Redstate

"support" does not necessarily mean "endorse"

... and look what happened to Jean Francois Kerry when he did that last month.

... do you really want to fight that particular battle again?

Really?

Honest?

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

That's funny. What is a theocon? A supporter of public and private morality? People weren't really thrilled with the public and private corruption of certain republicans. Its one reason given for the loss. But get real. If you want to see real theocons, go visit Iran and Saudi Arabia. Then you might not be so quick to throw that name around.

You said: "I want someone who is going to fight for individual liberty, smaller government, do away with government entitlements, and show some common sense in dealing with social issues."

I like all that too, except the last comment probably means ignore social issues such as marriage, which I point out was foisted on us by government court decisions and made part of the political arena. In fact, most all of these "social issues" were forced on us by government. That fact seems to be getting lost in this debate.

I agree with you that the current crop of candidates is pretty weak. I'll hope for another Ronald Reagan out there somewhere. I haven't seen him yet.

When I say "theocon" (which I have been informd I should not use in the future, due to its lack of a clear definition), I am referring to those who want to impose their religion upon others. There are conservatives who would like nothing more than to impose the Bible as the litmus-test of public service, law, and social engineering. I oppose these people. Those who use the Bible and the teachings of Christ guide their lives and their morality are just fine with me, since I also use the teachings of Christ as my guide for morality and ethics.

I agree with you: Most of these social issues are government-created. The issue of gay marriage, for example, exists merely because the government regulates the mariage process, something I do not believe the government has any business doing.

In fact, I do want to ignore many social issues. I do not care if you are homosexual, minority, immigrant, elderly, or whatever social class is considered a "special interest group;" or if you're the CEO of a business facing overseas competition or a small business owner who can't seem to compete with Wal-Mart. Asking the government for help is just plain wrong. If they're doing something that is wrong to harm you, that's one thing, but otherwise figure it out for yourself.

No matter which side of the political special interest spectrum you fall on, if you're just falling to fair competition or your own lack of initiative and planning, too bad for you.

I could go on, but I have long-since digressed. Suffice to say, I apologize for using an ill-defined term and hope you understand my viewpoint.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

While there might be a few nuts oout there, the social conservatives are in no way trying to impose religion on people.

Even the most extreme just want to turn back the clock to the 1950s. Now you may think that is a bad idea- but the 1950s America was not a theocracy, did not "impose religion", or any other such thing.

Now I think the social conservatives are making a big mistake in thinking government power can be used to promote private morals. (It's similar to hiring a whore to teach your daughter how to be a lady). However, I completely agree and understand their horror at the complete breakdown in social morality.

Chastity, honesty, and fidelity are all ridiculed in today's society. A people cannot long maintain their liberty unless they have public virture, and private morals. Thus I see the decline in tradittional values as a direct threat to our freedom.

Not surprisingly, most of the attacks on morals have come from the government meddling in social engineering- trying to make things "more fair". Thus any candidate who stands astride the path of these changes and cries "Halt!" is someone who is quite appropriately defending our society from the corrupting infulence of government power.

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."
John Paul Jones (letter to M. Le Ray de Chaumont,16 Nov.1778)

for you to describe those of us who would have our religion inform our positions on public policy as "theocons" as it does for me to describe you as amoral. In fact, I would be on much stronger ground, assuming this post is not mere hyperbole to gain debating points, in claiming you were amoral.

Just as you are uncomfortable with religion informing policy, I, and many others, are very uncomfortable with some vague notion of economic determinism and unfettered free markets govern the way in which we live.

I am not uncomfortable with religion informing policy. I made it quite clear that I have no problem with religion influencing someone's policy decisions. I prefer individuals whose morals and ethics are based in Judeo-Christian value. My own understanding of the Bible and the words of Christ inform my opinions and policy preferences.

What I am uncomfortable with is the government being used to enforce religious values upon others. I have consistently stated that I oppose DoMA because a) the government has no business being involved in the institution of marriage in the first place and b) I believe it violates the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.

Someone stated that those who would impose religious values upon us are few and far between, however the numbers say otherwise. Every year, millions of dollars are poured into religious organizations with political agendas, and often enough those agendas are rooted the ideal of emplacing the Bible over the Constitution. No, it's not an overwhelming majority, but it is a large enough group to force politicians on both sides of the aisle to pay attention.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

and they have the power of the purse (taxes, not Hillary's handbag, although that may be very much in evidence in 2009)

With online blogs, forums, and constant news cycles, we parse candidate's positions and statements like never before and, frankly, we lose of what actually matters most in making a good President.

The MOST EFFECTIVE President (one that can move Americans and Congress furthest to the sensible Right) is a smart, charismatic, persuasive, quick-witted conservative. It's that simple. Unless you can effectively pursuade in a speech, debate or interview, you will fail and do more harm to conservatism that good.

Remember, the goal is NOT to elect the most conservative candidate - that is a LOSING strategy. The goal is to elect the most persuasive and charismatic conservative candidate that can win the general election. That combination, in the end, will get the most movement on a conservative agenda.

Example: If Giuliani were President over that past 6 years and made all the same decisions as Bush, Giuliani's approval rating would probably be 10 points higher because Giuliani can pursuade and defend his positions. Now people constantly ask, "So why are we in Iraq? What's the strategy? Where's the leadership? Bush is dumb and lost!". ONLY a good communicator can circumvent the media enough to get their message communicated to Americans so everyone at least understands your decisions.

The President will make some decisions, but the only way to be effective is to be a superb communicator. Please keep that in mind the next time you dismiss a candidate because 12 years ago he implied he was not an anti-abortion advocate.

Re: Is that too much to ask?

Getting rid of government entitlements is about as likely as conquering China, deporting every last illegal immigrant or criminalizing birth control. The best you can look for is refroms that pout teh entitlements back on actuarially sound footing and provide more ownership of this aspect of modern life.

are themselves non-conservative and (IMHO) totally unconstitutional! We're going to defend someone who would defend that?

I see news stories all the time about eminent domain (the taking of property) being abused (that is, given to another person or private entity) in an effort to increase the tax base. I never see any stories about the income tax (the taking of property, in the form of money) being abused (that is, given to another person) in an effort to buy votes!

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

We need someone who advocates getting rid of entitlements, but then is willing to compromise.

If you start off willing to compromise you end up having to compromise on your compromise. (I learned this well from my younger sister.)

Thanks for clearing it up.

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

in my post. I said that if what Fehrnstrom claimed was accurate, Romney made the mistake of mentioning Falwell in a political speech as a possible supporter when Romney had not mentioned Falwell by name.

I'm not anti-Mitt, per se, and I agree that he has time polish his campaign. This is tuning time, and perhaps this will help Mitt in the future.

and I think it is a bad one.

We shouldn't concede that so-called journalists get to mischaracterize our statements and therefore we we need to not give the opportunity to do so. I think when they mischaracterize a statement, we should hit them full bore with putting words in our mouths and/or advancing agendas that are out of step with actual mainstream America.

It was more the corroboration by Barbour's people that I was pointing to, Mark. It looks as if Romney made a true and honest statement, in fact one that is important to his campaign as it pertains to southern evangelicals, and the paper got it wrong. That's all.

How about changing the wording on the OP from the fact that Romney said he had received the endorsement of Falwell to something a little more accurate?

--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.

Mainly because the Mormons were driven out of various states by mobs (with either the explict or tact approval of the state Governor). Now the Mormons appealed to the federal government but they were denied aid on the grounds of "state rights".

Then they move off and create their own state. Only now the federal government starts bossing them around, depriving them of the right to vote, trying them before exclusively non-Mormon juries, seizing their property. Thus Mormons tend to be the most distrustful of government of all people I know.

Now Utah tends to have it's own issues that are created by tension between Mormons and Gentiles- bars are one of them. One of the Army Captains sent out to Utah during the Civil War spent a lot of energy promoting the establishment of bars and whorehouses in hopes that these amenities would attract non-Mormons (primarily miners) so that he could dilute the Mormon political power and then crush this "false and devilish religion." (He openly proclaimed this as his goal.) His efforts were actually succesful in Nevada (due to the discovery of the silver mines). Because of this, Utah Mormons have had a particularly hostile attitude towards bars that goes far beyond moral disapproval of the consumption of alcohol.

You are probably right that Mormons will be accused of racism. However, every Republican candidate is accused of racism, (even Republicans who are black), so it's no surprise. A truthful perusaul of history shows that Mormons have had a long history of opposing racism, and supporting Civil Rights.

In fact you mistate several things in your summary of Mormon theologly about blacks. First of all, the theory of Cainite ancestry is not offical doctrine, but rather one of many theories put forward to explain the Priesthood ban. Furthermore, the Cainite theory has always been quite clear (dating all the way back to Brigham Young) that the black skin is NOT the curse of Cain. Under his theory the black skin is the MARK of Cain, which was given to his decendants as a warning to others that God had already punished Cain, and that they must not seek vengance upon Cain's posterity or else God would punish them seven times as severely.

This is actually part of Brigham Young's talk about the Civil War. People accusing the Mormons of racism love to qutoe the bit where Brigham says that God had prophesied that Ham's decendants would be servants to the Gentiles, and that slavery could only be ended by God. They neglect to quote the part where Brigham Young attacks the Southerners for their defense of slavery on the grounds of Cainite ancestry- pointing out that with the mark of Cain, God had forbiden others from punishing Cain's decendants, and that therefor God was using the Civil War to keep his promise of vengence upon those who ignored the mark of Cain, and thus the Southern Slaveowners (and the Northern Slavers) were going to "suffer seven times the blood and pain they have inflicted upon the Negro race." (I am quoting from memory, so it might not be word perfect).

Now the above is not doctrine, it was Brigham's personal understanding of why blacks were not allowed to hold the Priesthood. However, it is clearly not a support of slavery, or even racism. Of course, this will all be distorted by the MSM which will almost certainly start asking Romney about the "racist past" of his church- which I guess was your main point.

My main point is that Mormons have had a series of relationships with government that makes them very much opposed to government intervention- particularly in religious matters. As is most clearly articulated in the elventh tenet of our faith: http://lds.about.com/library/bl/primary/aa_articles_of_faith_11.htm
(This link also contains related scriputres).

For the full 13 Articles of the Mormon faith click here:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,106-1-2-1,FF.html

Furthermore, Mormons are the only religion I know of that explictly condems communism and socailism.
The reasons why are explained in this talk given in the Church General Conference of April 1966, (funny enough it was given by Mitt Romney's grandfather):
http://emp.byui.edu/WILLIAMSG/talks/mgr_unitedorder.htm
The above linked talk also explains what Mormons mean when they say the Constitution was divinely inspired. If you want to know how Mormon theology is most likely to affect government you should read the whole talk.

Also, as Harry Reid has lately been the talked about as the highest ranked Mormon to serve in the federal government, (and giving a poor name to Mormons everywhere), I think it would be well to review the previous highest ranked Mormon to ever serve in the federal government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Taft_Benson
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/02-28-2000/vo16no05_taft.htm

Now Mitt Romney is certainly no ET Benson (not even close), but neither is he a Harry Reid. Just thought I'd ought to point out Benson (one of the great libertarians of our age), since the suggestion was made that Mormons might turn off the libertarians.

Gov. Barbour already announced that he would not seek the nomination, not too long ago.

That I did not know. Thanks for clearing that up. And also I think that sucks.