We Want Yellow!
Donate Today Monthly if Possible
Posted on 08/11/2011 4:29:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
...we pretty much know what kind of re-election campaign Barack Obama is going to wage: A relentlessly negative one, which...will focus almost exclusively on making the challenger seem unacceptable rather than defending the sitting president’s accomplishments. Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico, we also know roughly how the White House plans to “destroy Mitt Romney,”...By “attacking him as inauthentic, unprincipled and, in a word used repeatedly by Obama’s advisers in about a dozen interviews, ‘weird.’”
Weird how, you ask? Here’s Smith:
The character attacks on Romney will focus on what critics view as a makeover, both personal (skinny jeans) and political (abortion) … Democrats also plan to amplify what Obama strategists described as the “weirdness” quotient, the sum of awkward public encounters and famous off-kilter anecdotes, first among them the tale of Romney having strapped his dog to the roof of his car.
SNIP
...The crucial thing to understand here is that Romney’s Latter Day Saint affiliation isn’t just a potential liability among evangelical voters in Republican primaries. It’s a potential general election liability as well. In a recent Gallup poll, 18 percent of Republicans described themselves as unwilling to vote for a Mormon candidate — but that number actually climbed to 19 percent among Independents, and 27 percent among Democrats.
Who are these non-conservative Mormon skeptics?... theologically conservative/politically liberal Christians (mainly African American and Hispanic) who regard Mormonism as a dangerous heresy...secular liberals...who dislike L.D.S...positions...people who don’t have a particular theological or political ax to grind, who know Mormonism primarily through pop culture (from “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” to “South Park” and “The Book of Mormon”) and the occasional encounter with bicycling missionaries, and who have a vague sense of the L.D.S. church as little bit cultish, a little bit outside-the-mainstream, and a little bit, well, weird...
(Excerpt) Read more at douthat.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I believe Mitt is more removed than that...I believe Miles Park Romney, who towed his 4 wives & 30 kids to Mexico in 1885 when fed marshals were starting to go after bigamists, is Mitt's great-grandfather.
So I disagree with your assessment there.
There is also the racial issue. He has spoken to this in the past, saying that when he was a boy or a young man (I don’t recall how he characterized his age), his family was thankful that the special limitations for black people were lifted by the President of the Mormon Church. O.K., but does expressing this recollection go far enough? Did he think the Mormon Church was wrong in its limitations on black people? Or, did he and does he think that black people used to be inferior to white people? Again, it would creep me out to think that the President of the United States was raised in a church that taught that any race was superior or inferior to another. The Protestant denominations that used to teach such things have apologized for this sin. Maybe the Mormons have. Mitt will have to tell us about this.
Good Qs. One thing about "apogogizing" for his sin is that Lds have numerous racist verses in both the Book of Mormon & another sacred book, The Book of Abraham. (Kind of hard for them to "apologize" about their so-called "good books").
I'll give you specific references in another post.
As for one church condemning another, yes, the Mormons describe all Christians as apostate. That is a problem for Romney. Does he agree with this teaching of the Mormon Church? Even if he is a live and let live kind of guy, it is still creepy to think any person in the position of President of the United States thinks the majority of Americans are apostates. Can Romney say that the Mormon Church creeps him out with this doctrine.
Yes, not very "inspiring" for Christians to vote for somebody who privately deems them as "corrupt" apostates who embrace abominations for their creeds.
I don’t see an organized effort on the part of Mormons today dedicated to the violent conversion of the populace. Do I think they’re incorrect in their theology? Yeah. Do I think they’re going to come kill me? No. Would you rather sit next to a devout Mormon or Muslim?
Well, the Republican party was founded in part to do away with their polygamy, and then there was the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
Those might be ‘pivotal’.
0bama will NEVER get my vote.
I live in Colorado
Well said, and congrats on escaping.
Interesting since Utah, the highest Mormon state, also has the highest number of foreclosures per capita.
Would you rather sit next to a devout Mormon or Muslim?
- - - - -
Muslim. And I have studied Islam and lived Mormonism.
Sadly, I trust the average American muslim more.
No where near the amount of foreclosures in my neighborhood than there are in the surrounding neighborhood.
Lot chose the well watered plain...
No where near the amount of foreclosures in my neighborhood than there are in the surrounding neighborhood.
WHERE do you live??
http://www.google.com/search?q=a+Mormon+utah++amount+of+foreclosures&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=
And LDS historian Todd Compton would agree with you.
Compton has a 'work in progress' on his geocities page titled Mitt Romeny's Polygamous Heritage in which addresses what he terms 'confusion' and 'factual mistakes' about Romey's polygamous heritage.
Compton's footnoted research indicates that Romey is the product of two prominent polygamist great-grandparents, Miles Park Romney and Helaman Pratt. Romney's grandparents do not appear to have been polygamists.
For the benefit of LDS and non-LDS readers, you should note before reading Dr. Compton's work that although he is a 'faith-promoting' historian, he is not a strict one.
For example, Dr. Compton cites Fanny Alger as "one of Joseph Smith's earliest plural wives" in his award-winning book, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (the Smith/Alger relationship is discussed on pages 25-42 and the quote comes from page 25), but the LDS Church does not recognize Fanny Alger as a plural wife of Joseph Smith.
The Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR) also recognizes (and here) the 1833 marriage of Joseph Smith and Fanny Alger.
FAIR has a love/hate relationship with Todd Compton. FAIR cites Dr. Compton favorably on at least one issue regarding polygamy but also cautions against reading him in the same footnote, citing reviews that say he does not bring a "faithful" view to all of his writing. If you wish sources on FAIR's simultaneous citing and criticism of Dr. Compton, please contact me.
I doubt that will go very far since Reids also a Mormon....but then the American public can be fickle anyway so who knows how they will take it. We’ll likely hear the same ol’ excuses of why his religion doesn’t matter....unfortunately.....it does in Romneys case. But many won’t consider or investigate it further than the propoganda the Mormons put out there to cover with.
Romans 13 says the state is to be a terror to evil and to praise those who do good. Obviously, this means that the state is to use its coercive powers on something, and we could start with capital murder and kidnap slavery (two sins the punishment for which is death and for which there can be no forgiveness) and work our way to less and less evil things than that. Theft? (The punishment for theft is, usually, to pay back double.) I’ll go there. Lying? Do you mean lying under oath, a false accuser? (The punishment for false accusation is what you desired upon the innocent person.) I’ll go there. Do you mean fraud? (This is a form of theft, no?) I’ll go there. But, do you mean simple lying? Not evil enough for me. But, where exactly we are to stop in this list of evil things, I’ll grant is not clear.
Just as the state is to use its coercive powers against evil, it’s to use only its power of persuasion in the area of do-gooding. So, this sounds like a limited government; although, exactly how limited, could be debated.
Now, if we look at the U.S. Constitution, we see that the federal government is established to “secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,” and “to promote the general welfare.” It seems to me that what is sometimes called the “positive freedom” - the power we have through the government to do things which benefit us all - is appended to, and cannot undermine what is called the “negative freedom” - the right to be left alone, or to continue in the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property and associations. This general welfare thing seems unexceptional but, my goodness, have we ever gotten into trouble on that accord. I’d prefer the general welfare thing be returned to the states, and the federal government be re-focused exclusively on securing the blessings of liberty.
The problem with government, always, has been that any government powerful enough to defend, is powerful enough to aggress. Thus, said George Washington, government is not eloquence, it is force, a powerful servant or a terrible master.
Well they voted for Obama regardless of his church affiliation...and yet we see that hatred playing out in his administration. So I will have no empathy whatsoever for those who choose not to investigate Romneys church affiliation and it’s teachings. If he gets the nomination you can be certain he will tow the Mormon leaderships agenda to the T...and will not make decisions until he has the go from them....and they do have an agenda which is NOT in our countries interests...rather their own political and religious agenda.
As far as I’m concerned it’s like voting for an Islamist who says he’s just a moderate.....when they get in that position they are well positioned to be pushed by the entire leadership...and they are.
So if it's the lesser of two evils as choices I will vote for neither. Third party will be my choice. And if the country falls it falls....rather than a long drawn out death.
I can abide hearing the LDS called a cult who aren't really Christians, but to call all Mormons evil? I've known Mormons who are good people despite their wacky beliefs, and there's a good number of LDS Freepers as well.
Like I told you before, as a non-religious person I find transubstantiation and young Earth creationism just as wacky as anything the Mormons believe, but I've never called all Catholics evil just because some of them believe that wine magically turns into blood.
You've drifted into derangement I'm afraid.
The character attacks on Romney will focus on what critics view as a makeover, both personal (skinny jeans) and political (abortion) … Democrats also plan to amplify what Obama strategists described as the “weirdness” quotient, the sum of awkward public encounters and famous off-kilter anecdotes, first among them the tale of Romney having strapped his dog to the roof of his car.It's not just his personal weirdness that the MSM (acting in their capacity as handmaidens to the DNC) will go after, ONCE HE'S NOMINATED.
They'll go after the unbelievable weirdness of Mormonism, and they'll spotlight it in a big way, AFTER ROMNEY'S NOMINATED.
During the R nomination process the MSM will be all sweetness and light with regard to Mormonism, and pretend to barely notice it at all.
BUT ONCE ROMNEY IS NOMINATED, the MSM will shine a light on Mormonism, a light of extreme ridicule, that will make it virtually impossible for Romney to win the general election, even if he didn't have all the personal flaws and weirdness that he does definitely have.
So to those of you who say "Mormonism is not the issue" with regard to a Romney nomination, I say to you: you are being played by the MSM.
Sir/Ma’am,
Can you please remove my comment #2 from here? Apparentally a lot of people think I meant something I didn’t mean to construe that I tried to clear up in comment #9, but they’re still replying to #2. Sorry for the confusion.
A guy named Smith did a FAIR '09 workshop called Everything You Want to know About Polygamy (But was afraid to ask)...he conceded toward its end that the "revelation" for Smith to engage in polygamy may have been as early as 1831...Joseph F. Smith said in 1878 that polygamy started 1832.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.