in Uncategorized

Another Mormon’s Take: Go Newt!

Orson Scott Card still considers himself a Democrat. Nobody else does, but there you are.

Regardless of what his party affiliation may be, he’s a stupendous writer who generally makes a whole lot of sense, and he’s also an active Latter-Day Saint besides. He’s written an opus on the same subject I did last time, and he recognizes the same things I did – namely, Newt produced solid results in the ’90s, and Mitt’s Mormonism makes him unelectable, even in comparison to Newt’s plethora of baggage. However, he reaches a vastly different conclusion: this is a good thing, and we ought to vote for Newt.

[I]f you Republicans actually want to get rid of Obama, stop looking at “true conservatives” — they won’t get the votes of independents and swing Democrats like me.

And don’t nominate Romney, either — he’s too fragile and, being a Mormon, too easy to tear down and destroy. The Left will be so glad to do it.

I think Gingrich is your best choice, because despite his negatives, there is nobody smarter or more capable or with a better record of good government seeking the office of President right now.

Interesting. Although it overlooks the reality that Newt will never be president. His baggage may be more tolerable to the evangelical base than Romney’s Mormonism, but said baggage still makes Newt unelectable in November.

The Republicans should win this one in a walk, and and yet they’re very, very close to throwing the whole thing away. It seems we don’t have anybody on the bench that can prevent four more years of Barack Obama, a good man who has proven to be the biggest failure of any president I’ve seen in my lifetime.

The moral of the story: politics blows.

Newt's Lesson for Mormons
Mrs. Cornell's Christmas Card/Thank You

Leave a Reply

11 Comments

  1. I know it’s old hat, but Chris Christie is the guy. A pragmatic conservative with a sharp, fearless wit. He’s also, unfortunately, not running, and probably too fat to get elected anyway.

  2. I think you’re selling Romney short. Yes, the Mormon stuff will come up, but it’ll be brought out by the horribly tone deaf Left, and it’ll come off sounding as bad, if not worse, than when Huckabee pulled it out. It won’t affect the rightward vote, as their alternative is someone they perceive as being downright anti-Christian, so any Mormon bashing will only appeal to the people still butthurt over the Prop 8 thing, and they were already going to vote for Obama.

    The thing about beating Obama is that the alternative needs to be safe, and Romney fills the bill on that score. Really, even his opportune changes of heart add to that impression, as he’s a guy more tied to pragmaticism than ideology. Newt, not so much. He can look more dangerous and unacceptable to the swing vote.

  3. I saw a recent poll in Iowa that suggests Newt’s less-than-stone-age views on immigration are appealing to even Republican voters, and the numbers are high enough to suggest that he might be hitting a nerve. Romney, of course, is attacking Newt on “amnesty” at every turn in the hopes that the electorate of 2012 will be the same as the electorate of 2010. I don’t know what’s changed (perhaps the Tea Party is disillusioned in Iowa and plans on sitting this one out), but I would have never suspected anyone in the Republican field to play well by being less draconian on immigration. The Tea Party, apparently, is in the gone part of come and gone. Hopefully, although another recent poll of Iowa shows that currently the best candidate in a match-up with Obama is Ron Paul…

    • Yes, another humanitarian, ever eager to sneer from his evolved position of high charity, a charity which consists mainly of giving away other people’s jobs and neighborhoods. At any rate, your analysis is wrong. Newt isn’t doing well because of his dishonestly worded position on immigration, but despite it. The only people happy about it are the usual assortment of scoundrels at the Chamber of Commerce who want to keep on privatizing their profits while socializing the costs.

      The Tea Party isn’t as visible now because they’ve won their major battles. Every candidate has not to raise taxes and and to repeal Obamacare. There’s nothing left for them to do. Immigration, for the Tea Party, was a peripheral issue. It was important to many of its members, but not a central issue.

      • Believe me when I say the only reason I’d personally be happy with Newt as a candidate is how badly Obama would beat him. I mean it won’t even be close, at least a 10 point spread. Newt is like the movement conservative’s Michelle Bachmann. He doesn’t quote Pokemon, but then again he doesn’t have to.

        As per the polls and immigration, see here — http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/06/1042847/-Mitt-Romney-picked-wrong-side-of-immigration-fight%E2%80%9460-of-Republicans-agree-with-Newt-Gingrich?via=blog_1

        Even on the deportation question the Tea Party respondents register as 54% against. I’m as surprised as anyone at that, I thought the numbers would be flipped.

        • …Adding, that was Herman Cain, not Michelle Bachmann, who quoted our animated friends, but who really knows the difference between those two anyways? Lots of “straight shooters” out there these days with crappy aim…

        • LOL, no.

          A Daily KOS/ SEIU poll? Really? Why not hire The Daily Worker, too?

          The poll is as dishonest as Gingrich. The whole illegal alien resident here for 25 years is a red herring, boob bait for bobos. After 1986, there were more mini-amnesties, so there are very, very few illegals who actually answer to that description. Hey, I’d be fine with giving them a pass in exchange for a serious enforcement package.

          Of course, that’s not how it’s going to work out. I doubt the Democrats and La Raza will agree to the border fence, e-Verify and a number of other measures if we agree to amnesty 25-year-resident illegals (with cute moppet grandchildren and puppies–can’t forget them!) . They’ll then throw out 20 years, then 15, then ten then five, then zero. Newt knows this very well, which is why he wants to give away this key rhetorical position.

          Look, as a final settlement, some amnesty will be warranted, but only after five to ten years of serious enforcement, so we can make sure that we’re going to have this debate again with yet another 20-40 million illegals.

          As for the polls, when you reframe the question to include deporting all illegal aliens the numbers come back to Earth. When you limit it to a border fence and better employment screening, the restrictionist position enjoys national majorities across the board, among the GOP, Independents, Democrats, whites, and blacks. It even gains a significant minority of Hispanic support.

          As for Newt’s real plan, it’s a disaster of Newtonian proportions. It effectively amnesties just about every illegal in the country through his idiotic local community boards. Illegals will simply go to any number of current sanctuary cities and get their clean bill of health. Only a fool would let a place like San Francisco decide on issues of naturalization–and so he would.

  4. I mean that number to apply in 20 years. Look, the ’86 amnesty numbers were around 3 million after all was said and done (initial estimates were closer to 1 million, BTW). This round we’re looking at 11-20 million, depending on whom you believe. What wonderful number will we be seeing come the next generation? If our economy is still alive, I can’t imaging it being smaller.