Romney Bows Out
 

From Yahoo!:

McCain seals GOP nod as Romney suspends
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - John McCain effectively sealed the Republican presidential nomination on Thursday as chief rival Mitt Romney suspended his faltering presidential campaign. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney told conservatives.

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.

Romney's decision leaves McCain as the top man standing in the GOP race, with Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul far behind in the delegate hunt. It was a remarkable turnaround for McCain, who some seven months ago was barely viable, out of cash and losing staff. The four-term Arizona senator, denied his party's nomination in 2000, was poised to succeed George W. Bush as the GOP standard-bearer.

Romney launched his campaign almost a year ago in his native Michigan. The former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist invested more than $40 million of his own money into the race, counted on early wins in Iowa and New Hampshire that never materialized and won just seven states on Super Tuesday, mostly small caucus states.

McCain took the big prizes of New York and California.

"This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters... many of you right here in this room... have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America."

McCain prevailed in most of the Super Tuesday states, moving closer to the numbers needed to officially win the nomination. Overall, McCain led with 707 delegates, to 294 for Romney and 195 for Huckabee. It takes 1,191 to win the nomination at this summer's convention in St. Paul, Minn.

"I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating al-Qaida and terror," Romney said.

Romney acknowledged the obstacles to beating McCain.

"As of today, more than 4 million people have given me their vote for president, that's of course, less than Senator McCain's 4.7 million, but quite a statement nonetheless. Eleven states have given me their nod, compared to his 13. Of course, because size does matter, he's doing quite a bit better with the number of delegates he's got," Romney said...."

:eek:

Yay!! I heard this through through intel around 1030 today, before the press got a hold of it an hour or two later. I didn't even believe it until it kept popping up all over the place.

I'm at CPAC, and SO glad he finally bowed out. Now McCain can get on with getting the nomination AND the White House!!!

Now, if only Huckabee would quit the race...

Has anyone seen his family? They are an ad for gastric bypass for realz...

Buh-bye Mitt-en man.

Best news that I've had all day

Hilarious. And so so true.

There you go, I fixed that for ya.

Sorry, SEC.

:D

Good riddance to Romney.

Did anyone catch his bowing-out speech? It was the first time he really laid his cards on the table and proved he had the scary agenda so many of us suspected.

He did not speak about fixing roads or improving public education. He instead talked about making sure women can't have a basic medical procedure and making amendments to the Constitution to protect "moral values".

My favorite part was when he said Europe was in a crisis of existence because they had abandoned good moral values. A completely inaccurate and stupid statement. Racial strife in Europe has everything to do with classicism and an inherent hatred for the Islamic peoples who are moving there in droves to find a better life. And if Europeans have abandoned Christianity- we have a few hundred years of Vatican oppression to thank for leaving a bad taste in people's mouths.

Romney also implies in his remarks about strife in Europe that there must be a good and bad side. I guess the Muslims are the "bad side". Maybe that is why he was so ready and willing to throw millions of people whose skin is not white enough out of the US even though for decades we have ignored our own laws and let people come here and contribute to our economy.

This is why you don't need religious fanatics in charge of government. The government should be fixing roads, managing the money supply and defending the realm- not promulgating moral standards by which people are forced to live, and wasting taxpayer money to promote agendas that attempt to shape the minds of a free people.

Yesterday was a great day. Republicans and Democrats alike can breathe a sigh of relief.

Go EE-BO! I don't think we're completely on the same page politically, but the above statement definitely needed highlighting.

How so? I don't want my tax dollars going towards this family's general fatassiness.

Why not, given that he's been the only GOP candidate who has a chance of winning the general election?

I'm not a Republican and don't plan to vote for any Republican candidates, but in my opinion McCane stands the best chance of beating either Clinton or Obama. He is closer to the center than the other Republican candidates and will actually steal some of the Democratic votes. Romney could never have done that

I read an article the other day about Rush Limbaugh spending 3 hours on his show bashing McCain and talking about how he is less conservative than Clinton. Ann Coulter was on Fox News recently, on Hannity & Colmes, she said that if McCain wins the Republican nomination then she will not only vote for Clinton, she said that she would actually campaign for her as well. Limbaugh & Coulter do not seem to like McCain one bit.

I guess, maybe as a Democrat, I wouldn't be infuriated with McCain leading the country. Maybe it's because we have been through 7 years of hell weeks with Bush mismanaging the government.

McCain seemed pretty moderate during the 2000 primaries, but now he is all about trying to win over conservatives and I don't like him for that. In 2000, I might have voted for him. Now, no way. I can't help but wonder if Coulter and Limbaugh say stuff like that to get people to defend McCain or, to get to people to say "Well I'm sure not voting for anybody that THEY support". Do you think Hilary would even let Coulter campaign for her? Fat chance! Who wants that woman on their side?

I don't live by polls- I could care less if a majority of Americans agree with me or not.

If I am so dumb in making my comment about Romney, then explain to me the accuracy and intelligence of someone who wanted to be the President of the United States stating that the entirety of Europe is in a bad way because they have abandoned "moral" practices (keeping in mind that his reference is to those of the Christian faith and therefore the huge percentage of Muslims living legally in Europe, by his own argument, aren't "real Europeans".)

History is rarely so consistent as in the ultimate fate of nations led by those who concern themselves more with promoting their own religious agenda than with the enormous and critical task of maintaining a country and its physical infrastructure.

How many bridges have collapsed in your city? How many levees have broken? Would you feel safe getting out of your car and walking into the hallways of an inner city school? How much in tolls are you paying on the freeways because state and federal funding can no longer pay for new roads?

Do you think Congress spending time and money fighting over legislation to ban same-sex couples from becoming legally united is more important than addressing issues like that?

What will make this nation a better place 50 years from now- fixing the Social Security crisis or making sure the Constitution is the new authority on access to a medical procedure?

This is why Romney lost and why Huckabee will not ultimately endure. It is why McCain has emerged the frontrunner even though the Republican Establishment cannot stand him.

McCain is the worst nightmare of both parties- Hillary or Obama could have easily beaten any of the other Republican candidates, and many "conservatives" have bought into this myth that bigger government in the form of morality-based legislation will actually save us from some horrible fate that awaits in the shadows ahead.

I happen to be strongly conservative. I believe in a very small central government with control given back to the states. I also have personal Pro-Life inclinations and believe that same-sex unions should be allowed. Marriage in the religious sense is a church matter and let the churches marry who they want- but all tax-paying Americans should have the right to legally partner with the person of their choice and enjoy the same legal protections as others.

But Bush Republicanism has not been about small central government- and neither has Romney. And just because I am pro-life does not mean I feel comfortable with the government making an arbitrary decision about one of the most personal decisions imaginable between a woman and her health care provider. This is where I have issues with Huckabee.

The base is upset because they got no true conservative. But McCain offers something even better- a pragmatic approach that could actually result in both sides getting together and doing something.

If Republicans really think that their big "family values" issues are what is most important above all else- then we better brace ourselves to become a party that never wins the Presidency again.

EE-BO:

Romney dropping out was a huge blow to conservatives (how is this person a moderator, BTW). His "scary" agenda? Seriously? Are you one of those who accuse candidates of using "politics of fear" because they acknowledge the threats posed to our country by Islamic extremism? This coming from the party that refuses to even acknowledge where the threat comes from?

I'm pretty sure Romney was referring to the "scary" explosion of radicalism in Europe, highlighted by the recent proclamation that Sharia in England is inevitable. Sure, great idea, can't wait till it gets to America!

I'm thankful that Mitt Romney won't allow something as idiotic as political correctness to get in the way of protecting our nation.

OUTSTANDING post, EE-BO. Again, we're not on the same page politically, but god, at least your posts are coherent and well-thought-out. I can completely respect someone with opposing viewpoints when they present them with clarity and objectivity as you have above.

shinerbock- I never said anything about Iraq.

For the record I support our effort there and if Hillary or Obama win and really do refuse to establish a permanent military base there- it would be one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent memory and remove the one great long term benefit of our war effort. I am most definitely voting Republican this fall on the Iraq issue alone- I didn't even have to think about the other issues.

What I am talking about is the domestic social issues agenda. We are at war. We face a unique economic situation that in the next few years will really help to define our role in what is quickly becoming the first truly global economy ever. We also have entitlement programs that threaten to bankrupt our nation as our infrastructure sits in the worst possible condition imaginable.

A conservative President can address these issues brilliantly. But NOT if he is spending his time trying to pass Constitutional Amendments about who can have a medical procedure and who can enter into a legally recognized domestic partnership.

Romney dropping out was a huge blow to SOME conservatives- granted a pretty big "some"- but if he really and truly was a conservative candidate he would have mopped the floor with McCain and Huckabee, neither of whom is all that appealing to the base.

Romney put mandatory health care into effect in his state- how was that a conservative move? He also raised taxes and fees on businesses- how was that a conservative move?

This primary contest points to a major division in our party about what is most important to a conservative. The question is, is it more important to be fiscally conservative and let that effect a movement to streamline government, or is it more important to be morally conservative and expend enormous government resources to put legal restraints on people's behavior.

Romney's problem is that he is a somewhat moral conservative but not a fiscal conservative- and he has the record to prove it. Dig deep enough and you will find his moral conservatism is not all that firm either- which is why Huckabee is killing him in the South.

Protecting the nation is not the issue I was addressing- I trust any of our fine candidates to do a good job of that (though on experience alone I would think McCain the best suited for that role.) I was talking about social policy- which is a great way to win votes, but it doesn't win a war or steer an economy through rough seas.

As for the the Europe reference- all I can say is check out the context of the speech. I do not think he was talking about the presence of Islam (though as a Mormon he certainly has a firm opinion about all Muslims), but rather he was clearly stating that because Europeans had abandoned the traditions of the church- they were suffering by not being strong enough to remain secure.

This is a direct attack on abortion, drug and same-sex union friendly policies in many European nations- and it fits right into his speech on how we need to quash these things in the US.

It completely ignores the complex social reasons for Europe's race issues (plus the geographic proximity to Muslim nations which makes the influx just as easy as it is over here on our Mexico border) and instead says the Europeans are in trouble because they don't go to church.

And yes, that is a scary generalization to make.

PS- I open to being wrong or changing my mind (and also to much shorter posts where I don't feel like I have to explain positions are arguments that are taken out of context in previous posts), but it is hard to do that when replies lack specific examples and instead resort to "You suck- in 50 words or less"

I fully recognize the context of his statements, I watched the speech live and have forwarded the transcript numerous times.

I have no doubt that Gov. Romney was lambasting Europe for the things you mention, but his specific shot concerning a "demographic disaster" is precisely what I made reference to. European countries are facing moral degeneration on several fronts, and, as I understand it, the Governor was referencing this decline as the basis for Europe's inability to oppose growing threats to their culture. Not only do I think this is a reasonable thing to say, I think it is incredibly important to American society. Moral relativism is a disease which our enemies will almost certainly take advantage of, and I applaud Romney for acknowledging it.

I have no reason to believe that Romney is going to spend most of his time pursuing a social agenda. I also think you're mistaken about his lack of fiscal conservatism. If we were measuring this in a vacuum, perhaps I'd agree with you, but when compared to the rest of the field, Mitt is fairly fiscally conservative. Sure, he raised fees in Massachusetts. He also lowered taxes and slashed social programs. I think the average person would find your impression backwards, with Romney being more fiscally conservative than he is socially.

I don't like one issue voters, and I usually dislike the practice of voting solely on social issues. However, once again, I haven't seen Mitt advocate that. A bulk of his message has concerned the economy and the WOT, while his social message, like most of the other GOP candidates, has been present yet vague. I'm for the appointment of conservative judges. I'm for state autonomy when it comes to abortion. I'm for a general message of personal responsibility.

I suppose this is a moot point, but I just don't see that these issues would pull him away from other essential duties of the presidency. Every candidate runs on a slate of social issues, including the liberals (especially the liberals). Further, I don't think social issues should be cast aside, as I think many are of substantial importance. How could anyone deny that a deficit in parenting is doing great damage to this country? We live in a country that values convenience over potential human life, and we think there will be no consequences to this? I don't think every social issue should be regulated; most of them should not be. However, placing an emphasis on personal responsibility is a crucial message to a society so devoid of it.

This isn't a religious agenda, it's a responsibility agenda. Yeah, inner city schools suck, you know why? Because of a lack of tax revenue and a stunning lack of good parenting. Throw all the money you want at this, and it won't help.

Bridges and levee's fail. They'll continue to fail for the rest of time. They're man-made things, and men aren't perfect. Accidents happen, but much loss can be avoided by taking responsibility for oneself and one's family. These government failings aren't going to end. THE GOVERNMENT WILL ALWAYS FAIL US. It will never make up for the inspiration, discipline and quest for knowledge that good parents instill in their children, and it will never make up for good decision making. It will never make up for bad financial planning, nor will it adequately substitute for the generosity of a society which is striving to help the less fortunate. It won't make up for dedicated teachers, churches or neighborhoods.

Frankly, I could give a damn about winning this election. The left is going further left, and I won't be a part of the slide. As a conservative, I don't feel led to follow the sentiments of society, I feel led to draw them back to where they should be. This isn't done through laws or regulation, it's accomplished through leadership and reorganized priorities. In my opinion, Mitt Romney was the best person for that. Gaining the presidency by sacrificing conservative ideals isn't a gain at all, in my opinion.

Is it just me, or does Huckabee look an awful like Gregory Itzin, who played President Logan on 24?

Huckabee
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c...l_amg/Huck.jpg

Itzin
http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/c..._amg/Itzin.jpg

I agree generally.

He wasn't my first choice but I did end up voting for him in the Georgia primary since Obama was up by so much already.

Apparently, my support is the political kiss of death. I'll think about throwing it to Hillary.

NO DON'T! Vote for Obama. I dislike Hillary more, but Obama is a true ideologue. Hillary is simply an egomaniac and a political opportunist.

I like Obama as a human more, but he scares me more as a politician.

I'll probably vote McCain in the general, potential to be the kiss of death and all.

I understand what you mean about Obama, but I'd still prefer him to Hillary.

I've explained before that having to see Bill in the news that often might kill me.

shiner- thank you for your reply and detailed clarification.

On the Europe issue we may have to just agree to disagree. I think the core of Europe's trouble has been a refusal to assimilate incoming immigrants. 100 years ago in the US there were politicians preaching the dangers of Jews, Italians, Irish and Chinese coming over here- yet thanks to assimilation anyone would laugh today at the idea that any of these ethnic groups pose a threat to American culture.

The brilliance of our general approach to life is that our culture bends and shifts. Chinese take-out is just American as apple pie. Immigrants shape and evolve our culture. This is not true in Europe which is really the last remaining bastion of royal bloodlines and the gentry in the world. Perhaps they had too many wars.

On social issues- fair point on your part. I detest how both sides run on emotional social issues and avoid talking about the substantive hard problems that need to be solved. I think Romney and Obama have been particulary vague in their campaigns- but I must concede is not a purely Romney issue.

I also agree with you that throwing money at the school system and other social problems won't work. We have tried and it doesn't work.

But I also think legislating certain social choices won't help either.

As I get on in life, I have come to have what might be a rather frightening sense that the disintegration of our culture is an inevitable result of wealth and prosperity. Growing up, I hated my parents for not getting a new BMW when I was 16 or sending me off to Europe with my friends every summer. Instead I took summer jobs etc. I was one of very few kids in my school who did not have everything handed out on a silver platter.

But looking at us all now- it is interesting to see how those of us who had to work for something and were pushed have all done very well in life, while many of the most spoiled among us have not. In fact, several people I went to high school with have committed suicide or died of cocaine overdoses. Almost all of them were trust fund babies without a care in the world.

I think we fall behind because we have it so easy. People come here from around the world at all levels- from immigrant labor to the hospitals where your average surgical staff is about the most diverse environment you will find- and they come here to work and to compete, and so many of us just don't have that drive because we do not vividly see the alternative until it is too late and we have waited too long to get educated and compete with people in our own age group.

Maybe I am wrong, but I am just not sure how morally-based government can fix that. I think people have to see hard reality for themselves before making taking the initiative to make hard moral choices about their behavior.

What bothers me most is that local governments have had to take over where the federal government has assumed power but failed to do anything. A growing number of state and city laws on immigration is a good example. Another would be zero-tolerance policies in the schools since they have to avoid lawsuits to remain solvent.

Infrastructure is a big one too. I am not saying Katrina was the government's fault. But it is one more example of how our lack of attention to maintaining our infrastructure is starting to cost us. Regardless of who was "to blame", if anyone, Katrina has cost the taxpayers a fortune.

The federal government has claimed a lot of powers- but is failing to act effectively on them. And I think that should be at the front of any discussion by the candidates. I rejected Obama and Romney from day one because they never went there- and that kind of honest talk would be risky, but I think rewarding for a candidate.

Anyhow- I do have a question for you and anyone else who would answer. I mean this seriously, not sarcastically, because I am not clear on the goal.

A lot of conservative pundits have said they would rather vote for a Democrat than a Republican that does not reflect the party's core values. What is the hoped result of that?

I ask because my gut reaction is that if the base feels that way, they will just get more and more out of touch as independent voters continue to dominate the process. It seems like this kind of attitude will hasten a major shift in the party.

The Democrats are in for an identity crisis as well I think with the Obama-Clinton race running so close. I think they will have an easier time rallying around Obama than Hillary, but it seems they also face a bitter choice like us once a nominee is selected.

No one who was ever a missionary should be allowed to hold any public office ever.

EE-BO,

You made a lot of reasonable points, and I agree with many of them.

Regarding your question concerning conservative pundits, several of my friends (grad school-mostly liberal) have asked the same. I have a feeling you know the general answer and are asking for opinions, but I'll throw down my thoughts anyhow.

I can see the dispute from both sides, though I'm tempted to side with getting a conservative in office, moderate/lukewarm or not. However, I have the same fears as the pundits do, which is that while a liberal/Democratic president would be bad for us in the near term, John McCain as the face of the GOP could be a nearly irreversible gaff.

Most conservatives think that the left is only moving further left, and they see that the trending of our society is following somewhat. Therefore, the party is split between those who think we need to play to society, and those who think we need to stand firm and attempt to pull it back. Thus, I think a lot of people, me included, are resistant to John McCain because we don't want him to become the standard for conservatives within the GOP, which would place the "right" in the "middle" and allow the left to go even further left. Also, there is no quid pro quo here. While John McCain is willing to work with the liberals, they're rarely seen coming to the middle. Sure, we could probably name a few, but some of the people he has gone to (Feingold, Kennedy) aren't among them. Thus, when people talk about compromise, the only compromise conservatives see is that which is watering down our values, as the other side isn't willing to come to the table and deal.

As I said, I'm going to vote for John McCain and hope for the best. I do think there is a major identity crisis, however, which may have long lasting ramifications. Perhaps societal denigration (as conservatives might assert) is too far gone, and thus we'll never win a major election again unless we change our stances. If that turns out to be the case, I expect the GOP to be in tow, but a lot of us won't be there for the ride.

As much as he may draw the ire of people on here, I have a Hannity approach to personal politics. The independents or moderates may rise up and take over, but I certainly won't make an effort to cater to them. Obviously if they do so, they'd keep people like me out of office. Societal consensus will not dictate how I feel, or vote on various issues.

I hate missionaries. With their humanitarian aid and stuff, disgusting.

Mormon missionaries proselytize and that's all -- no humanitarian aid or stuff. Humanitarian aid and stuff, except for aiding their own, is not an LDS strong-suit.

'Course, I wouldn't exlude all missionaries from political service either. I couldn't, however, vote for anyone for president who believes that you need a secret password and grip to get into heaven. Chapter meetings -- yes, heaven -- no. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

Glad to see you back, shinerbock.

I don't know, being willing to sacrifice two years of your life to try to bring more people to God and your idea of heaven isn't really a bad thing in my book. (I've also found Mormon missionaries pretty easy to brush off if you weren't interested.) And while Mormon missions may not typically involve humanitarian aid, the Mormons that I have known are frequently involved in secular organizations that provide assistance.

And to some degree, aren't every religions practices or beliefs a little strange to outsiders? No doubt most of what I know about Mormonism seems unusually odd but the individual Mormons I have know have demonstrated excellent character and I'd feel as/more comfortable voting for them as any evangelical Protestants. Outside of Utah, I don't think they'd except to bring about any kind of Mormon theocracy and might even be especially sensitive about religious tolerance.

I'm not trying to get into how you ought to vote, MysticCat. What people believe is ultimately real spiritually is probably pretty important and seems as valid a consideration as any.

But I think the difference between a Mormon missionary and your other missions is that ALL the Mormon ones seem to care about is that you come around to their way of thinking. I have friends in what would be considered fundamentalist churches who do a lot of mission work in Africa and while some of it is "This is how we love Jesus and you should too" some of it is also "have some rice and medical care and let's teach you how to read." My boyfriend's brother did a mission in Albania where he spent most of his time teaching English. He also talked about faith a lot, but he wasn't just there to talk about faith.

To me it sort of reminds me of that Assisi quote: Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words.

I think the Mormons just use words. I would really like it if religion was not a factor at all in voting for president, but since everybody wants to talk about it all the time, it's hard not to consider it. I wonder if this happened as much before Al Smith and later Kennedy, when everyone running was a WASP.

I think within the Republican party evangelical Christians have/had become such an important voting block that it's being used deliberately by those who can, and those who can't sort of have to come up with something. McCain's candidacy I suppose is a significant development in this regard since they don't seem to matter much. I wonder how it will work in the general election.

Maybe I've just known some really amazing Mormons, but they were involved with organizations that tended to non-spiritual needs as well, but it wasn't in the context of their missions, so point taken.

I don't know, I just have a lot of admiration for the strength of faith required to go door to door selling Mormonism in Northern California like one Mormon kid I know did.

But again, it's not a reason that I think any should have voted for Romney or anything.

This is obviously just my experiences and opinions, but I didn't know any Mormons until I was 20, and now I live in North Zion.

The Mormon missionaries I've come in contact with have all been lovely people. They obviously have a "mission" but I make it clear right off I'm happy with my religion and I'm not interested in changing. The sister and brother missionaries have always respected that, but I can't say the same for the members of Campus Crusade for Christ. I've had them help me bring in my groceries, pick up stuff I've dropped, shovel snow, help random people on the street with loading vehicles or even moving boxes and furniture in to truck or homes, and just be nice people. If you're driving around in your car they will wave and give you a smile. They've come to my church for events and not proselytized, and even though it isn't my religion, I have respect for people who have devotion to their faith enough to go out in the world and be the victims of harassment and ignorance.

Also the LDS community prepares for disasters and stocks up on food and other supplies. They were handing out food and water in New Orleans before the government was. Sure they are ultraconservative and I take issues with some of their beliefs and the role of women, but in my community they operate as good Christians. I know if there was a death in my family or my house burned down the LDS people I know would welcome me into their homes and feed me, even if I never converted.

Exactly. The motivation for anything else is conversion.

Perhaps I was a bit flippant, but at the risk of sounding a bit more bigoted, I'll go ahead and lay out my thoughts on it. (Although I'm with you, UGAalum94, as to many evangelical Protestants.)

I'll readily agree that the Mormons I have known have almost without exception been good and caring people. My wife has Mormon cousins (converts), I have a cousin who married a Mormon but did not convert, and I have had Mormon collegues, especially in work with the Boy Scouts. (The Boy Scouts is the official LDS boys' youth organization).

I am also accutely aware that the beliefs of all religions, including my own, can seem strange or preposterous to outsiders. More than that, I am aware that my own faith is founded on the accounts of a bunch of no-account people in Palestine 2000 years ago who claimed that their no-account rabbi -- for whom there is little, if any, evidence outside the writings of his disciples that he actually lived -- (1) was God incarnate and (2) rose from the dead. So I am aware of the dangers of criticizing too much the foundations of someone else's religion.

That said, among my chief issues with Mormonism itself is the whole Joseph Smith/revelation thing. The evidence is just too strong that he made the whole thing up (and that as far as temple rituals go, he drew a great deal on masonic rituals). I would simply have a hard time trusting the judgment of a presidential candidate who accepts the Joseph Smith story.

Just to take it a step further, I would also have a hard time voting for a presidential candidate who believes that he is progressing toward his own godhood (exaltation), and who believes that unquestioning obedience to LDS Church Authorities is essential to achieving his own exaltation as well as his family's.

So, that's my feeling on the whole thing. Again, if it makes me a bigot, so be it.

I don't know that it makes you a bigot to declare that the story is way out there - I mean, Joseph Smith was a noted huckster who apparently made intimations that he wanted to start a religion to make money years before his "revelation" . . . besides this, the Mormon Church has a history of institutional racism, from blacks being unable to join or become priests until the mid-80s and onward, and so on and so on. I mean.

Still, have you seen the South Park episode that deals with Mormonism? It's quite brilliant - the moral is essentially "we know it's kind of silly but it doesn't matter - it works for us, and we have a good life and love each other, so why does it matter how silly or whatever it might be?"

Yeah, that episode is funny, and I see that perspective to a point. But then, when we have a presidential candidate holding himself out as a good Mormon and discussing the importance to him of his faith, if that perspective is at play we get into the honesty factor.

I don't disagree - it's just a matter of the extent to which you want to extend the Church's dictum and dogma to each individual member, which is kind of natural. Personally, I find the Mormon Church's horrifically awkward treatment of blacks, gays and polygamy (which were all virtually ignored for decades after other institutions faced them head-on) no different than some American Catholic dioceses' bizarre attempts to bury or ignore improprieties by priests or officials, in that I don't really want to extend the organization's lunacy to the individual until they show that they're "playing ball" (so to speak, oops) for the org.

I'm in no danger of converting, and yet, A) can we really rely on South Park for our presentation of a faith* and B) isn't the moral you've outlined essentially the lesson of multiculturalism to some degree?

(I LOVE South Park, but if you relied on it for its take on all religions, you'd think there was a secret code of Vatican law that promotes pedophilia, right?)

If a person has been raised in a faith, rather than converted as an adult, I don't think you can conclude, as you touch on above, that they've thought about and taken to heart every aspect, especially historical ones, that the religion has ever espoused.

ETA:* I don't mean to seem like I'm so black/white literal minded. I know you aren't suggesting South Park for religious instruction, but while Mormonism may be an easier target that some other religions, South Park can make anything look dum, dum, dum, dum, dum.