Too bad they changed the Stalker merit badge to boring old “Tracking.”

Gallup has released a survey confirming the sharp conservative leanings of Mormons.

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or Mormons, are the most conservative major religious group in the country, with 59% identifying as conservative, 31% as moderate, and 8% as liberal.

Not too surprising but here are some interesting tidbits:

• “The data show that these lapsed Mormons are substantially different in ideology from their fellow Mormons who remain active in the church (as defined by attendance at church services). In fact, lapsed Mormons are essentially no different from all other non-Mormons in terms of their basic ideology.”
• Contrary to what I have assumed, Mormons seem to be generally of the same political stripe, whether they live in Utah or not. “The percentage of Mormons living in Utah who are conservative is little different from the conservative percentage among Mormons living elsewhere in the United States.”

These first point reiterates that indeed greater religious intensity suggests political conservatism. When church attendance and likelihood to marry are the biggest prognosticators of political affiliation, Mormons can’t help but be conservative.

(But don’t worry liberals, no one’s saying you can’t be a faithful member just because you aren’t on the big red bandwagon. Be a proud part of the 8%. Seriously, no sarcasm here.)

With that in mind, I’ll go out on a limb and say that this is not the best way to start a campaign.

Idaho gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell will be mixing what he calls doctrines from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints into his gubernatorial campaign in a series of meetings slated for LDS elders only.

In January, Rammell will kick off a series of special meetings targeted specifically at “faithful priesthood-holders of the LDS Church” to discuss the so-called “White Horse” prophecy.

I’m not sure why a gubernatorial candidate wants to kick off his campaign by discussing a highly disputed prophecy when his own church doesn’t. While Idaho’s LDS population is a sizable 24%, isn’t he just asking to tick off that remaining 76%? I’m all for protecting the Constitution, but making a parochial appeal using folk doctrine does not make a winning campaign nor does it put the Church in the best light. (Here’s a copy of his flier, via Article 6 Blog.)

Bonus: Last week, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty signed the city’s same-sex marriage legislation in a church! I thought government recognition of same-sex marriage had nothing to do with churches and whether they did the same. Oh well.

5. Mormons in California come under attack from some supporters of gay rights because of their lobbying efforts in the November 2008 election on behalf of Prop. 8, which outlawed gay marriage. Later in the year, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire approve gay marriage, but it is overturned by voters in Maine.

Stephen R. Covey, one of the most successful business authors of the last two decades, has moved e-book rights to two of his best-selling books from his print publisher, Simon & Schuster, a division of the CBS Corporation, to a digital publisher that will sell the e-books to Amazon.com for one year . . .

The move promises to raise the already high anxiety level among publishers about the economics of digital publishing and could offer authors a way to earn more profits from their works than they do under the traditional system.

So now, if Obamacare passes, Romney will be left telling angry primary voters that the only real difference between the two plans is that he implemented his policies at the state level, while Obama did it through the federal government. Sure, it’s clearly worse if the federal government is implementing bad policies, but it’s hard to see how such an argument would pass muster with anybody but those who are already ardent Romney supporters. It’s sort of like saying, “As governor, I raised state income taxes, but the thought of raising federal income taxes — that’s an outrage!”

A Romney spokesman counters:

There are some similarities. For instance, the concept of the “exchange” where people can shop for affordable health plans was pioneered in Massachachusetts. But Mitt’s Romney’s health care reforms are different in several important respects. First, the bill signed by Governor Romney did not raise taxes. Second, its focus was on strengthening the private insurance market, and I don’t think anyone believes that Democrats have given up on their dream of a public option. And finally, Governor Romney believes states should be free to come up with their own approach instead of having Washington create a “one-size-fits-all” solution for the entire country.

I think Romney gets unfairly blamed for some aspects that were done by the legislature or his successor. But when its become known as RomneyCare, that’s how politics rolls.

Regardless how HCR ends in Congress, it’s a debate that’s going to stick around for quite a while.