« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

There Are Profoundly Wrong Reasons To Oppose Mitt Romney For President

Christophobic Bigotry Shows Us Why Mitt Romney Beats Any Democrat

Mormonism’s best inheritance from Joseph Smith was his passion for education, hardly evident in the anti-intellectual and semi-literate Southern Baptist Convention. I wonder though which is more dangerous, a knowledge-hungry religious zealotry or a proudly stupid one? Either way we are condemned to remain a plutocracy and oligarchy. I can be forgiven for dreading a further strengthening of theocracy in that powerful brew.

Harold Bloom, Resident Christophobic Bigot, Yale University English Department.

So what do Harry Reid, Mike Lee, Jeff Flake, Jim Matheson, and maybe seventy other successful politicians both in America and abroad have in common? More than the paranoid mind of the Sagacious and Plenipotent Dr. Harold Bloom can countenance. Each is a member of what he considers both a conspiracy and a cabal.

Yes, they are all practicing Mormons. And if we don’t watch out, a few could even become rather good at it. They find your lack of faith disturbing….(sarcasm off)

So what I find astounding here is not so much that the New York Times opposes Mitt Romney’s political aspirations. The man became a Rethuglican after all! But rather than focusing on the things that make Mitt Romney less qualified to run for President than Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, Jon Huntsman and maybe every Republican out there with the exception of Buddy Roemer, they unleash a pathetic gallimaufry of Christophobic bigotry as their gravamen for not liking Candidate Romney.

I’m no Romney fan, but where Harold Bloom extracts his deepest thoughts from should be washed more carefully the next time he sets foot in a shower-stall. According to Harold Bloom, we should all fear Mitt Romney and other Republicans because….

“A dark truth of American politics in what is still the era of Reagan and the Bushes is that so many do not vote their own economic interests. Rather than living in reality they yield to what oddly are termed ‘cultural’ considerations: moral and spiritual, or so their leaders urge them to believe. Under the banners of flag, cross, fetus, exclusive marriage between men and women, they march onward to their own deepening impoverishment. Much of the Tea Party fervor merely repeats this gladsome frolic.”

He says this of a GOP Presidential contender who has taken more positions on abortion than Xaviera Hollander assumed in her movie “The Happy Hooker.” He says this of a man who asked one of The Ehrlich’s co-authors for advice on how to shape his Global Warming policies while he governed Massachusetts. He says this of a GOP Candidate who has pandered to both sides of the ongoing immigration debate more than once.

My only question is this: If Mitt Romney ever lead a gladsome march of motivated social conservatives towards any worthwhile objective, which Mitt Romney was it? How do we book that guy more often? I’d like to meet that Mitt Romney and arrange for the priest from The Exorcist to send the five or so other ones forth into the outer darkness with wailing and gnashing of teeth. I’m not scared of what Mitt Romney truly believes. I’ve followed his career for years and wonder what in the heck it actually is?

Painting this ambition-besotted, vote-sucking midget as a Paleo-Conservative Darth Vader because of where he attends religious services every Sunday passes beyond the pale of intellectual respectability and serious argument. Harold Bloom totally loses any right to be considered a serious public intellectual after this performance. It was pig-ignorant bigotry worthy of a 1930’s era Alabama Democratic Party Primary. It demonstrates that the Democrats haven’t learned as much as they self-righteously claim in the intervening eighty years hence.

I thank Harold Bloom for one thing. I thank this hatemongering jerk for one thing only. I was a bit dispirited about the thought of having to settle for Mitt Romney as a nominee. I was asking myself how hard I could make myself work and argue for the guy. Romney really isn’t much, but when I compare him to any group of individuals that would lick the tasseled loafers of a bigot like Harold Bloom, it becomes imperative to any Christian who values his faith to help Mitt Romney destroy Barack Obama and the Democratic Party if it comes down to that.

COMMENTS

  • Russ Martin

    Several words come to mind:

    Squish
    Flip-flopper
    Weather Vane
    Governor of a Blue State
    Successful businessman
    Smart
    Articulate
    Good hair
    Great family
    Presidential looking
    Knowledgeable on the issues
    Moderate
    Perennial candidate

    but “Morman” never really comes to mind. When I discuss him with other conservatives, it just doesn’t come up. While I’m sure there are some misguided people out there who look at his Mormanism as a deal-killer, I just can’t imagine that they would represent a significant number.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Perry supporter. But if Mitt becomes the candidate, I will crawl across broken glass to vote for him over Obama.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      and I’m the one defending the turkey! That, right there, is how bad dedicated Progressives have become for America.

    • tomatin

      His faith is the least of my concerns as well.

      I don’t know about crawling over broken glass to hold my nose and vote for Romney though.

    • http://thecorruptworld.blogspot.com/ wayneinnh

      I don’t want to start a flame war but I do have to get this off my chest. I realize this is a conservative site and I’ve been here a long time so I know that first and foremost, the purpose is to forward conservative ideas. However, for a lot of us, there is something more important. Jesus Christ.

      I am an Evangelical Christian and this debate comes up a lot. First and foremost, I have a duty to Jesus Christ in everything I do. This means that I have to glorify Him no matter what the situation. When putting Him first, my conscience tells me that if it’s Romney v. Obama on the ticket, I cannot mark either one as my choice.

      If I was to look at it as simply a conservative v. liberal argument, the decision would be easy. Unfortunately, that’s not the case for me and I don’t think I’m misguided at all with respect to this, it’s a matter of priorities.

      From my experience and talking with other Evangelicals, I know I’m not alone. God will install whoever He wants as president. We need to look at His choice and see what it is He is trying to tell us.

      • Russ Martin

        but I see things very differently. If I were to vote for neither candidate, that would essentially be a vote for Obama. Another 4 years of Obama would move this country a LOT further down the path toward secularism and progressivism/socialism (especially via the judiciary). I just don’t see those types of threats from a Romney administration.

      • aesthete

        and will continue to do so, sometimes directing His own people to do so. This may not be the case with Romney, but I would not rule it out immediately.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Constantine wasn’t a Christian. (See “In Hoc Signo Vinces.”)

        • http://thecorruptworld.blogspot.com/ wayneinnh

          I won’t pretend to know what God has planned for our country in the immediate future. He may be planning to do a great work, or He may be planning to draw us to repentance. Either way, I need to follow my conscience on this one.

      • radicalrighty

        I’m going to pretend I didn’t even read that remark, and keep to my guns that God is too busy to worry about little elections in the US.

        But, if you’re right, and he “installed” Obama, why didn’t he just go ahead and bring the fire and brimstone?

        I don’t buy it. I don’t believe God installed an America-hating, ISRAEL-HATING, socialist (atheist) in the White house, on purpose.

        • http://thecorruptworld.blogspot.com/ wayneinnh

          I believe that God is involved in every aspect of our life. There is nothing too small or too big for Him.

          Something to ponder from Romans 13:1
          Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

          A better line of reasoning would be; What is God trying to tell us by allowing the current occupant of the White House? Maybe as a nation we have moved so far from Him that we deserve this.

        • kipling

          Was Obama’s message of hope and change too much for God in 2008? or Was God too busy to be intimately involved in the political future of the United States? What exactly does too busy look like in reference to God anyway? Is God bound by time – as the statement “too busy” would imply?

          If the answer to any of the aforementioned questions is “yes” then your God is smaller than the one of Scripture.

          God used the Assyrians and the Babylonians so why not the Obamans?

      • logicalpositivist

        Evangelical Christians and Latter-day Saints disagree on a lot of things. I won’t even list them all here. Likewise, evangelical Christians and Catholics disagree on a lot of things.

        Voting for someone does not, in any way, signify that you are endorsing that person’s religious beliefs. If it did, then Bush would not have won by a landslide in 2000 and 2004 in Utah and Idaho, the Mormonest of the 50 states.

        Voting just means, “I believe that this person is better than the other candidates.”

        Maturity is realizing that sometimes you have to vote for someone with whom you disagree on one or more issue in order to prevent a worse outcome.

        To me, the worst outcome is Obama getting 4 more years to install radical judges and other political appointees who will stick around far longer than Obama and will ignore the law and the constitution at every turn in order to force people like you and me to accept certain radical ideas that we would never vote for.

        Choose wisely, my brother.

      • belcatar

        If God instills who he wants as President, what you have is an updated version of the divine right of kings. I think that the people elect a president, and God gives guidance to whichever voters ask for it. If God decides who is President, then he must also be deciding a whole lot of other things I though were left up to us.

        It’s the same reason bad things can happen to good people. (Case in point, the Obama Administration. Obama – Doing Bad Things to Good People Since 2008. Hey, maybe the Obama people can use that line…

    • logicalpositivist

      A recent Washington Post/Pew research poll indicated that the word “Mormon” came to mind for 60% of pollees when asked what word came to mind when the phrase “Mitt Romney” was uttered. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpewpoll_101611.html

      Despite the fact that “governor”, “centrist”, “Massachusetts”, and “health care” might also come to mind if he had been, say, a Catholic or Episcopalian, most people think “Mormon” as soon as they hear the word “Romney”. So it’s not a label that he can just shuck off. It’s pretty much stuck to him at this point.

      Along with that label comes peoples’ opinions of Mormons in general. To the gay rights crowd, the label “Mormon” means “bigot”, “intolerant”, “insensitive”, and worse.

      To the typical Bible-belt Republican (and I’m including Iowa in the Bible belt here), “Mormon” means “not Christian” and therefore “not worthy of my vote, lest I unwittingly herald in the apocalypse”.

      But, thankfully, to a lot of Americans, “Mormon” just means “that impossibly nice family from down the street”. It is this association and this association only that might allow a member of a minority faith to become president. Hell, if a Quaker (Nixon) and a Jehovah’s Witness (Eisenhower, shhh) can do it, sooner or later, a Mormon had to get a shot at this final glass ceiling.

      • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

        “To the typical Bible-belt Republican (and I?m including Iowa in the Bible belt here), ?Mormon? means ?not Christian? and therefore ?not worthy of my vote, lest I unwittingly herald in the apocalypse?.

        Because I don’t know anyone who believes that electing a Mormon will “unwittingly herald in the apocalypse.” I’m also not aware of any Christian teaching of that nature. Frankly, it sounds a little bigoted and it’s the same kind of stereotyping you seem to be decrying.

        • logicalpositivist

          Go here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpewpoll_101611.html

          • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

            Again, I ask if you have a citation for this:

            “?To the typical Bible-belt Republican (and I?m including Iowa in the Bible belt here), ?Mormon? means ?not Christian? and therefore ?not worthy of my vote, lest I unwittingly herald in the apocalypse?.

            Or is it just your personal bias against evangelical Christians?

          • logicalpositivist

            http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspx

            In this poll, there is less support for a Mormon candidate in the South and the Midwest than in any other region of the United States.

            But there is also this:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2012

            You can see that states like George, Alabama, and North Carolina have Romney in third place or worse whereas he polls much better outside of the Bible-belt.

            There is a correlation between the percentage of voters who identify themselves as “evangelical Christian” and the percentage of voters who refuse to support a Mormon candidate.

            We’ve seen a few of these evangelical Christians pop in today to express their opinion that: (1) Mormons aren’t Christians, and/or (2) they will not vote for Mitt Romney.

            Now, I’m sure that there are a few dKos trolls floating around here trying to perpetrate the myth that Mormons and evangelicals hate each other and will therefore never join forces, not even to fire the worst president in modern history. But I also believe that some of the “Mormons aren’t Christians” posters are sincere conservatives who are treating this race as an opportunity to seek validation for their beliefs through the voting process.

          • logicalpositivist

            I am one.

      • determinedconservative

        …to me they are not Christian. And that’s fine; I believe in religious freedom. But they try to say they are Christian, even as they hold many beliefs that go against the Bible (and of course they have their own holy book too). They should just acknowledge that they are more like Islam, an Abrahamaic religion that is not Christianity. After all, the Koran has stories about Jesus in it too, and Muslims venerate Jesus as a prophet, but they are obviously not Christian.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          You may hold the opinion that Mormons aren’t Christians… but until you’ve become a Mormon…you should keep you mouth quiet on telling Mormons what they ought to consider themselves…

          Just some friendly advice. :D

        • logicalpositivist

          But flawed on many levels.

          First off, you can’t tell anyone else whether they are or are not a Christian. If my neighbor goes to mass every Sunday, sends his kids to Catholic school, and still calls himself a Christian, that is his right.

          You don’t have the right to tell him that he’s not a Christian simply because he worships Christ differently.

          As for your suggestion that Mormons “acknowledge that they are more like Islam”, that shows an ignorance of both Latter-day Saint Christianity and Islam. The religions are as different as Buddhism and Judaism. Mormons have far more in common with evangelical Christians and Catholics than they do with Muslims.

          Muslims don’t claim to be Christian. Mormons do.

          • determinedconservative

            Does that mean I have to believe them? Serious question.

          • kipling

            “My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right ? and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were all corrupt . . .” (Joseph Smith, “History of the Church, Vol. 1, page 5-6.) You can find the whole thing at google books.

            Joseph Smith considered himself and his followers to be the true followers of Christ. He also considered all others who claimed to follow Christ to be in error and corrupt. In particular, he mentioned that their “creeds were an abomination.” If someone was to argue that Mormon and traditional Christian theology differ significantly and are rather incompatible, Smith would agree.

          • logicalpositivist

            Bit of context. He was 14 years old when he prayed. Furthermore, Joseph Smith didn’t write the History of the Church. He supposedly dictated it to several scribes. But there are times when the scribes clearly added style and substance to the content. The History of the Church was written beginning in 1829, a full 9 years after Joseph’s alleged vision.

            Furthermore, Joseph Smith grew up quite a bit. He learned to get along with Catholics, Methodists, atheists, Jews, etc.

            You can’t judge someone based on something that a scribe wrote. We don’t know exactly what Joseph believed at any point in his life. So much of that history is obscured by biased historians and scribes, both for and against.

            Going after Romney based on something that Joseph Smith may have said to a scribe in 1829 makes about as much sense as going after a Lutheran for something that Martin Luther wrote in 1539.

          • determinedconservative

            This is a religion so exclusionary they will break a mother’s heart by not allowing her to see her son get married, simply because she is not Mormon:

            http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2010/03/29/20100329mormon-temple-wedding-family-not-allowed.html

            But the members of this church want the rest of us, who would not be allowed in their weddings, to be all open and inclusive when they want to be President of the whole country. Nuh-uh, not for me.

            Even Muslims allow outsiders to attend their weddings! In fact, I’m not sure there is a single other major religious denomination that is so exclusionary.

          • kipling

            Joseph Smith did not condemn the other “sects” as erroneous and condemn their creeds as abominations. Joseph Smith said that the divine personage condemned the “sects” as erroneous and their creeds as abominations.

            Smith may have matured and learned to get along with others but the “divine” statement still stands. Surely, you are not arguing that the “divine” personage had to mature as well?

            The question is does Romney disagree with what Joseph Smith or his scribes wrote.

            Why should a Mormon not be questioned on his Mormon beliefs? Christians are questioned about their Christian beliefs. It is entirely appropriate to question a Lutheran about something Luther wrote.

          • logicalpositivist

            But you can’t tell someone that they’re not a Christian simply because they don’t have exactly the same beliefs as you. Christians are like snowflakes. No two are alike.

          • kipling

            The point is not whether Christians are like one another but whether Christians are like Christ.

            Traditional Christianity has held to the Christian Scripture. Mormons have another book entirely and their beliefs differ radically different from those of traditional Christians.

        • olds88er

          Some of my daughters are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, also called The Mormon Church. The only religious picture they have hanging in their house is of Jesus Christ. I was a member as a convert for 22 years. I resigned because I could not believe in their Word of Wisdom. I couldn’t drink a beer, a coke, or a glass of wine.I felt that was too strict. They believe that the body is to be respected and not defiled by products that weaken it. The LDS and the Seventh Day Adventists are noted by insurance companies as the best insurance risks as they live longer than most other religious members. They absolutely call themselves Christians and ask for the blessings of Jesus Christ whenever they pray. So to say that you cannot vote for Romney because he is a Mormon is the height of stupidity.He served as a Mormon Bishop, the same role as a parish priest without any pay, and his five sons served missions of two years each in foreign countries. All at their own expense. All positions of power in the LDS Church are without any pay. They have their own welfare system and take excellent care of their members.So please don’t hold Romney’s religion against him. I would believe if he would have to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice he would probably pick Senator Mike Lee of Utah.

          • tomatin

            then him not being a real conservative.

            In his Fox interview he again flip flops on immigration. Now he says “wait in line” which is code to I’m open to letting illegals to become citizens.

            Then because he can’t explain his own flip flops he directly lies and says GWB flip flopped his Pro-Life position which he never ever did.

            They guy is just a slick pol who will say anything to get elected.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Being the Messiah and God’s son incarnate are different from being the Seal of The Prophets. In particular, Jesus doesn’t make the claimt hat no one can make a valid claim to holy knowledge of God’s will just because God sent him to Earth.

          Muhammad, as the seal of the prophets, makes just exactly that claim.

          The upshot of all this is as follows. A future Christian philospher/theologian can augment or better explain what was set forth in the Gospels. A Koranic philospher can strive to understand the Koran, adding to it is impermissable.

          The impact of this assertion. You really could tack more books on to the Christian Bible. (assuming, of course you actually managed to convince the vast and overwhelming majority of Christian believers that what you wrote was just as good and holy as St. Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. Good luck!) Islam would not tolerate this.

          Thus, I conclude that what The Mormons offer as epistemological claim to spiritual knowledge is not theologically banned in Christianity. I don’t personnally choose to accept that particular claim to knowledge, however I don’t preemptively denounce the process the way a Fundamentalist Muslim Cleric would be required to in accordance with a rigid interpretation of the Koran.

  • rkcurtin

    NT

    • Russ Martin

      to all Mormons:)

  • Marcus_Traianus

    “Harry Reid” and “successful” don’t belong in the same sentence unless there is an adverb which implies a negative connotation.

    • logicalpositivist

      And at violating the senate rules in order to pass bad legislation. I won’t miss him after he retires. Hopefully, it will be soon.

  • conblog

    Jon Huntsman is Mormon, too.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Two of them, I tell ya! Two of them! Run for the hills….

      • acat

        At the risk of giving offense, don’t Mormons always travel in pairs?

        Also, isn’t “running away!” what you do on discovering you’re facing two Marines? (or is it two Texas Rangers?)

        Mew

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          in case deranged Howard Bloom followers started throwing rocks and bottles at them.

        • logicalpositivist

          I think that if Romney picked Huntsman as his running mate, they would be legally required to wear bicycle helmets at all public functions in which they both appeared together.

  • dajeeps

    He has taken both sides of just about every major issue on the table. His economic plan is quite nebulous with only one real commitment – repeal/replace ObamaCare. So after this long vetting process, I still have no clue what he would be doing if/when he gets to the White House.That isn’t the vision of decisive leadership based on conservative, free-market principles I envisioned replacing Obama with; something we really need to get us out of this mess. That is the most important thing to me and will inform my vote, not some beauty contest. Substance over style will be the deal maker for me this time around.

    • logicalpositivist

      nt

      • mariagomez

        this is how I feel about Newt, too.

        • tomatin

          as speaker he can tout. I know he’s gone off the reservation a bit in private life but I trust him far more to pass a conservative agenda than I would Romney. Remember it was his congress that ended onerous banking regulations, ended the worse part of the welfare state and balanced the budget with spending cuts.

          I like Perry most but their is no reason to soil Newt’s excellent record.

          Newt reminds me of Churchill a reliable person in office and a colorful personal life to say the least.

          • tomatin

            nt

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    with the liberals’ ideology than Bloom realizes. Or probably are. Depending on which way the wind is blowing, Romney could very easily mesh seamlessly with the liberal set by virtue of the fact that he’s great at not offending and not drawing hard lines. Postmodern squish is all the rage right now.

    And Huntsman worships at the altar of Global Warming and evolution. What’s not to love about that Mr. Bloom?

    He should just stick to the easy evangelical targets like Perry and Bachmann who are up front about what they really believe. Interpreting the nuances a cognitive dissonance candidate like Romney is way out of his league.

    • logicalpositivist

      When you are raised in a Mormon family, cognitive dissonance because a survival mechanism. Romney and Huntsman both learned semantic games at a very young age.

      How one can define oneself as “Christian” and yet disagree with many school-friends on the exclusivity of the Bible as the word of God requires a little mental exercise. Conformity is seldom an option for Mormons who grow up outside of Mormon enclaves such as Utah/Idaho as both Romney and Huntsman did.

      So, it is not that much of a stretch for a Mormon politician to decide for himself that he can be both Republican and moderate on certain issues. He can be both personally repulsed by abortion and opposed to a blanket ban on abortion.

      The trouble with cognitive dissonance is that it looks like insincerity to the untrained eye. People stack a 2011 Romney quote next to a 1994 Romney quote and they say, “This guy is a liar.” What they don’t do is stack Gingrich quotes like so or Perry quotes for that matter.

      Every person I’ve ever voted for has change position on one or more issue.

      Romney, to his credit, has never defined himself as “pro-choice” (using that exact term). However, his position on abortion was so moderate in 1994 that it is offensive to those Republicans who still don’t understand how Romney could have been consistent against abortion his entire life and change his opinion on the desirability of a ban on all or most abortions.

      The terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” mean different things to different people.

      The debate over abortion requires more nuance than our current language-habits give it.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        I was too busy solving ODEs and PDEs back in school. It would be nice if Romney picked a set of principals that were easily accessible and said “Here I am. Take it or leave it.”

        • aesthete

          BTW– PDEs? Are you a math major, or did you get an MD in a hard science/engineering major? If the former — right on from a fellow math major — and might I inquire as to what you ended up doing with the degree? If the latter — props, nonetheless.

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            I became an ORSA and currently estimate cost for the Army Attack Helicopter Program Management Office. I can truly say that having fewer friends, less free time and way more homework in chool has paid off for me int he long run.

            How about you?

          • aesthete

            (mostly stats/probability classes) so that I can either return to the AF/one of the other branches and do something suitably geeky, or (and this is more likely) go for a math finance job in the private sector.

            And I hear you about the less free time thing — most of my RS posting (and reading) right now is the result of me working a dead-end tutoring job.

        • radicalrighty

          Or is that wishful thinking?

          • logicalpositivist

            He can’t rely on Democrats to help him get re-elected. They hate him.

            The only way he’d ever be re-elected is to follow Bush’s strategy of giving social conservatives the judges and the policies that they want.

            If Romney were really brave, he would favor small government principles, such as cutting spending, borrowing, and taxes, over the borrow-and-spend conservativism of the last Republican president.

            But I’m not sure if any Republican president can afford to be that brave anymore. He’d have to trust movement conservatives to show up at the polls even when institutional interests refuse to fund the PAC’s that run the soft money ads.

          • streiff

            the first thing Romney will do, if elected, to work with liberal GOP senators and Democrats. He’ll distance himself from conservatives even more than he did in Massachusetts.

            No one makes a president “toe the line.’

          • logicalpositivist

            And I disagree with you that no one makes a president “toe the line”.

            George W. Bush’s role model president was Teddy Roosevelt. Bush proposed some radical ideas on immigration (guest worker plan) and social security (eliminating the cap) that didn’t fly because Congress exercised its Constitutional role and didn’t pass the legislation.

            Why didn’t Bush take Obama’s path and simply pass what he wanted through executive orders? Because the conservatives in his party made him toe the line. Even in his second term. He knew who brought him to the dance and he didn’t betray those people. At least not on immigration, social security, taxes, or social issues.

            Spending was another issue.

      • tomatin

        Romney “I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”

        You can say he changed his mind now but how do you change a conviction that basic is beyond me.

        • concrusade

          At least in both situations of Reagan and Romney, they flipped the right way.

        • logicalpositivist

          If Romney ran in 1994 as a pro-life, Reagan/Bush acolyte, then he would have no business running for office in the pro-Roe, pro-tax Taxachusetts.

          What Romney did in 1994 was offer voters a choice that they hadn’t had in at least 30 years. A choice between the status quo of Kennedy liberalism and an alternative to Kennedy who would not rock the boat on Roe but who would restore some much needed common sense in the Senate.

          Reagan’s run for governor of California in 1968 had similar shades of “I’m not a right-winger, just someone who’s pissed off at the poor leadership and giveaways of the Brown administration”.

          I don’t blame Mitt for using carefully-selected phrases to avoid handing the election over to Ted Kennedy. Back in 1994, any Republican who took out Ted Kennedy would have the profound gratitude of the rest of the party.

          When you think about the issues that either put money into your pocket or take money out of your pocket, abortion-wars are just a sideshow. What really matters to me are the dollars-and-cents issues. Which is why I am firmly opposed to taxpayer dollars being spent on abortion. This has always been Romney’s position as well.

      • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

        “The trouble with cognitive dissonance is that it looks like insincerity to the untrained eye. People stack a 2011 Romney quote next to a 1994 Romney quote and they say, ?This guy is a liar.? What they don?t do is stack Gingrich quotes like so or Perry quotes for that matter.

        Every person I?ve ever voted for has change position on one or more issue.”

        The biggest problem with Romney’s inconsistencies/changes of position is that he has never governed as a conservative. All we have from him are words and his words have changed. We have to decide whether or not we believe him. Is he sincere or has he changed positions to be politically expedient.

        Perry, OTOH, has been a governor for a very long time. We can look at his words and decide if we think they match his actions as governor. By and large, he has governed as a conservative. There have been some inconsistencies, but if he is the nominee, we will know what we are getting.

        Gingrich, like Romney, has been out of office for a very long time and has changed positions on some important issues and we are left to decide whether he is sincere and whether we should believe him. Though he’s said he has changed his ways, only God knows if it’s real or if it’s an act.

        Like it or not, nominating a candidate with a history of inconsistencies is a risky proposition.

    • JSobieski

      What is the bigger issue in 2012

      Healthcare?
      Economy?
      Global Warming?

      Huntsman is superior to Romney. He doesn’t have the flip flops, is a more substantive policy guy, and is a candidate without strong negative impressions in the electorate at large.

      Don’t get me wrong, Huntsman is in the Romney bracket of the race, not the anti-Romney, but Huntsman is far superior to Romney on the issues that matter: (1) spending (2) taxes.

      • logicalpositivist

        But he’s too far back in the polls to catch up now.

        Republicans have never given Huntsman a serious look despite his conservative record as governor of Utah. You tell me why that is so. I can’t understand it.

        • JSobieski

          How did McCain beat Fred in SC in 2008?
          How did Dole beat Gramm in 1996?

          I voted for Fred in 2008 and Forbes in 2000 and 1996. I clearly don’t react to candidates in the way that most primary voters do.

          Huntsman has said precisely the wrong things in the debates. However, in his 90 minutes at the Brookings Institute a week or so ago, he was sounded like the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

          Voters are fickle. Perry has been beat up on immigration even though he is probably to the right of most people on the issue.

          My theory:
          Many R’s vote on proxy issues—if a candidate says the right thing on an issue or two, they project conservatism onto the candidate. This helped Huckabee in 2008.

          Many R’s just want to see the candidate take on the media and seem tough as possible. A lot of folks in talk radio fit into this category.

          I want someone who would be both a good candidate and a good President. Being a good President involves selling good policy to the public.

          On all counts, I think Huntsman is far superior to Romney, and I prefer Huntsman’s economic plan over all others.

    • olds88er

      Mormons don’t believe in evolution. They believe that a body is required as a site for the spirit that God wants to send to Earth. That is why they don’t practice any type of birth control.

      • nathanalbright

        …even if their reasoning is a bit unusual?

  • naraht

    As we’ve seen in the original posting and then the responses, there are people in both parties would would be less likely (or extremely less likely) to vote for a Mormon. The most most recent survey I’ve seen is referenced at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1008/Mitt-Romney-is-a-Mormon.-Does-it-matter-in-politics/(page)/2

    “Similarly, a Gallup poll in June found nearly 20 percent of Republicans and independents saying they would not support a Mormon for president ? slightly lower than the 27 percent of Democrats saying the same.”

    I’m *still* trying to figure out how the two people viewed as the most liberal in the Republican are Mormon though.

    • Repair_Man_Jack

      Neither you nor I know enough about Mormons to judge a candidate solely on that criteria.

      • naraht

        I’ve been married to a Latter Day Saint for more than 15 years, have read the Book of Mormon and attend her services as well as my own. Short of converting, what would you suggest?

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          nt.

    • logicalpositivist

      It’s true that he worked in the Obama administration. If that alone made him a liberal than you’d have to call Senator Jim Webb a conservative because he once worked for Ronald Reagan.

      Huntsman is a smart man who is somewhat tone-deaf when it comes to predicting how Republican voters will react to things like, say, working for a liberal administration.

      He’s paying for that tone-deafness now. His record as governor of Utah was mostly conservative with a few moderate bills passed here and there.

      • acat

        Was it Huntsman or the Utah statehouse that was conservative?

        (also asked about Perry and Mitch “Truce” Daniels at various points)

        Mew

        • logicalpositivist

          Huntsman probably would have passed more liberal legislation if he had been the governor of a state like Massachusetts or California. But we’ll never know. People bloom where they’re planted.

          • acat

            and to this cat, the record of Mitt opposing the Massachusetts legislature is terrible .. he may have vetoed stuff, but he kept getting overruled. At some point, he needed to take a stronger stand… but he never did. If the Dems get control of the congress in 2014, this is what we have to look forward to.

            The record of Perry opposing the Texas legislature is better, he managed to flip them on the Amazon Tax, and he went along with their rejection of the Gardasil mandate, so .. I expect he could stand up to Boehner or McConnel if needed.

            Not familiar with Huntsman’s record in Utah, can you fill in the blanks?

            Mew

    • tomatin

      I may not know as much about Mormonism than you do but based on the politics of Mormon’s I’ve seen it equals wishy washy moderates.

  • mariagomez

    so no need for the concern.

    I support Romney, but outside of NH, he can’t break higher than 22%. Thus, I doubt he secures the nomination.

    • logicalpositivist

      several other states.

      I totally disagree with your assessment that Romney can’t get above 22% outside of NH.

      Here’s a place where you can see how Romney polls around the country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries,_2012

      • acat

        and their recent political trend (Sen. Rubio, Gov. Scott) is trending more conservative, not more waffles.

        Perry and Gingrich have a natural advantage in the South, and the Southern States will have their Super Tuesday in March.

        This is likely to be all over before Illinois and California and New York get to vote. As usual.

        Mew

        • acat

          and one I think we can safely put in the Perry column.

          Mew

        • logicalpositivist

          An endorsement from either Marco Rubio or Rick Scott would probably put Romney over the top in Florida.

          Romney locked up the endorsements of three key Cuban-American Representatives in South Florida today.

          Keep in mind that Romney gave Rubio a very early endorsement. I’m not sure where Romney was during Scott’s campaign, but my guess is that he contributed money and an endorsement there, too.

          Perry has his work cut out for him if he thinks that he can secure a key endorsement in Florida. Newt is more likely to get one than Perry is and Romney is more likely to get one than Newt is.

          • acat

            Why should Rubio or Scott endorse someone who is the antithesis of their campaigns?

            Better for both to endorse nobody.

            Mew

  • levinfan90

    Who’s really surprised at this? I actually appreciate the honesty from Mr. Bloom because he’s just saying what almost everyone on MSNBC and CNN would like to say, but don’t all have the balls to say. When it comes to churches that actually preach the Gospel or which have conservative values, they’re trashed by liberals. But if the church doesn’t preach the Bible but instead preaches racism, class envy, the overthrow of capitalism, socialist Jesus, and gay Disciples, those churches aren’t even talked about or analyzed, much less trashed. If its a religion whose founder was a child molestor and murderer, and who preached worldwide jihad, that religion is one worthy of only praise and admiration and respect. lol This is just more reason, as if any of us conservatives needed it, to not have respect for liberals and their opinions.

    • takeourcountryback

      Lord knows, Bloom is a liberal fiend! But, then again, Mormonism isn’t Christianity.

      • logicalpositivist

        But Christianity is a big tent. Within that big tent, you’ve got Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, evangelical Christians, Lutherans, Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Mormons, and Christian Scientists.

        We’re a dysfunctional family, but we’re a family nonetheless. : )

        • tomatin

          Call it what you want but Mormonism is more like a cult to me.

  • kowalski

    That bubbling wellspring of effervescent free-enterprise industriousness, clean living, morality, and forethought that springs from America’s founding principles. A beacon of hope to the masses of the world, and truly, as evidenced here, another bastion of Free Thought. Certainly none of them would be Marxists to the core.

    Although certainly some of them *are* noble savages on their skis.

    Let’s not forget the combined economic wisdom of the Yale University English Department, which gives them license to criticize anyone. Not to mention their hope for their many poor graduates, struggling to produce something better for the world, jealously toiling away and sending their glorious offspring to occupy people’s parks and stink up the place. Ah, but the publishing business is a harsh mistress these days. They can own the means of production, but what are they worth? .

    • kowalski

      Who most assuredly wasn’t a Commie when he said:

      The days of apathy are over, folks.

      (Applause)

      Once this has begun, it cannot be stopped and will not be stopped.

      You can feel the tingles going up his legs, energizing his nerves, the hairs standing up on the back of his neck, his Bolshevik pickle that he’s been sucking on spit out of his mouth, the swelling angry masses wrenching him from the graveyard of history and the daily humiliations of moderating his own radicalism, reaminating him, filling him with the energy he needs to jump back into the Revolution!

      • kowalski

        Like taking the match to the Molotov Cocktail…like lighting the fuse on the bomb. It’s the Rage Against the Machine! Where’s Zack de la Rocha when you need him? Reich didn’t get them fired up enough! He should have had them go and burn down Livermore!

        Jeez I’m going to have to get back into writing countercultural rap metal.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    Fact One: Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

    Fact Two: Barack Obama is a profoundly unqualified amateur Duvall Street Marxist, agitator and puerile scold who has no connectivity with the vast, vast majority of people he skittishly tries to lead, and whose record of accomplishment in this task is of abject, thorough and complete disaster.

    That Mitt Romney is a Mormon has as much relevance to this Fact Two as whether or not the pad underneath my living-room carpet is six pound, or eight pound. It not only is a non-issue, it is a non-THOUGHT.

    What is fascinating about this is the spiritual immaturity of our Academy. Yale was started by Congregationalists to be sure, but their educational mission was God-scented, not man-scented. That their pedants now fall to this sort of childish blather is simply embarrassing, and not at all enlightening.

    • logicalpositivist

      You just summarized his book.

  • tomatin

    On Fox News tonight Romney throws GWB under the bus on abortion. He said Reagan and GWB both changed position to being pro-life. Yes Reagan did and GWB’s father did but NEVER GWB.

    This guy is shameless and say anything to get elected.

    Well you can get elected but without my support, never. I’ve had it.

    • logicalpositivist

      GWB had, in fact, campaigned as a pro-choice Republican when he first ran for the House of Representatives back in 1978 (ish).

      GWB’s people have disputed this description. When Romney’s people first started using this analogy, it was considered an undisputed fact because neither Bush nor his people had disputed the magazine’s characterization of GWB as a pro-choice Republican.

      Now, apparently, some of his people are disputing that characterization. Some additional facts would be very helpful.