The Truth Typhoon wrote:

If is funny that Utah, with all its LDS members have been so slavish to the GOP, giving them votes, money and support, only to see that the GOP bigots deep down do not respect their faith or even tolerate it.


Here's another example of that. King George is a United Methodist, and in their 2000 General Conference, they said the following:

"Therefore, while our denomination must continue to seek further clarity on issues of our own faith, we have enough clarity to take steps toward establishing a policy for the United Methodist Church regarding the reception of those converting from the LDS Church. It is our recommendation that following a period of catechesis (a time of intensive exploration and instruction in the Christian faith), such a convert should receive the sacrament of Christian baptism."

http://gc2000.org/pets/cal/TEXT/c0806.asp

They do not recognize an LDS baptism (I am assuming they recognize the prior baptisms of other Protestant faiths, though). Seems only fair, though, since the LDS Church does not recognize other Church's baptisms....any of them.

Additionally, before they will baptize a former LDS member, said ex-LDS member should also spend "a time of intensive exploration and instruction in the Christian faith." Hmmm. You mean they do not consider Mormons Christians? :o

TruthHurts wrote:

Wren wrote:

dadofone wrote:

I really wasn't impressed with Romney's speech and I'm not aware of too many people who were, other than Mormons, you and a couple of stupid, supposedly "lifelong Democrats" who read the Trib.


DadofOne, you speak as if you are a rather simple pleb.

We will have to see what the polls next week bring, and they will make you very unhappy, I believe.

Secondly, I have been a "supposedly 'lifelong' [Republican]", who very rarely reads the Tribune, unlike you, who obviously and avidly reads it.


He was referring to the following letter to the editor in this mornings Tribune.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7663947

and yes, a week or two will show you how wrong you are if you think Mitty's poll number are going to jump way up. I'm sure the speech is a smash in Utah, but then again, the residents of this state gave George Bush his highest winning percentages...twice.


I have corrected the speech above, a la Dubs. I don't how it was received in Utah, but here in the Deep South it was received very well.

None of that counts, however.

How it effects evangelicals in Iowa is going to be the difference for Mitt.

Wren wrote:

I have corrected the speech above, a la Dubs.


A disciple of Dubs? You are lowering your standards, Wren. Only an emulation of Decaf or RushReader could be worse.


I don't how it was received in Utah, but here in the Deep South it was received very well.

None of that counts, however.


Correct. What people tell other people and what they do in a voting booth are often different, as Chavez found out the other day. However, I doubt Mitt will get anything other than a short lived minimal boost in the polls as a result of the speech.


How it effects evangelicals in Iowa is going to be the difference for Mitt.


Yup. Mitt is no cinch even if he wins Iowa, but if he loses it, it's pretty much toast time for him.

Wren wrote:

dadofone wrote:

Wren wrote:

dadofone wrote:

Wren wrote:

GrackMarginal wrote:

I thought Romney's speech was a good example of what a presidential candidate in America is required say.

If he had specifically recognized the rights of atheists et. al., he would have eroded the effect of the speech on his target audience.

This speech didn't expressly address the rights of atheists under the Constitution at all. It's a bit of an overreaction to conclude that their exclusion means that every American should choose a church. It was only one speech, for heaven's sake.

At any rate, the rights of atheists are well established in law, and no president is going to have much effect on the matter. Romney can spout about nativity scenes, but the courts, thankfully, are going to keep ordering them off government property anyway.

Having said all that, I will renew my prediction from many months ago. Romney will be the GOP nominee by virtue of elimination.


And I told you that you were crazy back then. Crazy is as crazy does, huh? GM, you may very well be right. And I will tell you why. MR had to hit a home run yesterday, just as Kirk Gibson had to hit a HR in the 1989 world series. It was the only thing that Mitt could do to save the day. And he hit it out of the park.


1988 World Series . . . Dodgers fan here.

Romney's speech was more like a sacrifice fly that scores a run when you're down by three.


You are right about the year (1988) and dead wrong about Romney. Next week will show MR's upswing in the polls.


We shall see; somehow, I doubt it. Rasmussen's daily tracking shows a one point "upswing" yesterday and nothing more today.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

There's also the recent Newsweek poll showing Huckabee with a 39/17 lead over Romney in Iowa. This poll was concluded on the day of Romney's speech and offers some interesting analysis about the evangelical base:

Questions about religion"in particular skepticism about Romney's Mormonism"appeared to play a role in the latest results on the GOP side. The survey was completed on the day of the former Massachusetts governor's much-heralded speech in College Station, Texas, addressing his religion, though most respondents probably had not heard it. Still, only a small number of the 540 Republican voters surveyed in Iowa (10 percent) said they wanted to hear more from Romney about that issue, and close to half (46 percent) said at least some Iowa Republican voters will not consider supporting Romney because of his Mormon faith. More than a quarter (27 percent) said they don't consider Mormons to be Christians, and one in six (16 percent) said they are less likely to support Romney because he is a Mormon.

Huckabee's religious credibility, by the same token, appears to be a key factor behind his surge. Huckabee has opened up a huge lead among evangelicals, who are likely to make up about 40 percent of GOP caucus-goers on Jan. 3, the survey found. Among all Republican voters who identify themselves as evangelicals, 47 percent support Huckabee while only 14 percent back Romney. Among nonevangelicals, the two candidates are dead even at 24 percent apiece. Even so, a majority of Republican voters indicated that other issues, such as abortion, same-sex marriage, immigration, health care and Iraq, are more important than religion.

I really wasn't impressed with Romney's speech and I'm not aware of too many people who were, other than Mormons, you and a couple of stupid, supposedly "lifelong Democrats" who read the Trib.


DadofOne, you speak as if you are a rather simple pleb.

We will have to see what the polls next week bring, and they will make you very unhappy, I believe.

Secondly, I have been a "supposedly 'lifelong' [Republican]", who very rarely reads the Tribune, unlike you, who obviously and avidly reads it.


I see the condescending Wren still thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Pray tell Wrenny, what have you said other than "Mitt hit a home run" and "Mitt's polling is going through the roof"? Good hell, you've been duped by some pretty simple pandering from a man who changes cloaks more often than an undercover agent and you're calling me a pleb?

TruthHurts wrote:

Wren wrote:

dadofone wrote:

I really wasn't impressed with Romney's speech and I'm not aware of too many people who were, other than Mormons, you and a couple of stupid, supposedly "lifelong Democrats" who read the Trib.


DadofOne, you speak as if you are a rather simple pleb.

We will have to see what the polls next week bring, and they will make you very unhappy, I believe.

Secondly, I have been a "supposedly 'lifelong' [Republican]", who very rarely reads the Tribune, unlike you, who obviously and avidly reads it.


He was referring to the following letter to the editor in this mornings Tribune.

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7663947

and yes, a week or two will show you how wrong you are if you think Mitty's poll number are going to jump way up. I'm sure the speech is a smash in Utah, but then again, the residents of this state gave George Bush his highest winning percentages...twice. :


Thanks for the backup TH. You'd think my winky would've given the unquestionably intelligent Wren a little hint that my comment was not a dig at him; but alas his superior intellect decided to fail him once again.

I see the condescending Wren still thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Pray tell Wrenny, what have you said other than "Mitt hit a home run" and "Mitt's polling is going through the roof"? Good hell, you've been duped by some pretty simple pandering from a man who changes cloaks more often than an undercover agent and you're calling me a pleb?


Of course you are a condescending pleb, who just got his fanny kicked. No pleb likes being made to look silly, which is so easy to do with you.

Next week will tell what's up with Romney, Huckabee, and Iowa.

By the by, you are obviously a RINO.