comMITTed to Romney!

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Share This

In the last few days, I have been reading most of the comments that many of you been leaving in this blog. First of, I wish to thank all of you who have done so; even those who presently disagree with the authors of this site or with Governor Romney himself. Those of us who strive to bring truth to the surface as we attempt to enlighten, are grateful.

Many of the comments are by new visitors. I have read comments by those who have served Fred Thompson well. Many are from Ron Paul supporters. Others, though they may not state their allegiance, may presently support Governor Huckabee, Mayor Giuliani, or Senator McCain. Many of you are contemplating support of Governor Romney. My concern is that many are stating they are afraid that if he is elected President, he will “revert to his liberal past” or words to that effect.

With complete respect, I offer some information. First, many comments mention that Gov. Romney is a privileged man with a privileged upbringing; the inference being that he is out of touch with the average man and woman. Those who struggle day to day to provide for their families. I will save what I would like to write here for another future post. Suffice to say that Governor Romney has spent thousands of hours in silent service (one-on-one) of children, women, and men with struggles many of us will never know (crying with them; praying with them; helping them).   That, as a lay leader in his church over many years.   If you want to get a glimpse of the real man, click here —-> MESSED UP HAIR
(keep in mind that Governor Romney has never mentioned this, nor has he ever mentioned personal service rendered to others; unlike Mike Huckabee who has done so many times).

It is simply false that GMR has ever been liberal in any way. Even the label “pro-choice”, to which GMR admitted, is misleading because his actions, his behavior, his decisions have always been on the side of life. Why am I writing this to you at 2:00 in the morning instead of sleeping? Because too many good, strong conservatives have bitten into the hook of the liberal MSM (hook, line, and sinker) to simply accept the flip/flop label altogether without doing any primary research. I must admit I did too in 2006 before I conducted my own primary research. Don’t make a fatal mistake. Conduct your own, personal, primary research on the man and you will find what I did. That he has always been a consistent conservative.

Proof? Look at this simple flyer to contrast GMR’s positions to that of Senator Kennedy as GMR ran against him in the 90s. Click here ——-> THE REAL ROMNEY (remember, this campaign flyer showing Governor Romney’s positions, is from 1994)

But don’t take my word for it or even the content of this flyer that has been around for years. Please conduct your own research. It takes time, but you will discover, as I did, that the truth about the man is altogether different than what the MSM and Governor Romney’s competitors want you to swallow without thinking.

One good place to start is the following site. Click here —–> Encyclopedia Mittanica maintained by our own Mike Laub.

Lastly, for those of you who are just now discovering Governor Romney and wish to get different perspectives from those who have conducted extensive research into the man, the statesman, the husband/father, the volunteer, click here ——> WHY ROMNEY? (be sure to scroll down; there are dozens of entries)

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mike Huckabee has every right to think that we should use tax-payer-money to give tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigrants. However, if he thinks compassion should be the overriding principal of his political philosophy, he should join the Democratic Party. Compassion may be a hyphenated word that is attached to words that describe our political policy, but it is not the focus of our political beliefs and actions. We add another word after the hyphen.

Republicans think that we should FOCUS our compassion on the poor people overseas who OBAY THE LAW, and come hear the right way. Some republicans believe in compassion, but a lot of republicans think there should be limits to politicians trying to be compassionate with other people’s money.

Republicans balance their compassion with an effort to reward good behavior and sometimes to punish bad behavior. We believe in tough love, and a compassion that looks at problem in a way that comprehends the big picture. Republicans believe that giving compassion when only seeing the short term may create dependency and destroy the character that makes long term prosperity possible. Like the song says, you “have to be cruel to be kind in the right measure”.

Huckabee has every right to think he should be compassionate, and give tuition breaks to children of illegal aliens, but he does not have a right to call himself a republican while he does it. The name of the “party of misplaced compassion” starts with a “D”.

Huckabee has every right to say that it was good of him to increase state spending 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, but he can’t say that was good and call himself a republican. We have a big tent, but we have strong stakes that support that tent, that can’t be bent.

Huchabee might have been right to increase the number of state government workers by 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/2006). Democrats might be right. Maybe a big government is better than a small government, but why have two parties if both of them increase the size of government?

Romney on the other hand (along with others in the race) significantly decreased government workers in his state.

Huckabee  might have been right to have let the state’s debt to shoot up by almost $1 billion (according to Americans for tax Reform). Democrats might be right, perhaps you can spend more money than you have. We all know republicans haven’t done much better recently, but should we pick a guy that takes our hypocracy to a new level? Democrats might be right but why have two parties if one of them isn’t for balancing the budget? But he can’t make this argument as republican nominee. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Sure, there are some republicans who only care about abortion, and would vote for Huckabee over Hillary or Barak. But they are not a majority. For republicans to win we have to keep our coalition together. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are no more likely to keep spending down in Washington, or keep taxes down than Mike Huckabee. Infact we have never seen Hillary or Barak increase taxes directly, or increase spending, but we have 8 years of Huckabee to prove what he would do.

So people in the republican party who don’t really care about abortion, who are just in the republican party because they believe in small government will have no reason to vote for a republican in 2008.

To some small government libertarians, they think a true small government shouldn’t be powerful enough to stop abortions, or prostitution. They think government should be so small that it lets people do whatever they want. But they have to decide if their desire for less government intrusion in value issues is more important, or if their desire for a less government spending is more important. They have to choose between the republican and democratic party.

People who want America to be on the offensive in the War in Terror will have no reason to support Huckabee who thinks Bush is arrogant. Huckabe also wants to close Guantanamo, and didn’t even know what the NIE report was. At least Hillary and Obama knew what the NIE report was.

But I’m hurting your feelings. I am disagreeing with you, and you are mad at me, because I am criticizing you guy. All you care about is that your candidate goes to a Christian church like Huckabee. You would never support someone like Fred Thompson that doesn’t go to church that often. You could also never vote for someone who is from a “cult”. You are right. People like you are an important part of the republican coalition, but you are not the only part of the party. You may represent a majority of the republican party, but you do not represent the majority of the American people. And so if you want to win, you have to find a winning coalition.

If you send up a guy like Huckabee, against Barak Obama, you will get every vote from value voters. But those whose main issues are the war on terrorism and small government, will have no reason to vote for your guy over the first african american or first woman president. Besides, for those republicans who belong to the republican party because of our it’s “arrogant mentality” or small government viewpoint, will be able to vote for the democrats, because at least that side will have to stop throwing hand-grenades, and acting like adults. They will get a chance to run things, and will have to act like adults, and do much the same things that they hate Bush for doing.

Social conservatives make up an important part of the republican party, but they are not the only part. Just ask Jimmy Carter who actually had the guts to stay in the party of compassion.

Go join Jimmy Carter’s political party Mike. I don’t want you in mine. Its not that I don’t like you. Its just that I think the republican party should stand for something. Its not that I’m saying your wrong. You might be right, but you are not a republican.

Or we can agree with the Democratic party on every issue but abortion and gay marriage? Is that what we want? Will we win when republicans are the same as democrats? But there is a more important question: Is it right to agree with democrats about increasing taxes, increasing the size of government, and defining compasion in such a way that rewards bad behavior, gives tax breaks to children of illiganl immigrants and lets 1,033 convicted criminals out of jail in 8 years from a small state?

Look, I’m exagerating to make a point. I really don’t want people like Huckabee or you to leave the republican party. We need you, but you have to remember that you need people like me. Don’t nominate Huckabee and offend those who care deeply about crime, and being too “compassionate” to convicted criminals. I know he speaks your language, and seems a lot like a guy you work with, and he plays the bass guitar great, and you think it would be great to have a former preacher as president, but please don’t offend the members of the republican party who deeply care about keeping the government small, and taxes down. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush are all Baptist, and it would be great to have another evangelical but please don’t make me have to support a republican who calls the club for growth the club for greed.

We have two parties and those that call the club for growth the club for greed should not have an R by their name. Or else why even have two parties?

Share on Facebook

Share This