The old saying, “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” is lost on many Republicans wanting to move the GOP away from its conservative positions (particularly on social issues) in order to expand the party.
Thus, they’re willing to risk losing the bird in the hand (social conservatives) to get this mysterious creature known as the person who is fiscally conservative but believes in abortion so much that they’re willing 10% higher in taxes in order to ensure it.
Many of the people advocating this strategy come from a business perspective so let’s take a look at it from that viewpoint.
In business, they tell you it is 7 times harder and more expensive to get new customers than it is to retain your old ones, why would we think it is any different in politics? Consider that Evangelical Christians cast more than 20 million votes for Senator McCain and consider the pure number of Conservative Catholics and other religious conservatives who did so well. That’s a lot of customers to replace.
Of course, many of these political entrepreneurs don’t know their customers, don’t understand what motivates and what drives them and think they can dictate what are reasonable “compromises” for them to except, never understanding that compromises are the results of two people coming together, not one person proposing something slightly less than his view of ideal and telling the other person, “This is the way it’s going to be.”
To rebuild conservatism, you must attract new people without undermining existing ties. There’s no way to jettison or diminish social conservatives that will end happily for the GOP. There are not enough people that you can bring in to make up for all the people you drive out.
Honestly, what seems to drive this argument is a combination of personal over or distaste of social conservatives rather than any hard date suggesting that there’s a huge wave of socially liberal people who will fit well into the party.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:51 pm
What exactly does the GOP have to lose by this jettison? The birds in the hand can’t win elections anymore.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
#1 “What exactly does the GOP have to lose by this jettison?”
The prospect of viability in politics. The GOP needs more members, not fewer. Losing ANY of who they have will cost them dearly.
The GOP needs to appeal to minorities that already agree with them on more issues than Dems (i.e. blacks). How? By actually appealing to them, working to bring more of them to prominent positions, then promoting and defending them from the inevitable criticism they will face (think Sec Rice). A good start is Lt Gov Steele. The next is listening.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Wow. That’s a lot of faulty assumptions there. I’ll have a reply to this up in the next twenty-four hours.
This is shockingly narrow thinking.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Methinks so-cons needs to learn the fine art of compromise. It’s pretty hilarious that someone as conservative as Barry Goldwater would be scorned by the evangelical wing of the party today.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Adam, it’s not a huge wave of social liberals we want to attract, but just enough to make the difference in elections. I agree that the GOP cannot exist without social conservatives. The problems is the way some social conservatives choose to operate.
Things like Huck saying he wants to remake the Constitution to reflect God’s will. That’s not the way to win the argument over traditional marriage and life! We need to appeal to morals, ethics and reason. Always using Christianity as a stick isn’t the way to attract the middle. I’m a devout Christian, but I don’t think we should be using it to get what we want — it’s simply NOT effective, and it is counter-productive.
Another thing. Some religious right leaders and some evangelicals simply could not stand for a Mormon to ascend to the White House. And please don’t deny it, many said so. So, Romney, the most qualified person available to defend our socially conservative values, was rejected. He wasn’t the “right” religion. That gave us McCain, and now Obama.
Social conservatives better start playing smarter or they will never get what they want. I saw so much bullying by so-called “religious leaders” in our party over the Mormon issue, that I wanted to pull my hair out. Really, they were like hostage-takers — making ridiculous demands, and like children trhowing fits.
They need to grow up and realize the party is not all about them. It’s supposed to be a coalition, a big tent.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Good post, as usual Adam.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
nate,
Yeah, I think that is the basic point, though I don’t think anyone wants to jettison them either. Social conservatives are mature voters and don’t need us crusading in a very religious (and distateful, to the majority of the electorate) manner as to the evils of abortion, to name the biggest issue, to know it is something that we do in fact care about and have no problems putting some bounds on. I’m beginning to think that we shouldn’t single them out, either. Most segments of the Republican party have been rather backwards, stuck on reciting old ideas that worked in their day but we either can’t explain why they are really necessary and relevant to America now or are too thick to see that some catching up with reality is needed. The best example of this line of thinking is Sean Hannity. That’s not sunny, victorious conservatism in any shape or form.
I don’t think there’s any element of this party, SoCon’s or otherwise, that can’t find something to like in a Republican party refocused under new ideas and doctrines for the present and future. Their core ideals will remain, because the vast majority of the party agrees on them. We just need to rethink how we achieve them.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“Wow. That’s a lot of faulty assumptions there. I’ll have a reply to this up in the next twenty-four hours.” Why is 24 hours needed?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Martha,
Which “religious leaders” were making what demands regarding “the Mormon issue?”
January 21st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Ohio,
“Why is 24 hours needed?”
He’s gotta think up something.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:17 pm
#10, yeah and make it sound good.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
January 21st, 2009 at 6:18 pm
#7:
Yeah, I think that is the basic point, though I don’t think anyone wants to jettison them either. Social conservatives are mature voters and don’t need us crusading in a very religious (and distateful, to the majority of the electorate) manner as to the evils of abortion, to name the biggest issue, to know it is something that we do in fact care about and have no problems putting some bounds
And again you don’t actually know the constituency you’re talking about.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Oops. Tags
/D’oh!
January 21st, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Ohio,
My guess is it’ll be something along the lines of, “We don’t want to ‘jettison SoCons.’ We still want them in the party and we still value their votes. They just shouldn’t expect anything.”
January 21st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Wow. Good luck, #8.
It’s certainly a dilemma – you need to expand the party by making it more inclusive, without losing that section of the current party that, by it’s very nature, is against inclusivity.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
MWS, yeah, among other things, we heard that song and dance before.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Big S,
Where is that assumption either stated or implied in Adam’s post?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Actually, maybe there’s one more: that moderate voters will be happy being part of a club that refuses to take their opinions seriously, just … because.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“It’s certainly a dilemma – you need to expand the party by making it more inclusive, without losing that section of the current party that, by it’s very nature, is against inclusivity.” And why is 24 hours needed to dream this up?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:26 pm
#18
Here:
The overall point of Adam’s post refers to how the GOP is going to get back into power. He states that the GOP must continue to give a primary place to social conservatives without “diminishing” them. Now, we can argue about what it means to “diminish” them, but from what I have gathered from his previous posts and his general outlook, it means to do away with litmus tests on a few specific social issues as qualifications for national leadership. His strategy assumes that there are enough people who want to align with these political views (or who don’t care what the platform is as long as they get to be part of the club) to win a majority. Clearly there are not.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Big S,
“maybe there’s one more: that moderate voters will be happy being part of a club that refuses to take their opinions seriously, just … because.”
Paleeeeeez….. Can you name a pro-choice Republican incumbant who was opposed for reelection by Bush or the RNC?
Specter, Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Murkowitz, any of those (former) New England reps who went down in flames?
January 21st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Big S,
Your quote in #21 doesn’t prove your point at all. In fact it undermines it. Adam is not saying that a majority of people think just like him. In fact, he is saying that we need to BROADEN the party’s reach, WITHOUT underming a vital and preexisting constituency. What’s so hard to understand about that? He isn’t saying that people who are first and foremost SoCons are a majority at all. But they are a key component of any Republican majority. Shoot, just look at any Presidential or congressional election the GOP has won in the last 40 years. It’s undeniable.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Adam,
All I’m saying is that SoCon’s aren’t (as a whole, mind you – I’m sure there are a good number of uncompromising ones though I’ve never actually met them) so obstinate as to be incompatible with a huge chunk of the electorate. Social conservatives can still champion their ideals, in the right manner, and not drive a wedge between themselves and the rest of the electorate. Again, some are just too “principled” to do that, but one – they are few in number albeit loud, and two – by doing it their way we needlessly polarize the issue and scare away voters that would otherwise embrace our platform and give room for social conservative goals.
By demanding all or nothing, you (and the rest of us) get nothing. The real winners are the pro-choice liberals.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Most people here wouldn’t dare support a candidate who wanted to raise taxes to redistribute wealth, or a candidate who wanted to abandon all foreign military operations, or a candidate who wanted a wave of protectionism.
So, if we aren’t willing to compromise on other issues, why are we so willing to compromise on social issues? After all, economic and military strength are dependent on having a strong social fabric.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:07 pm
MatthewK,
That’s because military and economic issues are IMPORTANT to those individuals, where social issues are not. Some are social liberals, and that is why they are so quick to cast social conservatism overboard. They simply don’t ascribe to the philosophy. Now challenge their hawkish or free trade assumptions (as I have repeatedly) and they will make the Puritans look like Universalists.
I guess it’s a question of whose ox is gored, really. Go after their’s and they’ll drum you out of the party faster than anything (because the party has to stand for SOMETHING, afterall!). SoCons, on the other hand, are not allowed such conviction. Presumably because our issues really aren’t that “important.”
January 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Bottom line, those who demand purity in foreign policy and economics, but “open-mindedness” in social policy are simply trying to reform the party in their own image. Nothing wrong with that per se; this is America after all. But they need to stop being hypocritical about it when they start screeching about SoCons’ demands for “purity.”
January 21st, 2009 at 7:11 pm
And for those of you who think that we can do better by dumping social conservatism….that is the branch of the platform that probably has a broader reach than anything else. Good luck convincing code pink to support the war, or convincing unions leaders to support more free trade agreements – but there are millions of minorities and middle class and lower-middle class households who are highly pro-life and pro-family.
====
But again, I think everything needs to take a backseat to the Gitmo mess at the moment. We need to fight tooth and nail to prevent dangerous terrorists from being brought to US soil where it will be much easier for them to evade justice. How are you going to conduct full civil trials in regular courts? As if our courts weren’t backed up enough all ready, soldiers don’t stop to collect evidence. In a military tribunal “he was pointing a gun at us” “he was hiding in an Obama cave” “he was sleeping on the floor of a car bomb factory” is enough – probably not so in a civilian court. And are we really expected to reveal classified military secrets to a civilian jury? Even if we can successfully prosecute them, trial to execution for a US citizen can be decades. Do we really like the idea that many family members of his victims could die before he does?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Like I said, all of this depends on what it means to “undermine” social conservatives. We heard over and over again this past summer that the selection of a moderately pro-choice VP nominee would be enough to undermine the entire social conservative movement in the GOP! That’s how sensitive they are: “thanks for your votes, moderates, now please shut up and don’t expect your points of view to be represented!”
January 21st, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I should note that social conservatives threw a fit even when it looked like McCain wanted someone like Tom Ridge, who would in all likelihood not have run for President in the future. If Tom Ridge is not a worthy enough conservative for the party, it’s going to be a long time in the wilderness.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
With McCain, any VP could be seconds from the Presidency, and, in any case, VP nominees are likely Presidential nominees in the future.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
And the Republican party isn’t looking for the Planned Parenthood endorsement, either. We want social conservative goals. But it’s plenty obvious that in social policy above all else, our current approach isn’t working. If you want to reach a destination and the current road is leading you away, you don’t keep following it in the name of reaching the destination and hit anyone who suggests another route.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:18 pm
“who would in all likelihood not have run for President in the future”
What makes you say that? He is only sixty three – only slightly older than Romney, and younger in 2012 than Reagan and McCain were.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Matthew,
Even if Ridge said that he wasn’t going to run for president, the so-cons would have still pitched a fit. Let’s not pretend it isn’t the case.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:19 pm
#31
There will always be some excuse.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:23 pm
BigS which Presidential candidate did you vote for?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“the so-cons would have still pitched a fit. Let’s not pretend it isn’t the case.”
Sure – because of the likelihood of succession and the fact that it would have deprived us of an heir apparent (which, admittedly, we still lack).
January 21st, 2009 at 7:24 pm
I should also point out that social conservative “leaders” were unhappy with McCain’s own record on their pet issues and demanded someone more socially conservative than him as VP. Plenty of them were in freakout mode over McCain himself even before the VP talk kicked into high gear. If McCain’s not socially conservative enough for you …
January 21st, 2009 at 7:25 pm
#36
None.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
MWS In answer to your question #9 – There were scores of religious right leaders who signed petitions and sent threatening McCain not to choose Romney for VP. Some of them openly admitted that it was his faith, and others indicated it was the reason without outright saying so.
Some McCoy fellow said 60 million evangelicals would stay home if Romney were chosen. Land said there would be deep disspointment in the evangelical community. We all know that it had nothing to do with Romney, but everything to do with Mormonism. They just CAN’T have a Mormon in the White House now can they? Unthinkable! They preferred Obama, and now they are getting exactly what they deserve.
As far as I’m concerned the bigot brigade can sit down and shut up now. I don’t ever want to hear from them again.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
The problem is that “say it loud and say it proud” so-con-ism has always been a net plus for our presidential candidates. I think we are now at the tipping point where that will no longer be the case. We didn’t lose in 2008 because of so-cons. But the trendlines are clear for all to see. In 2004, when Republicans had a very good year, they still got clobbered across huge swaths of the country with populated urban centers. A LOT of that was cultural. I see no circumstance where states getting ready to tip to the left will be any more comfortable with so-con dogma in another decade.
Pro-lifer Republicans can’t win in CA, WA, OR and the entire Northeast. In ten years or less, VA will join that list. Who is next?
This brow-beating so-con stuff is not sustainable. We would be able to get away with it if the Dems couldn’t clobber us with excesses that are too easy to caricature. Like crusades against contraception. Intelligent design. Bill Frist diagnosing Schiavo. And on and on. People just aren’t drinking that kool-aid anymore. THIS is why we have to keep the platform as is but we need to keep the so-cons in check. We cannot have a Huckabee as the face of the party. Adam Graham obviously doesn’t get that.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
“If McCain’s not socially conservative enough for you …”
He wasn’t always against Roe…
====
Adam, no Huckabee as the face of the party, thats fine, just no Ridge or Giuliani either.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
#39, BigS did you not vote for McCain because he was too conservative for you?
Or was there another reason?
January 21st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/29/evangelicals-warn-against-mccain-romney-ticket/
“Prominent evangelical leaders are warning Sen. John McCain against picking former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate, saying their troops will abandon the Republican ticket on Election Day if that happens.
They say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year.
“McCain and Romney would be like oil and water,” said evangelical novelist Tim LaHaye, who supported Mr. Huckabee. “We aren’t against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won’t understand that.”
The Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel in Thousand Oaks, Calif., who speaks at evangelical events across the country, told The Washington Times, “I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep.
“It will alienate the entire evangelical community – 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened,” Mr. McCoy added.
Mr. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, was the favorite of evangelical voters in the Republican presidential nomination contest earlier this year and won more delegates per dollar spent than any other candidate in either party.
Other well-placed Christian conservatives say that although many evangelical leaders could accept and work for a McCain-Romney ticket, Mr. Huckabee’s supporters tend to be “rabid” in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith: They do not regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination.”
Leave a Reply
January 21st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Matthew,
I supported Giuliani originally and I think he would have been a good president. I’ll concede though that it just isn’t possible for him or anyone pro-choice to become the nominee. I wish that wasn’t the case, but it is. That is what is so frustrating about so-cons whining over McCain. They had NO CALL to do that. McCain was plenty conservative enough on social issues. If that isn’t good enough for so-cons then we are in real trouble.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:33 pm
#43
I did not vote for McCain for a number of reasons. One was that he showed himself to be a dismal leader throughout the financial crisis. Another, related reason was that he showed, through the selection of Sarah Palin, that he was more interested in throwing a bone to religious conservatives who were on his case (see #38, above) than to pick someone who could actually help him win AND govern if he were to pull it off. I’m not even saying that he had to pick a pro-choicer, or some other flavor of social moderate – just that he lost a lot of my respect when he picked someone whose only defining feature was her down-the-line social conservatism and gimmicky public persona.
There are other reasons, but those two are big ones.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Romney lacks trust on abortion not because he’s a Mormon, but because he’s a FLIPPER who was pro-choice until quite recently. It amazes me that people deny this simple fact.
Whatever you think of McCain, he has a solid pro-life record. And he was able to be pro-life without alienating independents, which is an important quality.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“It amazes me that people deny this simple fact.”
Actually, most of his supporters will concede that he was once pro-choice.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Martha,
“We all know that it had nothing to do with Romney, but everything to do with Mormonism. ”
This may come as a shock to you, but not every conservative worships the ground that Romney walks on- and for the VAST majority of us, it has nothing to do with Mormonism. Fact is, as has been played out countless times on this site, many of us don’t trust Romney. You are quick to say that is coded “anti-Mormon bigotry” but I think it has to do with his flip flops on our most important issue. It’s like you have such a crush on Romney that you can’t conceive why anyone could support anyone else- except for his Mormonism of course! That MUST be it!
What if someone accused you, Martha, of being racist because you are disappointed in the election of Obama?
You are doing the….. same….. thing.
Don’t be the Al Sharpton of the LDS.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
True. You know why? It’s because he didn’t make the nearly impossible political task of outlawing abortions (or overturning Roe then outlawing abortions) his highest priority. When the world is at war and peoples’ jobs and investments are crumbing, the last thing they want to hear is that a candidate’s opinion on some 30-year-old court case determines whether or not they are fit to lead the country through the crisis. As I’ve said a million times: if all you talk about is abortion, people are going to assume that all you care about is abortion. McCain’s “said” this, in effect, by caving to social conservative “leaders” completely during the summer section of the campaign. People took that as an indication that his priorities had changed, and the old “Maverick” image was destroyed.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Big S,
I supported Tom Ridge for VP because I believed that PA was vital to McCain’s electoral strategy. That being said, I assumed that Ridge would have to reaffirm his position as ProLife much like Bush Sr. in 1980 in order to be a viable candidate for the Evangelicals. Bush 41 and Bush 43 were both able to win because they were able to unify the party while not scaring off proChoice moderates and Independents. A candidate like Sarah Palin could do the same because she is unassailable on the Life issue having birthed Trigg. Likewise, I believe that Romney is also electable in this regards because he is now strongly ProLife but has been open to the Choice position in the past – he would be able to run “Life” in the Primaries while modulating slightly to “Choice” in the general. Had Giuliani come out as ProLife in 06, he would have been the nominee.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:46 pm
#48, my point is that people don’t trust Romney because of his inconsistent record, not because of his Mormonism.
#49, I entirely agree.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:46 pm
“This may come as a shock to you, but not every conservative worships the ground that Romney walks on- and for the VAST majority of us, it has nothing to do with Mormonism.” The bigot card has become a canard. Politically, I’ll take Mormonism over Romneyism.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:47 pm
On Romney, I really do think the Mormon issue in at least some fashion motivated the Huckabee support. Anyone who didn’t see the overtones really is just turning a blind eye to them. No leader worth his salt would dare say that out loud, but the sentiment still found ways of expressing itself.
They really can’t separate religion and politics very easily, a connection which most Americans are suspicious of by nature.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
#50, Maybe I’m missing something, but McCain barely talked about abortion during any point during the campaign. Sarah Palin didn’t spend a lot of time talking about it either. I don’t think McCain lost because he caved in to social conservatives. He lost because of the economic crash and because of Bush’s unpopularity. Imagine if the economy was good and Bush’s popularity was around 50%. McCain would have won in a landslide, there’s no doubt in my mind about that.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:55 pm
MWS – I didn’t say every conservative opposed Romney because of his faith. It was some evangelicals and it affected the outcome. For some evangelicals, saying that they do not trust Romney was indeed code for anti-Mormonism.
The point here is that Romney flipped on ONE issue – abortion. And even on that he has a 100% perfect record as governor. So the whole “we can’t trust him on this issue” was as transparent as glass.
MWS — if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. I have never accused anyone of bigotry who didn’t give me a reason to do so. I realize that many conservatives and many evangelicals supported Romney. Smart people.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:57 pm
MWS – I also meant to say in my last post that I also realize people opposed Romney for legitimate reasons having nothing to do with his faith. I’ve never said the only reason people didn’t support him was his faith.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
#55
Sarah Palin didn’t have to talk about it, and by selecting her, neither did McCain (although he went after Obama plenty on the topic). Why is it, exactly, that Plain became such a flash point in the campaign? Part of it was her lack of demonstrated ability in interviews, but that only amplified the fact that McCain only picked her to pander to so-cons. Everybody saw right through it – including those who voted for McCain-Palin primarily because of Palin. It isn’t a secret.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Kennedy Is Said to Withdraw Senate Bid
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/nyregion/22caroline.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01212009/news/politics/caroline_kennedy_ends_senate_seat_bid_151234.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780112/?gt1=43001
Take Two: Obama Takes His Oath of Office Again
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/21/obama_takes_his_oath_of_office.html?hpid=topnews
January 21st, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Martha,
” I also meant to say in my last post that I also realize people opposed Romney for legitimate reasons having nothing to do with his faith. ”
I’m glad to see you write that. I was having serious doubts. Now maybe you could give people (evangelicals even) the benefit of the doubt who make abortion their #1 issue and want a candidate who has never wavered or equivocated. Maybe instead of imputing to these “numerous leaders” bigotry, you could assume better intentions unless you have solid evidence to the contrary. And when I mean solid, I mean something more than a benign phrase that triggers fantasies of persecution.
For instance, by the vote tallies in Utah, I would have to conclude that millions of Mormons are disappointed in the election of Obama. You read “disappointment” as code for “bigoted” when it came to evangelicals. Should we presume the same prejudice you impute to evangelicals to your Mormon brethren regarding their rejection of our first black President? Or should we give these Mormons the benefit of the doubt and assume that Obama’s color had nothing to do with it, unless evidence arises more solid than their “disappointment”?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:20 pm
MPC,
“On Romney, I really do think the Mormon issue in at least some fashion motivated the Huckabee support. ”
Perhaps for a small group. On the other hand, there is little doubt that the Mormon issue in at least some fashion motivated the Romney support as well. No one here was moaning about Romney’s fundraising haul in Utah or Idaho.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
The end of the Kennedy dynasty?
January 21st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
I was very disappointed and disgusted that Obama broke Bush’s dress code edict on his first day. Bush had a strict rule that a jacket and tie must be worn in the Oval Office at all times and I believe that this policy engenders honor, dignity and civility. Obama just threw all that out the window with his sloppy and tacky shirt sleeves revealed in that hollowed office.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Caroline said she dropped out due to her “uncle’s health,” which I found amusing, since I didn’t know she served as his personal nurse.
My understanding is that Paterson didn’t choose her, so she dropped out to avoid the public snub.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:21 pm
“I was very disappointed and disgusted that Obama broke Bush’s dress code edict on his first day. Bush had a strict rule that a jacket and tie must be worn in the Oval Office at all times and I believe that this policy engenders honor, dignity and civility”
bah – I really don’t care what he wears in the oval office. Reagan walked around with Gorbechev in a cowboy hat (Gorb put his on backwards!)
Bush was a crisp businessman – suits and ties, show up on time, late nights, we’ll see how much Obama keeps of that policy.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Classic!
January 21st, 2009 at 10:52 pm
MWS, maybe you just weren’t paying attention to it during the primary, I don’t know, but the anti-Mormon bias in some evangelicals was more than obvious. I don’t know how large it was, but it was prevalent and vicious on the majority of web sites I visited, including Huck’s, and it did have an impact on the outcome of the primary. To it’s credit, this site only had a handful of people commenting who opposed Romney because of his religion, and as far as I remember, they were not regulars. But it’s well-known that the SBC and many evangelical churches make a habit of tearing down the LDS church. Of course significant numbers were bound to oppose Romney! They think we’re all going to hell.
MWS, I researched all of the people who signed the anti-Mitt ad, and also those who signed the threatening letter to McCain. Most of them had past anti-Mormon comments and articles easy to find. Maybe you just weren’t as interested in it as I was.
As for Utah, of course they supported Romney — he was the most conservative choice. I’m not saying his Mormonism did not have anything to do with it, but certainly the most conservative voters in the country are going to choose the most conservative candidate — especially when he was also the hero of the Olympics.
I don’t think you should assume all Mormons voted on religion because you have no evidence. But I feel safe in assuming many evangelicals voted against Romney because of his faith because that is what the evidence shows. There’s a mountain of it.
You can make fun of me all you want, but I got real tired of the daily parade of lies, distortions and trashing of my faith. There were precious few GOP leaders willing to stand up and say something against it. Our party should be better than that. We would not tolerate it if it were against Jews, African Americans, etc. Why is it okay for Mormons? Unfortunately we are the last acceptable bias.
I want to be in a party that respects and appreciates my vote. And one that doesn’t tell my Mormon children that they need not bother running for national office.
There is no comparison whatsoever to anything I’ve said or done to Al Sharpton, and I would appreciate more civility.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Martha,
“But it’s well-known that the SBC and many evangelical churches make a habit of tearing down the LDS church.”
So what? It’s well known that the SBC and many evangelical churches make a habit of tearing down the Catholic Church, but I’m not gonna’ whine. That’s what sometimes happens when conviction meets competition. I’m not going to impugn their motives though. I think they are sincere in their concern about souls, heaven, and hell. Many of them refer to my Church as the Whore of Babylon. They’re wrong. They’ll have to take it up with God someday.
Look, you can nurse grievances (real or imagined) or you can move forward. But impugning the motives of entire swaths of people does not seem very productive or healthy to me. I would like to see some more civility there.
BTW, are you outraged at the Mormons (however many or few they may have been) who voted for Romney BECAUSE he is Mormon?
January 21st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
There are Baptists who are jerks to Mormons, and living in Idaho, I know there are Mormons who are discriminatory towards Evangelicals. I know there are Evangelicals who are anti-Catholic, and I know there are Catholics who believe there’s no Salvation outside of the church, and this goes on and on.
It’s a pretty weak faith that expects other people to confirm your status as a Christian or that you’re going to Heaven. That ought to be outside the political realm. Guess what, no politician gets to decide those things.
Our political system is designed so we can work beyond those specific theological disagreements on issues of general agreements such as God’s grant of human rights to everyone.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:23 pm
#67:
But it’s well-known that the SBC and many evangelical churches make a habit of tearing down the LDS church.
Have you ever thought you might be biased against Evangelical Christians in politics because of your perception of your theological differnces?
January 21st, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Adam,
Amen. I don’t give a rip what Jack Chick thinks of Holy Mother Church, and I doubt he’d give a rip what I think of his psychotic paranoia.
What I find interesting though is the contradiction in the implicit idea that it is wrong to vote against someone because of his faith (the faith shouldn’t matter), but it is okay to vote FOR someone because of his faith (it’s okay for faith to matter). In this case, either the proponent of such an idea thinks that it is the particulars of his faith that justify the apparent contradiction (and thus is no different in motive than the detractors of Mormonism, for instance), or that it is the candidate that is aided by the supporters of such a contradiction that justifies it, in which case, the adherent is placing a particular candidacy over principle.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
MWS – Perhaps you are not whining because it didn’t just happen to a Catholic candidate. My grievances are not imagined, as I pointed out already. You would like to see more civility? You mean like not comparing me to Al Sharpton? I would also like civility towards Mormons next time around.
I would never agree with a Mormon voting for Romney based on religion. I don’t think you have any evidence that it happened, and I think you’ll be forced to agree that had Harry Reid ran, he would not have received very many Mormon votes — and even those would have been from democrats.
Sorry MWS, you haven’t made your case very well. Anti-Mormon bias existed in 08, and it affected the outcome. Some evangelicals acted horrendously. If it were a small number, we wouldn’t be talking about it. It wasn’t.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Adam Graham.
I’ve been a Mormon my entire life and I’ve never seen Mormon bias against evangelicals. I grew up in Boise, BTW, so what does Idaho have to do with it? I’ve lived in Idaho, Utah, Arizona and now Oregon, and never encountered Mormon bias against evangelicals. If you have (and I seriously doubt you have) it must have been an extremely rare anomaly.
I think evangelicals like to say that it works both ways but it simply does not. Mormons are not biased against any other religion and the wars are entirely one-sided. Mormons don’t spend one second of precious Sabbath hours tearing down other churches.
So, in answer to your question of my possible bias, NO, NEVER. I am not and have never been biased against evangelicals based on their theology or any other factor, not politically or personally. I lived my whole life thinking I was on the same conservative team with them! Imagine my surprise when I realized they had no such feelings about me.
Adam, you are trying to make me guilty of what some evangelicals did. It won’t wash.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Martha,
In point of fact, I said “real or imagined” grievances. Have Mormons suffered discrimination? Sure, so has every conceivable group, to a greater or lesser degree. We Catholics haven’t historically benefitted much from that, as you may know, but that’s how the reality of living in a fallen world. Anyway, your assertion of “no evidence” that anyone voted for Romney because he is Mormon is absurd on the face of it. Your contention that Mormons were completely indifferent to his religion both insults the convictions of Mormons, and belies the fundraising and voting patterns of this past primary.
Anyway, if you are a sincere Mormon- and I have no doubt you are- climb down from your cross, get over your persecution complex, stop whining about being a victim (which is a surefire way to turn people off to your religion), forget about your need for affirmation from the Baptists (it ain’t coming) and start giving people a positive impression of what you believe.
If you truly think that bigotry cost your hero the election, then make the case FOR your hero (who happens to be Mormon), and FOR your religion (which, coincidentally, happens to be Mormonism), instead of browbeating everyone for their supposed bigotry.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Martha,
“I’ve been a Mormon my entire life and I’ve never seen Mormon bias against evangelicals. ”
I’m sure you were looking for it with the same diligence that enabled you to decode “disappointed” as meaning “anti-Mormon.”
January 21st, 2009 at 11:46 pm
MWS, go ahead and keep your eyes wide shut. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
January 21st, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Personally, I’m hoping for real party of “Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion.”
January 21st, 2009 at 11:59 pm
#73:
I actually know a family friend who had to quicky an extraciricular activity because her teacher would not stopping push Mormonism despite her being clear on a lack of interest and her strong Evangelical Faith.
I’ve also known some people who have experienced discrimination from Mormon bosses.
These are isolated cases, of course. Same as the anti-Mormon feelings from Evangelicals. Now, I guess I could spend a lot of time grievance-mongering because some Mormons somewhere were not kind to Evangelicals or were rude or discriminatory, or I could go on with my life, and I can work with people despite disagreements.
I also find in inter-religious affairs that it is not advisable to claim, “No member of my religion has done anything wrong towards a person of another faith.” Unless Mormons are perfect they have and it’s arrogant to claim otherwise. It has little to do with the actual faith and more to do with human nature that discrimination against people on a religious basis occurs.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:01 am
MWS. What other choice did conservatives in Utah have in the primary? McCain? He was not wowing conservatives, as you may recall. Huck? Oh sure, they must love the “aren’t Jesus and Satan brothers?” guy! Paul? Get real.
Give me a break. If Fred or Rudy would have been available, they would have had support — especially Fred. But even Fred couldn’t beat Romney with conservatives — that’s why he had to drop out.
They had no other real choice. Romney won the conservative vote everywhere he competed. Utah is the most conservative state. Do the math.
I’ll stop being a victim when GOP leaders have the guts to tell the bigots to sit down and shut up. Hopefully they will have learned their lesson and will have grown up by 2012. For me, this isn’t so much about what happened in 08 as much as what better not happen ever again. You’ve got me all wrong.
BTW – I’m NOT looking for affirmation from Baptists! Ha, ha. I’m not here to make the case for my religion, either. That would be silly and ridiculous. I’m here to hope Romney is judged on merit next time, not his faith.
And, I never said Mormons were indifferent to Romney’s faith. Of course they weren’t.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:03 am
Mark DeMoss at beliefnet.com
“Finally, I’d like to see evangelicals look for competent, qualified candidates who share our values, whether or not they share our faith or theology. I believe it’s wrong to oppose a candidate because of his faith (Mitt Romney), and equally wrong to support a candidate primarily based on common faith (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin).
Along the campaign trail I met so many people, including pastors and religious leaders, who could tell me only that their choice for president was a “good Christian,” or “one of us.” This, in my view, is a dangerously inadequate approach to choosing our highest leaders. We don’t choose people for any other positions using this test; why would we apply it to one of the most important positions on the planet?”
Why indeed.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 am
Adam Graham, don’t make me laugh. Evangelical bias against Mormons is not isolated! My heavens, where have you been? Many evangelical churchs actually have Sunday School classes teaching how rotten Mormonism is! Christian bookstores have entire sections devoted to anti-Mormonsim. Come on Adam. Did you ever bother to read the comments section in Huck and other blogs? Sheesh. It wasn’t SOME evangelicals SOMEWHERE who were not nice to Mormons. You know it wasn’t. It was widespread enough to cost Romney Iowa.
You two guys have gone right past reasonable and are headed straight for ridiculous in your assertions.
Adam I did not say members of my faith never did anything wrong. But I’m telling you, I’ve never seen what you asserted — in fact, it’s the opposite. Mormons bosses discriminating against evangelical employees? Well, that’s lawsuit material, is it not? Funny how you never see that in the paper.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:18 am
#81
Many evangelical churchs actually have Sunday School classes teaching how rotten Mormonism is! Christian bookstores have entire sections devoted to anti-Mormonsim.
And having classes and teaching theological disagreements is not discriminatioin. It may be a bias against Mormonism, but it is not a bias against Mormons.
Just because it’s lawsuit material, doesn’t mean you always file a lawsuit. Life is too short to do that for a lot of folks who’d just rather find another job. And besides what about it not being in the newspaper, other than the Mark DeMoss quote, arguments of a mass anti-Mormon campaign during the primaries are asserted by you and never showed up in any newspaper.
I’ll also state that I’ve never seen actual mistreatment of Mormons up close and personal. Just because there’s no discrimination around you doesn’t mean it’s not going on.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 am
Adam, we’re not going to get anywhere talking about anecdotal experiences, anyway. What happens between individuals has never been the problem. (My own children have experienced anti-Mormon actions at school from evangelicals. So what, they can handle it — it made their faith stronger. That’s not what I’m upset about.)
The problem is that many evangelicals and religious right leaders made both public and thinly veiled attacks on Mormonism and refused to support Romney because of his faith. The problem is that your guy shamelessly used anti-Mormon bias for political gain. He not only gave cover to anti-Mormon feelings in the evangelical community, he was the ringleader!
You are in deep denial about what happened. Mark DeMoss is not the only person who noticed! It was obvious to everyone with eyes to see.
How you can support a man like Huckabee is beyond me.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 am
And having classes and teaching theological disagreements is not discriminatioin. It may be a bias against Mormonism, but it is not a bias against Mormons.
Correct.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 am
My own children have experienced anti-Mormon actions at school from evangelicals. So what, they can handle it — it made their faith stronger.
Why did it make their faith stronger?
The two actions seem to be completely unrelated. Why would being mocked for one’s faith have any effect on it whatsoever?
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:09 am
Alex, you are kidding?
It made their faith stronger because it caused them to figure out for themselves what they actually believe in their hearts, and why. Anyway, it was some of their school-mates who had been taught AT THEIR CHRISTIAN CHURCH false things about the Mormon church. (Nevermind that old bothersome commandment about not bearing false witness.) So much of what evangelicals teach about Mormonism is just plain wrong., but why do they feel the need to target the LDS church in the first place? And has it ever occurred to them that if they need to lie about Mormons, do they really have a valid point?
It’s not just theological differences, Adam. I suppose you think the whole SBC convention in SLC (where Huck was the key-note speaker) was just about theological differences? Like going door to door and telling Mormons they’re going to hell? Wow, real Christian-like! Passing out anti-Mormon literature to Mormons filled with lies. Mormonism Unmasked! Yeah, they were there to save Mormons, right.
Like I said, Mormons don’t do that. And Mormons have been voting for candidates of all faiths FOVEVER. Nary a word against evangelical candidate or otherwise. But let a Mormon run for pres and all hell breaks lose.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 am
Adam, so do you believe that Huck’s anti-Mormon actions in Iowa had nothing to do with Romney losing there, and Huck winning?
I’d really love to see your explanation of what happened in Iowa.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:18 am
Adam, evidence for anti-Mormon bias was everywhere, in every single newspaper. It was not just Mark DeMoss.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 am
but why do they feel the need to target the LDS church in the first place?
Pfft, how do you think I feel? I’m gay. Your church targets me, for the same reasons.
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:52 am
#86:
It’s not just theological differences, Adam. I suppose you think the whole SBC convention in SLC (where Huck was the key-note speaker) was just about theological differences? Like going door to door and telling Mormons they’re going to hell? Wow, real Christian-like! Passing out anti-Mormon literature to Mormons filled with lies. Mormonism Unmasked! Yeah, they were there to save Mormons, right.
Actually Huckabee was a speaker, not the keynote speaker and his speech had nothing to do with Mormonism. As for door-to-door Evangelism, I find that objection to the SBC Convention silly. After all LDS Missionaries go door-to-door in cities that have very strong traditions of other faiths. Is going door to door in Pittsburgh anti-Catholic? Or going door-to-door in Little Rock anti-Evangelical? You can criticize them for methods.
Also, the evidence you speak of regarding Huckabee’s involvement, beyond ten words uttered by Mike Huckabee and comments you admit were from a fringe are all conjecture.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:07 am
Adam’s right again.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 am
Mormonism Unmasked:
Mormons do not believe in the Biblical notion of Hell and that good works can get a person into Heaven.
Mormons believe in ‘tiers’ of Heaven.
Mormons believe that they can become gods one day.
Joseph Smith supported polygamy.
Mormons believe that there was an ancient Jewish civilization in North America.
True or false?
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:09 am
I mean, surely you can see why a traditionalist Evangelical would find Mormonism a bit sketchy..?
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:33 am
I’m not a Mormon, and I don’t think Romney’s loss can be attributed solely to religious bigotry (although I would say that was mainly the case in Iowa, which did help derail him) but I don’t recall Mormon leaders taking an ad out against Huckabee or sending a petition to McCain saying he would lose their support if he picked Mike for VP.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:38 am
#92 Alex, that looks a lot like the comments I would read on Politico and other sites during the primary, right before they would say that Romney’s religion had nothing to do with their almost rabid opposition to him. You forgot to mention the underwear.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:24 am
#92 Alex, that looks a lot like the comments I would read on Politico and other sites during the primary, right before they would say that Romney’s religion had nothing to do with their almost rabid opposition to him. You forgot to mention the underwear.
I think all religion is stupid.
I’m just explaining why Evangelicals oppose Mormonism. It contradicts traditional Christian teachings.
But no, Romney’s Mormonism had nothing to do with my opposition to him. I’m an atheist. I think Mormonism is silly. I think Evangelicalism is silly. Huckabee’s religion was part of my opposition to him, because he wanted to impose it. Romney showed no signs of wanting to impose Mormonism. He was just a liar.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:28 am
Mark DeMoss at beliefnet.com
“Finally, I’d like to see evangelicals look for competent, qualified candidates who share our values, whether or not they share our faith or theology. I believe it’s wrong to oppose a candidate because of his faith (Mitt Romney), and equally wrong to support a candidate primarily based on common faith (Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin).
Along the campaign trail I met so many people, including pastors and religious leaders, who could tell me only that their choice for president was a “good Christian,” or “one of us.” This, in my view, is a dangerously inadequate approach to choosing our highest leaders. We don’t choose people for any other positions using this test; why would we apply it to one of the most important positions on the planet?”
Why indeed.
This is my take on why Huckabee won in Iowa and why people chose him over Romney in other areas of the country. Huckabee not only talked the talk, he walked the walk. He is and has always been against abortion-he put through prolife legislation in ArK and was actively involved in the prolife marches. He is and has always been against gay marriage-he put through convenant marriage in Ark. Huckabee is and has always been for being good stewards of the planet and imposed measures in Ark to help keep the natural environment in good condition. Huckabee is and has always been for taking care of the less fortunate-getting healthcare for those who need while also getting people off the welfare rolls. So with both his actions and his words, he has always been consistent on values that many people deem important in their president. Many Christians see these values as important first, and other values are second to them. So hence, when a voter says I think Huckabee is one of us or is a good Christian, those values are what they are referring to and Huckabee was the candidate who was always consistent on those values.
Martha, Romney was not consistent on those values-he has not and may not always be prolife and protraditional marriage. While he may feel that way personally, in his heart he feels that it is an individual choice and the government should not interfere (which of course many prochoice and progaymarriage people feel). So these Christian leaders, who for their whole lives, have pushed these values and stood by these values, were not going to support a guy who was not consistent on those values. Who knows what Romney would have done once in office and the pressure from the left/political winds changing.
Martha you can say it is because he is a Mormon, but I think the real reason was because Romney did not always stand by the values of the Mormon church. He was inconsistent and not trusted on those issues. Hence the reason why he lost Iowa and Huckabee won.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:41 am
Another reason why Huckabee was attractive to “Christians” was because he was not afraid to admit he was a Christian. With the attack on our culture by the secular left, some voters were looking for a president who would admit that they prayed before making a major decision and that they leaned on God during both good times and bad. Some voters wanted a president who would keep “under God” “In God we Trust” “God Bless America” “So help me God” etc. And do it proudly and with conviction.
While that gained Huckabee huge support from evangelicals, it also scared away many voters who thought that was all he would do. Hence the reason why many journalists always referred to him as former pastor and why he always got the religious questions in the debates. I think you would find that Huckabee did not turn the Ark capitol into a church and he did not govern/give speeches using biblical flowing language. But he was treated as if that is all he would do.
So he got both the pluses and minuses of being a Christian Leader.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:57 am
Unbelievable how Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush got a completely free ride on their conversion to pro-life, but Mitt Romney can’t be accepted, even though he governed 100% pro-life. I can only see one reason for it, and MarthaM, hits the nail right on the head, as usual.
I’m sure our forefather’s are turning in their grave when they see the religious bigotry practiced in this great land they jump started so many years ago. I pray to God almighty that the religious bigotry on this site, and in America will greatly subside over the next two years. There is no place for it. Our forefathers came here to excape religious persecution, and look what some of you are doing with that legacy. Its disgusting. As Lincoln said, ‘our father’s brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal’. Today, I guess the Mitt haters have to add an appendage of ‘unless you are Mormon’.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
All I am trying to do is explain why Evangelicals “attack” Mormonism by pointing out legitimate theological disputes.
Mormons believe that good works can get a person into Heaven. True or false?
Mormons believe in ‘tiers’ of Heaven. True or false?
Mormons believe that they can become gods one day. True or false?
Joseph Smith supported polygamy. True or false?
Mormons believe that there was an ancient Jewish civilization in North America. True or false?
Is pointing out facts now considered bigotry?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:41 am
Alex, The problem is not evangelicals disagreeing with Mormon theology – I don’t give a rat’s petutie about that. The problem is that they said his religious beliefs disqualified him for the presidency.
And you know very well know that.
Illinoisguy is right. Reagan and others were accepted after they became pro-life — no prob. For some evangelicals, the real beef with Romney has nothing to do with the life issue. They just use it as cover.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:42 am
“All I am trying to do is explain why Evangelicals “attack” Mormonism by pointing out legitimate theological disputes.” Theologically, you make a good point and perhaps a few people (I believe a minority) thus felt uncomfortable about voting for Mr. Romney. However, the fact remains that there are reasons to vote for a non-Romney candidate other than the fact that he was a Mormon. Even for those (most of us) who believe that Mr. Romney is sincere in his Pro-Life convertion, there are other issues to consider. Does the Romney camp really believe that all he has to do is be Pro-Life and all Pro-lifers will vote for him? There are other issues to consider. . While, I do not agree with 100% of Romneyism, I probably agree with about 88.5% of it (just an estimation.) Some people agree with Mr. Romney even less of the time. Do that make that more anti-Mormon (and I do not believe that I am a bigot) than I? Are those who did not support Mr. Brownback anti-Catholic and so forth?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 am
Martha M: Yes, for the record a few Evangelicals and various other denominations have a probablem with voting for a Mormon, but a lot of Evangelicals and other non-Mormons actually did vote for him. Perhaps they held their nose doing it. Haha. For what ever reason, not every single Evangelical is 100% Conservative, nevermind 100% behind Romneyism (one of many types of Conservatism.) Does this not occur to you?
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:49 am
Sorry for the typos.
Anyway, Alex, the evangelicals do more than point out differences of theology. They distort our beliefs all the time. In fact, every website I’ve ever visited that talks about Mormonism gets it wrong somewhere, and usually by a lot. It’s not by accident, either.
Did you know that some evangelical groups protest at our general conferences with blow horns and shouting that we’re all going to hell? Come on.
Adam G – The SBC conference in SLC was set up to poke a stick in the eye of the LDS church and it’s members. Wake up. I don’t care what Huck said at the conference, he was there. Proselytizing is one thing, going to door to door telling other Christians they are going to hell is another, and passing out offensive literature directly to Mormons is beyond the pale.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Alex, The problem is not evangelicals disagreeing with Mormon theology – I don’t give a rat’s petutie about that. The problem is that they said his religious beliefs disqualified him for the presidency. And you know very well know that. Illinoisguy is right. Reagan and others were accepted after they became pro-life — no prob. For some evangelicals, the real beef with Romney has nothing to do with the life issue. They just use it as cover.
Sure. I agree. The Evangelicals were absurd and opposed Romney for his religion.
I oppose him for other reasons, of course: Romney’s abortion flip-flop was a little too convenient for my tastes. And it wasn’t his only flip-flop, no matter how many times IllinoisGuy asserts that that has been “thoroughly disproven.”
On a related note: it’s not like the Mormon Church’s hands are clean. Now you know how I feel when your church targets me for my sexuality, no? They did fund that out-of-state effort to support Proposition 8, which accomplished nothing but to bring utter misery upon happily-married couples.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:54 am
OHIO – I know very well that Romney got almost as many evangelical votes as Huckabee. I know that many evangelicals do not preach against Mormons or have any problem with them whatsoever. I believe most are not in the category of people I’ve been talking about. I think I’ve always tried to make it clear that I don’t believe it is a huge number who oppose Mormonism or who opposed Romney because of his Mormonism.
Some people here think that I believe Romney was only rejected over his faith, but I don’t think that at all. I realize there are many reasons why someone might not support Romney, just like all the candidates. But what happened in Iowa cannot really be denied. Huck’s dirty trick worked. That’s politics, but not the kind I want practiced in my party.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
Martha M:
I cannot recall a preist giving a sermon with regards to Mormonism, however once in while, we hear how our faith differs from other religions. Maybe, the Presbyterians should set up a PR department to clear up any misinformation. Haha. Yes there may be a few in the Huckabee camp that are stupid enough to go door to door and tell people they are headed for Hell. That does not mean that Mr. Huckabee endorses such a practice. I am not a Southern Baptist and Mr. Huckabee never told me that I would go to Hell. Haha.
Alex:
I do not think that the Mormon Church is trying to bring utter misery to happily married couples.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
“Some people here think that I believe Romney was only rejected over his faith, but I don’t think that at all. I realize there are many reasons why someone might not support Romney, just like all the candidates. But what happened in Iowa cannot really be denied.”
Thanks for clarifying that, I submitted my last comment before reading your last one.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 am
“Anyway, Alex, the evangelicals do more than point out differences of theology. They distort our beliefs all the time. In fact, every website I’ve ever visited that talks about Mormonism gets it wrong somewhere, and usually by a lot. It’s not by accident, either.”
Martha, If people are getting it wrong, why not correct them with answers that specify what Mormons believe. I do not think you answered any of Alex’s questions. Romney himself never answered any curious questions about his faith in order to put his “beliefs” to rest. In his faith in America speech he only said the word Mormon once.
“Did you know that some evangelical groups protest at our general conferences with blow horns and shouting that we’re all going to hell?”
Martha, Do Mormons not tell other Christians that they are going to hell when they turn around use their name and birthdates and get rebaptized for those people without their permission? Don’t Mormons believe that one has to be baptized Mormon in order to get into heaven?
I for one, am tired of being called a bigot just because I voted for Huckabee. And my friends and family who voted for Huckabee are not bigots and I never heard them mention Romney’s faith.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
“Martha, If people are getting it wrong, why not correct them with answers that specify what Mormons believe.” On the one hand, Martha M should probably be allowed to answer which questions she wants to, but she won’t extend that same privledge to Mrs. Palin.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 am
I do not think that the Mormon Church is trying to bring utter misery to happily married couples.
Okay, they’re trying to impose traditional religious values on gays. Is that phrased better? (And no, gays aren’t trying to “impose” their love on the Mormon Church.)
I do not think you answered any of Alex’s questions.
Even asking the questions seems to be bigotry. It’s like the Mormon Church is trying to look like a Secret Club or something. Then it gets really mad when people accuse it of being one.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:44 am
#110 Martha isn’t running for the second highest office in the country to my knowledge.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:31 am
#112, true, but some (I am not saying all) personal issues should be out of bounds.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I agree with Martha that there’s plenty of dislike of Mormonism particularly in evangelical churches that gets extended to Mormons in general. Some people are stupid and immature. Some of that motivated the anti-Romney groups (though not nearly all, I opposed Romney for similar reasons as Alex, I did not really like him as a candidate and am still moderately skeptical).
Mormons tend to get super defensive, though. It’s natural, but it never helps things. If some dumb comment puts up a wall between you and your neighbor, you don’t respond by doubling the height and adding barbed wire. People who otherwise have plenty in common divide themselves needlessly by insults and counterattacks on touchy subjects.
January 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
To everyone,
I spent a lot of time during the primary trying to explain misconceptions and mistakes told about my faith. You can do it until you’re blue in the face, and then someone else will say “why don’t you explain your faith rather than just be so defensive about it!”
I’m not going to do it anymore. I have no interest in asking anyone else to do it with their faith, either. Anyone who sincerely wants to know what Mormons believe should go to the source: LDS.ORG or Mormons.org. FAIRLDS.ORG is also a good place for questions. Mormons are not afraid to acknowledge their beliefs as should be obvious to everyone. (We send out 60,000 missionaries to porclaim what we believe, including my own son who recently returned from serving a 2 year mission.)
Alex was basically right on all his questions, (although we believe it is good works AND the grace of Jesus Christ which saves us) and I’m not the least bit hesitant to say so. And Alex, I don’t consider you asking the questions as bigotry. AT ALL. I’ve never seen you post one comment that I felt was offensive to my faith.
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
“Mormons believe that good works can get a person into Heaven. True or false?
Mormons believe in ‘tiers’ of Heaven. True or false?
Mormons believe that they can become gods one day. True or false?
Joseph Smith supported polygamy. True or false?
Mormons believe that there was an ancient Jewish civilization in North America. True or false?”
Let me slightly clarify a couple of these statements, then I’ll shut up on it Like Martha, said you can go to the LDS sights and learn all you would like.
If one uses the term ‘tiers in heaven’ in #2 question, then the answer to #1 would be false. You onl have to be baptized into the Lord’s church in order to achieve the highest degree of glory. Nearly everybody will make it into one of the first two tiers, or degrees of Glory.
Change ancient ‘Jewish’ civilization to ‘Israelite’ to be more specific. Lehi was from of the Lineage of Manassah, son of Joseph. Those that came over earlier were prior to the time of Jacob (Israel), so they were not of any Israelite tribe.
One reason we don’t discuss more openly questions like this is we believe in the biblical admonition to teach ‘line upon line, precept upon precept’. I could be ornery and say its from the advice not to ‘cast our pearls before swine’, but that wouldn’t be nice, would it?
joke!!!
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
[...] yesterday’s post I disparaged the idea of moving left to win new Republican voters as it would disenchant your existing voter base and you’d be [...]
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 pm
[...] yesterday’s post I disparaged the idea of moving left to win new Republican voters as it would disenchant your existing voter base and you’d be [...]
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
[...] yesterday’s post I disparaged the idea of moving left to win new Republican voters as it would disenchant your existing voter base and you’d be [...]
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 pm
[...] yesterday’s post I disparaged the idea of moving left to win new Republican voters as it would disenchant your existing voter base and you’d be [...]
January 23rd, 2009 at 4:30 am
[...] Re: Adam Graham’s Bird in the Bush Republicans [...]