Romney vs. Santorum; It's ON!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And the Catholic church opposes contraception. So by your (not so) fine analysis

Not mine, using your analysis. Romney is too much of a social conservative. [/quote]

Once again it’s not necessarily the candidates beliefs, it’s how that candidate expresses those beliefs. As I say in my next line from a previous post.

I think I’ve already addressed what was wrong with this, but I’ll do it again.

Knowing he was going to run for President in a couple of years why go to a Catholic University and express your religious beliefs in such a strong an descriptive way? This smacks of inexperience and also may spell out exactly how out of touch Santorum is with the rest of America. That is those 70% or so of the voting populace who are not born again Christians.

Simple no?

102

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Here’s Romney’s beliefs about Satan.

Satan, also called the adversary or the devil, is the enemy of all righteousness and of those who seek to follow God. He is a spirit son of God who was once an angel ?in authority in the presence of God? (D&C 76:25; see also Isaiah 14:12; D&C 76:26?27). But in the premortal Council in Heaven, Lucifer, as Satan was then called, rebelled against God. Since that time, he has sought to destroy the children of God on the earth and to make them miserable.
Additional Information

One primary issue in the conflict between God and Satan is agency. Agency is a precious gift from God; it is essential to His plan for His children. In Satan’s rebellion against God, Satan ?sought to destroy the agency of man? (Moses 4:3). He said: ?I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor? (Moses 4:1).

Satan persuaded ?a third part of the hosts of heaven? to turn away from the Father (D&C 29:36). As a result of this rebellion, Satan and his followers were cut off from God’s presence and denied the blessing of receiving a physical body (see Revelation 12:9).

Heavenly Father allows Satan and Satan’s followers to tempt us as part of our experience in mortality (see 2 Nephi 2:11-14; D&C 29:39). Because Satan ?seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself? (2 Nephi 2:27), he and his followers try to lead us away from righteousness. He directs his most strenuous opposition at the most important aspects of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. For example, he seeks to discredit the Savior and the priesthood, to cast doubt on the power of the Atonement, to counterfeit revelation, to distract us from the truth, and to contradict individual accountability. He attempts to undermine the family by confusing gender, promoting sexual relations outside of marriage, ridiculing marriage, and discouraging childbearing by married adults who would otherwise raise children in righteousness.

Individuals do not have to give in to Satan’s temptations. Each person has the power to choose good over evil, and the Lord has promised to help all who seek Him through sincere prayer and faithfulness.

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/satan?lang=eng&query=satan[/quote]

Is he espousing those beliefs all around the country like a stupid college kid? Noooooo…can you say the same thing about Santorum? Nooooooo.[/quote]

All around the country? One last time, it was at a Catholic university. He is a Catholic. Gosh, good thing he didn’t mention that whole bread to body, or wine to blood thing. Even if it was at a Catholic university. Romney has been both a bishop and missionary for his church. So you could say he even went international. Romney also mentioned the Missouri deal on radio. The difference? There was a video camera at the university (and the radio station in Romney’s case). This is lame coming from a so called conservative. What are you going to do when another Romney video comes out of him speaking to fellow Mormons about their faith? Sweep that right away?
[/quote]

  1. I’m a conservative who wants to win back the White House from a democrat, you are a conservative who wants to find a candidate who matches as closely as possible your specific views. As I’ve told you before you have not lost enough elections yet to find the pragmatism to go with someone who is conservative enough, but can also win.

  2. When and if a Romney video surfaces I will address it. If Romney makes as stupid a remark as Santorum (a couple of years before he announced) I will call it just that.

  3. It matters not whether Santorum is a Catholic or a Protestant he should not have given such a speech ANYWHERE a couple of years before announcing his candidacy for the President. Especially in light of the fact that many who already know of him think he’s a right wing religious fanatic. Once again perception is far more important than reality in politics. If he understood the game as he should at that level he would not have given such a speech.

103

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]Christine wrote:

I really don’t think that Obama will attack Romney’s religion. This would be a huge turn-off to independent voters.[/quote]

Obama won’t need to do that… Fundamentalist Christian conservatives have already been attacking Romney’s religion plenty. Obama won’t need to mention it, that groundwork has already been laid. There are many fundamentalist Sunday Schools where they teach the kids that Mormonism is a cult, and not a real branch of Christianity. It’s going to be tough for Romney to overcome that lifetime of teaching against his faith, among Republican voters. You can already see that with Romney’s weak primary results.

Gosh, this election is fun to watch.
[/quote]

Actually, according to gallup, independents and Democrats are less likely to vote for a Mormon. His weak primary results are because he’s a weak, weak, weak, candidate.[/quote]

Neither you or K2 know what you’re talking about regarding this primary season.

Fact: The Obama/Clinton race was not over until May. You don’t remember that? Was Obama a weak candidate?

Fact: If Romney is weak then what would you call the other candidates? Romney has virtually lead the entire way since day one.

Fact: Do you remember the McCain/Bush primary? That was also closely contested. Was Bush a two-term President a weak candidate?

Fact: Romney leads in the category of pulling independents in virtually every poll taken.

This one is easy to figure. Independents have a strong distaste for Santorum because of his right wing religious views. And Gingrich is not viewed as “stable” among independents.

As for democrats the only one who is likely to pull from the other party is Mitt Romney, even though he is a mormon. Democrats by and large hate Newt Gingrich and they view Santorum as too far right.

Sloth use some objectivity. Don’t fall into the trap, if you like someone therefore everyone else likes them too. Santorum has some very high negative ratings and it’s not just for what he said at that Catholic University. He has always been viewed as too far right by the general electorate. And by the way Karl Rove has said the same thing.

There’s only one man who can beat Obama and that man is Mitt Romney! You can like it, lump it or hide under your bed because of it, but it’s absolutely the truth!

104

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Santorum campaign suggests Mitt Romney may have done deal to make Ron Paul his running mate:

Their wives get along so well - ‘great friends.’ Campaigns in touch with each other ‘daily.’ Maybe not a Romney/Paul ticket but Paul and Romney are working together to knock down the last two conservative pins in the lane.[/quote]

Well, it’s pretty obvious that Paul never attacks Romney but always goes after the person who is challenging Romney. But, I highly, highly doubt that the deal was for the VP slot. Why would anyone pick Ron Paul over say Marco Rubio? But I bet there was some sort of deal made for a cabinet position. And if so…great move by Romney.

105

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:<<< The only republican I see running for President who has those qualifications is Mitt Romney. [/quote]The only qualification I’m looking at is getting this communist hippie outta my white house. It’s almost inconceivable that ANY Republican could do more damage to this dying nation than a second Obama term.
[/quote]

Well said. Should Obama win a second term and never again have to answer to the American electorate he would wreak some serious havoc to our economy and nation in general. He is only hemmed in now by having to seek a second term.

106

Santorum, “I Was Basically Pro-Choice All My Life, Until I Ran For Congress”

Would anyone call this a flip-flop, or did he just change his mind?

107

Euthanasia in the Netherlands: Rick Santorum’s bogus statistics

108

It’s sad that all of the vicious attacking sound bites from this primary are gonna be played all through the general election by the MSM.

Obama’s super PAC won’t have to spend a dime…the GOP candidates are doing all the work for him.

109

Bam!

110

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Fact: The Obama/Clinton race was not over until May. You don’t remember that? Was Obama a weak candidate? [/quote]

You can’t really compare the 2008 Dem primary with the 2012 GOP primary. In 2008, it was a battle between two passionate camps who felt strongly for their candidates. Turnouts were massive and interest was high. In 2012 you have candidates who are supported for being ‘less bad’. Turnout for these primaries is absolutely pathetic, the lowest turnouts in recent memory. Only 5000 Republicans voted in the Maine primary. Five thousand total votes, in a state-wide election with national implications! Interest in the primaries among Republicans is approximately 40%. Satisfaction with the field of candidates is even lower. The 2008 Democratic primary had strong turnouts, and neither candidate was viewed as weak. In 2012, ALL the GOP candidates are viewed as weak or flawed.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Fact: If Romney is weak then what would you call the other candidates? Romney has virtually lead the entire way since day one.[/quote]

I would call the other candidates marginal, or fringe candidates. Ron Paul is so fringe that in 2008, Fox news wouldn’t even let him onstage to debate, because he didn’t have enough support to rate as a serious candidate. Newt Gingrich is one of the most damaged politicians in recent history, and people mainly like him because he is perceived as an attack dog, who would attempt to humiliate the president. Santorum lost his last home state election in a landslide. Nobody has broken the 50% mark in a primary yet.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
There’s only one man who can beat Obama and that man is Mitt Romney! You can like it, lump it or hide under your bed because of it, but it’s absolutely the truth![/quote]

Today’s Rasmussen poll has Romney at 39% against Obama. The myth that Romney is the electable candidate has been shot full of holes. Romney’s had months to sell himself to the public, and he can’t close the deal. The more exposure he gets, the lower his poll numbers dip. People just aren’t buying it.

111

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Same here, Bolt.

I’m thinking CLOSE race…with a GOP win…

BUT…I keep having this gnawing feeling that like the mid-terms, the GOP could win by a larger margin than expected.

If you recall (heck…I know you recall!)…the GOP was expected to win in the Midterms…but it was a virtual bloodbath, as Americans spoke with their vote.

Who said I was a non believer ?

You spoke about VP. I think the choice that the GOP makes as their nominee will be one of those that will be talked and written about for years. I say this because of the “battle for the Soul of the Party” that Romney and Santorum seem to represent.

Mufasa[/quote]

You’re a smart person Mufasa so don’t take this the wrong way. But… you also thought that McCain was going to beat Obama and I told you then that the media (and several other things) would put Obama over the top.

Once again, if the nominee is Santorum he is far too socially conservative for the media. They will bring him down and he’ll be a laughing stock with over half the country by election day. The independents will ABSOLUTELY NOT vote for either Santorum or Gingrich. And Newt has far too much baggage to beat Obama. He’d be defending himself for the entire portion of the general election. And that wouldn’t keep the conversation on the economy would it?

Only one man even has a chance to beat Obama and that man is Mitt Romney (this is Groundhog day and I am doomed to repeat this stuff until the nominating process is over). Romney can win the independents, do well with women and senior citizens. And electorally he can deliver some north east states like Mass, New Hampshire and probably New Jersey with Christie’s help. If Marco Rubio accepts the VP position that gives hard core conservatives a reason to get pumped up about the ticket (as if dumping Obama is not exciting enough for some of these purists) and it also delivers Florida a must win GOP state. That is how Obama loses and that is the ONLY scenario where he loses.

Why more people on this site cannot see this has more to do with what they think of Romney. People always project what THEY want as what will happen (no Romney is not my first choice). Case in point are the Paulies, they worked themselves up into a lather. They couldn’t see that America was not going to go for a shrill sounding old man who rambles on? Nope, because THEY Liked him. Some of them are now coming down from their Ron Paul high as the numbers doom their man to being a loser once again. And if you are a staunch right wing social conservative sure you like Santorum (I know I do). But what does that mean in a general election when Obama will look like the reasonable middle of the road candidate. Stop projecting your own personal political positions on to others. This country is NOT made up of people who think like you (or me).

As I said many posts ago I doubt anyone will beat Obama as the press will not allow it. But Romney/Rubio has the very best chance. Anything short of that and Obama will be assured four more years.

[/quote]

I have to agree, I think Santorum would be a Religious Ideologue that would divide America to the point of civil war
[/quote]

I think its funny how non-believers use the word “religious”, as if their own beliefs are not a religion with their own useless god.[/quote]

112

I have a hard time taking Santorum seriously , I can not picture the American public buying the idea of Ayatollah Santorum

113

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

1:30 Unbelievable. Romney praises Hezbollah’s “healthcare diplomacy” and says the United States needs to emulate it around the world.[/quote]

Not a fan of AusAid, huh?

I’m not sure I understand what you find shocking here.

114

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I have a hard time taking Santorum seriously , I can not picture the American public buying the idea of Ayatollah Santorum[/quote]

I will admit that I wrote Santorum off early and didn’t look into him at all until recently. (As I’m not voting in the Republican primaries, why bother with someone who I thought didn’t have a chance, I guess I was wrong.)

The more I know, the less I like.

115

Democrats Are Praying for a Santorum Nomination

116

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Not a fan of AusAid, huh?

[/quote]

[quote]
I’m not sure I understand what you find shocking here. [/quote]

The United States should not base their healthcase system on Hezbollah’s and reference Hezbollah’s anything as something worthy of emulating or promote the idea that Hezbollah has a better healthcare system than the United States has/will have etc etc. You just don’t get it do you?

117

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Not a fan of AusAid, huh?

[/quote]

[/quote]

I’ll take that as a “Yep, I’m not a fan.”

[quote]

[quote]
I’m not sure I understand what you find shocking here. [/quote]

The United States should not base their healthcase system on Hezbollah’s and reference Hezbollah’s anything as something worthy of emulating or promote the idea that Hezbollah has a better healthcare system than the United States has/will have etc etc. You just don’t get it do you?[/quote]

I didn’t hear him say those things. Perhaps I misheard or misunderstood.

118

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
I didn’t hear him say those things. Perhaps I misheard or misunderstood. [/quote]

Okay, that’s me paraphrasing. He was talking about the U.S. healthcare system then suddenly switches to Lebanon and starts praising Hezbollah’s healthcare system. Then he says the U.S. should try to emulate their ‘healthcare diplomacy’ around the world. As if the U.S. doesn’t already provide aid all over the globe. As if it would change peoples’ “perceptions” of the U.S. in the Muslim world(it doesn’t.) And using Hezbollah as a model of all people.

119

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Democrats Are Praying for a Santorum Nomination

I’m willing to call that bluff.

120

[quote]K2000 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Fact: The Obama/Clinton race was not over until May. You don’t remember that? Was Obama a weak candidate?

You can’t really compare the 2008 Dem primary with the 2012 GOP primary. In 2008, it was a battle between two passionate camps who felt strongly for their candidates. Turnouts were massive and interest was high. In 2012 you have candidates who are supported for being ‘less bad’. Turnout for these primaries is absolutely pathetic, the lowest turnouts in recent memory. Only 5000 Republicans voted in the Maine primary. Five thousand total votes, in a state-wide election with national implications! Interest in the primaries among Republicans is approximately 40%. Satisfaction with the field of candidates is even lower. The 2008 Democratic primary had strong turnouts, and neither candidate was viewed as weak. In 2012, ALL the GOP candidates are viewed as weak or flawed.[/quote]

My comparison was based upon hotly contested races. Many Presidential primaries go through May this is just one example there are many others.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Fact: If Romney is weak then what would you call the other candidates? Romney has virtually lead the entire way since day one.

I would call the other candidates marginal, or fringe candidates. Ron Paul is so fringe that in 2008, Fox news wouldn’t even let him onstage to debate, because he didn’t have enough support to rate as a serious candidate. Newt Gingrich is one of the most damaged politicians in recent history, and people mainly like him because he is perceived as an attack dog, who would attempt to humiliate the president. Santorum lost his last home state election in a landslide. Nobody has broken the 50% mark in a primary yet.[/quote]

I agree with you on your take on the other three candidates and I never said otherwise. However, take a look at history, when there are a multitude of candidates NO ONE breaks 50% until near the end. But Romney has been the strongest candidate and has the most delgates thus far. Honestly, some of you act like you’ve never seen a Presidential primary before- LOL

[quote]ZEB wrote:
There’s only one man who can beat Obama and that man is Mitt Romney! You can like it, lump it or hide under your bed because of it, but it’s absolutely the truth!

Today’s Rasmussen poll has Romney at 39% against Obama. The myth that Romney is the electable candidate has been shot full of holes. Romney’s had months to sell himself to the public, and he can’t close the deal. The more exposure he gets, the lower his poll numbers dip. People just aren’t buying it.
[/quote]

I saw the poll and I’ve seen previous polls that show it neck and neck vs Obama. But I will caution you on one thing, cross party polls BEFORE one party has chosen a candidate are pretty meaningless. In fact, almost the opposite has happened in every cross party poll this early. Kerry was ahead of GW Bush by 8 pts. during almost the same time 8 years ago. And his Father President Bush (41) was ahead of Bill Clinton by a whopping 15 points yet he did not win a second term.

Read some Presidential history you guys are shooting from the hip on this thread and its’ border line comical!

I’ve given you and others the take on why Romney can (but may not) beat Obama. He at least has a good chance 50/50 at best.