so ... Mitt Romney.

[deep]

Social conservatives fall in line behind Romney

Republican Mitt Romney today announced he's been endorsed by Paul Weyrich, a leading social conservative who co-founded the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the Free Congress Foundation. At least one blogger sees this as a turning point for Romney.

"It's Official: Romney is the Social Conservative Alternative," Matt Lewis writes at Townhall.com. He says the endorsement signals social conservatives have given up looking for the perfect candidate and predicts more major figures will line up behind Romney. He also notes Fred Thompson's refusal to support a federal abortion ban.

American Spectator's Philip Klein calls the endorsement "a major pickup." At Hot Air, Bryan Preston says it "goes a long way toward blunting the the flip-flop charge and does quite a bit of damage to the idea that Romney can’t win over evangelicals. Weyrich is among the handful of activists who can claim to have been present at the founding of the social conservative movement, and he’s endorsing Romney."

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3829345

[coemgen]

Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani.

Not good for Mitt.

[MrsSpringsteen]

Perhaps the Hooters thing put the kibosh on that

[diamond]

Originally posted by coemgen
Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani.

Not good for Mitt.

Worse for:
Fred
and
Mike

though.

dbs

[BVS]

Originally posted by diamond


Worse for:
Fred
and
Mike

though.

dbs

Not really. Mitt is actually trying for the CR vote, if he doesn't get a big endorsement from one of their mouthpieces then he's screwed. If Dobson now doesn't give him an endorsement, the CRs aren't going to know to vote for Mitt.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Not really. Mitt is actually trying for the CR vote, if he doesn't get a big endorsement from one of their mouthpieces then he's screwed. If Dobson now doesn't give him an endorsement, the CRs aren't going to know to vote for Mitt.

Exactly. Why pay attention to what's actually going on in the world when you can be blindly spoon-fed everything you need to know?


It's not necessairly their positions on the issues that bother me, as much as I disagree with them, but the fact that critical thinking of any sort is often suspended in order a candidate who supposedly has better "morals" that have nothing to do with being a competent leader that will work for the common good, as opposed to the good of a few who think just like him or her.

[coemgen]

BVS is right on the money.

This is from the actual story about Robertson endorsing Giuliani:

"The Robertson endorsement may also quash talk of a social conservative third party candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination.

"It also put a dent in Mitt Romney's courting of the religious right. The former Massachusetts governor has made major inroads with Christian conservatives, despite the concerns by some regarding his Mormon faith."

Brownback supporting McCain doesn't help him either.

[U2isthebest]

Originally posted by coemgen
BVS is right on the money.

This is from the actual story about Robertson endorsing Giuliani:

"The Robertson endorsement may also quash talk of a social conservative third party candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination.

"It also put a dent in Mitt Romney's courting of the religious right. The former Massachusetts governor has made major inroads with Christian conservatives, despite the concerns by some regarding his Mormon faith."

Brownback supporting McCain doesn't help him either.

It's pretty clear (at least as of recent years) that Romney is far more conservative than Giuliani. Seeing this, makes me realize it's not even about the issues for this branch of the Christian Right; it's about who's closest to saying "Jesus Saves". I believe that, but this isn't a theocracy. It shouldn't matter what a candidate's personal religious beliefs are in a country where one cannot make laws based on them. Power is a tricky tempter and the religious right has given in. It's not about "morals", it's not about "family values" , it's about who can give them an easy in to shout their agenda.

[diamond]

Well time will tell if you guys are right.

I think Dobson's endorsement for a conservative candidate would have a lot more credibility than Pat's. It will be a watershed moment for Mitt if he gets his endorsement-larger then Bob Jones.

After Pat's endorsement of Rudy the "700 Club" may now very well become the "349 Club".


Brownback's endorsement of McCain is curious. Brownback was very out spoken "Evangelical Conservative Christian". I didn't expect him to endorse Mitt, as he was caught in the campaign of promoting AntiMormon rhectoric against Mitt earlier this year; I did think he would saddle up for Mike though, why he didn't -is quite telling to me.


So, let's see how this all plays out kids- with advice not to jump to conclusions.

Reagan started out the same way Mitt did and eventually won the Republican nomination.

good day,

dbs

[coemgen]

Originally posted by diamond
Well time will tell if you guys are right.

I think Dobson's endorsement for a conservative candidate would have a lot more credibility than Pat's. It will be a watershed moment for Mitt if he gets his endorsement-larger then Bob Jones.

After Pat's endorsement of Rudy the "700 Club" may now very well become the "349 Club".


Brownback's endorsement of McCain is curious. Brownback was very out spoken "Evangelical Conservative Christian". I didn't expect him to endorse Mitt, as he was caught in the campaign of promoting AntiMormon rhectoric against Mitt earlier this year; I did think he would saddle up for Mike though, why he didn't -is quite telling to me.


So, let's see how this all plays out kids- with advice not to jump to conclusions.

Reagan started out the same way Mitt did and eventually won the Republican nomination.

good day,

dbs

Yes, it'll be interesting to see where Dobson goes with this. I think Brownback and Robertson's endorsements are very telling: they don't want to support a Mormon. To me at least, the case of Robertson is the most interesting. He started the anti-abortion, right wing Christianity movement and has been anti-gay marriage to the bone, yet he supports a candidate who is neither of these. Why? Mitt has both of those badges on his sash.

Then you have the fact that so many right wing Christians want to start a third party. Why would they want to do that when Romney is anti-gay, pro-life and big business?
Hmm.

[diamond]

Originally posted by coemgen


Yes, it'll be interesting to see where Dobson goes with this. I think Brownback and Robertson's endorsements are very telling: they don't want to support a Mormon. To me at least, the case of Robertson is the most interesting. He started the anti-abortion, right wing Christianity movement and has been anti-gay marriage to the bone, yet he supports a candidate who is neither of these. Why? Mitt has both of those badges on his sash.

Then you have the fact that so many right wing Christians want to start a third party. Why would they want to do that when Romney is anti-gay, pro-life and big business?
Hmm.

Studying and listening to Brownback left me devoid of any warm and fuzzies-and most Republicans it seems -that's why he's out of the race.
Robertson these days doesn't seem as relevant as he once was-although he's friendlier to Mormon Chrstians than Brownback.

What's telling about Robertson is that he didn't support Mike Huckabee, a Baptist Minister who is on the rise, so your agrument doesn't equate.

I do get warm and fuzzies when listening to Mike Huckabee, and guess what? He doesn't make antiMormon statements like Brownback, and a few certain posters here. He isn't fiscally conservative though-that's his achilles heel.

Are some Evangelicals worried that Mormon Christians might be truer Christians then them? Perhaps. If you watch the actions of some-like Brownback you could argue that. Brownback had to bow out and now supports a non-Evangelical candidate- McCain- not Huckabee who is now surging and friendly to Mormon Christians.

McCain isn't too friendly to Mormom Christians and less friedly to Muslims.

In the end it appears some Christians candidates aren't afraid to support Mormon Christians candiadates and are now succeeding because of it.

Interesting.

dbs

[BVS]

Originally posted by U2isthebest


It's pretty clear (at least as of recent years) that Romney is far more conservative than Giuliani.

This is why I wonder if Pat's endorsement has some of that 'Mormon's aren't real Christians' mentality...

[coemgen]

We shall see.

"Are some Evangelicals worried that Mormon Christians might be truer Christians then them? "

Considering there’s no evidence for this and the fact too many Christians view Mormonism as a cult, I doubt it, buddy.

[coemgen]

Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


This is why I wonder if Pat's endorsement has some of that 'Mormon's aren't real Christians' mentality...

Exactly, that's what I was getting at.

[diamond]

Originally posted by coemgen
We shall see.

"Are some Evangelicals worried that Mormon Christians might be truer Christians then them? "

Considering there’s no evidence for this and the fact too many Christians view Mormonism as a cult, I doubt it, buddy.

The Pharisees who were considered "mainline believers", in the majority and correct denomination as they understood it (in Christ's day) considered Christ and his followers to be cultists.

And as a brother in Christ I would remind you of this verse:

"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned," (Matt. 12:36).

dbs

[coemgen]

Originally posted by diamond


The Pharisees who were considered "mainline believers", in the majority and correct denomination as they understood it (in Christ's day) considered Christ and his followers to be cultists.

And as a brother in Christ I would remind you of this verse:

"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned," (Matt. 12:36).

dbs

diamond, I admire you as a person and I can even respect your dedication to your faith, but I would be careful not to pick an argument you’ve already lost multiple times here. Based on the pages and pages of posts earlier in this thread where I’ve shared the strong evidence of the lack of historical value to the Book of Mormon, the countless differences between the Bible and the Book of Mormon and other concerns about the faith, I’m confident I’m standing on firm ground.

And who are you to say I’m condemned in a thinly veiled pointing-of-the-finger using Scripture? Are you in a place of authority that I don’t know about? Once again, you have to result to making it personal.

[diamond]

Thank you for your kind words.
I don't have a testimony of the Bible truths based on it's historicity-if a person needs that, I think that's sad-but won't belittle his Faith as some have attempted to do to mine.

You didn't win any arguments here because I never fully engaged in any, nor will I, my Faith isn't based on needing physical proof or historicity, as you seem to need for yours.

Until God The Father or Christ comes down and appears to you personally and commisions you or one of the leaders of your Faith and tells you and your leaders of your Faith :
to label the LDS Church as "cultists", I would encourage you and others not to do so.

Again I refer you to:
"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned," (Matt. 12:36).

God Bless,

dbs

[financeguy]

Originally posted by diamond
He isn't fiscally conservative though-that's his achilles heel.

In that case, he would be typical of Republicans. They tend to be spendthrift with taxpayers' money and extremely economically irresponsible - witness the Bush/Cheney axis.

[diamond]

Originally posted by financeguy


In that case, he would be typical of Republicans. They tend to be spendthrift with taxpayers' money and extremely economically irresponsible - witness the Bush/Cheney axis.

I think Republicans are done with this as a whole, w/the exception of national security issues.

dbs