120 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackbacks off |
I don’t disagree that there is an anti-Mormon element at work here. But what if Romney had been a moderate Mormon governor of Alabama? Does the fact he’s a Massachusetts guy have anything to do with this? What if Romney had been Episcopalian? Would he win in the South against Huckabee if religion weren’t an issue? I’m not so sure… |
not only what queuno says, but what if Romney didn’t come across like a robot all the time? What if Romney didn’t say such silly things as “double Guantanamo?” Before blaming Republicans for not voting solely against a Mormon, let’s see first what they thought of this particular Mormon first. Honestly, I don’t think Romney did himself any good by shifting to the right. Whether it was a sincere move or not, it didn’t appear as such, and it fatally affected his campaign. This should definitely be a fun spring and summer, I tell you. Hardcore conservatives like James Dobson are saying they’ll stay home on election night if McCain becomes the nominee. McCain gets some independent votes, but surely if you can’t bring in the Christian right, you ain’t winnin’ in November. Meanwhile, on the left, boy that’s quite the battle brewing! |
So…. John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Sitting in a tree. Holding hands. Johnny says, “Let’s take West Virginia from that Do-Gooder Romney.” Mikey replies, “Yeah, that nerd thinks he’s a Christian and trying to represent us.” Johnny: “I ain’t got a chance to win West Virginia, but I don’t need it, cuz I’ve got momentum everywhere else.” Mikey: “Did you know that he believes All-Mighty God and Evil Satan are brothas of anotha’ motha’? Shiz man. We can’t have none of that influencin’ our innocent children from the grand White House.” Johnny: “Focus Mikey. If I told my boys to vote for ya, I might take ya on. I gotta somehow get the votes of the Wackos.” Mikey punches Johnny in the shoulder. Mikey: “You should watch it, brotha. We’re militant you know. We can get violent in the name of Jeezus. You need our heavenly support to win. That Do-Gooder thought he was one of us, but he ain’t. Maybe those Joe Smiths will finally stop trying to come to our secret meetin’s and gatherin’s. We ain’t the Wackos. If you want their vote, get back to bein’ that Blasphemous Moderate you’ve always been. But you want to win in November? We own YOU, dude, not the other way ’round.” Johnny realized this and began to apologize. “Sorry Mikey. I keep forgetting. I swear fealty to Jeezus and will give you West Virginia. Be my pal, will ya?” And so it begins… |
DKL, I think these analysts might be on to something. The outcome does look kind of funny. At any rate, the fact remains that Romney is still far ahead of Huckabee, even if the media aren’t presenting it that way. At the present moment, Romney counts 268 delegates and Huckabee 169. But as these numbers show, even if Huckabee had dropped out after Florida and all of his voters had gone over to Romney, the total would still be far less than McCain’s 615 (at the time of writing this). In other words, I think it is hard to argue that southern Evangelicals’ aversion to Mormonism did not influence them not to vote for Romney but in the end analysis, it doesn’t matter anyway. Right or wrong, Republicans have spoken for John McCain. |
“it’s strange that the party wherein most Mormons find their home seems less hospitable to them than the party they oppose.” There are no data to show that MOST Mormons are Republican. Please stop repeating this as if it is true. Many national samples do show a majority of Mormons to be Republican, but that’s because most of the Mormons in the sample are from red intermountain west states. But MOST Mormons live outside of Utah/Idaho, and the locals tend to split along the same lines as local communities. And I do think there is a connection. The reason I am a Democrat not a Republican is in part the meanspiritedness and lack of caring for those less fortunate (as well as economic policies, foreign policy, etc.). |
I’m glad DKL wrote this post. I was thinking about writing something similar. Last night as I watched the results rolling in, I seriously began to reconsider my loyalty to the Republican party. Why are we so invested in a group that clearly so ambivalent or even contemptuous of Mormons? I’m sorry, but merely allowing the Mormon Tabernacle Choir to sing at presidential inaugurations isn’t a fair rate of exchange - certainly not when we offer up a candidate with real potential such as Mitt Romney. A long time ago there was a bilious commenter named Ed Enochs who was arguing that a majority of GOP evangelicals would NEVER vote for a Mormon. See his comments here, here and here. At the time I looked at the potential contenders and thought that a majority of evangelicals would be practical and would be able to override religious prejudice to choose the obvious best candidate. I couldn’t at that time conceive that the Ed Enochs would accurately represent the sentiments of such a broad swathe of people. His ability to use the same tongue to spit nails at us and then profess his love in Christ - it was a very ugly combination. However, it appears he was right and it seems clear from the voting patterns that the evangelicals are engaged in a strong anti-Romney vote. I also feel that the animosity expressed by McCain and Huckabee and their determination to prevent Romney from succeeding is symptomatic of a very negative reality in the Republican party. Republicans are happy to take our votes but they would never support our candidate. I am not about to run into the arms of the Democratic party by any means. But I’m seriously considering re-registering as an independent. |
Looking through the California exit polls, it appears unlikely that Romney lost because of anti-Mormon bias: he did worst among those who rarely or never attend church, and the only religious category Romney won was Protestants who attend church weekly or more — the very people most likely to have seen The God Makers or to have heard anti-Mormonism preached from the pulpit. CNN exit poll can be seen here. Romney won among conservatives but got smashed by McCain among liberals and moderates, suggesting that he lost California mostly because there aren’t enough conservatives there. “There are no data to show that MOST Mormons are Republican. Please stop repeating this as if it is true.” The national exit poll samples consistently show Mormons to be majority Republican, and those surveys are do not disproportionately weight Utah and Idaho. In the 2004 election, exit polls showed that 77% of Mormons — across the US — supported George Bush. Mormons block-vote more than any other major religious group. (Jewish voters rank second — 74% voted for Kerry.) |
Danithew, I wouldn’t read support for Huckabee as being anti-Mormon any more than Protestants should read Romney’s huge support in Utah as stemming from anti-Protestantism. In both cases, people want to support candidates they personally identify with. And as the California exit polls show, Romney did best among Protestants who attend church weekly or more, and did worst among those who said they rarely or never attend church. |
Matt in #8 hits the nail on the head. |
Matt, are the statistics you are talking about combining the categories of protestants and evangelicals? It’s important to recognize the difference. |
danithew, evangelicals are Protestants. |
The way I have seen it, protestants are more like Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and evangelicals are more along the lines of Baptists, Pentecostals, etc. I’ve generally thought of Protestants as being closer to a more staid, rite-following Catholic-style of things and Evangelicals being a more emotional (and loud) informal type style of church-going. I’m being extra colloquial here as I don’t have time to edit too much. Maybe I’ve got my categories wrong. Anyone else see things this way? |
About a week ago I began to see a parallel between two assertions that have been made repeatedly of late in the course of this long presidential campaign,namely: 1) Mormons are not Christians. 2) McCain is not a Conservative. Both statements require an exclusivist mindset as well as devotion to a well-defined creed of some sort or another. I suspect that in both instances, the “he’s not one of us” charge is an attempt to make sense of an amorphous gut-level dislike that is hard to pin down. There is someting in the manner of McCain that bugs the heck out of true blue conservatives. There is something about Romney that bugs a lot of Evangelicals. As both a Mormon and a Tennessee native, I’m beginning to suspect it is not exactly the fact of Romney’s church membership, but something about his “Mormon-NESS.” Think about how Romney has presented himself to the base of the Republican party with these familiar lyrics in mind….. “I’ll go where you want me to go….” As Mormons we look at those words and see a commendable willingness to serve with all one’s heart and soul. Evangelicals (or anyone with a passing knowledge of Romney’s campaign for governor) see the same words and see disingenuousness in the extreme. Discussions of doctrine can similarly go off the rails quickly, as Mormons and Evangelicals use the same words but define them differently. Mormons seem to be lying when in actuality the words available aren’t sufficient to bridge the gap in understanding. As Matt says above, it may actually be that Evangelicals are not saying to Romney……”I hate you and all your co-religionists.” They may just be saying, largely because of stylistic or cultural cues….”I’m just not that in to you……I kinda like the guy that reminds me of my favorite youth minister growing up. He was a really smart guy, but lots of fun, too.” |
I’ve looked around a little and it seems that evangelicals might be described as a subset of the larger Protestant group. What I’m trying to point out is that one category of Protestants (that might be described as less evangelical, stylistically) is probably more likely to vote for Romney than the evangelical subset of Protestants. Hope that makes sense. |
danithew, For as long as I can remember, Protestants are all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians. Thus, evangelicals fit under them. |
Stepping back away from the whole issue of defining protestants and evangelicals … I can make my point a different way. Mormons (“speaking unto the Church collectively and not individually”) are too beholden to the GOP. There are plenty of Republican politicos out there who do not reciprocate any affection, though they are perfectly willing to benefit from our political leanings. Those of us who are LDS and politically conservative should at least think a little bit about this - and perhaps not be so unreserved in our loyalties. The only problem (and I recognize this) is that the U.S. political scene isn’t exactly jumping with reasonable alternatives. After the way they’ve treated Romney, I can’t get excited about what might be on our horizon - a McCain/Huckabee ticket. |
“The national exit poll samples consistently show Mormons to be majority Republican, and those surveys are do not disproportionately weight Utah and Idaho. In the 2004 election, exit polls showed that 77% of Mormons — across the US — supported George Bush.” The exit polls don’t disproportionately weight Utah and Idaho, but most of the Mormons that fall into their sample ARE from Utah and Idaho, because the exit polls (at least in 2004) don’t oversample for Mormons. This is acknowledged by the exit poll authors themselves, and if you read the fine print it says, right above or below that chart that includes “Mormons”: “The characteristics that differ most are more highly clustered in a few precincts and have much larger sampling errors than most other characteristics.” A few precincts. That’s exactly what I’m saying. Because most of the precincts, nationwide, did not have any Mormons that fell into sample. Later in the text of the exit poll evaluation it also explains, Or Mormon precincts, I would add in the spirit of the parentheses–except that most Mormons live in non-Mormon precincts. I also have to say that not all Mormon votes are equal. A Mormon vote in Utah that just adds gravy to an already-certain victory for a candidate does not mean as much as a Mormon vote cast in a tight race in New Mexico. I haven’t seen a study that systematically looks at Mormons nationwide, including in New Mexico or Maryland or whatever. I would appreciate a reference if anyone has. But clearly that kind of analysis cannot be supported by the 2004 exit polls. |
And if “protestants” for purposes of the exit poll includes “all non-Catholic, non-Orthodox Christians” (and I suspect danithew is right about that), it would also include Mormons. What does that suggest the exit polls tell us? |
Democrats and liberals are more tollerant and accepting. I make my case with one man: Harry Reid. No one has made a big deal about Reid’s religon- why? Democrats don’t care, they accept people for who they are. What is it about Christianity that breeds narrow mindedness and intollerace- especially since those are directly contrary to what the faith teaches? I like this post, because you hit on something very true and very real that the LDS base is going to have to learn to accept- Democrats like Mormons more than Republicans do. It’s time to re-think the party affiliation. |
salt h20 - I don’t think Democrats are necessarily more accepting of Mormons than Republicans. There are Mormons serving in prominent positions in both parties. I’m certainly not trying to argue that LDS conservatives should stop being conservatives. It’s one thing to be upset that the Republican voters are choosing other candidates over Romney. It’s another thing altogether to toss out all your longstanding values and beliefs in regards to specific issues. For a conservative to turn around and suddenly embrace a very liberal Democratic party and its candidates wouldn’t be rational. |
I don’t see how LDS can sit back and accuse Huckabee voters of anti-Mormonism, when Romney took 90% of the Utah republican vote (a percentage I predicted, and was roundly criticized for, btw!). I suspect there are Huckabee supporters this morning, who are looking at the Utah returns and declaring that the LDS must be anti-evangelical (though with their views, they’re probably calling it “anti-christian”). |
Even if you accept that anti-Mormon sentiment had something to do with last night, it gets tricky. Did they vote against Romney because he’s Mormon? Or did they vote against him because they don’t trust him? Well, I’d argue that a large reason Romney comes off fake and untrustworthy is, in-part, due to his Mormonism. I’ve been following the internet buzz on Mormonism from evangelicals for couple years now and one thing has become very plain. They - don’t - trust - Mormons. In their eye’s we are sneaky opportunists who will do and say anything to get the missionaries in your door. We will soft-pedal on our theology, we will lie about our temples, we will try to pretend we’re “just like you.” And over the entire thing, we put out those “deliberately” theologically uninformative feel-good TV ads “Family - Isn’t it About Time?” But of course, that’s just an act we put on to lure you into our cult! In fact, the only reason we have nice families is a PR stunt, didn’t you know? When Mormons try to softpedal on theological differences, it simply raises evangelical defenses. They are quite convinced we simply are different. When we try to act like we’re the same, it tends to piss them off. To them, Gordon B. Hinckley isn’t the forward-thinking leader who reached out to other faiths. To them, he was a used car salesman (or an Amway salesman, take your pick). I hope it’s obvious to most of you how Romney played right into these popular stereotypes. Squeaky clean image, nice family, soft-pedaling on all theological issues, switching positions… This is exactly why there was such a strong polling correlation between those who cited his “flip-flops” as a reason for their dislike and those who simply dislike Mormons. To these folks flip-flopping and Mormonism are synonyms. The reason people voted against Romney were for substantive reasons that were rooted in, and based on a popular prejudice. Romney is feeling the full force of years of anti-Mormon image branding. Face it, other GOP candidates have changed their positions on the issues before. Why was Romney such a big screaming deal? Because he had already been branded by years of overt and subtle marketing in Southern Baptist congregations as just the latest edition of “sneaky Mormonism.” |
But MOST Mormons live outside of Utah/Idaho, and the locals tend to split along the same lines as local communities. A reminder: MOST mormons live outside of the U.S., and are relatively unconcerned with American politics and GOP conservatism. The things that make the Democrats in the U.S. seem like a “very liberal” (as danithew describes it) party are not necessarily “liberal” issues to non-American Mormons (universal healthcare, for example). And if you think that Mormons outside the U.S. are as loyal to Bush as Utah Mormons are, you’re up in the night — many of them, just like their neighbors, are disgusted with the US GOP’s hubris and sloppy foreign policy. Outside the U.S., there’s just not this knee-jerk gravitation to a single party that we see among Mormons in the U.S. |
Nick, the success of Romney in Utah is as much due to him saving the state’s bacon in the Olympics as it is about his religion. Utah Mormons are a highly loyal bunch and they really do remember the people who come through for them. |
Nick, in a head-to-head matchup between Mike Huckabee and Hillary Clinton, polls have Utah voting 61% for Huckabee. That’s pretty good, given that Huckabee was part of the delegation that came to Salt Lake City to distribute anti-Mormon literature in 1998 and belongs to a religion whose leadership helped to murder Joseph Smith. |
I disagree with Nick’s comments. Although I acknowledge identity politics has been a factor for both Romney and Huckabee, I view that as being distinct from the bigotry repeatedly manifested by Huckabee supporters. For example, the following this link outlines “The Biblical Case Against Voting for a Mormon for President: Why Christians Who Support Romney Actually Violate Scripture.” I have been looking at political commentaries and blogs quite a bit over the last year, and I have not seen anything comparable from an LDS group supporting Romney. I am not a registered Republican, and I have certainly taken a greater interest in the Republican race this election cycle because of Romney and the increased media scrutiny of the Church. In the general, were Romney and Obama opponents, I may have had some draw to Romney based on identity politics. However, when I vote for the Democrat in the general (whether it be Obama or Clinton), I will be voting against Huckabee bigotry, not against evangelicals or any religion. |
Can someone fix that link please. |
Obama Supporter - your long link was throwing off the comment formatting, so I put it into the word link - unfortunately that link leads to an error 404 page … so maybe you could let us know what it should actually be. If it’s a long link again, I’ll be happy to make the necessary edit to get it included. |
#22 Great explanation, I agree completely. To some degree, people saw in Romney what they were already expecting to see based on their assumptions and stereotypes about members of the Church. |
Danithew, you accidentally pasted the period at the end of the URL into the URL itself. It’s now fixed. |
Nick, McCain stabbed conservatives in the back over his immigration plan and campaign finance reform. Utahns care about that. I don’t know why the rest of the red staters don’t. Utahns voted for members of other faiths for President for the last 100+ years. They’ve never said “I would not vote for a Methodist or Evangelical, etc”. On the flip side, some Southerns have said exactly that about Mormons. Getting 90% of the Utah Repub vote because he has espoused virtually all necessary views of the Rebpublican platform is not surprising. What is surprising is that the candidates who did not espouse these views are winning elsewhere. Because Mitts a Mormon? Yes to some degree |
Okay, so what I take from these comments so far is that when evangelicals vote for an evangelical candidate, it’s religious bigotry, but when LDS vote for an LDS candidate, it’s “identity politics” and “loyalty.” #25 DKL: |
Sorry danithew, it is a long link and unfortunately I am not computer-savvy enough to know how to fix it. The article is entitled “The Biblical Case Against Voting For A Mormon. Why Christians Who Support Romney Actually Violate Scripture.” It is on the pastors4huckabee.com website. As you may guess from the title, the article explains that those who support Mitt Romney, “who is abiding in the doctrine of antichrist,” are “partners” with him in his “evil deeds.” My point in linking to the article is that I think this type of scare-tactic goes far beyond identity politics, the idea of simply supporting “one of our own” or the person who “speaks our language.” In my opinion, it is a blatant attempt to demonize the “other.” |
Obama Supporter - I added the link to the title in your comment #33. That should do it. I can’t help but notice that there is a frequent and prolific commenter on that site who simply signs himself as Ed. I wonder if that is Ed Enochs who used to comment so frequently in the ‘Nacle. |
Again, I respectfully disagree with Nick’s comments. I believe many, many Huckabee supporters have simply voted for and supported Huckabee because they identify with him, his folksy image and his religious affiliation. I do not think it is bigotry, however unwise it may be, to vote for the person you would most like to have over for a barbeque. I am sure there are LDS who did the same. However, when a candidate and his supporters use religion (or gender, race, etc.) as a weapon against an opponent, I believe it has crossed-over from identity politics to bigotry. For example, as a woman, I do not think I would be motivated by bigotry to prefer Clinton because she is a woman, that is identity politics. I do, however, believe a person is motivated by bigotry if he or she cannot vote for any woman because of x, y, or z characteristics that all women supposedly share. |
Nick, the difference is that Utahns were FOR Romney, not AGAINST Huckabee. With the Southern Baptists, they actually were AGAINST Romney as much as FOR Huckabee. The Utah vote was not a vote AGAINST Evangelical Protestantism by any stretch of the imagination. But I think there’s pretty good evidence that the Southern vote was AGAINST Mormonism. Hell, the Mormons in Utah have been trying to pretend they ARE Southern Evangelicals for the last 20 years. Why would they vote against the relgion? |
Nick, it’s highly likely that Mormon voters have voted for many evangelical presidential candidates. Very few of us would categorically state an unwillingness to vote for someone who is of another Christian denomination. I suppose someone could point out that we don’t have much choice. Still, I’m wondering to what degree a Mormon willingness to participate in the system and vote for evangelical candidates is mirrored by evangelical willingness to vote for a Mormon. I know there are many who are in the “we aren’t voting for a pastor but for a president” category - but I get the impression there is a decent group of evangelicals out there who think a vote for a Mormon is a vote for the devil. When Ed Enochs was commenting around here - he came pretty close to saying as much and he seemed to think many of his fellow evangelicals were right with him on that point. The post Obama Supporter linked to contributes to that point very well. |
I’m not sure Romney’s defeat was related to his religion. Maybe nobody (and I mean nobody) can stop the Straight Talk Express. |
I need to apologize to DKL. At another site I said he was probably writing a post right now about the Mormon factor being the reason Mitt didn’t get votes, instead I read this even-handed post that actually makes sense. Being Mormon may be a small factor, but it’s one of many. I kind of thought Mormon Republicans understood that they’re in the same category as Log Cabin Republicans. They will take your vote, but you’re the red-headed stepchild of the party as long as they continue to believe the Christian Right and their views are an important part of the Republican Party. |
A few comments: * It may seem odd that (western) LDS flock to the Republican Party — whose two founding goals were the abolition of slavery and the abolition of polygamy — but this is a relatively recent event. We used to be more aligned with the Democrats until key issues, like abortion, separated them. I hang more with the Republicans because (1) pro-life stand and (2) I believe in compassion and charity and have a few charitable projects of my own, but the goevernment’s version violates free agency: participation in their “charity” is under threat of having your house confiscated and you going to prison for not paying your taxes. |
Nick, I criticized 94%. I would have agreed to 90%. |
Romney is the only conservative candidate- look at records and the only thing he has changed on is Social Issues- which will never change. Religous bigotry is not highly tollerated, so those that don’t like Mormons will hide behind another ‘reason’ to not vote for Romney. (see the Vanderbilt study) However, in Utah,Idaho,and Nevada we don’t fear Mormonism, so that factor is taken out of the equation and we simply voted for the best candidate- -that being Mitt Romney. They didn’t vote for Mitt BECAUSE he was mormon, the voted for Mitt because being Mormon didn’t matter- he is indeed the best Republican candidate. danithew- by no means by becoming a democrat (or an independant)does it mean you are throwing out your long standing morals and values- the parties don’t stand for what you want them to stand for anymore. |
salt h2o provides the reason why I can’t stand the Republican party these days. Too many of them think that they somehow stand for “morals and values.” Wake up dude! It is YOUR party that has taken us into an illegal war, and YOUR party that accepts the use of torture. Where are your morals and your values? You don’t have to be in the Republican party to stand for “morals and values.” |
#36: Heh…I’m glad you said it, rather than me, Seth! I can’t argue with you on that point! Seriously though, friends, I think it’s just far too easy to play the persecution card and blame Romney’s failure to obtain the nomination on anti-LDS religionists. I wouldn’t have voted for the man, even in my uber-to-almost-fundamentalist Mormon days. I disagree strongly with most of his policy positions, and I don’t find him to be much more than a cultural LDS, let alone an honest man. The only way his LDS-ism comes into play for me is in the sense that it may influence him toward political positions that I disagree with, but I can say the same thing about Huckabee’s Baptist faith. I think many voters simply saw Romney as dishonest and power-hungry. My best friend is in California on business right now, and saw McCain commercials showing older footage of Romney saying he didn’t want to be “the next Reagan,” juxtaposed with Romney’s recent attempts to portray himself as just that. Surely many voters saw these sorts of comparisons, and concluded that Romney just wasn’t trustworthy. |
Religous bigotry is not highly tollerated, so those that don’t like Mormons will hide behind another ‘reason’ to not vote for Romney. (see the Vanderbilt study) If you’re not careful, this becomes an excuse to ignore legitimate disagreements with Romney, and unilaterally declare most/all who oppose Romney as “anti-LDS.” Feeding into a persecution complex won’t help Romney, or any future candidate, get elected. |
Dan, (responding to comment #43) what the heck is the problem with torture again? Torture is great! |
However, in Utah,Idaho,and Nevada we don’t fear Mormonism, so that factor is taken out of the equation and we simply voted for the best candidate- -that being Mitt Romney. They didn’t vote for Mitt BECAUSE he was mormon, the voted for Mitt because being Mormon didn’t matter- he is indeed the best Republican candidate. So let me be sure I understand you clearly. You’re suggesting that when Romney got the single highest percentage win of any POTUS candidate, in any of the states, and the state in question happened to be 72% LDS, the fact that he is LDS played no role in the decision-making process of voters? I honestly don’t see how any reasonably objective person could draw that conclusion. |
Wake up dude! It is YOUR party that has taken us into an illegal war, and YOUR party that accepts the use of torture. Dan, you forgot to say it’s also the REPUBLICAN party that has seen so many of its politicians caught in sex scandals (mostly gay ones, even) during the past year! |
Torture body count, by party: Clinton/Gore between 50 and 70 people, tortured to death Bush/Cheney 3 people waterboarded Yes, I see your point, Dan. There really is a difference between the parties on this issue. |
Mark IV, I’ve seen the 3 people waterboarded statistic. Where are you getting the Clinton/Gore 50-70 people count? I’d like to read more! |
Dan- I agree- a good portion of Republicans think they are the only ones that are moral, and a good portion of Democrats think they’re the only ones who are ‘enlightened’. Too bad Utah has a closed primary, or I’d be an independent. Nick- I didn’t come up with this theory- Vanderbilt did, and it was a study. You put Mitt Romney saying in a sound bite that ‘he doesn’t want to be the next Regan’ verus McCain voting against tax cuts- really, which should have the greater impact? As to his religon not playing a part in Utah, it’s a theory I have- I can’t change the fact that people are inherently stupid and will vote for a guy simply because he shares his faith or not vote for a guy because he doesn’t- but I do think we tend to fear the unknown. That those that know a Mormon, are more likely to look at a Mormon candidate objectively and see him for his qualities. |
Mark, Um, you should review your statistics, because, well, waterboarding, while torture, is not the only tool used. Sleep deprivation is also torture, and it has been used down in Guantanamo Bay prison extensively. You should probably add about 200-500 more victims. |
Furthermore, you can chalk up Abu Ghraib scandal as well under Bush/Cheney. Bush/Cheney ordered the military leaders to take the techniques from Gitmo and apply them to Iraq. Of course, in Iraq, the techniques used got out of hand, and you get the Conan-the-Barbarian-orgy that we’ve seen in the pictures. |
danithew, You can look at this post and follow the links. The one from the ACLU is especially damning, in my opinion. You call also look in the comments and see where Dan called me a subversive for even bringing this up. |
Mark, Please, you’re being disingenuous. You state:
But your post on Council of Fifty does not provide evidence that those “50 and 70 people” were tortured to “death.” And as far as the “subversive” issue is concerned, it had nothing to do with you bringing up the extraordinary renditions approved by Clinton, but that you would think that those who speak out against Bush and his use of torture simply do so because of partisanship, when in fact, we will gladly speak out against anyone who employs the use of torture. |
Dan, sooner or later ya gotta face facts. Your guys tortured people TO DEATH. You are a smart enough man to tell the difference bwtween that and sleep deprivation. By the way, I didn’t notice any protests from you when they gave Al “Go grab his ass!” Gore the Nobel peace prize. I really was expecting some kind of hysterical comment like this: No!!! What is the matter with you people!!! Gore practices torture!!! He is evil!!! Wake up, America!!! Until you do denounce him, rather than hoping he endorses Obama, you are just cynically using torture as a political tactic, and can’t be taken seriously. |
Dan, Me, disingenuous? What, do you think the Egyptian secret police keeps the bodies around for evidence? I’ll tell you what, If I had the misfortune to be rendered and were given the choice of being put in the custody of the U.S. Marines at Guantanamo or turned over to the tender mercies of the Egyptian Mukhabarrat, I’d take the jarheads at Gitmo any day. |
Mark, You can’t change what Bill Clinton may have done as president. But you can change what George Bush is doing now. And I’ll say this when Bush is out of office too. You can’t change what he did. But you can change what the current president is doing. I’m not a hysterical maniac, Mark. I’m glad Al Gore won the peace prize because his work on global warming has been tremendous. The Nobel peace prize was not intended to be given out to perfect people.
Whatever dude. I’ve spoken out quite consistently on torture, no matter who practices it. |
Mark,
Actually I would take the Egyptian Mukhabarrat. Far more corrupt, and easier to influence, bribe, and get to do things my way. The jarheads at Gitmo are too brainwashed into thinking anyone brought to them is a spawn of Satan. No possibility of changing their minds or bribing them to let me go. |
Would we as Mormon’s (or as a country really) ever vote for someone who wasn’t a Christian? Someone who was Jewish or even agnostic or atheist? Does a presidential candidate have to believe in God to be a good leader? |
If my Southern white evangelical Christian friends prefer “anyone but a Morrmon,” then they deserve the President they get in November. That I will have to suffer right along with them for the next four years is a necessary step to changing the last acceptable prejudice in the Republican Party. |
“You can’t change what Bill Clinton may have done as president.” Did you know his wife is a leading contender to be the next president? |
“The jarheads at Gitmo are too brainwashed into thinking anyone brought to them is a spawn of Satan.” Dan, the irony here is that a statement as absurd, bigoted and offensive as the statement you just made could only come from someone who has been thoroughly brainwashed to a particular ideological agenda. |
eTigger, was Romney going to save the Constitution while it was dangling by a thread or something? Was he our only last hope to bring balance to the Force before the Dark Side extends its rule throughout the galaxy? |
This is huge! If you consider yourself a conservative Christian and you want someone with conservative values in the White House you must vote for Romney. Dr Dobson said in a statement yesterday that a vote for Huckabee is essentially a vote for McCain and if McCain wins the nomination he won’t vote. Listen to his statment: http://election.newsmax.com/dobson_mccain/ Now pass this information on to your fellow Christian friends. |
Eric, I’m not brainwashed to any ideological agenda. That, is the actual irony. I’m AGAINST an ideological agenda. I want realism back in my country’s foreign policy. As far as my comment goes, I borrowed “jarheads” from Mark, who used it first. Secondly, the soldiers in Gitmo really do think that the “terrorists” brought to them are the “worst of the worst.” Do you think that if their commanding officer, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, says that they are the “worst of the worst,” that they are going to disagree? And by dehumanizing these individuals, turning them into the abstract and sterile “terrorist, worst of the worst”, it makes it far easier for them to be cruel. After all, they aren’t like you and I. They are worse than animals (a description I’ve heard before from Conservatives), maybe even “cockroaches.” Ask ESO to tell you about how easy it became for the Hutus to carry out their work of death against Tutsis after dehumanizing them. It becomes easy for those soldiers to live their regular lives, happy as clams while doing some bad stuff to prisoners under their care.
As far as the spawn of Satan comment goes, yeah, that was meant for amusement. Still accurate, though. |
the reason I am a Democrat not a Republican is in part the meanspiritedness and lack of caring for those less fortunate I sure get tired of this idea. Just because I don’t believe in socialism, does not mean that I don’t have concern or care for the less fortunate. I just happen to believe that compassion is part of a persons character, not something that should be forced by the government. I do think Mitt Romney is hurt by the religion factor. You only have to look back to December when he was leading in polls, going strong in Iowa, when Huckabee brought up the mormon issue. From that time on he has been loosing ground when he was doing well before that. |
Dan, Okay, give me a break. I’m all against Bush/Cheney, too, and I like Obama. But have you ever personally met a Marine? Yeah, me too. The ones I’ve met (in basic training, as officers, and as former Marines) are far from brainwashed. Your statement is as offensive and bigotted as anything Huckabee’s said about Mormons. And I agree with your choice of candidate. But when you say something jerky, bigotted, and wrong as that, you take credibility away from your good arguments. |
“Do you think that if their commanding officer, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, says that they are the “worst of the worst,” that they are going to disagree?” That’s the same argument as, Do you think that if the Prophet speaks, Harry Reid (or Mitt Romney, or any other Mormon) is going to disagree. But my short answer (based on a friend who is a Marine): yes. |
Sam B., I’m reminded of a friend in grad school back during Clinton’s first term. A recently retired naval lieutenant, he was explaining the diversity of political opinions among military officers: “We’re hardly a monolithic group. You’ll find every kind of view on, say, abortion and gun control. There’s really only one thing military people all agreee on: They all hate Bill Clinton.” |
“I just happen to believe that compassion is part of a persons character, not something that should be forced by the government.” So I take it that you are also opposed to the overturn of Roe v. Wade, since “compassion should not be forced by the government”? |
Sam,
My father in law. Perfect example, right to the racist talk against Arabs. My sister and her husband are both right now in Iraq. Their views have been tempered greatly by what they’ve seen over there, but man you should have listened to what they have said back in 2002/2003. Not pretty. As far as my comment is concerned, please, share with me examples that counter that. Show me where soldiers, even generals, have said that not all the people sent to Gitmo are “the worst of the worst.” Please, disprove my comment. It would make me feel better about my military.
No it isn’t. It is a different argument, Sam. A soldier is FORCED to obey his superior, including in what to think about a prisoner under his care. A follower of the prophet chooses out of his own free will and choice to listen to the words of the prophets. Or are you telling me that our church is becoming militant? |
Dr Dobson said in a statement yesterday that a vote for Huckabee is essentially a vote for McCain and if McCain wins the nomination he won’t vote. Dr. Dobson has little credibility in my book, and as far as I’m concerned, if he is against McCain, that’s actually a reason to support McCain. |
I raised a question in #1 if it would have mattered if Romney were not Mormon, if he would have performed better. Seth gave in #22 an excellent portrayal (I believe) of how many people actually view the Church and its members. Someone else mentioned (sorry, can’t find it now) the fact that people actually like Huckabee (and I heard this comment last night on CNN, that a lot of people vote for him even though they know he can’t win). Maybe we should come to grips with the fact that Romney’s just seems to come off as unlikeable to the sort of people who actually vote in primaries. He’s a talk radio and Utah Mormon and Massachusetts Mormon and Geoff B darling, but the evidence seems clear that quite a few people don’t really like him. They may be effectively sealing it that a dem becomes president, but they don’t care. They’d rather have that than Romney. Maybe it’s the religion factor. But I wonder if we’re overthinking it and they just don’t like him. Is Romney the sort of guy you’d want to have a Sprite with while watching a game? Would you want him on your Church basketball team? |
Dan, this might give you a different idea about the military: MILITARY DONORS FAVOR ANTIWAR CANDIDATES: Individuals in the Army, Navy and Air Force made those branches of the armed services among the top contributors in the 4th Quarter, ranking No. 13, No. 18 and No. 21, respectively. In 2007, Republican Ron Paul, who opposes U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, was the top recipient of money from donors in the military, collecting at least $212,000 from them. Barack Obama, another war opponent, was second with about $94,000. http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2008/YearEndPresidential.2.4.asp |
Bill, That does indeed give me hope. |
#67 and Danithew, 100% agree. Any stance that views one party as more flawed over the other is one brainwashed by political ideology. Democrats and Republicans have one religion- politics. I don’t think there is an answer for LDS in either party, especially now. For one, McCain captured a large pro-choice republican constituency. And Democrats especially have no moral high horse. Saying so is just naive. I’ve figured the only way to really be true to morals and values is to be independent. Dan, your accusations, namely the “YOUR party” nasties, put you 100% in the jaded column. Nice try covering your bum. |
# 74, Probably true, but there are too many statistics saying that certain people would never vote for a Mormon to leave that as the ONLY explanation. |
Queuno #74-I think you are absolutely right. The average joe people I have conversed with have most often characterized Romney as seeming like a slimeball. They just don’t like him. Maybe his Mormonism is subconsciously affecting their perception, but not consciously. They just think he looks like a slick, smooth talking dude, who will say anything to get elected. I thought it was interesting that Obama won Utah. I do think Mormons prefer a black man and the chance to show their non-racist side to voting for a woman. |
Katie M–My husband, my son, my daughter, and I all voted for Obama. Do you think we’re trying to show how non-racist we are? (That and maybe the fact that we’ve all enrolled in ebonics classes and I require my children to ask for their meals in rap. They miss dessert if they try to use a slant rhyme instead of a direct one.) My real thoughts: we have another JFK in our midst. I love replacing the politics of fear with the possibility of hope. I love the rhetoric, the articulation, those wonderful parallelisms of Obama’s orations. Most of all, I love what he stands for–which I was aware of long before he sought office. DIPLOMACY FIRST. The fact that he insists on talking to those many regard as “enemies” to work out diplomatic solutions rather than engaging in pre-emptive strikes appeals to me at the deepest level. His personal convictions–which are so clearly authentic–resonate with me, and have for about four years. I can’t judge other Utahns who voted Obama. I’m on the Utah E-mail campaign list, and I haven’t seen race mentioned once. We get the same slogans as everyone else: “Yes we can.” |
Or they just hate Clinton and love Obama’s personality. Personally I couldn’t care less he is black. He’s a great guy from everything I can see. I just wish he were a small government conservative. (bg) |
I thought it was interesting that Obama won Utah. I do think Mormons prefer a black man and the chance to show their non-racist side to voting for a woman. Remember, it was the *Democratic* primary in Utah, not a Mormon election. I haven’t looked at voting district breakdowns or anything, but my heavily active Dem relatives in Utah say that most LDS Dems in SLC went for Hillary, the non-LDS Dems in SLC went for Obama. |
Interesting. It seems that Mormons will vote for Obama because he’s black (having to defend their vote for Obama by providing some other motive), but people voting for the other Republican candidates do so because they just don’t like Romney- no anti-mormon motivations. My theory: Mormons have voted for non-Mormons, evangelicals, you name it, as long as there have been elections. Its those groups voting for a Mormon that has never happened. I’ve never heard anywhere that Romney is a slimeball or anything like that. If anything you hear that “he looks so good all the time”, and he’s “too sharp”, “a flip-flopper” (a bad thing, I guess), or on this blog “he’s a robot”. “Oh yeah, and that Mormon thing is too weird.” Growing up in a Mormon-minority environment, Mormonism is just too strange for some people and a cult for others. Pick your reason. Further, if you look at voter demographics, a large proportion of states won by McCain had large percentages of voters saying that the Economy and immigration were high priority issues for them. McCain’s platform is stronger in Global Warming and Corruption in government. He is the last guy you want to go to bat for you on illegal immigration and has nothing to offer with the economy issue. And Huckabee is only marginally better on those issues. Therefore, Huckabee is the identity candidate- evangelicals, southerners especially. McCain is the anyone-but-Romney-or-an-Evangelical candidate. The only person strong on the issues that Republican voters themselves say are most important to them, is Romney. But he doesn’t get the vote. Why? Insert your feeble explanation as to why there is an anyone-but-Romney candidate here. Therefore, in the upcoming election, a sensible conservative will either give in to “political honor” and vote for the party that hasn’t given enough respect to the more qualified and more possible white house contender (if there was no Mormon issue), or the conservative will cast a vote for the Democrat that best seems to reach across the isle or rather the one with no White House Scandals on record. Take your pick on motivations. Either vote for the left is a vote towards socialist policy, among good policy as has been mentioned. For a conservative, that’s a scary proposition. So I think the “Mormon problem” is very real and ranks very highly on the motivations to vote for someone other than Romney. That vote is not cast on qualifications or hope for the best candidate at all. |
# 82 Q, That’s exactly what I saw in SLC, at least on the active side- they all voted Hillary. |
Perhaps it’s time that we asked ourselves, “What would Jesus do?” Since Jesus was black, he’d vote for Obama. |
I’d vote for Obama solely as a repudiation of Bush’s campaign of national moral cowardice. I’m done with “fear” and the next politician who tries to appeal to it is not worthy of the office in my opinion. |
DKL, Does that mean you voted for Obama? Are you going to vote for him in November? |
Margaret Young, on these Mormon web sites, you seldom pass up a chance to remind all of your intense interest in the black race. I have a hard time imagining that you wouldn’t cast your vote for any at-least-half-way credible black candidate regardless of who the alternatives may be. |
Mitt Romney is retiring from the race. |
John Mansfield–I find that a presumptuous and arrogant statement. Since I’ve authored several books, encyclopedia articles, scholarly articles, and made a documentary on African Americans, it would make sense that my postings on the blog would show that interest. However, you would have to know me far better than you do to assume that you could predict my vote. |
Quite true, Mrs. Young. I only know what you write, and the other 97% of your being is a private mystery. If you say that your support for Barack Obama (which anyone who knows you only by your blog comments would have predicted, correctly or not) has no racial motivation, then I’ll just have to expand the borders of my imagination. |
We are ALL mysteries to each other. The fact that Evangelicals framed Mitt Romney into a tight and often ill-informed picture of what a Mormon is or believes, and then suggested that a vote for him was anti-Christian (I forwarded the “Pastors for Huckabee” link to several people) illustrates the same sort of reductiveness. The idea that someone would “never vote for a Mormon” indicates only ignorance. I had someone tell me yesterday that she was concerned about Obama because of “those Muslim roots.” (Has she bought into that crap?) I would never support Alan Keyes. I would never support Jesse Jackson. I could have been persuaded to support Mitt Romney if it weren’t for my feelings on the war in Iraq. My support for Obama has nothing to do with his complexion. If he said that we might be in Iraq for another one hundred years until we had destroyed every possible terrorist outlet, he would lose my vote. The person who DID say that will certainly never get my vote. |
Margret I was not implying that you or other Mormons in Utah voted for Obama simply because he was black. And I certainly don’t think it was a conscious thing. I do not think that you said to yourself, “Obama is black and I want to show I am not a racist, so I will vote for him!” I simply think that it is one of many factors drawing people, Mormon and non-Mormon, to him. Beneath all this talk about “making history” there is a thread of patting ourselves on the back for our ability to look past his color or Hillary’s gender. I do think this ability makes us feel good. Maybe it should. I just find it interesting what the NYT reported today: “Senator Barack Obama took 81 percent of Kootenai County (Idaho) caucus voters, matching his landslide across the state. He won all but a single county…Idaho is the prime rib of Red America. Ditto Utah, where Obama beat Senator Hillary Clinton 56 percent to 39 percent on Tuesday, including a 2-1 win in arguably the most Republican community in America – Provo and suburbs, a holdout of Bush dead-enders.” Now I do think that Obama’s rhetoric of hope appeals to these Mormons, and a host of other things too. But I honestly think there is also a desire to show others that Mormons are mis-pegged as racists. And this is coupled with a Mormon dislike for women who seem power hungry like Hillary. Thus big victories for Obama in Mormon states. |
All the speculation on why Southern evangelicals didn’t vote for Romney in the primaries is pretty pointless (even though I particularly liked comment #22). The known data is pretty vague and can be reasonably deployed to support just about every argument I’ve seen on this list. However, there are a few known facts that I think are pretty revealing. Several polls found that a significant number of Americans would never vote for an LDS presidential candidate. On the registered Republican side the numbers were noticeably higher. For generations the evangelical flock has been conditioned by a steady stream of virulent anti-mormon discourse. That cannot can’t help but foster attitudes hostile to LDS people and all things LDS, which any LDS presidential candidate would have great difficulty surmounting, no matter how perfect or likeable he/she was. I have no data support this claim, but it seems that the LDS vote is more proportionately Republican than just about other sub-group in the U.S.. It is therefore highly ironic that the LDS vote contributes to giving the “Christian” conservatives real political power when Republicans are elected to office. The anti-LDS hostility manifest overtly and covertly in this election cycle convinces me that there is no reciprocity between “Christian” conservative and LDS voters–nor is there likely to be any in the future. I’m not sure there will be a much warmer reception for LDS voters in the Democratic party. But its pretty clear what attitudes are among a very influential Republican mintory–and its not pleasant. For that reason I’ll be listening very carefully for messages of religious tolerance and inclusion from the Democratic candidate during the general campaign. And if I find them I’ll vote Democrat for the first presidential election ever. The LDS people of all Americans should realize how dangerous politicians and political parties who pander to religious bigots can be. And they should send a message to all parties that such behavior is unacceptable with the best tool they have–the vote. |
As an observer and as an LDS from Asia, I really prayed that Mitt Romney would become the President of the most powerful nation in the world and hoped that he does something positive so this world would be a much better place to live. But as I see it, religious biases somehow was capitalized on by his political opponents. I think McCain and Huckabee executed their game plan wisely. On the other hand, maybe God did not allow him to win to prevent our Church properties and edifices become a target of terrorist groups, if in case anti-American sentiments (who happens to have a Mormon President) continues to grow in the future. I hope America elects a worthy and righteous leader because it will create an impact not only in your own country but even to all the people of the world. As what I always hear, God bless America… |
On the other hand, maybe God did not allow him to win to prevent our Church properties and edifices become a target of terrorist groups, if in case anti-American sentiments (who happens to have a Mormon President) continues to grow in the future. Absolutely. Because the last thing we’d want is a stringent process and set of qualifications as a basis for entering a temple, to keep the terrorists out… |
My real thoughts: we have another JFK in our midst. Margaret - I respect you immensely. But when I read this, I remembered JFK’s record and thought, “Oh dear Lord, no!” |
The Wall Street Journal did a poll a couple weeks ago, and found that 50% of Americans would have a reservation voting for a Mormon president. I don’t know whether I buy the results of this poll. In the 1970s, polls would probably have shown that many Americans had huge reservations about voting for a president who had been divorced, and then Reagan won by a landslide. That said, there’s a problem with how the news media and how voters have defined the problem. How many polls have asked the prospective voters whether they’d have reservations voting for a former evangelical minister? |
How many polls have asked the prospective voters whether they’d have reservations voting for a former evangelical minister? How many probable voters would vote for a man who has never held statewide or national office with a scheming wife who can’t decide which baseball team he likes and who employed corrupt officials? How many probable voters would vote for a smoker? We can make up interesting questions about every candidate. This is a fun game. (DKL’s point is spot on. It’s difficult to find unbiased surveys.) |
Queno–I respect you immensely as well. JFK is a bit of an icon, and people don’t remember a lot about his administration (cut short, obviously) except the disastrous Bay of Pigs and the much more important Cuban missile crisis. But there was also the Peace Corps, the BEGINNINGS of real work towards the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and simply the sense of hope that make folks refer to his time as president as “Camelot.” |
Camelot? You mean that play about the disastrous results of infidelity? |
Margaret, I married into the family of perhaps the two biggest starstruck JFK lovers in all of Mormondom. I’m no political expert, really, but my gut feeling is that had Kennedy actually served two terms, he’d have ratings to rival Dubya’s. That his assassination was the best thing to happen to his legacy. He died at the right time. And really, I’m saying that with with respect for the man. He’s inspirational, no doubt. But in my opinion, JFK was all ideas but horrible on details. And Obama reminds me of him. And I’m tired of administrations that are big on ideas but fishy on details. Again, just my opinion. But hey, if you’re ever in Dallas, let me know, and I’ll pay for your trip to the Sixth Floor Museum (a phenomenal museum, and yet just hauntingly sad.) |
I suspect I’m a little older than you are, Queuno. I remember the glamour of the Kennedy years, and I certainly remember Nov. 22, 1963 (the same day that C.S. Lewis died, btw). I think we assume that a president has more power than he has. So much of the greatness of America lies within the checks and balances. In many ways, the presidency exists symbolically–and the symbol is one of inspiration, or fierceness, or power (I’m thinking Nixon with that one) or even paranoia (Nixon again). It’s not like Hillary can really say “Universal Health Care” and it happens. Didn’t she try that once? Reagan inspired. JFK inspired. Nixon made us leary and suspicious. Johnson just looked tired. Carter showed aging at high speed. GW Bush–dang, he just looks like a kid in a candy store asking for everything and pouting when he doesn’t get it. I’m afraid, as cynical as it might sound, that presidential image is more powerful than what the president can actually do. And thank God our presidents can’t act as independent megalomaniacs–unless they have congressional support (or unless a clear act of war has been perpetuated against the U.S. such as in Pearl Harbor). Jack–good comment. Back then, nobody talked about it. And Jackie was elegance personified. Who could imagine he’d cheat on her? |
Margaret, what Presidents can do is control enforcement. And that is huge. And they appoint judges. (The one redeeming grace of Bush after a whole slew of cringe worthy moments) But I agree that we typically over-emphasize what Presidents can do. |
+++ I’m glad I’m not the only one who notices some troubling parallels between Obama and Bush. |
#92: That is not what McCain said. Here is the transcript:
There is a big difference between active combat operationas and a “military presence”. The U.S. has a major naval base in Bahrain. Should we shut that one down too? What about all the others? |
Margaret, re #92, Mark D is right about that. Though Obama has made it part of his stump speech to say that McCain wants a 100 year war, Obama is lying. McCain has said that the problem isn’t American’s stationed in Iraq, but American casualties in Iraq. Not only is he correct, but this formulation gives the issue a type of clarity that is absent in Obama’s lofty brand of political-speak, which favors empty but high-sounding ideals over actual meaning. |
Hmmm. Good points, Mark D. and DKL. I heard the soundbite from McCain (though not the whole speech), and I heard what Obama heard–McCain’s willingness to stay in Iraq for 100 years. (We still have a military presence in Korea all these years after that little war.) I wonder if the fact that I grew up in the Viet Nam era impacts my perceptions. I am hearing so much of the same rhetoric. Surge=”We began bombing Cambodia last night.” (I have a strong memory of Nixon making that announcement–and an equally strong memory of what happened in the ensuing years; my brother worked with Cambodian refugees, ALL who whom were suffering from a PTSD that couldn’t be fully addressed.) “We have to WIN the war.” “We can’t embolden our enemies.” I resist the word “enemy” deeply, and I have such a strong memory of what happened after the U.S. did a rather futile program of “Vietnamization” where the South Vietnamese were trained in warfare, and then gradually left. We had set the stage. It wasn’t our absence that caused the civil wars (which had already begun); it was the way we had fueled the fire. Our expanding the war somehow made the Khmer Rouge possible. And it was all so brutal. The situation seems far more dangerous in Iraq because of the countries surrounding it–some of them with nuclear capabilities. So DKL, you know I love you and I plan on collecting the diet coke after Obama wins, but I just can’t agree with your characterizations of Obama vs. McCain. I don’t think Obama is lying (and I dislike the way that accusation is bandied about in political campaigns; it validates a really ugly view of how people get into office). What I said in #92 seems accurate–except that I overstated what a military presence might entail by assuming it would involve the continued pursuit of terrorist strongholds. I think McCain’s words are consistent with Obama’s rhetoric. They are also consistent with a soldier’s worldview. Clark–I know you already know this, but a president doesn’t choose the Supreme Court justices; he nominates them. Remember Bork? |
When I talk to people who were news-aware during the Vietnam war, they have a completely different take. My own parents, for example, talk about all the press coverage that was shown to have distorted the truth (like the fact that the Tet offensive was a military and public relations triumph, even though people like Walter Cronkite told the world that it was a huge setback — here’s a stirring account of that on the 40th anniversary by a reporter who told the truth at the time). My parents (and their friends) also bemoan the fact that after everything was said and done, the South Vietnamese still ended up suffering for the past 30+ years under the brutality of communist totalitarianism, thanks to a Democratic Congress that cut-and-run after Nixon secured victory through the Paris Peace Accords. When I hear McCain talk about staying as long as is needed, I hear him saying that Iraq won’t be a replay of the behavior of the Democratic congress in 1974 & 1975, that we’ll avoid betraying the Iraqis the way the Democrats betrayed our Vietnamese allies, that if he has any say in the matter, America’s word will be worth something this time around. When I hear Obama charge that this means “100 years of war in Iraq,” I hear him saying that he will cut and run, so that he’ll have the opportunity to bemoan another American defeat the way that the Democrats in your generation like to bemoan Vietnam. Because his idea of inclusiveness means deriding and jettisoning traditional American themes of pride and accomplishment and honor and ingenuity in order to buddy-up to those Americans who fancy themselves to be among its victims. I do also hear dishonesty, a term that hasn’t been used enough in connection with Obama. When we achieve peace in Iraq, the American presence there won’t constitute a war any more than America’s continued presence in Japan, Europe, Korea, or Kuwait. To imply otherwise is to dissemble and deceive. There’s this tendency that Democrats have to engage in classical Orwellian double-speak when it comes to foreign policy. The Democrats were the first to insist, following the 1st Gulf War, that GHW Bush should have finished the job. Then, we finish the job, and they complained that we didn’t use enough troops. Then we increase the number of troops, and they oppose that. Then the surge shows progress, and they simply make stuff up to explain it away. Like John Kerry, who opposed every Reagan policy that opposed the Soviets, yet argues (once it’s obvious that those policies were successful) that he’s qualified to lead the free world that those policies created, Democrats continually jettison their earlier, failed positions as though they never existed, and then they expect us to take them seriously when they insist that their current position is the key to success. The Democratic leaders won’t be happy about Iraq until they turn it into a confirmed and irrevocable loss, and lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans. |
I apologize for the threadjack, all. That was just me being appalled at John Mansfield’s insinuation that I seldom pass up an chance to let people know how of my “intense interest” in Blacks, and why one could presume I’d be an Obama supporter. (88) I thought it was an appalling thing to say, and I went into self-defense mode, thus leading us into a discussion of Viet Nam. Nobody can explain just who is to blame for all that happened in that region, and I find any attempt to do so futile. We all know something, but only God knows everything that contributed to the quagmire and killing fields there. More importantly, MM is not a political forum, so my injection of my own politics was entirely inappropriate and simply given as a knee jerk reaction. Sorry. I hope this thread closes up soon. |
History’s complicated because it always involves politics, and this thread is about politics, and one can’t discuss American foreign policy without, at some point, discussing Vietnam — though the War of 1812 is, in my opinion, a much better example of American defeat due to overreaching. There’s never any need to apologize for injecting politics into a forthrightly political post (or series of posts). It’s all fun. |
The Korean War was not exactly little. More than 33,000 Americans died in combat. 58,000 South Koreans. 300,000 - 500,000 North Koreans and Chinese. A couple thousand Britons, Aussies, French, Turks, and Candians. Plus innumerable civilian casualties. In Iraq, about 4,000 Americans have died in combat, plus 11,000 Iraqis (both sides) and about 4,000 insurgents. Plus perhaps fifty to one hundred thousand civilian deaths. |
*There are no data to show that MOST Mormons are Republican* Sure there is. Exit polls from the past two presidential elections showed that over 90% of those identifying themselves as LDS voted Republican. In fact, I think it 95% in the last election. Before you ask, I’d have to look up the source. |
Mark D, thanks for pointing out the contrast. huckabull, I believe that you’re right that it’s abundantly obvious from multiple data sources that American Mormons are mostly Republicans. |
I would agree that American Mormons tend to vote for Republicans, but MOST Mormons aren’t citizens of the USA and I would thing that the international members of the Church probably fall to the left of the US Republican party. |
Agreed. Ronan Head tells me that internationally (outside the USA), there is no party alignment among Mormons like there is inside the USA. He’s as good a source as any for data like that. |
“Sure there is. Exit polls from the past two presidential elections showed that over 90% of those identifying themselves as LDS voted Republican. In fact, I think it 95% in the last election. Before you ask, I’d have to look up the source.” As I pointed out in comment #17, the exit poll data, by admission of the authors themselves, do not support conclusions about LDS. The sample of Mormons is insufficient. Most precincts in the exit polls do not have any Mormons. See for example http://www.vote.caltech.edu/media/documents/EvaluationJan192005.pdf on which the person in charge of the 2004 exit polls is a co-author. I’ve lived outside Utah for 27 years, and in my USAmerican congregations, my impression is that it went from half-Democrat to predominantly Democrat (but that’s just observation, not data). |
I’ve live outside Utah for my entire life, excluding 4 years spent at BYU (entirely on the east coast). My impression has always been that most Mormons are Republicans. That’s just my observation from someone who’s always lived in the US. |
DKL, In my limited international experience, members of the Church enthusiastically supported Communist candidates without any sense that their politics were in conflict with their religion. |
arj, Ronan’s wife told me that in the UK, Mormons are more or less randomly distributed among the parties there, giving examples of Mormon MPs and their party affiliation. |