E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe Washington Post writes about what could be one of the most interesting political stories of 2011: Mitt Romney vs. Jon Huntsman. In fact, both Republicans could stake their early presidential candidacies on how they fare in New Hampshire.
A showdown between Huntsman, 50, and Romney, 63, would likely be the most bitter of the coming election. The respective former governors of Utah and Massachusetts have vast fortunes, silver tongues and great hair. They are also distant cousins, descended from a Mormon apostle who played a key role in the faith's founding. The two men enjoyed the early support of powerful and devout fathers and performed the church's missionary work - Romney in France during the Vietnam War and Huntsman in Taiwan. For years, the clans remained close, until the two scions sought to lead the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, a coveted post that promised to boost political prospects. The Games went to Romney, and the family bonds froze over when Huntsman endorsed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) over Romney in the 2008 presidential contest.
And on the issue of their Mormon faith, as we've heard before, Romney is more BYU (where he got his undergrad degree) while Huntsman is more University of Utah (which he attended).
Polls demonstrate that Mormons overwhelmingly prefer Romney, signaling a schism that some Huntsman supporters welcome. Advocates for the ambassador's presidential bid, speaking carefully on background, argue that there is a meaningful distinction in how Romney and Huntsman practice their faith.
Advocates for Huntsman describe him as nowhere near as devout or defined by his church affiliation. Huntsman is a cultural Mormon, they explain, much in the way people can be culturally Jewish but not keep kosher, or culturally Catholic but not attend daily Mass.
Leave a Comment:
Their 'Mormonism' will never pass the 'smell test' with the family values crowd!
Neither one will make it out of Iowa - their not Christian enough for that bunch!
Now Bachmann on the other hand, should have ZERO problem winning that caucus!
She 'aced' the 'crazy' test!
I agree with you, Feisty, I think the Evangelicals are going to have a lot of trouble with that, and his record in MA.
I wonder where the Udall clan falls in this Mormon continuum?
I remember supporting Mo Udall in some democratic primary a million years ago, when his being a Mormon was just an interesting factoid to us Democrats, like Jimmy being a Baptist.
Amy -
Thanks for bringing up Mo Udall (who I think I voted for in that same primary year!) if only because it gives me the chance to re-post part of a great story First Read had on him a while back - I think it was part of a story about the Tea Party Caucus and I just had to save it for posterity:
"After the results were announced, Udall, renowned for his sharp wit, faced reporters. The Arizonan turned his campaign lapel pin upside down so that "MO" became "OW" and delivered a quip that has lived in the annals of congressional reporting ever since: "The difference between a cactus and a caucus is that with a cactus the pricks are on the outside."
JoAnne in PA
I'm guessing, with that quote, Mo Udall would be on the Huntsman end of the Mormon contiuum. Would Romeny use the word "prick" in public? (Who knows what these holier than thou types say in private).
The tea party is still looking for their Senator Phogbound to run as president.
The word racisim may be too harsh, but America will only elect a Christian. YOu can look at all the stuff that Obama is going through to validate this as one of the biggest questions is whether he is a Muslim or truely a Christian like he says.
America may say we have freedom of religion but it doesn't extend to our POTUS - not yet at least.
We have a way to go so it really doesn't matter how impressive Romney or Hunstman are, they won't make it because of their faith.
Mormons are Christians. The believe Christ is the Savior. No other requirements to being considered Christian.
I am a liberal and active member of the LDS (Mormon) Church I would not vote for either Huntsman or Romney, obviously not because of their religion, but because of their politics. But if it came down to it Huntsman is the much more moderate candidate ( I hope he does not go tea party). But as Feisty pointed out, neither Will be a candidate in the general election because of the hatred of Mormon's by many on the religious right.
What fascinates me is why so many Mormons support a party (republican) that keeps them in the back of the bus, and hate the party that has one of their members (Harry Reid) in a leadership position, go figure.
Republican candidates to date and viability is a laugh. Even the only officially elected leader among Republicans Mr Speaker of the House John Boehner is now being said to be opposed by TEA Party Leaders. The old addage of be careful of what you ask for ....you may get it just keeps running through my head.
Ray- I said it MANY times on here- the Repubs thought it was cute to court the evangelicals, then crapped on 'em once they were in. They are doing the exact same thing with the 'baggers, too, only the 'baggers are NOT going to take 'no' for an answer now, like the evangelicals did. Repubs- lie with dogs, wake up with fleas, baby.
I certainly agree that the GOP has been "dumping" on the the evangelicals after courting them for decades. We don't hear much from the Moral Majority or the now defunct Christian Coalition. They will do the same to the Tea Party which will probably create a Third Party. What is surprising to me, however, is that the elected Dems are doing the same to their loyalist of supporters. I'm afraid Obama has been a HUGE disappointment to many who had such high hopes for his Presidency.
Everything about the GOP CANDIDATES is interesting.
I have to agree with Feisty. Michelle Bachmann 'aced' the 'crazy' test!
But, she's not the only GOP CANDIDATE who is.
"The respective former governors of Utah and Massachusetts have vast fortunes, silver tongues and great hair".
Well, that's certainly reason enough for me to vote for them. Catch you later, gang, I've gotta go run down to the courthouse and change my registration!
Seriously, though, I'm not sure the distinctions in how they practice their faith is of that much importance to anyone outside the Mormon church. Though it's at least to their credit that they practice their faith at all. There are way too many politicians today who are too busy telling everyone else to "Practice what I preach" and "Do as I say, not as I do".
Mike Huckabee is the latest of that bunch, telling obvious lies about the President to either advance his own political aspirations, sell books or both.
Here is what I don't get about Huntsman---if he served in the Obama administration, how can he run against the President in 2012? I can actually see him running in 2016--he will have been out of the administration for many years and can point to foreign policy experience from his service but to me anyone running in 2012 is saying they can do a better job than Obama and if so, why did you work for him?
" vast fortunes, silver tongues and great hair"
Don't discount those attributes in a politician, Jody; I once sent $20 to John Edwards in 2008 on pretty much that basis (and the fact he was making healthcare reform a major issue in the primaries.) I am only human!
Actually, it should scare the hell out of anyone that either Mormon practices their faith at all. Don't kid yourselves, Mormonism is not Christianity, even if the present day Mormons would like to "pass" as Christians.
Read some history of the Mormon Church in America. Include: The Mormon Mirage, Under the Banner of Heaven, and some historical documents you can find online. Understand that especially Romney, who as a "Temple Mormon" took oaths of utter allegiance to the Mormon Church as first and only authority in his life. The whole "Constitution hanging by a thread" nonsense, the background of their interpretation of blacks, God/Adam, planets of their polygamous families, their complete belief that they are the One True Church-- elect Romney or Huntsman at our peril. Their is nothing innocuous about their culture or their faith.
LiberalLibrarian
I don't attack anyone for their religion. I just don't. Let's leave the "Obama is a Muslim," "Mormonism isn't Christianity" type tactics to the Republicans, we are better than that.
Amy----wasn't John Edwards just so disappointing? I liked his health care stand but who would have thought he would be such a creep?
Steeler Fan-380417
The 2008 primary/caucuses were a tumultuous process. Glad I don't have to decide this time who I support! I've got my Obama Family New Year's card up on my refrigerator and it makes me smile to see it every day!
True American -
Did you get all the way to the second line of Steeler Fan's post yet? The part where she says Edwards was "such a creep"?
But if it'll make your day, I'll take it a step further. You know I'm a Democrat, right? So here goes - John Edwards - who I once thought showed a lot of promise myself - turned out to be a first-class self-absorbed cheating lying scumbag. And a lousy liar at that.
Feel better now? Oh, and the difference between Huckabee and Edwards is that Huckabee's still a potential candidate for President and his ethics - or lack thereof - are at least marginally still worth debating.
True American--if it will make you feel better I'll make it clear that Edwards was a lying creep. I thought it was obvious in my post but am glad to clarify. The disappointment came from the fact that he had good ideas and seemed to stand for things I believe in. I didn't think Huckabee was a liar until I heard him telling lies. That, in my book, makes him a liar. That was kind of my point---I didn't agree with Huckabee's politics but I had the impression of him that he had honor and was an OK guy. I no longer feel that way.
Oh, how I long for the good old days of Rudy Slippers. Sigh.
But it's time to dig out my extensive collection flip-flops. I guess Ol' Shower Mitt is back, anyway.
Sweet.
Although, I really do wish he'd get some better shampoo. Greasy, if you know what I mean.
"The Wet-Head is Dead". An old ad campaign for some shampoo or something from the early 70's.
Its the Grecian formula look. The lead head look is in if you are a Republican.
Really? You judge a candidate by the condition of his hair?
I don't know what shampoo Herman Cain uses, but I think I will vote for him anyway.
It'd be a nice dose of reality if the Tea Party affected the outcome of the Republican primary. Whether they manage to advance an ultra-conservative to the front of the pack -- or put up their own candidate -- they will ultimately be rejected in the general election as too extreme. But sometimes it's hard to recognize that sort of inevitability when you're caught up in the fever of a movement.
Well, Utah is in the bag. Too bad for these two that Utah doesn't matter at all in a general election. Iowa is definitly Bachman. The deep south will fight between Barbour and Huckabee for who is more "white" and Newt will be too well done by comedy central to win anything. Pawlenty, Daniels and Santorum are just too boring to matter. Caine, you may have a shot after all since the sane voters left will definitly vote for you.
Caine, I meant vote for you in the Republican primaries on my post above. Still don't think you have a shot at the general. Especially in California were we tried the CEO experiment and it failed miserably. As a matter of fact, the country tried to CEO experiment also with W and that failed miserably also. A "community organizer" is definitly more qualified then a CEO. Sorry buddy!
Ana thanks for the banana analysis.....
How predictable, the moonbats dissing Mitch Daniels as "boring"...after screeching for years about Palin's supposed lack of IQ....charisma's not important, Palin is not 'smart ' enough! We need a high IQ person!
Mitch Daniels' IQ is extremely high...but , surprise, moonbat central has switched talking points...
Bob,
You are welcome. Glad to help! I thought Republicans don't care about IQs. Isn't that what they constantly run on. Harvard grads are bad for the country and so on and so forth? But when it is a Republican it is a good thing? How predictable. Sort of like Natalie Portman's pregnancy is a bad example for the country but Bristol Palin, the teenage unwed mother, was a good thing for the country. So So predictable!
Mitch Daniels is a "high IQ" person?
Maybe to Republicans.
NO kidding, AnaBanana, I couldn't believe when Huckabee and chum ridiculed Natalie Portman and her partner for having a baby outside of wedlock, when all we heard in 2008 was how wonderful it was Bristol Palin made the right "choice" (except she supposedly doesn't have a choice) to give birth, and then we learn her mother encouraged the break up her "engagement" because the father of her baby brought in bad publicity. Do Republicans really think their un-ending hypocrisy goes unnoticed?
I am a Massachusetts Independenter voter...voted for Scott Brown, Obama, even voted for George Bush...but would never vote for Romney in an election against Obama. The Republicans really need to come up with some better candidates and think they would stand a good chance in 2016. Don't think they can win in 2012 no matter who they put out there.
I find it discouraging that so many are willing to criticize but so unwilling to get the facts right first. A debate based on false information is pointless, and usually harmful (this is true in politics, and especially true when it comes to religion).
For those who claim Mormons are not Christian, please remember that the name of our church is, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons believe in and read the Bible. The full title of Book of Mormon is: The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ. To emphasize my point, I'll provide one quote from the Book of Mormon: "And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins."