from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

actually Christian conservatives like myself were totally against Mccain.

and he never once tried to seek my vote.

and he lost.

That's the lessen to be learned here.

Christian conservatives are the heart of the Party, and if you want to win the general election, you better pack your team with people that speak to my issues with the words I use.

McCain had stabbed in the back every cause I believe in.
Mitt also has stabbed in the back every cause I believe in.

The thing Mitt has to do if he wins the Primary is pick a real winner for a VP....and also drop a few names of strong Christian conservatives as the people he will bring to Washington with him.

Alan, how do you feel about Newt and the video I gave you?

[alanmolstad]

newt is a conservative, thats what you know for sure about newt.

newt never fakes being this or that just to get elected...
Even in the few places where Newt and i disagree, i can tell that his views are part of who he is at his core.....

Newt has a strong inner core that drives him
I like Newt....I think he is interesting, and can tell a good joke.

If it came down to a vote between Mitt and Newt, I would vote for newt ...Newt just seems more "real " to me.....


Now as for what do i think of newt?....
I think he cant control himself.

His mouth gets him into a lot of trouble.

While he has the support of the Christian conservatives like myself , he also has an odd way of shooting from the hip, and go off into things that are better left not done.


While I enjoy the fact that we finally have a real conservative leading the pack and that even mitt is in 2nd or 3rd place to Newt right now....I also understand that with Newt there is always the chance that he is just one off-the-wall remark from being totally out of this race...

So Im happy he is still in the hunt, but Im not real sure he will last ling...

[alanmolstad]

Julie, the real fun part of this topic over all the other ones, is that this one actually has an ending.

This one will come to a final moment when the voting starts and the talking stops.

We will know one way or the other how this will play out....


I have give my predictions, and I will do so right up to the moment people are starting to vote in Iowa, (or whatsver they do there?)

My predictions:
I know being that Mitt is a mormon and you are two, that it's only natural that you want to support your team in the big game.

Be that as it may, in time the novelty of having a guy with your faith or your skin color in the White House wears off very fast...

So lets just see how this election might stack up for Mitt?

The first place to make news in this election will be Iowa, (Jan 3rd)
Mitt can lose Iowa with no real damage to his chances.

What we have learned in the past is, "As Iowa goes, so goes....Iowa"

So as long as Mitt is a respectable 2nd or 3rd, there is no issue not winning.

The real test of Mitt is on Jan 10 in New Hampshire.
This is the place where Mitt can bury the rest of the pack, or really screw up and be in for a nasty fight over the next few weeks.

The best thing that Mitt can have happen is that he wins big in New Hampshire. If Mitt wins, and wins big, most of the pack will have packed it in as they would not have the money to hang on untll January 21, atSouth Carolina.

South Carolina is always the ideal spot for a Christian to break out of the pack....This would have been the state for cain to rise to the top. But if cain os all but finished right now, this means that South Carolina will be the big religious test for Mitt.

If Mitt does well by South Carolina, then that means that the Christians are swinging in behind him, and he is all set.

However if Mitt cant win Sough Carolina, ...or worse, if Mitt drops to 3rd or lower there it means that he better start looking at "Christians Only" when he thinks about a VP,

Florida is on Jan 31, and it will be all over by then one way or the other...

So the best thing for Mitt is to place 2nd in Iowa, and then win in New Hampshire.


Whats the worst news for Mitt?
What would be the sign for you to look for that Mitt has totally failed?

Look for Mitt to come in 3rd in Iowa, and then 2nd in New Hampshire.
That would lead to a 3rd or 4th pl;ace finish in South Carolina.
and that brings us to Florida where Mitt would have to drop out if he could not bring home a victory.
But...we shall see....

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Julie, the real fun part of this topic over all the other ones, is that this one actually has an ending.

This one will come to a final moment when the voting starts and the talking stops.

We will know one way or the other how this will play out....


I have give my predictions, and I will do so right up to the moment people are starting to vote in Iowa, (or whatsver they do there?)

Yes, we shall see the outcome here.

My predictions:
I know being that Mitt is a mormon and you are two, that it's only natural that you want to support your team in the big game.

Be that as it may, in time the novelty of having a guy with your faith or your skin color in the White House wears off very fast...

Actually, Mitt being a Mormon is not what drives me to like him. John Huntsman is a Mormon too, remember and so is Harry Reid. And as many of my friends are Mormon--both strong Republicans and Democrats---they range all over the place as well as who they like. That said, I like Mitt because I am more of a moderate who likes and studied economics and so when Mitt talks, he makes sense to me. I still think one of his big draw backs is that he talks over people's heads. Ron Paul made this same mistake when he discussed "M1" in the debates as most people don't know what that is.


What I don't like about Newt is that from paying attention, I think we might be getting another George W. Bush--too much cowboy (you call it badger). Whatever it is---it appears to me as not enough smarts in the mouth department.

South Carolina is always the ideal spot for a Christian to break out of the pack....This would have been the state for cain to rise to the top. But if cain os all but finished right now, this means that South Carolina will be the big religious test for Mitt.

It is sad to me that people like WM have sensationalized my religion so much that people would be afraid to vote for Mitt based on his religion. Personally, it comes across to me as just plain bigoted.

So the best thing for Mitt is to place 2nd in Iowa, and then win in New
Look for Mitt to come in 3rd in Iowa, and then 2nd in New Hampshire.
That would lead to a 3rd or 4th pl;ace finish in South Carolina.
and that brings us to Florida where Mitt would have to drop out if he could not bring home a victory.
But...we shall see....

And here I thought that you thought Mitt had it totally locked up.

Here is one article I read on the subject:

"Newt can't take the scrutiny," agreed a Democrat, "and he has the personality of an angry badger."

Some Insiders argued that a Gingrich nomination would be a gift to the Obama campaign.

"Shhhhhhhhh - don't tell them!" begged a Democrat, tongue firmly in cheek. "They seem hell-bent on finding anybody but Mitt. Grandpa Newt and all his quirks and quacks would be just fine, thank you."

"Bigfoot dressed as a circus clown would have a better chance of beating President Obama than Newt Gingrich, a similarly farcical character," quipped a Republican.

"Come on," sighed another GOP Insider, "the White House is probably giving money to Gingrich as we speak."

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal...ers-not-so.php

When I think that the "christian right" might not vote for Mitt because of religion and put in Newt, I sit back and think, here we go again...another John McCain.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And here I thought that you thought Mitt had it totally locked up.

.

Yes, I was giving you a list of the "Good News" and the "Bad News" for Mitt...

The good news would be in Mitt comes in a close 2nd in Iowa, and then kicks **** in NH and by the time Florida happens Mitt has it all wrapped up.

the bad news is if Mitt is far back in Iowa, and this hurts him in NH where he comes in 2nd....if that happens, then by the time Mitt gets to Florida he may be already out of the race.


So yes, i do think based on the history of the Republican party, that Mitt has it already won and will be the person who will lead the ticket.
But, this is all in the future and I dont know the future...so it's unknown to me as well.

I believe Mitt has it won, but there is always a chance Mitt might screw it up yet...

[alanmolstad]

as for the idea that many Dems want Newt to beat Mitt?

They might....

I remember many leading liberals were very happy to see Ronald Reagan lead the ticket against Jimmy Carter, as they felt no one would vote for an actor....

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

as for the idea that many Dems want Newt to beat Mitt?

They might....

I remember many leading liberals were very happy to see Ronald Reagan lead the ticket against Jimmy Carter, as they felt no one would vote for an actor....

And Reagan was one of the "flip-floppers" who was once a Democrat!

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

who was once a Democrat!

yes...but I believe it was the dems who changed.

You have to remember that at the time the dems were seen as the more Pro-military....the whole Kennedy staring down the USSR and stuff.

Then step by step the liberals took over the party.
The Dems lost the South for a whole there remember?

The Dems used to be a conservative party...but over this generation the Liberals have gotten rid of all the conservatives.

Try to be pro-Life and a D
em that speaks out now.....and you get hammered down.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

yes...but I believe it was the dems who changed.

You have to remember that at the time the dems were seen as the more Pro-military....the whole Kennedy staring down the USSR and stuff.

Then step by step the liberals took over the party.
The Dems lost the South for a whole there remember?

The Dems used to be a conservative party...but over this generation the Liberals have gotten rid of all the conservatives.

Try to be pro-Life and a D
em that speaks out now.....and you get hammered down.

On Reagan:

Allowed abortion as CA Gov.; didn’t push pro-life as Pres.
Reagan was not as obsessive about anti-abortion legislation as he often seemed. Early in his California governorship he had signed a permissive abortion bill that has resulted in more than a million abortions. Afterward, he inaccurately blamed this outcome on doctors, saying that they had deliberately misinterpreted the law. When Reagan ran for president, he won backing from pro-life forces by advocating a cons***utional amendment that would have prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. Reagan’s stand was partly a product of political calculation, as was his tactic after he was elected of addressing the annual pro-life rally held in Washington by telephone so that he would not be seen with the leaders of the movement on the evening news. While I do not doubt Reagan’s sincerity in advocating an anti-abortion amendment, he invested few political resources toward obtaining this goal.
Source: The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 812 Jul 2, 1991

It looks as if Newt is leading Iowa. I do predict that if he wins, Obama will have another four years as Newt has sooo much baggage, all of it will come out in the next year. And Newt has a propensity to say very s.tupid things---I don't think he can keep a lid on it for the 11 months necessary to win the election. *sigh*

[alanmolstad]

Iowa I think is on Jan 3rd.....

Mitt can lose Iowa....he only has to be close.

So the headlines that say "Newt leads in Iowa" are actually rather meaningless.

But Mitt really needs to do well in NH because for the next few weeks after that ,( if he has lost both Iowa and NH )Mitt can have a lot of bad news given the next states to vote.

The rise of Newt is because many see him as the last conservative name left at the table.

But I agree, Newt has to keep his mouth shut for another 30 days in a row?......thats going to be tricky for him.

newt left office because he was running around with women, cheating on his wife, and over the years has been doing this same thing off-and-on .

In this year of Cain's clearly cheating and the general feeling of 'fed up" by the Republican voter, with that kinda of behavior by the guys in the race, I dont think Newt would be the first name i would suggest to lead the ticket.

[alanmolstad]

Just think....in less than a month we will have our final "Iowa" answer....

Thank GOD!

[alanmolstad]

Reagan never flipped his position of abortion during his life.
But he did support a bill that used the term "Therapeutic" and when questioned at the time, said this was for 'self defence" to save the life of the mother.

The term both the law and Reagan used was "Therapeutic" and it was a medical term, and was to point us to the understanding that if it was needed, that a doctor had the duty to protect the life of the mother, and that this bill would back-up the doctor's decision.

However it soon became clear that (Just like with medical pot today) that more and more doctors just were using a law to do whatever they wanted to make money.

it's just like the medical pot laws there now.
On paper it reads that every once in a while you "might" see a person with a note that allows him a little pot during cancer treatments...
But thats is NOT how the law has worked out.

My guess is that many Cal Republicans also voted to support the Medical pot laws, only to now find that it blew up in their faces....

It does not mean that the Republicans have flipped their views on pot...

But the term "medical pot" like the term "Therapeutic abortion" can mean things that other people would not make it mean....

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

But I agree, Newt has to keep his mouth shut for another 30 days in a row?......thats going to be tricky for him.

newt left office because he was running around with women, cheating on his wife, and over the years has been doing this same thing off-and-on .

In this year of Cain's clearly cheating and the general feeling of 'fed up" by the Republican voter, with that kinda of behavior by the guys in the race, I dont think Newt would be the first name i would suggest to lead the ticket.

You think he needs to keep his mouth shut for only "30 days"---you are forgetting that this is the "conservative hope" that will need to keep his mouth shut for the 11 months. Good luck with that! If New is the conservative aka "not Mormon" candidate---heaven help us.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Just think....in less than a month we will have our final "Iowa" answer....

Thank GOD!

Or, if Newt wins it---I don't think God has had much to do with it as I think Obama will be able to slaughter him in the coming year. There is too much footage of Newt being an i.diot to overcome.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Reagan never flipped his position of abortion during his life.
But he did support a bill that used the term "Therapeutic" and when questioned at the time, said this was for 'self defence" to save the life of the mother.

The term both the law and Reagan used was "Therapeutic" and it was a medical term, and was to point us to the understanding that if it was needed, that a doctor had the duty to protect the life of the mother, and that this bill would back-up the doctor's decision.

However it soon became clear that (Just like with medical pot today) that more and more doctors just were using a law to do whatever they wanted to make money.

it's just like the medical pot laws there now.
On paper it reads that every once in a while you "might" see a person with a note that allows him a little pot during cancer treatments...
But thats is NOT how the law has worked out.

My guess is that many Cal Republicans also voted to support the Medical pot laws, only to now find that it blew up in their faces....

It does not mean that the Republicans have flipped their views on pot...

But the term "medical pot" like the term "Therapeutic abortion" can mean things that other people would not make it mean....

And if you read Mitt's stance, he also said he "flipped" or "flopped" because of the abuses he saw of the laws.

[BigJulie]

“One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich,” Pelosi told Talking Points Memo. “When the time is right. … I know a lot about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him, four of us locked in a room in an undisclosed location for a year. A thousand pages of his stuff.”

Gingrich, who served as Speaker of the House, worked with Pelosi in Congress from 1987 to 1999. Pelosi also served on the ethics committee that investigated Gingrich for tax cheating and campaign finance violations in the late ’90s.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-time-is-right

It is only beginning. If "evangelicals" insist on this 'true conservative' for their candidate---I predict that he will not make it through the election.

[BigJulie]

Newt's response to The Hill blog (also found on the The Hill) said he thanks Nancy for the "early Christmas Present" as in that if she discloses what went on in that investigation, she will violate the rules of the committee. The report then goes on to say:

Pelosi served on the ethics committee that sanctioned Gingrich for violating tax law and lying to an investigative panel when he claimed tax-exempt status for a college course he ran for political purposes. Gingrich agreed to a $300,000 fine and admitted that he submitted inaccurate statements to the committee, but maintained Monday that the majority of the charges "were repudiated as false."

Okay---this is the "true conservative" that evangelicals want??

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

And if you read Mitt's stance, he also said he "flipped" or "flopped" because of the abuses he saw of the laws.

See thats the thing..I dont believe this "story" he came up with to make his flip look better.

I believe it is a political lie....a falsehood told for political gain...
and this points me back the the lack of "core" that i and a lot of Republicans see in Mitt.

There just does not seem to be a real core to the man...nothing underneath that drives him and his views.

The truth is, all I see in him is....a "product"
Mitt as a person is just all product.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

See thats the thing..I dont believe this "story" he came up with to make his flip look better.

Then why do you believe Reagan's?

I believe it is a political lie....a falsehood told for political gain...
and this points me back the the lack of "core" that i and a lot of Republicans see in Mitt.

This is interesting because as governor of M***. when a law came before him, he voted pro-life.

There just does not seem to be a real core to the man...nothing underneath that drives him and his views.

The truth is, all I see in him is....a "product"
Mitt as a person is just all product.

And you think Newt is a man of integrity???

[alanmolstad]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;105740]

And you think Newt is a man of integrity???

I believe Newt, for all his personal flaws, is actually a conservative at his core.

I believe that Newt's core views drive him into politics in the first place.
When Newt takes a political stand on an issue, its based on his core views of right and wrong...good and bad...


With Mitt on the other hand, I get the feeling that a guy just off stage had whispered to him what point of view to have depending on the audience he was standing in front of.

[alanmolstad]

Oh, and Julie,

I noticed that the topic that had your name in it (and against the forum rules) has turned up missing?

I tried to warn people....LOL

I tried to tell them that they are breaking the rules, and that when their topic gets removed its going to be seen by us as them being bent over a knee and publicly spanked.

But some kids have to learn the hard way i guess.

Oh, and did you notice how when i pointed out that it's against the rules to aim by name a topic at another member I was accused of being a Mormon sympathizer?

Thats the way some people are...they cant permit anyone to even slightly disagree with them....so when i stood up against what i saw was wrong, it was immediately branded "Satanic" in their minds....

Some people!>>>I just dont get.

I really do feel ashamed for the way some people of my faith went on and on with their false accusations.

It never seems to come to some people, that they dont make their faith look better to the Lost, by breaking the rules and thinking they can get away with it because "they are Christian, and the other person is not"

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Oh, and Julie,

I noticed that the topic that had your name in it (and against the forum rules) has turned up missing?

I tried to warn people....LOL

I tried to tell them that they are breaking the rules, and that when their topic gets removed its going to be seen by us as them being bent over a knee and publicly spanked.

But some kids have to learn the hard way i guess.

Oh, and did you notice how when i pointed out that it's against the rules to aim by name a topic at another member I was accused of being a Mormon sympathizer?

Thats the way some people are...they cant permit anyone to even slightly disagree with them....so when i stood up against what i saw was wrong, it was immediately branded "Satanic" in their minds....

Some people!>>>I just dont get.

I really do feel ashamed for the way some people of my faith went on and on with their false accusations.

It never seems to come to some people, that they dont make their faith look better to the Lost, by breaking the rules and thinking they can get away with it because "they are Christian, and the other person is not"

I appreciated you standing up for me. I also appreciate the fact that criticism against the Mormon faith is felt so strongly that anyone who tries to defend us is seen as "satanic." *sigh*

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I believe Newt, for all his personal flaws, is actually a conservative at his core.

I believe that Newt's core views drive him into politics in the first place.
When Newt takes a political stand on an issue, its based on his core views of right and wrong...good and bad...


With Mitt on the other hand, I get the feeling that a guy just off stage had whispered to him what point of view to have depending on the audience he was standing in front of.

You need to read up more on Newt---he is actually far more of a RINO than Mitt Romney. I am sure this will be coming out---if not before the primaries--if he wins, then after the primaries. And I am sure it will also come out all of his lobbying and big money that he made (NPR reported yesterday that it was 55 million) for green energy lobbying efforts. He also made a boat load off of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is what people are disgusted with and he will not win. I wish so badly you could look at Mitt without tainted eyes and look at his voting record instead of the talking points.

All I can see is someone who is smart enough to solve problems economically. You see an empty suit. I see a brain.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

I appreciated you standing up for me. I also appreciate the fact that criticism against the Mormon faith is felt so strongly that anyone who tries to defend us is seen as "satanic." *sigh*

the ones who were against me got spanked...

But I doubt they learned their lesson...

I bet they are watching for the next time I stick my neck out and try to defend the right thing to do ....

but I dont care all that much,

, I was right, and proved right in the end,
they were always wrong and now are proven wrong for all to see.

[BigJulie]

Alan--can I honestly say that if evangelicals are so close-minded to a Mormon being president that they would rather vote for someone who believes in mandates, has believed in global warming, has numerous ethics violations, has received a ton of lobbying money and has been investigated and fined for his violations regarding his lobbying, has cheated on not one, but two wives, and believes in child labor, etc...well, I don't know if I can ever vote along with the "evangelical right-wingers" again.