Holy Mormon bash, Batman! Will Romney move to NV to take on Harry?

Wow, this would be the fight of the century!  There is a rumor going around that Mitt Romney will move to NV to take on fellow Mormon Harry Reid in the 2010 Senate race!  Bam!  Smash!  Clank!  We haven’t seen this kind of action since the Mormon Mommies claimed they were KICKING SOME TRASH!

Unfortunately, rumors like this often prove to be untrue.  Please, Mitt, move to Nevada, just so we can help readership numbers!

This entry was posted in General by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

31 thoughts on “Holy Mormon bash, Batman! Will Romney move to NV to take on Harry?

  1. Now that is a hypothetical fight that I would like to see. I am not fond of either of them, though I did vote for Romney in the Primaries. It was a pity vote. I would expect both of them would act like gentlemen, so Reid/Romney race would not be a nasty fight. Perhaps passive-aggressive behaviors would be the weapon of choice. I am with Brian, not gonna happen.

  2. I don’t see it happening and I bet Romney would be tarred as a carpetbagger – he’s not a Democrat or has the prestige that a Clinton had back then (that’s changed now of course).

    I’ve also read speculation that Romney would at least be actively campaigning against Reid in support of whoever is the GOP nominee, which sounds more likely. Romney can then at least deflect some of the Mormon vote that Reid may get otherwise.

  3. -I, for one, don’t see this happening. Romney would be seen as a carpet bagger and it just doesn’t make political sense to me.

    I don’t think that this is particularly relevant for a candidate with such near-homogeneous appeal among LDS voters–which make up a reasonable block of NV voters.

  4. If true, at the very least there would be a good JibJab video of these two in a boxing ring.

  5. This might be a good move for the Republican party (take down the senate leader, and all) but I don’t see it as being a good move for the LDS church in the political arena. No longer would a member be senate majority leader, and no matter the outcome, the number of members in the Senate would go unchanged. I’d rather see Romney go up against a non-member Democrat in another state.

  6. @David H. Sundwall

    I see that as a much more likely scenario than Romney running for Reid’s Senate seat. While NV may have a healthy population of LDS voters, I think it foolish to focus so much attention on just one segment of the voting population. Romney needs to have broad appeal when campaigning for the GOP in NV, and not just target LDS voters. IMHO.

  7. I will start saving up for my donation to Reid now. Just in case.. Given Obama’s rather healthy win in ’08, the GOP’s hope of knocking off Reid is little more than a fantasy.

  8. @JA Benson


    I guess a lot of thing could also happen in 1.5 years since this post is about an election in 2010.

    Either way, Romney could not beat John McCain in the GOP primary. He is not going to beat Reid in Reid’s home state (though this is just a hypothetical and will not happen). Sure Daschle lost in 2002. But 2002 was the height of the Republican tide.

  9. Romney didn’t make it to first base in the presidential election. He’s a terrible politician. I can think of some guys in my Elder’s Quorum who would make better candidates.

  10. The pro-Reid majority commenting here is way off base. If more of you guys were actually Nevadans, you might remember that Reid beat John Ensign in 1998 by a fat, whopping 400 votes…in the entire state.

    No, Nevada has no love for Harry Reid. Meanwhile, Romney not only won his caucus here last year, he obliterated everybody else. He won 53%, with McCain and Ron Paul tying for second with a piddling 13% each.

    Bottom line, if Romney ran here, he wouldn’t just win, he would beat Reid so badly that Reid’s great grandparents would feel the sting.

    As to the concern about the advisability of electing Romney here–losing the majority leader and a prominent Democrat–I hardly think that preserving that part of our influence and image should be a deciding factor in who we make our elected officials. In fact, it sounds downright corrupt.

  11. Pingback: Petition To Draft Mitt Romney For Nevada Senate Run « Gently Hew Stone

  12. Hatch is a carpetbagger from Pennsylvania and yet Utah still keeps sending him back. Don’t underestimate the rationality of any state.

    I’d vote for Reid over Romney any day. Huston, that’s said as a long-time Nevadan who grew up in the same ward with Reid (and with the truly saint-like Devoe Heaton, may he rest in peace). I’m not there anymore, though, so this comment is my only voice.

  13. “Bottom line, if Romney ran here, he wouldn’t just win, he would beat Reid so badly that Reid’s great grandparents would feel the sting.”

    HA! Classic, Huston. Classic.

  14. The prospect of the Romneys purchasing another home (this would make a total of four homes [and that’s assuming the two up for sale actually sale]) while more and more Americans face foreclosure is just further evidence of just how out of touch Mitt Romney is with most Americans.

  15. Christopher, I completely agree. The Romneys should not be allowed to even LIVE in a house until every American has a house, and they should definitely not be allowed to go out to dinner, even at Denny’s, until every American has more money than they do.

    Sorry for the sarcasm — but the double standard used by the left (errr, $2 million house for Obama and multiple mansions for the Kerrys, no problem, but Mitt Romney is not allowed to buy another house) is just laughable.

  16. Geoff, please show me where I defended the Kerry family’s multiple mansions and I’ll concede your point.

    And I didn’t say that the Romneys should not be allowed to purchase homes. Just observed that buying a home for political positioning demonstrates that the Romneys (as well as the Kerrys and Clintons, among many, many others from both parties) is mildly absurd given the struggles most Americans face today. Also, given Romney’s repeated rhetoric that this is a time for the private sector to step up and save the day, I find it curious that instead of assisting said private sector, he instead blows millions on multiple houses as he contemplates his next political move.

  17. The second sentence in my second paragraph isn’t too clear. Let’s try this:

    I just observed that buying a home for political positioning (see, for example, the Romneys, Clinton, Kerrys, etc.) seems mildly absurd given the state of the economy and the struggles most Americans face today.

  18. I think we approach this issue with very different perspectives. From a gospel standpoint, people are going to have to answer to God for how they use their time and money while on the Earth. We probably agree on that. But they are also going to have to answer for breaking the 10th commandment against coveting and the many warnings about envying other people for their wealth. We probably don’t agree on that.

    From a practical perspective, I couldn’t care less if the Romneys had 100 houses — nor do I care about the Kerrys or the Clintons or the Kennedys or the Obamas in terms of their personal wealth. It is the very act of working and creating businesses and jobs that employs people, and some people will end up with more than others until the Millennium — I’m completely OK with that. I never have criticized the many limousine liberals (and socialists) out there for being wealthy — unless they got their wealth illegally. I admire them for doing what they can to get ahead. So I certainly don’t share your concerns about Mitt and his money. I think most people who are concerned about how much money and how many houses Mitt has probably are breaking the 10th commandment and should mind their own business.

    Question for you: how much do you think Mitt Romney has given of his personal increase each year to charity compared to Obama?

    I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet one figure is about 10 percent and another figure is about 1 percent. At least, one person was less than 1 percent until he started thinking about running for president.


  19. You’re reading something into my comments that isn’t there, Geoff. I’m not talking about one’s personal righteousness or eternal salvation. I didn’t say that Romney’s multiple mansions are a sure sign of personal apostasy or that Obama’s Hyde Park home is evidence of greed.

    I merely commented that decisions such as the one (according to the article linked to in the post) the Romneys are considering seems slightly hypocritical (and mildly absurd) given his repeated concern for the working man and the economy and his praise for the overall awesomeness of the private sector.

  20. Christopher, agreed that the response is a bit far afield of your original comment. Let me try to get back on track.

    Your claim was that Mitt Romney is “out of touch” with the working man because he may be (but probably isn’t) considering buying another house in Las Vegas for some hypothetical run against Harry Reid. Your point is that this shows he has no understanding of the concerns of the working man.

    Here’s my point: in a capitalist society, the working man should care less whether Mitt Romney has 100 houses or one. Mitt was a successful businessman who earned his money starting businesses and employing people. One of the fruits of his success is that he gets to buy houses wherever he wants. My further point is that if people do care about Mitt being richer than they are, they are guilty of coveting. That does not necessarily apply to you (that is between you and God), but it may apply to others who are guilty of coveting.

  21. @Christopher,

    Also, given Romney’s repeated rhetoric that this is a time for the private sector to step up and save the day, I find it curious that instead of assisting said private sector, he instead blows millions on multiple houses as he contemplates his next political move.

    I wouldn’t find that curious at all. If in fact Romney were out “blowing millions” on houses (I believe he owned them all before the economy tanked), would that not be the private sector stepping up and saving the day in many senses?

    I mean, you might not feel that way, but I bet the construction companies, their employees, the companies they’ll buy supplies from and the people those companies employ might see Romney’s “blowing millions” as a good thing.

    Why is this concept so foreign to the liberal mind?

  22. That first paragraph was a quote from Christopher and should have been blockquoted.

Comments are closed.