If the polls are to be believed, Mormons rank among America’s most disliked religious denominations. Despite this animus, Mormons have achieved considerable political success. Fourteen Mormons serve in the current Congress, including the Senate Majority leader.
On the national level, however, things may be different. One-quarter of voters say they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate for president. Among religious groups, only Muslims and atheists do worse.
This dislike presents a special problem for Republicans. Two of our most plausible candidates for president in 2012 are leading Mormons: Mitt Romney and Utah governor Jon Huntsman. Both of them bring special and important advantages to the race: Romney his success in expanding health insurance coverage in Massachusetts; Huntsman his innovative stands on the environment and social issues. Both men are highly intelligent, with strong business backgrounds, and easy verbal fluency.
If candidates like these cannot be elected to national office because of their religious affiliation, then our Republican talent pool looks dangerously shallow. It’s important to know: how thick are the barriers against a Mormon president – and what might help to surmount them?
White evangelical Protestants are the religious group least likely to express positive views of Mormons. Mitt Romney’s loss in the Iowa caucuses to Mike Huckabee offers some grounds for supposing that this evangelical distrust will have electoral effect in 2012. Yet it seems apparent that anti-Mormon feeling also runs strong on the left-hand side of the spectrum.
Here, for example, is my friend Jacob Weisberg writing about the Romney candidacy in Slate.com:
I wouldn’t vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism. The LDS church holds that Joseph Smith, directed by the angel Moroni, unearthed a book of golden plates buried in a hillside in Western New York in 1827. The plates were inscribed in “reformed” Egyptian hieroglyphics—a nonexistent version of the ancient language that had yet to be decoded. If you don’t know the story, it’s worth spending some time with Fawn Brodie’s wonderful biography, No Man Knows My History. Smith was able to dictate his “translation” of the Book of Mormon first by looking through diamond-encrusted decoder glasses and then by burying his face in a hat with a brown rock at the bottom of it. He was an obvious con man. Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does, and if so, I don’t want him running the country.
One may object that all religious beliefs are irrational—what’s the difference between Smith’s “seer stone” and the virgin birth or the parting of the Red Sea? But Mormonism is different because it is based on such a transparent and recent fraud. It’s Scientology plus 125 years.
I could be wrong about this, but I find it hard to imagine a columnist at Slate writing a similar passage about a candidate who professed belief in the divine authorship of the Quran. Yet the historical and textual problems of the Quran are in their way very nearly as daunting as those presented by the Book of Mormon. And to give the Mormons their due: they do not threaten violence against those who publish negative verdicts on their holy book.
At the same time, I am also left wondering: If belief in the Book of Mormon makes one too gullible to be president, does it also disqualify one as Senate majority leader?
It’s a rule of American comity that we all refrain from expressing doubts about the purely doctrinal aspects of each other’s religions. It’s hard to see why Mormons should be exempt from this ancient rule of interdenominational respect. Maybe Mitt Romney’s adherence to the teachings of Joseph Smith proves him a sucker. But there’s no sign of the sucker about him when he reads a balance sheet! Why should we assume he’d be any more gullible when it came time to negotiate a treaty or face down a foreign threat or review an EPA regulation?
Anyway, it is never safe to draw conclusions about people’s inner convictions from their religious membership. The husband and wife team of Richard and Joan Ostling have just revised and reissued their study of the Mormon church, Mormon America. Their work stands as about the most authoritative account we have of the Mormon church as an institution – and of the often troubled interactions between Mormon and non-Mormon America. Non-Mormon themselves, the Ostlings have worked hard to understand how Mormons think and feel.
One conclusion that truly jumps out from the book’s pages is that many if not most Mormons respond much more to the spirit of belonging offered by the church than they do to its theology. Here for example is an interview the broadcaster Glenn Beck has given about his Mormon conversion.
Note that he has nothing at all to say about the teachings of the church. Instead he talks about the warmth of community, the power of belonging. He says: “I don’t care if there’s Kool-Aid down in the basement. I’m drinking it. I want to be like that.”
Mormonism’s teachings may have a lot to say about life on other planets, but Mormonism as a way of life is intensely focused on the here and now. Mormons do not have a professional clergy. Their educational institutions emphasize practical learning over theology, ancient languages, archaeology and history. Mormons have achieved spectacular success in fields like business, politics and national security. They are less over-represented in the sciences, and still less in the arts. The Ostlings depict a church that discourages open inquiry and polices independent thought, that seeks to edit its own history and suppress unwelcome facts. Yet this same story can be told of many forms of organized religion, including that preached in the church in which the current president held membership for 20 years.
The relationship between Mormons and other Americans has been shaped by conflict almost from the beginning. The first of the great Mormon westward settlements – in Missouri – was destroyed by frontier violence that ended in the expulsion of Mormons from the state. The Mormon prophet John Smith was murdered in Illinois in 1844. The US Army sent troops to Utah in 1857 to compel submission to federal authority.
Mormons were not unique targets of religiously grounded violence. Anti-Catholic riots claimed many more lives than were ever lost to Mormon-non-Mormon strife. But anti-Catholic violence in 19th century was always mob violence, never organized or countenanced by state authority. Again and again, Mormons found themselves on the sharp end of the bayonet of uniformed soldiers, state and federal.
While religious differences shaped these confrontations, they were usually provoked by politics. While many 19th century sects sought to establish autonomous godly communities, only the Mormons succeeded on any significant scale. Their success roused the suspicion and fear of their neighbors, especially when those neighbors had originated in southern states. Mormons were ultimate Yankees. The community took form along the line of New England’s westward expansion, first in western New York, then in northern Ohio. (Joseph Smith himself was born in Vermont in 1805.) Mormon missionaries won their first large conversions in Britain and Canada, reinforcing the “northern” flavor of the new denomination.
While pioneers who migrated into Missouri from the Southern states arrived as family groups, Mormons arrived as a pre-formed community. Instead of carving out individual homesteads, they laid out New England style townships. In those early days, Mormons were guided by strongly collectivist and separatist economic ideas, which their scattered neighbors perceived as a form of boycott of non-Mormons. And since Mormons were united while their neighbors were less well-known to each other, this boycott was experienced both as a hardship and a threat.
Mormon separatism was not a politically quietist separatism. Unlike the other charismatic movements that originated in the religious enthusiasm of antebellum New York – Shakers, the Oneida community, etc. – Mormons wanted more than isolation: They sought political sovereignty over the entire community in which they were located. This desire provoked hostility wherever Mormons settled, but Missourians reacted with special hostility because so many Mormons had family origins in New England and because Mormons did not own slaves.
Mormons did not meekly turn the other check when threatened. They organized their own militia groups, bought weapons, and used them too. The rhetoric of the early Mormon preachers could be blood-curdling. They threatened extermination of their antagonistic neighbors; Smith admiringly quoted the ancient Muslim slogan: “The al-Coran [sic] or the sword!”
The Mormons lost the struggle for Missouri. The governor and the state militia intervened on the anti-Mormon side, and the Mormons fled for refuge first to Illinois and then onward to Utah. The migration profoundly reinforced the collectivist and separatist patterns of Mormon culture. After Smith’s murder, his adherents splintered. The leadership of the largest grouping soon devolved on his deputy Brigham Young. Young was a supremely capable organizer, a commander who brooked no dissent. Young’s planning saved the Mormons from much of the suffering leading to tragedy that afflicted pioneers on the Oregon Trail.
Even in the account of fiercely critical biographers like Fawn Brodie, Joseph Smith had been a good-natured and easy-going man. Young was a grimmer and harder character. Smith had taken many sexual partners as a prerogative of his charismatic religious leadership, much like Joseph Noyes in Oneida and many other less famous preacher-prophets. Young was no sensualist, but he believed the theological justifications Smith had offered for plural marriage, and he institutionalized polygamy as a requirement of church leadership.
This one decision guaranteed further conflict with the United States as the Union expanded westward. The notorious Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857, in which Mormon vigilantes ambushed and murdered a party of Arkansas settlers en route to California was a product of this conflict – and set in motion a more vigorous assertion of federal authority over Utah after the Civil War. Congress passed a series of laws banning polygamy in the Utah territory, culminating in the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 which threatened the Mormon Church with disincorporation and confiscation of church assets if it persisted in upholding polygamy. Soon afterward, the church disavowed the doctrine. Utah wrote a ban on polygamy into its state constitution and joined the Union at last in 1890.
Yet for years afterward, dissident Mormons continued the practice and were hunted for it by federal agents. Mitt Romney’s father George – the future governor of Michigan – was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where the Romneys had fled to escape federal enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws. The emergence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as the pre-eminent supporter of constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman is surely one of the more surprising ironies of American history.
The study of Mormonism has to be discomfiting to any believer. What would we see if the foundations of Islam, orthodox Christianity and Judaism were as well attested as the foundation of Mormonism? Mustn’t all communications between the human and divine be adulterated by human imperfection? From the point of view of God, must not all our human attempts to comprehend him look puny, infantile, and hopelessly distorted by our inescapable limitations, flaws, and vanities? And even if we conscientiously believe that some forms of religion are more an imposture than others – how confident can any of us really be that our own faith falls entirely on the fair side of the line?
Most rankings rate Washington, Lincoln, and FDR as the three greatest American presidents. Only one of these men, FDR, was a Christian in any but the most nominal sense of the term. If today’s Republican primary process would exclude them from the nomination – maybe that suggests something wrong in the process?
63 responses so far
1 ChevesLigon // Feb 17, 2009 at 7:41 am
Here here. As an Evangelical/Protestant (who’s more the latter than former), I too have found it puzzling that Mormons are singled out for special scrunity—yeah, it seems kinda crazy that Smith read all of that off of plates, but is it LESS crazy that God wrote the 10 Commandments on Sinai? That Jesus, the Son of God, rose from the dead? Or, for that matter, that Bach’s great-great-grandfather was evolutionary sludge? The point is: life is pretty confusing and the soul reaches out for more than what raw, immediate ration can provide, and while I wince at Mormonism’s claims and history, does that mean that Mitt Romney can’t be a great (or at least competent) president? I think people of all faiths—and especially those without faith—could be a bit more humble in relation to our Mormon friends.
2 sinz54 // Feb 17, 2009 at 8:50 am
What is this? New Majority has two articles on Mormonism today. Is this some stealth attempt to boost Romney for 2012? If so, let me remind you that the Protestant evangelicals who deliver the votes in swing states will NOT support Romney. They consider his religion to be nothing but a crackpot cult. They said as much in 2008, when Romney made his run. As for the politics: In 2008, Romney was forced to disclaim his signature achievement in Massachusetts–health care reform–because free-market purists in the GOP balked at any government mandates whatsoever. Along with his flip-flops on abortion, Romney did not come off as sincere. Can he fix that problem for 2012?
3 sinz54 // Feb 17, 2009 at 9:02 am
I want to stress that within the GOP base and on the right-wing blogosphere, Romney’s health care initiative in Massachusetts was NOT considered a strength, but a weakness. Half of these doctrinaire right-wingers believe our current health care system is fine, just the way it is. The other half believe that health care reform can be accomplished entirely through the free market, without any government mandates or government programs (which directly contradicts the Romney plan). As a result, during his 2008 primary campaign, Romney was largely silent on his health care initiative, because the base of his own party didn’t like it. I live in Massachusetts, and I think the Romney plan is a well-designed plan. Plus, it’s actually working; it’s not hypothetical like the ideas McCain floated. In fact, it’s a more progressive plan in some ways than the one Obama is proposing (which is another reason why the GOP base is balking at it).
4 sinz54 // Feb 17, 2009 at 9:09 am
Frum asks: “If todays Republican primary process would exclude them from the nomination maybe that suggests something wrong in the process?” What it suggests is that the demographics have changed. In Lincoln’s time, the Republican Party was concentrated in the progressive, industrial North. The socially conservative South was strongly Democratic–the “Solid South.” Clearly, in 2009, those roles have flipped. Now the heart of the GOP, its firm base, is the South (plus the Southwest including Texas). The GOP’s insouciance in writing off much of the North, has decimated the ranks of the moderates in the GOP. There isn’t much wrong with the “process.” It’s accurately reflecting the wishes of the GOP base. Look at the 2004 and 2008 GOP platforms. There’s not much there that the GOP rank-and-file would be uncomfortable with.
5 ireign // Feb 17, 2009 at 9:50 am
A few points:
1. If Republicans nominate a Mormon, an easy way to win political points is for the conservative media to force the Udall brothers and Harry Reid to take a position. In 2007 and 2008, Reid got a free pass. He wasn’t forced to denounce journalists such as Weisberg.
2. There is a very good column on this by Stuart Rothenberg. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/why_mitt_romney_cant_solve_his.html The way Evangelicals see Mormons is the way Jews see Jews for Jesus. As such, it is difficult for evangelicals and conservative Christians to respect the Mormon religion.
3. As with McCain, some social conservatives will be very anti-Romney and Huntsman in the primary but almost 100% will support the Republican primary winner so this is really a non-issue for the general election. Not a single vocal and prominent conservative supported McCain in the primary but every one of them supported McCain in the general.
4. The Mormon religion is quintessentially American. What other religion has their prophet named Joseph Smith? What other religion almost has a decentralized business run platform? I am not a Mormon but I have to respect their faith and yes it is hypocritical that one strain of Islam is responsible for a lot of violence is the world and yet people are silent about that but many of those same people criticize the relatively peaceful Mormon religion for being too “recent.”
6 ireign // Feb 17, 2009 at 9:56 am
A few other points: The rankings of Presidents are generally meaningless. History is written by the victors and many of those writing today get it wrong and usually focus on one big issue at the exclusion of others. All of three of the highest ranked Presidents won wars. That does not mean their domestic or social policies or even their foreign policies were particularly noteworthy.
Despite my defense of mormonism, I would add that their active efforts towards conversion that far excede other religions does significantly increase animosity towards them. Many conservatives I have met in the legal world are mormons and it would be a huge loss to the GOP if we lost a growing voting block over a religious difference.
7 Fitz // Feb 17, 2009 at 10:03 am
The Mormon problem is one of geographic isolation. This very phenomenon has allowed them to build the critical mass necessary to keep their faith alive and prospering. Utah and Salt Lake City is one of the countries most family friendly and livable States & Cities. On the other hand most people dont know or are familiar with Mormons on a personal level (except for their evangelizing youth in black ties & white shirts). So it still seems a strange off-shoot of Christianity, not at all familiar or particularly friendly. Add to this the medias anti- religious and secular bias and its easy to tap into the fear that this is a strange and dangerous cult we would be electing.
8 empirical // Feb 17, 2009 at 10:15 am
If Romney could effectively navigate the economic difficulties that are facing this country now, and most likely in the future, then why not nominate him for 2012? Ignoring a qualified candidate because of religious affiliation is part of what ails the R party.
9 coleman // Feb 17, 2009 at 12:08 pm
empirical is empirically correct: Religious affiliation shouldn’t matter, and it’s “part of what ails the R party.” But…too many Americans, righly or wrongly, view Mormonism as cultish (i.e., overly secretive, has a hidden agenda, racially/culturally biased, etc.). I suspect Romney would make a fine President, but I think it’s impossible for him to be elected…in large part because of his Mormonism.
10 larryo // Feb 17, 2009 at 12:09 pm
sinz, you wrote: “I live in Massachusetts, and I think the Romney plan is a well-designed plan. Plus, it’s actually working; it’s not hypothetical like the ideas McCain floated. In fact, it’s a more progressive plan in some ways than the one Obama is proposing . . .” Thank you for the pragmatism, sinz. Your frank acknowledgment of the success of a progressive health care plan, opposed by the right regardless of whether it works, is welcome candor.
11 mikedbike // Feb 17, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Another down-right idiotic column. Romney was my pick and the pick of a number of friends–all evangelical born again Christians–because he held enough similar political and moral values to make faith a non-issue. His fiscal experience gave him the best qualifictions of all the candidates. As for Christianity aka Judeo-Christian values in our past Presidents, the final assertion by Frum exposes his stunning ignorance regarding Presidential history. People will argue on some of the following, but these are generally accepted:
# President Religion
1 George Washington Episcopalian
2 John Adams Congregationalist (raised); Unitarian
3 Thomas Jefferson raised Episcopalian; later no specific denomination
held Christian, Deist, Unitarian beliefs
4 James Madison Episcopalian (deist?)
5 James Monroe Episcopalian (deist?)
6 John Quincy Adams Unitarian
7 Andrew Jackson Presbyterian
8 Martin Van Buren Dutch Reformed
9 William Henry Harrison Episcopalian
10 John Tyler Episcopalian (deist)
11 James Knox Polk Presbyterian; Methodist
12 Zachary Taylor Episcopalian
13 Millard Fillmore Unitarian
14 Franklin Pierce Episcopalian
15 James Buchanan Presbyterian
16 Abraham Lincoln raised Baptist; later no specific denomination (deist)
17 Andrew Johnson Christian (no specific denomination)
18 Ulysses S Grant Presbyterian; Methodist
19 Rutherford B. Hayes Presbyterian; Methodist (?)
20 James A. Garfield Disciples of Christ
21 Chester A. Arthur Episcopalian
22 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
23 Benjamin Harrison Presbyterian
24 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
25 William McKinley Methodist
26 Theodore Roosevelt Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian
27 William Howard Taft Unitarian
28 Woodrow Wilson Presbyterian
29 Warren G. Harding Baptist
30 Calvin Coolidge Congregationalist
31 Herbert Hoover Quaker
32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Episcopalian
33 Harry S. Truman Southern Baptist
34 Dwight D. Eisenhower River Brethren; Jehovah’s Witnesses; Presbyterian
35 John F. Kennedy Catholic
36 Lyndon B. Johnson Disciples of Christ
37 Richard M. Nixon Quaker
38 Gerald Ford Episcopalian
39 Jimmy Carter Baptist (former Southern Baptist)
40 Ronald Reagan Disciples of Christ; Presbyterian
41 George H. W. Bush Episcopalian
42 William Jefferson Clinton Baptist
43 George W. Bush Methodist (former Episcopalian)
nothing to be gained here
12 larryo // Feb 17, 2009 at 12:21 pm
“From the point of view of God, must not all our human attempts to comprehend him look puny, infantile, and hopelessly distorted by our inescapable limitations, flaws, and vanities?” Not necessarily. Taking some biblical liturgy on its own terms, if God created us “in his own image,” does it not follow that our limitations, flaws and vanities mirror God’s limitations, flaws and vanities?
13 larryo // Feb 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm
mikedbike – another down-right idiotic post, exposing not only you but your friends as well. It doesn’t matter what churches the presidents attended – Frum was talking about their actual practices. This is your problem, as well as the problem of so many of your fellow travelers: You fail to distinguish appearances from reality. Frum’s column was well reasoned and well written – the fact that you disagree with his analysis does not make it idiotic. In fact, it probably commends it.
14 Cforchange // Feb 17, 2009 at 12:40 pm
You have the 2008 numbers there, do the math. Can an election be won where the females who voted Obama stay in that column and the evangelical voters move to that column or stay home.
You cite the resistance of the evangelical, I cite the Obama female voter – no way, make that absolutely no way will this group warm to what is generally viewed as organized male dominance. Female alienation from the urban vote will be near permanent if this is the chosen path.
15 HollywoodBill // Feb 17, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Romney 1.0 was a fascinating possibility. A Republican
Governor from one of the most Democratic states in the country is doing something right to appeal to Center Right Republicans as well as Independents. Romney 2.0 that pandered to the Agents of Intolerance should be recalled. While Mormons are under 2% of the population in CA, they played a disproportionate role in Prop8. The fallout from that remains to be seen. In addition, Meg Whitman, one of the three GOP candidates for Governor is a political protegee of Romney. Supposedly, she has a tie to the Mormon Church although she is not a Mormon. Again the fallout from Prop8 is still going on so it is impossible to guess the political ramifications. A real shame that Romney 1.0 can’t be brought back.
16 ireign // Feb 17, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Hollywood Bill wrote, “While Mormons are under 2% of the population in CA, they played a disproportionate role in Prop8. The fallout from that remains to be seen. In addition, Meg Whitman, one of the three GOP candidates for Governor is a political protegee of Romney. Supposedly, she has a tie to the Mormon Church although she is not a Mormon. Again the fallout from Prop8 is still going on so it is impossible to guess the political ramifications.”
HollywoodBill: (1) Mormons had every right to vote for or against Prop. 8 and to donate money to causes that they believe. Less than fifteen years ago, it was a big deal that Vermont was having civil unions and nowy rights activists are against anything short of marriage. The people who are more strident in their viewpoints on this issue are not voting for a Republican anyway.
(2) African-Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of proposition 8 yet many of the Mormon-haters believe it is okay to bash Mormons but not African-Americans similar to David’s post above. (3) Larryo, once again way to ruin a thread. Last I checked, there hasn’t been any major terrorist acts done in the name of Mormonism so your comparison between religious is a little off. (4) Paulie Carbone, no need to be bigoted. You think religion beliefs are stupid and you are entitled to your opinion but no need to be derogatory. (5) Romney’s health plan was unique to California. Moreover, the problem is less about coverage and more about rising costs. Universal coverage won’t in any way improve the quality of my healthcare or make my coverage cheaper. All it will do, is help out certain people who don’t have coverage (some sympathetic and others not so much) including people who have come here illegally and cost the average taxpayer a sizable amount of money.
17 pooldude1 // Feb 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I originally posted this comment earlier this morning at the “other” Mormon Frum review:
Great review, David. I am not Mormon and do find several key problems with their history, theology, and certain practices. However, while considering a presidential candidate, I’m investigating just that: a presidential candidate, not my next pastor or religious leader. That said, certain religious persuasions would cause my electoral antenna to raise up (I hope that doesn’t sound dirty). The radical factions of the Islamic faith comes to mind for the violent reasons that you allude to, for one. As I’ve said in other posts in other areas of this site, the fundamental problem with “voting your faith” is that it will ultimately lead to inter-denominational in-fighting. No way around it. Heck! I’d say that if everyone voted a straight “Baptist” ticket (if one were to exist), there would be an intra-denominational civil war between the liberal and conservative Baptists. Oh! Wait!!! That war already exists. We had one crack at real Theocracy a few thousand years ago and, like a Republic, the human race couldn’t hold true to it. Just my $0.02 (U.S.)/$0.03 (CAN).
18 HLMencken // Feb 17, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Curiously, you forget to mention Romney’s stunt during the Republican primaries, in which his operatives did anti-Mormon push-poll phone calls to Romney’s own campaign workers — who then posed as ordinary voters, and blamed the calls on the McCain campaign.
If anyone is playing the Mormon card, that person is Mitt Romney. He even went so far as to persecute himself in the last campaign.
19 ireign // Feb 17, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Meant to write, “(5)Romney’s health plan was unique to Massachusetts”
Guess that is the problem with not proofreading. HL Mencken, can you provide the link to your allegation?
20 HollywoodBill // Feb 17, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Of course Mormons have the right to campaign for causes that they believe in. However there sometimes are political prices that the piper demands be paid. California law requires that any contributors over $100 will be made public. There appears to be a huge amouint of financing that came from individual Mormons as well as Mormon held corporations. And possibly, a large portion from out of state. The issue will appear to be of a church meddling in politics. And that doesn’t play well in California. The situation is fluid and is likely to remain that way for awhile. The GOP needs crossover votes in California for any type of electoral win. And getting involved in social issues is a sure fire loser out here. The Massachusetts Romney sure was a promising candidate.
21 SouthParkGOP // Feb 17, 2009 at 2:48 pm
This is the first post I’ve read on this blog, and I’m blown away. Since the passage of prop 8 here in CA this topic has been the water cooler special. It’s funny how vitriolic, and down right bigoted people can be when discussing Mormons. Their religion’s origin story, while a little odd, is usually cited as some sort of proof of their ineptitude or their supposed insanity. As you stated, this is a sort of non issue in politics, it’s easy to insult Mormonism as Mr. Weisberg has, but if we turn that sort of objective view against any religion, whether it’s a virgin woman giving birth to the child of God who then heals lepers and ascends to heaven (which is coincidently part of Mormonism in case Christian forgot that), or Xenu delivering souls to Hawaii’s volcanoes, it’s all a little zany when viewed that way. How is this something to consider when elected a President? Personally, during the election it was Romney’s Mormonism that drew me to him. Instead of him making a big deal out of it, it was the media doing that and I was impressed by his candor on the subject. I heard him say on several occassions that he wouldn’t be legislating from the book of Mormon (a similar promise that Kennedy had to unfairly make about not listening to the pope). Similarly I read my Mother’s copy of “Dream of my Father” and was happy to see Barrack Obama esentially out himself as an agnostic, but was then disapointed when he willingly called himself Christian when pressed. At leats Romney is true to his beliefs, and is expressive about not using them as President.
22 empirical // Feb 17, 2009 at 3:05 pm
HLMencken – right . . . nice try.
23 gerrysh // Feb 17, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Ah … there’s the rub. Stating that Indians / Native Americans are from the Lost Tribe of Israel is not “purely doctrinal”. The Book of Mormon presents a history of mankind that is simply incompatible with what others hold. Whether this is consequential is debatable.
24 HollywoodBill // Feb 17, 2009 at 3:32 pm
The Republican Governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman, has come out in favor of same sex civil unions. Of course Yes he is a Mormon. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705284601,00.html This could possibly defuse the whole issue of same sex unions and any animosity with the Church of Latter Day Saints that is festering in California. I’ve always believed, from the Mormons I’ve known, that Mormonism is a very practical religion. They managed to have a revelation in the knick of time regarding blacks in their church and didn’t lose their tax exempt status. And they make great designated drivers!
25 Bulldoglover100 // Feb 17, 2009 at 4:00 pm
I think he can get elected regardless. I would have voted for him in 2008 and we would have been much better off with him when the financial crisis hit. He is actually the only candidate who could have stood above Obama when it came to that issue. John McCain and Sarah Palin did not instill any sense of comfort regarding the future to any party other than the far far right base.
Just today Jindal is trying to say he is not going to accept any of the stimulus money for LA……LOL They will run him out of the state on a rail if he holds firm on that nonsense and we have Bachman, the totally idiot, telling people lies that have been shown to be blatant lies everywhere on the net including the Post….and we are worried about people not voting for a mormon??? We better worry about what image our party is tarnishing NOW and worry about 2012 after we have rid our party of the dead weight like Bachman.
26 HLMencken // Feb 17, 2009 at 4:53 pm
ireign, Mitt Romney’s dirty tricks, including the anti-Mormon push polling to his own operatives who were then made available to the media without disclosing their campaign roles, was discussed at length during the campaign. You can find it by searching the archives at the Salt Lake Tribune, which dug up all the elements. Mitt Romney was quite happy to use religion in general, and his religion in particular, in his last campaign, while seeking to rule “out of bounds” any discussion of Mormonism and how it might affect his performance in office. The Huckabee campaign was essentially the vehicle for the Baptist backlash to Romney; the split between the theocrats, along with Guiliani’s ethical problems, is what enabled McCain’s campaign to revive and win the Republican nomination. I regard Romney as the most potent Republican candidate, and the likely 2012 nominee. He’s clever if not wise, and I notice that he’s one of the few Republicans not saying much of anything about the stimulus. He’s keeping his powder dry, so as to claim that he was never part of the gang of fools who currently pilot your ship.
27 HLMencken // Feb 17, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Something you can absolutely count on Romney to do is position himself as another barrier-breaker, the first Mormon in the White House. Look for lots of slick, cornball propaganda tying him to the Mormons rise from a persecuted sect to respectability. The camera loves the guy, and what’s left of the media won’t dig more than an inch deep.
28 Andrew Price // Feb 17, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Romney and Huntsman believe that Jesus is the Devil’s brother – this is simply unacceptable to many Americans
29 rjs46 // Feb 17, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Andrew: Mormons make a distinction between physical and spiritual brothers in other words we are all spiritual brothers and sisters as in children of our heavenly father. The Satan and Jesus are brothers line is technically partially true it really misses the point.
30 rjs46 // Feb 17, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Andrew: Mormons make a distinction between physical and spiritual brothers. In other words we are all spiritual brothers and sisters or children of our heavenly father. The Satan and Jesus are brothers line is technically partially true, but it really misses the point.
Incidentally, I agree with you. As long as people think that, no Mormon will be elected president.
31 sinz54 // Feb 17, 2009 at 6:27 pm
empirical: In 2008, Romney failed to capture the GOP nomination, for a couple of reasons–only one of which was his Mormonism. The GOP base also noted his flip-flops on abortion. (First against it, then when running for senator of MA, in favor of it; and then when running for the GOP presidential nomination, against it again.) And they didn’t like his health care plan. But basically, the GOP base figured that anybody whom the majority of voters in Massachusetts liked can’t be the standard-bearer for the GOP. Massachusetts, of course, is enemy territory as far as the GOP is concerned.
32 sinz54 // Feb 17, 2009 at 6:37 pm
ireign: “Last I checked, there hasn’t been any major terrorist acts done in the name of Mormonism so your comparison between religious is a little off” There used to be though. Go learn about the history of the Mountain Meadows Massacre in 1857. You can google for it. By today’s standards, that was a terrorist attack–plotted and executed by Mormons. And coincidentally, it happened on September 11.
33 sinz54 // Feb 17, 2009 at 6:41 pm
ireign: “Moreover, the problem is less about coverage and more about rising costs. ” Says who? This is precisely why the voters think the GOP doesn’t listen to their concerns. Look at the public opinion polls that have been taken, or the focus group results. The public is most concerned about being able to *get* health insurance, not whether medical expenses are rising. For them it’s a question of access first of all, and cost only secondarily. Consider my situation. I’ve got kidney failure and I’m on dialysis. The only reason I can get health insurance in Massachusetts is that RomneyCare included a mandate that insurers could not refuse to insure someone with a pre-existing condition. Otherwise, in a totally free market, I would have been out of luck. Because my medical expenses are so high that no insurer can profit from me, no matter how high they set my premiums.
34 sinz54 // Feb 17, 2009 at 6:51 pm
ireign: There is very little about the basic elements of RomneyCare that could not be employed in other states, or even nationwide. Elements of RomneyCare include: First, no insurer can refuse to insure anyone due to a pre-existing condition, as long as they can pay the premiums. Second, every citizen is required by law to purchase insurance from some insurer. This has vastly expanded the number of citizens in Massachusetts who are covered. It also expands the insurance pool, reducing the risk to insurers that healthy consumers would opt not to buy insurance and leave the pool to mostly sick people. For those citizens who are too poor to be able to purchase insurance from any private insurer, there is a last-resort government-run program, MassHealth, that provides affordable insurance. But that program comes with *very* strict means testing: If you have much more income than a welfare check, you don’t qualify for that government program. So there is no possibility of that government program ever crowding out the private insurance market; it’s truly a last resort for the very truly poor. And there you have it: A couple of mandates, mostly private insurers, with a last-ditch government program for the truly indigent under strict means testing. So tell me: What about this plan could *not* be scaled up to the entire nation?
35 larryo // Feb 17, 2009 at 7:56 pm
sinz – excellent posts, every one. You are quite correct about MassHealth. This is where the rubber meets the road for the dogmatic – what you have described here is a very efficient medical insurance program done by government, with a safety net, that is good for private business and does not stifle competition. Cannot happen, to hear the Friedman moonies tell it. But there it is!
36 ireign // Feb 17, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Sinz, from Romney, “What other differences between states? Well, the-percentage uninsured is quite different. In my state, it was 7-percent. In Texas, it is 25-percent. So what works in Massachusetts probably won’t work in Texas. It’s going to need a different plan. And in Florida, you are approximately 20-percent uninsured. So you are seeing some pretty big variations between different states.”
37 ireign // Feb 17, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Sinz, that happend in 1857. Like most religions, it has reformed over the years. Selectively taking only part of my statement is a intellectually dishonest way of arguing. The fact is in recent history there haven’t been any major attacks committed by mormons. They are a relatively peaceful religion.
As for your healthcare comments, what you write is not in anyway supported by data. Most Americans want universal coverage in the abstract but would not be willing to have a European or Canadian style healthcare system. Most Americans are very concerned about costs.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/US/healthcare031020_poll.html
“In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.”
Sinz wrote-”The public is most concerned about being able to *get* health insurance, not whether medical expenses are rising. For them it’s a question of access first of all, and cost only secondarily.”
“Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system’s costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation’s health care system, including 54 percent “very” dissatisfied.”
38 Chekote // Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41 pm
After Rev. Wright, religion is NOT going to be a major issue.
39 Carrick // Feb 18, 2009 at 6:53 am
There are two really interesting recent books that discuss Mormons and presidential politics.
The books are Newell Bringhurst and Craig Foster, The Mormon Quest for the Presidency (2008) and Craig Foster, A Different God? Mitt Romney, the Religious Right and the Mormon Question (2008).
Both books offer an interesting perspective on what Frum just wrote about.
40 Mick // Feb 18, 2009 at 7:34 am
What a strange post. Frum treats Mormonism like he’s Margaret Mead. Dude, they speak English and have Masters degrees! Using Ostling as a source is like saying you know something about France because you read a book. Ironically, Frum evokes one of Ostling’s many misapprehensions in talking about Mormon theology. Mormons HAVE NO THEOLOGY. How could anyone studying the Mormons have missed such a key element of what makes Mormonism what it is?
I only mention it because it goes directly to one of the two important points anyone truly interested in a new majority has to deal with.
The McCain campaign made it clear from very early on that they were thinking in terms of who they could do without. It should be clear now that we really can’t do without anyone in the conservative coalition.
Secondly, if you dismiss the Mormons on the basis that they don’t have a lot of votes, or that they have no one else they can vote for, you’re not paying attention. Mormons make the difference in terms of pure numbers in no less than seven western states. In California, they represented 2 percent or so of the voting public, but 50% of the Prop 8 fund-raising and 80% of the volunteer effort. The level of their effectiveness makes them the Delta force of political activism.
Frum is right to be concerned about the political viability of Romney and Huntsman. Romney is particular is a spectacularly effective executive. I was in Utah during the 2002 Olympics, and his work was indeed miraculous. Its a crime that he’s not President today. Actually its worse than a crime, its a mistake.
The fact that the left hates Mormons is nothing new. The real issue is Evangelical fear of Mormons, who frankly have had a great deal of success at their expense. Evangelicals have created an entire industry to demonize Mormons, even holding the Southern Baptist annual convention in Salt Lake City to “confront their enemy”. From what I’ve been able to gather, Mormons don’t really think much about Evangelicals either individually or institutionally. At the end of the day, its Evangelicals who have to have to consider whether Mormons are the biggest threat to their ministry, or the fascist, anti-religious agenda of the far-left. Ultimately that decision is going to determine not only Romney’s political viability, but the future of conservatism in this country.
41 larryo // Feb 18, 2009 at 9:04 am
Say Mick, you should probably be aware before you write anything else for anyone to read that fascism is a right-wing aberration – there is no such thing as left-wing fascism, because fascism prizes private corporate interests over all other considerations. You use “fascist” as an epithet, whereas it is actually a word with a very precise meaning. No need to thank me – I am happy to help dispel your confusion.
42 gerrysh // Feb 18, 2009 at 9:17 am
It won’t be of any use, because the fool is obviously purposely ignorant, but there is a book titled “Liberal Fascism”
43 ireign // Feb 18, 2009 at 9:58 am
There is disagreement on the position of fascism in the political spectrum. Given that fascists believe in “requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation”, which is more common on the left.
Larryo, you are quite arrogant and mistaken as usual. I would like to thank you in advance for leaving this blog and spending your time “working” at your home “office”.
44 Cforchange // Feb 18, 2009 at 10:11 am
Mick – A Morman candidate would have a real problem w/ women voters too. If you are a Morman and a man, you would especially have difficulty identifying this issue, hmmm. It isn’t a crime that Mitt isn’t the President, it’s Democracy and the voters spoke.
45 Jake // Feb 18, 2009 at 11:19 am
For what it’s worth, I’m a member of the LDS church living in Utah and can honestly say I wouldn’t vote for 80% of the members of my faith if they were running for office.
46 empirical // Feb 18, 2009 at 11:24 am
Cforchange
Yes, you are on to something. Women usually have a problem with guys that have model looks, a few hundred million, fly around in private jets and have a few houses around the country . . . life really sucks for guys like Romney because the first question women ask is “Hey fella, so like, what’s your religion? Mitt: Ah Mormon. Why? Awe, well nothing, . . . its just . . . ah forget it.
47 sinz54 // Feb 18, 2009 at 11:25 am
ireign: One parameter of *any* health care reform must be that Americans who like the care they’re getting from their current doctors and hospitals must *NOT* be forced to switch to other providers. Another parameter is that Americans who are already receiving a decent package of benefits from their current insurer, must *NOT* be forced to accept fewer benefits. That, in a nutshell, removes single-payer plans (such as Canada’s) from the debate. A one-size-fits-all plan would mean that those who had generous plans with many benefits would now receive fewer benefits. RomneyCare is *NOT* a single-payer plan. In fact, those who are receiving health insurance from their employers didn’t notice much change at all–just a form they had to fill out certifying that they had coverage and so were complying with the state mandate. And even the MassHealth plans for the poor have an extensive network of preferred providers, unlike Medicare which more and more doctors are refusing to accept. It’s really a well-designed health care system.
48 ireign // Feb 18, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Sinz-obviously, the health care system implemented in your state has worked well for you but it does nothing to address what the majority of Americans are unhappy about today, ergo rising health care costs. Moreover, it is basically a very expensive insurance policy and one that has the potential to reward and encourage those who come here illegally and those who can buy healthcare and choose not to.
Under the Massachusetts proposal, I would have to subsidize those without healthcare while maintaining my plan which continues to charge me more and more. So under the Massachusetts plan, those with healthcare end up paying more and not getting anything more in return.
It’s worth considering since people who are sick and cannot afford insurance should be taken care of but I believe it is too costly for the nation at this time as a whole even though it appears to be working in Massachusetts.
49 Cforchange // Feb 18, 2009 at 1:25 pm
empirical, what are you saying here – all women make choices based on shallow issues such as looks and wealth. If so, you’re not thinking of all those women Obama voters. The ones I know are very tight with their principals. Remember we are not close to a majority number to elect a president, we are attempting here to expand our numbers. Further, I wouldn’t bring up women, dating, marriage and Mormans if you want the religion to be viewed respectfully, the record is not supportive here.
50 larryo // Feb 18, 2009 at 2:48 pm
ireign and gerry – watching you scramble to disassociate yourselves from fascism is a hoot. Gerry, the book to which you refer is a polemic – there is no “liberal” fascism. Ireign, you have no idea what you are prattling about, as usual – fascism is the merger of government with private corporations, it’s that simple, and it exists exclusively on the right. Policies “requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation” exist on both the right and the left at – I would say – the extremes, but only the right subordinates the general welfare to corporate welfare, and that is the crux of fascism. Sinz54 has been eating your lunch for days, which should have shut you up by now. But no – you keep acting as if you have something intelligent to say despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
51 gblittle // Feb 18, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I sure hope this is not representative of those who call themselves the “New Majority”. The only reason there is a so-called problem of a “Mormon” candidate is what’s behind their name (D) or (R). Heck the only church has troubled me was Obama’s and Rev. Wright’s, but NO big deal. I don’t recall a Mormon blasting “whitey” or damning the US ever.
52 LymanKirkland // Feb 18, 2009 at 3:42 pm
I would suggest the following links to enlighten this discussion on Mormonism:
Who are the Mormons:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/who-are-the-mormons
A Mormon Worldview:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/a-mormon-worldview
The Religious Experience of Mormonism: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-religious-experience-of-mormonism
53 ireign // Feb 18, 2009 at 5:35 pm
larryo, I guess the dailykos isn’t left-wing enough for you. Once again, there is no purpose for you being on this blog. You have previously posted that you have no respect for conservative thought and you are to the left of most in the Democratic Party. You repeat libelous things about officials and generally have done little research to support anything you write. You would better served spending your time finding a job.
It is debatable where fascism is on the political spectrum. You can make unbacked assertions all you want but you stating a wacky opinion does not make it a fact. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once stated, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion but not their own facts.”
Sinz-if larryo thinks you are “eating my lunch” than perhaps you may have to rethink your posts. Then again, larryo also claimed he was a prosecutor for five years. I guess he went to a law school that didn’t teach logic. Usually, when people have a difference of opinion than does not constitute “eating my lunch.”
54 sinz54 // Feb 18, 2009 at 5:42 pm
ireign: “….address what the majority of Americans are unhappy about today, ergo rising health care costs.” There are no magic solutions to rising health care costs. Oh, we can try to reform the health care system to squeeze out waste and duplication of efforts–but that’s a one time saving. And even after all the waste has been squeezed out, health care costs will continue to be driven upward by the steady aging of the U.S. population. This is a problem for every Western nation these days, not just America. In America, managed care has already addressed the problem of costs at the low end (i.e., urgent care by a primary care physician). They require cheaper generic drugs to be used when possible, require referrals to specialists, etc. But at the high end of costs, the big-ticket illnesses like metastatic cancer or my kidney failure, there usually are no cheaper options. My two options are dialysis (for now), and a kidney transplant followed by immunosuppressants for the rest of my life. Both of these options are very expensive, and most of the prescription drugs for these treatments have no generic equivalent. Finally, some have hoped that prevention–aggressive screening, healthier lifestyles–might lower health care costs. But the few studies that have been done so far don’t seem to bear that out. I am not sure why. Perhaps it’s just that diseases like chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and arthritis, cannot be cured–and continue to worsen–no matter how early they are detected. If that’s true, then what we really need is some major breakthroughs in geriatric medicine and in the cure or prevention of degenerative disease. If stem-cell research could cure spinal cord injury, kidney failure, Alzheimer’s disease, etc., health care costs in this country (and elsewhere) would drop dramatically.
55 sinz54 // Feb 18, 2009 at 5:57 pm
ireign: Health care for illegal aliens is already a problem in America, and would continue to be, even if we didn’t change the current health care system at all. The reason is that by law, no hospital can refuse to treat an illegal alien, even if that person is unable to pay. And hospitals and their doctors don’t work for free. So who pays for the treatment of an impoverished illegal alien at a hospital Emergency Room? Right now, you and I do: The cost of treating him is part of the hospital’s overhead, and they have to charge the insurers for it. (And that’s a big charge, because Emergency Room care is expensive care.) Then the insurers promptly raise our premiums to cover it. If the illegal alien gets treated at a city hospital or government-run clinic, then our taxes pay for that. So in any health care system you can imagine, care for illegal aliens must be paid for–as long as they stay in America. One more thing: I was NOT suggesting that each individual state should adopt the Massachusetts plan on its own. Some states are suffering with relatively high unemployment and they couldn’t really make a go of any state plan. I was suggesting that RomneyCare offered a model for how a *national* plan could be run. It would be simpler and less intrusive on private business than some of the schemes that the liberal Dems in Congress are liable to concoct.
56 sinz54 // Feb 19, 2009 at 9:20 am
To Ireign: If we cannot defend our ideas in the face of criticism by a leftist like larryo here on this NG, how can we defend them before the Democrats (including Obama’s minions) in any public debate or political campaign? I tried to explain how RomneyCare works. Instead of offering any alternative proposal for health care, all you did was say “It wouldn’t work elsewhere.” You didn’t suggest any modifications to it, you just trashed it. That’s not helpful. This isn’t 1993; the GOP isn’t going to be able to stop health care reform from going forward this time, because the business community has flipped and now favors it. If we can’t offer an alternative to the liberals’ proposals, their proposal will pass. And unlike the stimulus package, once health care reform passes, it will be permanent, just like Medicare is. The GOP desperately needs a better answer to this issue than just “NO”.
57 sinz54 // Feb 19, 2009 at 9:28 am
To larryo: You are trying my patience, because you are the least civil of any of the posters here. Calling someone else’s post “idiotic,” making cheap shots and personal attacks. I do not appreciate your “stroking” me with your compliments; I do not want to be your cat’s paw, doing your work by criticizing conservatives while you sit back and smile at the disarray. Let me assure you, the feeling is mutual–but the civility, apparently, is not. In the 1970s, I got to see firsthand how liberal government had turned America’s greatest cities into pestholes “reminiscent of Calcutta,” as the late Theodore H. White wrote. But unlike you, I always try to be civil. I always treat you like a fellow American citizen. Try treating us the same way, and you might find more willingness by the Right to consider your arguments. No one ever wins someone over by saying “I think you’re stupid because….”
58 ireign // Feb 19, 2009 at 10:28 am
Sinz-I would prefer nothing or perhaps even a single-payer solution to Romney’s plan in Massachusetts. At least under a single payer plan, I would pay less in health care costs although my coverage would not be as good. Under the plan you propose, I get hit with more costs and keep the same level of service. Your proposal isn’t an alternative so much as an acceptance of President Obama’s proposal. There was a counter proposal by Senator McCain and unfortunately, the American people sided with Obama. So while Republicans can bring up the proposal again, as Obama put it, “he won.” As to your point that we are already providing for the uninsured who go to the emergency room, that is far different than having to pay the cost for someone with a sinus infection. I am perfectfully willing to subsidize those who are gravely ill.
Given the massive growing deficits in this country, universal healthcare coverage is going to be on the backburner for quite sometime. Moreover, it is inevitable that we are going to have a big costly medical program in this country at some point. If Hillary had been willing to make a few concessions, we would have had one in 1994.
59 larryo // Feb 19, 2009 at 12:42 pm
sinz – you and I have crossed swords often enough so you ought to know that I don’t “stroke” you or anyone else here – I was agreeing with you on the specific points you raised, all of which I thought were good ones. There were several, in fact, in a row. How do you reconcile that with your “leftist” stereotype. Second, I do not think the collected rightists here are in disarray – in fact, it appears to me that you divide up into three pretty distinct groups, with the views of one of which I agree so often it surprises me. Third, I am civil to everyone here – everyone – except ireign. I will be civil to her as soon as she is civil to me. She initiated the uncivility – the cheap shots and the personal attacks in response to something I wrote about what I really believe – and she can put an end to it any time she wants. In the meanwhile, if she aims her vitriol at me I will continue to excoriate her and you can completely lose patience if you wish – I suggest you redirect your complaint in that light. Before you cite me to mikedbike, I just turned his own polemic around on him – surely that is fair. Finally, I have found significant common grounds of agreement on various points with several of the columnists here – Mssrs. Vecchione and Ligon, for example, and even with you over the past few days – how that could possibly be offensive you escapes me, I admit. You are embarrassed at the state in which you and your political bedfellows find yourselves – some of your most cherished myths and superstitions have been exposed for what they are. I more than understand – I was humiliated when Clinton turned out to be the charlatan he is (i.e. his support for the unfettered mobility of capital which he called “free trade” and his push to scuttle Glass-Steagal), but even Clinton knew the way out of the economic doldrums that Reagan and GHWB left in their wake and even Clinton had some sense of his duty to the general welfare of the nation as a whole. You cannot say that about Reagan or either Bush. What none of you seem to understand is that this discussion between the right and the left has been going on since the time of the colonists, and the compromises that were reached were embodied in the Constitution. The real work is done on the grounds of common agreement between what Madison called “the factions,” which he abhorred. The more common ground we can find the better. Or, to put it another way, sinz, it’s not all about you – sorry.
60 dendup // Feb 19, 2009 at 1:18 pm
McCains health care proposal was focussed on cutting costs. His plan covered everyone, but provided only a catostrophic care. This was not clear in most comparisons during the campaign. The market would be available to provide the rest. Every health care system rations care in some way. The free maket rations care on an ability to pay. HMO’s are essentially a rationing system for employer subsidized care. Congress and the President decide how to ration care in Medicare/caid. We need to have a discussion about all this without using emotionally charged language if we want to make any meaningful progress. Are there groups who should not get subsidized health care, or should get a more limited version of it? What procedures, treatments, medications shouldbe excluded from subsudized health care? When we talk about various heath care funding systems, we are really talking about these questions.
61 larryo // Feb 19, 2009 at 2:45 pm
BTW, sinz, you wrote: “In the 1970s, I got to see firsthand how liberal government had turned America’s greatest cities into pestholes ‘reminiscent of Calcutta,’ as the late Theodore H. White wrote.” Richard Nixon was elected in 1968, and a Republican was in the WH until 1977. What did these conservative leaders to to clean up the cities? Why, what they always do – they undertook deficit spending (which they ardently advocate against) for money to feed the war machine and the mega-corporations but no one else. Carter faced double-digit inflation on account of the policies of his predecessors. So tell us again: Who was responsible for the sorry state of the cities in the 1970’s?
62 gerrysh // Feb 19, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Do the trolls actually believe that anyone reads their off-topic rants? Just search for “Mormon” on this page and see all the garbage posts that fly by.
63 Romney is No Conservative « Furthermore… // Sep 24, 2009 at 7:42 pm
[...] Romney also has a major identity problem. Romney ’s tried to go from claiming to be a super-moderate New England Republican to being a super-conservative national primary type Republican. Mitt couldn’t pull it out against McCain. Did we not learn from electing John McCain in 2008? Romney needs to remember that many supported him in 2008 simply to stop McCain, not because they thought he was the next Reagan. Romney hasn’t shown that he is someone that the country can vote for. So, at this point mind you, he would be relying on votes against Obama to put him over the top. And even still, if the polls are to be believed, mormons rank among America’s most disliked religious denominations. If you like David Frum, you should like Mitt Romney. Click here and here. [...]
You must log in to post a comment.