GOP Primary Megathread!

[Sheilbh]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination.  It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.

[Admiral Yi]

Electability is shorthand for a candidate's chances in the general Shelf.

If electability meant the chances of winning the primary then candidates would tell primary voters "you should vote for me because you're more likely to vote for me."  It's circular, see?

[Sheilbh]

Electability is shorthand for a candidate's chances in the general Shelf.

If electability meant the chances of winning the primary then candidates would tell primary voters "you should vote for me because you're more likely to vote for me."  It's circular, see?

Clearly, but I've not said electability's anything to do with chances of winning the primary.  It's a core part of Romney's argument why he should win the primary.

[Admiral Yi]

Clearly, but I've not said electability's anything to do with chances of winning the primary.  It's a core part of Romney's argument why he should win the primary.

Perhaps I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying Newt's rise in South Carolina undermines Mitt's electability argument.

[Sheilbh]

Perhaps I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying Newt's rise in South Carolina undermines Mitt's electability argument.

No.  I think the past week has.  The combination of bad debate performances, strong attacks on his record (especially Santorum on Romneycare), Bain and his tax returns.  His response to this has also been weak, you can have a torrid time and come out of it well, but Romney hasn't.  I don't think he looks at all like a strong candidate.  I think he looks vulnerable - this was a point Perry and Newt both made.

Edit:  So Newt's rise doesn't undermine Mitt, but the factors behind it does.

[Phillip V]

Meh. All will be forgotten in a month or two from now. There were similar protestations from people when Obama was upset by Clinton in New Hampshire and then roundly defeated be her in Pennsylvania and Ohio; that he would never get the blue-collar white voters.

Then again, the media decided to attribute Clinton's rebound to her tears.

[Ideologue]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination.  It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.

I thought Mormons were Protestants.  They're non-Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, and they arose as a sect within a Christian community, after the Reformation.  Maybe my definition of Protestant sucks.

[Barrister]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination.  It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.

I thought Mormons were Protestants.  They're non-Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, and they arose as a sect within a Christian community, after the Reformation.  Maybe my definition of Protestant sucks.

Your definition of protestant sucks.

Mormons, by utterly rejecting anything Luther, Calvin, or Knox had to say, are their own form or sui generis] unique religion.  The better argument is whether or not Mormons qualify as Christian at all.

(for what little it is worth I think that since they see Christ as the son of God they qualify, but I can see why others differ.  Their theology is pretty strange)

[Razgovory]

I don't regard them as Christians for the same reason that Catholics aren't Jews.  If you write your own whole new book, you're something else entirely.

[Ideologue]

Romney would be the first openly non-Christian President in centuries, that's gotta be worth something.

I find it interesting that Paul's the only Protestant candidate left for the GOP nomination.  It's a big step from JFK to this list of candidates and the Catholic Supreme Court majority.

I thought Mormons were Protestants.  They're non-Catholic, non-Eastern Orthodox Christians, and they arose as a sect within a Christian community, after the Reformation.  Maybe my definition of Protestant sucks.

Your definition of protestant sucks.

Mormons, by utterly rejecting anything Luther, Calvin, or Knox had to say, are their own form or sui generis] unique religion.  The better argument is whether or not Mormons qualify as Christian at all.

(for what little it is worth I think that since they see Christ as the son of God they qualify, but I can see why others differ.  Their theology is pretty strange)

Doesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians?  Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?

[Viking]

Doesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians?  Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?

Anglicans = Episcopalians

But, if you want to understand what Mormons actually "belive" watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E

even if only a small part of this is true this is so full of WTF that christians don't think they are christians.

N.B. I am obviously an atheist and think this is silly shit, but this is a case of faithheads bashing faithheads. This is why his Mormonism is a problem for those who actually take their Christianity seriously.

[Sheilbh]

Meh. All will be forgotten in a month or two from now. There were similar protestations from people when Obama was upset by Clinton in New Hampshire and then roundly defeated be her in Pennsylvania and Ohio; that he would never get the blue-collar white voters.

But  Obama does struggle with white working class voters.  He's very weak with that group.  For me that's the appeal of a Republican candidate like Huckabee or Santorum, because I think they will better connect with that core Republican vote than Romney.  This is something David Brooks has written about and I broadly agree.

But that's not my argument at all.  I'm saying that if Romney doesn't look like a strong candidate then he needs to rejig his argument for why people should vote for him.  The analogy from 2008 is I think Clinton after Iowa.  Her campaign had to a large extent been based on a sense of incumbency (like Romney) and inevitability (like Romney) after Iowa that shifted and, I think, was destroyed after Super Tuesday.  Clinton had to change the focus of her campaign and I think she did so very successfully.

If Romney begins to look like a weak candidate then he needs to give Republicans another, better reason to vote for him.

Personally I'd suggest that he would perhaps be a bit better if he behaved like less of an incumbent.  I think he should try and re-cast himself as a ideas-oriented businessman.  Which he does with his rhetoric, but he campaigns and acts like a sitting VP.  In 92 Clinton had that big academic seminar I think on social security or welfare.  But it played up to all of Clinton's wonky, New Democrat strengths.  I'd say Romney should do things like that, and try and loosen up a bit.  He can talk about his private sector background all he wants but it doesn't connect with the way he looks and acts.  But it could be too late for that and given Romney's reputation for flexibility it may not work anyway.

Doesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians?  Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?

Yep.  In their way.  Other Christians don't see Mormons as Christians.  Which I think is fair.  They've got a second series of revelations 1800 years after the start of Christianity.  It seems like considering the Bahai a brance of Islam.  I think it says more about Mormon desire for integration I suppose.  Which is sad in its way.  I hope to live to see the Mormon pride movement.

[Ideologue]

Doesn't that just make them not Lutherans, Calvinists, or Presbyterians?  Do Anglicans and Episcopolians give a lot of credence to Luther, Calvin, or Knox?

Anglicans = Episcopalians

Indeed, it's why I stuck 'em together.

But, if you want to understand what Mormons actually "belive" watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6brMrFw0E

even if only a small part of this is true this is so full of WTF that christians don't think they are christians.

N.B. I am obviously an atheist and think this is silly shit, but this is a case of faithheads bashing faithheads. This is why his Mormonism is a problem for those who actually take their Christianity seriously.

Yeah, I had heard of some of that.  I don't think it makes them non-Christian--there's clearly a worship of Jesus Christ, even if he's a Body Thetan (which is not really that different than Catholic dogma)--although I suppose the existence of a superceding, recent holy book probably does defeat my categorization of them as Protestants.

Also, Mormon theology is fun.  I have a question though: do the space gods of Kolob have a different sex-determination system than humans?  Folowup: if not, why are there like three chicks for every dude?  And does that not sound way awesome?  That last question was rhetorical.

Yep.  In their way.  Other Christians don't see Mormons as Christians.  Which I think is fair.  They've got a second series of revelations 1800 years after the start of Christianity.  It seems like considering the Bahai a brance of Islam.  I think it says more about Mormon desire for integration I suppose.  Which is sad in its way.  I hope to live to see the Mormon pride movement.

In fairness, though, Baha'i doesn't claim to be a sect of Islam.  Mormons do claim to be Christians.  In such matters, I'm generally willing, unless it's a clear abuse of the definition, to find such assertions dispositive.  And like I said, it's not clearly abusive.  Jesus is totally in there, along with the Hebrew God.  Hanging out in space.  At least it avoids that trinity stuff.

But I'll back off on the "Protestant."  That may be a bridge too far.

[Berkut]

To describe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a non-Christian church to any audience spreads a misconception that there is something other than Jesus Christ at the heart of the Mormon faith.

For Latter-day Saints, Jesus Christ is the Savior of all people, the divine Son of God. He is the same Jesus Christ of the New Testament, who taught about faith and about love for God and mankind. Jesus Christ — not Moses, Paul or Joseph Smith — is the object of Mormons' devotion and worship. As the Prophet Joseph Smith himself taught, "The fundamental principles of our religion are ... concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it."

This is indeed the daily reality for Latter-day Saints. Jesus Christ is perpetually front and center in the lives of practicing members of the faith. Whenever Mormons pray to God, for instance, they do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Baptism by immersion, according to the symbolism of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, marks a person's entrance into the faith. The sacrament (what other Christian traditions call communion) is administered weekly in Sunday services for members to reflect on the mercy of Jesus Christ. When Latter-day Saints seek forgiveness, they do so through Jesus Christ's atoning sacrifice. They serve the poor and needy and give of their time and money to numerous humanitarian aid efforts in order to follow Christ's teachings. Images of Christ adorn the faith's meetinghouses and temples. Church leaders and members testify of Jesus Christ's reality and divinity. The Son of God appears in the Church's official name: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." While some outsiders know Latter-day Saints as Mormons, members know themselves as part of Christ's Church.

At their best, Latter-day Saints' behavior, speech, thoughts and identity all reflect Christ and His teachings. If you ask a member what it means to belong to the Church, he or she will tell you that most fundamentally it means to believe in Jesus as the Savior of the world and to follow Him.

For Latter-day Saints, being a Christian means being a disciple of Jesus Christ, loving and worshiping Him above all. It means prizing Christ and centering one's life on His teachings from the New Testament. It means striving to live the kind of life that Christ commanded, honoring Him in word and deed. This is the meaning of a Christian, and there is no doubt that Latter-day Saints — who pattern their lives after all of these things — belong to Christ's fold.

They sound pretty damn Christian to me.

[Berkut]

But I'll back off on the "Protestant."  That may be a bridge too far.

I dunno, Protestant is a pretty amazingly general term, isn't it? Doesn't it pretty much describe any Christian sect that came about in a "genelogical" sense from those who broke from the Catholic church as a result of the Reformation?

To that extent it is pretty clear that Mormons are Christians and Protestants. Hell, I think you can make a better argument that they are not Christians than that they are not Protestants, since the definition of "Christian" is inately a matter of doctrine and theology, while "Protestant" simply describes a grouping of sects that descend from a particular event.