Is Romney Our Best Choice?
There’s a long list of reasons why Mitt Romney might not be our best choice to go up against Obama, and some of them are really good reasons. One reason is Romney’s part in creating the Massachusetts health system that Democrats claim (perhaps rightly) was the blueprint for ObamaCare. Another is that as governor of a very liberal state, Romney signed into law all sorts of bills that are going to be used by Democrats to persuade many middle of the road and even conservative voters that there really is not that much difference. On some issues, Governor Romney was arguably to the left of Obama.
There is one reason why Romney is going to be a poor choice to take on Obama that I just hate: the Democrats are going to play the religion card (at least, once Romney has the nomination), and they are going to play it hard. As you are doubtless aware, Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons). There is a lot of very strong disapproval of Mormonism in the United States. A recent Gallup Poll found that 27% of Democrats would not vote for a Mormon, nor would 18% of Republicans, and 19% of independents.
Now, if you are one of those people that does not understand why there is such strong sentiment on this, let me say that Mormon beliefs are more than a bit out of the mainstream of Christianity. Baptists and Lutherans have doctrinal differences; Protestants and Catholics have doctrinal differences; Protestants and Eastern Orthodox have doctrinal differences. This is beyond doctrinal differences.
Should being Mormon disqualify someone from being president of the United States? I don’t think it should — the particulars of the Mormon creed are not relevant to the operation of the federal government. Some conservative evangelical Christians even argue that if Governor Romney had taken his marching orders from the Mormon Church, he would at least be a real conservative worthy of serious consideration. Nonetheless, there are a lot of Americans who are seriously freaked out by Mormon belief — and you will notice from those Gallup Poll results, Democrats are substantially more ready to discriminate based on religion than the rest of the population.
We need every vote to defeat Obama in 2012: conservative Democrats, moderate Republicans, evangelical Christians, libertarians. I can guarantee you that once Romney has the Republican nomination, Obama’s people will play the Mormon card. They may be subtle about it, and make documentaries and television programs about the “weird” Mormon beliefs. They may focus on polygamist breakaway sects, such as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and hope that many Americans will not realize that the FLDS is not part of the same church as Romney. They might be really clever, and spend a bit of money “helping” the various Christian organizations that expose Mormon theology get the word out, hoping that it will enhance the negative perceptions of the Mormons that are already present in the United States.
You may think I am being a bit too suspicious of what Obama’s campaign is prepared to do. Surely, the Democrats would not encourage direct religious bigotry! (Excuse me while I laugh.) I have a strong memory of 1980. I was going through my petulant Libertarian phase — still upset at Richard Nixon’s abandonment of free market policies — and I could not in good conscience vote for Republicans. It was a few days before the general election. CBS Evening News ran a story about Ron Reagan, Jr., showing his premiere with the Joffrey Ballet Company. It was not a few seconds — it was several minutes long, on a 30 minute evening newscast.
he’s the man if we want to lose.
But not for any of the reasons stated above. Plainly put, like Obama, he is a narcissist, but more clever at hiding it. Romney is all about Romney. We don’t need another narcissist in chief.
Yes, Romney! By all means!
…I didn’t have nearly enough fun with Dole or McCain. I want to see ANOTHER bland, old-boy politician who was created from a paint-by-numbers kit!
I have no doubt that the author is right, CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and the NYT will all feature repeated stories on Mormonism and Romney. This is the level of sophistication the ultra liberal MSM adopts. They will be desperate to change the subject to a topic other than the track record of their champion, Barry O.
The real reason Romney should not be the Republican nominee is that he is a progressive, just slightly right of the current President. Romney fervently believes in anthropogenic global warming, ethanol subsidies, and universal mandated healthcare. He does not have a working understanding of the US Constitution. He believes in the supremacy of the federal government over the states.
If you vote for Romney, your voting for a bigger role for the federal government in your life and your voting against a restoration of the liberties lost under progressive presidents like Obama, Bush, Carter, Johnson, Nixon and the Roosevelts.
His religion is a red herring and a distraction.
Romney has another weakness worth mentioning, and it has to do with his religion. He won’t be able to take on the “Muslim Problem” in the manner it should be taken on. We’re seeing that candidates like Cain, Bachmann and West really get it when it comes to Radical Islam. Romney will tread lightly because his own peculiar religion has more parallels with Islam than it does with Christianity.
….speaking of religion bashing. Well done, show the Demoncraps how its done! Love the subtle innuendo there; young men knocking on your door = young men with dynamite vests.
Eat a Glock, you loathsome tird.
Don’t you think that was a bit harsh…. PsychoDad? Allow me to refine my earlier post. Mormonism USED to have more in common with Islam than with Christianity. That is no longer the case, but that won’t matter to the Dems when they start pointing it out. And although I don’t believe in “religion bashing”, I DO believe critically challenging ones religious belief is appropriate when one is running for President of the United States. We would do well to consider our Republican candidates religious views prior to the Primary elections rather than wait for the Dems to do it in the General. They’ll defend a cannibal’s right to eat people while condemning a Christian’s right to pray. Just wait and see.
your’e full of crap
Way to go, PsychoDad, keep it classy!
PsychoDad;
That was way over the top, sir.
I infer you don’t see a problem with a religion that wants you to submit or die, PsychoDad? Maybe you can compromise, and just remain a dhimmi.
You left out the YOU in “turd”.
Romney is a nutcase, believing, ala Shirley McLain, that he is or someday will become a “god”. The current inmate at the White House a;lso suffers from megalomania, and the results ain’t pretty!
Romney is just a caucasian Obama; yuk!
Wayne;
I’ve heard statements like yours before. That The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day saints is not Christian just like Muslims are not Christian. Honestly, for the life of me, I do not get it. It understand the arguments comparing “new prophets” and “new scripture” but do note that the LDS Church has always declared Jesus to be the Only Begotten of the Father and our Savior. Islam has never claimed any such thing. Nor do I ever forwee them ever claimng Jesus as anything more than just a prophet. LDS teachings have always centered on Christ and always will.
I don’t really want to get into a food fight with Mormons. You are entitled to your opinions, and we can still work together on shared values–but it is hard to read stuff like this from Brigham Young and not scratch my head at what connection his theology has with Christianity.
How long is it going to take for the Democrats to start quoting Brigham Young?
That may be true for you in your lifetime Darren. But are you aware of the following quote attributed to Joseph Smith Jr., after having been accused by one of the local newspapers of trying to pass himself off as the second coming of Christ?:
“I come not as the second Christ, but as the second Mohammet(sic) who swore to spread the word of God by the Koran or by the sword.”
Smith drew not only from the Bible, but from the Koran, the Torah, and the Spaulding Manuscript…… and, in my opinion, from his imagination. My purpose is not to make a case that Mormonism is not Christian. All the Mormons I know are as Christian as any other Christian as far as I’m concerned. My purpose is to show that the Dems will find fertile fields to mine shiny nuggets with which to embarrass a Republican.
Wayne, there is an article (http://www.forerunner.com/blog/islam-and-mormonism-kissin-cousins) by a man named E. W. Sumner entitled Islam and Mormonism: Kissin’ Cousins which plainly lays out the frightening similarities between the two groups. Check it out.
I read this disgusting article, and all I have to say is: Falsehood and libel. The LDS beliefs do not mirror Islam at all. Blood Atonement is an urban myth, and Thomas B. Marsh is an apostate from the religion because of his own dishonest dealings, so his affidavit cannot be relied upon.
sutterbean,
“Blood Atonement is an urban myth, and Thomas B. Marsh is an apostate from the religion because of his own dishonest dealings, so his affidavit cannot be relied upon.”
Blood atonement was no urban myth. My GG Grandfather was a Mormon Bishop and participated in one of the greatest “blood atonements” in the history of this Country. Have you even heard of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? And Thomas Marsh was an Apostle in the early Mormon Church… one of the twelve most high ranking members. And you dismiss him as if he were some Jack Mormon? Marsh was a highly respected businessman who had good reason to lose faith in Joseph Smith Jr. after Joseph tried to bed his young daughter. I’m not surprised…. most Mormons do not know their history. Try looking outside the Deseret Bookstore.
What in the heck does Mormonism have to do with muslims? Just cause you say it doesn’t make it so!
And for Daren or wayne or whomever – if you haven’t seen these people outside the conferences, or at our pageants, then you are blind! Even a Protestant Church was so upset at what was happening that they came to conference and stood outside and sang hymns to try and drown them out.
A bride’s mother pleaded with them to let them come out of the Temple after they were married and take pictures around the reflecting pool without their bullhorns and foul language and they refused.
These people even have lawyers from the ACLU standing with them to make sure we don’t attack. Well, one man pulled something we hold sacred from around one man’s neck and he spent the night in jail.
We are advised to walk past them and not to engage. One man said to me, “if this was my bible (as he dragged the B of M through the dirt on a string) I’d fight them”. Hard to see that and just keep walking.
Why do we have to judge whom the Lord loves? Aren’t we told we have no right to judge another, that the Lord will judge?
If believers don’t stand together in this next election, we will deserve what’s coming and I think we will be held accountable for our decisions in the highest court!
No. We are told to, Jn.7.24, “Judge with right judgment.” The socalled “Book of Mormon” is a preposterous fraud, as was its “proprietor”, Joseph Smith Jr.
God is not “a flesh and blood man living on the planet, Kolob”. And men cannot become ‘gods”. Holy underwear cannot get you to heaven, and the Mormon form of church government is sinful, as it is contrary to the pattern revealed in the New Testament. All Mormon revelation is false, as it constitutes “another gospel”, by their own admission, and Jesus’ gospel is an, Heb.13.20, “eternal covenant”, delivered to the saints “once for all”, 2,000 years ago. Mormonism is much closer to Catholicism than it is to Christianity.
You’re right, they will play the religion card. Then again, it may not be as serious as you think. Liberals tend to be anti-Christianity in general, and any candidate who is open with his faith (which most conservative presidents have been) is bound to be attacked for it. If anything, Romney’s Mormonism would only serve to further show him as out-of-touch with the American populace. Remember that video of him with a group of black kids singing “Who let the dogs out?”
I would argue that religion and policies don’t get through the media so much as personality. Tea Partiers want a president with a sense of strength; Romney doesn’t have that. But as to his Mormonism, I would wonder if (or perhaps when) somebody brings up the Mormon Wars against him.
They already have.
http://tinyurl.com/62fqxss
Sir:
Romney used to be my favorite candidate that is until I really got to know him. I now feel that he is the worst kind of candidate because he is really out of the conservative mainstream and not because he is a morman. Listen if we can get over Obama’s conflicted christianity Church for the insane and the love affair with Islam, we can also see beyond the Morman church which really does not INFORM too much when it comes to Romney or his father.
The real issue with Romney is that he is too smart by a half to use that tired expression. He creates Romeny care because he is an idea guy, a do kinda guy, and a great salesman. Not for a moment does he question the limits of government, individual freedome, and teh right of the goverment to run our lives. When challenged on this issue, the BEST he can do is say that Hey this is a state issue!! Bullshit I say! If we don’t want the FEDS controlling our lives, why do we want the imbicile at the state trying to ram this crap sandwhich down our throats. So the issue with him is that he likes BIG GOVERNMENT especially when we are stroking his big ego. Secondly he still believes (after all the scandals at East Anglia, the UN, the 1000s of windmills that don’t work, the admitted purjury of scientists etc) in mand made GLOBAL warming. Is this a real or imagined problme for us? Think about this doer, bright guy salesman coming up with ever slicker crap to sell us another brand of the EPA controlling every aspect of our lives from light bulbs to windmills by the thousand. Of course as a venture capitalist and financier he will revive CAP and TRADE because this is every bankers wet dream come true and drive our society off of a cliff with this bad science. Thirdly he favors a continuation of big government ethanol subsidies. Finally and while I am not exactly sure, I would not be surprised to see if he tries to thread the needle on the COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM. Any plan with COMPREHENSIVE in front of it, he will be in favor of because that is this guy’s resume.
So there we are. Another disappointment! He is not my first choice. We can and should do better. We must do better.
NO.
Romney is as Mark Steyn has written, a technocrat.
If he’s elected, he will most likely grow Leviathan at the expense of our freedom, just as Bush the Junior did.
As far as I can ascertain the only people who like Romney are RINOs and this own campaign staff. He is a man with an ego slightly larger than Michigan and the conservative credentials of Ophra Winfrey.
Romney has one ONE election in his life, and that for only one term. The Governorship of MASSACHUSETTS. A state so liberal even liberals can’t stand their elected officals. And Romney won one 2008 Primary in New Hampshire, his current residence and next to Massachusetts his one prior position in any form of Government.
IN other words, Mr. Romney is a front runner only if you forget that his 20-28% in the polls forgets that for the time being the rest of the candidates are all much closer to conservative values. And while Romney might have the Republican establishment faithful in RINO Land there is no way the bulk of the Tea Party or other conservatives are going to work for this guy. In the end one of the Conservatives in the race will win the battle for the conservative vote and then it will be Romney 28%-40% with Sarah Palin, or Governor Perry with 60%. Ron Paul will of course pick up the balance. So let’s save ourselves a lot of time and forget about Mittens.
Obama will raise almost $1 billion in his quest for a second term. That alone should tell you there is something wrong with the man. He really does think that all of America is like Chicago, where money can buy you anything, even an election.
Well, nuts to that. We have to stick firm to our conservative beliefs. There are precious few real conservatives in the race today, but I’m holding out hope that some of the ladies out there, like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin will carry the day. I also trust these ladies more because they not only are consistent int heir speeches, but they mean what they say and say what they mean. That a rare trait in politicians these days.
But what is really going to matter in 2012 is that the American public will really, really, have a clear and dramatic choice to make. Either they want another four years of uncontrolled liberal spending with Obama, who has also literally been an embarrassment in foreign policy and on the world stage, or do they want to take their chances with a real Conservative who may actually save what is left of this bankrupt nation? The choice really is up to them and if they are too blind, or too stupid, or too driven by partisan ideology that they can’t see that Obama has been a total disaster, well, then, they deserve what they get if they re-elect him. But noone can fault us if we stick to our conservative priciples and nominate a person who really represents our views for once.
Remember, nobody thought Ronald Reagan could beat Jimmy Carter. Right up until the election, Carter was still doing very well against Reagan in the polls. But when it came right down to it, when it actually came to making a decision, the general public went for Reagan, and in a big way too. Time to stick to our beliefs and do it again.
democrates are substantially more ready to discriminate based on any reason – regularly engaging in reverse discrimination to prove they are tolerant and don’t discriminate. democrates put up a know-nothing tyrannt wannabe who happend to have an abundance of melanin to prove they weren’t racist and then voted for him out of white guilt lest someone call them racist for holding him accountable. (like they would have if he had a lack of melanin).
I saw the Gallup poll a couple days ago; if I remember, a Mormon candidate was right above atheists and gays as a definition of someone who a person would not vote for. However, the Democrats who say they would not vote for a Mormon is probably the large atheist/agnostic segment of the Democratic Party and they would not vote for ANY member of the “Christian right” which includes the Latter Day Saints movement.
The same would probably go for the independents; as we always hear, some independents are “turned off” by overly religious Republicans, and while Romney does not wear his religion on his sleeve like Huckabee or Pawlenty, he and his family are incredibly loyal and connected to the Mormon Church.
Interestingly enough, Romney polls best amongst liberal/moderate Republicans, meaning that the Republicans who would not vote for a Mormon are the members of the “religious right” apart from the Mormons.
That poll isn’t what necessarily worries me because the Dems and indies wouldn’t vote for any Republican candidate unless he/she were not very religious, which you aren’t going to find, so that doesn’t matter. Amongst Republicans Romney would win enough of the conservative Christian vote and take away enough moderate Democrats and conservative/moderate indies that went with Obama in 08 to still dominate in the South, and take back states like North Carolina and Virginia.
Romney CAN beat Obama in ’12. And I think he could do it quite easily to be honest. Is he my first choice? No. But I do understand that at this point in the campaign process, according to major polls, Romney is winning in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa against Obama, and is the only candidate with the infrastructure and fundraising ability to match Obama’s billion dollar campaign. However he is not the most conservative candidate who is electable.
P.S. I will be speaking with major Republican donors and RNC members in a few weeks time and present to them the conservative answer to health reform that will bring about a major economic boom faciliated by an immense increase in consumer spending; the plan will take Democrats by complete surprise when it is introduced next summer, circumventing them on the health care issue and guaranteeing the GOP candidate a victory over Obama. I will be speaking to GOP candidates, Romney included, for them to prove to me that they can win, and despite what I said above about the Gallup poll, Mr. Romney will have to prove to me that his religion will not be an issue in the campaign, or if it is, how his political team would go about diffusing that issue.
“Romney CAN beat Obama in ’12.”
Sure. By 2012, so might a deceased, syphilitic lemur.
Why on earth would we want Romney to be President? We should choose as the nominee someone right in the middle of the rightmost 55% of the elctorate, then it’s ours at a walk.
Romney’s not that person.
Don’t know WHO you are Jordan, but I am intrigued that you’ve come up with some new idea on health care! We are so stuck, needs out-of-the-box thinking.
Here’s mine–organize the mass of health care systems in the country on the credit union model, i.e., you “belong” or hold shares, there’s a voting process, and the organization is basically non-profit. Then set about to DELIVER what’s really needed–local clinics (maybe put them next to libraries, the only other community-based thing there is in America) that could take care of 80% of day in day out STUFF. Depending on size of population served, could get by with nurse practitioners and aides. Then, fewer but still relatively local, Health Centers where annual exams, wellness programs, referrals by the local clinics for more problematic health problems would take place. These would be physician run and have ability to refer to specialists as needed. Emergency clinics ONLY for emergencies, not routine care.
I am not opposed to a single-payer system really, but it raises hackles of many. I have the feeling Obama care is a Rube Goldberg monstrosity (you may be too young to know what a Rube Goldberg is!) mostly due to Republican-forced modifications to dilute it. When I was in the Perot movement there were national committees that studied health situation. Can’t remember exactly anymore but it seems to me they (and Perot) came to conclusion that the German system was best. Single-payer but big private segment as well.
What do you think of the credit union model?? I know the diehard Libertarian/Republicans/Tea Party will hate it, but they’re not the mass of people. Most people (including tea partiers) tend to quail at the thought of NO MEDICARE AT ALL for their old age.
The “credit union” model is similar to what welfare looked like before FDR; volunteer and non-profit organizations that people chose to be associated with and would make important decisions into how the organization worked; there were literally millions of Americans in the largest associations that helped the older members with retirement and the poor with health care, plus the religious organizations would also have health care and acted as the equivalent of today’s food stamp/public housing programs, etc. (at least for a short while until you could get back on you’re feet).
Unfortunately it would be a major culture shock to the large majority of the population who want others (government or employer) to largely make their health care decisions; the idea of community based health programs where everyone plays at least some sort of role in the process is similar to what you mentioned by comparing a health program to the credit union model. This community based model should be striven for; however cultural and societal norms would have to reverse themselves from this “big/global” way of thinking to a more communitarian/congregational approach, something that would take at least a generation. I’m sure most of us realize that being a major part of you’re community and Church isn’t that popular these days outside of Utah and Texas and some other Midwestern/Southern States.
You also mentioned low-cost health clinics, which should be a big part of any health reform that is realistically attempting to bring costs down and provide better access to communities. If State and local governments allowed the creation of low-cost health clinics by removing legal and other barriers, they would literally spring up over just a few months and immediately compete with the currently entrenched private practices due to less waiting periods and lower costs. However lobbying organizations essentially prevent rule changes from happening; entrenched health professionals do not want competition and lobbying organizations, not just those on behalf of health professionals, but also pharmaceutical industries and other tech industries will have to be marginalized in order to see cost-efficent tech come into the mainstream.
So essentially you’re “credit union” plan is what every limited government conservative should strive for, even if the goal is untenable for the near future. And you’re absolutely correct about low-cost health clinics having to be more available. Just wait till next summer though; the RNC timetable might seem a little wierd for release, but it will make sense when it happens.
In Romney’s book he mentions as a possible solution something similar. It’s already offered in Utah. The insurance company has hospitals/doctors it uses and it’s incentivized to keep the patient in a state of health without practicing expensive defensive medicine. I forget the catchy name for it or what insurance company set it up. It certainly sounded like a very clever and simple commonsense way to give people the care they need while eliminating bogus and costly unnecessary procedures etc. I’m sure you read Romnry’s book and know exactly what I and he are talking about.
I’m pretty sure the insurance company actually owns it’s own hospitals and it’s private doctors work for them too. They atract business – customers – by their reputation (keeping people healthy) and low cost. It seems to be a success.
“Don’t know WHO you are Jordan, but I am intrigued that you’ve come up with some new idea on health care! We are so stuck, needs out-of-the-box thinking.”
Well, here is some out-of-the-box thinking (that does not include any governmental intervention or supervision of our health care): How about the old “fee-for-service” wherein we pay for medical services rendered out of our own pocket at the time the services are rendered?
Several years ago, there was an idea afoot that involved placing nurse practitioners or emergency medical technicians inside the larger retail pharmacy chains (think Walgreens, Rite Aid, etc.) that would accept walk-in customers, and see them on a “first come, first served” basis for a nominal fee. If done correctly, the fees involved would be less than most people’s co-pay on their private insurance. This service would provide only superficial medical aid, such as preliminary diagnostics, referrals to physicians, or simply recommendations for over-the-counter medications.
As I said, this idea was floated several years ago. I don’t know what happened to it. In my view, there was probably considerable pushback from the AMA and perhaps even the ABA, or perhaps the retail pharmacy chains could not see an immediate profit in hiring staff or setting aside the space needed for such a scheme. In any case, I think it could work, if only to set up an inexpensive medical triage system.
Hmm – how do you get access? Lots of use have great ideas, but not acces to share them. So back up what you said – let’s hear about it.
Mitt Romney is our best choice
John McCain is our best choice
Bob Dole is our best choice
Gerald Ford is our best choice
History Repeats
Pick a big govt, liberal republican squish and we lose
Only reason that the big govt, liberal squish Bushs won is that they packaged themselves as the heirs of Ronald Reagan
And the Bushes managed to lie their way into three terms of abysmal misgovernment, falling only slightly to the right of our current Obamination. While I would not blame most of our current doomage on the Bush family – not by a long shot – they are to blame for some of it.
I figured from the get-go that there was no way to get GWB out of office in 2004, simply because no strong conservative could figure out a way to successfully run against a sitting president in the GOP primary, and the American public figured that any Democrat would be even worse.
I have found myself believing more and more that having the Senate and House is more important than the presidency. The last time there was fiscal sanity in Washington was with a Republican congress and a Democrat president.
I’ve felt that way for years but now I wonder if it still holds. Lots of the damage Obama has caused, some of which won’t be noticed until later, began with executive orders. I know he’s not the first to use them but as long as any president can make them, the House and Senate are relegated to naming post offices and proclaiming it to be ‘national elderberry wine week’ in honor of some constituent’s hobby. We have seen proof positive that the federal courts are, for the most part, going to side with any regulations that grant more power to the feds. Until congress shows that they will impeach/remove either a setting president or an activist judge, they’re just overpaid pencil pushers selling out to the highest bidder. When the Repubs took the house last year all you heard was how they could withhold funding for this, that, and everything. What have they done? Well they voted to withhold funding for a minute amount of EPA funds that somehow were earmarked to make us use expensive light bulbs.
For all his ineptness as a leader, Obama is a good politician. Appointing Eric Holder was the smartest thing he ever did. The fact that Holder is not now in impeachment proceedings is a shame. Something in the air or water in DC is causing backbones to deteriorate rapidly.
Really??? Do you doubt that if O get another 4 we’re NOT going to see at least one, probably two, appointments to the SCOTUS resembling the disgraceful likes of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. You have to know he’ll find even bigger loons than her to stick the American citizenry with.
I swear to God, another 4 years of Sock Puppet and I’m gonna go teach English in Korea for the rest of my life. At least there they understand the dangers of Communism.
Mr. Cramer – As an atheist I am puzzled by your “beyon doctrinal”, and other shots at Mormons. They tend to stay as an intact family, off welfare, and out of jail. I tried to read their book and their beliefs seem no stranger than those of Catholics, and with a much smaller history of violence. If there are really troubling things about Mormons or their belifs, please educate me. I see Romney as “paint by the numbers Rino ” (like that phrase) but the religeon aspect is unclear.
Hmm, “Bede,” curious nickname for a self-professed atheist! We are far apart on theology (I am Eastern Orthodox) but I agree with your critique of the anti-Mormon tenor of the piece. I think Mr Cramer is trying to emphasize that Mormonism begins from a very different set of basic assumptions than does the rest of Christianity, more than just having a supplemental holy book – the differences go to the very nature and uniqueness of the idea of God as the Creator and Man as His creation; more wildly different than any of the early heresies which were ultimately suppressed at the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and defined Christian dogma which even most protestants still accept, even if they don’t know it. Also, a number of us find it an amusing fact, too good for coincidence, that the “secret” Mormon sacraments or rituals, which take place only at the big temples, not the little local parishes or whatever they call them, bear a startling resemblance to the first three Masonic (Blue Lodge) degrees!
Phew! All that said — none of that has ANYTHING to do with whether or not we should get behind Mitt as a candidate. Only his record and his platform for this campaign –anyone is allowed to change his mind, after all– should matter. And given the latter half of the 20th century, I’d much rather try a Mormon than what the Southern Baptists have sent to White House.
The Mormon religion makes for an easy target. It was written by a Charlatan named Joseph Smith, Jr. only about 190 years ago. These facts alone make for a religion difficult to defend. The fantastic stories of the Bible were written by men ten times longer ago about a man who didn’t write any of it. Followers are left to infer and speculate about much of what the “truth” is. That is unless one becomes a fundamentalist Christian that insists that every word is the direct word of God himself. I find it difficult to take the fundamentalists seriously inside of any serious discussion.
That’s OK; those of us who acknowledge that the facts on the ground demand that God is here and He is not silent, and who understand that it is foolish to ignore the historical grounds for the trustworthiness of the Bible, find it difficult to take seriously those who claim that we’re all the accidental byproducts of a cosmic burp some umpty-billion years ago.
Nicely said. -G
Doc,
I’ll try to keep an open mind.
Doctrine is not behavior. I have worked and been neighbors with many Mormons over the last ten years that I have lived in Idaho. For the most, they are what you say: well-behaved sorts who put family first. There are far worse groups in America to share a community with, that’s for sure!
I also pointed out in the article that I really don’t see any reason why it should matter if a person is a Mormon or not when running for public office. (Okay, maybe if they were intent on being Secretary of Religion in a United States that did not have the First Amendment, then I would care.) The doctrinal differences, however, are profound. I did not choose to go into the details, because that wasn’t really my objective.
Clayton, if you had read the article carefully, you would see that the point is not what you think, it is what others (particularly blue dems and indies)think, especially when manipulated by the mainstream media.
Oops – disregard above comment – did not realize (till after I hit ‘post’) that it was written by the author. No edit button. Oh well.
You are so right that doctrine is not behavior.
Consider Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry. They were both “good Catholics”, but voted use our tax dollars to fund things the Catholic Church considered evil.
Ever notice how often the first words out of an atheist’s mouth are, “As an atheist . . .”?
http://www.forerunner.com/blog/islam-and-mormonism-kissin-cousins
Mormons and violence are no strangers. It was the Federal government’s putting of a foot in Mormonism’s collective rear end that stopped both their violence and their polygamy with underage women (in the mainstream of the cult). The above article shines light into the violent years of Mormonism and the frightening similarities between it and Islam.
If the Republican Party and primary voters want Romney at the head of the ticket, then they have to be ready and willing to talk about Black Liberation Theology as aggressively as the Dems will try to smear Mormons. Would hate to see that develop but the Republicans can’t let the Obama gang say anything and go unchallenged.
There are so many winning tickets and it is early yet. Romney with Rubio, Bachman or Ryan. Perry with Bachman, Ryan or Rubio. Bachman and Liz Cheney or Bachman and Christie. Obama is beatable, let’s get the duo that can lead on the economy and restore our reputation around the world.
I have old friends that converted to Mormon from Catholicism. They are even more liberal than they were before.
This is the Non sequitur with Romney. He’s really a Democrat in Republican garb.
He can be trusted as far as Obama, to have the American citizen’s interest at heart.
Romney is McCain on an energy drink.
Romney is Obama with less of a tan. As I stated earlier, we don’t need another narcissist-in-chief.
I’m old enough to remember people agonizing over voting for JFK because he was Catholic. Granted, this was probably a southern/rural problem but both my parents wondered out loud about it and the only Republican they’d ever voted for was Eisenhower.
As far as Mormons, I know next to nothing about their religious doctrine. What I do know about them is purely anecdotal. The Mormons I know and have known always struck me as pretty darned conservative, law abiding, family oriented, self sufficient people. If these are Mormon doctrines they don’t bother me.
The entitlement/reparation/social justice/diversity craving doctrines that have invaded most religions today are more problematic to me.
NAR!!!!
Not Another Rino! 2012 will be an ideological war and those who produce need to save themselves from those who won’t.
Say a farmer produces just enough to feed himself and 12 people who work with him. Add a non productive member and the farmer will not have enough seed left over to plant for next year. Well folks—we are running out of seeds.
It’s only prudent to try to anticipate what strokes will be used against a partticular candidate. As I don’t know much about LDS theology, I can’t express an opinion on it, but on Mr. Cramer’s authority I’ll accept as accurate that it’s not mainstream Christianity. If that’s the case, we should expect it to be used against Mitt Romney, should he gain the Republican nomination. But Palin’s flirtation with Pentecostalism and Bachmann’s evangelical Christianity would probably be used in a similar fashion.
The big knock against Romney is that, like virtually all Northeastern Republicans, he’s moderate-to-liberal. “Technocrat” is probably a fair characterization. Whatever the appropriate label, he’s the sort of Republican who’d never be deemed acceptable by Republicans outside the Northeast. He tinkers happily with the machinery of State, but is uninterested in principles, and has never signed onto anything that resembles a constitutionalist agenda. He’s also far too ardent for high office, having run for both governor and United States Senator in Massachusetts, and for the presidency in 2008. So a Romney nomination would likely be greeted by the “base” with the level of enthusiasm that characterized the campaigns of Dole and McCain.
“So a Romney nomination would likely be greeted by the “base” with the level of enthusiasm that characterized the campaigns of Dole and McCain.”
And that is why the MSM will do everything in their power to paint him as the most qualified Republican candidate. They will marginalize all of his opponents and construct polls to show him as the only electable candidate.
If Romney, Guilianni, Huntsman or Perry are nominated I invite true conservatives to join me in voting Libertarian. If we get another go along, get along RINO then it’s the GOP that richly deserves to become the “third” party.
What’s the difference between a liberal and a libertarian?
Other than the libertarian’s fondness for holding on to their own money, I don’t see any significant issues conservatives and libertarians agree on.
Libertarians support illegal immigration and insist its negative results are a positive. Same same for homosexuality.
I’ll write in Donald Duck before I vote libertarian.
You forgot legalization of drugs. I’m not sure even liberals would go for that.
Of course the liberals like prohibition, they are the ones who profit from it. The so called war on drugs has fattened the DNC from day one via the trial lawyers association and police unions. And for what? So our tax dollars can prevent people from self destructive habits? Oh, and of course, arm and train south American anti-drug forces, who later became the Zetas!
Sorry, prohibition is nothing but a tax paid by Americans to the special interests of the drug dealers and the law enforcement apparatus. It is a scam just like it was with alcohol.
Granted the war on drugs has been excessive, but how does legalizing drug use, a self destructive habit, benefit the individual and the nation?
You gonna give crack, meth and heroin away for free? Unlikely. Addicts’ll still need money to buy the stuff.
By legalizing, you hope those self destructive addicts will become productive members of society and so drug connected crime will disappear?
Who’s going to hire the addicts? At what jobs? Government jobs? Like Marion Berry?
You know, you scoff at morals but adherence to a moral code based on Christianity is greatly responsible for the freedoms and liberties that were extant until morality itself became suspect.
Every human proclivity and action is not ok JustAl.
Granted, I do not agree with the open borders position, but please name a party that hasn’t got “leaders” who’ve tried to push the exact same thing? Are you saying that limited government isn’t common ground with conservatives? Or is limiting government, except when it enforces you’re moral world view what your goal is?
Limiting government IS holding on to more of your own money isn’t it?
As to limiting government to enforcing my moral world view, well how so? I don’t consider illegal immigration to be a moral issue. It’s clearly destroying the unity that binds any nation together and it has a distinct negative economic impact on homegrown Americans. As such, it is a negative and destructive force.
I don’t want to get us sidetracked, but homosexuality is abnormal and counterproductive to the continuation of a species is it not? It is nothing more than a sexual proclivity, an activity one decides to engage in. Like bestiality, pederasty or criminality for that matter.
Certainly, in the US, where individual freedoms are supposed to be assured (and one of the few places on earth where libertarianism flourishes) one may engage in those activities. In libertarian lingo, as long as no one is hurt.
Are children as young as 5 years old hurt by an education system that tells them homosexuality is good, and right and a legitimate lifestyle regardless what the parents of those children think? How about teenagers struggling with sexuality being told homosexual activity is ok.
Who exactly does the mainstreaming of homosexuality, a tiny minority that cannot reproduce itself biologically, help? The homosexuals. They are one group that unlimited government has elevated to special status. A special interest group that demands and gets harsher criminal penalties when wronged.
I see no benefits to the non homosexuals.
So I object. If a group can be elevated for it’s sexual practices, then any group can be elevated for whatever reason the government chooses. Right?
Where does my morality come into play here?
i have always felt that the trouble is with the capitol “L”ibertarians not the “l”ibertarians
When Giuliani was the mayor of NYC he did a very credible job. He reduced crime a lot and was not particularly liberal.
Really? Repealed all of the anti-second amendment BS did he?
So if Romney wins, what does the country get? Another technocrat who just manages the leviathian better than the other guy? Please Republicans, put away the blow dryer and nominate a true conservative.
NYC was always very anti-gun. I do not remember what he did to make that worse, please refresh my memory.
You bet! If what you want is another go along, get along business as usual, big government politician he may just be your man. “I’m no worse than the Other Guy” can be his campaign slogan.
What I want is someone who makes things better, not just someone who “won’t make things worse” when it comes to restoring the rule of the Constitution.
Hitler also reduced crime and wasn’t particularly liberal. I think we need a somewhat more comprehensive approach to dismantling excessive government than G has.
Romney would be our worst possible choice. If he is the GOP candidate, Oblather will have another four years to drive us all over the cliff.
Romney is really John McCain in disguise; Romney is a card-carrying member of the elite ruling class. In the dictionary, next to RINO, there’s a picture of MItt Romney.
I have no doubt that were Romney or even current media fav Jon Huntsman to get the nomination, every oddity of the Mormorn Church dating back to when John Smith left upstate New York would be visited on their heads….although given the huge push for gay marrage the big media is backing right now, it will be interesting to see how they handle that next year while as the same time focusing on Mormon poligamy groups and how evil they are.
“…and while Romney does not wear his religion on his sleeve like Huckabee or Pawlenty, he and his family are incredibly loyal and connected to the Mormon Church.”
I believe your half right on the above. Of the three, I believe Romney is the most devout. The reason he doesn’t appear to wear it on his sleeve is because he hides from his religion (or hides his religion) whereas the other two do not.
When one considers all the character assassination squads poised in the jungles of both the Left and the Right, can you blame him? At least the leftists stop short at calling religion “stupid.” The farther-out-to-the-Right call Mormonism Satanic.
I understand the political expediency of it. But I don’t like it. If you’re not ashamed of your religion, you should be able to defend it…. or at least defend your reason for belonging to it. He’s asking us to trust him with the Presidency of the United States.
Character assassinators generally reveal themselves as such. Name callers marginalize themselves. A person’s religious beliefs are generally considered a private affair… but are, and should be, fair game when running for President.
The leftists I’ve tangled with, think religion is a backward superstition.
(And they also believe that socialism is the inevitable wave of the future, btw)
Leftist/Socialists are, in essence, followers of a religion of their own. It is a frightening one. They are as self righteous and demanding as their Islamist friends.
It is not the Democrats Romney has to worry about right now. It will be a feeding frenzy of throwing each other under the bus, once the primaries really get going.
Romney is unelectable, he has no TEA Party support, if the Republican Party was so stupid that it nominated this RINO, the TEA Parties will be so enraged that they would likely form their own party, and split the vote. Think Perot taking 19% of the vote in 92, and 8% in 96, and getting Clinton elected, TWICE. To the much despised establishment Republicans who are giving this man money I say, do you really think the TEA Parties have nowhere else to go? What in the world gave you the idea that the TEA Parties are captives of the Republican Party? The Greatest FEAR the Republican Party must have if it is to retake the Presidency, is losing enthusiastic TEA Party support, nothing else should matter. With TEA Party support the Republican Party will retake the Presidency in 2012, without it they won’t, it’s that simple.
Right on. If we get fed this moron as a candidate I will make sure to help destroy the Republican party. No more progressives. If you’re a McCain, Bush, or Teddy Roosevelt, go join the Dems. I am completely through with progressives. The destruction of the Constitution and 14.5 trillion debt finally woke me up.
When did the tea partys ever allude to forming a third party?
I believe they should have done so right from the start, but as far as I know, no tea party has expressed any interest in traveling the third party route.
And all indications are the republicans, rightly or wrongly,consider the tea partys to be happily under the republican tent.
in fact, the tea party patriot organization has expressly ruled out supporting anyone outside the republican party.
And you – or they – speak for everyone? Not me.
The tea party patriots have made that statement a few times.
As far as I know, no one speaks for any of the tea party organizations except the various posters who certainly sound authoritative.
I speak for myself on all things.
I am not ‘tea party patriots’ and I vote. f-ck whoever says that they speak for me.
This is the best piece I’ve read in a very long while. The absolute most important part is about the long-knives coming out. If you think you saw them in 2008, and many don’t think they were there (but I sure do), watch out. This is possibly the most machine-politics guy since Huey Long!
We ALL must be on our P&Qs, even if Mitt does get the nomination. This is going to be harder than most currently believe.
But, as our next President of the US once said, we’re here, we’re clear, get used to it.
The other posters have it right. Romney will lose the general if he somehow wins the primaries.
The two key factors are that conservatives despise him, and that his religion will be used against him. It will be the dirtiest campaign ever (but probably will be anyway. It’s just that a dirty campaign against a Mormon will work better than uber dirty campaigns against the other possibilities.)
Both will cost him a couple percentage points. That’s enough.
Has anybody heard the administration attacking him. That’s the final proof.
“A recent Gallup Poll found that 27% of Democrats would not vote for a Mormon, nor would 18% of Republicans, and 19% of independents.”
Well. I guess that shows us where the bigots are, huh?
Romney — not our best choice, maybe even our worse choice. But by God, he’s gotta be better than Sock Puppet.
Hell, a dead possum would be better than Sock Puppet.
I like this site because of the usual intelligence of the comments, but the level of bigotry is appalling. Every time Romney is mentioned – here it comes again.
You know Mormons are the most patriotic, conservative, God loving, family oriented people on the planet!
There is no use trying to refute the bigots about the Latter Day Saint religion, because they get all their talking points from those who come to our Temples and conferences and drag Book of Mormons on strings through the dirt and dare us to fight them. They scream at brides who come out of the Temple to have pictures taken with the foulest names. So these are the people you all are siding with!
Romney is not my first choice, but if he makes it through the primaries, I will proudly vote for him.
You who are advocating a 3rd party surely have a D after your name. When you think of the damage that obama can do with another 1 or 2 appointments to the supreme court, it will last for all of our lifetimes. Funny it’s ok to vote for a “christian” who sat in a church denouncing our country for 20 years, and who bows to muslims, but heaven help us if we vote for a man who loves this country, is a brilliant business man, lives a clean life, loves his family, has not disgraced himself with a hooker on the side, and who happens to be a Mormon! I believe with a conservative congress we will get all the things we want including the elimination of obamacare; get rid of all the signing statements that he has done; and really focus on jobs, jobs,jobs and the economy!
“You know Mormons are the most patriotic, conservative, God loving, family oriented people on the planet!”
Which has nothing to do with whether the Mormon who is Romney should be President or the Presidential candidate of the Republicans. Romney would do better being the candidate of the Democrats. By 2012, the Democrats will also do better if Romney is their candidate.
/sarcasm Romney for President! /endsarcasm
“Romney is not my first choice, but if he makes it through the primaries, I will proudly vote for him.”
I will vote for him too Goldi… but not because I think he’s the best the Repubs have to offer…. not by a long shot. Be careful how easily you throw that word “bigotry” around. You may have seen it surrounding the Temple. I never saw that kind of behavior when I was there. And I’m not seeing it here.
Bigotry? What bigotry? Do you see anyone here saying they won’t vote for Romney because he’s a Mormon? I bet you did not even really read the article, nor the comments.
Personally, I have liked every Mormon I have ever met. I think some of their more esoteric beliefs are truly crazy, but I do not care. I judge a tree by its fruit, and Mormons are good fruit. I’m sure I would like Romney, if I were to meet him.
I will not vote for Romney, though. Ever. I did not vote for McCain. I did not vote for Bush. Last decade stank for Conservatives. I will vote Constitution Party if I see Romney as the Repub nominee. In fact, I may vote for Obama in that case, and give the country what it will so richly deserve at that point: Obama, the Scourge of God.
You sure you got the right site? :>)
I really appreciate you writing this piece….this is superby done….I totally agree with every word you said, and i wish that more right wing ”tea party ” people like myself would read this….thank you very much….some call it cutting off your nose to spite your face….i would vote for romney, if he gets the nod……jimi
If Romney is the candidate, Obama will win. It has nothing to do with his religion; he is a BushIII. Has everyone forgotten the only reason the Repubs won in November was the TEA movement? I see a 3rd party coming, since it looks as though the old guard Repubs are blind to the people’s needs. That will assure the Dems win in 2012, but in the long run, if we cannot shrink the behemoth Washington control of everything, we as a nation are finished. Compare the government today with the constitutional limits, and you will surely see that we are in actuality a corrupt dictatorship. The Latin Americans who flood in here feel right at home, since their countries with maybe one exception have always been the same.
It’s too early to predict third party. Although he’s leading now, Romney’s support is thin. A strong conservative candidate has a better chance of rising to the top than I’ve ever seen. The awareness of the damage RINO’s do is higher than it’s ever been. We just need to be sure to pick the best conservative…. and that’s not necessarily the best Christian. Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Perry, West… which one can run the gauntlet and emerge strong enough to take on the socialists machine and defeat it? And we conservatives should not be so rigid as to insist a RINO like Huckaby or Mitch Daniels not be included on the ticket as VP. Though I think Bachmann, West or Rubio might make an even better VP choice.
Really? Not be rigid? Reagan did exactly that, including Bush on the ticket. Yeah, that worked out swell 10 years later, when Bush raised taxes.
Mark,
The Reagan/Bush ticket won and we got Reagan. I know it could be argued that Reagan would have won anyway against the pathetic excuse for a man… Carter. But would you vote against a Conservative/Constitutionalist if he/she happened to choose a RINO for a running mate?
Marco Rubio and Bobbie Jindle don’t meet this test.
“Status as a natural born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or VICE PRESIDENT. This requirement was an attempt to allay concerns that foreign aristocrats might immigrate to the new nation and use their wealth and influence to impose a monarchy.”
You either are with the restoration of the Law of the US Constitution or you aren’t. I am suspicious of any talking head on the so called “Republican side” pushing a VP slot for Marco Rubio. It is a perfect set up for the Progressives who want nothing more than to strip the US citizenry of any protections afforded them by the US Constitution.
Sean Hannity and Dick Morris maybe better think of that before they feel the right to pick our next Vice President for us based on the need for Republicans to curry favor with Hispanics. The law is not something you can turn on and off as you chose when it suits your objectives and tastes, unless you are a Democrat or RINO Progressive that is.
Huh? Rubio was born in Miami Florida…
Bobbie Jindal was born in Baton Rouge. He is a natural born US citizen.
Got any comeback?
Eh, Plugged Nickel?
Either way they are ethnic outliers with different degrees of Southern accents – Rubio wont flip the Mexicans in the southwest necklace (NV/NM/CO/AZ on a bad day) and Jindal has no appeal to the suburban Desies in NJ/PA (for example). Will Rubio do away with wet foot/dry foot and will Jindal pull back hard on H1B’s?
Last election I would have voted for Romney. He seemed to have the best credentials for dealing with financial and organizational issues.
However, he has been surprisingly silent during the past 2 1/2 years. When he has said something it has included statements like he is the one who can work with the dems. At a time when we need someone bold and to the point in dealing with Dems and the issues we do not need another McCain.
He , as would almost any of the other candiadates, would be better than Obama but would not show well against Obama since the establishment whether Dem or GOP is not very different in approach.
When you are over budget compromise on whether its 14 trillion over or 7 trillion over is not really an answer.
In my view Romney isn’t the right choice, but I don’t yet have a strong opinion. But I really respect the level of discourse on this thread.
Bush tried “Working with the Democrats” and they did everything in their power to make sure that his policies failed. Obama was elected partly on his promise to work with the Republicans and as soon as he took power he made it known in no uncertain terms that ” We have the power and it is my way or the highway.”!
So to vote for any Republican on the grounds that they will work better with the Democrats is pure fantasy.
Guliani, while the best mayor NYC has had in my lifetime won’t play in Kansas or Georgia, or even any other state beside New York, so I wouldn’t waste much time worrying about him as a candidate for the Republican nomination. Romney one only one primary last year, but Guliani won none, so while the talking heads will put any name forward neither of these gentlemen are anything other than RINO/Progressive wet dreams. The real question boils down to can Perry be trusted and will Palin enter the race. Michelle Bachman has little or no executive experience and we all know how important that is after watching Obama stammer and strut with no clue how to manage. Michelle is a great American and a true fighter for the cause of freedom and has more spine then Romney et all combined, but she is not the person to put in charge of the most difficult reform operation in history. Freedom is one thing but surviving against the forces that are aligned against The Republic is not a job for a lawyer, even a female one. Who can speak for Governor Perry? That is the question that we have to answer. He can raise the money and he can manage from what we have seen of three terms in Texas, but is he a real conservative? Any constituents from Texas care to share their opinions?
I’ve only been in Texas about twenty years, but I’ve yet to meet someone I consider a Constitutional conservative who like Perry. In fact, one fellow I like to chat politics with actually has taught poly sci at college level and has been involved in GOP/Conservative politics for many, many years. When I asked him, his response was, “Rick Perry as the GOP candidate is the only scenario I can imagine in which I might vote for Obama.”
If you haven’t heard Perry (Al Gore’s Texas campaign chairman) a RINO then you haven’t been listening to conservatives here in Texas.
The ONLY two things Ricky got out in front on was mandating (over parents objections) the inoculation of jr. high girls for HPV, and the “Trans Texas Corridor” to help flood the continent with Chinese goods and Mexican illegals faster.
His response to AZ taking the fight to “O” over the border was “not the right kind of law for Texas”.
The Texas economy weathers every economic storm better for precisely one reason, very, very little state government. The legislature only meets for a few months every other year, is Constitutionally bound to spend no more than projected income, and the governor is little more than a ceremonial office.
To give Rick Perry credit for the Texas economy is like giving a fisherman credit for the tides because he lives by the sea.
Capitalist and government corruption in Texas goes back to the earliest days of the Black Gold era and has continued with increase throughout the more modern of times. I can remember the times when a publishers editorial could, and often did, mean the end of that paper or at least that publisher. Government and corporate political extortion exchanges has a very long and rich history in Texas! The Texas Mansion has never been owned by the people. Its long been owned by the corruption of special interests just as most states and the federal government are.
I can’t remember a Texas governor who has not been a part of that corruption history. West Texas is a very different lot of folks…good decent folks…in spite of Perry! Texas could have benefited far more from Perry’s education in animal science. He became a common politican and political opportunist.
Romney still hasn’t made the case for why he should be our candidate. Why does he even want to be POTUS? Is it just another notch in his career belt? He doesn’t seem to have a vision of America as a reason for running.
I voted for Romney last time in the primary only. I think uneasiness about Momons (same as Muslims) IS a reality, and from statistics given, equally a prejudice of both parties! Frankly, I get a BIT nervous about any candidate who flaunts his religion. Fact is Republican just “ain’t got NOBODY” to quote a song, at this point.
Governor of Texas now talking about coming in?? He’s a fundamentalist Christian flaunter but even worse he (with George Bush) was prime pusher of that road from Mexico to the Canadian border (until publicity shot it down) to be built by SPANISH investment group and leased to us!! Guess who was going to get all the lawyer contracts in the deal? Giuliani’s law firm. How’s that for a running handicap???
I still say, the best candidate BEFORE HE WENT ON FOX AND GOT A BIT CRAZY was, may still be, Governor Huckabee. And Donald Trump, if he’d push his anti-free trade agenda could beat BOTH PARTIES.
If one wants a Repub victory at any cost…hard to say, maybe Romney is more likely to win than a more conservative choice, since most of the populace is seriously ignorant and/or in denial about reality, including their duty to elect responsible legislators and execs who will honor and follow the Constitution, not continue to twist it out of all recognition as has been going on for decades. Will the Repubs do better than the Dems, even w Romney at the helm? Well, hitting the wall at 75 mph is prob’ly better than 95 mph, I guess.
Meh, Democrats would find a way to trash gays too if they were predominately Republican.
TEA party people are TEA party people because they are furious about what Obama and the Democrats have done to this country so far. There is no way that they will stay home or vote for Obama vs Romney, or vs any other Repuplican. Of course the Republican Party knows they have TEA partiers/conservatives in their pocket. Slam dunk. With Romney, the’re hoping to draw the independents (conservative Democrats who don’t want to admit who they are). They know Latinos and blacks will always go for Obama, so it’s essential to get the independents/Reagan Democrats.
For Republicans, winning comes first. “Saving the country” to them, doesn’t have to mean anything other than limping along until they have a comfy nest egg to retire on.
If there ever is to be a third party, it will have to wait until after the 2012 election, so that the next 4 years can be spent manning it, promoting it, and getting as many elected to Congress as possible.
The evangelicals, however they rebrand themselves, of the GOP don’t have any liking towards the LDS community and have long voiced it in public settings and other forums. The LDS religion card is not excluse by any means to the democrats activists.
As the Gallup Poll to which I referred found, Democrats are 50% MORE hostile to LDS than Republicans.
Cramer..I’ve never seen a poll measuring the ‘hostility’ towards the LDS. Maybe you should check your own hostility at the door when purporting to be a journalist of fact.
Cramer…let me do a bit of damage control for your journalist integrity!
Gallup poll conducted between June 9-12, 2011:
["The poll revealed that 27 percent of Democrats would not be willing to vote for a presidential candidate of their party who happened to be Mormon. Among Republicans, that number was only 18 percent"].
You’re welcome!
Within the margin of error for the poll–the same poll you cite–Mr. Cramer observes accurately that Dems are 50% more likely to object to Romney’s Mormonism.
Thanks for proving him right, Thomas.
Citing the polling as presented by the polling entity would have been more than sufficient!
Citing ["Democrats are 50% MORE "hostile" to LDS than Republicans."] is disingenuous journalism.
Thomas, I am almost able to appreciate the reliability you show is bringing empty puffery for us to enjoy.
Trump has no substance and is little more than a carnival barker. He thinks that he can just dictate prices to Opec.
He has screwed over investors many times and failed to pay contractors their full agreed upon price for work done. As a contractor your only choice is to take him to court.
US interests would always be second to his own.
Valid criticism notwithstanding, we all owe a big debt to Trump. He – more than any other candidate/non-candidate has shown how to take down Obama. Attack him, attack him personally and when he squeals, attack him again. Even Palin does not do this.
It takes a bully to know a bully, to know how to take down a bully.
Now all we need to do is grow a pair (regardless of gender) and take a page or three from that playbook.
It is all smoke and mirrors and being decided behind our backs. We need to change the conversation to the New World Order and how the UN and at least the last four presidents have bought into global governance for us all. Please watch this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLF_i8CbwHQ&feature=player_embedded#at=808
See what they have been planning for us for years. Do some research on it, find out how your local politicians are buying into it. Find out all of its evil names.
We have to change the conversation to be about the New World Order, which the last four presidents have signed on to, giving up our sovereignty one little bit at a time so we will not notice. Ask the candidates how they feel about the UN and Agenda 21 and vote accordingly, regardless of party.
You’re getting far outside the world of the radical activists on here and elsewhere from either the democrats or GOP/TeaParty. The order of “world government” has never sought publicity and receives none….thus nobody has any concerns or even knows of its over 200 years of evolution other than the UN, international court(s) and the international Red Cross.
“Is Romney Our Best Choice?”
No, altering or abolishing the government is our best choice, buit I don’t think folks are ready for that.
Yet.
Romney would be G.W.Bush 2! Not if I can help it. He is a RINO! This country needs a true and proven track record conservative!
Romney will not attract the votes of working class “Reagan Democrats” like myself.
He’s an empty suit and looks like a professional politician.
Barbara you are 100% in your worries. In fact, all of the bad housing loans and years of government overspending by Western nations could be a plot to crash the system institute a One World Government that will be controlled by the anointed few. If they can crash the economic system people will be demanding that liberties be taken away for the good of the many. Except for the anointed few and their minions the world will finally be equal—–equally poor.
for what it’s worth, here’s what i trust Romney would do as President if he were elected.
1) Nominate a constitutionalist to the Supreme Court remember, ginsberg will retire most likely during the next term of womever the sitting president will be.
2) Fight jihadists more in the way we should.
3) Slash the budget.
4) Lower taxes overall.
5) Repeal Obamacare and return the insurance decision to the market. I know of Romneycare and 100% it is disastrous. I do not think Romney will repeat Romneycare on the federal level.
Romney will not govern conservatively on all issues but overall I do think he will be a conservative governor. Romney is not my candidate of choice. That would be Cain and Bachman as my first choice. But at this point it does look like Romney will get the nomination and as such I will vote for him.
Darren,
I’m not ready to give up on Cain yet. Bachmann either. The Dems are going to come at them for being religious too… but probably won’t get as much mileage out of a mainstream Christian as they will get out of a main stream Mormon. After what I’ve heard a couple of Texans say about Rick Perry, I think I’m sticking with Cain. And I’d take most of the Repubs in the pack for VP if it would help the ticket.
I would be thrilled if either Cain or Bachman wins. They are the best choices in the crowd I think . I completely agree that the anti-religion Left will attack Cain and Bachman as well but that they will not get as much out of it as they would with Romney.
“Mormon beliefs are more than a bit out of the mainstream of Christianity”
Umm…it’s not any sort of Christianity. It is a completely different religion, bro.
“Umm…it’s not any sort of Christianity. ”
Center to everything Mormons believe is Jesus Christ. And there’s no such thing as a “Mormon Jesus”. Yes, concepts of Jesus differ between Mormon and non-Mormon Christian faiths; but the Jesus of the Bible is the very Jesus Mormons worship and believe in making central in their individual lives.
As some of the quotes from Brigham Young that I posted in other comments point out, the God that Christianity worships isn’t recognizably the one that Brigham Young was preaching. Christianity believes that there is one, and only God. Brigham Young thought that there could be many.
Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ was God having taken on human form; Brigham Young taught that God was one a man of flesh and blood who was exalted. I remember being utterly startled when a Mormon missionary explained to a table of us at a Libertarian Party convention that God lived on Sirius B. (The poor guy did not seem to realize that Sirius B is a star, not a planet.)
I do not doubt that there are people attending Mormon churches who are Christians, but if so, they aren’t Mormons. There are dramatic differences in theology that make Mormonism outside of Christianity. That’s fine: believe what you want. But it sure isn’t just a variant of Christian belief.
Cramer;
First allow me to eloborate on my reply to Vincent. You cannot find a more Christian-based theology than that of Mormon theology. Jesus Christ is the center of all its doctrines, purposes, goals, strivings, standards, and worship. Jesus Christ is the center of all the eternities in mormon theology. To repeat myself, you cannot get more Christian than that.
“I remember being utterly startled when a Mormon missionary explained to a table of us at a Libertarian Party convention that God lived on Sirius B. (The poor guy did not seem to realize that Sirius B is a star, not a planet.) ”
Reject that declaration. That has absolutely no bearing upon Mormon Theology whatsoever. I work directly with Mormon missionaries in the Spring, TX area and I would take anyone of them to task if I heard that. I also served my mission in Recife, Brazil and nowhere have I ever heard that. But more conclusive, nowhere would you find that in Mormon Doctrine. The closest anything you’ll find related is the mentioning of Kolob where God dwells. Yes, that would differ from mainstream Christianity concept that God dwells in the heavens (which Mormon Doctrine also agrees with). It is no secret that certain Mormon Doctrines go against the grind of mainstream Christianity. In the case of Kolob, the fact that it’s mentioned does not deter thae fact that God dwells in the heavens (or “in heaven” – according to my understanding Latin simply makes “sky” plural to mean “heaven”). One planet among perhaps innumerable planets doesn’t diminish the fact that God dwells “in heaven”. Also, God’s presence is fully felt on an infinite level. God is onmi-present.
In order to comment on Brigham young’s comment you cited in previous articles, I’ll need a link. If you want to use Brigham Young comments as a standard for Mormon Doctrine then you need to know if what he said was authoratative: meaning have they been accepted by the First Presidentcy and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, presented to the priesthood body and then before the general congregation for a sustaining vote. If not, then they are most likely Brigham Young’s thoughts, not the churches. But do note that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints does not accept the Holy Trinity. That is seen by the LDS Church as a post-biblical declaration which departs from biblical doctrines, not a substaining of them. So, the LDS church believes in “God the Eternal father, and in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (Article of Faith #1). Just like trinitarian Christians, LDS doctrines teaches a plurality of divine beings. Unlike the trinitarian Christians, these beings are seen as physically separate but united in purpose. Yes, that departs from mainstream Christianity but does that make the LDS Church “it’s not any sort of Christianity”? Hardly. There are numerous biblical passages which I think can be best understood in under the view that God the Father and The Son as being separate physically but united in purpose.
Here’s an excellent observation regarding the Nicene Creed. It was made by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks in ther book, “Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints”. Now I want to make clear that I do not consider you, Cramer, “anti-Mormon” or anyone else who simply disagrees with Mormon Doctrine. But the LDS rejection of the Holy Trinity is widely used to denouce the LDS Church as being Christian and thus inclusion of the following observation in a book that addresses the anti-Mormon argument. Their observation, apparently taken from an Edwin Hatch, and which I spotted while reading a Mormon apologist’s website, said the following:
[Quote]
Among them, the Nicene Creed is almost certainly the most famous and the most important. Yet its very innovativeness makes it a most questionable basis for banishing the Latter-day Saints from Christendom. “It is impossible for any one,” declared [the non-LDS scholar] Edwin Hatch in his classic 1888 Hibbert Lectures, “whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The Sermon on the Mount is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; it assumes beliefs rather than formulates them; the theological conceptions which underlie it belong to the ethical rather than the speculative side of theology; metaphysics are wholly absent. The Nicene Creed is a statement partly of historical facts and partly of dogmatic inferences; the metaphysical terms which it contains would probably have been unintelligible to the first disciples; ethics have no place in it. The one belongs to a world of Jewish peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers. The contrast,” Hatch continues, “is patent. If any one thinks that it is sufficiently explained by saying that the one is a sermon and the other a creed, it must be pointed out in reply that the question why an ethical sermon stood in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ, and a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the fourth century, is a problem which claims investigation.” [Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity, Gloucester, MA: Smith, 1970, p. 1.]
[END QUOTE]
The Nicene Creed has become so authoratative in Christianity that it’s become doctrine in and of itself. I find this dangerous. Look at the difference in substance from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount. The difference is substantial. I realize that a consequence of rejecting the Holy trinity and accepting Jesus and the Father as “God”, then that means there is acknowledgement of the physical existence of more than one God. In the LDS theological case that there is God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ, there is no diminishing of the Father’s greatness or glory, or of the Son’s.
Now, as for the there being “gods”, it is important to know who Mormons worship. Mormons worship God the Father through the Son. That’s it. All LDS lessons focus on this. All LDS doctrines focus on this. Anything deviant from this os NOT LDS belief.
In the end I fully agree that Mormon beliefs are at times radically different than that of Christianity but I more fully reject the notion that mormons are not Christians, or that Mormonism has nothing to do with Christianity.
I just searched your blogspot page for “Brigham young”. I only got “page not found”. This happened for all the Brigham Young results.
I also really like your enthusiasm for Corvettes. A dang beautiful car.
Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses, vol. 7 (1860) is pretty clear on the differences between Mormonism and Christianity: http://books.google.com/books?id=c3ItAAAAYAAJ&dq=brigham%20young%20%22journal%20of%20discourses%22%20%22How%20many%20gods%22&pg=RA1-PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false takes to Brigham Young’s “How many Gods there are, I do not know.”
And at http://books.google.com/books?id=c3ItAAAAYAAJ&dq=brigham%20young%20%22journal%20of%20discourses%22%20%22How%20many%20gods%22&pg=PA333#v=onepage&q&f=false:
Cramer…do you often speak of things you know not about? You just made a fool of yourself defining and framing Mormon-ism! Until 313 it was illegal to be a Christian. Since that time the Christian ‘Church” has evolved onto primarily 18 groups, each with many more churches under each group and all have their OWN church docrines. Most Christians of all the churches haven’t a clue what their own churches doctrine might be except for a good amount of Catholics and most every Mormon. Study the historical conflict of Trinity for example and you will see not everybody and ever church of Christianity agree and in fact some find Trinty bizzare. The ‘works’ of the LDS Church consist of The Old Testament, the New Testament, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. Read all of them and see what the [centerpiece] of each is! Then maybe you can speak a bit more learned on the subject!
While I would not classify Cramer as unknowledgable on matters he blogs I do agree that there is a big misunderstanding regarding the Mormon faith. While today the vast majority of Christians fully accept the Holy Trinity you are absolutely correct in that early Christians around the 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th centuries did not hold to such views. At least not universally. This was the whole point of the Nicene Creed. To settle once and for all the interpretation of the existence of three divine beings as spoken about in the scriptures. My view is that the Nicene Creed took Christianity farther from a doctrinal faith and more along the line of a philosophical one. The concept of three beings in one is philosophical whereas the bible offers many anthropomorphic characteristics of God and prortrays them in a manner which can be best understood as separate beings but united in purpose.
Previous president of the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, said:
“We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized …We, of course, accept Jesus Christ as our Leader, our King, our Savior … the dominant figure in the history of the world, the only perfect Man who ever walked the earth, the living Son of the living God. He is our Savior and our Redeemer through whose atoning sacrifice has come the opportunity of eternal life. Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray and worship in the name of Jesus Christ. He is the center of our faith and the head of our Church. The Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ and witnesses of His divinity, His life, and His Atonement.”
Amen to that!
Romney is absolutely the best conservative in the race. He will conserve Obamacare (his version is called Romneycare); he will have the same record of abolishing government departments as Obama (laughter), and the same devotion to abolishing the income tax (laughter) and lowering taxes. It’s time for a true conservative to govern. He will win.
so.. some of you really MEAN I can invent a new religion, let’s say, to sacrifice pigs to the moon every month, play Angry Birds before breakfast, doing ritual baptism with sacred Coca Cola, with pilgrimages to Wasilla (new holy city), eating cantonese rice and drinking Coconut water for (a new) Eucharist,
BUT:
We still proclaim Jesus is Lord, and therefore this my new religion would be a normal Christian religion?????
X;
One thing I won’t do is question your Christianity. That’s different than diasagreing with your practices. I’m very reserved with whom I do not consider Christian. Westboro Baptis Church is one of them. No one can argue that they use the Bible. However, their actions are what drive me to not consider the Christian. Would Jesus do what tey do as a church? I hardly think so. Also, the LDS Church’s doctrines have a lot more to do with the early Christian fathers than people typically realize. That would be post Apostolic Age and ante-Nicene.
If I can buy you a Coca Cola, I’ll be happy to do so. :>)
I doubt that one person out of 20 could describe Obama’s religion as one that states that God hates white people and that Jesus was black (black liberation theology), because the MSM hushes it up. However, I don’t think that the MSM can make much of Romney’s religion because, first they don’t understand Christianity and secondly, Glenn Beck has bonded so well with us conservatives.
If the MSM attacks Romney’s religion, will they be painting Harry Reid with the same brush? Americans of religion are feeling more and more marginalized and we tend to circle the wagons, or at least I do. I don’t need to tell religiously conservative people, that our religious beliefs tend to be exclusive in nature. If you are a conservative Baptist, then catholics, Jews, and Mormons are all headed for hell, and vica versa. I’ll not debate that issue here other than to quote the Lord’s words, that “no man comes to the Father but by me”. That said, we religious people regardless of faith, except Islam, find it all in our best interest to have an allied front against godless liberalism. I would vote for a devout Mormon, Catholic or Jew who has traditional American values of respect for the constitution, individual liberty and small government in a heartbeat.
“If the MSM attacks Romney’s religion, will they be painting Harry Reid with the same brush? Americans of religion are feeling more and more marginalized and we tend to circle the wagons, or at least I do.”
A great question and a very valid point.
Most people never think about Harry Reid’s religion, and besides, the people of Nevada chose him, not the people of the US. He isn’t running for president, either.
But the MSM won’t actually attack Romney’s religion. What they will do is keep it in the forefront of people’s minds by constantly asking, through their political analysts, “Will the voters make his religion an issue?” or something of the sort. What they answer won’t matter. And they will make carefully neutral comparisons between Mormon beliefs and those of all other Christian sects, in the cynical belief that all Christians are bigoted exclusivists and, being reminded of the contrast, will go to the polls hating Romney.
Putting him up will be a repeat of McCain, except with a wider margin of loss because this time a lot of the core won’t bother to vote at all.
The only reason to vote for Romney is to vote against Obama. It’s enough.
Darren…["...I would not classify Cramer as unknowledgable on matters he blogs..."]
I guess Cramer proved your premise wrong on Mornom-ism! I only brought up the Trinity as a matter of showing how it was once rejected by Christianity as being bizzare and for some it remains so. I did not need a history lesson for which I’m fully aware of but, thank you anyway.