Posted on 02/14/2012 4:17:33 PM PST by newheart
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.
In what areas are they different?
Both are not pro-life.
Both are pro-gun grab.
Both are pro-homosexual agenda.
Both are pro-government mandates.
Both are man made global warming.
Both are pro-minimum wage.
Both are big government guys.
Both only want to work with democrats.
and that’s just in brief.......
The shame is, FR was once a great site. We led the charge in 2000, both before and after th eelection, we were the first to expose Rathers lies re: Bush in 04, etc.
National media followed FR all the time for the latest info.
Now, it’s mostly a bunch of crazies, haters, and some crazy haters.
The newsbreak on my talk radio station actually mentioned a story about Mormons being criticized by Jews for posthumously baptizing Holocaust survivors. SRN News I think? Kind of odd, I don’t remember them ever covering any news stories about Mormons before. Maybe they’re “with Rick.”
RightwardHo, you should make that your tagline. It would be the perfect ending to every post.
We don't need to go to sleep, you need to wake up! Have you investigated these issues at all? Romney wants taxes to be higher if you make $200,000 or more. Obama's only for $250,000 or more. Romney indicated he wants to preserve the welfare safety net as is, although he would tie the minimum wage to inflation, which makes him more liberal than Obama. He has essentially said he can't consider cutting taxes on the rich or reforming welfare because he's a rich guy and the optics on that would look bad. Romney's flip-flopped all over the place on immigration, so no one can really say where he stands. Likelihood he compromises and grants a big amnesty...I'd say 85%. Can you name any difference on Obama's national security position vs. Romney's? I think it's pretty clear Romney will continue bombing terrorists from drones and would never consider doing a ground invasion of a country, just like Clinton and Obama. Liberal presidents have a similar attitude to war. They'll do it as long as they don't get their hands dirty and there won't be any casualties to bring down their poll numbers. It's the cowardly, hands-off, "when the going gets tough, the not-so-tough go home" (e.g. Somalia) strategy that led directly to 9/11.
lol Good call.
Hey. name names, show post numbers......you made the charge prove it.
" Hey. name names, show post numbers......you made the charge prove it. "
It's me, I'm the guilty one, I confess! Crazy, hater, and anti-mormon is the least of what the cultkissers call former mormons who went over the wall...tell you what...give me that 20 years of my life back, and I'll kiss Mitt.
Let’s begin with #6 here.
LOL! And you know of these differences how? By what he says? Good luck with that.
Crazies? And this is only from this short thread.
The US Senate is already under Mormon control.
6 posted on Tue Feb 14 2012 18:38:18 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
15 posted on Tue Feb 14 2012 19:35:18 GMT-0600 (Central Standard Time) by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
#6 Reid has said he governed the way he does because he is a mormon, so the statement is not incorrect.
#15 Romney is a mormon of the highest level, which means he has sworn to certain core beliefs one of which his honor and duty lie first to SLC lds. Romney has been trained, and groomed to fulfill the lds ‘white horse prophecy’, whether you beleive it or not, he does. Part of that prophecy is the only an lds can restore the constitution and create a mormon lead theocracy.
People who understand mormonism, understand these issue. They do appear ‘crazy’ if you do not understand mormonism and what that means to Romney.
Apparently, for you guys understanding what Romney believes at his core is not important, fine that is your choice and right to not understand.
It would be prudent to learn about mormonism, before you diatribe against those of us who know mormonism.
As a side note, neither one of those examples are hate, just saying.
Nor did I indicate they were hate...just “crazy”, as in black helicopter, Illuminati, Freemasons are running the world, or maybe Jews are running the world, tinfoil hat nutty.
I’ll play along, however. If Romney becomes President, what will be his first act to get the Mormon Theocracy rolling? Something specific in mind??
Get rid of noahides.
Get rid of noahides.
Lol!! Is there a big Noahides gonna take over the country conspiracy in your Tinfoil bag as well?
I note you give no example, the Hallmark of the Nutball Conspiracy Theorist. Maybe George Noory has one? Are there UFOs involved as well?
Seriously, I’m embarrassed for you. But carry on!
The next POTUS will either be Zaphod Beeblebrox or the Republican nominee. No third party candidate will be anything but a spoiler. That’s enough for me right there. Literally ANYONE on the repub side is better than what we have now. Olympia Snowe or Scott Brown would be a step up. You can make all the generalizations you want, but Romney would still be a Republican president, subject at least to some degree to the political realities of the position. What he wouldn’t be (hopefully!) is a sock puppet for a commie billionaire bent on destroying western civilization, with a host of fellow travelers helping him in congress, the media and the courts. I don’t like the guy either, but you got to throw a patch over the bullet hole before the healing can start - maybe he can do that much and we can get a conservative the next time around. In the meantime I will vote for Santorum in the primary and hope that anyone other than Romney gets the nod......but I WILL vote for the republican nominee in the general election no matter who it is. It is literally national suicide to do otherwise.
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.