A prominent Republican delivered a direct request to Mitt Romney not long ago: He should make a third run for the presidency, not for vanity or redemption, but to answer a higher calling from his faith.So there are 2 issues here: 1. Whether Romney's religious beliefs might impel him to run a third time, and 2. Whether Romney, running for the third time, will present himself in a new way, as a man motivated by faith to serve.
Believing that Mr. Romney, a former Mormon pastor, would be most receptive on these grounds, the Republican made the case that Mr. Romney had a duty to serve, and said Mr. Romney seemed to take his appeal under consideration....
But now as Mr. Romney mulls a new run for the White House, friends and allies said, his abiding Mormon faith is inextricably tied to his sense of service and patriotism, and a facet of his life that he is determined to embrace more openly in a possible third campaign.
We'll never really know how much Romney's decision to run (or not to run) truly rests on religious beliefs, so the second issue is actually more interesting. In 2012, the Democrats successfully painted Romney as an out-of-touch rich guy. Many Americans interpreted his demeanor and mannerisms and statements in that light. Perhaps we'd understand all the same things in a different way if he were an out-and-proud Mormon.
He'd also be a "diversity" candidate — a potential "first" — first Mormon President. I wonder what Mormonism would allow him to say. Would he claim to be a member of a persecuted minority group? He could! But would that work? Would Mormon values permit him to decide what to say based on whether it would work? If he purports to run based on Mormon values, will we the people need to study Mormon values so that we can call him on any hypocrisy?
पोस्ट्स
३५ टिप्पण्या:
The recent rumblings about the role of Romney's Mormon faith indicate, in my opinion, the seriousness with which some of Romney's adversaries approach his candidacy. They want to sink him now.
To most Americans -- whether evangelical, Catholic, or non-religious -- Mormons are plain weird. If Romney is running for president because his weird faith commands him to do so, most voters will view his candidacy negatively.
The NYT is happy enough to report on this speculation and give it an air of respectability.
I have known and worked with many Mormons over the years. I can honestly say I have not met one I didn't like and respect. (I have never personally met Harry Reid.) However, if he ran as a Mormon he would find himself having to defend the Book of Mormon to a largely secular and also mainstream Christian electorate. No easy task.
He can't possibly be a diversity candidate because he is a white man. The white privilege suffocates the Mormonism.
Mormonism is also a white privilege faith, and not a faith of colored folk.
Nothing touched by whiteness can ever be called diversity.
Once upon a time, if a source was " Anonymous", it meant that the source was willing to speak ill about someone or some situation. But did not want to be quoted by name.I can understand this.
But why do we now have so many anonymous quotes from people praising various politicians?
I liked Romney and voted for him.But im getting sick of "anonymous " quotes from people that are "Close to his/her thinking" that t one reads in the newspaper every day, saying things along the lines of
""Sources close to his/her thinking, say that Romney/Clinton/Obama/ect/ect is motivated by a sense of duty",ect
Mormons are a strange lot. They have this history of polygamy.
I grew up with many Mormons around, Mormon classmates, etc. They were, as a group, the best.
But it's a strange cult. Romney can't jump over that stile. It's a cult.
Modesty is an attitude of propriety and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior. If we are modest, we do not draw undue attention to ourselves. Instead, we seek to “glorify God in [our] body, and in [our] spirit”
Battle space prep by the NYT, combined with piece on Christie.
But Romney's faith was a likely factor in low conservative turnout in '12, will be a greater liability now.
Any Mormon candidate would clearly fail the "beer test," which is unfortunate.
I have known several Mormons in the course of my life, and with a single exception, I have found them to be some of the most genuinely caring, thoughtful, and warm people I have ever known. So much so, that I have often wished to be closer to my Mormon friends.
I would think to myself, "Hey, I should grab a beer with... oh, wait, no," or say, "Honey, we should invite Nate and his wife to our wine and cheese party... oops, never-mind."
Then I would feel guilty and wonder if I am overly dependent on alcohol in social settings. And in the end I would realize that no, I am not an alcoholic, but alcohol is a part of my life and culture that Mormons choose not to share.
The point is, even if the public really liked Romney (which they don't), there would still be that awkward feeling that he is not really "one of us."
"Mormonism is also a white privilege faith, and not a faith of colored folk."
Mia Love could not reached for comment.
It cannot be a good thing as Mormons emphasize education, good health, abstinence from nicorette gum for example and hard work and saving money.
All of those are subversive traits.
If he purports to run based on Mormon values, will we the people need to study Mormon values so that we can call him on any hypocrisy?
No, we only need to remind everyone that he strapped his dog to his car.
He won't get more than 20% in any primary. Eventually he'll get the message.
Not even the Mormon god can make Romney into the leader we want to follow. He has taken in the Great Warmist Hoax Cult as easily as he accepts the Great Mormon Cult with the hoax Jesus.
That means what he wants is to lead a homogeneous progressive group into a non-existent ideal world ruled over by a hierarchy of all powerful stubborn old fools.
No thanks.
If Mitt enters the race, it will be to help his old buddy, Jeb Bush.
I noted that the two old friends and mutual admirers had a not-so-secret meeting in Vegas the other day. After the meeting, Mitt dusted off the old Etch-a-Sketch and announced his conversion to the dark side on anthropogenic climate change. I wonder if Mitt and Jeb prayed on it.
Any religiously-motivated Republican is a theocrat. That's how it plays in the media.
It does not matter how many Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, Muslim or Mormon Democrats there be, or what scriptures they quote to support their votes--there is no D in "theocrat".
That Romney is Mormon makes it worse. The Mormon priesthood was not racially integrated until the 70s, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants would be in play--not that Mormons put any more enmphasis on their scriptures than any other Christians do--polygamy, magic underwear, if he looks like he might win, all that is back out.
A Presidential run seems to be turning into a party you have to be invited to - by party leaders, by party insurrectionists, if necessary by God. But you are nobody for the next two years if you don't have that invite. So the question is: should we clamor for Althouse or Meade? Or the son?
Yawn....
Give.it.up.already!
I can locate articles on H. Clinton and Obama discussing faith.
re: Mormon faith weird, when I was a kid I thought Catholicism strange with its incense and chanting....
Yeah, there are sources. Anonymous ones. Pfft.
But Romney's faith was a likely factor in low conservative turnout in '12, will be a greater liability now.
Romney had an issue with the base. I don't know if that was why or if was a combination of other factors, but I see no reason to double down on defeat. Let's move on.
For NYT:
Democrat, good (because JFK).
Mormon, Oh! Noes!!!
When Romney ran against Uncle Ted of Massachusetts for the senate, the Kennedy machine attacked his Mormon faith.
During the 10/25/94 debate, this was Mitt's response.
It is a timeless one.
"One of the great things about our nation is that we are all entitled to have strong personal beliefs and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to beleive as they want and not impose our beliefs on other people...My personal beliefs should not be brought into a political campaign. Too much has been written about religion in this race. I'm proud of my religious heritage. I'm proud of the values it has taught me. But, if you want to know my positions on issues, ask me and I'll tell you.
I think the low point of this race was when my opponent and his family decided to make religion an issue in this campaign and brought it out (and) attacked me for it (being a Mormon).
I think that's a mistake.
I think the time has passed for that. (kind of attack)
John Kennedy was the one who fought that battle. Let that battle live for all of us of all faiths."
Wild applause broke out in the hall.
For those of you who came in late, or didn't know, J.F.K. , the first Catholic president, was asked if his faith disqualified him from running for the presidency. Many believed the Pope would have too much influence on our country's policies.
You can see, 5 decades later, the Vatican had no influence at all, including on the Kennedys behavior and legislature record.
The issue is authenticity in 2016. That is why Bush and Romney are the two least electable. Walker and Christy, have authenticity. Paul and Perry have some too, but not likr Walker and Christy. Those two will split up the geographic areas and in the end one will win.
A candidate who couldn't beat Obama in 2012 isn't going to be able to beat Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Michael K.
Come on... you know Mia Love is just an Uncle Tom. ;)
"I would think to myself, "Hey, I should grab a beer with... oh, wait, no," or say, "Honey, we should invite Nate and his wife to our wine and cheese party... oops, never-mind."
My comment: Some are sticks in the mud, it is true. But others - many - are very cool people that don't care a whit that you are drinking and they aren't. But I understand that for it to be comfortable, you also have to not care either. It’s your party so you should above all feel comfortable.
"Then I would feel guilty and wonder if I am overly dependent on alcohol in social settings. And in the end I would realize that no, I am not an alcoholic, but alcohol is a part of my life and culture that Mormons choose not to share."
My comment: Maybe you are overly dependent, maybe not. I know a lot of Mormons that are similarly over dependent on ice cream and cake, and they don't get that good mood boosting return for it.
Or put another way, I know some Mormons that could really use a drink.
"That Romney is Mormon makes it worse. The Mormon priesthood was not racially integrated until the 70s, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants would be in play--not that Mormons put any more emphasis on their scriptures than any other Christians do--polygamy, magic underwear, if he looks like he might win, all that is back out."
Read every possible anti-Mormon tract out there, have you?
I am always amused when Baptists who go to a completely white Baptist church, that is only two blocks down the street from a completely black Baptist church, say that the Mormons (who never in their history had a single segregated congregation - and still don't) are the racists.
The entire Mormon Church changed their policy on blacks and the priesthood in one single, traceable week. The entire church turned on a dime, with no internal fight, split or schisms. The change, which was announced from the top, was unanimously approved and followed that very week. That shows you a lot about what their motives and internal reasoning was.
I note that the Baptist, and other self-labeled bible-based churches, are still predominantly segregated in their congregations. Sure I see some whites at TD Jakes services, but not many. And just up the North Dallas Tollway, sure there are some blacks at the Prestonwood Baptist church in Plano, but not many.
I doubt his faith is what is making him run, although he's probably using it to justify running. What's really making him run is the itch to be in the spotlight and have some influence over the process, and attention--after running for six years he must feel a bit restless, having really nothing to do after the 2012 election. And there might be some small, deluded part of him that thinks he can actually win (and surely some supporters and consultants egging him on).
At this point though, he ought to forget it. Although the nomination is mostly wide open, he simply never fully won over the GOP faithful the last time, and those of us who liked him (myself included) would like to see some new blood. And if he fails to get the nomination, it's hard to see how that doesn't look like an embarrassment to him. He'd be better off forming a PAC, helping raise money for the party, and playing a kingmaker role, probably getting a nice appointment if the GOP wins next year.
I don't care if the Angel Moroni appears to Mitt and tells him God wants him to run. He had his chance, and he blew it. Who would ever vote for a presidential candidate who can be bullied by Candy Crowley?
I am not a robot.
1. Mormonism encourages its members to be "anxiously engaged in a good cause"; but it certainly doesn't encourage its members should make a point of aspiring to political office. The more interesting facet is that Mormonism does teach its members to seek a sort of mystical communion with the Holy Spirit while making major life decisions. As far as I know, Romney's never made a secret of his belief that he was being "called" to run; and I suspect any overtly religious candidate (at least, on the right) would probably tell a similar story.
2. Romney would have to be very smart about presenting his Mormon experiences in the context of a political campaign. Those experiences could de-fuse some of the accusations about him being heartless or out-of-touch--a major responsibility of Mormon bishops is to administer the church's extensive welfare program on a local level, so Romney's in-the-trenches experience with individuals suffering from poverty, addiction, etc. could probably rival that of any "community organizer" in Washington today. On the other hand--Mormon culture is that leadership in the church is supposed to be a sacrifice; and if Romney seems like he's using his church service as a stepping stone to political office he will probably alienate the Mormons in his donor base as well as the "establishment Republicans" who are already uncomfortable with the idea of a (former) minister holding elected office.
Nah, Romney just really admires Harold Stassen and is tryig to emulate his hero.
@Quayle:Read every possible anti-Mormon tract out there, have you?
I was raised Mormon and had the tropes shouted at me.
The entire country is getting Romneycare good and hard right now. His opponents in the primary will be able to separate themselves on this issue easily.
On the bright side it helps his case with the "republican" donor class. They like big government and the concordant cronyism.
"I was raised Mormon and had the tropes shouted at me"
Gabriel, I'm sorry for that, and I understand more about that than you may first imagine.
What I have since learned is that if the tropes were shouted at you, then you weren't raised a Mormon in any sense of what Mormonism is or stands for.
Remember Doctrine and Covenants 121: No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the Priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, by love unfeigned."
In other words [also from D&C 121]: goodness is not just adherence to correct principals, those correct principals must be carried forward in the correct way, which is meekness, gentleness, kindness, and love unfeigned.
That is true Mormonism.
@Quayle: I am not a Mormon of any sort, good bad or indifferent, since I was a child. I am sympathetic and friendly to LDS friends and neighbors, though there is a critical mass effect when you have too many in one place and they can be a bit much. There is probably no collection of humans of which that cannot be said.
But I have as little patience for the lies and distortions told about Mormons, as for the lies and distortions the Church tells about its own history.
I'm glad you quoted Doctrine and Covenants, because it's a good example. Go to a university library and compare older editions, along with really old ones, to new ones. You will find they were not planted by enemies of the Church, and you will find the differences instructive.
Incidentally,the optimum number of Mormons to take fishing with you is two--one Mormon will drink all your beer.
@Quayle:What I have since learned is that if the tropes were shouted at you, then you weren't raised a Mormon in any sense of what Mormonism is or stands for.
I wasn't going to respond to this but since there is hardly a purer example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy I will.
It is not my fault that I encountered anti Mormons. This was during the dedication of the Chicago Temple. I had never, up to that point, seen anti-Mormons and up until that time my family associated with Mormons nearly exclusively. We drove two hours to get there, and I think I was the only one my age to go from my ward. I remember the interview with the bishop before I had permission to attend the dedication.
I was pretty indignant about the demonstrators, and asked my mother why they were doing that, we don't that to their temples. It didn't occur to me that other faiths didn't have temples, since I didn't know any other kind of Christian well enough to have any idea what their churches were like.
I was very impressed to see General Authorities in the flesh, and one of them spoke to me briefly on his way inside (we were watching the dedication from a sort of annex, I don't remember if there was some sort of rule or if it was just full inside).
My father was never a bishop, but he held other church offices and my mother was Relief Society President. We were active Mormons indistinguishable from any others.
My family left the Church when my parents divorced--which is not unusual for Mormons unfortunate enough to have divorced, since mnay Mormons find that other Mormons are judgmental and unsupportive to those who divorce. Not all, but enough.
I'm sure Mitt Romney would have been a fine President and it does not bother me that he is Mormon, but the electorate will be bothered by it, and the media will again make it their business to ensure it.
"I wasn't going to respond to this but since there is hardly a purer example of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy I will.
It is not my fault that I encountered anti Mormons."
Gabriel, I either mistook what you said earlier or you mistoke what I meant.
I was thinking that the tropes to which you referred were Mormon tropes shouted at you by your parents, not anti-Mormon tropes by others.
I am sorry if my misunderstanding or bad writing caused you to believe that I was saying that a true mormon would have resolvedly ignored and internally resisted anti-mormon screeds.
I have no issue with you or anyone listening to, analyzing, and making your own conclusions on what anybody says about Mormons (Mormons or otherwise.)
Let me conclude by this: like me, you seemed to have grown up in a difficult time in Mormonism - a time which (later) church president Benson said was under a curse for ignoring some important principals (which I won't bore you with.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा