~”OK, how many folks are going door to door pitching Fred Thompson’s (past?) faith?”~
Wait, so that’s your argument? Romney’s an unacceptable candidate because Mormon missionaries keep knocking on your door?
~”Do I see FREEPER folks defending Fred’s spirituality anywhere for me to take issue with them on any specifics?”~
Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this:
“Mormons are bad.”
“No we aren’t!”
You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:
“No we aren’t!”
“Mormons are bad.”
Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.
~”...I seem to recall you being “iffy” on Mitt for a while...”~
You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”
~”perhaps at times you’ve defended his switch on social issues”~
No, they rather bug me. I have gone so far as to say that at least he’s moving in the right direction (flipping) and not flopping back. Frankly, I think a Mormon stake president should have been more staunchly pro-life in his public policies. I may be a bit harder on him because we share the same faith, and my human prejudices cause me to expect more from him. But, conversions do happen, and I believe firmly in redemption; I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I will say, though, that he hasn’t switched on nearly so many issues as some of his detractors like to claim (one example being the gay marriage issue).
~””Why attack what Mitt used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.” So, if you think that’s a good argument of theirs (perhaps you’ve said as much a time or two)...then it would also apply to Fred. If you were then “consistent” you would have to say, “Why attack Fred on what he used to believe? That’s yesteryear’s tenets he held onto. Let’s move on.””~
Look, I’ve been holding off on my support (as if little ol’ me matters much) because I wanted to see what Thompson brought to the table. I don’t really like how Thompson’s performed so far, and I think he goes too far in his application of federalism, which impacts a number of crucial issues. So, I’ve found him lacking.
I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.
My disenchantment with Thompson, though, is due to what I see in his issues NOW, and my fondness for Romney is due to what qualities I see in him NOW. I’d be happy to explain further, if you’re interested.
Nice reductionism. Does Thompson's (past?) faith put "institutes" near every college campus? Do they teach you can become a god? Is the salvation they offer based upon 16 things YOU have to do to garner exaltation? Have they made the good news of the gospel into a series of laws you have to follow? Does the town where most of the folks who believe what he believed is among the nation's leaders in suicide (like Utah)?
Interesting you mention that. The conversation normally goes something like this: “Mormons are bad.” “No we aren’t!” You’re acting like we’re living in a world like this:“No we aren’t!” “Mormons are bad.”
Look, I'm not sovereign enough to pre-arrange the topics of the posts around here. They're usually driven by what's in the media (since they all start with an article), so in one sense the topics are media-driven. All I can tell you is that you can review the threads for yourself and you'll see all of the major candidates taking their lumps at one time or another. It seems to have been (from the looks of what folks have posted) open season.
Whereas on any given week I see the media and posters here addressing Mormonism, I don't see the media and posters here addressing Fred's (past?) faith. Certainly in more recent months you can make a partial case for that being that if Mitt gave up his stake meetings and didn't make anything of his Mormon roots, certainly the frequency of Mormonism being addressed in these threads would die down.
So I tell you what: You start a thread about Fred's spiritual beliefs with some real meaty content (not guesswork) and ping me and I'll be glad to participate in the discussion.
Generally speaking, if detractors didn’t bring up Romney’s faith, it’d hardly come up at all in political threads where he’s the subject. In fact, I found much of August and September to be just that way, and it was quite nice.
Are you that clueless? You're telling me that the liberal MSM, who always takes every opportunity to bash anyone from the "religious right," is giving Mitt a free pass in mentioning his faith? (You must have been vacationing in the Pacific of Kolob)
Look, I rarely post articles. If I wanted to, I could go to the LDS Church-owned Deseret News 3-6 times a week and, skipping those you would call "purely religious" articles, I could post gobs of articles that mix Mormon faith with some other admixture. Some would be a faith & politics mix; during the Olympic games in SLC, there were numerous "Mormons & the Olympics" articles. I mean, even though the Boy Scouts sport a "I believe in God" dimension, they're basically a secular organization. I'm sure I could find plenty of Boy Scouts & Mormons articles. (You get the drift).
Now if the Mormon church has the right to comment (thru Deseret) on the admixture of faith and the public square, why do you consider that a monopoly privileged only to Mormons?
You recall correctly, though I am becoming less so. I’m finding him to be the least politically unacceptable of the viable candidates. Another week or so, I think, and I won’t be able to claim the “iffy-ness.”
Tanty, what I appreciate about you is that you are an authentic person. You are a rare transparent Mormon. You're a straight shooter. Well, because of that, I know you've said exactly the same thing a few months ago. (Seemingly always on the edge of Mitt, about to become a Mittbot, but not quite committing)
I have, like you, commented on the double-standard. How is Thompson given this aura of Conservative Savior when he’s migrated right just as far as Romney has, and has plenty of blemishes in his record to rankle conservatives? Yet Romney gets pilloried for the same evolution while Thompson gets a pass, at least here on FR.
Well, look closer into Fred's record. He is conservative, and no, he hasn't migrated as far as Romney has. Use common sense. What do you need to present yourself to be elected in Tennessee? Now ask the same question: What do you need to market yourself as to get yourself elected in Massachusetts? As for blemishes, yes (but they all do--even if it's only electability)
None of the major-tiered candidates have received a total free "pass" (even if it's not always been evenly balanced; but again, since most discussion is generated by what's in the media, whoever said the media was balanced?)