Replies

Your #400...excellent and concise post.

What a nice thing to say. I'm so rarely accused of being concise. LOL.

Before I proceed to prove why that is so, I'll state that, as a Calvinistic Southern Baptist, I consider my Mormon-bashing and Catholic-bashing credentials second to none. Theologically, not politically.

For all the talk about anti-Catholic and anti-Mormon political prejudice, I think it should be pointed out that the very Protestant/Baptist/evangelical GOP has put five Catholics on the Court. And that is no accident. And it is just a coincidence (or maybe not) that that Court is disproportionately Italian in ethnic makeup. Conceivably, those five Catholic justices are potentially more powerful than any president we can elect to serve, at most, eight years. And li'l ol' Catholic-bashing Baptist me is just fine with that. In fact, I think it's downright brilliant and I was certainly one of those here at FR who demanded that evangelical Aunt Harriet be thrown under the bus so we could get the brilliant Catholic jurist, Alito, instead. Funny, my Catholic-bashing tendencies just seemed to fail me there.

Now, let's look at the Mormon thing more. Not long ago, in conservative circles the most notably conservative state legislature and the real bellwether of GOP state politics was reliably conservative New Hampshire (honorable mention for Montana). However, with the invasion of New Hampshire by liberals fleeing the results of their own voting habits in other neighboring liberal states, New Hampshire is no longer the state legislature we once so admired.

So who is? Utah. They have distinguished themselves repeatedly at resisting federal intrusion in education and other matters. It's a very impressive conservative record. Their reliance on their churches for relief and general rejection of federal welfare programs is pretty unique and is certainly no vice in the GOP. If only we had a half-dozen more legislatures that conservative!

The Mormon standard for clean living and work ethic is admirable. And they are the single largest force in Scouting, an interest Romney certainly shares (and will drone on about endlessly if allowed to as he did one night on CSPAN). Part of what we defend when we defend Scouting from molesters is the safety of Mormon children who are in Scouting. Not that we should ever need to be thanked for it either. This is all part of the Mormon/GOP connection and it is a Good Thing for both.

In addition, Utah and other states with large Mormon populations are among the Reddest. They will vote GOP come hell or high water and they have done so for generations. This is true of Mormons in any state.

Ann Coulter made the point well at CPAC (before her other rather ill-considered remark). When asked who she currently favored, she mentioned she was leaning toward Romney. She explained that she likes Mormons and offered that a state like Utah in which, during the 1992 election, Clinton came in third tells you something about just how reliably Republican the Mormons have been. Mormons are remarkably Republican with a few like Harry Reid being the exception that proves the rule.

Now, for all the real anti-Mormon bigots out there, it's time for all of you to understand that we cannot elect a president without Mormon votes. And I don't know why we'd even want to. We can elect a president without RINO votes in places like New York but we can't without the Mormon vote. They are absolutely vital in any close election.

We need to embrace our Mormon allies. They are our longtime and loyal political partners. They are not second-class citizens in the GOP. If they can field an attractive candidate (and Romney is), then the standard we should apply is whether that candidate is conservative and will adhere to our party goals as spelled out in the party platform. Period.

Given that FR exists in part to expose libmedia's hidden agenda, I'd also point out that the libmedia attacks on Romney's Mormon background and even the marriage records of his ancestors is a blatant attempt to split off a faction of the GOP from the Party Of Reagan. Just as they are trying to use Giuliani to drive wedges into the party, they are also trying to fan the flames of anti-Mormon bigotry in order to split the party base and create a situation where Hitlery can win.

If we fall for it, perhaps allowing Giuliani to become our nominee merely because he might be the only credible alternative to Romney, if we allow anti-Mormon bigotry to rule our choices of nominee, we will lose. And we will deserve to lose. This is the only hope the Dims have to win, the only chance the Wife Of Clinton has to reach the White House. And we have to avoid falling into their trap.

Questions remain about the extent to which Romney represents the values of our party base, particularly the pro-gun and pro-life factions. Personally, I'm willing to wait for the pro-life/pro-family and pro-gun organizations to tell us whether we can trust Romney on those issues. That is their job in our coalition and they've done pretty darned well at it.

We are the Party Of Reagan. We share power with all those who share the goals of our party platform and adhere to them. They are our partners and that includes Mormons. It is somewhat distasteful that it should even need to be discussed.

Threads about Romney should not be Mormon threads, bashing and defending Mormon theology and history. It is a profound mistake to allow this to happen. Theology threads belong in the Backroom with all the other theology debates.

When you start bashing Romney over Mormonism, just remember that it's not you who is winning or losing a debate. It's Keith Obertroll who is winning. It's Dan Rather who is winning. It's the New York Times and the Washington Post who is winning. It is, in short, all our libmedia enemies who will rejoice at having sown such discord and fanned the flames of intra-party warfare here at FreeRepublic, the bastion of online conservative discussion.

Don't fall for it. Don't let libmedia (and a few hotheads) split the party and elect the Wife Of Clinton.

[JimRob, I hope you'll read this and consider it. I think I'm right about libmedia's intent to split the Party Of Reagan with a multi-pronged RINO-Giuliani and anti-Mormon strategy.]

If I could be assured that Romney was more conservative than any of the other candidates, he would receive my full support. But Romney has New England Liberal Republican credentials. Up until he decided to run for president, he was a staunch abortion proponent. So from a primary point of view, Romney is not acceptable to me.

However if he gets the primary nod, then I will fully support him. However, if Rudy gets the primary nod, I will not be voting for a Republican for president. Rudy is an UNREPENTANT abortion proponent. Romney is a repentant and allegedly former abortion proponent who is running now on his opposition to abortion. It's a hard pill to swallow, but not impossible.

If Fred Thompson were a Mormon, I would still be hoping and praying that he enters the race. It would make no difference to me at all.

Mormonism is not what makes Utah conservative. Utah is conservative because it is a member of the Intermountain States and all those States are governed by individual rights. They are rugged indivualists and abhor Federal Government intrusion precisely because of their status as minority (and therefore overruled) by large urban interests. We see this in every single ‘Red’ State, and not just Utah. Your assumption is incorrect.

Now let us address your assumption that we cannot win without Mormon backing. There are about 5,000,000 Mormons withing the United States (by their own recogning). 1,000,000 of them live in Utah. That leaves 4,000,000 divided between the rest of the 49 States. California has the highest number of LDS (about 2,000,000), but California’s electoral votes almost always go Democrat. Mormonism’s effect in California is negliglble.

Between California and Utah, the balance of Mormons live in the West and so the States where they reside have few electoral votes to consider. Of the 3,000,000 or so Mormons that live in the US (besides Utah and California,) by all estimates only 1/2 of them are active LDS. EX-Mormons and inactive Mormons are predominantly liberals as can be viewed by opinions on this site. http://www.exmormon.org

So, of those 1,500,000 active LDS living in the balance of the 48 States, only 1/2 of those are of voting age (if that many, since Mormons have a high preponderance of their membership in children due to their birth rate). So we are left with 750,000 voting LDS members (some of whom will vote democrat)

Now let us divide those 750,000 members by 48 States, and if every active Mormon who is able to cast votes does so for the Republican candidate, we would have an average of 15,625 Mormon votes per State.

The effects of those votes even if they went 100% in favor of Democrats would be nothing. Mormons, if they turn tail and run to the Democrats would show the preposterousness of their own political position.

Believe me, Mormons need the Republican party FAR more than we need them. They are using us IMO to further their own political agenda. They get away with it by accusing us of bigotry, hate, and prosecution. This is clearly a liberal tactic.

In the realm of politics, if you think you have something better, then prove it. If we don’t accept your proof, that’s just too bad. That’s politics.

If Romney were gay instead of Mormon, we would never even be discussing the issue. A gay politician has beliefs that conflict with ours, we are not required to accept the position that somehow we must accept him or be labled as bigoted, hateful, persecutors.

There are aspects of Romney's religious beliefs, such as new revelation given by their god supplanting previous revelation given by their god which is a form of flip flopping, which Romney is prone to do, and makes truth not absolute but relative just like the postmodernist view, which make Romeny highly suspect.

Also, the White Horse Prophecy of Mormonism, and it's effect on Mormons in high office decision making process is also a cause for scrutiny.

Just to name a couple.

Also, Romney, and along with him, the GOP, could not withstand the scrutiny of a Presidential campaign.

Romney has already flip flopped on homosexual marriage, abortion and embryonic stem cell research, as well as other issues of the economic and security variety.

Threads about Romney should not be Mormon threads, bashing and defending Mormon theology and history. It is a profound mistake to allow this to happen. Theology threads belong in the Backroom with all the other theology debates.

The original post on this thread certainly does.

When you start bashing Romney over Mormonism, just remember that it's not you who is winning or losing a debate. It's Keith Obertroll who is winning. It's Dan Rather who is winning. It's the New York Times and the Washington Post who is winning. It is, in short, all our libmedia enemies who will rejoice at having sown such discord and fanned the flames of intra-party warfare here at FreeRepublic, the bastion of online conservative discussion.

A little hyperbolic here, IMO. There is a difference between discussion and "bashing" in the first place and secondly, I certainly wouldn't describe this as warfare or even "sewing seeds of discord." If you follow some threads closely, you will see, in some cases, a spirit of competition over "who is the better theologian" rather than "warfare".

Don't fall for it. Don't let libmedia (and a few hotheads) split the party and elect the Wife Of Clinton.

This is a point I have made time and again on FR. The media right now is playing these cards. As an example, the PBS special on mormonism this past week. A Romney nomination will bring on an onslaught from the media on the peculiarities of mormon beliefs with the specific intent of both tarring all Christians with the same brush, and keeping evangelicals from the voting booth.

[JimRob, I hope you'll read this and consider it. I think I'm right about libmedia's intent to split the Party Of Reagan with a multi-pronged RINO-Giuliani and anti-Mormon strategy.]

Agreed.

100% agreement, GWB. Thanks for putting it in words, if not concisely.

Great post GW!
Thanks.!