Unlike Romney's "National Council for a New America," Free Republic is a conservative site!

Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.

I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.

Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.

I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.

We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!

We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.

We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.

We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.

We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!

And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.

And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!

At least you’re honest and you’ll give a reason to your objections to Mormons in office. There are many here who are anti-Mormon, but fail to give reasons beyond theological disagreements with Mormons while ignoring disagreements they have with other faiths.

There's LOTS of reasons -- though most of them tend to apply only to POTUS.

Point 1: Too much fuel for massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. A POTUS is highest role model position in U.S. & accords the highest level of respectability re: public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere, fueling door-to-door boldness & other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"

Point 2: Let's say the candidate is an open doctrinaire communist. He comes to me (let's say I'm a successful businessman who has benefitted from capitalism) & says: "If you check out my most closely-held tenets of my 'faith,' they state that you are an apostate from Marx. Every capitalistic creed is an abomination before the sovereign state. Your capitalistic leaders are corrupt. There are only two economic systems: the system of the devil (if he exists), capitalism; and the perfect ideal system, communism. I can expect your vote, then?"

Now ya wanna explain this would be distinct than a doctrinaire Mormon who subscribes to the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19? I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt..." LDS cannot just jettison this -- it's authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originates as the supposed description of the very foundation of the church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. It's one of top 4 teachings explained by every LDS missionary (doctrine of universal "apostasy" of the historic Christian church). Any true-believing LDS candidate (not necessarily a Jack Mormon candidate) who approaches us historic Christians is saying: "You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' As it says in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:9-10, there's only two churches...Ours, the Church of the Lamb; and yours, the Church of the devil. Now, that I've properly inspired you, Mr. Joe Voter, I can expect your vote on Tuesday, then?" [Just because this is NOT communicated face-to-face by an LDS candidate or somebody at the LDS grassroots level doesn't mean it's not being done millions of times each year as every Pearl of Great Price/Book of Mormon comes off the printing press in dozens of languages--all supported by tithing members...and, by the LDS missionary enterprise which is supported by every local ward & stake whereby all 60,000 LDS missionaries go door-to-door proclaiming their doctrine of alleged Christian apostasy...]

Point 3: Taking this voter alienation into consideration, & taking the potential MSM onslaught into consideration in '12 with an African-American Democrat running against a 1978-policy changing LDS church, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability. We would see MSM questions like, “Mr. Romney, why as a 30 year-old adult did you belong to a religion restricting blacks from priesthood?” "Do you believe you will be a god? Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?' Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"

Point 4: (related to Point 1 & applicable only to POTUS):

If I... .

..(a) was a POTUS candidate from a commonly regarded "cultic group"; and

...(b) mislabel 75% of my voting base's primary faith tenets & claims as mere "apostate" status (Note: 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)

Then...

Conclusion: I not only show open disdain for my voting base, but betray my ability to inspire confidence in my ability to accurately define a major world religion. If I cannot accurately define a major world religion, what confidence do I inspire re: my ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam? (Besides, how are LDS who in print openly label all Christians as “apostates” any different than Muslims who in print openly label all Christians as “infidels?”)

Point 5: (Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.

Burn down the “big tent” and throw out the clowns and circus freaks.

How about a new 'big tent'?

Under it we can put all the one-issue voters who will NOT vote for a candidate who:

Supports abortion

Supports gun control

Supports gay marriage

supports cap and trade

supports drilling bans

supports the degradation of private property rights

supports open borders

supports amnesty for illegal aliens

Supports mollycoddling terrorists

supports gutting our intelligence community's ability to monitor foreign terrorists/organizations

supports permitting Iran to develop nuclear weapons

supports economic stimulus packages which mortgage our children's future

who supports raising taxes

supports continuing the Federal Government's scope well beyond what is Constitutionally authorized

supports degrading our military...

The list goes on, but we do support the empowerment of the individual by getting government off the individual's back, out of their wallet, and keeping the power to secure and defend their own in their hands.

I think there is lots of room for people under the tent, when they see what a host of one-issue voters, not to mention those who might vote with us on numerous or all issues given the chance. Why should we compromise our values to merely hold ground on one or two issues at best against a liberal alternative, let's go for the full spectrum and let the 'moderates' come to us over the full spectrum of liberal positions which the other side will incorporate into one candidate. It worked for the Left in 2008, with the uber-liberal, it can work for conservatives with an uber-conservative candidate to offer a real contrast to the Socialists.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this last statement is a contradiction on every 'one issue' that you list. When you say "but _we_ support..." you can't be talking about those one issue voters as part of the 'we support', because each of those issues _put_ the gov't on the back of individuals and into their wallets as well as violating their rights.

But if you mean to include them as well, do you mean only if they are at odds with just one issue? or two? or three? Where would you draw the line?

Another aspect of the 'all but one' position is that, imo, it shows a faulty logic - although it might be an emotional stance too - but faulty nontheless (with regard to individual rights). And we've seen people who were say 80 percenters become 60% - Frum, eg., Noonan... etc. and some becoming Democrats, I think there's the 'slippery slope' concept to consider. And eg. if their 'one issue' that we 'allow' is 'global warming' - that one issue takes down all the others even if they are at 99% 'we'.

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.