Romney's Race to Lose?

Josh Marshall takes a closer look at the GOP primary polling and decides the nomination is Mitt "No Muslims Need Apply" Romney's to lose: "Each of the three states, Romney has been gaining support consistently and fairly rapidly since the beginning of 2007. In two of the three states, Giuliani has been trending downward with a similar pace and consistency. The exception is New Hampshire where Rudy has trended down a bit but basically held his own."

It seems to me, though, that this basically all comes down to what happens in Iowa. In particular, it comes down to what happens with the remaining Fred Thompson supporters once they realize that their man is in third place and slipping. At the moment, Huckabee and Romney are both trending upwards, but Huckabee is gaining on Romney because he's trending upwards faster. If the bulk of Thompson's remaining supporters (a not inconsiderable slice of the electorate) decide that Huckabee is the southern white Christian dude for them, then Huckabee stands a decent chance of pulling off an upset and Romney's in big trouble. But if they decide that they need to do the pragmatic "Stop Rudy" thing and vote for Romney, then it really does seem like Mitt winds up sweeping the early primary table and Giuliani's in big trouble.

All of which is fairly conventional wisdom, but it's striking when you get down to it exactly how helpful the Huckabee Surge has been to Giuliani. This is particularly noteworthy because the two candidates represent basically opposite tendencies within the conservative movement. It wouldn't shock me if you saw maxed-out Giuliani donors cutting Huckabee checks. Certainly, I think it'd be a savvy play.

Comments

Below the fold, after a lead story on Hillary Clinton's ties to Communists or something, the New York Sun actually has an interesting front pager this morning on the mutually reinforcing success of the Huckabee and Giuliani campaigns. Huckabee and Giuliani both openly welcome each other's ascendancy.

Posted by jhupp | November 27, 2007 9:19 AM

What would be really ironic is a mild surge for Giuliani in Iowa coming at the expense of Huckabee. Rudi better hide.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 27, 2007 9:25 AM

I think there's another very serious flaw with Marshall's reasoning.

I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but my impression is that Romney has vastly outspent all the other candidates in electronic advertising, especially in Iowa. Hence his sharp rise in the polls.

The problem with this strategy is that political advertising is much like a drug to which voters gradually develop resistance and immunity. This means that when/if some other candidate comes in with lots of electronic advertising toward the end, that advertising fill be vastly more effective at that point that Romney's, and might easily turn the tide.

I've followed a very large number of major political campaigns where this exact pattern of (heavy) early political advertising being beaten by (relatively light) late political advertising holds. However, since consultants get paid by the total aggregate volume of advertising, early or late, they never seem to "notice" this problem in their proposed campaign strategy.

Posted by RKU | November 27, 2007 9:29 AM

their man is in third place and slipping

slipping s/b sleeping

Posted by JH | November 27, 2007 9:29 AM

... when/if some other candidate comes in with lots of electronic advertising toward the end, that advertising fill be vastly more effective at that point than Romney's, and might easily turn the tide.

Agree to a point. But a slew of anti-Huckabee ads by Romney could limit the Huckster's support to the religious right.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 27, 2007 9:42 AM

I'm predicting a four-way tie at the Republican convention. And the identity of the fourth man is still undetermined-- could be Huckabee, Paul, or Thompson.

Posted by MattF | November 27, 2007 9:47 AM

I'm no Republican, but I've been thinking for a long time Huckabee's the one to beat. He actually seems like a nice guy, and it's been a long time since I've said that about any Republican running for office.

Posted by KathyF | November 27, 2007 9:59 AM

Geez Matt!!!
Can't you get away from the dumbass conventional wisdom that so many national pundits have been spouting ever since they've noticed Huckabee coming into their rear view mirror?
All of these pundits have - in their own feeble minds at least - narrowed the race down to Rudy and Mitt.
Anything and anyone who comes along has to fit into a scenario where one of those two guys wins.
That kind of thinking is just extraordinarily limited and normally you are smarter than that.
Listen, if Huckabee wins in Iowa, or comes in a close second to anyone, Huckabee will be the beneficiary of that success. Not Rudy or Fred or anyone else. Huckabee will benefit, because he is a serious candidate who can win this thing.
Forget the conventional wisdom.
If you'd ever listened to or watched Huckabee on Imus over the last decade you'd know that this guy is a charmer of the first order. I'm an African-American professional from the city who grew up reading Malcom X and Frantz Fanon and I have to say that I found myself being seduced by Huckabee's schtick. The best description I've seen is a hilarious article on Huckabee by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone. You should read it because it describes his warped appeal perfectly.
If Huckabee can make someone like me look at him and say, Gee, he's not a bad guy at all, what do you think the brain-addled GOP base will think after he has a little success, a lot more money and momentum coming out the wazzoo? Along with a ton of fawning press coverage?
The base is not going to vote logically and tactically and go for a heretic like Rudy.
No sir, they are going to thank the Lord that Huckabee has come along, vote based on emotion and hail their new hero!
Huckabee wins if Huckabee wins and any BS conventional wisdom that attempts to make it any more complex than that is just that: typical BS conventional wisdom.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 11:45 AM

Agree somewhat with frankie d; Giuliani is playing with fire if he thinks that building up Huckabee is only going to be a problem for his other rivals. But given Huckabee's money troubles, it might work out for Rudy after all.

Posted by bbartlog | November 27, 2007 11:55 AM

Just say no to Huckagiulianabee!

Posted by Eric | November 27, 2007 12:09 PM

Why does it all come down to Iowa? If Huckabee wins in Iowa, so what? How much bounce does he get? He's still in single digits in NH, where he has little organization or time to exploit an Iowa win, or "win." If Romney loses Iowa, can't he still take NH and SC, killing Rudy, then roll to the nomination?

Posted by Dan | November 27, 2007 12:12 PM

What Dan said, and then some.

From 1984 to 2004, NH has followed Iowa by 8 days. During that time, there have been seven contested Iowa primaries. Two of the winners of those primaries (Kerry 2004, Gore 2000) went on to win NH. The other five (Bush 2000, Dole 1996, Gephardt 1988, Dole 1988, and Mondale 1984) lost in NH.

Huckabee is way behind in NH right now, and he will only have 5 days to turn his potential Iowa win into some NH momentum. If the polls in NH look the same a month from now as they do now, I say Romney wins NH regardless of what happens in Iowa.

Michigan follows NH, and while Rudy has a slight lead in the polls there, a Romney win in NH plus the cachet that the Romney name still has in Michigan will put Romney over the top there.

Next up would be NV and SC on January 19. Romney's already leading in SC. Rudy's currently got a lead in NV, though it's a first-time early-caucus state, and nobody really knows who will show up.

I think Rudy had better win Nevada, or he'll go into Florida (Jan. 29), where Mitt's numbers have been steadily improving, with nothing but a string of losses to Mitt. And if he loses Florida, it's game over for Rudy.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | November 27, 2007 12:26 PM

Huckabee is done. His fundraising killed him months ago. Iowa can't fix that, he can't compete nationally. His success in Iowa only impacts the race as it might help Rudy, but even Rudy is starting to figure out how much trouble he is in. His advisors are idiots. He doesn't even have enough money to execute the gameplan his advisors sold him. Even if Huckabee lasted past New Hampshire, sooner or later people would figure out he is one of those despicable fake conservatives - social conservatives that don't have any concept of conservative principles beyond abortion and marriage. They raise taxes for every bleeding heart liberal program that comes along, they coddle law-breakers and thereby incent lawlessness. He's charming, but he is no conservative. Just ask the poor Republicans in Arkansas who had to suffer his liberal tendencies while he pretended to be their flag bearer. The liberals tolerate him because they know they can destroy and preacher creationist in the general election.

Posted by Howard | November 27, 2007 1:04 PM

Mitt is a souffle of a candidate.
More so than any major party candidate of recent memory. There is nothing there, there.
Once someone else puts a hole- say Huckabee in Iowa or Ron Paul in New Hampshire - no matter how small, in his candidacy, it is game over for him.
Every successful candidate has to have a base. A group of people who will be with him, thick and thin. Can anyone describe Mitt's base in the Republican party? The people who will stay with him once the going gets rough?
Who is Mitt's base?
The truth is, he has none, and polls back me up on this. His "supporters" are incredibly non-committed to him. His "supporters" are voters who have gravitated to him as the result of tons of advertising he has paid for himself. Once his aura is punctured, say, in Iowa, his candidacy will deflate so fast it will make the pundits' head spin.
All of those supposed "leads" he has in states like New Hampshire and South Carolina will reveal themselves as the phantoms they really are. And those "supporters" will migrate to candidates like Huckabee who really represent their views and interests.
Romney knows this is true. That is why he has reacted with such ferocity as his competitors have started to come after him.
His campaign has been incredibly audacious - to hear him lie and switch positions with such rapidity and to hear him say the things he says with a straight face is truly stunning! - but ultimately he'll be revealed for what he is: a fatally flawed candidate with no real constituency in the GOP.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 1:04 PM

I think it's not about who "wins" Iowa (or NH, for that matter) but who does what in the expectations game.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Huckabee continues to gain on Romney in the polls, and, by the end of December, he's built say, an eight point lead among Iowans likely to vote. Under such circumstances if Romney loses by only two points, he might plausibly claim he's "won" -- and that the momentum is back on his side. A similar dynamic can be seen among the Democrats. Hillary Clinton obviously doesn't want to finish second to Obama in Iowa. But it's far better for her to come out behind Obama there if that's what the polls are predicting (especially if she can "beat the spread") than to do so when the polls are predicting a first place finish. Indeed, for Hillary, there may be something of a silver lining in her recent slippage in Iowa vis a vis Obama, as it lowers expectations for her.

It's all about expectations and momentum in the early going.

Posted by Jasper | November 27, 2007 1:29 PM

IF you look at history (I highly recommend it), the IA Straw Poll consistently forecasts the subsequent caucus winners.

Paramount among the reasons Iowa holds a straw poll every four years is to allow candidates to showcase their (1) organizational stength and (2) their ability to mobilize and motivate actual voters. (Kinda important that the Republican nominee have these skills...)

The polls are an excellent barometer of who the likely voters would vote for if they happened to be in a polling booth at that exact moment. But they're not actually there -- they are sitting in their living room talking to a pollster on the phone.

If ANYONE REALLY THINKS that Huckabee has demonstrated the organizational strength and/or the ability to mobilize/motivate actual voters in ANY of the state straw polls thus far -- PLEASE enlighten me.

The Romney campaign is widely credited with having run the MOST organized campaign, and has BEST mobilized/motivated voters in every state straw poll (IA, IL, NV, ...) to date.

The ONLY reason that Romney isn't the unquestionable Republican nominee is because of religious bigotry. Which is why, fascinatingly, Romney actually gets the most unbalanced coverage from the network that caters to religious conservatives.

Posted by Taylor | November 27, 2007 1:29 PM

"A group of people who will be with him, thick and thin. Can anyone describe Mitt's base in the Republican party? The people who will stay with him once the going gets rough?

Who is Mitt's base?"

The big-money boys who own the GOP lock, stock, and barrel.

Posted by Jose Padilla | November 27, 2007 1:34 PM

Unhhh, Taylor...
I hate to have to enlighten you and explain this to you, but Huckabee came in second in the Iowa straw poll, despite spending a fraction of the amount Moneybags Romney spent. He spent almost nothing.
And at the Values Voters conference he won the on-site poll by blowing away everyone else, despite Romney's attempt to rig the results. Romney barely won an online poll from the same event that allowed people not attending the conference to vote. Romney tried to rig the results on that poll also.
I would argue that those accomplishments were truly astounding and they offer great evidence that he can mobilize and motivate voters.
And I hate to explain this to you also, but, the party that Rove has built has largely been built on religious bigotry.
You are probably right in stating that religious bigotry is the only reason that Romney is not the true frontrunner.
But it is truly and deliciously ironic that someone who may be the most truly "religious" person in the race - straight-arrow Mormon Romney - gets pushed over the cliff because the GOP has morphed into the party of the religiously intolerant.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 1:46 PM

Every successful candidate has to have a base. A group of people who will be with him, thick and thin. Can anyone describe Mitt's base in the Republican party? The people who will stay with him once the going gets rough?

The fact is, you can win a party nomination, and even the Presidency, without such a base. See Carter, 1976; Dukakis, 1988; Kerry, 2004; maybe even Bush Sr., 1988.

Remember, this isn't about whether Mitt suxx0rs, but whether he's likely to win. He's in much better shape than his standing in national polls would indicate, and to win the nomination, he's only got to keep everyone fooled for another ten weeks.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | November 27, 2007 1:49 PM

I worked for Carter back in '76, back when we'd call prospective voters and no one knew who he was. That obviously changed as the campaign went on.
Carter's base were the hordes of college kids like me who saw something new and exciting in him.
Bush's base were the Reagan leftovers who wanted a third Reagan term and settled for George instead.
Both Dukakis and Kerry based their campaigns on their electoral bases: good old fashioned New England and East Coast liberals and moderates. That base is always there for anyone who can tap into it. It is one of the strengths and weaknesses of the Dems.
And Jose, I do stand corrected, as I believe that you are absolutely correct. Those folks are the ones who see a possible winner and are willing to gamble on him, for lack of a better alternative.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 2:13 PM

Pfft...Huckabee is a blip, a total fad. He's making a one-state stand for second place. The race is between Mitt and Rudy, and it is true that voters will come around to the realization that a vote for Huckabee in Iowa (the only place he is anywhere in the polls) will be a proxy vote for Rudy, who is pretty opposed to things people like about Huckabee, who shares values with a far more appealing, accomplished, and apt candidate in Mitt Romney.

Anyway, it's fairly obvious all have been concerned about Romney since there is so little there to criticize and much to admire. He's a problem solver, he's a reformist; he's exactly what a wary and weary American population needs to re-establish faith in government after what will ammount to 16 years of bad leadership and poor policies. Everywhere Mitt's been he's streamlined operations, increased efficiency and quickly solved issues said to be difficult to impossible, in essence getting more out of less and in a expeditious manner. No one running is more competent, no one is more intelligent and operating from the position of improvement than is Romney. He's a winner.

Posted by Brock | November 27, 2007 2:41 PM

Brock,

LOL.
Glad to see the Romney campaign checking in.
I do admire the campaign operation Romney has built.
Your reviewing of this blog and your checking in is a great example of that operation's efficiency.
Keep up the good work.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 2:46 PM

And oh yeah...
Huckabee just jumped to second place in Florida. An 11 point jump in a month.
A real blib, a real fad, that Huckabee...

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/poll_in_florida_huckabee_skyrockets_and_thompson_crashes.php

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 2:54 PM

I find it hilarious that Marshall finally noticed that Romney's numbers have been going up all year while Giuliani's have been dropping, and he calls this "a computational epiphany"!

If I were that far behind the curve, I might have called it "opening my damned eyes".

Posted by smintheus | November 27, 2007 3:53 PM

I just made this comment over at TPM
"I think one of the problems for many of the pundits is their east coast location. They just don't understand the fact that New York City and Massachusetts are a laugh out loud joke for much of the Republican base. Reverend Mike plays well to the rural and Southern base of the Republican party"

When you add in the the friendly safe demeanor that Frankie wrote about, Huckabee can be a danger in the South and heartland states. Prediction: If he wins Iowa, he takes South Carolina (no problem) and threatens in Florida

Jack

Posted by whskyjack | November 27, 2007 4:06 PM

Frankie d,

Your the only Huckabee supporter on this blog, where is everyone else ???. I assure you my friend I don't work for the Mitt Romney campaign, but I am a huge admirer of his.

Eveywhere Romney has been he is a problem solver.

Frankie d.... You are flat out a bigot, and NO I'm LDS(Mormon), but I know alot of people who are and they are the salt of earth. Very good people. I think people see YOU for what you are and thats a religous bigot. The fact you support Huckabee has more to do with your hatred of a good man's (Romney) faith, then anything.

I am Catholic and I support Romney wholehearted.

GO ROMNEY !

Posted by Scott Taylor | November 27, 2007 4:07 PM

Heya Frankie!

Rudy and McCain didn't compete in Iowa, right? Romney picked up 32% and while Huckabee did come in 2nd with 18% -- that's not even close! Romney blew him up with a 14 point advantage. You've been in politics long enough to know that's a blowout. Huckabee couldn't compete on either organization or turnout.

And at the Values Voters conference he did not turn out a single voter. His organization had nothing to do with turning out partcipants, and he even in front of an audience composed nearly entirely of those most sympathetic to his rhetoric he still lost!

I don't know what your agenda is, but this was not a statewide event, but a select group of highly issue skewed individuals.

And how silly for you to suggest Romney tried to rig anything. He played by the rules, and the only way he doesn't come out the winner is if someone like you cherry-picks which votes should be counted.

You can argue all you want about which accomplishments are truly anything -- but the only results that win elections are through having the organization and resources to win the largest number of eligible votes. It's nice that Huckabee can motivate some voters, but if it's consistently fewer then the other guy it means the other guy's accomplishments are evidence of who is the top/best candidate.

And when you refer to Rove's building a party largely on religious bigotry, you expose yourself as especially partisan. Democrats always play a race card of sorts in their obligatory appearances in black churches. (I can't even imagine a Republican counterpoint that wouldn't be excoriated in the media.) Politicians build their parties based on the most commonly shared self-interests of their constituencies. As Democrats and Republicans give voice to their more extreme constituents, the divisive rhethoric gets super-heated.

Glad you can agree with the obvious truth that if not for religious bigotry, Romney would be the frontrunner.

But it is truly and sadly ironic that someone who may be the person who has consistently made the best choices (based solely on a secularly ethical standard) - straight-arrow Romney - gets the most consistent criticism over a lack of bad personal choices over which to criticize.

Mitt is a political outsider whose independence and highly ethical moral code are not "interesting" enough to the Washington elite who love a good scandal and long for a return of the White House party scene when Clinton was in office.

Posted by Taylor | November 27, 2007 4:10 PM

Huckabee would be a bad move guys. You can kiss the economy goodbye with this guy.

Let's look at his real world experience:

Baptist Minster for most of his life. ( Not a bad thing, just never worked in the private sector.)

3 term Governor who consistly raised taxes and had repeated ethics trials ??

And your going to support this guy, because deep down inside you have something against Romney's faith. You won't come out and say that..." You'll say it's because he flip flop" Only Abortion......

I stand with Romney and so will the primary states in 1 month.

Scott Taylor
Chandler, AZ

Posted by Scott Taylor | November 27, 2007 4:18 PM

Scott,

Wrong. I am a died in the wool democrat who would never vote for a guy like Huckabee. I am, however, an interested political observer. I've worked on a Presidential political campaign, as a low-level volunteer every election since '72. And except for John Anderson in '80 (one of the bigger mistakes in my life) I've always worked for Dems.
Bigot?
I don't think so.
I will say, however, that I find Mormonism very troubling. Any religion that has stridently racist doctrines as part of its history and foundation is very suspect.
Facts are facts. Mormonism was founded on racist doctrines and Romney has never really addressed those issues.
I also have known lots of Mormons in my life and while they were, in the main, decent folks, Mormonism's racist history is part of its legacy and has to be addressed.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 4:19 PM

Frankie d. what didn't you get? Huckabee won't even be a candidate on Jan 29th. It is Romney's to lose, and he won't. The only really interesting debate now is on the D side. Two candidates with a lot of money and Obama's move is not fools gold like Huckabee's. Amazingly, I would still not count out Edwards.

Posted by Howard | November 27, 2007 4:21 PM

Racist huh ?? You need to read history my friend, while I am no expert on Mormon doctrines.

But I do know American history and I know that the founder of Mormon church (Joseph Smith) was one the most vocal people to come out against slavery, back when that wasn't the cool thing to do in the early 1800's.....

And nowhere is it said in what I have read that Mormons have anything against black people. My understanding is they just didn't make them priests.

But why are you on this blog Frankie ?? Go to the Clinton/ Obama blog where you can talk about raising taxes and introducing social programs that don't work...

"Government is not the solution to problems, Government is the problem"
Ronald Reagan

Posted by Scott Taylor | November 27, 2007 4:30 PM

What I do not get is this: why is a great campaigner, the candidate who best fits the profile of the probable GOP candidate being consigned to the dump heap?
He's GWB with a real sense of humor and not that petulant child thing that so many reporters are intimidated by.
Because he doesn't have any money?
The money will follow his success in the primaries.
Because of the Club for Growth's anger at his tax policies?
The GOP's dirty little secret recently has been the fact that its base is really not into all of those tax cuts. Oh, they are nice and all, but this whole tax cut mania that has been part of the GOP's platform in recent elections has been driven by a small elite of the party.
The people who really vote don't care as much about it.
Tell you what...
Let's wait until the primaries and we can see what happens. I'm sure MY will post on the results and we can see who is right.
Trust me, Huckabee has been planning this thing for years. He's been appearing on the Imus program for as long as I can recall, honing the act he's rolling out to the general public now.
I think you just do not get how good this guy is out on the stump.
You will find out.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 4:37 PM

Ron Paul is the people's choice because he will restore our republic instead of selling it to special interests. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have created a website to support this statement.

Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

Posted by Cleaner44 | November 27, 2007 4:41 PM

Mormons didn't have anything against blacks?
Referring to an entire race as "mud people" who are cursed by their blackness is not racist?
Not allowing an entire race of people to participate in the most hallowed traditions of a religion, reserving those traditions for whites, based on the color of their skin...that is not racist?
And we will not get into the kind of stuff that Brigham Young said, back in the day.
I guess you have quite a different view of racism than I have.

Posted by frankie d | November 27, 2007 4:44 PM

frankie d,

When Peter says something about Paul, it speaks volumes more about Peter than Paul.

Seems we go about plucking the motes out of other's eyes with those ever-present beams in our own.

Posted by JLC | November 27, 2007 11:59 PM

I bought a ton of Huckabee, a taste of Paul, and a nice slice of Mitt (all when the money was on Gulianni) on that NJPSE thing that gets advertised here.

I'll be closing my positions soon, if any of you really believe this.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 28, 2007 12:27 AM

You would imagine that Romney, so eager to avoid questions about his Mormonism, would seek to keep religion out of the campaign. Is the guy really very smart, or is he about as smart as the typical hedge-fund manager, which he used to be?

Posted by bob h | November 28, 2007 8:15 AM

frankie d, you are completely wrong! Thousands of darked skin male members of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints held the Priesthood. Many thousands of Polynesians (Hawaiian, Tahitian, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian) held the Priesthood. Most of them were just as dark or even darker than many of those of Black ancestry. The Church started preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in the Pacific in the 1840's. That is why about 20% of Polynesians (Hawaiian, Tahitian, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian) are LDS.

Posted by Joshe2000 | November 28, 2007 8:19 AM

frankie d said, "Not allowing an entire race of people to participate in the most hallowed traditions of a religion, reserving those traditions for whites, based on the color of their skin...that is not racist?"

frankie d, you are completely wrong! The Temple ceremonies nor the Priesthood were reserved for whites as you have stated. Thousands of darked skin male members of The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints have held the Priesthood for over a century. The Church has preached the gospel of Jesus Christ in the Pacific since the 1840's and since then many thousands of Polynesians (Hawaiian, Tahitian, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian) have held the Priesthood. Most of them were just as dark or even darker than many of those of Black ancestry. Today, about 20% of Polynesians (Hawaiian, Tahitian, Samoan, Tongan, Fijian) are LDS.

Posted by Joshe2000 | November 28, 2007 8:35 AM

Excuse me?
If the Mormon Church had no discriminatory policy why did a new revelation in the '70's -1978, I believe - lead to the dramatic change in church policy regarding the admission of blacks to the priesthood that is acknowledged by all?
See, this is the problem with white America, generally, and Mormons, specifically.
They refuse to acknowledge their history, because it is so repugnant.
Basing one's country on slavery, indulging in all of the brutality needed to maintain that peculiar institution, committing genocide against a native people, well, those are really, really abhorent things to have as part of one's past.
Similarly, having one's religion founded on old-fashioned, 19th century white supremacy, well, that is kind of messed up also.
If you or other Mormons cannot acknowledge and deal with the reality of your own church's past, then there really is no basis for an intelligent discussion.
And there really is no way to ever work through and past the problems that such racism presents.
And that is one of the problems I see with Mitt Romney and his presidential candidacy, because he appears to be as blind and as unwilling to deal honestly with his past as some commentators here are.

Posted by frankie d | November 28, 2007 11:41 AM

Do you look at the field of candidates running for the Republican nomination and get angry, because you know you are going to compromise part of your core beliefs? I do too. I want to vote FOR a candidate that is traditional and conservative. I compromised when I voted for George W. Bush and look how left he has moved. Don’t misunderstand me; he is infinitely better than either Al Gore or John Kerry, the alternatives.
I know deep in my soul that I do not want Hillary to be President, and the best thing I keep hearing to do is “Vote against Hillary.” “Don’t vote for someone who can’t beat Hillary,” people remind me. I’ve even been asked, “You are going to vote on principles? This is not the time to do that. Hillary might be elected.”
I want to vote FOR a really good candidate. I want to stand firmly behind a good man as he runs for the Whitehouse. I want to know that this candidate won’t sell me and my family and my country out.
My Candidate must be: Pro-Life, unswayable in his stance to close the border, support smaller government, promises to do away with the income tax and mean it, encourage citizens to be independent from government, and get us away from foreign oil dependence so that we don’t have to negotiate with oil-rich tyrants.
Bill Clinton sold us out to the Chinese during his eight years. George W. Bush sold everyone of us out to Mexico (truckers, manufacturing workers, construction workers, and the schools) and now longshoremen with the NAFTA highway. W worked with the likes of Teddy Kennedy to flush public education down the toilet. W has repeatedly sacrificed our brave and skilled soldiers to appease the anti-war Left.
I want to vote for a good man. I want Tom Millican for President! He is a businessman, entrepreneur, veteran, father, grandfather, husband, a deeply religious man and best of all, he is not a politician. He, too, is tired of compromising and voting for a RHINO (Republican in name only). He has entered this race to shut the borders, enforce the current immigration laws, make government smaller, do away with the income taxes, and honor the agreement between workers and taxpayers who have contributed and planned to receive Medicare and Social Security all their adult lives. But top priority is confronting and defeating terrorists who have vowed to destroy our Western culture. Tom has already put together a plan to build bio-mass fuel plants with the complementary delivery system to bring it to the people, believing that foreign oil independence and alternative fuels are the answer to one of America’s most crucial problems.
Check out TomMillican.com, watch the video and hear his views. If you have questions, ask them. Tom and his staff will answer questions allowing everyone to better understand his goals for America’s Return to Excellence.
Tom is not a vote against Hillary, but a vote for a good man with a clear no-nonsense approach to managing this great country.

Posted by Christine Gates | November 28, 2007 4:41 PM

Well, I'm hardly a great expert on Mormonism, but I think that Joshe2000 and Frankie D may both right.

My strong impression is that only blacks/Africans had been excluded from Mormonism prior to that 1978 revelation from God, supposedly because they were descended from Noah's cursed son or something.

For example, I knew of a couple of Vietnamese Mormon families during the 1970s, and I think I may have read about some other non-white countries with considerable numbers of Mormons.

So I think the Mormon policy hadn't generally been "White Only" but "No Blacks Need Apply."

Posted by RKU | November 28, 2007 4:48 PM

Gee...
It's great to know that Mormons were only racist against people like me....

Posted by frankie d | November 28, 2007 6:01 PM

Go Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul!!! 2 Grass Roots candidates. Beet the pants off those annointed media candidates!!!!!!

Posted by Don Hannaford | November 28, 2007 6:08 PM

Frankie D:

Yes, indeed.

And if you read the postings from Joshe2000, they *seem* to be refuting your charges...but not really.

This sort of deceptive word-parsing reminds me of someone...Oh I know, Mitt Romney!

Posted by RKU | November 28, 2007 6:27 PM

I was refuting his charge on his whites only statement.

Posted by Joshe2000 | November 28, 2007 6:53 PM

GO ROMNEY!!!!11

Posted by Steven Rinehart | December 1, 2007 12:11 AM