Mormons and Obama: Yes we can! No you can’t! Yes we can! No you can’t! YES WE CAN!

I am loving the dialogue about the compatibility of Obama and Mormon voters.

Many important points have been brought up in the comments to my recent post, Why Mormons Should Consider Backing Obama. In addition, Jettboy from Straight and Narrow Blog has written a thoughtful post: The Mormon Obama Mania Will End.

This dialogue warrants another post — even though I probably should be doing other things :)

Point 1: I am not a prognosticator. Unlike some pro-Obama posts, I really have not given a forecast of whether Obama will fare well among Mormons. (I do, however, predict that he will in fact be the next president of the United States.) Rather, my post relates some reasons to hope for the possibility, as well as to argue that Mormons CAN and SHOULD consider backing Obama (it doesn’t say that they WILL). Also, I agree that the Beehive Standard Weekly article is too optimistic, although I do think they make many valuable points.

Point 2: Obviously not many firm conservatives will vote for Obama. I wonder, however, how many Latter-day Saints are in fact solid, firm conservatives. I honestly don’t know the answer to this question (and I think it runs much deeper than self-identification), but I have been surprised at the number of Mormons turning to Obama, as well as the others who have been seriously thinking about it. The people who are doing so are probably ALREADY more moderate, even if they have leaned right in the past. When we consider the low approval of the Bush administration, large opposition to the war, and an overall worry about what “more of the same” will bring us (which McCain ultimately represents, in my opinion), a large number of people, Mormons included, are in fact trading sides. And by the way, Jettboy and others, it is not honest to caricature the hope for Obama among Mormons as a false hope of Mormon Democrats, considering that more independent Mormons have voted for Obama than Democratic ones.

Point 3: Most Mormons do not think about “issues” in the enumerated fashion that is presented on Jettboy’s post and some of the previous comments on this blog. Rather, there are things that are more and less important to people, always seen within the context of current world events, and everyone is willing to make compromises in selecting a candidate. Most Mormons, I suspect, know about Obama’s liberal policies, and more and more find themselves gravitating towards some of them. I have found this in my own life — though I used to see myself as a conservative, I realize more and more how the LDS values that I have valued all my life are both conservative and liberal. I have found that LDS women are particularly open to liberal policies concerning healthcare, the economy, the war in Iraq, and so on. Many of these women, I predict, will go to the polls voting for an Obama over a McCain (without their hard-core Republican husbands ever knowing :)

Point 4: Regarding Obama’s stances, there is a difference between being “liberal” and being “nonpartisan.” Without question, Obama transcends partisan politics and is actually willing to talk with people who disagree with him. I think that this openness attracts Mormons in spite of Obama’s own liberal stance. People are looking for a leader, not a person with all the right “issues.”

Point 5: Jettboy predicts that Obama will not get a “large portion” of the Mormon vote. I suppose that depends on what “large portion” means. Yes, it is probably a long shot for him to get a majority of Mormon votes, at least in Utah. But one thing to consider: you don’t have to get the majority of Mormon votes to win in Utah. Even the reddest of states rarely elect a Republican president by a majority more than 70 percent (at the very most). So, the real question, for Utah, is whether Obama can swing 15-20 percent of the vote. This is not all that far-fetched, even if not even close to all Mormons are on board.

Point 6: Without question, the extreme right-wing machine will use scare tactics to get Mormons to vote Republican, whether its an invasion of terrorists or an invasion of “activist” Supreme Court justices. This will turn some Mormons away from Obama, to be certain; never underestimate how the Republican Party uses fear as a primary motivating factor. The big difference between what I am trying to do on this blog and what others are doing is that I am trying to reason with people to weigh issues in relation to what is most important. Conservative fear-mongers simply say “partial-birth abortion,” as if the implication is, well of course you can’t vote for him. But really, there’s a deeper story going on — many people are tired of simply fighting about abortion and they realize that legislation alone will not change people’s hearts. Moreover, for many people, including moderate Mormons, 100 years in Iraq is much scarier than the thought of “activist” judges or the purely hypothetical, completely unfounded suggestion that if we pull out of Iraq we’re doing the terrorists a favor (especially considering the neglect in Afghanistan).

Point 7: I think that people are underestimating the fair-mindedness of Obama. What will be a huge issue is to see what Obama does once he wins the Democratic nomination. How will he reach out to moderates and even conservatives? It is ridiculous to suggest that of course he won’t do this. His values and appeal suggest otherwise. If Obama really speaks and reasons with moderate Americans, including Mormons, he will win over a lot of hearts — for good. It will be especially important if he speaks directly about abortion concerns and issues regarding national security. Who’s to say that Mormons and other right-leaners might not even have a little bit of leverage in having Obama pledge for certain compromises? (Honestly, would he be worried about losing votes from liberals?) In this respect, it is inaccurate to say that Obama is the most liberal candidate. It’s not just about issues. What is more important is leadership, and Obama possesses a strong notion of fair-mindedness (though perhaps this is a liberal principle nowadays?). Thus, there is a HUGE difference between Obama and Clinton. Think about it, when people have a gripe about Bush, how much is it that he holds this or that “issue.” No, it almost always has to do with decision making and his ability to work with others who disagree with him (on both counts, he has failed over and over again, even among those who agree with him on “issues”).

Point 8: Regarding some comments from my previous post, I am so tired of people saying that Obama does not have substantive policies. All inspiration, no substance, they say. This is FLAT WRONG — you are simply parroting a talking point from GWB and HRC. Obama has very detailed and substantive policies spelled out on his website. He simply is more “inspirational” in his speeches because that is what people want. When you think about it a “rally” is exactly that — it’s not necessarily the best place to get into nuts and bolts. So, I have a challenge for Obama naysayers. Go on his website and read his policies, then determine whether it’s all style and no substance. For example, someone asked how Obama is going to pay for his healthcare policy — Obama has outlined that in specific detail; it will be completely covered by lifting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (unlike Clinton’s plan, which is much more expensive), another conservative principle that is not very powerful to a lot of Mormons.

Point 9: I do think that some people are supporting Obama blindly. However, I disagree with the disparaging comments that downgrade someone’s support of Obama as a false hope that is grounded in emotion and not in reality. The relational connection with a candidate is a HUGE reality. Moreover, don’t we as Latter-day Saints believe that we can have a discernment of the Spirit that helps us to decide whether we can trust someone? Might I suggest that we make our political decisions more a matter of prayer in which we are open to inspiration that allows us to act in confidence.

Point 10: I would like to steer the LDS blogging community’s attention to Obama in a new direction. I think that a fundamental question for Latter-day Saints is not whether we will vote for Obama, but rather CAN WE? Of course, in a technical sense we can; anyone can. But I mean on a deeper level. Can someone with the core values of a Latter-day Saint vote for Obama? Can someone justify their vote for Obama not simply as someone who is compatible with their values, but as the candidate that BEST matches their values? This question cannot be deflected by simply saying, “But he is pro-abortion!” Rather, such an issue would need to be understood in light of a greater whole, including how one envisions the future relationship of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the world.

To LDS Obama fans: the online community needs to hear your stories; they need to hear you really speak from the heart concerning how your religious beliefs and your support of Obama coincide. They don’t need to hear bitter fights against Republicans from hard-core Democrats. I encourage LDS Obama supporters to make your voices heard, in the same spirit that Obama has been reaching out — if you have nowhere else to do so, I invite you to add your comments to this post. Tell your fellow Latter-day Saints that YES WE CAN!

Email a friend


46 Responses

  1. I do not know much about the Mormon faith and wonder why with one Jesus there are thousands of different Christian religions. Talk about anti-Christian behavior, such as a bashing of others: “no ours is the one true Christian” kind of bickering.

    My feeling is that if one truly has a belief in Christ and God they would not be involved with politics at all. How can people pledge allegiance to a country via a flag, when according to Christ allegiance belongs to one only: God.

    Obama does have a deep conviction or belief in his faith; it shows in his actions, such as caring for those who have less than and in matters regarding integrity and honesty, in addition to respecting (or love thy neighbor) others.

    Yet he believes in our Constitution which gives freedom to worship. He knows that Muslims, Hebrews, Buddhas, Hindi’s and others are tax paying citizens and the government is for all, not just a rigid religious Republican right that wants to foist their beliefs on all.

    His is the correct attitude for a President of a diverse nation, where even agnostics and atheists are considered to have equal rights to law making in the USA.

  2. There is one thing that I think you take for granted. Many people DO take issues seriously. As a conservative I have heard the “Obama” calling card. However, his stances on too many things are seriously undermining what I believe is important. A closer look convinced me that he is a wolf in sheeps clothing. I am a conservative, like I believe a large number of Mormons are. Many Mormons are NOT moderates, no matter how well you spin the details.

    G.W. Bush is a horrible communicator, but has done everything I have ever hoped a conservative Republican could do. Voting for McCain or especially Obama might destory all the good I consider he has been done. I am probably going to write in Romney as a protest vote.

  3. jettboy,

    If you do feel the way you do about Bush, then, yes, for you, I can see how Obama is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.


    I think you and I see allegiance differently. I don’t see an inherent split in allegiance between Christ and country. Nor does Obama. Nor does Christ himself (render to Caeser what is Caeser). However, my allegiance to Christ is certainly higher than it is to country, as I think any true Christian’s would have to be.

  4. Dennis,

    For me, this election comes down to substance. I will grant that Barack Obama has a gift for communicating. I am pretty conservative, and am giving Obama a serious look. Part of my reasoning is that he seems to embody a new tone in Washington.

    I think (hope is more accurate) that getting the Bush and Clinton machines out of politics will calm things down some. Then again, that may not be true with the vitriol of parts of the blogosphere.

    Visit me at

    Tony Brown

    By the way, I might be interested in being a contributor if you have room for another voice on your blog.

  5. I really enjoy your thought-out comments. I too am tired of people saying he’s all hope and no substance. I think these are the people who aren’t doing their “issues” research! Every time I hear him in a policy forum or policy speech I realize what a grasp he has on the issues. I would like to have people ask who has run the most successful competent campaign in history? Obama. I think you should do a post comparing the effectiveness…or lack thereof in the various campaigns. Obama has picked incredible staff to run an extremely competent campaign. Isn’t that a microcosm of what he could accomplish as president? Here are some articles that discuss his integrity and his ability to talk with both sides of the aisle:

  6. I have also grown very tired of people commenting on Obama’s lack of well thought out policies and positions.

    I direct these people to his website and his book. Most people are too cynical or stubborn to take the time and find comfort holding onto that reasoning.

  7. Hey Jett,

    You state that you believe a large number of Mormons are conservative. I’m not so sure. My wife for example loudly proclaims herself to be a conservative Republican. I had her take a test using a political compass, and she actually ended up being just slightly to the left of the divide. That’s just one example of course, but even after the compass mapped her feelings on politics, she still loudly claims that she’s Republican even though evidence indicates otherwise. I think it’s due in part to the common Mormon stigma that admitting to being moderate is seen as lesser than claiming conservativism.

    For those that want to support true conservative politics, you have no candidate left in the field. As election day nears you’ll hear people try to equate Reagan and McCain, and that quite frankly is horribly innacurate. The Republican party no longer represents the interests of conservatives, and of late has actually been aligning itself more with the left side of the spectrum. The spectrum is the same, but where the party labels are falling on that spectrum is changing rapidly, so I believe you’re actually going to see a lot more Mormon democrats in the near future.

    The closest thing conservatives had to supporting one of their own was Ron Paul, and that didn’t get very far. If you really believe McCain’s your guy, you’re just in a very unfortunate voting position.

  8. I think abortion is tragic, but necessary, until we as a society collectively decide that:
    1. We are willing to pony up the funds to ensure that the woman we force to carry the baby to term is provided with nutritious food, shelter and safety.
    2. We are willing to pony up the funds to ensure that she is given proper pre- and post-natal medical care and attention.
    3. We are willing to ensure that, if she cannot or will not demonstrate a willingness to keep and properly nurture the baby, that we find a good, loving home for the baby (adoption).
    4. We are willing to pony up the funds to ensure that, if she decides to keep her baby, they both will have access to adequate food, shelter and medical care.

    Problem is that most of the so-called “pro-life” folks seem to be really just “pro-fetus”, concerned more with punishing mom for her sins, than caring whether or not Jr. is coming into a world where (s)he will be wanted, loved, and properly cared for. They seem to have little regard for mom or baby once baby is born. Since most “pro-life” folks also fall into the pro-tax-cut, anti-universal-health care camp, items 1-4 would therefore never happen if they got their way. It would seem there’s more than a bit of hypocrisy to the “pro-life” label. Obviously I’m speaking in generalities, and I hope that the really passionate pro-life folks are truly pro-life, and not just pro-fetus. Meanwhile, the whole abortion hysteria is really nothing more than a political football, and an excuse for Mormons to remain ignorant of the true moral issues we face currently (including this retarded war in Iraq we are NEVER going to win).

    Go Obama!

  9. Dennis, interesting stuff you write. I don’t agree with all your thoughts, but it’s nice to see that you are thinking and pondering.

    I agree with Rich. Personally, I don’t think abortion should be a political issue. It’s a religious issue and the gov’t should stay out of it.

    Same with gay marriage. That’s a religious issue as well & the gov’t should stay out of that.

    Marriage should be a religious thing. If a particular religion wants to ban gay marriage, that’s their prerogative. The gov’t should grant civil unions to those who don’t want a religious union but want the legal protections of a civil union. The gov’t should make no further distinctions beyond a civil union being between 2 people.

    If we could get these religious based morality issues off the plate, then we could get people to start focusing more on the real issues our nation is facing.

    I think Mormons, and the holders of other minority beliefs should be way more afraid of the Evangelical Christians trying to take over the Republican party and gaining more control in gov’t than Obama. Have you ever perused any of the Evanglical Christian message boards? Mormons would be just as much in trouble as atheists and muslims under Evanglical rule.

    People need to stand up to these wacky Evangelicals and encourage them to form their own political party. Then maybe I could be a Republican again.

    Though I am, like you, starting to think giving the tax breaks to the super rich aren’t the best idea and that decent health care for everyone is a good idea.

    We had an issue when DH left one company to go to another company. Even though we had full coverage from the old company, the new health insurance provider wanted to exclude us for 3 months before covering us, even with our letters of credible covereage from the previous insurance provider. We ended up having to do COBRA for a while. Fortunately the new company was willing to pay the $1100/month for the COBRA until the dispute with their insurance provider was worked out.

    But what about people who aren’t that fortunate? I realize I have a lot more to say about this, I should probably finish it on my own blog.

  10. I don’t typically get involved in dialog about how members of a particular ethnicity (Mormonism, in this case) should vote. I think that kind of rhetoric is unhealthy because it assumes that all members of an ethnic groups should vote a certain way. That said, your arguments for Obama being nonpartisan are not convincing.

    Your arguments depend on what Obama says, rather than what he has done. You admit that he is very liberal, but you then make the logical jump to assuming he will unite the parties. “Without question, Obama transcends partisan politics.” Without question? That’s a big assumption. His stances on healthcare, Iraq (whatever it happens to be at the moment), trade (ditto), and just about everything else are very divisive. While he has obviously swooned you into thinking America will hold hands and sing together when he’s president, this is unlikely. He doesn’t have a substantive record of working with the GOP in Congress, and partisan congresspeople aren’t as easily fooled as you by Obama’s post-partisan claims. Further, while he has united a lot of centrist and conservative voters, he is gradually losing that support as he is articulating policies more in speeches (I know they’ve always been on his website, but his faith-healer speeches are what people actually see). Ohio and Texas are evidence of this. His economically ignorant NAFTA rhetoric has turned off a lot of conservatives, and his dishonesty about the Canadian consul memo has alienated a lot of his liberal supporters. This kind of thing will continue as people learn more about his positions.

    Further, the idea that he transcends old politics is absolutely ludicrous. I’ve written about this recently, and I’d be interested in hearing a response from you.

    Obama’s claims to being post-partisan and above shady politics are steadily unraveling. They will continue to do so. He may be lucky enough to survive through the campaign, but as president, we will see this more. Either he will sell out his old positions and actually do centrist things, alienating his liberal supporters, or he will continue his liberal ways and alienate his remaining centrist voters.

  11. RD:

    This comment is in response to your comment here as well as your post.

    First, I admit that I do not provide extensive evidence for Obama’s ability to transcend partisan politics. (I do think that his desire to do so is certainly “without question,” and not in a way that simply convinces the nation to be liberal, but obviously whether it actually happens depends on more than himself.) Much of what I’m doing is trying to persuade Mormons to at least consider Obama. I am NOT, as you imply, suggesting that Mormons should vote as a block. Rather, I am simply reasoning with Mormons using appeals that I think that Mormons might find persuasive. For each of us, there certainly needs to be more research and more waiting — I am not at all naive to the possibility that Obama could be disappointing to me and many of his supporters.

    But the focus of your post, as well as your entire blog, are hardly helpful in this regard. You are clearly someone with an ax to grind against Obama (no problem with that), and I think you raise some important questions to consider, but you are far too quick, from my reading, to make ad hominem attacks and come to hasty conclusions. Honestly, we can do without your disparaging remarks to “Kool-Aid” and “The Candy Man.” (Talk about politics as usual.) Why can’t you simply provide a reasonable assessment without name-calling? I would be much more willing to have an intelligent and non-sensational dialogue with you, which I think you are capable of having.

    It is awfully easy to pounce upon little juicy tidbits (just as the media loves to do). You are hardly going to convince me of anything by bringing up an allegation (and that’s all it is, an allegation, that BOTH parties deny) of Obama doublespeaking about NAFTA. Perhaps I am quick to disbelieve or discount this little tidbit (at least for now), but may I suggest that you are awfully quick to pounce on it — at last, indisputable evidence of Obama being a fake! I prefer to not be tossed to and fro by every single possible allegation. Obama’s desire to transcend politics as usual does not mean he can transcend allegations. Nor does it mean that he might not have staff members who say dishonest things that are not representative of Obama’s campaign.

    So when you say, “Is the surfaced memorandum between Canadian and Obama campaign officials, admitting that his NAFTA rhetoric is doublespeak and politics without substance, change we can believe in?” it is clear that you are way to quick to believe something that is not grounded in fact.

    Moreover, your focusing on this or that little tidbit does very little in making a comprehensive argument. I admit that I haven’t made a comprehensive argument about Obama, but I nonetheless try to avoid taking things out of context (trying to consider the entire person, their policies, and their leadership skills).

    But it appears to me, and I could be wrong, that you set up a convenient caricature of Obama that makes it easy to make out-of-context allegations. I see you as having painted a black vs. white caricature of politics as usual vs. new politics — so if Obama does anything slightly shady, or is even accused of doing anything shady, he must be a HYPOCRITE!

    Even if Obama is not TOTALLY immune to the politics as usual that he condemns (and that is only an “if” in my book right now, but we can disagree), it doesn’t get you off the hook for making sense of his actions in light of his total character and policies. One thing we have to consider with all of this is that Obama, more than anyone else, is being attacked from BOTH Clinton and McCain (neither wants him to get the nomination). Considering that Clinton has been completely desperate during the past several weeks, this is hardly surprising. Given this double-team on Obama, his political integrity in responding to these daily attacks is actually quite remarkable, in my opinion. I can be OK with Obama not PERFECTLY transcending politics as usual, and yet not consider him a hypocrite (and I think nearly all of his supporters would probably be equally understanding). It is Obama’s detractors, not Obama, that are setting him up as some kind of Messiah. Awfully convenient, because a Messiah is so easy to tear down. (And honestly, the whole private jet comment reveals that you truly are fishing for stuff. Maybe you can condemn him for the fact that his campaign costs millions of dollars, that he does stump speeches, that he goes out and meets people, that he has a campaign staff, that he talks to the media — Obama, man, I thought you were talking about a new kind of politics, and clearly you’re doing the things that other politicians do! Politics as usual! Hypocrite!)

    Unfortunately, I don’t think that anyone could emerge from this heated contest with someone like Hillary Clinton without misstepping here and there. So Obama is now in the unfortunate position of needing to fight back (and rightfully so), but anything that he does is seen as a betrayal of his politics of hope. So I can say, yes this is poiltics (what do you expect?), and still see Obama as someone who stands largely above the fray (at least for now). It is clear that you don’t trust Obama, but may I suggest that you don’t have ample evidence to proclaim that he clearly is just like everybody else. It’s far more nuanced than you want to make it out to be.

    Moreover, your prediction that Obama’s post-partisan claims will continue to unravel is simply based in the fact that you have already decided that he is not post-partisan. Otherwise, your claim makes little sense.

    I wonder if you might be surprised by Obama’s claim that he will fill his Cabinet with the best person, regardless of party (and has specifically mentioned 2 Republicans who are at the top of his list for important positions, including Secretary of State). But you’ve probably already thought of a way to spin this as politics as usual…

    I see it, however, as evidence that reflects the post-partisan judgment of Obama. And is not politics-as-usual. And I am much more concerned with how Obama works with others and who he surrounds himself with than I am with concerns about his liberal voting-record. (Especially when we consider Bush’s yes-men mentality.)

  12. RD,

    One other thing.

    It is not at all accurate to cite Texas and Ohio as evidence that Obama is losing support.

    Let’s not forget, as the mainstream media apparently has, that Obama was never really expected to win in Texas or Ohio. In fact, several weeks ago he was down by double digits in both polls. I would argue, actually that Obama did remarkably well in both states (although, yes, I would have liked him to do better). Moreover, let’s not forget that who “won” Texas is still largely in question — it appears that Obama may emerge with more delegates.

    It is premature to say that Obama is losing support …

  13. I’m not sure how to respond to this, since you haven’t made any substantive arguments. I will begin by retracting my statement about Mormonism – I’m glad to see someone encouraging some plurality (as tenuous as your arguments seem to be).

    You’re annoyed at the way I caricature Obama and his supporters. Fair enough. That doesn’t detract from my argument. Your example of the NAFTA memo is hardly disputed. The memo was a smoking gun, proving something I had suspected for some time: that Obama’s NAFTA rhetoric was false (not to mention, he lied about the meeting). Trying to rewrite NAFTA on Yankee terms would have been seen as hegemonic and belligerent (not to mention very economically unsound), and I knew Obama wouldn’t have the guts to do it. This isn’t “pouncing on little tidbits” – Obama has built his campaign upon this populist rhetoric. Obama claims to be above politics, I cite many examples of his political shadyness, and you call it “little tidbits.” You are afraid to find out that Obama is not what you thought. Perhaps we could say you’ve been “hoodwinked and bamboozled.” It makes me wonder what kind of evidence it would take to finally persuade you to stop seeing Obama through rose-colored glasses. This is the definition of dogmatism.

    Your response admits that Obama does get into the political mire and that you do base your support for him on questionable assumptions; and you attack my politicking. Remember, I haven’t claimed to be above politics, but Obama has – and he has hoodwinked millions into believing him (remember, you’re admitting that he does get into the political mire). We are agreed that sometimes you have to get into the mire to play the political game. The problem is that Obama has based his campaign on promises not to do that – something that is probably impossible; in other words, “no you can’t.” As for your assumptions, well, your response basically admits that you’re basing your support for him on assumptions without historical verification, and you’ve built a blog asking others to make the same questionable mistake.

    As for predictions, we’ll see if I’m right or you’re right. But, since my predictions are based on Obama’s past voting behavior, basic economics, and basic politics, I’m reasonably confident; your predictions are based only on Obama’s lofty rhetoric (by your own admission).

    As for your comments about my entire blog, you clearly haven’t read much of it yet (which is fine). In recent weeks we have indeed focused on Obama, but if you go through the archives, you’ll find that we’ve done much more than that.

    “I am much more concerned with how Obama works with others and who he surrounds himself with than I am with concerns about his liberal voting-record.” – If it’s bipartisan cooperation you’re looking for, then you would be voting for John McCain. Again, what evidence do you have that Obama actually cooperates across the aisle? Only his rhetoric.

    You see, in this argument, you are the one with the burden of proof. You discount my argument because I assume Obama is not a post-partisan, but my assumption has been tested: he always votes liberal, his policy platforms are liberal. Your assumption that he is a post-partisan is based only on his rhetoric. That’s it. So, while I applaud your political enthusiasm, your arguments are on pretty shaky ground, and require that your opponents share your ungrounded assumptions. I don’t. Predicting the future is risky business (but something we all do), and the only thing we can examine to inform our predictions is the past. Obama’s past is not post-partisan, other than promises about his cabinet. You accused me of parroting McCain/Hillary talking points (not true), but all I’ve seen from you so far is parroting Obama faith-healer rhetoric.

    So, let’s talk substance. I’ve been having a conversation about the economics of healthcare at the Lybberty Blog. I’m sure you’d like to join in and defend Obama (our debate is the last 4 or 5 comments on the post). I have long looked forward to hearing an Obama supporter actually defend his rhetoric using some real evidence, and have so far been disappointed.

  14. My debate with RD resumes here.

  15. Here are the problems I have. I lost respect for Obama when he tried to trash Palin because her 17 year old daughter, gasp, had a baby! He said he would never punish one of his daughters by making her have a baby. Hello? Whatever happened to dealing with the consequences of our actions? If his daughter chooses to have unprotected sex, then hey, you gotta pay the concequesnces for your actions good or bad. You rob a store, you pay the consequences. You do not put any oil in your car, you pay the consequenses. You have unprotected sex, you pay the consequences. That’s a big problem now with people–they don’t want to accept the responsibility for their actions. And finding homes for these babies is beyond easy. Waiting lists to adopt are years long.

    Comparing the soldiers in Irag with aborted babies is just too preposterous. My husband was a soldier. He told me that when you join the military, you do it with full knowledge that there is the potential for war and death. Soldiers made the choice to join the military knowing the risks.

    Unborn babies do not choose to die. That choice is made for them.

  16. When did Obama ever trash Palin over her daughter? Seems to me he kept his mouth shut about the whole thing. He said the kids are off-limits.

    As far as Obama getting many Mormon votes, maybe he’ll get more than previous Democrats, but I think we can forget about him making a dent in Utah or Idaho. These 2 states have the largest spread between McCain and Obama, with McCain leading by over 30 points. Last I checked, McCain had a more comfortable lead in these two states than in the Bible belt. You can get the uo-to-date figures here:

    Since the race is so close in most other areas of the country, it makes me wonder how many Mormons are really thinking about the issues before they vote. I mean, if they really think about it and want to vote Republican, then fine. But it’s always the same. Do the Democrats NEVER have a candidate who can make a good president? Apparently not, according to Mormons (unless you go way back in Mormon history when we were Democrats).

  17. “And finding homes for these babies is beyond easy. Waiting lists to adopt are years long.”

    If they’re white and have no problems, then yes, it’s probably pretty easy to find them homes. But many couples don’t want to adopt a baby of a difference race or one that has fetal alcohol syndrome or a crack baby. These are the ones that get moved around from foster home to foster home, or institution, their entire childhoods. How easy is it to find permanent homes for them?

  18. Some Mormons may vote for Obama, but no true Mormon or Christian would.

    Some of us still believe in God, In Jesus Christ and the Ten Commandments which state loud and clear GOd’s position Thou shalt Not Kill.

    Most Abortion is right out and out murder – voting for Obama is a vote against God himself

  19. The sad part is, Jeanie, that a vote for McCain will do nothing to change the abortion laws in the US, but a vote for him can affect the lives of millions of Americans, namely those who live in poverty, are low-income, and won’t see any tax break under a McCain gov’t, won’t have guaranteed health care, as well as the environment in which you and your children will live in (drill baby, drill in the arctic refuge, anyone?).

    Bush has the same abortion stance as McCain and so have probably all the Republicans before him. What have they done to ban abortion?

    Your black and white view of the candidates is the only litmus test for all the Mormons who have tunnel vision when it comes to politics, with abortion at one end and nothing else in between. The truth is that there is a whole lot of other important, pressing issues that affect you and everyone else — not just abortion.

    I highly doubt the ability of any president, Rep or Dem, to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I’m glad that Obama isn’t wasting his time by trying to achieve the impossible and instead focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies before they turn into a case of abortion, as well as policies that can improve the lives of children who are already born and have no health care or live in low-income families.

    I think that some Mormons are starting to actually examine the issues (there are many!!!!) and that is why you see more of them supporting Obama. If you thoroughly research both of the candidates and still support McCain over Obama, then I respect that. However, summing it up in a statement like “voting for Obama is a vote against God himself” is incredibly uninformed and, in my opinion, treading on dangerous waters.

  20. OK, this is really annoying. Obama-supporters are saying two contradictory things:

    When speaking to pro-abortion-rights supporters: “Roe v Wade is hanging by a thread! All Senator McCain needs to do is appoint one more conservative justice and it could be abolished! We’re doomed!”

    When speaking to anti-abortion-rights supporters: “The President has no ability to impact abortion anyway, so ignore the fact that Obama is pro-abortion-rights, ignore the fact that he voted against the ‘Born-Alive’ law, and vote for him anyway.”

    Make up your minds, you can’t have it both ways.

  21. Aluwid,

    Well, I certainly have not been saying the first thing. I’m not trying to have it both ways. I think that this is the case for most of the Obama supporters on this blog. I also don’t hear many people saying to “ignore” Obama’s pro-abortion record.

  22. Dennis,

    From an Obama ad:

    “McCain, he’s running on a platform to ban abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.”

    Unnecessary fearmongering on the part of Obama?

    I would love to see you or TFD explain to an ardent pro-abortion-rights feminist why it’s really no big deal if Senator McCain gets elected as far as abortion is concerned. It’s not like he can do anything about it anyway, right?

    BTW, the pro-abortion-rights supporters, who are realistic, are correct in being worried about President McCain and Vice President Palin. We really are one justice short of having a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. I don’t know that they would outright overrule Roe vs Wade, but I fully expect them to start chipping away at it bit by bit.

  23. I don’t believe that Roe vs. Wade is hanging by a thread. I actually agree with you, Aluwid, that that Obama ad is mostly fearmongering. Abortion is such an inflammatory topic that both sides attempt to stir up voters on their side, even though it’s very unlikely that anything is going to change either way. Regarding Obama’s pro-choice record, if I were in his place then I’m not sure what else I would do, except for the partial-birth ban that he upheld, which I can’t really say that I support. I don’t think that any president can realistically expect to be able to ban abortion, even if he wants to, so I like the fact that Obama wants to focus more on prevention than the end result.

    As far as a McCain-Palin presidency, they may perhaps start chipping away at Roe vs. Wade (which would perhaps be a good thing — I don’t know — but after reading the story about Roe vs. Wade and the lies that the whole case was built on in the first place — namely the rape story that Norma L. McCorvey, who was Jane Roe — made up and later admitted that she had lied — I think perhaps the US could have a better abortion law that I would be more inclined to support — but I’m not a lawyer so it’s a bit over my head — as well as the fact that none of us seem to be able to come up with an realistic, ethical way of weeding out the “good” abortions from the “bad” ones). But realistically, I think that any gov’t who overruled Roe vs. Wade would find it to be short-lived because of the public outcry. Didn’t South Dakota try to ban abortion a couple of years ago? It was very short-lived, if I remember correctly.

  24. TFD,

    They’re making another go at it in South Dakota, this time via referendum and this time there will be a rape exception:

    “If the state’s voters approve it, the South Dakota Constitution will henceforward ban all abortions in the state except for those performed because of rape, incest or to protect the woman’s health.”

    This is actually a good example of what will happen if we get rid of Roe vs Wade. As you mentioned South Dakota banned abortion a couple years ago without including a rape exception. The public didn’t like that and the law went away. So the desired exceptions found their way into the law instead of an outright ban. I doubt many states would completely ban abortion, I expect most would end up with a law similar to this. Some insight on it’s content:

    “For instance, the rape exception requires that the rape be reported to law enforcement and that DNA evidence from the child be preserved for a match to the perpetrator. The incest exception contains similar requirements. Rape and incest made up 0.4% of the abortions done in 2006.

    “The health exception specifies that it is only allowed when there is “serious risk of a substantial and irreversible impairment of the functioning of a major bodily organ or system” which could be prevented by an abortion. This must be certified by a doctor.

    “Based on the reasons given for abortions in South Dakota in 2006 in a South Dakota Department of Health report, the proposed ban would prevent 98.1% of abortions in South Dakota.”

    98.1% sounds great to me. Roe vs Wade needs to go first though…

  25. It sounds good in theory, but I would bet that in many cases of children who are raped, there is no “evidence” of that rape until the child is several months pregnant. Physical evidence of a rape is fragile and only available for a short time. Even if the child just takes a bath or shower, the evidence can be destroyed.

    This is also the case with incest. Perpetrators of incest are cunning and domineering. Realistically, a 9 or 10 year old child would not be able to go to the hospital to collect evidence and then the police station to file a claim all by themselves.

    I would be more inclined to support such a bill on adults only. Adults at least have a better chance of getting rape evidence collected and reported. A child is helpless.

  26. TFD, the rape just has to be reported, it doesn’t have to have resulted in a conviction. The DNA is collected as part of the abortion procedure to help with the prosecution that will follow. Collecting DNA “from the child” is referring to the aborted fetus, not the women/child receiving an abortion.

    In what situation would a child be capable of getting an abortion but wouldn’t be capable of filing a police report? To be more plain, in what situation would a pregnant child not definitely result in the filing of a police report as soon as any doctor or responsible adult was aware of the pregnancy?

    Who are you imagining would drive the child to the abortion clinic? Why in the world would they not swing by the police department on the way?

    This strikes me as an unrealistic objection.

  27. I misunderstood it to mean that the evidence had to be collected immediately after the rape (i.e. hair, semen, etc.). Now I get it.

  28. And I think it sounds reasonable.

  29. Aluwid,

    I actually am in favor of reversing Roe v. Wade and I would be in favor of a law like you describe that is being proposed in South Dakota (without knowing all the details). I’m glad to see that state legislators have learned from their previous stupidity in trying to pass the no-exceptions law.

    I think when people talk about how conservative presidents don’t do anything to reduce abortions, they are speaking outside of the context of a possible Roe v. Wade overturn. So you are correct to bring this up. It certainly is possible that a McCain presidency could bring the nation closer to a Roe v. Wade overturn. I say “possible” because I don’t think it’s as much of a shoe-in as some people might think it is. If there is any indication that Roe v. Wade is used as a litmus test then the Democrats (now in the majority) will fight tooth-and-nail to keep the justice from being appointed. This increases the chances that McCain appoints a conservative judge that nonetheless votes more moderately (we’ve seen this happen several times with Republican-appointed justices).

    At any rate, I think our country is going downhill fast when the number one reason we vote for a president is based on what kind of justices they will appoint. This is a recipe for disaster and will lead to the widest idealogical divides our nation has ever seen. It’s not going to be pretty. So, on this issue (which is one of many to me, and an important one, but not the most important), I am mostly concerned at what president is the most committed to reducing the number of unwanted abortions. I see Obama as the best candidate in this regard, while nonetheless disagreeing with his pro-choice views.

    I would be more impressed with McCain in this regard if he were to openly advocate for some kind of comprehensive abortion reform. One could certainly say that McCain could do a whole lot to reduce unwanted abortions, via justice appointments to overturn Roe v. Wade. This is true, but only one side of the story. For example, when you say, Aluwid, that South Dakota’s proposed ban would reduce 98.1 percent of abortions, that is not necessarily true. It would reduce 98.1 percent of LEGAL abortions. Abortions will continue to occur — you can expect underground illegal abortive medications to skyrocket. And likely law enforcers will just look the other way because it will be too much to deal with. Our prisons are already overcrowded, and we spend over $30,000 / yr. per prisoner (at least in Utah). (You would likely see serious law enforcement and prosecution only at the abortion provider level. And this will come at a cost to taxpayers.)

    Now, don’t get me wrong. What I am saying does not mean it is not a good thing to outlaw abortion (except in certain cases). I think it is a good thing. But it is hardly sufficient for dealing with this problem. It’s easy to have laws that keep gays from being married (in the mere legal sense) because the problem is entirely legal in nature. Not the case for abortion. The problems run much, much deeper.

    So, what I worry about is a reversal of Roe v. Wade without realizing the larger issues. This includes education (abstinence and birth-control, but in a way that has an explicit pluralism of values — in other words, children that value abstinence should not be bullied into carrying condoms with them “just in case”), increased government intervention (which will cost big bucks) for women who wish to adopt but cannot afford health care (another reason for universal healthcare — something which will lower a sizable number of abortions in its own right), reform in the way that rape victims are protected when they report rapes (to minimize worries from victims who are scared to report — currently, for example, there are not confidentiality laws that keep rapes from being reported in the newspaper, so that often times when a teenager reports being raped everyone knows), and legislation that gives businesses incentives to offer more family friendly policies (one reason there are so many abortions is because of businesses that could care less about their employees’ family demands). Even with all of these reforms, you will still see elective abortions committed by wealthier women. All they have to do is take a trip across the border.

    Anyway, I don’t see McCain advocating for these kinds of reforms, which I see as being essential to actually getting at the heart of the problem. One reason you don’t see them is because they are more liberal policies. This shows that there are both conservative and liberal policies that aim for reducing unwanted abortions. Whatever happens, mere laws are not going to be sufficient. Not even close.

  30. A couple other things regarding rape.

    There is a serious problem regarding women not wanting to report rapes because they are so difficult to prove. It puts them through a lengthy and difficult legal battle, often times when they are “raped” again by the defendant’s attorney who tries to demonstrate (sometimes in very demeaning ways) that the intercourse was mutual. Proving a rape is very difficult. Like I said, I would advocate for reform to help this somewhat, but the reality is that you will have women (who get pregnant) who don’t want to report. I don’t know what to do about this, but let’s not pretend that it won’t happen. And some of these girls will end up getting illegal abortions. Or committing suicide. You can count on it.

    One thing I wonder about the South Dakota law. Every state, I think, has an age of consent law (typically the age is fairly young, like 14 or so). Would it not be consistent with this law that any girl under this age should be allowed to have an abortion?

    Also, can DNA evidence be (safely) obtained from a brand new zygote? I think maybe it can, but only in a way that puts the zygote at risk. (The same is the case at any stage of pregnancy, if I understand correctly.) What if the DNA evidence doesn’t match the alleged perpetrator?

  31. One other thing. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, there needs to be legislation that requires the father to be (at minimum) financially involved. We need to stop seeing pregnancies as the woman’s problem only. This raises all sorts of legal questions (what if the mother wants to raise the child but the father wants to put it up for adoption?). At any rate, more government bureaucracy, more law enforcement, more taxpayer dollars. Can we imagine that conservatives will be in favor of this?

  32. I can agree with South Dakota’s proposed law. (I served there on my mission, so I am happy to hear about it) I am also glad that TheFaithfulDissident agrees with it too… we agree on something! Yay!

  33. Dennis,

    Regarding McCain’s judicial choices – He is a bipartisan kind of guy and would be dealing with a Democratic Senate for at least half if not all of his term. I would expect a Kennedy more than an Alito or a Roberts. But I’ll take a Kennedy over a Breyer, Stevens, or Ginberg. And Obama would undoubtedly give us one of the latter (or worse).

    I understand that reporting a rape can be hard, but we need to keep in mind that we’re talking about ending a life here, not just an elective medical procedure. It shouldn’t be easy, and all the blame for the pain that the woman has to go through should fall squarely on the shoulders of the rapist (and his scumball defense attorney) not on the shoulders of a society that is trying to protect as many unborn children as they can.

    I have no idea about the impact of the age of consent. I would imagine that anyone under the age of consent that is pregnant would be considered legally raped (unless her partner was also a minor).

    The father is already legally on the hook to provide child support. This has been one of the gripes we hear from men sometimes. In the event of a pregnancy a woman can choose to avoid the responsibility of parenthood by having an abortion, but a man has no choice. If the woman chooses to keep it then he has to pay child support since the baby is entitled to support from it’s biological father. Some see this as sexist. Technically I think they are correct, but personally I don’t care, the jerks should man up and take responsibility for their actions.

  34. Jeff,

    I whole-heartedly support it in theory, but I think that the issues that Dennis has presented need to be addressed. I am worried about botched abortions, particularly if those who are getting them don’t have health care. I have to say that I am very skeptical about even Obama being able to provide health care for Americans. In light of the financial crisis, I wonder if it’s just wishful thinking. I just don’t get how the US is going to be able to afford anything after the bailout. And if McCain gets in, well, it’ll only be worse than Obama in regards to health care coverage. Neither plan will give universal coverage. There was an interesting article comparing the two plans here:

    I’m still not quite clear over the DNA evidence. If we’re talking about extracting DNA from a zygote, we’re talking about expensive and time-consuming procedures. Will states be prepared to handle this and will the DNA analyses be ready ASAP? They can take weeks, perhaps even months. Waiting for the results can take long enough that the fetus is viable by the time the investigations are over. And even if a DNA match and conviction aren’t necessary to perform the abortion, the states need to be prepared for an influx of women who are crying rape and the subsequent investigations (which are expensive). Also, what about those who don’t know their attacker? Or what about those who say they’ve been raped but don’t know who raped them and it’s too late to take hair and semen evidence? Should they be denied an abortion or should we take their word for it that they’ve been raped?

    So while I think that this SD law is definitely a step in the right direction, there is a whole list of possible scenarios that need to be addressed before it’s ready to be law. I don’t really know anything about it aside from what you’ve told me, so I’m not sure how far they’ve gotten.

  35. The other thing that has to be in place is a better plan to take care of the babies that would otherwise we aborted. I don’t know the statistics, but there are a lot of abortions performed in the US on an annual basis. And, like Aluwid pointed out, only a small number are due to rape or other acceptable reasons. I don’t know about you guys, but I’m skeptical about the parenting skills of people whose first choice would have been abortion. I think that many women are going to resent the babies that they feel they are being forced to carry and we’re going to see an increase in number of abandoned babies, abused, and neglected children, not to mention children raised in poverty. It’s sad, but it’s reality. And since many Americans seem totally against the idea of universal health care and “socialistic” services, then what is to be done with all these babies? That’s the part I just don’t get. The US already has more unwanted kids than it can take care of, who get moved from home to home. And like I’ve said before, most childless couples aren’t jumping at the chance to adopt a child who has problems or who is a minority race.

    Realistically, is the US prepared to handle all the babies that are going to be delivered instead of aborted? I’m not saying that this justifies abortion, but I think it certainly makes it understandable in a lot of cases and frankly, I think it’s why the majority of non-Mormons and non-Christians seem to be pro-choice. I don’t think anyone thinks abortion is “good.” They just support it because they don’t think there’s a better option. And sadly, sometimes they’re probably right.

  36. TFD,

    “The other thing that has to be in place is a better plan to take care of the babies that would otherwise we aborted.”

    This is a good problem to have in my opinion. Right now millions of babies are not allowed to be born, in the future we might need to find ways to care for them (orphanages?). To not see that as an improvement seems remarkably out of touch to put it charitably. It’s like complaining about having to pay more for senior health care and wishing that the geizers would die at a younger age like they used to.

  37. I’m not just concerned about the economic side of “solutions” such as orphanages, but rather the human side of it. Actually, I don’t really look at orphanages as solutions. I look at families as solutions. Heck, even growing up in a stable gay family, which you would probably disagree with, would be a step up from spending your childhood in an orphanage or being tossed from foster home to foster home. Would you not agree with that?

    When a child is not given the opportunity to grow up in a stable family, the real consequences of that may not be so evident until much later (I think we will see this particularly on the African continent in the years to come, where literally millions of children are growing up without parents). I admire the work that orphanages do, but it’s often a sad life for those kids. On whether or not orphanages are an improvement over abortion, I’d say yes when I look at it in terms of life vs. death, but I have great doubts about the quality of such a life.

  38. “Heck, even growing up in a stable gay family, which you would probably disagree with, would be a step up from spending your childhood in an orphanage or being tossed from foster home to foster home. Would you not agree with that?”

    On a micro level, generally yes, but not on a macro level. I have conflicting thoughts when it comes to gay adoption.

    “On whether or not orphanages are an improvement over abortion, I’d say yes when I look at it in terms of life vs. death, but I have great doubts about the quality of such a life.”

    I don’t disagree, their life will likely be much harder than the life of someone born to loving responsible parents. But it’s still life, and it’s still worth living.

  39. By the way, Aluwid, I work in senior care (dementia/Alzheimer’s) and to be honest, I do sometimes wish a speedy, peaceful death to the patients. It’s not because of what it’s costing me as a tax payer, but because I see that they sometimes have such a poor quality of life (not just physical pain, but rather agitation, nervousness, and confusion) and that sometimes, life just isn’t worth living anymore. It’s hard for me, at a young healthy age with a loving family, to say that life isn’t worth living. But I think my job has given me a more realistic view.

    Of course, with children, they have their whole lives ahead of them and I do believe it’s wrong to rob them of their lives. However, it’s sometimes hard for me to say that a life filled with abuse, neglect, and loneliness, or growing up in a crowded orphanage, is a better alternative to being aborted as a fetus very early in pregnancy. It’s morally wrong, but to be perfectly honest, sometimes the alternative makes it feel like a reasonable, humane solution.

  40. Well it seems that I am one of the few McCain supporters here. Or at least from what I read. I am military, serving with the Air Force. I am currently in Pilot Training. It has been a blast. This will be my first year voting and to tell the truth, I am not pleased with any candidate. However, I know what my own values are. Obama supports opening the military to homosexuals. Let me tell you that that will cause pandemonium of massive proportions inside every branch. Next, under the clinton administration, the military was severely reduced in size and in money that was recieved. dont believe me google it. It was pretty bad. Obama leans to the same principles. Next, I know that it has been called hypothetical about withdrawing from iraq. From a military member’s point of view, it would indeed be very detrimental. We have gained so much and helped so many. My brother has seen iraq, he came home saying that the people over there cried for joy as they saw US troops. Things over there are completely unstable right now. We have lost lives yes, but again I say as a military member, those lives would be for naught if we did not do what we were sent to do. At the time we were sent, most of the world believed that Iraq had WMD’s. It was not our presidnet alone. We have done so much good over there but all we hear over here is the bad. If we pull out now, it would be a great loss. Also as an Air Force Academy Graduate, I was able to study a few things in economics and political sciences. One thing that opened my mind is the fact that America has the 2nd highest business tax in the world. That is one of the largest reasons that outsourcing is taking place, it is cheaper. we need to lower the taxes on them if we want them to stay here in america. Furthermore, if we hike up the capital gains tax, it will decrease the motivation to invest and if there is less investment by the richer, our economy will be in some pretty bad shape. Lastly, as a biology major, I really am saddned by much of the aboritions that take place. Biology states that the basic unit of life is a cell. Life! We seem to have forgotten what life is here in america. To me McCain is trying to rebuild that again, by trying to make americans take a little more resonsibility in their actions.

    Pray for our troops, we need it everyday. Pray for the missionaries, the world needs the gospel now more than ever. Pray for our country. Whoever gets elected is going to need guidance every day.

  41. CJW, how do you know that you aren’t already working with homosexuals in the military? What happened to “don’t ask, don’t tell?”

  42. What is at stake here is far more important than party affiliation. What really is at stake is saving the consitution. It is upholding the ideals of that sacred document. It is a very simple choice for me. I choose to uphold the consitution to the best of my ability.

    I consider this political sitution to be similar to the war in Heaven we either vote to have the right of agency or we vote for the party that chooses to take that right away from us…hmmmmmm that seems to be the spoilers plan. The real issue is agency either we keep it or turn it over the the government. Not my fathers plan or mine.

    If you want to know how far to the left our country has gone read the communist manifesto it is an eye opener. Read the words of Pres. Benson, Cleon Skousen etc.
    Read some of the writings of the founding fathers and thier vision for America it will make you cry and wonder how things got so far out of hand. Read what the Lord has to say about the consitution….no where do I ever read where it says we should spread the wealth around.

    I want the right of choice to spread my wealth according to my inspired ideas not have the government do it for me. Wake up…….whenever someone challenges those in the Obama camp they start a smear campaign……this happened to Joe the plumber and now to a gutsy news anker in Florida…….that is how communists countries operate they suppress the news media that does not agree with thier world view

    Whenever govenment tells you they will take care of you beware they will take care of you all right by making sure they limit your right of choice.

    Wake up the secret combinations are in control and thier guy is Obama

  43. Great post and thread of comments. It is nice to see that there are so many other LDS Obamabackers out there. Wouldn’t it be sweet if Utah surprised everyone and voted blue on Tuesday (I won’t hold my breath). It is unfortunate that so many people vote so strictly on party lines without putting this kind of thought into their choices.

    Having recently graduated from medical school, it has been interesting to participate in some heated discussions with some of my peers about the differences in the candidates’ health care plans (or rather, Obama’s plan and McCain’s lack of one) and the other issues. I have been saddened that even in these circles of highly intelligent people I hear a parroting of the same ridiculous McCain attacks (i.e. socialist, elitist, associate of terrorists). Here’s to using our brains!

  44. Rochelle’s comment just makes me want to shake my head — AGAIN. So now Obama is not just a socialist, he’s a communist.

    I did a post recently about this. Rochelle, relax. Obama is not a communist. Or on second thought, maybe he is, since he’s OK with black civil rights, which Ezra Taft Benson said was ‘formatted almost entirely by the Communists.’

  45. Barack Hussien Obama has been attending the same church for 20+ years and listening to the same theology on Black Liberation. Jesus Christ did not manifest liberation for ONE race. He spoke of liberating Mankind. Jeremiah Wright, his minister of 20+ years has a serious problem with truth: he has none. Obama does not ‘represent’ many different races let alone his own. A vote for obama IS a vote for communism. My opinion. Thank you. Dana Shaw. Bakersfield, Ca.

  46. Dana Shaw:

    This blog has generally intelligent readers, so when you begin with your comment with the phrase “Barack Hussein Obama,” a lot of people probably stop reading because it’s clear the comment will be a hate-filled, mind-numbing propagandist garbage. Just so you know.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: