Yeah, almost EXACTLY the same priorities as the Republican Party, except in the game of 'chicken' - Tea Partiers won't blink. Be sure and get that LONG embrace over with Romney,...the teat you're sucking will surely pay Presidential DIVIDENDS!

Feisty,...I want to see a bona fide "Comb Off" at the next debate. They should have time to pull it off since Michelle will no doubt be LATE!

Feisty,...I want to see a bona fide "Comb Off" at the next debate

Some serious man scaping fer sure! ;o))

Perry's arrival on the political scene is like a meteor from outer space. His flaming comments are a guarantee he will crash and burn. Today he told Iowa seniors, you gotta kill social security. Then at another stop he supports franking in Iowa. He's into harming seniors and destorying Iowa's soil. At this rate he will not last 100 days, except he will be propped up by Koch brothers America for Prosperity. This is what the Tea Party considers a viable candidate? You have to be kidding.

Romney will have to talk about Perry. Romney doesn't have a choice and he doesn't know what to say.

"Poor Willard better get on the stick"

And speaking of things on a stick, the results are in on my contest yesterday to determine who could write the best caption for the picture of Governor Perry eating (or at least posing with) a veggie corn dog at the Iowa State Fair.

Congratulations to all who entered; I couldn't choose, so you all tie for second place and thus get a free ticket to the next GOP debate. However, after reviewing the additional pictures Feisty submitted of Michelle and Marcus Bachmann, I think I'm going to declare the winning caption to be my own:

"Rule #1 of Political Campaigning: There is no such thing as a "Good Photo Op" when corn dogs are in the picture"

Next time go with the fried butter, people - it couldn't look any worse......

It was hard to pick the most ridiculous quote from Romney above, but here goes:

“One of the great things about the Tea Party, in my view, is the Tea Party has exactly in almost every respect the same priorities as the rest of Republicans, many, many Independents, and many Democrats,” Romney said. “And that is government is too big, it's taxing us too much; we need to put in place, growth policies that get the country going again.

The Tea Party as the same priorities as many, many Independents and many Democrats? Seriously? I guess that's why they are all at town halls demanding to know where the JOBS are.

The Tea Party is interested in "growth policies to get the country going again."? That's why they are demanding a balanced approach via fair taxation to raise revenue so we can invest (spending with a return) in job creation and stimulating the economy? Really?!

Does this man have any clue? Uh, no.

Fiesty - Perhaps they can contact John Edwards for pointers....

True Patriot,

There is a difference between long- and short-term goals. People in the Tea Party are looking farther down the road and are worried about the future for their children and grand-children. That is why they want to see a reduction in the siize and scope of government and a reduction in taxes.

Fostering an environment that is business friendly, resulting in more jobs, is a short-term goal that the Tea Party and everyone else wants too - that would be the "growth policies to get the country going again".

Some Tea Party people mean well, they just don't know much about economics or running a country. We can't shrink government and cut spending during a fragile, unstable recovery, and also expect the economy to spring to life. It's simple economics, but these people don't seem to have a sense of cause and effect.

The best way to foster growth and create jobs is to invest in our infrastructure through another stimulus. One big enough to make more of a difference, including massive tax cuts for businesses that actually hire new employees. If jobs is really the most important issue, the deficit would have to wait awhile longer. It won't happen in this political environment, which is why the Tea Party goals are contradictory, if sometimes well-meaning.

Hence, why we elect people who actually know about these things to make decisions, rather than have laypeople vote on every single decision. Being average and lacking an advanced education should not be something to admire or be proud of.

Sorry Clotho, I beg to differ. If we wanted more people that knew about these issues, we'd have more Obama's and Bill Clinton's. I men Rhodes Scholars and Harvard Law Review types. We'd be more willing to vote for the most intelligent candidate not the most personable, like Bush and Reagon.

Consider this: We have only 15 more months to get our daily barrage of these mental giants. My wife has removed all heavy object near the television.

JC - With all due respect the vast majority of the Tea Party have benefited in some way from these Government Programs, I think their anger goes a bit deeper.

The "masters" don't want jobs, economic growth, etc. because that would help President Obama in 2012. The Teabagger "puppets" have been duped by their masters into believing that government is the problem, so must therefore be eliminated to allow the private sector to flourish. JC, I'm posting this again just for you --

By Steven Pearlstein of the Washington Post:

Somewhere along the way, however, this effort took on a life of its own. What started as a reasonable attempt at political rebalancing turned into a jihad against all regulation, all taxes and all government, waged by right-wing zealots who want to privatize the public schools that educate your workers, cut back on the basic research on which your products are based, shut down the regulatory agencies that protect you from unscrupulous competitors and privatize the public infrastructure that transports your supplies and your finished goods. For them, this isn’t just a tactic to brush back government. It’s a holy war to destroy it — and one that is now out of your control.

What the Teabaggers are about is anarchy.

Everything that has made our country great has come from government investment, whether inventions from NASA or energy from WPA projects to build Hoover dam. Look at what our parents and grandparents left us--and they did it for future generations, not for themselves! What are we going to leave our children and grandchildren? Nothing, no education, no infrastructure, no industry because we are "too broke" (which we are not). Other countries like China are doing it, and doing with a very long-term view. If you truly care about future generations you would join progressives in keeping our nation great.

Really Kevin? Can you provide any reliable studies to back that statement up? Or, is it just a nice talking point based on biased reporting?

JC

114 of the Teabangelicans benefited from the stimulus they voted against after they benefited.

http://thinkprogress.org/report/touting-recovery-opposed/

True Patriot,

Are you really trying to use an "Opinion Piece" as proof of something? Are you kidding me?

And please, for the record, tell me how the government was involved in the PC revolution? They had nothing to do with the hardware innovations. They certainly didn't tell Bill Gates how to develop his software. While they did create the very basics of the internet, it was entrepeneurs and businessmen that made it what it is today - not the government.

Do you honestly believe that NASA came up with all those inventions? Or, did businesses come up with them and sell them to NASA as they expressed their needs?

Part of the problem with your thinking is that what was once possible, no longer is. Do you honestly believe that the environmentalists would ever allow another massive dam to be built? I've seen commercials about how proud they are to be getting them torn down. As it is, it is getting harder and harder to get permitting for wind turbines - for the same reason, the environmentalists keep interfering. And, as a result, the cost continues to rise. Why? Because now all these "green" companies have to factor in litigation costs, just like every other company does.

You want to put people to work? Honestly? Then call your congressman and tell them to end the absurd restrictions on water for the California valley that is dying because of a stupid fish. You want lower food costs? Call them and complain about it again.

You want to know why this country is broke? Because we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot. Because fools believe we can all make great wages, have government provide for whatever we need, place restrictions on all of our businesses to ensure our safety, and compete in the world market...... all at the same time. Sorry. It's impossible. Something is going to have to give.

NO JC, what I can tell you is more then half have no idea they benefit from such programs.

Percentage of Program Beneficiaries Who Report They "Have Not Used a Government Social Program"

Program
"No, Have Not Used a

Government Social Program"

529 or Coverdell
64.3

Home Mortgage Interest Deduction
60.0

Hope or Lifetime Learning Tax Credit
59.6

Student Loans
53.3

Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
51.7

Earned Income Tax Credit
47.1

Social Security—Retirement & Survivors
44.1

Pell Grants
43.1

Unemployment Insurance
43.0

Veterans Benefits (other than G.I. Bill)
41.7

G.I. Bill
40.3

Medicare
39.8

Head Start
37.2

Social Security Disability
28.7

Supplemental Security Income
28.2

Medicaid
27.8

Welfare/Public Assistance
27.4

Government Subsidized Housing
27.4

Food Stamps
25.4

I'm sure you can show data that proves otherwise. As far as being biased, far from it pal, I just hate hypocrites.

Wilberta - do you believe that 114 constitutes a "vast majority"?

Kevin,

I have no doubt that most people, including those in the Tea Party, take advantage of many of the services that are provided by the government. Does that mean that all of the programs should continue as they are, ad infinitum? I hardly think so. It is obvious that if we have a 1.5 trillion deficit that we cannot pay for all these programs. It will end up destroying our economy in the long run.

Doesn't matter which GOP candidate becomes the president as long as we can successfully vote out all the trash. The voters can save America.

When Romney talks about the government being too big - he's talking about privatization - essential services privately run for profit without regulation. Exxon Water for example. Blackwater Expeditionary. Boeing Space Enterprises. General Electric Coffee.

If the government interferes with the monopolies - then the government must go.

I think Romeny is playing it cool and letting Perry hang himself with his idiotic remarks and one liners. The Bush gang doesn't like Perry and are out to get him, even though they haven't picked their winner yet because the whole field is so weak. They are trying to get Christie or Paul Ryan to step in, neither of which can win either. I think they are desperate and it shows.

JC - Don't take me wrong, I'm the first to agree, however, I just think the political speak of the right is not of action but words. They know overnight changes are unrealistic but they are speaking to the mob not the rational. I would be the first to vote for changes in the Tax Code and Entitlements.

JC, Bachmann is one of the biggest welfare queens of all. But not the only one! What a bunch of hypocrites.

http://stephenbishop.amplify.com/2011/04/13/michele-bachmann-welfare-queen/

http://stephenbishop.amplify.com/2011/04/13/michele-bachmann-welfare-queen/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tea-party-hypocrisy-lawmakers-tea-party-ties-government/story?id=13259014

In all reality, there will have to be a Tea Partier of some sort on the Republican ticket. Whether it is the Pres. or Vice-Pres. slot will be of no consequence. That is the deal that will be made. If history is any indicator, then the Republicans will lose again (remember how Palin pretty much tanked McCain's chances of winning). That's just reality, folks.

The single most ridicules bunch of liberal posting I've ever observed on this blog! This is the stuff that will make us Independent voters go center right in rapid fashion!

jolly, please elaborate a bit more. You make it sound as if Independent voters base their votes on the rantings on the blogosphere, rather than paying attention to the candidates. Just an observation of your post. Although, I will spot you the fact that this particular thread is very liberal in content, save that of JC. All I'm saying is that your post doesn't make as much sense as you might have thought it did, but maybe that's just me.

....and how is Obama doin' runnin' around in his $2.2 mill worth of buses built in Canada? Not to mention all the other vehicles in his clown parade. And being the narcissist that he is, he's out there spewing lies again as usual expounding on his fair trade deal that he hasn't even brought up before Congress yet. What a hoot.

Kevin,

The thing is, that actions cannot occur without words. Our government has been paralyzed when it comes to entitlement reform because of the potential backlash and their fear that they will lose their precious seats of power. Unless enough people are willing to stand up and make the case that reforms must be made, it will simply continue "status quo". It will probably take years before enough voices finally chime in to make any real progress, but it has to start somewhere. The fact that there are people in Congress that are willing to do that now should be applauded, not derided. What form those reforms ultimately take may be unknown, but the fact that they need to be made is just too obvious to ignore.

Don't feed the troll. (I'm talking about you Dan.)

There will be debates, and when running for POTUS, they won't be able to avoid mainstream media forever. Buckle-up, we're in for a ride. Yeehaw!

True pastriot You sure you dont mean the liberal press! Im pretty sure you do!

Jack - the "Land of Corruption?" have you ever lived there? I have grew up there - best roads by the way one of them is named after Eisenhower - you feel safe there best police force - aside from New York - so Jack where are you coming from? The South or is it you just don't know?

What was the deal with Perry blowing Mitt a kiss? That was downright creepy.

They're both thinking of the possibility of getting the VP spot if the other one gets the nomination. As long as they both think the other might get the nod, they'll be real nice to each other.

But if either one of them slips badly - expect to see the knives come out and the backstabbing begin.

Da Noid, Perry can love Romney all he wants, but that doesn't mean Romney will give Perry some of Romney's Bud Light. LOL!!

Brent - "The Turd Blossom" probably has a dossier on Perry a mile thick - wait until the Bush's unleash their hatred - on this boy - had the nerve to campaign for Al Gore against them? Waiting for another "Look alike Jennifer Flowers" or "James Flowers" What fun!

I believe you may be right, Barbara.

I had a crazy theory this afternoon, that might explain all this. What if the Republican Party purposely put nothing but crazies against each other now, so when a slightly less crazy but still crazy person (like Paul Ryan) decides to run, he will seem moderate by comparison?

Clotho - Paul Ryan is dead meat - they might rescue him for his rerun as Congressman from Wisconsin, but the mood is ugly there he might not win re-election

Bingo.

Frankly I'd like to see more of this. I don't care what you think about your opponent, I care what you think. That's it. End of sentence. Tell me why you are the best candidate for the job, not why your opposition sucks.

If you wet that magic underwear, is it still magical?

You would have to ask Willard that question.

Thanks Steveo, I gotta remember that magical wet underwear. LOL!! Does that make Romney a bedwetter? Nevermind, don't want to know that badly.

The teaparty will say that infrastructure repairs are socialist. Until big business complains about roads being inadequate to haul their products.

Opajack - do you even have an inkling of how much 1.5 trillion dollars is? If we are already short by that much, what exactly do you suppose it is that we are going to pay for these infrastructure repairs with? Do you realize that if we took the entire income (not just taxes) of everyone making $100K or more, it is only 1.5 trillion? So how do you think that 1.5 trillion dollars per year deficits will ever be paid back? By increasing the taxes on people making $250K or more by 2-3%? Not possible. The numbers just don't work out. This is an extremely dangerous game that the government is playing and it is unlikely to end well. If our current $14 trillion debt requires us to borrow .40 of every dollar, what do you think will happen when it reaches $21 trillion (in ten years) and we are borrowing .60 of every dollar? If we are running a deficit now, what makes you think we will be in better shape when are borrowing even more to provide the same services? Perhaps you are the one that doesn't get it.

All this yelling about the debt and strangely not one tea partier is against the wars that have been sucking our economy dry.

So worried about spending, but not about the spending and borrowing to pay for tax cuts to the richest or the loopholes that the rich are making out like bandits while the rest of America suffers.

When the republicans start to offer up some tax increases, only then will I quit believing this whole debt freak out is just manufactured fear. Of course, brought to you by the fear party, supporters of the rich.

Do you realize that if we took the entire income (not just taxes) of everyone making $100K or more, it is only 1.5 trillion?

Do you realize that factoid is totally made up and bogus? Tax revenues are already over 1.5 trillion, and that's just a fraction of the income of "everyone making $100K or more". The GDP is about 35 trillion, and most of that income goes to the wealthiest 10% of the population.

So, are you going to use that factoid to argue against any revenue increasing measures? Do you realize that ending the Bush tax cuts and returning to the tax rates of 2000 just might produce a surplus and help pay down the national debt, like it did for Clinton?

Stop using the gas tax for other crap,,,,use it as it was ment for: to fix and maintain infrastructure. the money is there just being diverted to other crap. shrink the gov and make the tax do what it suposed to do instead of funding more crap we don't need like home land security department. Home Land Security is just a jobs program does absolutly nothing to secure anyones saftey. i believe like that general said (forgot his name) " Some americans are a bunch of cowards" ya he was right. I never unerstood what he ment untill the patriot act was passed and homeland security was started.

CM,

Apparently I will have to do some research of the figures myself. The figure I quoted was one that I heard elsewhere. I should have double checked before throwing it out. Mea culpa.

However, I would like to note that if your figure of 35 trillion is correct, it still emphasizes the real problem. 1% of our entire GDP would be $350 billion and 3% would be roughly $1 trillion. So, with an across-the-board increase of 3% there would still be a $500 billion deficit.

The point is, raising taxes on the wealthy is not going to make a big enough difference. Unless there are massive reductions in spending, we are just digging a hole that will be too deep to recover from. I don't have any real problem with raising taxes on the wealthy (or anyone else for that matter), but I think that tax increases can also have negative effects and must be carefully considered.

It seems that the goal of many people is more about class warfare and political advantage than it is about realistically addressing the problems. I don't really think that serves anyone's interests.

CM,

While JC's numbers were incorrect, yours are equally incorrect. The GDP is NOT the amount of wages earned in the US. While there are several different ways to calculate it, one of the easiest to understand is the expenditure method. That formula is:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Note that wages don't show up in the formula, just privte consumption. Note also that government spending does show up, so GDP can be artificially inflated by a government spending a lot of money.

That being said, JC is actually closer to the truth than your claim that wages are 90% of GDP. You can get real figures for 2007 here:

www.census.gov/hhes/www/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

(If the link doesn't post, that is the us census site with a particular report chosen). Note that the total wages in any given year are roughly $7.9 trillion. Of that, if you take 100% of all the wages from those earning $250k+, you would only get roughly $940 billion dollars. Where JC was wrong was in the interpretation of those numbers. If you took 100% of the wages of everyone earning between $100k and $150k you would get roughly $1.7 trillion dollars. Alltogether though, his point stands. In order to close the $1.5 trillion dollar deficit, you would need to take 100% of all earnings from everyone earning roughly $180k or more.

I believe JC is correct when he states that raising taxes on the wealthy is not going to make a big enough difference. I believe cuts in defense and other government spending need to be included. In addition, entitlement reform is an absolute must if we are going to balance the budget. That means that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid must be on the table for reform. Both parties must give up their sacred cows if we want ot make this work.

CheckingNumbers,

Thanks for the information. It may be that the difference in the number I heard and the number you arrived at could be a result of the economy itself. Given that the figures you referenced were from 2007, it is likely that the current income figures are lower. Obviously just a hypothesis, but it does seem reasonable.

I agree with you. We cannot approach this problem realistically without looking at every department and all entitlements. Yes, the constitution does specifically identify defense as a primary purpose of the Federal government, but that doesn't mean we have to spend more on it than we can afford. Yes, people have paid into entitlement programs like Social Security for years (like I have for the past 35 years) and expect a return, but that doesn't mean that it must operate in exactly the same manner as it does now if it will end up bankrupting the country.

It is unfortunate that the people we elected over the past 30-40 years failed to take steps to avoid this, but it doesn't change where we are. The sooner people accept it and require those in power to address it, the better off we will be in the long run.

I was playing with the numbers JC and I think I found the source for the numbers you heard.

If you take 100% of all income OVER 100K, then you get $1.58 trillion dollars as the total net for the amount of money you collect based on those 2007 numbers. What I mean by over is that if someone makes 200k, you take 100k in taxes and leave them 100k. If a person makes 500k, you take 400k in taxes and leave them with 100k.

So I think where you said take 100% of all income from people making over 100k, you mean take 100% of all income over 100k from everyone. Just a bit of a change in words, but makes a pretty big difference here.

I agree with your other points entirely. I don't think the blame game will fix anything. We need to move forward at this point.

I've had the pleasure of talking to Mitt Romney (and his wife) on more than one occasion. Mitt prides himself on being solutions-oriented. He has a very specific plan for helping this country. As VP, it's not likely that his plan would be put forward in the manner that would satisfy him (or at all). Heck, even as president, he would be hard pressed not to make a few compromises to forward his agenda. I think he knows that. I certainly can't (and won't) speak for him. But I would be very surprised if he accepted a VP offer. In talking to him, I don't get the sense that his purpose in politics is to be a politician, it's to help this country get back on its feet again.

I won't be suprised in the least if he accepts the V.P. slot. With following the tea party off the cliff, Romney does not seem the I am only doing it for the country type.

Then there was his defending corporations as people. That doesn't sound very country first.

I don't see him so much 'following the tea party off the cliff', as as leveraging their discontentment with the current state of government within his own statements.

The tea party itself, it seems to me, has a bit of an identity crisis. Every anti-big-government rhetoric out there is attached to them. Some of the party are like right-wing hippies or something. Kinda like back in the 60s with real deal; you could be a true Haight-Ashbury hippie or you were one of many shades of people who simply identified with some or all of what they stood for. When most folks got down to the core of what it meant to be truly 'hippie', they found it was pretty much unsustainable as a society. It didn't mean that the generation didn't have a valid point. Same thing here. Some of the tea party members are really 'out there'. It doesn't help that the media love to sensationalize the most extreme viewpoints. It doesn't mean that the party doesn't have a point. Any candidate, GOP or Dem, would be foolish to ignore them.

I see Mitt's political career as one that has evolved. One example is his pretty much failed attempt at health-care reform in Mass as Governor. He learned from that and will carry that lesson forward.

Rare is the VP who actually becomes relevant. He won't do it.

Since when is pro-corp anti-country. By and large, most corporations are good for this country (jobs, tax base, economic drivers, philanthropy, etc). There are a few excesses out there that make everyone look bad. It's also a pretty tough environment to thrive in. A lot of difficult decisions are made. It's worthwhile to keep a certain level of control over them to prevent abuses--but most aren't bad.

VP is seldom relevant; but they do get a leg up on the Nomination,...Willard would LOVE to not have to mess with this campaiging and smiling for the common folk. I say he takes the veep with his eye completely on the presidency when it's his 'turn'.

CRACKPOT!

As a temple-going Mormon myself, the views expressed here are certainly twisted and moronic. There is nothing more "magical" about the Mormon temple or their underwear than of Jesus performing miracles; raising the dead, healing the sick, forgiving sins, etc. If you think He did those things by magic, there is nothing more I can say to you.

If however, you believe Jesus is Divine and had power over heaven and earth to perform the miracles He did, then the Mormon Temple is nothing more than a way of accessing His power, protection, and peace. There is nothing that Mormons commit to following that is not already in the Bible...

Don't worry, your tinfoil hat will save you as long as the metal wasn't mined in Utah.

Can we move past the conspiracy theories and focus on actual issues?

out of every church building in the US why arent I able to walk into a mormon temple ? what are you hiding in there ?

And you dont Know God you have no relationship with the Father - your father supposedly had actual intercourse with one of his spirit babies so not only is your god a cheater he is also one rapes his children. which Is not Taught in the Holy Bible period.

Your special underwear is not going to save you.

Explain this robot

Remember, Mormonism Teaches That...

When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. Satan gets a great victory when we disagree or “do our own thinking.” 33

The Church Prophet has the right to identify how the Lord would have us vote and who would dare disobey?

Now, does the office of the President of the Church embrace the right to identify for the whole membership of the church, and all the peoples of the world for that matter how the Lord would desire that we vote on certain matters? Certainly it does! Who would dare to proscribe God? 34

When the prophet speaks, the debate is over. 35

All LDS administration is done by direct Revelation from God. 36

When the Mormon leaders speak, we are to obey and believe, even if our scientific knowledge says otherwise. 37

God can (and often does) change his mind from revelation to revelation.

That is modern revelation. May I repeat? Modern revelation is what President Joseph Smith said, unless [then] President Spencer W. Kimball says differently. 38

If you are told by your leader to do a thing, DO IT! None of your business if it is right or wrong. 39

LDS Prophet (from 1985 to 1994), Ezra T. Benson proclaimed:

1. The Prophet rightly should be in politics…after all, we do need God in Government.
2. The Prophet is above all humanity, above all scripture, above all the other prophets, above scientific knowledge and Must Be Obeyed.

Sometimes, in American politics, we are asked to focus more on the platform than the candidate, because we can trust the party and the candidate’s advisors to keep the candidate on the “straight and narrow” as best they can.

In Mitt Romney’s case, his oath of office has already been sworn in a sacred LDS Temple ceremony. That oath is to the Mormon Plan for America, and it will supersede any oath of office as President.

And it doesn’t really matter in the LDS scheme of things if Mitt Romney does not make it to the Oval Office, or even the office of Vice President. This Mormon Plan for America has been in the shadows for over 160 years. The Brethren believe it is their birthright, their purpose, their destiny to usher in the purification of the earth for Christ’s return.

They did not give up on the plan when Joseph Smith failed in his bid for the Presidency, nor did they give up when George Romney withdrew his bid. They will rejoice if Mitt makes it, but if not, they will merely look ahead to the one who will usher in the “Kingdom of God” in the soon coming future. Meanwhile, they will continue to prompt their people to file for every level of public office, to be ready when the wonderful fulfillment of prophecy comes.

As a Mormon, I was always taught that blind faith is bad. I was taught to "study things out in your mind", to "search, ponder, and pray", and to find out for myself. I was told not to take the word of my parents, my bishop, or even the prophet for it. I was supposed to think, to ask questions, and decide for myself.

As an ex-Mormon, I can see these posts take a bit of truth and embroider it with make-believe and lies. Yes, that church is a bit eccentric and odd, but that's true of almost all religions.

These are the very same markings that Lucifer claims in the LDS Temple ritual are the emblems of his, Lucifer’s, power and priesthood.

Oh, come on now! Do you really think the Mormons believe that? They certainly are not "lucifer worshippers". Those markings are purely symbolic and don't convey any magic power. Officially, those odd undergarments are meant to remind believers of their oaths to God. Now there is a lot of Mormon mythology with stories of the magic undies giving miraculous protection to the wearer, but they're just rumors and stories, not part of official Mormon doctrine.

LDS Prophet (from 1985 to 1994), Ezra T. Benson proclaimed:

1. The Prophet rightly should be in politics…after all, we do need God in Government.
2. The Prophet is above all humanity, above all scripture, above all the other prophets, above scientific knowledge and Must Be Obeyed.

"God in Government" seems to be a common exclamation in most religions, I've heard the same notion from Baptists, evangelicals and others. At the same time, they don't endorse candidates or political parties, just like the other religions - they don't want to risk offending potential converts or risk loosing their tax-exempt status as a non-partisan non-profit religion. Remember that the Democratic leader in the Senate, Harry Reed, is also a Mormon.

"Must be obeyed" is also common in lots of religions, remember that Catholics consider the Pope "infallible", and most religious leaders want to be obeyed, it's an ego thing. I've yet to hear any of the self-proclaimed "Prophets" of the Mormon church make any pronouncements disagreeing with scientific knowledge of their time, not even the Theory of Evolution - the official Mormon position is and always has been strictly neutral on that issue, though some individual Mormons oppose Evolution and others support the science of Evolution.

Mormons put great stock in the Constitution, and in obedience to the Law. Again, not much different than most other religions. They do have a vague prediction that someday the United States Constitution will be "hanging by a thread" and that they will somehow save it. It's not at all clear when, or how, or why this is supposed to happen, like most good prophecies it is vague enough so it can never be dis-proven.

lettruthbeknwn's sole purpose is to spread fear and sensationalism. His/her profile was only recently made. All comments he/she have made to date only talk about Romney as a Mormon and some hidden religious agenda. He has no real proof of Romney's ambitions with regard to the LDS. lettruthbeknwn speaks half-truths and outright lies.

lettruthbeknwn is a troll. Please don't feed him.

This is for Jackie - I as a child was taught that the Catholic Faith was the "Only Faith that got you to Heaven" and then I grew up - "What if there is no heaven? And there is reincarnation which many religions believe in and you have to keep coming back until you get it right? So many beliefs and so few answers - pick your road and follow it - but always remember - "do unto others as you would have do unto you" Great line?

So what is the totality of their agenda? I'm curious because Mitt's version is how I understood it myself. It's the media portrayal that's spun it in every other direction.

Up to the Gills - the balance is between government and people - too much money on the wrong thing I believe you are right - government was and is set up to serve the people not the legislatures - who have used government for themselves and forgot about who pays their wages - We do - act like we hired you not you hired us!

"jacques" The simple truth is that Bachmann will not win the republican nomination and the "others" will fall out after New Hampshire. Rick Perry will win the nomination because he is the most "far right" of the two and can raise money. In addition, the evangelicals and the tea party will push him. I have nothing against Mormons, but evangelists will never "buy" a Mormon in the white house - they just won't admit that on camera. Please read Rick Perry's book, "Fed Up!" he scares me (top ten wacky thoughts from his book below). He basically wants to re-write the very Constitution he is sworn to uphold. Get the facts folks and think critically, 2012 is critical. You may not like President Obama, but the distinctions will be clear and Rick Perry is just too far right for the country. The President is at least reasonable and I don't see him as a ideological zealot.

— 10. Social Security Is Evil: According to Perry Social Security is “by far the best example” of a program “violently tossing aside any respect for our founding principles.” (page 48)

— 9. Private Enterprise Blossomed Under Conscription and Wartime Price Controls: Not only does he argue that the New Deal failed to end the Great Depression, but he asserts “recovery did not come until World War II, when FDR was finally persuaded to unleash private enterprise.” (page 48)

— 8. Medicare Is Too Expensive But Must Never Be Cut: Both establishing Medicare in 1965 and expanding it to include prescription drugs in 2003 are examples of “an irresponsible culture of spending in Washington” (page 63), but establishing “‘councils of experts’ and panels of various sorts” to assess the cost effectiveness of different Medicare-eligible treatments is a “frightening” “scheme” that “undermines freedom” and can be fairly labeled “death panels” (page 81).

— 7. All Bank Regulation Is Unconstitutional: Criticizing the Security and Exchange Commission’s rulemaking process under the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill, Perry asserts that “if the Constitution were shown the appropriate respect, Washington regulation writers wouldn’t have to worry about underrepresented views, because they wouldn’t have control over them in the first place” (page 94).

— 6. Consumer Financial Protection Is Unconstitutional: Further reiterates his view that all federal financial regulation is illegitimate, listing the SEC on page 44 as part of a “federal alphabet soup” in which “undemocratic unelected Washington bureaucrats” are “now (dubiously) empowered to dictate their own preferences to the American people.”

— 5. Almost Everything Is Unconstitutional: Regrets the existence of jurisprudence construing the Commerce Clause to permit “federal laws regulating the environment, regulating guns, protecting civil rights, establishing the massive programs and Medicare and Medicaid, creating national minimum wage laws, [and] establishing national labor laws.” Perry makes a partial exception for laws barring racial discrimination which he says fulfill “the intent behind the passage of the Reconstruction Era amendments.” (page 51)

— 4. Federal Education Policy Is Unconstitutional: Cites the willingness of Republicans to vote for reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as a “perfect example” of “losing sight of the fact that perfectly laudable policy choices at the local level are not appropriate (much less constitutional) at the federal level.” (page 87)

— 3. Al Gore Is Part Of A Conspiracy To Deny The Existence Of Global Cooling:Jokes that the Social Security Trust Fund “must be somewhere in Al Gore’s lockbox, right next to his notes from inventing the Internet and that global cooling data he doesn’t want anyone to see” (page 60). Argues that moderates oppose curbing greenhouse gas emissions because “they know that we have been experiencing a cooling trend” (page 92).

— 2. Not Only Is Everything Unconstitutional, Activist Judges Are A Problem:Having called the majority of the duly enacted modern welfare state and federal regulatory apparatus unconstitutional, Perry pivots to the complaint that “the [Supreme] court too often chooses to take it upon itself to govern and to develop policy” (page 114).

— 1. The Civil War Was Caused By Slaveowners Trampling On Northern States’ Rights: Rather than simply citing chattel slavery as an exemption to his “states’ rights are good” principle, Perry argues that slaveholder activism in the 1850s was an example of big government federal overreach. “In many ways it was was the northern states whose sovereignty was violated in the run-up to the Civil War,” he argues, citing the Fugitive Slave Act and completely ignoring the human rights of the enslaved African-Americans of the south. He says “we can never know what would have happened in the absence of federal involvement,” ignoring again the fact that federalism would have bought peace at the price of continued slavery.

By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 15, 2011 at 10:00 am

Wayne - I for one do not have buyers remorse - look at whaqt we were looking at McCain and Palin - the first four years are a nightmare granted - but if electorate wakes ups in 2012 and votes all the T-Jerks out and we take back the Congress we will SHINE! Nancy Pelosi had 200 bills ready to go - sorry if you hate my lady Boehner had 12 - get over it we are ready to take this country forward not back!

Rick Colo - sorry I am a liberal and I don't attend swap meets and I find your comments offensive boy, and bringing up Bill Ayers and George Soros is so lame I can bring up the Koch Brothers - Karl Rove and all the ilk what does that prove we have more money or you have nore money this tit for tat is so stupid - talk about issues

By the way I am a grandma - sorry you reduced me to a lowly status - do you know most of us grandmas held real high powered jobs and we are not as dumb as you think - Baby boy what credentials do you have

I myself graduated from University of Chicago and yes Milton Friedman was one of my professors - at the age of 23 - I thought his trickle down was BS

I am sick and tired of you little boys telling us so callled Senior Citizens we are either dumb or don't matter - have you looked lately we always vote - talk to my neighbor - how about her husband who was in the service will not get his pension until 65 - what do they live on until then?

JFK was a Catholic, which is also a made-up religion, if you bother to read the history of the church, and he became president.

In fact, all religions are made up, so the point is moot.

The Democrat party has seceded from America and is now a socialist cult.

On the other hand, Romney is an experienced pragmatist who should be president. He is not rubbing our faces in his private religious beliefs, he did not sit at the feet of Reverend Wright learning to hate America, and he is not a bible-thumping lunatic like Perry.

Romney is the only one running who has a shot at saving America, regardless of his irrelevant religious background.

Logico

your deceived - If the Mormons take the Whitehouse there will be a civil war - and there will be blood shed

why? I am not for Romney but I do not understand your comment at all. If the right wing cons. would keep their religions in their homes where it belongs there should be no issue. He does not spout off about God and use him to sway the people. I can at least give him that if nothing else

Romney and Perry sit at the feet of Norquist whose stated goal is to kill America.

How is more tax cuts for the rich going to save America?

There is no socialist cult. Somebody used those scary propaganda words and you are on here repeating them like you know what you are talking about.

OK, I certainly don't want Romney in the White House but if he is elected how would that lead to civil war? If he wins the presidency legally anyone who decides to over thrown him with violence will be a traitor and/or terrorist. Him being a Mormon should be the least of anyone's concerns, his proposed policies should be all that anyone is concerned about.