Still Searching for Mitt
Warning all! This is a cliche alert:
I’m sorry, but I can’t resist using this hackneyed, overused image. GOP Republican presidential candidate and Utah hero Mitt Romney is the “Where’s Waldo” of the 2008 election.
(I’ve never fallen back on this particular cliche in any of my writing, so I’m allowing myself to use it this once.)
Seriously, Romney keeps popping up here, then there. You turn the page and there he is again, trying to hide among the masses he once played to on social issues like abortion, gay rights, and gun control. But in just the last six months Romney’s philosophies and positions have shifted so wildly you just don’t know where the guy will turn up next. Flip the page, and you’ll see him tap dancing for fundamental Christians, whose support he badly needs if he’s to come out of the 2008 pack alive.
Let’s see. Of late, Romney has turned solidly anti-abortion, even though he catered to moderates and liberals in both parties in getting elected as Massachusets governor in 2002. Back then, he invoked his own mother’s position on female autonomy in family planning. Women have a right to choose, he said. Now he’s changed his mind. Romney says he arrived at his new pro-life position after learning more about the moral implications of cloning. That process has shown him the value of all human life, which means he can no longer honor a pro-choice position.
And now, we have the latest flip-flop: Gun rights. Romney has recently been ga-ga about guns, but had to acknowledge on Sunday he only joined the National Rife Association last August. Twelve years ago, when running for he U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy, Romney advocated gun control, including a five-day waiting period for weapons sales and a ban on certain assault rifles.
Oops! There he is again, trying to find a place to fit in.
You can read more on the record of Mitt/Waldo here. The Massachusetts media has been tougher on Romney than their Utah counterparts. Part of that is due to big, metro media markets. Politics, and by extension, political coverage, are no games for wimps. There’s no call to be nice and understanding as you often see in Utah press coverage. Basically, it’s like this: If you want to run with the wolves, you can’t pee with the puppies.
And speaking of being nice about Romney, and tolerant of his Mormonism, his battle with the unbendable right-wing evangelical Christian movement in this country is just beginning. Most people in Utah don’t seem to understand this. On radio talk shows, in opinion pieces and letters on newspaper editorial pages, the population here keeps scratching its head wondering why the anti-Romney, anti-Mormon forces can’t just tolerate his differences. You know, live and let live.
If you are part of that camp (and don’t most people like to think of themselves as tolerant of others’ views?), I highly recommend you read this new book: “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America” by Chris Hedges.
Hedges earned a degree from Harvard Divinity School and was a foreign correspondent for The New York Times for two decades.
Hedges’ thesis: That “Christian fascists” are determined to fulfill a widely stated goal of 25 years ago to use mainstream religious denominations, the media and the U.S. government to build a global Christian empire.
In their simple view, Mormons are not Christian. Mormons have not been “saved” by accepting Jesus as their lord, nor do Mormons see this very public act as a required tenet of their faith. Mormons, indeed, have “testimonies” of Christ and share their faith-promoting stories regularly with fellow believers. It’s similar to the “witnessing” of evangelicals, but not nearly the same. Having lived in Southern Baptist-saturated Texas for six years, I can attest to this fact: No amount of spinning and changing and evolving by Romney will budge the fundamental Christians on this issue.
Hedges’ research on this topic is fascinating. There are now, he writes, at least 70 million evangelicals in the U.S., which is about one-quarter of the population. They attend more tha 200,000 evangelical churches. Hedges’ particular focus is on a branch of evangelism knows as “dominionism,” which “seeks to redefine traditional democratic and Christian terms and concepts to fit an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power.”
Dominionists (they take their name from the Book of Genesis reference in which God gives man “dominion” over all creation) are relatively small in number but growing in power. They control at least six national TV networks, Hedges writes, and nearly all of the country’s 2,000 religious radio stations. They also have taken over the Southern Baptist Convention.
Read the book. It’s downright chilling. If you embrace the historic pluralism of this nation, if you see value in accepting others regardless of their beliefs, if you are downright confused as to why born-again Christians can’t tolerate Romney, this book is for you.
It may help explain why Romney can play all the Waldo he wants, but with this particular — and deeply misguided — religious minority, he’s going nowhere.
February 19th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I will take your recommendation Holly and read this book. I was raised in a Fundamentalist Christian home and have seen it all, from the inside out. It has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. They pick and choose from “scripture” according to political whims. Their goal is no different than the goal of the fundamentalists Muslims. They want a theocracy and it has to encompass as much of the globe as possible. Their tactics aren’t different either - witness the invasion of Iraq by the U.S.
I recommend the God Delusion and Misquoting Jesus for your reading.
February 19th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
The Southern Baptist Convention is truly scary. Primitive. Their effort to “keep women in their place” is based on the theory that “man was first in creation,and woman first in the Edenic fall”….nonsense,just nonsense.
They also draw clear distinctions between themselves,as true believers,and everyone else.They are right and anyone who contradicts them is both ignorant and evil.To demagogue emotional issues like abortion is their forte…to compromise is a sign of weakness ( sorta like driving in Dallas and signalling for a lane change ).
Mitt has almost no chance with the repub right. He has all the backbone of a wet noodle. The LDS types are going to receive plenty of “collateral damage” from Romney`s failure.Polygamy,Blood Atonement,Mountain Meadows etc., will have a fresh airing in American politics.
February 19th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Alexandra Pelosi ( Nancy`s daughter )just completed a film about Evangelicals, “Friends of God”. Her tour guide was none other than the Rev. Ted Haggard of National Association of Evangelicals fame. The project was completed just days before his “outing”…makes for fascinating viewing (HBO and PBS).
Mr.Haggard is now “completely heterosexual”.I`m so glad….feel sorry for his poor wife.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I’ve read and thought about th posts by Chardonnay and here are my initial impressions. First, I think we need to be careful when we call any religious faith “scary” and say that the members are convinced that only they are right. I grew up as a Southern Baptist. In fact, my parents served over 40 years as home missionaries to native Americans in Oklahoma and Utah. I’m sure I grew up much the same way most Mormons grow up…convinced that their church is true and its doctrines correct. However, before labeling an entire religious group as scary, Chardonnay should keep in mind that not all Southern Baptists believe they are the only true believers just as I would imagine that not all Mormons believe theirs is the only true church.
Having said that, I am aware that the Southern Baptist Convention has taken a dramatic turn to the right and, unfortunately, less accepting of others. My parents both passed away a few years ago, but they were upset at the change in the SBC. My parents tried to raise me to be accepting of others and to not judge others lest I be judged as well. Labeling just makes the acceptance of other viewpoints less likely. And, before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am defending the SBC, I no longer attend a SBC church.
But back to Mitt. Ultimately, he will not win the Republican nomination for president. He will lose, not because of his faith, but because of his flip/flop, opportunistic stands on the issues. His Mormon faith may be a major roadblock for evangelical Christians, but most Americans will end up preferring one of the other candidates because the other candidates already know who they are and don’t have to constantly reinvent themselves to appeal to blocks of voters. What our country needs is an intelligent president who can maintain what he or she believes without pandering to special interest groups. A president must serve all American citizens but can never be all things to all people.
If Chardonnay insists on labeling religious groups, then whoever he or she is should try substituting LDS for Southern Baptist in their post…the comments work both ways. And, both labels would be equally incorrect and wrong.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am
For vconrad; My use of the word scary has obviously been neuralgic but I think it appropriate. The SBC is on a crusade to redo American politics to suit their beliefs..casting out moderates such as Jimmy Carter & Dr.Allen. Telling Carter he should “abandon secular humanism”,etc.
Ok,it`s been tough for evangelical fundamentalists for decades,especialy in the South. LBJ and Civil Rights,Roe v. Wade, pornography everywhere,the near passage of the ERA,etc.,etc. I can understand their frustration(s).
My preference is for a secular USof A. Believe what you want but have tolerance for others .As an ethnic Utahn I find N.California most congenial…far from lunatic fringe groups like the SBC and LDS church.
BTW, the local wines are most excellent !
February 20th, 2007 at 9:40 am
I agree with everything chardonnay said (I usually do). However, what in the hell is an “ethnic Utahn”?:-) My father-in-law spent the first 30 or so years of his life in Utah and the last 50 or so in Idaho. His parents moved to Utah about the time of WWI.
He’s “ethnic Japanese.” (secular Buddist and a whiskey highball man, for the record).
PS. I’m givin’ you a bad time. I know what you mean. I lived in Santa Rosa for a while when I was a kid, by the way. Loved it.
February 20th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
What’s wrong with labeling an entire religious group as scary? It’s his/her opinion.
If you don’t believe an entire religious group is scary, look up Fred Phelps and his ragtag bunch. THEY ARE SCARY!
February 20th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Why are we treating certain political policy issues as if they were some kind of religious catechism? Unlike religion, where ideas are simply presented as part of the package, take it or leave it, public policy positions in a democracy are supposed to be conclusions arrived at through examination of evidence, dialogue with others, and reflection. They are per se things that can change and evolve over time, and in fact every blogger essay, every piece of campaign rhetoric that tries to persuade voters to adopt a certain position on a ballot proposal, is done in the expectation that people WILL change their minds, will decide that something they thought was reasonable and good before is now NOT a good idea. Why should we castigate any voter, or any candidate, for actually changing his or her mind, which is the essence of the marketplace of ideas in democracy and the fundamental basis for the First Amendment?
If a politican has apparently taken a different position now than he took in debate 13 years ago, why shouldn’t we assume that his earlier statements were made with 13 years less consideration of evidence and reasoning? Why is any politician supposed to be denied the opportunity to mature in his understanding of policies and their implications? After all, they are not religious prophets who are supposed to be infallible to begin with.
Media writers and bloggers can develop in their thinking on any issue. They were probably sincere in what they said 10 years ago, but that prior statement was not legislation that barred them from ever changing their minds on that issue. If we adopted that “never change your mind” attitude in the courts, we would still have racial segregation and sex discrimination in the law.
Frankly, I haven’t seen any evidence that Romney has been inconsistent with his present policy positions from the positions he took during his campaign for the governorship four years ago or during his term in office. Additionally, those who oversimplify, with labels like “pro-choice” and “pro-life” on abortion, are linguistic simpletons. For example, are Mormons generally one or the other? Since Mormon teaching is that abortion should be allowed in some cases, radical anti-abortion groups picket the LDS General Conference with pictures of aborted fetuses and loudspeakers. But the exceptions are so limited that NARAL would certainly label Mormons as “anti-choice”. My guess is that at least half of the Romney changes in position are really media oversimplifications of his statements.
The fact is, other than treating those developments in his political statements over 10 years, and his Mormonism, the media can find nothing to criticize about Romney. He is smart, articulate, successful, a family man (unlike some other candidates), and apparently lives according to his beliefs (because if he didn’t, we would have heard about it by now).
By contrast, Giuliani literally couldn’t get reelected Mayor of New York before 9/11 thrust him onto the national stage. John McCain is someone who has a strong reputation for ill temper, who has in my view violated the First Amendment with his bills controlling campaign contributions and even free speech by organizations during campaigns. The Democratic Party candidates are so beholden to the left wing of their party that their election will inevitably weaken the United States’ ability to defend us against the growing threat of Islamic Jihadists.
Of course, I am willing to be persuaded, by evidence and discussion, that I am wrong, and change my mind. We all have that right, including Mitt Romney.
February 22nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Coltakashi is right about the left-wing agenda. Weakening Uncle Sam’s ability to defend itself against Islamic Jihadists is one of our top priorities.
However, what he (or she?) fails to mention is that after we’ve gained control of all branches of government, we’ll all be way too busy smoking pot in the nude at gay weddings to care about the Jihadists.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:06 am
c81a6082587f66c6698d…
c81a6082587f66c6698d3e5165510fd3c81a6082587f…
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 am
tramadol…
news…
March 2nd, 2007 at 7:48 am
soma next day…
news…
September 7th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
cat urine odor…
The best way to remove cat urine odors and stains……
November 11th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
Granny Sex Videos…
Sorry, it just sounds like a crazy idea for me :)…
May 9th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Obagi Blue Peel…
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….