- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Mitt Romney & The White Horse

In an e-mail yesterday, a friend sympathetic to Romney suggested something interesting, and pregnant with pathos: That Romney really believed, in his heart of hearts, that he was going to be the most important Mormon since Joseph Smith. And he failed. My friend said that the pain Romney, who is plainly very serious about his faith (“It’s the only thing I think he really believes in,” said my friend), must be feeling today is intense.

That remark put me in mind of a subject that came up a few years back, when Glenn Beck was in his TV heyday: the White Horse Prophecy.  [1] Supposedly Joseph Smith once prophesied that the day would come when the Constitution would be “hanging by a thread,” and elders of the Mormon Church would save it from destruction. Beck, a Mormon convert, would talk on his program about how the Constitution was “hanging by a thread.” He had the Mormon US Sen. Orrin Hatch on, who would use the same words.

During his first presidential run, Mitt Romney was asked about the White Horse Prophecy, and downplayed it, telling the Salt Lake Tribune [2]:

“That’s not official church doctrine. There are a lot of things that are speculation and discussion by church members and even church leaders that aren’t official church doctrine. I don’t put that at the heart of my religious belief.”

That’s not exactly a denial, but Romney has also said that his father, George Romney, did not believe in the prophecy. The Tribune article also says that the LDS Church officially disavows the prophecy as inauthentic. I’ll accept that, though it is poignant to contemplate the prospect that Mitt Romney may have lain in his bed at night and thought about this supposed prophecy, and wondered if he would be its fulfillment.

More prosaically, and more importantly, there is my friend’s point: Romney carried with him the hope of members of his faith, once a despised and persecuted minority, and now on the verge of having one of its own elected president of the United States — and despite all his hard work, he failed. Think of Democrat Al Smith’s [3] pain as the first Catholic presidential nominee, losing to Herbert Hoover in a landslide.

If I were a Mormon, even if I were a Mormon who didn’t vote for Romney, I would still be proud of him and what he did for us.

49 Comments (Open | Close)

49 Comments To "Mitt Romney & The White Horse"

#1 Comment By John E_o On November 8, 2012 @ 8:52 am

Romney looked pretty crestfallen when he gave his concession speech. Perhaps it wasn’t just the realization that money can’t buy everything but also that he wasn’t God’s Chosen Leader.

#2 Comment By Mike On November 8, 2012 @ 9:04 am

Despite losing, I agree that Romney helped America have its Mormon moment ina Very adult way and likely means a generation of Mormon politicians have him to thank for normalizing the LDS.

#3 Comment By KateLE On November 8, 2012 @ 9:23 am

He seemed from the start to be more interested in the title than the job.

#4 Comment By MC On November 8, 2012 @ 9:34 am

Rod, I love ya, but you are willing to believe virtually everything you hear about mormons. What’s your friend’s evidence that Romney believes in the White Horse? The fact that it hurt a lot when he lost the election, and that he’s Mormon. What a load of crap.

[Note from Rod: MC, my friend didn’t even know about the White Horse. He just speculated, in a sympathetic way, on how much it must hurt Romney to be on the verge of becoming president, the most famous and consequential Mormon since the founder of his faith, and to have that slip through his fingers. Re-read my post; I simply said that my friend’s remark made me think of the White Horse Prophecy — and I posted that Mitt Romney publicly distanced himself from it, and the LDS Church disavows it. Finally, I also said that whatever you think, or Romney thinks, about this so-called prophecy, the important thing is what Romney did as a Mormon — and that Mormons have a right to be proud of him. Honestly, I don’t understand why this isn’t clear from my text above. — RD]

#5 Comment By jaybird On November 8, 2012 @ 9:41 am

I wonder if conservative evangelicals will go back to freely calling Mormons a cult now?

#6 Comment By Charlieford On November 8, 2012 @ 9:47 am

“though it is poignant to contemplate the prospect that Mitt Romney may have lain in his bed at night and thought about this supposed prophecy, and wondered if he would be its fulfillment.”

The country is full of kooks who believe God has destined them for one magnificent destiny or another. At least Romney has a very nice bed to contemplate the mysterious moves of providence from. I wouldn’t let my heart break too hard over his disappointments . . .

#7 Comment By thomas tucker On November 8, 2012 @ 9:49 am

I feel for him. I think he is probably agenuinely good man and would have msde a great role model for the country. Alas, it is a model that has become unfashionable.

#8 Comment By MC On November 8, 2012 @ 9:52 am

Rod, you’re right. I read the post title and thought it related to your friend’s comment. I still think that you tend to irresponsibly speculate on the few snippets of rumor and innuendo that you hear about mormons.

#9 Comment By Joe the Plutocrat On November 8, 2012 @ 9:56 am

I think jaybird’s observation is spot on. the bottom line on Romney and the GOP is a sad, almost bipolar, very dysfunctional relationship. Romney is a pathetic shape-shifter who cites his “faith” when he believes there is (political) value. ditto the GOP; it makes “faith” an issue, but embraced a nominee of a different faith? and let’s look at how the “faith card” was played on offense? Obama was presented as a Muslim, anti-Christian, simply because he seemed to have a more “separation of church and state” approach to governing. as far as Mormon’s being “proud” of Romney; I ask you to tell me what “…cometh before a fall”? the very fact that the LDS has shape-shifted over the years (sometimes unilaterally, others at the… ahem, request of the Federal government) provides interesting insight to Romney’s loss; he was pro-choice until he was pro-life; drafted the blueprint for ObamaCare, but vowed to repeal it, if elected; championed military action against Iran, but sung praises of “diplomacy” in the final debate; etc., etc. any port in a storm may be a valid survival strategy; but I suspect most Americans are leery of it as public policy (or religious dogma, for that matter).

#10 Comment By Jim On November 8, 2012 @ 10:02 am

It must be sadder still for Romney that the elections only brought forth one Mormon with a mandate, but it was Harry Reid and not Romney.

#11 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On November 8, 2012 @ 10:05 am

Romney looked pretty crestfallen when he gave his concession speech.

It’s an understandable emotion to something you’ve put a lot of hard work into not panning out. I have empathy for Mitt as a human being. Romney was a decent governor and would have been a good president, IF he kept the nuttier factions of the Republican party in line. But that IF qualifier always struck me as risky. Particularly with the current situations with Syria and Iran.

#12 Comment By MikeS On November 8, 2012 @ 10:13 am

The irony is, if Mitt Romney had presented his policies as the outgrowth of the best of stereotypic Mormon culture — community minded, valuing education, hard work, thrift — and not been the water carrier for the reactionary and neocon GOP base — he probably would have been that white horse after all. I hope future Mormon politicians will realize that their culture is better than that of the GOP base, and campaign accordingly.

#13 Comment By M_Young On November 8, 2012 @ 10:34 am

“The country is full of kooks who believe God has destined them for one magnificent destiny or another.”

Yup. The current occupant of the White House being one.

#14 Comment By Carol On November 8, 2012 @ 10:35 am

“He seemed from the start to be more interested in the title than the job.”

Sounds like Obama.

#15 Comment By MBunge On November 8, 2012 @ 10:40 am

Let us not flush down the memory hole the fact that a central core of Romney’s campaign and one that he seemed to fully embrace was that Romney was going to “take back” America. Take back from who? He was certainly less aggressively confrontational about it than the talk radio crowd, but Romney very clearly bought into the idea that he represented a “real America” that needed to shake off the influence of “the other”.

Mike

#16 Comment By Kevin On November 8, 2012 @ 11:13 am

I’m a Mormon, and for me his candidacy was like watching a cousin tell racist jokes at a party. He fawned and shilled for a reactionary evangelical Right that has hated us from the beginning, and parroted ideas that Joseph Smith would have found loathsome.

Not all Mormons felt that way, but note that fewer Mormons voted for Romney than voted for Bush in 2004. (Source: [4])

#17 Comment By Lulu On November 8, 2012 @ 11:24 am

Mormons believe that they are the “true Americans.” The rest of us are “gentiles.”

#18 Comment By Turmarion On November 8, 2012 @ 11:52 am

This is one place where I’ve sympathized with Romney (though I didn’t vote for him). As a Catholic in the Bible Belt, I can appreciate what it’s like to be a member of a religion widely viewed as odd, if not sinister, and what a milestone it is to be nominated for the presidency. I’ve always been quick to defend Romney whenever I’ve heard snark about Mormonism or cracks, say, about “magic underwear” (which is no more crazy than the tallith katan of Orthodox Jews, or the Brown Scapular that I’m wearing as I type this). I don’t subscribe to Mormonism, and I think some of its doctrines are batty; but many would say the same about Catholicism. He has been a standard-bearer for his faith, and insofar as that, I can respect him.

#19 Comment By Raskolnik On November 8, 2012 @ 12:03 pm

Sorry but I have a hard time looking at the occultic (specifically, Masonic) roots of Mormonism and seeing their desire for the Presidency as anything but a power play. Joseph Smith was obsessed with power, Brigham Young was obsessed with power, Mitt Romney is obsessed with power, and from my perspective the less power the members of this fraudulent “new religious movement” possess, the better.

#20 Comment By cecelia On November 8, 2012 @ 12:07 pm

I think both men – Mitt Romney and Barack Obama – tell us something very good about the US – seriously – where else could a Mormon and a guy whose grandfather was a Muslim run for the presidency? So despite some of the racist sounding stuff being said in the aftermath of the election (Karl Rove announcing “we’re outnumbered”) it looks to me like this country really is the land of opportunity for people of all races and creeds.

There is something amazing about it – consider that Romney’s grandfather left the country because he was persecuted for his polygamy and yet he could still a few generations later run for the presidency.And then there is Obama’s life story. This is a pretty amazing country.

#21 Comment By Fred On November 8, 2012 @ 12:14 pm

The more I learned about what Mormons believe, and the history of their church, the more I couldn’t believe that someone could coherently hold such a world-view. Obviously many people can, but I can’t wrap my mind around actually approaching life and the world peering through those metaphysical glasses. It literally boggles my mind. It’s flying-spaghetti-monster territory. And yet, to riff on our gracious host here, to bring this up was to immediately be accused by those on the right of being a bigot.

#22 Comment By DavidT On November 8, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

An obvious difference between Al Smith and Mitt Romney: Al Smith’s Catholicism, though it did not cause his defeat–no Democrat could have beaten Hoover in the prosperous year of 1928–did substantially contribute to it (he lost four southern states that even John W. Davis had carried in 1924) though this was partly offset by gains in Catholic votes especially in the Northeast.

In the case of Mitt Romney, though, it is hard to see how his religion hurt him in any way. Liberals who made fun of Mormonism were not going to vote for him anyway. And conservative evangelicals who thought Mormonism a cult voted for him anyway, many of them no doubt thinking that Obama was a Muslim, which is worse…

#23 Comment By J On November 8, 2012 @ 12:37 pm

I’d put Mitt Romney in a tie with Brigham Young for second most important Mormon even if he’d won. They bookend the period of social and political success of Mormonism in American society.

My impression is that American Mormons are in pretty much the place white American Catholics were in the 1980s. Everything appears as if it’s holding together of its own and everybody pretends or even believes it, but it was all held together as a corporate body by the oldest generation of the membership.

#24 Comment By Myron Hudson On November 8, 2012 @ 12:40 pm

“The irony is, if Mitt Romney had presented his policies as the outgrowth of the best of stereotypic Mormon culture — community minded, valuing education, hard work, thrift — and not been the water carrier for the reactionary and neocon GOP base — he probably would have been that white horse after all. I hope future Mormon politicians will realize that their culture is better than that of the GOP base, and campaign accordingly.”

I agree with Mike S, albeit with what I believe is a clarification: “…if Romney had presented policies which were the outgrowth…”
As far as I could tell he presented the policies of whatever potential supporters he was trying to win. After all this I have no idea what his own policies might have been. I’m convinced that he was in the end fully under the control of his handlers: the 2000-2008 crew.

#25 Comment By Patrick On November 8, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

Greatest mormon since Joseph Smith. Did he forget Bringham Young…lol

#26 Comment By Rod Dreher On November 8, 2012 @ 12:48 pm

The more I learned about what Mormons believe, and the history of their church, the more I couldn’t believe that someone could coherently hold such a world-view. Obviously many people can, but I can’t wrap my mind around actually approaching life and the world peering through those metaphysical glasses. It literally boggles my mind. It’s flying-spaghetti-monster territory. And yet, to riff on our gracious host here, to bring this up was to immediately be accused by those on the right of being a bigot.

All the personal conversations I had about Mormonism as a reason to vote against Romney were with conservative Christians who said some variation of, “How can anybody possibly believe that stuff? There must be something wrong with him.”

To which I would say some variation of, “Look, you and I believe that God became a man, was murdered and rose from the dead, and in some way our eternal life depends on believing this as a fact.” If they were Catholic or Orthodox, I’d add, “We also believe that in some mysterious but literal way, the bread and the wine on Sunday morning becomes the Body and Blood of a 2,000-year-old Palestinian Jew, who was God.”

I believe Mormonism is totally bizarre and not-remotely-credible too, but I’m not sure we Christians have the right to say that a Mormon is disqualified from the presidency because he believes strange things. Unless I saw evidence that Romney’s religion made him a bad or unreliable person, or likely to do things as president of which I would disapprove, I saw no reason to hold his religion against him when it came to voting.

#27 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On November 8, 2012 @ 1:18 pm

Unless I saw evidence that Romney’s religion made him a bad or unreliable person, or likely to do things as president of which I would disapprove, I saw no reason to hold his religion against him when it came to voting.

This is how I have to approach it with all candidates.

#28 Comment By jaybird On November 8, 2012 @ 1:22 pm

All the personal conversations I had about Mormonism as a reason to vote against Romney were with conservative Christians who said some variation of, “How can anybody possibly believe that stuff? There must be something wrong with him.”

To which I would say some variation of, “Look, you and I believe that God became a man, was murdered and rose from the dead, and in some way our eternal life depends on believing this as a fact.”

I’d say that the theology of Mormonism differs significantly from that of small-o orthodox Christianity in that it takes as an article of faith a demonstrably false view of recent human history – that there were pre-Colombian Semitic civilizations in the Western Hemisphere, with advanced metallurgy (steel swords), the wheel, written language, and various domesticated animals (horses, pigs, camels, etc.) not a scrap of which has ever been or ever will be verified by the archaeological record, genetic research or linguistic/textual analysis. I mean, even if you don’t believe Jesus was the Son of God, and rose from the dead and all that, we do know with about as much certainty as it is possible to have, that Jews lived in ancient Palestine in the first century A.D., were governed by a Roman prefect named Pontius Pilate, etc. To accept the tales in the Book of Mormon as true requires a much, much larger leap of faith and suspension of disbelief and willful disregard of evidence than orthodox Christianity.

#29 Comment By Jack On November 8, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

“To which I would say some variation of, ‘Look, you and I believe that God became a man, was murdered and rose from the dead, and in some way our eternal life depends on believing this as a fact.’ If they were Catholic or Orthodox, I’d add, ‘We also believe that in some mysterious but literal way, the bread and the wine on Sunday morning becomes the Body and Blood of a 2,000-year-old Palestinian Jew, who was God.'”

This is possibly the boldest, bravest, most humble thing I’ve read at TAC in the last year. If only we all had a larger slice of this sort of sensibility when it comes to the myriad places where faith and politics rub.

Inspired for the rest of the day now. Thank you, Mr. Dreher.

#30 Comment By An Anachronistic Apostle On November 8, 2012 @ 1:27 pm

Ah! Evidently those doughty evangelical catholics of the Church’s (Conservative) Reformation, otherwise known as the Lutherans … those actually holding to the Book of Concord’s description assertion that they celebrate the Mass with a greater fervor and fidelity that their adversaries, on Sundays and high Festival days … are too totally bizarre and not remotely credible enough, among the intelligent, to believe that in some mysterious but literal way, the bread and wine on Sunday morning becomes the Body and Blood of dear Lord Christ.

In fact, the Lutheran mind is so respectful of that mystery and its literalness, that it chooses not to speculate as to an Aristotelian mechanism of accomplishment. It simply believes the “This is,” i.e., what the Incarnate Word says about His own true Body and Blood. That is enough, although T. Aquinas must have had a finely developed forehead, without any question.

#31 Comment By Raskolnik On November 8, 2012 @ 2:04 pm

Wait a second. The problem with Mormonism is not that Mormons “believe strange things.” The problem is that they teach, as historical fact, things that are demonstrably–historically–false.

Christians can (and should) argue with Mormons about their bizarre theology, where Yahweh/Elohim had physical sex with Mary to produce Jesus, and God only became a God because of his Masonic-Mormon-occultist practices. There is plenty there to take issue with and debate over, but these beliefs are not, in and of themselves, the problem. The problem is that Joseph Smith was a liar and a charlatan, a convicted confidence schemer who deliberately defrauded his followers.

The fact of the matter is that we know from molecular genetics as well as anthropology that the Native Americans have no relationship whatsoever with Israelites. The fact of the matter is that we know, from modern linguistics, that the text of the so-called “Book of Abraham” has no relationship whatsoever with the Breathings of Hor, the papyrus which Joseph Smith fraudulently claimed to translate.

Again, there is plenty that Christians can and should argue with Mormons about when it comes to theology and Scripture. But the problem with Mormonism is not the oddity of Mormon beliefs; the (main) problem with Mormonism is the demonstrable falsity of their historical and factual truth-claims, and the concomitant push by the LDS hierarchy to hide the obvious falseness and fraudulence of those truth claims from the Mormon faithful.

Christian beliefs may seem strange out of context, but Christians do not teach things that are verifiably false according to the physical historical record. That is a major and irreducible difference between Mormonism and Christianity.

#32 Comment By Fred On November 8, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

Rod:

Sullivan had a couple of posts on this over the summer:

[5]

[6]

#33 Comment By Dan Davis On November 8, 2012 @ 2:24 pm

This may be getting too far off the original post, but as someone who agrees that “Mormonism is totally bizarre and not-remotely-credible” I wonder how Mormon missionaries make so many converts in the first place? Certainly there are enough weak-minded individuals around for a Jim Jones or a David Koresh to gain a few dozen or a few hundred adherents, but how can so many people believe, e.g., in the Mormon version of North American history? Mormon theology may be beyond falsifiable, but the purported history is something else, even for someone who slept through high school. Does it help to say “we Christians” believe some crazy-sounding stuff, too?

#34 Comment By em On November 8, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

It’s not an issue of comparison, as if from some atheistic origin point, which religion is making the most unbelievable claims. The issue is for many informed and faithful Christians is how clearly the voice of the adversary is discerned in Mormon teachings, the seeking and achievement of personal position and power (in afterlives), becoming as gods, and so on.

#35 Comment By MH – Secular Misanthropist On November 8, 2012 @ 4:02 pm

Dan Davis, I suspect people join religions for reasons other than a belief in the dogma or historical narrative. Instead they value other aspects of their religion and probably overlook the kooky bits. For example Mormons value family and tight communities which appeals to some people. This can provide a feeling of safety and order in an otherwise chaotic world.

Ultimately when pushed far enough religions can re-frame the narrative to be viewed as allegory. For example the Adam and Eve narrative was believed as historically accurate (and still is by some Christians). However, scientific advances made this viewpoint untenable and the bulk of Christians view it as allegory now.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a century from now the ahistorical bits of Mormonism are viewed that way.

#36 Comment By Church Lady On November 8, 2012 @ 4:50 pm

I’ve been aware of Mitt’s possible relationship to the White Horse Prophecy. I’ve thought that it is one of the few things that could explain his utterly craven desperation to be President, and his willingness to say or do anything to further that cause. If he really did believe that his becoming President was the most important thing, not just for himself, but for his religion and the whole world, then it would allow him to rationalize everything he did, every other ideal or principle he compromised or threw overboard.

If that’s the case, I don’t sympathize with his cause, or think he did Mormonism a good term. Whether he believed in the prophecy or not, the way he went about running for President was a craven disgrace not only to himself, but to his Church. I’m glad he bowed out gracefully, and I sympathize with his personal pain, but I wish he had run for President with that same grace, and with some kind of basic sense of political and moral conscience about just plain being himself and putting forward a consistent picture of what he really believed in and supported. If he’d done that, who knows, maybe he really would have fulfilled the White Horse Prophecy.

#37 Comment By DeeAnn On November 8, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

I don’t know, I think he might be relieved that he lost at this point. (Maybe not the night of the election.) I appreciate the fact that he was willing to put up with all that one has to put up with to run for elected office in our country. I doubt he believes the white horse prophesy. It’s kind of a fringe thing – those who are hard core survivalists and conspiracy theorist eat it up, but the rest of us kind of just go – uh huh… But I do believe he thought he could make our country better. He had the skills and the temperament to do it. And I was sorely disappointed that he didn’t get a chance to show the world what he could do. But I’m also glad he didn’t win for one reason – my church would have been lambasted and parodied and more for 4 years from the vilest people on the left and now, while they will still revile, they won’t have an everyday reminder in Mitt Romney.

I am very proud of him and grateful he ran. He did do a lot to raise our church out of obscurity, and in a good way. And that’s been very positive.

#38 Comment By Pacific moderate On November 8, 2012 @ 6:25 pm

MikeS: “if Romney had presented his policies as the outgrowth of the best of stereotypic Mormon culture — community minded, valuing education, hard work, thrift — and not been the water carrier for the reactionary and neocon GOP base — he probably would have been that white horse after all.”

This approach has worked well for the Udalls.

#39 Comment By Pacific moderate On November 8, 2012 @ 6:32 pm

Raskolnik: agreed on the illiterate charlatan Joseph Smith, though regarding “but Christians do not teach things that are verifiably false according to the physical historical record” I’d just point out the pervasive influence of young-Earth, climate change-denying creationists within contemporary American Christianity.

#40 Comment By DeeAnn On November 8, 2012 @ 6:41 pm

Oh, and I did a bit of research, and the “white horse prophesy” originated from a diary entry of a man in 1902 who said his friend told him Joseph Smith said this 59 years before. Not really that credible of a source, if you ask me.

#41 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 8, 2012 @ 7:54 pm

I have never doubted that Mitt Romney’s primary goal was for himself to be president. It was never about what he would do in office, what he would accomplish for the country, it was about Mitt Romney being president. That’s why he could be the ultimate flip-flopper. Issues were merely a means to and end. In the end, that caught up to him.

Whether there was any religious or mystical why and wherefore to that, cannot be known without reading the man’s mind.

I do hope President Obama finds a useful role for Mr. Romney, who does (as we all discussed three weeks or so ago) have some managerial and problem solving skills.

#42 Comment By JonF On November 8, 2012 @ 8:10 pm

My Mormon niece had a meltdown on Facebook last night. She swore she was moving back to Idaho where there are no liberals, that she would not bring up her kids in a state that would not protect marriage (she lives in Minnesota), and that she was certain she would now have to go back to work since Obama was going to tax her husband so much to support the takers that they would be unable to survive on one salary (yes, those were her concerns, stereotypical though it sounds). On one level I think the histrionics are silly– and Obama is president in Idaho too after all. And it would sad to see her move away from her mother and her husband’s family. But I also recall feeling mightily bummed when Bush was reelected in 2004, and while I did not carry on like that, it did occur to me that maybe I should try to find somewhere that did not have a torturer-in-chief as president. In the long run I suspect she’ll calm down, as I did in 2004.

#43 Comment By GCR On November 8, 2012 @ 10:30 pm

If Mitt Romney made you want to know more about Mormonism, a great book is “Mormon America” by Richard Ostling and Joan K. Ostling: [7]

I reread it before the election, and what struck me — and bothered me — the most is the secrecy of the church leadership.

Still, I’m glad America has progressed enough to have a serious Mormon candidate, even if he didn’t win. (One of my ancestors was a Congregationalist minister who went to Utah to try to convert all the Mormons — he’d probably be horrified that I voted for one ;)).

#44 Comment By Juan C. Marrero On November 9, 2012 @ 10:01 am

It is difficult to vote for president a man who has a counter-factual history of the United States as one of the tenets of his faith. If Native Americans are the lost tribes of Israel, shouldn’t the president urge Israel to recognize them as such an to extend to them the right of return? That is fanciful, but it is an example of the absurdities of taking the Book of Mormon seriously.

#45 Comment By GCR On November 9, 2012 @ 1:41 pm

“the bulk of Christians view it as allegory now.”

Where are these people, and how I can join them?! 😉

#46 Comment By Bryan On November 9, 2012 @ 7:40 pm

I spent the last couple years of this most recent election cycle–for the first time in my adult life–focused more on my own faith and values than in politics. I’m not a Mormon but I have been including their scriptures in my spiritual readings. Earlier today I posted a comment on a political website for the first time in a long time, and it regarded my (clearly uninformed) perception of the role Romney’s faith played in his campaign. This short article was enlightening and chastening for me. Thank you.

#47 Comment By Church Lady On November 10, 2012 @ 2:44 pm

“This approach has worked well for the Udalls.”

Glad you brought that up. Mo Udall remains my all time favorite Presidential candidate. Too bad that peanut farmer came along and captured the nomination.

In fact, in my experience, most Mormons in politics are actually gosh-darned good people with lots of integrity and principle. Romney seems an odd exception. Not sure why that is, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had some megalomaniacal sense of his own world historical destiny that he keeps to himself, which would explain many things about the way he has presented himself in politics, and even why he refused to prepare a concession speech, but seemed to have a religious conviction that he was destined to win.

#48 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On November 10, 2012 @ 11:35 pm

she was certain she would now have to go back to work since Obama was going to tax her husband so much to support the takers that they would be unable to survive on one salary

If her husband’s after-tax income is small enough that she would have to go back to work to support the family, then her husband doesn’t make enough money to see his taxes raised by what President Obama has put on the table.

Now if continued gridlock allows ALL the Bush tax cuts to expire, that might pinch her family budget, but then, the Democrats will put forth another bill to reduce taxes on the under – $250,000 brackets, the Republicans won’t dare vote that down as a standalone measure, and she can stay home.

(No, I don’t consider that anyone HAS to work to support the family if hubby is “only” making $250,000, or even $100,000. Most American families make do with much less, even with two incomes.)

#49 Comment By EliteCommInc. On November 16, 2012 @ 7:34 pm

Mitt Romney for all of this ballyhoo about whether he believed in some prophecy seems rather over the top. I think we needed Mitt Romeny now because whatever his management skills would be priceless – especially given the current state the government is in.

Here’s man attempting walk a very thin line between appeal into a party in some awkward realignment. Of course hewas attempting manage his image. Know any politician that doesn’t? They are far and few between — and have never been chosen for the Office.

I had my concerns but in the end the choice for was very clear. Content, substance, skill, and desire over the emotional – he doesn’t feel my pain.

What do I care about empathy if whoever leads improves my lot.

Here’s a man who had the expertise, the desire and the decency to serve. Those traits of family, honor, goodness, never never go out of style.