DKL, in the comments on that other thread, Arnold Layne comes forward and says that in fact Arnold Layne is his real name.

We pay attention to Mormons in other fields — sports, education, pop culture — and are just as pleased by their triumphs or disappointed by their lapses as we are with those of Mormon politicians. I think it’s fair to say that most of us consider prominent Mormons in any endeavor as a reflection on our culture and beliefs, at least on our reputation.

If there’s a Mormon head of a mainstream movie factory, we don’t expect the company to produce only LDS-family-friendly movies. We don’t expect the Mormon owner of a basketball franchise to refuse to play his team on Sunday. I don’t know that it’s fair to put our attention to Mormon politicians in a special category and say that we expect them to represent us politically.

But that’s not to say that we or the world DON’T do that, since the moral elements in political questions are more visible and apt to provoke more irrational extremes than moral factors in other endeavors.

Mitt Romney does not represent me politically. Orrin Hatch does not represent me politically. Harry Reid represents me politically. I will not be voting for Mr. Romney come 2008 due to his support of torture. He lost all credibility in my eyes the moment he did that.

And about Reid’s supposed “corruption”, I really am not convinced that his sloppiness is indeed corrupt. Frankly, I don’t really care what land he buys and sells off, and for how much. He didn’t use his position as Senator to enrich himself, so what he does personally is not a concern of mine.

Favorite excerpt from the Joy Luck Club:

“What kind of torture do Chinese people do”, I asked. My mom said, “Chinese torture hard, very cruel, Chinese torture best torture. Much better than American torture.”

Dan, I’m fine with Romney’s support of torture, so long as the person being tortured isn’t paying the torturer for his services.

Personally I don’t know anyone among my friends who likes Hatch. He seems very reviled. I thinks he keeps getting elected just because he’s a Republican. Hatch also is pretty nasty in primaries and does retribution acts towards people who run against him, I’m told. Personally I think Hatch’s politics are off also.

That’s the big problem in America though. Unless there’s a true open seat, a major scandal or so forth, things are pretty set in stone. It’s just too hard to unseat an incumbent in the primaries and often one is unwilling to vote against the party in the main elections.

I say limit terms in both Senate and House the same as the Executive—two terms. No questions asked, no loopholes allowed.

With hundreds of politicians being churned out every few years, think of how much the lobbies would grow.

I’m not convinced that lobbies would grow worse than now. However the one negative to higher turnover is that staff, which tends to carry over quite often, would have far more power since the politicians would spend so much time getting acquainted with things.

It’s a real negative although I think having more competitive elections is worth the costs. Although getting rid of a lot of the jerrymandering would help as well.

Are most of us really Republicans? Has anyone done research on this?

My impression was that LDS reflect the electorate wherever they happen to live. Where I live, most LDS that I know well seem to be Democrats (and it’s a shock and source of divisiveness to transplants from Utah).

Sure, the Republican (whoever it happens to be) will carry Utah. But since we have an electoral college and stuff, LDS votes in other states probably matter more than another few thousand votes in Utah and Idaho.

“I thought even most diaspora Mormons were pretty conservative.”

You might be right if by “diaspora Mormons” you mean the folks with roots in Utah, who move out here.

But that’s a minority hereabouts. Most of the members are first and second generation LDS. They have no roots in Utah and most of the cultural stuff just passes us by. We have lots of potluck dinners where nobody brings jello. We sing “Popcorn Popping on the Dogwood Tree.”

And we’re mostly Democrats.

Naismith, as the Mormon church grows, it will become more politically diverse, but it will always lean Republican, since that’s the Party of Jesus. Just kidding.

With millions of Mormons out there, every political persuasion has a fair representation among members — I have a good friend who is a Mormon Marxist.

But the American Religious Identification Survey, published by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, as of 2001:

Evangelical or Born Again Christians and Mormons are the most apt to identify as Republicans.

They provide this table, which gives the divide as 55% Republican, 14% Democrat, and 26% independent.

I’m also in the Boston area, and most of the converts like our family are thrilled to have Mitt Romney as Governor and now we’re eager to support him for president. We were very liberal democrats when we converted but have swung sharply to the right over the years, as our children have grown. We consider this swing to be the result of wisdom gained thru life’s experiences and also with our understanding of the Gospel principles which seem to fit more closely with our politics.. we’re always surprised when we hear there’s a Democrat in our Ward ranks, and enjoy discussing the differences in our points of view. I enjoy reading the “Evangelicals for Romney” blog and share with family as we follow the political scene, hopeful that Republicans will keep the house and senate in November.

…about Senator Reid’s ethical problems. The two dominant strains in the comments were disappointment and defense…very few people were willing to attack Senator Reid for his moral lapses.

To be sure, I may have said in the other thread I was sad, but it would not surprise me in the least if Reid has done wrong. I think of any candidate or politician as human first, Mormon or whatever second. I think I (we?) feel sad over Reid because we—at least—have an illusion of feeling closer and identifying with him because he is Mormon.

Likewise Romney.

I would guess this is something we are going to have to get used to. I have a gut feeling he’s going to be our next president.

I would *not,* however, vote for Romney merely because he is Mormon, even though it does add weight to my decision. When the Church says stuff like “vote for good candidates,” while remaining neutral, to me that doesn’t translate to, “in other words, vote for a Mormon if one is available.” After all, some Mormon’s have turned out to be terrible people.

In the past, when Romney made that amazing run and won in one of the most liberal states of the Union, I was amazed at his ability to make that navigation. I have every confidence that he might be able to pull off the same feat in this run. I also thought, in the past, that he was a bit shifty in his politics and often said what the people want him to hear. I still think this might be true, but the political landscape has shifted dramatically over the past four or so years, so that a lot of the republican party’s thinking lines up more with what I think is right. I think Romney may be playing these politics. Or not. I haven’t quite figured him out yet.

But I do think I would rather him than any other republican possibility I’ve heard of so far. Too I will most likely vote for him over any democrat, as I can think of NO other potential candidate (of those names that have been thrown around) that I would, in good conscience, vote for. Hilary = ICK ICK ICK! And none of this has to do with Romney being Mormon.

That’s a very interesting analysis, Naismith. But just to be perfectly clear, when I said, “Aren’t most of us Republican anyway?” I mostly meant it as a light-hearted aside aimed at exploiting a stereotype. The political leanings of Mormons in general don’t really impact the primary thesis of the post.

I’m not very politcal, and actually only vote because my wife and church encourage me to. I mainly vote for “decline to respond”. I don’t like to make decisions on things I know nothing about and I don’t like to learn about these things. I’ve only lived in Texas and Indiana, so I’ve never been represented by someone who is LDS, but I do feel I would hold them to a different standard if I did. I don’t care whether a Methodist pays his offering, because that doesn’t tell me whether or not he’s a good person by my definition of Good people, or whether he is going to represent me. I do care if an LDS representative pays his tithing because that does tell me about whether or not he’s a good person based on his and my common standards. I don’t care if he pays net or gross, but I do care that he pays. Why, because I have a way to measure him by his own standards, or at least what I think his standards ought to be.

Right now, I like Mitt Romney. If my options are him, John McCane, or Hillary Clinton, I think I’d vote for Mitt.

this comment brought to you by the apathetic people for Mitt Romney campaign society.

DKL is right about Reid’s phony pro-life stance. Reid likes to pitch himself as “pro-life” when he’s in Nevada or trying to sound moderate. But on any objective basis, Reid is less pro-life than Sen. Arlen Specter who has been a promient pro-abortion voice for decades. Here’s some info that demonstrates what a joke it is to say that Reid is pro-life. 

Reid scored a 55% from National Right to Life (For the record, the National Right to Life opposes abortion except in case of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger — a pretty mainstream position and hardly extreme.)

The following Democrats scored far better as pro-life legislators:

John Brough (La) 100% 
Mary Landrieu (La) 75% 
Mark Pryor (Ark)64% 
Ben Nelson (Neb) 91% 
Byron Dorgan (ND) 64% 

Most Republicans scored 100%. Even a bunch of liberal Republicans scored 100% or got close with 90% or more. Even Arlen Specter who proudly says he’s Pro-Choice got a 64% (10% higher than the “pro-life” Reid).

Here are three votes that clearly disqualify Mr. Reid from being called Pro-Life:

Reid voted FOR pro-abortion Senator Barbara Boxer’s (D-Ca.) motion to send the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S.3), to the Judiciary Committee to examine constitutional issues — as if there were constitutional issues and thereby effectively voted to kill the bill.  (March 12, 2003.) 

Reid again voted for an amendment by pro-abortion Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca.) to overturn President George W. Bush’s executive order that U.S. funds for overseas “population assistance” programs could not go to private organizations that perform abortion or promote abortion (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape and incest). This policy, was originally adopted by President Reagan and the first President Bush. (July 9, 2003) 

Reid opposed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (H.R. 1997), sponsored by Rep. Melissa Hart (R-Pa.) and Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio). This is a bill to recognize a “child in utero” as a second victim when he or she is injured or killed during the commission of a federal or military crime of violence. Reid voted in favor of a hostile substitute proposal offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca.), which would have written into federal law that there is only one victim in such crimes — the mother. (March 25, 2004). 

The bottom line is that when Harry Reid says he’s pro-life, he’s not telling the truth. Just like the land deal, Reid doesn’t like to disclose the facts. In fact, he affirmatively misrepresents them. So the question is, why would anyone support a politician who can’t even be trusted to tell you how he votes - which is a matter of public record? Truthfully, it apparently means he holds the public in contempt - believing them to be idots to whom he can lie with impunity. And sadly given his long political career, perhaps he is correct.

DKL.. I can see the direct correlation between attending church and political persuasion and I’d probably be a political junky even if we’d remained Catholic, since my Catholic brother still is, but being LDS brings a much stronger response from within my already tuned in natural inclination toward conservative politics. I’m just more sensitive to the responsibility each of us has to do all we can to elect moral, ethical leaders and its so totally clear to me that Romney has the values and courage necessary for 2008.. why he would want to do this is awe inspiring.. but count our family in his camp.

danithew,

Just like how I can say I’m against getting high on heroin even though I’ve never used heroin before.

I should think this is one of those issues that we should have an unqualified view on. I guess there is still a lot more work to do to convince America to step away from torture.

danithew,

the sin of omission is just as great as the sin of commission (see Elder Maxwell’s talk). Even if we send them to others to do it, that implies we sanction it. And the fact that we hardly even know what torture is should frighten you, dude. Read Vladimir Bukovsky’s account about how he was tortured in the Soviet Union. I’ve got plenty more to show you how awful it is. But that’s not the point of this post, and we’re moving far from its main subject. (Sorry DKL).

DKL,

The other part about Reid’s land deal that nobody mentions is that the company the ultimately bought the land in question employs both his son and his son-in-law.

Maybe that doesn’t mean anything at all, but it makes his oversight in neglecting to disclose the deal even more suspicious. It’s like “forgetting” to file your tax return on April 15th.

[DKL said:] The answers, for those who don’t know yet, are: Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. Moreover, they frequently are.

I just got that. Took me a while. Very clever!

Dan,

I’ve read plenty about torture in the Middle East. Basically every Arab Middle Eastern country has a mukhabarat (secret police) group that routinely tortures people. They do absolutely horrible and frightening things to people … and they are truly experts at their craft.

My point is that saying any United States politician “supports torture” is too general a point, not recognizing that our country is basically just in its laws and kind to its people. I’m not saying that horrible abuses occur, but they are usually contrary to the law and the will of our people and politicians.

Sometimes our security agencies might exert unusual physical pressure on a person and I’m sure there are horrible abuses that happen that we never hear about … but there is a tremendous difference between what happens in our country and with our people and the consistent deliberate systematic professional government support of torture that exists in the Middle East and some other places.

Mitt is, in my opinion, a decent guy. Blithely saying that he “supports torture” is incorrect and inappropriate.

Mitt’s on the front page of our local paper today, saying he decided not to use that national network thing after all. The fact that he considered it is enough for me. I’m a reverse bigot. Whenever we see “active LDS” on political ads (and we do see that here in southern Utah), I am turned off and do not vote for that person. It’s a personal pet peeve.

But I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway.

Dan, I bet Clinton had people tortured, as well. Well, rape is torture. If he raped me like he did Juanita Broaderick, while biting her, he’d be a dead man. Democrats are no more righteous than Republicans. I’m thinking Robin Williams might make a viable candidate at the moment.

Toby,

I know Tim Flannigan well and it is BOGUS to argue that he is the architect of torture - U.S. policy does not permit torture. It permits challenging questioning and it permits some tough tactics, but it does not permit torture. The people responsible for abuses at Abu Grab were convicted and sentenced to prison. But that was not an example of U.S. policy or Bush’s policy or Tim Flannigan’s policy. It is sad to say that there is so much ignorance on torture and so many silly assumptions with so little serious thought.

I’d love to get into it with you guys, but I’ve learned something these past few years: Americans will justify evil actions with anything and everything, and sometimes it is better left for them to learn the hard way. My motto of late is “calls for peace fall on deaf ears in the last days.”

DKL,

Based on what you’ve said, I can tell two things: (a) that you disapprove of water-boarding, and (b) that you’re willing to accuse anyone who has an honest disagreement with you about water-boarding of “supporting torture.”

I don’t just disapprove of waterboarding, but call it torture. When America starts legalizing a method that was used by the Japanese against us and the Brits during World War II, and for which they were prosecuted for breaking the Geneva Conventions, I think that I am making a pretty valid argument.

Danithew,

My point is that saying any United States politician “supports torture” is too general a point, not recognizing that our country is basically just in its laws and kind to its people. I’m not saying that horrible abuses occur, but they are usually contrary to the law and the will of our people and politicians.

You’re assuming that I equate our nation to the evils of Syria, etc. That would depend solely on what tools we employ. If we employ the same tools, well then the comparison is sound. I do not compare our tools with those of Syria—their tools are too crude—we’re a lot more, how shall I say, refined, than they are. No, the tools Bush chooses to employ were refined to perfection by the Soviet Union. There are disturbing similarities in sleep deprivation, waterboarding (used by the Japanese against Americans and British in WWII), and cold water dousing, to what the Soviets did to their prisoners, especially the ones that were purged during the 30s Show Trials by Stalin.

Arnold,

Mr. Romney has said he supports the president and his new detainee interrogation bill. That’s good enough for me to say that Mr. Romney either 1) doesn’t know enough about torture to make an informed decision, or 2) is playing to the Republican base so he can be their nominee in 2008. In both cases, Mr. Romney seems to have forgotten what the church has said about the treatment of others.

The church “condemns inhumane treatment of any person under any circumstances,” said church spokesman Dale Bills.

Now, let’s get to the inconsistency of these “alternative set of procedures.” On the one hand they are played down as not being really harmful (which is not accurate) and on the other they are played up as being effective (which they are not). Here’s the inconsistency: If they are truly not harmful, they how can they effectively make a hardened terrorist talk? If they are not as bad as hazing rituals, how can they truly be effective to get battle-hardened warriors to talk? Or is the opposite true? They are harmful and they are not effective. I’ve linked to Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky, a Soviet dissident who was tortured in the Soviet Union. A doctor tried to feed him through his nose, as torture. He did not capitulate.

Does Mr. Romney realize these things? I don’t think he does. Or if he does, well then he obviously not only does not represent me, but will be a big target for me in my state. I will do all I can to ensure he does not win Pennsylvania.

I think I’m speaking in vain here on this blog. I don’t think most Americans really realize just what horror torture really is, and seem “deaf” to hearing any alternative (when I say alternative, I mean tried and true techniques that have actually worked—regular interrogation, where you sit down and talk. The evidence clearly shows that this is far more effective than any torture). Besides, why not ask God if you really want information about the movement of your enemy? It worked for Captain Moroni (see Alma 43), so why can’t it work for us today?

Dan, again, I think it’s inappropriate for you to try to turn a discussion over the legitimate bounds of interrogation into an issue that bolsters your own righteousness at the expense of those who disagree with you. This is exactly what you’ve accused Republicans of doing in the posts on your very own blog.

I’m glad you like that scripture linking thing. I was wondering how long it would take people to notice.

Arnold,

For the record, I wholeheartedly endorse the Church’s stand on condemning inhumane treat. I suspect that 99.9% of all readers of this blog also agree with it. However, what you seem to fail to grasp is that U.S. policy does not permit torture or inhumane treatment. You continue to assert that it does without any serious attempt to substantiate your claims. Until you present a serious case, no one should take you seriously.

Really? It is your honest and sincere belief that U.S. policy “does not permit torture or inhumane treatment?” I’ve attempted to substantiate my claim, but apparently unless Mr. Bush himself says “yes we torture,” you’re not going to accept the truth, Mr. Layne.

Please read Mr. Bybee’s Memo of August 2002, which after the uproar of Abu Ghraib, was disavowed. However, before the uproar of Abu Ghraib, was official U.S. policy towards the treatment of detainees. Note the language in there about what is acceptable or not.

Please read the accepted policies at Gitmo and how some brave men actually fought against the Pentagon using very harsh techniques that normally would not be justifiable under the church’s guidelines condemning “inhumane treatment.”

From the Gitmo article:

The law enforcement agents, who were building criminal cases against the detainees, also say that military prosecutors told them that abusive interrogations at Guantanamo compromised the chance to bring some suspected terrorists to trial. Among them, the agents say, is Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi whom the Pentagon has described as the intended 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“We were told by the Office of Military Commissions, based on what was done to him, it made his case unprosecutable,” said Mark Fallon, the deputy commander and special agent in charge of the Criminal Investigation Task Force from 2002 to 2004. “It would taint any confession if obtained under coercion. They were unwilling to move forward with any prosecution of al-Qahtani.”

The irony in this whole debate over the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is that Bush claimed to seek “clarity” but instead what he really sought was to muddle the definitions even more, to the point now that Americans don’t think today that waterboarding is torture, when previously Americans prosecuted those who used that technique as torture. Bush doesn’t seek clarity; he seeks immunity for violations of the War Crimes Act! And America is willing to give it to him. That is reprehensible, and, no, DKL, I don’t care if that sounds hypocritical of me. We’ve got a president who ordered his CIA agents to willfully violate two Laws of the Land and now, before a change in government, sought immunity for him and his men. There is no worse kind of leader.

Interesting you bring up Captain Moroni as the model. As I recall he executed those who would not take up arms to defend their civilization and enemy combatants who did not unconditionally surrender and promise never to take up arms again. By today’s standards that is extraordinarily rough stuff. Before you start pretending that your position has a scriptural basis, you might want to be sure of the facts both as to current U.S. policy and exactly what the scriptures say.

What did Alma 43 say about what Moroni did to find out about the enemy? Did you even read it? Secondly, the scriptures are not clear about what state their government was in, but if they were in a type of martial law, I think he was well justified. Is America in a state of martial law? Are you suggesting America needs to go to martial law to fight this enemy? Don’t accuse of me of not knowing the scriptures before you read what I recommend, Mr. Layne. Read Alma 43 and ask yourself what Moroni did to get information about the enemy.

DKL
“Compare this to Senator Reid, who continues to use his position as a Senator to negotiate $1+ million land deals without disclosing any of it to the Senate.”

I would disagree that his position as Senator has anything to do with these deals. If you understand the backstory to this, you will learn that Mr. Brown, the other purchaser of the property, has known Reid for several decades. Mr Brown worked as an attorney in the same firm as senator reid and knew senator reid in his youth. Thus the connection is based upon one of acquantaince and familiarity not power. While you or I might not be offered these deals, it is anything but a sweetheart deal. It takes a significant amount of capital (I don’t have 400k lying around). Plus these transactions occured over several years, and if you know anything about the value of real estate in vegas, this transition will not seem amazing. I don’t think this necessarily implies corruption. As to the whether or not senator reid’s involvement helped the transaction go through easier, I don’t necessarily find this problematic. Why? Because he is a known and respected person. He has built a rep. Just like brand names convey confidence in a consumer purchase, attorneys, developers etc, create “brand names”. Thus the promise of one of these people is worth more than the average joe off the street.

Dan, a bit of advice - when you’re in a hole, it is not advisable to continue digging. Rather than digging faster and more furiously, you take a break and stop digging. You won’t buffalo me with cherry picked quotes here and there. In addition to being a lawyer, I am involved in the public policy arena and am quite well acquainted with what U.S. policy is and how it was formulated. You, clearly are not! Your position is essentially the same as the completely absurd rants of the Moveon.org. You selectively take small portions of documents in an attempt to weave a case supporting your theory while ignoring the other 99% of the evidence which disproves it. And your references to scripture are silly. Quite frankly, you are torturing the scriptures to force them to confess agreement with your conclusions. You’d do well to read them to determine what you can learn from them, rather than how you can contort them into supporting your pet political theories.

BB, that is a fair point — an appeal to authority is often a turn off and generally not all that convincing. However, before I explained that I know what I’m talking about, I and several others explained what was wrong with his argument. However, he simply persisted with the loopy MoveOn.org line of argument and mixed in a little self-righteous church talk — as if the Church through its spokesman has taken a stand or the Book of Mormon takes a stand on the issue that he claims makes Romney pro-torture. That is bogus and even intellectually dishonest.

You’re right that in the Supreme Court, I couldn’t simply argue that I know what I’m talking about. But in that arena, I’d be arguing with competent counsel and not someone who merely repeats the mindless and hate-filled diatribe of Moveon.org. If Dan is right, why aren’t mainstream sources and groups accusing Romney of supporting torture? Why did the House and Senate (with plenty of Democratic support) overwhelming vote in favor of the bill that Dan says is proof that Bush and Romney support torture. I am sorry if I have not taken Dan seriously, but I take seriously those who give me reason to. Dan hasn’t. Respect is, after all, earned.