"This Is News from WORLD Magazine": Afghan war end date set, NAACP comes out for gay marriage - black pastors push back 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Romney gets fired up in Florida
TAMPA, Fla.—During the 19th debate of this Republican presidential cycle, and the last one before next Tuesday’s crucial Florida primary, Mitt Romney flashed an aggressive side in an effort to separate himself from Newt Gingrich.
The clash between the two frontrunners began with the opening topic Thursday night in Jacksonville when Gingrich claimed that Romney was the most anti-immigrant of the four candidates.
“That’s simply inexcusable,” Romney scolded. “I’m not anti-immigrant. My father was born in Mexico … don’t use a term like that.”
Romney didn’t stop there. He called the charge “repulsive” and said Gingrich should apologize for his “over-the-top rhetoric” and “highly charged epithets.” The debate crowd responded by giving Romney one of the loudest cheers he has received in any debate so far.
Romney and Gingrich also fought over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Like he has done all week here in Florida, Romney attacked Gingrich for his $1.6 million contract as a Freddie Mac consultant.
“Speaker Gingrich was hired by Freddie Mac to promote them, to influence other people throughout Washington,” Romney said. “We should have had a whistle-blower and not a horn-tooter.”
Gingrich countered by stating that Romney owns shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Gingrich wondered aloud “how much money [Romney has] made off of how many households that have been foreclosed.”
Romney said his investments are in a blind trust. But he also had another response ready: “Have you checked your own investments?” Romney asked Gingrich. “You also have investments in mutual funds that also invest in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”
The audience again applauded for Romney.
Romney also got in a sharp jab after Gingrich made a plea that private enterprise should compete to build a moon colony. Romney said if an executive came to him with that idea, “I’d say you’re fired.”
Meanwhile, Rick Santorum, running a distant third in Florida polls, managed to have a strong night by appearing to be above the initial bickering, asking, “Can we set aside that Newt was a member of Congress … and that Mitt Romney is a wealthy guy?” He earned his own cheers by suggesting that they “leave that alone and focus on the issues.”
But later, Santorum did not hold back when it came to criticizing both Gingrich and Romney for once supporting types of health insurance mandates: “This is the top-down model that both of these gentlemen say they’re now against but they’ve been for.” … MORE >>
back to top30 Comments to “Romney gets fired up in Florida”
It’s very interesting how voters think – Romney and Gingrich are the frontrunners, yet Santorum and Paul are actually the better candidates.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus, go figure.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone know if its a Mormon thing to say I’ll seek the guidance of providence? Is providence another word for God in the Mormon faith or does Romney simply shy away from saying God?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve always thought that “Providence” is another term for heaven. As for saying “God,” maybe they’re just more careful about taking His name in vain. Don’t really know and now you got me curious NOPM.
Report comment to moderator
I’m really surprised that the moral conservatives are apparently supporting Gingrich, with all his record of sleazy behavior, over Santorum. I did not expect that.
Report comment to moderator
Providence is the term the Puritans used for God’s sovereignty. It rings a unique chord in the music of American politics even when people don’t get what it means, because it’s part of our collective memory. Many places to look for references but for just a couple:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f118/gods-providence-our-lives-puritan-theme-54318/ (message board, but good overview)
and
http://www.puritansermons.com/boston/bost1.htm (sermon from a Puritan pastor on the subject)
Report comment to moderator
Romney can not remeber what his own ad’s say.
Report comment to moderator
Romney is full of excuses that he can’t be bothered with little details like what ads he is running and what investments he has. If he can’t keep track of himself, how in the world can he run our country? Overall it was his strongest performance but yet he continues to annoy with his pat answers and stupid looking smirk. I’m not sure he can beat Obama.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not necessarily a Mormon thing to say “I’ll seek the guidance of providence.” The way Romney used it would call for a capital “P” (a general reference to the Diety). And several of our founders used it that way for God and so did Lincoln. And Graced is correct about earlier Puritan usage.
The providence (no capital “p”) of God refers to a part of His nature and role (His provision and His overarching authority and active interest in humanity and the world). Using “Providence” (with a capital “P”), however, for God is a way to distinguish oneself from deists (who do not think God is active in the world or with humanity), but yet to non-specific and a bit non-personal about the God to which you are referring (although that is not exactly how the Puritans meant it).
Report comment to moderator
I was disappointed in Romney for taking Blitzer’s petty bait at one point when I was wishing they would finally get on to some substance. Romney avoided substance. He is capable of substance but I was disappointed in his choice to keep things petty. I expected pettiness and baiting from Blitzer (and we got it from him too), but not from Romney.
Santorum was the brightet light among them by far, while the others dimmed.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark – I wonder if Romney is afraid of gettig into substance. When Santorum started to talk about the Substance of Romney Care. Romney was not happy about it.
Report comment to moderator
I know what providence is I have just never heard it used in the way that Romney used it.
Westminster Confession of Faith
CHAPTER 5
Of Providence
1. God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
3. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.
4. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men; and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.
5. The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave, for a season, his own children to manifold temptations, and the corruption of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and, to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself, and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for sundry other just and holy ends.
6. As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, doth blind and harden, from them he not only withholdeth his grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts; but sometimes also withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasions of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others.
7. As the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after a most special manner, it taketh care of his church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof.
Report comment to moderator
#12 – NOPM,
Great post on the providence of God. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
nopm (3): Does anyone know if its a Mormon thing to say I’ll seek the guidance of providence? Is providence another word for God in the Mormon faith or does Romney simply shy away from saying God?
Frank: [The following is from bits and pieces that I recall hearing from various sources -- e.g., James White/Alpha-Omega Ministries, or Hank Hanegraaf/Bible Answer Man -- over the last 10 years or so. I have not studied these issues myself.]
The history and documents surrounding America’s founding are replete with references to Providence — often captalized — as a reference to the true and living God as revealed in the Christian scripturs.
But it’s also my understanding that the Mormon religion attributes some kind of particular religious signifigance to America, her founding documents, the founders, etc. IOW, that America is somehow special to God among the nations of the world.
I often think I see that same trait in the comments and writings of “National Greatness” American exceptionalists — that God has had His providential hand in America’s founding and history, in some unique way — as if His providential hand just hasn’t been on the other nations of the world.
It comes across as almost a unique claim on Acts 17:26:
I am not saying that America isn’t special, but we don’t experience any more or less “providence” in our historyor daily goings-on than, say, Lithuania or Tanzania.
(Did that answer your Q.?!)
Report comment to moderator
Blitzer’s petty ‘gotcha’ questions were a dis-service to the public, but Gingrich and Romney are not excused either for playing too much into Blitzer’s left hand.
Report comment to moderator
What’s an example of a ‘gotcha’ question, Joel Mark?
Report comment to moderator
May I also add (yes, I may!) that I think the phrase ‘gotcha question’ should be punted to the curb. Aside from just sounding dumb, it has become yet another tool for people to use when they want avoid answering a question and cast aspersions on the questioner at the same time.
I still remember Sarah Palin being embarrassed when she stumbled through her description of Paul Revere’s ride. She later complained that the reporter had asked her a ‘gotcha question.’ The question had been along the lines of: “What have you seen during your visit to Concord?”
Even if the guy had asked her something specifically about Paul Revere’s ride, is it really a ‘gotcha’ to expect a former governor and vice-presidential candidate to know some basic things about American history?
Report comment to moderator
#5 — “I’m really surprised that the moral conservatives are apparently supporting Gingrich, with all his record of sleazy behavior, over Santorum. I did not expect that.”
You would expect it if remember the polls showing who they want to debate Obama. Gingrich can go for the jugular and he shows the most promise of humiliating Obama. They want a cage fight, and they want blood. Michael Tomasky says this motivation “has turned politics completely away from the question of who might govern the country well to who can best embody our hatreds and revenge fantasies.”
I don’t agree with the racism he sees underlying this bloodlust–why the MSM can’t legitimize the anger of the Tea Party in the same way they did OWS–but I agree that ‘Evangelical’ voter’s priorities have shifted, and in a most ungodly manner.
Report comment to moderator
#16 – With a near $16 Trillion national debt still rising and a deficit debilitating our nation, with Iran closer to getting nuclear weapons, with our nation at war in the Middle East, with health care premiums ever rising with no improvement in care, with unemployment staying so painfully high, with us drawing closer to having HALF of all American babies out of wedlock, with marriage under attack, with the Keystone pipeline going to China, with our energy dependence hopelessly growing, with religious liberties under attack, a petty gotcha question is one that focuses a national debate on some local political ad that another candidate is complaining about, or a mutual fund owned by a candidate that may have included some unpopular corporation in it, or a past lobby relationship of a citizen ex-congressman or things like that.
And that’s all Blitzer could seem to conceive. He is unqualified to moderate a national debate.
Report comment to moderator
#17 – is an example of partisan political pettiness in the extreme. We can do better.
Report comment to moderator
a petty gotcha question is one that focuses a national debate on some local political ad that another candidate is complaining about, or a mutual fund owned by a candidate that may have included some unpopular corporation in it, or a past lobby relationship of a citizen ex-congressman or things like that.
Oh, I see. So if I have this right, a gotcha question is one that:
* Asks a candidate to back up his claims with evidence;
* Asks a candidate to explain his decision to invest his money into an organization that the same candidate says is harmful, or;
* Asks a candidate to justify an association with a group dedicated to furthering the cause of that same harmful group.
Right?
#17 – is an example of partisan political pettiness in the extreme.
No it isn’t. It’s an example of how complaining that an inquiry is a “gotcha question” can be used as a smokescreen or to cast an aspersion. I would cite an example from a Democrat if I knew of any because it would doubtless be just as invalid.
Report comment to moderator
I remember when Obama said we had more than 50 Talk about not knowing your history. Is it too much to expect him to know how many states there are? Of course, no one asked him that as a gotcha question. Even reporters didn’t think he was that stupid.
Report comment to moderator
Now, let’s wait for Conan’s response.
Report comment to moderator
That’s a great example, NJL, thanks.
Obama was tired, misspoke, everybody knew it was a simple slip of the tongue, he laughed it off and went on. Except for the occasional person who still brings it up and tries to pretend he actually does think we have 57 states, that was the end of it.
Palin showed no ability to laugh at herself, defended her response rather than just admitting it could have been better, and blamed the media for, she claimed, tricking her even though they had done no such thing.
Both made simple slip-of-the-tongue mistakes. One chuckled about it and got on with life. The other got defensive and made false accusations about being persecuted. Which one came off better?
Now, let’s wait for Conan’s response.
Hope I didn’t disappoint.
Report comment to moderator
Conan, for the record, I think you’ve answered intelligently enough. I don’t always agree with you–quite often I don’t–but do think you’re nearly always a fair debater on a site where you’re in the minority.
Report comment to moderator
Too petty.
Too obvious.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Conan at #5 — why Santorum isn’t drawing evangelical support is beyond me. He will take “Reagan Democrat” votes from Obama and the economic republicans will vote for him anyway — he is as likely to win as Romney and Gingrich
I also like Karen Butler’s explanation.
I also find it annoying when the focus shifts from the candidate to the moderator. If the candidate doesn’t want to be lead down a petty path, they can easily move the discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Gotcha questions diminish the level of discourse. Wolf Blitzer sprewed them out and Romney and Gingrich should have ignored him completely. But they didn’t. Poor judgment there.
The attempts at avoidance by the media of the crucial issues facing America has been epidemic in these debates. The candidates have done a good job of challenging this but not last night, with the bright exception of Santorum. He did great.
Report comment to moderator
How unintelligent to bring up Sarah Palin for undeserved desparagement just to show your disrespectful partisan pettiness, Conan. It does not pertain here.
Report comment to moderator
#21 – You have it wrong, Conan. A candidate should be asked to back up his claims in a debate but endless digging up of obscure irrelevant interviews in a different context for petty “gotcha” questtions and fussing over political ads does little for anyone. Even a little of that is tolerable but I wanted to get to some substance and Blitzer was doing his best to avoid that. He does not seem to know how to ask an intelligent relevant question.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!