Jesus' healing power has nothing to do with instituting socialized medicine and would be used to invoke feelings of referent power of those who hold the same beliefs.

If the same politician said "I think our health care system is messed up and I believe socialized medicine is the answer. Here's why..." I'd be more inclined to listen and consider giving them my vote. They can think that socialized medicine should be instituted because Jesus was a great healer all they want, but they better have reasons other than that if they want to implement a new medical system to get my attention/vote.

Jesus' healing power does have something to do with socialized medicine to some people. So does welfare because Jesus was charitable and encouraged giving to the poor. I'm not trying to get into a debate about whether I agree with those points of view or not (though I do disagree), I'm just trying to say that because some may want these things because of certain religious beliefs does not make them less valid than wanting them for any other reason. Disagreements in policy is fine.....I just don't see why the motivations for said policies have to be the focal point. Either something is good policy or it is bad policy.

With all of this being said, however, I fully and completely admit that I wouldn't vote for a Muslim for any office, not because of the potential of requiring women to wear Burkas (or whatever), but because of foreign policy issues. Am I bigoted? Perhaps. I make certain assumptions about what our Middle East policy would become, just as you make assumptions on what the policies of a devout Christian would be.

I fail to see, however, what Bush has done - with the possible exception of denial of funding to embryonic stem cell research (which had never been given before, btw) - that has been legislating for the religious right. His Supreme Court nominees? I guess an argument could be made from an abortion standpoint, but I see them as strict constructionists rather than religious zealots. His charitable partnerships with religious organizations? This has been cross faith and not only Christian.

Oh, I think it's fair to say the religious fundies of America are pretty disappointed with Bush.

But how do they feel about Romney? About Huckabee? Are they likely to be just as disappointed with either of them as they ended up being with Bush, or would either of those candidates govern more to their idiological liking?

I agree that to some people Jesus' healing power has something to do with socialized medicine (and I'll agree with your welfare statement as well). However, to say "I'm going to implement socialized medicine because Jesus was a great healer" or "I'm going to implement welfare because Jesus was charitable" is not enough reason to do so, IMO. The person stating those is invoking feelings of referent power and no other reason because "Jesus was [xyz]" as their reasoning. There better be some damn good reasoning (besides the current system is seriously broken) to go messing with the medical system, or the welfare system. I want to see plans, ideas, thought processes beyond "Jesus was...".

Back to Mitt - I wouldn't not vote for him because he is Mormon, though through I am more hesitant to vote for him because is. I will admit that nearly all my experiences with Mormons (besides Erica's g-ma and Mr. PirateBill) have been scary and cult-like. Nearly every conversation involved going to hell if you weren't Mormon, you need to convert now to save your soul - told to us by adults who were supposed to be helping us.

I wouldn't not vote for a Muslim because they are Muslim either. Not all Muslim's agree with what is going on in the Middle East. Like all candidates (and this would apply to Rommey too) I want to hear what they have to say. Not that I'll believe them, but I want to hear it.

The reasoning behind the policy is important. Yes, of course, I will complain less volubly if the reasoning produces the answer I prefer, but that is selfish weakness.

As you've rightly pointed out many times in the past, we do not live in a direct democracy but a representative democracy. As a citizen I do not generally get direct input into deciding issues of law and policy. If I did, then it would be easy to say "I don't care how you came to this conclusion, since you agree with me welcome aboard and maybe we'll split on the next one."

So, since single issue confrontation is not possible in our political system (and I don't necessarily think it should be possible, I've argued in defense of it repeatedly as well) it is important for me to know not only that the person I'm voting for agrees with me on key issues but that they have a framework and method for reaching decisions that I feel is reliable in producing future agreement.

I do not view "the bible is the literal word of god and all we need to know about life and behavior is in it" to be such a method. And, if in the end, the only reasons one can give for a policy decision is some form of "somebody wrote it in a book and I trust that person implicitly" then I do not think that sufficient reason to try and impose that decision universally. Great, it works for them, but every aspect of personal morality need not be legislated into a universal one just because you've been elected to office.