Presidential Approval Index - Obama at -20

Today, Scott Rasmussen breaks it all down in the race for the White House, Monday, January 16, 2012:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

Thirty-eight percent (38%) believe America’s best days are still in the future,  while 44% believe they have come and gone.

In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney leads by eight in South Carolinaand by a wide margin in Florida. President Obama currently leads Congressman Ron Paul by six and Romney by three in hypothetical 2012 matchups.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 45% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's job performance. Fifty-four percent (54%) at least somewhat disapprove.

Thirty-two percent (32%) of Likely U.S. Voters will get most of their political news in 2012 from cable television, while 24% will primarily rely on the Internet and 22% on traditional TV network news. Additionally, 25% now routinely get news and political updates on their phone or some other portable device. That’s up from 19% in 2010.

Rasmussen's poll results are interesting, because they are very consistent with the analysis of Larry Sabato and others who maintain that about 20% of the electorate can be counted on to vote for Obama, "no matter what." They are solid liberal voters who have historically voted the same way and will never change. About 40% of conservative Republicans will always vote the same way, and cannot be appealed to. That leaves the other 40% in the moderate category, neither strongly Democrat or Republican. It's that 40% in the middle who constantly make or break presidential campaigns.

There is little doubt remaining that Mitt Romney will be the presumptive Republican nominee coming out of South Carolina and Florida, where he now holds commanding leads in both states. Rasmussen says he's up in South Carolina by 8% over Gingrich, but the Weekly Standard says the margin is 11% and Reuters has him up by as much as 21%. Take your pick, he's up across the boards. If he pulls off those victories in succession, on the heels of his narrow margin in Iowa and a wide margin in New Hampshire, there will be no stopping the express train after that as he rolls on across the country to the presumptive nomination.

Jon Huntsman will announce today that he is dropping out and will support Mitt Romney. No one is sure at this point whether that endorsement will help or hurt Romney, but it winnows the field. The three remaining "social conservatives" if that's what they are - Santorum, Perry and Gingrich - will continue to split the votes among themselves, and Ron Paul has a growing and loyal constituency representing what the future may portend. As the oldest candidate in the race (78), it's amazing that he attracting the youth protest vote in record numbers. They seem to like his anti-establishment message a lot. Why? I watched some of them being interviewed last night, and they know he won't send them to war for one thing and he'll do everything he can to arrest the profligate spending that is threatening the value of our currency. Paul won't win the nomination, but solid support for his libertarian message will represent a meaningful voice at the nominating convention and beyond. I believe that is a healthy trend in the right direction.

The only foreseeable threat on the horizon for Romney may be the possibility of a third-party candidacy. Such a threat may be muted, however, by the need of most in the electorate to overthrow the Obama "regime."

All the pundits in the world notwithstanding, Mitt Romney is increasingly seen by the electorate (watch the Rasmussen video on his website) as the only candidate in the field who can stop Barack Obama, and that seems to be far and away the most important factor in breaking down the electorate, many of whom feel as though they were hoodwinked by Obama in 2008. That question about electability seems paramount, and yields 43% of voters in South Carolina who think Romney is the guy to beat Obama. The level of dismay with Obama is seen reflected in the latest Rasmussen poll.

That said, "stuff" happens that no one can predict and there are still ten months to go before the general election, and it's always tough to beat a sitting president.

Romney's up by 22% in the latest Florida polling.

Our Agency, God's Foreknowledge and Omniscience

Beginning January 1st, I undertook another reading of The Book of Mormon from cover to cover. This morning I finished Helaman. I am reading from a worn copy of the original edition. The old Reorganized Church publishes it, and it can be obtained at Deseret Book if you're inclined to follow my lead.

The reason I love reading from the original text is that it reads like a long novel. There are very few chapter breaks, no verses, no footnotes and the typesetter at Grandin Press in Palmyra was the one who provided what punctuation there is. Many, many misspelled words can be observed in the original, grammatical errors and long run-on sentences abound. The familiar words flow freely, however, tumbling off the pages into one's brain with ease. The long narration flows as it fell originally from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith onto the transcript pages written primarily by Oliver Cowdery. You can almost sense those two at work in the room with you as you read. Here's but one example:

"And the angel of the Lord said unto me, Thou hast beheld that the Book proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew, it contained the plainness of the Gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God; wherefore, these things go forth from the Jews in purity, unto the Gentiles, according to the truth which is in God; and after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles; behold, after this, thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is the most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the Gospel of the Lamb, many parts which are plain and most precious; and also, many Covenants of the Lord have they taken away; and all this have they done, that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord; that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, thou seest that after the Book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the Book, which is the Book of the Lamb of God; and after that these plain and precious things were taken away, it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles; and after it goeth forth unto all the nations of the Gentiles, yea, even across the many waters which thou hast seen with the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity; and thou seest because of the many plain and precious things which have been taken out of the Book, which were plain unto the understanding of the children of men, according to the plainness which is in the Lamb of God; and because of these things which are taken away out of the Gospel of the Lamb, an exceeding great many do stumble, yea, insomuch that Satan hath great power over them; nevertheless, thou beholdest that the Gentiles which have gone forth out of captivity, and have been lifted up by the power of God above all other nations upon the face of the land, which is choice above all other lands, which is the land which the Lord God hath covenanted with thy father, that his seed should have, for the land of their inheritance; wherefore, thou seest that the Lord God will not suffer that the Gentiles will utterly destroy the mixture of thy seed, which is among thy brethren; neither will he suffer that the Gentiles shall destroy the seed of thy brethren; neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that state of awful woundedness which thou beholdest that they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the Gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen; wherefore, saith the Lamb of God, I will be merciful unto the Gentiles, unto the visiting of the remnant of the House of Israel in great judgment."

One long paragraph, and all one long sentence. That's the way 1 Nephi 13:24-33 was rendered in the original edition. The careful student when comparing today's version with the original will see a host of changes in capitalization, grammar, punctuation, even in the wording. So the next time you are tempted to tell a non-member investigator there are very few changes from the original text into today's version, be careful and hold your tongue. I wish I had a dime for every time I'd said that as a young missionary before I actually made the side-by-side comparison.

I may have come to a point in my life now where I prefer reading the original version more, for all the reasons stated above and more. Critics of the book will tell you they are skeptical because surely God could render a perfect translation in perfect prose and punctuation with grammatically sound language construction. However, I counter the original text gives authenticity to the story of its origins.

It came through an unlearned boy, and the imperfections in syntax, grammar and the total lack of punctuation is precise and compelling evidence that God used weak men to translate the dictated record and write it all down with a quill pen on scraps of paper. The flaws are those of men (including the type setter and the printer) as well as the translator and the scribe. That we have the record at all is a miracle because of the painstaking ancient engraving on plates of gold, the careful custody, and the generations of preservation. That we have it as nearly perfected today as it can be despite the errors of men is practically unthinkable. To say Joseph Smith produced it on his own, given the accounts of how it came forth, is impossible.

Reading the original text is a thrilling periodic interlude to other readings of the book in the modern edition. The "voices" of the various authors compiled and abridged by Mormon are distinct and easily discerned. There is little to impede a rapid read through the contents. Even Isaiah flows easily and fluidly in the original, rather than being so "difficult" in editions where it is highlighted and stands segregated from the rest of the text, giving rise to the normal sighs of agony for readers who encounter the usual barriers in their minds about how hard he is to understand.

I've had reinforced again how many times the words "eternal life" pop out at me, and how consistently the phrase is synonomous with "saved" and "salvation."

This additional observation: Not all the pages of The Book of Mormon are "doctrinally drenched," as Elder Neal A. Maxwell used to say. In truth, my least favorite part in the book is the war chapters at the end of Alma. Not much doctrine there.

One of the pleasant remembrances this time through is the recurring reality of the existence of God and His Son, Jesus Christ. It is Jacob, younger brother of Nephi, who first introduces us to the title "Christ" in the book. (See Jacob 1:4). Prior to that reference, other titles like Redeemer, Messiah, and Savior are used by Nephi. There is nothing more basic in their writings than this: God is omniscient. "O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it." (2 Nephi 9:20).

We often accept this simple truth on its face without thinking through the implications, however. It is fundamental to our understanding of God and how He intersects in our lives through His foreknowledge and our foreordination to certain gifts and mortal missions. Because His love for us individually and collectively is ever-present and never-ending, our growth, purification and sanctification would not be possible absent His omniscience about the atoning sacrifice of His Son. How could He succor us without knowing the eventual outcome in our struggles, and how could we petition for His help and sustaining influence if we did not believe He would understand, lead and guide us to the finish line?

Joseph Smith

The Prophet Joseph Smith in his Lectures on Faith stated God is perfect in the attributes of divinity. A primal attribute He possesses in absolute perfection is knowledge. We learn, ". . . seeing that without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures; for it is by reason of the knowledge which he has of all things, from the beginning to the end, that enables him to give that understanding to his creatures by which they are made partakers of eternal life; and if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him." (Lecture 4:11).

In another Lecture, Joseph Smith revealed, "God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient." (Lecture 2:2).

Elder Marion D. Hanks

If the scriptures are true (and they are true), when we refer to the Son of God as "Alpha and Omega," a God who knows the end from the beginning, does that fact not presuppose He knows everything about the "in between" details too? I loved the phrase Elder Marion D. Hanks used, when he referred to our "muddling through the middle." That's where we are today, as individuals, as a nation that has lost its way momentarily, and as a world blinded by the abundant satanic influences surrounding and permeating mankind.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell

I loved this observation by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, because nobody can say it quite as well as he: "Below the scripture that declares that God knows 'all things' there is no footnote reading 'except that God is a little weak in geophysics!' We do not worship a God who simply forecasts a generally greater frequency of earthquakes in the last days before the second coming of His Son; He knows precisely when and where all these will occur. God has even prophesied that the Mount of Olives will cleave in twain at a precise latter-day time as Israel is besieged. (Zechariah 14:4.)" (Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, 7).

Look at these samples from the scriptures, illustrating our Heavenly Father's omniscience (this is Elder Maxwell's list among many that could be compiled):

"The Lord searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all." (1 Chronicles 28:9).

The Lord's "understanding is infinite." (Psalm 147:5).

"Now we are sure that thou knowest all things." (John 16:30).

"The Lord knoweth all things which are to come." (Words of Mormon 1:7).

Job asked, "Shall any teach God knowledge?" (Job 21:22).

Alma described God's "foreknowledge" of all things and said also that God "comprehendeth all things." (Alma 13:3; 26:35).

Helaman wrote, "Except he was a God he could not know of all things." (Helaman 9:41).

The Lord said He "knoweth all things, for all things are present" before Him. (D&C 38:2).

We read, too, that "all things are present with me, for I know them all." (Moses 1:6).

So in the momentary agony of our moments of doubt and fear, isn't it just possible we can each bend our will a little more to conform more fully with His? He will always bow beneath the rod of the moral agency we have been granted, but when we bow beneath the rod of our afflictions and our trials, sore as they may be, can we not believe He will be there to meet us, guide us and give us the inspiration needed in the moment to help us overcome.? Of course we can.

His knowing does not dictate nor undercut our doing. But in His knowing there can be revelation to inspire our doing.

There is a very real veil of forgetfulness between us and God. Elder Maxwell offers these insights about what may happen without that insulating veil:

"Without the veil, for instance, we would lose that precious insulation which keeps us from a profound and disabling homesickness that would interfere with our mortal probation and maturation. Without the veil, our brief, mortal walk in a darkening world would lose its meaning, for one would scarcely carry the flashlight of faith at noonday and in the presence of the Light of the world!

"Without the veil, we could not experience the gospel of work and the sweat of our brow. If we had the security of having already entered into God's rest, certain things would be unneeded; Adam and Eve did not carry social security cards in the Garden of Eden!

"And how could we learn about obedience if we were shielded from the consequences of our disobedience?

"Nor could we choose for ourselves in His holy presence among alternatives that do not there exist, for God's court is filled with those who have both chosen and overcome — whose company we do not yet deserve.

"Fortunately, the veil keeps the first, second, and third estates separate, hence our sense of separateness. The veil insures the avoidance of having things 'compound in one' — to our everlasting detriment. (2 Nephi 2:11.) We are cocooned, as it were, in order that we might truly choose. Once, long ago, we chose to come to this very setting where we could choose. It was an irrevocable choice! And the veil is the guarantor that that choice will be honored." (Ibid., 10-11).

Consider these facts in light of today's political situation in America and elsewhere. God, knowing the agency of His children would be abused, made provision for wrong choices. It's called repentance. When we err in selecting leaders to lead us who trample on the God-given principles of the Constitution, He makes ample provision for changing those leaders every two years in free and open elections. We are governed by our Creed that the gifts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from the Divine Providence of an all-wise Heavenly Father.

Elder Orson Hyde

God in His omniscience foresaw and prophesied the establishment of America as a nation, then the state of Israel. There can be little doubt in both cases, these bastions of freedom, one on this side of the world and the other in a different hemisphere, that their founding was at the very least "remarkable," at most "improbable." In the United Nations Security Council vote, both the United States and the former Soviet Union joined together to make the outcome of Israel's birth a reality. Soon thereafter a wave of immigration to the new nation-state followed and the Jews literally returned to the Holy Land and have made it blossom as a rose, all in fulfillment of ancient Biblical and modern prophecy, including Orson Hyde's inspired dedicatory prayer given on the Mount of Olives in the early days of this dispensation.

Daily we are bombarded with the predictions of wars and rumors of wars. There are only two possible choices historically for rebirthing a nation as drenched in debt as the United States: War or depression, and neither is pleasant nor desirable. Before the Second Coming we will undoubtedly experience both. But all of it is foretold by the omniscience of God through the inspired prophet-authors who have preserved His words. There are chilling prophecies about events yet ahead in the Middle East. (See Zechariah 14:2; Revelation 11).

Only a God who knows all things could make provisions for His children so His plan is not thwarted. He knew His Son would not buckle under the weight He bore in Gethsemane. The operative atoning sacrifice was accomplished. Because He knew, sin and death are conquered in accordance with His plan.

He needed to know the 116 pages of translation would be lost through the carelessness of Martin Harris and his wife. He made provisions for "these plates" (Nephi's small plates) to be preserved as an alternative. The charge given by fathers to sons who inherited the record is repeated again and again, "Take good care of these plates and see that they are preserved for a wise purpose known only to God."

Because He knows "all things," God can plan and make ample provisions so all His purposes are fulfilled. In July, 1828, He told Joseph Smith, "The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught." (D&C 3:1). However, in His knowing He does not compromise our individual moral agency. We cause the decisions of our lives, not Him. We can access His knowledge in varying degrees as we humble ourselves and take counsel from His hands (see Jacob 4:10), but we must decide and act, not Him. He merely knows the outcomes of our choices before we do. In that way He makes provision for all His children, and more particularly for His obedient and faithful children who eventually inherit eternal life. How many will eventually inherit the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom? He already knows,  but permits us to choose our own outcomes.

Whenever I raise this topic, some friends and family are troubled by the implications of the omniscience and foreknowledge of God. They assert incorrectly His knowing constricts our invididual choices and moral agency. How is it, they wonder, that God knows perfectly, but we don't. They, in effect, are telling me their view of this doctrine is better than God's.

I wonder how some can conclude that having spent billions of years (2.555 billion, according to Joseph Smith) in His presence in premortal worlds, where He has observed us, our personality traits, patterns of behavior, habits, tendencies, strengths and weaknesses wouldn't give God a perfect understanding of what we would do under a given set of circumstances - those very circumstances He already knows in advance. Our finite pea-sized brains can't possibly work out the calculus needed to compute all those outcomes, but His can. And once again, His knowing it all in advance has nothing to do with our doing it!

Ever to be emphasized, however, is the reality that God's "seeing" is not the same thing as His "causing" something to happen.

In this presidential election year, imagine the depth and breadth of His knowledge. He absolutely knows every voter in America. He knows right now, today, which candidate will win the Republican nomimation and He knows who will win the White House, every seat in Congress, and who the next dogcatcher in Timbuktu County will be.

But you still have to go to the polling booth and make your choice.

Political Quote of the Day

John R. Bolton

Anyone who is a careful observer of President Obama knows of his proclivity for verbosity and hyperbole. (He likes to give speeches, and lots of them). That's why this quote struck me when I read it today.

John Bolton, career diplomat in several Republican administrations (and a Newt Gingrich favorite) was interviewed yesterday about his endorsement of Mitt Romney. Jennifer Rubin, writing in her blog post at the Washington Post today, provides us with today's quote from John Bolton:

Bolton also told me about what voters should look for in a presidential candidate, basing his opinions on his years in government. “For judges, we talk about judicial temperament. For this, [Romney] has executive branch temperament and what you need in a crisis.” It is that lack of executive experience and temperament, Bolton said, that is so troubling in Obama. “Obama thinks being president consists of giving speeches.” But, Bolton said, what is critical is some broader executive experience as a governor, senior federal official or in the private sector. “It means starting at ‘A’ and getting to ‘B,’ ” he told me. He joked that that doesn’t mean “saying I want to get from A to B. That’s a speech.”

Dan Liljenquist Announces Candidacy Against Senator Orrin Hatch

Dan Liljenquist, Republican challenger to Orrin Hatch

This past week brought a long-anticipated announcement that former Republican Senator in the Utah Senate, Dan Liljenquist, would run for the U.S. Senate in Utah, challenging the aged one, six-term Senator Orrin Hatch, who will be 78 years old on election day 2012.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

For 36 years, almost half his life, Hatch has represented Utah. I am personally grateful for his service (more on that later), but enough is enough.

It's just the kind of David vs. Goliath political match-up needed to tantalize the voters and should assure a large turnout for the Utah caucuses coming up on March 15, 2012. Liljenquist, 37, similarly youthful as Senator Mike Lee, has won the hearts and minds of tea party groups who are disenchanted with Hatch. The reason they are excited about Dan's candidacy is they notched a victory in knocking off Bob Bennett two years ago, and now hope an encore performance may be in the wings for retiring Hatch. I have said before I do not believe all the hype that the tea party was solely responsible for Bennett's defeat, because I believe other moderates like me had a hand in it, but a victory is a victory no matter who takes credit for it.

Liljenquist stated, when he announced he was resigning his local senate seat to challenge Hatch, he would focus his campaign on reducing the nation's debt. He said Washington is broken and that some GOP lawmakers share in the blame. Hatch, of course, would counter he wants to do the same. His record says otherwise, however, despite his efforts to sponsor a balanced budget amendment on several occasions in the past. Hatch's long voting record includes support for TARP, which he later admitted he regretted when he sensed he had angered conservatives.

Dan Liljenquist is a name most Utahns have never heard before, but he has received national recognition for his work to overhaul Medicaid and the state's pension system for public employees, two critical and demanding issues begging for solutions. "Even counting for inflation, 36 years is enough," Liljenquist said Wednesday in announcing his candidacy for U.S. Senate. "Service in Congress was never meant to be a lifetime appointment. In the the military there's an adage that says, 'Be brief, be brilliant and be gone.'"

Hatch will say he is "not Bob Bennett." He's been quietly offering cash to potential state delegates to work for his campaign, up to $2500 per month. It's perfectly legal, just unsavory because it smacks of buying delegate votes. A good question to ask those who support Hatch at the caucuses would be, "How much is his campaign paying you to run as a delegate to the state convention?" He's done an unprecedented outreach to conservative groups like the tea party activists to assure them of his conservative credentials. Knowing how to organize is the main strength of his long-time friend and campaign manager, former state Republican party chairman, Dave Hansen. But all of it will not be enough this time around.

I have no argument with Hatch's conservative creds. My problem is his age. It's simply time for him to turn the page and retire. If he can't seem to make that decision on his own, it is my wish to get re-elected as a state delegate from my precinct and help him find the exit door.

Hatch's campaign war chest is even larger than Bennett's. He has more than $4 million in the bank based upon his latest filings. Other potential challengers, Republican Representative Jason Chaffetz and Democratic Representative Jim Matheson, both avoided a head-to-head battle with Hatch and decided to keep their powder dry in Congress, rather than to challenge him.

Liljenquist will have to embrace the help of conservative groups with strong ties to the tea party. FreedomWorks hinted last month it will support the Liljenquist bid, when it named him the organization's "legislative entrepreneur of the year."

In my estimation Hatch is making the same calculated error in judgment that Bennett did last year. Historically, I have not had issues with either of their conservative stripes. They are both "conservative enough" for my taste. I voted three times in the past for Bennett, then backed Mike Lee. This cycle I've voted six times in the past for Hatch, and this time I will back Dan Liljenquist, with the possible proviso that I will reserve an "endorsement" if someone else I like better enters the race.

Chris Herrod

Utah State Representative Chris Herrod announced yesterday he would run also, but he's not going to get as much traction as Liljenquist in my opinion. The danger at convention is they might split the vote in preventing Hatch from getting 60% of the vote out of convention and avoiding a primary. On the other hand, they could combine against Hatch, eliminate him as happened last time with Bennett and set up a primary between the two of them. The politics of our two former Utah senators are not the problem with me as much as their audacity to think they are irreplaceable. In Hatch's case, his certainty approaches infinity.

I have personal affection for Senator Hatch, because he advocated for me and my colleagues through a legislative fight on Capitol Hill he believed in and helped us win. I'll spare you all the details, but in an act of defiance against a piece of ill-conceived legislation requiring a 100% excise tax on charity-owned life insurance, he took on Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and personally walked a "colloquy" I had written in support of our position onto the Senate floor at 1:30 a.m. in the morning and had it entered into the Congressional record. But for his heroics on our behalf, a bad proposal by Grassley's chief of staff would undoubtedly have been passed into law.

So my problem, once again, is not about Hatch personally or politically. It is simply his age and longevity. In my presence on one of many trips to Washington, I heard him say he was going after Strom Thurmond's record for longevity in the U.S. Senate, a dubious reason to stand for re-election in my heart and mind (and that was the last time he ran, not this cycle). Actually, Byrd and Inouye served longer than Thurmond, but at the time he was the longest-tenured. By re-electing Hatch for a seventh term, Utahns would place Hatch high up in the rankings of longest serving senators, making him 84 years old at the end of his next term. For me that's just a bridge too far.

Like the aging prize fighter who thinks he can get keep getting back into the ring for one more big pay day, Bennett and now Hatch seem to lack the grace and good judgment to read the tea leaves (pun intentional), stand aside and make way for the younger generation. They both believed in their hearts they were indispensable to the citizens of Utah, the nation and the world. You can add the universe too if you like.

Between now and the March 15th caucus night in Utah you will hear that Hatch's experience and his pending (assuming Republican control of the Senate can be achieved) chairmanship in the Senate Finance Committee will be needed to get America back on track and that no one else is as well-equipped to get the job done as Orrin Hatch. The same argument was made for Bennett, who had only served half as long (three terms and eighteen years) as Hatch. The irony is that Hatch unseated Frank Moss to win his seat originally, saying no one should become a career politician. Setting the agenda in even a powerful committee is not as "powerful" as one might suppose. Each senator, after all is said and done, has only one vote to cast on every single measure that comes before him/her. And the argument that this is no time for "rookies" flies in the face of not understanding the upheaval that will almost certainly carry over from the 2010 uprising across America. In my judgment this is the perfect time for rookies, as many of the old guard in both houses of Congress voluntarily made a decision to bow out, take their campaign war chests with them and return home before they lost. But not Hatch. Damn the torpedoes, he would say, and full steam ahead to victory!

In this presidential election year nationwide the ballots cast for POTUS will not be as important as the ones cast for the 33 Senate seats in play. If the majority of those seats can be won by conservative Republicans who can gain control of the Senate and remove the old guard this time around, a Senate majority of new faces sent BY THE PEOPLE to stop the Marxist Obama dictatorship agenda once and for all will go a long way to restoring Constitutional principles.

We made a mistake in 2008 as a country. We elected a smooth talker with a personality. We hoped for change. He promised "hope and change." He passed the largest socialist program in the history of entitlements, Obamacare, and he borrowed more money than ALL the former U.S. Presidents COMBINED! Our national debt now stands north of $15,200,000,000,000 and rising fast. The interest on the debt now stands at $1,500,000,000 per day (yes, billion)! Then-Senator Barack Obama once accused George W. Bush of being "irresponsible" for raising the debt ceiling, calling that request a "failure of leadership," and now has demanded and passed record stimulus spending bills that have done little to stimulate the economy. He continues to cry for more debt and more spending when we're bleeding at every fiscal pore. And that's "responsible" leadership?

He sent Navy Seal Team 6 to Pakistan and killed Osama bin Laden. This last week he proposed slashing the Defense Department spending to the bone, and ended the war in Iraq to bring home the troops. He takes credit for it, but the proposed withdrawal timetable was already set by the Bush administration before he took office, and the intel on the whereabouts of bin Laden was gleaned through enhanced interrogation techniques advocated by the Bush administration. Boldest of all, he now is "working around" Congress while it's out of session (or is it really "in" session - only Obama can tell us apparently) to appoint even more "czars" to head up regulatory commissions as far as the eye can see, emboldening his followers for a government-run economy that purports to be the solution to every societal ill we face. He is trashing the Constitution daily.

But I digress, this post is about our future and my sincere wish is that the future does not include another four-year term for Barack Obama. Elections are about the future, we must remember, not about the past. Obama is positioning himself to "win the future," but his idea about what that looks like is very different than mine and yours. I was told the other day that an in-law "hated" me because of my conservative positions, so I should not speak for everyone I know. As I have said before, I am not as much concerned about who wins the presidency as I am about putting an end to Congressional gridlock. Without a victory in the Senate that gives a majority to conservatives, not the old guard RINOs who have gone along to get along for too long in this country, we are doomed to continue down this path of fiscal insanity.

I'm not certain at all that we can reverse course in America at this late date, but I am certain we must try by retiring the old guard and beginning afresh. That begins with electing new conservative senators who are more responsive to the people like Dan Liljenquist. My hope is he will join Mike Lee and others in taking control of the U.S. Senate and partnering with the House in passing a balanced budget amendment, repealing Obamacare and never again flirting with the European socialist agenda for an entitlement society.

In my considered judgment Dan Liljenquist is better equipped to do that than Orrin Hatch.

Is the Thought of a Mormon in the White House Radical?

Six months ago around a bonfire near our homestead in Woodland, a thoughtful nephew asked me, "So, do you think Mitt Romney will be our next president?" Not wanting to damper his obvious enthusiasm for the idea, and perhaps betraying my own handicapping of the race at that point, my response was, "There isn't a snowball's chance in hell."

Mitt Romney

On the brink of the Iowa caucuses with a slim lead, and topping the polls in New Hampshire right now, Romney's become the sort of "inevitable" establishment Republican candidate I never thought was possible six months ago.

As I have pointed out before, predicting political outcomes, particularly today, is not easy. Even a few weeks ago, outspoken conservative pundit Ann Coulter was defiant in her assertion about a Romney/Cain presidency. No sooner were the words out of her mouth than Herman Cain was forced out by public opinion.

Do I now believe Romney is the de facto choice? Not by a long shot.

Primary voting will start next week in Iowa, and will over the next few months cascade across the nation. The nominating process is different for each party in each state (as witnessed by Gingrich not being able get his name on the ballot in Virginia last week), because 50 states hold presidential primaries first, culminating in the general election in November. Right now Romney has emerged through ten debates as the front-runner by most everyone's calculations. I saw a Rasmussen poll last week that indicated Romney has a six-percentage-point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election matchup. (By the way, those polls change daily, and it's way too early to put any meaning on them other than just being interesting to look at).

So here's my bold prediction for the political year of 2012: Americans are going to be confronted with a choice for president as polarizing as the parties themselves.

In my rational mind (the best part of me), I wonder and ask myself, "Isn't it obvious that the majority of Americans would rather have a Mormon than a Marxist in the White House?" That is such a loaded question, because we're contrasting a religion with a political philosophy, but in today's world the distinctions are blurry at best. There are many who still contend Obama is not really a Christian, but a closet Muslim. I'll leave that question alone and take the president at his word on it that he is Christian. He isn't the first U. S. President to fail to affiliate with a local congregation in Washington. (Wonder where Mitt and his family would go to church). Romney got clobbered in the last election cycle for engaging in the theological nuances. This time, he's bridled his tongue on religious topics. But still, I have to ask, given the choice between someone who believes in the self-determination of the old American ideals, and someone who advocates a government solution (tied to a tax) for everything that moves, isn't the choice obvious that religion must take a back seat?

Not that he ever asked me about my opinion on the matter, but I offered it to Mitt months ago.

Either by following my advice, unwittingly, or by design, this election cycle Romney has steered away from theological hypotheticals. He's stayed with policy debates, right where he should be. We're in the "Mormon moment" not in small part because of the candidacies of Romney and Huntsman, but brace yourselves, the withering attacks against Mormonism will not abate if Romney becomes the nominee.

I'd like to think we're past all that, and there's a useful website designed to put it all into perspective, but bigots will abound, and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about them and their hate speech. The contrast between Obama and Romney will only become more and more obvious as the months go by this year.

I'd love to hear Romney talk about how the Church has helped him define and identify his compassion for every individual. Stick to the universal truths. What about how the Church informs him about the love of liberty in this country? I've heard him touch briefly on those topics, and the public needs to hear a lot more about that in broad brush strokes, rather getting lost in the weeds with theology. Agency is the under-girding and overarching principle associated with the plan of happiness. The blessing to choose our freedom, define our liberty, exercise our passion for self-determination and self-actualization is at the core. Society can prosper if those principles are re-enthroned, having nothing to do with the divisive question, "Which Church?"

As Mormons (speaking only for myself), we should be welcoming the scrutiny of those who sincerely want to examine Romney's faith. Trust me on this one, no one is interested in scrutinizing Obama's religious beliefs very carefully. Why? Because Romney has built his whole life on the foundation of "Mormonism," and those who would attempt to crumble the foundation of that will never tire, and will have little interest in trying to figure out what makes Obama tick. Many see the results in Romney's life, the long-standing and successful marriage, the five stalwart sons, the wealth, the prestige that goes with it, and they want to dismiss the picture as "too perfect." Most of the attacks against Romney (he's the first to admit there are chinks in his mortar) will be ad hominem, having little to do with anything of substance, just as they have been since the moment Joseph Smith stepped out of that grove of trees in upper-state New York near Palmyra, where he offered a simple testimony of the reality of God and His Son, Jesus Christ.

By contrast, I saw a writer the other day who suggests President Obama has a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, then superimposes Bible verses over it. His observation was helpful to me to try and understand the direction Obama has taken us. His beliefs preach that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off other people’s largesse. This notion of temporal "collective salvation" is at its base. It is a political philosophy, simply economic by its definition, not spiritual or religious. "Liberation theology" is what it's all about, it's political, having little to do with individual salvation embodied in the atonement of Jesus Christ. Instead, the Marxist view is that we must be liberated from those who succeed who must pay their "fair share" to liberate the poor by compulsion. Marxism declares God as dead, then uses words like "theology" and "salvation" to define an anti-God agenda. When they take the view government, surely, can do that better than depending upon capitalists, they take a turn in the road 180 degrees opposite from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And some would say, there you go again, Dave, mixing politics with religion (a toxic elixir), but remember, I'm  not the one stirring the witch's brew here. The Marxists will be first to yell about separation of church and state, but they are ones who have intentionally blurred the distinctions. I'm hoping in this election cycle, if nothing else, Romney will be savvy enough to point out the differences clearly, concisely, and understandably.

I say, forget the minuscule nuances that separate Mormonism from Evangelicalism and Catholicism. Surely we have not lost our way so badly that we cannot see the adverse effects of Marxism and socialism that have been allowed to strangle us as Americans, have we? Are we so blind we cannot discern the destructive path ahead taken by Europe?

As I've said before, I am stunned that in two short years we forsook the Reagan/Thatcher/Pope John Paul II triumvirate who delivered us from Communism, and called it out for the evil it was. Even now in Russia, we see the people standing up against the rigged election process that made it possible for Putin to stay enthroned.

So I would ask which came first, American ideals or Christianity? Which is the reflection and which is the true flame? I contend Christianity embraces every religion, including Islam, because we are all of Abraham. The religion of "the fathers" - and by that term I refer to the ancient patriarchs - IS Christianity. From the beginning in the war in heaven, freedom, agency, and choice were sacred and were to be protected vigorously.

I've added Connor Boyack's new book, Latter-day Liberty, to my list of recommended reading on this page. I'd recommend from time to time you check out his blog, by clicking on the links to his articles. It's time to stop drifting in our lazy beliefs about the price for freedom that will be extracted and demanded before this Titanic struggle for freedom has its final winding up scenes. (By the way, this time the "Titanic" survives).

So bring on the scrutiny of Mormonism. Let the political "colonoscopy" begin. Compared to Marxism, or any other "ism" like Communism, socialism, fascism or anything else out there, it's a winner. As I've stated before, I'm actually quite indifferent as to who wins the White House this year, because anyone who displaces its current occupant will be a huge upgrade, and despite all the political machinations Zion will emerge triumphant even if she continues to be "chastened for a season." (D&C 101:18-42).

The only question is will Americans give both Mormonism and Marxism a thorough and exhaustive examination? If you can accept Marxism in the White House, tell me again why having a Mormon there is so radical.