Thursday, June 15, 2006

We Know Who Brady is, Who is Otter?

Sure, that picture of Butch Otter looks good, but he's missing a beak and some feathers. That's right, I'm calling Butch Otter a chicken.

Before the Idaho Republican primary, Otter had the chance for a televised debate with his Republican opponent, Dan Adamson. This was a planned event that Otter had agreed to show up to. Days before the event, Otter backed out. What a chicken.

Here's what the Brady campaign had to say about it:

"With a choice between debating the issues important to Idahoans or hosting a cocktail party for special interests, we now know where Butch Otter stands. When Butch Otter backed out of his previously scheduled Thursday Idaho Public Television debate with Dan Adamson, he was given three alternative dates: Saturday, Sunday, and today. He claimed he had important votes and Mother’s Day to keep him from debating. The reality is that at 5:30 p.m. today, he is hosting a cocktail party for special interests on top of the Hoff Building in downtown Boise, no more than three miles from the proposed site of the debate."

Here is what I think about Otter and his recent attitude about running for governor:

1. The majority of Otter's money has come from out of state? What investment do out of state interests have in Otter?

2. Otter knows he couldn't hold his own in a debate against Adamson or Brady. He's playing the politics of ignorance. He knows as long as he doesn't have to say anything of real substance than he'll still have his Republican home court advantage. What a chicken.

3. Go to Otter's website. It obviously has not been updated in a while. This is the age of information! Otter! Update your website and tell us what you think! Voters deserve to know who you are!

What's on his website right now? It's a thank-you letter. That's nice right? Well guess what? Otter raised 10 times more than his primary opponents and yet he only got 70 percent of the vote! And then, instead of being in Idaho to accept his nomination HE CALLS IT IN! If that's not a kick in the pants, it's at least a kick in the shins.

On the other hand, go to Brady's website. You can tell that Brady cares about keeping voters informed. He wants voters to know what you get when you vote for him.

Obviously, this is because Brady's going to have to work harder to get votes in a state that traditionally votes Republican. Citizens of Idaho, please, look past the "R". Is Otter a Republican? Yes. But, he wants to sell out Idaho to special interest groups!

Who is Jerry Brady? Brady's family has been in Idaho almost nearly as long as the Mormon Pioneers.

Brady loves Idaho. There's no question about it.

To find out more about Brady, visit his website. Even though it's still under construction, it's still gives you a better idea of who Brady is. Otter's website on the other hand is just the same old Republican mantra that we've heard before. Butch Otter, who are you? Are you just a drone from the Republican party, or are you actually a person?

For a look a fair look at how Otter dropped out of the debate, visit this link.


Anonymous said...

just like a liberal dem...calling people they don't like names. We hear stuff like that a lot from the oh so great mormon senator from Nevada who can't ever take a stance on abortion. I knew a lot of people like you in grade school.

Anonymous said...

First, I doubt that you "know" me. Have we had lunch? Have you ever spoken to me face to face?

Second, if you knew me you would know that I'm a moderate Democrat, not a liberal Democrat.

Third, while I fully admit that I called Otter a chicken, you make it seem as though it's only Democrats that do this. That is blatanly untrue. If that's not what you meant than I suggest you clarify because history proves that R's have called people names just as much as anyone else.

Fourth, why does this always have to be about parties. I'm comparing two individuals. I care little about what party someone belongs to, I care more about what someone stands for.

Lastly, yes, I called Otter a chicken, but I backed it up with reasons. And, I didn't even list ALL of the reasons. Namecalling is only useless when you have no evidence to back it up with.

Jessica said...

The only Mormon politician who hasn't take a stance on abortion is Mitt Romney, not Harry Reid. Harry Reid is pro-life, Romney is what, exactly? He keeps changing his mind.

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney has made it very clear that he does not personally support abortion.

Also, Butch Otter really is going to have no problem winning in November (let's be realistic.) And what a waste of time it would have been to debate Adamson! Otter won by a landslide!

As far as Butch Otter the politician, Idahoans know who he is and what he is about. He was the Lt. Governor for a number of years and has represented Idaho in Congress well since he was elected to the U.S. House of Reps. Otter has nothing to prove, so why would he waste his time?

Anonymous said...

And by the way, Harry Reid showed what is most important to him when he disobeyed the counsel of the First Presidency when he voted against the Marriage Ammendment. Politics over God... good choice Mr. Reid.

Anonymous said...


You bring up some interesting and respectful points.

While I personally LOVE Mitt Romney, I must agree with Jessica, he has changed what he has SAID about abortion a number of times. I can't blame him, he has to keep his verbage open.

However, Otter should worry. Brady took 42 percent of the Idaho vote four years ago against a highly popular incumbent.

Otter is no Dirk Kempthorne. Kempthorne, as far as I am aware, did have the DUI problems, adultery and big business issues that Otter has.

Also, 70 percent of the vote is hardly a landslide. In fact, I've heard from some that it's the lowest majority to go to a Republican gubernatorial nominee in the past 3-4 election cycles.

Many Republicans have such a problem with Otter that they are quietly donating money to Brady. I know this for a fact, firsthand.

My friend in Utah is the Vice-President of the Utah Federation of College Republicans, even he knows that Otter is not a good person.

To me, this has less to do with R's or D's as it has to do with who loves Idaho more and who will represent Idahoans better. That is Jerry Brady.

Jessica said...

Thanks Peter. Many Republicans aren't happy with Romney because his stance on abortion and gay marriage changes depending on who he speaks to.

The counsel of the FP was to tell your elected officials how you feel about gay marriage. The FP was vague enough to keep their Church's 501 C 3 status, while still communicating the Church's stance, yet not telling members what they HAD to say.

Many Mormons don't support constitutional amendments that restrict the rights of others, and many more Mormons, while opposed to gay marriage, feel that this is a states right issue, and since the Church displayed their adoration of federalism during the debate about the ERA, why do they now want the federal government involved?

I, personally, was troubled by the language of the letter the FP issued. According to the letter, the only acceptable marriage is between a man and a woman. Does this mean that polygamous marriages the Church sanctioned were not acceptable? Does this mean polygamy will not be practiced in the future?

Anonymous said...


I was disappointed that Harry Reid did not vote in favor of the amendment, if only because that is what the FP asked us to do.

I believe the issue of marriage is a state issue, but, I believe the Church must know something that I do not. Otherwise, I don't think that they would have said what that said.

Also, let's not forget that Elder Nelson stood on the steps of the Capital representing the Church in favor of the amendment.

Lastly, the phrase "a man and a woman" can legally be construed to mean something else. Many states have added amendments to their constitutions that say "one man and one woman".

All of that aside, let me just reiterate that this is the year that many people, Republicans or Democrats, will support Jerry Brady. It has little to do with R's or D's.

I went canvassing and I met tons of Republicans who hissed at me, but told me that I could count on them to vote for Brady. These are people who are proud members of their party, but they love their state more. That's sensible voting.

Jessica said...

No Peter, the FP asked us to tell our elected officials how we feel in regards to gay marriage. Had the Church come out in support of specific legislation, they would risk losing their tax exempt status, as if they hadn't already done that enough. If you want to read between the lines and read what the FP perhaps meant, I could see what you are saying, as it is, they didn't say what you think they said. Debates on the Times and Seasons blog echo this very thought.

In fact, a Republican lawyer blogger on Times and Seasons stated his concerns with the amendment. Many Republicans had deep legal concerns with the amendment itself.

I am not disappointed in Harry Reid for not falling into the trap the Republicans set. Most Americans, while statistically opposed to gay marriage, did not feel the amendment was the right thing at the right time. Bravo to Harry Reid for understanding this.

Perhaps the FP can tell us exactly what they mean by "a man and a woman." As I now understand it, it flies in the face of past Church sanctioned polygamous marriages, both before and after the manifesto and the belief that polygamy will be practiced again.

Jessica said...


Legal Analysis of the Amendment from the Republican LDS blogger:

Debate on Times and Seasons about FP letter (currently 487 comments):

Lastly, I remember reading an article in the LA Times about some conservatives who were all opposed to gay marriage but angry about the amendment:,0,5316780.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"I'm going to go and hear what he says, but we already know it is a ruse," said Joe Glover, president of the Family Policy Network, which opposes gay marriage. "We're not buying it. We're going to go and watch the dog-and-pony show, [but] it's too little, too late."

Lauren Bingham said...

Jessica--Thank you so much for your comments; it's nice to see someone else who is willing to grapple with the issue.

I'm a liberal Saint living in Texas who used to preside over the BYU-I College Dems in '04, so heaven knows I've debated the gay marriage thing more than enough. So I'm going to opt out of that beast altogether. I would, however, like to make a few other points.

1--Anonymous: Regardless of how qualified Otter may be, participating in public political debate is part of our awesome democratic process. How arrogant is he that he's now above the great system that built him? Besides, anyone who has participated in a public debate will tell you that performance far outweighs preparation and qualifications. Though we may not like it, part of a candidates electability is how they present themself in the public arena. If you don't think so, refer back to the Nixon v. JFK debate debacle.

2--I think that all too often we lose sight of the fact that our elected officials are public servants, responsible for portraying the sentiments of his or her constituents. When senators or governors or whomever vote for/against a bill, that doesn't necessarily reflect their own political stance, but rather that of the people they represent.

3--This point is less relevent, but nonetheless...those Rebublicans who laud Romney as a shoe-in for our first LDS President should take a closer look at those they're rubbing elbows with. This is a quote from your own Robert Novak who wrote:
"Prominent, respectable Evangelical Christians have told me, not for quotation, that millions of their co-religionists cannot and will not vote for Romney for President solely because he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
( April 27, 2006)
And if the evangelicals are powerful enought to have John McCain licking their boots, you can bet that there is no way for Romney to win the candidacy without their support. How sad that LDS memebers gladly align themselves with a party who won't even support them, and much more refuse to recognize them as fellow Christians. I guess the recently popular "What Would Jesus Do" does not apply here.

Joe Strickland said...

I copied and pasted both of these news releases from :

Letter from First Presidency of the Church to Church Leaders in the United States

We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.

We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.

In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.

In that proclamation we said: "We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.

Church Leader Speaks at the U.S. Capitol to Protect Marriage

5 June 2006

WASHINGTON — Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles — the second-highest governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — joined other religious leaders today in Washington, D.C., to speak in support of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

At an Alliance for Marriage press conference at the U.S. Capitol building, he said:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is pleased to be represented in this significant cause. While those of us here today represent a broad spectrum of religious diversity, we are firmly united in our declaration that marriage of a man and a woman is ordained of God. The sanctity of marriage and family constitutes the spiritual undergirding of lasting and successful societies.

“Together we share a duty to preserve marriage and family as established by God. The time has now come when a constitutional amendment is needed in this country to protect our divine inheritance. Such action does not reduce our regard for individuals who choose to live by other standards. But it confirms our conviction that marriage is the foundry for social order, the fountain of virtue and the foundation for eternal exaltation.

“In 1995, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a proclamation to the world on the family. From it I quote:

“ ‘We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.’

“Thus we unite with other religious leaders who also are committed to preserve and promote that same objective.”

That sounds to me like the Church supports a constitutional amendment that protects marriage. The fact that Elder Nelson was at the Capitol building on June 5 supporting "a constitutional amendment protecting marriage" suggests that he was there to support the amendment that the senate was to vote on.

As far as the letter from the First Presidency goes, it does in fact say at the end that members are encouraged to express themselves to their senators on this "urgent matter." That is right after they say that the letter is in regards to the amendment the senate was about to vote on and after they took some time to reaffirm the Church's stance on the issue. Of course the Church does not tell us what to think, but don't you think it might be better to follow the prophet and do what he asks than to decide that you know better than he does? You can debate it all you want on times and seasons, but when a prophet speaks as the prophet, he speaks for God and we should do what he says.

And in regards to Mitt Romney and the evangelical vote, I think that Robert Novak and his unnamed evangelical leader are just flat out wrong. Do you really think that evangelicals would vote for Hillary Clinton before they would vote for a Mormon? If you do, you might want to come back to reality. I think the results of the straw poll at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference where Mitt Romney finished second behind Bill Frist is a good indicator that he would likely have the support of Southern Republicans.
And I think the fact that President Bush awarded President Hinckley the Medal of Freedom suggests that perhaps you are wrong in your assumption that LDS people are not supported by the Republican party.

Anonymous said...


I hate to admit it, but I agree with 80 percent of your post here. I think that it is plain that the Church supports the amendment.

However, I disagree with you about Evangelicals. They may not vote for Hillary is Mitt is the Republican nominee, but I don't think that he'll get that far, I want him to, but I don't think it will happen.

The straw polls are a great compliment to Mitt, however the straw polls were voted on by staunch, ideological Republicans.

The evangical vote is a completely different voting bloc. I believe that Robert Novak was right in that the evangelicals will block Mitt's nomination.

Also, President Bush giving President Hinckley the medal of freedom is a great thing, however, it's not an endorsement of the Church. I think that could be stretching it.

Blake Roberts said...

The term "a man and a woman" in no way applies to the church's stance on plural marriage. If someone is married to two women, those are two seperate marriages between "a man and a woman". A divorce with one wife does not void the other marriage (in the principle theary of the doctrine, this does not take current legal issues in mind), as they are bound by seperate marriage contracts.

Lauren Bingham: The idea that elected officials are there to represent thier constituents is only one way to look at it. I personally feel that the government and the nation would be better served if elected officails did not do what ever thier constituents want (neccesarily), but instead vote on principle. I feel that we should elect officails, then trust them that even when they do something that I don't like, that they did so being much mroe informed and experianced then I am. This of course makes electing honorable and trustworthy people all the more improtant. If they only vote what they are told to, then we might as well have a pure democracy (which I feel would be a bad thing).

Jessica said...

Laura, do you have a brother named Austin?

I guess my confusion is over the fact that many men married women who were already married to other men.

And anyone who argues that the Church doesn't support the amendment is stupid, and that hasn't been my argument. My argument is that the letter asked us to express ourselves to our elected officials.

Jessica said...

I do think it is hilarious that people actually think Romney can win. I guess he could, if Jesus returned to earth and endorsed Romney, then MAYBE, evangelicals and other conservatives would vote for him.

I read a quick discussion board topic about Hillary getting a standing ovation from an evangelical audience...interesting.

Jessica said...

Another problem with the evangelical vote and other religious voters, is that in some areas Mormons are no more respected than the Branch Davidians. It isn't just evangelicals, it is many Baptists, and other religious groups.

And it isn't even a choice between Hillary Clinton and Romney, many voters will simply not vote, or vote for a third, or fourth party candidate.

D.R. Jensen said...

Really you guys can debate all you want on Romney, but if Romney was put up against Hillary, Romney would win easily. There is no doubt about that. I can guarantee you that there will be a huge number of people that have never vote before in past elections, but for 08 they will vote just to make sure Hillary doesn’t win. I can also tell you that this number will be huge enough to make a difference in the election. People around the country hate Hillary just as much as you think the evangelicals hate Romney. Now if the Democrats nominated some one else that could be a different story, but the G.O.P. would love it if the Democrats nominated Hillary. They know Hillary has very high disapproval ratings and a lot of skeletons in the closet. The G.O.P. would have a field day with her, and Jessica it is hilarious how you Dems can’t see that!!!

Jessica said...

I am not saying people won't have a field day with Hillary, but I am saying people think Romney belongs to a cult and they won't for him. Not very funny to me.

Jessica said...

d.r., can you back up your claims with some data...polls, focus groups, etc? Especially how people who haven't voted before will turn out just to vote against Hillary. Opinions are great and all, but when there is nothing factual to base them off of-not so great.

dan O. said...

I agree with Joe and D.R. in that when push comes to shove the evangelicals will vote for Romney if it comes to that point. Talking about facts I would like to know what discussion board you are reading that says that the evangelicals were cheering Hillary on. I want to see their sources too!!! There is a CNN poll floating around that says about 47% of Americans that were polled would definitely not vote for Hillary. I am not 100% sure, but I believe that it is a safe bet that evangelicals are not a part of that 53% that would vote for her. I know that things can change over time, and only time will tell who will be our next president. Yet, Hillary has the same amount of problems as Romney does. It is a little known political fact that there has never been a presidential candidate that has ever won an election with poll numbers that are about 30% or higher of people that would definitely not vote for them. The only exception that I can think of at the moment is George W. in the 2004 election and the only reason that happened was because flip flop Kerry had higher numbers then he did. There is another poll that keeps track of the daily progress of these numbers, and that poll has stayed around 35 to 40 percent for months. ( I could not find any poll that said the same about Mitt Romney, sorry. My point is that Hillary is not a shoe in either.

Cameron said...

Hi everyone,

I ran across this post yesterday and found the comments very interesting. Hope you don't mind me chiming in....

Here's a link to a blog that discusses the difference between the LDS Church's arguments for polygamy before the US Congress in the 1800s and the Church's argument against gay marriage today. It is a very good read.

Here's a link to an op-ed piece concerning Mitt Romney's "Mormon Problem" getting elected. Also a good read.

Anonymous said...

This has been an interesting string of thoughts.

In my opinion, I don't think that Hilary will get the nomination. However, the characterization of some evangelicals prefering Clinton to Romney is stirring and is not wholly unbelievable.

But, the idea is that it's a characterization of possible reality for Romney, that his faith in the Church is a stumbling block for other people.

To me, that means that all the Dems have to do is put someone up besides Hilary and that's it, a large voting bloc is lost to Romney. It's highly unfortunate, but definitely a plausible reality.

Blake Roberts said...

Clinton should run with Michael Moore as her VP. They'd have no chance of winning, but man it would be funny.

As for Romney, I think that he would have a better chance as a VP, if the Reps. can get a strong Pres. candidate.

As for the Third party candidates, Ralph Nader with Pat Buchanan as his running mate.

My Fourth party picks are Martha Stewart teamed with Elmo.

Blake Roberts said...

Nevermind, on furthrer thought, Elmo should definitly be the Presidential candidate with Stewart as his running mate (rather then vice versa). I should start a website, Elmo'

Dan o. said...

Peter, I agree with you in that if the Dems give the nod to some else then it is a whole different game. Yet, the question on the table was if Hillary could beat Romney. You guys can say what you will, but I highly doubt that Hillary could win against Romney, or anybody for that matter. Yes, Romney will have to fight with the Evangelical right, but Hillary will have the same problem with getting the votes in. Also, that 30 to 40 percent needs to vote somewhere. I know that some of them will not vote or vote for a third party, but I believe the majority of them will not want to see Hillary win, so they will just vote for the G.O.P. candidate just because they do not want to see Hillary occupy the White House again.

As for Hillary getting nod, it is hard to say so far in advance. Yet, if I had to bet money on it today I would bet on her. I mean she is the front runner now, but a lot can change with time. If she does win it is going to be a sad day for the Dems, because she is never going to win.

Yet, I feel really stupid getting sucked into talking to you guys. I mean look at us we are debating something we have no control over, and our talking points really signify nothing, because it is two and a half years before the next presidential election. A lot can happen that could persuade voters to vote all different ways in two and a half years. Really only time will tell who will be our next Pres. This is really kind of pointless

Jessica said...

dan o.: Here is the source:

Leading Democrats get warm welcome from group of evangelicals
By Ely Portillo
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON - "A convention of evangelical Christians gave standing ovations this week to Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill.

And that's news, because pro-choice, pro-gay rights Democrats aren't usually favorites of evangelicals. But that could be changing as the Democratic Party tries to reconnect with so-called "values voters," and some evangelical leaders try to extend religious debates beyond gay marriage and abortion.

"It's been terribly politicized and polarized. Moral values can't be narrowed to those two," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, leader of the Sojourners. His "progressive evangelical" group organized a three-day conference in Washington this week to lobby politicians on behalf of the poor. Six hundred clergy and their followers attended workshops, listened to speeches and visited their congressional representatives.

Influential politicians from both sides of the political spectrum came to speak about poverty as a moral issue, including Republican evangelical favorites such as Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Sam Brownback of Kansas."

dan o.: NO ONE is saying Hillary is a shoe in and I think the characterization of Kerry as a flip-flopper is pretty ironic considering the significant flip flops of GWB.

Jessica said...

And I wanted scientific data on non-voters who will suddenly turn out to vote against Hillary, not how people don't like Hillary, I already know that.

Anonymous said...

I came across this the blog tonight, and I thought that I would put in a word, and a great link to shed some light on what I am talking about. Really it does not matter what your political philosophy is, but what matters is the political platform that you push weather it be the Republicans or the Democrats. I am not a member, but it seems like to me you are pushing an agenda that is contradicting your real beliefs. Now I know that I am going to get a lot of heat for this comment, but it needs to be said. The link is here for you to search and it explains what I am trying to say a lot better. This is the platform that you are pushing. Yes, I know the truth hurts.

Dan O. said...

Hey, this is one heck of a great link, and you said it perfectly. It does not matter what you think politically, but what platform you chose to push. You guys can complain all you want, but the truth does fall hard. It does not matter what you think, but what matters is the ballot you turn in on election day weather it be pro-gay, pro choice ballot or pro life and anti gay ballot. Now I know that we should love the sinner and hate the sin, but by embracing the sin of homosexuality we are not hating the sin. You guys can debate this one all you want, but this link says it all and it says it very bluntly. I think blunt is what you guys need!! All of you that defend your positions I would like to know of one civilization that survived after they embraced homosexuality. Let me save you the trouble, and tell you there is not one in the history of the world. Like I said by voting democratic you help progress this agenda. Really it is not the people that make the difference in government any more, but the platforms they run off.

This is not the real reason that I am writing today though, but it seems like I need to express my views on this. I know I am going to get hammed by you guys on this, but I like my friend feel it needs to be said. Really I don’t really care what you guys think. I know I am right!!

Also you’re recent Blog about Otter being chicken. This is kind of like the kettle calling the pot black don’t you think, Peter. For semesters on end the College Republicans have been offering to debate you guys, but you have refused every time. Instead you sit up here on your little soap box and preach to your little choir of Dems. The College Republicans are ready to debate you any day, and before you call Otter a chicken look at your self. You guys seems like you have all the answers, but when it comes right down to debating theses answers you guys run away behind this Blog. Peter, Are you chicken?

Anonymous said...

I called Otter a chicken because he accepted a debate and then, at the last minute, turned it down.

We haven't agreed to a debate at all. That's a big difference.

We haven't accepted a debate because:

1. We probably don't have enough people.
2. We tried working on a debate format with the College Republicans however, when we asked to sit down with them we were never able to pin down a time to get together.
3. We're a little busy with the election cycle.

Semesters on end? Dan O., who are you? We've only barely been organized since late October 2005. I would hardly call that "semesters on end." Also, like I said above, during the Winter semester we tried to work with the CR's on a debate format without much progress on either side, and this summer semester we haven't been asked to be a part of a debate at all.

Also, we don't run away behind this blog. We have posted meetings and they are public. Everything that is talked about on this blog is talked about in our meetings. Anybody is more than welcome to come to voice their opinion, as long as it's civil.

Lastly, again for the record, we, the BYU-I College Democrats do not endorse abortion or same-sex marriage. In fact, we spent an entire meeting signing petitions that supported the recent amendment on traditional marriage. We also support Jerry Brady, the Democratic nominee for governor who has publicly said that he will reduce dramatically the number of abortions in Idaho and that he strongly supports current Idaho law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

And Dan O., why the sudden hostility towards me?

Jessica said...

Do we really need to go into how Pres. Faust is a Democrat, or other Mormons, past and present?

Joe Strickland said...

How do you know that President Faust is a Democrat? He served in the Utah State legislature as a Democrat a long time ago. That does not mean he is a Democrat now (the parties have changed since then.)

When he was called to the First Presidency a reporter asked him if he was still a democrat. His answer was, "I am neither a democrat or a republican. I'm an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Please do not drag our General Authorities into your political debate. No political party is perfect, no political party is guided by Jesus Christ and no political party has a monopoly on truth or good ideas.

Jessica said...

Please don't lecture me.

Jessica said...

Merlin Jensen=Democrat. Read the article the SL Tribune did where Jensen was interviewed and said that there was a concern among the brethren over the one party domination of Church members.

Jessica said...

As far as the party changing a lot since then, most of the changes have been for the betterment of the party, such as an improvement in the promotion of civil rights.

I think this quote sums up the parties pretty well:

Hugh B. Brown wrote that when he came to the United States from Canada in 1927, there was "a question in [his] mind" as to "whether I should be a Democrat or a Republican. I spoke to several people about it. President Grant at the time was an ardent Democrat, as was his counselor and cousin, Anthony W. Ivins, and B. H. Roberts. Each of these men told me at different times and separately that if I wanted to belong to a party that represented the common people I should become a Democrat but that if I wanted to be popular and have the adulation of others and be in touch with the wealth of the nation, I should become a Republican."

Anonymous said...

The next blog post should be about how the recent Supreme Court decision found that Bush is guilty of war crimes.

Blake Roberts said...

No Mr. Anonymous, President Bush was not found guilty of war crimes by the Supreme Court. The court said that the U.S. must abide by the Geneva convention, and that special military tribunals are not a trial. It is/was a judgment about executive/judicial procedure, that's it.

This thread has gone a long way from being about Otter.

Now, if it was morally wrong to belong to the democratic party, why would the school allow there to be a College Democrats? The Church pulls no punches when the spiritual safety and integrity of it's schools and youth are at risk (as certain professors who felt above following Church doctrine in the intrest of academic freedom found out). If it was morally wrong to be a democrat, or spirittually damaging, the school would not allow the society to exist. Just as they do not allow an anarchist club, an abortion society, or a gay/lesbian alliance, they would not tolerate the college democrats.

Argue about it all you want, but if the school and church find it ok, where do you get off thinking your judgement is better?

Blake Roberts said...

I apologize for my poor spelling and grammer in the above and current post.

JamesP said...

Since when is a debate a requirement for election to public office?

This is an old political trick. Challenge your opponent to a meaningless debate and when he refuses to give into your high-school tactics, plaster the news with messages of cowardice.

I realize that Idaho is a few years behind the times on most things, but come on, guys. Not seeing this as pure election-year politicking really makes you look foolish and naive

Anonymous said...


I agree, there is a lot of politicking going on.

However, Congressman Otter agreed to the debate months ago, then, at the last minute, he backed out. To me, it's one indicator of a lack of integrity.

Also, I hesitate to call a debate, meaningless. A debate is a great opporunity for the public to hear the discussion of ideas between two candidates.

More and more, people fail to vote because they don't believe that their vote means anything, or they believe that either candidate is the same. A debate is just one mode of giving the public a chance to act and to choose and to learn. It's far from meaningless.

Jessica said...

LA Times:

A Mormon for President? Voters Balk

"But uneasiness about some religions persists. Thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate, and 54% said no to the prospect of a Muslim in the White House.",0,4806405.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Anonymous said...

people say gay marriage is a states right issue. I compleltey agree, but when radical judges overturn laws banning gay marriage the only thing to do is a constitutional amendment.

Anonymous said...

Otter had 69 percent of the vote with 377 of 915 precincts reporting.
His closest competitor, Pocatello businessman Dan Adamson, garnered nearly 22 percent of the vote.
Brady, president of the black twinknewspaper the Post Register, won with
nearly 84 percent of the vote, compared with 16 percent for Lee Chaney
Sr., who never actively campaigned.

"I'm eager to engage Congressman Otter and give Idaho a real look at free gay male porn photos
"I'm eager to start the main event."

Anonymous said...,172,7,2,0,164,7,2,0,160,7,2,0,158,7,2,0,156,7,2,0,152,7,2,0,145,7,2,0,124,7,2,0,123,7,2,0,122,7,2,0,115,7,2,0,113,7,2,0,108,7,2,0