In Which I Channel Hugh Hewitt
But I Suspect He Won't Like It
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As some of you know (I haven't really kept it a secret), I'm running for office. It's been a fun time on the campaign trail, made more so because it appears I'm going to win (shudder, wail, and gnash your teeth o liberals). In fact, barring any unforeseen issues, I will win since there is no one opposing me in either the Republican primary or in the general election by Democrats.
Over the past three months on the campaign trail, I've participated in several forums and meetings. I went to one last night. It was a gathering of party faithful. A number of the people in the room are rather angry with me because I've been encouraging Republican voters to vote in the Democratic primary. Where I live, the Democratic nominee for mayor is more likely than not going to be the mayor, so you best get in that primary and vote for the best possible candidate. Anyway, folks are really mad at me for encouraging Republicans to, in the words of one, "cross over and become RINOs." Tough . . . .
So, I'm hanging out with a group of solid, staunch, don't you dare vote for the Democrat type Republicans and one of them leans over to me and tells me they are as Republican as you can get, but if that Mormon gets the nomination "there's just no way." By "no way" I assume "no way I'm voting for him." This is not, mind you, something out of the ordinary.
Read on . . .
At a GOP convention a few months ago, the same conversation came up and the same thing was said.
Last night, I got home from the meeting and some friends were over. We got on the subject of politics and one of them said, "You know, I thought I was really a Republican, but do you know I have a neighbor who says he'd vote for that Mormon guy over Hillary Clinton because he's a Republican. Not me."
Ladies and gentlemen of the readership and Hugh Hewitt, this is out there. It's a more prevalent attitude than we might like to admit. It's shared by Republicans and independents. It is something each of us must work to overcome.
I mention this not because I want the hate mail calling me a religious bigot for daring to state the obvious, existing, prevalent attitudes; I do this to prepare you. At some point, you too will get into this conversation and you should at least begin by responding as I respond.
Friends, I'd like to present you with four reasons why, should Mitt Romney be the nominee, we must do everything in our power to get people to vote for him.
These are also, by the way, the same four reasons you super social cons should be voting for Rudy over any Democrat. You fool yourselves into thinking either Mitt or Rudy or any other Republicans would be as bad or worse than any of the Democrats. And in so doing, you screw yourselves out of your own beliefs.
Sure, you may hold your head high and poo-poo at those of us who went out and voted for the Mormon or Rudy or whoever, but then don't come bitching to us when she's the next nominee. We actually tried to do something to stop it.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | RS Radio: Part 2 of our Fred!cast — Comments (8) »
In Which I Channel Hugh Hewitt 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Hahahahahaha. You've got a good point. I'm at a loss for a rebuttal except, I think, since those appointments the right has become much more organized.
After the Harriet Miers fiasco where the forces of good defeated the Hewitt-Bush coalition of the unknown with bad hair, I think the right has been emboldened enough to take on their own and win when it comes to the judiciary.
But dang. All that writing has a hard time standing up to your 24 word comment.
With O'Connor, Warren, Blackmun, Brennan, Burger and Stewart, either.
But I agree that we are still likely to get good Justices out of Rudy or Fred, or for that matter Mitt. I think we as a party have finally learned that lesson.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Kennedy is at least occassionally one of the good guys.
Romney or Fred.
if I might ask? And, by the way, good luck with your foray into representative government....!
I'd recommend this article if I could.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
As a Mormon in the White House just what is it that he is going to do that you are afraid of?
Make us all go out and get a second wife? (I now have two ex’s I had better be exempt!)
But really… what is the issue? Is there a policy issue?
Do the Mormon’s have a Pope that Romney could turn the nation over to, like was said about JFK?
Now I can see why the Kos Kids would have a cow… Romney is oh so ‘hard’ on social issues. Isn’t that where we want him to be?
A little help here…
As a Mormon in the White House just what is it that he is going to do that you are afraid of?
You're asking the wrong person. I'm just conveying a sentiment shared by a large group of people.
I do not subscribe to the sentiment.
some really kooky things.
Would you vote for somebody who believed that he had been abducted by aliens?
I will vote for Mitt, but it bothers me that he could believe in LDS kookiness, just as it bothered me that the Reagans, or at least Nancy, believed in something as stupid as astrology.
...doesn't believe some so-called "kooky" things?
Just look, for example, at the religions of Abraham's descendants. It won't take you too long to find things that, if they were part of someone else's religion and not yours, you'd probably snicker at.
This might be an argument for Romney, but not Giuliani. Giuliani is a self professed liberal. Why would he appoint a conservative or strict constructionist to the supreme court? Regardless of what he says. The best you might get from Giuliani is a Kennedy or a O'connor.
The jury is still out on Romney because I am still not sure what this bird believes.
Lets avoid all of this by nominating someone true to conservative beliefs. Lets quit putting ourselves in this position of having to "hope".
Giuliani is a self professed liberal. Why would he appoint a conservative or strict constructionist to the supreme court? Regardless of what he says.
Perhaps because he remembers what happened to Bush 41 after he broke his 'No New Taxes' pledge, and he'd prefer to at least have a chance at being a 2-term president.
---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
Rudy governed exactly as he promised he would. I've been disappointed that he hasn't offered us pro-lifers more in this campaign. But his background suggests a guy who governs as he campaigns.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I'm not a Republican and don't particularly favor any of the R nominees over the others, so I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems to me that calling someone a bigot because he won't vote for a Mormon is unwarranted. People have a choice in their religion, and religions differ materially. I wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, for instance, because I think their beliefs are nutty.
Filtering candidates on the basis of gender or race is bigotry. Filtering them by religion is not.
Pretty much all of us at Red State can absolutely relate to that. It's the same reason we won't vote for Democrats.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
When an atheist or a Buddhist or a Muslim says "I would never vote for a Christian, their beliefs are nutty," is that bigotry?
but it is certainly warped logic. Why would someone's view on who the Messiah is, whether they're trinitarian or not, etc., make a difference in how they govern?
They have the right to vote based on it, but I've yet to see a case made that shows any sensibility to it.
"These are also, by the way, the same four reasons you super social cons should be voting for Rudy over any Democrat. You fool yourselves into thinking either Mitt or Rudy or any other Republicans would be as bad or worse than any of the Democrats."
You miss the point of the objection for Rudy. Nominating him is the equivalent of the Republican party dropping the pro-life plank from the platform. The long-term damage of him winning might well be worse than the inferior government of a Democrat.
Mitt doesn't have that problem; his nomination doesn't change the party in any real way. Rather, his religious beliefs are repugnant to a subset of the base. I think once there's a particular opposition candidate, there will be room to compare and contrast, and thus get grudging acceptance for the guy.
It's going to take the active co-operation of the religious right, though, to make the necessary arguments. And while we're still working on the primary, there's not much incentive for that.
Presidents often don't go along with all of it, but that doesn't mean the platform automatically changes in some permanent way by virtue of them being the leader of the party. Presidents can set the agenda most of the time while they are in office, but that's the end of it. Doing that requires the expenditure of a lot of political capital so it is used sparingly and only on issues most important to the President. I seriously doubt abortion makes Rudy's top 50, much less top 10 issues. I don't see the permanent everlasting damage.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
but it has nothing to do with his religion and I absolutely will vote for him if he's our nominee.
I know the anti-Mormon thing is out there, but when I run into it (at work, basically) it is from liberal Dems who think they are full of tolerance and covered in a multiculti celebrate-diversity glow. I don't even have to mention Mitt; just mentioning Utah sets them off on an obscenity-laced hatefest. They are right out there with their fear and loathing of Mormons.
For every bigoted Republican you show me, I can show you 2 bigoted Democrats. Guaranteed.
So much for tolerance of the different and the unknown. We know and struggle with our prejudices; the left is blind to or proud of their own.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
Mormons, or is it really hatred of those who hold to moral standards? Yeah, Mormons have a couple of oddball beliefs, like polygamy, but considering the utter lack of respect for morality on the left, I can't believe that's the issue. They get their undies in a knot over those who dare to stand up for moral principles.
Geez, Erick,what good will confirmthem be if you steal all the thunder here at the main Redstate site? :-)
Regarding Romney, I think he'd be a great nominee.
By the way, you realize that we've been getting some spam lately at confirmthem, right? I've been deleting it manually. Have you been getting it at the main site?
since I agree with it and have been singing the same tune for some time...but three of those four were appointed by Republicans.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill