Monday, October 31, 2011

Mitt Romney To Give Major Speech About Spending On November 3rd

Mitt Romney has revealed that he will be giving a major speech on government spending on November 3rd:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, will be in Exeter on Thursday, Nov. 3, to “deliver a major policy speech on spending,” according to an e-mail sent out Sunday night by Doug and Stella Scamman.
Romney announced his candidacy for president in June at the Scammans’ Bittersweet Farm in Stratham. Both Doug and Stella Scamman are former state representatives. Doug served two terms as House speaker.
According to the Scammans, the event will be held at 5:30 p.m. at Exeter Town Hall, 10 Front St., Romney was last in Exeter in August, when he appeared at a small forum at the Exeter Historical Society.
In his 2008 presidential bid, Romney led the early polling in New Hampshire, but was beaten by the party’s eventual nominee, Sen. John McCain. Romney enjoys a sizeable lead in the 2012 New Hampshire polling but is fighting tough battles with Herman Cain in Iowa and South Carolina and is facing intense attacks from former Gov. Rick Perry, who is trying to claw his way back into the race after some early missteps.
Mitt Romney has given lots of policy speeches on this issue. Yet, from the way I understand this, this is going to be something much more bigger and more significant than the speeches he's given in the past. Team Romney hasn't revealed the details of his speech yet but the fact that they have only stated that it was about spending has me excited and curious about what more he could say on this subject since he has written extensviely on the subject of spending government spending in his book, No Apology: Believe in America and provided voters with 160 page economic plan which includes ways he will rein in excessive government spending.  
However, Mitt Romney has revealed his underlying guiding principle that is foundation of each of his economic proposals: 
Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.
As a result, we can be confident in what Mitt will say on November 3rd. Like most Americans, I look forward to hearing Mitt Romney's speech on Thursday. 

Cartoon: Mitt Romney Wishes Obama A Happy Halloween

Sunday, October 30, 2011

A Romney-McDonnell Ticket?

Mitt Romney's visit to northern Virginia is fueling speculation about the potential role of Gov. Bob McDonnell in the 2012 elections.
A lot of people have been speculating on who Mitt Romney's running mate would be if secures the Republican nomination in 2012. At one point, I was thrilled about a Romney/Cain ticket or a Romney/Bachmann ticket. Yet, in hindsight, those would be bad choices for Mitt Romney. 
Some people are speculating that Mitt Romney may choose Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell to be his running mate:  
Mitt Romney's stop in northern Virginia Wednesday fueled speculation that  Governor Bob McDonnell could be tapped to join a Republican presidential ticket.
Romney, fighting for the GOP nomination, praised McDonnell while speaking at Fairfax County Republican headquarters.  He called the Virginia governor one of the "great leaders of the Republican party."
McDonnell has signaled for several months now that he would consider the vice president job if offered.  Romney said Wednesday that naming a running mate at this stage in the election would be presumptuous, but then he heaped praise on the Virginia governor.
"I say nice things about Governor McDonnell every time I have a chance," Romney said.  "He's a terrific governor doing a great job here in Virginia."
This is a ticket I could really get excited about. Mitt Romney supported Governor McDonnell in the 2010 midterm election. He also gave his endorsement and provided financial support to Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling and Attorney General hopeful Ken Cuccinelli during that election as well. These men are quite popular with the Virginia voters. 
Having Governor McDonnell would help flip Virginia back into the red column after Obama won that state in the 2008 election. Virgina has 13 electoral votes and if Mitt Romney wins that state, it would be a significant blow to Obama's chances to being reelected. Moreover, if Romney chooses Bob McDonnell, it would also have a significant effect on how people in the surrounding states such as North Carolina which carries 15 electoral votes and Pennsylvania which has 20 electoral votes.
Although its too early to be thinking about Mitt's running mate, its never too early to be thinking about Mitt Romney making Obama a one term President.

Flashback: Jim Talent Praises RomneyCare in 2008 Election

Its always fascinating to go back in time during the 2008 elections when so many conservatives were promoting Mitt Romney as the most conservative candidate in that election. I'd like to introduce you to an article that Jim Talent, the former Republican senator from Missouri, who wrote in an article in 2008 in which he praised Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts:
Each candidate in the 2008 Presidential race will undoubtedly offer a health care plan. Those plans will include initiatives ranging from a single payer system, to employer mandates, to tax incentives for the purchase of private health insurance. But only one candidate has actually done something, waded into the issue and emerged with a successful plan that does not resort to one-size-fits-all, government run "Hillary Care." That innovative candidate is former Governor Mitt Romney.
On April 12, 2006, Governor Romney signed into law landmark legislation ensuring that every resident of Massachusetts would have access to affordable, portable, quality private health insurance – without higher taxes, an employer mandate or a government takeover of health care.
Massachusetts was afflicted with many of the same problems that plague the health care system across the country. There was no easy way to buy affordable insurance except through an employer. Without the employer option, it just was not feasible for many people to buy health insurance. As a result, they had to resort to emergency room care and the taxpayers ended up footing the bill. People choosing their health care provider could not get critical information about the cost or quality of care, and excessive state regulations reduced choices and drove up costs.
When Governor Romney decided to tackle the double-digit annual increases in health insurance costs, the average uninsured resident in Massachusetts had to pay $335 a month for private health insurance, which did not include coverage for prescription drugs and featured a $5,000 deductible. Moreover, the state was spending over $1.3 billion a year on "free care" for the uninsured.
Governor Romney actually got the Democrat-controlled legislature to enact a plan that addressed these problems. He took the time to understand what makes private health insurance markets work and transformed the market in his state from one that was government-controlled to one that allows competition to flourish.
Governor Romney's health care plan featured a number of reforms. First, his plan deregulated the overburdened Massachusetts insurance market to reduce the cost of private insurance, while giving consumers more choice from a broader range of plans. Second, the plan addressed the problems caused by the fact that many people could not get healthcare through their employers and could not afford it on the individual market. Third, he redirected the millions of dollars that were being spent on free emergency room care and used it instead to help those who truly were not able to afford private health insurance.
Finally, Governor Romney recognized that competition is the key to the success of any market – so doing what no one had ever done before, he created a new market where consumers can go to pick the health care plan that suits them best. Called the "Connector," this marketplace is not a new regulatory agency or insurance purchasing pool. It is a place that gives people access to more choices, better information, and lower costs in selecting a private health insurance plan. The Connector also provides a way for individuals to purchase insurance with the same pre-tax advantage given to those buying insurance through their employers. Even better, the Connector gives people the chance to buy private insurance independent of their jobs, so that they don't have to worry about losing their coverage when they change employers.
But Governor Romney's reforms did not stop at reducing the cost of insurance today. He also tackled a number of reforms that will help reduce the rise in health care costs over the long-term. His plan included medical transparency provisions that allow consumers to compare the quality of hospitals and providers, while tracking and recording the costs associated with the care they provide. The reforms also instituted measures to encourage the use of electronic health records, which will reduce medical errors and lower costs.
What's been the result of all these reforms? Although the reforms were signed into law just over a year ago, the changes are dramatic. The same uninsured individual whose choice was formerly limited to a policy with a $335 a month insurance premium with no drug benefits and a $5,000 deductible now can purchase quality private insurance, which includes coverage for prescription drugs, office and emergency room visits, and a $2,000 deductible, for $175 per month. Between July 1, 2006 and May 1, 2007, nearly 125,000 previously uninsured residents of Massachusetts got health insurance coverage.
Taxpayer-funded "free care" is falling at double-digit rates, because the Romney reforms no longer allow people to let others pay for their health care if they can afford their own health insurance. Those who previously couldn't afford health insurance now have the help they need to get access to affordable, quality, portable private coverage. And, as he promised, Governor Romney did all this without raising taxes and without a government take-over of health care.
All of Governor Romney's reforms are consistent with the goal of making private health insurance more available, flexible, and affordable. That is why many conservative organizations have hailed Governor Romney's health care reforms. The Heritage Foundation called it "one of the most promising strategies out there." Massachusetts Citizens For Limited Taxation said that Romney's plan was a responsible solution to America's health care challenges. And the Ethan Allen Institute praised Governor Romney's plan because of its focus on personal responsibility and choice.
The bipartisanship, innovation, conservative statesmanship and creativity he exhibited confirms my view that he is the kind of leader this nation needs.

Republican & Democratic Insiders Agree: Mitt Romney Most Likely To Be GOP Nominee

In this week's National Journal Political Insiders Poll, Republican insiders overwhelmingly said that Mitt Romney would be the candidate who will most liley win the nomination in 2012. Democratic insiders agree:
 "Romney keeps holding steady while the rest of the field takes turns getting hot and flaming out," said one Democratic strategist. "Tortoise to all the other hares."
Another suggested Republicans would eventually come around. "While Romney certainly isn't a tea party favorite at the moment, by November they will have fallen in 'like' with him given that the alternative is Obama."
Some Democrats identified Romney's perceived moderation as an asset in the general election. "Everyone else gets our base out in droves," said one. "If Romney can get the Republican base out, he'll win. He'll appeal to independents and some disillusioned Democrats."
"Independent suburban voters are more likely to support Romney," agreed another.
Other Democrats echoed their Republican counterparts who see Romney winning by default. "He can talk and chew gum at the same time," said one, "which puts him way ahead of the other candidates."
And the Democratic insiders are correct. Mitt Romney is the only Republican candidate who can appeal to a broad base of people beyond conservatives. Not only does he get support from conservatives, but Independents, moderates, and some Democrats. 
This has been Romney's strategy from the beginning. He has begun this 2012 race by focusing on the long game of unseating Barack Obama while other 2012 candidates are merely focused on the immediate goal of winning the GOP nomination. He's let people know that going to play the well known of tacking right during the primaries and then moving back to the center for the general election. Mitt Romney has been committed to playing the center and as a result has an early start in building that broad base of support he needs to defeat Barak Obama. 
It appears that Mitt Romney's stategy is working since there have been several polls in various states that have Romney defeating Obama if the elections where held today. What's even more important is that many of these polls were taken in crucial states that Obama needs if he wishes to be reelected.
For voters, we also need to focus on the long game. We should not be concerned with who will be the GOP nominee. That is just being focused on the short game. We should be thinking about which candidate is the best person to make Obama a one term president. The answer is becoming increasingly clear: Mitt Romney is the only Republican among the 2012 candidates who can defeat Barak Obama in the elections.

Saturday, October 29, 2011

The 53% of America Are Responding To The 99% Protesters

The Blaze had an article up that I want to repost in its entirety. Read it below: 
Meet The 53%. Who are they?  The term 53% refers to the people who are actually paying taxes for themselves and the rest of the country.
The 53% is a group of responsible young people organizing across the country. However, this group is not camping out in parks around the country and demanding the entire capitalist system be destroyed. These men and women have jobs (most of them work at more than one job in order to make ends meet), but they are talking about attending the Minneapolis Occupy Wall St. protest scheduled for today – Friday, October 7th.
Here’s a statement from their web page;
So, like, when you’re, like, community organizing for solidarity and stuff, it’s totally cool to have this little hashtaggy thingy when you’re on twitter, so other people, like, totally know what you’re talking about and stuff. So if you’re, like, totally gonna spread the word about being one of the 53% of people who actually, like, pay taxes in America and don’t just, like, hang out protesting stuff all day… like, here’s the hashtaggy thingy. See you at the protest!   #iamthe53
Filmmaker Mike Wilson (the man who gave us “Michael Moore Hates America“) maintains the page. We spoke with Wilson this morning and he explained that the 53% tumblr page came from his brain and the clever minds of his pals, Erick Erickson of Red State and Josh Trevino.
Reports out of Minneapolis say that a protest is expected today in front of the Government Plaza in downtown Minneapolis. The movement states they are going to try and reclaim and rename this area “The People’s Plaza.” Members of the 53% have mentioned that they will be in attendance to offer a counter opinion to the protest.
As we were talking, Wilson explained that he was loading up his camera and headed to the Minneapolis protest to capture it on video. The Blaze will link to Wilson’s coverage as it comes in.
Mike Wilson told us the group was in the very early stages of organizing, but it is happening online – mostly because they have jobs, families, and a sense of personal responsibility. And the 53% have responded to the people alleging to represent 99% of the country. Based on these photo messages, the 99% is patently wrong in their claim.
While the 99% protesters are angry at the 1% of Americans who have accumulated a lot of wealth through their own hard work, they forget about the 53% Americans (which includes the 1%) who pay taxes that pays for the government services that the 47% of Americans enjoy yet pay no taxes for. 
If there is any unfairness or inequality, its the fact that 47% feel that they have no obligation to pay taxes and feel that they are entitled to the benefits that the government provides that is paid for by the majority of people. 
What's worse is that they want more government services despite the fact that we can't afford it. And they want the 53% to pay more taxes to somehow cover up for the debt that is accumulating at the local, state and federal level. Not only that, but they want an increase in government control in every aspect of our lives and that the 53% happily accept the burden of more taxes in exchange for a reduction in our personal freedoms. 
The colonialist protested against England because they were getting taxed without having any voice in Parliament. Thus, the famous rallying cry, "no taxation without representation" helped launch the American Revolution. Yet, the "99% protesters" want representation without taxation. However, The 99% is really the 45% of America who do not pay taxes. Yet, they expect their demands to be heard and granted. 
This is unacceptable. It it is a perversion of the American way of governance.
The 53% expressed their anger and disgust in our government who have mismanaged the taxpayer's money to such an extent that we are massively in debt. That's what the TEA party was all about.
However, we need to make our voices heard again to remind the 45% that they do not represent America. Instead of occupying a plaza or park, lets liberate it this November 12th. 

New Pro-Romney Website: MittFitts! Toons For Mitt Romney

It began as a simple idea. The idea was, we can’t all be millionaire political donors or well-connected Washington insiders, but we each have a talent – something that sets us apart from everyone else on the planet. And that talent, whatever it is, could be channeled into an effort to help elect Gov. Mitt Romney President of the United States.  For blogger/activist Mike Sage (editor of America Needs Mitt and host of Mitt Romney Radio) and veteran comic book artist Sal Velluto, a single phone call was all it took to give birth to a collaboration that has the potential to reach into practically every home in America.  The fruits of that collaboration is a new pro-Romney web site called MittFitts! Toons for Romney.
The web site serves as a focal point for the syndication of pro-Romney cartoons to web sites, blogs, and social media nationwide.  Syndication of the cartoons is free, and easily arranged using the website’s RSS feed.  (RSS is an acronym that stands for Really Simple Syndication. For more information on RSS, click here.)   By syndicating the cartoons via RSS, a website owner or blogger can automatically receive and display the cartoons as soon as they are published.  You don’t have to be a website owner or blogger to take advantage of MittFitts’ RSS feed.  It can also be set up to simply email you each cartoon as soon as they are published, so you can be the first on your block to see them!
In addition to the political and educational mission of the web site, Sage and Velluto hope to raise money for the Romney campaign by selling the original hand-drawn cartoons.  The one-of-a-kind pen-and-ink drawings supporting the candidacy of Mitt Romney have the potential to become collectors items.  Net proceeds from the sale of MittFits original art will be donated to the Romney campaign or one of its affiliated political action committees.  (Net proceeds means transaction cost minus S&H and payment processor fee.)
The web site serves another function, as well.  A discussion forum on the site doubles as an “idea factory” facilitating the creative process, linking writers and cartoonist for brainstorming.  If you’d like to participate as a MittFitts writer, contact or register in the forum.
MittFitts cartoons may be freely distributed and used royalty-free, as long as they are not altered or edited in any way.  If you become aware of a MittFitts cartoon being used in a fashion that violates these copyright terms and restrictions, please report it.
This article was cross posted from the blog America Needs Mitt.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Mitt Romney In The Lead In Online Advertising

Mitt Romney is investing more than his Republican presidential rivals in online ad and digital media spending.
With Barack Obama’s re-election campaign and the Democratic National Committee hitting the $5 million mark in online ad related spending alone, Romney has spent more than twice as much as Michele Bachmann on online advertising and other digital efforts, and several hundred thousand dollars more than Herman Cain.
Through September, Romney spent more than $895,000 with digital consulting firm Targeted Victory, much of which most likely went towards online advertising such as display, search, and video ads.
Look below to see a break down of how various Republican 2012 candidates are spending for online advertising: 
GOP Presidential Candidates
Online Ad/Marketing Spending
April-September 2011
CandidateAmount Spent on
Online Ad/Marketing Related Buys
Mitt Romney $895,229
Michele Bachmann $394,508
Jon Huntsman $100,971
Ron Paul $95,436
Rick Santorum $68,466
Buddy Roemer $41,114
Herman Cain $24,935
(not including
video production spending)
You can go HERE to read the entire story.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Mitt Romney Wins Over House Republicans

Mitt Romney went to Washington D.C. to have a meeting with House Republicans today and got the House GOP very excited about his candidacy after a grueling question and answer session with the former governor of Massachusetts: 
Several dozen House Republicans grilled Mitt Romney on social issues during his visit to Capitol Hill Wednesday, including his position on abortion and gay marriage, according to attendees.
But the former Massachusetts governor generally earned rave reviews from a set of lawmakers who have yet to make an endorsement in the GOP presidential primary. Romney sought to make a distinction between his experience as an executive in the private sector and his rivals’ backgrounds.
“He hit it out of the ballpark,” said Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.), who had expressed concern Tuesday about Romney’s ability to counter attacks from President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign. “He gave a stellar performance.”
While some House GOP members were thrilled with Romney's responses to their questions, others were impressed with Romney but still wanted to learn more about him:
Oklahoma Rep. John Sullivan, who said he is “leaning” toward endorsing Romney, said the abortion issue remains “something that gives me a little bit of pause.” He said he wants more information on that topic from the Romney campaign. “He’s got a ways to go on that with me.”
Sullivan said Romney described himself during the meeting as more of a libertarian during his days as Massachusetts governor and in a Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy.
“[T]he response was when he became governor he said he’d leave things the way they were [on abortion] and then a bill came to his desk wanting the creation of embryos to destroy them and he said, ‘Look, I can’t do this,’” said Illinois Rep. Bobby Schilling. “Actually, I thought he covered it quite well today.”
Not only did Mitt Romney impress alot of House GOP members, but he managed to an introduction and endorsement from a certain House Representative:
In a bit of a coup for Romney, he was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a conservative on immigration policy who hails from GOP contender Rick Perry’s home state. The Romney campaign announced Smith’s endorsement on Wednesday.
I think you will see many House Republicans give their endorsements of Mitt Romney in the coming days, months and weeks. Not all of them will endorse Mitt Romney but I suspect a large majority of House Republicans will.

Senator Joe Lieberman Speaks Out Against Religous Bigotry

Joe Lieberman gave an speech at Brigham Young University in Provo Utah in which he spoke about religious liberty in America. You can watch a short clip of his speech below:

Here's my favorite quote from Lieberman's speech:  
"Governor Romney must be judged not on the basis of his faith…but on his personal qualities, leadership experience and his ideas for America's future," Lieberman said. "My personal experience from 2000 gives me great confidence that the voter will again reject a (religious) test and show their strong character, their instinctive fairness and steadfast belief in the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution. And when they do, another barrier may well be broken for another group in America, and the doors of opportunity will thereby open wider for every American."
In another part of his speech, Senator Lieberman explained that the imposing a religious test on a candidate is wrong because it is religious discrimination: 
"But … assuming the polls are correct that a minority of people continue to have unease about the Mormon faith, this will also be a Mormon moment of testing," he said. "Hopefully more people … think about how wrong it is to apply a religious test to public office in American and give Gov. Romney a chance.
"It sounds like I'm endorsing him," Lieberman added. "But I'm just endorsing his right to be judged on his personal qualities and experience and ideals, and not to be discriminated against based on his religion, which is unacceptable in this country."
He also told the students of Brigham Young University, who are mostly members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, that people impose religious tests due to unfamiliarity with that religion and it is up to members of the LDS Church to speak out against religious bigotry and educate people about their faith:
"I would bet you, that whatever that percent of people who said (in public opinion polls) they'd be reluctant to vote for a Mormon candidate for president, I bet they have had little or no real contact with members of the LDS church," the Independent Democrat from Connecticut told the crowd of more than 5,000 at the Marriott Center. "When I hear expressions of bigotry, and you should do the same, don't hesitate to speak up in your own defense, you've got a lot to defend."
Senator Lieberman also explained that Mitt Romney will have to also educate the public about his faith:
"If Governor Romney is nominated, he's going to have to, he's done it a little bit, but he's going to have to educate people about the Mormon faith, and confront it directly and appeal to people's better nature, which is what Kennedy did in 1960," Lieberman said. "(Kennedy) appealed to people to be fair, which is what the country's supposed to be about."
Although Romney and other members of the Church must do more to help the public understand our religion, the American people should not let their unfamiliarity or their theological differences with a religion be the basis of supporting or opposing a candidate. A candidate should be judged on their character, leadership experience and his plans for America's future. 
Of course, a candidate's religion can be considered in selecting a President but it cannot be done only on the basis that candidate is a member of that religion or that he holds certain theological beliefs. One can judge a candidate on how his membership and theological beliefs influences his political, social and moral beliefs which is the more important factor in deciding who to support for President. 
Its worth pointing out that just because a candidate is a member of a certain religion or is a member of your very own faith doesn't mean he holds the same values and beliefs as you do. A perfect example is Mitt Romney and Harry Reid. Both men are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. However, they do not hold the same values and beliefs about important issues of our day. They do not agree on the size of government, abortion, taxes, war and other important issues. 
You will find this to be true in every religion. There are liberal evangelical Christians and conservative ones. There are liberal Jews and conservative Jews. There are liberal Buddhists and conservative Buddhists. There are liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics. 
As a result, that is why a candidate cannot be judged on his religion since people of the same faith do not hold the same views and values. That is why a candidate's political experience, character and values are the important factors in supporting a president.

Monday, October 24, 2011

My Response To Pastor Robert Jeffress

About a week ago, Pastor Robert Jefress recently wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post which he repeats the same old arguments he's been making on television in attempt to justify his message of religious bigotry.  I will respond to each of the points that he makes in his op-ed and show why each of his arguments fail: 
The first argument Pastor Jefress makes is that Article VI of the Constitution permits private citizens to vote against someone on the basis of their religious affiliation:  
First, discussion of a candidate’s faith is permissible. Over the past several days, talk show hosts have lectured me about Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits religious tests for public office, as if considering a candidate’s faith is somehow unconstitutional, un-American or even illegal. How ludicrous. This is a not-so-subtle attempt to eliminate through intimidation religion as a suitable criterion by which to choose a candidate. The Constitution is referring to religious litmus tests imposed by government, not by individuals.
The Pastor is correct that the Constitution prohibits the government from imposing religious litmus tests and that the individuals are free to impose such tests at the ballot box. However, just because the Constitution doesn't prohibit someone from discriminating against a candidate because of that candidate's faith doesn't mean that it is appropriate to do so. 
For example, prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment in 1865, the Constitution did not prohibit the practice of slavery. However, as we all know, just because the Constitution didn't outlaw slavery means that the practice of having slaves was acceptable.
Again, prior to the passage of the of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the Constitution was silent on passing laws that discriminated against people on the basis of their skin color. Additionally, the Constitution said nothing about denying black Americans the right to vote until 1870 when the 15th Amendment was added to the Constitution. Just because the Constitution was silent on racially discriminatory laws meant that the practice of having such laws is ok.
As result, even though the Pastor is correct in his reading and understanding of Article VI, he's absolutely wrong when he claims that it acceptable for private citizens to vote for a candidate on the basis of their religious membership because religious litmus tests applies only to the federal government. It is un-American and unacceptable to use religion as a criterion to decide who to vote in a local, state or national election.
Any attempt to justify this practice is religious bigotry.
Thus, even though Article VI of the Constitution prohibits a religious test for holding office, iff you claim to uphold the Constitution, you should eliminate that kind of thinking from your personal beliefs.
To support his contention that Christians should vote for a Christian over a "non-Christian" like Mitt Romney, he uses a quote from Supreme Court justice to defend his teaching of religious bigotry at the ballot box in his op-ed:
Interestingly, John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, thought a candidate’s religious beliefs should be a primary consideration in voting. Jay wrote, “It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” According to Jay, preferring a Christian candidate is neither bigoted nor unconstitutional.
The first Chief Justice was an anti-Catholic bigot. For example, while he was Governor of New York, he advocated laws that discriminated against Catholics such as requiring them to take an oath of loyalty:
In New York, Jay argued unsuccessfully in the provincial convention for a prohibition against Catholics holding office. However, in February 1788, the New York legislature under Jay's guidance approved an act requiring officeholders to renounce all foreign authorities "in all matters ecclesiastical as well as civil," a law designed to discourage Catholics from holding public office, while not banning them outright.
Its also interesting to note the reason why John Jay and many others were bigoted towards Catholics and passed religiously bigoted laws was because they believed that Catholics were not Christians.   
Once you understand John Jay's bigotry towards Catholics, you'll see that he was advocating that Christians could vote for a Christian as long as they were not Catholic. As a result, John Jay's idea of "Christian nation" was limited only to Protestants and that only Protestants should be allowed to run for political office. 
If Pastor Jeffress wants to faithfully follow John Jay's belief, then by all means, let’s define Christianity as limited exclusively to the Episcopal Church and only allow Protestants to run for office. 
Its worth noting that John Jay wasn't the only religiously bigoted Supreme Court Justice. Supreme Court Justice James C. McReynolds was well known for his hatred of Jews: 
McReynolds was a racist and anti-Semite. There is no official photograph of the Supreme Court in 1924 because McReynolds refused to sit next to Justice Louis D. Brandeis, the first Jewish Justice, as required by the Court's seating protocol (which is based on seniority).
Given the views of Justices like Jay and McReynolds, it demonstrates that religious bigotry exist even in the Supreme Court. Thus, the fact that Pastor Robert Jeffress likes to quote John Jay doesn't help his argument at all. Especially, when he states that if "I'm a bigot, then John Jay is a bigot":
You can hear that quote starting at the 4:45 mark at the video above.
Quoting John Jay also doesn't erase people's suspicion that Robert Jefress is a religious bigot. Let us review the facts:
Pastor Robert Jeffress states in the 2008 film documentary, Article VI: Faith, Politics, America that not only could he not vote for a Mormon but he couldn't even be friends with one. 
Moreover, Robert Jeffress has done an interview with American Family Association's Bryan Fischer who has stated that he believes that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons. The fact that Pastor Robert Jeffress associates with someone who believe that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to Mormons because they are not Christians is disturbing.  So far, Pastor Robert Jeffress hasn't taken the initiative to distance himself from Bryan Fischer. 
As a result, I'd like to know if Pastor Jeffress shares the idea that non-Christians are not protected by the first Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But since he hasn't repudiated these statements, it gives many people the impression he agrees with Bryan Fischer's bigoted views. 
The second point that Pastor Robert Jeffress makes is that it is certainly permissible to discuss a candidate's faith because its relevant to deciding whether or not a person is qualified to be in office:
Second, discussion of a candidate’s faith is relevant. During a time of rising unemployment, falling home prices and massive deficits, it is easy to relegate religion as an irrelevant topic. Yet our religious beliefs define the very essence of who we are. Any candidate who claims his religion has no influence on his decisions is either a dishonest politician or a shallow follower of his faith.
Pastor Robert Jeffress is correct but not for the reason he advocates. 
A candidate's religion does matter but only to the extent of how it affects a person's values. Two people who read the same scriptures and attend the same church can have different opinions and values. This example can be perfectly seen with Herman Cain who is strong conservative despite the fact that he goes to a liberal church: 
The black church has long been a paradox. It is one of the most politically liberal but theologically conservative institutions in the black community. Cain’s house of worship embodies some of these contradictions.
Antioch is a member of the National Baptist Convention USA Inc., a denomination in which some churches do not ordain women. The denomination’s leadership publicly broke with King over his civil rights activism.
But like many black Baptist churches, Antioch has developed a strong social justice component to its ministry over the years. It offers ministries for people suffering from drug addition and those infected with HIV/AIDS, and it has been a Sunday stopover for black politicians running for office.
That is why I've been arguing that a candidate's values is more important than than their theology.  Every president who has ever occupied the White House has been a Christian. Some of them have been Republicans. Some of them have been Democrats. Yet, the impact these presidents have had our nation and the world was not because of their political party or their religious affiliation. It was their values.
Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, Clinton and Barak Obama were all Christian men. Some of these men were Republicans and most of them were Democrats. Yet, their progressive values has had a negative impact on our country politically, financially and militarily.
Interestingly enough, Pastor Robert Jeffress doesn't mention in his Washington Post op-ed that during the 2008 Presidential election, he believed that voting for a Mormon will affect's one's salvation in getting into Heaven:
"I believe we should always support a Christian over a non-Christian. The value of electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. ... Christians are uniquely favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith that would lead people to a separation from God."
In conclusion, Pastor Robert Jeffress' arguments in his Washington Post op-ed fail because he undermines his attempts to rationalize and justify his religious bigotry. Each and every argument he makes actually promotes religious bigotry if you take a hard look at the information behind the sources he uses in his arguments, the people he associates with and the statement he has made in the past and present.
And by the way, Pastor Robert Jeffress, if you are reading this, I'll be glad to debate you anytime and anywhere on whether or not Mormons are cults or whether Christians can vote for a Mormon.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Bachmann's Campaign Implodes In New Hampshire As The Entire Campaign Staff Resigns

With the New Hampshire primaries only a few months away, the resignation of Bachman's entire campaign staff has significantly hurt whatever minuscule chances she had of winning that primary:     
The entire paid New Hampshire staff for Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has resigned, in another blow to the Minnesota congresswoman's foundering campaign.
Jeff Chidester, Bachmann's former New Hampshire campaign director, confirmed the mass exodus. "The New Hampshire team has quit," he said. "We'll issue a joint statement as to our reasons why."
Chidester's confirmation, made via email and voice mail to National Journal and CBS, followed a confusing day in which Bachmann insisted that reports of the staff departures were untrue. But Chidester said he left last week and informed "people that are closest to Michele."
"I'm sorry the national team is confused," he said. "They shouldn't be."
One of the aides who quit, Caroline Gilger, Bachmann's southern state field director, is joining the rival campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, a total of four staffers have left: Chidester, Gilger, Tom Lukacz and Nicole Yurek. Uncertain was the future of staff member Matt LeDuc.
Chidester is a longtime Bachmann friend and supporter and a well-known radio talk show host. Reached by email on Friday, Chidester told CBS/NJ that the staff will be issuing a joint statement. "We are more than a team, we have all bonded over the past few months," Chidester wrote. "This is one of the finest group of people I have every had the pleasure of working with. Each one of them is smart, dedicated, and committed to each other. We have not had an opportunity to talk to each other since the story broke, but once we do, we will release a joint statement."
With this news, I predict that Michele Bachmann will be the next candidate to drop out of the 2012 race by the end of November at the earliest and by the end of December at the latest. Michele Bachmann's poll numbers are very low which is hovering around 4%. People on Intrade thinks she only has a 1.2% chance of becoming the Republican nominee. Moreover, she's only been able to raise $4.1 million in the third quarter
All the signs indicate a campaign that is struggling to survive. If the Bachmann campaign is able to survive until the end of this year, her campaign will not last long in the Republican primaries. She will most likely drop out pretty quickly after the New Hampshire primary on February 14th.  

Friday, October 21, 2011

Mitt Romney Recieves Strong Support From Jews

While some faiths have difficulty with the idea of voting for a Mormon, other religions don't. You might be surprised that the religion that Romney recieves the most support from are Jews
Should Mitt Romney win the Republican presidential nomination, it is unlikely his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will be as big an issue in the general election as it has been in the Republican primary campaign.
That's the opinion of authors and researchers David E. Campbell and Robert D. Putnam, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal that a survey they have conducted about the feelings of Americans toward different religious groups suggests that "a Mormon politician like Mitt Romney may not face an impenetrable stained-glass ceiling after all."
Campbell, an associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, co-authored "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us." They explained in the Journal that although Latter-day Saints generally scored low on their survey, "Mormons aren't viewed negatively by everyone, and the religious group that gives them the highest rating of all may come as a surprise: Jews."
It is the writers' theory that "Jews' warmth toward Mormons stems from solidarity with another group that is small and subject to intolerance . . . Roughly 15 percent of both Jews and Mormons say that they hear derogatory comments 'often.'"
Jews, however, are unlikely to support a Romney candidacy because they tend to vote for Democrats every bit as much as Mormons tend to vote for Republicans, Campbell and Putnam say. But Catholics and mainline Protestants, two other groups who view Mormons warmly, are.
In fact, Mitt Romney enjoys strong support from Republican Jews
Romney’s financial backers are a who’s who of the Republican Jewish establishment, and his foreign policy advisers are culled from some of the pro-Israel community’s best and brightest.
Romney has cultivated Jewish Republicans since he launched his unsuccessful bid in 2007 for the '08 nod, said Fred Zeidman, a longtime backer.
“Every major Jewish Republican fundraiser has been with Mitt” since then, said Zeidman, a Houston lawyer who was a major backer of George W. Bush.
Romney’s relationship with leading Jewish givers, in turn, has brought more top-ranking GOP Jews into the fold, both as donors and advisers, Zeidman said.
“He's been able to pick and choose," he said. "People have been signing up.”
Yet the former Massachusetts governor continues to be dogged by his status as the moderate front-runner whom the conservative grass-roots longs to replace. Now  he is being shadowed in the polls by Cain, a former pizza parlor executive.
An invitation last month to a Romney fundraiser by NORPAC, one of the pre-eminent pro-Israel political action committees, underscored Romney’s precarious status.
“Governor Romney is well known to our community and is one of two front-runners for the Republican Nomination,” the invitation said. “While things are certainly subject to change in an election, Governor Romney is currently the betting site favorite to win the Republican nomination.”
Most galling for Jewish Republicans are the potshots that proxies for his rivals are taking at Romney’s Mormon faith. The latest salvo came over the weekend at the Value Voters Summit in Washington when Robert Jeffress, a pastor at a Dallas megachurch who supports Perry, the Texas governor, called Mormonism a cult.
“I can't believe as a Jew that anyone is going to be involved in someone's religion,” Mel Sembler, a shopping center magnate and leading Republican donor who is backing Romney, told JTA. “What's that got to do with running the biggest enterprise in the world?”
Sembler, a former ambassador to Australia and Italy who has served as the national finance chairman for the Republican National Committee, suggested that Romney was not out of the woods.
“Everything has an impact; some people don’t like the way he combs his hair,” Sembler said. “I would hope people would not be focused on what his religion is but what his capabilities are.”
Although Jews tend to vote Democrats, I believe this election will be different and that many of them will vote for Mitt Romney over President Obama in this election. Many Jews are unhappy with the way Obama has disrespected Israel and their leadership early in his presidency and tries to repair our nation's relationship with Israel in order to win back the Jewish vote and as time goes on, many Jews will like Mitt Romney's strong support for Israel:
Especially frustrating for Romney’s backers is that the Value Voters Summit kerfuffle overshadowed Romney’s first major foreign policy speech, on Friday at The Citadel military academy in South Carolina.
Israel policy was a significant part of the speech. Romney said he would increase defense assistance to Israel, raise the U.S. military profile near Iran and recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
He cast Obama's policies as contributing to Israel's isolation.
"I will bolster and repair our alliances," Romney said. "Our friends should never fear that we will not stand by them in an hour of need. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state."
The Obama and Netanyahu governments have smoothed relations in recent months, and Israeli officials credit the administration with tightening defense ties and backing Israel at the United Nations. Obama also refers to Israel as a Jewish state.
Sembler, who took Romney to Israel in 2007, said the former governor “gets it.” He recalled the overflight of the country, requisite for VIP guests, and a view of the security fence.
“I remember us flying around with the two generals,” Sembler recalled. “The generals kept apologizing for the fence. Governor Romney said, ‘Are the people on the other side of the fence shooting, because I see bullet marks.’ The generals said yes, so Governor Romney said, ‘Don’t apologize.' ”
Romney in his speech suggested that Israel might become further isolated if Obama remains in office.
"Will Iran be a fully activated nuclear weapons state, threatening its neighbors, dominating the world’s oil supply with a stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz?" he asked. "In the hands of the ayatollahs, a nuclear Iran is nothing less than an existential threat to Israel. Iran’s suicidal fanatics could blackmail the world.
"By 2015, will Israel be even more isolated by a hostile international community? Will those who seek Israel’s destruction feel emboldened by American ambivalence? Will Israel have been forced to fight yet another war to protect its citizens and its right to exist?"
Romney said that as president he would "enhance our deterrent against the Iranian regime by ordering the regular presence of aircraft carrier task forces, one in the eastern Mediterranean and one in the Persian Gulf region. I will begin discussions with Israel to increase the level of our military assistance and coordination. And I will again reiterate that Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is unacceptable."
He also said he would centralize U.S. Middle East policy to ensure "that the Arab Spring does not fade into a long winter."
The speech came a day after Romney published a list of his foreign policy advisers, including many who have been active in or are close to the pro-Israel community, such as Norm Coleman, the former U.S. senator from Minnesota who is now active with the Republican Jewish Coalition; Dan Senor, the co-author of a book on Israeli technological innovation who often works with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee; and Dov Zakheim, a former top Pentagon official in various Republican administrations who also is active with the American Jewish Committee.
If you are Jewish and would like to support Romney, check out the Jews For Mitt Romney on Facebook!

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

CNN Debate: Rick Perry Still Won't Repudiate Pastor Robert Jeffress "Mormons Are A Cult" Comment

At the CNN Debate tonight, Rick Perry was given the opportunity to repudiate Pastor Robert Jeffress and he passed on it
It was only tonight that the subject came up when the two stood side by side at the CNN debate.

Perry immediately said that he "didn't agree with that individual's statement."

"Our founding fathers truly understood and had an understanding of freedom of religion," Perry said. "We also are a country that is free to express our opinions. That individual expressed an opinion. I didn't agree with it, Mitt, and I said so. But the fact is, Americans understand faith. And what they've lost faith in is the current resident of the White House."
Here is the fully reply from Mitt Romney:
“With regards to the disparaging comments about my faiths, I’ve heard worse.  So I’m not going to lose sleep over that.  Actually, what I found most troubling about the Reverend’s introduction was when he said, “In choosing our nominee, we should inspect his religion.  And someone who is a good, moral person is not whom we should select.  Rather, we should elect someone based on their religious beliefs.” 
“That idea – that we should choose them base on their religion for public office — is what I find most troubling. The founders of this country went to great length to make sure – even put it in the Constitution – that we shouldn’t choose people to lead this country based on their religion, that this would be a country that would respect other faiths, where there’s plurality of faith, where there’s tolerance for people of other faiths.  That’s a bedrock principal and it was that principal Governor, that I wanted you to say its wrong.  Rather than say, “Reverend Jeffress, you knocked that out of the park,” I wanted you to say, “Reverend Jeffress, you got that wrong. 
“We should select people not based on their faith.”  And I don’t expect you to distance yourself from your faith any more than I would. But the concept that we select people based on the church or the synagogue they go to, I think, is a very dangerous and enormous departure from the principles of our Constitution.”
Rick Perry's claim that he didn't agree with Pastor Jeffress' statement is weak. I don't buy it that it was a sincere or honest disavowal of what the pastor said. Even if you believe this is a legitimate repudiation of Robert Jeffress' religiously bigoted statements, its taken him a week to reject those statements. He should have repudiated it immediately. But he didn't.
The reason why Rick Perry avoided repudiating what Pastor Robert Jeffress has said about Mormons being a cult is because he's trying still trying to get as much mileage as he can playing passive agressive with Mitt Romney's faith.
As I wrote in an earlier blog,  Rick Perry will not attack Romney's faith personally but will use surrogates do do his dirty work because its a strategy he's learned from Karl Rove
Scott McLean, a political scientist at Quinnipiac University and presidential election analyst, told that he believes the Perry campaign orchestrated Jeffress’ attack on Romney’s faith “to test the waters.”

“Rick Perry cut his teeth with Karl Rove,” he said, referring to the former senior adviser to President Bush who is now a Fox News analyst. “Rove knows when you go on the attack, make sure a surrogate does it for you. Rick Perry followed that script to the letter.”

McLean said he expects Perry surrogates to launch more under-the-radar attacks on Romney’s faith to make Romney look less attractive.

“Romney’s campaign is premised on ‘I’m the most electable,’” he said. “What they have to do is show that isn’t so.”
Perry supporters have not been shy or secretive about their plans to attack Mitt Romney's faith using surrogates:
Evangelical Perry supporters said one thing that could be done to unseat Mr. Romney from his front-runner spot is to have surrogates plant doubt among Republican primary voters about the former Massachusetts governor’s Mormonism, something that is widely thought to have contributed to his poor showing in the 2008 Republican primaries and caucuses.

“This is not a difficult task, but one that must be done,” Mr. Brinson said. “You can’t have people raising the Mormon issue front and center, but you can raise the question as surrogates about the language of faith that we used successfully against Romney in 2008 when we worked for Mike Huckabee. It is all about semantics.”
The plan to use "semantics" can be clearly seen on how Pastors like Jeffress and Discoll use the word "cult" to attack Romney's faith. To understand how they're playing this semantical game, you'd have to understand the original meaning of the word cult:  
One of the most confusing and dangerous religious term is "Cult". The word is derived from the French word "culte" which came from Latin noun "cultus." The latter is related to the Latin verb "colere" which means "to worship or give reverence to a deity." Thus, in its original meaning, the term "cult" can be applied to any group of religious believers: Southern Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Hindus or Muslims. However, the term has since been assigned at least eight new and very different meanings. The original meaning of "cult" remains positive; more recent definitions are neutral, negative, or extremely negative.
You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that Evangelical Perry supporters will not use the term in its original meaning nor will they be using it in a positive or neutral manner. While these pastors admit Mormons are not a cult in the cultural or sociological term, they're still a cult nonetheless because that religion is a "theological cult." 
However, its important to note that these different categories of cults is nothing more than a pejorative term that is arbitrary, subjective, capricious and designed to scary people away from that religion. They are intentionally using the term "cult" for manipulative purposes. David French, a Evangelical who runs the website, Evangelical For Mitt, in an article for National Review, points out how manipulative this semantical game they're playing really is:
While it’s hard to know which of these three claims is most explosive, the “cult” claim is certainly the most pejorative. Conjuring up images of robed, chanting, mind-controlled followers of the likes of Charles Manson and David Koresh, the word is far more inflammatory than illuminating. Anyone who is remotely familiar with Mormonism knows that it bears zero resemblance to a “cult” as commonly understood. And Jeffress himself now seems to recognize that, saying this morning on Fox News that Mormonism is a “theological cult,” not a “sociological cult.” But what is a “theological cult?” How does that differ from, say, a “faith”? It appears that Pastor Jeffress is trying to maintain the use of a slur while shifting its definition beyond all recognition.
Once you are aware how some Evangelical Christians and most Counter-Cult Movements(CCM) use this term, you'll see its nothing more than a subjective and arbitrary term because it really depends on the perspective of who is using that term. One person's religion is can be considered by another person to be a "cult".
In fact, given that many different people use the word cult so differently and so often, the term has been rendered meaningless. The website, Religious Tolerance explains why:
We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wiccans, other Neopagans and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless.
Yet, to Evangelical supporters of Rick Perry, the original meaning of the word or how meaningless the term has become today will not deter them from going on the offensive against Mitt Romney's religion. Perry supporters will be using more Pastors as surrogates and use semantics to attack Romney's faith. In fact, this plan is already underway as another Pastor has come forward echoing Robert Jeffress' statement that Mormons are a cult: 
Mark Driscoll, pastor of the high-profile Seattle-based Mars Hill Church, has added his voice to the fray -- agreeing that Christians should consider Mormons as members of a "cult" and not "brothers and sisters in a common faith."
Writing on his website Tuesday, Driscoll goes on at length about the various definitions of a cult. He is careful to say that Mormonism has "outgrown" the popular culture and sociological definitions of a cult because of its enormous growth and general acceptance in the nation.
But, Driscoll writes, Mormonism "is most certainly a cult theologically speaking because it deviates substantially from historic Orthodox Christian belief about essential issues related to God, humanity, and salvation." And it's not just that it differs, he says, but also that "it claims Christianity while subtly subverting it in both practice and theology."
The only way to respond to these attacks is to call "the game" by pointing out what they're attempting to do rather than trying to refute the false accusation that Mormons are a cult. 
Once you open people's eyes to what they're doing, the effectiveness of using surrogates to attack Mitt Romney's religion via semantical word games decreases dramatically because people will see the true intent of their attacks, how they are carrying out the attacks and the intended result they hope to have with these assaults on Romney's faith.  

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Mitt Romney Advisor Mark DeMoss Believes Rick Perry Is Promoting Anti-Mormon Message

Mark DeMoss, a well known evangelical works as an unpaid consultant to Mitt Romney believes the Rick Perry campaign is intentionally encouraging anti-Mormon messages to be promoted on behalf of his campaign to attract Evangelical voters:
A top evangelical Christian adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on Monday he believes Texas Gov. Rick Perry's campaign may be intentionally injecting the issue of Romney's Mormon faith into the Republican presidential primary.
"A week ago I would have said there's no way, I can't conceive of a major candidate's campaign intentionally using such tactics," said Mark DeMoss, an Atlanta-based public relations executive who works primarily with evangelical leaders and is an unpaid adviser to Romney. "It was inconceivable to me that that could be the case, just because I think it's not smart politically."
But Demoss told The Huffington Post that the actions of Texan Baptist Pastor Robert Jefress -- who first thrust the Mormonism issue into the campaign 10 days ago -- have given him "doubt" about whether the Perry campaign is as removed from attacks on Romney's faith as it has tried to appear.
"I would have bet money when Robert Jeffress surfaced there in Washington and then started going on TV programs that somebody would have gotten him to stop doing interviews. And he did them for a couple days," DeMoss said. "That's what made me question it whether they wanted him doing it or not. If they didn't want him doing it, I think they could have stopped him from doing it. I think they would have asked him and said, 'This isn't helping us.'"
In addition, new information came to light Sunday that suggests the Perry campaign has at least been in touch with operatives who are actively promoting the anti-Mormon narrative among voters. David Lane, a Perry backer and political organizer who moves in evangelical circles, wrote an associate in an email that was published by The Daily Beast that "getting out Dr. Jeffress [sic] message, juxtaposing traditional Christianity to the false god of Mormonism, is very important in the larger scheme of things." 
Some people are promoting Rick Perry as the man who can save the soul of the country. However, Mark DeMoss disputes that claim: 
"The president cannot 'save the soul of America' -- whatever that even means. No president is capable of saving the soul of America," DeMoss said. "I would argue that only God could save the soul of America. That's not showing any disrespect to Gov. Perry. Billy Graham can't save the soul of America. It's not the president's role or job and no president could do it if it was their job."
When Mark DeMoss was asked whether or not he thinks Mormonism is a form of Christianity, DeMoss explains that that he has theological differences with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints but those differences are not relevant in a secular and political matter such as elections:
"I don't care in the context of a presidential election," DeMoss said. "It's a theological distinction and I'm not making a theological decision in the general or primary election. So I don't engage in discussions or debates about Mormon theology or Christian theology in this context, other than to say that what Gov. Romney would say himself, which is that we have different theology in many points, but beyond that it's an unnecessary and, frankly, an unfair distraction. So I don't get into that."

Monday, October 17, 2011

Video: People Who Like Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney has recieved a lot of praise and endorsements from various people in the media, education, business and politics. Here's a nice 10 minute video that gives us a lot of brief clips of different people supporting Mitt Romney: 

Sunday, October 16, 2011

Perry Camp Doubles Down On Religious Bigotry

Rick Perry's campaign stepped into controversy when he was informed that Pastor Robert Jeffress would introduce him at the Value Voters Summit last week. Mitt Romney asked Rick Perry to disavow the statements made by Pastor Jeffress. However, Rick Perry refused to apologize
Despite the fact that the Perry campaign is playing passive aggressive with Mitt Romney, Rick Perry's wife makes the jaw dropping claim that the Perry campaign has been brutalized because of their faith:
“It’s been a rough month. We have been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press to where I need this today,” she said. “We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith. He is the only true conservative – well, there are some conservatives. And they’re there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.”
Not surprisingly, Rick Perry didn't disavow what his wife had said by stating that his wife was right.
Its hard to believe Mr. and Mrs. Perry's claim that they are being brutalized because of their faith. They weren't brutalized at all. Perry rode into the race at the top of the polls and remained there for the first three of these debates, only sliding downward after the third debate in Orlando. In an act of desperation,  Rick Perry allowed Pastor Jeffress to spew religious bigotry on his behalf to solidify evangelical support and to rise back up in the polls. Rick Perry will never repudiate the Pastor and will use the religion card to bash Mitt Romney until the bitter end.
What is even more despicable is that the Perry campaign wants to play the victim card despite the fact that they were the ones who were brutalizing Mitt Romney's faith. While they will be playing the victim card, Rick Perry will continue to attack Romney's faith by using proxies and surrogates. In fact, its already happening now:
Evangelical Perry supporters said one thing that could be done to unseat Mr. Romney from his front-runner spot is to have surrogates plant doubt among Republican primary voters about the former Massachusetts governor’s Mormonism, something that is widely thought to have contributed to his poor showing in the 2008 Republican primaries and caucuses.

“This is not a difficult task, but one that must be done,” Mr. Brinson said. “You can’t have people raising the Mormon issue front and center, but you can raise the question as surrogates about the language of faith that we used successfully against Romney in 2008 when we worked for Mike Huckabee. It is all about semantics.”
They know they can't directly attack Mitt Romney's faith. They will have to do it by subtle and indirect means just as they did in the last Presidential election. However, the difference between the 2008 election and the 2012 election is that in the previous election, opponents of Mitt Romney were not openly talking about attacking Mitt's faith as they are now. The fact that using semantics as an indirect way to attack Mitt Romney's faith doesn't make their activities any more acceptable. 
Its clear that Rick Perry and his supporters are using the same old passive aggressive strategies that was effective in the last presidential election. However, it won't work this time because Americans can recognize this strategy now. The fact that Rick Perry's religious supporters are openly discussing ways to attack Mitt Romney's religious doesn't help the Perry campaign either.
Unlike Evangelicals who are struggling to rally around Rick Perry and are determined to use religion to defeat Romney, Mitt Romney hasn't attacked other any other candidate's religion and he enjoys strong evangelical support. Check out the website Evangelicals For Mitt to see why they have been supporting Romney since the 2008 Presidential Election.