‘Swarmin’ With Mormons’

Posted on | January 27, 2012 | 64 Comments

John McCain, Luis Fortuno and Mitt Romney during
rally at Lanco & Harris, Orlando, Jan. 27, 2012

ORLANDO, Fla.
If you don’t vote for Mitt, why do you hate America? That was the fundamental theme of Friday’s super-patriotic rally for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at an industrial warehouse here.

After a three-hour drive from Jacksonville, I arrived slightly late and was stunned by the size of the crowd, as evidenced by the cars parked streetside and in every parking lot near the Lanco & Harris warehouse. Four TV satellite trucks were parked near the loading dock, and as I walked up the ramp into the warehouse, some cranky geezer was onstage ranting about how he was fed up with all these darned debates.

“Nineteen of ’em! I’m tired of the mud wrestling!” the geezer said, provoking applause from the crowd of about 500 packed into the warehouse. As I got closer to the stage, I recognized the cranky geezer as Sen. John McCain, who then said: “Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!”

OK, maybe I just imagined that last quote, which didn’t show up in Maggie Haberman’s report for the Politico, but I’m sure I got the trademark cranky-geezer tone just right.

Exactly why the Romney campaign wants this elderly loser campaigning for them, I don’t know. McCain lost Florida by 200,000 votes four years ago. But there are lots of grumpy old folks in Florida who are registered Republicans, and maybe having McCain stumping for Mitt generates some sympathy or something.

Anyway, the crowd was big and enthusiastic, and I worked my way around to the other side of the stage where I saw Eric Ferhnstrom, one of Romney’s top advisers, and asked him, “Y’all got this pretty much locked up, don’t you?”

The polls show Romney pulling away here in Florida, but Ferhnstrom wouldn’t admit the obvious: Mitt’s going to win this one in a landslide. Instead, he merely agreed that “the trend is encouraging,” and said, “Mitt hasn’t won a day since he won South Carolina.”

Which is true. For the past week, Newt’s been swinging wildly, and desperation is not attractive. He’s headed for a failure of Perry-eque proportions here, and the none-too-subtle assertion that Newt’s the victim of an Establishment conspiracy — a myth that even Sarah Palin has apparently bought into — only makes it more embarrassing.

The main point of tonight’s rally was for Mitt to collect the endorsement of the Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno who, in keeping with the super-patriotic theme, praised Romney for being “committed to protecting the homeland, and that includes Puerto Rico.”

It was hard to miss the implication that, if any of the other Republicans gets the nomination, Puerto Rico will be overrun by Iranian terrorists. But the subtexts of campaign rhetoric are generally lost on crowds of jazzed-up enthusiastic partisans, so Fortuno’s comment was cheered by the audience with the same fervor as they had cheered McCain’s earlier darn-these-stupid-debates comment.

Anyway, the crowd was large and as rabidly as pro-Romney as any crowd I’ve seen and they didn’t seem any more “Establishment” than any other GOP crowd you might find during this campaign.

Eventually, I found Sarah Rumpf, who had an assistant shooting video of Mitt’s speech. And then afterwards, I bumped into Dave Weigel, who was wondering what percentage of the audience might be Mormon.

“All of them,” I said. “They’re everywhere. We’re surrounded by ’em. The place is swarmin’ with Mormons.”

Which might be about half-true. Sarah had told me that there are a lot more Mormons in Central Florida than most people suspect. Nobody has any solid statistics on how many LDS there are in the Sunshine State, but they are sufficiently numerous as to give Romney a solid “base” of core supporters, in the same way that dopehead college kids give Ron Paul a solid base, or angry middle-aged guys form the core of the Gingrich grassroots.

And that’s probably enough raw slander for one night. I’m supposed to be driving down to Naples, where Dan Collins‘s parents have a condo they’re not using. There aren’t any campaign events near Naples tomorrow, but I’ve got unlimited mileage on this rented Chevy, so what do I care? Besides, I need some rest, before I get all cranky and start grumbling about these darned debates — “You kids get off my lawn!”

— 30 —

The Mitt-maniacs were out in force.

The rock-star candidate shakes hands after his speech.

Sarah Rumpf (right) and her assistant, whose name I forgot.

Category: Election 2012, Fear and Loathing in the Sunshine State, Florida, John McCain, Mitt Romney

Comments

64 Responses to “‘Swarmin’ With Mormons’”

Anonymous
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:14 pm

“…and they didn’t seem any more ‘Establishment’ than any other GOP crowd you might find during this campaign.”

That’s what the Establishment wants you to think.

That might be a joke.
Anonymous
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:18 pm

Are those all plastic vessels in that first photo?

I meant along the back wall.

That also might be a joke.
Sarahrumpf
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:27 pm

Stacy – this is my hometown. I know a LOT of people in the crowd. That wasn’t Mormons. That was local Republican Executive Committee members, conservative activists, and some of the local Puerto Rican & Cuban community. Governor Fortuno is very popular with a lot of people here.

Also, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but your cousin John McCain was actually pretty dang funny. You missed his remarks when you were late.

Did you make it in time to hear Fortuno? He was very good. Gave a great speech with lots of economic and pro-military details.

Sarah Rumpf
http://www.sunshinestatesarah.com
@rumpfshaker
Sarahrumpf
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

Also, my friend’s name is Ann Marie and she was very nice to help with my video camera 🙂
tranquil.night
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

Who the hell has said anything about a conspiracy, numbskull. It’s a coordinated effort.

You’re fucking convinced Erick Erickson is a secret double-agent intentionally shitting on the primaries for his own nefarious desires.

If by some stroke of luck Santorum finds himself back in a leading position, your camp is going to find yourself on the wrong end of an establishment “conspiracy” to mold media narratives against you. I’d like to see how smug you are about it then
Cube
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:39 pm

Just caught Newt on talking with Greta tonight. Talked about wanting to restore a sense of what it means to be an American, meaning we get things done instead of navel-gazing. This was not a desperate attempt to avoid getting creamed, it just came out naturally. My gut reaction: He’s not just saying this stuff, HE GETS IT. I’ve been undecided up until now but I think I just found my candidate. Only thing is, I don’t want to kill off his chances like has happened with all the others I’ve supported the last two cycles. Yes, I’ll still listen to all the candidates; even Ron Paul got quite a bit exactly right in his speech the night of the SC primary.
Sarahrumpf
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:39 pm

It’s a paint factory. Those are paint cans. 🙂
Anonymous
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:40 pm

It looks like it was a fun event.

I want orange juice all of a sudden.
Anonymous
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:42 pm

That is not a ginger thing. I just associate oranges with central Florida.
WarEagle82
January 27th, 2012 @ 11:57 pm

Not voting for Mitt, no matter what!
Adjoran
January 28th, 2012 @ 12:23 am

You’re both quite pretty, just remember to avoid old men in felt hats and you’ll do well.
Adjoran
January 28th, 2012 @ 12:24 am

No, Erick’s just trying to make a buck. Like many who get on a wild ride, he had the idea he was driving.
Adjoran
January 28th, 2012 @ 12:25 am

Obama will thank you for your support.
Adjoran
January 28th, 2012 @ 12:37 am

Sorry Stacy, but we already KNOW you hate America. You voted for Bob Barr, it doesn’t get much more hateful.

Too bad about Palin. She has allowed her big heart to blind her – comparing Newt to Jesus’ persecution? The rat bastard is a lot closer to Judas Iscariot by his record of betrayal. But she’ll recover and come back – it’s like when a good girl dates Will Folks by accident. Lava soap and hard-bristled brushes, Sarah, the smell eventually goes away.

Talk about a “conspiracy” against Newt, this is how far it’s gone: he served with about 350 other Republicans while he was in the House (including GOP Senators), but very few have come forward to endorse him. Why do you suppose that is? Who “got to” them? Did Strom Thurmond deliberately die prematurely to avoid having to make the choice?

Devilish, these murky “establishment” types, lurking in the shadows making shady deals, arranging dirty deeds to be done dirt cheap, never leaving a fingerprint, hair follicle, or semen stain to be DNA tested, scurrying away from the scenes of the crimes to hurry back to their new residences, in the tiny little brains of Gingrich supporters.
K-Bob
January 28th, 2012 @ 1:53 am

Hey, I am definitely hoping Santorum does well, but come on, Palin and Rush (you remember, the guy who was slamming Newt for using leftist language a few days ago?) are correct.

No it isn’t a stupid “conspiracy.” It’s a campaign. Happens every damn time (Willie Horton, John McCain’s adopted child “of color” for two examples). You can advocate for Rick without looking like RedState while doing so.

One of the largest ranching operations in the US is the Mormon Ranch in Florida. It’s been there for around 60 years. Hey, here’s a decent article on it.
Edward
January 28th, 2012 @ 2:25 am

“he served with about 350 other Republicans while he was in the House
(including GOP Senators), but very few have come forward to endorse
him. Why do you suppose that is? ”

You mean politicians? Right and they’ve shown courage …. when? What’s their upside in bucking the GOP establishment?

Here’s the flip side; Gingrich served with “350” other Republicans and yet only a very small number have come out to publicly crap all over him.

And no I still don’t like him for a lot of reasons including NY-23. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to swallow the GOP line.
Adjoran
January 28th, 2012 @ 2:41 am

But Newt is making a positive claim that his leadership is responsible basically for anything good that happened in the ’90s. If this were true, are you saying his former colleagues, most of whom are even retired now, would turn against him to side with some mythical “establishment” instead, dooming the country to a less qualified leader?

Nonsense.

The FACT is he has alienated virtually everyone he ever worked “with” except Bob Livingstone, hardly an “anti-establishment” figure.

The FACT is every dime he’s made in the last 35 years has either been directly from the federal government, “consulting” and peddling influence on it, or books and speaking fees derived from his service in it. He didn’t go home after resigning after conservatives booted his worthless ass from the Speaker’s chair, he bought a house in NoVa and joined the revolving door of influence peddlers.

The FACT is he has stabbed conservatives in the back time and time again, including while in the House, and denigrated those who disagreed with his apostasies.

If he were such great shakes, those who had worked under and with him over the years would be lining up behind him. They aren’t. There are good reasons. Learn them faster, please.
Adjoran
January 28th, 2012 @ 2:47 am

Willie Horton was introduced to the American public in a campaign by one Alvin Gore, Jr. The smear push-poll about McCain’s adopted child being a love child totaled about 200 phone calls in one day from a preacher and his family who had no connection to any campaign or party.

The only “campaign” here is Newt suddenly looking like he could win, which NOBODY believed possible before SC, and any Republican with a brain saying, “Holy crap! Not that jerk, we’ll be killed!”

Anyone who ever trusted Newt Gingrich was betrayed by him sooner or later.

Except Callista, that we know of, and she does have his $500,000 line of credit at Tiffany’s for insurance.
Anonymous
January 28th, 2012 @ 3:04 am

500 is large now. OK
Rick
January 28th, 2012 @ 4:02 am

If the Republicans pick Romney as their candidate, Obama can thank THEM (and YOU) for their support.
Mary Sue
January 28th, 2012 @ 4:11 am

“Did Strom Thurmond deliberately die prematurely to avoid having to make the choice?”
This was hilarious. This whole conspiracy thing is making me crazy and yours was the first comment that actually made me laugh about it.
Mary Sue
January 28th, 2012 @ 4:16 am

Forgot the reason I stopped here. I thought you should see this post at Daily Caller . Video included, would make a nice ad http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/27/santorum-actually-opposed-individual-mandate-in-1994-race-for-u-s-senate/
smitty
January 28th, 2012 @ 4:36 am

It’s all fun and games until the convention, after which we REALLY need to shift gears and support the nominee, even if his surname sounds like ‘nominee’.
Kitty Myers
January 28th, 2012 @ 6:53 am

Exclusive Poll: Gingrich, Romney in Dead Heat Statewide

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/238481/483/Exclusive-Poll-Gingrich-Romney-in-Dead-Heat-Statewide
K-Bob
January 28th, 2012 @ 7:07 am

It appears ALGORE didn’t bring up Willie Horton directly, but did bring up the furlough program (which was already a major ding because the folks in Mass. knew about Willie Horton).

And while I love to criticize Republicans, I disagree with that characterization. It’s more like “Holy Crap! Not Romney. We’ll even take Newt over that guy!”
K-Bob
January 28th, 2012 @ 7:29 am

If it’s Romney, Jim Robinson and a lot of Freepers aren’t gonna do it. I’ve seen a lot of folks making that same claim. Add those to the saner Ron Paul folks and you can see that the non-Tea Party Republicans have screwed themselves thoroughly.

As for me, I will write in someone (not Ron Paul) or vote Libertarian. I will also vote in the downticket races.

If Obamacare isn’t gone in two years, it won’t matter if Romney or Obama is in the White House. Not even the SCOTUS appointments would matter as much as so many Anyone But Obama (ABO) folks keep saying. Things will be that screwed up. Like Britain.

This ABO business was a tactical blunder, akin to someone telling the Realtor they plan to pay full price if the negotiations don’t work out. It’s no surprise where it’s led.
K-Bob
January 28th, 2012 @ 7:30 am

He wore the wrong headgear, obviously.
Rick
January 28th, 2012 @ 7:38 am

Sorry, smitty, but I just don’t think I’ll do that. I can barely see myself voting for Newt, even though I know we’ll be fighting him even more than we fought Bush (especially about amnesty for illegals). But, a vote for Romney is a vote for the Obamacare socialist mindset and for homosexual marriage (“But, they MADE me do it!”), and that’s a vote I will not cast. I would rather the Democrats collapse the country than that the Republicans do so. Santorum is my guy, but if he’s not the nominee, I’ll probably skip out the presidential checkbox. I know some people want to blame Americans like me for the candidates the Stupid Party gives us, but it’s their fault, not ours.
Mick
January 28th, 2012 @ 9:06 am

Mormons represent about .5 -1% of Floridians, proportionally distributed through Florida’s population centers. If that’s a ‘solid core’, then Romney is in real trouble.

Nevertheless, Romney’s advantages among his co-religionists can’t be overstated. He doesn’t have to build trust with Mormons the way he has to with other groups.

Romney’s Mormon heuristics–two year mission service, family life, church leadership and family history, are similar to Huckabee’s Evangelical bona fides, or Obama’s skin color.

He’ll probably get a proportion of the Mormon vote comparable to Obama’s share of the black vote in 2008.
Sven
January 28th, 2012 @ 9:25 am

Nobody has any solid statistics on how many LDS there are in the Sunshine State, but they are sufficiently numerous as to give Romney a solid “base” of core supporters

False, stupid, and lazy — which is typical of the traveling political press. “Solid statistics” are posted online by the church and by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. All you had to do was Google it or go to the Wikipedia article on LDS membership statistics. The church’s page on its Florida membership (linked at Wikipedia) has enough information that you could actually gauge whether there are more Mormons in central Florida than other parts of the state.

And here’s the statewide number for Florida: Mormons make up 0.71 percent of the population. These easily-available statistics actually show that Mormons are relatively scarce in Florida, compared to the country as a whole and even compared to Florida’s neighboring states. There are more Mormons per capita in Alabama and Georgia.

A fraction of 1 percent of the population is hardly enough for a “solid base” — even when you make the false, stupid, and lazy assumption that every Mormon is backing Romney.

Here are some facts. Over a third of Utah governors have been Democrats. Pew just released an in-depth survey of Mormons, including their views on Romney. One of the survey’s findings: only 74 percent of Mormons lean Republican.

Here’s some logic: if Mormons only vote for Mormons and they provide Romney’s base, how did he win New Hampshire while splitting that base with Huntsman? And if Mormons vote as a Republican bloc, how does Democrat Harry Reid win elections in Nevada, where Mormons are eight times more numerous than in Florida?

Five minutes with Wikipedia and Google can produce a lot of solid statistics. But you based your phony report on what rhymes with Mormon. Traveling reporters should bring back information that readers can’t access from their own armchairs. You could have started by asking Sarah Rumpf one of the essential reporter’s questions: What do you actually *know* about the distribution of Mormons in Florida? It’s an essential question because it quickly separates the people who know what they’re talking about from the people who just say stuff.

You should have asked yourself the question.
Sven
January 28th, 2012 @ 9:46 am

I know a LOT of people in the crowd. That wasn’t Mormons.

When your only source for what you report disavows your report, that should be a wake-up call. Take a look at what you did: you claimed that Mormons are “numerous” in Florida and that they support Romney — on the basis of *zero* evidence. To say what you said, you would have had to find at least one Mormon Romney supporter. But no…make it up and phone it in. Why waste shoe leather when you can just imagine the news?
Pathfinder's wife
January 28th, 2012 @ 9:48 am

Great…a flip flopper or a dilettante. Make a choice.

And if you don’t vote for whichever of those two makes it, then you get 4 more years of a person who makes Carter look like a good and effective president (actually, even if you do vote for either, you could still end up with Carter’s savior…because a lot of people aren’t all that thrilled with voting for Caspar Carp or the Nutty Professor!).

Well, not just yet at least; not just yet — but it’s likely coming.
The throw away write in is starting to look very enticing at this point.
ThePaganTemple
January 28th, 2012 @ 10:12 am

Is Obama going to issue a blanket statement of thanks to all the Republicans who aren’t going to vote for Mitt, or is he going to thank us one at a time. Because if the latter, it might take some time.
ThePaganTemple
January 28th, 2012 @ 10:13 am

No.
ThePaganTemple
January 28th, 2012 @ 10:17 am

Isn’t it strange how we who oppose Romney are oftentimes accused of anti-Mormon prejudice, but when we hear how Mormons will support Romney based on his religion-not a peep.
ThePaganTemple
January 28th, 2012 @ 10:22 am

Of course there’s always the possibility that Sarah isn’t saying this because she’s bought into a “conspiracy theory”. You know, she could just be stating what she knows to be an obvious fact. You know, like from experience and stuff.
Tennwriter
January 28th, 2012 @ 10:27 am

But if you vote third party….

IT’S ALL YOUR FAULT IF OBAMA WINS!!!!!!!!!

/sarc
Pathfinder's wife
January 28th, 2012 @ 10:37 am

Somehow the longer this goes on, the more able I am to take the slings and arrows of such accusations with a light heart 😉
Sven
January 28th, 2012 @ 11:01 am

Not really strange when you consider the actual facts.

1) The anti-Mormon prejudice in this election has been documented. Perry supporter Pastor Robert Jeffress has openly campaigned against Romney on the basis of religion. Gallup has measured the extent of anti-Mormon prejudice: 22 percent of the population won’t vote for a Mormon.

2) What you’re “hearing” about how Mormons will vote for Romney because he’s Mormon has not been documented. It’s people like Stacy and Mick engaging in speculation without evidence. Look at Stacy’s post: he imagines a room “swarming” with Mormon Romney supporters, but he can’t find a single one to interview.

Find me a Mormon who says he won’t vote for Gingrich because Gingrich is Catholic, and then we’ll talk about whether the equivalency you posit is real.
Sven
January 28th, 2012 @ 11:05 am

Forgot about this one: Gingrich’s Iowa political director told voters that Romney’s church is a “cult.”
ThePaganTemple
January 28th, 2012 @ 11:36 am

I’m sick of voting for one candidate I oppose just to defeat another candidate whom I oppose a little more.

Do Republican voters deserve a candidate who runs as a Republican? I think we do. If the moderates and independents want a candidate, then they should organize into an official party and nominate one.

They could call it the American Idol party, or America’s Got Talent Party. They could make Simon Cowel their party Chairman and maybe they could nominate Steven Tyler.
ThePaganTemple
January 28th, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

Guess what, Hillary has announced she’s going to retire from the State Department. Granted, its not until after the election, but that could also be a signal she’s ready and available to replace Biden on the ticket.

http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/2012/01/hillary-clinton-to-resign-from-state.html
Anonymous
January 28th, 2012 @ 1:14 pm

“Newt’s been swinging wildly, and desperation is not attractive. He’s headed for a failure of Perry-equeproportions here, and the none-too-subtle assertion that Newt’s the victim of an Establishment conspiracy – a myth that even Sarah Palin has apparently bought into — only makes it more embarrassing.”

You are way, way off on this one man

Palin bought into it, just like Levin and Rush… you know better though

Newt leads the delegate count and is up 8pts nationally in the latest Gallup poll, maybe that explains the ‘desperation’- but not on frontrunner Gingrich’s part
Saturday Roundup 1/28/12 Palin Throwing Punches Edition | Katy Pundit
January 28th, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

[…] ‘Swarmin’ With Mormons’ […]
Multimedia Group
January 28th, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

It’s dishonest to use the word “prejudice”. A better word would be “discrimination” as in “I’m a discriminating person who knows a cult follower when I see one.”. The irony here is that most people who think LDS is borderline blasphemy, would vote for Mitt if he were actually a good Mormon, which he never really has been. At least we could look to Mormon doctrine as a motivator for an “orthodox” Mormon. But Mitt has never shown he follows the faith.

Romney has always been a progressive statist trying now to cover that history up as if the Intertubes doesn’t exist. In fact, he is MUCH more of a political opportunist than Newt but his opportunism tries to make conservatives think he’s not liberal while Newt’s is that he occasionally attempts to make liberals think he’s not that conservative.

There is ZERO upside to Mitt as our nominee regardless of his marginal Mormanism. If he wins then he governs as the progressive he always has been and conservatism is set back decades if not buried forever and if he loses (and of the final four he’s the one most likely to go down in flames), then he gives us four more years of Obama.

Meanwhile, if Newt or Rick take the nomination, they will both govern like the Reaganites they both are. There is NO chance that either of these guys will nominate a Souter or Kennedy to the court. There is 100% chance they will halt Obamacare. And if either take the nomination and lose, then yes, we have Obama for four more years but Conservatism will continue its rise and eventually the progressives will be buried.

Put another way, the short-sighted, tactical vote is for Romney, resulting in disaster no matter what. The strategic vote is for Newt or Rick knowing that if they take the nomination, they will govern conservatively, and if they lose, the fight can continue.
Multimedia Group
January 28th, 2012 @ 2:59 pm

Yeah, don’t you hate it when people are truth-tellers.

I have never understood why LDS are so defensive about being called something so clearly obvious.

Mormonism is a Christian cult just like orthodox Christianity is technically a Jewish cult. The difference is that the founder of the Christian church is Jesus Christ while the founder of the LDS movement was Joseph Smith.

Anyone who knows even a little bit about Smith knows he created Mormon doctrine out of a hodge podge of Mosaism, Methodism, Episcopalianism, Catholicism, and the personal views of Campbell, Rigdon, and Pratt.

John Quincy Adams himself wrote an excellent book on the birth of Mormonism and he uses the term “hodge podge” to describe the mashup that is this belief system.

So that leaves well-informed Christian voters with mixed emotions. A “marginal” Mormon like Mitt who probably doesn’t really buy into Smith’s teachings, might be less objectionable as our candidate except for his liberalism. On the other hand, a “good” Mormon would be much more likely to be reliably conservative due to the Mormon belief in good works and strong social values. But that leaves many wondering about his judgement given that he has bought into a fabricated theological belief system. Is it okay to ignore that level of lack of clear thinking if we know that otherwise, the guy is a conservative?

In the case of Mitt, he is neither reliably Mormon nor conservative. So does this makes the decision easier?
Multimedia Group
January 28th, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

Yeah, don’t you hate it when people are truth-tellers.

I have never understood why LDS are so defensive about being called something so clearly obvious.

Mormonism is a Christian cult just like orthodox Christianity is technically a Jewish cult. The difference is that the founder of the Christian church is Jesus Christ while the founder of the LDS movement was Joseph Smith.

Anyone who knows even a little bit about Smith knows he created Mormon doctrine out of a hodge podge of Mosaism, Methodism, Episcopalianism, Catholicism, and the personal views of Campbell, Rigdon, and Pratt.

John Quincy Adams himself wrote an excellent book on the birth of Mormonism and he uses the term “hodge podge” to describe the mashup that is this belief system.

So that leaves well-informed Christian voters with mixed emotions. A “marginal” Mormon like Mitt who probably doesn’t really buy into Smith’s teachings, might be less objectionable as our candidate except for his liberalism. On the other hand, a “good” Mormon would be much more likely to be reliably conservative due to the Mormon belief in good works and strong social values. But that leaves many wondering about his judgement given that he has bought into a fabricated theological belief system. Is it okay to ignore that level of lack of clear thinking if we know that otherwise, the guy is a conservative?

In the case of Mitt, he is neither reliably Mormon nor conservative. So does this makes the decision easier?
Multimedia Group
January 28th, 2012 @ 3:02 pm

I have never understood why LDS are so defensive about being called something so clearly obvious.

Mormonism is a Christian cult just like orthodox Christianity is technically a Jewish cult. The difference is that the founder of the Christian church is Jesus Christ while the founder of the LDS movement was Joseph Smith.

Anyone who knows even a little bit about Smith knows he created Mormon doctrine out of a hodge podge of Mosaism, Methodism, Episcopalianism, Catholicism, and the personal views of Campbell, Rigdon, and Pratt.

John Quincy Adams himself wrote an excellent book on the birth of Mormonism and he uses the term “hodge podge” to describe the mashup that is this belief system.

So that leaves well-informed Christian voters with mixed emotions. A “marginal” Mormon like Mitt who probably doesn’t really buy into Smith’s teachings, might be less objectionable as our candidate except for his liberalism. On the other hand, a “good” Mormon would be much more likely to be reliably conservative due to the Mormon belief in good works and strong social values. But that leaves many wondering about his judgement given that he has bought into a fabricated theological belief system. Is it okay to ignore that level of lack of clear thinking if we know that otherwise, the guy is a conservative?

In the case of Mitt, he is neither reliably Mormon nor conservative. So does this makes the decision easier?
Multimedia Group
January 28th, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

I too noticed this quote and smirked. A “conspiracy” is only one if it is kept secret. Everyone knows the establishment wants Romney. This isn’t news.

They don’t understand why the base is gravitating toward Newt. They see him as unreliable and a loose cannon. I have to agree but given that Mitt is a reliable progressive, I’ll take the guy who occasionally tries to reach out to the Libs to try to prove he’s not the boogy man over the guy who will undoubtedly sell out the conservative movement and leave it in ruins.

The jury is in on Mitt. He’s a Lib and we all know it. The establishment supporting him at all costs, just helps solidify that fact. The jury is out on Newt. He governed as a Reagan conservative but has dipped his toe into statist rhetoric on occasion.

It is very likely that Newt doesn’t particularly like being called a right-wing extremist so he has attempted to soften that image over the years. It is true, he is a risk but it’s a small one and a risk worth taking.

I’m with Thomas Sowell; Romney is a HUGE gamble if you’re hoping for a conservative.
Multimedia Group
January 28th, 2012 @ 3:14 pm

I too noticed this quote and smirked. A “conspiracy” is only one if it is kept secret. Everyone knows the establishment wants Romney. This isn’t news.

They don’t understand why the base is gravitating toward Newt. They see him as unreliable and a loose cannon. I have to agree but given that Mitt is a reliable progressive, I’ll take the guy who occasionally tries to reach out to the Libs to try to prove he’s not the boogy man over the guy who will undoubtedly sell out the conservative movement and leave it in ruins.

The jury is in on Mitt. He’s a Lib and we all know it. The establishment supporting him at all costs, just helps solidify that fact. The jury is out on Newt. He governed as a Reagan conservative but has dipped his toe into statist rhetoric on occasion.

It is very likely that Newt doesn’t particularly like being called a right-wing extremist so he has attempted to soften that image over the years. It is true, he is a risk but it’s a small one and a risk worth taking.

I’m with Thomas Sowell; Romney is a HUGE gamble if you’re hoping for a conservative.