Of all the reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney top of my list is that he’s utterly unprincipled. But the fact that he’s Mormon never enters into my calculations.
Yesterday at Think Progress, Matthew Yglesias posted a relatively short piece observing that Mittens
. . . has less of a “Mormon problem” than he does a “Christian problem.” Specifically, it’s very important to a lot of American Christians that other people be Christian. The media is dominated by secular people who aren’t invested in this sort of thing, and tend to accept at face-value the idea that Mormonism is one of several Christian denominations, but a great many Christians disagree with this diagnosis.
Even at Think Progress, this caused a discussion about whether or not Mormons are actually Christians. I find the whole discussion unbelievably dull.
Look, there’s much to criticize about Mormonism and I have been vocal in my criticisms. That said, my experience and observation suggest to me that Mitt Romney is not a typical Mormon. Most Mormons I know are fundamentally decent people who earnestly and honestly try to do the right thing. Like the rest of us, they get it wrong a lot but they try. I may not agree with their principles, but they hold them honestly and do their best to live up to their principles.
Whether or not Mormonism is a Christian faith or a Christian heresy strikes me as an oddly unimportant question. There’s much of value in Mormonism – the emphasis on charity, on community, and family are all strong points – but the esoteric questions of “What makes one a Christian?” are ultimately unresolvable.
That the Republican base finds Romney’s Mormonism a reason not to vote for him (as opposed to his status as chief panderbear of the Republican party), is striking. Romney is a grinning, gladhanding, self-promoter whose political views shift according to his audience’s mood. To me that’s why you’d vote against him – his Mormonism shouldn’t be a factor. Yet, research in 2007 and 2008, demonstrated that attitudes about Mormonism – generally negative – among evangelicals may move many Republicans to vote against Romney in the primaries.
#1 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 10:01 am
Willard (Mitt) Romney has an even bigger problem if he tries to run for the nomination. He invented what the right-wing is now pleased to call “Obamacare.”
#2 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 10:17 am
It won’t matter, Trump will probably run and mop the floor with Obama. He will have the Tea Party and republican base, and the libertarians and moderates who voted for Obama and gave him the election won’t go there twice.
#3 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 10:34 am
The Donald was on MSNBC this morning talking about President Obama’s birth certificate and making an utter fool of himself. Chuck Todd asked when he’s going to file his financial disclosure forms, and didn’t get an answer. Trump can’t really run for President, he’s just increasing his brand.
#4 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 10:45 am
Most Americans think Obama does not deserve re-election, according to new poll.
Quinnipiac University found a 50 – 41 percent near-majority saying President Obama does not deserve to be re-elected in 2012. Obama got 53 percent of the vote in 2008.
I know the “naked re-elect” poll numbers usually look worse for the incumbent than when you match him up with other candidates, but this is bad. If you asked me two years ago if Obama would be a one-term President, I would have said it’s hard to imagine. His job was to was rescue the U.S. economy and reverse most or all of the Bush administration’s policies. He failed.
#5 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 10:55 am
So you think, you have no idea the actual reality concerning that issue. It is a great tactic, and will have implications. No reasonable person accepts why Obama doesn’t just go get it and show ti, and be done with it. Obviously there are things on it he doesn’t want Americans to know. It’s real, and adds to the perception and facts that Obama is a fraud.
The poll you quote and the issue Trump talks about is all part of it. O’ bomb ‘em will not be re-elected, though if he is it all but guarantees the demise of the democrat party.
#6 by Glenden Brown on March 31, 2011 - 10:56 am
Richard – I think the Quinnipiac poll is related to a discussion going on at TDS this morning – the current Obama brand amounts to “Not as completely fucking batshit insane as the Republicans”.
As far as Romneycare goes, of course that’s a problem too – but weirdly it outweighs the mormon thing. Figure that out.
#7 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 10:59 am
Glenden–
Maybe President Obama isn’t as insane as the last President, but it’s not for lack of effort. Libya isn’t going well at all, and nobody can explain why we are fighting there.
#8 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 11:02 am
Richard, I don’t believe he had any intention to do any of those things, just said so in order to attract dummies to his campaign. In a form of ruse he lied and actually got progressives to vote for Bush/republican policies.
Through all the denials we see here, and claims that Americans want progressive policies the reality is that never was going to happen, and didn’t. Now those who took a chance voting for O, will not do so again, the economy in in the tank, gas 4 bucks, old wars with a brand new one never approved let alone consulted upon by congress, all of his programs foundering. There is a very low chance he will re-elected, and if he is, which would be enormously stupid for democrats, he will serve as lame duck to a nation that has pushed the progressive raft out to sea, and that can only serve to empower conservatives and republicans and libertarians to seal the fate of the democrat party. It is game over, what we are watching now is the going through the motions of what is by now obviously a political rout.
#9 by Glenden Brown on March 31, 2011 - 11:11 am
Believe me, Richard, I am approaching 2012 with deep apprehension. Current polling suggests that people voted Republican in 2010 and would not take it back if they could. Suddenly Democrats looks like the less fucking batshit insane option again and yet we get these spineless Jim Matheson dems who wouldn’t shit if they had a mouthful.
#10 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 11:16 am
Having two certifiably insane major political parties is not what most Americans want, I’m sure. How did we get here? They’re in Washington right now playing “chicken” with a government shutdown.
#11 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 11:52 am
Let it shutdown! Why are you so afraid of it? Afraid you won’t get your gimmes? These days are ending, I would prepare, and pretty soon, the liberals that laughed at Mormons, will be down at the Industries looking for handouts of a more essential nature.
#12 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 11:54 am
“They’re in Washington right now playing “chicken” with a government shutdown”.
Yeah, and the republicans and co. are driving a fully loaded log truck and the Democrats are in one of these.
#13 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 11:56 am
“They’re in Washington right now playing “chicken” with a government shutdown”.
Yeah, and the republicans and co. are driving a fully loaded log truck and the Democrats are in one of these.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/smart%2520car%2520crash1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/its_not_going_to_be_pretty.html&usg=__AKYZXtHn42a75QEKi4UtKoJSWc8=&h=357&w=400&sz=42&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=ITnYfFDMEEG4yM:&tbnh=132&tbnw=158&ei=nb-UTYy7CKbfiALK0d2cCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsmart%2Bcar%2Bcrash%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1177%26bih%3D745%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=326&vpy=121&dur=865&hovh=211&hovw=237&tx=148&ty=107&oei=nb-UTYy7CKbfiALK0d2cCQ&page=1&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0
#14 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 12:01 pm
My comment with link is in moderation. No bad words, no apparent reason..you can’t stop the ship from sinking by blocking anyone who would point out that manning the boats is a good idea.
#15 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 12:15 pm
Glenn–
Your comment is out of moderation. That’s an ugly URL. Try using link tags sometime. Example “Democrats are in one of these.”
If I were a partisan Dem, I would say a shutdown would be useful just to make the Republicans look bad. But they have looked bad before, and they are still in power.
There is no logical reason to be in favor a government shutdown. If you’re the least bit concerned about fiscal responsibility and the national economy, then there are plenty of reasons NOT to shut down the government.
#16 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 2:01 pm
The Democrat car is what is known as a “smart car”.
The logical reason is that the public is safest when the government isn’t dyfunctioning.
No logical reason? Befuddling comment…let’s see, where to begin.. oh I know how ’bout Iraq war, Afghan war, Yemen meddling, Libya war, Iran provocation. I say the sooner the government is shut down, the better. That is now the responsible tack, much like putting down a dog that has been continually biting people in your neighborhood.
#17 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 2:45 pm
Sorry, but government shutdowns don’t impact the military. I was in the Army when the Carter administration ran out of money, and we didn’t get any days off — even though no wars underway at the time.
#18 by shane on March 31, 2011 - 6:03 pm
The trouble for the repubs is that while “unnamed republican candidate” polls well against him, so far no actual people have a chance.
After hearing this, Mitt changed his name to “candidate to be named at a later date.”
…which is exactly the problem with him.
The problem the democrats have is the same one they have had my entire life. They are a centrist/right party, and have been for decades. When you only have two parties, and they are the “slightly right” party and the “extremely right” party, it is hard to get a lot done.
Back to the original post, it does say a lot about the country, and even more so about the party in question, when the problem a guy has getting votes is entirely based on image and perception rather than the facts of the matter.
Guess that is the downside to making every election about image and advertising rather than what you actually stand for. It also explains great poll results like the majorities refusal to vote for an unnamed atheist even if they were the best person for the job.
By definition, “the best person for the job” is, well, the best person for the job. What kind of mental short-circuit do you have to have to tell a pollster, “nope, i would rather have an incompetent moron who would destroy the country in office, as long as they believe in the same sky faire as me, than the most capable atheist!”
#19 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 6:39 pm
Perfect, the Perfect Storm, never ending costly war and civil service shutdown. We could be getting where we need to be in a hurry Richard.
#20 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 9:19 pm
Glenn is the only guy I know of who is a reliable cheerleader for the worst-case scenario, whether its climate change or the economy.
#21 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 9:34 pm
Never disappointed Richard. You study history, great changes that leave a mark, well, take some positive destruction to get done.
Here, the latest on the AGW fraud.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Mt_Shasta.htm
#22 by Richard Warnick on March 31, 2011 - 9:52 pm
Old news. Reported in 2008. No “fraud.”
#23 by 70.75.10.132 on March 31, 2011 - 10:17 pm
It is a fraud Richard, we are talking about AGW, the world has been warming since the last ice age, otherwise we would be under ice, or in your case, 800 feet of water.
The article is an update, and in fact these glaciers are still growing. Did you know that about 70% of all the worlds mountain glaciers are in Alaska? They come and go, wane and grow.
We have been over this, now that we have real problems, new wars, nuclear meltdowns, the AGW fraud will be placed on a shelf for a time when a more gullible and accepting populace comes around.
“Seem to be”…the fact is they are growing, as is the largest ice pack on Earth in Antarctica. No worries though, adaptation of the species, and mutation are what keeps us around.
#24 by Richard Warnick on April 1, 2011 - 6:22 am
You really don’t get climate change, do you? The effects of global warming vary from place to place, the kind of variation that keeps geographers like me in business.
Ocean warming has boosted precipitation in the upper atmosphere over the Antarctic region, which fell as snow. Antarctic sea ice is predicted to transition from natural variability to a melting trend as warming proceeds.
#25 by shane on April 1, 2011 - 7:01 am
Really? This is still an issue?
Do we really need to explain, again, that “average temp increase” doesn’t always mean the temps are higher on any given day or in any given place?
Does he know what “average” means?
Is it really still not understood that one of the major outcomes of warming, in certain regions, is actually divergence. That the warm days get warmer, but that the cold days get colder?
Oh wait, you are responding to Glenn… So he has changed again, as several of us noted he would, and is in the “denial” phase again? Does anyone here really want to start the whole process of giving “evidence” and such until he switches back to “ok, it is happening, but it is actually good,” and then again to “the sooner we have our disaster the better!”
At least he has a pattern to his intellectual dishonesty…
Back to the topic, does Mittens have a pattern in his dishonesty? So far it only seems to be the “windsock” approach. Whichever way the crowd he is in front of is blowing, damn if he isn’t sailing that direction.
#26 by Richard Warnick on April 1, 2011 - 7:38 am
Yup, it looks like Glenn has re-booted and restored his default position on climate change.
Probably Willard (Mitt) Romney’s finest hour was at CPAC 2008. Ann Coulter praised him for tricking the Massachusetts liberals. Which means she gave him credit for being a great liar and hiding his true agenda — always a plus for any right-wing Presidential candidate.
#27 by shane on April 1, 2011 - 10:43 am
Yet oddly, they can admit that they reward being a great liar, and the base keeps voting for them.
They also claim the best reason to vote them into government is because they know government doesn’t work. It is becoming harder and harder to see how voting republican shouldn’t be considered a mental disorder…
#28 by brewski on April 1, 2011 - 4:25 pm
I would have a tough time voting for anyone who thinks that God didn’t consider black people to be equal until June 1st, 1978. If I was running against Mitt I would repeat this fact over and over again.
#29 by shane on April 1, 2011 - 6:43 pm
If you used that fact in a republican primary, Mitt would hand you your ass. In many rightwing strong holds the fact that he changed his mind to thinking they are equal is exactly the problem. Dates have nothing to do with it.
#30 by brewski on April 1, 2011 - 11:40 pm
I have asked a lot of Mormons about this fact. None of them say they changed their minds. They say God did. Believing this is even more damning.
#31 by james farmer on April 6, 2011 - 3:00 am
brew: Believe this Seriously, we need to move beyond tit-for-tat and get down to business. Your suggestions for tax reform are not a bad starting point.
#32 by brewski on April 6, 2011 - 9:17 am
James, what’s your point?
As for my tax idea, it was more or less recommended by the Obama Deficit Commission, which Obama has done nothing with and was not in his budget. Oh well.
#33 by Richard Warnick on April 6, 2011 - 11:10 am
The Catfood (Deficit) Commission issued no recommendations. It was a failure. Nevertheless, I expect we are going to hear a lot about the “Bowles-Simpson plan” as if it were the result of the Catfood Commission’s deliberations.
Then there is the unicorns and rainbows budget offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), chair of the House Budget Committee. It’s not even worthy of discussion — but of course it will dominate the debate!
Bottom line: You want to get rid of deficits, start taxing rich people and corporations.
#34 by james farmer on April 6, 2011 - 1:14 pm
brew: My point is you were incorrect when you suggested voter disdain in Wisconsin toward their newly elected repug leadership was limited to certain urban areas but, notwithstanding, your tax ideas are probably timely. Indeed, I am wondering whether Steve Forbes had it correct years ago when he was running for president. Regardless, the rich have to get it through their head it is time for them to pay more, and so to the stupid.
#35 by brewski on April 6, 2011 - 1:41 pm
Last time I checked, Milwaukee is an urban area.
It’s not nice to call Obama stupid. You must be racist.
My plan does make the rich pay more.
#36 by james farmer on April 6, 2011 - 1:46 pm
brew: Not sure at all what your point is with the racist jab, so I’ll just ignore that as a failed attempt at humor. But one thing is certain – voter disdain in Wisconsin is not limited to Milwaukee. Check the state-wide election results.
#37 by brewski on April 6, 2011 - 1:46 pm
Richaard,
Robert Reich is not an economist and he is showing it. His ignorance on tax policy is astounding. Besides, he is the same man who said that Obama is “ending democracy as we know it.” He must be a racist.
#38 by Richard Warnick on April 6, 2011 - 2:13 pm
brewski–
Do you have any specific point to make regarding what Robert Reich says, or just that you don’t like him? In my opinion, Reich makes more sense than the unicorns and rainbows offered by the Republicans. You know, the mythical pot o’ gold at the end of the Laffer Curve.
#39 by Glenden Brown on April 6, 2011 - 3:54 pm
Do let’s be honest, Reich’s degree is political economy; so no, he’s not an “economist”, he is however eminently qualified to speak about issues of how taxes, regulations, and other policies affect the economic growth and so on.
#40 by brewski on April 6, 2011 - 3:08 pm
Yes, copy and paste everything I have ever said on this topic and apply it to Reich. I am sure you agree with it since it is exactly what you have said before, so it is easy to like an echo.
And who said I didn’t like Reich? His statement that Obama is “ending democracy as we know it” was spot on.
He just isn’t an economist. I might as well comment on astrophysics given what I know about astrophysics compared to what Reich seems to know about economics.
#41 by Richard Warnick on April 6, 2011 - 4:01 pm
News flash: you know who else doesn’t have an advanced degree in economics? The chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). But that didn’t stop him from dabbling in voodoo economics. Too bad Christine O’Donnell didn’t get elected to the Senate, she could help the Republicans with the supernatural parts of their budget proposal.
#42 by brewski on April 6, 2011 - 5:01 pm
Reich doesn’t have any degree in economics, nevermind an advanced degree.
#43 by Richard Warnick on April 6, 2011 - 5:38 pm
Robert Reich has been a professor at Harvard and the University of California. He was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. He served two other Presidents before that. He is the author of 13 books. Rep. Ryan is an intellectual lightweight with a B.A. in Economics.
And Ryan will need Christine O’Donnell’s help to find those unicorns. Economics can’t perform miracles.
#44 by james farmer on April 6, 2011 - 5:44 pm
brew: Technically, you are correct, but Robert Reich’s resume speaks loudly of experience, training and knowledge in economics, certainly more than the majority of politicians legislating laws that affect the American economy. So what is your point?
#45 by 70.75.10.132 on April 6, 2011 - 5:48 pm
Reich is a doctrinaire liberal, with any pretended qualifications as an economist being tainted by that bias. That he is no economist and gives advice and helps makes policy speaks volumes of the incompetency all the way around in America that has brought us to the problems we have.
#46 by james farmer on April 6, 2011 - 6:01 pm
glenn: If you were to take five seconds and look at RR’s resume, even you might realize just how absurd your above statement is. That you do not like his policies is one thing; to state he has no experience, training or knowledge of economics is quite another.
#47 by 70.75.10.132 on April 6, 2011 - 6:25 pm
As far as anyone can see, he has not solved a lick of problems, and has spent the better part of his time in a cloister. Nobody is asking his advice either, it is peddled out unsolicited.
#48 by Richard Warnick on April 6, 2011 - 6:41 pm
This is hilarious. Nobody has taken issue with Robert Reich’s suggestion that we tax rich people and corporations, assuming anyone in Washington is serious about addressing deficits.
#49 by 70.75.10.132 on April 6, 2011 - 6:53 pm
Jesus Richard! You still entertaining that fantasy? What will it take to get there? Of course someone has taken issue that, it isn’t even being discussed except by loons here, some kind of Holy Grail. You were present when Obama caved on the continuation of Bush tax cuts right? Those that were sustained as part of the Obama stimulus? Present?
#50 by brewski on April 6, 2011 - 7:20 pm
My point is that Reich doesn’t even address the behavioral response to high marginal tax rates on savings, new investment, job creation, etc. He only mentions the tax evasion response without mentioning the effect on people’s investment decision-making. Also, if high marginal tax rates are such a good idea, then why does every single egalitarian liberal country in Europe, for example, have lower marginal rates that ours? Why did they all used to have high rates and they all lowered theirs? Are those Swedes and Norwegians a bunch of wingnuts?
Also, if having an impressive resume of serving various Presidents was any measure, then Dick Cheney would be your sage.
#51 by james farmer on April 6, 2011 - 7:35 pm
brew: You take the “impressive resume” out of context and, once again, turn basic constructs of logic on their head. You said RR was not an economist; his resume proves otherwise. That being said, his resume does not prove he is a good or bad economist, just that he is an economist. Same thing goes for Cheney; his resume does not prove he was a good or bad VP, just that he was a VP.
#52 by brewski on April 6, 2011 - 7:47 pm
Reich IS NOT AN ECONOMIST. PERIOD. His resume does not say he is. Show me where it says he is. In no stretch of the imagination is he an economist and his resume proves as such.
#53 by James Farmer on April 6, 2011 - 7:55 pm
RR has taught, written about and studied economics (though, admittedly, he does not hold a degree in economics); that makes him an economist. No imagination necessary to arrive at that conclusion. The premise underlying your conclusion – that one must hold a degree in something to be that something – is incorrect.
#54 by 70.75.10.132 on April 6, 2011 - 7:58 pm
What does the Dopey Dwarf have to say about this?
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/feeling-depressed-27-depressing-statistics-about-the-u-s-economy-that-will-make-you-feel-even-worse
#55 by 70.75.10.132 on April 6, 2011 - 8:00 pm
Yep James, and I am now by your definition a climate scientist.
#56 by James Farmer on April 6, 2011 - 8:19 pm
Sorry, glenn, but you are not a climate scientist by anyone’s definition, excepting your own. Now go back to sleep.
#57 by 70.75.10.132 on April 6, 2011 - 8:30 pm
To write about the Dwarf so uh, shortly, you have to be blogging within the confines of your somnambulism.
#58 by brewski on April 7, 2011 - 7:50 am
Under that definition, Glenden is an expert on everything since he has written about everything his ignorance on those topics.
#59 by Timmy Hubel on April 7, 2011 - 9:27 am
Thanks to the Glen Beck wannabees this viewpoint is usually taken as fact.
#60 by James Farmer on April 7, 2011 - 11:51 am
brew: You are just being obstinate, per usual. When backed into a corner created by your own broad sweeping generalizations, you often respond this way, so not terribly surprising.
#61 by Richard Warnick on April 7, 2011 - 1:10 pm
brewski–
You say that Reich doesn’t address tax avoidance by the wealthy, then in the following sentence you admit that he does. And you know the answer to your own question about Europe – they have value-added taxes.
#62 by brewski on April 7, 2011 - 1:57 pm
Wrong.
Not what I said.
I said he only adresses the tax avoidance but does not address the behavioral response to savings, investment an job creation.
Yes, they do. Value added taxes do not discourage savings and investment the way high marginal rates do.
#63 by frank on April 9, 2011 - 8:22 pm
I absolutely agree with this post… Didn’t we just see a shapeshifter (not literally) but we need leaders who merely dance on the strings of powers most of us cant even perceive.
America Needs a major league enema / end the fed, the UN, and Scientific Corporate Totalitarian take over of America.
Lets round up these criminals and put them behind bars where they belong
Please take a very close look at Congressman Ron Paul
#64 by Montana on May 9, 2011 - 8:47 pm
When I was a kid I lived in Utah, and the Boy Scouts was taken over by Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS Church). This, so called religion, practices underage polygamy, they send the boy s off on missions to divide the underage sisters among the dirty old men of the clan. Now when these underage girls get pregnant, these same dirty old men, send them to the state to get their welfare checks . You should see some of the palace homes that are paid with welfare checks. By the way this is the newest religion that was created right here in United States of America.
When someone hides behind religion to do or say something that is wrong we should stand up and point it out (right the wrong).
#65 by Joe Lund on July 21, 2011 - 12:45 pm
I know many Mormons. They are really not bad, they are descent, honest people. Many of the beliefs mentioned here are not being practiced. I’m not a Mormon by the way. I just don’t know, maybe I’m just seeing their good side.
#66 by cav on September 10, 2012 - 8:11 am
I knew Willard saved the Olympics. I did not know he was a ‘smoke inhaling victim’ of the 9-11 bombers.
http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/7247
#67 by cav on September 10, 2012 - 5:15 pm
Predictably, someone snaps:
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on Sunday asked how anyone could vote for a “massively gullible fool” like Mitt Romney who could not see that Mormonism’s founder was a “fraud.”
“Romney’s prophet Joseph Smith a fraud,” Dawkins said in an hours-long Twitter rant, quoting from the Book of Mormon and adding, “Romney falls for it.”
“No matter how much you agree with Romney’s economic policy, can you really vote for such a massively gullible fool?” the atheist asked. “He is a Mormon BISHOP!”
Can someone delineate the differences between ‘gullibility’ and lying (if only to oneself)?