So, What Else Is Going On?
Just to conclude the “humor” discussion, and emailer reminded us and this blog post tells the story of Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior’s resignation over a religiously/racially tinged joke.
Secretary of Agriculture James Watt, working for President Ronald Reagan, made the following quip about “diversity”:
“I have a black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple. And we have talent.”
The press went apoplectic.
Watt resigned in disgrace within weeks as a veritable firestorm erupted around him.
Funny, a liberal does it, we document it, we point out it is in poor taste, etc. But there it ends. A conservative does it and heads have to roll. Who’s tolerant again?
And with that question in mind – even the very liberal Huffington Post has nasty Mormon comment problems. But then, they are just generally nasty.
Just Bits and Pieces…
This blog post at “Mormon Bloggers” has been getting some play in some circles in the last few days. The “flip-flop” charge towards Romney is, at this point, yesterday’s news. But this has gotten a little traction because it is written by a Mormon. That fact leads me to conclude that our contention that the flip-flop charge has traction at all is because it plays into the “Mormons lie” meme is validated; otherwise, it would not make a difference if the post was written by a Martian.
James Dobson is endorsing candidates. This is something he was loathe to do when he was with Focus on the Family. IS this story a sign of new times for America’s leading Evangelical?
If Bob Jones University was really that “iconic,” the endorsement of Romney would have mattered more than it did.
Important history lessons from:
Sullivan’s animus towards Palin is based on her placement of her religion at the forefront of her life and his placing his homosexuality in front of his faith.
Lowell adds . . .
The big problem many conservatives have with Mitt Romney is that they simply don’t think he’s conservative enough. For them that’s where the flip-flopper charge comes from. (And, I freely concede, the Governor has a lot of explaining to do about that Massachusetts healthcare bill. I think he has a good story to tell there, but it’s full of nuance and hard to tell in a quick soundbite.) I have two “buts” to add, however.
1. But some of the “flip-flop” criticism is just over the top and smacks of political dynamiting by arch-conservatives with a hidden agenda. For example, we keep seeing the canard that Romney is somehow against the Boy Scouts generally, especially on sexual orientation issues, a claim thoroughly debunked here. And yet some people keep bringing that idea up. It’s very close to the gutter-based whisper campaigns we have all seen against other candidates about marital infidelity and similar scurrilous tales. Like I said, political dynamiting by pros who know exactly what they are doing.
2. But as we have noted here many times, the flip-flopper charge is just too convenient for people who oppose him because he is a Mormon. “Oh, I have no problem with his religion; some of my best friends are Mormons. It’s just that he keeps changing his positions . . . and did you know he is in favor of gay Scoutmasters?” We’ll keep seeing this rubbish for some time, but if Romney gets the GOP nomination my guess is that it will fade away.
Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Tweets that mention So, What Else Is Going On? | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 28 Apr 2010 at 7:52 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012!, Patrick Robinson and Article VI Blog, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: #hhrs New @ Article VI Blog:: So, What Else Is Going On? http://www.article6blog.com/2010/04/28/so-what-else-is-going-on/ [...]
coltakashi on 28 Apr 2010 at 11:57 am #
With respect to the “Mormon Blogger” criticizing Romney that is linked above, I question this blogger’s claim to be representative of Mormon opinion on many of his political positions, and his opinions about Mitt Romney in particular. Everyone knows that Romney is extremely popular in Utah, where many people have known him intimately from his years as a missionary in France, as a student at BYU, as a student at Harvard which they also attended, as an LDS bishop and stake president in Boston when they were going to college there, and during his several years as president of the Salt Lake Olympics. Romney is well known in the Marriott Society, an international organization of BYU business school alumni and other LDS business leaders. And he is also well known to many of the most senior leaders of the Church. There is no indication from the many leading Mormons in the Church, in BYU, in the Olympic organization, or the Republican Party that Romney is anything like the strange picture that this blogger paints.
Frankly, some of the blogger’s positions seem to me to be diametrically opposed to positions of most Utahns and Mormons that I know. One of these is his support of “medical marijuana”, which is definitely not something the Church supports or endorses. Second is his anger at Romney’s support for US military action in the Middle East. Most Utahns I know are supportive of the US military mission there, and agree with Romney that the international terrorism campaign of the Jihadists is a threat to not only Americans but also to all Christians, especially in nations like Nigeria where there is a long history of violent conflict between Muslims and Christians, and such violense directly threatens Mormons among those native populations.
The Church did not criticize Romney during his term as governor over his stance on laws governing abortion. The fact is that, because of the US Supreme Court’s decisions, repeatedly since Roe v. Wade, the ability of any governor to regulate abortions is extremely limited, especially with a legislature with a veto-overriding majority of Democrats. But Romney did show courage in refusing to sign bills that would have supported the use of human embryos as sources of stem cells for medical research. That is a position to the right of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, who is generally considered one of the leading conservatives in the Senate, that Romney was criticized for in Boston, but not something the blogger gives him credit for.
The blogger attacks Romney for obeying the Massachusetts Supreme Court, even though he very publicly criticized its ruling on gay marriage. The blogger omits the important fact that Romney took the initiative to enforce a Massachusetts law that prohibits people from coming from out of state to contract marriages that would be illegal in their home states, and prevented the Massachusetts ruling from making Boston the gay marriage Las Vegas of the United States.
The blogger’s claim about Romney opposing the Boy Scouts is off base, since Romney served on Scouting’s National Board for ten years, including the time he was working for the Olympics. Stories from the SL Tribune at the time make clear that Boy Scout units in fact performed service projects in support of the Olympics with approval from the SL Olympics organization. Limits on what Boy Scouts could do during the games were derived from requirements by the international Olympic committee about the minimum age for formal volunteers being 18, and volunteers needing to wear Olympic uniforms and not the uniforms of other organizations. Does the blogger really think Romney avoided the Boy Scouts when he was growing up, raising his five sons, and serving as a bishop and then a stake president?
Incidentally, if the blogger claims Romney is a faux Mormon, what are the blogger’s credentials in terms of his own Church service? Has he ever been called by the senior authorities of the church to serve as a stake president? Frankly, given his statement supporting medical marijuana, it seems likely to me that he is on the fringe of the Church membership, at best.
lkm55 on 28 Apr 2010 at 9:42 pm #
The hope that all of the whisper campaigns against Romney will stop if he gets the nomination is at best wishful thinking. They will not cease, they will intensify dramatically. The politics of personal destruction were started by the GOP against Clinton, but elevated to an art form by the democrats. The DNC fears Romney more than any other contender due to his experience and track record with the economy.
VB on 29 Apr 2010 at 7:56 am #
What is bothering me most about Romney is his endorsement of candidates in primaries.
Bob Bennett in Utah is one example. I am hoping that Bennett will not even emerge from the convention next month, let alone the primary. I don’t know WHY Romney endorsed Bennett. Bennett is NOT a conservative, even though he has always claimed to be.
McCain in Az. is another example.
And although he endorsed Rubio in Fl. whom I support over Crist. I still think people in Romney’s position should NOT make endorsements in the primary process. (That is what gave us Arlen Spector for the last 5+ years).
As far as I am concerned all politicians are CLOWNS. When one steps too far to the left, as McCain and Bennett have done, it is time to boot them out of office and put the next CLOWN in (even if on the surface the next clown may seem worse at the time). At least then the message is CLEAR, go left and you will be out of there.
Otherwise, they simply view it as a reward for going left and they move even farther, or they learn just how left they can be and still get reelected.
Which is very damaging to the republic.
TVHall on 29 Apr 2010 at 4:50 pm #
You may want to re-think this one if you want to retain some credibilty. The Clintons coined this term to project their tactics onto their opposition. It would be more accurate to credit Saul Alinsky. But then even Saul had the decency to credit the original author in the forward of his book, “Rules for Radicals.”
Chino Blanco on 29 Apr 2010 at 6:55 pm #
Attacking Romney’s critics by questioning their personal righteousness should be out of bounds. Judging from comments here, it looks like the Article VI crowd has no problem with that ugly tactic.
kgbudge on 30 Apr 2010 at 1:27 pm #
Who is this “Article VI crowd” you speak of, Chino?
In my experience, John and Lowell have been careful about not questioning anyone’s personal righteousness. This is, after all, a blog dedicated to the proposition that we should be able to work with each other in spite of theological differences, and when theology comes up, morality cannot be far behind.
I agree that coltakashi crossed the line with the last sentence of his post. I think it was fair for him to ask if the “Mormon Blogger” really was representative of the Mormon membership’s views, but questioning his personal committment to his religion was out of line. But coltakashi is not necessarily any more representative of commenters here than “Mormon Blogger” is of Mormons in general.
So, at worst, John and Lowell are moderating with a lighter hand than you would like. I see no indications they have engaged in selective moderation, in the sense of letting some commenters get out of line and not others depending on whose ox is gored, which might bother me.