Comments are lively under the post about the non-inclusion of Mormons in Christian social activism.
For more on this subject, let me dust off a bookshelf entry on an important survey of Mormonism in America by Richard and Joan Ostling.
Maybe Mitt Romney’s adherence to the teachings of Joseph Smith proves him a sucker. But there’s no sign of the sucker about him when he reads a balance sheet! Why should we assume he’d be any more gullible when it came time to negotiate a treaty or face down a foreign threat or review an EPA regulation?
91 responses so far
1 Grizelda // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:14 am
What if Romney claimed that his religion was Jedi? Would you then be saying “yes, but he ran a successful company, so that proves we don’t need to worry about the weirdness of his ’spirituality’”?
Same goes for Huckabee and Palin. Would you be happy with a politician who proclaimed that every word of “the Illiad” is literally true?
2 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:22 am
Grizelda:
What anyone believes about what happened 2,000 years ago is unlikely to influence how they deal with current affairs. There is considerable debate among historians as to the historicity of many famous figures: How much is real and how much is myth? But very little of that gets to inform current policy on Iraq or health care or anything else. I’ve never heard any candidate for President say: “My policy on Afghanistan is based on what I believe Alexander the Great did in a similar situation….”
All religions involve a degree of faith: Many believe in God despite no scientific evidence of His existence. Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God and was resurrected, despite the lack of scientific evidence that such a thing is possible. Now if you want to have candidates whose beliefs are 100% based on evidence, then you can only have atheist or agnostic candidates. You would have ruled out nearly all the past Presidents of the United States, in fact.
What someone’s MORAL philosophy is, is much more important. And that can be explored during the campaign. Romney’s flip-flopping was disturbing to me. His Mormonism was not.
3 Grizelda // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:48 am
sinz54:
If what you say is true, why is Sarah Palin meeting with Billy “End Times” Graham to discuss Israel? Why is Mike Huckabee supporting the expansion of Israeli settlements into areas that even the Israelis don’t want to move into? Why did George W Bush talk to Jacques Chirac about “Gog and Magog” being at work in the Middle East?
What I want from a presidential candidate is what Kennedy delivered in Dallas – which I will paraphrase as “yes, I was born Catholic, but Catholicism is not going to inform my presidency, and I’ll take on and confront the leaders of the church I happen to have been born into whenever and wherever necessary”.
4 CentristNYer // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:07 am
sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:22 am
“Now if you want to have candidates whose beliefs are 100% based on evidence, then you can only have atheist or agnostic candidates.”
We could do worse.
5 Chekote // Nov 28, 2009 at 11:18 am
Romney’s flip-flopping was disturbing to me. His Mormonism was not.
Me too. His attempts to attract evangelical votes undermined his campaign but turning off people like me who are more interested in economic, defense issues. People looking for someone who is capable to deliver limited, effective, efficient government.
6 gyrd // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Grizelda:
You argue that Palin is spiritually weird by citing her meeting with Billy Graham. Elected Presidents of both parties have made conspicuous visits to Billy Graham for decades. In so arguing, you’re demonstrating that you’re the one who is out of the mainstream, not Palin.
There’s nothing wrong with being out of the mainstream, and you’re entitled to want only Presidential candidates who declare that they don’t care about religion. But I do think it’s backwards to cast openly religious candidates as freakishly unusual for not meeting your standard.
7 bradpeterson // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Four points on this:
1) So what?
2) So what?
3) Why is it important to constantly to highlight a Mormon’s religion? It has nothing to do with policy. And all it does is further define a politician by something non-political.
4) So what?
8 gyrd // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Romney (of whom I’m a big supporter) hasn’t flip-flopped on policy positions any more than other high profile politicians (Obama used to be for gay marriage and winning the war of necessity in Afganistan. Fred Thompson and Ronald Regan were pro-choice before being pro-life. The reverse is true of Ted Kennedy and Jessie Jackson etc…)
Romney’s real challenge is that he flip-flopped on his branding. He could present himself as a metrosexual sophisticated Republican who marches in gay-pride parades when he was running for MA Gov., or as a religious traditionalist who opposes judicial activism when seeking the national GOP nomination. His policy positions never moved that much (he was never for judicial activism, and never thought that gays shouldn’t feel free to hold hands in public), but the way he presented himself to a mass audience wrenched around 180 degrees.
Jessie Jackson reversed his position on abortion, without endangering his brand (’abortion is the white man’s plot to eradicate blacks’ turns into ‘rich white men in robes are trying to control the bodies of young black girls.’ His brand of black grievance champion was consistently cultivated, despite the shift on a major issue.) Romney never agreed with abortion, but could tell a feminist audience in MA that he was ‘pro-choice’ without qualification, because he objectively could never pass pro-life policy in that state. Then when he runs for president, he has to play up how as the bishop of his local church he advised women on the unacceptability of abortion in Mormon faith. The policy position didn’t change, but the branding was hopelessly confused.
9 Grizelda // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:33 pm
gyrd: Graham’s son reported that Palin quizzed Graham what the Bible says about Israel, Iran and Iraq.
I rest my case.
10 athensboy // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Fiscally I believe Mitt would be brilliant as president (I’m a Democrat), but he lost me during the GOP primary debate when he was asked what he’d do about Gitmo. His reply, “I’d double it”. Which to me meant he’d do or say anything to get the neo-con vote. We’ve had a cowboy president, he led us into Iraq, a move described by Thomas Ricks as “the biggest foreign policy mistake in US history.”Flip-flop Mitt is the perfect name for that guy and I could care less what God he worships.
11 sinz54 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:06 pm
bradpeterson:
The ONLY reason we discuss Romney’s Mormonism is that it’s clear by now that the evangelical Christian wing of the GOP won’t support him on that basis.
And they’re the foot soldiers of the GOP’s Get Out The Vote (GOTV) drives. They helped deliver Ohio (and hence the election) to Bush in 2004. Without the evangelicals, the wheels come off the GOP’s campaign.
Hence ANY Republican candidate, even pro-choice Giuliani, has to make his peace with the Christian Right.
Ironically, it has proved easier for Giuliani, a pro-choice Catholic, to appeal to that wing than it is for Romney, a pro-life Mormon.
12 goag23 // Nov 28, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Why do people have a problem with the Mormon religion? In reading a recent article from TIME magazine, it seems to me that Mormons are the only ones who truly practice their religion any more. I thought it was interesting to find out that they have no paid clergy…..no one to whom they can pay off their sins. Does no one see the downward trend of modern religions? The pastors preach what the congregations want to hear? A preacher is fine compromising the rules if you keep coming and paying his bills. According to the article, the Mormons are far more involved in humanitarian efforts than many other religions combined not to mention the the multi millions of dollars of money that Mormons willingly give in forms of food, shelter and recovery efforts throughout the world. Really, they sound like the only real CHRISTIAN denomination out there any more. How bigoted of southern evangelicals to tear down someone else’s beliefs. They may believe in Joseph Smith seeing angels, but don’t you believe in men being swallowed by whales, and all of the earth’s animals living on an ark. If people won’t vote for Romney as a result of his religion our country is a lot worse off than many may think.
13 ThomasJames // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Very few people outside of Mormonism understand the teachings of Joseph Smith. First off, he taught that the Bible is “true” in that it represents a witness about God’s dealings with man. He also taught that the Bible contains transmission errors due to mistranslations, scribal errors, etc. He taught that in many places it is symbolic (such as the Creation in 6 days.) This was back in the 1830s when these things were not yet proven.
Romney’s Mormonism makes Romney VERY objective. Mormonism, as a religious philosophy is very objectively minded. For example, Joseph Smith rejected immateriality and taught in the 1830s that everything in existence is matter – even God himself is composed of matter. Because of this revelation, Mormonism is grounded on “existence” and not “immateriality.”
Therefore, Mormonism rejects “instantaneous creation out of nothing” and the “immaterial Trinity doctrine.” It also rejects God “suspending universal reality” to accomplish a miracle. All things, according to Mormonism, are done within the realm of universal laws. There is no “hocus pocus” maneuvers outside of existence.
Mormonism affirms that Earth has an eternal destiny. Mormonism teaches its adherents that mankind must work to bring about certain realities – they aren’t just going to magically appear.
Why is this important? Romney can believe in a 4.6 billion year old earth and in evolution and still remain true to his religious convictions. This makes Romney very scientifically minded while affirming his faith of strong moral values and a belief in a divine creator. Within Mormonism, these are accommodated and fit within the faith’s creation theology.
Mormonism also teaches that all human souls are valuable to God whether they believe in Jesus Christ presently or not. Therefore, Romney’s Mormonism informs him that all Christian, Jews, Muslims, Hindus or ATHEISTS are LITERALLY his fellow created brothers and sisters and that all of mankind (except a few) have an eternal destiny with God according to the truth that they accepted on earth. Romney would act according to the view that God would one day hold him accountable on how he treated every person (not just Mormons) regardless of their personal religious or political views at a particular time.
Of all the Republican candidates, these views make Romney the most scientifically and rationally minded theist.
As for the slight against Romney’s Mormonism in that he’s not “Christian.” This claim is one of exclusion through a narrow definition of Christianity. It has no real meaning. It’s a point of view only.
Christianity is a tradition of many views. Recently, the Evangelical Christian wing of the party continues to use the political tactic against Romney because they know that many peolple don’t know much about Romney’s religion. By claiming that Romney is NOT Christian, while saying nothing about his views of Jesus Christ, the Evangelical groups mislead their constituents to believe that Romeny is some kind of “non-Christian” who 1) doesn’t recognize the Bible or believe in Jesus Christ. At its worst, it’s a fraud. At it’s best its a white lie.
Many of the Huckabee supporters use this political tactic. Many Evangelical political activists treat the election as if its a community vote for the most Evangelical candidate. This approach will never result in a nomination of a candidate that can win GENERAL elections.
Both Palin and Huckabee have this problem. They appeal to MANY in the Republican party but they’ll never be able to win General elections because of WHO they are and what they have been all of their lives. Sarah and Mike “preach good.” But have they every worked with a diverse group of people to effectuate great change? No. Do they possess the philosophies and views which will appeal to a majority of Americans? No.
A vote for Palin or Huckabee is admirable but will ensure that Obama is our president for another 4 years in 2012.
14 ThomasJames // Nov 28, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Sinz54:
You wrote:
“Ironically, it has proved easier for Giuliani, a pro-choice Catholic, to appeal to that wing than it is for Romney, a pro-life Mormon.”
I believe it’s time for those within the Christian right to make a clear and direct appeal to rational thought here. The Christian right needs to, once and for all, embrace it’s bigotry.
This is not a question of whether ANYONE within the Evangelical wing TRULY believes that Mitt Romney is going to flip BACK to a pro-choice stance. So why do they loathe Romney? Next they say he’s phony. Phony because he saw the light and switched to a pro-life position?
It’s truly a strange and INCONSISTENT phenomenon to behold an Evangelical Christian renounce Romney while upholding other Republicans (who fit the traditional Christian mold) who have “changed” the views on certain positions or when they have even changed back.
This approach to the Mormon Romney is going to eventually back-fire for the Christian right and delude their influence and power, which presently speaking, might be the best thing.
All of them MUST know that neither Palin or Huckabee will be any match for Obama. Neither one can appeal to a majority of Americans and neither one can or have ever raised enough money to hint at a win of a General Election. Why won’t they RATIONALLY confront these larger problems?
15 dk5 // Nov 28, 2009 at 3:33 pm
As a Mormon women I would like to clarify something,
gyrd states:
“Romney’s real challenge is that he flip-flopped on his branding”
Actually if you understand Mormanism you would see that Romney has not really changed his branding as you may think. Mormons are very much for allowing men/women freedom of choices in their lives. We call it agency and is one of the first things we are taught as children and important in our beliefs (understand that accountability is taught alongside of this agency). We also believe in the sacredness/sanctity of life. This may bring a conflict of beliefs to some when it comes to politics. But if you look at the LDS churches stands you see that they do not conflict. LDS church policy believes abortion is ok in the circumstances of incest, rape, (times when a woman’s agency/choice has been taken away) and when the life of the women is in jeopardy (sanctity of life of mother not just child or such as a tubal pregnancy when mother and child would both die)
Mormons are very much for freedom of choice (sometimes it may be confused with pro-choice). And on the surface it would could look like a difficult thing to come to terms with the pro-choice/pro-life debate.
Only after looking deeper at my own beliefs was I able to come to better my understanding. I am both for-choice AND pro-life. I strongly believe that women have the right to choose and I believe that choice comes BEFORE conception. After conception the choice has been made and pregnancy is only a consequence of that choice. (in circumstances of rape or incest there was no choice on the part of the mother thus justifying their ability to choose abortion or not)
16 CentristNYer // Nov 28, 2009 at 5:58 pm
gyrd // Nov 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm
“Obama used to be for gay marriage…”
I’m curious where you read such a quote from Obama.
17 BarryS // Nov 28, 2009 at 6:02 pm
You are right centrist Obama has never been for gay marriage, he has always been for civil unions.
18 esurience // Nov 28, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Since it came up: Obama did in fact support same-sex marriage in 1996.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html
As far as I know, he’s never been asked to reconcile his public stance in 1996 with his public stance today. What we can say is this, though: There was no political advantage in 1996 for him to be declaring his support for same-sex marriage (1996 was a long, long time ago on this issue), but he did anyway.
On the other hand, a person running for president declaring their support for same-sex marriage is still, unfortunately, more of a liability than an asset. However, he has tried to walk the line finely on the issue. He opposed proposition 8 in California, and he supports repealing the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act”, and supports legally recognizing, at the federal level, committed gay and lesbian relationships (although not under the term “marriage”).
19 esurience // Nov 28, 2009 at 6:56 pm
What’s the moral difference between Bush/Palin thinking that Jesus is coming, and wanting to do things (like invade other countries), which may hasten his re-appearance, and Ahmadinejad, thinking that the Great Mahdi is coming, and wanting to do things (like maybe “wipe Israel off the map”) to hasten his coming?
There’s no objective, rational, way for a Christian to argue that it is wrong for Ahmadinejad to desire to wipe Israel off the map in order to fulfill what he thinks is the prophecy of his holy book — Bush used our military for similar reasons, and Palin (as evidenced by her conversations with Graham, already noted) wants to do the same thing…
The media needs to start asking questions of people in positions of authority who hold religious convictions.
Do you think we are in the “End Times”? Do you believe that it is part of your duty as a believer in (whatever religion), to help fulfill the prophecies of your religion, and hasten the coming of the “End Times” ? Would you be willing to use the American military to invade a country, if you heard a voice in your head from “God” telling you to do that?
20 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 28, 2009 at 9:08 pm
gyrd wrote: “Romney never agreed with abortion, but could tell a feminist audience in MA that he was ‘pro-choice’ without qualification, because he objectively could never pass pro-life policy in that state . . . The policy position didn’t change, but the branding was hopelessly confused.”
If Romney claimed to be pro-choice as Governor of MA, his policy position certainly did change because he was adamantly pro-life during his presidential campaign. So he either changed positions or he thinks it’s possible to be both pro-choice and pro-life at the same time. And he’s a complete idiot if he thinks he can persuade the voters this is possible.
21 ThomasJames // Nov 28, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Spart:
The question I would like Republicans to answer is this:
Now that Romney has switched to a pro-life position in his campaign, without any sign of going back to a pro-choice position, why do Huckabee supporters continue to call Romney a flip-flopper?
And, how is Romney’s change 5-6 years ago important today?
22 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:28 am
ThomasJames:
I don’t know much about Huckabee supporters, but I suspect they think Romney is a flip-flopper for all the reasons most other people think that about him. Abortion is not the only issue on which he’s switched positions. Quite simply, he has switched positions too often and only when it seemed to have been politically beneficial. Consequently, he appears to have no core values, which is something all voters of every stripe seem to detest.
23 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 9:35 am
Flip-Flop Mitt
24 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:29 am
Spart:
Every politician has “changed” his position on this issue or that issue. Does this mean they have no core values? McCain, Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, Guliani, Pawlenty, et al have all changed their positions or softened positions in the hopes of reaching a consensus on certain issues.
Abortion was the main complaint during the election. Take away the abortion issue and what “core” values doesn’t Romney have? I think you’re confusing “core values” with “stubbornness on ancillary issues.”
This is clearly a vague double-standard masquerading itself as religious bigotry for one individual.
A flip-flopper is a person who changes his position, and then changes back to the original position. Romney simply “changed” his position on certain issues (chief among them, Abortion.) and did not change back.
When we dig deeper, we see that Romney’s pro-choice stance prior to 2004 was not pro-abortion. Romney has always been effectively pro-life in his personal views but pro-choice politically for the women who wanted access to abortion as an option for women who faced death or when their freedom of choice was taken away (rape, incest.) As a lay clergyman, he counseled women to stay clear of abortion in cases outside those circumstances. His switch from pro-choice to pro-life occurred when as Governor, he was to weigh carefully new laws for stem cell research. The lobby had so cheapened human life, that he wanted to make a stand against it. But even he qualified his pro-life stance saying that abortion should only be an option when the woman’s life is in danger, or in the case of incest or rape. And then, in these cases, abortion should not be automatic.
Is it a correct Christian view that God ordained rapists and pedophiles to commit horrific crimes on women and that we should honor those acts by a pregnancy?
There is no substance to the argument that because Romney changed his position on some issues that he has no core values. This is an untenable position.
25 Grizelda // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:40 am
ThomasJames: how about the fact that Romney avoided the draft by doing missionary work – in France, poor thing. Church before country? How about the fact that at that time, the Mormon Church had an official policy of racial discrimination – there was a ban on blacks becoming priests until 1978. I’m sure you’ll say he wasn’t responsible for that policy – however, he was happy to sell the policy to prospective converts in France, which makes him complicit.
26 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 10:56 am
Chekote:
I checked out your youtube hit piece on Romney. A careful examination of those quotes shows that in nearly all cases, Romney was responding to different questions on particular positions or commenting on different aspects of a particular issue.
This doesn’t mean that he hasn’t “changed” (not flip-flopped) positions in the past, it just means that the “term” flip-flopper is not accurate and does not speak to Romney’s core values.
Palin, Huckabee, McCain, Pawlenty, and Gingrich have all made contradictory statements. Did the youtube creator seek clarification? No. It was simply a hit piece.
Fiscally speaking, Romney came into office inheriting a 3 billion dollar state deficit. He balanced the budget without raising taxes and had a surplus during the rest of his term.
Can we say the same for Palin or Huckabee?
Romney was an excellent Governor, business man, and leader in everything he’s done. He’s human, so he has his flaws.
But the question is, which one, of all of the FLAWED candidates (Romney, Huckabee, Palin, Gingrich, etc) has the greatest chance based on experience and expertise to strengthen America socially, fiscally, militarily, etc?
The answer: Mitt Romney.
27 Grizelda // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:09 am
ThomasJames: the biggest contributions to righting the Massachusetts budget problem were a capital gains tax increase which had already been put in place before he became governor and a windfall of unanticipated federal grants – neither of which Romney had a thing to with. However, he did accomplish a complete approval inversion – when he took office his approval rating was 66%/33%; when he left it was 33%/66%. Which is why he only stuck around for a single term. Which, to be fair, still makes him twice as tenacious as Sarah Palin.
28 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:23 am
Grizelda:
Romney had planned all of his life to serve a mission for his Church and the government’s REGULATION allowing him to do it is 100% legal, moral, and ethical. There is no law that states that if a man doesn’t serve in Vietnam War, that he’s less of an American. Romney chose to follow a path of peace rather than war, at that time. This is nothing “wrong” with it.
You’re also wrong about the LDS Church ban on black priests. Joseph Smith, the Church’s founder ordained 4 black men to the priesthood between 1836 and his death in 1844. He was the first white leader of an all white Church to do so in America. These ordinations were before the emancipation proclamation.
All Christian Churches were complicit in Slavery and its racism before the Civil war and after up until the 1964 civil rights laws were passed. You take the finger and you turn it around.
How about the reality of segregated blacks and white Churches today? How about continued racism among professing Christians in the south and in other places? For most Christian faiths, blacks priests were fine as long as the black man wasn’t THEIR priest.
Romney has already addressed those issues at length. Have you read his response? Have you researched HIS response?
After his mission deferment he said. “It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam, but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft. If drafted, I would have been happy to serve, and if I didn’t get drafted I was happy to be with my wife and new child.”
How is this different from the majority of the young men at that time? Is this another double standard? Splitting hairs over nothing?
As for the priesthood ban policy and Romney, what Christians want is for Romney to “renounce” his Church’s decision for the ban and the timing of its lifting. Christians want Romney to call his Church’s position “wrong.”
But this once again is a double standard. Nearly all Christian faiths (their leaders) were the power brokers of American culture for nearly two centuries before slavery was ended with the bloodiest American war to date.
If Romney’s Church was wrong for delaying priesthood ordinations (not baptisms) between 1930 and 1978 (when most white Christian Churches had the same de facto standard) then what do you call Christianity’s track record with slavery and racism?
Should Palin and Huckabee answer to the American people Christian complicity concerning slavery and racism culminating in the NECESSITY for Civil Rights laws?
Romney’s family were a handful of progressives when it came to Civil Rights in Michigan. Can Romney count that too?
29 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:27 am
Thomas
So different questions lead to different core convictions? Mitt is a phoney. Anyone who signs up with the NRA during a presidential election and claims to be “a life long member of the NRA” is a phoney. And I completely disagree with your assertion that Mitt “has the greatest chance based on experience and expertise to strengthen America socially, fiscally, militarily, etc?” What exactly is his military experience? Socially? Are you looking to government for moral guidance? Please.
30 Grizelda // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:35 am
ThomasJames,
You are either clueless or dishonest. If, as you say, there was no ban on blacks in the priesthood, when why did the church hierarchy issue its statement in 1978 that, Hallelujah! God says blacks can be priests!!
Romney’s statement about the draft that you quote is transparently dishonest, because he knew, and everyone else in the world now knows, that he did not have to take any direct action because the Mormon Church would get his deferral for him.
31 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:35 am
Romney’s evolving position on abortion rights:
Clarity sought on Romney’s abortion stance
32 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:46 am
Grizelda:
Your kind of politics is exactly what is wrong with the Republican party today. Half truths and misrepresentation will kill our party and our cause. Why not just be honest about what Romney did? Why do you have to dress it up in the least favorable light possible? Doesn’t it make sense that Palin must tout her own record? What has Sarah Palin done that is genuinely significant? (It’s an honest question.)
You wrote:
“the biggest contributions to righting the Massachusetts budget problem were a capital gains tax increase which had already been put in place before he became governor.”
Fact: LOOKING BACK, the capital gains tax only solved 1.3 billion dollars of the 3 billion budget shortfall. This didn’t appear all at one and it was not known when Romney took office how much of it would flow into the State. How do you explain that he was able to balance the budget without knowing how much would come from this revenue source?
You’ll also need to provide the “federal grants” by name and the source from the GAO to determine whether that claim is valid.
Over all, as a DIRECT result of Romney’s proposals and plans, MA closed the budget shortfall (1.7 billion) and raised a surplus of $500 million by the end of 2005.
What accomplishments did Sarah Palin have as a 2 year Governor?
33 CentristNYer // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:47 am
Yes, every politician is allowed to change their minds and have positions that evolve. But Romney’s changes were on such core, hot button issues and it all happened in the span of a couple of years — and just before he threw his hat into the ring for the 2008 presidential contest. It just smelled of political expedience. At the end of the day you couldn’t be sure if he was a moderate who was only saying this to get nominated or had always been a hard right winger and simply toned down his more radical positions to serve as governor of Massachusetts. Either way, he never felt authentic.
34 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:50 am
Grizelda:
You wrote:
“You are either clueless or dishonest. If, as you say, there was no ban on blacks in the priesthood, when why did the church hierarchy issue its statement in 1978 that, Hallelujah! God says blacks can be priests!!”
The ban for most black men occurred in 1848 and lasted until 1978. However, some black men and their families continued to be ordained to the priesthood until the 1930s. Elijah Abel was a member of the First Quorum of Seventies from 1838 to his death in 1878, while Brigham Young was the president of the Church.
The point is, you don’t clearly understand the dynamics of the priesthood ban within the LDS Church.
But your post didn’t address the double standard you’re imposing on Romney.
Why shouldn’t Palin and Huckabee has to answer for Christianity’s complicity regarding slavery and racism in white Churches before 1964 and after?
35 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:51 am
Chekote:
Calling Romney a phony without showing he’s a phony is an untenable position. Based on your claim, all Republican candidates are phonys and have no core values because they have all changed their positions.
36 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:54 am
Grizelda:
You wrote:
“Romney’s statement about the draft that you quote is transparently dishonest, because he knew, and everyone else in the world now knows, that he did not have to take any direct action because the Mormon Church would get his deferral for him.”
Romney knew no such thing. Not all Mormon men were differed, only a small percentage were ever deferred. Many LDS 19 year-olds died fighting in Vietnam.
Romney didn’t lobby or do anything that any other American 19 year-old didn’t do. He wasn’t a draft dodger or a draft avoider.
This criticism is groundless.
37 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 11:58 am
Centrist:
Romney only changed his POLITICAL position on abortion. He was effectively pro-life but recognized that women have a right to have access to the medical procedure. He served as Governor between 2002 and 2005. He changed his position on abortion in 2004, while a Governor.
He announced his candidacy in 2007.
Once again, there is a double standard for the Mormon Romney than there would be for any other Republican candidate.
No one is genuinely concerned that Romney’s going to change back to a pro-choice position.
Centrist, what is your opinion on this statement:
“Is it a correct Christian view that God ordained rapists and pedophiles to commit horrific crimes on women and that we should honor those acts by a pregnancy?”
38 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Chekote:
Which Republican candidate has the most and best experience to be president and a track record of bringing people of diverse views (Democrats and Republicans) together to create positive change?
39 Grizelda // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:02 pm
ThomasJames, as I said, you are either clueless or dishonest. From the Boston Globe:
As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon “minister of religion” for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years.
Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies. When his deferments ended and he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual lottery that determined which young men were drafted. His high number ensured he was not drafted into the military.
The deferments for Mormon missionaries became increasingly controversial in the late 1960s, especially in Utah, leading the Mormon Church and the government to limit the number of church missionaries who could put off their military service. That agreement called for each church ward, or church district, to designate one male every six months to be exempted from potential duty for the duration of his missionary work.
Romney’s home state was Michigan, making his 4-D exemption as a missionary all but automatic because of the relatively small number of Mormon missionaries from that state. It might have been more difficult in Utah, where the huge Mormon population meant that there were sometimes more missionaries than available exemptions. Most missions lasted two and a half years, as Romney’s did.
40 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Grizelda:
How does Romney’s legal, moral, and ethical deferment from the Vietnam war, for which he didn’t lobby or work for, disqualify him for the Republican nomination or from being president?
41 Grizelda // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:14 pm
ThomasJames,
Speaking of flipflopping, you have, in the past 30 minutes, changed your position on whether or not the Mormon Church banned blacks from being priests and whether or not Romney got help from the Mormon Church to dodge the draft, and you’ve reduced the size of the budget gap that Romney claims to have filled by 40%. I can see why he appeals to you.
Character and temperament mean a lot in presidential elections. Romney radiates a host of clues indicating that he is a phony. You’ll never be able to argue them away.
42 ThomasJames // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Grizelda:
Your line of argumentation is what is wrong in the Republican party. You split hairs over this word or that word because you think you’ll have a momentary advtange but you fail to address the real issues.
I said:
“You’re also wrong about the LDS Church ban on black priests.” and “The ban for most black men occurred in 1848 and lasted until 1978.”
How were those statements together meant as a change on a position? And What about Palin and Huckabee? Should they answer for Christian slavery and racism? Huckabee’s from the South.
Once again, How does Romney’s legal, moral, and ethical deferment from the Vietnam war, for which he didn’t lobby or work for, disqualify him for the Republican nomination or from being president?
Romney is no phony. He balances budgets. Is firm on social issues, and fights for Republican values and causes.
What you’re taking about is the “media” or opposition group’s PORTRAYAL of ROmney, not Romney himself.
If not Romney, which Republican candidate has the most and best experience to be president and a track record of bringing people of diverse views (Democrats and Republicans) together to create positive change?
Name a “superior” candidate Grizelda.
43 Grizelda // Nov 29, 2009 at 12:48 pm
ThomasJames, this may surprise you, but my opinion of Romney was formed by watching and listening to Romney.
44 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Grizelda
It doesn’t matter. No facts, links or information will change Thomas’ view. Besides, why waste time. Romney is toast thanks to Romneycare. Haven’t you noticed his complete absence during the healthcare debate?
45 Chekote // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Name a “superior” candidate Grizelda.
Anybody but Romney.
46 SpartacusIsNotDead // Nov 29, 2009 at 1:51 pm
ThomasJames @ #24,
I’m not familiar with all of Romney’s abortion-related statements as MA Governor. That is why, in responding to Gyrd’s post, I said “if” Romney was pro-choice as Gov then he definitely changed his position, and he did so when it was politically beneficial for him to do so.
Your comment about him not being personally “pro-abortion” seems rather strange, completely irrelevant to the abortion policy debate and possibly insulting to those who are pro-life. No politician has declared himself to be pro-abortion, thereby declaring a desire to see a fetus destroyed. Consequently, you cannot distinguish Romney from any other politician, pro-choice or pro-life, by saying he is not “pro-abortion.”
More importantly, whether or not Romney would personally counsel a woman to have an abortion is grossly irrelevant. Pro-choicers do not support abortion rights because they personally have or know of pregnancies they wish to terminate. They support abortion rights because they think the government has no right to tell a woman she must take all pregnancies to term – only the woman should decide this issue. And, most pro-lifers understand this as well. They believe the politician’s personal choice on the matter is irrelevant and that the government has a duty to protect all fetuses.
You also wrote: “Is it a correct Christian view that God ordained rapists and pedophiles to commit horrific crimes on women and that we should honor those acts by a pregnancy?”
You probably know it is not a correct Christian view that God ordained the acts of rapists and pedophiles. That, however, is completely irrelevant to what should happen to the fetus those acts produce? If that fetus is, in fact, a human life worth protecting at every stage of the pregnancy, it seems morally repugnant that it can be killed merely because one of its parents committed a horrible act that traumatizes the other parent. So, while it is the Christian view that God does not ordain the acts of rapists and pedophiles, it is also the Christian view that God does not ordain killing the innocent offspring of an evil parent (Ezekiel 18).
Lastly, I never said Romney has no core values, nor did I say that his changed position on abortion, alone, meant he had no core values. Instead, I said that his frequent changes on multiple issues (abortion, guns, gays, RomneyCare, etc.), combined with the fact that all of those changes occurred at precisely the moment in which he would benefit politically from his new positions leads most people to believe he has no core values.
This is not religious bigotry, although it is amusing to see another GOPer claim victim status. This is nothing more than the entire electorate having formed a consensus about the guy after watching him campaign over an 18 month period.
47 CentristNYer // Nov 29, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Thomas:
First of all, my problems with Romney have nothing to do with his being a Mormon. I’m an agnostic, so I don’t find his religious beliefs any more or less crazy than if he was a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew or a Muslim. They all require a high degree of magical thinking.
As for his having changed his position on abortion in 2004, that’s not dispositive as a theory that he was preparing to make himself palatable for the next election cycle. But what about his changes on stem cell research, gay rights, marriage equality, gun rights, immigration, tax increases, campaign finance and many other hot button topics? All in the space of a few years. (A few years that also just happened to be followed by a presidential bid.)
As I said earlier, every politician is permitted the right to change his/her mind and experience an epiphany. But with Romney it was too much in too short a time and all geared to make himself electable to the party’s powerful evangelical base. It was just too cynical and the voters saw through it.
48 sinz54 // Nov 29, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I live in Massachusetts.
In 1994, when Romney ran for Senator against Ted Kennedy, Romney said this during a debate:
“Abortion should be safe and legal. I sustain and support Roe v. Wade, and the right of a woman to make that choice.”
Kennedy, like everyone else, knew this was a major flip-flop on the abortion issue. So Kennedy retorted:
“I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice.”
http://tinyurl.com/yawslxw
Romney did flip-flop twice: When running against Ted Kennedy in the pro-choice state of Massachusetts, he switched to “sustaining and supporting” Roe v. Wade. 14 years later, running for President in Republican primaries, he switched back to a pro-life stance.
I found this troubling. I have no problem with someone having a moral or ethical epiphany. But with Romney as with so many other politicians, these moral epiphanies always seem to occur in the direction that would boost his candidacy for a given office.
49 hhr // Nov 29, 2009 at 6:20 pm
The Evangelical base’s guru on comparative religions as it relates to cults was a man by the name of Walter Martin he more than anyone helped to define to Evangelicals what a cult was. The definition was very simple only those churches that saw Jesus as God or (Theos) could be considered Christian. It seems as if Evangelicals are using there religious measuring stick for politics as well as religion. Much of this has to do with there view on the history of the nation, they trulybelive that America is a Christian nation.
They get much of there views on this from Dan Barton a historian who lectures around the nation. More than any other thing colors there view of other religious politicians participating in the process. Until you have a serious debate about the origins of Western civilization, you will not get anywhere.
To many Western Civilization starts solely with Christian thought ignoring the enormous contributions of pagan Greek & Roman history. Many of Greek intellects who shaped modern Democracy were homosexual or Pagan so one can see why they start History on there terms. Nevertheless, ideas matter and if someone sees you in this case Romney as a cultist the likelihood of you voting for him is pretty low.
50 hamaca // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:14 am
The complexities that a POTUS has to face are impossible for anyone outside of an administration to appreciate. When I think about who I’d want to be in the office, I try to imagine as many of the different scenarios, challenges, and entities they would encounter–domestic, international, social, financial, fiscal, economic, lobbyists, special interests, leadership, stage presence, emergencies, disasters, Congress, SCOTUS, and so much more. It seems to make sense to then look at the backgrounds and achievements of candidates–what have they done, how did they approach decision-making–past actions are usually the best indicator of future.
I don’t know who is best and who is not at this point in time. There is time for proper vetting of those who choose to put themselves forward. I appreciate blogs such as this one for the often intelligent interaction and engaging of ideas and perspectives–not too easy to find out there.
Btw, CentristNYer and ThomasJames, thanks for your contributions to the debate–can’t say that I agree with everything, but I do sense you’re both honest in what you’re trying to put across and appreciate the thought you put into your posts.
Chekote and Grizelda, on the other hand, are dishonest, phoney themselves, and quite frankly ugly in how they communicate with others. You seem to either have an agenda of talking points or are the victims of some sort of bigotry, hence the blinders and unwillingness to even appreciate, yet respectfully disagree with opposing views. You’re the poster children of the negative side of blogosphere–good at writing, but not good at thinking.
51 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:11 am
Hamaca – are you sure it is ME who isn’t good at thinking? After all, Romney ran for president just last year. How much more “proper vetting” of him do you need to make up your mind?
52 hamaca // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:46 am
Grizelda–I agree that Romney has been put through a pretty thorough vetting process already. I get why some people wouldn’t want to support him in 2012. At this point in time, I feel I could trust the guy in the office of POTUS as much as the others who ran in 2008, but there are still others who will probably run in 2012 who haven’t been through the vetting that he and the others went through in 2008–that’s what I mean by not having yet decided. It’s a question of relativity–despite the flaws and baggage everyone will bring to the table, someone has to be the candidate in the end.
There are also some relative unknowns who seem to be considering throwing in their hat–it’s hard to compare them to anyone who’s already been through the ringer–we haven’t had a chance to see their dirty laundry, to see them in enough public situations in which gaffes could be made, and to see how presidential they seem in the trenches of a good, competitive primary.
53 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 11:58 am
Sinz54:
You wrote:
“But with Romney as with so many other politicians, these moral epiphanies always seem to occur in the direction that would boost his candidacy for a given office.”
Romney has always held a political pro-choice position until 2004. However, he also followed his Church’s teachings on the subject of abortion by advocating pro-life behavior and by personally opposing the procedure except in certain cases.
Romney has consistently opposed Partial Birth Abortion and supports restrictions on Abortion such as parental notification provisions. He advocates that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, that “abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother,” and that “states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate. In Romney’s personal life, before 2004, he counseled women as a lay clergyman to chose life rather than abortion. Perhaps to a Democract like Kennedy, that is “multiple choice” because it doesn’t meet liberal standards on abortion rights or views of abortion on demand.
Romney’s political switch from pro-choice to pro-life affirms the sanctity of life as to not cheapen it in cases of stem cell research and abortion on demand.
The Evangelical Christian perspective on this is that abortion is ALWAYS wrong and women and girls should be FORCED to birth babies that were the result of rape or incest. (Do you agree with this position?)
On the flip side, the staunch pro-life lobby doesn’t fully embrace Romney because he doesn’t toe-THEIR-line (abortion is always wrong.)
The history of Romney’s switch is not a secret. He claims that he genuinely had a change of heart and mind on the subject of POLITICAL POSITIONS in 2004, while Governor of the State. I don’t see how statements made in 1994 are relevant to this political position switch when he clearly made the switch as Governor, a seat he campaigned for on a pro-choice position.
The “flip-flop” charge on Abortion is unfounded, especially in light of his limited acceptance of the pro-choice position and his personal views that people should behave in a pro-life way.
He changed his political position on Abortion. That’s it. He didn’t go from an “Abortion on demand” activist to a “Evangelical Christian pro-life activist.” He was politically pro-choice because he believed women have a right to choose to terminate their pregnancy and that the Government should ensure that right through FEDERAL regulation. During that time he was PERSONALLY pro-life, rejecting abortion EXCEPT in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is seriously threatened.
The switch occurred in his view of Roe v Wade and FEDERAL regulation, thus a political position switch from pro-choice to pro-life providing for stronger position against abortion on demand.
Now, based on THAT history, you can see that Romney made no “CORE VALUE” changes at all, but a change on HOW government should be involved in the procedure.
54 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Chekote:
You wrote:
“Name a “superior” candidate Grizelda.
Anybody but Romney.”
This is just irrational and absurd. Neither Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, or any other Republican has the fiscal experience to solve America’s problems other than Romney.
So, if just ANYBODY won against Obama, then we’d wind up with a Republican president who doesn’t know how to fix the mess in Washington.
Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich could never raise enough money to win a General election against Obama. Romney has proven that he is the most qualified in all of the necessary areas.
55 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 12:30 pm
ThomasJames – Republican economic policies are what put our country into the circumstances which we now find ourselves in. What is Romney going to propose that is not a return to those policies? Is he ever going to be man enough to come out and say what a clusterfuck the Bush Administration was? Remember, in the 2008 campaign he was keen to DEFEND Bush when Huckabee offered a pretty mild criticism of his administration.
56 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Grizelda:
Your vague references do not address issues. Your lack of what Romney has proposed outside the Huckabee hit sites doesn’t add anything to the dialogue. George Bush failed conservatism by overspending. Romney has always been a “cutter of spending.” He has a track record as a Governor in a Democratic state and his work with the Olympics has been unmatched since.
Huckabee is a nice charismatic guy. However, his track record as a Governor is a “conservative” disaster. The CATO institute labeled him the Biggest Big-Government Conservative.
They reported:
“During his two-term tenure, spending increased by more than 65 percent — at three times the rate of inflation.
The number of government workers increased by 20 percent, and the state’s debt services increased by nearly $1 billion. Huckabee financed his spending binge with higher taxes. Under his leadership, the average Arkansan’s tax burden increased 47 percent, according to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, including increases in the state’s gas, sales, income, and cigarette taxes. He raised taxes on everything from groceries to nursing home beds.
Huckabee answers these complaints by pointing out that he “cut taxes 94 times” while governor. True. But most of those tax cuts were tiny, like exempting residential lawn care from the sales tax. Some cuts reduced overall state revenues by as little as $15,000. On net, Huckabee increased state taxes by more than $500 million. In fact, Huckabee increased taxes in the state by more than Bill Clinton did.”
Huckabee = spend and tax executive.
Now Grizelda, based on the facts, which Governor’s administration is more like the Bush administration? Romney or Huckabee? Huckabee hands down.
Based on THOSE FACTS and your criticism, you should be running from Huckabee as fast as you can. But you don’t. Why? Religion.
Huckabee will not be able to raise enough money to compete against Obama – he has limited appeal, mostly among religious conservatives who do not contribute the money necessary to win elections. So, he might win the nomination but we’ll still be stuck with Obama.
Palin, Huckabee, and Gingrich could never raise enough money to win a General election against Obama. Romney has a proven track record and is the most qualified in all of the necessary areas.
57 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Grizelda:
Great site for you to explore:
http : //www.evangelicalsformitt.org/
Excerpt:
“The reality is that Governor Romney does have an “evangelical problem,” and that problem is named Mike Huckabee. Just as Jesse Jackson vacuumed up the vast majority of black voters in his runs for the presidency, so Mike Huckabee vacuums up the majority of evangelicals. In 2012, the “evangelical problem” might be named “Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin” as those two (quite different) politicians battle it out for a key Republican voting bloc.
But here’s why I’m not overly concerned. First, because Mitt Romney respects evangelical voters and upholds and defends their values, evangelicals won’t face what they faced in 2008 — a nominee who had historically shown contempt for them and for their role in the party. Second, Mitt may not win the evangelical vote in the primaries, but he’ll get a respectable share — particularly of those who are as concerned about economic and national security issues as they are about life and marriage. Third, there’s a vast swath of Republican voters who are not “evangelical” but for whom core values are vitally important (along with other issues). Romney is poised to win this group. They don’t trust Huckabee’s economic liberalism, nor do they feel that Palin has the necessary experience.”
58 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:25 pm
ThomasJames – Huckabee is an idiot – on this we agree. Now then, please answer the question – Republican economic policies are what put our country into the circumstances which we now find ourselves in. What is Romney going to propose that is not a return to those policies? Is he ever going to be man enough to come out and say what a clusterfuck the Bush Administration was? In the 2008 campaign he was happy to DEFEND Bush.
59 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Girzelda:
Fiscally speaking, Romney is going to do what HE does best and has a track record of doing: Spending cuts, revenue creation, and propose jobs growth bills.
In a Romney White House, the president will BE coherent instead of sounding completely incoherent. (Like Bush)
This from 2003:
” Sep. 16–BOSTON–Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday unveiled a $125 million economic-stimulus package that would give tax rebates to expanding high-tech companies, provide worker training funds, and create financial incentives for cities and towns to build more housing.
The plan, called “Jobs First,” would also double the Economic Opportunity Tax Credit from 5 to 10 percent for businesses developing “brownfields” or contaminated sites, and set aside matching grants of up to $200,000 to stimulate economic development in urban centers.
Romney said his bill, which will provide the state with a “resurgent, across-the-board economic recovery.”
The “Jobs-First” plan was very successful and created tens of thousands of jobs.
60 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Grizelda:
“Elected Governor of Massachusetts in 2002, Governor Romney presided over a dramatic reversal of state fortunes and a period of sustained economic expansion. Without raising taxes or increasing debt, Governor Romney balanced the budget every year of his administration, closing a $3 billion budget gap inherited when he took office. By eliminating waste, streamlining the government, and enacting comprehensive economic reforms to stimulate growth in Massachusetts, Romney got the economy moving again and transformed deficits into surpluses.
At the beginning of Governor Romney’s term, Massachusetts was losing thousands of jobs every month. By the time he left office, the unemployment rate was lower, hundreds of companies had expanded or moved to Massachusetts, and in the last two years of his term, the state had added approximately 60,000 jobs.
One of Governor Romney’s top priorities as Governor was reforming the education system so that young people could compete for better paying jobs in the global economy of the future. In 2004, Governor Romney established the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program to reward the top 25 percent of Massachusetts high school students with a four-year, tuition-free scholarship to any Massachusetts public university or college. He has also championed a package of education reforms, including merit pay, an emphasis on math and science instruction, important new intervention programs for failing schools and English immersion for foreign-speaking students.
In 2006, Governor Romney proposed and signed into law a private, market-based reform that ensures every Massachusetts citizen will have health insurance, without a government takeover and without raising taxes.
Governor Romney was elected to the Chairmanship of the Republican Governors Association by his fellow Governors for the 2006 election cycle, and raised a record $27 million for candidates running in State House contests around the country.
Romney first gained national recognition for his role in turning around the 2002 Winter Olympics. With the 2002 Games mired in controversy and facing a financial crisis, Romney left behind a successful career as an entrepreneur to take over as President and CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee.
Governor Romney has said he felt compelled to assume the seemingly impossible task of rescuing the Games by both the urgings of his wife, Ann, and by the memory of his father, George Romney, who had been a successful businessman, three-term Governor of Michigan, and a tireless advocate of volunteerism in America.
In his three years at the helm in Salt Lake, Romney erased a $379 million operating deficit, organized 23,000 volunteers, galvanized community spirit and oversaw an unprecedented security mobilization just months after the September 11th terrorist attacks, leading to one of the most successful Olympics in our country’s history.
Prior to his Olympic service, Mitt Romney enjoyed a successful career helping businesses grow and improve their operations. From 1978 to 1984, Mr. Romney was a Vice President at Bain & Company, Inc., a leading management consulting firm. In 1984, Romney founded Bain Capital, one of the nation’s most successful venture capital and investment companies. Bain Capital helped launch hundreds of companies on a successful course, including Staples, Bright Horizons Family Solutions, Domino’s Pizza, Sealy, Brookstone, and The Sports Authority. He was asked to return to Bain & Company as CEO several years later in order to lead a financial restructuring of the organization. Today, Bain & Company employs more than 2,000 people in 25 offices worldwide.”
61 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm
ThomasJames: “The “Jobs-First” plan was very successful and created tens of thousands of jobs.”
Hells Bells! Why doesn’t Google turn up a scrap of evidence to support your claim?
62 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:07 pm
ThomasJames – whatever Mitt is paying you, you aren’t earning it.
63 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Grizelda:
The greatest threat to our country is a continued and expanded fiscal crisis. Can Obama solve the problem? Based on his experience, his policies, and his track record, probably not.
That reality leaves us with a Republican candidate that might be able to do the job. Among all of the candidates, there’s only one, presently, who has the experience and the track record to approach these problems. Mitt Romney.
There is no perfect candidate. There never was. Mitt Romney’s flaws are not serious, but his talents are genuine and needed.
64 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Grizelda:
Here’s some of the evidence.
https://www.workforceatm.org/articles
printer_friendly.cfm?results_art_filename=ma_firstday4th.htm
You also wrote:
“ThomasJames – whatever Mitt is paying you, you aren’t earning it.”
This is nonsense. I haven’t indicated that I am working for Romney. Using LOGIC and a few facts to refute your arguments doesn’t require a “pay check.”
65 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm
ThomasJame: “The greatest threat to our country is a continued and expanded fiscal crisis. Can Obama solve the problem? Based on his experience, his policies, and his track record, probably not.”
Well, his stimulus package has already stopped the downward spiral that the Republicans started (even the WSJ says so), so that is a point in his favor. The Dow is back over 10,000, which indicates quite a vote of confidence from the market.
Who has a better track record?
66 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Grizelda:
By all means, name your best candidate for President who can take America out of the mess that we’re in.
Here’s your opportunity. Take it.
67 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Great link, BTW – “directory listing denied”.
68 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Grizelda:
If unemployment is above 9% and if deficit continues to rise in 2012, should Obama be removed?
69 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Link:
https://www.workforceatm.org/articles/printer_friendly.cfm?results_art_filename=ma_firstday4th.htm
Cut and paste, you’ll get there.
70 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:53 pm
ThomasJames – given the severity of the crisis the Obama inherited, no – especially if his Republican opponent is peddling the same failed policies that got us into this mess.
71 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I have visited your link – there is not a single word in there about JobsFirst creating even one job, let alone thousands.
72 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Grizelda:
You wrote:
“ThomasJames – given the severity of the crisis the Obama inherited, no – especially if his Republican opponent is peddling the same failed policies that got us into this mess.”
Are you able to read English? Romney’s track record is one of cutting expenditures, and creating jobs. Bush’s administration EXPANDED spending, more than Bill Clinton. So what you’ve really said is that “spending money” is what got us into this mess, and therefore, you’d be criticizing Obama’s policies.
You wrote:
“I have visited your link – there is not a single word in there about JobsFirst creating even one job, let alone thousands.”
3rd paragraph from the top
“The First Jobs Day announcement comes on the heels of unemployment data showing that Massachusetts has added more than 21,000 new jobs since January 2006. Economic indicators have also reported that employment growth in the Bay State has surpassed the U.S. economy during the 2nd quarter of 2006.”
73 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Grizelda:
The liberal establishment is asking some hard questions. How do you answer them?
Nov 30, 2009: Jobs, Mortgages, Food Stamps — Where Is The President?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-schweber/jobs-mortgages-food-stamp_b_373541.html
“Now, after eleven other summits, we are told it is time to have a summit to focus specifically on jobs. You think??”
“But 10.2% is only the formal unemployment rate. If you include not only those collecting benefits but also those who are “discouraged” (no longer seeking work), those who are forced into part-time employment but want full-time employment, and so on, you get an effective unemployment rate of just over 17%.”
“The bailout was supposed to get credit flowing again, which was supposed to get small businesses back on their feet, which would then stimulate employment. It didn’t work, because that’s not what the banks chose to do with the money. Then there was the $787 billion stimulus; that was supposed to create jobs. It hasn’t worked, either. Perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising, as Obama’s senior economic advisor seems to think that job-creation is a secondary concern to increasing GDP. “The primary objective of our policy,” says Larry Summers, “is having more work done, more product produced and more people earning more income. It may be desirable to have a given amount of work shared among more people. But that’s not as desirable as expanding the total amount of work.” (Jared Bernstein, Vice President Biden’s senior economic advisor, takes a different view.) Nonetheless, the administration claims that stimulus “created or saved” a million jobs. Even taking the administration’s number at face value that clocks in at an average cost of $787,000 per job … and almost no one takes the administration’s number at face value, given its non-existent congressional districts and broad counterfactual assumptions.”
“The administration’s mortgage program has been a near-total failure; no more than a few thousand mortgages have seen permanent modifications, while more than 14% of mortgages nationwide are either in foreclosure or delinquency, a number that climbs to one in four in places like Florida and Southern California.”
May guess is that you want Obama to stay in office just because he’s a democrat.
Obama doesn’t have a clue on how to solve the mess. He’s no better than the buffoons who created it. As a way to prove this, what is Obama’s policy on how to raise American’s earnings? The silence is deafening.
Mitt Romney has the answers. He’s already tried the solutions out and they worked.
74 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Grizelda:
Why didn’t Obama’s administration’s bailout get the credit flowing again?
Why didn’t Obama’s administration see to it that its mortage program help the 1000s of people who need it?
Why does the employment continue to RISE when Obama claimed his administrative policies and laws would have the opposite affect?
75 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Above “Why does the UNemployment continue to RISE”
76 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 3:45 pm
The voices saying:
“The Nobel Peace Prize? Climate change? I don’t have a job. I can’t send my kids to college even if I can figure out what they are going to have to eat at the end of the month … I voted for you. $2 trillion in bailouts and stimulus packages and 2,000 page health care bills and Asian trips and beer summits with Harvard professors … I voted for you. Are you kidding me??”
77 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 4:15 pm
ThomasJames – show me evidence that JobsFirst created jobs – what you cite could just as easily be jobs created in spite of JobsFirst.
78 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Grizelda,
Your smoke screens have been peeled away. Your time is up.
Grizelda, you’ve had enough evidence of Romney’s record of reducing deficits, creating surpluses and creating jobs; this is NOT contested.
But just to refute you ONCE AGAIN, the report I gave you is the GOVERNMENT agency that tracks the creation of jobs. You’re just in denial.
You accept that Obama’s administration has saved 1,000,000 jobs “by just their saying so,” but you demand that Romney have some quasi organization prove and track it the thousands of jobs created in MA in 2005, and 2006? Your world is a place of double standards and constant denials of reality.
It’s time you answered for your “Wes We can” Candidate, Barak Obama.
He declared “Yes We Can” and then proposed policies, bills and packages that he said WOULD make a difference NOW.
So, let’s evaluate.
Why didn’t Obama’s administration’s bailout get the credit flowing again?
Why didn’t Obama’s administration see to it that its mortgage program help the 1000s of people who need it?
Why does the employment continue to RISE when Obama claimed his administrative policies and laws would have the opposite affect?
79 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:06 pm
ThomasJames, you claim as fact that Romney’s Jobs First program created thousands of jobs in Massachusetts. However, there is no evidence to back that up. You do site something that says thousands of jobs were created in Massachusetts, but NOT that they were due to Jobs First.
80 hamaca // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Grizelda, very clever approach you have there. No matter what info the other side puts forward, always demand yet another level of proof. If you keep going, it may be that you could demand that those who got jobs be interviewed as proof. And then you could demand to see their paystubs. And then… and then… At some point the other side will give up and you can claim victory. I may have to give that a try sometime–thanks!
81 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Grizelda:
The problem with your last post is you said, “there is NO evidence to back that up.” This an untenable position. There is EVIDENCE of job creation during Romney’s tenure as Governor.
What you’re NOW proposing is a job-by-job investigation to determine if the policies of Romney created each and every job, by sector, and how each sector was influenced by the policies. This is every Governor’s dream but such is not available or has EVER been available to the Governors of Massachusetts. This is your double standard. You don’t require it of Obama but you require it of Mitt Romney. Until you cough up the same evidence for Obama, this claim of yours is meaningless.
However, there is an independent, non-partisan, research and educational institute that measures economic growth compared to government policies. During the 2008 campaign for the Republican Nomination their report confirmed the following during Romney’s tenure as Governor:
* 60,000 new jobs were created
* Substantial progress made in streamlining permits and regulations for businesses that want to locate in the state.
You demand evidence but provide none yourself, for your own candidate in 2012, who hasn’t been able to reach ANY objectives that he set AS PRESIDENT.
The President has spent 2 trillion dollars and claims to have saved about 1,000,000 according to his “mind.” To use your own standard, how do we know that his stimulus “saved” the jobs? Are you comfortable with your President’s claim without any “evidence?”
He declared “Yes We Can” and then proposed policies, bills and packages that he said WOULD make a difference NOW.
So, let’s evaluate.
Why didn’t Obama’s administration’s bailout get the credit flowing again?
Why didn’t Obama’s administration see to it that its mortgage program help the 1000s of people who need it?
Why does the UNemployment continue to RISE when Obama claimed his administrative policies and laws would have the opposite affect?
82 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:30 pm
hamaca, I’m not demanding another level of proof – I’m demanding the FIRST level of proof. TJ says Romney’s JobsFirst program created thousands of jobs – but he cannot show anyone who concurs that JobsFirst created even ONE job. The fact that jobs were created does not mean that JobsFirst had anything to do with it – they could have all been from the Big Dig or from a big upswing in strip clubs being opened along Route One.
83 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Grizelda:
Therefore, according to your last post, Obama has created no job growth and should be removed from office in 2012.
84 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm
ThomasJames, you’ve made a claim which should be able to be factually verified but which you cannot. Therefore, I am inclined to believe that you made a false claim. What claim have I made which is comparable to the whopper that you laid down?
85 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Grizelda:
No, it has been factually verified that during Romney’s tenure, 60,000 new jobs were created by two different sources. One of the sources recognized JobsFirst day from the JobsvFirst plan and connected 21,000 new jobs with it. (The one you conveniently ignored.)
It has also been verified that new revenues came into the MA government as a result of the policies of the Romney administration allowing it to balance the budget. These new revenues arise from businesses doing more business which required more job creation.
We can certainly follow the trail and we see a linkage between all of the facts about growth. Perhaps an Economics 101 course is on order?
But in order to make the correct comparison between Romney and Obama we have to go back a step. What did SENATOR Obama ever do to create jobs or balance a budget? Zilch. (And it shows.)
Furthermore, your own guy, President Obama claims that he saved 1,000,000 jobs as a result of his stimulus package, but there is no factual verification for it. Where is your call that Obama made a “false claim?” (You see, double standard.)
So, you give President Obama a pass but you require me to create a special kind of task force organization that can satisfy YOUR requirements for the linkage between Romney’s policies and the subsequent success in MA in 2005, and 2006.
What does this come down to? You’re toast. Your fallacious argument is refuted. It’s based on your denial of the facts already provided and your double standard, one for Obama and one for Republicans.
Therefore, according to your last post, Obama has created no job growth and should be removed from office in 2012.
He declared “Yes We Can” and then proposed policies, bills and packages that he said WOULD make a difference NOW.
So, let’s evaluate.
Why didn’t Obama’s administration’s bailout get the credit flowing again?
Why didn’t Obama’s administration see to it that its mortgage program help the 1000s of people who need it?
Why does the UNemployment continue to RISE when Obama claimed his administrative policies and laws would have the opposite affect?
You can’t even begin to address the problems that Obama cannot or will not face.
Tell us Grizelda, was the stimulus package Obama’s best idea? And if it wasn’t, why didn’t he put his best ideas forward to save or create jobs? Why is he just sitting around when the House and Senate are Democractically controlled?
Can you hear the voices?
“The Nobel Peace Prize? Climate change?
I don’t have a job. I can’t send my kids to college even if I can figure out what they are going to have to eat at the end of the month … I voted for you. $2 trillion in bailouts and stimulus packages and 2,000 page health care bills and Asian trips and beer summits with Harvard professors … I voted for you. Are you kidding me??”
86 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:32 pm
60000 new jobs? TJ, check your trousers, they must be flaming!
“The former Massachusetts governor issued a statement on Sunday titled “creating jobs” that focuses on 57,600 jobs added to the Massachusetts economy during his single term as governor from 2003 to 2007. But Northeastern University economist Andrew Sum, who has researched Romney’s record, said the state lagged the U.S. average during that period in job creation, economic growth and wage increases. “As a strict labor market economist looking at the record, Massachusetts did very poorly during the Romney years, he said. “On every measure you’ve got, the state was a substantial under-performer.”
“”There’s never been under his watch an economic turnaround to speak of,” Michael Widmer, president of the independent Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, told Reuters. “We added a few jobs over the last three years of his tenure but very few.”
“But Northeastern’s Sum said that while jobs were created under Romney, the rate was the third-lowest in the nation after Hurricane Katrina-hit Louisiana and Michigan. At the same time, wages in the New England state stagnated during Romney’s term. The average weekly wage of Massachusetts workers, Sum said, rose by just a $1 between 2001 and 2006 after adjusting for inflation, while the state had the third-highest rate of population loss in the nation between July 2002 and July 2006. Real output of goods and services — a broad measure of economic performance — grew 9 percent, below the 13 percent rate for the United States, he added.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2033704120080120?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
87 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Also, TJ, it is interesting that he doesn’t mention this 60,000 job miracle in the quotes given on this page:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mitt_Romney_Jobs.htm
88 ThomasJames // Nov 30, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Grizelda,
Notice that Andrew Sum did not contest the 60,000 job figure, he only interpreted that the State was an under performer compared to OTHER States.
Furthermore, these are Romney’s CRITICS, not non-partisan groups like the one I quoted. Critics will try and SEE data in anyway as not to concede that Romney succeeded. And how could they, how could they concede that a REPUBLICAN governor did well.
Look, you’re toast. Your argument didn’t work and can’t be duplicated for your own candidate. Obama has created no jobs according to your standard of measurement.
The questions remain Grizelda:
Why didn’t Obama’s administration’s bailout get the credit flowing again?
Why didn’t Obama’s administration see to it that its mortgage program help the 1000s of people who need it?
Why does the UNemployment continue to RISE when Obama claimed his administrative policies and laws would have the opposite affect?
Why won’t you confront these tough questions if Obama is a superior executive above Romney?
89 Grizelda // Nov 30, 2009 at 11:04 pm
So we’ve gone from your claim that Romney has a demonstrated track record in creating jobs to your admission that Massachusetts under Romney actually underperformed the rest of the nation.
My work here is done.
It will be fun to see all this aired again in 2012.
90 ThomasJames // Dec 1, 2009 at 12:18 am
Grizelda:
Your arguments are toast. Your line of argumentation will not work in the national debate because you refuse to own up to President Obama’s record or lack thereof.
When people are out of jobs, out of credit, and failing, they’ll take Romney’s record over Obama.
Rational people will be able to distinguish between inheriting a state with a 3 billion deficit and a State that already has a surplus. Which state is poised for better job growth? Duh.
Your “work” here is done because you’ve run out of excuses as to why you can’t answer the tough questions for President Obama.
91 Carney // Dec 1, 2009 at 9:53 am
ThomasJames posted the following from http : //www.evangelicalsformitt.org/ :
“[T]here’s a vast swath of Republican voters who are not “evangelical” but for whom core values are vitally important (along with other issues). Romney is poised to win this group. They don’t trust Huckabee’s economic liberalism, nor do they feel that Palin has the necessary experience.”
This fits me.
You must log in to post a comment.