The EFM Feature

Tomorrow we’ll be on with our analysis, but tonight we mainly need inspiration.  Take strength from Will Ferrell:

Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

16 Responses to Wisdom From Will Ferrell

  1. Vineyard says:

    Looking forward to Florida and beyond. It’s obvious Romney can hold his own in states where the Evangelical vote is not as strong. Fortunately, not all conservatives care so much about the Mormon thing. BUT, momentum is also so vital. Romney needs to come out swinging. I wonder if his understanding of the SC demographic made him over think some of his responses the last two debates. With the exception of him batting down Newt for trying to take credit for Romney’s success, Mitt was so so.

  2. copp says:


    Bat-Man and Robin

    versus The Grinch.

    The Grinch allows Romney to loosen up. To go at it with Newt with all the innocent righteous passion the truly defines who Mitt is. And Santorem is his Robin. Very cute set-up coming up. As Mitt said, Things are getting very interesting.

    My one worry: Mitt’s too mellow in his old age. Too understanding of Newt’s nuttiness. That’s where the Santorem element kicks in. And ultimately Mitt’s “inner Santorem”.

  3. RC says:

    I have had ants in the pants all day long. I did not turn on the TV until about 8:00pm for maybe 30 seconds. It was all that I could stomach. It showed that The Grinch got 40% and Romney 27%. What were they thinking in South Carolina? Have the Republicans lost their marbles? Have they gone mad? Are the Republicans that blatently stupid. All I see is a bunch of sheep! Romney was leading just a week ago by 21 points and now he loses by 13 points. Baa, Baa, Baa. (The media is very powerful and persuasive)

    All I can say is, if that is the way things end up, the Republicans DESERVE another 4 years of Obama, because I WILL NOT cast a vote for The Grinch. NEVER. EVER.

    I will still try and hold on to the hope I have left in the Amercian people. It will be difficult, because my love for my country is very precious. GO FLORIDA, bring salvation back to us.

    • rcryno says:

      Amen! S.C. Did not help some of the southern stereotype of not being so bright. Newt? Honestly. How embarrassing for the GOP. By the way does Newts 3rd wife have more than 3 expressions?

    • Terry says:

      I had much the same reaction. I believe I could have taken a win by Santorum much better than one from Newt. However, we are still only in the first few minutes of the first quarter of this game. Team Romney is too good to let one lucky touchdown discourage them.

    • Kermit says:

      I agree RC. . . . If nutty Noot wins the Nom, (which I seriously doubt he will), then I will cast a vote for someone else. Obama may be bad for the country, but a mentally ill egomaniac is even worse. . . .

    • Chestin says:

      I’m from SC and am incredibly disappointed in my fellow constituents. It definitely seems as if everyone got caught up in Newt’s ability to scold the media and debate so eloquently, but they also apparently forgot that we’ve had a disaster of a President that got elected for his ability to speak and debate so well.

      I liked what Mitt had to say on Fox today with Chris Wallace about how he’ll be drawing contrasts between his 25+ years in the private sector and experience leading the Olympics and MA versus Newt’s 40+ years in Washington and as a lobbyist. I hope he comes out and does that and that the good people of FL are a little more cerebral in their decision making process.

    • Jon says:

      Pardon my saying, but I think the bigots in SC were just looking for a reason to NOT vote for the Mormon. Some people are so busy being righteous (and judgmental) that they forget to be Christ-like. There, I said it. And, yes, I am feeling a bit bitter about the whole deal.

      • Brandon from NJ says:

        Well, from a not-Mormon perspective, Romney is a politician, but simply the best available choice out of the bunch that we have available. The problems with Gingrich are how he explains his past infidelities with excuses like the patriotism and hard work excuse, as well as his capacity to be unstable in how he speaks and acts, such as approving the “King of Bain” film hastily, which even CNN went to lengths to discredit for its own inaccurracies. Th Gingrich can act in being provocative on issues, and can speak for them, but this is not presidential material, this is more of a person who can simply do what people in the South want. I agree when comparing the less than genuine conservativism, Romney comes off as clean, but he does appear to be someone that interests me, when pressures from the outside can push him to act conservative, combined with the decent structure of his own faminly.

  4. Jean Coombs says:

    I am from SC although I currently live in NC! I am so embarrassed by my state! They just cut off their nose to spite their face. I cannot believe they voted overwhelmingly for Gingrich and that doesn’t speak well for their commitment to the values they claim to hold dear! I will continue to support and fight for Mitt Romney. It’s on to Florida where I hope the voters there will get it right!!

  5. Let Freedom Ring says:

    Thanks to all the many tens of thousands of people who voted for Mitt in South Carolina. And several thousands were evangelicals. Good for you! Also, thank you to all the people in Iowa and New Hampshire who did the same. Mitt Romney has placed either first or second in each state–better than anyone else. He may have had a challenging week and it will only make him stronger. Who knows what divine plan might be in the making. There can be much good on the horizon!

  6. Kay says:

    SC is in the past….move forward…..this article might put some wind back in your sails and give you something to share around the dinner table
    This is the script:
    Saturday, January 21, 2012 – Stimulus That! by Jim Picht
    NATCHITOCHES, La., January 21, 2012—Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are in a battle to be the last conservative standing. They are locked in a struggle to convince the voters that each is the best one to stand against Mitt Romney. They made their arguments in the strongest terms they have yet during Thursday’s debate in Charleston.
    Santorum’s strongest attack on Romney focused on health care. He argued that Romney can’t be depended on to fight for the repeal of PPACA (“Obamacare”) given his own Massachusetts health care insurance reform law (“Romneycare”), which supposedly served as the inspiration for Obamacare. Romney’s was a liberal program that included an individual mandate, and Santorum wasn’t willing to accept the argument that the people of Massachusetts approved of it. A true conservative could never father a liberal program.
    Opposition to Romney on the basis of Romneycare ignores or dismisses two key differences between Romneycare and Obamacare: The people of Massachusetts wanted Romneycare, and they didn’t impose it on anyone else.
    A fundamental principle of Reagan conservatism (the sort that Santorum and Gingrich clutch at like medieval clerics fighting over a holy relic) is a small federal government that leaves people and the states alone to work out problems in their own ways. It wasn’t Reagan’s belief that conservative ideas and principles should be shoved down people’s throats, but that liberal principles should not be. He wasn’t opposed to you giving all your money to liberal causes; he wanted you to be free to give it if you wanted to, and not give it if you didn’t.
    Santorum is as far from Ronald Reagan as you can get and still call yourself “conservative.” Reagan would have been delighted for the people of Massachusetts to have whichever sort of medical insurance and health care provision they liked, as long as that didn’t obligate the people of Idaho to have the same programs. Santorum, on the other hand, is appalled that liberal Massachusetts gets to be liberal Massachusetts. His idea of conservatism is forcing Massachusetts to be Idaho.
    Had Romney behaved as Santorum would like, it would have been like the reddest red state’s governor (that might at one point have been Utah’s Jon Huntsman) insisting that his state choose programs developed by the sociology faculty of NYU. That would rightly cause outrage among conservatives.
    Obamacare is an attempt to impose one program on all 50 states, a program that is vigorously opposed by most people in many of those states. It’s the antithesis of conservatism, and it wouldn’t matter whether the program itself carried the Reagan-Hayek seal of approval. This is rightly a states’ issue, and the liberal nature of Obamacare isn’t individual mandates, but the fact that it sweeps all the power over this issue out of the states and into Washington.
    Romneycare was right for Massachusetts, and within the parameters set by the wants and needs of Massachusetts, it is a well-crafted law. Santorum should applaud that fact, not denigrate it.
    Gingrich’s biggest salvo against Romney was on abortion. Gingrich, whose dedication to moral principles is centered on imposing them on everyone else, but in the finest Washington style exempting himself, found Romney’s stand on life unconvincing. But, like Santorum, Gingrich was operating from a position at odds with Reagan conservatism.
    Reagan, like Santorum and Gingrich, talked a tough pro-life game. Like Romney, he was pragmatic about it. He didn’t make abortion a litmus test of his judicial nominees, and he didn’t hold government hostage to his views on the subject.
    Conservative opposition to Roe v. Wade wasn’t originally about abortion per se. That is, conservatives never argued that abortion should be banned across the 50 states. They fought to allow the states to have their own laws. Supreme Court jurisprudence on social issues was anathema to them because it imposed one set of views across the country.
    Gingrich and Santorum aren’t interested in allowing people of the various states to debate contraception, abortion, cloning and stem-cell research, nor are they interested simply in keeping federal money from funding these things. Their interest is imposing their views across the board, and again they use that as a measure of conservatism. But it is not. Conservatism isn’t about particular positions on particular issues, but on how the issues are debated and how the laws are made.
    Gingrich, Santorum, and their equally ideologically devout liberal counterparts want government power to impose their views on the rest of the country. They know what’s right, they don’t trust states like Massachusetts (or Utah) to do what’s right, and so they want federal power to make sure we all do what’s right.
    Romney acted in Massachusetts to stop the creation of embryos for research and to maintain some reasonable restrictions on abortion. In Massachusetts, reasonable restrictions are all that anyone could hope for. Yet Gingrich is outraged that Romney didn’t find a way to impose on the people of that state judges who would get the Gingrich-Santorum seal of approval. He’s outraged that Romney didn’t act like the Governor of Alabama and then like a liberal democrat, looking for judges to make laws that the legislature wouldn’t make.
    Neither Gingrich nor Santorum is a serious conservative, certainly not a Reagan conservative. They’re both pious, laundry-list conservatives, paying homage to small-government conservatism with their lips while trying to gut it.
    Whichever of the two is the last pious conservative standing, neither will deliver the conservatism that has always been a part of American aspirations. They’re two TV evangelists arguing over the dead letter of the law, a law they neither love nor understand. If that’s the conservatism the GOP is looking for, the party is a whited sepulcher, and if either of them wins the nomination, GOP conservatism is a dead letter.

  7. Matt says:

    That link is so funny. Thanks for that Nancy. Laughter is really the best medicine. We pray that you get inspiration, that Mitt gets inspiration and the people of Florida get some inspiration. Ultimately, I pray that the American people get inspiration for the rest of this primary season. We need to pick ourselves up by the bootstraps and go to work. I look forward to hearing your analysis in the coming days, but most of all, your inspiration. I have hope for a better outcome in the coming days and weeks than we saw tonight. Thanks for all you and David and Charles do. Keep it up.

  8. Terry says:

    I knew it.

    Newt’s zingers towards the press during the last debate carried him through the SC voting. One wonders if some voters were merely caught up in Newt’s impressive debate performance, and not really taking into account whether or not he could beat Obama. Considering all Newt’s baggage, and the fact that Team Obama is probably drooling at the mouth to make use of that baggage, I can come to no other conclusion. Couple that with the fact that some folks still buy into the fable that Mitt is a flip-flopper who changes his stance on issues whenever it suits him (too lazy to do a little research), and you’ve got a formula for misplaced loyalty.

    In my opinion, Newt’s victory yesterday was just a flash in the pan. There are plenty more states to go, and I don’t think he’s going to be able to sustain his momentum. (My wife has gotten several email’s in the last few days from the Newt campaign begging for funds.)

    As for Mitt, I’ve heard several analysts on the cable shows state that Romney has the BEST political organization they’ve ever seen, and I agree with them. If he can take Florida, I think it’s over for Newt–though he may not realize it at the time.

    Santorum? He’ll hang around for as long as possible, and maybe until the end. I don’t see him being much of a threat to Mitt, however.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>