Governor Jim Gilmore spoke on Friday - gave just as great a speech as Romney. Everyone seems to be on the Romney kool-aid - just because he is a good looking guy does NOT mean he should be President. What has he done for the nation? Ever served in the military? Does he have a clue what to do if there is a crisis? His after-someone-died press-effort on the Big Dig rings a little hollow...

Gimme a break.

Heard Romney in Memphis along with other GOP Presidential hopefuls. Although at this moment, I'm undecided, I too was very impressed and felt he made the best speech -- and impression -- of all the candidates. The number of volunteers who came on their own nickel for Romney was also impressive. It would be a great mistake to underestimate him.

It's not fair to blame Romney for the "Big Dig" problems - they were entirely the creation of Democrats. Romney came into office late in the project, and his attempts at practical oversight were rebuffed.

Haven't heard anything about Jim Gilmore - former Virginia Governor, for those who don't recognize the name - since his term as RNC Chairman expired several years ago . . . except for a rumor he is interested in John Warner's Senate seat when Warner retires in '08. Glad to know he's well and rousing the troops.

I haven't encountered a single person who said, "I wouldn't vote for Romney because he is Mormon,"
---------------------------
Jim, do you travel largely in evangelical, conservative circles - especially in the South?

There will be plenty. In fact, Hewiit had a radio hour a LONG time ago (over a year I'm sure) where he took calls asking if Mormonism was a deal-breaker. A few called to say "yes" - one in particular said he would reluctanly vote for a completely apostate Christian like Hillary, before he could consider voting for a Mormon.

I know this is not the time or place for a theological debate - and this will be my only message in this thread...

But ask yourself if you really want our candidate taking questions like "Do you REALLY believe Jesus Christ is the brother of Satan?" (and that is just one of several troubling questions that could be asked)

Does he refuse to answer? How would that play?

Does he renounce Mormon doctrine, like he renounced the social liberal positions that helped him win in MA?

Or does he say "Yes" - and expect to win?

I'm undecided, but I think there are more than the two issues. Whether he can carry his own state is a good question to raise. Another way of putting it is what state could he carry in 2008 that wasn't carried in 2000/2004. As an example, I think Rudy could put NY and NJ in play. Either or both of those states would be a huge loss to the democrats.

I think Miss Boleyn is right that the question on how he would handle a crisis and taking over the big dig from democrats is not the crisis I am talking about.

The bottom line is that the candidates will be viewed through at least three filters. First, how much we think they should be the person in the job because we think they will handle the job the best. The second is how they compare to the democratic candidate. Third is how they compare to any third party candidate.

Ideally we would find someone that everyone can agree is the right person. But people being people, they all have feet of clay in some respect. Further, the GOP is a big tent party that means different people will have reasonable differerances on what characteristics 'best' implies. Perhaps a better way for us to look at it is if there is a candidate we clearly think is best and if there are any candidates we clearly think should not have the job. One of the go-no go issues for me is national security. If the candidate can't pass this test, I won't support them. I may have strong opinions on "Gays, guns and God", but I know that our democracy and party could survive almost any position on those for at least four years. But I just have to imagine a Jimmy Carter in there losing the war on terror to recognize that we can't necessarily survive four years with the wrong answer on national security.

The question of how good a candidate is relative to the other party is also a good one to think about. If the democrats were putting McKinney forward as their candidate, then the republicans have much more flexability in who they send forward as a large segment of the population would say "If the GOP candidate is demostratably insane, I'm going to vote against McKinney". You can start looking further down the issue list. But if the democrats were putting forward Lieberman, then a lot in the middle looking at national security would say that either candidate is going to continue to try and win the war, lets look at the other issues.

Finally, imagine any combination of the front runners as leading a third party candidacy. Say the democrats nomnated Hillary, but Gore decided to run as a third party. The election would be over as they would split their vote and draw little from the GOP voters. On the other hand, imagine Rudy or McCain running as a third party. They might pull some from the democratic side, but the GOP would be what would be split. The left is doing its best to tear the democratic party apart. As Napolean said, never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake. We need to make sure that we don't see a three way split that the GOP loses by or a four way split that would really throw things up in the air.

All that said, I would prefer a candidate that I could enthusiastically support and who could take some states out of the blue column while retaining those in the red column. The only front runner I have seen who could do that is Rudy. I'm not convinced McCain could do it. I don't see Romney being able to do it either.

I do live in a very conservative Southern state, and I have not taken a poll on the subject. I'm just stating what I've heard in conversations with people here and elsewhere over the last few months - it is completely anecdotal.

It is also possible people will say "it makes no difference" in public because they don't want to be seen as "intolerant" of other religions.

And yes, we do NOT want to engage a theological dispute on this thread, but I will freely admit with the limited knowledge I have, the differences in Mormon doctrine from evangelical Protestants, "mainstream" demnominations, and Catholicism sound VERY "different."

The question is: Will these differences be an issue politically, and why?

My issues:

1) Fighting War on terrorism
2) Curbing Illegal Immigration
3) Strict Constructionist Judges
4) Curbing growth of government.

McCain is bad on #2 and #3. So much so, I can't vote for him in the primary. He is absolutely horrible on these issues.

Rudy is very strong on #1. #2-4 are an unknown to me.

Romney is right on #2, #3, #4. He is unknown on #1.

I wish we could find a candidate who is perfect on #1-#4. I thought George Allen may be that guy, but he seems potentially to be to bumbling.

As far as the various candidates go, I think Romney would probably be the best candidate to have in the white house.

As far as who is more likley to win, I think the answer is clearly McCain or Juliani, probably Juliani.

As far as questions posed by intolerant Southern Baptists (and their ilk) I think the questioners will look more foolish than Romney. Anyone who wants to ask a candidate "so, is Satan Jesus' brother?" is someone so obsessed with dogman that they will look silly, rather than Romney. Its as stupid as following the Kennedy's around and asking them if they think that the sacramental wafer literally turns into Christ's flesh. People who ask this sort of thing will be exposed as simple-minded.

Ben,

It won't be 'intolerant' southern Baptists asking those questions - it will be liberal mainstream media trying to pull out all the stops to divide the right and put a Democrat into office.

They don't care if they look bad - they want to make the GOP candidate lose.

This much should be obvious by now for anyone watching the MSM in action the last several years.