The American Spectator

Don Carlson| 5.11.09 @ 4:39PM

Candor is the best thing for a struggling political party--or for a successful one. If an issue, like religion, is being talked on the street, it should be addressed by political leaders and candidates. If the chairman of the party thinks that Romney's adherence to Mormonism is an issue he should be free to say so, but also to say that it should not be an issue. More often than not a leader has to be a teacher, too.
It may be that the mass of American conservatives take liberal positions on many subjects, and they must speak out. Though I respect those who hold to religion, I do not believe religious values should be forced on others as a matter of law. One can abhor the act of abortion while reserving the right of every individual woman to choose her own way. It may be that until conservatives accept that individual liberty is of primary importance and the abortion issue subordinate to it, American conservatism will lack sufficient traction to sway a majority of American voters.
It is the liberty of individual Americans that is being attacked and diminished by the Democratic Party; Americans are largely unaware of it; that is our issue. To think or speak or act as if it were otherwise is to enter the wasteland of political equivocation--to lose.
Anti-abortion groups and voters are advocating for the same awful kind of government imposition that is favored by the most despicable of leftist elitists. American conservatives must stop going there because it is a position that undercuts what used to be fundamental American political principles.

jr| 5.11.09 @ 4:50PM

Steele is where he is because he is black. There are other real Republicans with good credentials who should have selected for the chair. Steele is a good follow-on to Jorge Bush's placement of Mel Martinez as a phony Chairman. That one was, like Bush, an open border, free the illegals, and jobs for everyone except for real Americans. Get smashed in an election and the stupid Republican party jokers select Steele. Was I born in the wrong era?

Luke Taylor| 5.11.09 @ 5:43PM

I will not contribute one more penny to the Republican Party until Steele steps down or is fired. He (Steele) just does get it!

Kurtis Fechtmeyer| 5.11.09 @ 6:17PM

I agree that Steele should avoid comments on radio personalities, like Limbaugh, but it is certainly fair game for him to bring up reasons that he believes some in the party rejected Romney. The reality is that with the war on the front burner, the Republicans prioritized national security experience over economic experience, and that is why Romney did not catch on. When the economic world turned on its head, many including myself (a Guiliani then McCain supporter) regretted not having Romney's hand on the tiller. McCain's economic populism and lack of clear understanding of the crisis was a real problem for the party. In hindsight, Romney/Jindal would have been much better.

Pkane| 5.11.09 @ 6:20PM

Ugh. We have to ditch this clown. Is Fred Thompson still available?

What is the RNC chair doing hosting a radio show anyway? His purpose is to get the party message out. Being interviewed on radio is great, but what purpose is there in having him guest host a show? Especially when he's got a foot-in-mouth problem.

Kurtis Fechtmeyer| 5.11.09 @ 6:27PM

Steele is less buttoned down than most people would like as a Chairman of a party, but for now we need a more open dialogue in my view. I agree on one point: he shouldn't given any credence to the latest infotainment media spin. For example, I'm not sure that Mitt's Mormonism wasn't more an issue for the NYT than for the Base.

Alex| 5.11.09 @ 6:50PM

Steele is correct in his analysis, even if maybe he should have kept it to himself. Mormonism is an extremely disturbing cult once you look into it. And Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper on every significant issue. Those are just the facts.

edward cropper| 5.11.09 @ 7:38PM

Mike Steele can't respond with any clarity because he is not clear in his own mind where he really stands.
He is a moderate at best and liberal at worst. He has no real conservative credentials and is trying to play all sides.
If he were white he would no thave been given the time of day.
I will not give the RNC a nickel as long as the current leadership is at the helm.

BD57| 5.11.09 @ 7:43PM

Don:

That is your opinion - and you ARE free to hold it.

Others can hold (for reasons entirely unrelated to religion) that the unborn are "persons" - defenseless ones at that - who ought not be sacrificed for convenience.

Kurtis:

You're right about the New York Times.

I suspect "the base" would be far more open to dialogue with Mitt about his beliefs, including his faith, than the left would ever be ... or, for that matter, than the "demo-lite" Republican 'moderates' would ever be.

Why, I seem to remember non-Mormon conservatives who openly supported Mitt Romney "regardless."

ConservativeWanderer| 5.11.09 @ 8:03PM

Why, I seem to remember non-Mormon conservatives who openly supported Mitt Romney "regardless."

(raises hand)

Well, with one caveat... I supported Romney after Fred dropped out.

copp| 5.11.09 @ 9:12PM

All anyone can see is Mormonism. Steele accused Mitt of flip-flopping on economic issues during the campaign. That's an idiotic statement. I challenge him or anyone to call to mind one instance where Mitt did any such thing. My mind, and I'm sure yours, draws a complete blank! And Steele puts that forward as a key (and currently very timely!) reason why Mitt was rejected.??? Has he noticed Mitt may be running on just that issue right now?? The man is a fool.

BJC| 5.11.09 @ 9:24PM

I've before this pondered in these pages whether Michael Steele is really "ready for prime time" -- because one crucial skill really needed in the RNC Chairman right now is advanced communications abilities. Now, granted, talk radio is a tough one -- which explains why a few gifted hosts outperform all the rest -- and commonsense conservatism, Rush Limbaugh atop the successful, is a key factor. Maybe Chairman Steele shouldn't have attempted it. But he needs the think-on-your-feet training. And stacked up in a direct comparison with Mr. "57 States of America" and "Speaking Austrian in Austria," Mr. Steele is downright silver-tongued in eloquent reality-based statements.

That said, this was a perfect opportunity for deflection onto addressing the Leftists and their modus operandi instead of in-house differences. The central point of discussion, in answering "Jay" in this line of response would have been to muse over whether Mitt Romney would have been better positioned, better able to counterattack Leftist Democrats during the general election than John McCain was. That's hard to gauge precisely, but Romney most likely would have done as McCain did in supporting Bush's purported "unsticking" of the credit markets in mid-September, and Romney most likely would have been as bend-over-backward conciliatory toward Barack Obama in saying like McCain did to supporters that they "had nothing to fear" from an Obama administration. And certainly a Leftist line of attack on Romney (not available for lampooning McCain) would have tarred him as a big-money guy by his own lights instead of by his wife's inheritance. My best speculation is that means Romney would have done no better than McCain in the general election against Obama.

And we Republicans need to have a very serious, behind-closed-doors venting about Mormons in the GOP coalition. Mormons are getting incorrectly targeted for blame about California's Prop. 8 vote successfully defending natural marriage against government-enforced redefinition for pro-homosexuality propaganda aims. We Republicans need to be very stand-up and stalwart in taking down these lies about the Mormons and the baseless attacks on Mormons about this. Doubtless, the Leftists have a two-pronged objective in mind here -- to peel Mormons off the Republican conservative coalition as well as to harm Mitt Romney's prospects for future campaigns and current activism "revitalizing" the GOP.

But then there's the thing about whether we can find any prominent Mormon Republican who's conservative across the board. No nationally prominent elected GOP Mormon is reliably conservative on everything -- and that not being reliably conservative is what damaged Romney's appeal to the Republican base voters more than any supposed bias against him associated with his Mormon beliefs. But Republicans do need to find out why no major nationally elected Mormon who claims the GOP as political home is a totally Right Republican. What's up with that? Is that because of anything central to Mormonism or is it somewhat coincidental?

runescape gold| 5.11.09 @ 9:43PM

Swine flu swine influenza virus from an acute respiratory tract caused by infectious diseases, the disease frequently occur in pigs, but rarely led to the death of pigs.

Dennis D| 5.11.09 @ 10:29PM

I am not a huge Steele fan but everything he said was true. Yes the word in the evangelical community was they had reservations about a Mormon. And Romney did become the Gov of Mass by being a Liberal then suddenly moved right to run for President. Lets give Steele a break here. He is calling it like it IS.

tonypal| 5.11.09 @ 11:27PM

I am baffled by Mr. Steele, who seemed to be a very impressive man prior to becoming RNC chair. In fact, I saw him as a potential national candidate in 2012, either at the top or bottom of the ticket. But his comments over the past few months have pretty much ended that.

I also don't buy the premise that Mr. Steele needs to speak his mind. This isn't about him speaking his mind, it's about the proper role of the chair of the RNC. His role is to build the party, a purpose he frustrates with what went on here. When the RNC chair speaks out to the public, it must always be with one purpose in mind: party building.

I think he has time to recover in his current role, but I do find it disturbing that he has apparently not learned his lesson from the Limbaugh fiasco. Steele is a committed conservative who is more than capable of articulating the conservative message, but this nonsense must stop now.

The only attacks he should be making are on Obama and the democrats. There's so much to go after there, it's a wonder he has the time to utter a single sentence that is critical of his fellow republicans. He also needs to realize that conservatives and republicans in general are thirsty for leadership. To hear the head of the RNC criticize a fellow republican at this time in history is disheartening.

As for Romney, although he is a very bright man with some obvious qualities, I don't know if he is the man going forward. Of course, he would have been a superior candidate to what we had last fall, but that's not really saying much. It just doesn't serve any purpose to get in his way. Let's just let Romney and others rise and fall on their own. Mr. Steele should focus his energies on building the party and his fire on the veritable cornucupia of targets at his disposal, Obama and the dems.

Eyas| 5.11.09 @ 11:51PM

I mostly agree with Dennis D, above. This isn't that big a deal, but it does ignore the reality of the primaries -- that McCain was essentially selected FOR conservative Republican, not BY conservative Republicans.

Actually, I find Mr. Klein's comments more disingenuous, offensive, defeatist, and wrong.

"I was critical of Romney during the campaign.." Why, exactly? And whom did you support?

"agree that he was ultimately rejected by the base," Do we need a recap of the West Virgina Primary? Besides, who are you and Steele referring to as "the base"? Because it ain't conservatives -- at least, not conservatives who don't mistrust Mormons just because their Mormons.

"and don't think he would have stood a chance against Obama." Really? And what's your assessment as to why McCain lost? McCain lost by 3% of the popular vote. Is it really that beyond your conception that Romney could have done better?

"In my view, it's particularly inappropriate for Steele to bring up Romney's Mormonism." Really? Were you outspoken against Huckabee's clear anti-Mormonism?

(BTW, I'm NOT a Mormon. I simply find anti-Mormonism to be as offensive as anti-Semitism, anti-Hinduism, or almost any other religious litmus test.)

Tom| 5.12.09 @ 12:19AM

I thought Steele had a legitimate point. I think many people's religion influences there political thinking. Romney was a pro-Amnesty supporter just like fellow Mormon Jeff Flake. They both want to expand the H-1B too. Why? Because minority religions always want more diversity. That's not Anti-Mormonism or Pro-Mormonism. It's just a fact.

In the midst of a heated election Steele might not be the man for the job but at a time when we need someone who tells it like it is I like Steele.

Personally, as an Eisenhower Republican, I'm not too impressed by many people in the Republican Party. I didn't think Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II were good presidents it's just that I think Carter, Clinton, and Obama were worse. This whole idea of extreme libertarianism that has infected the Republican Party needs to be done away with. We need to go back to core values: American jobs for American citizens, supporting the 2nd Amendment, no abortion, no affirmative action, no Amnesty, etc. Instead the whole party seems to be a lapdog for the The Club For Growth and the only thing the party is ever focused on is lowering taxes for the rich and businessment. Then they throw us a bone every once in a while with a conservative judge. The Republican Party basically has turned into a giant fraud perpetrated by the rich who are using evangelicals and conservatives. It's time we took back the GOP and started electing "CONSERVATIVES" like Pat Buchanan again instead of wafflers like Mitt Romney and John McCain. Hopefully, Sarah Palin runs in 2012 because that's who I plan on voting for.

Darrell| 5.12.09 @ 1:12AM

Why would an RNC chairman attack perhaps a future R presidential candidate? I think that parties should be done away with in America. Let the best man win!!
Screw Democrats and Republicans.
REVOLUTION.

Billy| 5.12.09 @ 1:28AM

Ron Paul for President. People bash him without knowing the facts about him (lack of understanding). This is what the two parties do, they blind people to obtaining facts and knowledge for themselves. Ron Paul wants to abolish the unjust IRS tax, which lacks representation and is manipulative. Don't worry, Ron Paul isn't crazy. He knows that Property tax is a just tax and that America could save lots of money by bringing all of its military back to America. Why does our hard earned money go to support the world military agenda of the socialist parties of the United States? From my "study" I know that 1% of United States population holds p of United States wealth in money and assests. ( How many of these hold the most?) These are Super rich and super powerful men (many of which are in the oil industy). Money holds all worldly power. Bush and Obama are some of these men's puppets. Maybe you think I'm crazy. And thats probably because you are blinded by lack of "study". The two parties are a joke. I'm only a Republican because of the moral stance on issues. When that day is over, every ignorant (thus controlled) Repulican and Democrat can go to hell. America needs a revolution and the rockafellars need to be hanged for all of their economic crimes. I suggest everyone read the confessions of an economic hit man. A good read.

Billy| 5.12.09 @ 1:29AM

*1% of United States population holds 70% of United States Wealth.

William| 5.12.09 @ 2:56AM

The Republican Party should just die. It is a mere weak sister Menshevik party to the Bolshevik Democrat Party.

Conservative principles are forever and the voters have not gone away, but we are held back by that rotting cabal of careerist turds, including Jeb Bush.

Andrew Price| 5.12.09 @ 5:26AM

I am a British conservative and also an evangelical Christian . Republicans would do well to take notice of Mr Steele's kite flying with respect to the Romney problem . It would be a catastrophe for the Republican party if there is another attempt by some in its establishment to promote a Mormon to be its Presidential candidate . Steele is spot on in flagging up the problems of Romney's Mormon convictions . Romney's belief that the Lord Jesus is the Devil's brother is deeply repulsive and offensive to Christians and millions will simply not vote for a man with such views . The idea that Romney with his awful baggage on race would face up Barack Obama is laughable.The historic Mormon position which Romney went along with is that Black Skin is the mark of God's displeasure . The Mormons even changed their absurd novel the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 30 v6 which up until 1980 read " they shall be a white and delightsome people " inorder to cover up their objectionable views .

Only the other day we were treated with the widely reported news that the Mormons had secretly baptized President Obama's dead mother . Jewish groups have been protesting vehemently over the Mormon practice of baptizing dead Jewish Holacaust victims.

How could the Republicans possibly fight an effective Presidential campaign with this sort of backdrop ?

Max| 5.12.09 @ 7:30AM

Andrew Price and Alex: It sounds like your knowledge of Mormonism is limited to 2nd hand hearsay, rather than personal research.
If you will do your own research, as I did, you'll find that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the real name of the Church, and that it is the only church on earth that fairly offers salvation and baptism to every soul that has ever lived upon the face of it.
In fact, this where baptism by the living, as proxy for the dead, comes into play: 1st Peter 4:6 tells us that Christ preached to those who are dead, after he died. And why would He do that? 1st Corinthians 15: 29 gives the answer -- so the living can be baptised for them! If you don't believe it, go ahead and read it yourself.
What other religion offers salvation to our ancestors who lived before or after the time of Jesus, who never knew of his gospel, nor had the opportunity to be baptised by his recognized authority?
Baptisms for the dead are performed as acts of love and service by members of the Church, in behalf of those that are dead. Of course, it is done with understanding that spirits of the dead are completely free to accept or reject the baptism, but the service is performed unselfishly, in their behalf, at the expense of the living.
Honestly, I've never seen a more all-inclusinve, accepting of all, religion.
An item you fail to mention, is that the Book of Mormon also records that the darker skinned people eventually become more righteous than the white race, and receive greater blessings of the Lord, and end up being the only group left upon the continent. So, the Book of Mormon isn't the racist book you describe.
If you'd like to read a free copy, call 1-888-537-2200. Or, go to Mormon . org and read it online. You'll be amazed at how much you've been deceived about this great book of scripture, that is a 2nd witness of Our Lord Jesus Christ! There's a promise written in the book by the last Prophet/writer in the book, Moroni: that if you read it and sincerely, with real intent, ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if it is true, "...he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost."
I have read "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ", and have asked for, and received that promised witness. I HAPPILY KNOW THAT IT IS TRUE, and I now know more peace, happiness, and joy than I ever knew was possible in this life. The teachings of this Church have revealed to me the purpose of this life and loving acceptance of all of God's children -- which includes you.
How sweet it is!!! Try it, you'll not only like it, you'll LOVE IT!!!

W. F. Butler| 5.12.09 @ 9:03AM

Romney's mormonism was a factor. You need to read "A Different God? Mit Romney, the Religious Right and the Mormon Question."

Sam| 5.12.09 @ 9:19AM

Remember Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee Chairman? Yeah, I didn't think so. No one has ever cared much (or bothered to report) about anything he says , although there was grumbling about his refusal to do anything about the super-long and contentious Democratic Primary race. Why so much focus on every little thing Steele says? Because the Democratic Party is incapable of survival without a "great Satan" to vilify and blame everything on and Bush is no longer President so they've resorted to attacking Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steel. And the media is simply trying to further the Democratic cause, as usual. As for Romney, he lost the Primary because the media loved McCain at the time and gave him free positive press coverage, the media hated Romney and tried to make him look bad, and Huckabee voters were told to follow McCain. True, there was some effect from the rabid "Christians" who would rather have a strongly pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-Marxist president than (gasp!) someone who's a Mormon. So that's what they got. I hope they're happy. They can blame themselves and their irrational religious prejudice.

Sean| 5.12.09 @ 9:22AM

I have seen worse from Steele than this. He was part of the establishments attack on Ron Paul. He would have been perfectly fine with a Romney candidacy as Romney is one of the big government liberals that the Republican party likes to put up as their candidates. Steele is spot on in some of his observations. The Baptists down south would never vote for a Mormon. Conservatives were not being fooled by a liberal governor now claiming to be a conservative. His conversion story on abortion was just not believable.

Andrew Price| 5.12.09 @ 9:32AM

Max - I think most of us know that the official name for the Mormons is the ' Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints '. Thank you for the telephone number to obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon , I have six different editions in my library I do not think I need another one at this stage .

I suppose you would like us to believe that Barack Obama's family will be so grateful for the generosity of the Mormons for baptizing their dead relalative as also the families of dead Jewish Holacaust victims . No doubt they will be delighted they are in the same company as Adolf Hitler who has also been baptized by the Mormons .

I am sure American people will be most interested to hear that the Mormons are the only conduit for salvation as the late Mormon Apostle Bruce R McConkie said " There is no salvation outside the Chuch of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints " see Mormon Doctrine p670

Eric Damon| 5.12.09 @ 9:51AM

As a former Mormon, I have to dispute the idea that one single verse in the Bible can support the idea of baptism for the dead as a biblically approved practice, or a Christian practice. Looking at that verse in context, Paul uses the pronouns 'we' and 'us' for the previous 28 verses, then switches to 'they' for verse 29, then immediately switches back to 'we' in verse 30. Undoubtedly the apostle was speaking of someone else when he said "Otherwise, what would THEY do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are THEY baptized for the dead?" He was not speaking of the believers in the church, whom he refrerred to as 'we' and 'us', but a 'they' who were not part of the church. Also, Hebrews 9: 27-28 makes it plain that there can be no baptism for the dead. The verses read as follows: "And it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered ONCE to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation." If death brings judgment for the individual, as the Bible clearlt states, then there can be no baptism for those who have died. We are given all the days of our lives to choose the fate of our souls for all eternity and are not given a chance to repent and recieve salvation after we pass on.

But this is not a referendum on Mormonism, it is a discussion about the way Michael Steele handled this and what he stated. And the fact of the matter is that many conservative Christian voters were put off by Romney's ties to the LDS church, and even more were put off by his flip-flopping on certain issues. He did switch his positions on abortion and other issues, and they did coincide strangely with his decision to run for the presidential nomination. So what does it matter if Steele said this or not? It's not like he said anything that the base weren't already thinking...and the voters did pretty much reject Mitt in the primaries. Hell, the most conservative speech Mitt gave on the trail was when he spoke at CPAC...and dropped out of the race! Steele simply answered a question with honesty and forthrightness, and for that he should be villified? It's not Steele's job to burnish Romney's image and credentials, or to start pushing him for a possible 2012 run. If Romney decides to run again, then Steele will have a responsibility to refrain from attacking him but until then he should continue to be open and honest, instead of trying to parse every word he says.

Andrew Price| 5.12.09 @ 10:24AM

Eric - I am very grateful for your remarks and I hope you and others will allow a Brit who does not have a vote in your great country to offer an analysis of Steele's motives .

Steele has the well being of the Republican party at heart - he knows that two Mormon candidates are thinking seriously of standing in 2012 Whatever one thinks of Romney and Huntsman it will be hugely controversial . Why not get the debate over now rather than 2012 when it will be too late .

I say Steele is showing political acumen .

Eichendorff| 5.12.09 @ 11:24AM

Mr. Price - We are all most fortunate that you don't have a vote in our country. Heaven knows we have enough of our own home-grown bigoted numbskulls here in America. We don't need any British ones.

Andrew Price| 5.12.09 @ 11:44AM

Mr Eichendorff - may I gently suggest that the future of the Republican party and possibly the future President of your country is of sufficient importance that reasoned discussion is far better than personal abuse . It would also reflect better on you .

Eichendorff| 5.12.09 @ 12:57PM

May I ever so gently suggest that you direct your considerable energies toward solutions you can apply to that basket-case of a country you live in, thereby leaving the Americans in peace. They are perfectly capable of dealing with their political system without your input. Such a contribution to world peace would reflect infinitely better on you.

Eichendorff| 5.12.09 @ 1:02PM

By the way, why do you insert a space before the full stop at the end of every sentence?

Ivan Ivanovich| 5.12.09 @ 1:18PM

I don't care much about Steele. I went out of my way to vote for Mitt in the Michigan primary, because I lived under his father, George, also a Mormon. I'm not a Mormon, but I know many fine people who are. The question never entered the Michigan governer's race and never cmae up in all the years George was leading the state. I think Mitt could have beat BHO, just because McCain did such a bad job and only lost by three points. Maybe there will be someone better by 2010, but right now I'm for Mitt.

Andrew Price| 5.12.09 @ 1:19PM

Mr Eichendorff - There are US citizens commenting on British politics and World affairs all the time . Are you seriously suggesting that I cannot comment on your political process ? May I also remind you this basket case whch you spoke of has committed vast sums of money and more importantly human lives fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in support of American foreign policy . Margaret Thatcher was a true friend of the US . This blog is not about me or the United Kingdom , but about Steele , Romney , Mormonism and the Republican party .

ktward| 5.12.09 @ 1:47PM

Jay Cost:

"If you're trying to woo marginal voters, you don't want to emphasize the fact that groups within the party have conflicts. "

Has Jay been under a rock? Every single GD day the 'Pubs are eating their own in front of a camera or mic. Steele is the very least of their problems.

Admittedly, Steele's not the brightest bulb in the pack, but he was indeed the only RNC chair in the running that offered the teensiest hope of 'wooing' marginal voters: you know, the non-Evangelical 'Pubs that ran away screaming and the C-leaning Indies.

Kick Steele out? Good luck with his replacement.

ktward| 5.12.09 @ 2:11PM

A quick perusal of this blog thread's comments, and it nicely represents the Christian doctrinal conundrum the Far Right continues to deal with: which Christian denomination presents the 'true' interpretation of God's will?

My contention? NONE of this belongs in politics. You all can't get your s**t together internally under the 'Christian' umbrella, what on earth makes you believe you're qualified nor invited (Constitutionally) to affect government policy?

I wholly respect every individual's right to worship as they choose, but I soundly reject ANY religious doctrine be thrust upon me via government policy.

The unfortunate consequence: the Republican Party has managed to ostracize nearly everyone but the Religious Right and their media hacks. Meanwhile, demographics show that the hot-button, all-or-nothing social issues of the Far Right will continue to diminish in importance with every generation.

The short-sighted, self-righteousness of this contingent amazes me.

BD57| 5.12.09 @ 3:09PM

ktward:

Geez, that's intellectually lazy .....

What 'religious doctrine' is anyone trying to thrust upon you?

Are you being compelled to make the sign of the cross? Attend church? Teach Sunday School? Tithe?

No????

Then what are you complaining about????

Oh, I know: you don't want people motivated by religious belief advocating for public policy in the public arena.

So, let's say someone argues abortion is wrong because an innocent child should not die because its parents were irresponsible (couldn't keep their hands off each other / couldn't be bothered to use a condom or birth control, etc.).

Doesn't mention God at all - in fact, he tells you he's an atheist. He just believes the parents aren't entitled to relieve themselves of the burden of responsibility by killing the child.

Is that argument now legitimate in your book?

You have a lovely understanding of the Constitution .... "you religious people sit down and shut up - you're not allowed to open your yaps about politics."

The people have a right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, etc. REGARDLESS of their motivation ... people of faith have every bit as much right to participate as those who have none.

But demonizing people is more fun, right?

ktward| 5.12.09 @ 4:37PM

BD57:

Talk about a lazy argument:

"... someone argues abortion is wrong because an innocent child should not die because its parents were irresponsible (couldn't keep their hands off each other / couldn't be bothered to use a condom or birth control, etc.). Doesn't mention God at all - in fact, he tells you he's an atheist. He just believes the parents aren't entitled to relieve themselves of the burden of responsibility by killing the child."

Yes. You're of course right. This is indeed the scenario for most, or no, let's just go ahead and say 'every' abortion.

You're not really that dense, are you?

For sake of legitimacy, let's not let it go unmentioned that it is the Pro-Choice movement that advocates comprehensive sex-ed to PREVENT unwanted pregnancy (hence, abortion), and it is the so-called Pro-Life movement that advocates abstinence-only sex-ed which has been proven completely ineffective in reducing teenage pregnancy:

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN23459576

While you've poorly managed to turn this into a pro/anti-choice debate, I'd like to point out that I've not demonized any particular Christian group, and there are indeed pro-choice Christian orgs:

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

I'm grinning as I wait for YOUto demonize THEM. And when you do, you of course prove my point:

"You all can't get your s**t together internally under the 'Christian' umbrella, what on earth makes you believe you're qualified nor invited (Constitutionally) to affect government policy?"

Your response addressed not one single contention of mine, and your glaring defensiveness does not a coherent argument make.

Eichendorff| 5.12.09 @ 8:07PM

I simply expressed my opinion that you have nothing whatever of value to contribute to the discussion about Mitt Romney because you are a bigoted numbskull. I said nothing whatever about what you can or cannot do. My preference would be for you to mind your own bloody business.

DR King| 5.13.09 @ 12:46AM

As a devout Mormon, I recognize that 99% of my countrymen do not accept my faith. That's okay by me because I believe in freedom of religion and would never force my beliefs on anyone. Even if my neighbor believes I am headed straight for hell, I respect his God-given and Constitutional right to believe whatever he wants.

I do care, however, about belonging to a political party that affords equal rights and opportunities to everyone, including people of minority faiths. But there are some in the GOP who think that Mormons (or Hindus or Catholics or Muslims or you-fill-in-the-blank) are inherently unfit for high office. Such people, I think, do not really embrace the principles of our Constitution or the vision of our founding Fathers.

I would invite anyone who feels Mormonism disqualifies a candidate from high office to ask themselves these questions:

1. Are you happy with the performance of the GOP this last election?
2. Do you really think the GOP will improve its chances of winning by alienating and blacklisting conservative Mormons?
3. Do you believe in the Golden Rule? Would you want other Americans to dismiss and deny you opportunties on the basis of your faith?
4. Do you realize most Americans and most other Republicans see anti-Mormon expressions in the political sphere as ugly bigotry?

I'm a Republican PCO in my state. I supported McCain (somewhat reluctantly) and Palin (enthusiastically) this last election. I am apalled at what our current President is doing to our economy. I want conservative government. Do I belong in the GOP?

I find Steele's comments about Romney's faith upsetting, but maybe he is just telling the ugly truth. Maybe a large portion of the GOP base does have a serious bigotry problem with Mormons, Maybe I should take my time and money and support elsewhere.

Whether I stay or go will depend in large measure on the degree to which GOP leaders like Steele discourage or condone anti-Mormon sentiment in political campaigns.

DavidE7| 5.13.09 @ 2:39PM

Those who believe that Mitt Romney would make a good President because of his business credentials should think again. Finding companies at a competitive disadvantage, low-balling them, firing employees of other people's companies, and making huge profits that you keep for yourself require different "skills" than those that unite people for the common welfare. The first is geared to self enhancement. The second requires self sacrifice. No big businessman has ever been elected President, and none ever will.

ktward| 5.13.09 @ 8:16PM

DavidE7:

From your lips to the Universe's ears. Or, your Qwerty to U's LCD.

Or something like that.

martimal| 5.19.09 @ 12:22PM

I don't like religion being brought into politics in the first place. He was telling the truth...many people looked at Romney sideways because of his Mormonism. The truth is do you think if he was a Muslim, or Buddhist he would have evne received 1/10th of the vote......not likely. Like it or not as long as the party is in the grips of the far right and religious zelaots we will continue to alienate even more voters. This is reality check time for the party....change or evolve into something....but please don't remain status quo. We average Americans are so sick of it all. Boy do I wish Jack Kemp were here to offer leadership to us.....we stink

Bill Reuters| 6.15.09 @ 12:25PM

FYI Romney's PAC is having an essay contest, winner gets to sit in the family seats at Fenway.

https://www.freestrongamerica.com/essay

CS| 7.24.09 @ 4:55AM

クレジットカード　現金化
キャッシング
インプラント
網頁設計
水　通販
会社設立
留学
コンタクトレンズ
アルカリイオン水
幼児教室

biniki| 9.1.09 @ 9:51PM

bikini
bikini swimwear

keib| 10.10.09 @ 12:35AM

keibayosou sokudokueitango

bent| 10.10.09 @ 12:36AM

jouhoukigyou gaikakawasetorihiki

Tn Requin| 2.20.10 @ 9:33AM

Tn Requin