The Spring 1971 BYU Studies journal has an interesting article. Titled, “The 1968 Presidential Decline of George Romney: Mormonism or Politics?,” it’s an interesting look at the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney’s father. The elder Romney was as an attractive a candidate in 1967 as his son was 40 years later. They were both very handsome and about the same age when they ran. The elder Romney never ran for the presidency again. He served in President Richard Nixon’s cabinet for one term.

It’s popular today to assign Romney’s relatively early demise in the 1968 presidential derby to the bad publicity resulting from his claim that he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War by U.S. military, but writer Dennis L. Lythgoe disagrees. Romney’s perfect persona was disconcerting to many voters, Lythgoe asserts. The American electorate may not have bought a used car from a man like Richard Nixon, but they were more apt to vote for Tricky Dick than for auto executive George Romney, who had revolutionized the auto industry by pushing compact cars onto the market.

( Continued… )

Social conservatives, who often grumble about the liberal 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, may finally have a kind word for the San Francisco-based court. By a 2-1 margin, the court ruled the use of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. Also, the court upheld the use of “in God we trust” on currency.

The main loser in this case was Michael Newdow, a prominent atheist whose challenge to the pledge was heard by the Supreme Court in 2004. At that time, the high court punted, deciding that Newdow lacked standing to sue on his daughter’s behalf. In this latest attempt, Newdow, a doctor and a lawyer, represented several parents claiming the pledge was unconstitutional. The appeals court that rejected Newdow’s arguments today had agreed with him on the pledge in 2002.

Had Newdow been successful, it would have likely made for a dramatic day at the Supreme Court. The high court would have had to finally rule on whether the Constitution agrees on mixing God with the Pledge of Allegiance.  Read more about today’s decision here

While the White House and congressional Democrats try to con Americans into believing that 10 years of Medicare cuts and tax increases and six years of new health care benefits equal deficit reduction, another hot-button issue is waiting its turn before the spotlight. According to the Wall Street Journal, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., are proposing a mandatory national ID card for American workers. The card, they claim, would make it impossible for illegal aliens to work in this country. The ID card would accompany a comprehensive immigration plan that would provide a long-term path toward citizenship for some illegals already here and a guest-worker plan to help businesses that need immigrant labor.

“The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past,” writes WSJ reporter Laura Meckler. You can read the entire article here

Personally, I don’t think this is the worst idea in the world. If we want to stop illegal immigration, we need to assimilate millions and then prevent others from working illegally. An ID card would go a long way towards that, particularly since its never been a practical idea to wall off the southern United States. But I can’t be the only person who knows that Graham and Schumer’s ID card solution doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding. A biometric ID card scares both extremes in this country. Both will see it as an excessive intrusion of privacy by government that can be abused. By the time the debate’s over, the whole purpose of an ID card — to make sure only American citizens are working — will mostly be forgotten.

( Continued… )

I serve as a home teacher to an elderly woman. She has very little money and tries to stay independent. Eager not to have her death be a burden to her children, she long ago started putting money away so that when she dies, she can be cremated.

However, as she expressed to me, the decision has caused her anguish, as some members of the church have told her that cremation is not permitted in the LDS Church. “I simply have no other way of paying for my funeral,” she told me with a mixture of frustration and determination.

( Continued… )

Note this exchange between MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan and conservative Tea Party activist Mark Williams. See if you can spot the one out of control.

I know MSNBC is second in the cable news ratings only because CNN’s ratings have fallen below The Home Shopping Network, but a left-wing Glenn Beck is not going to help the Keith Olbermann Channel. Read

Conservatives may grouse about George W. Bush for a variety of issues, but they ought not to complain about his two U.S. Supreme Court picks. Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito have proven to be a Republican activist’s dream selection. Also, Roberts appears to have influence over “moderate” Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has sided with the high court’s four-man conservative wing in several high-profile cases.

The latest conservative court win may have occurred today when five justices seemed to signal in McDonald v. Chicago that personal ownership of a handgun is a national right. Several residents of Chicago are challenging a Chicago law that bans handguns. Two years ago, the same five justices, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, overturned parts of a firearms ban in Washington, D.C. in District of Columbia v. Heller. That case limited the feds’ ability to regulate firearms. However, it was silent on whether states or cities would have to limit efforts at gun control. The makes the McDonald case much bigger. If the justices strike down Chicago’s law banning handguns, similar laws are likely unconstitutional.

( Continued… )

It seems pretty clear that Mitt Romney will run for president again in 2012. His chances aren’t too bad given that Republicans have a history of nominating high-profile candidates who have ran and lost before. I’d rate Romney as having a better shot than former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, particularly since the current focus on the economy and jobs is an issue that Romney has far more knowledge of than Huckabee, who is basically a social issues guy.

But there remains that Mormon problem for Romney. In 2012, are there still many evangelicals out there who will deliberately vote against the former Massachusetts governor solely due to his religion? It happened in Iowa in 2008, and it will probably happen again.

( Continued… )

The White House, in a move that should have occurred long ago, has its own version of health care insurance reform. It’s sort of a Democratic Party compromise, mostly the U.S. Senate’s version with a few concessions to the U.S. House bill. The “cost” is just under $1 trillion. Most of the political chatter is on the Democrats’ intention to use reconciliation, or 51 votes, to get the measure passed in the Senate. That’s a messy way of doing things, but Harry Reid can probably garner 51 votes, although it’s not a certainty.

One of the ironies of ObamaCare’s futility is that new obstacles spring up and surprise Democrats. I think the U.S. House of Representatives could be the sandpit that sinks the White House version of health care reform. Remember that the House only passed its version 220 to 215, and that was with a “pro-life” provision that got the votes of Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and several other House Democrats. The White House version of the bill adopts the Senate’s pro-choice version, which allows abortion to be an option for those receiving health care insurance. Unless Stupak is bluffing, that peels off enough votes to kill the measure in the House.

( Continued… )