Barak Obama OPPOSES California's Marriage Protection Act:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?date=2008/06/30/2

So does his wife Michelle, and, according to her, they want to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act that Clinton signed into law. Read the third and fourth paragraphs here:

http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/06/26/michelle-obama-speaks-to-gay-democrats/

Although neither of the presidential candidates' positions on same-sex marriage are fantastic from a gospel standpoint, or even from a standpoint of reason ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html ), McCain's position is MUCH better than Obama's. McCain supports the California Marriage Protection Act which Californians will have an opportunity to adopt into our Constitution on election day in November.

My last post was over a year ago. Hillary has since been dispatched as I predicted early last year... that's the good news. The guy I supported for president didn't make it through the primary. The Presidential candidates are down to Obama and McCain. The current bad news is Obama is now leading in most of the electoral college prognostications. For the rest of this year, the presidential election should be one of two dominant themes of my blog posting. The other dominant theme will be the California Marriage Protection Act. Also, being a poli' sci. major and a lawyer with an originalist bent, I'll post on some recent, important court decisions.

This post became necessary in the context of extended comments attached to Hugh Hewitt's blog post entitled Erick Erickson And The First Rule Of Holes  posted Friday, March 30, 2007. It seems that most politically conservative LDS and evangelical Christians recognize that they make for natural and effective political allies, and friends. (E.g., LDS supported Bush II, an evangelical, more consistently I think than any other demographic group. Similarly, see http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org.) But certain few evangelical posters have made it a point to insist and prove that Mormons are not Christian. Poster "amillenialist" cites a few biblical verses and his understanding of them, then says, "you see, you don't believe the same, so you aren't Christian." The implication is that Mormons are merely to be tolerated, at best, in the political sphere. I have chosen here to make the case that LDS teaching on faith and works is not so easily dismissed by that technique. LDS belief on that and other doctrines is consistent with biblical teaching. Other Christian friends needn't have any apprehension when Mormons join them in community service or in principled, political alliances. What follows is my own personal understanding, and not official LDS Church views.

Anybody who insists Mormons aren't Christian because they believe A and we believe A-prime or B instead needs to remember the important differences between all the other Christian churches and creeds. One unpersuasive  tactic is to sweep such differences aside and reduce the core requirement to belief in the Nicene creed, or one of its offshoots. As long as you accept such a creed, the argument goes, you're a Christian, and if you don't, you're not. I think that is nonsense, not least because differences amongst the faiths on other points of doctrine have enormous impacts on the ways in which church members live their lives. How Christian, for instance, is it to enslave a fellow human being? Confederate President Jefferson Davis justified the perpetuation of slavery using his understanding of biblical teaching. He thought himself a Christian. Confederate pulpits were aflame with biblical justification of slavery. And such teaching had nothing to do with core creeds on the nature of God. Yet I would venture to say that such behavior as enslaving a fellow child of God is the very antithesis of the sine qua non of Christanity--"A new commandment give I unto you, that ye love one another even as I have loved you." (John 13: 34.)  One of the reasons Missouri evangelicals turned violent on Mormons in the 1830's was because Mormons couldn't be counted on to support the perpetuation of slavery. Who was more Christian?

On to faith and works. Grace-only adherents tend not to recognize the LDS belief in God's overarching purposes, not only to save humanity from death and sin, but eventually to sanctify the willing that we might someday become like Him and His Son. Understanding the role of works as it relates to grace cannot properly be grasped apart from a correct understanding of this true, Biblical concept of Eternal Life. If the Lord would have us become like him, rather than rescue us and stop there, then belief in the necessity of works makes sense as part of a very long-term program of character formation. Works, however, remain grossly insufficient to attain salvation. It is mistaken to suppose Mormons believe in salvation by works alone. As another poster has explained, we believe in salvation by grace, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23.) That is, we pay the few pennies in our pocket because it's good for us to do so, and because not to do so would be a mockery of Christ's sacrifice (see Gal. 6:7), but then Christ pays the rests of our very large individual accounts. We are saved by Grace, but our miniscule efforts remain required. However infinitesimal works are as part of the salvation equation alongside Grace, the scriptures teach they are necessary.

Right there in the Sermon on the Mount the Lord says: "Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 7: 21) This verse is followed by the recognition that there will be those who claim to have prophesied in the Lord's name and to have done wonderful works, but nevertheless will be rejected of Him. This rejection will occur not because they have done works in general or tried to get into heaven by doing righteously (although such would be insufficient alone), but because the works done were not done according to the Lord's will. "Therefore whosoever heareth these  sayings of mine and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man" . . . (Matt. 7: 24) Of course, he that "doeth them not" is likened unto a foolish man. (Matt. 7: 26.) Right here, in the conclusory verses of the Sermon on the Mount, would have been a wonderful place for the Lord to have taught "saved by faith unto grace alone" had that been a correct doctrine. Instead, He emphasized doing His will. That humans fall short is a given; still, we are to try as a necessary condition for grace. Otherwise, what sense would this verse have made, also from the Sermon on the Mount: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5: 48.) Nowhere in scripture is mere belief or faith equated with perfection. After all, even the devils believe and tremble. (James 2: 19.)

James, whose teachings emphasize doing and the symbiotic relationship of faith and works, was one of he original Twelve and presumably spend the better part of the Lord's 3-year ministry with him, whereas Paul was a replacement Apostle who was saddled with having to constantly correct various congregations' creeping heretical teachings. He wouldn't be gone long before local leaders would come up with some strange new notion that Paul would have to correct. Paul's teachings on the primacy of grace were correct and Mormons believe them. We do not believe, however, that Paul taught that works were unnecessary, or that true faith automatically manifests itself by works. Many a man has received testimony of the Lord only to not act on it--to their condemnation. Again, even the devils know the Lord is Lord. The lazy Christian who knows the Lord is his Savior may ultimately receive a measure of grace, but he certainly won't receive the same reward as those who hear the sayings of Christ "and doeth them." Paul taught we reap what we sow. (2 Cor. 9: 6; Gal. 6: 7.)

Ecclesiastes 12: 13 says that fearing God (faith) and keeping his commandments (works) is  "the whole duty of man.) This Old Testament verse appears to retain complete vitality as it is consistent with the Sermon on the Mount and with James' explanations.

Then there is the tandem references of Matthew 10:33 and Titus 1: 16. Matthew warns that whosoever shall deny Christ before men, Christ will deny him before Father in Heaven. How can someone deny Christ before men? Paul, in Titus, says they do so by abominable works and by disobedience, regardless of professing to know God.

And how does one come to know God? Jesus says in the great Intercessory Prayer that knowing God and Christ is the very definition of eternal life. How can one know them without sharing their thoughts, and without feeling the same way they do about things? How can one partake of such high and holy thoughts in the least degree without sharing their holy character? If Peter, for example, who already had received witness by the Holy Ghost that Jesus was the Christ and the Son of God (Matt. 16: 16-17), was already saved by such faith unto grace, why would Christ have prayed (according to John) that Peter and the rest would come to know Him so that they might yet obtain eternal life? Because there is more knowledge to be obtained upon righteous living and the incremental bestowal of grace that attends it. Joseph Smith taught that a man is saved no faster than he gains knowledge, "knowledge" meaning knowledge of the Lord as recorded in John. There is no way humans can truly know the Lord and partake of eternal life unless they become like Him.  No human is quite like the Lord, even those with strong faith in him. Thus Mormons believe that salvation by grace is a process in this life and maybe for a very long time thereafter, not a single, sudden event. Hence, Peter's admonition to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." (2 Peter 3: 18.) There would be no need to grow in grace if it were a one-shot, "now I'm saved" deal. Likewise, there would be no need to grow in knowledge if grace only were necessary. There is a need for divine knowledge because God stands revealed or he remains forever unknown to fallen man--and knowing God is the essential element of eternal life. I may get back to this subject, in another post, depending on how this is received.

Let's consider a few verses on the final judgment, which logically should inform one on how to live. In law school, the key to doing well on an exam is to scour the professor's old tests. What is he looking for? What does he want me to study and learn? God, being far more fair than any earthly professor, indeed as our Father yearning for our successful return to Him, announces clearly and often what he is looking for. "For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." (Matt. 16: 27.) Paul declared to the Corinthians that "...we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. 5: 10.) John wrote, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. (Rev. 20: 12.)  Mormons do not seize on these verses and those like them to give short shrift to grace. Still, given these verses in plain language about being judged by our works, any discussion of being saved by grace must account for such teachings.

Paul told the Romans that God would render to every man according to his deeds: to them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (Romans 2: 5-7) Again, "[G]lory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." (Rom. 2: 10.) "(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.)" Why, if grace alone saves me, should anyone patiently continue in well doing? Why are we again and again and again taught to be doers of the word? Of course we fall short and of course we are saved by grace, but we're supposed to at least try--try to follow the Savior's example. Didn't he say, "Come, follow me?" Why follow Him if all one need do is believe? Good works, however feeble and faltering, however inconsistent, are a necessary condition before Christ will dispense His full measure of grace.

Mormons do not believe they earn their way to heaven. They believe they are saved by grace, triggered upon effort. Let me illustrate. Suppose fallen mankind is trapped at the bottom of a deep pit in need of rescue. Only Jesus Christ has not fallen into the pit. He alone can rescue us, but rather than snatch us up he makes mild demands. He lowers the ladder of gospel living and holds it steady. He coaches us with his word. But he requires we get on the ladder. He requires we take steps, or at least try. He requires that we help others get on the ladder. Yet we struggle and cannot make it out of the pit by climbing all the way... the pit is just too deep. Christ sees we'll never make it, so once he sees the required efforts, he pulls the ladder up the rest of the way. There is no point in quantifying the works-to-grace ratio when in this scenario the "works" of getting on the latter and the nominal climbing clearly do not save. For even the most faithful and eager disciple to boast of his climbing higher than any of his neighbors would be an absurdity. Christ saves, and Mormons believe it. The works are required because the Lord wants us to become more like Him so we can eventually know Him and know His joy. The works of Christ make us better people for doing them. Works are also required to prevent mockery of His supreme sacrifice.

This is why Mormons cherish the prophet Nephi's saying that we are saved by grace, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25: 23, Book of Mormon.) It very plainly and succinctly reveals and harmonizes the teachings on grace and on works. "All we can do" is not much. Another Book of Mormon prophet, King Benjamin, proclaimed that if we were to labor with all our mights the rest of our days, we would still remain "unprofitable servants" unto the Lord. (Mosiah 2: 21.) Anybody who things Mormons believe in some sort of graceless brownie point system for getting into Heaven must not have read or understood the Book of Mormon.

In Romans 6: 15-16, Paul asked whether "we shall sin because we are not under the law, but under grace?" The answer is a resounding, "God forbid." (Why would Paul say God forbid if there were no choice in the matter, or if there were no Divine expectation to try to live a little better each day?) Paul continues, "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of  sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"  Here Paul's teaching is consistent with Nephi's harmony of the two doctrines. Although we are under grace, we must yet obey God. Again, we are to do this "in patient continuance" because the fulness of the reward doesn't come all at once.

I pause here to ask another question: why would Paul and the other apostles give direct commandments to the church members to do anything other than believe in Christ and have faith in him if good works automatically followed all those who believed? Why would Jesus himself order his disciples to "love one another, even as I have loved you?" Why not just say, "Believe, believe! And ye shall enjoy the fruits of belief." Why are we told to continue patiently in well doing? What about other specific commandments, such as to repent and to be baptized? (Acts 2: 38.) Why the affirmative commandments to continue avoiding specific sins? (Eph. 5: 1-7.) Because initial testimony comes as a gift by grace, usually to the sincere, but then the recipient is expected to exercise that gift and do something with it. Assuming that is done, further witness comes, ratifying that such person is on the right course, doing God's will, however paltry and anemic an attempt. Faith increases, leading to incremental growth in righteousness. Repentance, of course, is a daily part of the formulla, being made possible by Christ's sacrifice.

Back to Paul. "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed?" (Romans 13: 11.) Wait. How could anyone's salvation possibly be "nearer" than when he believed if belief in Christ is sufficient unto saving grace? Verses like this bespeak the incremental process of grace-works-faith, more grace, more works and more faith, etc., etc..... The devils also believe, and tremble. (James 2: 19.)The difference is the Lord leads  along the willing faithful to become better, and thus happier, people. He wants us to become ever more like Him so that we can know Him as he prayed for. Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little (Isaiah 28: 10, 13.) Hopefully, this process continues until the perfect day. (Matt. 5: 48; Proverbs 4: 18.)

Galatians 6: 7 explains another reason I believe works are required. It says: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."  (So far as I know, the LDS church are some of the few Christians who truly believe this plain verse, that a man shall reap what he sows. This principle implies that Lifesaver thieves and axe-murderers shall have different punishments because some sins are more scarlet than others, and likewise, that there will be varying rewards for varying degrees of righteousness. The converted-but-lazy will not be found in the same mansion as the martyrs-in-Christ. This is why Mormons believe in various degrees of heaven and hell. The highest degree is reserved for those whose sins are completely cleansed in the blood of the Lord.) Paul knows here, that although his teachings on grace were necessary to change some minds stubbornly clinging to the notion that the law of Moses would save, that psychologically humans would be tempted to regard grace as a license to sin-for-free. That is the mockery he warns against. Christ dying on the cross so the converted can party without consequence? Hardly. That the converted can set their testimony aside and intentionally sin is  affirmed by scriptures warning not to do so. This necessarily means that good works are not merely a sign of faith unto grace, although they often follow. Good works are a choice to exercise one's faith. One must constantly choose to do something with the grace one receives. In Paul's words, "And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." I don't know about you, but I believed in Christ a long time ago and never got close to fainting from that belief. Exercise of that faith, my conscious choosing to help others in self-sacrifice, THAT wearies me. That gets me close to fainting. Yet Christ keeps us going, unweary in doing good. There is no need for teachings like this if mere belief unto grace is sufficient.

At last, for now, we come to James. It will not do to call his plain teachings on faith and works "clumsy," as some have done in the Hugh Hewitt blog post mentioned in the first paragraph. James teachings are true and plain. (Because of the specific tasks Paul was burdened with--constant checking of apostasy and heresy, his teachings are the ones we must approach most prayerfully, and with care, not those of James. (2 Peter 3: 16 [Peter's warning to be careful with Paul's teachings].)) James plainly taught that faith without works is dead. (James 2: 17.) It is not sound to say that faith is merely manifest by works... that is not what James meant. Works are no mere sign. It is somewhat circular to argue that grace saves and that a sign of saving grace is good works although works are not required, and then to explain away the converted-but-lazy as not having true faith. James cut off that notion when he said the devils believe, and tremble. (James 2: 19; e.g., Mark 5: 7.) When God gives us the baton of faith, we had better run with it. We had better love our fellow man, we had better forgive them and serve them, and obey the Lord in all other respects. Grace it is that saves, but the Lord has conditioned it on leveraging our faith. We have to try. We fall and we fail, but then we must repent and try again. This is the commandment. (Matt. 5: 48.) This is the goal. (John 17: 3.) And this is how we can, someday, come to know God and "see him as he is." (1 John 3: 2.)

I believe that most Christians in quiet moments of reflection know these principles are true. They know that each good work is a choice, an exercise of faith, and they feel joy after doing such. They also know that sins of omission needn't occur. They know that procrastination is one of Satan's most effective temptations and feel badly when they succumb to it. "I could have done better." "If only I had done x, or y, or z." But sins of omission do not necessarily cut short our testimonies of Christ; indeed, those testimonies are the measuring stick by which we know we fall short. "I'll do better next time. I'll feed the hungry. I'll forgive more quickly." Grace doesn't put one on an autopilot of good works. We know we are supposed to act and that we can act. We are commanded to act and are told we'll be accountable for acting, or not.

To conclude. The real point here, if not apparent already, was not so much to proselyte or to prove Mormons are Christian, but merely to show a cogent case that the LDS position on faith and works is consistent with Biblical teaching. I have quoted from all over the New Testament, including from Paul's epistles. One faced with the apparently conflicting doctrines of faith and works have only two options. He can believe the one and disregard the other. Or he can try to learn how the Lord harmonizes them. Mormons have a sensible, Biblically-rooted and consistent position that harmonizes the two doctrines. (Again, we are saved by grace, after all we can do.) Other Christians may have different views, and they may have cogent, biblically-rooted cases for those views. But so do Mormons.

P.S. Even if the LDS position on grace and works is in error, what is the practical result of their belief in that position? Lots of Mormons running around trying to be better people, better citizens, neighbors and friends.

Barak Obama is Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare. If she leaves him alone, he gets stronger. But attacking him is likely to backfire because he is the perfect combination of just enough experience to run but too new and too clean from which to mine any real dirt. Or to have any deal-breaking policy positions. Yet he's patently intelligent and articulate enough to hang with or best her in the main ring. Obama is more likeable, to her left on the war, and has captured Hollywood money Hillary thought was hers. The pass she thought she'd get from her base turned into a swat, instead.

At this point, it looks to me like Obama is poised to take Hilllary down. Unless he's caught in the sack with a dead girl or a live boy, going negative on him is going look like shooting bullets into the Pillsbury Dough Boy. Nobody will appreciate it.

And Hillary's team won't be able to commit surreptitious or anonymous attacks without reverberation because there are only two Democratic candidates and the Clinton M.O. is too well known. Nobody is going to ask, "Who's the source for that latest mud?" Duh.

I don't believe Giuliani is likely to win the GOP nomination because he is on the wrong side of gun control, abortion and gay marriage. Add weak on illegal immigration. Tough-on-crime and tough-on-the-war won't be enough to carry the day. For instance, I re-elected W. to do two things: fight the war and pack the Court. That's my bottom line. It's a pretty short list, so as a member of the base, I'm not very likely to give up either of those demands. Yet that's what a vote for Giuliani will likely require.

Giuliani can't entirely moot these concerns by promising to appoint originalist judges because originalist judges cannot reason their way to his belief set through originalist means. This puts him in something of a pickle. Either his beliefs are unconstitutional and he'll have to compartmentalize them as "personal only," or else he will have to expect us to believe that originalist judges will somehow reason their way to his social issue positions.  On this note, I'd like to see an interviewer ask Giuliani: Other than the recent appointees Justices John Roberts and Sam Alito (who have yet to render any abortion, gay or gun rights opinions) what Justices between Blackmun and Breyer would serve as your model appointees?

Welcome to the The Chair. I had long intended to start a blog dedicated to thwarting Hillary Clinton's run for the Presidency, but I no longer think the woman is electable. (Whatever you think about Dick Morris, he is right about Hillary, that she's a leftist version of Nixon in a skirt. I might add, a charmless, Machiavellian scold who shatters the shrill-o-meter whenever she gets worked up.) For the time being, I'm free to focus on two grander themes: victory over jihadist terror and all its support in whatever form, and the the necessity of moral, principled government. to the pursuit of happiness.

This presidential primary season, Hugh Hewitt's new book, A Mormon in the Whitehouse is a must-read. I got my copy from Conservative Book Club and read it in a week. Hugh's stated purpose is to persuade others not to deny Mitt Romney the Presidency because of his Mormon faith. [Disclosure: I'm LDS.] Hugh wouldn't have bothered with this theme had he not first been sold on Romney's suitability for the office. Hugh admits up front that if the election were held today, he would vote for Romney. He has also said many times that he votes for the most conservative candidate with a realistic chance of electability. It's pretty clear that Hugh thinks Romney is that man in this race. After reading the book, so do I.

Hugh saw the Mormon issue coming a mile away, and managed to frame the coming debate by getting there the "firstest with the mostest." He did such a good job that it's doubtful anybody who comments on the "Mormon question" during the campaign  will be able to do so intelligently without grappling with Hugh's arguments.  Two stand out, one addressed to evangelical Christian skeptics and one addressed to secular skeptics.

To evangelicals who cannot vote for a candidate who believes all that wacky stuff about and by Joseph Smith--and there is no question about Romney's devout, practicing-Mormon credentials--Hugh reminds them that the Biblical Christian narrative is often just as irrational as is the modern LDS narrative. So you think it a tall tale that God and His Son Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith and called him to reestablish original Church organization? What about the disciple Stephen, the martyr, who, while being stoned, gazed into heaven and saw God and Jesus on his right hand? Is belief in that event any more rational? An angel appeared to John and we got Revelation. Mormons believe that, and they also believe an angel appeared to Joseph Smith, and the result was the Book of Mormon. Why is it any more rational to believe in dead, ancient prophets and apostles than in more modern, living ones? Water-to-wine? Lazarus? Feeding the 5,000? The political point is if evangelicals brand Romney as unelectable because of his Mormonism, they will be helping to create the noose that hangs themselves as unelectable.

Hugh argues there is an American tradition springing from the Constitution, call it the Spirit of Article VI, if you will, that forbids rejection of candidates based solely on their religious beliefs. That tradition has been good for America. Consider, for example, that a religious test might have denied us the presidency of Thomas Jefferson, the deist-or-atheist without whom we would not have acquired the middle third of the continental United States, and without whom, ironically, we would not have much of the Bible Belt!  Abrogating this tradition--forcing a religious "test" upon Romney--will bring a host of negative and unintended consequences that will reverberate far beyond the 2008 primary. For example, there is already a new atheistic militancy on the part of secularists in the media, academia and science. Dumping on the Mormons will help legitimize that tactic in general. Today the Mormons, tomorrow the _________ [name your faith here.]

Exclusion from the Presidency might lead to exclusion from Congress and from other offices in government. Political exclusion leads to political persecution. Doesn't it? Do evangelical Christians really want to help open such a Pandora's box? They'll have no control over what emerges.

Moreover, Hugh reminds everybody, our most devout, practicing evangelical Christian president was none other than Jimmy Carter, a catastrophe of a president. (30 years later, we're still dealing with Iran and Afghanistan.) Lest I should be too ungrateful, I thank my memories of Jimmy for my 5.5% 30-yr. fixed home mortgage loan. (Sparked by childhood memories of my parents' gloomy Carter-era conversations about inflation, unemployment and double-digit interest. I now steer widely away from any loan with a variable rate.)

And, Hugh reminds the secularist skeptics the country has had many presidents whose practice of "irrational" Christianity didn't seem to hinder their effectiveness or to hurt the country. Our two truly great presidents held religious beliefs:  Washington, a possible Christian (I think he was), and Lincoln, probably not a Christian for most of his life according to most biographers. One wonders what sort of conniption the MSM would have if a modern president delivered a speech remotely like Lincoln's Second Inaugural. Mormons share enough Christian values that they can be expected to behave in similar ways. (But please don't ask how my faith produced a Harry Reid.)

A Mormon in the Whitehouse arrives perfectly timed to help innoculate Romney from any surprises or last-minute issues related to his faith. After a book like this, any such ambush will be certain to backfire.

Ok, but what about Mitt Romney's qualifications for the presidency? Hugh's book does double-duty as a pro-Romney yet credible campaign biography. We learn quite a bit about Mrs. Romney and some of her clan, each of their five boys and their families, and much about several of Romney's business and political associates. The man's intellect appears to be boundless, and he has parlayed it and his other many talents into a billion dollar fortune. Romney is a turnaround artist; nearly everything important that he touches turns to gold, from companies on the ropes to the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics (a task he didn't need to do and for which he accepted no pay). He loves America and believes in it, and in its founding charters and principles. Romney has the intellect and skill to rebuild the Reagan coalition of defense-, social- and economic conservatives, and the talent to articulate and sell it with Reaganesque optimism.

Whether you already support Romney, seek to tear him down in favor of another, or if you merely want to learn more to make up your mind, you'll need to read A Mormon in the Whitehouse. Just get it. When you're done, check out Romney's CPAC speech at http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/cpac/index.asp?part=5<br>, and see whether it doesn't tend to verify everything Hugh says about him.