Monday, May 14, 2007

mitt romney on cover of time

There are a couple of Mitt Romney stories in Time magazine this week. I was interested to read them as my current reading includes Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House? 10 Things Every American Should Know About Mitt Romney. Karen Tumulty's article "What Romney Believes" gives the background on Romney's position change on social issues, most notably abortion. Another article by Nancy Gibbs entitled "The Religion Test" in the newstand copy and "Romney's Mormon Question" online, looks at the effect Romney's religion has on potential voters. Well, for that matter, I personally believe that Romney's religion could have a saving effect on potential voters, but that angle is not covered in the article. Sorry, I couldn't resist. My dad was just visiting and his puns rub off on me.

In the second article there are several quotes by bigot avowed and proud, Jacob Weisberg, stating that there is no way he would vote for a Mormon and questioning whether a person of our faith would have the intellectual capacity to hold that office. Hugh Hewitt cautions evangelicals, most of whom apparently wouldn't vote for a Mormon either, against lining up with the likes of Weisberg. If the miracles that Mormons believe in can be called into question and held against them, what about the miracles you believe in?

11 comments:

ave said...

I didn't think that Nancy's article was flattering to Mitt at all did you? It seemed to focus on the negative and left me feeling validated for distrusting politicians. It wasn't very hopeful. I think her glass is half empty.

Calandria said...

Do you mean the first article? I don't think it was that great. There have been lots of these articles about him becoming more conservative now that he's running for president. On one hand, I can see that it could be mere political expediency. On the other, my views on different social issues have also changed, so I can identify. On still another hand, in Mass. he said he would leave the law as it was--he would not act to restrict or expand abortion rights. That is viewed as pro-abortion, but practically speaking, when was he every going to have an opportunity to further restrict abortion in socially liberal Mass.? Never. His position now is that it should be up to individual states to decide the issue, which seems, in effect, the same position he had before. I don't know, that's how I see it. Maybe I'm wrong.

Auntie Lee said...

It all sounds like the usual political bla bla to me. It is not unusual for politicians to be hypocrites I don't know why Romney would be any different. I think it is more of a question of expectations. I do not expect anything but rhetoric from politicians so I am not shocked by anything I read to the contrary. Is the fact that he is a Mormon suppose to change something one way or the other?
Integrity is one of the Young Woman's values. Maybe if politicians said the YW’s theme every morning and looked at themselves in a mirror the world would be a better place.

Auntie Lee said...

By the way…
For the past 40 years American elections have been about big business. If you want to get elected in the US you have to be in bed with a lot of people you may not even know or agree with. American elections are the most expensive in the world. Can’t we elect someone and keep the special interest groups and big corporations out of it? The electoral college is obsolete. Maybe we should be looking at the process as well as the politicians.

Mark and Carla said...

I don't know if the Time article I read (in the international version) is the same as the national one, but I found the article very interesting. I did not know anything about him or his family before. I found the more condemning points not to be about his faith as much as his "deathbed" coversions (their words, not mine) on the issues such as abortion, gun control. I understand and actually people who change their minds and admit it--doesn't that show people are thinking about issues rather than grab a party line and hammer it home--I think those changes need to be carefully delivered so it doesn't look like he's jumping on a bandwagon to appeal to a voting demographic. One of the things I admire about John McCain is he's so hard for either party to pin down because his beliefs cross both political parties, something I find actually more realistic and in common with many people.

I am very suspicious of people who will/won't vote for a candidate solely on their religion. Our current President is a prime example. I believe he's a Christian. I believe he has a strong faith. I have that in common with him. I think he's a train wreck as a president. The fact that we share a common faith belief has not made him a good president in my opinion. Would I be so terrible if I felt that Romney would be a good president, even if I didn't agree with many of his religious beliefs? People who vote based on one issue or one quality worry me.

I find it sad that people are willing to accept someone who attaches a label of faith to themselves (Kennedy, Clinton) saying they are Methodists, or Catholics or Baptists, but behave in ways that are offensive, yet when someone stands up and professes what they believe, they are dismissed as a crackpot or less than adequate intellectually.

Auntie Lee said...

Amen to that Mark and Carla. In this country a few years ago the government was a mess. They had 3 different elections in one year because of it so people voted for the CDA (Christian Democratic Party which is like the Republican Party in the US). We thought that sounded nice to have a christian family friendly leading party.....Wrong. They show no leadership skills what-so-ever. Just goes to show you that religion is not necessarily helpful.

Calandria said...

I agree that the timing of Romney's changes of mind are suspicious. In his defense, I think it's hard to articulate, in a campaign atmosphere, a position on gun control or abortion that is not extreme either way. I think he's somewhere in the middle on both issues, probably like most Americans, and that doesn't come across well in sound bites. Much easier for Guiliani and McCain who can just say, "Hey, I believe in a woman's right to choose, and I've always been consistent, blah blah blah..." Or for most of the other Republican candidates who are radical pro-lifers.

I've been called pro-choice because I think that women who are victims of rape or incest or whose life is endangered by the pregnancy should have the option to end it. Also, though I think Roe v. Wade was a wrong decision, I recognize that it has become a strong precedent and I think it's unlikely to be overturned at this late point. It seems that the best we can do now is restrict abortions as much as possible.

It nauseates me to think of the way babies are being killed, but I also think it is criminal that we allow young women, even teenagers, to walk into a clinic and get an abortion without being informed of the details of the procedure, the potential risks, and the potential emotional trauma that they can experience after. It's hard to believe we're just letting this happen. They need to know exactly WHAT it is they are choosing to do.

I took a little detour there, but anyway, I'm interested to see how this Romney thing plays out. In the Hugh Hewitt book, Romney seems like a very strong candidate.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

athena said...

yes, those were thoughtful comments!

i have a couple questions that have been swirling in my mind about elections as of late. the first one is what happens if both you and your spouse choose to vote for different people or parties? :) the other one is, what makes a good article? have you seen a good article about romney that isn't all one side? either all for him or all against him? i've been reading several political reports by several different writers about politics here in france and while they sound very articulate i feel like i can get swayed easily one way or the other (probably due in part because i don't know enough too).

Calandria said...

"the first one is what happens if both you and your spouse choose to vote for different people or parties? :)"

Then you might as well stay home because you'll cancel each other out. :-)

You ask good questions, and I don't think I have the answers. I also find myself easily swayed one way or the other, and I also suspect it's because I don't know enough about the issues.

Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing an article about Romney that isn't one-sided. Maybe I have, I just don't remember. I don't think the articles in Newsweek or Time tend to be that great because they are so superficial. I think they are written for people with short attention spans. People who don't want too much depth. Not that an article would have to be very long to be good. What would I consider a good article? I suppose I would favor one that imparted a lot of information in a clear and concise way.

Mark and Carla said...

One of my favorite websites esp. during election time is www.factcheck.org. It's a nonpartisan site that examines ads and speeches for truth. I love it. They take an ad or a speech and go through the points/allegations/"facts" and either prove or refute them with actual statistics. I've used it a lot and found them to be very balanced on both parties. I think I'll use it more and more as election time gets closer.

As for news, I don't believe anything is completely nonbiased. As Calandria has so often pointed out, the consumer (us) have the responsibility to educate ourselves, something that isn't always easy to do!

And for spouses voting opposite sides--even if they "cancel" each other out, it's absolutely important that everyone votes! It makes a difference, really.

Calandria said...

Carla, thanks for that link! It looks really good. And I was just kidding about not voting. :-)