so ... Mitt Romney.

[coemgen]

diamond, I have many friends of other faiths as well! Heck, I have Buddhist and Jewish friends in my myspace top friends list. And believe it or not, I'm in their top friends as well I totally love and appreciate people of other faiths. I have no problem with these people. Like Mormonism, there's great, kind people who follow these faiths. Heck, I'm sure you and I would get along great if we went out for dinner or something. I'll totally buy you dinner if I'm in your neighborhood. I just don't see how disagreeing equates to hate or intolerance -- especially when some of what I'm presenting isn't even my opinion, but fact. Are we all just supposed to give into each other and not stand for anything?
And as far as your faith being accepting of other faiths, I've honestly never heard that — even from Mormons and ex-Mormons I know. They were taught their church was the one true church, or their faith was the one true faith. Jesus said he's the only way, not me. I can't apologize for that statement, you know? And the verse from Galatians saying people shouldn't accept a Gospel other than that presented in the Bible, I didn't write that either. And think about it — if all religions are true, than Christianity is true. Christianity tells us God sent his son to die in our place so his righteousness may be credited to us, therefore we can have forgiveness and be right with God. If God sent his son to die for this reason, but then accepted every other faith as a path to him, doesn't that kind of make his son's death pointless? I have to think if God came down here, walked among us and died one of the worst deaths imaginable, and then rose from the dead, that he would make it count. It would have a unique purpose. A God who dies in our place for our eternal benefit, but then accepts other ways to the same eternal benefit isn't a just God at all. Does that make sense?

And the long list of people you have there — I appreciate their posts and perspectives, too. Many of them have taught me a lot. They're great people. With all due respect though, I don't see how you can list those names and then call me insecure?

And hey, if the Mormon faith brings you happiness, gives you answers to life and helps you love people more, that's great. I respect that. But there are serious differences between the Mormon faith and Christianity, yet Mormon's say they're Christian. Christians say they aren't. It's not splitting hairs over doctrinal issues, these are canyons of differences we're talking about. Don't you think that's worth discussing?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Who said anything about hating hypocrites? Read my post again.

It's not the hypocrisy itself that has spawned the hatred, it's the fact that it came from a conservative.

 

[BVS]

It's not the hypocrisy itself that has spawned the hatred, it's the fact that it came from a conservative.

Um, no.

Anyways now you're just changing the subject.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

What does he have to do with any of this? We can play hypocrisy tit for tat all day-but that won't change what a phony user Mitt is.

You made a statement about how running to be the leader of the free world is a different story.

John Kerry never bad mouthed MA and its' people as soon as he got what he wanted by using his position as a stepping stone when he was running for President-from what I can remember, he did nothing but praise it. He wasn't going to South Carolina or anywhere else and mocking it and the people he served as Senator.

John Kerry never stood around ranting about gay marriage literally while people were in danger of freezing to death on the streets because of his imaginary created budget crisis and cuts.

John Kerry didn't rant about illegal immigrants for political purposes all the while using them to manicure his golf course lawn.

Kerry supported the No Child Left Behind Act, the Patriot Act, and The War in Iraq - before criticizing them all.

Kerry has shown a deep-seeded resentment towards anyone who served in uniform.

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

That's only his most recent Freudian slip.


(Audiotape, April 18, 1971):

MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.

(End audiotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Thirty years later, you stand by that?

SEN. KERRY: I don't stand by the genocide. I think those were the words of an angry young man. We did not try to do that. But I do stand by the description--I don't even believe there is a purpose served in the word "war criminal." I really don't. But I stand by the rest of what happened over there, Tim.

Sen. Kerry: "[T]here is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children ..."
CBS' "Face The Nation," 12/4/05

Vote for Mitt for President and you will regret it. But at least if he ever becomes President he won't be using it as a stepping stone, unless he has the desire to become King Of The World (which he probably does). His Lt Gov lost the election for governor to a man with no political experience that I know of other than his civil rights job under Clinton (great job and nothing wrong with that, but it's not running a state or even a city or town) partially due to her association with Romney-what does that tell you? She lost for other reasons (mainly her nasty negative ads) but the Mitt thing was still important. People were desperate for a change from life under Mitt. People in MA don't take kindly to feeling used and abused and are intelligent and savvy.

On the "badmouthing MA" issue, I don't know much about, nor do I really care. As far as policy goes, Mitt is far more reasonable than anyone else running against him within the Republican Party. In terms of ideas and policies, I agree with Romney on almost everything.

 

[yolland]

This thread is a mess.

If anyone still has any enthusiasm left for civilly discussing Mitt Romney and what they think of his policies, then fine. I know the original post specifically touched on Mormonism, but I don't think Irvine intended to kick off a my-faith-is-better-than-yours spat, let alone some of the other spats in here.

 

[coemgen]

I'm fine with that. But I have to say, it's not a my faith is better than your's spat for the heck of it. It came up out of a discussion concerning the Christian right supporting a Mormon.

I'm fine with getting back to Romney. My opinion -- I'm not going to support the religious right anyway.

 

[Varitek]

On the "badmouthing MA" issue, I don't know much about, nor do I really care. As far as policy goes, Mitt is far more reasonable than anyone else running against him within the Republican Party. In terms of ideas and policies, I agree with Romney on almost everything.

You seem to be from Ohio. But Mrs. Springsteen, being from MA, is perfectly valid in using this as a reason to dislike Romney. It shows a great disrespect for the people of the state who elected him governor, it hasn't helped us attract businesses and jobs and population at a rough time for the state. Combined with his leap to the right on many, many issues, it makes it obvious that he was just using us to bolster his resume for a presidential run. He is not a leader, was never interested in genuine civil service in that he hasn't spent two days in a row in the statehouse for the past year and hasn't done anything but photo ops when everything from natural to manmade disasters have struck. He's interested in his own self advancement, not that of the state, and we have the right to be mad about it and to tell the rest of the country about it. Romney is not a leader.

As for Kerry, I haven't liked him for quite a while, but I can explain his and Kennedy's withdrawal of support for NCLB: it has gone unfunded and unsupported and because of this it's hurting our schools. For the Patriot Act, I am still mad at Kerry, but for that and the Iraq war, at least he has the intelligence and integrity to say "I made a mistake, I was wrong, I've reconsidered the facts and new information." It would do certain presidents well to learn from that.



Mrs. Springsteen, .

 

[diamond]

politics and policies aside, let's take a look at the man.

much of the discussion from the right wing of the country since George W. Bush appeared on the scene has been about how religion and faith matter, that we don't need and shouldn't want a firewall between political life and religious life, and it's fairly clear that many have voted for W mostly because of his evangelical protestanism.

so ... does Romney's Mormanism make you more or less likely to vote for him?

be honest.

Getting back to the original question about Mitt and his religion LDS (Mormon, not Morman), it seems religion wasn't a negative factor in these fellow Mormon Senators' elections.

*note the subtle LDS inner glow all these fine senators possess..

That said I would be more worried about this "christain" fellow as President:

over this Mormon fellow:

Capeesh?

thought so.

dbs

 

[anitram]

Yes, because equating a Mormon Senator elected in UTAH (or for that matter in neighbouring Nevada) is equivalent to a Mormon president getting support in the evangelical south.

Sort of like me saying that because Nancy Pelosi had no trouble getting elected in San Francisco, she can win a general election. Let's get real here.

I honestly don't care what religion anyone running for office is so long as they keep it out of their politics. That said, the religious right does care. A lot. And I do believe he'll run into trouble there. Which is really all sorts of entertaining for me: you do reap what you sow.

 

[diamond]

now we're a Geography major?

and in the 1960s in Michigan..how was George Romney elected; by only Mormons who lived there like 1% of the population?

dbs

 

[coemgen]

I would tend to think people would take more stock in a president's faith than a senator's. Plus, we're talking the whole country voting on this one.

 

[diamond]

dunno.

I do know narrow minded ppl in the 1960s tried to discredit JKF because of his ethnic and religious heritage.

It didn't work.

dbs

 

[anitram]

What I find hilarious about this is that it is the religious right (and I most certainly lump Mormons in there) are the ones who have consistently and constantly insisted that a person's faith matters in an election. Those crazy gays, feminists and atheists! And now, you have the same people who insisted that things like religion and family values are inherently linked to getting elected are the ones saying we should look beyond a man's faith to see what he actually stands for.

LOL. Schadenfreude, you've got to love it.

 

[coemgen]

It doesn't look good, diamond.


Romney's Religion May Be Hurdle in Presidential Bid (Update1)
By Heidi Przybyla

July 3 (Bloomberg) -- Religion hasn't been an issue in American presidential politics since 1960. That may change in 2008 if Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon, remains a leading candidate for the Republican nomination.

More than a third of registered voters -- 35 percent -- say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon for president, the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds. That's considerably more than say they wouldn't vote for a Catholic, Jew or evangelical Christian. Only a Muslim gets a higher negative response.

Among all respondents, 37 percent say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. More than two in five Democrats say they wouldn't do so, while about a third of both Republicans and independents say they wouldn't. Females are slightly more negative toward a Mormon candidate than males.

``It's a sign that this is going to be a factor in Romney's campaign,'' said Scott Rasmussen, an independent pollster and president of Rasmussen Research in Ocean Grove, New Jersey.

By comparison, 22 percent of registered voters say they wouldn't support an evangelical Christian, 14 percent wouldn't back a Jewish candidate, and 9 percent say no to a Catholic. Fifty-three percent say they wouldn't vote for a Muslim.

The anti-Mormon rating ``is a concern, but you have to remember this is all hypothetical now without even mentioning a candidate,'' said Susan Pinkus, the Los Angeles Times' polling director. ``It all hinges on who the candidate is and how the public perceives him.''

Fading Issue?

In an interview on Friday, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt said the religion issue will fade over time.

``I think it will be a curiosity to people,'' said Leavitt, a former Utah governor who is also a Mormon. ``There will be a lot of folks who will say, `I am worried a lot of people will worry about that.' I don't. In time, people's curiosity will be satisfied and it will ultimately not be a factor.''

Julie Teer, a Romney spokeswoman, said Romney typically doesn't comment on polls.

The Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll surveyed 1,321 adults nationwide, including 1,170 registered voters, from June 24 through June 27. The poll has a sampling margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Romney, 59, grew up in the Mormon church and led a group of Boston-area congregations for eight years before running for governor. In a March interview with Bloomberg News, he said he faces frequent questions about his religion but that people of different faiths identify with the core values of Mormonism, including a strong family, honesty and respect for human life.

Kennedy Speech

The last time religion was a factor in a presidential election was when John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, ran in 1960. Kennedy captured the presidency after defusing the issue in a Sept. 12, 1960, speech before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a Baptist organization.

``I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office,'' Kennedy said in the speech.

Romney said in March that he expects his religion to be an issue if he pursues the presidency. ``There ultimately will be a time when someone will go overboard, where someone will say something beyond the mark,'' he said. ``And hopefully I will be able to rise to the occasion in a way that's memorable.''

Social Concerns

Among some voters, social concerns may be partly driving the anti-Mormon numbers, said John Green, a political scientist at the University of Akron in Ohio who studies the impact of religion on politics. ``It looks like while there may be a religious factor here, it's also an ideological factor,'' he said. ``Liberals are concerned about Mormons.''

Some prominent Mormons, including Romney, have supported a ban on gay marriage and limits on abortion rights and stem-cell research.

Among political groups, the highest opposition to a Mormon candidacy comes from people who describe themselves as liberal Democrats, 50 percent of whom say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Thirty-three percent of moderate Republicans say they wouldn't, as do 35 percent of conservative Republicans.

Support for a Mormon candidate tends to rise with education and income levels, the poll shows. Sixty-six percent of college graduates and 70 percent of those with incomes of more than $100,000 a year say they could vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.

Minorities, Evangelicals

Minorities are more opposed to a Mormon than whites, with 51 percent saying they wouldn't vote for one, versus 31 percent of whites. Sixty percent of nonwhite Protestants say no to a Mormon president.

A Mormon candidacy would also likely draw some opposition from evangelical Christians, Green said. ``Some evangelical churches actually label the Latter-Day Saints as a cult,'' he said. Mormonism's formal name the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Some of the church's teachings differ from those of other Christian denominations. Mormonism says that the early Christian church fell from the truth and that ``in the latter days'' Christ has been restoring it through modern-day prophets, starting in 1820 with Mormon church founder Joseph Smith.

 

[Dreadsox]

And it's certainly not the first time that you have made comments here indicating that you think the intelligence level of FYM is below yours (I remember many), I have just never said anything. Sorry, we are all just inferior. I don't have PM's, thankfully-and I don't wish to continue anything.

You have no idea how much I respect and look forward to your posts.

If you do not understand why I think something that borders on politically trumped up garbage, cest la vie. I have every right as you do to call bullshit when I see it.

As for your twisting of my words to mean something they were not intended, that is on you. You have a beef with me, fine. You called me on it. I am not apologizing for the twisiting around of the intent of my post.

You don't want to continue anything, that is fine. I will continue to call bullshit when I see it. Republican or Democrat. I have been consistent in this since I arrived here, and will continue to do so until the end.

 

[Dreadsox]

My apologies to our moderator. I posted the above before reading your admonishment. Please do not close the thread, it will not happen again.

Let the Mitt talk continue.

 

[Dreadsox]

Objectivity from the Boston Globe Editorial Staff

[Q]Romney, the consumer
By Steven A. Camarota | December 6, 2006

THE RECENT news story about apparently illegal immigrants employed by the landscaping company that tends Mitt Romney's yard seemed to suggest that he was at least partly to blame for this. But, the consumer, in this case the governor, is in no way responsible for business practices that go on behind the scenes. In fact, if the governor had asked the workers in question if they were illegal, he could have actually been sued under federal law for discrimination.

Think about it in a practical way. If consumers really are responsible in some way for businesses that hire illegals, why single out the landscaping company? What about the fast-food restaurants or video stores frequented by Massachusetts politicians and their employment of illegals? Given how many illegals work in poultry processing, there's also a good chance that the turkey most of us ate for Thanksgiving was processed by an illegal.

It is almost certain that every elected official, in fact every citizen in Massachusetts, has purchased a good or service provided by an illegal immigrant at some point. But this tells us nothing about the citizens of Massachusetts, all it says is that there are a lot of illegals in the state and in the country. To imagine a circumstance in which the consumer is at least morally culpable, one would have to have evidence that the buyer was aware of the violations. But there is no evidence the governor knew anything about the illegal workers.

If consumers are to blame for what goes on behind the scenes at the businesses they use, why focus only on illegal workers? Does the local gas station or hardware store follow the law with regard to age discrimination, minimum wage, maternity leave, or safety? While most businesses do follow these laws, there is no question that every person in Massachusetts, in fact every person in the country, has patronized a business that does not.

But this fact does not make consumers guilty of anything. Nor is it relevant to the public position of a political leader. Would anyone seriously suggest that an elected official who supports anti discrimination laws but regularly buys hamburgers from a restaurant he didn't know discriminates is a hypocrite? It would also be ridiculous to think that the leader in question should be prevented from taking a strong stand against discrimination in the future.

There are, of course, people to blame for such situations. In the case of illegal immigration, it's the illegals themselves and the businesses that don't follow the law and hire them. The lawn-care company in this case apparently did not make even a half-hearted attempt to follow the law.

The federal government is also to blame. Since Washington has failed to take even the most basic steps necessary to deter illegal immigration, even the most law-abiding consumer will unavoidably purchase services from businesses that employ illegal immigrants.

This incident is a reminder of something we already knew -- there's a huge number of illegals in the United States, including Massachusetts. Here are the numbers: There are an estimated 11 to 12 million illegals in the country, and this number is thought to grow by 400,000 to 500,000 a year. It is believed that 6 to 7 million of those illegal immgrants hold jobs.

It is almost certain that every elected official and citizen has used goods and services provided by illegals. Just as it's also true that all those involved in the debate over discrimination laws or fair labor practices have used goods and services provided by companies that don't follow the law in these areas.

But these situations tell us only that violations of the law are common. The central question is what to do about it.

Steven A. Camarota is director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C.

[/Q]

 

[diamond]

what's so funny about:

peace

love

and

good honest journalism?

 

[Dreadsox]

what's so funny about:

peace

love

and

good honest journalism?

Now now brother Diamond.....

We apparently are not allowed to agree. It appears that whenever two more conservative minded posters band together it is called ganging up.



Who knew?

I count three on one directed at me, but, I guess being the intellectual giant I am perceived to be, it is even odds.

But seriously now, the Boston Globe...the very "liberal" media that Mitt criticized comes to his defense on this issue. Amazing, that the VERY "liberal" Globe is able to see through the political posturing, to point out that it is indeed an argument that is pretty much silly.

It makes me wonder if Mitt will flip on his statement about the Globe. I have to say....point for the Globe.

 

[Ormus]

and in the 1960s in Michigan..how was George Romney elected; by only Mormons who lived there like 1% of the population?

A little history lesson:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney

He led the Constitutional Convention that revised Michigan's Constitution from 1961 to 1962 and followed this up with a successful 1962 campaign for Governor of Michigan. Romney was a strong supporter of civil rights and was generally considered a moderate Republican, perhaps a bit to the right of Nelson Rockefeller, but well to the left of Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.

After deciding to wait out the 1964 election, Romney announced he was a candidate for president in the 1968 election. Polls in 1967 showed him the leader among rank and file Republicans, especially among the "moderates." He seemed to have overcome the handicap of his Mormon religion being unpopular outside Utah.

On 31 August 1967 Governor Romney made a statement that ruined his chances for getting the nomination.[Johns 2000] In a taped interview with Lou Gordon of WKBD-TV in Detroit, Romney stated, "When I came back from Viet Nam [in November 1965], I'd just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get." He then shifted to opposing the war: "I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in Southeast Asia," he declared. Decrying the "tragic" conflict, he urged "a sound peace in South Vietnam at an early time." Thus Romney disavowed the war and reversed himself from his earlier stated belief that the war was "morally right and necessary." The connotations of brainwashing following the experiences of the American prisoners of war (highlighted by the film The Manchurian Candidate) made Romney's comments devastating to his status as the GOP front-runner. Republican Congressman Robert Stafford of Vermont sounded a common concern: "If you're running for the presidency," he asserted, "you are supposed to have too much on the ball to be brainwashed." (Johns 2000) At the National Convention Romney finished a weak 6th with only 50 votes on the first ballot (44 of Michigan's 48 plus 6 from Utah).

His son, apparently, has nothing in common with his father.

 

[diamond]

so much for stereotyping Mormons.

 

[yolland]

OK, I think everyone's made their stance on Mitt Romney and illegal immigrants clear by now...

So, what are some of these issues concerning education, crime, budgets, human services and business climate that keep getting touched on but not elaborated?

 

[diamond]

that's not quite the issue ms yolland.

the issue was his electability and if an election were held today in FYM i think Mitt might just lose here, but just barely.

 

[U2Girl1978]

Lets see what a great president Mr. Romney will be!!!!

Tourism boosters decry Romney cuts

By Peter J. Howe, Globe Staff | December 6, 2006

As Governor Mitt Romney tours East Asia to bulk up his foreign policy credentials for a possible presidential bid, he's coming under fire from a top Massachusetts tourism group for slashing $5 million in state funds for promoting the Bay State to international tourists.

Last month, as part of a package of over $400 million in budget cuts, Romney zeroed out funding for Tourism Massachusetts , a Boston non profit organization charged with promoting Massachusetts abroad, including in the countries Romney is visiting this week, China, Japan, and South Korea.

William H. MacDougall , chief executive of Tourism Massachusetts, whose promotional efforts include advertising abroad and Internet videos promoting various parts of the state, said in a prepared statement: "The countries that he is visiting in Asia represent a significant source of visitor arrivals into Massachusetts, and it is unfortunate that he is carrying the message that our state does not welcome them."

Joining a growing chorus of Romney critics who accuse the governor of using Beacon Hill policy decisions to impress voters in other states, MacDougall said: "Unfortunately this is just another example of an administration more interested in promoting the career of one man rather than the economic health of this state."

International tourists, MacDougall added, spend more than $1.4 billion annually in Massachusetts, and he pointedly noted that tourism is "a vital component of virtually every state's economy, including New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Iowa" -- the first three major 2008 presidential primary and caucus states.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom defended the governor's cutbacks, saying in an e-mail that the $5 million funding was "a particularly egregious example of legislative pork" and "an insider deal" MacDougall struck with legislative leaders.

Before the vetoes were issued, Fehrnstrom said, Massachusetts was spending 10 times as much per international visitor as it spent on domestic visitors, nearly $3 for every Massachusetts tourist from other countries, but international tourism has been declining, not growing.

"To this day, we don't know what Mr. MacDougall does with that money, and he has not been effective in increasing foreign tourism," Fehrnstrom said.

The $5 million budget item for Tourism Massachusetts was among $26.6 million in legislative tourism funds Romney vetoed this summer, legislators restored by overriding his veto, and Romney again cut last month.

The funds include more than 120 different pet projects for legislators, including earmarked funds for a Methuen "geriatric safety program," a gazebo in Auburn, a Holyoke park merry-go-round, and the Old Firehouse Museum in South Hadley.

 

[U2Girl1978]

Social workers, providers protest Romney budget cuts

December 6, 2006

BOSTON --Social workers and human service providers angry at Gov. Mitt Romney's decision to cut $425 million from the state budget last month converged on Beacon Hill on Wednesday to demand he restore the money.

Romney said the cuts were needed to balance the budget, but those who work with the mentally ill, homeless and those battling substance abuse say the cuts made life more difficult for the state's most vulnerable.

"This is not a joke," Michael Weekes of the Massachusetts Council of Human Service Providers told a rally of about 1,000 protesters. "People that have abused children, homeless families, people with mental and physical disabilities -- they are not pork, they are people."

The rally included a giant inflatable rat and an activist dressed in a Grinch costume meant to portray Romney.

Romney, who was in South Korea on Wednesday, has already restored about $41 million of the cuts after state revenues for November were stronger than anticipated, but activists say that's not enough.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said there's a constituency for every line item in the budget, but it's up to Romney to look at the big picture and make sure the budget is balanced.

"Fiscal discipline has been a hallmark of Gov. Romney's administration and he intends on maintaining it until his last day in office," Fehrnstrom said.

Among the cuts they would still like to see restored is $28 million for raises for low-paid social service workers and $844,000 for child and adolescent mental health services.

If Romney doesn't act, they are hoping that incoming Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick restores the money.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...workers_providers_protest_romney_budget_cuts/

 

[U2Girl1978]

Yea and Reagan did such a fantastic job while in office.

Romney reaches for Reagan touch

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff | November 25, 2006

The day after the midterm elections, Governor Mitt Romney, reflecting on the GOP's punishing losses, issued a clarion call to conservatives: "We must return to the common-sense Reagan Republican ideals."

Three days later, at a State House Veterans Day ceremony, Romney invoked the former president again, saying, "As Ronald Reagan once said, 'I have seen four wars during my lifetime and none of them began because America was too strong.' "

And then last Friday, asked by a Fox News interviewer whether he was running for president, Romney said he was giving it some serious thought, because the stakes were so high. "We're going to have to make sure that we have the kind of Reagan optimism that America's looking for," he said.

Romney's repeated references to the nation's 40th president in two weeks illustrate how the governor, as he builds toward a 2008 presidential bid, is increasingly trying to cast himself in the Reagan mold -- as a patriotic, small-government conservative from outside the Beltway who's bent on repelling taxes, moral relativism, and foreign threats.

Like many Republicans, Romney has long described Reagan as one of his heroes, but as the governor's White House hopes have gained steam, his admiration has turned to emulation: Romney seems to be channeling the former president's conservative convictions, his hopeful message, and even his witty, folksy style of connecting with voters from South Carolina to Southern California.

There are many similarities between the two: Reagan and Romney portrayed themselves as bulwarks against the perils of liberalism in their home states -- Reagan in California, Romney in Massachusetts. Both have benefited from their Hollywood looks. Both have had experience in working with Democratic legislatures.

"Reagan was able to run against Washington, including people in his own party in Washington, by talking about what he achieved as governor and saying he would take those ideas to Washington," said Republican strategist Charlie Black, who was a senior Reagan adviser. "Romney can do the same thing."

Like other potential GOP candidates, Romney is also negotiating a delicate relationship with the legacy of President Bush, who is respected by Republicans for his tough tactics in fighting terrorism but continues to be plagued by low job-approval ratings. Reagan's legacy, by contrast, is seen by Republicans as largely unassailable.

While Republican presidential hopefuls routinely try to claim the mantle of Reagan conservatism, Black said, Romney can make a good case, in large part because of his charisma and his ability to give a stirring speech. Black said he hears observers of the 2008 race describe Romney as "Reagan esque."

Romney's message on the stump often carries echoes of Reagan, who died in 2004.

Consider the acceptance speech Reagan gave in July 1980 after he won the Republican nomination for president

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/11/25/romney_reaches_for_reagan_touch/

 

[diamond]

End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%
Ronald Reagan (1989) 64
Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59
John F. Kennedy (1963) 63
George Bush (1993) 56
Gerald Ford (1977) 53
Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49
Jimmy Carter (1981) 34

 

[coemgen]

that's not quite the issue ms yolland.

the issue was his electability and if an election were held today in FYM i think Mitt might just lose here, but just barely.

If an election were held today, period, he wouldn't get it.

Originally posted by coemgen

More than a third of registered voters -- 35 percent -- say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon for president, the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds. That's considerably more than say they wouldn't vote for a Catholic, Jew or evangelical Christian. Only a Muslim gets a higher negative response.

Among all respondents, 37 percent say they wouldn't vote for a Mormon. More than two in five Democrats say they wouldn't do so, while about a third of both Republicans and independents say they wouldn't. Females are slightly more negative toward a Mormon candidate than males.

``It's a sign that this is going to be a factor in Romney's campaign,'' said Scott Rasmussen, an independent pollster and president of Rasmussen Research in Ocean Grove, New Jersey.

This doesn't include people who would vote for a Mormon, but won't vote for Romney based on his record or whatever else they disagree with either.

 

[BorderGirl]

Like that famous phrase, "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy", Romney is no Ronald Reagan.

 

[diamond]