Posts filed under ‘Mitt Romney’

I’m Against Change

Not really, but this is a great article by Dave Barry. It is pretty funny, and I was ready for something like this. He’ll be writing every day from New Hampshire. an excerpt:

Everybody in this race, Democrat and Republican, is now officially for Change. They get more fervent about Change every day; it’s only a matter of time before they start calling for tactical air strikes on Washington. I’ll be honest with you: I’m getting tired of Change. I think it’d be nice, for a change, if a candidate came out against Change, maybe with a catchy slogan like, ”Remember: It Could Get Worse,” or “Hey, At Least You’re Not Dead.”

Here in Nashua, I watched Mitt ”Mitt” Romney call for Change. I will say this about Mitt: He is the most clean-cut human I have ever seen. He makes Ken, of Ken and Barbie, look like Chewbacca. I was standing with Jeff Greenfield, veteran TV political analyst, and when Mitt called, about 30 seconds into his speech, for Change, Greenfield leaned over and said, ”I want to give you some change,” then handed me a quarter.


January 7, 2008 at 4:58 pm 1 comment

I’ll take the smart kid

I like this post from’s Michael Scherer:

Here’s one thing you need to know about John McCain. He’s always been the coolest kid in school. He was the brat who racked up demerits at the Naval Academy. He was the hot dog pilot who went back to the skies weeks after almost dying in a fire on the U.S.S. Forrestal. His first wife was a model. His second wife was a rich girl, 17 years his junior. He kept himself together during years of North Vietnamese torture and solitary confinement. When he sits in the back of his campaign bus, we reporters gather like kids in the cafeteria huddling around the star quarterback. We ask him tough questions, and we try to make him slip up, but almost inevitably we come around to admiring him. He wants the challenge. He likes the give and take. He is, to put it simply, cooler than us.

Now here’s the thing you need to know about Mitt Romney. He is the overachiever, the do-gooder, the kid in class who always does everything right. All his life he has outperformed, as a Mormon missionary in France, as a corporate takeover consultant, as the guy who saved the Winter Olympics from financial ruin. He works crazy hours and apologizes after he makes a joke, because he is worried you won’t understand his meaning. He is the one who takes endless notes in every class and has a little plastic container inside his locker for all of his mechanical pencils. He will probably be the valedictorian, and he will surely disappoint you at graduation by giving a bland speech that all the parents just love. “Isn’t that boy so sweet,” say all the moms.

So here is the situation that Republicans in New Hampshire face on Tuesday: Do we elect the jock or the overachiever? Do we go with cool and confident, or cautious and competent?  It’s an analogy that doesn’t hold up in every scenario and doesn’t characterize the candidates with total accuracy, but it works. Personally I find competence compelling by itself. There is something great about excellence. It may appear bland, but is that because it is of itself unremarkable? Or is it that we expect nothing less from such a person? Try as you might to claim that campaign pronouncements mean much more than the paper they are printed on (or the blogs they are posted on), the real proof is in how the candidates have lived and worked. I don’t think anyone can question Mitt’s competence, just as we don’t question McCain’s bravery or Huckabee’s…uh…weight loss?Likewise with the Democrats there is not a one that has been as effective in the private sector as Mitt has been, short (maybe) of slimy Trial Lawyer Edwards. Unfortunately for the Edwards, his senate tenure was extremely unremarkable.So like I said above, I’ll take the smart kid. Check out Scherer’s whole post for his great jab at Huckabee.

January 6, 2008 at 4:41 pm 4 comments

Theoretical Mitt

I enjoy Michael Barone’s insights. He has an interesting theory as to why some people find Mitt Romney off-putting: Mitt is like a person from the ’50’s. The theory makes some sense when you consider where Mitt spent time leading up to his Church mission. During his mission he was out of the country during some of the most tumultuous (and socially destructive) years in American history. He married quickly after returning and has been kicking butt ever since.

 Barone’s post is no endorsement, but is an interesting piece, his conclusion:

So Mitt Romney, unusually for an American born in 1947, missed the ’60s altogether. The prevalent culture in his formative years was the ’50s, and for him it has presumably remained the formative culture ever after. The cheerfulness, energy, and community spirit of the Mormons still embody much of that culture, and so does Mitt Romney. That’s why he seems so corny and, to some, so phony. Or at least, so my theory goes.

In related new, my unease and distrust of Huckabee deepens. Should he win the nomination, which I consider unlikely, I will have many new things to lament.

December 31, 2007 at 5:04 pm 18 comments

Who he is

I’m sure many of you are as tired of looking at Hillary as I am. Check out this short, extremely effective ad for IRF’s candidate, Mitt Romney:

Well done.

December 19, 2007 at 11:13 am 4 comments

Guest Post: Huck, the Wannabe Kingmaker

A secret behind Huck’s rise is that it could have gone completely different. Imagine if you will, had Huckabee, as an ordained minister, come out and put people’s minds at ease about Mormon beliefs. What if instead of asking “Don’t they worship Satan?,” he had said, “Mormons do believe in Jesus, just like you and I.” The rumor is that Huckabee was floating this offer to the Romney campaign a few weeks ago.

Huckabee knows he can’t win the nomination, he’s too fiscally liberal for economic conservatives. But, he knows he has assets to offer as a Vice Presidential candidate. To Romney, he would put the Mormonism question to bed. Romney has had significant evangelical endorsements, but one from Huckabee would have united the conservative factions. On the other hand, Giuliani lacks the social conservative street cred because of his personal baggage. For him, Huckabee erases that concern. Basically, the minister could accept Giuliani’s confessions and absolve him in the eyes of the Religious Right.

Apparently, Huckabee either rescinded the offer, or was rejected by Romney. Which is why Huckabee has picked up on the track used by Ted Kennedy to defeat Romney in their Senate race. That is: toss out a lie about Romney’s faith, let the story run, offer an apology, let that story run, then repeat. Kennedy used staff and family to spread lies, just as McCain did early this year. As the media know, people read the lie, but don’t read the retraction. Since the race isn’t between just the two men, Huckabee can risk being seen as a bigot and turning voters off of himself and still benefit in the end by being picked as a running mate.

On a similar note, there is a YouTube clip of Lawrence Odonnell on the McLaughlin Group (one of my favorite shows) that I think is frighteningly telling about perceived Mormon beliefs. I can’t stand watching it. It makes me sick. It’s as if a cloud comes over his face. Still, it would be sad if we didn’t learn a few things from it. First, we should be resolved to be more tolerant of other people’s beliefs. We should certainly seek to understand other faiths. We should embrace truth wherever it is found and look for things to agree on rather than to divide ourselves. Secondly, we should speak up more about our own faiths. One of the rules of politics is that if nobody knows your opponent, you should define him for everybody in the worst possible light. What we don’t tell people will be replaced by what others like this guy say. Lastly, this rant is basically a look behind the curtain. We have a LONG way to go before people understand LDS faith and we are fighting VERY strong opinions. It may not be enough just to be “the nice neighbor.” So know your facts and don’t be shy.

December 14, 2007 at 5:10 pm 5 comments

Who we are

I was very glad to find this article from last Friday’s Wall Street Journal (available for free here). In it the author, Naomi Schaefer Riley, discusses the issue of Mormons in politics, specifically as it relates to Mitt Romney. There are some specific parts of the speech worthy of mention: 

A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That’s roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics. Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?

I was actually a little shocked by that poll. I would have thought we would be closer to 75%. She continues a bit further on:

The young men and women at Brigham Young University are among the smartest, hardest-working and most pleasant college kids you will find anywhere. (For better or worse, I have visited dozens of college campuses.) The student body lives by the Mormon principle: “The glory of God is intelligence.” Most reside off campus without adult supervision, yet they adhere strictly to curfews, rules about contact with the opposite sex and every other church directive. They are purposeful but seem to enjoy themselves, spending their free time hiking in the sprawling desert. And BYU has America’s largest ROTC program outside of our military schools. This last fact is one I had occasion to think about on my trip. I left for BYU on Sept. 7, 2001, and returned home a week later. On 9/11, the students gathered for a campuswide devotional. The university president tried to comfort the students with “the eternal perspective.” My eternal perspective is not the same as theirs, of course. But hearing more than 20,000 young people around me reciting the Pledge of Allegiance made me realize that our temporal perspective is the same. I’m sure Sam Adams would have agreed.

I was there on 9/11. I was at that devotional, and as I read her words I felt a kinship to the author, something that comes when just by being in the same place as someone else during an event that is transformational. The entire article is worth reading, but that part was so evocative of my feelings as an American and a Latter-day Saint.

I hope that those unfamiliar with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make the right decision. That doesn’t necessarily mean voting for Mitt (much as I would like that). It means looking at character and commitment, not falling prey to insular and ignorant religious bigotry.

 Soon enough, we’ll know.

December 13, 2007 at 11:21 pm 11 comments

Romney’s “JFK” Speech


December 6, 2007 at 5:20 pm 15 comments

Older Posts Newer Posts

July 2018
« Nov    

RSS The Heritage Foundation

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.

RSS The Daily Universe

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.



Blog Stats

  • 276,691 hits