|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
::ALONG
THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL January 30, 2008 By
RB Scott As the barrow pit alongside the campaign expressway collects more roadkill (Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich, Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, Jim Gilmore, and Tommy Thompson; and last night Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards while Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul ran into heavy oncoming traffic), the grinding primary election process seems as determined to set a few new precedents as it is to extrude a very predictable result: another election and inauguration of the least objectionable. Could it come down to this? Will the first woman candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, prove to be more or less cloying, irritating and deceptive than, say, John McCain? It is the kind of lose-lose proposition that drives voters yearning for real change mad, and rends bookmakers bald, bewildered and busted? It does not have to be that way. For instance, a general election battle between Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney could turn informative, provocative, even inspiring. It could happen, still. This has been an unusual election year and it is bound to get even stranger. And nastier too, no doubt. In the unlikely event that Super Tuesday brings no more big surprises, what will become of the eventual runners-up, formidables like Obama or Clinton, Romney or McCain, Edwards, Richardson and Giuliani? Does the nation not deserve to hear more from such experienced voices? Are they not worthy counter-balances and backups to the candidates they nearly defeated? And, might the winners reveal something about their true characters, if they not only offer a triumphant handshake, but warmly embrace their challengers and welcome their fresh leadership? No matter who is in the lead role, a Romney-McCain alliance would be serious competition to the formidable Clinton-Obama team, which would be (Dare I write it?) almost unbeatable unless they beat themselves to death in the meantime. Not that he deserves it, but the alliance would also proffer just-in-time absolution for the former President-horndog-and-wannabe-First Man's premeditated descent into cynical, gutter-ball, racial politics. If the differences between McCain and Romney prove irreconcilable, as seems to be the case, the finalist could use help from someone like the popular, competent and politically moderate Senator from Texas, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who for months has been aggressively positioning herself as the antidote to Hillary. Even Romney could use the boost, never mind his long and admirable history of promoting women. Likewise, Christine Todd Whitman, the moderate former secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection and governor of New Jersey, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a conservative African American, would, for different reasons, be equally substantial running mates. Separate
editorials in The New Y0rk Times, one endorsing Clinton, the other
McCain appeared to be harbingers of the general election.
©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::
DOES NO ONE LOVE MITT? By
RB Scott Although Irish Setters have been sleeping around the family manse for years, it is apparent that Mitt Romney has failed to absorb and grasp the subtle messages and extensions of the adage "let sleeping dogs lie." That may be changing. Romney's flare-up yesterday (1/17/2007) with the Associated Press' Glen Johnson at a press conference in South Carolina (Johnson challenged the candidate's claim that no lobbyists were running his campaign) accompanied by the imperious in-your-face public reprimand of the reporter by Romney press secretary Eric Fehrnstrom, kicked the tethered media dawgs into action defending one of their own. The
reaction was instantaneous and substantial. Early the next morning,
Google's collection of links to news stories and opinion pieces about
the testy encounters,filled three or four computer screens. Blogger
reaction was yet to pour in. And, the sun was barely up. The arresting headline in on-line version of the leftish New Republic-- The Whole Associated Press Hates Romney -- cuts right to the heart of the matter. It is prima facie evidence that Romney ought to sack his press relations team immediately if not sooner. Incidentally, months ago I heard similar dire assessments from reporters for National Public Radio. But, wait. Perhaps Romney is simply the candidate everyone loves to hate. Another Washington Post column today claims that Mitt is so despised by the other candidates - perhaps vice versa too - that none of them would pick him as a running mate nor agree to be his. This concern resurfaces so often, is it time Romney got friendlier with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who may yet emerge as the White Knight of this confounding primary season? Rushing to reporter Johnson's defense, the Post quickly cooked-up a story today listing all the lobbyists working for Romney. It is clear, the little flare-up at an obscure Staples stores in South Carolina will chase Mitt for some time. Reporters will badger him incessantly about each name on the Post's list and then start mining the major donor rosters as well for other "interesting" industry and corporate connections (disclosure: my family has made significant contributions to both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama). In less tangible ways, the dust-up with Johnson, will shade future coverage of Romney and, hence, the views of most voters, a few of whom are even more contemptuous and patronizing of reporters than Romney and Fehrnstrom. Something serious ails Team Romney. Are the advisors afraid to tell Mitt he "doesn't have clothes on?" Can they all be sycophants? The victory in Michigan seemed to loosen-up the candidate, energize the campaign, focus the strategy if only momentarily. But, one day later it's Back To The Future. Evidence continues to mount that Mitt is incapable of tempering manipulative behaviors that served him well as a cagey Bain consultant and CEO -- precisely accurate if deliberately misleading wordplay that kept alive all possible options. Instead, he has become more aggressive and unashamed than Bill Clinton ever was about defining what "is is" and insisting haughtily that he knows best! Romney's clever pars-e-mony, which I wrote about at length way, way back in the Fall of 2005, continues to be his ruin. Might this suggest that the people around him are giving him terrible advice? Or, that Romney is refusing to listen? Or, both? ©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::PRIMARY
NOTEBOOK
[Editor's Note: A version of this column was released prior to the primary election in Michigan, January 15, 2008.]. A respected national newspaper recently reported that Presidential candidate W. Mitt Romney's decision to suspend advertising in South Carolina and Florida "laid bare the dire condition of his run for the White House…" Then Romney won going away in Michigan; a win that injected caffeine into his Postum and added more green to his already bulky bankroll. Here are some alternative explanations to consider: 1)Romney had spent more in South Carolina, more than any other candidate. It is dope-slappingly obvious that more ads weren't likely to persuade still balky Christian conservatives that a vote for him was not a vote for the anti-Christ. 2)Team Romney had been criticized recently for going negative on Huckabee. It's possible the forthcoming ads were deemed too hard on the former Southern Baptist preacher. 3)He needed the cash to ensure a win in Michigan, where he was born and raised and his dad was governor. It worked and the win produced priceless publicity and, finally, momentum. 4)Romney surely preferred to make the ad suspension decision in private so as not to tip his hand to the competition. But notoriously leaky advertising departments at newspapers and television stations forced him to act publicly. 5)Pouring money into Michigan raised the ante and put the screws to cash-strapped McCain and Huckabee. McCain's win in New Hampshire has not triggered a cash landslide. Huckabee's resources seem limited, too, because smart Republican money knows he's unelectable. Was he reeling from the early upsets in Iowa and New Hampshire, or just pained that religion has played such a crucial role? Or, annoyed that while he played footsie with Christian evangelicals who generally despise Mormons, he ceded the middle ground to the likes of John McCain? Or, frustrated that he is no longer recognized as the fiscally responsible, social progressive he once was and may still be? Romney convincingly says he has "the staying power to go the distance in all 50 states." Wouldn't it be good for America if, for a change, everyone was involved in picking the finalists for President of The United States? Insiders say the setbacks in Iowa and New Hampshire, followed by the big win in Michigan reshaped the campaign strategy. The aim now is to concentrate capital and people in states where he has strong organizations on the ground and reasonable popular support. It goes light in states where his religious beliefs present major problems and often get coupled to persistent worries that his pragmatic social policies are so open-ended that they could turn downright liberal in the blink of an eye. New York, New Jersey and, especially, California loom large as the major battleground states before the survivors move on to Texas for the final shootout at the Alamo, perhaps.
Connecting the Huckadots: Turns out that Chip Saltsman, the national campaign manager for the self-proclaimed champion of the common man, is a fellow who made a small fortune helping clients prey upon poor working stiffs every single pay day. Saltsman, once an operatiave for Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, was also once a lobbyist for predatory payday lenders, those legal loan sharks who have persuaded a couple dozen legislatures - Arkansas included -- to exempt them from usury laws. The interest rates they charge soar up to 390 percent annually (this is not a typographical error). The Arkansas statute -- The Check Cashers Act of 1999 was adopted despite the fierce objections of consumer advocates and signed into law by none other than the "populist" Governor Huckabee himself. Presumably, Saltsman's former clients do not use baseball bats to persuade deadbeats to pay up. Swift Boating Barack : As Barack Obama rises, the personal attacks intensify. One nasty e-mail makes something of his middle name -"Hussein"-and his connections to Islam through his late father and former step-father. Another
rather scurrilous "Swift Boat"-like post notes that Obama's
parish in Washington touts itself as "unabashedly black,"
with a "non-negotiable" commitment to Africa, implying there's
something inherently un-American in offering sustenance to poor people
on a far off continent. By contrast, Obama wrote candidly about his indiscretions in his riveting autobiography: Dreams From My Father, which has to be the most unapologetic autobiography ever written by a Presidential candidate, not to mention the most literate too. Pillory Hillary: Hillary is constantly being bashed about for same old, same old. The nastiest are electronic pieces that trade on her alleged bitchiness. Last week brought a PhotoShopped full frontal nude of her as hermaphrodite: shapely breasts, slender waist, taut hips and a rather distinctive male sex organ. In Search of The Inner Jew: Romney and Mormons, Barack and Hillary too, need to discover their inner Jew; learn to laugh at themselves, their cultures and peculiarities, and the bigots who attack them. Mo Udall, the last Mormon to make a serious run (1976) for the White House discovered his "Inner Jew" early on: "I'm a one-eyed Mormon Democrat from conservative Arizona. You can't get a higher handicap than that." No surprise, Mormonism was not the issue for him that it has been for Mitt Romney. Like Obama, Udall wrote most of his own material. He didn't need a marketing guru to package him like a newly concocted premium Vodka -- good straight up or with any mixer -- and a proctor to keep him on message. Misty-eyed Senator Clinton learned in New Hampshire that letting the "real you" shine through makes all the difference, even if your enemies make you out to be a hermaphrodite
©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::Michigan
Looms Large
A respected national newspaper recently reported that Presidential candidate W. Mitt Romney, "reeling from defeats in New Hampshire and Iowa," decided to suspend advertising in South Carolina and Florida, a decision that "laid bare the dire condition of his run for the White House…" Leads of newspaper stories are supposed to be dramatic and arresting, which explains why they sometimes become a little over-wrought too. How could Romney be "reeling" from a defeat he anticipated as poll after poll charted John McCain's resurgence and Mike Huckabee's sudden rise? Given where Mitt was the weekend before the New Hampshire voting - as many as 10 points behind in some polls - narrowing the gap to five points had to have injected some caffeine into his Postum. There are plenty of strategic reasons why it made sense to suspend the ad buy: Hardened religious prejudice: Romney has spent more in South Carolina, more than any other candidate. Another half million wasn't going to persuade still balky Christian conservatives that a vote for him was not tantamount to holding hands with Satan. Team Romney would not put it so bluntly, even if it is dope-slappingly obvious to everyone else. Negative Ads: Team Romney has been criticized recently for going negative against Huckabee, in particular. It's possible the team concluded the ads aimed for both states were just too hard on the former Southern Baptist preacher. Cash-flow management: He needs the cash now to take Michigan, where he was born and raised and his dad was governor. A win would yield plenty of opportunities to play catch-up in Florida and South Carolina. Plus, the "free advertising" and winning momentum would more than make up the difference. Forced To Disclose: Romney surely preferred to make the ad suspension decision in private so as not to tip his hand to the competition. But the notoriously leaky advertising departments at newspapers and television stations eliminated that choice. Opportunistic Move: Pouring money into Michigan raises the ante, puts the screws to cash-strapped McCain and Huckabee. Rudy Giuliani bailed out of Michigan a few days ago. McCain's win in New Hampshire is inspiring, but it has not triggered a cash landslide. Huckabee's resources seem limited because smart Republican money knows he's unelectable. Shift in campaign strategy: Does the new plan minimize expenditures in states where he will likely do poorly because of his religion? It makes sense to spend more in states where neither religion nor simplistic doctrinaire conservative solutions rule the roost. So instead of "reeling," how about "pained, annoyed and frustrated?" "Pained," that religion has played such a crucial role so far. "Annoyed," that while playing footsie with Christian evangelicals who don't like Mormons to begin with, Romney ceded the middle ground to the likes of John McCain. "Frustrated," that he is no longer recognized as the fiscally responsible, social progressive he once was and may still be. Romney convincingly says he has "the staying power to go the distance in all 50 states." Wouldn't it be good for America if, for a change, everyone was involved in picking the finalists for President of The United States? Now Romney needs to boot some enthusiasm into his own kind. The fighting words reported by the Salt Lake Tribune from the normally gregarious Mormon moneyman, Kem Gardner - "As long as he's soldiering on, we're with him"- were uncharacteristically downcast. They were upstaged only by the mangled observation of Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, a national co-chair of the Romney campaign. He told the Greenville News: "If he [Romney] doesn't win Michigan, it's going to be hard for him to have a chance in South Carolina. And if he doesn't win South Carolina, I don't think he's going to win." Why prolong the agony? Cite a little W.H. Auden-- Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead/Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead-and get it over with. Or, right now, Romney should share the heroic poetry of Walt Whitman with his people. They desperately need it! POST SCRIPTS Swift Boating Barack : As Barack Obama rises, the attacks on his background intensify. One nasty e-mail makes something of his middle name -"Hussein"-and his connections to Islam through his late father and former step-father. Another
rather scurrilous "Swift Boat"-like post notes that Obama's
parish in Washington touts itself as "unabashedly black,"
with a "non-negotiable" commitment to Africa, implying there's
something inherently un-American in offering sustenance to poor people
on a far off continent. My own Mormon congregation in suburban Boston
has supported poor people in Haiti, Jamaica and The Dominican Republic
and it's about as pro-American as they come. Pillory Hillary: Hillary is constantly being bashed about for same old, same old. The nastiest are electronic pieces that trade on her alleged bitchiness. Last week brought a PhotoShopped full frontal nude of her as hermaphrodite: shapely breasts, slender waist, taut hips and a rather distinctive male sex organ. In Search of The Inner Jew: Romney and Mormons, Barack and Hillary too, need to discover their inner Jew; learn to laugh at themselves, their cultures and peculiarities, and the bigots who attack them. If
the world is talking more about Mormons, Romney, Barack and Hillary,
it means the world is taking them seriously. P.T.Barnum's wisdom applies:
Mo Udall, the last Mormon to make a serious run (1976) for the White House discovered his "Inner Jew early on:" "I'm a one-eyed Mormon Democrat from conservative Arizona. You can't get a higher handicap than that." No surprise, Mormonism was not the issue for him that it has been for Mitt Romney. Like Obama, Udall wrote most of his own material. He didn't need a marketing guru to package him like a newly concocted premium Vodka -- good straight up or with any mixer -- and a proctor to keep him on message. Misty-eyed
Senator Clinton learned in New Hampshire that letting the "real
you" shine through makes all the difference, even if your enemies
make you out to be a hermaphrodite. ©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::EVE
OF SELF-DESTRUCTION
©
2008 RB Scott All Rights Reserved
::NATIONAL
CATHOLIC REGISTER ERRS
By
RB Scott NCR wrote: "There are reasons a Catholic might wince when Mitt Romney, a Mormon" "Mormon" is a pejorative that once was considered as mean-spirited as "Papist" would be to a Catholic, or "kike" to Jew. Mormons turned that frown upside down long ago. I often refer to myself as a Mormon. I like the term, frankly. So no harm done. Still, most members would prefer to be called Latter-day Saints. The AP stylebook, as well as ones from The New York Times, and TIME suggest that the correct name be used in first reference: that would be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most stylebooks suggest "Latter-day Saints" or "LDS" in second reference. Mormon is an acceptable second reference too, as I noted. NCR wrote:"The first reason to wince is the anti-Catholic nature of his religion. Mormons believe that Christ failed in his project to found a church, and that the history of Christendom is the story of "The Great Apostate," the Catholic Church." Actually, the church teaches that Christ succeeded in establishing his church, but, because of persecution and communication lapses, the teachings were changed and, ultimately, the authority to act for God expired with the death of the last apostle. The alleged doctrinal changes and the subsequent withdrawal of the power to act in God's name are collectively referred to as the "Great Apostasy." Some Protestant churches point to this period of apostasy as well. Latter-day Saints are unique only that they, like Catholics, believe the power to act for God must be conferred in an unbroken chain linking the newest priesthood holder to Jesus Christ, Himself. Like Catholics, Latter-day Saints proclaim that priesthood power can not be assumed. NCR wrote:"More than 1,800 years would pass before the true church was founded: the Church of Latter-Day Saints." Latter-day Saints would say the power to act for God and the true church was "restored" in 1830. While they may casually use "founded" and "restored" interchangeably, they really mean "restored." NCR wrote:"The second reason to wince is the political legacy of Mitt Romney. It was on Romney's watch that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts demanded that the state's Legislature legalize homosexual "marriage" - among the most damaging usurpations of legislative power by a judicial body in American history. America is a democracy. Here, citizens and their representatives make laws. Yet Gov. Romney ordered state officials to perform "same-sex marriages" because unelected judges - not voters - told him to." This is a very, very serious distortion of the truth. I live near Boston. I happen to believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and The Massachusetts Constitution when they ruled in favor of the same sex couples who sued to have their domestic arrangements sanctioned by the state. However, Mitt Romney was furious at the order and complained bitterly that the SJC had usurped its authority and was "activist court." He then attempted and failed to get the matter reversed, then submitted as a referendum to the voters. Moreover, the LDS Church has been in the vanguard of churches, along with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing same sex marriage and favoring a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. By the way, I happen to think the Marriage Amendment is a really bad idea and unconstitutional. That is of no particular concern. What is of concern is that you have seriously misrepresented Romney's actual position and the facts surrounding the same sex marriage controversy in my state. NCR wrote:"The third reason to wince is because it's hard to accept Romney's convictions at face value. He said it best in his speech: "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world." We tire, for instance, of politicians who give heartfelt speeches lauding abortion rights to win the support of Massachusetts voters, and soon after give heartfelt speeches about the right to life to win the hearts of pro-life Republicans. And, as a Presidential candidate, he continues to press this matter to the fullest." I'm not sure what to say about that. As far back as 1993 he was personally opposed to abortion. Like many Catholic politicians (I needn't name names because they are all well know to you) he believed, however, that women and their physicians had to right to make a choice free of interference from the state. His modest change since then is this: he thinks Roe v. Wade should be reversed and the matter returned to each state legislature.
Aren't we talking about a philosophical difference of opinion, at best? Don't Catholics proclaim to belong to the only true church? As I recall, recently the LDS church has funneled significant aid resources (cash and goods) through Catholic Charities. As I understand it, this is an on-going and growing relationship. I doubt the LDS church would do business with an organization it believed illegitimate and unreliable.
I am utterly astonished. As mentioned above. I have tracked Mitt's political career since it began. I briefly covered his father when he ran for President in 1968 as well. Later I helped cover the campaigns of George McGovern, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford. I can not think of any candidates in the history of the United States who have been more pro family than the Romneys. None. There was no switch involved here. He has consistently been pro family and his church has been as well, aggressively so. NCR wrote:" But ultimately, as several commentators have noted, the God Romney bowed to is the "In God We Trust" civic deity of our currency." I don't know what you're driving at here but it feels like you are making a very, very cheap accusation that he worships the Almighty Dollar. He certainly has plenty of dollars to bow down to, if he was so inclined. I suspect if you took the time to fully measure the man, including how he has husbanded his resources and used them for the good of the people around him, in his church and personal life, you might discover that he has been as good at sharing his good fortune as he was earning it. It is a tradition of sharing and giving back that Mitt inherited from his father, whom the former President Bush said correctly said was the father of volunteerism in America. No doubt this had something to do with your assessment that Romney's religion -like John Kennedy's in 1960-does not render him incapable of leading the United States of America.
©
2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved ::ROMNEY
IN IOWA HEARS FOOTSTEPS; BY RB Scott Boston,
Massachusetts "When Mitt Romney implies that secular forces are the greatest threat to our nation, he forgets that the most moral president we've ever had - the great Abraham Lincoln - had no religion and did not consider himself a Christian. Yet…he had the great strength to oppose the most immoral threat to our national soul: slavery." Agreed! Please endure a few words, in defense of my friend (I think I can call Mitt a friend) and the speech he delivered in Texas. Recall our high school football coach bellowing at the linebackers: "hit that receiver so hard he'll hear your footsteps every time he goes out for pass, even if you are sitting on the bench." Well, Mitt is hearing footsteps. Here's why. Late in the 1994 Senatorial campaign, he had the illustrious Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy down for the count. Finally, the formidable if temporarily stunned Kennedy machine roared to life and hit Mitt hard with every "Mormon-related" skeleton it could dig out of the closet and twist out of shape. So brazen was this attack that the astonished archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law weighed in on Romney's side editorializing "...Senator Kennedy dishonors the legacy of his late brother..." or something like that. By the time Romney, got his wind back and responded, the election was all but decided. Flash forward to Mike Huckabee's eleventh hour surge in Iowa. I don't think it can be sustained, hence I did not think Romney's speech was necessary. Nevertheless, having been rendered inert by an ambush in 1994, Mitt was hearing footsteps in Iowa in 2007. With the Presidency at stake, he reacted quickly and decisively. He took specific aim at the "Mormon" problem: some nasty push polling that backhandedly promoted the concept that Mormonism is a cult, a concern that strengthened the appeal of Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist preacher. Huckabee seemed deliberately slow to tell voters that he views Mormonism as a religion, not a cult, and when he did, he demurred saying he didn't know much about the church. Then he coyly asked the reporter from The New York Times: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
This coincided, more or less, with Romney's statement that he includes
secularists like us in his plans. He likes people who have faith in
America, who believe that someday, somewhere, somehow, someway we
will all be held accountable for our actions, even if only by our
own consciences. Here's a question that's been nagging at me for some time. Perhaps it has been bugging Mitt too. Where's the middle ground, the new American way? As your e-mail noted, the "founders" of our nation, especially the leading lights, were deists, the "secularists" of their day. Yet their speeches and the documents were generously sprinkled with gratuitous references to God and his many aliases. Some strident secularists of our day would eliminate all such superfluous references. I'd like to see "under God" removed from the Pledge because it was not there to begin with and was inserted under pressure from religious fanatics. However, there's no need to remove the inscription "In God We Trust" from out nation's currency. In keeping with my "traditional secularist" ways, I think it essential that children in a pluralistic society like ours be taught that many good and decent people have different views on many, many issues. For instance, it is critical that children learn how to prevent pregnancy and protect against sexually transmitted diseases. Abstinence is the most reliable and arguably the most desirable way to do it (no matter your religious beliefs) for young teenagers. Some church people insist that the schools should teach abstinence exclusively. Worse, they'd like teachers to get specific: "The Baptists teach it one way, the Catholics another and the Mormons, well they are really aren't Christians, are they?" Some educators would limit themselves to the mechanics and hygiene -- insert A into B, condoms, pills and the rest. Romney and reasonable secularists see no harm and plenty of potential good that could result from this simple postscript: "Some of you have family and religious traditions that limit sexual intercourse to married couples only. At this stage of your lives, you should try as best you can to honor counsel from your parents and religious leaders." Most people in Massachusetts believe that women in consultation with their physicians have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. Poll after poll underscores the fact that we would never elect anyone to statewide office who opposed abortion on demand, no matter how liberal his views on other public policies. "Litmus tests" are offensive, regardless of who is doing the testing and who's being tested. Romney endured testing from the secularists of Massachusetts and now he's getting it in spades from Iowa evangelicals who think his beliefs aren't quite ready for the Christian mainstream. One can only hope that if elected, Romney will never, ever turn over any key to the kingdom to such one-dimensional zealots, religious or secular, even if he must make nice with them from time to time because he's hearing footsteps as he searches for a middle path, a New American Way.
::ROMNEY'S
COME TO JESUS SPEECH By RB Scott
Years ago, wise-cracking, chain-smoking, beer-drinking First Brother Billy Carter reeled me in good as he groused that he, big brother Jimmy the President of The United States of America and other Southern Baptists were forbidden to engage in sexual relations with their wives while standing. I was astonished that any religion would be so unabashedly prescriptive. "No Mormon leader I know would dare go that far," I commiserated, swallowing the bait like a starving catfish patrolling the bottom of a Georgia swamp. His eyes twinkled, his mouth scrunched into mocking scowl as he deadpanned: "My preacher says such practices will surely lead to dancing." I
got the joke right away. Does it matter that his little joke was presented as "fact" in the lead story and reinforced by a significant sidebar in a publication that is the official voice of the Southern Baptist Church, which hasn't had nice things to say about Mormons for more than a century? I doubt it. Normally, it would deserve only the bored yawn I gave it initially. But this is an election year. A Mormon is running for President (he just might win too) and Southern Baptists (and a few other Christian fundamentalists) have convinced themselves that only a "true Christian" should lead the United States of America. This precludes Mormons like Mitt Romney, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Unitarians and, arguably, a few wavering Episcopalians and Presbyterians too. Such narrow thinking bodes especially well for Mike Huckabee, the plain-spoken former populist governor of Arkansas who also wants to be President and who just happens to be an ordained Southern Baptist minister. What do my Christian bookseller cousin and his fellow travelers know that the rest of us don't? I laid out my concerns and questions in a long letter to Dr. Frank S. Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention that I sent out nearly three weeks ago (so far, there's been no reply): "Although I have lived and worked as a journalist in New York City and, now, Boston for the past three decades, I was born and raised in Salt Lake City. As a young lad, I frequently ducked out of Mormon church services early so I could visit the Sunday School at the First Baptist Church, a block away. As a consequence, I am at a loss to understand the reasons for the disconnect between Southern Baptists and Mormons." I noted that until Presidential Candidate Carter (1976) realized Morris Udall was a pretty good guy-and very funny too - he took some predictable cheap shots at all the usual Mormon bugaboos. Truth was, President Jimmy and the Carter clan were just as upset about brother Billy's bad behavior as my Mormon kin were about mine. And, both families thought we could do with a little more church too. Anytime. Anywhere. Any church!! I wrote: "Here we are three decades later and Mormons and Baptists are still splitting hairs over subtle doctrinal differences" that won't likely be resolved until Christ makes his whereabouts known. After debunking some particularly outrageous claims in the article - like the assertion that Mormons don't really worship Jesus Christ - I asked these questions "
Is some kind of rapprochement between Southern Baptists and Mormons
imminent? If so please describe when this might occur. As the former Baptist preacher's standings rose in the Iowa polls, Romney concluded it was high time he addressed his own religious beliefs. Thursday night from the Bush Presidential Library in Texas, after an introduction and send-off from the former President Bush himself, Romney will try to pull off what John Fitzgerald Kennedy did back in 1960 Like Kennedy did, I hope Romney pricks the consciences of tendentious Baptists, evangelicals, elitists, atheists and agnostics alike. But, it is a treacherous task he undertakes, one that could open the floodgates to more inappropriate badgering about his beliefs and practices. Were I running for President, here's what I'd tell the nation: "It is time to get real. The real good a President does while in office occurs at the White House and associated locations, not in some church, cathedral, synagogue, mosque, tent or molten subterranean cavern. "If you are persuaded that a candidate will not be an effective leader of the nation and the world 24/7/52/4, then for goodness sake don't make him your President just because he happens to worship God where you do. "The converse is true as well. If you think a candidate would make a terrific leader and would uphold the constitution, vote for him even if you deem his personal religious beliefs weird and heretical. "Every prospective candidate should assure the electorate - as I do now -- that they are not bound, beholden or subordinate to any single person, cause or organization. Should you elect me President of The United States, I pledge that my actions will be guided by The Constitution. As President, I will be accountable only to the electorate and my conscience. If I serve them well, I am certain God will be pleased. Very, very pleased. And, so will you!" I don't know whether or not this statement of principle would satisfy atheists and agnostics, let alone Southern Baptists and evangelicals. I worry that even though the late Billy Carter and I got on quite well long ago, the differences between our churches may still be inexplicably irreconcilable. Mormons like me do so love to dance! But then, so did Billy Carter.
::ANTI-MORMON
BIGOTRY November
28, 2007 Christopher
Hitchens and Slate Magazine's unabashed and shameless
contempt for all things Mormon continues unabated. The latest supporting
evidence -Mitt The Mormon -- for Hitchens nomination as "Bigot
of the Year," while disappointing (as a rule, I happen to admire
Hitchens writing) was no particular surprise. Hitchens
gets it right about one thing though: journalists should feel free
to ask Mitt Romney any old thing they like about his religious beliefs
just as Romney should feel free to ignore them. Several items presented as facts in Mr. Hitchens latest inflamatory diatribe were flatly wrong. One could adequately support an argument that the errors were so egregious that they had to have been committed deliberately. If not, they represented the kind of sloppy work that could get a reporter or columnist fired at most respectable publications. Had Hitchens bothered to go looking, the correct information readily available on line from a number of public sources, including Wikipedia, for crying out loud. While Romneys are prominent in Mormon circles, Mitt's ancestors don't fit Hitchens facile description:"…part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith." Apart from his great-great-grandfather Parley P. Pratt, who was an early apostle of the church, Mitt descends from men and women who were local leaders, the rank and file of the church who have no commission to set church policy or doctrine. Hitchens stats flatly, without equivocation, that until 1978 Mormon Church was "...officially a racist organization." On the surface, the charge seems reasonable enough -- Blacks were prohibited from being ordained to the Mormon priesthood until 1978. Technically, the church then offered no explanation for the policy, said no one in current church leadership knew the reasons behind the restriction, and, most importantly, that it was not justification for racial prejudice. The distorted commentary completely ignores the fact that Mitt's father -- the popular governor of Michigan, civil rights activist and later Secretary of Housing and Urban Development -- pressed church leaders to re-examine policies that prevented Blacks from holding the priesthood. This too is on the public record. As a missionary in France, Mitt would not likely have attempted to rationalize the policy for at least three reasons: 1)He and other missionaries were instructed to follow the leadership of the church and respond "We don't know" when asked why Blacks were not allowed to be ordained to the priesthood; 2) They had been told that one day the policy would change; and, 3) No doubt his far-sighted father added: " the change should be coming any day now...and not a day too soon." Are the Romney's accountable for church policy? Absolutely not. Is it clear enough that neither father nor son supported the policy? The record clearly indicates that they did not particularly when it was time for them to stand for something. Hitchens writes: "Until 1978, no black American was permitted to hold even the lowly position of deacon in the Mormon Church."This claim is flatly wrong, as a cursory review of Mormon history books would have made plain. Elijah Abel, a black slave from Maryland who fled to Canada on the underground railroad, later converted to Mormonism and was ordained an elder by Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the church. Abel and was licensed to preach the gospel in Ohio. Moreover, Hitchens claim ignores the irony that the early Mormons in Missouri were persecuted because of their strong opposition to slavery and support for emancipation Reporters
like Hitchens seem curious about Romney's rather unremarkable underclothing.
He wears what is worn by all -- well, nearly all-- Mormons who have
made covenants in the Temple. The men's ensemble resembles the traditional
V-neck undershirts and knit boxers sold over the counter at Brooks
Brothers and Bloomingdales. Four discreet religious marks -- reminders
of religious covenants -- are stitched into the clothing. Ultimately,
Romney may feel it necessary to address thoughtful and pertinent questions
about a few specific religious beliefs. Should that time come, it
is likely he will be more accommodating of reporters who have done
their homework and are professional enough to keep their personal
prejudices to themselves. ©
2005-2007 RB Scott All Rights Reserved ::QUESTIONS
& ANSWERS October, 2007 In the interest of fleshing-out information they are getting from candidate himself and his staff, reporters continue to call and write observers like me who have followed and written about W. Mitt Romney's career in politics and business for several years. Of course they inquire about religious beliefs and, especially, understand the implications of Romney's prominent leadership service to the church as bishop of the Belmont Ward (parish) and, later, president of the Boston Stake (diocese). Naturally, they remain intrigued by his alleged flip-flops on key social issues. What follows are my edited and compiled transcripts of several recent exchanges. Question. The year 1994 seemed to be a pivotal, breakthrough year for both Mitt Romney, who was running for the U.S. Senate against Senator Edward Kennedy, and the Mormon Church, which was beginning to put more emphasis on its Christianity. Was this coincidental or by design? Answer. In retrospect, the events of the mid-1990s were indeed pivotal if serendipitous. Two significant changes at the church - Gordon B. Hinckley, who had been 'the man behind the curtain' for quite some time, officially became president of the church; and a redesign of the church's logo putting more emphasis on its connection to Christianity- were in motion long before Romney announced his candidacy in late 1993. Change happens so gradually, so slowly in the Mormon realm that even dramatic changes begin oozing to the fore long before they are noticed and publicly announced. Such was the case here. Question. During the 1994 campaign, did not Senator Kennedy and other Kennedy's attempt to make something of the Mormon teachings associating dark skin with sin and the church's policy through 1978 of excluding African Americans from the priesthood? Answer. Inexplicably, the Kennedys did indeed attack en masse, unfairly, I thought because the Romneys had long been a vocal proponents of civil rights, occasionally to the exasperation of some of their Mormon friends and relatives. Question. Will things be different for Romney in this 2007-2008 election season: Does the media err by continuing to ask: 'Is America ready for a Mormon president?" Answer. I think the media - journalists from leading publications and news organization - are getting round to where they ought to be.Increasingly they are asking: "Why wouldn't America be ready for a Mormon President? The focus seems to be shifting to assessments of leadership: the candidates grasp of complex social issues, global economics not to mention labyrinthine and routinely treacherous international politics and intrigues. The general election-can not be about religion, or race or gender. The Republican primaries are very different matters. If you didn't know better, you might conclude some of these contests were aimed at choosing the next student body president for Bob Jones University The "Is America ready…" question is legitimate if it seeks to ascertain depth and sources of prejudice. If Joe Lieberman were in the hunt they'd be asking whether the country was ready for its first Jewish President. Obama has provoked similar questions about whether the country is ready for an African-American President - a half-African, as it were, and lately, irony of ironies: "is he black enough. Hillary prompts the gender version of are we ready questions. I see absolutely nothing objectionable in asking voters specifically why they would not vote for a Mormon, black, Jewish or female candidate. On the other hand, asking a candidates to justify his or her religion, ethnicity, skin color or the absence of Y chromosomes in their DNA, is tantamount to acknowledging that the candidate is somehow flawed, that things like race, sex, religion are consequential even pivotal. SHAMELESS QUESTIONS AND MEDIA BIAS Question. Are the media asking the wrong questions about Mormonism Answer. Recall this historic if embarrassing moment produced by Mike Wallace - the dean of 60 Minutes. Wallace is a fan of Mormons and Mormonism, some might even say a "lap dog." He catches up with Romney at the family summer manse on Lake Winnipesaukee. With the cameras rolling, unblushingly asks the candidate whether he and his wife of nearly 40 years had sexual relations before they were married. My jaw dropped. I was embarrassed for Romney and Wallace. Has any serious Presidential candidate ever been asked whether he slept with his wife before they were married? None that I can recall. So why ask it now? The sheepish answer: Because Mormonism aggressively encourages sexual abstinence outside of marriage. Last I looked, so does practically every other religion on the planet. Is this evidence of a double standard? Question. Would it be safe to assume you were especially shocked because you are a journalist, a Mormon, a Republican and a Mitt fan? Answer. I don't think so. For the record, I am neither a Republican nor a Mitt fan per se, although I've voted for him twice. Officially I am a registered independent and have been for most of my adult life (In 1968 I registered as Democrat in Utah. I may have registered as a Democrat when I moved to Idaho in 1970 and, until I thought better, Connecticut in 1972. That said, I'm pretty liberal, politically but I have voted for a few Republicans in my time, like Lowell Weicker, one of the heroes of Watergate and a renegade Republican senator from Connecticut. Why the Romney votes? His political views then were close to mine. Importantly, although we have had some differences of opinion over the years, I knew him personally and respected him (very recently I discovered that he and I are distant cousins; and, apparently, our late grandmothers were great friends). I
am indeed a Mormon. However, some inflexible believers have said that
I am a "cultural Mormon," or a "secular Mormon,"
or, awfully, "a MIHNO - a Mormon in heritage and name only. No
one would accuse me of being doctrinaire about the church or politics,
for that matter. As an independent I can't help but notice that the
media (generally) is not badgering Harry Reid about his Mormon beliefs,
even though he is the Senate Majority Leader. No one challenges Chris
Dodd and Rudy Giuliani about the odd beliefs and practices of Roman
Catholic church. Why is this? You have to wonder if asking Romney
about his religious beliefs reveals the questioner's personal political
biases. Question. Would you say that religion has become a bigger issue recently because these are more faith-based times than 1960, when Jack Kennedy was elected? Answer. Society today is absolutely not more "faith-based" than it was in 1960." People then were very aware and concerned about Kennedy's Catholicism and whether he would be a pawn for the Pope. It got quite ugly, actually, during the general election season (it was not much of an issue in the Democratic primaries). It wasn't just religious zealots taking shots at Kennedy. The critics included respected mainline Christian leaders like Norman Vincent Peale and others. However, polite people then didn't wear their religion on their sleeves like some do today. The nation wasn't contending with divisive moral/religious issues like abortion, same sex marriage, and stem cell research. The civil rights movement was not the exclusive domain of one party or another, or of any one church.
Answer. If you check the record I think you'll discover that Mitt did not and does not bring up or promote his "true believer" background. He responds as best he can to questions from reporters and others. Although Mitt was advised that he should anticipate and prepare for the likelihood that Mormonism would be the issue -THE ISSUE-in his 1994 campaign against Senator Kennedy, he was adamant then that religion should not even be a side issue, let alone the main issue. Consequently, he rejected the counsel. When Mormonism did indeed become THE ISSUE fairly late in the campaign cycle, he was ill prepared. Arguably, his failure to respond quickly and decisively, to turn the tables on his opponent, cost him the election. "Person of faith" does not necessarily mean that the occupant should be "religious" in a Sabbath-go-to-meeting kind of way. I would be surprised and shocked if Mitt suggested otherwise. I would not be surprised to hear him say that the President should be a man with faith in America, in his vision for America. I think he would say that the President should envision America as the "city on the hill;" that it wouldn't hurt if he had a faith in a higher power, any higher power, a Being who would someday hold him personally accountable for his actions and inactions. Most Americans want a President who will keep the American faith, represent well all that America stands for, pick-up the torch and pass it on to the next generation. I am reminded of a famous poem from World War I - Flanders Fields. I used to know it by heart. No more, but here's the gist: In Flanders Fields/the poppies grow/beneath the crosses row on row/and in the sky the larks still bravely singing fly/…we are the dead short days ago/ we lived felt dawn saw sunsets glow/ and now we lie in Flanders Fields/… take up our quarrel with the foe/ to you from failing hands we throw/ the torch; be yours to hold it high/ if ye break faith with us who die /we shall not sleep, though poppies grow/ in Flanders Fields. That said, the questions about Romney's religion are legitimate to the extent they deal with: "when push comes to shove, where will your loyalties lie?" As he was once an ecclesiastical leader of the church, he should be prepared to respond to a set of very specific questions about how the church may impact his decisions, play a role in the decision-making process, were he to be elected president. Will the prophet of the church meddle in the affairs of state? The same general questions could be put to the church. Romney's record, like Harry Reid's speak for themselves: there's no evidence church involvement, let alone coercion. In fact, some of their decisions and personal opinions seem to somewhat crosswise with stated church positions. EBBING POLITICAL CLOUT FROM THE RADICAL RIGHT Question.
You have said the Mormon concept of the trinity drives some Christian
theologians nuts. In July at the Hill Cumorah Pagent commemorating
the Book of Mormon in upstate New York I saw a protester in a devil
costume and people passing out pamphlets accusing the LDS church of
quite arcane heresies--it reminded me of the 4th or 5th century. If
Romney wins the Republican party's nomination, might it have a hard
time mobilizing Christian evangelicals for the general election? MARRIAGE AMENDMENT: POLITICAL OR MORAL ISSUE? Question.
In about 1999, the Mormon church was seen as taking an active role
in opposing gay marriage politics in California. Did this experience
lead it to step back from politics? Question. How cautious is the organization about being seen as directly participating in fundraising? Should the church engage in fundraising for a political candidate or party, it would put its not-for-profit standing at risk. Therefore, the church is officially very, very cautious - probably more than it has to be. For instance, it forbids use of its meetinghouses and other facilities for political meetings of any kind. Period. Clearly, other religious organizations are not so restrictive. From-the-pulpit endorsements of candidates are forbidden as well. On very rare occasions, leading general leaders expose their personal political preferences. When this happens many devout Mormons thumb their noses at such advice. Almost always the church itself officially amends or disavows the statement and, thereafter, has a little "come to Jesus" chat with the offender. The verbal reprimand may be followed by an appropriate period of disapprobation, penance, accompanied by the wearing of rarely laundered hair shirts. I exaggerate only a little: the shirts are white and starched heavily to resemble cardboard. That said, the church is very well organized from coast-to-coast and run by well-trained and committed volunteers. They tend to be conservative politically, although this has not always been the case and they are becoming more liberal by the day. Various church organizational structures and know-how could very easily be exported to the political arena and adapted to support a candidate or political issue. INDEPENDENCE FROM THE CHURCH Question. Do you expect people to bring up things like Romney's past endorsement of gambling, and contrast it with church teachings? Or does that just underscore his independence from the church? Answer.Oh, I think these issues will be raised as examples of his flip-flopping, his willingness to say what he perceives the people want to hear. Ditto his previous stands on abortion and gay rights. In a sense, his flips and flops could underscore his willingness to serve the people who elected him, even if serving them puts him at variance somewhat with some Mormon leaders. All belie the misperception that Mormons march in lock-step on moral and political issues. Mitt's previous position on abortion rights - abortion is inappropriate personally, but women should have the right to choose for themselves - is one that many Mormons, including some general leaders, may intellectually, if reluctantly, endorse. Question.
You said the one legitimate thing to ask Romney would be, regarding
his duties to the church leadership: "When push comes to shove,
where will your loyalties lie?" It is legitimate question because some people are concerned about Mitt and his religion like they were about Jack Kennedy and his religion. Some imagine that Romney and all good Mormons are required, first and foremost, to unquestioningly obey the prophet, the president of the church. Understandably, voters may be more concerned about Mitt because he was once part of the hierarchy - first a bishop of a ward (parish), then the president of a stake (diocese). Asking the question gets the issue out on the table and addressed fully. This is important! Repeatedly beating him about the ears with the same question repeatedly no only is unproductive and rude, but, in way, reveals the interviewer's lack of preparation, and possibly his personal prejudice as well. TAKING THE CREDIT FOR RESCUING THE OLYMPIC GAMES Question. Some people who worked with Romney on the Olympics say he hogged the credit for "'saving' the games. One compatriot of his laughed cynically when I mentioned his book, "Turnaround." Still, all of them have had very nice things to say about him as a great face for the games. What do you make of this? Answer. I picked-up on similar grousing as the rescue was underway and after. My sense is that of the criticisms spin around the unforgiving way he dealt with Tom Welch and Dave Johnson, the two guys who landed the Games for Utah and were sacked/implicated/indicted (but not convicted) in the bribery scandal, such as it was a bribery scandal. The reasonably savvy skeptic inside me suggests that Welch and Johnson probably did no more than they had to do to land the Games and did so with the grandiloquently vague blessings(head nods, toothy grins, knowing winks etc) of many key people in Salt Lake City who, by then, were fully aware of how the game had to be played. My guess - a hunch that is based on my understanding of how people in Utah think and act -a good "boy scout" close to Welch and Johnson (perhaps one or both of them, frankly) blew the whistle in the belief that: 1) it would put an end to the corruption once and for all; and, 2) neither of them would take the fall. In any event, Mitt could have been more gracious in the way he dealt with the men, especially in the aftermath of what turned out to be an absolutely spectacular fortnight that raised the country's spirits and self-confidence by underscoring the value and importance of community spirit, personal responsibility and commitment. SAVING THE DAY AT BAIN AND COMPANY Question.You say that his accomplishment at Bain was actually a real feat. Can you talk a little more about what he pulled off over there? Answer. To an extent, I can do it off the top of my head. But if you want more detail I'll have to dig through some of my research. The Boston Globe extensive and excellent profile of Romney carried a pretty accurate description of what happened. In short, the compensation packages for the senior partners were bleeding the company dry. The junior partners were upset and threatening to bolt. The senior partners fairly begged Mitt to step in (he was off running Bain Capital). He agreed. Then he had to convince the senior people to relinquish huge blocks of stock that would, in turn, be divvied-up among key junior partners. There was more to it. Tension. Disagreement. In short, the bait was the stock reassignment and compensation realignment would ensure a comfortable retirement for the senior guys and keep the young bucks in the company. There was a certain "brinksmanship" involved in the process. The net of it was this: he was the guy both groups trusted…and then he set out reorganizing the company in ways that would prevent a reoccurrence of the problem. INSCRUTABLE BAINEES; B-SCHOOL CULTURES AND "MAFIAS" Question. Do any ex-Bainees talk about the place, the environment or are their lips still sealed? ) Answer.They are indeed a pretty inscrutable bunch. Some ex-Bainees have talked about the culture. But, few of them talk in any detail about the clients they served. Of course, some Bainees wind-up working for the clients. The Mormon contingent at Bain is large, about as disproportionately dominant as it is on the business school teaching circuit. I'm told there are two very influential groups in the top drawer MBA schools -- the so-called "Mormon Mafia" and "Jewish Mafia." I have no way of validating such claims (Harvard seems to fit the description, however), but someone is bound to make something of that between now and November 2008. BAIN, ROMNEY AS CORPORATE RAIDERS? Question.Besides the secrecy, what's your take on the "corporate raider" label that some have attached to Bain and Bain Capital...the notion that while Mitt's father rescued and nurtured an auto company, Mitt was a guy who went into a field where money might be made at the expense of a company's survival? Is Bain a dog-eat-dog environment? Answer.I have never heard Mitt identified as a "raider." As CEO of Bain Capital, he launched new companies, Staples most notably. No doubt there were struggling companies that he helped recapitalize by selling off parts of the entity, including subsidiaries. But raider??? As to the "dog-eat-dog" question: hey, I'm a journalist, an idealist to the core. I have experienced the corporate side of life too at the senior most levels and dealt with people who focused only on the bottom line. It is an excruciatingly brutal world out there, generally; dogs are eating dogs everywhere, which is why 60s cats like me are nervous. APPLYING
MANAGEMENT CONSULTING PRACTICES Answer. Mitt rocketed to the top of Bain in short order. So, what Bain characteristics are transportable to Washington? The short answers are: expect quick responses, expedient solutions that provide ample wiggle room; and ample short-range and long-term contingency plans. The first priority is "the mission." Examples: Had he been in Bush's shoes, he would have found a speeding bus to roll Don Rumsfeld under long ago. Frankly, he would never, ever have ceded so much authority and swack to one cabinet member, especially one so full of himself. Romney would have demanded that his Secretary of Defense have a back-up plan in place should it turn out that more "boots on the ground" than anticipated were needed to keep the peace in Iraq. You can't bully Mitt, but you can talk back to him provided you know what the hell you're talking about and aren't just playing the annoying yapping lap dog. I suspect he would have been listening very carefully to Colin Powell, for instance. He will surround himself with very, very capable cabinet members. He will counsel with them. He will listen carefully and make decisions that, more often than not, represent the consensus. Importantly, he will push decision-making responsibility down the chain of command and hold those leaders accountable for the decisions they make. I am quite certain that the inept dithering and finger-pointing by FEMA's famous Michaels - Chertoff and Brown - might have pr |