Jun

19

Candidates prepare for 2008 Iowa Caucus

June 19, 2006 |

Lifenews.com has an interesting article on the preparations of three candidates for the 2008 Iowa Presidential caucus: George Pataki, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney.

Pro-choicer George Pataki is assembling a coalition “to help him appear more conservative to voters there.” He even got a board member of Iowa Right to Life to join his team.

Mike Huckabee hired Eric Woolson to handle his legislative and grassroots effort in the state. Woolson was a press coordinator for Governor George W. Bush’s successful 2000 primary. Huckabee recently spoke at the meeting of the Iowa Christian Coalition.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney (who, as Lifenews put it, “recently declared himself pro-life”) established a PAC and is beginning to lay the framework for a probable run.

I like Lifenews’s apt description of Romney’s shifting stances. As mentioned in an earlier post, Romney told NARAL in 2003: “I respect and will protect a woman???s right to choose.” He’s been trying to paint himself as pro-life since, positioning himself for a national race. His supporters argue that his statements when running for Governor should be ignored since he had to say that to win a pro-choice state. So what? If what he said then was just to get ahead politically, maybe what he’s saying now is also just to get ahead politically.

The last time I said that Romney is a RINO, one of his supporters called me a religious bigot. I’m not. He’s a Mormon and I’m a Protestant Christian, but that’s not why I oppose Romney’s candidacy. I oppose Romney because he’s a RINO.

But maybe that term is too harsh. After all, Romney might not really believe the liberal political views he espoused when running for governor. He might have run as a liberal then because it was popular and he might be running as a conservative now because it’s popular now. Maybe Romney isn’t a RINO. Maybe he’s just another Taft.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • TwitThis

Comments

3 Comments so far

  1. The Dumb Ox on June 19, 2006 1:23 pm

    Gore: Houston Flood Earth’s Punishment of Bush!

    Gore says: “I warned you, Bush!!!” You can’t fool Mother Gaia!… New Hybrids? HUMAN-ANIMAL hybrids hailed as new Democrat base…

  2. Jeff Fuller on June 20, 2006 2:52 am

    Daniel Mount is not an honest reporter of events. Evidence the following:

    Quoting from this most recent blog entry you say: “The last time I said that Romney is a RINO, one of his supporters called me a religious bigot. I???m not. He???s a Mormon and I???m a Protestant Christian”

    First off, I am the Mormon he is referring to.

    After he mistakenly and over-sensitively took a comment I made (which he handily linked in the story above to his own biased opinion) as a name-calling of religious “bigot”–a word I never wrote, but he seems enamoured by the fact that he could be so martyred. A label that he has now apparently given himself (I didn’t use the word . . . and surely nobody else is commenting on these posts)

    BUT HERE’S THE GREAT PART!!!

    I politely replied calling his attention to the fact that I never called him a religious ‘bigot” (http://republicanbydesign.com/wordpress/2006/06/mitt-romney-backpedals-on-previous-gay-rights-position#comment-4086 ):

    “Not to get too techical . . . but I don???t think I ever called you a ???religious bigot??? outright. I raised the suspicion that ???at least some element of ???Religious Bigotry??? (might be) in play.??? I mention this because I try to avoid personal attacks in political or religious discussions. Re-reading it later, I???m sorry if it came off that way.”

    BUT THE BEST PART IS HIS ADMISSION THAT HE WAS PROBABLY JUST BEING OVER-SENSITIVE ( http://republicanbydesign.com/wordpress/2006/06/mitt-romney-backpedals-on-previous-gay-rights-position#comment-4086 ):

    “I fully accept your apologies. While I understand that you probably did not intend to say that, that is just the way it came off sounding to me.”

    Now, he’s playing the religious card over and over again painting my Mormonism in contrast to his Protestant Christianity.

    Well Daniel, even if I did call you a religious “bigot”, which it is well established now that I did not, if you really “fully accepted (my) apologies” would you drag this issue up again as if I had accussed you anew? That is not the kind of forgiveness (that I learned about in my Mormon upbringing) that Christ taught. This play of events just confirms my suspicions and reveals you for what you really are ______________ (Daniel, feel free to fill in the blank, you are good at giving yourself labels and profiting from the religious persecution you thereafter suffer)

  3. Daniel J. Mount on June 20, 2006 4:33 am

    To say that you never wrote the word “bigot” is true, technically, but it’s a stretch. Here is what you actually said:

    “I hope that people who read your blog will realize that there is at least some element of ‘Religious Bigotry’ in play here.”

    To an extent, you are right. Since you apologized and I accepted your apologies, perhaps I should refrain from mentioning the incident. But now that you are denying that it ever happened, I think it is a different story. Without mentioning you by name, I think it is fair to say that I have been accused of religious bigotry for my stance on Romney.

    That, as I said above, is untrue. I oppose Romney not because he is Mormon, but because he is a RINO.

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind