Note from Joseph M - This link was sent to me by a friend - what a refreshing and interesting look at our self-important, self-indulgent elections. Gina, this is amazing.

If you are a member of our Mormons for Obama Facebook group, you know this already: Mormon Democrats are gathering for an event coinciding with the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, and Harry Reid is to be their keynote speaker.  (He promises to speculate on Romney's taxes only twice in his address!)  The Salt Lake Tribune and The New York Times both reported on the upcoming September 4th event.  This promises to be a great opportunity to show support for President Obama, especially at a time when our unique Mormon voice been misrepresented by the other party and its presumptive nominee.

As Craig Janis of South Jordan points out in the SL Tribune article, "It’s pretty important that the image our state and our church projects is not just the conservative Mitt Romney image. I would love for our image as LDS people and as Utahns more generally to be such that there is no political association with it."

I would add that some members of our faith go along with the Republican Mormon majority because it seems the "thing to do," or because they have strong influences in their families or congregations; however, a simple conversation about the platform of the Democratic Party and how it fits with Mormon ideals and faith can sometimes break through many of the assumptions about what it means to be a Mormon Democrat.  Hopefully, the media attention to events like these can further break the stereotype that all (good) Mormons vote Republican.

So if you are in the area, (or if you can get a plane ticket there,) get your tickets by going to http://ldsdems.eventbrite.com/

Also, visit the Utah Democratic Party website for more information!

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSPtk6qJXQo]

Give it up for Obama's new campaign video - and with a music track that is half Friday Night Lights and half this song that I've posted below (which, by the way, looks like it was filmed on the set of FNL), there's no stopping us right now.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQYyPX7WDM]

I was asked a series of questions about Mormonism and the progressive wing of American politics by a UK periodical.  I typically try to separate religion and politics in my essays, but given this election and the nature of our blog, I thought these responses should be shared.

Written to Denis Campbell, Editor in Chief, UK Progressive

Denis -- Answers to your questions are below.  Before I begin, I need to add the caveat that these responses are not official church answers, but are based on my opinions and experiences with the church.  Official church statements can be found on lds.org and mormon.org.  Several of these questions do not have official church positions, so I will give you my best interpretation.

Knowing what you know today, could you support Mitt Romney for President ( why or why not?)

I could support Mr. Romney as a person, but disagree with his policies and beliefs about role of government.  I do not get sucked into the personal attacks of politicking.  American politics tries to demonize the character of both sides of the aisle, but that's politics.  President Obama is a good man, who cares about this country, and loves his family.  I would say the same for Mr. Romney.

And how does your shared faith influence this decision?

As a strong member of the Mormon Church I love seeing LDS political leaders.  However, this is not the sole criteria for my support.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a practicing Mormon and is more aligned with how I think about the role of government.

What causes fundamentalist Christians and LW pundits like Bill Maher to label the LDS church a cult?

Define cult.  Cult can really apply to any religious organization, or any group with rites of passage.  It has a negative connotation so opposition likes to use the word as a label.  This is similar to Republicans calling everything they disagree with "liberal" or "socialist", perverting the actual definition of the word, just to solicit a negative response.  Fundamentalist Christians try to discredit the church with such slang, as Mormons are viewed outside of fundamental Christian doctrine (or lack of - Mormons can answer many more questions around afterlife, pre-earth life, purpose of life using the Book of Mormon and Bible together).

From a political perspective there is a bit of strategy from Bill Maher.  To Democrats the Mormon religion is really a non-issue.  Democrats and Liberals are made of several splinter groups with all sorts of religious beliefs from atheism, to agnostic, to Christian.  When pundits from the left make comments about Mormonism, I personally believe they are trying to influence the Christian Right who are turned off by anything that is relate to the LDS church.  This should keep more of the religious right home on election day.  Although this might seem trivial when thinking of numbers; Ohio, Florida, and Virginia will all be decided by very small increments, as these three states will determine the next president.

There are a number of issues many point to when ‘dissing’ Mormonism. Would  you please share your impressions, what is most important for lay people to understand, about:

-          The Book of Mormon

A second witness of Jesus Christ.  A historical book believed to track ancestors of the American Indians.  This book was written by several prophets that lived through biblical times on the American continent.  After Jesus Christ was resurrected he spent 40 days teaching in the middle east (as recorded by the Bible), and then spend time teaching his followers in the Americas.

When King James put together the bible, he chose from over 200 manuscripts to compile what is today’s book.  The additional books of scripture not used were left behind and are rarely discussed as God’s word.  There are hundreds of additional authors of scripture that are looked over when talking about biblical teachings.  I find it interesting that little thought is given concerning the Book of Mormon writings based off of the argument that the Bible is the only word of God.  There is no scriptural backing for this claim, and how does one believe God is omnipotent yet declare his word has been closed up?

-          Angel Moroni

An angelic messenger.  Much like Angel Gabriel or any other angelic figure believed by Christian faith.  It was Moroni’s mission to preserve the teachings of the earlier prophets of the Americas contained in the Book of Mormon.

-          Planetary travel

This is doctrine not taught or embraced by the mainstream church.  Its speculative doctrine that is not found in any book of LDS scripture.  With that being said, the teachings by early apostles and prophets talk more about God being the creator of all things, including galaxies – we would argue that God, or his messengers, could engage in planetary travel (what kind of God would he be if he had limitations, right?)

-          Sealing marriage in the temple

Mormons believe that Marriage in the Temple will last for eternity (sealing).  It is predicated upon the belief that husband and wife create a unifying bond that serves a purpose in the life to come.  The purpose is somewhat unknown except to say that marriage is an eternal commitment and sanctioned by God.

-          Temple entrance barred to non-members

The requirements to enter the temple are not mysterious or subjective.  There are 14 or so questions, the same questions asked for as long as I can remember, which include chaste living, word of wisdom (no alcohol, tobacco, tea, coffee, drugs), belief in Jesus Christ, respect for the Prophet and apostles, tithing, belief in the Book of Mormon, etc.  Each question is answered by the individual and it is based on an honour code.  The temple teaches doctrine that coincides with both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, so why attend if you do not believe?  The temple is open to the public for a period of time after construction is complete, before it begins full time use.

Temple ceremonies are believed to be sacred, not secret, although explaining the two from an outside perspective would appear challenging.

-          Missions

A fantastic experience for any young man.  Two years are required by unmarried young men ages 19-26.  The program sends missionaries all over the world.  There are no politics or persuasion that are used to influence where a person will serve, but is based on a questionnaire and individual needs.  Missionaries like to believe that their placement is influenced by the spirit of God, and every missionary will tell you, where they served is the best place in the world.

What is most intriguing is the sacrifice by these young men.  There is no dating or flirting, every day’s schedule is very regimented, there is no communicating with family members back home except for letters and emails, no discussion of politics or current events, reading is confined to a standard library including the Bible, Book of Mormon, and additional study manuals (and language instruction if missionaries are foreign), and no music.  Missionaries are expected to proselyte 70+ hours a week, with one day given as a rest day in which laundry, letter writing, or activities (sports, tourism, etc) are allowed.

-          Tithing, Is it 10% of net, gross, pre- or post-tax?

Mormons believe tithing is 10% of increase as taught by the bible.  There is no official statement on whether this is net, gross, pre tax or post tax.  Tithing is 10% and it is up to the member to interpret what this means.  Tithing can also be paid weekly, monthly, or annually, again all determined by the person paying.

-          Race relations prior to 1978

The official church doctrine can be found in the Doctrine and Covenants in one of the last couple pages of the book – this and the ending of plural marriage are the two proclamations included in Mormon scripture.  Why this proclamation was released in 1978 is not really known save belief that this was God’s intention.  I will say that this coincides with the back end timing of the civil rights movement, which many members have speculated would have been an even greater challenge to the church, given the constant persecution the church historically faced.  As a note, race never prohibited any individual from being baptized or being members of congregations and there are records of black members all the way back to the early church.

I know this is a sticky point with many outsiders, but this position was in line with many other churches at the time.  Even today in pockets of the South there are still segregated churches and establishments.  We living in the South, we used to get asked whether our church “was a white church or a black church?”   Segregation was a part of US culture for centuries, and the civil rights movement changed how churches included members of different races.

The religion has known polygamous history and indeed some splinter cells still practice it. When and how did the main LDS church denounce this practice and why?

The church (there are no accepted splinter cells – we are one body with one leader) reversed doctrine in 1890 when pushed by the US to deny statehood, and polygamy was banned by law.  Mormons are law abiding citizens and the doctrine of plural marriage was reversed upon gaining statehood.  Any person practicing polygamy is kicked out of the church, or excommunicated.   In considering the history of the world, polygamy is a long supported idea.  Even throughout Christ’s time polygamy was practiced by Pharisees and Sadducees and Christ never condemned the practiced.  The Old Testament has multiple examples of prophetic leaders engaging in the practice, yet there is little opposition from the Christian community around historical prophet’s relationship with God.

It has been said that Mitt Romney’s grandfather comes from a polygamous sect in Mexico, how does that shape his background and life?

Minimal.  Mr. Romney’s father was the Governor of Michigan – if Mr. Romney Sr. was able to shake loose the connection, Mr. Romney will be no different.  I’m sure somewhere in my history there is some polygamous splinter as my mother’s side dates back to the Mormon pioneers.  In reality we all have polygamous ancestors as most of our ancestry dates back to Abraham (a stretch I admit).  I also think it’s hard to understand the choice of plural marriage using today’s frame and filter.  I know that there were hundreds of thousands of widows after the Civil War where half of a million men were killed.  I also know that the early women in the church were treated with respect and dignity largely due to the Mormon doctrine of woman’s equality with men.

Mormon men are not used to confrontation their word is all that is needed and we have seen frustration on the campaign trail and a culture of secrecy around the candidate, how does that affect one’s ability to govern from the most scrutinized position in the world?

Highly disagree with this statement.  I don’t believe this statement is fact based.  Mormon men are just like every other man – we all like to be right and do not enjoy being challenged.  How is this any different than President Bush standing up after the second election stating, “I am the decider.  I have won political capital in this last election and I intend to use it”.  Men, in general, seek out authority and command and I think President Obama, PM David Cameron, or Mr. Romney are no different.

Mitt Romney was a lay bishop in Massachusetts. What does that mean? Please explain the church’s hierarchy.

Bishops are the leaders of a local congregation of 300 or so.  Mr. Romney was also a Stake President, which governs the 7-8 local Bishops.  As you can tell a Bishop in the Mormon Church has a much different meaning than Bishops of the Catholic faith.  Bishops are the lowest level of leadership and the position is not political.  There is no campaigning and the personality of a Bishop can be incredibly diverse.  My last bishop was a scientist for a local company.  I once had a bishop who was a roofer that worked 17 hours a day.  No clergy is paid in the Mormon church, so being a Bishop equates a time dedication of roughly 20-25 hours a week of unpaid service.  Stake presidents are roughly 25-30 hours a week on top of their regular work schedule.  The upper echelons of the church are typically retired , and receive a stipend for living expenses (think General Authorities – which are the Prophets, Apostles, and Quorums of the 70).  Now, there are paid jobs for the church for administration and infrastructure, but they are modest.  People who work for the church do so with the understanding that they will never be extremely wealthy.

In 1960 John F Kennedy was questioned on whether or not he would take cues from the Pope. Mitt Romney is on record saying the church is VERY important in his life. Would he take his cues from church elders? Why or Why not?

Being a Mormon I don’t worry too much about this.  Mr. Romney’s faith already deeply influences his choices.  Besides, the checks and balances this country has in place would stop any blatant issue.  Faith does not trump laws, especially Mormon faith.  Remember, the vast majority of the Republicans in Congress are elected by Christian Fundamentalists which is a massive check for any religious grandstanding on Romney’s part.  Anyone who thinks that Romney will be able to ram a religious agenda through probably does not understand US political demographics.

Thank you for letting me input.  Feel free to ask any follow up questions.

 

(We do not tolerate any slanderous posts or derogatory comments - they will be blocked and the poster will be banned)

Post by Joseph  M -

I am so happy that all this back and forth between the two Mormon political super-celebs (Mitt Romney and Harry Reid) officially ended today when Romney finally announced that after thumbing through his old tax forms, he discovered that he'd "never paid less than 13%" during the past ten years.  He went on to report, "I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that."  I say it's over because Reid, as far as I can tell, has not volleyed back at him yet.

But let me back up to the beginning and explain how this all went down: it started with a simple sit-down interview between Reid and the Huffington Post and turned into a three-week-long brawl between the two most recognizable Mormons in the American political arena.  This battle is worthy of Brigham Young and Orson Pratt back in the day - only unlike Brigham, Reid hasn't told any of Romney's wives to divorce him yet; (one can only speculate what a fast and testimony meeting might look like with both of these men in attendance.)

In the interview, Harry Reid speculated that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for the ten years that he was at Bain - hence Romney's refusal to release the tax records.  He even went so far as to say, "His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son," apparently in a reference to the elder Romney turning over 12 years of tax records during his bid for the presidency.  This even provoked the ire of Jon Stewart, who told Harry Reid that he should "shut-up" while introducing the segment, "You, Harry Reid, are Terrible." (I guess I could pile on to Reid's accusations towards Romney by including the speculation we received from M.W. in the comment section of this website: "Wow! It just hit me – Romney doesn’t want to release his tax returns because he doesn’t want the church to find out that he has not been tithing his full 10%.")  But Stewart is right, as well as the mass numbers of commenters on our website who took issue with M.W.'s comments - we shouldn't accuse Romney of dishonesty without any proof.

Governor Romney sure does agree - read this article from the LA Times to get more details of the squabbling between the two.

But Senator Reid isn't apologizing.  This isn't the first time Reid has used "choice" words to describe a political foe.  In fact, in addition to Harry Reid's statements about Romney a few weeks ago, the Huffington Post also reported that he'd had time to disparage fellow Democrat, Bill Magwood, calling him a "'treacherous, miserable liar' and 'first-class rat,'" (and he also used a word that would have cost me a severe licking if I'd said it as a child.)  Harry Reid is not unacquainted with harsh words.  In the first few pages of his memoir, The Good Fight: Hard Lessons from Searchlight to Washington, Reid writes about George W. Bush,

"I believe that the current President is an ideologue who has done incalculable damage to the government, reputation, and moral standing of the United Stakes of America.  His vaunted "CEO Presidency" has...been incompetent in the face of grave challenge at home and abroad..." 

[caption id="attachment_1578" align="alignright" width="300"] Harry Reid's boyhood home in Searchlight[/caption]


But despite it all, Harry Reid seems to relish the criticism he's received for his attack on Mitt Romney.  So I will do Senator Reid a favor and give him some criticism of my own.  I don't know how much more time I would waste on this tax thing.  Personally, I don't think it strange that Mitt Romney would refuse to release more taxes.  With talk of tax shelters in the Cayman Islands and Swiss Bank accounts, America can't help but be reminded of a half-dozen James Bond movies and a recent episode of Breaking Bad.  (And that can't break good for Romney.)

So instead of the intense scrutiny of the Romney taxes, let's consider the ridiculousness of Romney's statement today about his taxes: "I just have to say, given the challenges that America faces — 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty — the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small-minded."

Beyond Romney's taxes, (which only point to the inequities of our tax system,) I am troubled that Romney would point to poverty in America as something he is seriously concerned about.  I appreciate the logic that if you give the wealthiest Americans a tax break that they will then invest that money, and this will spur job growth; inevitably these investments would trickle down like crumbs falling under the table of America for the one in six people in poverty to eat up.  But I just don't believe it is true.  Statistics do not back it up.  If tax cuts for the wealthy really helped eliminate poverty or even created jobs, then why did the Bush tax cuts fail to do that?  According to PolitiFact, job growth under Bush was a sluggish 4.5% while the previous Clinton administration posted double-digit job growth numbers.

In the article, Myth Romney: Tax Cuts Spur Growth, Ernest Dumas writes,

Not once has (a tax-cut spurred job growth), but the theory never loses its shine. Ronald Reagan cut lots of taxes in 1981, and it was followed by the deepest recession since the '30s — 10 straight months of double-digit unemployment and soaring deficits. When the economy began to recover, he raised taxes over and over until the big 1986 tax increase (revenue enhancement, they called it) was followed by the growth spurt that got him the reputation as the wizard of economic growth. George W. Bush passed successive tax cuts, which produced ballooning deficits, virtually no job growth and, finally, the longest doldrums since the Great Depression.>

So Senator Reid, if we are going to call out Romney on something let's bring it back to this: please don't discuss unemployment anymore. Please don't talk about poverty.  It's like talking with your mouth full.  Because in the end, Romney cannot honestly talk about poverty when the other words twisting and turning around his mouth leave no room for the American poor.  Nothing in his (which really is Paul Ryan's) plan helps this particular group of people.  And although we are only 80 plus days until the election, I am just getting started here.   I am supporting Obama for very specific reasons, and issues of poverty and inequality are at the top of my list.  More to come...

This guest post by "Anonymous Mormon" was originally posted on the blog, Zvirzdins at Large. It begins with this heading by Jamie Zvirzdin:

As this year's political race between Obama and Romney gains traction in the media, on social networks, in churches, and elsewhere, there are Mormons who, while having nothing against Romney personally or religiously, have decided to vote for Obama. The following is from a Mormon (not me) who supports Obama and the reasons why:

I am voting for Obama. I voted for him in 2008, and I believe that he was the best candidate at that time. In my opinion, he is again the best candidate for president this year. Here are my key reasons:

Foreign Policy
In my opinion, Obama has been the greatest foreign policy president we have had since Ronald Reagan. He has largely shifted America's foreign policy focus to Asia where it rightly belongs, reduced resources in Iraq, plotted an escape route out of Afghanistan, managed the Arab Spring revolutions better than I ever though possible, strengthened international resolve towards Iran, reduced tensions along the Mexican border, corralled India in a tighter alliance, and done all of this with fewer resources. Oh, and he killed Osama in an incredibly daring but brilliant operation. How could anyone even compete with that?

Much of the success belongs to Obama's excellent Cabinet choices. Secretary Clinton has been a fantastic Secretary of State, the best we've had since Colin Powell. Gates was so impressive as Defense secretary (I have mixed feelings about Panetta) and even Mullen as Joint Chiefs has demonstrated an excellent ability to think outside the box and also confront his own bureaucracy. But Obama is the one who assembled the team from rivals (Clinton) and the other political party (Gates). And he is the one who has ultimately made the right decisions at the right times.

Even his supposed failures in foreign policy reflect good thinking in my mind. Liberals are upset over his inability to close Guantanamo, but that issue is way more complicated than most people realize. And Obama is willing to recognize reality, even in the face of his unrealistic campaign promises. Others have criticized him for his response to Libya, but again, I think he struck the exact right balance of intervention without U.S. commitment. And it was a good chance for Europe to step up to the plate and work out its defense arrangements a little bit more.

Foreign policy is largely controlled within the executive branch of government, so I hold the President more accountable on this count than most others. And I think because Obama has a freer hand in this policy realm, we have seen more of his true colors in this respect. Plus, his rhetorical gifts are so needed and so effective in the international arena. Words matter there, and Obama has the ability to really influence things by what he says. Speeches in Russia and in Egypt prior to the uprisings had a dramatic regional impact.

Those who want Ron Paul's version of foreign policy are living in historical fiction, though I empathize with their aspirations. It was Woodrow Wilson, nearly 100 years ago, who presided over the transition of America from an isolated, waterlocked, largely agrarian society to the global economic and military power it is today. That transition, while not irreversible, has been so comprehensive as to make the costs of returning to isolationism far higher than any benefits. We are a global power, our military is a crucial international asset used to secure shipping lanes, reduce transaction costs, and save lives abroad, and our role in international fora cannot be replicated.

I actually think Romney wouldn't be too bad in the foreign policy realm. He certainly wouldn't be as bad as Bush or Carter were. But I worry about his Cabinet choices, about too much focus on domestic issues, about his inability to connect with Americans let alone foreign countries. And Obama has a clear track record in this realm. Absent some compelling flaw in the President's foreign policy or some remarkable asset in Romney, I am certainly not willing to change presidents after only four years.

Economics
This is the second most important issue for me, but I suspect it will be the number-one issue for most Americans. The economy is whimpering along, barely making much of a recovery with major structural problems at every level. My perspective is surely influenced by the fact that I have a job and that I am doing OK financially. If I didn’t have a job, or if my future prospects didn’t look bright, I would probably be looking for a change somewhere. In the Book of Mormon, Lehi murmured against the Lord only when he couldn’t feed his family, so I fully respect those who want a change of leadership given the lack of recent improvements. But a couple of thoughts:

Investment is the key to growth, and we are not making the right types of investments. If you think about your own life, you made significant investments in education, maybe a home, other capital. You likely took out loans to pay for these things (I sure did) with the understanding that your investment will yield returns later on. The problem with the U.S. right now is we had to take out loans just to survive for the past few years. It’s like we were living on credit card debt. Now the gut reaction once things start improving is to pay off the credit card debt right away. We all hate debt and hate watching how much interest eats up our paychecks. But the counterintuitive right course (in my opinion) is to take out more loans for the right type of investments first and then start paying off the credit card debt. Domestic infrastructure, education, state and local government, and energy development all desperately need significant investments right now. Waiting until our nation’s credit card bill is paid will be too late and only result in a lower rate of growth in the future. Accordingly,

The Republican’s prescription is the wrong one. What they are proposing is the equivalent of a doctor ordering chemotherapy for broken legs. Everyone is focused on debt right now, thinking paying down our debt will somehow cause the economy to come back. Again, think about it from an individual’s perspective. Does paying off debt make you any richer? Insofar as you get to keep the money you were using to pay interest, yes. But that is really a very small amount in the grand scheme of things. Things that actually make us richer—such as getting more education, getting a promotion, finding a new job, coming up with a new invention—come from investments, from risks, from innovation. Somehow, we are not focusing on that at all; instead, we are bickering about how we have mortgaged our children’s future. That cliché is driving me nuts. Of course we mortgage their future! That’s how we hope to finance a better world that they can then easily pay off with their spaceship explorations to planets made of gold and unobtainium.

In all seriousness though, the Republicans and Mitt Romney would have a valid argument if U.S. interest rates were going up and if inflation were a concern. But that’s the thing: inflation rates are at historic lows, and the world is more than happy to lend us as much money as we want. (See my first point on foreign policy; in a way, this is the reward for all our global expenditures.) Which leads me to the final point on economics:

The current public debate is not looking at the big picture. The U.S. economy is so closely tied into the world’s economy now that it is silly to try to separate them or focus on domestic reasons for our malaise. China’s economy depends on U.S. debt as much as we depend on it. Europe’s problems make our issues look childish in comparison. Brazil, China, and India are practically begging the U.S. to spend their money in our country on our goods and with our workforce. We are missing all these issues in our angry, navel-gazing rhetoric about who destroyed which job. And I think those global issues will ultimately have much more bearing on the domestic economy than nearly anything the executive branch will do.

There may be one exception to this point, however. In periods of panic and serious economic volatility, the President does have real power: rhetorical power and the ability to act quickly to stabilize the market through emergency liquidity measures, etc. Romney and Republicans have all but eschewed such tools, however, saying it is not the government’s role to take such action. And that denial of governmental responsibility in the face of economic crises is frightening. The last presidents to believe this were Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge, who together helped precipitate (but not cause) the Great Depression.

Just to summarize the economic issue:
· Investments, not deleveraging national debt, is the key to growth.
· Republicans have made paying off debt their Holy Grail, creating a myopic and misdirected economic policy.
· International economic policy matters far more than Republicans acknowledge.
· At the end of the day, the President has very little influence on economic issues, except in crises. And it is such power that the Republican party has said should not be wielded by the government.

Looking at Romney individually, I think he is actually very intelligent when it comes to economic issues. I suspect he understands all these points, and I even suspect he may agree with me. But his party has demonstrated no willingness to compromise or acknowledge any complexity on the issue, and I fear Romney would face a revolt from his own party if he suggested increasing spending on anything. So even if Romney really knows how to handle our economic challenges (although his current rhetoric suggests otherwise) his party would never allow it.

Domestic Policy and Entitlement Reform
As the words Obamacare and socialism ring through the air, I think this is the arena where the public debate has gotten out of hand. To be fair, the rhetoric on foreign policy issues was ridiculous when George Bush was president. Whereas Obama is depicted as a Keynian socialist who hates America and wants to decide when senior citizens are killed, Bush was depicted as a bumbling, warmongering puppet controlled by Dick Cheney who wanted to torture foreigners. Neither caricature is particularly helpful, except to put “rage in the hearts” (2 Nephi 28:20) of people. I suspect most Americans were not in either of these two rhetorical camps, but their rational thoughts are getting drowned out.

Obamacare—By far, the strangest thing about this entire debate is that Obamacare will not be truly implemented until 2014! We haven’t even seen what Obamacare will do, but listening to people you would think it single-handedly brought down the economy even before it was passed. The individual mandate hasn’t been implemented, insurance competition provisions remain unenforced, and the whole thing is in limbo before the Supreme Court (and I think a constitutional examination is warranted in this case). My point is, how could you possibly judge a law on its merits when it hasn’t even been implemented? One of the only truly substantive components of the law that has been implemented is the mandate that insurance companies cover dependents until they are 26 (reflecting the fact that children are in school and deferring marriage until later). And I think that has been a great success—I have family members who would not have insurance were it not for this provision.

Medicare—This is the real elephant in the room, and the part where I agree with the Republicans the most. Medicare costs are the fundamental driver of increasing health care costs, and Obamacare’s great flaw is its failure to reign in Medicare costs. The economic reality is that it is inevitable that Medicare benefits will be cut and there will be some type of provisioning of those benefits, aka death panels. Because promising essentially unlimited medical expenditures for the most expensive patients while refusing to raise additional revenue from the healthy patients is unsustainable. Given this reality, however, I think reform is actually more likely with a Democrat as president. He would have the best ability to convince his own party of the need for reform. Remember, Bill Clinton was president when welfare reform was passed. Right now the Democrats are quite intransigent on this issue, but I think economic realities and appropriate pressure from Republicans in Congress could help them come around, provided a Democrat is president. If a Republican is president, there would be too much opposition from Democrats and too much partisan gloating from Republicans to really push anything rational through.

Social Security—See my previous point. Social security as currently constituted is unsustainable, benefits will need to be cut, and I believe Obama is able and willing to compromise on this point.

Women’s and Family Issues—I have no idea what is going on with the Republican party or why they think targeting contraceptives or abortion is going to win the election. But I believe their rhetoric is harmful and counterproductive. Roe v. Wade is a reality, so let’s start talking about how we can reduce the number of abortions through education, contraceptive use, and strengthening families. This war on women and the family is phony, pathetic, and a political red herring.

Summary
Of course, I am not happy with everything that Obama has done. I generally like solid conservatives on the Supreme Court who have a more traditionalist interpretation of the Constitution. Obama will most certainly not do that. Obama’s leadership style is frequently too detached to really enact substantive change. Despite his rhetoric, Obama does not have the gift of a Reagan or Clinton to reach across the aisle and really work with the opposition party. And I am concerned with growing consolidation of authority at the federal level at the expense of state and local government.

In these policy matters, I feel Obama is on the wrong side of the issue. But democracy is all about choosing the least bad alternative. I am concerned that Romney is not the master of his own fate. Too many political forces within his own party have compelled him to change into something and someone that he is not. I really liked the Romney who was governor of Massachusetts: a compromiser, able to deal with the political realities at hand, and eminently pragmatic. If that Romney resurfaces, I would be incredibly happy. My concern though is that the Republican party has been captured by a mix of libertarian, Conservative with a capital C (ie., pre-1932), and isolationist groups that have a skewed historical perspective. I am extremely uncomfortable with the rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and other pundits from this camp, and Romney has been far too willing to pander to these groups. True leadership would occur if he stood up against those in his own party. But he hasn’t done that.

Of course it is neat that Romney is Mormon, but I actually feel that has very little bearing in this year’s election. It will make for some very interesting attack ads and quite a spotlight on the church, but I haven’t really seen how it will influence his policy choices. Has Romney ever suggested his Mormon faith has influenced his political positions? So that puts me squarely in a very small minority of Mormons for Obama.

This year’s election is not the “once in a lifetime” election I have been hearing about. Yes, there are important issues and yes, it is valuable to be civically engaged. But I have too much faith in the American system to believe that one presidential term could ever fundamentally alter the American way of life, either for good or bad. Presidents are leaders more than they are actors. What I mean by that is they set the rhetorical tone that compels others to action. But no matter who is president, there will be good people in the U.S. doing much good of their own free will.

The Constitution is an incredible document with such flexibility that I believe we can definitely tackle the pressing issues our country faces. I have tremendous appreciation for our country’s commitment to the rule of law and respect for minority opinion. I honestly believe that the U.S. has one of the greatest political systems in the world, if not the greatest ever created. It may look really messy at times, but believe me, we could do much, much worse. Nowhere else in the world is there such a large and diverse population able to live in freedom and peace. As the ridiculous rhetoric heats up on both sides, it is good to keep that in mind.

Another Obama supporter adds his voice to call for a second term for President Obama:

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6UBEiSJjO8&w=560&h=315]

Post by Joseph M -

I won't even go into the details of how or what or why I disagree with Paul Ryan (and not just in one area - but in so many many ways.)  I don't feel the need to; just do a google search on "Why Paul Ryan is Wrong" and you'll see an explosion of articles and links describing the problems with this congressman.

This is what I don't get: why Representative Paul Ryan?  I don't understand how the formerly moderate Governor of Massachusetts could pick such an extremely right (meaning wrong) conservative as his running mate.  Maybe I really bought into the Etch-a-Sketch comment.  I somehow believed that Mitt Romney would right his boat into the political center after he won the Republican nomination.  There is an oft-stated idea that the Romney of yesteryear (Governor of Massachusetts) would not have voted for the Romney we see now running for president - and the VP Ryan pick really bears that out.   So I do apologize for my naiveté on this one.  It's not like I would have voted for Romney regardless of who he picked, but I did find myself caught off guard by his Vice President choice.

In fact, a friend of mine has been pranking me with random text messages these past two weeks proclaiming fake Romney VP picks; the first one said, "Romney picks Sarah Palin as his VP!" I paused for a moment, and then realized it was a joke.  The second one even came with a fake abcnews.go.com link: "Romney picks LDS President Thomas S. Monson as VP." I knew that was false - but I clicked on the link anyway just to make sure.  So when I got his latest text message on Friday night, I figured "Ryan selected as VP" was leaning towards the ridiculous just like the previous two texts.  Alas, this is not the case.

But still I can't help mulling it over in my head: what is Romney hoping to accomplish by picking Paul Ryan?  Is he not convinced that he has the conservative vote in the bag?  Well, maybe this is Mitt Romney's vice (if we can call it that): his willingness to do anything and everything to please the conservative wing of his party.  Because if there is some middle ground of voters still to be won over - or the undecided - (is that another word for people who don't pay attention to politics until the week before the election?) - how does Ryan help them choose Romney?  Clearly Romney really likes the guy - and maybe he'll just adopt Ryan's fiscal plans as his own since that would be easier than coming up with one - (or maybe he'll just adopt Ryan as another one of his sons, since he kind of looks like them anyway.)  Regardless, I don't get how Ryan's politics will do anything more than alienate a large majority of the electorate.

Maybe I'm wrong.  But my bet (and my vote) is on Obama for 2012.  It feels good to be on the right side of history on this one (again.)

There are many, many reasons why I support President Obama. Here are just a few of them.

This post by Kay Atkinson King originally appeared on By Common Conset, a Mormon Blog on August 6, 2012.