Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman Jr. mull Mormon dilemma


Return To Article
  • Kimball Bakersfield, CA
    May 12, 2011 4:51 p.m.

    Can't we appreciate what our current president is doing right while looking forward to someone who might be even better? Throw out ignorance, bias, insults, accusations and vote conscience. It isn't about a specific political party, religion or any other demographic. It is about the best interest of the people, the country, and the well-being of our free society. How do we protect from dangers both domestic and abroad and provide opportunities for everyone to reach for their potential? All the sniping, slurs, and pettiness are destructive and unappealing. Step up and be better.

  • Mtn Admin Oakhurst, CA
    Feb. 4, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    There will never be a black president. Wait...

  • MrsDownhomeAmerica Los Angeles, CA
    Oct. 27, 2010 3:50 p.m.

    Can't we all just get along?--Rodney King

  • tiger1
    Aug. 5, 2010 12:12 p.m.

    Will the immigration issue ridicule him again?

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 5, 2010 8:51 a.m.


    If you are going to make personal attacks at me for sharing a general opinion... I guess I will make a personal response.

    If my goal was to be some hotshot CEO I would take you up on that offer in a HEARTBEAT!

    My goal is to live a comfortable life with my family and persue a career that I love and NOT COMPLAIN about others who are doing the same. If that means I make 30k or 10.7mil a year so be it. I live my life knowing that I answer to myself and that I am accountable for the actions that impact my future. Is that cocky or responsible?

    Im just not a big fan of people who complain and try to blame their problems on other people...

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 4, 2010 8:05 p.m.


    My you are cocky. Unfortunately in a huge corporation there is but one CEO and thousands of workers.

    Get out of school. Go get a job. Let see if you are an average worker or CEO.

    Wanna bet?

  • I M LDS 2
    Aug. 4, 2010 6:31 p.m.

    Both Romney and Huntsman are just spoiled little rich boys who have really done very little on their own. In that regard, they are no different than Paris Hilton!

    As men of substance, they are lacking in character. Everything that makes them who they are was given to them by their rich parents.

    Being lucky enough to be born to rich parents is not a good qualification for public office!

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 4, 2010 4:29 p.m.


    Sounds like people need to quit being AVERAGE workers and start becoming CEO's...

  • Truthseeker
    Aug. 4, 2010 3:54 p.m.

    you: "People complain that the rich keep getting richer. Isn't that a good thing? Of course we don't want the poor to keep getting poorer, but we solve that problem by bringing the poor up"

    So, how do we "bring the poor up"?

    I would suggest at least one factor in bringing "the poor up" is that all employees share in the success of a corporation's profits--not just those at the top. The pay of CEOs is 265 times greater than the pay of the average worker. In 1965 the difference was only 24 times. Today, the average CEO earns in ONE DAY what the average worker earns in ONE YEAR.

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 4, 2010 1:45 p.m.

    Arm of Orion & Independent...

    Bless your hearts. I'm glad to see that there are others out there who see and understand the big picture.

  • Independent
    Aug. 4, 2010 1:23 p.m.

    Manateeshirt, isn't it odd how we call America the land of opportunity, but anyone who takes advantage of the opportunity and succeeds is despised, and calls to confiscate their wealth go up?

    People complain that the rich keep getting richer. Isn't that a good thing? Of course we don't want the poor to keep getting poorer, but we solve that problem by bringing the poor up, not by taking the rich down. Equality is great, but do we want be equally poor, or equally rich?

  • Arm of Orion
    Aug. 4, 2010 12:52 p.m.

    Manatee welcome to the internets where stating your opinion is more akin to giving a declaration of war. Although I think that the problem is that we have lost the true spirit of America...amateurism. In the past amateurs built themselves up. They fought and struggled yes some failed but others succeeded and with that brought jobs. We need more amateurs risking it all to bring back the power of this nation. The amateurs fought in the fires of adversity and it is in these fires that the fates of men and nations are forged.

  • The Atheist
    Aug. 4, 2010 12:51 p.m.

    Someone once said "Religion poisons everything." Anybody can see it. Look at how religious wars, bickering, and factions are tearing the world apart.

    Religious extremists (the "pure" and "true" believers) flew airliners into the WTCs; religious bickering has split this country in two over same-sex marriage; religions are vying for political influence and power, even trying to re-write history to claim this is a "Christian" nation!

    The worst power mongers are those coming from the group claiming to be followers of the non-political man who said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."

    A close second in power mongering are the followers of a man in whose name people are beheaded or stoned almost daily, and whose teachings include "the Satanic Verses".

    As a result of the horrible reputations of the religious people, atheism is the fastest growing "religious affiliation" in the country. People want to distance themselves from the bigots, fanatics, fundamentalists, extremists - in other words, the "religious".

    Those aspiring to be POTUS must talk to and represent ALL Americans, not just the religious fanatics. The atheist (and non-religious) population must be reckoned with.

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 4, 2010 8:47 a.m.

    I am new to this whole Deseret News comment board thing and I already LOVE how riled up you people get when someone actually takes a stance.

    I was going to write a bunch of sarcastic remarks in response to your comments, but I try to keep in mind that this is a comment board and not a bicker board.

    Instead, I will just sum up my feelings on the matter and then you can agree or disagree. I am a HUGE proponent of rewarding sacrifice, hardwork, innovation and perserverance. The reward that capitalism offers for such things is the incentive that drives America's success. The reason I get upset when people whine about the wealthy is because this is America! The land of opportunity! As ObamaRep stated in his rebuttle to my comment, the leaders of some of this nations most successful companies started at ground zero and worked their way up.

    With that in mind... the problem with this country isn't necessarily with the wealthy is it? It is with the people who whine with unwillingness to make the sacrifice to get there. Im jumping off the fence and taking a stance. Sue me.

  • ego
    Aug. 3, 2010 8:07 p.m.

    Romney/Palin......Love it. Can wait to see the debates, the interviews, and the entire conservative platform fall on its face...even better would be Beck/Palin....oh wait thats right....Beck has no interest in politics. He's "just" and entertainer. A very wealthy entertainer that panders fear and falsehoods.

    Romney/Palin...Romney/Palin...We can hope for it!

  • Christy
    Aug. 3, 2010 7:33 p.m.

    Also, Manatee, your unfortunate tendency to equate the non-uber wealthy with empty pocketed people on social services is not winning you any points whatsoever.

  • Christy
    Aug. 3, 2010 6:57 p.m.

    manateeshirt | 11:42 a.m.

    I'm not even rich. Im a broke college student. Im a kid...


    That explains your immature, clueless, cocky rants.

    The Bush era tax cuts contributed to the deficit.

    They did not create jobs.

    They should be repealed.

    They were unfunded. We couldn't afford them then, we can't afford them now.

    Otherwise, we can tack on $600 billion+ to the deficit.

    Not sure at all why you're so bent on shilling for the top 2%, but have it. Maybe someday, you'll learn better.

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 3, 2010 6:50 p.m.


    There you go again. READ AGAIN WHAT I WROTE and then
    justify this statement.

    "JoeBlow was blaming the rich for the middle class' problems"

    Show any statement that I made that justifies your statement.

    For a college student, your reading comprehension is lacking.

  • ClarkHippo
    Aug. 3, 2010 4:22 p.m.

    @JoeBlow 4:21

    Okay, perhaps I did misunderstand your point. I do think, sad to say, there are some LDS people who would not vote for a candidate if they were athiest, muslim, or a scientologist.

    Personally, religion isn't that big of a deal to me. If there's a candidate for office I really like, I don't care if he or she practices voodoo.

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 3, 2010 4:01 p.m.


    Did those individuals create jobs when they poor or middle class? Or, as a result of years of hardwork, sacrifice, innovation and perserverance did they reach levels of success that opened up opportunities not only for themselves but for other people as well? (I hope the answer to that question is obvious) That is the American spirit. That is what will save the middle class IF it is embraced.

    JoeBlow was blaming the rich for the middle class' problems. In THE land of opportunity, we control our destiny, as is evident by the examples you provided in your comment. The rich provide the employment for the middle class... BUT the middle class is only stuck in the middle with (or without) those jobs if they allow themselves to be.

    The remedy for our economic woes and troubles can be found in what it means to be an American. It can be found in the examples of the individuals you listed ObamaRep.

    The key is just to do it! Thats the problem...

    Thanks for the attempted attack that strengthened the point I was making.

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 3, 2010 3:16 p.m.

    The credit card statement was a euphamistic comment referring to poor spending and saving habits by the middle class.

    Maybe to get a better idea about where you are coming from with this whole middle class thing...

    Who are the middle class?
    Why are they the middle class?
    How did they end up in the middle class?
    What are they doing in the middle class?
    Where do the middle class usually work?

    Answering those questions might be able to shed some light on what could be done to save them from a tragic socio-economic death.

  • ObamaRepublican
    Aug. 3, 2010 2:59 p.m.

    Lets think about the word conservatism, what are we conserving? The status quo! Big Business want thing to stay the same or move very slowly.

    As I have written before conservatism by its very nature slows innovation, slows entry into markets, slows free trade and maintains control.

    The Powers that be want to maintain the way things are done. Change is the great unknown, if you listen to CNBC you will hear the reporters say time after time the Markets hate Change. Why because it creates uncertainty, which makes forcasting profits more difficult.

  • ObamaRepublican
    Aug. 3, 2010 2:35 p.m.


    Your argument is very flawed if you take a look at who created jobs in the US for the last 150 years it has rarely been the rich. So where did the corporation come from?

    Here are a few examples

    Andrew Carnegie was an immigrant and started as a factory worker.

    Henry Ford son of immigrants and watch repair man

    John Davison Rockefeller son of lumber man and Travelling saleman

    Bill Gates son of from a middle class family

    Steve Jobs adopted son of a middle class family

    Sam Walton Farmers son and self made

    Ray Kroc son of immigrants and self made

    The list goes on and on. As I said your argument is flawed. The biggest employers in the country were started by Sons of immigrants and poor or middle class families.

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 3, 2010 1:33 p.m.

    Take a pill manatee.

    Read before you spout off.

    I merely stated the problem. You assumed the rest.

    Do you disagree that it is happening?
    Do you think it is not a problem?
    Do you think it is good for the country?
    Has the wealth not been distributed upward?

    Calm now?

    The reasons why it has happened are certainly complex and debatable.

    Hardly all done by credit cards as you suggest.
    And hardly done by lack of pure capitalism as you also suggest. Capitalism is good, pure capitalism, not so much as corps will do anything for that last dime.

    But a dying middle class is not good for anyone, including the rich.

    The trend must be reversed for the country to prosper.

    I dont know all the solutions, but we better find them.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 1:03 p.m.

    I knew a guy who moved to Las Vegas to teach there because of the higher pay. He said that if he had known how un-caring and oppresive to actual progress the administration of the Clark County School district was, he would not have moved.

    Utah has about 30 school districts, Michigan about 500. Yet Michigan only has 5 times the population.

    The main componant in educational spending is teacher pay. The assumption of the educational cost per capita studies is that "spending per student" either equals skilled teachers or better student-teacher ratios.

    However, this is not exactly true. Beyond the fact it also equals different amounts of security personnel and other things, it may just reflect a higher cost of living.

    A teacher who makes 20% as much in most parts of California realistically is making less money than a teacher in Utah. Thus the monetary comparison is totally skewed.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:57 p.m.

    To Pro Education,
    If Utah does not "fund education adequately" than why are its results so much better than other states?

    The most abysmally performing district is Detroit. It is so bad some have called for criminal charges for those responsible for the non-education going on.

    In addition there are real criminal charges for embezelment and mis-approproation of funds, and that is only where actual laws were broken. The idiots who wasted money for inflated prices to purchase land in deals where it can not be proven that they were actually trying to get any person gain are getting off scott free.

    One thing is Utah does not have the duplicated, bloated school district bureaucracies of some states. Tax dollars for education is a myth, since paying a public relations consultant to make your district look good does not cause students to learn more. Also, spending money on text books that then get thrown out so when you start a course you have none and have to buy another set is a total waste of resources.

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:53 p.m.

    What is the solution Joe Blow?

    Take from those who contribute most to the economy and give it to those who contribute minimal amounts?

    Where do you think middle class jobs come from? Do they spring forth from the beard of Zues? They are created... by...stay with me now... companies and coporations... that... are created by... the... WEALTHY! Its called capitalism YO! Punishing the wealthy, the job creators, the economy stimulators only scratches their status and bank account while laying a heavy beat-down on the middle class that they employ.

    It is interesting how over the past 20 years the government has been pulling our country and economy away from pure-capitalism... and how you mentioned that the middle class has been systematically shrinking over the past 20 years... correlation? Uh...yeah.

    The "dying middle-class" has dug their own grave with their credit cards.

    Im not even rich. Im a broke college student. Im a kid... and I can see it.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:50 p.m.

    Fender Bender,
    Is anyone self-described "overly religious"? It is a term that by its very nature is unliquely to be used as a self-description. I have known few if any people who admitted to being too committed to religion.

    I am many others feel we need to live our religion better, live up to it better and so on. However I have never met someone who says "I go to church to much, I just wish I could stay away more" and few are those who say "I wish I spent less time reading the Bible and Book of Mormon and more in reading the newspaper".

    The accusations against Romney are even more ludicrous. He has served as a bishop and a stake president.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:41 p.m.

    Elder Oaks specifically denounced using religion as a criteria for selecting a candidate in his speech at BYU-Idaho last November.

    Utah was the second state to elect a Jew as governor, only beat out by Idaho. Utah may also be the only state to date to have had a Buddhist as a member of its Supreme Court.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:34 p.m.

    Jon Huntsman, Sr.'s Catholic connections are even deeper. In the May 22, 1993 Church News we learn he was invited to visit the Vatican and while there met with the Pope.

    This was due both to his work with the Cathedral of the Madeline and a large donation he had made to St. Vincent De Paul.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:31 p.m.

    This article missed a major issue, how Catholics feel about Mormons. It hinted at it with Huntsman's mention of his children attending Catholic schools, but it did not explore the issue more.

    The "Religious Right" is at least as much Catholic as Protestant. The pro-life movement is a largely Catholic phenomenon, and the re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 was totally due to his success with Catholic voters.

    Of late, with Francis Cardinal George coming to speak at BYU and the cooperation by LDS and Catholic people on Prop 8, as well as the Catholic dominated NOM having a Mormon on its board, we have seen growing Catholic/Mormon cooperation.

    However in trying to see what I could learn about Huntsman's religion, I learned that the claims that his "soft" Mormonism are in contrast to his father are not fully backed by the evidence. Jon Huntsman, Sr. has better Catholic credentials than his son. In the Feb. 27, 1993 Church News we learn that Huntsman, Sr. was a member of the fund-raising commitee for the renovation of the Cathedral of the Madeline in Salt Lake City.

  • onewhotries
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:11 p.m.

    Dear LDS Liberal;
    sorry I'm late with this response but, As I understand the founding of these United States, it was through religious freedom to worship Almighty God and have freedom of choice,and freedom from persecution. Therefore, came people called Quakers, Lutherans, Baptist, even Catholics, to name a few. All were considered Christians. As the country opened its doors to all peoples seeking that same freedom, other ethnic groups came with different religious backgrounds.and ALL were welcomed- to come and build this great country, in a land choice above all other lands.Why even those that were brought here as slaves were eventually given their freedom so, Yes, belief in an Almighty God, a Divine Creator is what this country stands for.[Personally, I like a kind loving God, not one I have to be afraid of,always full of wrath.]

    Let us realize that anyone born in this country can run for and be elected to any office. Let us, again, separate emotion from fact, color from intelligence, religion from qualification, even desire to serve from political experience, and consider, prayerfully or with profound thought, for whom we should cast our vote in EVERY election!

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:08 p.m.

    Huntsman served an LDS mission in Taiwan. This is closely related to his current position as US ambassador to China.

    I can not definitively state anything about his religious activity since then. However serving as an LDS missionary is more religious activity and work than Kennedy ever showed.

    Beyond this, it is open to question whether Huntsman's commetns are more for US or Chinese consumption. China dislikes foriegn religious figures, and when he was nominated there were claims he would work to get the Church recognized in China. He has to constantly work to prevent any idea he is a covert Mormon operative so he can be an effective ambassador.

    The fact that the Church openly forbids expatriot members in China from sharing the gospel with citizens shows that the admonition to preach the gospel has to be tempered with the need to be subjected to law.

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 3, 2010 11:58 a.m.

    Dont you get it Manatee?

    The middle class is shrinking. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. These trends have accelerated recently (20 years)

    Do you think that is good for the US or any country for that matter?

    There has been a migration of wealth towards the rich. Does that word suit you better than redistribution?

    Whatever the cause it is not healthy for our country. Dont believe me? Look at Mexico and countless other countries.

  • manateeshirt
    Aug. 3, 2010 11:42 a.m.

    @ WHATNOW?

    Ha! I couldn't help but laugh when I read your rant.

    Say hello to continuous re-distribution of wealth to the wealthy?

    Where do you think wealth comes from dear? Do you think that Republicans take money out of the poor and middle class and put it in the pockets of the rich? HA! There is no wealth from those socio-economic classes to re-distribute. Did you know that over 60% of taxes are paid by 2% of the population? Who are the 2%? The wealthy. Where does that money go? Probably to your empty pockets through social services. While the government takes 0% to 15% of your income, they are taking 33% to 50% of the wealthy's AND re-distributing it to.... to... who? Not their country club or tennis buddy... the poor and middle class.

    Im assuming you are complaing about tax-breaks that Bush gave to the rich? The consequence? Intelligent re-investing into the economy not into broke peoples pockets.

    Quit hating on the successful.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 11:37 a.m.

    Actually what the 1992 and 2002 comparison shows is that Romney does not need to reinvent himself, he needs to reinvent the presidency.

    The big question is the presidency a position of running the government, or developing the policy of the government.

    Since FDR and in some ways since Theodore Roosevelt, it has had a large policy componant. However there is still an administrative componant.

    What Romney needs to do is convince conservatives that he can be counted on to hold to pro-life, pro-marriage policies enough that his executive skills outweight his lack of policy strength.

    I am not sure it is possible to convince people of that. Romney care in Massachusetts is as much a problem with tea partiers as being a Mormon and having donated to Planned Parenthood are with Evangelicals.

    Today is a big day for Romney. If Pete Hoestra who he has supported for over a year wins the Republican nomination for Michigan governor it will be a vindication for Romneyism and a defeat for sleezeism. OK, my dislike for our current AG who is the moral equivalent of Sanford or Vitter is very strong.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 11:28 a.m.

    I think a Mormon would have less chance in Democrat circles. It was the "New Republic" that way back in 2007 was publishing articles claiming a Mormon president would be a threat because he would answer to the Mormon leaders more than the people.

    Also the protests against the Mormon Church and boycotts of all Mormons and Utahns done by the generally Democrat leaning Prop-8 partisans would make Democrat primaries extremely hard to win for any Mormon, at least in California, New York, New England, New Jersey and Iowa.

  • John Pack Lambert of Michigan
    Aug. 3, 2010 11:25 a.m.

    I think you make good points in bringing up Romney's donations to Planned Parenthood.

    I also question how much of Romney's being trounced in the south was due to the Mormon issue and how much was due to the opposition of National Right to Life.

    The fact that Ernest Istook won the Republican nomination for governor in Oklahoma says that Mormons can win in the south, they just have to be truly pro-life Mormons who support the cause of social conservativism.

    Other good examples of Mormons with political futures are Raul Labrador and maybe Jeff Flake, although I like him as a supporter of immigration reform which causes some to denounce him as a facilitator of crimes.

    Rob Bishop might in theory has some potential, but he is not a flashy candidate. Orrin Hatch would have some, but his support of embryonic stem-cell research has alienated the Right to Life types, even if he was a leading figure in the attempts to prevent the inclusion of abortion funding in health care reform. One other Mormon who has potential is Wally Herger.

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 3, 2010 10:46 a.m.

    Little Child DUCK. The black helicopters are circling.

  • A Little Child
    Aug. 3, 2010 10:29 a.m.

    A person who has good morals, who has good family values, and who believes in God, is of much greater value, than one who is an atheist, believes in marxist values, and proudly declares us to the world as being an 'unchristian' nation!!

    Haven't we had enough of that?

    Have you ever thought that we may not even be given the chance to vote on a president again? Our present president may just use his "executive authority" and declare a presidential vote ... 'unconstitutional' and outdated...call for 'martial law' and change his title to: Dictator!! He already has his own government in place.

    Is having someone be a "Mormon" worse than that?

    What do Mormons believe in anyway?

    A divinely inspired Constitution
    Freedom for the individual
    Family (A Declaration to the World)
    13 Articles of Faith

    A good Mormon would govern with common consent
    instead of "ramming things down the throat"
    as this administration has done.

    Romney is one Mormon who has stepped forward, willing to put into effect the wisdom of economics that he learned from a father, who taught him about production and profit...one who created jobs!!

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 3, 2010 4:21 a.m.

    ClarkHippo, you totally missed the point.

    Of course LDS must vote for non-lds candidates because, for the most part, that is all there is outside of utah.

    My point is that there are religious tests used by many people including LDS.

    Most LDS (and many others) would not ever vote for the groups I mentioned (atheist, scientologist, muslim, etc)

    Notice I did not include in my list Catholic, evangelical, Baptist and other more mainstream.

    But, the country in general is more likely to include LDS in the first list than the second.

  • Howard Beal
    Aug. 3, 2010 12:32 a.m.

    It is simply up to the evangelicals in the Republican Party to look past Romney's religion to possibly nominate and then possibly elect the one guy that could turn around the economy. If they can't get over this insane religious bias, then they have no one else to blame but themselves.

  • L
    Aug. 2, 2010 11:52 p.m.

    Worth Repeating !

    Civil | 2:46 a.m. Aug. 1, 2010
    What they should say:

    "What my religion is" is a different question than my position on religion.

    "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some people call us Mormons.

    "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and Savior of mankind.

    "A tenant of our Church, from the beginning, is 'We believe in worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, when, or what they may.'"

    "Those are my beliefs."

    "As President of the United States, my job is to protect the rights of all men and women to freedom of conscience, and yes, freedom of religion.

    "The free exercise of conscience is the most fundamental of American, indeed, human rights, and is guaranteed in our Constitution. As President I will defend and support that Constitution, and those rights."

  • ClarkHippo
    Aug. 2, 2010 11:39 p.m.

    @JoeBlow 9:02

    Nice try, but your argument has no legs whatsoever. The fact is, LDS voters vote for non-LDS candidates all the time, especially during presidential elections.

    Fact - John McCain carried Utah in 2008, although Barack Obama had strong showings in many parts of the state. At the same time, Peter Caroon was re-elected mayor of Salt Lake County. Are you going to try and convince us none of the people who voted for McCain, Obama and Caroon were LDS?

    And what about LDS people who live outside of Utah? Are you going to convince us they never vote, unless there's an LDS person on the ballot?

  • Twin Lights
    Aug. 2, 2010 9:24 p.m.


    I understand your point, but the fact is that Utah went overwhelmingly for George W. Bush in two general elections. Utahans (and Mormons generally) will certainly vote for someone who is a Born Again Christian. The reverse has yet to be shown.

  • Doctor
    Aug. 2, 2010 7:42 p.m.

    I've tried posting this twice. if Romney is a faithful Mormon and the Prophet told him God wanted something done, what would you faithful Mormons expect him to do? Follow the prophet?

  • Fl Cookie
    Aug. 2, 2010 6:34 p.m.

    I'm LDS. I would vote for someone of another religion if I thought they had the integrity and they really represent me. If Mitt has realized that this health care will not work, I would consider voting for him. We need to be "Self Reliant" and take better care of ourselves. The American diet is killing people. I shouldn't have to pay for other's bad choices.

  • EndOfAnError-01/20/2013
    Aug. 2, 2010 6:20 p.m.

    I am a Mormon and I would proudly vote for a Baptist, Catholic, Jew or Mormon as long as they were honestly committed to honoring, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States and the freedom's it protects. I have great respect for faithful people of all religions and do not consider a persons religion when voting, only their character. If they believe in God and truly practice their religion then they have my support. God knows how we have been deceived by many past presidents who claimed to have our best interests at heart but turned out to be nothing more than self-serving politicians.

  • Capt Coaldale
    Aug. 2, 2010 6:15 p.m.

    Why does sharing the Health Care load seem to set American conservatives' teeth on edge?

    One night in one of your hospitals cost my insurance over $6,000. In my home province of Alberta the same bill would have been $200, of which none would have been billed to me directly.

    Surely fill-in-the-blank-"care" doesn't have to mean that the world has gone to pot!

  • John20000
    Aug. 2, 2010 4:46 p.m.

    Requirements for my presidential vote:

    1. Communicates ideas I think are good for the country
    2. Demonstrates ability to work successfully
    3. Has a track record of success under pressure
    4. Appears humble
    5. Acknowledges God

  • desdost
    Aug. 2, 2010 4:35 p.m.

    Utahns don't count in any presidential election. Their vote for a Republican is already assured, so you can count on them not caring what an actual Utahn (Mormon) thinks or feels one way or the other.

  • Twin Lights
    Aug. 2, 2010 4:23 p.m.

    Unfortunately, several of the posters here are correct. While many (certainly not all) LDS are loyal Republicans, that loyalty is not necessarily returned - and certainly not by the most strident in the Christian Right.

    They view us as unqualified by our religion. In the last primary race, Gov. Huckabee's rise was essentially in response to Mitt Romney's early good showing. Many in the Christian Right just could not support a Mormon (they were quite forthcoming on this point).

    I am hesitate to abandon the Republican Party. But I do think it is time LDS politicians had a forthright conversation with the party elders to motivate them to fix this. We should be welcome to run for any office and receive full support from other party members without regard to our religion.

    The "big tent" has gotten awfully small of late. It needs an addition.

  • Independent
    Aug. 2, 2010 4:09 p.m.

    I've been reading Romney's latest book. I'm not sure I agree with him on some issues, but I give him credit for having some well thought out plans about the direction the country should be going. At this point, I'm really more interested in competence than political ideology, and in that regard, you can't deny that Mitt Romney would be a good choice. You might not always agree with him, but you can bet the country wouldn't fall apart under his watch, which is more than we've had in a long time. Jon Huntsman seems like a pretty smart guy. I'm not from Utah, so I don't know much about his politics, but certainly someone who is so in touch with China would be an asset to our country. I think Barrack Obama seems like a nice enough guy. I don't agree with his world view very much, but had he been competent at his job, I would seriously consider voting for him. He and his party have spent us into oblivion, however, so I don't see how he deserves a second term.

  • Shazandra
    Aug. 2, 2010 3:51 p.m.

    Wow! couldn't agree with you more, onewhotries (2:43pm)

    Instead of dividing and ridiculing, which has become our national past-time, we should be following God's injunction about prayer:

    "If My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves, and pray and seek My Face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear them from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." (2Ch7:14)

    That is actually one strong point of G. Beck's with which I also strongly agree. Only our Father, Creator and God can heal and change hearts and give us true peace. I have always been willing to vote and campaign for the candidate who I felt was best for our country, irrespective of all the other trappings (as you mentioned so well.)

    I'll take an honest, ethical non-Christian over one who calls himself one and then humiliates his family and his country with his immorality and philandering. (Is that Still a word?) I will disagree with Mormon doctrines all day long, but I will vote one in office with no problem- if I share his dream for America. (Sorry, NO to Harry Reid!)

  • LDS Liberal
    Aug. 2, 2010 3:35 p.m.

    onewhotries | 2:43 p.m.
    We are suppose to be a Christian country..."


    NewsFlash - No, we are not.

    God fearing, yes.
    Endowned by our Creator with rights, yes.

    Christian, no.

  • onewhotries
    Aug. 2, 2010 2:43 p.m.

    I read all of the comments[didn't have anything more important to do] and agreed with quite a few.

    Some thoughts; what if those of us who believe in the power of prayer would pray for a good qualifying person to come forth and run for president in 2012, and those who do NOT believe in such a power, read,re-search, and THINK on finding that person? What if one of us, with all of our opinions, apply for the job? What if we post all of the constitution, study it and apply those rules to how we select a candidate- and then vote? Maybe we'll find another George Washington,who,by the way, prayed! Do we wait 'til the constitution is "hanging by a thread"? Do we govern by law or emotion? Help me, here!
    We are suppose to be a Christian country,we follow Christ and His teachings;love one another, not divide by color,race,or creed-religion.
    Maybe it won't be any of the names mentioned, in 2012. Will the candidate come from the north,south,east,or west? Sounds foolish? Reread some of your statements without emotion; see what I mean???

  • mo no more
    Aug. 2, 2010 2:33 p.m.

    It should be clear to these people by now that America does not want an LDS President.

    It is fine with me if they want to spend their own money, a fool and his money shall soon part.

    The economy can use a boost from what the Republicans did to us all for so many years.

    Just say no again in 2012 for LDS U.S. President.

  • A Guy With A Brain
    Aug. 2, 2010 2:22 p.m.

    Article quote: "Then, Romney attempted to confront concerns about his Mormonism directly, in a speech on religion delivered at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas in December 2007."

    Not true. That is not what his speech was about. I wanted him to confront the whisperings about his religion but that's now what he did, other than the 15 or 20 seconds in which he said he would not, as President, be led around by the nose by the prophet of the LDS church. Google "Romney and Faith in America speech" watch it for yourself.

    Best political speech I have EVER heard in my life!

    Romney 2012

  • A Guy With A Brain
    Aug. 2, 2010 2:19 p.m.

    Huntsman is a traitor and is not to be trusted.

  • 1Observer
    Aug. 2, 2010 2:03 p.m.

    Re: ObamaRepublican

    I hate to admit it but you are probably correct. If people of the LDS faith began to gain significant control of higher offices, the Gellies in the GOP would go nuts and do something akin to Haun's Mill; maybe not with physical violence but every loathsome tactic politically, culturally, and socially would be employed.

    It is time for a new political party, one that actually represents the people and is more interested in doing the right things than in getting re-elected.

    Because of the treatment Romney got last election I have quit donating any money to the Republican party and now give directly to candidates of both parties that have a real vision for the future. Sadly, they are few in number.

  • OnlytheCross
    Aug. 2, 2010 1:28 p.m.

    Dutchman, you have a good point about Mitt's religion being scrutinized but not Obama's. (9:06 am today) It came 'too little too late' for those who cared, and not at all for the libs who could care less.

    However, I would disagree with you on Glenn Beck's in-roads with conservative evangelicals. He's trying very hard to convince us all that LDS are Biblical Christians. But we know that he's ignorant about the history and doctrines of his adopted religion, as well as what Biblical validity is.

    Mormons on the whole are great people, neighbors, citizens and friends. But those of us who smile and allow Glenn & you to try and redefine Biblical teachings are just being non-confrontational. We know that your doctrines are "polytheistic, polygamous and thoroughly pagan"- to quote the late Dr. Walter Martin. That's not "hateful" or anti-LDS, it's just the facts, Bro.

    Glenn is sincere, insightful and concerned about our country's back-sliding. But his politics and passion are why he's being accepted- not that he's convinced any knowledgeable Biblical Christians that Mormonism has fit into the Biblical mold, post-Joseph Smith.

  • DUPDaze
    Aug. 2, 2010 1:06 p.m.

    C'mon- it's all about image for the dim-switches:

    It would be nice to have a "good guy" like Mitt represent America, if that image is your persuasion. GW had a clean image before Iraq, JFK had one before his affairs spilled out, MLKing was the righteous minister-activist before his infidelity...

    Obviously Dems are just as thrilled as Europeans to have a "hip" Black Democrat prez. be our poster-boy. It wasn't just his royal blackness that excited them all, 'cuz Alan Keyes or J.C. Watts could've filled that bill. It's the whole enchalada of a lib, swingin' dude... Drug days behind him, admiration for his impressive accomplishments aside- His swagger says it all.

    So let's not hack on Mitt for constantly re-inventing himself or flip-flpping. He knows what didn't work last time around. Shazandra got it: What Mormons don't get re: the whole conundrum of religion is not that there's anti-Mormon bias in the country per se.

    It's that there's a majority who know the history of Mormonism. Who invented flipping doctrines and practices for PR, statehood or to avoid prison?

  • Wally West
    Aug. 2, 2010 12:49 p.m.

    re: moodyblue77 | 10:28 p.m. July 31, 2010

    Personally, as an Independent with strong Libertarian leanings, I'd love to see Bachman and Tebow run on the GOP ticket in 2012.

    Romney's should tell the Evangelical right to get lost. Then, MR could run as a Social moderate and fiscal conservative.

    A ticket of Mitt and Charlie Crist or Ron Paul is something that, I feel, has real merit.

  • ObamaRepublican
    Aug. 2, 2010 11:46 a.m.

    Every Mormon Republican on this board should ask this question. Why am I part of a party that can not stand Mormons on the national ticket?

    The Evangelical Right tollerates us western religious zealots, but would Hawns Mill us if they thought we were gaining control. Listen to the rhetoric of those standing in front of Temple Square each General Conference time and remember you vote just like they do!

  • Pro Education
    Aug. 2, 2010 11:02 a.m.

    Above all, I think the country looks at the very one sided political atmosphere in Utah, where we do not fund education adequately and the Mormon Church seems to control many of the lawmakers. This is as fearful as the "Taliban" for some and maybe rightfully so.

  • Lane Myer
    Aug. 2, 2010 9:33 a.m.

    home25 | 9:43 p.m. Aug. 1, 2010
    the constitution was written for moral honest GOD WORSHIPING PEOPLE it will take someone who believes that way and knows how to talk to GOD IN PRAYER to run this country.Find that someone and we will have a chance if we as a nation turn to God also.


    What constitution did you read? The Talibans?

    Our (the US) Constitution reads: "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

    Where did you get your idea that it was any different?

  • Fender Bender
    Aug. 2, 2010 9:19 a.m.

    Poyman @ 9:53 wrote, "How can anybody be supportive of a candidate who is a mormon, or a catholic, or an evangelist, or whatever.... who says "I'm not all that religious"... What the heck does that mean?"

    Huntsman did not say "I'm not all that religious". The actual quote was "I can't say I am overly religious".

    Huntsman didn't expand on what he meant by "overly religious". In my mind, someone who has a holier-than-thou attitude is overly religious. Someone who refuses to vote for a particular candidate becuase they are not "Christian" enough, or not "Mormon" enough is overly religious in my opinion. Someone who assumes Huntsman is not a faithful member of his religion simply because of an off-the-cuff comment is overly religious in my opinion.

  • Flashback
    Aug. 2, 2010 9:08 a.m.

    What Romney needs to say, especially to the evangelical psychos is, "I'm a Mormon, deal with it!" And leave it at that. Let Upchuckabee rant and rave all he wants. Remember Mitt, Let you light shine, don't hide it under a bushel.

    What I want in a President is someone who can actually do the job. Not a pretender who is in way over his head like our current President.

    Huntsman? He's not the brightest bulb in the building but he uses Daddy's money well. I wouldn't vote for Huntsman for water commissioner in Peoa.

  • Dutchman
    Aug. 2, 2010 9:06 a.m.

    It is interesting that Romney's religion was probed over and over by the media while Obama's liberation theology religion taught by his pastor for twenty years, Jeremiah Wright, was not. Now we have the consequence of a true big government socialist in the white house. Although Glenn Beck does not support or believe Romney is the best choice for President I believe Beck is helping many evangelical conservative Christians to accept Mormons like himself as Christians. Beck has made many inroads with the evangelicals and recently spoke at the commencement service of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

  • Otis Spurlock
    Aug. 2, 2010 8:56 a.m.

    Isn't it interesting that the most opposition to a Mormon politician comes not from the Liberals, but from the Conservative Christians in the Rebuplican Party?

    It must be nice to belong to a political party that would never vote for you as president because of your religion.

  • 1Observer
    Aug. 2, 2010 7:33 a.m.

    Huntsman stands for nothing, including his faith and should never be President. Romney needs to quit apologizing for his faith and run on who he is. In general we need better people to step into the political arena to shape this country's future so voters actually have a quality choice. Right now, in Washington, the clowns are running the circus.

  • ajas
    Aug. 2, 2010 6:38 a.m.

    As a person who was raised in a Protestant faith I would vote for a Mormon before I would for many other faiths. Aren't Mormons considered to be unquestionably honest and moral? We need more of that in our government!

  • AZhombre
    Aug. 2, 2010 2:33 a.m.

    Truthseeker read Romney’s papers on START. Senate shouldn’t ratify treaty!

    New START is a victory for Russia…line-by-line analysis of agreement, concluded every single provision favors Russia or is neutral; not one favors the US.

    The world would be safer if there were no weapons of mass destruction. The world is safer if America is strong. The stronger we are relative to nations like Russia, the safer the world is.

    Missile defense is an urgent priority we must not allow to be restricted.

    Article2, Section2, Clause2 of the Constitution states the president may only enter treaties after the Senate has reviewed and approved of them (“advise and consent…two-thirds majority”). What does START have? Its own commission, which can decide what the treaty means after it enters into force — effectively making a new treaty by altering its elements without review and consent of the Senate.

    That’s right, a “Bilateral Consultative Commission” gets to decide what the parties meant when they signed the papers. So, Obama can decide what he wants it to mean after telling senators it means something else to get their votes — or any other future administration that thinks like Obama.

  • Shazandra
    Aug. 2, 2010 1:20 a.m.

    C'mon Truthseeker!

    Mitt's such a nice guy. How many cardboard cutouts would look that good? But you nailed it (11:54 pm):

    He is a slick, well-connected schmoozer. He's sincere, constantly re-inventing himself and his positions (i.e. Flip-Flopping), moderately centrist, and a family man. He's a quick learner of public response and only needs a second chance to alter his persona and positions...

    Wait. That is what Mrmnism has been doing since 1830. So Romney hasn't fooled those who know what a Mormon is: Just give them a few years of negative public scrutiny and they'll change on a dime and call it revelation.

    That, my friends, is why the non-LDS won't vote for a Mormon. Pretty soon you'll be denying that polytheism or pagan freemasonry was ever a part of your heritage...

    (No foul cries, please. I'm 7th generation LDS and don't need anyone telling me my history.)

  • Truthseeker
    Aug. 1, 2010 11:54 p.m.

    It isn't Romney's religion which should give us pause in voting for him, it is his ignorance in foreign policy matters. Romney stated during a 2008 campaign debate that UN weapons inspectors weren't in Iraq prior to our invasion. WRONG. Recently he made another blunder about the START treaty.

    I can't imagine why Republicans and especially Conservatives when MA Gov. Romney signed into law state-funded abortion coverage.

    Me thinks Romney is just another slick, well-connected shmoozer.

  • AZhombre
    Aug. 1, 2010 11:26 p.m.

    Folks, it’s all about the economy!

    Obama told NBC News, "Americans (will) remember policies that got us into this mess.” HOPE SO! Jan 3rd, ‘07 day Dems took over Senate/Congress. Dems' forced banks to make bad loans. Liberal Congress = Toxic Loans. Great job Barry! At the time DOW closed at 12,621.77. GDP previous quarter 3.5%. Unemployment 4.6%. Bush's Econ policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

    House Fin Svcs & Senate Banking taken over by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The econ meltdown happened 15 months later in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FIN SVCS!!! From ‘01 Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop risky Fannie/Freddie.

    Thanks DEMS for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% unemployment... to this CRISIS (and others) by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. 3rd highest pay-off guy and anti reform: hypocrite in Chief Obama! So when a LIB tries to blame Bush...REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007....THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!
    ***** MITT ’12 *****

  • poyman
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:53 p.m.

    I just don't get some of these comments...

    How can anybody be supportive of a candidate who is a mormon, or a catholic, or an evangelist, or whatever.... who says "I'm not all that religious"... What the heck does that mean? I like to float with the wind, without commitment?

    As for Romney... I am tired of people calling him someone without deep seeded beliefs. He changed his position on one social issue and one only and now he's a flip flopper (pulleeze)... Obama and his crew make Romney look like a minor leaguer when it comes to flip flopping.....

    And the whole health care deal... what is that all about? Romney was the Governor of a state who was getting eaten alive by increased healthcare costs that were dumped on them by folks getting free healhcare by simply refusing to buy it for themselves.... So the people of the state wanted a requirement/law that required people to pay for their own healthcare... Big Wow... The 10th amendment of the constitution makes that type of problem something that the state's should fix.... Not the federal government (like Obamacare) which would in fact, be unconstitutional.

  • home25
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:43 p.m.

    the constitution was written for moral honest GOD WORSHIPING PEOPLE it will take someone who believes that way and knows how to talk to GOD IN PRAYER to run this country.Find that someone and we will have a chance if we as a nation turn to God also.

  • Twin Lights
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:22 p.m.


    Pres. Obama is a Muslim?

    First, being Muslim would not disqualify him for the office. There is no religious test for the presidency (nor should there be).

    Second, understanding that Americans generally have some doubts about Muslims and that their religion could be used against them, there is a simple test that essentially proves Pres. Obama is not a Muslim (and that he was not born outside the US).

    He survived one of the most prolonged primaries EVER against Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaigns were famous for a scorched earth policy. If Pres. Obama truly were a Muslim, Hillary would have used it to bury him and get the nomination herself. Period.

  • JoeBlow
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:02 p.m.

    How hypocritical.

    How many staunch LDS would vote for an atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, or Scientologist.

    Be honest.

    You dont want religion to matter when the prejudice is against the LDS but would be very quick to put forth your own religious test.

    Whether you like it or not, religion does matter.

    Personally, I could vote for Romney, but the Republican base never will.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:48 p.m.

    Christy | 7:59 p.m.


    You scored!!!

  • Christy
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:59 p.m.

    boiseblue | 6:02 p.m.

    If the Lord wants Mitt in the White House, Mitt will be in the White House. It's that simply.

    I will vote for him.

    ANYONE would be better than what we now have. He is a Muslim and is destroying this country. Why is that not of concern to anyone?


    So, if the Lord wants Mitt in the White House, then it would stand to reason that the Lord wanted Obama in the White House, right?

    And, is Obama destroying the country because he's a Muslim, or is he a Muslim because he's destroying this country?

    Just trying to get all the whackiness straight...

  • LDS Liberal
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:51 p.m.

    Doug10 | 4:14 p.m.
    Give Obama his due. When he hired Huntsman as an overseas specialist he took him off the national radar,

    There may still be time for Huntsman but he will have to cue up responses and figure a way to win in his own party for him to win on a national stage.



    I thought the same thing when Pres. Obama assigned him to China.

    Jonny is my age.
    I served my LDS Mission under his Father Jon Sr. while he was on his LDS Mission in Taiwan.

    We lost a great Govenor here, but gained a great Ambassador on the "Global" radar.

    My guess, would be Obama will win re-election in 2012.
    V.P. Joe Biden will make a 3 attempt at the presidency (something he's ALWAYS wanted) by assending the Democratic ticket in 2016.

    If Hunstman plays it right, he should lay low in 2012 and make a clean run in 2016, when there will be no incumbent.

    Sen./V.P. Biden would be 74
    Gov./Ambassador Huntsman would be only age 56


  • Spacious Living
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:48 p.m.

    I agree with what "Civil" said. Well put!

  • Spacious Living
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:43 p.m.

    Hey ST - do you know anyone you WOULD like to vote for? - - - I well understand your comment - key is finding someone - anyone -

  • Spacious Living
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:33 p.m.

    Whether or not it's accurate, this story is written such that both Jon Hunstman Jr. and Mitt Romney are two politicians through and through who are - like far too many politicians today - facade individuals too concerned with popularity and slippery when it comes to anything integrity. . . void of personal integrity, and misleading when it comes to communicating the influences in their lives that direct their decisions. If we are not, or cannot openly be inspired by God - we are not adequately inspired to lead a country. Especially a country that carries God's name everywhere on all things that have any level of legitimacy, or bedrock foundation to them.

  • LDS Liberal
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:20 p.m.

    roger | 9:33 a.m.
    In contrast, I really like Huntsman. Of any Mormon politician on the national scene, Huntsman is the one that most comes across as somebody with good judgment who is more interested in focusing on the actual issues rather than pandering to the cultural-warriors. I’d totally vote for Huntsman.



    He'd have my vote,
    regardless of what party ticket he ran on.

  • ST
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:19 p.m.

    I don't have a problem voting for a Mormon ... but I would have a problem voting for Mitt or Jr.

  • Napolien Dynomite
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:03 p.m.

    Too bad the world cares so much about his religion, and that he will lower his standards for them accept him

  • Gr8bald1
    Aug. 1, 2010 6:36 p.m.

    After reading the day's comments.....

    There is much more to Mitt than the presidential looks and 3-4 minute interviews present. Read his book, "No Apology", to understand (from "the horse's mouth") what his views, positions, and proposed "fixes" are. There is so much more to him than most folks see (or care to search out).

    I am also drawn to Newt Gingrich. MUCH more politically astute, focuses on the issues, and presents himself admirably in the toughest arenas -- without contention.

    As much as I would like to see a Gingrich/Romney or Romney/Gingrich ticket in a '12 election, I don't think Romney, Gingrich, or Palin honestly don't care for one another.

    The '12 election will be an anti-Obama one. The GOP candidate will win -- whoever it is. No moderate or independent will vote for Obama.... but, perhaps they would for Hillary Clinton.

  • DR Hall
    Aug. 1, 2010 6:17 p.m.

    I probably would never make a good politician as I do not like to make a lot of compromizes especially persal values. I much rather have a good Christian remain a good Christain than become a corrupt individual. I too am an Indexer for the last 7 years working on public records and am LDS but will not give up christian values just to be elected to even a dog catcher. We need very decent people in all walks of life as they will help America stay strong to its values as a GOOD country. I appreciate a Good person no matter what their religion because likely they will treat others as a good people and set the example for others and work together to build a real good and stable America with top notch people and families.

  • boiseblue
    Aug. 1, 2010 6:02 p.m.

    If the Lord wants Mitt in the White House, Mitt will be in the White House. It's that simply.

    I will vote for him.

    ANYONE would be better than what we now have. He is a Muslim and is destroying this country. Why is that not of concern to anyone?

    Go Mitt!

  • ljeppson
    Aug. 1, 2010 5:25 p.m.

    To Ana Lena 12:07 PM. Obamacare has already saved lives. I have personal knowledge of this. God bless President Obama. The guy's got guts unmatched by any of the people on this blog.

  • wild horses
    Aug. 1, 2010 5:21 p.m.

    Don't we all wish Michael Savage would run?
    He is the best one out there!

  • Anonymous Contributions
    Aug. 1, 2010 5:18 p.m.

    I happen to be the same faith as Mitt, and I've met him before.

    I simply don't get what's so wrong with telling the world straight up what you believe! - If there's a scarcity in politics these days, it's straight answers - straight talk.

    What's less appealing in a candidate is a guy who would recalibrate & compromise their faith (especially in Jesus Christ) for the sake of gaining the popular votes. Those same popular votes that have been derived from an ignorant mass population (the same voters that have written Obama into our country) and by those same political movement/s that have abandoned the root principles our country has been made great by.

    One thing is certain here, and that is that this country was not established by spineless individuals who weren't willing to take up leadership roles that may or may not have been popular. With how much adultery to our tax $'s are going on, we may as well be in a repeat session with King George III. Several of the founders were protestant King George III was Anglican - telling that the framers had back bone.

  • mark my words
    Aug. 1, 2010 5:18 p.m.

    Romney is not a sacred cow folks!
    He maybe the best we have.
    All the others picture me as the devil running the show!

  • TD7
    Aug. 1, 2010 5:09 p.m.

    I wasn't under the impression that Huntsman was very active in the first place whereas Romney is a different story.

    I think this is the paper's way of letting us know that unlike Romney, Huntsman is kind of a Jack Mormon.

    Huntsman does have a great pedigree for LDS people to admire. He'll probably do favors for the church if asked, but I believe Huntsman is to the LDS church what John Kennedy was to the Catholic church — church and religion is much more of occasional tradition than it is an adherence or a practicing faith.

  • wpwitt2000
    Aug. 1, 2010 4:56 p.m.

    It doesn't matter going round and round how sad it is that people are diverse and vote accordingly. This is the big weakness in democracy. A really qualified candidate, like Mitt Romney, could be damned from holding office because a majority of voters don't like or can't identify with his religious beliefs. That isn't going to change and the system isn't going to change! I hope Mitt is 'slick enough' to find away to beat that.

  • my slc
    Aug. 1, 2010 4:33 p.m.

    Who is the new GOP?

    Go to the editorial pages in today’s paper and read the article by Gary Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico.

    He seems reasonable to me, but on some social issues he may not fit into the Utah GOP mold. His web page lays out his stands.

  • SJ Bobkins
    Aug. 1, 2010 4:33 p.m.

    It's OK to be an anti-Mormon bigot while the political correctness folks take a dim view of a biased expression towards other faiths. Until that changes, Mormons will never get a fair shake when competing on any field, outside the Intermountain West. When the Evangelicals hijacked the Republican Party in 1994, the definition of a conservative now included walking softly on issues the Evangelical lobby deems important. With only 30% of voters registered as Republicans why does anyone running for a national office have to kiss up to the wacko religious right? If Mitt would stick to his moderate views, while maintaining a rigid line on government growth and spending, he would do a heck of a lot better. Barry Goldwater was labeled the father of the conservative movement, he was neither religious nor did he feel the need to pander to any faith based group. He would be spinning in his grave to realize the extent of the influence such groups yield. Romney will never "get" their vote, he should be working to lock up the center-right democrats who are more independent than democrat.

  • Doug10
    Aug. 1, 2010 4:14 p.m.

    Give Obama his due. When he hired Huntsman as an overseas specialist he took him off the national radar, that allowed the GOP to try to re-decorate their candidates who have already run and been turned down by the American public. They sent them out hoping for a spike in the polls but lets face it.

    Huckaby and Romney on the same team did not work before and history will repeat. Palin is the closest thing to Aesop's fairy tales we have in our party.

    GOP's are dying for a fresh face to elect and right now that person is not there. Running one of the has beens will re-elect Barrack.

    There may still be time for Huntsman but he will have to cue up responses and figure a way to win in his own party for him to win on a national stage.

  • Mike in Texas
    Aug. 1, 2010 4:05 p.m.

    Romney and Palin, What a ticket to certain a republican crash and burn. Hope springs eternal.

  • Carson
    Aug. 1, 2010 3:43 p.m.

    I'm not LDS and I don't ever wanna be, But I would vote for Mitt. But I'm voting for Newt Gingrich who I think will be the man for the Republicans in 2012.

  • Not_Scared
    Aug. 1, 2010 3:38 p.m.

    "Just to clear things up. Yes Obama is Muslim. If you don't think that, than you need to get your head out of the clouds. You need to start paying attention to all the signs and listen to what is being said. People like you on't see things for what they are, that is why this country is in the state it is in. If you think everything is hunky dory then you won't do anything to change it."

    This is what I expect for people who would vote for Romney: little attachment to reality.

  • Idaho Coug
    Aug. 1, 2010 3:15 p.m.

    A Few Points:

    1. Goatesnotes was right. The extreme left and right may be the loudest but it is middle/moderate American that swung the last election and will continue to in the future.

    2. Presidential candidates have to appeal to the extremes of their parties to be nominated but then the more reasonable/moderate you at least appear (Obama) is important in a general election.

    3. I believe that both Romney and Huntsman are moderate/reasonable men but may have to appear less so in primaries. That may bring the label of flip flopper but it is politics.

    4. I LIKE that Huntsman labels himself as a "soft" Mormon. Not only will he perhaps appear less extreme to the Christian right-wing (willing to back off the more controversial Mormon ideas) but he may actually appeal to more LDS voters than some would think. The reality is that many LDS are not harcore LDS and have flexible testimonies despite the louder rhetoric from hardcore Mormons.

    5. Bottom line - we need someone who is genuinely reasonable, moderate, and willing to work with everyone/compromise in order to actually get something done. Someone Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton accomplished.

  • Say No to BO
    Aug. 1, 2010 3:14 p.m.

    Romney is polling well against Obama. Then again, EVERYONE is polling better against Obama.
    Old names (like Romney) mean pre-packaged smear ready to go another round.
    The GOP will trot out a couple of fresh faces and see how they do. Maybe Jindal or Pawlenty. Or a wild card.
    Romney is done. Huckabee is done. Gingritch is done. Palin is done.
    You have to package a regional candidate and label him a hero. More like American Idol than picking a real leader.
    The dems may be stuck with Obama unless he wants to walk away. He should be easy to beat.

  • Uncle Mal
    Aug. 1, 2010 2:56 p.m.

    I don't think that this is an issue. I've heard that Mitt Romney has been less-active for years, ever since he supported abortion rights.

  • noneck62
    Aug. 1, 2010 2:55 p.m.

    How about this for the GOP in 2012: a Romney/Huntsman Ticket; a Huntsman/Palin Ticket or Palin/Huntsmam Ticket;How about a Romney/Bush or Bush/Romney Ticket or Huntsman/Bush; or how about Romney/McCain or McCain/Romney.

  • justice4children
    Aug. 1, 2010 2:37 p.m.

    Although my screen name may indicate I'm concerned about 'children' only, don't let that fool you! (However, when you come right down to it, I guess it's the 'children' who will be effected the most from any presidential election in the long run).

    It seems to me that when considering "voting" for an electoral candidate, the absolute most important question is; CAN, AND WILL THEY RUN OUR COUNTRY BETTER THAN THE OTHER CANDIDATES? I, for one, think we better take a good hard look at the 'capabilities' more than what church they attend on Sundays.

    Our country was founded, "for the people, and by the people...and, I believe, was originally based on "Freedom of Religion". Isn't that why our forefathers sailed the ocean to get away from being told "what" they could worship and what they could not? George Washington was voted the 1st President not based on his religion, but on his ability to establish the foundation for "all" the people.

    Time to throw religion 'out' of politics and make decisions based on 'who' will do the best job for the United States of America! Our future children will definitely all be affected.

    Aug. 1, 2010 2:34 p.m.

    Mitt's Legacy:

    Republicans will promote:

    Gingrich= Family Values Sleaze Bag.

    Palin= Half Govenor, Full Time Quitter.

    Romney= Slick Flip-Flopper.

    Huckabee= TV Huckster.

    So, if you want a Family Values Sleaze Bagin, Quittin, Flip-Floppin, TV Huckster,


    Say hello to endless pre-emptive wars.

    Say hello to a continuous re-distribution of money toward the wealthy.

    Say hello to corporate welfare.

    Say good-bye to good jobs.

    Say good-bye to Social Security and Medicare.

    The Republicans will say it will be different this time.

    Last time we fooled you.

    This time you can trust us.


  • attentive
    Aug. 1, 2010 2:20 p.m.

    No one is going to forget that Romney is a Mormon. Not a very good Mormon if he doesn't want that fact to be a real part of his life, but still - he would be a bad choice for the Republican nominee for president in 2012.

  • patriot
    Aug. 1, 2010 1:39 p.m.

    Don't expect the religious crazies on the far right to boycot Romney in 2012 as they did in 2008. Conservatives are smart enough to understand that Mitt has all the tools for president and he is their best hope of getting rid of the nightmare of Obama in 2012 and restoring America back to the people.

  • shamrock
    Aug. 1, 2010 1:37 p.m.

    Both Romney and Huntsman seem like perfectly viable Presidential candidates to me, and I'm not a Republican or a Mormon. If a candidate is honest and capable, I couldn't care less what religion he or she practices.

  • Wally Ballou
    Aug. 1, 2010 1:25 p.m.

    Romney and Huntsman's best chance is to appeal to all of us atheists and agnostics. The fundamentalists think all of you Mormons are in league with Satan himself, while we godless heathens think you're not any crazier than the rest.

  • Joshthebadbear
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:46 p.m.

    Am I the only one or is there anyone else who feels like Rom reminds them of a slick snake oil/used car salesman ? I wouldn't vote for that guy if it was a two man race between him and Howard Stern. And Howie aint getting the vote either. Rom is political coward. . . heaping to himself voters having itching ears. All one has to do if folllow his campaign trail banter from last time. One side of the fence in Utah another in Georgia etc.

  • Reasonable Person
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:34 p.m.

    Elect Mitt! Then, he can use his "business experience" to do exactly what he did in business: buy things cheaply, gut them, sell off any profitable parts, and then incorporate everything in the Cayman Islands.

    Y'all can't be saying "Mitt's religion doesn't matter", then name-call Obama and Rev Wright.

  • Winglish
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:23 p.m.

    Re: my slc

    I'm right there with you. I think Jon Huntsman Jr. was an excellent governor. He's top notch! Why in the world the far right bows to Palin is beyond me. 5 colleges in 6 years to finally graduate from U. of Idaho with a journalism degree? Then she quits her job as governor. Are you kidding me? This is a presidential resume`? Get real!

    Our country needs someone with proven business sense. We need someone who can run an economy. We don't need hunky dory or you betcha or nukular. We need a CEO.

  • Vauvban
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:18 p.m.

    I will vote for a reasonable, rational, compassionate and honest individual, regardless of their religion, ethnic identity, sex or sexual orientation. Mitt Romney doesn't fit the mold whereas Jon Huntsman does.

  • rainbow dust
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:15 p.m.

    I would vote for Romney over Obama.
    I think Romney doesn't understand poor people.
    How can he know how they feel when he himself is so rich.
    But he would be better then most running, probably.

  • sergio
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:11 p.m.

    @Blue Chelan56 10:14. If you want better and you feel you deserve better, then you have to do better. Look in the mirror and get in touch with your problem.

  • DRay
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:09 p.m.

    The Democrats do such a better job at appealing to the unthinking masses of people who just want their beer and their baseball and nothing else matters...If Mitt can just promise something of that, as Obama did, convince them he will solve all their problems, he would then have a chance of winning a popular election.

  • Peter S
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:09 p.m.

    I would characterize myself as a devout evangelical christian. Rather than a deterrent to my supporting Governor Romney, his apparent deep personal LDS faith would increase my likelihood of supporting him, just as his commitment to his family. Those qualities, and his executive experience in the private sector, are his two strongest selling points, in my opinion.
    I don't plan to support Governor Romney in the 2012 primaries, for other reasons: (1) his substantial, dramatic changes in policy positions; (2) his entanglement with Romneycare at a time when the conservative base and most moderates are outraged by Obamacare; (3) the repeated, underhanded attacks by Governor Romney's core political operatives on the Republican they considered his most formidable potential adversary in the 2012 primary (Governor Palin) which began in the latter weeks of the 2008 campaign, and has continued.
    But I will support Governor Romney if he's the Republican nominee, though I think it's likely he will not be the nominee. And, again, his LDS faith, and the depth of his faith, are admirable qualities in my view.

  • Ana Lena
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:07 p.m.

    Just to clear things up. Yes Obama is Muslim. If you don't think that, than you need to get your head out of the clouds. You need to start paying attention to all the signs and listen to what is being said. People like you on't see things for what they are, that is why this country is in the state it is in. If you think everything is hunky dory then you won't do anything to change it.

    Huntsman is an idiot. He doesn't stand for anything. He just exists.

    Obama is a coward. He has no back bone and no loyalty to the US. He is the worst leader and should never have been elected.

    We need a man who has convictions whatever that might be. Romney could be it if we saw some fight in him. At least we know that Romney is good man. There are not a lot of leaders that have good in them or care for the people. We need someone with passion. Right now Romney is the only one who has what is needed.

    In the end we need a leader who loves the USA.

  • my slc
    Aug. 1, 2010 11:56 a.m.

    Would I vote for a Mormon?

    Heck, if my choices were Jon Huntsman Jr. or the Mitt Romney of 2003-07 Gov. of Massachusetts, sure I would.

    Both men are / were moderate, thoughtful conservatives. Huntsman with his dealing of nuclear waste and liquor laws in Utah and Romney with the universal health care plan and the realization that gay marriage was a legal reality in Massachusetts..

    Unfortunately the Romney of those years appears to be no longer around. Huntsman is however and gaining more respect nationally and internationally daily.

  • TheLionScribe
    Aug. 1, 2010 11:22 a.m.

    The reason that Romney is unelectable is because he out of touch with the Americana people. He is big business; but the little Americans are choking in the economical crises. Mitt already displayed his lack of awareness to the poor in Massachusetts. He did not facilitate poor fathers with work to pay child support, while divorced mothers get government grants and can advance their education. Yet, fathers who can’t find work still have to pay the guaranteed child support. Mitt did nothing to balance the problem because rich-capitalists see the poor as being the victims of their own laziness and mismanagement.

  • bgl
    Aug. 1, 2010 11:02 a.m.

    Rock said---"Palin is inexperienced and unsofisticated but anyone who thinks she is dumb has another thing coming."

    Thank you The Rock---you not only gave me my best laugh of the morning, you--in one sentence, validated what most people "thing" about Palin supporters.

  • TheLionScribe
    Aug. 1, 2010 10:46 a.m.

    If these LDS politicians had any common sense, they would put the interviews in perspective by asking the interviewers in such questions if they had considered the other candidates’ faith and religious activity as a pre-requisite for politics. Such as are only Catholics and Protestants qualified to be presidents, if not, than why bring religion into the race? Or, would the interviewer pose the same questions to a Jew or an Atheist? If these LDS politicians are not putting perspective upfront, they don’t deserve my vote.
    That is why I voted for a third runner when Romney ran against Kennedy in MA. With Romney’s sign on my lawn, I listened to the debate were Romney displayed being as much of a liberal as Kennedy. Immediately I took Romney’s sign off my law, and then I voted for a lady who was little known; but, she stood firm on her believes of correctness. My vote was for principal rather than for eloquent speaking. Being a flip-flopper is not an LDS principal; and, people like firmness on principal.

  • Max
    Aug. 1, 2010 10:41 a.m.

    Indiana, I would love to believe what you said about Dobson apologizing to Beck but this has the feel of an urban legend. Can you tell us more about this? What is your source?

  • Ronnie W.
    Aug. 1, 2010 10:38 a.m.

    @ Blue-
    Would you really enjoy having a terrible GOP ticket? That's frustrating because I want someone who would do the job well(unlike the current President). If you are so biased that you won't see that faults within your on party then you are lost. I would not want to see a Palin Romney ticket either but because I don't agree with them. Not for sheer entertainment. This is America we are taking about here, not daytime TV. We need someone who can beat Barack Obama because he is not taking us on the right track.

  • Elcapitan
    Aug. 1, 2010 10:29 a.m.

    Anti Mormon bias is everywhere, even on these Mormon country boards. It is expected, forecasted, and prophecied. Huntsman wants to take the Kennedy road and not appear to the public he is a serious about his faith, probably for political purposes. Hey, for some of you go for Barney Frank....he is just your type and hype. In Utah, all the bugs jump out of the woodwork to be seen and heard. It might be a eye opener to read Romneys new book to see what kind of thinkier he really is. Do It. Be informed not prejudiced.

  • Dana the Barbarian
    Aug. 1, 2010 10:29 a.m.

    Mitt who? I'm voting for Newt Gingrich in the next election.

  • Misbehavin'
    Aug. 1, 2010 10:19 a.m.

    My born-again/tea partying cousin in the South told me during the primaries that the only thought worse that Obama as President was a Mormon...Yep, she said that. I guess she got what she deserved.

  • Blue Chelan56
    Aug. 1, 2010 10:14 a.m.

    I don't believe America got what it deserves! I do believe that about 53% of the voters deserve what they now have. The rest of us deserve better!

  • facts_r_stubborn
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:47 a.m.

    We are hiring the next President whoever that will be, to be Commander in Chief, not Pastor in Chief.

    Isn't it sad, that this is even an issue?

    Even sadder the way whole system works, and we the voters, have only ourselves to blame. We are controlled by perceptions from the media and political operatives. We take little time to think in depth about issues and the trade offs between various policies and programs. We think like sheep.

    Worse, no politician in today's politics can be genuine and unscripted. It's all about marketing and saying the right things to the right interest groups and target audiences.

    What ever happened to telling the truth and doing the right thing? I recognize this is just boy scout stuff, and no President can be elected this way, but isn't that sad?

    What if we actually made choices based on our impressions of the real person running for office instead of some focus group monster creation? What if they just said what they really believe and let us decide whether or not we agree at the ballot box?

    Oh, I forgot, only a few of us vote in Utah.

  • Bebyebe
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:36 a.m.

    Mr. Flip-Flop Phony

    The irony is that Romney would stand a better chance as a liberal or moderate Republican. He decided liberal would be more electable in Massachusetts. His ideals promptly shifted to uber-conservative when it was politically useful.

    Liberals won't vote for him because of his flop to the right. The born-again extremist theocrats won't vote for him because he's mormon.

    Sorry, Mitt. 'Never happen.

  • roger
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:33 a.m.

    In general, liberals and moderates have no problem voting for a Mormon, as long as the Mormon in question is otherwise qualified and agrees with their views. The real bigots in this country are concentrated in the right-wing of the Republican party.

    When Romney ran to the right to pursue the Republican nomination, he was pandering to bigots. Of course the bigots never accepted him, and of course he alienated the middle.

    As a moderate Democrat, Romney leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Were moderates like me who elected him in Massachusetts just tools?

    In contrast, I really like Huntsman. Of any Mormon politician on the national scene, Huntsman is the one that most comes across as somebody with good judgment who is more interested in focusing on the actual issues rather than pandering to the cultural-warriors. I’d totally vote for Huntsman.

  • pat1
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:22 a.m.

    We LDS people do not all think alike. It is a mistake to assume that we will vote as a block for a member of the church. No! My vote will come through my own political convictions and whether I feel a candidate matches them. Part of that considers whether a candidate can work with the issues at hand and those who believe differently than he/she does.

    There is no 100% right and wrong in our current political problems. Both parties can claim fault for our economic problems, but neither takes responsibility. We're in a similar situation today that the Spaniards were in 1492. Huge national debt, too many foreign wars, and some inept leadership that has been occurring for several years, on both sides.

    Extreme conservatism worries me today as much as excessive liberalism worried me in the 1960s.

    Where is rational thought and civil rhetoric?

    We're in no position of judging whether a person is devout enough to represent the Church. We don't need representation today. It is a world-wide organization. Keep religion out of politics except to allow it to be practiced.

  • other
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:12 a.m.

    The religious right are the worst kind of bigots. It is not surprising at all that they will oppose a Mormon on the grounds of religion alone- regardless of his political views. I am fairly liberal and non-religious- and have voted for (and against) some Mormons- though living in Utah, there are few or no alternatives in most races. Still, the religion is not and should not be an issue unless the candidate makes it an issue- such as hypocritical preaching against drinking and getting busted for drunken driving and then claiming that he shouldn't be required to drive within the lines on the road anyways.

  • Indiana
    Aug. 1, 2010 9:05 a.m.

    There always comes a troll or a bigot or whatever you want to call them to spoil a perfectly reasonable conversation...

    Yes Johnson72, I would vote for a Mormon. I have and I will again.. the fact is, I have voted for Mormons several times. Now, as for you saying no one would, won't you tell that to all my southern family and friends that voted for Mitt in the Primaries??? Some are Catholic, some are Born Again Christians but all are smart and not bigots (unlike some) who will vote for a good man.

    It is my belief that Mitt has a much better chance this next go around. There are those out there making every effort and being successful at unifying the two communities, the Evangelical and the LDS. Personally, I believe that to be mission of Glenn Beck, a unifier and it is working. Did you even know that Dr. James Dobson has called Glenn and apologized for the bad behaviour of taking Glenn's book off of the Focus on the Family website?? I am sure that disappoints some. Not me, I want to see these two great groups at least be friends.

  • Socalmon
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:57 a.m.

    I have news for you people.
    As the only Mormon at the company I work for, here in So. Cal., I have had many, if not most of my friends tell me that they voted for Romney, in the last election.
    The Dixie area of the South will always be the most bigoted. But they will no longer carry the bulk for swinging the next election.
    There are far too many more angry Independents, within the entire nation, who far outweigh Dixieland Evangelicals, that want Mitt. The polls indicate it. And, I hear it with my own ears, here in my area of the country.
    My father's uncle, who was once a congressman during the 1930s, told my dad, "people ultimately vote their pocketbooks".
    This time around, it won't be about Mormonism, but about the economy.
    And the American people know that Romney can lead us better in that realm.
    Don't count Mitt out people.

  • TwoBitsWorth
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:54 a.m.

    Some may think that basing one's vote on "what is a person's religion" is a form of "profiling". We can't have that, can we!

    My grandfather would say, "What's good for the goose is what's good for the gander!"

    Now, in my view, if folks can't understand the above, they can't understand "Freedom" either.

  • peter
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:38 a.m.

    Neither Romney nor Huntsman would get my nod for a Presidential run, not because of their religious affiliations or preferences, rather because of their track records in office. They are both too big government-minded, which has been America's problem on both sides of the aisle. Government is not, and never will be, the solution to the domestic social and economic issues facing us today. Those who think government has any reasonable solution has a lemming mentalility and might end up going over the cliff with those in the lead.

  • demutahn
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:38 a.m.

    Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney are not whats wrong with this country. Its the fact that they have followers that it is.

  • pat1
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:28 a.m.

    It was never smart politically to woo the neo-conservatives in the first place--

    Politics and religion are not comfortable bedfellows. We shouldn't vote for someone simply because of his/her religion.

  • Esquire
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:20 a.m.

    This is a no win issue, unfortunately. Being a Mormon is not a good reason not to vote for someone, but the reverse is true. Someone should not vote for Romney just because he is a Mormon, but that is what Utah did and will do again. I look at the issues, and consistency, and on both, Romney comes up short for me. I was an early fan, but when early in the last campaign he ripped on the French people, where he served his mission, he started losing me, and my opposition grew when he flip-flopped on the issues.

  • Christy
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:15 a.m.

    Listen baby, he's not a foreign born Muslim. Give it a rest.

    And it was George who kissed the Saudi prince.

  • Dave K
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:13 a.m.

    Palin is too much and doesn't wear well. She panders to the crowd and is too slick. Romney is the same. Their 'packaging' is too scripted and they both come across as individuals wanting power and fame more than principles.
    I'm a conservative and LDS and I think we need genuine leaders. The bashing on both sides of the isle gets us nowhere.....

  • maximum
    Aug. 1, 2010 8:08 a.m.

    I wouldn't vote for a "Mormon" ... but I would vote for Mitt Romney or John Huntsman because I'd be voting for the person, not their religion.
    If Harry Reed ran for president I wouldn't vote for him.

    It's funny how religion isn't an issue unless the candidate is a Mormon. Even when he had to publicly denounce comments made by his church leader, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's religion was no big deal. But since Romney was Mormon, religion was a big deal for some.

  • goatesnotes
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:53 a.m.

    Both are seeking the middle -- Romney running more conservative, Huntsman running more liberal.

    It's what you do when you're a politician.

    You have to appeal to middle America to get elected.

    Obama bamboozled a lot of middle America, then after the election has governed from the far left.

    Clinton lasted two terms because he "got it." Obama shows no signs of running to the middle, that's why he will be a one-term president.

    The American electorate is composed of 20 percent hardcore liberals who will never change and 40 percent harcore conservatives who will never change (Michaal Barone's analysis, and I agree).

    The key in elections is to tap into the "moderate middle" 40 percent who can swing elections either way. That's exactly how Obama got elected -- he appealed to the middle to win election, then ran to the far left to govern. Big mistake.

    This has been going on since the beginning of the Republic. Jefferson hated the party system, and warned against it. He and Adams ignored each other when Adams was President because of party, though they were good friends.

    Polarization is reality and will never change.

    Middle America tips elections.

  • Third try screen name
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:49 a.m.

    I had to laugh at the very concept. How does Mitt put his Mormonism back in the bag? That ship has sailed.
    Harry Reid has survived because the GOP attack machine doesn't work like the democrat one.
    They have made Romney and Palin lightning rods. And they will do the same for any other candidate with conviction.
    The GOP's worst enemy is itself. Steele runs from the platform rather than holding it up and selling it as an alternative to tax-and-spend.
    GWB spent but didn't tax. He didn't follow the platform.
    Mitt tends to waffle.
    What the GOP needs is someone who will proudly carry out the party platform...
    ...on immigration reform
    ...on taxation
    ...on defense.
    As long as they continue to court the middle they will be nothing more than democrat-lite.
    What's the LDS youth song say? "Stand strong, even if you have to stand alone."

  • Midwest Mom
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:41 a.m.

    All that these politicians are showing is that power is more important to them than their convictions.

    "But be hold, it is to get gain, to be praised of men--and ye have set your hearts upon --the vain things of this world"

  • I am Mathman
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:30 a.m.

    I wish that I could vote for a president without knowing his/hers religious affiliation. I don't care. All I care about is how well the country will be ran, not if the president attended service on Sunday morning. Let's keep religions out of politics. They just cloud the issues. And, before anyone says religion does matter, Romney might be president right know if it didn't. Think about it.

  • Pianoman99
    Aug. 1, 2010 7:25 a.m.

    Yes Johnson72, I think we GET your point.

    I for one believe in Mitt Romney. I think people are seeing that he is the real deal. I think everyone is fed up with Obama and his "change".

    As For Gov Huntsman he seems a little too inexperienced to run for office.

    Mitt Romney For 2012.

    I find it hilarious that you clearly anti Mormons post on an LDS owned website/newspaper.

  • GWB
    Aug. 1, 2010 6:47 a.m.

    Romney going after the Republican nomination for President is a fools errand.

    In the current political environment when people like Senator Bennett cannot even get out of the convention, how does anyone think a man that donated money to Planned Parenthood, who was for choice before he was against it, who instituted a government healthcare plan with a mandate that everyone buy insurance, and who is a religion that most religious right voters think is a cult can get nominated?

    He will be attacked from the Tea Party for his instituting Romneybama care in Massachussetts where ever he goes.

    He will be attacked from the right for his religion by the likes of Huckabee.

    He will not win the nomination with a primary schedule that goes from Iowa and New Hampster to letting the South (South Carolina, Florida, Texas, Alabama, Georgia) decide the Republican nominee.

    He would have a better chance at being elected if he did the Ross Perot Independent route and financed the effort to collect signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

  • BroJoseph
    Aug. 1, 2010 6:26 a.m.

    This tells me that mainstream "Conservatism" and Mormonism are incompatable. Why vote conservative if they cannot accept Mormons as Christians?!!
    time to consider the alternatives!!

  • Baron Scarpia
    Aug. 1, 2010 6:22 a.m.

    I was reading recently that the GOP is now dominated by a "shaky" alliance of Tea Partiers and Evangelicals, both somewhat diverging in values/objectives -- one is more Libertarian in views, the other obviously more fundamentalist in its Bible-based beliefs.

    Evangelicals are increasingly finding they don't necessarily hold the same values as Tea Partiers, however, and so as the tide of the Tea Party continues, Evangelicals may lose their grip on the GOP, allowing an openly-Mormon candidate greater opportunity.

    My concern with Romney and Huntsman, however, is that their electability has centered on their moderate politics that doesn't align with the Tea Party movement (e.g., Romney's healthcare initiatives that resemble Obama's and Huntsman's willingness to be a part of the Obama administration and his pro-renewable energy/belief in climate science [that flies in the face of GOP's sensibilities]).

    Personally, I think Huntsman would make a great moderate GOP candidate, but his perceived "liberal" politics will never get him on the GOP ticket.

  • What's up?
    Aug. 1, 2010 6:14 a.m.

    Rommeny's "stand on the issues" are kind of "soft".

  • carpediem
    Aug. 1, 2010 5:18 a.m.

    Any person who's faith might not fit the mold as "Main Stream Christian" probably won't sway too many voters in the South. It's sad because I think Romney was the most qualified for the Job when he ran.

  • Timj
    Aug. 1, 2010 4:54 a.m.

    I think the first Mormon president will have to be a Democrat. Why? Notice which states did not vote for Romney--way too many of them are in the (very Republican) South. And yet Romney was voted in as governor of a very liberal state. Liberals have no problem with a Mormon Senate Majority Leader. Yet we all saw the anti-Mormon feelings from Huckabee and his ilk when Romney ran for president. What does that tell you? Too many people in the South are anti-Mormon bigots. Most of those people are Republicans. Part of me thinks Huntsman may start calling himself a Democrat and, if Obama stays in office, Huntsman may try to replace him in 2016. As a Democrat. Only way a Mormon can win.

  • Critical Thought
    Aug. 1, 2010 3:40 a.m.

    A government full of Democrats would rather have you be a Republican, and a government full of Republicans would rather have you be a Democrat, than have you oppose both. It doesn't matter if democrats or republicans are in office. Neither will benefit the working class.

  • Sally Smiles-a-Lot
    Aug. 1, 2010 2:52 a.m.

    I believe Mitt would make a great president. He is smart, very experienced, especially when it comes to the financial arena, and that is what we surely need right now. One poster said: "When asked, Romney should say, 'I have already said everything I will say about my faith. My objective is to help America get back to work and I will not be distracted from that goal.'" I think that is a good approach to take. I meet people nearly every day who are trying to sell everything they own, just to pay their bills, or keep their homes. Problem with that is, at least where I live, there are so many people out of work that there isn't anyone to BUY the items others are trying to sell.

    We need a president with a common sense approach to energy development (oil and gas, specifically) that will work WITH alternative sources, i.e. solar, "green" fuels, etc., rather than eliminating a vital source of employment and economic independence, as the current administration seems to be trying to do. IF BP didn't destroy the Gulf's economy, Salazar's crazy ideas sure will.

  • Civil
    Aug. 1, 2010 2:46 a.m.

    What they should say:

    "What my religion is" is a different question than my position on religion.

    "I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Some people call us Mormons.

    "I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and Savior of mankind.

    "A tenant of our Church, from the beginning, is 'We believe in worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, when, or what they may.'"

    "Those are my beliefs."

    "As President of the United States, my job is to protect the rights of all men and women to freedom of conscience, and yes, freedom of religion.

    "The free exercise of conscience is the most fundamental of American, indeed, human rights, and is guaranteed in our Constitution. As President I will defend and support that Constitution, and those rights."

  • Slim Shady 801
    Aug. 1, 2010 2:19 a.m.

    They said a Roman Catholic would never be elected....JFK proved that wrong. Hopefully we will get another one.

  • ClarkHippo
    Aug. 1, 2010 1:48 a.m.

    For those who say, "A Mormon will never be president," I say, consider the following.

    When Reed Smoot was elected to the Senate after Utah became a state, there was tremendous opposition to him being seated because of his LDS/polygamist ties. Finally after years of battle and many hearings, Smoot was allowed to serve in the Senate.

    Imagine the reaction you would have gotten in Smoot's time if you had said, one day, a Mormon would serve as Senate Majority Leader. Well, GUESS WHAT HAPPENED?

    Simply put, never say never.

  • marxist
    Aug. 1, 2010 1:11 a.m.

    "Would rather have a Mormon than the current Muslim we have in the White House who goes around bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia among others" That would be, I think, the Bushes. No American family is so intight with the Saudis (see Fahrenheit 911). Oh and BTW, Obama is not Muslim, not that I would give a hang if he were.

  • Johnson72
    Aug. 1, 2010 1:00 a.m.

    Oops sorry.. "vote for a mormon" sorry.

  • O'really
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:22 a.m.

    PS or at least do a better job than our current president. I don't see things getting any better with his version of " change".

  • Marine
    Aug. 1, 2010 12:15 a.m.

    Let's see, Both are extremely successful businessmen. I think it would be refreshing to get a "Mormon Administration" in the White House. It certainly couldn't hurt especially after 20 years of Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

  • geezergary
    July 31, 2010 11:55 p.m.

    There's no way that a black guy named Hussein with a Muslim/polygamist father and a wacked out racist minister could ever be elected POTUS. Who would vote for someone like that?! The same goes for anyone who's a Mormon or a Jew or...anyone else who doesn't believe EXACTLY what I believe.

  • bilbo
    July 31, 2010 11:55 p.m.

    bigotry is always lurking here within the hearts of Mormon-hating trolls.

  • Me
    July 31, 2010 11:41 p.m.

    I don't understand what Huntsman is saying when he says those things about his family. You can be any religion and still have respect for other religions. I'm not sure that I'd trust Huntsman just for the fact that he is in the grey area. I just wish that Americans would open their eyes and find the best candidate if he/she is Mormon or not.
    We need somebody that will turn back to the Constitution and return government to the people, but we need people in this country that care enough for the country to look for the best candidate and take the time to vote and not just for someone because of religion or race or sex. One day this might happen if people wake up. If this isn't soon we may find ourselves without the freedoms that we have enjoyed in the past.

  • jane
    July 31, 2010 11:35 p.m.

    re:Fender Bender

    One of the most obvious covenants Mormons make every time they take the Sacrament (Communion) is that they will always hold in remembrance the body of Christ and His blood which was shed for the human race and always remember Him and keep His Commandments and that they will take upon themselves His name. In other words, they are to stand as witnesses for Christ at all times and in all places.

    Which, I would assume, should include the political arena.

    Having a great respect for other peoples and the sincerity of their religious convictions and traditions shouldn't mean that one can't also believe something specific oneself. I'm not quite sure what Huntsman believes, but I personally prefer someone who believes something and holds to its teachings and lives up to its doctrines (always to the best of one's human ability, which doesn't imply a standard of perfection that could only be reached, as I believe, with Christ's help). One never knows what to expect of someone who doesn't have a moral frame based on something beyond himself and what feels comfortable to him.

  • Johnson72
    July 31, 2010 11:33 p.m.

    I would not for a mormon... would you?, and i think the rest of the country wouldn't either.

  • The Rock
    July 31, 2010 11:09 p.m.

    Unfortunately Romney is viewed as a flip-flopper.
    His biggest liability is Romney Care. It just looks too much like Obama Care and it is failing. He has got to make a major statement on this. If he just said; "We mapped it out and it worked on paper; however, in practice thing that we never expected to happen did happen. We have now learned not to do it that way."

    Oh, and Mr. Blue, go ahead and under estimate Sarah Palin. Exon did and got their butts kicked.
    Palin is inexperienced and unsofisticated but anyone who thinks she is dumb has another thing coming.

    Sarah Palin is a major threat to the left. All the evidence you need on that is to see how much effort the left puts into destroying her, and they have not come close to succeeding yet.

    I would like to see her serve one term as a senator. After that she would be tough to beat.

    Yup, you betcha!

  • USAlover
    July 31, 2010 10:59 p.m.

    Forget about being a "Mormon" or a "Monster" or a "Mobster", America simply does not elect "intelligent" or "competent" people as President anymore.

    America is more caught up in smooth, articulate and how good good the first ladies' arms look in a sleeve-dress.

    Mitt Romney knows more about the economy in his left side burn than Barack Hussein Obama could ever know.

    Hate to say but America is currently getting exactly what she deserves.

  • sagacity
    July 31, 2010 10:54 p.m.

    A gay president would be elected over a Mormon.

  • Big Rock
    July 31, 2010 10:40 p.m.

    I'm not sure what the big deal is, a mormon will NEVER be elected as President.

  • MoJules
    July 31, 2010 10:31 p.m.

    I love the people in Indexing, on facebook there are a lot that are not LDS and there are a lot that speak Spanish, and we do not look at our differences.

    Our conservative people need to stop thinking about how we differ in religion and think about how we agree, get all those Mormon haters to do indexing then they would get over it.

    I know that sounds kind of strange, but really, I have never seen so much unity between people.

  • Fender Bender
    July 31, 2010 10:30 p.m.

    RE: taking5 @ 10:13

    That's quite the assumption - Huntsman isn't living his covenants because he said he's not overly religious? How did you reach that conclusion?

  • bloggy
    July 31, 2010 10:28 p.m.

    Huntsman is a "soft" Mormon? That's interesting. Regardless of his or Romney's level of orthodoxy, I think that the best strategy for any Mormon contemplating national office is to stay silent about it. Religion should be taken off the table and out of the discussion. It's nobody's business. When asked, Romney should say, "I have already said everything I will say about my faith. My objective is to help America get back to work and I will not be distracted from that goal."

  • moodyblue77
    July 31, 2010 10:28 p.m.

    Don't we all wish Glenn Beck would run?

  • taking5
    July 31, 2010 10:13 p.m.

    So what is it that Huntsman is saying? He is sitting the fence? Lives in the gray area? Either you live the covenants you make or you don't. But I'm not sure what message he is trying to send by saying I'm not overly religious. I guess I can say he doesn't overly impress me.

  • Blue
    July 31, 2010 10:02 p.m.

    In my craziest fantasies I dream that the 2012 ticket running against President Obama is Romney & Palin.

    I say "Romney & Palin" and not "Romney/Palin" because it's not at all clear that Palin would settle for the VP nominee - I think she has her sights set on the whole enchilada - the first female US President.

    Romney would never dream of accepting the #2 spot.

    Romney's religion would unsettle the hard-right evangelical Christian base of the GOP, but Palin would ease their angst and give the evangelicals a reason to be excited about the ticket. Somewhere, some GOP strategist is already working this out.

    As a Democrat, I adore the idea of having the Silver-Spoon-Fed-Flip-Flopper and The Great-Empty-Headed-YouBetcha-Quitter heading the GOP ticket.

    The shear wacky entertainment value of such a scenario is almost too much to grasp.

    Please oh please oh please oh PLEASE! Let it be Romney & Palin in 2012!