Max

I knew you were teasing, Brian! Although FDR went on to handily win a third term, his decision to seek one was quite controversial initially. According to Wikipedia: This paragraph gives a good summary behind the factors that led to the decision to seek a third term: Strangely enough, there was no huge controversy when Roosevelt decided to seek a fourth term.

Alphanguy, I'd like to get a job corporate accounting, but the relatively few job openings available either are for jobs that I am over or underqualified for. Of course, I wouldn't personally have a problem taking a job that I am overqualified for, but nobody hires such people for "lesser" jobs for fear that they will use that job as a temporary stepping stone. (During the last 18 months, I've applied to hundreds of accounting jobs that I either was under or overqualified for, and I know full well that I have no chance of getting those jobs, since I am not what they are looking for. The only reason why I even bother applying at all is because I'll lose my unemployment benefits if I don't.) I'm hoping too that the economy gets better regardless of who wins the election, but most thought that the unemployment picture would not be so bad right now. (Thus, while I could be wrong, I have no reason to hope that things will be any better during a second Obama term.) Regardless, I sincerely appreciate your concern and I am glad of your good personal fortune. Somebody as smart, hard-working, and nice as you certainly deserves it. Of course, most everybody who runs for president has such a huge ego, to the point that such person is probably concerned with his own well-being above all else. But, Obama has failed to do an adequate job, so it is time to give somebody new a chance. Obama's own economic advisers projected that if is stimulus was passed (which it was), unemployment would currently be around 6 percent (and not over 8). I know that the president alone cannot be held responsible for the economy. Obama gladly reminds us that his failures are the fault of Bush and the Republicans in Congress. But, he has had a Democratic Senate for his entire term, and a Democratic House for his first two years. He also refused to get a new chairman of the Federal Reserve when he had the chance, and instead re-appointed Ben Bernanke. Whenever something goes right (like the auto bailout), the president has no problem taking all the credit. But all he does is blame others for the things which have gone wrong, which is absolutely cowardly. Personally, I think that blaming Mitch McConnell (the freaking MINORITY leader of the Senate) for our problems is the lamest excuse of all. So he said that he wants Obama to be a one-term president. Does anybody honestly believe that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich didn't want the same thing for Bill Clinton? Yet, that didn't stop Clinton from working effectively with Congressional Republicans.

That's one of the nicer things I can say about him online. I have little hope of finding a decent job in large part because of this man's gross incompetence and failed promises. It would be one thing if he was truly trying his best, but he hasn't even met with his jobs council since January. He senses that Romney is a weak candidate, and he'll probably win re-election anyway, so why even bother trying to help those unemployed suckers find good-paying jobs? I think it is absolutely disgusting that the only job he really seems to care about is his own. I agree that name-calling certainly is very immature, but I'm now so hopeless and depressed about the next four years of my life (due to the likely election results) that taking the high-road isn't my biggest concern. I can now understand why liberals call Romney such horrible names, since some of them honestly believe that their lives will go to hell in a handbasket if he wins. In that sense, I can totally relate to the intensity that they are feeling about this election.

I certainly think that it is a mistake to announce weeks before the convention, since it makes people less likely to watch. I think it would be OK to announce the first day of the convention (instead of the day the VP is nominated), as this was customary prior to 2004.

Jane, in the past you have made a fair point that the Republicans are giving people far more reasons to vote against Obama as opposed to voting for Romney. But, I'm glad that you mentioned that the president fails to energize his audiences anywhere near the extent he did in 2008. Rather than laying out an optimistic agenda for the second term, the vast majority of what I am seeing from Obama and the Democrats are reasons to vote against Romney. Alphanguy, in hindsight, it sure seems like it Carter was destined to lose big in 1980. But the strange thing was that the polls were neck-and-neck for most of the campaign, as just about all the late deciders broke Reagan's way. Most everyone thought that Carter sucked, but the conventional "wisdom" that Reagan was too "extreme" resulted in the two men running just about even in the polls. While "exciting" is not the right word (as the campaign was filled with moments of tragedy and turmoil), the 1968 campaign was about as newsworthy as any could get. And while the press is complaining that the 2012 campaign doesn't have enough unscripted and unpredictable moments, I doubt the media as a whole ever thought that 1968 was the most interesting campaign to cover, since the man they hated most--Nixon--was elected president.

I think the real reason why the media hates this campaign is because it is not the same cakewalk for Obummer that 2008 was. Their excuse that they hate this campaign because it isn't exciting is hard to believe, since 1980 was a very exciting campaign, yet they hated it cause Reagan was elected. And I don't recall hoards of media reporters lamenting back in 1996 about what a boring campaign that was, since they seemed perfectly content with a Democratic president easily winning re-election.

+1

I apologize for being such a smartass, but Richard Nixon also ran again after losing the general election. Of course, he won the next time (and when you mentioned to Stevenson, I'm sure you were just referring to two time nominees who lost both times). Aside from Stevenson (who got the Dem nomination in 1952 & 1956), there are at least two other presidential nominees who lost more than once: Democrat William Jennings Bryan (1896, 1900, & 1908) and Republican Thomas E. Dewey (1944 & 1948). (Also, Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost the 1888 general election but won a second, non-consecutive term in 1892.) There have also been instances where nominees ran again (only to fail to get the nomination). The most recent example occurred when George McGovern (who got the Democratic nomination in 1972) ran in 1984. Given that he lost 49 states in 1972, and that he lost re-election to the Senate in 1980, his 1984 bid was not taken seriously by most people. (McGovern himself didn't expect to win the nomination in 1984, but ran as a "statement candidate" in order to promote his agenda.) This isn't as stupid a question as you might think. While legally anyone can run an unlimited number of times (unless said person was elected twice before to the presidency), having a losing presidential bid carries with it a huge stigma that often makes it very difficult to attract support in a future race. An obvious exception to this rule occurs when one just barely loses a disputed election. (This explains Cleveland's and Nixon's comebacks, and would have allowed Gore to run in 2004. Similarly, Hillary will be given another chance if she wants it.) Another exception occurs when a losing candidate (usually in the primaries) does much better than expected (such as McCain in 2000); then, he can become the front-runner in a subsequent cycle. To me, it appears that the Democrats seem to be more hostile and unforgiving towards their losing nominees (with the exception of Gore) than the GOP is. A lot of Democrats seemed to disown Mondale, Dukakis, and even Kerry (the last of whom narrowly lost) to an extent that the GOP didn't do with Dole or McCain. (However, I have a feeling that if Romney loses, the GOP will disown him to the same extent the Democrats normally do to their losing nominees.)

Todd Akin's comment's were beyond offensive and reprehensible, and Romney has condemned them. Scott Brown has demanded Akin to withdraw from the race, and I hope other prominent Republicans will do the same: http://news.yahoo.co...-145729298.html To generalize this type of thinking to the entire GOP is a huge exaggeration. For some Democratic partisans, it seems that nothing a Republican can do or say is sufficient to convince them that the party doesn't "hate women." (It is very interesting to note that liberals have been hell bent on defeating Senator Brown, and his harsh comments about Akin certainly will not change that.) Without winning the MO seat, the GOP has virtually a zero chance of retaking the Senate. (I highly doubt Akin will drop out, because his ego seems too massive for him to do that.) But you're living in fantasy land if you believe that the Democrats have a realistic chance of regaining control of the House. I don't know of a single, non-partisan political analyst who is predicting that the Democrats are favored to regain control. Larry Sabato, who in 2006 was 100% correct when he said that the Democrats would gain 29 House seats, currently has the races pegged as follows: Safe R: 195 Likely R: 15 Lean R: 23 Toss Up: 16 Lean D: 20 Likely D: 10 Safe D: 156 So even if the Dems will all the toss ups, the GOP will still have a majority with 233 seats.

And yet, partisan Democrats are having us believe that Biden's "gaffe" has nothing at all to do with race even though Danville, VA has a very ugly racial past. According to Wikipedia: Also, I don't recall one Democrat saying a peep in 2008 about Biden being on the ticket despite the fact that he once said (regarding Obama): "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that's a storybook, man." When he said that Obama was "clean," did he mean to suggest that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton don't bathe? Additional words of racial "wisdom" coming from Biden include a 2006 statement that "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." There should have been widespread condemnation of that remark, but a freshman member of the House has a lot less power in his party than the VP has.

This was a very eloquent paragraph, and thanks for pointing out how Democrats race-bait as well. I concede that the GOP has been much worse on racial issues over the past 50 years than the Dems; even so, I don't feel that is an excuse for so many Dems (I'm not referring to you) to let their party off the hook whenever they say racist things. (And I believe that what Biden said was racist, although we'll have to agree to disagree on the matter.) I have zero idea how these stereotypes arose, either. The SC GOP Presidential Primary certainly has an ugly history. Many felt the "black baby" comments played a major role in McCain's defeat in 2000, much like hatred of Mormons played a role in Romney's defeat this year. (I will give SC Republicans credit, however, for McCain's 2008 primary win there.) The thing is, if there was ever a Republican who was not racist, it was John McCain (who did adopt a dark-skinned child). But, that didn't stop civil rights hero and GA Congressman John Lewis from comparing McCain to George Wallace in 2008: http://www.huffingto...y_n_133903.html I would expect the race card to be played by Jackson or Sharpton, but I was totally shocked that a man of Lewis' stature would go there. (And Palin--though not McCain--used racial code words during the campaign, but even that is nowhere near the severity of actively promoting legal segregation.)

The welfare queen that Ronald Reagan referred to did exist, and her name was Linda Taylor. She was a massive fraud, and just because she was black doesn't mean that Reagan was racist: http://news.google.c...pg=4748,3022544 Santorum was race-baiting when he singled out black people and welfare while campaigning in Iowa. But, I think it is a real stretch to claim it is racist for Republicans to criticize Obama for the fact that the number of people on food stamps has been at an all-time high during his presidency (especially when one considers the fact that many white people are on food stamps as well); rather, Obama should be condemned for this because it shows a major economic failure on his part. http://www.huffingto..._n_1074344.html Other folks have linked to left-wing websites, and I don't begrudge them. However, let's go under the assumption that everything in that article was false. Well, that article also contained a video of Doug Wilder in his own words (and I highly doubt that Murdoch was holding a gun to his head). Though Governor Wilder didn't say (in the video) that Clinton would be a better running mate than Biden (it instead was mentioned in the article), he did indeed extensively condemn Biden's remarks while on camera.

This is impressive spin. But it is not only partisan Republicans who are calling out Biden for his racist comments. So is Doug Wilder, an African American Democrat who was the nation's first black governor since Reconstruction. (Wilder also echoed McCain's comments that Clinton would be a far superior choice for VP than Biden.) http://www.foxnews.c...-chains-remark/ I will also never understand the "logic" that the GOP's use of "coded" language like "un-American" (which I have heard in reference to a belief that Obama's policies mirror those of Europe, not those of Africa) is race-baiting, whereas Biden's not-so-coded language of putting "y'all back in chains" had zero to do with race. Even if one agrees with the premise of what Biden was trying to say, was there a reason why he had to use the language he did (especially in a town like Danville, VA, which has a very ugly racial past)?

I know that every single Democrat laughed it off, but Obama should heed the advice of Senator McCain and drop Biden from his ticket (for his extraordinarily racially-charged remarks) and replace him with Secretary Clinton. Just because McCain is a hypocrite (since he fu-cked up royally with his own VP pick), does not mean he is wrong. VP Foot-in-Mouth is a total fraud. While many know that he plagiarized a speech of the leader of the British Labour Party, there are several other examples of egregious conduct on his part: *He also plagiarized when he was in law school. *He lied and said that he held three undergraduate degrees. (He only has one.) *He claimed he graduated in the top half of his law school class. (He ranked #76 out of 85.) *He falsely stated that he went to law school on an academic, merit-based scholarship, when--in reality--it was a scholarship that was based on economic status. All of what I just stated can be found in the following New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.c...ed=print&src=pm God help us all if this reckless egomaniac were to become president.

I don't recall Dole ever being perceived as the meanest man in DC (but I'll take your word for it), but I am well aware of the "hatchet man" moniker he got after the nastiness he displayed in the 1976 VP debate. Certainly, the man wasn't perfect, but he is far less partisan compared to today's standards. The consequent damage done to his reputation was repaired, as Dole became skilled at making friends across the aisle following the 1976 campaign. When he left the Senate in 1996, his colleagues on both sides of the aisle had huge praise for him as a human being (regardless of how they felt about his politics). Carl, I don't think that Romney disavowed Ryan's entire plan; it's just that he is putting forth his own plan, which happens to have many similarities to Ryan's plan. From what I have read, the biggest difference between the two budgets is that Ryan's lowers individual income tax rates more than Romney's does. Some may feel this isn't the smartest political move on Romney's part to make such a statement, but then again he is at the top of the ticket and (I feel) needs to have his own plan (as opposed to completely adopting someone else's). While I respect and understand the criticism that Romney is getting for somewhat distancing himself from Ryan's budget, I do feel that there is a blatant double standard that exists (because of the perception of Romney being much too wishy washy). For instance, I fail to recall anyone criticizing Obama for not sharing Biden's view on Iraq (after choosing him). (Biden originally supported that war, and a big reason why Obama defeated Hillary was because she voted for that war as well.) Likewise, Reagan never adopted the economic philosophy of GHWB after selecting him, despite the fact that the elder Bush trashed supply-side economics as "voodoo economics."

I wasn't suggesting that McGovern or Dole were perceived as likeable (instead, I was suggesting that the perceptions of them being unlikeable are incorrect). Because many thought he was way too far to the left, McGovern was about the only politician viewed as even more unlikeable than Nixon, which is a huge reason why he lost 49 states. As a person, McGovern had likeable qualities, though the general public was way too scared of him to take notice. Bob Dole was also viewed in a highly unfavorable manner, but not because of any Nixon association (at least in recent times). (With all due respect, I am mystified why you would think that Dole and Nixon come from the same flock; while there political views may be similar, Dole has never been accused of criminal activity.) In 1996, Dole's albatross was that Democrats were always tying him at the hip with Gingrich. (Nixon had long ceased to be relevant to swing voters.) They basically accused him of being a Newt's twin brother (which wasn't hard to do, because they were the two leaders of Congress), though in reality the two were never close (and also Gingrich is way more conservative than Dole). Dole can be extremely funny and self-depreciating, but these likeable characteristics were seldom on display on the campaign trail. Even if Bob never gave "boring" speeches and Newt never existed, the GOP would still have lost in 1996 because of the booming economy.

That's very tragic news about Lee Hamilton's wife. Like his fellow co-chair on the 9/11 Committee--Republican Tom Kean (whom I consider to be the best NJ governor in the modern era)--Hamilton is a centerist who has always commanded lots of bi-partisan respect. In other political tragedies, George McGovern's son recently died. Sadly, I have read that both he and his friend Bob Dole are in failing health. Whatever you think of these mens' politics, both men were war heroes who also served their country most admirably in Congress. Because of their integrity, neither deserved to be subjected to the ruthless personal attacks and humiliation they experienced during their presidential runs.

I don't think Ryan is the most beneficial pick (that would have been Rubio), but he is an honest man of substance who will at least get the base excited for Romney. People are saying this is a risky pick, but it really isn't, when you consider the fact that Romney is heavily favored to lose regardless of who his VP was. Unless something drastically changes in the next 85 days or so, Romney will only win 206 electoral votes: those from NC, IN, and the 22 McCain states. Even before choosing Ryan, Romney was poised to lose FL (as the vast majority of polls have shown). Thus, Ryan cannot be blamed if Romney loses FL and/or the election. Honestly, aside from Rubio or Rice (neither of whom wanted the job), I think that the other contenders may have been worse than Ryan: Tim Pawlenty: The worst choice of all, IMO. A total zero at campaigning and debating, and he excites absolutely no one. A Romney/Pawlenty ticket would have fizzled into obscurity. Rob Portman: Better than Pawlenty (because he might have helped in OH and apparently is a good debater), but still excites no one. Plus, Dems would be attacking his Bush connections with the same zeal they are attacking the Ryan plan. (I also doubt he'd help much in OH, because about 60% of state residents don't even know who he is.) Bobby Jindal: While he may have excited the base, he fizzled terribly the one time he was on the national stage (responding to BHO's 2009 State of the Union Address). Bob McDonnell: While he would have helped in VA, his very conservative stance on social issues (especially abortion) would widen the gender gap even more. Chris Christie: Many feel he would have been a great choice, but I strongly disagree. His ego is way too large to play second fiddle, and there's no way he could stay on message. Instead, he would upstage Romney at every opportunity in preparation for his 2016 presidential campaign. Though it's a given that those who despise Romney will despise Ryan as well, his selection certainly disproves the steadfast belief held by some that the GOP is all about persecuting gays. If that was true, then why didn't Mitt select Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Don Cathy, or Missy Reeves instead? I've decided to share some analysis regarding the Ryan selection. This insight doesn't come from some biased outfit like Talking Points Memo, but rather from one of the most respected and objective men in the business: Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia (and his "Crystal Ball"). Sabato's track record at predicting election results is stellar, so his words carry a lot of significance: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EYksQa2nv9c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The thing is that the common man thinks of him as being 100% black. Certainly, the black community is just as enthused about his candidacy as if he had two black parents. The only way a dark-skinned person could ever become president was to combine the intense loyalty of urban blacks with a proven track record of support in the white community as well. Obama is thus not the only person who could do this: Doug Wilder had these same type of skills, and Cory Booker attracts a lot of white support as well. (In fact, if Booker got the Democratic nomination, his charisma combined with his stellar record as mayor would win him the presidency. But, I am not so sure he could get the nomination, since he refused to demonize Bain.) To the best of my knowledge, neither Wilder nor Booker is half white.

I never thought Romney would win. But there is a definite double standard: as you pointed out, Romney's religion is a big negative for him, but--if/when he loses--few people will say anti-Mormon prejudice is what caused Romney to lose. If Obama loses, there will be tons of cries that his loss was due to "racism."

A SuperPAC that supports President Civility released the most disgusting ad in political history, effectively blaming Governor Romney for a woman's death: http://news.yahoo.co...-134635763.html In addition to the ad being highly malicious, it has also proven to be false: According to CNN (more of this story if you click on the above link that says "CNN reported"): Given that Obama supporters are already doing victory laps because polls show Barry with leads in all seven swing states (CO, FL, IA, NH, NV, OH, & VA), why then resort to this type of gutter politics? Are they that insecure as to believe his candidacy will collapse to a political weakling like Romney at the last minute? What's next? Romney being blamed for the atrocities in Syria?

Wales, you deserve a lot of credit for saying these things.

I really don't feel like arguing about this, but if anybody dared to suggest that it said a lot about Obama that he was content to attend the hateful Wright's church for 20 years, he would immediately be called a racist. If there are going to be attacks about one's religion, there should be consistency: it can't be unacceptable to attack one candidate's religion while OK to attack the other's. (Wales, I apologize if you felt I suggested that you were responsible for this double standard; however, I have seen other Obama supporters be hypocritical on this matter.) I hope you don't mind me asking this, but given your reservations about the Mormon Church, do you believe that Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should give up his very powerful leadership position (to another Democrat)? (It is alright if you do not want to answer this.) This hasn't been discussed much, but do you folks have any opinions regarding the battle for Congress? Political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia is the best in the business, and he ranks each of the Senate races as follows: Safe Democratic: CA: Dianne Feinstein DE: Tom Carper MD: Ben Cardin MN: Amy Klobuchar NY: Kirsten Gillibrand RI: Sheldon Whitehouse VT: Bernie Sanders (an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) WA: Maria Cantwell WV: Joe Manchin Safe Republican: MS: Roger Wicker TN: Bob Corker TX: Ted Cruz (Kay Bailey Hutchison is retiring) UT: Orrin Hatch WY: John Barrasso Likely Democratic: CT: Democratic Primary Winner (Ind. Dem. Joe Lieberman is retiring) ME: Angus King (Rep. Olympia Snowe is retiring; King is an independent who will caucus with the Dems.) MI: Debbie Stabenow NJ: Bob Menendez PA: Bob Casey, Jr. Likely Republican: NE: Deb Fischer (Dem. Ben Nelson is retiring) Leans Democratic: HI: Dem. Primary Winner vs. Rep. Primary Winner (Dem. Dainel Akaka is retiring) NM: Dem. Martin Heinrich vs. Rep. Heather Wilson (Dem. Jeff Bingaman is retiring) OH: Incumbent Dem. Sherrod Brown vs. Rep. Josh Mandel Leans Republican: AZ: Dem. Primary Winner vs. Rep. Primary Winner (Rep. John Kyl is retiring) IN: Dem. Joe Donnelly vs. Rep. Richard Mourdock (Rep. Richard Lugar was defeated in the primary) ND: Dem. Heidi Heitkamp vs. Rep. Rick Berg (Dem. Kent Conrad is retiring) NV: Dem. Shelley Berkley vs. Incumbent Rep. Dean Heller Toss-Up: FL: Incumbent Dem. Bill Nelson vs. Rep. Primary Winner MA: Dem. Elizabeth Warren vs. Incumbent Rep. Scott Brown MO: Incumbent Dem. Claire McCaskill vs. Rep. Primary Winner MT: Incumbent Dem. Jon Tester vs. Rep. Danny Rehberg VA: Dem. Tim Kaine vs. Rep. George Allen (Dem. Jim Webb is retiring) WI: Dem. Tammy Baldwin vs. Rep. Primary Winner (Dem. Herb Kohl is retiring) If every party wins what is classified as likely, leaning, or safe, they would each have a minimum of 47 seats (and would therefore need to win at least four of the toss-up races to have a majority). Based on where things stand at the moment, here are my comments on the six toss-up races: *FL - I suspect that this race will have a similar outcome to that state's presidential election. Most of the state polls (excluding the Quinnipiac poll, which seems to be an outlier) currently have Obama up by 1 to 2 points in FL, so I am guessing that this is will be Nelson's margin of victory as well. *MA - Despite my belief that Brown is running a superior campaign to Warren, I don't believe any GOP candidate can win a statewide election in MA during a presidential election year. After winning by a couple of points (as Obama wins the state by about 20 points), Warren will be touted by the far left as a superhero and a 2016 presidential campaign will be endlessly hyped up. *MO - I'm pretty sure that McCaskill is done for. Perhaps she has a chance if the GOP goes Tea Party in the primary, but (even then) I still see her losing. *MT - Tester is every bit as endangered as McCaskill. (He mainly won because he was running against a highly unpopular incumbent in 2006.) Furthermore, Rehberg is the strongest GOP candidate the party could have nominated, as he has been elected to statewide office many times. (Rehberg represents MT in the House, but due to MT's low population, all of the state is just one Congressionanl District.) *VA - I expect Kaine to pull this out, as Allen was one of the worst candidates the Republicans could have nominated. Given that Sabato himself said that he has yet to meet a single Obama/Allen swing-voter, it is beyond strange that Allen is doing better in the VA polls than Romney is. The only realistic explanation for this is that evangelicals are planning to enthuisastically vote for Allen while choosing to not vote for anyone for president. *WI - I am guessing that the GOP will win the seat if former Governor Tommy Thompson gets the nomination. Otherwise, they will lose it. In summary, I think that the Republicans are going to have a tough time regaining control of the Senate. The chances of this happening are about the same as Romney getting elected president: between 30 and 35 percent. Given that the presidency and the Senate seem dismal for the GOP, their one bit of good news is that it is a near-certain bet that they will maintain control of the House (with 218 seats needed for a majority). Sabato has made the following breakdowns: Safe Republican: 195 Likely Republican: 15 Leans Republican: 23 Toss-Up: 16 Leans Democratic: 20 Likely Democratic: 10 Safe Democratic: 156 Given Sabato's non-partisan analysis, if the Republicans win all the safe/likely/leans races, they will have 233 seats. And if the Democrats--in their best case scenario--win all the toss-up seats along with all the safe/likely/leans races, they will have 202 seats.

Well, Romney already addressed such concerns during his first run for the presidency with his "Faith in America" speech. According to Wikipedia: Romney has no obligation to address the issue again, and doing so wouldn't satisfy bigots like Karger, anyway. He and like-minded people are convinced that it is dangerous for all Mormons (save Harry Reid) to hold public office because they will just blindly follow the "anti-gay" instructions of church leaders.

There is one other thing I wanted to say about Karger's belief regarding "a member's obedience to the LDS Church supersedes loyalty to family and country": it is exactly the same sort of bigoted garbage that Al Smith and JFK had to deal with when they were running for president. Back then, of course, the charge was that their supreme loyalties would be to the Pope. Given that Karger is himself a member of a group that suffers terrible discrimination, it is shocking that he could say things that fuel hatred towards other minorites.