Skip to comments.MSNBC's O'Donnell on Romney's "Mormon Problem": How Moronism Was "Invented"
Posted on 04/07/2012 2:48:46 PM PDT by NorthernCrunchyCon
And so begins the MSM turn on the Republican nominee. And as much as I hate to credit the MSM, and particularly O'Donnell, I cannot find anything in his rant that is inaccurate, other than the number of wives Joseph Smith claimed. O'Donnell says 48, but I believe the most consistent number put forward by historians is 27. On the other hand, Brigham Young claimed 56 wives, so O'Donnell is certainly within range.
“...Romneys Obamaesque policies taint the Republican brand.”
Please explain to me what the “Republican brand” actually is. Do you mean like the ‘Conservative’ McCain that the GOP pushed on us last round?
The GOP sucks and has been sucking since Reagan.
You know that we cannot survive 4 more years of this imposter. If we have to elect a RINO, then so be it. Anybody but 0bama this time.
I don’t like it either, but I’ll be damned if I stand by and allow this Marxist to ruin our country because of immature & childish reasoning like not voting for Romney because he’s a Mormon.
Have a nice time with your family.
Your tagline lists your location as Southern Utah. I’m wondering if you could shed any light on how Warren Jeffs, who had himself audiotaped raping a 12-year-old “bride” in the name of Jesus, was protected by Utah AG Mark Shurteff and the Utah GOPe until Texas finally took care of the problem?
You have have a blessed and very fun day.
“Look I dislike Romney. I believe hes the reason Obama is in office right now.
“I think hes manipulative. I believe he right away in 2008, after ending that campaign, immediately sensed Sarah Palin was an existential threat to his plan to run again this year - and for that reason only - sent his operatives to undermine Palin, and so doing cost the GOP the election.
“That in my mind was reprehensible, and it does seem to this poster to have been what happened. Others may disagree.
“I will once again say honestly Im not on this board to praise Romney, except to the extent he opposes Obama.”
“Which hes now doing. So Im stuck with him.”
We may be on opposite sides of the conservative debate over Romney, but I really feel for you (and other conservatives who are only supporting Romney as the lesser evil to Obama) on this point. Most of us who refuse to support RINO Romney aren’t any more thrilled about the prospect of Obama’s re-election, which we can only stomach as the lesser evil to the greater and more long-term setback to conservatism under Romney. The problem with having to choose between the lesser of two evils is that one is still stuck with evil.
However, that’s what distinguishes us from liberals. We recognize that evil is very real, and that the only way to resist evil is to stand by our principles. So conservative debate is likely to be more spirited because conservatives are by nature principled people who think in terms of good and evil.
Thus division and strong debate among conservatives over Romney is unavoidable. We as conservatives cannot simply agree to disagree, because our principles don’t allow us to agree with evil. The RINOs and GOPe played divide-and-conquer with conservatives to get Romney the nomination, thinking that we conservatives would simply fall in line once Romney won the nomination. But it ain’t gonna happen. Thus this division foisted upon us by RINO/GOPe continues.
Having said that, while we conservatives find ourselves divided over whether Romney or Obama is the lesser evil, there is still much we can do together to advance the conservative cause in America and mitigate the damage done by the RINO/GOPe in insuring that Romney is the nominee.
First, we can all support conservative candidates down-ticket.
Second, we can begin looking for good conservative candidate for 1016.
Third, we can work together to take by the GOP.
“You know that we cannot survive 4 more years of this imposter.”
Is the Obama in your mind that mighty, or is your idea of America that frail?
Then, there is a possibility Kennedy, who said he won't retire with Obama in office, will decide to retire if Romney is elected. Then, we could get stuck with another David Souter and a Republican moving the party to the left. Sorry, I'm not taking that chance.
Nonsense. Republicans universally tried to stop Obamacare. They forced Obama into extending the Bush tax cuts.
Some of the same RINOs that stood on "principle" to do that with Obama in the White House won't hesitate to work with Romney to pass through Romneycare nationally, raise taxes on the rich and give us a VAT tax.
Nonsense. It will spur a further backlash that will give Republicans the greatest majorities in Congress and at the state level we have seen in decades, if not ever.
Obama will end up with four years of a lame-duck Presidency, falling poll numbers and will be forced to sign on to some conservative legislation just to salvage a legacy.
Here's something for you know -- Kennedy has said he won't retire with Obama in the White House. He would with Romney in the White House. There is a very good possibility if that happens, Romney could move the court to the LEFT by giving another David Souter.
Why on earth you'd trust Romney to put justices on the Supreme Court when he packed the court full of liberals in Massachusetts is a mystery to me.
There is reason why conservatism isn't making significant progress and it is because people like you keep voting for liberals like Romney.
“Is the Obama in your mind that mighty, or is your idea of America that frail?”
> Im smelling a stench from you, noob.
> Its the stench of a liberal troll. I got really good nostrils when it comes to liberal trolls.
You’re such a kidder.
First off, I’m not a noob. Second, my conservative credentials are well established.
Anyway, I’ll email Jim Robinson privately with the details.
Happy Easter to all..
From up north in the land of the ice and snow...
He is Risen..
Jesus is God
God can do the impossible...
God can do what man cannot...
Can Romney win ???
Will God win ???
Just because Obama will beat the magic pants off Romney
doesnt mean that we are to blame..
if you want us to vote for your guy...
First ya gotta give us someone to elect...
right now its FAIL...
No idea. Sounds like you already know it all.
Here's something for you to know. Justice Kennedy is 75. Retirement is not what I was thinking about when I said he might leave the court.
Here's something else, as much as FReepers often HATE the Bush family, it was the Bush family that gave us Thomas, Alito and Roberts. Let's see, didn't GHW Bush recently endorse Romney? Why yes, I believe he did. President Reagan on the other hand gave us Scalia, but also Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor.
As for "people like me" holding back the advancement of conservatism...I thought the all powerful Tea Party was taking care of that. Gosh a year ago the Tea Party, or those who spoke of them here on FR, were going to own every seat in both houses of congress via their popular conservative mandate. I'm just a middle aged guy in Missouri. How can I stop such a juggernaut of an organization as the Tea Party?
Okie dokie, though it wouldn't have been hard for you to find this yourself since it's been widely reported and is available all over the web:
RNC shoots down Texas primary change
A spokesman for the Republican National Committee said Texas would need but not receive a waiver from the national party to change its primary. There is no basis for a waiver. Texas will remain a proportional state, spokesman Sean Spicer said via Twitter.
There will be no change to the delegate distribution in Texas. It's just Santorum's campaign trying to generate excitement. The RNC will never allow it.
It's ALL your fault dude!
The truth is the Tea Party is just not anywhere near as powerful as some thought it would be, and some disillusioned people are just lashing out and looking to blame anyone - even one guy from Missouri.
The obvious truth is Romney federal judicial appointments will be better than Obama's simply because he will answer to a different constituency. Massachusetts is a deep blue state and Willard never really had 50% of the government or people behind the idea of appointing conservative jurists. He would as President. That doesn't mean they'd be excellent or even good - just better than what Hussein would nominate. With each nomination Romney would always have to decide whether to throw a bone to conservatives. With each nomination Obama doesn't even consider that as he is always just looking to pick the most radical left judge he can squeeze through the Senate.
Political pragmatism may be a dirty word at the moment, but having lived in other parts of the world and seen splintered opposition unable to unite and stop leftist candidates I am perfectly willing to vote for an unimpressive centrist moderate candidate over a hard left socialist.
Bravo to your great post.
Sarah Palin said it...any GOP candidate is “infinitely” better than O. Of course I’m going to vote GOP!
Nice coherent post. Good to see some of those on FR on occasion.
Oh, and I’m a middle-aged guy from Missouri to. McKaskill has to go!
I just had something of an epiphany:
Rather than continue to simply try to bash Romney on this site, a completely understandable and valid tactic I’ll enthusiastically admit.
How about at some point, all the anti-Romney sentiment is harnessed into what could conceivably be a powerful, persuasive “draft Palin VP” movement as a way of rapprochement with the RINOS in the GOP-e.
They seem to have outmaneuvered us once again, but we’re still influential.
I say, we start actively promoting Palin as a compromise. It would be the best of what worlds are left.
The Tea Party would advance. Palin would advance. And Obama would be CLOBBERED in November.
Because Palin would never take the job in the first place. She is not going to ever take a #2 spot again. And if there was even the slightest chance she'd consider a VP nod again, I think it is fair to say it would never be on the ticket with another RINO.
No Republican Presidential candidate would ever nominate her again anyway. She'd simply overshadow them too much because she is now a celebrity.
If Palin goes back into politics, she will run for the top spot and nothing else. It's certainly possible she will run in 2016 or 2020, but I rather suspect she likes her job as opinion shaper and political analyst/commentator far better than being an actual politician.
I too don’t think Palin would sign on to be Romney’s VP, especially not after everything Romney’s people did during the last election and after to discredit and take down Palin (for which McCain was wrongly blamed, in my opinion). However, even if Palin signed on, I still could not bring myself to support Romney.
I could probably support a repeat of McCain/Palin, as well as Huntsman/Palin, but in my opinion Romney has proven himself to be a much more dangerous breed of RINO/GOPe. His record as governor of Massachusetts which has proven to be the inspiration for Obama’s presidency, his behind-the-scenes takedown of Palin and other Christian conservatives, his scorched earth campaign during the primaries, the Utah GOP’s shielding of Warren Jeffs, and his Mormon surrogates narrowcasting “White Horse Prophecy” language to Mormon voters - I find unsettling.
So Romney who is a liberal, who has sworn to work with democrats, who has for years worked against conservatism, until the last few months did not refer to himself as such, who’s governance was liberal, who life is liberal will somehow be different as president?
This is the religion forum.
This is the religion forum and a discussion of Romney’s mormonism, which makes him who he is.
Solely for historical purposes and with no desire to get caught up in the rest of this article, the most consistent number put forth currently by historians is probably 34 'documented' plural wives. LDS Historian Todd Compton, in his award-winning book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, counts only 33, working from LDS Temple and other original marriage records.
Those who count Smith's plural marriages in the 40's name women by name and cite documentary evidence suggesting plural marriage, but they haven't produced evidence of marriage yet. That doesn't mean Smith was married to those additional women, but it doesn't mean he wasn't. Nobody had turned up credible evidence that Smith had been married to Fanny Alger until Compton produced some evidence to that effect when writing In Sacred Loneliness, although LDS and non-LDS historians had searched for any evidence of such a marriage for decades and decades.
Incidentally, there were not many more women than men. That rationale for polygamy in Nauvoo, in Utah, or elsewhere has been disproven - by LDS historians, census records, and other sources.
Can you source that? Or is that just what you've been told?
If you think there is any way you can save your own soul, YOU are the one with the big, big problem. Hint: there isn't enough time in the universe.
Not wanting to hijack the thread, I didn’t respond to the McKaskill statement while the thread was running hot and heavy. Now that the thread has died down I want to say that I’ll be stunned if McKaskill can win. I’m really hoping for Steelman to get the nomination. She’s not only a solid conservative but she’s not a slave to the elitist Missouri GOP.
How coincidental! I feel exackly the same way about Islam!
Agreed on Steelman. This will be a classic “how late are the polls going to be open in St. Louis/Kansas City to let as many Dems votes as possible” election. I believe Romney,who draws an unenthusiastic crowd, still has sufficient ABO appeal to make sure enough Republicans come out to put Steelman and Romney over the top. I’m seeing 52-48 on the Presidential side.
“There where many many more women than men and they sure were not going to run a Singles Club. Something had to be done.”
Do you have some information on it that I could look at?
George W. Bush was FAR more conservative than Romney is. Do you know anything at all about Romney?
And, you left out the other judge Bush 41 gave us, the first one because conservatives became engaged -- David Souter.
Appointing Souter and breaking his no new taxes pledge were the biggest betrayals any President I have voted for has inflicted upon conservatives.
And, I think Romney is even more liberal and less trustworthy than Bush 41.
Dewey, while there was a shortage of men in parts of the 19th century U.S. due to the Civil War, that was NOT the issue for Utah Territory in the 1860s and beyond because of the reality of lots of Mormon converts coming to the U.S. from Europe.
I think a lot of contemporary Mormons plus their allies assume that there was some glut of widowed women and that therefore, men just had to step up and marry them as a plural wife.
According to the Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 224-225: [LDS} "Apostle John A. Widtsoe, who was born during the polygamy years (early 1870s) stated:
We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage. (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, p.393). One of the most popular explanations is that the church practiced polygamy because there was a surplus of women. The truth is, however, that there were less women than men. Apostle Widtsoe admitted that there was no surplus of women: 'The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church... The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, ... there was no surplus of women' (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pp.390-92," as cited in Changing World, pp. 224-225).
You don't claim to have greater authority than a past Lds "apostle" on this subject, do you???
So...why don't you just be consistent in your badly-done social revisionism by going to both the US Census Records, Lds church records, and books written by Lds apostles and alter them...just so that you can be right in your half-brain-cocked theories you're trying to superimpose upon 19th century Utah!