|
Post by traveler on Mar 23, 2007 8:43:48 GMT -5
I am putting this in the Debate arena because of its political implications, particularly regarding Mitt Romney.
I had the opportunity to preview this movie a couple of nights ago and met the Producer/Director. John Voight was supposed to have been at this event but he was a no show. It is "inspired" by actual events of the of the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre in Iron County, Utah of a group of 120 Arkansans and Missourians, committed by the Mormons, and supposedly ordered by Brigham Young himself. It is pretty harsh toward the Mormons.
It will be in theatres in May, I believe.
It will be interesting to see if this has any impact on the Romney Presidential effort.
|
|
Felix
Global Moderator
Tepid One
Happy Morning
Posts: 4,137
|
Post by Felix on Mar 23, 2007 8:55:22 GMT -5
Depending on how far back you are willing to go, many mainline denominations have less than blameless histories.
I have heard of the Mountain Meadows massacre. Among other places, in Arthur Conan Doyle's early (maybe first) Sherlock Holmes adventure, Study in Scarlet.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Mar 23, 2007 9:32:17 GMT -5
Marvell, that is exactly the point my wife made as we were walking out of the movie. One also needs to know some of the history behind the massacre. The Mormons were massacred and driven out of Missouri just a few years before the 1857 incident and it is believed that some of the traveling party included participants in that massacre as well. Of course, that was not brought out in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Mar 23, 2007 11:27:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Mar 23, 2007 11:49:33 GMT -5
This assumes the Romney has any chance whatsoever of winning the GOP nomination. The latest polling data I've seen show him with only 7% support amongst Republican voters.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Mar 23, 2007 12:54:44 GMT -5
Polling information at this point in time is superfluous. The fact is Romney is raising a lot of money and endorsements in some key states, including South Carolina, Florida, Arizona and others. Furthermore, he has lined up significant support in the DC circles. Marsha Blackburn's name even appeared recently as a host at a recent DC fundraiser for Romney.
He has staying power due to his fundraising ability, his political network through Governors, the Mormon network and his corporate contacts developed through business and his handling of the SLC Olympics.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Mar 23, 2007 13:27:13 GMT -5
I honestly think that we'll have a woman in the White House before we have a Mormom. There are just too many people who see the LDS church as nothing more than a well-orgnaized cult. I'm actually surprised he's doing as well as he is.
|
|
Thorne
Global Moderator
God of Thunder
Posts: 533
|
Post by Thorne on Mar 23, 2007 16:48:11 GMT -5
Doesn't matter how much money Romney pulls together, nor do I think that the fact thathe's a Mormon will matter either. He has no name recognition to the average American, and he doesn't have the time to get his name "out there". Politics is show business, and the only way to really succeed is to become known, which takes time. Dubya had built in recognition, Clinton had sheer magnetism (and lots of luck), Bush the Elder was known because of his eight year VP stint, Reagan was known as an actor (more people recognized him as an actor than the governor of CA when he ran in '80). So out of the last four Presidents (three of whom served two terms), only one of them "came out of nowhere".
Because of this, my money is on Fred Thompson for the GOP (if he runs) nomination, or Giuliani if Thompson doesn't run (McCain is too loopy), and it's a straight toss-up between Osama and Clinton, but I'd put my money on Osama for the simple reason of getting a black into office before a woman, especially that woman. If that's somewhat how it plays out, I'd put my money on the GOP to win, mainly because the name recognition is there for the GOP. Not to mention the race card might backfire, and I don't think the majority of Americans will vote for Clinton. If four years, that's a different story. I'd be willing to bet in 2012 Osama will be the first black President of the US (if he stays in).
Granted, name recognition is only a part of it, but anyone who has seen The Distinguished Gentleman (a bad Eddie Murphy movie that I enjoy) knows, the majority of sheeple vote for the name that they recognize more than the one that they don't ("What's the name of the guy we vote for every election?? Jefferson??"). Then take into account the mess that the current Dem controlled Congress is in (which they could straighten out, but it's really bad when members of the Democratic party are saying that the Democrats don't know what they're doing, see today's TFP for more on that) because the Democrats tend to run by a personal agenda (they and they alone know what is right for the people, no matter what the Party does) and they bicker incessantly amongst themselves instead of attempting to show a "common front", so they have no solid, uniform platform that the majority of them agree on (and getting the troops home does not qualify, because they bicker about the best way to do that). And the beat goes on. And on. And on.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Mar 24, 2007 12:12:19 GMT -5
Name ID can be acquired very quickly, with enough money. Contrary to your argument, Thorne, Presidential politics is not about who has the highest name ID, especially at this point in the process. It is about who can win the party nomination by going state to state and winning primaries and caucuses which are dominated by party activists and loyalists. While anyone can vote in any primary in Tennessee, for example, it is the one who has the strongest organization at the grassroots level and can get voters to the polls who wins at the primary level. It is not about who has the highest name ID. Early wins in key states historicaly has propelled the winners of these primaries to front runner status and substantially increases the odds of winning the nomination at the convention in August.
I agree that Thompson will be an immediate front runner if/when he gets in the race and he will sure have my support. But, if he does not, Mitt Romney will be a major factor and potential frontrunner. He is raising a ton of money.
Regarding the Mormon concerns, Romney has already picked up significant support from Christian conservative groups in the South which will help in Republican primaries. Remember, in 1960, the prevailing wisdom was that a Catholic from Massachussetts could not become President.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 26, 2007 12:31:40 GMT -5
I had never heard of Clinton before his campaign, and didn't know Bush Sr. had sons in politics before Bush Jr. started his campaign.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Mar 27, 2007 14:38:15 GMT -5
Exactly DaWorm. Same was true of Jimmy Carter in 1975. No one outside of Georgia had ever heard of him before the Iowa Caucuses that year.
|
|
Thorne
Global Moderator
God of Thunder
Posts: 533
|
Post by Thorne on Mar 27, 2007 15:25:54 GMT -5
Not necessarily true, as Carter was fairly well known in Naval circles well before he became the gov. of GA. Nor did I include him in the time period, as I figured that going back 24 years was good enough. And I hope that you noticed that I noted that Clinton came out of nowhere to grab the Dem nomination and won mainly because of his sheer magnetism (considering that there were already problems with womanizing during his campaign).
I have to say that I'm very surprised that no one knew about the Bush sons, especially Dubya, as he was the owner of the Texas Rangers before he was the gov. of Texas. He beat Ann Richards (who was probably one of the more famous governors in history, if only because of her attitude) in 1994 for the governorship. I still think that my point has merit. The party nomination is nothing more than a popularity contest, and more often than not, the best known candidate will win. And yes, I feel that this makes a difference to the "common man" as much as to the "carded" party members, as they're going to pay attention to what the "common man" is saying and how they're feeling (through polls).
And if things keep going the way they are with the Democratic Congress, the Republicans are going to have another four years in the White House.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 27, 2007 15:44:05 GMT -5
I can only name three baseball team owners (present or former) that I know for sure, one is local (Turner), one is Marge Schott, and the other is George Steinbrenner. Bush was no Steinbrenner, and while dems like to make him out to be as big an ass as Schott, he certainly wasn't as notorious back then.
|
|
|
Post by traveler on Mar 27, 2007 16:51:53 GMT -5
But that is not really the case, at least not entirely. Clinton and Gore had become very much involved and basically restructured the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and used it as a means to build a nationwide network of political operatives. Granted, Clinton's strength of personality helped build the network. He was also a governor and was connected to other Governor's across the country, another powerful network. But he was not, in any way, a mainstream candidate at this point in the process in 1991. This is the point about Romney. He has a similar network across the country, is raising a lot of money which buys him credibility and is building a similar organization. So his name ID, while low right now, is not a significantly detrimental factor. Matter of fact, I believe it works to his advantage at this point because he is not getting the pot shots targeted toward a frontrunner....yet.
But again, if Fred Thompson gets in, the dynamic shifts considerably. Also, NYC Mayor Bloomberg is considering getting into the race and spend his own money. He is a billionaire.
This will continue to get very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 27, 2007 23:05:54 GMT -5
Thompson with Romney as VP = 16 years for the republicans.
|
|
|
Post by legaltender on Mar 27, 2007 23:43:48 GMT -5
Thompson with Romney as VP = 16 years for the republicans. That's some dream team. Mine's Jeb Bush with Elizabeth Dole as VP. Fred Thompson will flirt for months and take a pass. He decided not to run for reelection in 2002 just 27 days before Tennessee's filing deadline. By all accounts, he hates the nuts and bolts of campaigning, telling Fox "I'm not good at knocking on doors."
|
|