Just in time for Fathers Day...show your Father you both love him and you support Obama by getting him the version 3.0 sticker here.

Post by Joseph M -

Romney has fought hard to keep the campaign about the issues (or issue in his case: the economy,) and he's fighting again; he quickly slammed attempts by a Super PAC to produce an anti-Obama ad that focused on racially charged comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright - see Yahoo News story.

Romney stated, "I want to make it very clear, I repudiate that effort. I think it's the wrong course for a PAC or a campaign. I hope that our campaigns can respectively be about the futures and about issues and about a vision for America."

Good for Romney, and good for all of us.  The last thing we need is for the Mormon Republican nominee to call for open season on the shooting range of religious affiliation.  Obama is also trying to stick to the issue(s) by making coordinated attacks against Romney's record as a "job creator" at Bain Capital.  But regardless, social issues have been creeping around the edges of this campaign - like President Obama's admission of support for marriage equality last week (more on that in a later post,) or during the divisive campaign to choose a Republican nominee.  However, even though Romney and Obama are attempting to steer the campaign away from these so-called social issues, enquiring minds still want to know that their Presidential candidate is just like them in every way possible (which is why we only have two viable political parties in the USA?) They want to know that their president supports/doesn't support abortion, is against/for marriage equality, loves/hates poor people, embodies righteousness/evil.

The two-party system has always had its drawbacks.  How can you fit 350 million Americans under two umbrellas of political belief when their cultural, spiritual, and religious perspectives literally fill the whole world?   (And also when half of them don't even vote?)  This must be where the so-called "independents" come into play.  Who are these people anyway?  (I have yet to meet one... although I do have faith that they exist.)

But where does all of this leave us Mormons?   With our belief in the reality of righteousness and sin, the existence of God and Satan, and polarity of good and evil, it might make sense to some Latter-day Saints that the Democratic and Republican parties would fit into the same dichotomous structure.  And this leaves very little room in the middle for fence-sitting (or even for those of us that still insist on sitting on the back row of Elder's Quorum  so we can play Draw Something on our smart phones.)

2 Nephi 2:15 explains that this dichotomy has existed since the beginning:  After (the Lord) created our first parents...it must needs be that there is an opposition: even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.  But while we believe that there is opposition in all things, at what point does this leave the realm of individual practice and personal decision and leap into the world of political affiliation as well?

This might be confusing for some LDS when it comes to choosing a political party or candidate, (i.e., Republicans are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and advocate self-reliance, so they must be righteous.  Democrats promote abortions, don't let children pray in school, and like to elect Muslims for president, so they must be Satan.)  But forcing the two political parties into a good vs. evil scenario seems to presuppose that God Himself is at the helm of one of these (Republican?) political parties.  It ignores the fact that when we vote, we are participating in an imperfect, earth-bound, and very American political system.

We received a comment on the website that basically asked the question, how could a Mormon support Democrats or Obama when their platform supports abortion?  This question speaks to the simplistic reasoning that some people struggle with and that is encouraged by the two-party system.   Robert Fantina wrote a well-nuanced response on MormonsforObama.org to explain that all is not so simple:

The Democratic platform does support abortion, but the Republicans do nothing to prevent abortions. They will not countenance sex education, and are now making it more difficult for women to obtain contraceptives. And they appear not to care at all about babies once they are born: they will do everything possible to deprive them of health care, Head Start programs, etc...When (George W.) Bush was president, he stopped funding for Marie Slopes International (I think that’s the name of the organization), because they provided family planning, although not abortion, services. MSI estimated that, due to this funding cut, approximately 200,000 women in their serving area who didn’t want to get pregnant, would, and of those, approximately 60,000 would have abortions. So how was he a pro-life president?

Thanks to Robert for the comment and also for the link to his article on Pacific Free Press: What Makes a Romney Win Scary? (Hint: It Ain't Religion)

In short, the issues in this 2012 election are much more complex and nuanced than the few minutes of time it will take to fill out a mail-in ballot would leave one to believe.  However, I recognize that most people understand this.  I have conversations with my Mormon friends and family who are Republican, Libertarian (you know who you are,) and Nader-ists, and the dialogue is almost always engaging, stimulating, and respectful.  By their very nature, political parties are imperfect and fallible, and they don't easily lend themselves to black and white categorization... more like 50 shades of grey.  So I would in turn ask the Mormons who question my faith and allegiance to the gospel because of my support for Obama: how can you so readily assume that because I'm an active and faithful Mormon that I would by necessity vote Republican?

So let's put this simplistic thinking to rest. Choosing Obama over Romney is not the same as choosing the great and spacious building over the tree of life.  But don't get me wrong; I do believe that there are extremely compelling reasons to vote for Obama in 2012, and so I don't mean to trivialize the decision with the following analogy; but maybe it's more like choosing a spinach salad with feta, cranberries, and raspberry vinaigrette over an iceberg lettuce concoction from Jack in the Box.  The iceberg lettuce salad has a form of healthiness, but in the end it is empty, wilted, and undeniably overpriced.

Post by Joseph M -

The Priesthood/Relief Society lesson manual (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith) contains a rather instructive quotation.

"Let us pray for the great men and women of the world who need the Lord but do not understand his interest in them. Pray for … our governors, our mayors of cities, the men who have influence in politics in our various communities, that they may do the things that will be better for all of us and make us happier, and please our Heavenly Father. That is our privilege. I say to you that the power of prayer is something that cannot be measured, " (Lesson 9.)

We read this during our joint Elder's Quorum/High Priest Group meeting yesterday, and our instructor asked an interesting question: "Is our nation so partisan that we fail to pray for the great leaders, those who have the fate of nation's in their hands?"  I've been thinking about this for the past 30 hours or so, and I've pondered the fact that even though I am a supporter of our president, I do not often remember to pray for him; this extends also to local leaders in my state and city.  Thus, this lesson has inspired a course-correction on my part.  Additionally, I am realizing that I should take this counsel into consideration regardless of who wins the election in 2012.

So I'm finding myself pausing to consider what this means for me and for each of us, whether we support President Obama or not.  I think many of us in America are too busy filling our mouths with words of divisiveness and accusation to find time for prayer, much less a prayer that petitions the Lord in behalf of the man we have just maligned.

I received an "anti-Obama" email recently - one of those that have been forwarded around and around (and clearly it had made its way around Mormon circles,) and it was so ugly and partisan that I felt myself getting angry.  (And I am not implying that emails that unfairly demean Mitt Romney aren't out there as well - I think both sides need to calm this mess down.)  But this particular email was so out there that I felt particularly frustrated with the Christian right for not acting too Christian.

Clearly this idea of praying for our leaders is not conducive to the ugly partisanship that exists in our nation: the name-calling, the declarations that the only goal is to see President Obama "fail," the racist remarks... none of this is invites an attitude of prayer.

However, I acknowledge that we have real political differences that need to be discussed and debated, but often it goes too far - and I am far from perfect with this myself.  But I am surprised by anyone who would claim that either Obama or Romney are out to destroy our freedom, tear down this nation, or stomp on the constitution.  We started this website with the statement, "we don’t hate Mitt Romney, and we don’t want to character-assassinate him here," and we continue to maintain that position.  Additionally, I would hope that we could collectively (as Mormons, Christians, or Americans,) calm the waters that are swirling around during this election cycle.

I believe taking the time to remember our national leaders in prayer just might do the job, and ultimately, this may be as much for our benefit as it is for theirs.

It's pretty safe to say that if you are on this site you have seen both the "I am voting for Obama & I'm a Mormon" and the traditional Obama campaign bumper stickers (which just so happens to come in 31 flavors)

Now is your chance to get a free "Women for Obama" bumper sticker by going to the Obama Campaign website and clicking here.

Some of you may already know this (especially if you searched for this site because of the article by Scott Conroy on RealClearPolitics.com), but MormornsforObama.org received mention in the article, "Pro-Obama Mormons Unswayed by Shared Faith with Romney."

Conroy reflects the views of the many of us who are Mormon and voting for Obama quite well, and Hannah Wheelwright says it perfectly with her quotation in the article: “The fact that I’m a Mormon is why I’m voting for President Obama instead of Mitt Romney. I’m a Democrat because I’m a Mormon. I think there’s so many things in my faith that do promote certain policies in the Democratic Party, and a lot of the reason I support President Obama is his dedication to social programs, equality, and those types of things.”

However, there is one area where I think Conroy didn't get it right (and I'm not referring to when he mistakenly wrote that Laura attends weekly church services at the Seattle Temple); he writes that "there is a significant subsection of younger, liberal-leaning church members who are emphatic supporters of Obama and who cannot relate to Romney as a politician, despite their shared faith."  This has not been my experience.  I have found that Mormons of all ages plan to vote for Obama.   I know many LDS Obama supporters, and I've never noticed that youth was some defining characteristic that linked them together.  Even myself, (although I listen to some hip hop and that new song by that band fun.), can hardly be considered young.

[caption id="attachment_912" align="alignleft" width="248"] Seattle Poster, by Jenny Beorkrem[/caption]

I live in Seattle, Washington, and I knew before I moved here that the city was somewhat liberal, but I've been happy to find that this extends to many of my LDS friends and leaders at church as well.  I've never been embarrassed, nervous, or ashamed to talk about my political leanings with other Mormons, and sometimes I just assume that everyone votes Democratic, much like Utah Mormons undoubtably assume that everyone is Republican.  But even those Mormons who are "conservative" seem fine with all the Democrats around them.  I don't know the statistics here, but I would guess that the LDS Democrats in Seattle may not be outnumbered - or if they are, it can't be by much.

But this is my point: while I recognize that many Mormons vote Republican, I don't see that this is some defining characteristic of Mormonism or that youth is a defining characteristic of LDS Dems.  The Church has a long-standing position of political neutrality, and this is much more defining of Mormons than a particular party affiliation.

So while it may seem odd to some that we have this website or that we are opting out of voting for the Mormon, for me (and Hannah Wheelwright,) supporting Obama really makes all the sense in the world.

Post by Joseph M- 

(Originally posted Feb. 5, 2012)

My principal reason for backing President Obama is his support and initiation of healthcare reform, and ultimately his signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law in 2010. Republicans have pejoratively labeled it Obamacare; meanwhile President Obama has embraced the term, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care." I care too, and this issue is the political lynchpin for me. I cannot support any candidate who does not appreciate or understand the need for an expansion of access to healthcare in this country. Healthcare should not be a privilege of the wealthy, but a right for all. I believe that if we can get behind public monies for libraries, sports arenas, museums, parks, wildlife protection, and Bombs over Baghdad, then we should also ensure healthcare access.

And so you might further see my point: are you aware that through local tax payer money, you (and your children) can check out Saw I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and Saw: the Final Chapter from the Seattle Public Library and the King County Library System? And I just checked - you can get it at the Salt Lake City Library as well.

My belief is that providing healthcare is the right thing to do; it is the Christian thing to do, and this aligns with my Mormon faith. I echo the words written by Boyd Peterson in his essay entitled, Why I'm a Mormon Democrat:

"I believe that the Democratic party takes the strongest position on many moral issues. For example, King Benjamin's address in the Book of Mormon admonishes us to prioritize, 'feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants' (Mosiah 4:26). I believe the Democratic party works harder to protect and defend these moral priorities." 

And so I feel about President Obama. When I decided to vote for Barack Obama, I did so with the belief that he would bring change to America and especially its healthcare system. Of course, there is more to be done. However, President Obama has fulfilled his promise of change in so many ways; therefore, I will continue to support him and his presidency.

In addressing the specific issue of healthcare, I like these two quotations, one from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and the second from the American Medical Student Association:

"Our approach to health care is shaped by a simple but fundamental principle: 'Every person has a right to adequate health care. This right flows from the sanctity of human life and the dignity that belongs to all human persons, who are made in the image of God.' Health care is more than a commodity; it is a basic human right, an essential safeguard of human life and dignity. We believe our people's health care should not depend on where they work, how much their parents earn, or where they live. Our constant teaching that each human life must be protected and human dignity promoted leads us to insist that all people have a right to health care."

USCCB - June 18, 1993, "A Framework for Comprehensive Health Care Reform."

"In a time when thousands of people lose their health insurance every day, when health care is becoming elusive to even well-to-do Americans, and when any person is just one pink slip away from becoming uninsured, it becomes clear that health care for all is not just important to achieve, but imperative.

At its root, the lack of health care for all in America is fundamentally a moral issue. The United States is the only industrialized nation that does not have some form of universal health care (defined as a basic guarantee of health care to all of its citizens). While other countries have declared health care to be a basic right, the United States treats health care as a privilege, only available to those who can afford it...

Americans purport to believe in equal opportunity. Yet, in the current situation, those who do not have health care are at risk for financial ruin and poorer health, both of which disadvantage them in society and thereby do not give them equal opportunity...

The Declaration of Independence states there are certain 'inalienable rights', including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If Americans believe in an inalienable right to life, how can we tolerate a system that denies people lifesaving medications and treatments? Similarly, if Americans believe in an inalienable
right to the pursuit of happiness, how can we allow millions of dreams to be smashed by the financial and physical consequences of uninsurance?"

AMSA - Aug. 27, 2009, "The Case for Universal Healthcare."

It feels dang good to be on the right side of history on this one.

To see Part 2 of this post click here.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E]

The Obama campaign has produced a new video establishing some clear reasons for a second presidential term. I am so happy that I am on the right side of history on this one.

Also, my car and its accompanying bumper sticker is now famous... check out Democratic Underground for more on this historic occasion.

Here is the design - with a bigger and brighter font - (Some people said that the last one was a little hard to read from a distance on those wide Salt Lake City streets.)  Just click here.  Those of you that preordered: your stickers are on the way.

[caption id="attachment_844" align="aligncenter" width="540"] I'm voting for Obama, and I buy American[/caption]

Since the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, there have been an estimated 50 million abortions.  This number is greater than the current population of any state, including California.  This number is greater than the populations of major countries such as Spain, Canada, and England.  While it is true that legalizing abortion caused this number to expand, had abortion remained illegal 50 million additional children would have been born to parents that did not want them, could not care for them, or lacked the emotional or financial means to provide for them.  Even assuming that a small percentage could have been adopted by good families, and women with financial means were able to have abortions (as there will always be doctors willing to perform the practice at a certain price), there would still be millions of unwanted children that would need our support.  When discussing the issue of abortion, the ramifications of illegality are rarely discussed, and thus the debates remain short-sighted.

I am pro-life.  I believe that abortion should be avoided, with the exception of rape or when the mother’s life is in jeopardy.  I understand the emotion behind this issue, and many of you may be listing five different reasons why I am out of touch or why this position might be inferred to disrespect women.  Let me further explain my point of view.

I am pro-life in a larger context.  For many on the right side of the political spectrum, a pro-life stance drives discussion around the sanctity of the embryo.  Typically there is little discussion around what happens to that unborn child once it arrives in the world.  What I find most alarming about the issue is the intensity of the right to fight for the child’s existence but somehow that same intensity disappears after that miraculous organism draws their first breath.  I believe that the rights of the embryo do not stop after birth, but should instead be supported by society in the best manner possible.  To disagree might indicate the use of the embryo merely as a prop to support an ideological position.

Over the past several decades there have been many laws passed by the government that support children.  From after-school programs to educational grants, children’s health insurance, and food stamps, the government has stepped in to support underprivileged children.  Most of these programs have passed with near partisan support, primarily driven by Democrats.  Presidents Obama and Clinton have driven more legislation that assists underprivileged children than any other presidents since FDR.  For those who understand the childhood history of these two presidents, their passion and understanding of what is necessary to help bridge the resource gap is not surprising.  As we debate laws and legislation that affect children, we need to recognize that government can be a solution.

Many will say that pro-life refers only to the unborn child, but to me this concept stretches further. Christ said “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” If we truly are pro-life and fight to halt the onerous practice of abortion, we need to remember that the birth of a child is not the end, but the beginning.

Post by Eric R -

You have probably heard about the dust-up over a comment Democratic strategist Hilary Rosen made about Ann Romney a few days ago. What Rosen actually said was that “you have Mitt Romney running around, saying, ‘Well you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.’ Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of women in this country are facing.”

Of course the words Rosen chose were not good, but that does not mean the point she was trying to make wasn’t true. The fact is that Ann Romney had the luxury to choose to stay home to raise the family’s children, and she actually has no idea what it is like to struggle to make ends meet in a tough economy. That isn’t an insult; it is just a fact.

Of course it is no surprise that the right-wing media has been doing their best to paint the left (Obama) as hostile to traditional values (They hate motherhood, for goodness sakes!) A regular Fox contributor, Dr. Keith Ablow, provided an illustrative example of the discourse coming from the Right on the subject when he said: “Women who are happy raising families don’t have much ‘cred’ with Rosen or, for that matter, President Obama, because Rosen and Obama resonate only with those who carry the flag of the disenfranchised and abused.  Anyone who thrives in an American company or American home, while proud and happy with any element of traditional American values, must be a hopeless automaton or relic of the oppressive past.” Yup, that is exactly what Rosen was saying, I’m sure.

Far from being concerned with women, of course the Right is concerned that Mitt Romney trails Obama by nearly 20 percentage points among likely women voters. And why does Obama have such a big lead among women voters? Well, as a man I don’t know that I am qualified to say, but I have a hunch it may have something to do with how Republicans have behaved with regards to issues that impact women particularly.

I found two (admittedly biased) sources detailing some of the Republican low-lights from the recent past with regards to women’s issues: Media Matters and MoveOn.org. Taking them for what they are worth, they are helpful in giving a broader picture of what types of measures Republican legislators across the country have been pushing for, (and all their sources are linked, so you can check them out for yourself). Here are just a few:

1) More than 150 Republicans signed on to a bill that would have redefined under what circumstances an institution receiving government funds could provide an abortion, replacing “rape” with “forcible rape”. With this language change, statutory rape, say a 13-year old impregnated by a 30-year-old for instance, would not qualify.

2) The Republican spending plan proposed to eliminated entirely Title X, which provides family planning for low-income Americans. And no, “family planning” is not just a code word for “abortions”, as birth control, pre-natal care, teen pregnancy prevention programs and other crucial health services are part of Title X.

3) The House GOP plan would also cut more than $750 million from food programs for low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies and children.

4) Republican lawmakers in Maryland cut Head Start funding, saying that it was not needed since mothers could just choose to stay home with their children instead. And at the federal level, Republicans cut $1 billion from the program, which could kick 200,000 low-income kids off the roles, and see some 55,000 instructors and teachers loose their jobs.

5) The Republican’s 2011 budget proposal cut $2 billion from job training programs, which are designed to help workers in low-wage, low-skill, and low-security jobs – disproportionately women – prepare for employment in growth areas.

6) Because women comprise more than two-thirds of the poor over age 65, Republican-proposed cuts in food, housing and job programs for senior citizens would disproportionately hurt elderly women.

7) The Republican Governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, signed a bill (passed along party lines) repealing the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act, which was meant to deter employers from discriminating against certain groups by giving workers more avenues via which to press charges.  Among other provisions, it allows individuals to plead their cases in the less costly, more accessible state circuit court system, rather than just in federal court. "Economic security is a women's health issue," said Sara Finger, executive director of WAWH. "The salary women are paid directly affects the type and frequency of health care services they are able to access. At a time when women's health services are becoming more expensive and harder to obtain, financial stability is essential to maintain steady access."

As I said before, these are just a few examples of what types of actions Republican legislatures are taking all around the country with regards to issues that impact women the most (and I didn’t even mention the proposed laws that would force women seeking an abortion to submit to a transvaginal ultrasound first). So while we can all agree that a mother who has the ability to make a choice to stay home with her children is a good thing, I think the Republicans are going to need a lot more than a poor choice of words from a Democratic strategist to convince women they are actually on their side.