Let me state the obvious, just because I am Mormon, I don't feel the need to vote for a Mormon. Although I might say that I am voting for Obama because I'm a Mormon. In that same vein, I suppose that every Jew was not lining up behind Joe Lieberman for his 2004 presidential bid just because he is Jewish. (Although I admit that Lieberman is probably more of a Jon Huntsman of Jewish religious practice, so it is not a perfect analogy. But again, if Huntsman was in Romney's position, then my very liberal sister just might throw her support his way because she finds him rather attractive.)
At church a few weeks back, a discussion came up about how one should interact with the numerous homeless people on the streets. The opinions were varied and numerous and stretched across the spectrum of possibilities. We heard everything from a Mr. Wendal-styled approach (this is where I tend to fall) to a response that seemed to be directly pulled from Mosiah 4:17. The point is this: I don't see that Mormons agree on everything, so why would Mormons necessarily all agree on the same candidate for president, regardless of religious affiliation? And I realize that most Mormons know this. So possibly I am writing for those of us that may not understand the diversity of opinion within the LDS church.
But back to my first paragraph: is it possible that a Jew might not vote for Romney because he is Mormon? According to an article posted today on the Huffington Post website, some Florida Jews may take issue with Romney because of the past practice of baptisms for the dead of Jewish Holocaust victims. Or maybe this may be used against him by his rival(s)? Either way, I have to agree with Gary Mokotoff, the Jewish genealogist quoted in the article: "Romney should be judged on his political views and political past and not on the views of the president of his church." True. That is why I am not voting for him.
I guess I could begin by explaining what this website is not, before explaining what the website is. Firstly, we don't hate Mitt Romney, and we don't want to character-assassinate him here. Personally, I kind of like the guy and wouldn't mind having him as my home teacher. My sister (who is unabashedly liberal) keeps emailing me links to various anti-Romney videos, cartoons, and articles; I mostly read them, laugh, or shake my head in pretend disdain, but occasionally I feel the need to reply back in Romney's defense, forgetting to check myself that I am in fact a Obama supporter. (But more on that later.)
Secondly, we don't want to imply that Mormons, by some definition of being Mormon, should of necessity vote for Obama, although my faith does influence my voting decisions. I have observed this sentiment from some conservative Mormons: that because I am Mormon, I need to vote Republican to be a "good" Mormon. We don't want that to be the case here.
Finally, this website is not purporting to speak on behalf of any candidate or the LDS Church. We are Mormons, and we are voting for Obama, but our ideas are our own, and any guest contributors to this website also take responsibility for their thoughts as well.
It probably goes without saying that we originally thought to make this website because of Mitt Romney's campaign for President and the expectation that because we are Mormon, we logically would vote for the Mormon candidate. We noticed that some Facebook groups of Mormons supporting Obama existed from the 2008 election. However, we wanted to have a place to express our support for the President, his vision and policies, and his campaign for reelection; hence, we've created this website.
Through this site, we are hoping to provide a space for an online community for those who are like-minded, but also for those who may differ or disagree that they might learn as well as teach us something. So please feel free to comment on posts and links!
Additionally, we are looking for content. Therefore, if you have thoughts or ideas that you would like to contribute, or if you come across any relevant news links, please send them to us and we will post them here. A brief explanation of submission guidelines will follow, but as long as it's "nice," there shouldn't be a problem. Thank you for your interest!
(Written responding to a friend asking about the party I support)
The fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats is one: the role that government plays. All the social wedge issues? Just talk.
I believe the government has the ability to solve many of our problems, and I also believe that Democrats over the last 100 years have been more consistent, more fiscally conservative (save FDR), and more in line with principles that I believe.
On the surface the parties do not represent what is core about each group. For example, on the Democrat's side you look at Occupy Wall Street, a sliver of what is representative of Democrats, and paint the whole party in a similar manner. What is interesting about the OWS movement, is the wealthy blue states pay for all the social programs of the red states. Also, of the richest 20 individuals in the US, 12 vote Democrat which is again inconsistent with the OWS sliver.
Let me give you another example to why I side with Democrats over Republicans; the only true conservative in the Republican primaries is Ron Paul. He is small government. He is, by definition, a true conservative. An actual conservative should embrace this guy like their own mother, but they don't. Why? The Republican party has an identity problem. They do not understand the definition of conservatism and wrap themselves in issues like gay marriage and abortion which has as much to do with conservatism as Chuck Norris does to baseball. Republicans vote socially, and instead of wedge issue legislation their leaders grow government, give disproportionate tax decreases which shifts tax burden, and funnel more money into the military and subsidies for industries that fund their elections. Jon Stewart said it best ... "Republicans are for limited government...limited to the stuff they want to do."
Economic policy is another example as to why I side with Democrats. Every single candidate on both sides of the aisle are Keynesian except one (RP). One of the fundamental beliefs of Keynesian is the idea that you can deficit spend (ie use government -- a core Democratic principle) to overcome recession and economic busts. Although Republicans like to pretend they are fiscally conservative, I struggle to find a concrete example of when they demonstrated this principle.
The most popular Republican president in the last 100 years was Reagan. People label Reagan as a true conservative, but he was far from it. He presided over two substantial tax increases because governmental spending was out of control, provided amnesty to three million illegals, had a very liberal foreign policy (which I like), and expanded government spending by 60%. Reagan was respected for the bipartisan deals he made, never went to church, and was very silent about his pro-life stance. Reagan would be crucified by the Tea Party, but today he is shrouded as a true conservative. Why? The Republican party has become the voice of the extreme, forgetting their core beliefs. Compromise is an ugly word and moderates, the same people that gave Reagan an astounding 49 state win in 1984, have switched sides, effectively giving Obama a landslide victory in 2008.
Democrats also have an identity problem but this is due to the wide umbrella the party casts on smaller groups. This is the reason Democrats have 20 million more registered voters than Republicans. I can be a pro-life, anti-gay marriage Democrat and be completely supported by my party. Could you be pro-choice, pro gay-marriage Republican and say the same? Democrats are more accepting of differentiated opinions and positions. There are examples of moderate Democrats, but after the 2010 elections, I struggle to think of any moderate Republicans.
Your question is a good one, and I am answering it because I know its sincere. You look at me and wonder why I support the party I do. I look at you and ask the same question.
~The Editors of MormonsforObama.org
Have you ever come across someone who vehemently supports the criminalization of most or all forms of abortion? Chances are that person opposed with equal fervor President Obama's health care reform bill and most, if not all forms of public assistance to those in need. It is also quite likely that that person supported the Iraq War, which we waged on a nation that had never attacked us and was not a significant threat to us. That person probably also whole-heartedly embraces the death penalty the way it is applied today in our criminal justice system. I find it incredibly disturbing when so many conservatives claim that they value the sanctity of life, yet show no concern for the living.Read more
The last convoy of U.S. troops departed from Iraq last week, marking the end of a nearly 9-year war. I am grateful that the Obama Administration did not extend the troop presence any longer, despite harsh criticism from neoconservative Republicans like Mitt Romney, who would have preferred we kept troops in Iraq almost into perpetuity. I was never a supporter of the war, even prior to its commencement. The consequences of the war have been far reaching and disastrous for the U.S. on many levels. Some of the most important consequences are as follows:Read more
Each election year, the Church predictably issues statements affirming its political neutrality, which I find both refreshing and reassuring amid all of the mingling of scripture with the philosophies of men that we see in many churches. A few decades ago, during a presidential election season, President Hugh B. Brown of the First Presidency stated the following at a BYU commencement address:
You young people are leaving your university at the time in which our nation is engaged in an abrasive and increasingly strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me, one who has managed to survive a number of these events, to pass on to you a few words of counsel.
First I would like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who bear the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all. Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which enables you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. (emphasis added)Read more
President Barack Obama visited Osawatomie, Kansas last week to speak about the danger of the growing economic inequality in America and the threat this currently poses to the middle class and our country as a whole. I thought this was the most important speech of his Presidency thus far because it clearly illustrated the monumental challenges we face in dealing with a weak economy, high unemployment, and an eroding middle class. He emphatically connected the success of the middle class with the success of America and described how investments in education, infrastructure, and science and technology along with tax and financial industry reform are critical to our economic recovery. The speech was 55 minutes long, so I highlighted what I thought were his key points:Read more
As former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has recently become the latest fad in the never-ending search for an 'un-Romney' in the GOP Presidential Primary race, I think it is important to reflect on a matter of character. Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles noted in an interview a few years ago that while the Church is politically neutral, it teaches its members to "seek out and find good, honest men and women of value, with values and virtue and honesty and integrity and encourage them to run for office, and then to use their agency to vote for whomever they choose." (I was pleased to see that Elder Ballard mentioned we should seek out good men and women. As one might expect, earlier statements from Church leaders, particularly from earlier generations, typically only mentioned men, tacitly but perhaps unintentionally leading members to believe that women had no place in running for office.)Read more
Have you ever been in a Church meeting where someone, a speaker in sacrament meeting, or a teacher or student in Sunday School, Priesthood, or Relief Society, makes a blatant political statement? Perhaps it was only a facetious but degrading comment about a particular Obama Administration policy. If it occurred a few years ago, it may have been a statement of support for President Bush or the Iraq war. Too often, I've heard people make political comments in Church meetings, usually denigrating Democratic politicians and policies while supporting Republican politicians and policies. I have even heard people make disparaging comments in Church meetings about Church members who happen to be Democrats. Political statements, regardless of whether they are conservative, liberal, or moderate, do not belong in our sacred Church meetings. It is incredibly inappropriate and unchristian to denigrate someone because of their political beliefs, particularly while attending a Christian church! Numerous statements from the First Presidency and other General Authorities have made it clear that our church meetings are for discussing sacred gospel topics and not for politics (If you want to read more about the Church's stance of political neutrality, click here).Read more