|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
::ALONG
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL January 30, 2008 By
RB Scott As the barrow pit alongside the campaign expressway collects more roadkill (Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson; and last night Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards while Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul ran into heavy oncoming traffic), the grinding primary election process seems as determined to set a few new precedents as it is to extrude a very predictable result: another election and inauguration of the least objectionable. Could it come down to this? Will the first woman candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, prove to be more or less cloying, irritating and deceptive than, say, John McCain? It is the kind of lose-lose proposition that drives voters yearning for real change mad, and rends bookmakers bald, bewildered and busted? It does not have to be that way. For instance, a general election battle between Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney could turn informative, provocative, even inspiring. It could happen, still. This has been an unusual election year and it is bound to get even stranger. And nastier too, no doubt. In the unlikely event that Super Tuesday brings no more big surprises, what will become of the eventual runners-up, formidables like Obama or Clinton, Romney or McCain, Edwards, Richardson and Giuliani? Does the nation not deserve to hear more from such experienced voices? Are they not worthy counter-balances and backups to the candidates they nearly defeated? And, might the winners reveal something about their true characters, if they not only offer a triumphant handshake, but warmly embrace their challengers and welcome their fresh leadership? No matter who is in the lead role, a Romney-McCain alliance would be serious competition to the formidable Clinton-Obama team, which would be (Dare I write it?) almost unbeatable unless they beat themselves to death in the meantime. Not that he deserves it, but the alliance would also proffer just-in-time absolution for the former President-horndog-and-wannabe-First Man's premeditated descent into cynical, gutter-ball, racial politics. If the differences between McCain and Romney prove irreconcilable, as seems to be the case, the finalist could use help from someone like the popular, competent and politically moderate Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who for months has been aggressively positioning herself as the antidote to Hillary. Even Romney could use the boost, never mind his long and admirable history of promoting women. Likewise, Christine Todd Whitman, the moderate former secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection and governor of New Jersey, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a conservative African American, would, for different reasons, be equally substantial running mates. Separate
editorials in The New Y0rk Times, one endorsing Clinton, the other
McCain appeared to be harbingers of the general election.
©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::
DOES NO ONE LOVE MITT? By
RB Scott Although Irish Setters have been sleeping around the family manse for years, it is apparent that Mitt Romney has failed to absorb and grasp the subtle messages and extensions of the adage "let sleeping dogs lie." That may be changing. Romney's flare-up yesterday (1/17/2007) with the Associated Press' Glen Johnson at a press conference in South Carolina (Johnson challenged the candidate's claim that no lobbyists were running his campaign) accompanied by the imperious in-your-face public reprimand of the reporter by Romney press secretary Eric Fehrnstrom, kicked the tethered media dawgs into action defending one of their own. The
reaction was instantaneous and substantial. Early the next morning,
Google's collection of links to news stories and opinion pieces about
the testy encounters,filled three or four computer screens. Blogger
reaction was yet to pour in. And, the sun was barely up. The arresting headline in on-line version of the leftish New Republic-- The Whole Associated Press Hates Romney -- cuts right to the heart of the matter. It is prima facie evidence that Romney ought to sack his press relations team immediately if not sooner. Incidentally, months ago I heard similar dire assessments from reporters for National Public Radio. But, wait. Perhaps Romney is simply the candidate everyone loves to hate. Another Washington Post column today claims that Mitt is so despised by the other candidates - perhaps vice versa too - that none of them would pick him as a running mate nor agree to be his. This concern resurfaces so often, is it time Romney got friendlier with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who may yet emerge as the White Knight of this confounding primary season? Rushing to reporter Johnson's defense, the Post quickly cooked-up a story today listing all the lobbyists working for Romney. It is clear, the little flare-up at an obscure Staples stores in South Carolina will chase Mitt for some time. Reporters will badger him incessantly about each name on the Post's list and then start mining the major donor rosters as well for other "interesting" industry and corporate connections (disclosure: my family has made significant contributions to both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama). In less tangible ways, the dust-up with Johnson, will shade future coverage of Romney and, hence, the views of most voters, a few of whom are even more contemptuous and patronizing of reporters than Romney and Fehrnstrom. Something serious ails Team Romney. Are the advisors afraid to tell Mitt he "doesn't have clothes on?" Can they all be sycophants? The victory in Michigan seemed to loosen-up the candidate, energize the campaign, focus the strategy if only momentarily. But, one day later it's Back To The Future. Evidence continues to mount that Mitt is incapable of tempering manipulative behaviors that served him well as a cagey Bain consultant and CEO -- precisely accurate if deliberately misleading wordplay that kept alive all possible options. Instead, he has become more aggressive and unashamed than Bill Clinton ever was about defining what "is is" and insisting haughtily that he knows best! Romney's clever pars-e-mony, which I wrote about at length way, way back in the Fall of 2005, continues to be his ruin. Might this suggest that the people around him are giving him terrible advice? Or, that Romney is refusing to listen? Or, both? ©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::PRIMARY
NOTEBOOK
[Editor's Note: A version of this column was released prior to the primary election in Michigan, January 15, 2008.]. A respected national newspaper recently reported that Presidential candidate W. Mitt Romney's decision to suspend advertising in South Carolina and Florida "laid bare the dire condition of his run for the White House…" Then Romney won going away in Michigan; a win that injected caffeine into his Postum and added more green to his already bulky bankroll. Here are some alternative explanations to consider: 1)Romney had spent more in South Carolina, more than any other candidate. It is dope-slappingly obvious that more ads weren't likely to persuade still balky Christian conservatives that a vote for him was not a vote for the anti-Christ. 2)Team Romney had been criticized recently for going negative on Huckabee. It's possible the forthcoming ads were deemed too hard on the former Southern Baptist preacher. 3)He needed the cash to ensure a win in Michigan, where he was born and raised and his dad was governor. It worked and the win produced priceless publicity and, finally, momentum. 4)Romney surely preferred to make the ad suspension decision in private so as not to tip his hand to the competition. But notoriously leaky advertising departments at newspapers and television stations forced him to act publicly. 5)Pouring money into Michigan raised the ante and put the screws to cash-strapped McCain and Huckabee. McCain's win in New Hampshire has not triggered a cash landslide. Huckabee's resources seem limited, too, because smart Republican money knows he's unelectable. Was he reeling from the early upsets in Iowa and New Hampshire, or just pained that religion has played such a crucial role? Or, annoyed that while he played footsie with Christian evangelicals who generally despise Mormons, he ceded the middle ground to the likes of John McCain? Or, frustrated that he is no longer recognized as the fiscally responsible, social progressive he once was and may still be? Romney convincingly says he has "the staying power to go the distance in all 50 states." Wouldn't it be good for America if, for a change, everyone was involved in picking the finalists for President of The United States? Insiders say the setbacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, followed by the big win in Michigan reshaped the campaign strategy. The aim now is to concentrate capital and people in states where he has strong organizations on the ground and reasonable popular support. It goes light in states where his religious beliefs present major problems and often get coupled to persistent worries that his pragmatic social policies are so open-ended that they could turn downright liberal in the blink of an eye. New York, New Jersey and, especially, California loom large as the major battleground states before the survivors move on to Texas for the final shootout at the Alamo, perhaps.
Connecting the Huckadots: Turns out that Chip Saltsman, the national campaign manager for the self-proclaimed champion of the common man, is a fellow who made a small fortune helping clients prey upon poor working stiffs every single pay day. Saltsman, once an operatiave for Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, was also once a lobbyist for predatory payday lenders, those legal loan sharks who have persuaded a couple dozen legislatures - Arkansas included -- to exempt them from usury laws. The interest rates they charge soar up to 390 percent annually (this is not a typographical error). The Arkansas statute -- The Check Cashers Act of 1999 was adopted despite the fierce objections of consumer advocates and signed into law by none other than the "populist" Governor Huckabee himself. Presumably, Saltsman's former clients do not use baseball bats to persuade deadbeats to pay up. Swift Boating Barack : As Barack Obama rises, the personal attacks intensify. One nasty e-mail makes something of his middle name -"Hussein"-and his connections to Islam through his late father and former step-father. Another
rather scurrilous "Swift Boat"-like post notes that Obama's
parish in Washington touts itself as "unabashedly black,"
with a "non-negotiable" commitment to Africa, implying there's
something inherently un-American in offering sustenance to poor people
on a far off continent. By contrast, Obama wrote candidly about his indiscretions in his riveting autobiography: Dreams From My Father, which has to be the most unapologetic autobiography ever written by a Presidential candidate, not to mention the most literate too. Pillory Hillary: Hillary is constantly being bashed about for same old, same old. The nastiest are electronic pieces that trade on her alleged bitchiness. Last week brought a PhotoShopped full frontal nude of her as hermaphrodite: shapely breasts, slender waist, taut hips and a rather distinctive male sex organ. In Search of The Inner Jew: Romney and Mormons, Barack and Hillary too, need to discover their inner Jew; learn to laugh at themselves, their cultures and peculiarities, and the bigots who attack them. Mo Udall, the last Mormon to make a serious run (1976) for the White House discovered his "Inner Jew" early on: "I'm a one-eyed Mormon Democrat from conservative Arizona. You can't get a higher handicap than that." No surprise, Mormonism was not the issue for him that it has been for Mitt Romney. Like Obama, Udall wrote most of his own material. He didn't need a marketing guru to package him like a newly concocted premium Vodka -- good straight up or with any mixer -- and a proctor to keep him on message. Misty-eyed Senator Clinton learned in New Hampshire that letting the "real you" shine through makes all the difference, even if your enemies make you out to be a hermaphrodite
©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::Michigan
Looms Large
A respected national newspaper recently reported that Presidential candidate W. Mitt Romney, "reeling from defeats in New Hampshire and Iowa," decided to suspend advertising in South Carolina and Florida, a decision that "laid bare the dire condition of his run for the White House…" Leads of newspaper stories are supposed to be dramatic and arresting, which explains why they sometimes become a little over-wrought too. How could Romney be "reeling" from a defeat he anticipated as poll after poll charted John McCain's resurgence and Mike Huckabee's sudden rise? Given where Mitt was the weekend before the New Hampshire voting - as many as 10 points behind in some polls - narrowing the gap to five points had to have injected some caffeine into his Postum. There are plenty of strategic reasons why it made sense to suspend the ad buy: Hardened religious prejudice: Romney has spent more in South Carolina, more than any other candidate. Another half million wasn't going to persuade still balky Christian conservatives that a vote for him was not tantamount to holding hands with Satan. Team Romney would not put it so bluntly, even if it is dope-slappingly obvious to everyone else. Negative Ads: Team Romney has been criticized recently for going negative against Huckabee, in particular. It's possible the team concluded the ads aimed for both states were just too hard on the former Southern Baptist preacher. Cash-flow management: He needs the cash now to take Michigan, where he was born and raised and his dad was governor. A win would yield plenty of opportunities to play catch-up in Florida and South Carolina. Plus, the "free advertising" and winning momentum would more than make up the difference. Forced To Disclose: Romney surely preferred to make the ad suspension decision in private so as not to tip his hand to the competition. But the notoriously leaky advertising departments at newspapers and television stations eliminated that choice. Opportunistic Move: Pouring money into Michigan raises the ante, puts the screws to cash-strapped McCain and Huckabee. Rudy Giuliani bailed out of Michigan a few days ago. McCain's win in New Hampshire is inspiring, but it has not triggered a cash landslide. Huckabee's resources seem limited because smart Republican money knows he's unelectable. Shift in campaign strategy: Does the new plan minimize expenditures in states where he will likely do poorly because of his religion? It makes sense to spend more in states where neither religion nor simplistic doctrinaire conservative solutions rule the roost. So instead of "reeling," how about "pained, annoyed and frustrated?" "Pained," that religion has played such a crucial role so far. "Annoyed," that while playing footsie with Christian evangelicals who don't like Mormons to begin with, Romney ceded the middle ground to the likes of John McCain. "Frustrated," that he is no longer recognized as the fiscally responsible, social progressive he once was and may still be. Romney convincingly says he has "the staying power to go the distance in all 50 states." Wouldn't it be good for America if, for a change, everyone was involved in picking the finalists for President of The United States? Now Romney needs to boot some enthusiasm into his own kind. The fighting words reported by the Salt Lake Tribune from the normally gregarious Mormon moneyman, Kem Gardner - "As long as he's soldiering on, we're with him"- were uncharacteristically downcast. They were upstaged only by the mangled observation of Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a national co-chair of the Romney campaign. He told the Greenville News: "If he [Romney] doesn't win Michigan, it's going to be hard for him to have a chance in South Carolina. And if he doesn't win South Carolina, I don't think he's going to win." Why prolong the agony? Cite a little W.H. Auden-- Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead/Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead-and get it over with. Or, right now, Romney should share the heroic poetry of Walt Whitman with his people. They desperately need it! POST SCRIPTS Swift Boating Barack : As Barack Obama rises, the attacks on his background intensify. One nasty e-mail makes something of his middle name -"Hussein"-and his connections to Islam through his late father and former step-father. Another
rather scurrilous "Swift Boat"-like post notes that Obama's
parish in Washington touts itself as "unabashedly black,"
with a "non-negotiable" commitment to Africa, implying there's
something inherently un-American in offering sustenance to poor people
on a far off continent. My own Mormon congregation in suburban Boston
has supported poor people in Haiti, Jamaica and The Dominican Republic
and it's about as pro-American as they come. Pillory Hillary: Hillary is constantly being bashed about for same old, same old. The nastiest are electronic pieces that trade on her alleged bitchiness. Last week brought a PhotoShopped full frontal nude of her as hermaphrodite: shapely breasts, slender waist, taut hips and a rather distinctive male sex organ. In Search of The Inner Jew: Romney and Mormons, Barack and Hillary too, need to discover their inner Jew; learn to laugh at themselves, their cultures and peculiarities, and the bigots who attack them. If
the world is talking more about Mormons, Romney, Barack and Hillary,
it means the world is taking them seriously. P.T.Barnum's wisdom applies:
Mo Udall, the last Mormon to make a serious run (1976) for the White House discovered his "Inner Jew early on:" "I'm a one-eyed Mormon Democrat from conservative Arizona. You can't get a higher handicap than that." No surprise, Mormonism was not the issue for him that it has been for Mitt Romney. Like Obama, Udall wrote most of his own material. He didn't need a marketing guru to package him like a newly concocted premium Vodka -- good straight up or with any mixer -- and a proctor to keep him on message. Misty-eyed
Senator Clinton learned in New Hampshire that letting the "real
you" shine through makes all the difference, even if your enemies
make you out to be a hermaphrodite. ©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::EVE
OF SELF-DESTRUCTION
©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::NATIONAL
CATHOLIC REGISTER ERRS
By
RB Scott NCR wrote: "There are reasons a Catholic might wince when Mitt Romney, a Mormon" "Mormon" is a pejorative that once was considered as mean-spirited as "Papist" would be to a Catholic, or "kike" to Jew. Mormons turned that frown upside down long ago. I often refer to myself as a Mormon. I like the term, frankly. So no harm done. Still, most members would prefer to be called Latter-day Saints. The AP stylebook, as well as ones from The New York Times, and TIME suggest that the correct name be used in first reference: that would be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most stylebooks suggest "Latter-day Saints" or "LDS" in second reference. Mormon is an acceptable second reference too, as I noted. NCR wrote:"The first reason to wince is the anti-Catholic nature of his religion. Mormons believe that Christ failed in his project to found a church, and that the history of Christendom is the story of "The Great Apostate," the Catholic Church." Actually, the church teaches that Christ succeeded in establishing his church, but, because of persecution and communication lapses, the teachings were changed and, ultimately, the authority to act for God expired with the death of the last apostle. The alleged doctrinal changes and the subsequent withdrawal of the power to act in God's name are collectively referred to as the "Great Apostasy." Some Protestant churches point to this period of apostasy as well. Latter-day Saints are unique only that they, like Catholics, believe the power to act for God must be conferred in an unbroken chain linking the newest priesthood holder to Jesus Christ, Himself. Like Catholics, Latter-day Saints proclaim that priesthood power can not be assumed. NCR wrote:"More than 1,800 years would pass before the true church was founded: the Church of Latter-Day Saints." Latter-day Saints would say the power to act for God and the true church was "restored" in 1830. While they may casually use "founded" and "restored" interchangeably, they really mean "restored." NCR wrote:"The second reason to wince is the political legacy of Mitt Romney. It was on Romney's watch that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts demanded that the state's Legislature legalize homosexual "marriage" - among the most damaging usurpations of legislative power by a judicial body in American history. America is a democracy. Here, citizens and their representatives make laws. Yet Gov. Romney ordered state officials to perform "same-sex marriages" because unelected judges - not voters - told him to." This is a very, very serious distortion of the truth. I live near Boston. I happen to believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and The Massachusetts Constitution when they ruled in favor of the same sex couples who sued to have their domestic arrangements sanctioned by the state. However, Mitt Romney was furious at the order and complained bitterly that the SJC had usurped its authority and was "activist court." He then attempted and failed to get the matter reversed, then submitted as a referendum to the voters. Moreover, the LDS Church has been in the vanguard of churches, along with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing same sex marriage and favoring a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. By the way, I happen to think the Marriage Amendment is a really bad idea and unconstitutional. That is of no particular concern. What is of concern is that you have seriously misrepresented Romney's actual position and the facts surrounding the same sex marriage controversy in my state. NCR wrote:"The third reason to wince is because it's hard to accept Romney's convictions at face value. He said it best in his speech: "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world." We tire, for instance, of politicians who give heartfelt speeches lauding abortion rights to win the support of Massachusetts voters, and soon after give heartfelt speeches about the right to life to win the hearts of pro-life Republicans. And, as a Presidential candidate, he continues to press this matter to the fullest." I'm not sure what to say about that. As far back as 1993 he was personally opposed to abortion. Like many Catholic politicians (I needn't name names because they are all well know to you) he believed, however, that women and their physicians had to right to make a choice free of interference from the state. His modest change since then is this: he thinks Roe v. Wade should be reversed and the matter returned to each state legislature.
Aren't we talking about a philosophical difference of opinion, at best? Don't Catholics proclaim to belong to the only true church? As I recall, recently the LDS church has funneled significant aid resources (cash and goods) through Catholic Charities. As I understand it, this is an on-going and growing relationship. I doubt the LDS church would do business with an organization it believed illegitimate and unreliable.
I am utterly astonished. As mentioned above. I have tracked Mitt's political career since it began. I briefly covered his father when he ran for President in 1968 as well. Later I helped cover the campaigns of George McGovern, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford. I can not think of any candidates in the history of the United States who have been more pro family than the Romneys. None. There was no switch involved here. He has consistently been pro family and his church has been as well, aggressively so. NCR wrote:" But ultimately, as several commentators have noted, the God Romney bowed to is the "In God We Trust" civic deity of our currency." I don't know what you're driving at here but it feels like you are making a very, very cheap accusation that he worships the Almighty Dollar. He certainly has plenty of dollars to bow down to, if he was so inclined. I suspect if you took the time to fully measure the man, including how he has husbanded his resources and used them for the good of the people around him, in his church and personal life, you might discover that he has been as good at sharing his good fortune as he was earning it. It is a tradition of sharing and giving back that Mitt inherited from his father, whom the former President Bush said correctly said was the father of volunteerism in America. No doubt this had something to do with your assessment that Romney's religion -like John Kennedy's in 1960-does not render him incapable of leading the United States of America.
©
2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved ::ROMNEY
IN IOWA HEARS FOOTSTEPS; BY RB Scott Boston,
Massachusetts "When Mitt Romney implies that secular forces are the greatest threat to our nation, he forgets that the most moral president we've ever had - the great Abraham Lincoln - had no religion and did not consider himself a Christian. Yet…he had the great strength to oppose the most immoral threat to our national soul: slavery." Agreed! Please endure a few words, in defense of my friend (I think I can call Mitt a friend) and the speech he delivered in Texas. Recall our high school football coach bellowing at the linebackers: "hit that receiver so hard he'll hear your footsteps every time he goes out for pass, even if you are sitting on the bench." Well, Mitt is hearing footsteps. Here's why. Late in the 1994 Senatorial campaign, he had the illustrious Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy down for the count. Finally, the formidable if temporarily stunned Kennedy machine roared to life and hit Mitt hard with every "Mormon-related" skeleton it could dig out of the closet and twist out of shape. So brazen was this attack that the astonished archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law weighed in on Romney's side editorializing "...Senator Kennedy dishonors the legacy of his late brother..." or something like that. By the time Romney, got his wind back and responded, the election was all but decided. Flash forward to Mike Huckabee's eleventh hour surge in Iowa. I don't think it can be sustained, hence I did not think Romney's speech was necessary. Nevertheless, having been rendered inert by an ambush in 1994, Mitt was hearing footsteps in Iowa in 2007. With the Presidency at stake, he reacted quickly and decisively. He took specific aim at the "Mormon" problem: some nasty push polling that backhandedly promoted the concept that Mormonism is a cult, a concern that strengthened the appeal of Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist preacher. Huckabee seemed deliberately slow to tell voters that he views Mormonism as a religion, not a cult, and when he did, he demurred saying he didn't know much about the church. Then he coyly asked the reporter from The New York Times: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
This coincided, more or less, with Romney's statement that he includes
secularists like us in his plans. He likes people who have faith in
America, who believe that someday, somewhere, somehow, someway we
will all be held accountable for our actions, even if only by our
own consciences. Here's a question that's been nagging at me for some time. Perhaps it has been bugging Mitt too. Where's the middle ground, the new American way? As your e-mail noted, the "founders" of our nation, especially the leading lights, were deists, the "secularists" of their day. Yet their speeches and the documents were generously sprinkled with gratuitous references to God and his many aliases. Some strident secularists of our day would eliminate all such superfluous references. I'd like to see "under God" removed from the Pledge because it was not there to begin with and was inserted under pressure from religious fanatics. However, there's no need to remove the inscription "In God We Trust" from out nation's currency. In keeping with my "traditional secularist" ways, I think it essential that children in a pluralistic society like ours be taught that many good and decent people have different views on many, many issues. For instance, it is critical that children learn how to prevent pregnancy and protect against sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence is the most reliable and arguably the most desirable way to do it (no matter your religious beliefs) for young teenagers. Some church people insist that the schools should teach abstinence exclusively. Worse, they'd like teachers to get specific: "The Baptists teach it one way, the Catholics another and the Mormons, well they are really aren't Christians, are they?" Some educators would limit themselves to the mechanics and hygiene -- insert A into B, condoms, pills and the rest. Romney and reasonable secularists see no harm and plenty of potential good that could result from this simple postscript: "Some of you have family and religious traditions that limit sexual intercourse to married couples only. At this stage of your lives, you should try as best you can to honor counsel from your parents and religious leaders." Most people in Massachusetts believe that women in consultation with their physicians have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Poll after poll underscores the fact that we would never elect anyone to statewide office who opposed abortion on demand, no matter how liberal his views on other public policies. "Litmus tests" are offensive, regardless of who is doing the testing and who's being tested. Romney endured testing from the secularists of Massachusetts and now he's getting it in spades from Iowa evangelicals who think his beliefs aren't quite ready for the Christian mainstream. One can only hope that if elected, Romney will never, ever turn over any key to the kingdom to such one-dimensional zealots, religious or secular, even if he must make nice with them from time to time because he's hearing footsteps as he searches for a middle path, a New American Way.
::ROMNEY'S
COME TO JESUS SPEECH By RB Scott
Years ago, wise-cracking, chain-smoking, beer-drinking First Brother Billy Carter reeled me in good as he groused that he, big brother Jimmy the President of The United States of America and other Southern Baptists were forbidden to engage in sexual relations with their wives while standing. I was astonished that any religion would be so unabashedly prescriptive. "No Mormon leader I know would dare go that far," I commiserated, swallowing the bait like a starving catfish patrolling the bottom of a Georgia swamp. His eyes twinkled, his mouth scrunched into mocking scowl as he deadpanned: "My preacher says such practices will surely lead to dancing." I
got the joke right away. Does it matter that his little joke was presented as "fact" in the lead story and reinforced by a significant sidebar in a publication that is the official voice of the Southern Baptist Church, which hasn't had nice things to say about Mormons for more than a century? I doubt it. Normally, it would deserve only the bored yawn I gave it initially. But this is an election year. A Mormon is running for President (he just might win too) and Southern Baptists (and a few other Christian fundamentalists) have convinced themselves that only a "true Christian" should lead the United States of America. This precludes Mormons like Mitt Romney, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians and, arguably, a few wavering Episcopalians and Presbyterians too. Such narrow thinking bodes especially well for Mike Huckabee, the plain-spoken former populist governor of Arkansas who also wants to be President and who just happens to be an ordained Southern Baptist minister. What do my Christian bookseller cousin and his fellow travelers know that the rest of us don't? I laid out my concerns and questions in a long letter to Dr. Frank S. Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention that I sent out nearly three weeks ago (so far, there's been no reply): "Although I have lived and worked as a journalist in New York City and, now, Boston for the past three decades, I was born and raised in Salt Lake City. As a young lad, I frequently ducked out of Mormon church services early so I could visit the Sunday School at the First Baptist Church, a block away. As a consequence, I am at a loss to understand the reasons for the disconnect between Southern Baptists and Mormons." I noted that until Presidential Candidate Carter (1976) realized Morris Udall was a pretty good guy-and very funny too - he took some predictable cheap shots at all the usual Mormon bugaboos. Truth was, President Jimmy and the Carter clan were just as upset about brother Billy's bad behavior as my Mormon kin were about mine. And, both families thought we could do with a little more church too. Anytime. Anywhere. Any church!! I wrote: "Here we are three decades later and Mormons and Baptists are still splitting hairs over subtle doctrinal differences" that won't likely be resolved until Christ makes his whereabouts known. After debunking some particularly outrageous claims in the article - like the assertion that Mormons don't really worship Jesus Christ - I asked these questions "
Is some kind of rapprochement between Southern Baptists and Mormons
imminent? If so please describe when this might occur. As the former Baptist preacher's standings rose in the Iowa polls, Romney concluded it was high time he addressed his own religious beliefs. Thursday night from the Bush Presidential Library in Texas, after an introduction and send-off from the former President Bush himself, Romney will try to pull off what John Fitzgerald Kennedy did back in 1960 Like Kennedy did, I hope Romney pricks the consciences of tendentious Baptists, evangelicals, elitists, atheists and agnostics alike. But, it is a treacherous task he undertakes, one that could open the floodgates to more inappropriate badgering about his beliefs and practices. Were I running for President, here's what I'd tell the nation: "It is time to get real. The real good a President does while in office occurs at the White House and associated locations, not in some church, cathedral, synagogue, mosque, tent or molten subterranean cavern. "If you are persuaded that a candidate will not be an effective leader of the nation and the world 24/7/52/4, then for goodness sake don't make him your President just because he happens to worship God where you do. "The converse is true as well. If you think a candidate would make a terrific leader and would uphold the constitution, vote for him even if you deem his personal religious beliefs weird and heretical. "Every prospective candidate should assure the electorate - as I do now -- that they are not bound, beholden or subordinate to any single person, cause or organization. Should you elect me President of The United States, I pledge that my actions will be guided by The Constitution. As President, I will be accountable only to the electorate and my conscience. If I serve them well, I am certain God will be pleased. Very, very pleased. And, so will you!" I don't know whether or not this statement of principle would satisfy atheists and agnostics, let alone Southern Baptists and evangelicals. I worry that even though the late Billy Carter and I got on quite well long ago, the differences between our churches may still be inexplicably irreconcilable. Mormons like me do so love to dance! But then, so did Billy Carter.
::ANTI-MORMON
BIGOTRY November
28, 2007 Christopher
Hitchens and Slate Magazine's unabashed and shameless
contempt for all things Mormon continues unabated. The latest supporting
evidence -Mitt The Mormon -- for Hitchens nomination as "Bigot
of the Year," while disappointing (as a rule, I happen to admire
Hitchens writing) was no particular surprise. Hitchens
gets it right about one thing though: journalists should feel free
to ask Mitt Romney any old thing they like about his religious beliefs
just as Romney should feel free to ignore them. Several items presented as facts in Mr. Hitchens latest inflamatory diatribe were flatly wrong. One could adequately support an argument that the errors were so egregious that they had to have been committed deliberately. If not, they represented the kind of sloppy work that could get a reporter or columnist fired at most respectable publications. Had Hitchens bothered to go looking, the correct information readily available on line from a number of public sources, including Wikipedia, for crying out loud. While Romneys are prominent in Mormon circles, Mitt's ancestors don't fit Hitchens facile description:"…part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith." Apart from his great-great-grandfather Parley P. Pratt, who was an early apostle of the church, Mitt descends from men and women who were local leaders, the rank and file of the church who have no commission to set church policy or doctrine. Hitchens stats flatly, without equivocation, that until 1978 Mormon Church was "...officially a racist organization." On the surface, the charge seems reasonable enough -- Blacks were prohibited from being ordained to the Mormon priesthood until 1978. Technically, the church then offered no explanation for the policy, said no one in current church leadership knew the reasons behind the restriction, and, most importantly, that it was not justification for racial prejudice. The distorted commentary completely ignores the fact that Mitt's father -- the popular governor of Michigan, civil rights activist and later Secretary of Housing and Urban Development -- pressed church leaders to re-examine policies that prevented Blacks from holding the priesthood. This too is on the public record. As a missionary in France, Mitt would not likely have attempted to rationalize the policy for at least three reasons: 1)He and other missionaries were instructed to follow the leadership of the church and respond "We don't know" when asked why Blacks were not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood; 2) They had been told that one day the policy would change; and, 3) No doubt his far-sighted father added: " the change should be coming any day now...and not a day too soon." Are the Romney's accountable for church policy? Absolutely not. Is it clear enough that neither father nor son supported the policy? The record clearly indicates that they did not particularly when it was time for them to stand for something. Hitchens writes: "Until 1978, no black American was permitted to hold even the lowly position of deacon in the Mormon Church."This claim is flatly wrong, as a cursory review of Mormon history books would have made plain. Elijah Abel, a black slave from Maryland who fled to Canada on the underground railroad, later converted to Mormonism and was ordained an elder by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the church. Abel and was licensed to preach the gospel in Ohio. Moreover, Hitchens claim ignores the irony that the early Mormons in Missouri were persecuted because of their strong opposition to slavery and support for emancipation Reporters
like Hitchens seem curious about Romney's rather unremarkable underclothing.
He wears what is worn by all -- well, nearly all-- Mormons who have
made covenants in the Temple. The men's ensemble resembles the traditional
V-neck undershirts and knit boxers sold over the counter at Brooks
Brothers and Bloomingdales. Four discreet religious marks -- reminders
of religious covenants -- are stitched into the clothing. Ultimately,
Romney may feel it necessary to address thoughtful and pertinent questions
about a few specific religious beliefs. Should that time come, it
is likely he will be more accommodating of reporters who have done
their homework and are professional enough to keep their personal
prejudices to themselves. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved ::QUESTIONS
& ANSWERS October, 2007 In the interest of fleshing-out information they are getting from candidate himself and his staff, reporters continue to call and write observers like me who have followed and written about W. Mitt Romney's career in politics and business for several years. Of course they inquire about religious beliefs and, especially, understand the implications of Romney's prominent leadership service to the church as bishop of the Belmont Ward (parish) and, later, president of the Boston Stake (diocese). Naturally, they remain intrigued by his alleged flip-flops on key social issues. What follows are my edited and compiled transcripts of several recent exchanges. Question. The year 1994 seemed to be a pivotal, breakthrough year for both Mitt Romney, who was running for the U.S. Senate against Senator Edward Kennedy, and the Mormon Church, which was beginning to put more emphasis on its Christianity. Was this coincidental or by design? Answer. In retrospect, the events of the mid-1990s were indeed pivotal if serendipitous. Two significant changes at the church - Gordon B. Hinckley, who had been 'the man behind the curtain' for quite some time, officially became president of the church; and a redesign of the church's logo putting more emphasis on its connection to Christianity- were in motion long before Romney announced his candidacy in late 1993. Change happens so gradually, so slowly in the Mormon realm that even dramatic changes begin oozing to the fore long before they are noticed and publicly announced. Such was the case here. Question. During the 1994 campaign, did not Senator Kennedy and other Kennedy's attempt to make something of the Mormon teachings associating dark skin with sin and the church's policy through 1978 of excluding African Americans from the priesthood? Answer. Inexplicably, the Kennedys did indeed attack en masse, unfairly, I thought because the Romneys had long been a vocal proponents of civil rights, occasionally to the exasperation of some of their Mormon friends and relatives. Question. Will things be different for Romney in this 2007-2008 election season: Does the media err by continuing to ask: 'Is America ready for a Mormon president?" Answer. I think the media - journalists from leading publications and news organization - are getting round to where they ought to be.Increasingly they are asking: "Why wouldn't America be ready for a Mormon President? The focus seems to be shifting to assessments of leadership: the candidates grasp of complex social issues, global economics not to mention labyrinthine and routinely treacherous international politics and intrigues. The general election-can not be about religion, or race or gender. The Republican primaries are very different matters. If you didn't know better, you might conclude some of these contests were aimed at choosing the next student body president for Bob Jones University The "Is America ready…" question is legitimate if it seeks to ascertain depth and sources of prejudice. If Joe Lieberman were in the hunt they'd be asking whether the country was ready for its first Jewish President. Obama has provoked similar questions about whether the country is ready for an African-American President - a half-African, as it were, and lately, irony of ironies: "is he black enough. Hillary prompts the gender version of are we ready questions. I see absolutely nothing objectionable in asking voters specifically why they would not vote for a Mormon, black, Jewish or female candidate. On the other hand, asking a candidates to justify his or her religion, ethnicity, skin color or the absence of Y chromosomes in their DNA, is tantamount to acknowledging that the candidate is somehow flawed, that things like race, sex, religion are consequential even pivotal. SHAMELESS QUESTIONS AND MEDIA BIAS Question. Are the media asking the wrong questions about Mormonism Answer. Recall this historic if embarrassing moment produced by Mike Wallace - the dean of 60 Minutes. Wallace is a fan of Mormons and Mormonism, some might even say a "lap dog." He catches up with Romney at the family summer manse on Lake Winnipesaukee. With the cameras rolling, unblushingly asks the candidate whether he and his wife of nearly 40 years had sexual relations before they were married. My jaw dropped. I was embarrassed for Romney and Wallace. Has any serious Presidential candidate ever been asked whether he slept with his wife before they were married? None that I can recall. So why ask it now? The sheepish answer: Because Mormonism aggressively encourages sexual abstinence outside of marriage. Last I looked, so does practically every other religion on the planet. Is this evidence of a double standard? Question. Would it be safe to assume you were especially shocked because you are a journalist, a Mormon, a Republican and a Mitt fan? Answer. I don't think so. For the record, I am neither a Republican nor a Mitt fan per se, although I've voted for him twice. Officially I am a registered independent and have been for most of my adult life (In 1968 I registered as Democrat in Utah. I may have registered as a Democrat when I moved to Idaho in 1970 and, until I thought better, Connecticut in 1972. That said, I'm pretty liberal, politically but I have voted for a few Republicans in my time, like Lowell Weicker, one of the heroes of Watergate and a renegade Republican senator from Connecticut. Why the Romney votes? His political views then were close to mine. Importantly, although we have had some differences of opinion over the years, I knew him personally and respected him (very recently I discovered that he and I are distant cousins; and, apparently, our late grandmothers were great friends). I
am indeed a Mormon. However, some inflexible believers have said that
I am a "cultural Mormon," or a "secular Mormon,"
or, awfully, "a MIHNO - a Mormon in heritage and name only. No
one would accuse me of being doctrinaire about the church or politics,
for that matter. As an independent I can't help but notice that the
media (generally) is not badgering Harry Reid about his Mormon beliefs,
even though he is the Senate Majority Leader. No one challenges Chris
Dodd and Rudy Giuliani about the odd beliefs and practices of Roman
Catholic church. Why is this? You have to wonder if asking Romney
about his religious beliefs reveals the questioner's personal political
biases. Question. Would you say that religion has become a bigger issue recently because these are more faith-based times than 1960, when Jack Kennedy was elected? Answer. Society today is absolutely not more "faith-based" than it was in 1960." People then were very aware and concerned about Kennedy's Catholicism and whether he would be a pawn for the Pope. It got quite ugly, actually, during the general election season (it was not much of an issue in the Democratic primaries). It wasn't just religious zealots taking shots at Kennedy. The critics included respected mainline Christian leaders like Norman Vincent Peale and others. However, polite people then didn't wear their religion on their sleeves like some do today. The nation wasn't contending with divisive moral/religious issues like abortion, same sex marriage, and stem cell research. The civil rights movement was not the exclusive domain of one party or another, or of any one church.
Answer. If you check the record I think you'll discover that Mitt did not and does not bring up or promote his "true believer" background. He responds as best he can to questions from reporters and others. Although Mitt was advised that he should anticipate and prepare for the likelihood that Mormonism would be the issue -THE ISSUE-in his 1994 campaign against Senator Kennedy, he was adamant then that religion should not even be a side issue, let alone the main issue. Consequently, he rejected the counsel. When Mormonism did indeed become THE ISSUE fairly late in the campaign cycle, he was ill prepared. Arguably, his failure to respond quickly and decisively, to turn the tables on his opponent, cost him the election. "Person of faith" does not necessarily mean that the occupant should be "religious" in a Sabbath-go-to-meeting kind of way. I would be surprised and shocked if Mitt suggested otherwise. I would not be surprised to hear him say that the President should be a man with faith in America, in his vision for America. I think he would say that the President should envision America as the "city on the hill;" that it wouldn't hurt if he had a faith in a higher power, any higher power, a Being who would someday hold him personally accountable for his actions and inactions. Most Americans want a President who will keep the American faith, represent well all that America stands for, pick-up the torch and pass it on to the next generation. I am reminded of a famous poem from World War I - Flanders Fields. I used to know it by heart. No more, but here's the gist: In Flanders Fields/the poppies grow/beneath the crosses row on row/and in the sky the larks still bravely singing fly/…we are the dead short days ago/ we lived felt dawn saw sunsets glow/ and now we lie in Flanders Fields/… take up our quarrel with the foe/ to you from failing hands we throw/ the torch; be yours to hold it high/ if ye break faith with us who die /we shall not sleep, though poppies grow/ in Flanders Fields. That said, the questions about Romney's religion are legitimate to the extent they deal with: "when push comes to shove, where will your loyalties lie?" As he was once an ecclesiastical leader of the church, he should be prepared to respond to a set of very specific questions about how the church may impact his decisions, play a role in the decision-making process, were he to be elected president. Will the prophet of the church meddle in the affairs of state? The same general questions could be put to the church. Romney's record, like Harry Reid's speak for themselves: there's no evidence church involvement, let alone coercion. In fact, some of their decisions and personal opinions seem to somewhat crosswise with stated church positions. EBBING POLITICAL CLOUT FROM THE RADICAL RIGHT Question.
You have said the Mormon concept of the trinity drives some Christian
theologians nuts. In July at the Hill Cumorah Pagent commemorating
the Book of Mormon in upstate New York I saw a protester in a devil
costume and people passing out pamphlets accusing the LDS church of
quite arcane heresies--it reminded me of the 4th or 5th century. If
Romney wins the Republican party's nomination, might it have a hard
time mobilizing Christian evangelicals for the general election? MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: POLITICAL OR MORAL ISSUE? Question.
In about 1999, the Mormon church was seen as taking an active role
in opposing gay marriage politics in California. Did this experience
lead it to step back from politics? Question. How cautious is the organization about being seen as directly participating in fundraising? Should the church engage in fundraising for a political candidate or party, it would put its not-for-profit standing at risk. Therefore, the church is officially very, very cautious - probably more than it has to be. For instance, it forbids use of its meetinghouses and other facilities for political meetings of any kind. Period. Clearly, other religious organizations are not so restrictive. From-the-pulpit endorsements of candidates are forbidden as well. On very rare occasions, leading general leaders expose their personal political preferences. When this happens many devout Mormons thumb their noses at such advice. Almost always the church itself officially amends or disavows the statement and, thereafter, has a little "come to Jesus" chat with the offender. The verbal reprimand may be followed by an appropriate period of disapprobation, penance, accompanied by the wearing of rarely laundered hair shirts. I exaggerate only a little: the shirts are white and starched heavily to resemble cardboard. That said, the church is very well organized from coast-to-coast and run by well-trained and committed volunteers. They tend to be conservative politically, although this has not always been the case and they are becoming more liberal by the day. Various church organizational structures and know-how could very easily be exported to the political arena and adapted to support a candidate or political issue. INDEPENDENCE FROM THE CHURCH Question. Do you expect people to bring up things like Romney's past endorsement of gambling, and contrast it with church teachings? Or does that just underscore his independence from the church? Answer.Oh, I think these issues will be raised as examples of his flip-flopping, his willingness to say what he perceives the people want to hear. Ditto his previous stands on abortion and gay rights. In a sense, his flips and flops could underscore his willingness to serve the people who elected him, even if serving them puts him at variance somewhat with some Mormon leaders. All belie the misperception that Mormons march in lock-step on moral and political issues. Mitt's previous position on abortion rights - abortion is inappropriate personally, but women should have the right to choose for themselves - is one that many Mormons, including some general leaders, may intellectually, if reluctantly, endorse. Question.
You said the one legitimate thing to ask Romney would be, regarding
his duties to the church leadership: "When push comes to shove,
where will your loyalties lie?" It is legitimate question because some people are concerned about Mitt and his religion like they were about Jack Kennedy and his religion. Some imagine that Romney and all good Mormons are required, first and foremost, to unquestioningly obey the prophet, the president of the church. Understandably, voters may be more concerned about Mitt because he was once part of the hierarchy - first a bishop of a ward (parish), then the president of a stake (diocese). Asking the question gets the issue out on the table and addressed fully. This is important! Repeatedly beating him about the ears with the same question repeatedly no only is unproductive and rude, but, in way, reveals the interviewer's lack of preparation, and possibly his personal prejudice as well. TAKING THE CREDIT FOR RESCUING THE OLYMPIC GAMES Question. Some people who worked with Romney on the Olympics say he hogged the credit for "'saving' the games. One compatriot of his laughed cynically when I mentioned his book, "Turnaround." Still, all of them have had very nice things to say about him as a great face for the games. What do you make of this? Answer. I picked-up on similar grousing as the rescue was underway and after. My sense is that of the criticisms spin around the unforgiving way he dealt with Tom Welch and Dave Johnson, the two guys who landed the Games for Utah and were sacked/implicated/indicted (but not convicted) in the bribery scandal, such as it was a bribery scandal. The reasonably savvy skeptic inside me suggests that Welch and Johnson probably did no more than they had to do to land the Games and did so with the grandiloquently vague blessings(head nods, toothy grins, knowing winks etc) of many key people in Salt Lake City who, by then, were fully aware of how the game had to be played. My guess - a hunch that is based on my understanding of how people in Utah think and act -a good "boy scout" close to Welch and Johnson (perhaps one or both of them, frankly) blew the whistle in the belief that: 1) it would put an end to the corruption once and for all; and, 2) neither of them would take the fall. In any event, Mitt could have been more gracious in the way he dealt with the men, especially in the aftermath of what turned out to be an absolutely spectacular fortnight that raised the country's spirits and self-confidence by underscoring the value and importance of community spirit, personal responsibility and commitment. SAVING THE DAY AT BAIN AND COMPANY Question.You say that his accomplishment at Bain was actually a real feat. Can you talk a little more about what he pulled off over there? Answer. To an extent, I can do it off the top of my head. But if you want more detail I'll have to dig through some of my research. The Boston Globe extensive and excellent profile of Romney carried a pretty accurate description of what happened. In short, the compensation packages for the senior partners were bleeding the company dry. The junior partners were upset and threatening to bolt. The senior partners fairly begged Mitt to step in (he was off running Bain Capital). He agreed. Then he had to convince the senior people to relinquish huge blocks of stock that would, in turn, be divvied-up among key junior partners. There was more to it. Tension. Disagreement. In short, the bait was the stock reassignment and compensation realignment would ensure a comfortable retirement for the senior guys and keep the young bucks in the company. There was a certain "brinksmanship" involved in the process. The net of it was this: he was the guy both groups trusted…and then he set out reorganizing the company in ways that would prevent a reoccurrence of the problem. INSCRUTABLE BAINEES; B-SCHOOL CULTURES AND "MAFIAS" Question. Do any ex-Bainees talk about the place, the environment or are their lips still sealed? ) Answer.They are indeed a pretty inscrutable bunch. Some ex-Bainees have talked about the culture. But, few of them talk in any detail about the clients they served. Of course, some Bainees wind-up working for the clients. The Mormon contingent at Bain is large, about as disproportionately dominant as it is on the business school teaching circuit. I'm told there are two very influential groups in the top drawer MBA schools -- the so-called "Mormon Mafia" and "Jewish Mafia." I have no way of validating such claims (Harvard seems to fit the description, however), but someone is bound to make something of that between now and November 2008. BAIN, ROMNEY AS CORPORATE RAIDERS? Question.Besides the secrecy, what's your take on the "corporate raider" label that some have attached to Bain and Bain Capital...the notion that while Mitt's father rescued and nurtured an auto company, Mitt was a guy who went into a field where money might be made at the expense of a company's survival? Is Bain a dog-eat-dog environment? Answer.I have never heard Mitt identified as a "raider." As CEO of Bain Capital, he launched new companies, Staples most notably. No doubt there were struggling companies that he helped recapitalize by selling off parts of the entity, including subsidiaries. But raider??? As to the "dog-eat-dog" question: hey, I'm a journalist, an idealist to the core. I have experienced the corporate side of life too at the senior most levels and dealt with people who focused only on the bottom line. It is an excruciatingly brutal world out there, generally; dogs are eating dogs everywhere, which is why 60s cats like me are nervous. APPLYING
MANAGEMENT CONSULTING PRACTICES Answer. Mitt rocketed to the top of Bain in short order. So, what Bain characteristics are transportable to Washington? The short answers are: expect quick responses, expedient solutions that provide ample wiggle room; and ample short-range and long-term contingency plans. The first priority is "the mission." Examples: Had he been in Bush's shoes, he would have found a speeding bus to roll Don Rumsfeld under long ago. Frankly, he would never, ever have ceded so much authority and swack to one cabinet member, especially one so full of himself. Romney would have demanded that his Secretary of Defense have a back-up plan in place should it turn out that more "boots on the ground" than anticipated were needed to keep the peace in Iraq. You can't bully Mitt, but you can talk back to him provided you know what the hell you're talking about and aren't just playing the annoying yapping lap dog. I suspect he would have been listening very carefully to Colin Powell, for instance. He will surround himself with very, very capable cabinet members. He will counsel with them. He will listen carefully and make decisions that, more often than not, represent the consensus. Importantly, he will push decision-making responsibility down the chain of command and hold those leaders accountable for the decisions they make. I am quite certain that the inept dithering and finger-pointing by FEMA's famous Michaels - Chertoff and Brown - might have provoked Mitt to order them to move into the Superdome for the duration, or camp out in pup tents in mud and debris on Basin Street.
Question. What is your opinion on the "White Horse Prophecy?" Some Mormons say Romney may fulfill the prophecy. Others say it is a forgery not a prophecy. Romney is on record as saying he's never heard of the White Horse prophecy. What do you make of it? Answer. The so-called White Horse prophecy is not doctrine of the Mormon Church, but even if it were it does not imply that a Mormon equivalent of Opus Dei is putting together a shadow government that that could run the country should the government falter. The prophecy, or whatever you want to call it, suggests only that at some time or times in the future the constitution of the United States will "hang by a thread" and that it will be saved by he elders of the church. That's it. Big deal. Mitt is not being disingenuous when he says he has not heard of the "White Horse" prophecy by that name. I had not heard of it by that name until I was a missionary. At the time, I considered it an odd, confusing diatribe. A second read years later convinced me that it was a rather flatulent and transparent takeoff on the apostle John's dire if vague visions in the Book of Revelations--the four horseman of the apocalypse and all that. It is accurate to say some of the teachings/myths embedded in the White Horse prophecy wormed their way into the culture and mythology. Any Mormon lifer with ears has heard it said that "the U.S. constitution will hang by a thread" and the "elders of Israel" will play key roles in saving/preserving the constitution and the country. I am certain Mitt has heard such things in church, but it was likely not labeled as a component of the White Horse prophecy. No doubt a few Mormons see Mitt as fulfillment of the lore. I would not call it a prophecy because of the way it was received (ramblings to two close associates, disclosed to the world some time after Joseph Smith's death and officially denounced, resoundingly denounced by the church some years later). Not all, not most of the words Joseph Smith spoke are considered doctrines of the church. He often got carried away with himself, especially in private conversations with friends and associates. The White Horse prophecy has never been accepted as doctrine and, as you noted, some question its very authenticity (I do not challenge its general authenticity necessarily, by the way, even though I think is a rather unfocused and over the top rant). Some ultra-conservative literalists (John Birchers and the like), consider parts of it as tantamount to prophecy. Naturally, they agree with the parts that support and rationalize their own skewed and paranoid views of the world. Here's how I think it translates in Mormon society-this is an excerpt from the book proposal may find its way into the book manuscript, one way or another. So, if you use it please credit it:
To really know Mitt Romney… you need to know his legacy, his
family, and grasp the essence of Mormon history and belief. It is
what shaped him to this point and continues to shape him today. He
descends from men and women of vision, people who expected, even demanded
that the world become as they willed it. Question.That said, does the fascination with the "prophecy" reflect any wider folk belief in the LDS world that Mormons are to play a special role as defenders of the Constitution? If it is fair to ask about his allegiance, is it fair to ask whether the church itself might view him as fulfilling a special destiny--Joseph Smith himself having been a presidential candidate? Answer. Fair? Of course it is fair. The answer: the church DOES NOT see him or his candidacy as fulfillment of prophecy, but some individual members surely do. In the minds of most Mormons, the foundation of the United States and restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in 1830 are inextricably linked and were anointed by God. The establishment of the U.S. was the precursor to the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Constitution guaranteeing religious freedom and free speech led to the restoration/founding of the church thirty something years later and remains absolutely essential to the health and growth of the gospel today. Mormons also believe the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired. Therefore, it should not surprise anyone that Mormons also believe they will play a role in preserving the constitution, one way or another. Exactly how they will "protect and save" is another matter. MORMONS AS WHISTLE-BLOWERS AND PATRIOTS AND DEEP THROAT Arguably, Mark Felt (a Mormon), the mysterious and legendary whistle blower Deep Throat, who brought Richard Nixon down, is a riveting example of the lengths a Mormon might go to preserve the constitution. Before Felt fessed-up, another Mormon, Robert Bennett, the current Senator from Utah, was on the short list of men suspected of being Woodward's and Bernstein's celebrated source. As you know, I have speculated that the whistle blowers on the Olympic bribery scandal might be Mormons, fed up with what they perceived to be institutionalized corruption at the IOC. Can you see a consistent pattern? Both cases illustrate how Mormons are trained to act, as celebrated and promoted in a well-known and oft-sung Mormon hymn: do what is right/let the consequence follow I'm reasonably sure there are disproportionate numbers of Mormons in Federal bureaucracy. I think this has long been the case in the FBI and CIA. Some would say that these men and women are doing "saving and preserving" work. The important underscore to all of this is that Mormons believe their calling is to preserve and protect the constitution as written, "as divined." Most would not see it as a call for some holy jihad that wput "infidels" under the thumbs of the Elders of Israel. Mormons believe that a free and democratic "marketplace of ideas" truth will ultimately surface truths. Imposition is not part of a winning formula. Free will is a Mormon thing too. Mormons are taught to be good boy scouts, to leave the campground cleaner and in better shape they found it. And, most - not all - do!
NOTE: The following is an edited transcript of a presentation -- speech accompanied by PowerPoint slides -- given at the Sunstone Magazine Conference in Salt Lake City, August, 2007
I had occasion to travel with him to Harvard, where he spoke to the graduating class of 1975. It was a sight to behold…Ali in one of those amphitheaters at the law school, surrounded by a thousand or so graduating seniors (it was a very tough ticket to come by. And expensive too: upwards of $300 for a ticket that cost seniors absolutely nothing). A photograph of Ali preaching to the seniors became the cover of the magazine that week. As he faced the crowd he shot them a quintessentially Ali withering glare, then deadpanned something like this: "Imagine me a high school dropout speaking here at this great seat of learning…they told me that I'd be speaking before future doctors, lawyers, senators, perhaps even a president of the United States. So I didn't bring NO notes." I have been a peruser of Sunstone Magazine since its earliest days. Although I didn't know him well then, Scott Kenney and I both survived missionary experiences under Boyd K. Packer. A decade or so later a friend told me a Scott had launched a magazine that was "more up your alley" that Dialogue Magazine. I never did ask what he meant by that. Before Sunstone's second editor, Peggy Fletcher added Stack to her name, she blew down the Connecticut's Gold Coast trying to separate some well-heeled Mormons from their cash. I wasn't one of her targets, but they invited to tag along. I knew something about magazine publishing and, more importantly, recently I had become a single dad and, well, you know how pushy Mormons can be about love and marriage. Sufficeth to say: I know to whom I speak… Therefore, unlike the daring Muhammad Ali, I didn't just bring a few notes, I brought an entire electronic Notebook. Still, forgive me if I tremble and perspire from time to time. Context and nuance are more important this election year than ever before. They will be important in the years ahead. This is no time to be voting for a candidate because of a clever slogan, or because his views of the world are sharply defined. The world is not sharply defined. The view out there is blurrier than it's ever been. Doing good in one way almost always means you're doing bad in another. And so on. The same thing is true closer to home. It has always been important to understand what the candidates are saying. It is especially important these days to understand what they are not saying. A lot of what Mitt Romney says can be discovered in WHAT HE DOES NOT SAY. Two years ago, my piece on Mitt in Sunstone took note of Mitt's modus operendi. The summary was based on interviews with several friends and former business associates who, at the time, were disappointed that politics had forced him to compromise - at least for the moment. The fact is, he always tells the truth. He is extraordinarily precise about what he says and how he says it, If you were to go back and parse the actual sentences he used in 1993 to define his support for the right of women to choose, I'll bet you'd discover his position today hasn't changed that much. It just seems that way. Like Clinton, Romney expects that you know the answers to important questions are always complex. Therefore, it's important to carefully define and understand what 'is is.'" As a journalist, I have always tried to report what the"is is." In fact, I have argued that getting it right, in context, connecting the dots is far more important than quoting a source verbatim, except when verbatim adds clarity, as it often does. I returned to Zion very briefly in the late 70s to evaluate an interesting job opportunity, to figure out whether Tom Wolfe was right when he wrote "you can't go home again." Ultimately, it turned out that Tom was right! While in Salt Lake I wrote a newspaper piece on guns and hunting that made people here assume I had been born and raised in Manhattan and should return there just about as fast as my red Peugeot Station wagon could carry me, provided it was not ambushed by NRA vigilantes in Echo Canyon. Now, three decades later I am prepared to admit the lead I wrote was pretty intemperate. It went like this: Some perfectly decent people live in the valley I used to call home. They are a lot like me, actually. Their lawns have crabgrass; their kids wear braces, play violin and dig soccer. They have cricks in their backs, holes in their socks, and they'll forget to prepare this week's Sunday School lesson until half past ten Saturday night. Should an alley cat dart into the street, they'd risk personal injury to avoid a rencounter. Yet, as the sun rises on any given Saturday in any October these people -- some of my dearest friends -- will send a bullet hurtling into a wide-eyed animal's brain and call it "sport." I
shared this with you so you will understand why I was utterly floored
when Mitt Romney said he had been a hunter all his life. In disbelief
I dashed off a column that ended this way The
nation needs to hear what Romney has to say, nuanced and carefully
parsed though his ideas may be. It would be regrettable if his intelligent
voice was silenced by a dodgy claim that he has long enjoyed hunting
"rodents," which, were Mitt not splitting hares,
are Lepus californicus to zoologists and jackrabbits to the rest of
us. "You'd expect a consultant like Mitt to have only a bean-counter's view of the problems, but Mitt's went far beyond that, drilling down to arcane payer and reimbursement issues and protocols. Mitt was listening carefully to all the experts. Unlike Hillary, he wasn't trying to prove that he was the smartest person in the meeting. "Surprisingly, he's every bit the policy wonk that Bill Clinton was…but without the turbocharged libido." Romney also seems -emphasis on the seems -- to have changed his mind on some top-of-mind social issues as often as my great-grandfather added new wives. I am not sure that this is case, exactly. Here's the short list: Guns and gambling are not on my list because he's been all over the lot on both since 1994. I will say this: so far as I know, he neither gambles nor hunts, not even THEM PESKY VARMINTS. Abortion/Choice: You've probably heard the story about his epiphany in reaction a stem cell researcher's alleged cavalier words about "disposing" of leftover embryos created in vitro, followed by his conclusion that Roe v. Wade had gone to far and that this matter is better dealt with at the state level. He hasn't exactly said that he now opposes choice. He's changed his mind on only one issue: Roe v. Wade. Where he once endorsed its provisions, he now has said it is a matter best dealt with by the states. Stem Cell Research: His position is foggy at best; his opposition seems connected to his personal opposition to abortion on demand. I think his position on stem cell research is not well formed, at the moment. For instance, he does not seem to understand that the in vitro fertilization procedures always produce many more embryos than are needed to impregnate an infertile woman. After the wonders of medicine have helped the woman become pregnant as often as she wants or can become pregnant, something responsible has to be done with the remaining frozen microscopic embryos.NET NET: Without getting into a lot more detail, I see lots of middle ground to land on. Gay Rights: You've seen him go from being out front on gay rights in 1994 and 2002, to becoming a national leader in opposition to same sex marriage. In fact, some of those crazy conservatives have charged that Mitt may have had a hand in creating the controversy in the first place…just to give him an issue to prove he is a true believing conservative… At the same time, it has put him in the company of some of those crazy conservatives themselves, people who just don't seem to care much about the needs of gay men and lesbian women. If the adage "you can tell a man who boozes/by the company he chooses" applies here, one could infer that, inexplicably, Mitt Romney now opposes gays and lesbians, across the board, period. As understandable as it would be to draw that inference - and that may be precisely the inference Mitt's handlers hope Christian conservatives draw in the run-up to the Primary election season - ultimately, it is an incorrect inference. Don't take my word for it, take his . Here's what he told Chris Matthews about same sex civil unions, a concept he supported way, way back in 1993: "Well, I would rather have neither, to tell you the truth. I'd rather that domestic partner benefits, such as hospital - hospital visitation rights for same-sex couples. I don't want civil unions or gay marriage." He continued, "I'm going to want to see a marriage limited to a man and a woman. I don't want to see civil union either. Of course, if we find ourselves in a setting where the only choice is between civil union and marriage, I will prefer civil union. But I would prefer neither." While the statement is not exactly a ringing endorsement of civil unions it reveals a little about how Romney, the man operates: 1.
He has his personal opinions
Oh,
give me land, Lots of land under starry skies above… The
part he's leaving out - at least for now - is his opinion as to whether
the U.S. Constitution proscribes a RIGHT WAY. Those judges in Massachusetts may well be activists in their own rights, but their interpretation of the constitution as currently written was NOT an example of judicial activism. I think the Mitt's statement to Matthews also reflects his willingness to listen to and represent the consensus views of the electorate, whether or not the consensus views agree with his personal opinions. In that sense, Mitt Romney may indeed be the consummate representative of the people. In fact, his willingness to represent the "consensus view" may explain why he seems to have changed his opinion on some key hot button social issues. As I was there in 1993 when he rolled out his surprising positions on abortion, birth control, and gay rights, and in 2005 was the first national journalist to note his dramatic shifts on these issues, I have at least a sense of the history and, to a degree, the context for these events. Frankly, I was surprised in November of 1993 when he told me of his position favoring personal choice with regard to abortion. He was my stake president. I knew full well what that could mean I was NOT in the least bit surprised to learn that his position did not sit well with some church leaders and that his decision had "singed some bridges." No doubt his rescue of the so-called "Mormon Olympics" salved those burns. In 1993 and today, this fact is clear: the consensus view in Massachusetts supports "choice." If you want to represent the people statewide, you must support "choice" or at least agree not to be an obstructionist. It is that simple. If you want to be a doctrinaire pro-life candidate, don't run for state-wide office in Massachusetts. Mitt's run against Senator [Edward] Kennedy was an interesting time for Mormons. Of course some, actually many, were outraged at his stands on choice, gays and gambling. They figured Mitt had lost his way and would soon be dispatched to the buffetings of Satan and all that. Of course, that never happened. Others felt he was proof positive of a church double standard: one standard for prominent politicians like him and another for hirelings like Professor Cecellia Konchar Farr who had recently been pushed out of BYU because of her support for "choice." Still others regarded him as living example of how Latter-day Saints could adapt to the world around them without compromising their personal beliefs and practices. Some thought it was evidence that the church was rapidly becoming more inclusive, a bigger and bigger tent. This primary election season, the constituents - the people who will decide whether he gets the Republican nomination -- are very, very different from the people in Massachusetts. Many of them are fierce opponents of abortion… birth control…and sex education. To be nominated, Romney needs to reveal the side of him that meshes with their beliefs- I should add, a side of him that has always been there, guns and hunting notwithstanding. At the least, he must assure them that he hears their concerns and will represent them well should compromises be necessary, as they surely will. If I am right that Romney didn't need an epiphany to justify his a "hard switch" on abortion because he'd always been opposed personally, then perhaps you'll agree with me when I suggest his views will eventually come to resemble the consensus view of the electorate before November of 2008. Historically, my personal politics drift toward politicians like Paul Tsongas, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. But, wouldn't it be refreshing to have a President who actually listened to the voters, who puts their needs ahead of his own? Who recognized that his job was to represent the will of the people? And did no consistently? I have been windy. I want to leave plenty of time for your questions, so I'll close by cutting to a few responses I made recently to questions asked by other journalists Question: Is Mormonism a problem for Mitt only in the Primaries? Mormonism is becoming less and less an issue each day. Before the first Primary, it may have become quite inconsequential. Shall we pray? I can not imagine that any Democrat in his or her right mind would attempt to make an issue out of Mitt's religion. Overt attacks will backfire, like they did on John McCain. Question: Do you think that Mitt will be the Republican nominee? Yes. At the least, he will be the vice presidential candidate. But keep this in mind. In 1968 I wore shoes, sport jackets and ties; I bathed regularly and didn't smoke dope. Nevertheless, I thought Gene McCarthy could win the Democratic nomination even after his campaign bigwigs asked me in July to arrange a meeting between President David O. McKay and McCarthy's very sexy spokeswoman Julie Newmar, who the month before had been featured in Playboy. Earlier in the year, I had been a George Romney backer. NET NET: I'll never be a bookmaker at Churchill Downs. Question: What are his strongest assets? In the order of importance they are organization, organization, and organization. Did I mention the fourth money? The Romney organization seems well oiled, almost bullet-proof.
And, very importantly, if Ann Romney remains healthy, she will be
a very powerful asset. She humanizes Mitt in ways that are hard to
explain. While their love story - their success as parents and lovers
-- seems torn from some a fairytale, it is as substantive and genuine
as it is refreshing. Until last week, Mitt personally had done a perfectly lousy job of defusing the Mormon issue. Then he "took off the gloves" with a fairly poorly informed talk show host in Iowa. It was an impressive exchange, stirring actually because it was impromtu. What we saw was the real, unbridled Mitt. Until then, Mitt had wisely stayed above the fray, giving people of goodwill time to come to their senses and a variety of pundits, reporters, thought-leaders and civil rights advocates a rich opportunity to wax indignant, even grandiloquent, about religious prejudice and shameless bigotry. There's plenty of it afoot in the nation just now. Question: Might there be a point at which his Mormonism stops detracting people from considering him and actually becomes an asset? I hope no one votes for him simply BECAUSE he is a Mormon, but I suppose SOME WILL just as some, perhaps many, Catholics voted for Jack Kennedy simply because he was a Catholic. Eventually, more people are likely to throw up their hands in disgust and say "enough already of the Mormon bashing: let's focus on the real issues, the important challenges that face the U.S. in the years ahead: Iraq; The Middle East, healthcare, education, American competitiveness and the rising economic powerhouses of China, India…Canada. Yes! Canada!; AIDS and unimaginable terror, strife, hunger and numbing health care problems challenges in Africa. Question: In Nov. 2008, is there any chance that significant numbers will vote for the other guy simply because they refuse to support a Mormon? Significant number? Not likely. It is hard to envision a religious person opposing him simply because of his faith. Some polls suggest that hardened atheists would have a hard time voting for him, or any other true believer.
Of course, the "Mormon" issue would be completely defused
if the Democratic nominee chooses Harry Reid as a running mate. Or
if Senator Chris Dodd, a Catholic, gets the Democratic nomination.
His wife is a Mormon from Orem, Utah and he describes himself as being
the head of a two-cult family. I am quite aware that Jimmy Carter -- a very religious and moderately liberal President I happen to like a lot personally-- tried to make Mormonism an issue in 1976 when he was challenged by Mo Udall. You may remember Mo, that self-described one-eyed Mormon Senator from Arizona who was too funny to be President. I think Mo would have made a fine president. I also think Carter has since repented. And I too hereby repent for rambling on far too long. The time is now yours for questions. Anticipating an obvious question from the fans of Senator Harry Reid, I'll answer it first: Yes, you can be a devout Mormon and Democrat too, even a liberal. Thank
you for hearing me out. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
:
: MITT ROMNEY: BRAINY WONK April 19, 2007 By RB Scott Is
there anything we don't know about Willard Mitt Romney, the former governor
of Massachusetts who would be President? Although
Mitt has been openly campaigning for the Presidency for more than a
year now - officially since January - the only thing we may know for
certain is that he looks real good up close and personal and that he
may have changed his mind on the key issues of the day about as often
as his great-great grandfather and mine added new wives. Even the predictably cynical and pragmatic Democratic strategist James Carville visibly caught his breath and admitted almost ruefully: "I think his wife is going to be interesting as the campaign progresses. She is obviously a woman with some pretty strong opinions." Surprise seems to have been the name of the game since Romney hit the road to the White House. He knocked pundits and savvy pols back on their heels a bit by raising more money in the first quarter --$21 million - than did any of the better known Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani $15 million and John McCain $12.5 million). If money is the name of the primary game, as some experts claim, the current ledger balance suggests a Romney landslide even if the polls don't. After a full year on the stump, introducing himself to America and fielding questions about his religious beliefs, he staged a sort of "come to Jesus" confab at his home in Belmont, where he disarmed key Christian leaders who had previously openly doubted that they could ever consider voting a Mormon into the nation's most important office. And, just last week he offered to pay
energetic students 10 percent of every dollar they raise for him, an
intriguing scheme that will give young people incentives to work for
him for the duration. Is this the kind of If, as consultant he convinced Fortune 100 companies to spread their operations around the globe, might he also be capable of explaining that America's role in the elaborately layered world marketplace is not easily reduced to snappy campaign slogans and sharply defined solutions? Multi-national business strategies are as fraught with Machiavellian agendas and sinkholes as highly nuanced international trade agreements. The better the leader's grasp of arcane practices of the capital markets, the more effective he will likely be making the balanced, thoughtful and pragmatic "lesser of evils" choices. It is not just his friends who say Romney has a formidable grasp of critical, but unheralded quality of life and economic issues. One self-described "occasional socialist," a Massachusetts healthcare expert, explains it this way: "Romney's grasp of the arcane procedures of the healthcare delivery and reimbursement system is quite detailed and deep. He knows how the system works and why it often doesn't. He would be a brainy policy-wonk-of-a-leader - a Bill Clinton without the perpetual hard-on." Which gets us around to those "flip-flopping" charges. Has he changed positions? Should he get the Republican nomination, will he change again? The answer is "yes" and "yes." However, the fact is, his flip-flops to date may not be all that dramatic. Rewind to 1993. In a private conversation before formally announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate seat held by the formidable Edward M. Kennedy and while still serving as president of the Boston Stake (diocese) of the Mormon church, Romney talked about polling data that made it painfully clear no candidate could win a state wide election in Massachusetts who did not support "choice." Even though he believed that most elective abortions were morally wrong, he based his support for "choice" on two important principles: the Mormon doctrine of free agency as summarized in the oft-quoted axiom: "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves;" and his belief that a representative elected by the people was honor bound to represent the consensus views of the people who elected him. A thoughtful discourse on the principles of representative government followed. I was not taking notes at the time, however in a follow-up note to him I confirmed some of the key points as summarized below: --Representatives pledge to represent the majority - the consensus views of the people, even if those views run counter to his own personal beliefs. A Senator representing the entire Commonwealth is sworn to support the decision, regardless of his point of view. --Elective abortions are not appropriate birth control measures. However, women should be allowed to make good and bad decisions, without interference from the government. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land. It is supported by most Massachusetts citizens. --Same sex civil unions may be the way to deliver government and employment entitlements to gay couples that only heterosexual couples enjoy. Mitt's almost chronic problem is a flip
lip and, like the irrepressible Lothario who loved every girl he was
near, His recent enrollment in the National
Rifle Association followed by a boast that he had been a life-long hunter
and gun owner surely turned off the people he aimed to please. Worse,
it gave headline writers, critics and humorists lots of ammunition.
©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved :
: OPEN LETTER TO A MORMON LEADER: By R.B. Scott Boston, Massachusetts Dear Brother Smith: Last Thursday a few callers solicited my take on whether Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley endorsed plans to use various groups affiliated with the Church and Brigham Young University as vehicles to promote Mitt Romney’s possible campaign for the Presidency, as reported by the Boston Globe. I insisted that President Hinckley would not likely endorse such schemes and would be quite put out if any church leader – especially an apostle -- supported dodgy if legal work-arounds that transgress the spirit of Federal tax laws. Sunday’s Globe, goaded by the church’s public communications office, produced the “smoking” documents – both were e-mails from my friend Don Stirling, a key Romney fundraiser who over the summer left his job as President & CEO Massachusetts Sports & Entertainment Commission (he'd previously been marketing director for the 2000 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake) and returned to Utah, to Sherri Dew, the publisher of church-owned Deseret Book. The memos confirmed Stirling’s presumption that President Hinckley had been advised the scheme. Presumption is the operative word. One prospective target group is the BYU Management Society -- a national business group organized in the mid-1970s for BYU alumni and other LDS business people. There are chapters in most major U.S. cities. Another target group is people who buy church books from Deseret Book, including Dew’s hefty biography of President Hinckley. These things are clear: First: Someone really does not like Don Stirling and Sheri Dew. Second: Stirling’s call reports are way, way too detailed. This is big time, dirty pull politics for heavens sake and the first article of faith is “leave no paper trail.” Third: the media are finally beginning to acknowledge that the “networking” skills and resources of Mormons and their church are considerable. Fourth: Some Mormons have gotten really, really good at implying that their cause or their candidate or their flimsy business proposition has the support of the brethren. Cue the heraldic trumpets and heavenly voices. When this latest bit of Mormon intrigue made headlines, I was just getting over last Sunday’s gay-bashing telecast from the Tremont Temple-on-the-Boston Common. There was Mitt, Olympic torch in hand, and the Joe Wirthlins of Lexington, the Mormon family suing the school district because it uses same-sex-marriage- friendly books, sharing the dais at an event promoted by Mormon vehicles like Legacy Law Foundation, Meridian Magazine and its Family Leader Network, of which Dick Wirthlin, the Republican pollster and Mormon leader emeritus and granduncle of the Wirthlins of Lexington, was an agent provocateur. Only a cynical reporter would make something of this remarkable coincidence. Then in rushed Thursday’s coincidence that Romney operatives met with Elder Jeffery Holland who, allegedly, suggested they ought to use "vehicles" loosely affiliated with BYU, which was followed by Sunday’s report implying that Sheri Dew and Elder James Faust, a member of the First Presidency of the church, may be scheming too. Listen up Meridian, Family Leader Network, Legacy Law and look-alikes. Once Romney announces his candidacy, every cynical "vehicle" that violates the spirit of the law will be scrutinized under high-powered microscopes. Count on it! Here's some additional advice. It's time to get real. It is past time for name-calling. Journalists that write critically about Mitt Romney's Mormon connections are not necessarily anti-Mormon or anti-Mitt Romney. Nor are they "Hillary-loving, Ted Kennedy apologists… or liberals," as Romney's cleverly turned, if dismissive and over-worked, one-liner asserts. The facts are: 1) Mitt Romney was once a very young stake president (bishop too) of a stake known for producing more than its fair share of general church leaders; 2) He has a very big church name and legacy; 3) He saved the “The Mormon Olympics.” We both know that Mitt may be just one election loss away from a call to serve as a general authority or even apostle of the church. Journalists have become aware that Mormon networks helped scuttle the Equal Rights Amendment back in the 80s. They know it drove the effort in California to pass The Defense of Marriage Act just six years ago. The command and control structures built into the Mormon organization are unmatched by all other religions. They can seem quite intimidating. Journalists from the Boston Globe, The New York Times, Time Magazine and, especially, The Deseret Morning News (especially because it is owned by the church) should ask tough questions about the origins and operations of these vehicles and networks. Just how close to the church are these Mormon-run organizations that sow divisiveness and hatred, anyway? We both know that Mitt has been a regular visitor to Temple Square –more precisely to the granite-columned home of the First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve on East South Temple Street. No problem: if I were trying to make up my mind on an important matter, I too would seek advice from people I knew well and trusted. If he’d see me, Gordon Bitner Hinckley would be the first and last person I would consult. It is, however, disingenuous to pretend that Mitt’s relationship with the Prophet and members of the Quorum of Twelve is as remote as John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s was with the Pope and College of Cardinals. For instance, had he lost the election, JFK would not have been in the running to become the next U.S. cardinal. In 1960, I was a politically attuned high school sophomore in Utah. Concern ran high in LDS communities that should the nation elect John F. Kennedy, the Pope would soon be running America. These times are no different except that the pinching shoes are on Mormon feet. Such anti-Catholic fears of 1960 were as ill founded as the current one that Romney would be but a puppet for the president of the church. Nevertheless, as much as Latter-day Saints decry anti-Mormon prejudice, they and their scheming and vehicles are giving critics plenty of reasons to be wary. What Mitt needs is a savvy, street-smart, cigar-chomping, kick-butt-and-take-names campaign bully and press agent who can convince him and his well-meaning if naively enthusiastic supporters that this is no time to get stupid and act silly. Sometimes Mormons are their own worst enemies. I would volunteer for the job, but I don’t care for cigars. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved ::WHEN
POLITICS AND RELIGION MIX : BY RB Scott June 5, 2006
It is especially curious that they are united behind a campaign that is a win-win proposition for the Republican Party. If there's a victory, it will be because of Republicans. If there's a loss, the flagging GOP gets the election-year wedge issue it has been praying for and video clip evidence that it stood for something when the chips were down.. No wonder Democrats like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid are fuming about today's last- ditch formal reception in The Rose Garden (weather permitting) or Eisenhower Building to which scores of pious leaders have been invited, including Mormon Apostle Russell Nelson. Tuesday the Senate votes. If Democrats had their way, Wednesday would be the day the Internal Revenue Service would begin reevaluating the 501c3 not-for-profit status of every church that participated in this "brazenly partisan stunt." Just three weeks ago the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints seemed content to state its principles on marriage and let it go at that. To press harder would only solidify "misperceptions that the church hates gays. Nothing could be further from the truth," a spokesman adamantly insisted. But what emerged from a discussion in the temple just a week later was an "incremental shift toward the tactical," perhaps driven by perceptions the amendment had acquired fresh momentum (Bush's renewed interest? The Rose Garden reception?). Still, the language in the letter the First Presidency had read to all Mormon congregations in the U.S. last Sunday encouraged members to "express" themselves individually to their Senators and stopped short of endorsing the amendment or telling members what to say. However, other documents referenced in the letter left little doubt about the church's stand on marriage and sexuality. The well-turned phrase "We urge our members to express themselves" seemed to be President Gordon B. Hinckley's dexterous way of encouraging individual action and acknowledging there were more than one faithful path to follow. A spokesman said the letter spoke for itself, implying that it was not intended as a sign the church's organizational muscle, money and manpower were about to be unleashed or that advocacy organizations were free to use the letter as leverage. This did not stop shrill advocates like the Family Leadership Network, an offshoot of Meridian Magazine that often presents itself as the voice of the church, from trumpeting: "Follow The Prophet" to its members. In turn, members across the country sent the FLN tract to neighbors and members of their LDS wards. One such appeal was e-mailed by the president of the Roswell Stake near Atlanta. It appeared the source for e-mail addresses were often ward (parish) directories and other restricted church records. In Georgia, members reported that regional leaders from the Church Education System (CES) had sent e-mails to all stakes and wards headlined: "The definition of what a family is could change… On June 6th the U.S. Senate will vote … It is critical that you contact your senators and ask them to vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment." Adorning the flyer was the portrait of a handsome young LDS couple. Another sent by the former stake president of the Millburn Stake in suburban Atlanta got re-distributed by the president of the Pompano Beach Stake in Florida. It provided a link to American Family Association website which reminded: "If a Senator votes against the MPA, he or she is in reality voting for homosexual marriage… Tell them you want them to vote for the MPA. Let them know that if they refuse to do so you will remember it when election time comes." Such language only reinforced Democrats concerns that the amendment gambit is a shameless election year stunt aimed at reenergizing the foundering GOP. The Mormon Church insists that partisan party politics were not behind its letter, even if the letter and its work with the coalition has that affect. The demurrer might sit more comfortably with Democrats if: the editor of Meridian and Director of FLN had not written so eagerly about the prospect of personally delivering signed petitions to the office of fellow Mormon and Senate Minority Leader Reid, whom it had railed against a few weeks earlier.
Still smarting from wounds inflicted five years ago when the church led an aggressive effort to support a marriage definition proposition in their state, California Mormons were relieved this fight would be limited to two Sundays. When it's over, some hope to get back to the impossible task of convincing themselves and friends that their church really is not anti-gay, despite the company it is keeping.
By RB Scott May 14, 2006 BOSTON, MASS.-- Circumstance and coincidence often combine to create conflicts that can be easily misconstrued, especially in election seasons super charged by passionate disagreements over how pious teachings should influence public policy. Liberal Massachusetts is a harbinger for 2008 because it permits same sex marriage and its religious governor -- a Mormon and born-again conservative Republican -- wants to be President in 2008. Consequently, there seem to be more political, religious and moral activists, sleuths and operatives encamped here than you can shake a stick at. A few weeks back some of them banged the drum loudly when the Mormon Church - the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - "announced" it supported the concept of a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Is there any reader on the planet unaware that the Mormon Church opposes same sex marriage? The "announcement," such as it was, only restated its position. Kill the drum roll. Moreover, it was tied to a rather pedestrian event: a Mormon apostle and other religious leaders signing a document endorsing the need for a marriage amendment. Mute the trumpets. My sources insisted that apostle's action was simply a careful restatement of principle, not a commitment to tactics. Neither was it an effort to tell members how to act nor should anyone assume the church will do anything more than express its position, as a matter or principle. Although the church does not consider Same Sex Marriage a "wedge" issue, some members do. Last Fall as the church was advising its leaders in Massachusetts to avoid getting involved in marriage amendment activities, The Legacy Law Foundation - founded and run by Mormons - was recruiting the faithful to collect signatures in support of a ballot initiative. Foundation director Elizabeth Harmer-Dionne, a well-educated attorney, exploited her Mormon connections in an e-mail message: "Later today, I will copy … you on an e-mail … giving final times and places for the two meetings … information as to wards [a "ward" is the Mormon equivalent of "parish"] where we have representatives and wards where we still need them…" "A brief introduction … I hold degrees from Wellesley College, the University of Cambridge, and Stanford Law School. My husband … serves as bishop of the Cambridge 1st Ward. .." Reacting to complaints from other Mormons, the organization dropped language implying a church connection. Dionne's Utah-based organization is only one of several advocacy groups - like Family Leader Network and its parent Meridian Magazine -- that play-up church connections. But, back to Temple Square's "statement of principle:" it implies that the state-by-state campaigns were unnecessary because same sex marriage is not forbidden by the Constitution, which is what many serious constitutional scholars have argued for years. Incidentally: if the Constitution permits same sex marriage, then all the hoo-haw about the twisted, agenda-laden activist judges of Massachusetts and California amounts to a rubbish heap of demagoguery and partisan politicking. The "amendment solution" creates a few ironies, which may explain why the church regards it as statement of principle only. Long ago the church argued that plural marriage was protected. It relinquished to save itself from dissolution, free its men from prison and win statehood for Utah. The church proudly proclaims the Constitution was divinely inspired. True, the diviners built-in the arduous amendment process for fixing what they overlooked. It is disingenuous to argue they overlooked marriage - after all, most were husbands. Thirty years ago the church argued that passage of the Equal Rights Amendment could unintentionally curtail important protections for mothers and children. Likewise, DOMA may inadvertently eliminate crucial marriage benefits. More on point: the church is quite good at counting noses. It must realize an amendment will not win Congressional support. It has to be developing compromises that will not provoke people of goodwill to behave badly. David Parker spent a night in the Lexington, Massachusetts town jail last year ago after he staged a one-man sit-in demanding prior notification before his son's kindergarten class was taught about homosexuality. Since same sex marriage is legal in the state, the school said it would not comply. A year later, the same school dismissed a similar request from Joseph Robert (Robb) and Robin Wirthlin, whose second grader was read a fairy tale - not part of the curriculum -- about a young prince in search of a princess who falls for her brother. Although the Wirthlins joined the Parkers in what could be a precedent-setting Federal lawsuit, "all we wanted was to have the teacher notify us before she teaches this theme," said Wirthlin, a graduate student working on his Ph.D. The story should end there. But, the 2008 Presidential campaign has already begun. Someone is bound to make something of the fact that the Wirthlins are devout Mormons, in fact Robb is the namesake grandson of Elder Joseph Wirthlin, an apostle of the church. He is also the grand-nephew of Richard (Dick) Wirthlin, the media-savvy Washington opinion pollster who served Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party, Massachusetts Governor and likely Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the Mormon Church, and had a hand in founding organizations that oppose same sex marriage. Coincidentally, Romney is on a mission to convince the Christian Right he's really one of them (mercifully he's not). A press agent could not have concocted a more compelling way to demonstrate Romney's change of heart on same sex unions than to stage a shootout on Mitt's home turf between arrogant radical-chic school officials and a principled, guileless grad student trying to be a good dad. Even though the Wirthlins deny any connections to advocacy groups opposing same sex marriage. He says "it's been years" since he talked to his celebrated grand uncle and has never met Mitt Romney, he concedes the coincidences are enough to make a grad student's head hurt all the way to November, 2008. Update: Despite their denials of a prior association, in a June 2006 newsletter to members of The Legacy Law Foundation, Mrs. Harmer-Dionne noted that she and the Wirthlins have been long-time good friends. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved : : DEALING WITH THE MORMON FACTOR By RB Scott
Romney should sharpen that sound bite and stay on message. Like it or not, questions about Mormonisms will hound him wherever he goes, as they always have. And Mormons don't have an anti-defamation society to cry foul whenever someone hits below the belt or indulges a silly stereotype. Besides, it's true that extra scrutiny may be warranted given Romney's history as a regional ecclesiastical leader for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is not your "ordinary" true believer like Presidents Kennedy and Carter or Sen. Joe Lieberman. It is odd that reporters of Wallace's stature and background, Jewish by heritage, seem unashamed badgering Mitt about arcane Mormon beliefs. The chief beef is the "one true religion" claim. Tied for second are the church's non-traditional Trinitarian definition of God, its experiments with plural marriage and its policy that until 1978 excluded blacks from its priesthood. A fortnight ago a Boston Globe op-ed piece by the estimable John H. Bunzel, past president of San Jose State University and senior fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, stated that racist explanations offered by previous church leaders for the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood remain alive and could hurt Romney if not clearly repudiated. Trouble was, Bunzel's argument was based on issues raised in a 9-year-old Los Angeles Times story that have since been resolved, according to the man who raised them, Dennis Gladwell, then a senior partner in the respected law firm of Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, who said, "The matter ended when President [Gordon B.] Hinckley told [CBS's] Mike Wallace that the practice [forbidding ordination of blacks] and various speculative explanations resulted from misinterpretations of scripture by early church leaders." Confirming that the matter is not being studied and dismissing the need for a fresh renouncement, Temple Square nonetheless cautioned that Hinckley is an "out-of-the-box thinker who has surprised us all before." The church is aware that some members still believe theories taught by leaders like Brigham Young, who proclaimed that black skin and loss of priesthood were "marks" placed on all descendants of fratricidal Cain. Others said it was punishment for being less valiant in the war in heaven. Young's harsh sidebar comments - one sanctions death for partners in interracial marriages - are particularly vexing. After the policy was renounced, it was hoped that apostle Bruce R. McConkie's sweeping disavowal to the church's Seminary and Institute of Religion teachers of all that had been previously taught would tie up loose ends: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young . . . or whomsoever has said . . . that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world . . . " But it didn't. A perusal of any Mormon-oriented e-mail discussion group today would confirm that the Internet gives currency to such recidivist views. That is why some members believe a more specific statement is needed. And Hinckley may be just the man to make it. In 1971 Hinckley took the lead in founding Genesis, the organization for black Mormons that many regarded as the first public signal that the church planned to end the priesthood ban. Arguably, no one has done more to bring the church into the mainstream. Given Hinckley's history, it seemed almost ironic that while he was recovering from recent surgery for cancer, Brigham Young University refused to renew the contract of a black professor who had campaigned vigorously - "too forcefully," some said - for a formal renunciation. The nearly 96-year-old Hinckley's immediate priority was to mend well enough to travel to Chile to rededicate the temple there. His once-delayed trip was about to be postponed again when he, not surprisingly, insisted on going, despite advice to the contrary. Perhaps Mitt Romney is one of many Mormons who pray that Gordon Bitner Hinckley surprises everyone again and firmly repudiates all the damaging explanations for the abandoned black policy. A fresh, sharp illumination can't come soon enough. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved Sunstone Magazine : : CAN
THE THOROUGHLY MODERATE MITT
Here he goes again. W. Mitt Romney has already proved that a Mormon Republican can be elected governor of the nation's most liberal state. Now he's off on another mission impossible to win over the hearts and minds of Christian conservatives who control the Republican Party and historically have not thought highly of Mormons like himself. If he beats the odds again, he could well become the next President of the United States. If he is less persuasive, he could wind up as a capable and attractive running mate. Either way, the party gets a very smart leader at the top of the ticket or an agreeable number two man who always plays by the rules he likes to help shape. But you never know what brass knuckle politics will dish: any day now Vice President Dick Cheney could suddenly hightail it out of Washington to his hideout in Wyoming (pick your exit strategy: weakening heart, looming indictments, fresh compromising pictures of him with his Halliburton pals). The President would go looking for a Mr. Squeak E. Clean replacement and remember that Romney's nearing the end of his first term as governor, has a rather spectacular history of bailing-out troubled organizations, not to mention saving lost souls - neither are in short supply in Washington these days. And, well, you get the picture. If serendipity strikes Mitt again, he could be sitting just a heart beat away from the nation's corner office, ready to head out on the campaign highway as the anointed heir, savior of the party, in control and in charge of those radical neo-conservatives. Just the way he would prefer it. This is not some incredible "Wag The Dog" scenario. Brilliantly serendipitous things happen to good people like W. Mitt Romney. So, pay attention. For now, as he surveys the formidable obstacles that lie ahead, Romney must be experiencing what Yogi Berra did right before he uttered his most famous malapropism: "It's deja vous all over again." The most daunting obstacle of all is still his religion, the Mormonism Senator Edward M. Kennedy shamelessly, but effectively, swung at Mitt's kneecaps back in 1994. Back then Romney was downright scornful of propositions that his religion would be up for election as much as he was. Ultimately, his sense of what's fair in politics cost him an upset victory over America's most celebrated politician. Once the well oiled Kennedy machine recovered from the shock of trailing in the early polls, it played the Mormon card so relentlessly and cynically that even the leader of Boston Catholics, Cardinal Bernard Law got indignant and reminded that the lessons John Kennedy taught the country about a man's religion "has been lost on President Kennedy's youngest brother, but salvaged by Mister Romney." Law's stirring protest was of little lasting consequence as Romney was forced to react almost daily to potshots that his religion was racist, then sexist, then backward, then clannish with designs on ruling the U.S. if not the world, and still preaching the eternal efficacy of polygamy. Fast forward to 2005. Enter stage far right: The new Romney who gets it, who fights back when attacked, as he ably demonstrated in the 2002 gubernatorial campaign. This new Romney gives offense to some if it wins support from the many. Recently he flatly refused to modify his call to wire tap Muslim mosques and keep tabs on some Muslims in the U.S. Why? In part, because it appealed to the hearts and minds of the people in the red states who kept George Bush in the White House. And, it resonated with religious extremists
everywhere who believe a holy showdown between Muslims and Christians
is inevitable if not imminent. Today a different brand of zealot - the acolytes of the Christian Right - rule the moderate party of Romney senior and Nelson Rockefeller. But Mitt would rather switch than fight them. Sort of. "I'm a red state kinda guy" and "I've always been pro-life" he proclaims a bit disingenuously. The truly peculiar, perhaps surmountable, problem for Romney is this: those most ardent in their self- righteous scolds -- the kind foisting "abstinence only" and "intelligent design" dogmas onto the public schools - are often the very ones who rant that Mormons are the heretics, slickly deceptive and dangerous anti-christs foretold by the prophet Isaiah and others. If you are unfamiliar with this new breed of unChristian, drop by an "open house" for virtually any new temple. You'll see them carrying placards bearing hateful messages condemning Mormon teachings and sacred practices. Or, join a public LDS-oriented internet discussion group. Sooner and later and often these well-trained Christian soldiers will attack and disrupt and taunt, avoiding thoughtful discussion at all costs. "For me the shame is that Mitt is running now when the Republican party has been co-opted by the far right with its extreme and very narrow agenda," says Helen Claire Sievers, a Democrat and long-time personal friend who has worked with Mitt on many church leadership assignments over the years. "The challenge for him, both politically and ethically, is to get the Republican nomination, because I think his centrist philosophies of fiscal responsibility and genuine social compassion will position him well with the general American electorate." "Mitt showed so much promise when he began this quest a dozen years ago - very, very smart, principled, committed" said another long-time admirer who would like to vote for Romney in 2008 "if he doesn't become your typical politician, willing to do whatever it takes to win the election." Romney's promising start included supporting the formation of the non-partisan Concord Coalition -- dedicated to fostering sound social and fiscal policies -- led by the late Senator Paul Tsongas, a Massachusetts senator, Democrat and one-time Presidential candidate, and other thoughtful leaders of both political parties. Until he began focusing his sites on the White House, Romney's politics were right down the middle, drifting slightly left on social issues, veering right on fiscal policy - a freshened and appealing version of his father's politics. As a church leader he was equally moderate and pragmatic, even a careful change agent from time to time. Local members do not recall a single member who was excommunicated or disfellowshipped while he served as president of a stake that probably has as many religiously rococo and fiercely independent academics, writers and thinkers as any in the church. He eschewed using church councils to settle ethical and money disputes between members, encouraging them instead to press their claims in civil court. When marital breakups beset the bishops and high councilmen who served under him, Romney refused to accept their de' rigueur resignations because such would have suggested, incorrectly in his opinion, that the church viewed divorced members as second class citizens. According to Dr. Kathleen Flake, Assistant Professor of American Religious History at Vanderbilt University and chronicler of Utah Senator Reed Smoot's influence on the public perception of Mormonism in the early twentieth century, that while Romney does not speak for the church, he could be considered the next key figure in a sustained, if ill defined and uncoordinated effort to reassure America that they have nothing to fear from Mormonism. This effort is as old as Mormonism itself, but as the church has grown so has the need for such assurances." As if reading from the same script, in parallel timing with Romney's political emergence in 1994, the gregarious and media savvy Hinckley took to the airwaves to dampen down arch teachings that had long rankled fundamentalist and Trinitarian Christians alike. After an interview in Time Magazine wherein President Hinckley cast doubt on whether church doctrine teaches that man can become as God is, a friend asked what I made of Hinckley's and Romney's efforts to soften the sharp edges of Mormonism. I buried my tongue in my keyboard and replied: "If you listen to Mitt and GBH long enough, you might conclude that Mormons are really just Episcopalians who wear funny underwear." Romney's recent slide right and about-faces on choice, stem cell research, same sex civil unions, and "morning after" birth control measures may be as satisfying to some traditional Mormon and Christian conservatives as they are disappointing to believers who took pride in the refreshingly inclusive approach Romney brought to the pressing social issues of the day. In essence he seemed eager to apply the gospel of agency-- - "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"- to the process of developing responsive and fiscally-responsible public policies. As the Senatorial campaign got underway in 1994 many Latter-day Saints in Massachusetts (and elsewhere too, no doubt) were especially pleased that one of their own, a chosen son, was poised to be a leading peacemaker in the polarizing abortion wars and in the emerging and potentially equally divisive gay civil rights movement. It was not lost on them that Romney laid out his nuanced views that favored choice and civil unions while he was yet serving as stake president. Were his words harbingers of a sea change at Temple Square? Surely no sitting stake president, particularly one with Romney's sense of propriety, would publicly diverge from standard church policies before sharing his views privately with The Quorum of Twelve Apostles and The First Presidency. Just a year or so earlier, the church-owned Brigham Young University had terminated the contract of Cecilia Konchar Farr, a young English professor (now chair of the English Department of Catholic-run College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, Minnesota) espoused qualified support for "choice." If open-minded members of the church were pleased that Romney was willing to cautiously break new ground back in 1993, they too were stunned by his recent dramatic about-faces. They still want to believe that the unflinching, pragmatic leader who emerged in 1993 was the "real Mitt" even if they worry his tempered "pro-choice" endorsement then was more an expedient reaction to political reality than it was a vision borne of serious study, thoughtful reflection and sincere prayer. Ditto, the church's reaction, or lack thereof. The results of a private poll conducted before Mitt announced for office made it quite clear: no candidate for state-wide office who opposed a woman's right to choose would ever be elected in Massachusetts. Period. The poll results were shared informally with the brethren. At that time, a senior church official
close to the First Presidency, said that some members of the Quorum
were dismayed at Romney's position on abortion even if they understood
it was consistent with the doctrine of agency. They realized it would
serve no purpose to quibble --the greater good was to get him elected,
give him a fair shot at realizing the victory his father booted forty
years earlier." Even long-time friends understand how hard it is to get a handle on the Real Mitt. "The fact is, he always tells the truth. He is extraordinarily precise about what he says and how he says it, "said a former associate who worked with him at Bain & Company. His assessment is shared by many, many friends of Romney's in Boston who admire and know him well, but are distressed that politics have forced him to compromise what he stands for, at least for the moment. The former Bain associate continued: "If you were to go back and parse the actual sentences he used in 1993 to define his support for the right of women to choose, I'll bet you'd discover his position today hasn't changed that much. It just seems that way. Like Clinton, Romney expects that you know the answers to important questions are always complex. Therefore, it's important to carefully define and understand what 'is is.'" Perhaps that is why conventionally conservative columnists profiling the attractive Romney often gloss over his apparent flip flops on key issues like abortion, same sex unions and casino gambling. The most boggling flip of all was his ardent support for stem cell research in 2002, research that could lead to effective treatments for his wife Anne's multiple sclerosis, to outright opposition in 2005. For some conservatives it seems enough that he is a fiscally conservative leader who has a reputation for rescuing failing ventures, has a moral compass that points "true north" and solid core values. Who cares if their origins are Catholic, Jewish, Presbyterian, Baptist or, egad, Mormon? As recently as 1999 apparently 17 percent of the electorate did care and said they wouldn't vote for a Presidential candidate who was Mormon. The recent heated response to Newsweek's cover story commemorating the 200th birthday of Joseph Smith suggests that bitter anti-Mormon sentiments are still alive and well in the land. The challenge to Romney is to demonstrate clearly that stacked against Hilary Rodham Clinton, an enigmatic and inscrutable Mormon like him looks pretty darn competent and is a better alternative than the charge former mayor of New York City, or the straight-talking populist Senator from Arizona and former prisoner of war, or the African-American woman who runs the State Department. Right now he faces the toughest decision of his life. It is not one he can put off for long. As if to underscore his personal angst, as he has done in the past he sought advice from the man he admires most in this world: Mormon President Gordon Bitner Hinckley. The conversation eventually turned to whether a run for the Presidency would be good for him and the church. The specifics of the conversation are, of course, known only to people who were there. However, Romney left with the clear impression that the upbeat Mormon prophet was not worried one whit about additional scrutiny a Presidential campaign might focus on the church and its teachings, but was emphatic about steering wide of any and all partisan political involvements. "The choice to run or not must be yours and yours alone," he reportedly advised, firmly but kindly. So there Mitt stands, all dressed up with lots of places to go and no electronic Global Positioning System to get him there. He needs to warm the engines now if he is to run for re-election in Massachusetts in 2006, an election recent polls suggest he could lose decisively. Or, he needs to devote all his energy to winning his party's Presidential nomination, a goal that may ultimately prove unattainable, very costly and personally compromising. Or, he can hedge along the way, conclude that the stars have aligned to make him better suited for the job a heartbeat down the hall from the nation's corner office. Perhaps the most promising prospect after all is the hope that Dick Cheney will retire soon to Wyoming and that good things will continue to happen to nice boys like Mitt Romney, as they always have. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
:
: MITT, MUSLIMS AND MORMONS: Salt Lake Tribune RB Scott BOSTON, Mass. -- Inevitable presidential candidate and current Massachusetts Gov. W. Mitt Romney's threat to wiretap mosques and monitor Muslims won support from his party's right wing. But it left some fellow Latter-day Saints and others wondering if he had lost his grasp of constitutional law not to mention the history of his own church's frightful encounters with government informants and harassment. Because Romney once led a Mormon ecclesiastical precinct, roughly equivalent to a Catholic diocese, some worried he spoke for the church, too. By all accounts, he did not. The relationship between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the 30,000-strong Muslim community in Utah is solid -- empathetic, cooperative and respectful. On Sept. 14, he said, "How about people who are in settings -- mosques, for instance -- that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror? Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping?" Not long before Romney's explosive comments to the conservative Heritage Foundation, the Mormon stake he once led hosted an interfaith dinner intended to strengthen ties between Muslims, Jews and Christians. Because of the goodwill generated that night, Dr. Sepi Gilani, a surgeon and former board member of The Islamic Center of Boston, was particularly dismayed when she read reports of Romney's alarming words a few weeks later. "Either they show the depths of his ignorance about us, or his willingness to use fear to polarize people," she said. Wary moderate supporters see Romney's "expedient" side re-emerging as he nears announcing what everyone knows: He wants to be president in 2008. Currying favor with powerful neo-conservatives led him to flip-flop on "choice," "same-sex civil unions" and stem-cell research, and to veto a bill approving the so-called "morning-after pill" (his veto was overridden by a unanimous vote of the legislature). Romney's expedient side surfaced back in 1994 when he skirted the abortion issue as deftly as Bill Clinton: "Not my choice, but every woman has the right to choose." Sympathetic Mormons supported his muse then that the "morning-after pill" might be balm for abortion war wounds. They even understood when he claimed "civil unions" would ensure rights for gay citizens while protecting traditional marriage. But, they muttered "oh, please" when he unnecessarily supported building Native American-owned casinos near Cape Cod. While the polls made it plain -- no candidate who opposed abortion could win in Massachusetts -- some sympathizers thought Romney was just a little too eager to compromise. A Catholic father of eight groused: "I'll vote for Romney, no matter what. But, I wish he would drive a stake in the ground and be himself. I know what Mormons believe. But, I have no idea what Romney stands for." Illusive, evasive and virtually unknown Mitt Romney gave Sen. Edward Kennedy the scare of his political life in 1994. Eight years later, hailed nationwide as the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics, he undermined incumbent Republican Gov. Jane Swift's candidacy so decisively that she scratched before the convention. Now Romney crassly plays to fearful Americans who fret that home-grown terrorists are religious fanatics praying at the mosque rather than the dispirited, irreligious angry young men they often are, drinking whiskey in a strip club on the "cheatin' side of town." That's why the governor's rhetoric confounds another Salt Lake native, Dr. Christopher Blakesley, who went to church with Romney when they were students in Boston. Now an expert in international criminal law and terrorism, he holds a professorship at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and is the J.Y. Sanders Professor Emeritus at Louisiana State University Law Center. Blakesley wonders "Is wiretapping mosques really what Mitt believes, or is he willing to prostitute his beliefs for the nomination?" A professor at a prominent university near Boston, a former Utahn who has known Romney for years warns: "Mitt's recent flip-flops on key issues are foolish pandering. He seriously overestimates the support he or any Mormon would ultimately receive from ultra-right Christians." Thomas Duncan of Provo, who served with Romney when the two were missionaries in France, worries, "If Mitt gets serious about wiretapping mosques, how long will it be before the press figures out that Mormons were once at odds with the government and swore oaths in church that outsiders thought promoted terrorism?" Duncan refers, in part, to a series of distorted dispatches from adversaries and paid informants that persuaded President James Buchanan to send federal troops to Utah in 1857. Before siccing snoops on Muslims, like they once were turned on Mormons, the governor should listen to Mahmud Jafri, a member of the Dover (a wealthy Boston suburb) Republican Committee, contributor to both Romney campaigns and founding member of the Islamic Masumeen Center of New England: "His comments saddened Muslim leaders. Why wiretap and spy while we pray? We've already pledged to submit transcripts of all our services and proceedings in our mosques and centers." Like the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee, America needs a uniter, not a divider. It would be refreshing if the governor divined what polls will eventually tell him and decided right now, on his own, to stand for something. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved |
|
RB
Scott, a former editor at LIFE
and PEOPLE magazines, has followed Mitt Romney's
political career since 1993.