Tracy:

Mitt ROmney is the only viable republican candidate. Further he's the SMARTEST candidate out there with the best vision, experience and political talent to get there.

http://www.mittromney.com

Click on "MittTV"

This article says "California’s population is close to triple Utah’s 14 million."

This is a massive miscalculation.

Utah's actual population is around 2.2 million. California is not "triple" Utah's but more like 15 times, at 33 million.

It was actually just a "massive" brain glitch. I've been painting and really must have been high on fumes. It has been corrected.

Donkey shorts.

I mean, Mo-money is still mo’ money, if you know what I’m saying.

Frankly, I have no idea what the author is saying.

Should Mormons not contribute to the candidates of their choice? Is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (who claims to be a devout Mormon) part of the "Mormon problem," as well?

I'm a "Mormon." I'd not contribute to a Romney campaign, because I've got reservations about his flip-flopping on several critical moral issues over the years, that he hasn't explained to my satisfaction.

Come to think of it, I've never voted for a Mormon for president. Will '08 be the year? (I've voted for many NON-Mormons over the years; I expect my NON-Mormon fellow citizens to vote for the candidate who will best lead this great land of ours, regardless of where (s)he goes to church.)

bikeboy:

I think the point is well made, and made with the sort of non-partisan mentality that we all need in viewing this issue.

George W. Bush was elected to office on a rise in voter turnout of evangelical christians. His donating base in 2004 was largely made up of the very religious. So it's an interesting point that a state that hasn't donated nearly as much in the past is suddenly donating so heavily to a candidate apparently only because of his religious affiliation, not his political career.

Bikeboy -

My point is that money contributed by Mormons (Mo-money) is still more money (mo' money)...and money, wherever it comes from is a good thing for any campaign.

I think you completely mistook my point. Mitt's being Mormon (his "Mormon problem") isn't a real problem - but, realisticially, at least in some respect, it's an obstacle for his campaign. Statistically speaking, Americans have said they aren't ready to elect a Mormon president.

However - my point and the point of the piece was to say that the negatives of his Mormonism (we're only talking politically here - not personally) may be outweighed by the money and support he's likely bring in from fellow LDSs around the nation.

Basically his "Mormon problem" may turn out to be no problem at all - is the jist.

Also - you might want to listen to a little more of the Notorious B.I.G. - so you're able to see the punny behind the "mo' money" comment.
<object width="425" height="350"></param></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6nzHIx4fVuE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I hope that you don't mean Newt Gingrich when referring to a "viable Republican candidate". We put a lot of trust in the person we elect President. Can we trust a man that his spouse can't even trust. He cheated on the individual he should have been most faithful to, there's no way I would expect him to be faithful to me as a citizen or faithful to his oath of office.

I don't believe Mitt Romney is the perfect candidate, but I do believe he's the best choice we've got. There's so much at stake in this election, I anticipate we'll see unprecedented involvement from Americans everywhere, Mormons and non-Mormons alike.

With billions of tithing funds spent on shopping malls, real-estate, cattle ranches, and communication organs, it seems Mitt received but a pittance.

Why is religion an issue here? Why not just say people from Utah....

Thomas: Because the main stream media has been over polling (IMHO) the Mormon issue, making is appear that Mitt Romney is unelectable because of his religion.

Along with the new-ish fact of "money = election" then it's a wonder if the donations, if completely Mormon in origin, will continue to be enough over the duration of the primary election period to propel him over the other leading candidates.

If so, then it will be a serious concern of the "other" religions in America.

I think "most Americans" could care less about what your religion is. I know I don't care. I just want to know what kind of leader you are and your values and ethics. Can finish what you start or will you bow down to the drive-by media?

Every time ole MITT opens his mouth, he shoots himself with that damm varMIT gun.
Will his fancy FLIP-FLOPS help him dance?

Well, Thomas, I hate to put it so bluntly, but you're absolutely wrong. The majority of Americans are persuaded heavily by religion. The analysis of hundreds of socialism experts have always agreed on that, and the fact that recent polling has shown a clear margin on the electability of a Mormon in the primary is very low, and only because of the Mormon issue. The majority of American's barely have any name recognition capability with Romney. When faced with a single question that highlights his religion, most poll negative.

I understand YOU yourself wouldn't cave to such simplicity, but to take your own capabilities and extend them to the voting public just doesn't work.

You miss my point. Most hard working middle Americans who are very religious, don't base their vote on what religion the candidate is. Yes we are religious and keep our faith, but I think it is very shallow thinking to believe that a candidate is elected based solely or for the most part base on their religious believes.

I get very offended when folks try and tell me that their religion is more important than mine or yours are right and mine is wrong. It goes against the very principles that this country was based on. Americans are free (due to our fighting men and women) to practice what ever religion they believe.

Mixing religion and politics just isn't the right thing to do! In doing so, many voters will be turned off by that candidate! But what do I know; I am just an old cowboy who was raised on the farm.

I want to bring up something to consider beyond "Mormon Factor". Your state had been the pit of all jokes, be it Mormon-related or not. Then, all of the sudden, you find yourselves in the world's spotlight. Hoorary! but wait, there were scandals that involves the people running the Olympics. It had turned out so bad that it was about to be cancelled. Then, came a man with experiences of resucing dying businesses. He was then the most visible guy in the state for 3 years, doing everything, been everywhere, and gave all, including his income. In the end, he not only saved the Olympics, but made it one of the most, if not the most successful, ever. And he had brought the state from butt of joke to the level enough to establish the world-class tourism that pour millions of dollars (even to this day). He also had almost one-to-one interaction with the largest Olympics volunteers ever, over 150,000. So, is it too much to expect that a grateful people, be they Mormon or not, to show Mitt their appreciation by giving a few dollars? And more grateful you are, won't you be more willing to do more for that person who actually deserve your gratitudes? Yes, for the rest of us, this Winter Olympics may not be that big of a deal. Only those who have been at the center of it all would understand. I did not reside in Utah, but I was close enough to see that impression from everyone right after the Olympics. It was, and still is, a BIG deal for them.

Jay Kanta, I agree that at first sight, the idea of electing a candidate who is a member of a sect that you have been heard again and again in the negative light, may be a scary thing to consider. I believe many Americans would have this initial response where they won't consider this candidate at first. However, if this same candidate continues to do well, and to have his grassroot growing, then many of them will start to glance at him. Once they see that he does not have any "horns", multiple wives, nor whatsoever negative they have heard about this sect, they will begin to see that he is good, and that he has much good to offer. By then, he may become electable. True, there will be a small, very small, group of Americans who will REFUSE to vote a Mormon under any condition, even with the gun pointing at their head. But that is tiny bity small. Most of Americans are good. They only are afraid of what they do not know, and Mormons, regardless of its being the fourth largest denomination in the country, remains mostly unknown to many.

SGS,

Yikes. "Pit of all jokes," huh? How sweet. Your argument overall is a bit cryptic - but, your point about the 2002 Olympics is a good one.

Tracy, I admit I am going to the extreme on one end here. Utah was not in that dreary of a situation before the Olympics, but it definitely was not getting the respect, nor attention it deserved. Toward the other end, it is true in that it is the feeling I still get when I visit the state.

Hey, the organiser of the 2000 Sydney Olympics was also a major hero to that city. Maybe we should elect him? Of course, he's also been brought up on corruption charges and there are other major questions about the ethics of some of his actions, but hey, we might as well give him a chance too.

Now back to reality. Mitt has flipped on so many issues that he makes McCain look like a straight shooter. Abortion, homosexual equality, guns and so many others. Do the SLC Olympics make Mitt more of a conservative?

However, given all the other frontrunners in the GOP, maybe a little cheering for Mitt is a good thing. Or maybe we can elect the stereotyping TV guy that has a deep voice?

Jay Kanta, unfortunately, I have not been following the Olympics in general, so I was not aware of the scandals at Syndney. I only was aware of the Salt Lake, because I was in the neighboring state. Whatever is going on there get splashed everywhere in the news here. I do know definitely that the resuce from the scandals has been very important for many people in Utah. I was just pointing out that this is a very likely factor, in additional to the Mormon factor, for Romney's high amount of contributions from Utah. The rest of us in America may have forgetten this, but it is not so for them.

Now, when someone attempts to expand our horizon by having a honest and open discussion of the facts, someone like you have to drop the bomb! You are accusing Romney of flip-flopping on many issues, and expect this to close the argument about his qualifications right there. I must admit that if I am to vote today, I would vote for Romney. Even then, I am keeping my options open for every good and virtue candidates, of which there are few. I think Fred Thompson would be a good candidate to look at, and I honestly do hope he would run. Kerry, the first one to earn this label (and he does), has changed his position on a given issue more than twice, even in a day! You must need to show that it has been the case for Romney. Here is what I have learned from a few open and honest blogs out there that look at this claim.

Concerning Romney's position on the abortion, it is true that he had the position that the government should not be have any part in influencing whether an individual should have an abortion or not, but personally, he has always been against it. He already admitted how wrong he was, and that government should have a saying with this. That was a "flip". There was no "flop". He never go back.

As for his position on how the homosexual popluations should deserve respect from the rest of Americans, it has not changed. If you look at any public newspaper concerning the homosexual issues people talked about back in 1994, the same-sex marriage issue was not it. Nope, there was none! The only thing that has changed since then is the what the rights for the homosexuals should encompass. It has moved leftward. So, yes, the issues of homosexuality have moved leftward, but Romney did not move with it. He still stands on the principle that every citizen of our great country, whatever they be, deserve all of our respect.

Now, as to his position on gun rights, I admit I have not followed it because this certain issue is not among *my* top list of what is important. I know it is for many of my conservative fellow friends, and I do support them. I just want to point out that I have not followed this, so I do not know whether Romney has changed his position on this gun issue "flip" and "flop", meaning more than once. So, I could not argue the merit of your claim that he has flip-flopped on this.

You also said that there were "so many others". I am sorry, but I have been following this race closely, and these three you mentioned I have seen mentioned frequently elsewhere and they have been discussed in the civil manner. I have not seen anything else. I would appreciate you pointing me, and any interested readers, toward the blogs which are open and honest that may discuss these other issues he may have done more than just "flip". If you are wrong (as you are on 2 of 3 specific issues you have pointed out), and you persist to claim someone is a flip-flopper when you know it not to be the case, then I can only say, "shame on you, for trying to destroy a man who may honestly be a good and virtue man".

This goes a long way in explaining them, and explaining why abortion will be an albatros around his neck.

Stem cell research, gay advocacy, the environment, his sudden lifetime membership with the NRA, his catering to far right partisan organizations after years of claiming his moderate stances with liberal Massachusetts groups.

But hey, it's just your money and your vote. Go ahead and see what it gets you.

Jay Kanta, thank you for the link. I will definitely look at it. To ensure that the readers have an opportunity to evaluate Romney's qualificiations from the different prespective, I want to provide this
link. This page is the outline of what Romney has done during his term of governship. You will need to search the blogs for in-depth explanation.

Oops. Trying the link again

Nope, Mitt will not be president, no matter how much money he raises.
"The Church" just has too much baggage.
Their belief that women must be obedient, subservient handmaidens, their rich history of subtle and overt racism, their institutionally ingrained homophobia and their tendency to suppress genuine discourse and intellectual thought are just a few reasons that make a Mormon commander-in-chief impossible. There are myriad more...

As one who was raised in UT as a non-LDS person, I was frequently party to their unique brand of discrimination and ostracism. Once you "reject" their overtures to join the church, they seem to look through you as if you're not even there. Those who were brought up LDS and then leave the church are worse off - they might as well be branded with scarlet letters on their foreheads.

Nope, a Mormon president just isn't in the cards-not in 2008, at least.

Oh, and Tracy, YES - Mormon and Republican ARE synonymous terms. The occasional Dem is elected, like Jim Matheson, but like Jim, their votes often run counter to key Dem values - witness Jim pushing last session's reprehensible Washington County Developer Giveaway bill.

Before all you hypersensitive LDS types get your magic underwear in a bunch and accuse me of "bashing" Mormonism, take a moment to sniff your own dirty laundry... Learn to respect people's differences! (Respect goes beyond mere 'tolerance') And finally, drop the superiority complex - we're not buying it!!

The way many people treat the "Mormon" issue is just immature, or unseasoned perhaps. The way you have treated it here is just that, although it's no sin. For people who come to Utah and choose to focus on feelings of being "excluded" somehow, alienated, or not belonging, I suppose I can understand it if it is merely a phase of adjustment, but move on, get over it.
I was raised in a split family ostensibly LDS, and always have had some issues even as a Mormon. I feel more identification with Born-again Christians, but I could never try to fit in with them because they are just ignorant and intolerant of many "Mormon" concepts which have more support in the Bible than anywhere else, and which the mainstream "Mormons" have moved away from in favor of lemming doctrines such as "follow the leader".
I would never vote for Mitt Romney nor give him a dollar because he lacks character. I feel sorry for the Born-again or fundamentalist Christians who supported Bush, because Bush lacks character. Not to mention the Clintons.
The problem we face today is fascism. American fascism. Look it up in a dictionary before you start screaming "it can't be". The term means control of the government by oligarchal, elite, or financial interests, together with the downgrading of ordinary people's rights. In the extreme, inconvenient people may get rounded up and sent to camps in the deserts. I hope we aren't there yet, but we need to resist the socialist and statist propaganda and "education" that we are being zoned for.
Mormons in particular have been molded away from the early American principles of individual rights, liberties, and duties of conscience. Mormon elitists(such as Romney) are particularyl dangerous because they may be extraordinarily "zoned out" of being governed by a functional conscience. In truth, this type of Mormon is a close kin of the fundamentalist LDS(read polygamous) cult leaders. No one is comparable, really. Hinckley and Jeffs are peas in pod, but their evil is tempered by some feelings of christian character, while people like Bush, the Rockefellers, and other national aspirants to power, including the Clintons, want to exercise control over the nation for the sake of pure power-lust. I give them no credit for human character.

Dear Utard:

I am always surprised that people who make shrill statements like "get your magic underwear in a bunch" followed by "sniff your own dirty laundry" are surprised when they are “ostracized” by LDS people. Maybe people would not be so "hypersensitive" if you were not so rude.

P.S. Just to quote from you, "Learn to respect people's differences!"

SGS,

Did you actually say "4th largest denomination?" Where are you getting your facts? This is classic sect behavior - make your sect seem bigger and growing -- in order to make it appear legitimate, and, the Mormon Church's favorite word, "mainstream." Mormons convert people in foreign countries who don't even know they have been converted. Post-conversion research has proven this. Oh, let's add the dead to that too.

Truly, how many "active mormons" are there vs jack mormons? My conservative guess is that the ratio is 50/50....and remember if you're "jack" no admission the temples! You're bad! Very bad! So take last number I read on worldwide numbers for mormons (11m) and divide that by 50%. There's your number, which equates to a small, small denomination in the U.S when compared to the Catholics, the Protestants and so on.

Wesley, I am sorry about allowing so much time to pass before responding to your question. You want to know what source I used when I talked about the LDS Church being 4th largest church. I cited from the annual yearbook from National Council of Churches', called "The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches - 2007". I tried to provided the link to the yearbook itself, but you have to purchase it. If you really want to see what the NCC is saying about LDS Church, the only "open" article from NCC I could find immediately is their announcement in 2002 that the LDS Church is fifth largest church in America. The link of this announcement is here: http://www.electronicchurch.org/02news14.html. I could find some news articles about this, but they all cited from this same source, anyway. Be aware that NCC compiled the data for individual church, rather than combined them into the branches (Protestants, Reformation, etc).

Now, I am afraid that you have misunderstood my intention. I do not care whether the LDS Church is one of the largest in the America or not. My point is that many of us do not realize that there are quite a few of the members of LDS church among us (roughly one out of every 60), and that regardless of these people in our midst, many of us still do not know anything about LDS Church, as we do with other religions whose members is in the minority. Well, now that I am thinking about this, I realized I may be mistaken. The Catholic Church is the largest church in America, but yet, I have find many people who could not tell me what this church believe, other than their statement of confidence that they are not doing anything funny.

Anyway, so, yes, there are all sort of the members inside of LDS Church, as it is the same for every other church. This includes those members who are too judical of others. I know it was somewhat bad in Utah, because a few years ago in a world-wide conference the church leaders have expressed their displeasure of this problem. We also must recognize that we all are human beings, and that we all fall short of what Heavenly Father expects of us. That holds for ALL of the LDS members, too. We can only hope that we all will honestly accept the Lord Jesus Christ as our Savior and that we all will become better through His grace.

Wesley, thank you for asking me to explain myself. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the source I used, and to affirm with you that there are good and bad members in every church.

Now there's a mature--seasoned--answer to the "Mormon Question". Thank you.
My issue with Mitt is the question of susceptiblity to the deep pockets folks. In a way, the $50 club of 60,000 Utah Mormons is a healthy signal. A lot of little guys pitching in. Or is the $3M just ten or twenty Utah entrepreneurs like Jon Huntsman Sr.? When it's just a few big, deep-pocket folks, there's fascism and "special interest" government lurking in the wings.
Mitt was probably raised and tutored by (I think) father George Romney, a former CEO of a major corp and (Ithink) governer of Michigan(?), an early Mormon big shot some forty years ago, for a carreer in politics.
The parallel here, and this is important, is The Bush Dynasty. Grampa Bush was Prescott Bush, a Brown Brothers Harriman associate, who was given a special assignment in about 1931--to personally carry $20 M in a bag across the Atlantic and deliver it to Adolf Hitler. A short while after, there was a Reichstag fire, the democratic government institutions unsettled, and a new rising star to save the fatherland. George HW Bush still has the bluest pedigree, and also groomed his son dubya.
Let's turn thumbs down on all this political dynasty tradition. Let's turn thumbs down on Mitt, Orrin Hatch, Bennet, Cannon, Matheson, Rocky and Jon Huntsman. And, please, no more Clintons!
I claim to be a "MORMON", yes. MORMONS of all American minorities(religiously defined) have cause to suspect the possible abuses of government authority. We do have a problem--growing --with submission to "authority" figures. Oh did I forget, that Mormon rabble-rousing democrat from Nevada, Harry Reid? Another Mormon!
By the way, for those who struggle in defining "Christian", I use the idea that Christ claimed he would do that come judgment day. Meanwhile, the invitation is out "Whosoever---will call on the name of Christ" will be saved. Now, for Mormons with a complex pre-earth and post-earth theology, there just seems to be more to it than the first step. What did Jesus say? Seek.
I submit that there's plenty of room for progress, which comes back to pretty good agreement with your assessment, although the issues in focus may be radically different.
I think there's two issues, one on the personal level which Christ taught in regard to moral conduct and conscience. The other is the whole "Body of Christ" or Church, or group identification problem. I'm running scared of group think right now.
Best Regards, as a fellow "believer" in Christ.

Clark, the McCain/Fiengold legislation limits how much an individual could to a candidate to 2,300 dollars a year. So, there is no "Huntsman" kind of contribution among any of the candidates. However, many of those do host the fund-rising events frequently, where they invite many of their contacts.

I want to add something to the consideration of this claim of "Mormon Factor". Romney has the most contributions in 30 states, and out of these 30 states, he has more contributions than all of the candidates combined in 21 states. We know that the LDS people do not exist in the large number outside of Utah, Idaho and California. I do not think it is all about "Mormons".

Here is the breakdown of the total contributions for each candidate for the first quarter:
http://race42008.com/2007/04/19/show-me-the-money/#more-1811

mitt romney's money also come from the huge company Bain Capital to whom which he is a founder!!!!!!! i am others are getting money from special groups but everyone just wants to rip up mitt because he is lds. what is wrong with good family values, believing in God and be a good person?

Sivart:
Since he's LDS he automatically has "good family values", he believes in the same God as you do and best of all he's "a good person"?

There is your religious test, right there.

How have you managed to keep blinders on to all of the other religious people across America that have committed heinous crimes against humanity, adultery, drug use, homosexual adultery, grand theft. And that doesn't even start on the religious sins such as hubris.

It's a good thing you're going to vote for the most religious, though. It's sure to be a vote well cast, right?

I was just saying that in response to "all his money comes from the mormons" that was not true. He does not have money problems he is extremely wealthy on his own from his hard work and dedication. Who said I was putting my blinders on? I do feel that he is a great man and will make a great president. You forgot to mention child molesters.

sivart,

you aren't saying why he's a good man or why he deserves to be president. It appears that you are saying he is a good man mainly because he's LDS with no other qualifiers. You probably have more to say about Romney's "goodness" but you aren't stating it well enough for others to understand, only take you as a religious nut that would vote for anyone that appears to pray to the same cloud being.

The author's concern isn't that he's broke, it's that the perception of his donations as coming from primarily Mormon interests will create a problem with the majority of the voters who already are worried about a Mormon President. The polls are too clear about it to not take it as a concern.

a vote for romney is a vote for a 95 yr old senile fool in salt lake. this is well beyond the kennedy thing with the pope. All TBM {true believing Mormons} will do what ever the prophet says , they are no different than the extreme muslims. I know form where I speak as a former member fro over 25 yrs. this is serious and people should be aware of who will really be running this nation. A group that believes all religions besides them are Falseand run by satan himself. I know this for a fact !