On the technical side, I agree that Wordpress would be a good framework on which to build the site. On top of Wordpress, I'd recommend using the Buddypress framework. Buddypress allows one to create a community site on the Wordpress platform. 

Here are some great themes that utilize the Buddypress/Wordpress systems.

On the subject of the Nicene Creed and where the LDS Church stands, here are the thoughts of a current apostle of the church. 

We do not believe that just because these creeds have been around for a long time and that most Christians believe them that this proves their divine verity. No, our church does not believe in ideas set forth in the Nicene Creed nor do we believe in the entirety of the Apostles' Creed.

The LDS Church is a restorationist church. This is clear from our history and doctrine. No, we are not a part of the mainstream Christian tradition, but we are most certainly Christian in our beliefs and practices.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (of which I am a proud member) does not claim to be part of the "Christian tradition" in the way you've described it. No, we do not subscribe to the conclusions of the Nicene Council. No, we do not base our doctrine nor do we base our claim to divine truth on the wisdom of theologians. 

We are Christians because of our firm belief in Jesus Christ as the only begotten of the Father and as the savior and redeemer of mankind.

Having attended college (BYU) in Utah, I can attest to the fact that Utah girls can be a bit spacey.

The 5th paragraph from the end boggles my mind. Each one of your assertions about Romney has no basis in reality and reeks of hasty generalization. What proof do you have of any of the following?

1. "[Romney] knows next to nothing about the principles underpinning American government"

2.Romney supports FDR's economic bill of rights

3. Romney believes that all property is the government's

4. "[Romney is] perfectly happy to take from the industrious and rational to support the greedy and improvident"

Professor Rahe,

While your post is generally well documented and your arguments well reasoned, there are a few points at which your logic and/or judgement goes off the rails. Here are some examples.

You assail Romney for his 2009 Newsweek op-ed on healthcare in which he lays out his 6 points of reform. You correctly assert that he doesn't discuss the constitutionality of an individual mandate, but you also totally gloss over his remaining 5 points which are very conservative and solidly limited-government approaches to healthcare problems.

Moreover, there can be no doubt that he, like Michael Bloomberg in the city of New York, is fiscally sane.

This is a low blow. Are you really comparing Romney to Bloomberg? There is no evidence that Romney has anywhere near the statist impulses of Bloomberg.

"...while I am opposed to socialized medicine, I have always felt that medical care should be available for those who cannot otherwise afford it. I have been looking into a program whereby government might pay the premiums for health insurance for those who cannot afford it and, at the same time, make such premiums for others a tax credit or deduction, preferably credit to encourage more use of private health insurance."

-Ronald Reagan

Prof. Rahe, please add Ronald Reagan to your list of managerial progressives.

No, welcome to post-free speech America.

I disagree. As long as liberals are the ones controlling who can speak and what can be said, the usual suspects you mention will all escape scrutiny.

Judging from this and some of the other comments on this post, it seems that I may not have described my position clearly. I do not think that the Obama girls are fair game to criticism. Quite the opposite. What I was trying to say is that Obama's use of his children in this ad, and specifically this ad's asking donors to "help the Obamas" is playing dirty pool.

This duplicitous behavior reminds me of Arab militants (in Iraq, Gaza, etc.) using mosques or schools as shelters from which to launch attacks. They know that  their enemies follow the rules of war and won't attack them while they're in these safe havens. The same is true with Obama in this ad. I agree that Obama's kids should not be subjected to political attacks, but that doesn't mean that the Obama campaign's use of them as human shields is acceptable.

I don't think this video is that big of a deal. During that time (early 2000s), there was considerably less focus and attention among conservatives and Republicans on federal spending  than there is now. It would be great to find a candidate that has never sought any earmarks, advocated other wasteful federal spending in the past. I don't think you'll find one. Back in those days, Santorum, DeMint, Bush 43, Coburn, and other conservative politicians and pundits were voting for and advocating for more spending (NCLB, Medicare Pt. D, Foreign Aid, etc.). 

The Bush/Obama bailouts and Obama's rocket-propelled spending gave rise to the tea party, which has focused the country's attention on limiting government spending and control. I'm much more conservative now than I was 10 years ago, due in large part to the tea party and its standard bearers (Beck, Breitbart, West, Rubio, Limbaugh, Levin, Erickson, et al). To me the real test is how conservative someone is, in word and deed, post-2007. The lines between ideologies have been clearly drawn over the past 5 years. Mitt's recent comment about the minimum wage is troubling. This one is not.

He was truly a man of great courage and conviction. We need more like him on our side. R.I.P.

Santorum appears not to be planning on attending.

Since Frank Rich clearly wants Obama to be re-elected to a second term and would prefer a weaker GOP opponent, I take his analysis to mean that Romney is actually the stronger candidate.

Brilliant. :)