Democrat Leader Reid on a "better leader"

OK, I separated the two, so my points would not be confused. Also, I'll add this stupid disclaimer -- I do not speak for the Republican Party, and they don't speak for me.

Last week Harry Reid attacked Evangelical Christians, conservatives, and Mormon church leaders and members.

From the Deseret News, Reid calls Evangelicals "Anti-Christian":

Reid also told reporters the Republican Party has been driven by evangelical Christians for 20 years. "They are the most anti-Christian people I can imagine, the people from the Christian far right."

While he was at it, the Democratic Leader also saw fit to attack the church's leadership:

Some past prominent LDS Church leaders wrongly pressed conservatism on church members, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday during a press conference at Brigham Young University.

The Nevada senator attacked President Bush and evangelical Christians while saying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints need to worry less about abortion and gay marriage and more about health care, global warming, education and jobs.

The leader of the Senate is dictating religious teaching to the church, and warning them that they have been too "conservative".

He also called followers of the Mormon faith sheep, too easily misled, too ignorant to have decided for themselves what they believed:

"Members of the church are obedient," Reid said, "they are followers in the truest sense of the word, and I think they've taken members of the church down a path that is the wrong path.

Reid contrasted these "bad leaders" who took members "down the wrong path", with his prime example of a good leader, one that would be welcome in the "progressive" wing of the party:

Look at Joseph Smith. Here's a man who was progressive, to say the least. He broke from the pack. He did things differently than they'd been done. He was against slavery. He wanted to start a national bank.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the man Reid thinks embodies the philosophy of the modern Democratic Party. NOTE: NONE of the following items include ANY aspect of the teaching or founding of the Mormon religion. So anybody who wants to accuse me of "attacking Mormons" can just forget it. This isn't about Mormonism, or even about what I think of Smith. I chose quotes on the points Reid made about being "progressive", "doing things differently", and "starting a national bank":

In March 1826, Smith was convicted after an alleged admission to being a "disorderly person" and an "impostor" in a court in Bainbridge, New York.[8]
...
To raise money, Smith planned a banking institution, which was called the Kirtland Safety Society. The State of Ohio denied Smith a charter to legally operate a bank causing Smith to rename the company as 'The Kirkland AntiBanking Safety Society' and he continued to operate the bank illegally and print notes. The bank collapsed after 21 days of operation in January.[13] During this time, Smith and his associates were accused of illegal and unethical actions.[14]
...
Eventually, lawsuits and indictments against Smith and his banking partners became so severe that, on January 12, 1838, Smith and Rigdon left Kirtland by dark of night for the Far West settlement in Caldwell County, Missouri. At the time, there were at least $6,100 in civil suits outstanding against him in Chardon, Ohio courts, and an arrest warrant had been issued for Smith on a charge of bank fraud.[16]
...
In February, 1844, Smith announced his candidacy for President of the United States, with Sidney Rigdon as his vice-presidential running mate. He also theorized a quasi-republican political system which he termed Theodemocracy and organized the Council of Fifty based upon its principles.
...
The city council, headed by Joseph Smith as mayor, responded by passing an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers.[25] Under the council's new ordinance, Nauvoo's mayor, Smith, in conjunction with the city council, ordered the city marshal to destroy the paper and the press on June 10, 1844.[26]

So, Reid thinks a man who ran for President to establish a "theodemocracy" is a "good" example, as opposed to the moder leaders Reid criticizes for standing for the unborn and for biblical principles of marriage.

Anyway, I don't expect ANY liberal outrage, except maybe someone will complain about me "attacking" the man Reid tried to hide behind to protect himself from criticism. Reid attacked the LDS church for being too conservative, and needed someone with "absolute moral authority" to provide him cover for what he wrote.

In other words, Reid once again has used the typical liberal trick of using a foil to hide behind. He slandered evangelicals, he attacked former and current leaders of the church, he essentially called the church members ignorant, and wrapped it all up in the mantle of one of the church's revered leaders so that if anybody attacked him the democrats could cry foul.

Because as we know, Democrats hide behind other people, putting words in their mouths so if you call the Democrats on their lies, they will complain that you are "attacking" the person they are hiding behind.

If Wikipedia has any facts wrong, I apologize, and note that you can go directly to Wikipedia and edit the entries to correct them.

Trent Lott was run out of leadership by Democrats for an offhand comment at a BIRTHDAY PARTY when he said Strom Thurmond would have been a "better president" than his opponents. The left had no problem dredging up Strom Thurmond's past in order to attack Trent by pretending he was saying something more than he did.

Now Reid has attacked the modern LDS leadership and held up another man as someone who would be a "better leader". Should he have to resign, or will the democrats claim that any examination of the man Reid holds up as a "better leader" is off-limits?