/.

Mitt Romney comes off as one of the most inauthentic people ever to run for president. He has consistently changed positions when it suited him politically, and deserves the monikor of "phony". When I'm looking at who I'm going to vote for, integrity is the most important quality; and Mitt Romney has none. It baffles me that anyone actually trusts this guy, and it's been refreshing to see the media expose him before the primaries begin. In my opinion, Iowa and NH have the responsibility to stop him in his tracks, and I hope they do so.

Gosh darnit, Rob and Kathy just think Mitt is doubleplusgood! Isn't that neat-o? He's a leader! He's the best qualified! Let's just say all of that over and over again!

Honestly, how important is Romney's business savvy really?

I mean, can't he appoint folks like that to work for him? I mean, Reagan did.

A president needs to be a leader, not a manager. Any executive can get good managers to work for him and handle that end. What the President needs to do is be the public face for the executive branch and sell the American people on its agenda.

Romney looks an awful lot less attractive on that score.

I'm sick of people saying they won't support Romney because he sounds 'too slick' or he is 'annoying'.

Ross, if you are going to attack a guy because of his character, you have slid we below the belt.

I don't care that he has changed his mind or that he 'sounds' calculating when he talks. I only care that when he was in charge, he made the right decisions at the right time. He is extremely intelligent: BYU Valedictorian, and Harvard Law/Business school grad. He turned many, many businesses around, and he ran a great governership in Mass.

Maybe his responses about Terrorism, Economics and Immigration ARE scripted. So what? Isn't that better than a guy like Mike Huckabee that doesn't know what's going on around him at all? Or better than John McCain who is just angry all the time. If he has 'memorized' the issues going on around him, then he will be much better prepared to deal with them.

Lets not be stupid and vote another George Bush, think-with-your-heart clone. Let's vote someone with a brain who has PROVEN he can get it done.

Vote for Mitt Romney

We are really in trouble as a country if we choose not to vote for someone merely because of his/her lack of charisma. Object to Romney on whatever campaign issues you want. Feel free to doubt his sincerity on policy changes. But it's a sad day when a voter goes to a caucus or primary and says, "Ew, he creeps me out!"

Me, I'd rather have a "phony-sounding" dedicated, creative leader in the White House than a homeboy who has no idea about foreign policy, flip-flops as much as Mitt but won't admit it (unlike Romney), childishly handles finances, lets So. Baptist dogma skew his decisions, and and really IS a phony!

"Please stop with the "annoying" and "irritating" comments about Romney's style. Let's focus on the issues," sez Rob. Rob, a politician's ability to irritate and annoy is an issue. (We may thank God for that, as it preserves us from Hillary in the White House.) Romney comes across as what Orwell once memorably described as "a hole in the air". To call him plastic is to insult a useful and protean material. He is the Edsel of Republican politicians, proof that an expensive ad campaign cannot sell a clunker product. Not forever, anyway.

Seth R has it right - Romney is a manager, the man is not a leader. He's never been a leader - at Bain Capital he was managing and coordinating dozens of incredibly intelligent, highly motivated professionals, people who needed to be guided, not led. That is not the same thing as presenting a vision and getting people to follow you. He's a smart guy, brilliant analytical mind, but he doesn't inspire loyalty in people and he doesn't have a vision, or seemingly even a real passion, for governing. I live in Massachusetts, I've seen first hand what a failure the guy has been as a politician, and it's been extremely disappointing.

Rob,

Style is an issue here for two reasons

1)This is a campaign. Campaigns need voters. If somebody sounds insincere, it's an issue.

2) It seems clear that Romney's positions on every substantive issue are purely poll-driven. In other words, complaints about his appearing insincere may be stylistic, but that insincerity has lead directly to Romney-the-chameleon on matters of substantive policy. That does not instill me with a lot of confidence in the consistency of his new positions.

If a person was a fly on the wall observing Mitt Romney in the Mormon Temple dressed to the nines in outlandish garb including a fig leaf apron making a sign with his hand , thumb extended indicating his throat should be slit if he divulged the secrets of the Temple ,voters would be frightened . Then if the voters observed Romney participating in Mormon rituals where the Christian Pastor was depicted as being in the hire and pay of Satan they would be disgusted . The vast majority of American people not just evangelical Christians will be troubled by these and a host of other issues attached to Mitt Romney . Can any sensible ,rational and objective Republican think that if Romney were to win the nomination that the Democrats would just sit on their hands and say nothing ?

If a person was a fly on the wall observing Mitt Romney in the Mormon Temple dressed to the nines in outlandish garb including a fig leaf apron making a sign with his hand , thumb extended indicating his throat should be slit if he divulged the secrets of the Temple ,voters would be frightened . Then if the voters observed Romney participating in Mormon rituals where the Christian Pastor was depicted as being in the hire and pay of Satan they would be disgusted . The vast majority of American people not just evangelical Christians will be troubled by these and a host of other issues attached to Mitt Romney . Can any sensible ,rational and objective Republican think that if Romney were to win the nomination that the Democrats would just sit on their hands and say nothing ?

Although I agree Mitt has a strong resume, I doubt his electability. The number of folks he truly inspires seems limited. His background suits him well to connect with top executives and board members, but not the average American.

As a business owner I would be pretty concerned if I pumped millions of dollars into a product launch and I was only getting limited traction. That indicates to me there is something wrong with the product. The fact that Mitt has not been able to connect with so many Republicans, even after his $17 million investment, is a pretty good indication there is a problem. It's not the message, it's the man!

Scott says: "a politician's ability to irritate and annoy is an issue".

Last I checked, having a charismatic, funny president won't lower the cost of oil, secure the borders, keep taxes low or catch terrorists. Or maybe you can show me a President that used a joke to solve any of these problems?

"And by golly, he annoys the ever-living heck out of me."

I'm sure that this was a deliberately silly comment. But it serves to illustrate that if you aren't comfortable cursing, you should avoid the mode of speech entirely. There's nothing like a Leave it to Beaver caliber euphemism to make a man look like a damned fool.

But it's a sad day when a voter goes to a caucus or primary and says, "Ew, he creeps me out!"

Like it or not, that's exactly how most American voters choose a president. Furthermore, they position their views on a candidate's grasp of policy, etc. in direct proportion to how much "he creeps me out." I imagine a number of Romney supporters were among those who wouldn't vote for John Kerry because he was "a flip-flopper". The differences? Romney's flip-flopped the "right way" and John Kerry "creeped them out."

The problem I have with Romney (I would probably vote for him were he is the nominee) is that I don't believe he has any true convictions.

He ran as a liberal in MA - both for Senate and for governor. He is now espousing all the right things vis a vis conservatism. But, will it stick?

My fear is that history has demonstrated that people who are not truly committed conservatives end up "growing" in office, b/c they cannot take the constant and brutal hostility of the mainstream press. My guess is Mitt will end up "growing" in office and moving pretty signifcantly left of where he claims to be right now.

If he had a conservative past to point to, it would make a difference. the fact that his past is liberal, is a big red danger sign. His newly found positions may indeed be sincere, but why take that chance? At best it is a 50/50% shot.

Yes, every single candidate can be accused of switching positions when running for president. However, none come close to the volume and magnitude of positions that Romney has done a 180 on. That is simply a fact.

Yes, he is impressive as a businessman. He is a smart and well educated guy. He is articulate and good looking. But none of that matters if he is using those attributes to pursue the wrong (liberal) policies.

My problem with Mitt is to begin with, intuitive. Mitt is a smart, successful businessman, but one who has low social intelligence.

How do I know this? Because when he talks, my intuition screams - he doesn't seem too smooth to me, rather he is not smooth enough. I can feel him reading from the script, that is Strike One. Additionally, he seems to think that others can't tell that he's reading from the script. THAT is Strike Two. He can't tell that he's not clever. He doesn't realize others see right through him. Gee Whiz, K-Lo and Hugh Hewitt might eat his shtick up, but the rest of get the chills at how pedestrian his Leave it To Beaver act is. We need a leader who can bluff and be crafty in the age of terror. Mitt thinks his persona is sneaky. It's not. It's swiss cheese.

This is a very serious issue, Rob, but hard to prove to someone who can't see it. Reading people is tricky. But to me, Romney is transparent as glass. My point is that subjective readings of candidates are not merely 'negative,' they are every bit as crucial as objective, hard facts such as policy papers and speeches. After all, look what Bush said, he was against nation building and then look what he ended up supporting. Holy cow.

But there is supporting data. Watch the clips of him on the opposite positions just a few years ago, and he's just as stiff and empty on the pro-reproductive rights position and the rest as he is today - to me, that supports my distrust of him.
He seems inauthentic and canned on BOTH sides of an issue (!), an incredible feat.

Also, Rob, when you say you want to focus on the issues but then rebut by saying the dog enjoyed the trip to Canada you immediately are suspect; how the hell could you know what a DOG felt decades ago? That's a clear tell that you are an uncritical supporter of Mitt.

Because candidates constantly promise one thing and then do another, we voters MUST judge body language, tone, etc, and history to rate if they are lying. Mitt has switched on EVERY conservative issue of importance. Kathy, you may not like rhetoric, but read your own post again: all you do is state a conclusion, there is no argument and no evidence.

Let's see your argument. Why should we believe Mitt is for real?

I don't find Romney annoying but I understand the element that can be a bit off-putting. I think the annoying part is the fact that all the candidates are forced to shrink their message down to 30-second sound-bites. I get the impression that Romney is a very intelligent man who has to dumb down his message to make it fit within the constraints of a campaign where very little time is allotted for real discussion and for an audience that wouldn't understand policy nuances even if there were time for them.

What annoys me are all the folks stating they are supporting Huckabee because he is "most like me" and he is a "common man". To select a president based on those criteria is to believe that you yourself are most qualified so therefore the man most like you is supremely equipped to lead us. No, we should expect our President to be above ourselves……not the common man but the uncommon man. A man who comes from among us but has clearly risen to a level above us and is qualified to lead us. Mitt Romney is the uncommon man who stands head and shoulders above all the rest in ’08. I actually am excited that he could be elected President. I think he has the intellect, the education, the values, the stamina, the experience, the training, and the class that is truly Presidential and he could very well be one of the all time great Presidents.

Casey said:
"Maybe his responses about Terrorism, Economics and Immigration ARE scripted. So what?"

Casey, can you understand that a script is for actors and not for leaders? That a real-time threat is fluid and won't allow you to take a poll to test its acceptibility?

You may not like that others don't like Mitt, but can you at least grasp that others are not comfortable with a man who is already checking with his lawyers and notes on routine campaign questions. This is a cautious man - but cautious in terms of his impression, cautious in the wrong way - in the big important way - his beliefs - he is not cautious - he changed his mind to fit the current political winds.

So he lets his positions on core issues change radically (uncareful), but then parses words when presenting them to the electorate (ultracareful). I would prefer the opposite.

You may not agree that others see him this way, but can you comprehend this perspective? Can you grasp that he seems the worst of worlds - a cynical opportunist who hides behind a Gee Whiz mask of piety?

Casey claims: "He turned many, many businesses around, and he ran a great governership in Mass."

What exactly was so great about his governorship? The office could have been vacant during his time here for all anyone noticed about his "greatness." And when he decided to run for president, he was out of the state 80% of the time and no one even complained because it didn't matter. He was irrelevant the entire time.

Lynn - the American voters are "creeped out" by the fact that Romney claimed he saw his Dad march with Matin Luther King and then go into absurd contortions as to what he meant by "saw , because it never happened. Romney's actual position was that as a mature young man he consented to the Mormon position that black people are cursed because of the colour of their skin but fair skinned people are "white and delightsome" see Book of Mormon pre 1980 editions 2Nephi30v6 . Do you think the Democrats would let go of this issue ?

Mitt won't get my vote even if he wins the nomination. The only candidates that I'll vote for are Fred Thompson & Rudy Giuliani. I know Rudy isn't a movement conservative but I also know that he hasn't flip-flopped.

I've chosen Fred Thompson because he believes in all the things I believe in and he's consistently believed in those things. That's the only thing I need to know.

I've defied readers of my blog to list a single important issue where Mitt Romney hasn't done a 180. I'm still waiting for someone to accept that challenge.

I won't vote for a candidate I can't trust. Mitt can spend a gazillion dollars & I still wouldn't vote for him.

Don't settle for cheap imitations. Settle only on Fred Thompson because he's best equipped to lead our nation.

It's amazing to me that a subset of Repubs could vote for DickCheney twice and claim to be 'creeped out' by Mitt, to name only one 'conservative' that fits right beside Dracula.

And BTW--LarryMoe&Jesus, I loooooove you man!!

Andrew price brings up a good point.

If Joseph Smith was the true restoration of the Church, think about this:

Jesus lives and dies, the Church immediately goes south and for 1800 years the world is in darkness. God waits. Then, Smith is born, brings the light back to the world and then the true church with Brigham Young and the Saints IMMEDIATELY fall behind the moral vanguard of the time, limping behind the abolitionists and finally, in 1979, allowing black deacons in 1979!

("In 1838, Joseph Smith answered the following question while en route from Kirtland to Missouri, as follows: "Are the Mormons abolitionists? No ... we do not believe in setting the Negroes free."(Smith 1977, p.120) See Wikipedia)

So the Catholic Church was corrupt, God waited 1800 years to ... send a prophet who advocated polygamy but not abolitionism. Riiiight....

See, it just doesn't make any sense.

Even with the dubious doctrine of progressive revelation, the Mormon theology just doesn't seem to make any sense, and I don't see how any rational person could stick with it.

It's amazing to me that a subset of Repubs could vote for DickCheney twice and claim to be 'creeped out' by Mitt, to name only one 'conservative' that fits right beside Dracula.

I laugh that liberals think Ted Kennedy is a beacon of rightousness after he murdered Mary Jo Kopeckne. Or that all of the dem presidential candidates kow-tow to Al Sharpton, responsible for at least one killing, at least one race riot, who is anti-semitic, who is a convicted liar and perjurer, and pretty much represents every bad moral vice known to man.

(Smith a few years later developed a more nuanced position on slavery. My point is that he was hardly the moral vanguard that you would expect the last prophet to be. See the tortured history the Mormons had with blacks during and after him. Sorry I had to amend the last post, my little girl was crying. Parenting first.)

Andrew Price, please take your anti-Mormon rhetoric somewhere else. I agree that Romney doesn't always connect with his 30 second spots. The longest speech I have seen Romney give was his 'faith' speech in December. My understanding was that he wrote most of that himself. I felt like he was very inspiring during the speech. He came across as passionate, sincere, and presidential. Once Americans see him in that type of format, I think they will get over any reservations they might have.

I agree with some of the other comments here, that the last thing we want is a 'common' man leading the country. I want someone who graduated at the top of his class from the best schools in the land. I want someone who is much smarter than our enemies. Having an average Joe in the office will not get us any closer to solving the big problems that our country currently faces. Mitt Romney will bring a level of excellence that I believe will be truly inspirational.

Leftieleftowich:

Rhetorically, you are attacking and deflecting, and not addressing any of the substance of the points made against Mitt. I anxiously await your rebuttal of the actual points about Mitt.

Just so you know, though, I don't know a single liberal who thinks Kennedy or Sharpton are beacons of righteousness. I see them as repellant, and as holdovers from the politics of the past, myself.

Moe:
"And when he decided to run for president, he was out of the state 80% of the time and no one even complained because it didn't matter. He was irrelevant the entire time."

Wow, you're telling me nobody ever complained about Mitt Romney when he was Governer? Well, he MUST have been great then. It's the first time in history I've ever heard of this!

He's got my vote.

David refers to Price's post as anti-Mormon, in my opinion a VERY unfair smear tactic.

Those citations are controversial, but by no means invented by Price. Go look them up yourself: many Mormons believed them in the 19th century, just as many Christian pastors were proslavery at the same time. If believers held to them, then they are not anti-Mormon; they are true.

David, there are MANY doctrines that are objectionable to run of the mill Christians. Romney has been very good at evading this by threatening inquiries as being 'bigoted,' they are hardly that. Romney has made great ceremony out of his professed faith, linking faith and freedom. Very well then, Mitt - what are the contents of your faith?

What's good for the goose...

r -

Sorry, but telling me that a guy that doesn't know what is going on around him makes him a better 'leader' because he acts better on impulse is just a cop-out.

A REAL leader knows his stuff well and when impromptu situations arise, he knows immediatly what to do because he has studied it carefully.

Show me a candidate on the GOP that knows his stuff as well as Mitt Romney, then we'll talk about 'leadership'.

r & Andrew -- Do you really think people think it is relevant what Joseph Smith's platform for or against slavery was 170 years ago? Deal with the issues at hand with this race -- there are plenty of them. All that you accomplish with your rants is identify to all the other bloggers that you are either evangelical Christians who don't like Mormons, or that you were a former member of the Mormon church and have some axe to grind. Get over it and focus on the real issues.

John quotes and writes: ""And when he decided to run for president, he was out of the state 80% of the time and no one even complained because it didn't matter. He was irrelevant the entire time."

Wow, you're telling me nobody ever complained about Mitt Romney when he was Governer? Well, he MUST have been great then. It's the first time in history I've ever heard of this!

He's got my vote."

No one complained about him being out of state so much of the time. He wasn't missed. He did nothing while he was here, so what's the difference?

The guy's a cipher with no discernable personality at all. If you want an android in the White House, vote away.

Of course he'd be an improvement over the 200 pound tumor currently occupying the White House, but so would about 300 million other people.

Casey:

Ah, I see your tone. Sadly, another failed dialogue. We're just talking past each other. End.

Wow! This has got to be the shallowest argument I ever heard against any candidate. Almost as shallow as the majority of those in favor of Huckabee.

David - there is such a thing as a reasoned evaluation of data . I am afraid to say Romney's support of the Mormon organisation and its policy of putting black people under a divine curse because of the colour of their skin is reprehensible . As he has done U turns on so many issues already - perhaps he could apologize and say he was wrong and the Mormon organisation was also wrong . Keeping on the subject of Romney giving the voters the creeps - can he explain why he agreed to the Mormon practice of baptizing dead Jewish holocaust victims in the secret Mormon Temple rituals . Do you seriously think this will help the Republicans hold Florida with its large Jewish community - a thing they must do if they are going to retain the White House ?

Seth R says: "A president needs to be a leader, not a manager. Any executive can get good managers to work for him and handle that end. What the President needs to do is be the public face for the executive branch and sell the American people on its agenda."

Romney is a good manager and a leader. You don't start Bain Capital and turn around the olympics without good leadership. Moreover, you don't become a Republican Governer of the Democratic state of Massachusetts without leadership. Romney is a good manager and a great leader.

Sorry, David, but I don't buy into your definition of what are the 'issues.' Actually, neither does Mitt. Mitt is the one that made his faith in Jesus central to his campaign, I am merely carrying it to its logical conclusion.

OF COURSE Smith's slavery platform matters from the past, because it is vital to who Romney is today, and Romney WOULD AGREE. You know it. If it didn't, why would he cry tears on nat'l tv about it? Romney and I both disagree with you on this.

I am neither an Evangelical nor an ex-Mormon. Your need to pigeonhole me thus fails, nor are my posts rants, as I am appealing to reason, which, as this dialogue continues, YOU are not. You are the one seeming to engage in rant, not I. You are just repeating yourself, at this point.

So again, No, I won't move on, I won't accept your definition of the issues, and I don't accept your intimidation.

Like it or not, David, religion is central to the Republican party, and you don't get to tell us what the issues are. Too bad.

I think I know why Casey loves Mr. Battlefield Earth. From Casey's website, per the above link:

"Dungeons have been at the heart of Role-Playing Games since the very beginning. The journey into the dark crevices of the earth are the times when an adventurer finds his greatest wealth, faces his greatest challenges, and defeats his darkest enemies. Ordinary men and women return as adventurers, some return as heroes, and some never return at all. From Dungeons and Dragons to Ultima, DungeonDelve.net is your dedicated resource for getting the most out of these subterranean adventures. With a passion ourselves, we are committed to bringing you the best examples of quests in the most creepy of dungeons."

You have to love the idiotic syntax.

The point being is that Romney will do what is politically expedient, not what is right. The timing of his change of mind seems more to speak that he's doing it to pass some type of litmus test, rather than having examined the evidence carefully and coming to his own conclusions. I want a president who will do that, not just say what he thinks will get him elected.

We were also told that George W. Bush was a business man who would run the country like a business, and look where it got us.

Andrew - I really don't think that his affiliation with the Mormon church will matter to rational individuals. He is a member of a church. The Mormons keep great records so it is easy to look up what someone said 150 years ago. I just don't think that will influence people in the end. Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, etc. could all find something one of their leaders said long ago that was controversial or off-the-wall. It doesn't mean it is their doctrine just because someone said it. The same is true with the Mormons.

Nail on the head. I'm a libertarian-leaning 25 year old - the usual fiscal conservative, social liberal bit. I liked Romney a lot because the guy who ran MA when I was there came across as the competence candidate without the "southern-fried" Republican social stances, and not batshit crazy like some of the Dems in the legislature. That guy seems to bear little resemblance to the new ideologue who hates gays and immigration (Tancredo endorsement? really?), and promises to bomb whoever it will take to win the primary. Tis a shame - from my stint in consulting, you're supposed to at least pander well enough not to look fake.

John,

Four points on style:

1) I agree that style is important
2) Style is subjective
3) I like Mitt's style and you apparently do not
4) Substance is just as (if not more) important as style

Mitt has more substance (proven track record) as a leader than the other candidates and just as much style.

Rob the Robot drones on: "Romney is a good manager and a leader. You don't start Bain Capital and turn around the olympics without good leadership. Moreover, you don't become a Republican Governer of the Democratic state of Massachusetts without leadership. Romney is a good manager and a great leader."

Or is he a great manager and a good leader? Or is he a super leader and a stupendous manager? Or is he a neat-o manager and a tip-top leader?

Anyway, go Mitt! He's a leader and a manager and a coach and a seeing eye dog!

Romney praised Bush for ending our dependency on foreign oil. Why is nobody covering this except www.mygreenelement.com?

Stefan reports: "Romney praised Bush for ending our dependency on foreign oil. Why is nobody covering this except www.mygreenelement.com?"

Nice catch. Repiglicans say the darndest things!

Having come back to this thread after a brief absence, I find that Mr. Romney's fan base seems to think of Mitt as being closer to Messiah than President. That disturbs me more than their candidate does, just as does the fervor of Hillary's legions. But it's good to know that Casey likes dungeons. Thanks, MoeLarryandJesus!

David - with great respect the issues that have been raised by r , myself and others are about Romney and his views and practices past and present . Romney was the one who raised the issue of Martin Luther King not me or r , so can you please kindly explain what Romney's position was in the 1970s concerning black people ? The 1970's was not 150 years ago .

Andrew Price - Romney's father and mother were prominent in the civil rights movement, so it is unlikely that your questioning will go anywhere. A poll of African-Americans in 1967-68 listed George Romney as one of the leaders they most trusted. You've gone from attacking Romney because he's a Mormon and Mormons are weird to saying Mormon's are or were racist (you have a strong caseon that score) and ergo Romney is a racist. Given the Romney family history, though this is a weak argument. There's enough to criticize about Romney without going on and on about how weird Mormons are - you come across as a bigot.

Scott Walker writes: "I find that Mr. Romney's fan base seems to think of Mitt as being closer to Messiah than President. That disturbs me more than their candidate does, just as does the fervor of Hillary's legions. But it's good to know that Casey likes dungeons. Thanks, MoeLarryandJesus!"

No problem - now we know why Casey supports the "Double Gitmo!" candidate. We still don't know why Scott Walker takes so long in between albums, though.

Rough-air says: "As a business owner I would be pretty concerned if I pumped millions of dollars into a product launch and I was only getting limited traction."

Romney does have traction and he does have a good ROI. Romney is the only Republican candidate that is in the top three in Iowa and New Hampshire. If Romney call sell the product in Iowa (where religious affiliation seems to be the driving force in the Republican Party) with 20% to 30% market share, he can definitely gain market share in the other 50 states.

One other point is that Romney's ROI appears to be better than the other front runners in both parties. (Huckabee doesn't count because he doesn't know what ROI means, but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express. There is a little Huckabee humor for you). We'll see if style is more important than substance in Iowa a little later today.

I don't think Romney is a racist. I think he's an empty suit, myself. But I think it's incredibly dishonest to call criticism of his religion as bigotry. If people perceive it that way, that's their prerogative.

But his religion (and all others) have such odd features to it, but you're right that it's likely not productive to focus on it. On the other hand, Mitt has tirelessly brought his faith up again and again, and that is his trick - Mitt gets to sings the praises of faith but if anyone tries to actually find out what he believes and then DARE to criticize, then he's a bigot, per Bob (or at least appear to be one).

As far as Rob goes: we can just disagree. You seem to think it's just 'style.' Fine.

But I think he's transparently flat and opportunistic. He changed every core belief within just a few years just in time to run for president. I do not buy it.

This stuff about criticizing religion as bigotry is just pure crap, though. All beliefs should be subjected to rational critique. If it 'appears' to be bigotry, there is no helping it. It may be unpopular, it may be persistent, but there is no substitute for it. Americans have a right to know what he believes, period. Romney has made his faith part of his qualifications to be elected, so be it.

MarryLarryandJesus says: "Rob the Robot drones on"

Once again let's focus on the issues and not the name calling.

Leadership and management are not mutually exclusive. A person can be a good manager and a good leader at the same time. Romney is both.

Rob the Robot signing off to MaryLarryandJesus. I need to go recharge my battery.

Sorry Bob - to press the point and I ask again the question what were Romney's views concerning black people in the 1970s when he was a mature young man in his twenties ? What was he doing and saying when there were protests by civil rights protestors outside BYU Provo Utah in the 1970s ?
Did he obey the Mormon leadership ? Naturally I dont want to assume you and David are Mormons so this question may not be appropriate to you - can you say something on the Mormon principle of obedience to the Prophet and General Authorities ?

Are you saying Romney participating in secret Mormon Temple rituals where the Christian Pastor was depicted as being in the hire and pay of Satan is not wierd ?

Are you saying that the Mormon practice of baptizing dead Jewish holocaust vitims to which Romney agreed with is not wierd ?

To Andrew Price,

You state that Romney "has done U turns on so many issues already..." but I've looked at his record and haven't found that to be the case except on abortion. It's been acknowledged that he changed his position on that issue but so have I so I won't beat him up for that. I haven't found his position to change on other issues. I've found that he's clarified them over time like I believe he's always supported the Second Amendment to allow gun ownership but also supports the Brady Bill requiring waiting periods and supports a ban on assualt weapons. I actually think that makes sense. I don't think the populace needs to be armed with assualt weapons nor do I see anything wrong with background checks and waiting periods prior to gun purchases. Those are conditions or clarifications of his position but not a U turn in my opinion.

So far, I think he's the best guy running but I don't vote till Super Tuesday so I'm willing to listen to any legitimate arguements why he's not the most Presidential of the choices.

Rob is incredibly dense, even for a robot: "MarryLarryandJesus says: "Rob the Robot drones on"

Once again let's focus on the issues and not the name calling.

Leadership and management are not mutually exclusive. A person can be a good manager and a good leader at the same time. Romney is both."

Of course they're not mutually exclusive. Is that really what you think I was saying? Here's the passage of yours I was mocking: "Romney is a good manager and a leader. You don't start Bain Capital and turn around the olympics without good leadership. Moreover, you don't become a Republican Governer of the Democratic state of Massachusetts without leadership. Romney is a good manager and a great leader."

Is it possible you don't see how repetitive, facile, and fanboy-ish that is? Golly gee, Pa, when Mr. Romney is president things are gonna be just SWELL! He's the bestest leader and the bestest manager!

Is he also a floor polish and a dessert topping?

R writes: "He changed every core belief within just a few years just in time to run for president. I do not buy it."

R, wouldn't the most expedient political move for Romney be to renounce his Mormonism? Can you really say that he changed every core belief within just a few years?

Rob, you got me. You're absolutely right, that's one he didn't change.

Huck is a biggot, I hope Romney kicks his teeth in!!!

Alright MoeLarryAndJesus,

My battery is recharged and "enough is enough." I wouldn't resort to name calling or personal attacks, but if I did I would would say that you must not have anything more intelligent to say to me if all you can come up with is Rob the Robot. Come on, call me a real bad name or is "Rob the Robot" all the intellect you can muster this afternoon.

Huck is a biggot!! It's an accurate discription of his actions. Not a personal attack, just the facts!!

Alright R,

That is a starting point. Next issue, what other core belief did he change?

1) Abortion? I would argue that he didn't change his core belief regarding abortion. Romney disapproved of abortion in 1994 and now. He simply changed his position on how the government should intervine. After exploring the issue due to the stem cell research debate, he decided that row v. wade and the government went too far. He decided the pendulum needed to swing the other way. He changed his stance not to get elected but because he actually has the intellectual rigor to examine issues. He simply decided that a pro-life stance was more consitent with his core belief.

2) Gay rights? Romney hasn't changed his opinion on gay rights. He does not believe in open discrimination, but he does not agree with gay marriage. Yes, it is possible to be against gay discrimination and be anti-same-sex-marriage.

Romney's real issue is that his has examined the complexity of the key issues and has a very complicated opinion. Unfortunately, the media and/or bloggers only like sound bites and one liners. Romney just needs to dumb down his message.

R,

Maybe you can help me out. You stated Romney "changed every core belief within just a few years" and I keep hearing that but I can't find evidence of it.

I hear he 'flip-flops' which implies that he 'flips' to a different position and then 'flops' back to the original one but I haven't found substance to that claim either.

So far, I like the guy but I am here to listen to other opinions.

All I've heard here is that Romney is too good to be President. That's rediculous. Why not use the same measuring stick you're using on Romney to measure McCain or Huckabee.

Those guys speak poorly, have committed enough gaffes to make themselves look like idiots, and they don't even support the ideals of their own party. I just can't believe the American people would support such underachievers just because Mitt Romney works hard to be prepared for everything he does.

I, for one, am ready to have a competent president, not another incompetent bumbler. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have Romney sitting across the table from Iran or Pakistan discussing how to resolve issues than McCain or Huckabee.

Rob the Robot says Golly Gee Whiz: "I wouldn't resort to name calling or personal attacks, but if I did I would would say that you must not have anything more intelligent to say to me if all you can come up with is Rob the Robot."

You're a great android and an excellent robot, Rob. You're also an excellent android and a really great robot. I'll bet you'd be a good leader for a group of robot managers.

Andrew Price,

Sorry to disappoint - I'm not Mormon, so I don't know. I just thought the tone of the discussion was a little too focused on something that's tangential to politics. There are any number of blogs devoted to religion, and I am as curious and/or confused as anyone about what exactly Mormonism consists of and why on earth those claims are accepted.

I just don't think that just because Romney is Mormon, we need to explore every alleged facet of Mormonism in detail; any religion or philosophy can be attacked on any number of fair or (more commonly) unfair grounds. I guess I am concerned about the syllogism
1) Mormons are weird
2) Romney is a Mormon
3) Ergo Romney is weird

His egregious position-shifting and (at least apparent) insincerity seem like a better case to me.

I am supporting Ron Paul for President, and am a Mormon. Most of my friends are not members of my church, and I often have attended meetings or vacation bible schools with them and their families. I have the utmost respect for all of these people - how they lead their lives, and their devotion to Jesus Christ. However, one experience I had a few years ago serves to illustrate why Mormons believe we are Christian, and why we have trouble understanding why some people do not believe we are Christian. While attending vacation bible school with some friends in Raleigh, North Carolina, the pastor divided the adults into two classes - the “advanced” bible class, and the “beginner” bible class. My wife and I both served Mormon missions as young adults, and though a little leery decided to attend the “advanced” Bible class. It turned out that of the 40-50 adults, 6 people, including us, went to the advanced class. The class over the course of the week turned out not to be about the bible, but about the creeds of the Christian churches.

The first creed discussed was the Apostle’s Creed, which states:

=-=-=-=

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Amen.

=-=-==

The teacher, who was not the pastor, then asked each student around the table what they thought of this creed. One expressed some reservation about Jesus “rising from the dead” and the part about “the resurrection of the body”, in that it implied that Christ arose with a body and that there will be a physical resurrection. Another did not believe the portion of the creed that indicated that Christ descended into hell. Another questioned how he could sit at the right hand of God if he was God.

My wife and I were the last ones to speak. Both of us answered that we felt the creed reflected the biblical teachings of Christ and the Apostles correctly, and we believed in the creed 100%.

My point is that many people “cling” to the different beliefs of Mormons from other Christian churches, while ignoring the fact that the core Mormons beliefs match the creeds of the early Christian church closer than the beliefs of their particular sect.

Even the controversy about Mormon belief/disbelief in the Trinity is enlightening. Mormons believe in the Trinity, although not in same way as most other Christian sects teach the Trinity. Mormons believe that the three members of the Trinity can be referred to as one God, as they are one in purpose, and never vary from one another in thought. Indeed, Mormons believe that if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father, because they look, act, think, and do exactly alike. The only difference between the beliefs, which is entire exagerrated, is that most other Christian sects believe the three members of the Trinity are three manifestations of the same being. But if the three are separate beings but think, act, and do as One, isn’t the net result the same thing?

There are many beliefs in different sects that outsiders could call “bizarre”, but at the core, Christians, including Mormons, believe the same basic things. Some examples of “bizaare things” that are either shared beliefs that Mormons have with other Christians, or are believed and taught by other sects, are:

Transubstantiation - (not a Mormon or Evangelical belief)
Virgin Birth - (a Mormon and Evangelical belief)
Worship of Saints - (not a Mormon or Evangelical belief)
Earth created in 6000 years - (most Mormons don’t believe, but no official Church stance)
Infallibility of the Bible - (not a Mormon belief)
Faith Healings - (a Mormon and Evangelical belief)
Prophecy - (a Mormon and Evangelical belief)
Speaking in Tongues - (a Mormon and Evangelical belief)
Jesus casting evil spirits into Pigs - (a Mormon and Evangelical belief)

A lot of the anti-Mormon rhetoric regarding Joseph Smith and his views on slavery come from Southern Baptists, whose pastors during the same time period mostly supported and encouraged slavery as ordained of God.

PBS did an excellent documentary on the Mormon Church which I highly recommend in terms of understanding the truth about a lot of these things. The link to it is below, along with what that documentary states about Mormon views about slavery during Joseph Smith's time, as reported by non-Mormons of the same period.

http://www.pbs.org/americanprophet/persecutions.html

Slavery
While the LDS people did not proclaim abolitionism, they held no slaves. This was a cause of great concern to communities surrounding early Latter-day Saint settlements where slavery was still legal. On the 29th day of June, 1836, the leading citizens of Clay County, Missouri, expressed the following complaint against the Latter-day Saints that had settled there:
They were eastern men, whose manners, habits, customs, and even dialect, are essentially different from our own. They are non-slaveholders, and opposed to slavery, which in this peculiar period, when Abolitionism has reared its deformed and haggard visage in our land, is well calculated to excite deep and abiding prejudices in any community where slavery is tolerated and protected.2

Is Stephen Colbert still running?

;)

Hi MoeLarryAndJesus,

After nearly an hour, that is all that you can come up with?

You can do better than robot and android can't you?

Go Mitt Romney! God Bless You and your wonderful family f