Redstate

Double Bravo-

Executive Experience is a good qualification to have for the Presidency, but by no means is it essential, and it is not even the most important qualification for a President to have. We forget that Clinton and Carter were both executives too- and look at what they did for the country. The most important qualification is a committment to the Constitution and conservative principles. The next most important qualification is that you have a spine of steel and you will not be mau-maued by liberals and others in the name of "bipartisanship". His resume may lack executive experience, but Fred has experience with Intelligence and Military Affairs that Mitt or Huckabee, both fellows who have executive experience, do not. All the candidates have different bios and backgrounds, but lack of purely executive experience is not nearly as big a liability as you imply, and it should not be the primary factor by which you cast your vote.

I know many who have met Fred Thompson, my husband for one, and Fred has a lot geniune, thoughtful concern for people.

However, more importantly, as a senator in Tennesse, he chaired the Governmental Affairs Committee and helped to write "Government at the Brink".

http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/vol1.pdf

It points out all the waste in federal government spending. Also, I might add that he has foreign policy experience, as he was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Not too shabby.

==== 13 ====

If someone believes differently than you, and you think they are wrong does that make you a bigot? I think her remarks are unfortunate in a political context, but to call her a bigot because as a non-mormon she finds reasons to disagree with mormon theology is mind boggling.

She has an active history of opposing Romney's candidacy based purely on his religion. She is one of those few unfortunate bigots.

As you pointed out, the problem isn't that she disagrees with the theology, but she invokes it and attacks it in a political context.

she's dumb as box of rock (singular).
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

... she opposes his candidacy for a variety of reasons, including his religion.

Here's the basic problem: if an orthodox Christian is asked what his/her opinion of Mormonism is said Christian can either 1) decline to comment and refer to the question to a Mormon, 2) be candid and say that he/she disagrees with a wide spectrum of Mormon beliefs.

Personally, in a political context I would prefer that a candidate or someone who works for a candidate simply decline to comment. But if they don't, it's not unreasonable to simply explain where the areas of disagreement are between orthodox Christians and Mormons. And btw, there are huge differences. For example, although I love my home state of Missouri very much I do not believe that the Garden of Eden was ever located there, or that the city of "New Jerusalem" will one day be located there. [1]

It's totally fine for Mormons to believe these things, and heck, they might even be right (Daviess County is a lovely place, after all). But no matter how you slice it, these are not Orthodox Christian beliefs.

[1] http://www.mrm.org/topics/miscellaneous/american-garden-eden

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

Whether someone could conjure up a fig leaf rationale for her outspoken opposition to Romney is irrelevant. Almost everything that has come out of her mouth about Romney and his candidacy has been about theology.

She wasn't a random Thompson supporter who was asked her opinion on Mormon theology. She was asked about Romney's candidacy because she's the resident Thompson campaign bigot. She has repeatedly actively fought against Romney's candidacy in terms of his religion.

Did you know that there are huge theological differences between Jews and Christians? Like about the status of Jesus? What would you call a Jew who attacks a Christian candidate's theology at every opportunity? Should a campaign harbor such a person?

Again, the company that Thompson chooses to keep is disgusting. 99% of us reject religious bigotry. Thompson should just give her the boot and have done with it.

I'm pretty sure it's not true that "almost everything that has come out of her mouth about Romney and his candidacy has been about theology." As far as I can tell, she's a campaign staffer with a wide range of responsibilities that include a variety of things other than critiquing the Mormon religion.

And yes, I know that there are significant theological differences between Christians and Jews ... which is why Christians generally don't claim to be Jews and Jews almost never claim to be Christians. On the other hand, the lines between Mormonism and Christianity are often blurred, not the least by Mormons themselves who (like Romney) try to portray themselves as Christians. The problem is, they're not. As admirable as the religion is on several levels, it simply isn't Christianity of any historically recognizable kind.

Now listen, I have no problem with Mormons being what they are and believing what they believe. As far as I'm concerned they're good neighbors and all-around decent folk. But in an era when a politician can be asked about virtually anything - including "boxers or briefs?" - a candidate with a somewhat unusual religious background has to expect that his faith will come under a certain amount of scrutiny. He will be questioned about it, and others will express their own views about it. That's not "being attacked," it's just part of life as a major politician.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

...then you might do better to find out for certain, rather than throwing some ignorance against the wall to see if it will stick. Yes, she has other responsibilities, but she has repeatedly taken it on herself to attack Romney solely on the basis of his religion. Period. I would be impressed if you could find even one quote by her on Romney that does not bring up Mormonism.

Congratulations on making zero distinction between the Jews/Christians scenario and the Christians/Mormons scenario. In both cases it comes down to a theological difference. Mormons believe they are Christians and many evangelical Christians believe that they are not. It's a theological difference, but certainly not on a greater order than that of the Jews/Christians difference on whether Jesus is the Savior (that's about as big as it gets for Christians).

... that putting the word "Period" at the end of a sentence does not make the preceding statement any more valid or convincing. And if by "repeatedly" you mean "twice," then I suppose you're right. To my knowlege she has on two occasions offered her opinion of Romney's religion in response to questions about it. Are you aware of a third example? You may not like her opinion, but she's entitled to it just as you are entitled to yours.

As for the comparison of Christianity, Judaism, and Mormonism, I wasn't making a statement about the relative theological distance between those religions (something I could discuss, but don't choose to do on a forum like this). I simply observed that in each case considerable distance does indeed exist. I don't see why that offends you, and I don't believe it would be offensive to Mormons in general. But if you want to have a more in depth discussion on this point feel free to e-mail me using the e-mail address on my User Info page. We can get into the theological nitty gritty via e-mail, but I don't think it would be appropriate to do it here.

BTW, for the record, I don't have anything against Mormons. I like the ones I know and I admire many of the sterling ethical and moral qualities that Mormon people, as a rule, exhibit. I'm also very glad most of them are in the Republican Party, and I have no problem with one of them running for president.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

...that what it does accomplish is to signal to you that I will notice any attempt to glide by the point. I notice that you have quietly declined my challenge. However, I will take yours up and bring the total up to three.

But first, your "everyone is entitled to their opinion" non-argument is irrelevant fluff. Bigots are entitled to their opinions like everyone else - no one has disputed that.

As to the three you request:

Semptember 06

Note that she wasn't asked a question. Rather, she came armed with attacks. How does this fit in with the "two occasions" you know of where she was merely "responding to questions"?

Also note what her peers thought: "This is sick." "This is awful." "She acted in bad taste."

Also note that you actually commented in that blog.

January 07

Yes, you read right. Evangelicals must reject any Mormon candidate because they have a different take on Pauline doctrine. Ouch. That test could exclude some orthodox Christians as candidates, too.

Also note, she's the one asking the questions.

href="http://www.redstate.com/blogs/rightsideredux/2007/dec/05/thompson_co_chair_disses_mitts_mormonism_on_eve_of_speech">November 07

We have already discussed this latest bit of infamy.

Moving on...

"I simply observed that in each case considerable distance does indeed exist."

And I simply observed that if Jews used their considerable theological distance to attack Christians as political candidates, we'd rightly call the bigots. That a theological distance exists certainly doesn't offend me, and I imagine it doesn't offend most Mormons, either.

Anyway, if I wanted to talk Mormonism, I'd be much more likely to do it with my Mormon friends than a Mosteller defender. No offense.

I'm not sure I'd count number 1, because in September '06 she was not serving in any capacity for a Fred Thompson campaign that had not started yet (which I believe was the initial point you were trying to make, no?). Also, in the first instance it appears that she was trying to question Romney himself rather than encouraging others to vote against him. I suspect that her hostility to Romney's campaign may stem in large part from the frostiness of that reception.

But regardless of that, the fundamental problem that you have with this women, and with her holding a position in the Thompson campaign, is that she has publicly ruled out voting for Romney because he is a Mormon (among other reasons). To you this makes her a "bigot." I completely agree with you that such reasoning is unfair, and I do not subscribe to it myself. But I disagree that this makes her a "bigot." Being unwilling to vote for someone because of their religion is not the same thing as hating them for their religion. It may be incorrect, but it doesn't make her a bigot. If it did make her a bigot, then as many as 43% of American are also bigots, [1] in which case Romney has a lot more to worry about than this one woman. One of the fundamental realities of the political process is that people tend to vote for candidates who are like themselves. That's why we've only elected one Catholic to the Oval Office in more than two centuries. It's also why no blacks, Asians, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, and Shintoists have ever won that office. You think Mormons have it rough? Heck, just imagine how far a Native American shaman would get.

BTW, what challenge of yours did I decline?

[1] http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/top_stories__1/e...

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

Point 1: Mosteller is a proven bigot. All her behavior shows it, including her time in the McCain campaign.

Point 2: That Thompson harbors her now (while she continues her activities) puts a stain on his campaign, especially in light of her previous activities.

That she worked for McCain does not mitigate Thompson's inaction. That she no longer works for McCain is to McCain's credit.

Your interpretation of events doesn't line up with what the actual witnesses concluded: that her behavior was shameful and sickening.

As for opinion polls, they are the last refuge of the lost argument. Question wording, abstract hypotheticals, etc. Let's just say that you insult nearly half of Americans by trying to lump them in Mosteller's camp. When 43% of Americans are bent on stopping Romney's candidacy based on his religion, get back to me.

Also, I should add that my original post did not defend Mosteller herself, but rather the Thompson campaign. The Thompson campaign did not, as you suggested, bring this woman on to be their "resident bigot" so that she could bash Romney and Mormonism for them.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

But no matter. If you don't want to defend Mosteller anymore, I can't blame you.

I can't speak to what the Thompson campaign was thinking. Was it intentional, or were they sloppy? At any rate, they had a chance to see her character in McCain's campaign, and if that weren't enough, she's showing it again.

McCain and Giuliani, by the way, have condemned this kind of behavior. I haven't heard the same from Thompson (or Huckabee, for that matter).

Um, you mentioned the Thompson campaign. That's why you brought it up, right? The fact that the Thompson campaign employs her is the only reason why this woman is important. You argued 1) she's a bigot, 2) she works for Thompson, 3) Ergo, the Thompson campaign has endorsed her bigoted attitudes. If that wasn't your argument, then I'm flummoxed.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

I'm glad we can consolidate this discussion back to one thread.

I am unfamiliar with the Mormon bashing record of the aforementioned bigot, but I followed the link.

The question was quite specific: "TPS: Why do you think it is that Republicans, the previous issue aside, might be reluctant to support a Mormon president, such that Romney feels he needs to give a speech addressing just this issue?"

The question asked why Romney might feel the need to give a speech addressing his *religion* in light of the (real) possibility that Republicans might be reluctant to vote for him because of it.

She listed a number of things the devout LDS believe which might be problematical for "evangelical" or other self identified "Christian" Republicans.

Based on my reading, the list was accurate.

Whether identifying the elephant in the living room was right or wrong, if voters want to make decisions based on that kind of informatiuon, why is it wrong to make it public? It's not obscene, though not always public knowledge because it is odd, and clearly outside the mainstream. (Jesus and Lucifer are brothers in the LDS scenario.)

Mitt Romney is a terrific businessman from what I understand. Good or him. If he's the Republican nominee, I'll vote for him. But not without sucking wind first.

...you are in a very poor position to evaluate.

The reason she was asked such a specific question about Romney's campaign was because of her bigoted reputation. See the comments above, or look it up yourself.

She's merely speaking under the guise of what "Republicans might think about Romney," to promulgate her own views on how they should think about him: in terms of his religion, which, according to her, and disqualifies him as a candidate for political office.