Mitt, Mormonism and Baggage. The Real Problem

As I see it there are two questions related to Mormonism that are relevant to the primary process right now. Neither of them have to do with the theological issues of whether Mormons are Christians, or whether Mormonism is a cult, an offshoot denomination of Christianity, or a faith revealed by space aliens intended to take humanity to its next evolutionary step. Those are reasonable and important questions (except maybe for that last one), but not what the primary voters should be concerned with first and foremost. And while the answers to those questions can inform an individual's choice to vote for or against a candidate, they won't prevent someone from running.

Here are the relevant questions, IMHO: 1) Should being Mormon disqualify a person from running for or being elected to the presidency? 2) Is it reasonable for the Republican party to nominate a Mormon as their candidate? (Readers who think there are more questions than that can write their own long-winded essay.)

1. Should being Mormon disqualify a person from running for or being elected to the presidency? Constitutionally there is nothing to prohibit that, nor should there be. Under our system, a citizen of the appropriate age and birth who has not previously been elected to the office more than once, is not restricted from running whether they are a Catholic, a Mormon, a Baptist, a Wahabbist or a Rastafarian. (I won't address the "natural-born" citizen question here except to ask whether someone born by caesarean section is natural born and if not, are they a citizen of Rome?) Ok, back to a semblance of reality, if an individual chooses not to vote for someone on the basis of the candidate's religion, that is perfectly acceptable. That is why we hold elections, so individuals of all stripes and levels of intelligence can exercise their choice, and the majority (more or less) decides. But you can run, even if you worship turnips.

2. Is it reasonable for the Republican party to nominate a Mormon as their candidate? If the answer is based on constitutionality, the answer most certainly is yes. It is reasonable, legal, and constitutional and while the founders might not have voted for a Mormon they probably would not object if you vote for a Mormon. This is true largely because Mr. Smith did not find the golden plates until the 1820s and Mormons did not exist in 1789, unless you count their pre-existence, in which case all Mormons existed in 1789, but I don't think any of them were running for the presidency.

But if the choice is based on electability, the answer may be different. In my opinion, nominating a practicing Mormon, especially a Mormon of the stature and commitment of Mitt Romney, is a mistake when considered from the standpoint of electability.

Every candidate has baggage. Let's admit it, every human being has baggage—with the sole exception of Barack "The 'H' is Silent" Obama—and only a carefully orchestrated effort can prevent that baggage from being opened by the TSA spies in the media during the run-up to an election. No doubt, this year's crop of Republican wannabe's seems to have more than just their carry-on in tow. Let's look at some of it.

Ron Paul? I'm guessing his baggage is all Targus, straight out of the Office Depot catalog. Dependable to a point. You don't cry when it wears out quickly because it is cheap to replace. Against the backdrop of his approach to Israel, even Barack Obama looks like a Zionist. Note to Ron: As applicable as the Golden Rule may be to interpersonal relations, a nation that waits to turn the other cheek may not have a cheek to turn. Regarding the other gold standard, I am skeptical that there is enough gold on the planet to back a 15 trillion dollar debt, not even if you include the gold in Mr. Paul's teeth. And then there is the pesky issue of those newsletters that do seem to position him over in the David Duke wing of the party. You gotta love the guy for his independence, his free-market, anti-Fed ideas and his unrelenting candor (I could have said stubborn, but he really is a likable sort), but vote for him? Really?

Rick Santorum? His often big-government voting record isn't an issue in the general election. It might even win a few indies over to his column. His Catholicism would be an issue especially since he clearly believes it. The media doesn't really care if you are religious as long as you don't really believe it, let it inform your choices or talk about it in any crowd of more than one person and even then, that person has to be over the age of 18—no impressionable children or pets, please. And God (or Eric Holder) forbid if you talk about it on government property, which includes, but is not limited to: legislative buildings; other government buildings of all sorts; schools; highways; rest areas; streets; sidewalks; street corners; airports; train stations; bus stops; state, national or local park property; or the building or property of any organization that has ever received or now receives any form of government subsidy, tax credit, tax bill or licensure. But Rick has been outspokenly Catholic on social issues for a very long time. So there are a lot of unfortunate and begging-to-be-taken-out-of-context soundbites available for the Democrat admeisters. While I agree with him on most of his positions on social issues, I don't see those positions as being entirely in the mainstream. Not in the mainstream ideas are hard to get across and Rick's biggest problem for me is the way he morphs from Ritchie Cunningham to Napoleon Dynamite when he believes he is not being listened to or understood. Obviously frustrated, he tries to hide that fact and winds up looking vacuous. I don't know if that is baggage, but it is certainly off-putting. And then there will be the issue raised about his wife, Karen. I won't repeat it here except to say that I wish Dr. Dobson would apologize to an also-repentant Calista. I guarantee that if Rick is nominated, the media will convert that small pocketbook into a well-worn, complete set of the entire Samsonite line.

Newt? No one has ever had all the items on his bill of lading more closely examined than Newt. It has been unpacked, mulled over, x-rayed, wanded, patted down and strip-searched ad nauseam. He definitely will have to pay the extra- and overweight-bag fees, but I doubt there is anything new or particularly damning that will show up. (Sorry, Nancy, when you say, "I know something." I find myself laughing uncontrollably at the sheer implausibility of that statement.) So Newt's baggage will be endlessly examined but to little effect, especially since JFK made the White House safe for Catholics and Bill Clinton made the world safe for serial adultery. (Although it now appears that JFK may have set the adultery bar even higher—lower?—than the Man from Hope.) Newt's bags are bound to be Tumi, the preferred choice of the secretly upscale, but practical, traveling attack muffin. They've got some pretty good bags at Tiffany's, but Newt only uses those as gifts for Calista.

So that leaves us with Mitt. I'd peg him for Briggs and Reilly, but only to avoid looking ostentatious. Secretly I'd guess he would prefer Ghurka, or JPetermann as he likely envisions himself as a gentleman cowboy on safari. Ann strikes me as more Hartmann, modestly upscale, but if Mitt weren't running, Louis Vuitton. Unlike Ron Paul, I doubt you could pin an anti-Israel label on Mitt, though it might be hard to find any real passion for the issue, but that lack of passion may be, in and of itself, part of his baggage. Evidently there are no issues surrounding his wife and kids, at least none that have shown up yet. He does not seem to have been an "evil" lobbyist and, unless he is keeping a few sister wives on the down low, he doesn't appear to have strayed from his marriage vows. He is rich, or "a filthy-rich one percenter who doesn't care about poor people" as the Democrats will spin it, but hey, their leading Progressive light, FDR, was among the richest occupants of the White House. Not a deal-breaker. Abortion? Romneycare? Gay marriage? Probably just help him garner more indie support to balance out Newt's charges of "Massachusetts Moderate." And really, who hasn't strapped their dog to the roof of the car for a twelve hour ride into Canada? I don't think losing the PETA vote is going to cost anyone an election.

But the Mormon question remains. Naturally, our uber-tolerant and discreet media have consistently maintained radio silence on the issue. Committed as they are to the freedom of religion and conscience it is completely unimaginable that they would ever make a man's religion an issue in the race. (Click HERE to purchase beachfront property in Arizona.) (Click HERE to complain about the previous broken link.)

Apart from the rich, uncaring (I'd say oblivious), white guy stuff which they always try to pin on whomever the Republicans nominate, Mormonism will be the heart of the Democrat's attack on Mitt. And it will take several of Brigham Young's four-oxen wagons to haul. We haven't heard much about it yet. But we will. As surely as there is salt in that lake. So what can we expect from a media that is fed a constant stream of propaganda from Media Matters, researched and written (sometimes out of whole cloth) by David Axelrod's minions in the Ministry of Truth? Not much, I suppose, just a laundry list of all of the charges thrown at the Mormons since Joe Smith started having his "visions."

We are going to hear all about Joseph Smith’s questionable background, angelic messengers, disappearing tablets, revelation delivered via talking through one's hat, faked scriptures, seer stones, the Mountain Meadows massacre, blood atonement, Kolob, Jesus as Satan’s brother, God having sex with Mary, the abuse of marrying underage wives, questions about the polygamy practiced by Mitt’s forbearers, the real reason the church did away with polygamy, why they eventually allowed those who were not "white and delightsome" into fellowship, and the incidence of anti-depressant use among Mormon women.

There will be a few tantalizing bits that come out early, probably through the British online press. But within hours, if not minutes, of his acceptance speech, the surrogates will be out in force to raise the questions. You know exactly how they will phrase it, "I have nothing against the Mormon faith, but seriously, look at what they believe, how can any intelligent 21st-Century enlightened human being believe that stuff?" The intent will be to paint Mitt and, by extension, anyone who votes for him, as superstitious, inbred, racist, idiots in contrast to that intelligent, all-knowing, all-compassionate and well-spoken, tireless advocate of the poor and downtrodden, savior of America first and then the rest of the world, Barack Obama.

Finally, at some point, an enterprising reporter will ask Mitt the Mormon version of the "boxers or briefs" question posed to Bill Clinton. Honestly, even if I were Mormon, I don't think I'd vote for him in the primaries just to avoid what will inevitably follow. And I'll grant Mitt this: If he really does know what is coming, and persists, then he is more courageous than I am.

I would like to say that I have several dear friends who are Mormon who seem to be vying for the privilege of being baptized as proxy for me when I die, though I have pointed out that I think both God and I are satisfied with my first one. We are great friends despite our theological differences, but my point here is not a theological one. In the final analysis, it is merely pragmatic.

And if I had any clue whatsoever as to how one wields a comma, I might even try to write.

Who are we to stand in the way of Mittens becoming a god on Planet Kolob?? I mean what would the great soothsayer Joe Smith say about us? Gosh! Get with it folks!

lol..... Mittens will drop-out, soon enough. Even if he's the Nom, he'll lose to Obama in a devestating landslide. Good. We can handle 4 more of obama instead of 4+4 with Romney.

Tricia Erickson’s book: CAN MITT ROMNEY SERVE TWO MASTERS? is available in paperback and on Kindle at AMAZON> If conservatives don’t read it now, I’ll guarantee that Axelrod will make sure they do after Mitt is nominated.

The first two chapters are available to read on line.

Romney is a liberal because of his mormonism not in spite of it. Romney is a mormon of the highest level. Romney’s liberalism (should) disqualifies him from running as a Republican.
I do not do liberals - period.

Would someone please explain to me how his religion has anything to do with the major issues of our time; the defeat of militant Islamic fascism, the defeat of a reemergent Communist Russia, the secuuring of our national borders and an inequitable taxation system that penalizes success and initiative in America?

If he is the candidate, a vote against Romney is a vote for Obama. (PS, I'm maxed out to newt and was to Cain, so don;t waste time calling me a Romney fan. I am, however, a realist.)

There is not a dimes worth of difference between Romney and BHO.
Romney is a liberal because of his mormonism not in spite of it.
SLC lds has been patterning with islam for decades on a variety of things. Joesph Smith declared himself the next mohammed.
Romney’s religious beliefs are important as all candidates beliefs are important. Religious beliefs are at the core of who the person is. It is important to understand what it is they beleive.
That’s why it matters.

Would someone please explain to me how his religion has anything to do with the major issues of our time...

That question was answered in the article above:

"The media doesn't really care if you are religious as long as you don't really believe it, let it inform your choices or talk about it in any crowd of more than one person and even then, that person has to be over the age of 18—no impressionable children or pets, please."

It’s a weird phobia amongst some. Somehow there is a White Horse involved, and I think the Head Mormon will somehow control the Executive Branch, forcing all civil servants to wear magic underwear and listen to the Mormon Tabernacle choir.

And that’s the rational stuff I’ve heard...

If he is the candidate, a vote against Romney is a vote for Obama

That's a distinction without a difference. Well, one big difference: an Obama in the White House, with Republican majorities in the House and Senate, will at least give us a chance to keep him in check; a Romney in the White House, with majorities in the House and Senate, will not go against their Party's nominee, and will ensure our descent into permanent Socialism.

“If he is the candidate, a vote against Romney is a vote for Obama. “

If he is a candidate, a vote for RINOmney is a vote for Obama.

Fixed it for you!

And THAT is the problem. You nailed it.

I’m not gonna get into it over whether or not Mormon’s are Christians. Quite frankly, I don’t think that’s the issue. The issue is that they believe they are destined to save the Constitution. (Joseph Smith prophecy). They declare in the Temple that the Church is to be put before ALL else.

I remember a Sunday School class that I taught some years ago where we were talking about prayer in public school. I remember I took the VERY minority position of not believing we should have it. And when I asked, “suppose it isn’t a Christian Prayer because Christians aren’t in power”, the mood changed and my minority opinion became the majority one. I bet a Mormon would have NO problem with public school children singing, “Praise to the Man”. Would you?

My point is, if you want a Mormon Theocracy, vote Mitt.

While I think there could be bigger problems with having a Mormon as our Predisent...I did grow up in the Midwest...and the folks I still keep in touch with there look at it like this:

“They (mormons) are pushy and act superior”

...the most interesting comment I heard was from an older relative who said “well that Obama is half and half, but that Romney is all Mormon”.

Sad that it comes down to that sort of thing for a lot of people, but it does.

Would someone please explain to me how his religion has anything to do with the major issues of our time...

It is perfectly acceptable for an individual to vote for or against someone based on religion. A person's religion informs their basic understanding of the world, their decision-making, choices and behavior.

But that wasn't really my point. I just think the Republicans are opening themselves up to a devastating defeat simply because the Democrats will take his Mormonism and spin it into complete lunacy.

Still, like you, if Romney is the nominee, I will vote for him over Obama as often as I possibly can.

Mormonism is not a problem for a potential president - liberalism is. All this BS about Romney being no better than Obama is simply that - BS. He’s not my choice, but he’d be better than Obama. A one-legged lesbian troll in the White House would be better than 4 more years of Zaphod Beeblebrox. If Romney is the nominee I will vote for him - but lordy, what a choice between evils to have to make.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.