A few Words on Mitt Romney

Over the weekend we were able to view a session of Meet the Press where they interview Mitt Romney Republican Candidate for President of the United States of America.


I really liked the interview.  Not only because Mitt is from my church and religious persuasion.  It was more on some of the responses that the provided.   Naturally some of his responses had the old political talk with vagueness and non-commitment.


There were mainly a couple points that the interviewer was going after.  One was how different will he be in regards to the economy and secondly, a few thoughts on him as a person and the fact that he and his wife are "insensitive" etc.

He brought up a good point in regards to the economy.  Basically, you want things to get better.  And to solve some of the revenue problems we have at the Federal level we need to get more people back to work and not just tax the rich because they have so much.  Yes, per the typical republican response he is not a redistribution type of person.  He is more the lift things up from the bottom type of person.  If let's say 1 million people become employed and that all of them make $8 per hour.  That is a ton of money back into the system.  Now some of those people may have been getting assistance from the government or other location.  They now with some increased income can begin to buy necessities (Not luxuries and the like).  It may be hard to follow but, people employed even at lower rates is better then people that are not employed.  It generates a certain amount of tax revenue (income and sales) as well as purchases etc. which then go toward revenue and profits for the companies or institutions.

Unfortunately, he was pressed a bit on what kind of tax incentives/breaks and loopholes he would remove so that we stay revenue neutral when he implements his plans to lower the tax rates of the higher income earners and middle class.   He just kept going back to the loopholes and incentives.   He did not provide any examples.   Now, in reality not providing specifics is a good thing because when you go and have to compromise you might find that one thing you promised has to be taken off the table to get the votes needed for overall reform.  So yes he was acting like a typical politician in the end.   What does he need to do to not get that evasive branding and that of "he really only wants to help the wealthy"; he needs to provide some things that would be on the table for consideration.   Take for example, capital gains taxes, or mortgage deductions, or some types of limits on donations etc.  Maybe even increasing the amount of income that is taxed for social security or medicare.   Does not mean he would be committing to actually removing those deductions or loopholes.  He'd be saying they are things to be considered, things that could make a difference in the overall picture.  If in the end it is found that removing the mortgage deduction would have an overall adverse effect then they would not touch that.   Until you have some real numbers you should not be promising to touch anything.

Vague may work for a while but, as things get tighter in the race there will be people looking a little more at the specifics.  Then as they get a more broad picture of the candidate and his  ideas or principles they will begin to feel comfortable with said candidate.
But, making empty promises never helps.  It's a kin to lying and no one needs that label.


As for the lack of empathy the Romney family have for the average person - Ann Romney give one of the best responses.

"MS. ROMNEY:  Well, I think the-- the thing that I want to communicate to people, and that it's so important that people understand, is that Mitt and I do recognize that we have not had a financial struggle in our lives.  But I want people to believe in their hearts that we know what it is like to struggle.  And our struggles have not been financial, but they've been with health and with difficulties in-- in different things in life.  And one thing that I-- that I again like to remind people is that multiple sclerosis has been my teacher.  It has been at times a cruel teacher.  But it has also been a great gift in my life because what it has done it has taught me to be more compassionate and caring for others that are suffering.  And I know that people are suffering right now.  And for people to think that we don't have empathy just because we're not suffering like they're suffering is-- is ridiculous.  It’s-- it’s ridiculous to think that you can’t have empathy for somebody that’s struggling. 
Our life has always been devoted to those that are struggling more than we are and I was grateful for the opportunity that we had at the convention for others to speak up and talk about the kind of lives we’ve led-- we’ve led.  And in particular for Mitt who really has been demonized in many ways as being heartless.  And for people to stand up and say, excuse me, he was there when my son was dying of leukemia.  He came to my son’s bedside.  He did all of these things for my son.  And then another woman saying how Mitt was there for her.  So there’re hundreds of those stories that haven’t been told.  And it was refreshing to me for the American people to finally be able to see the lens through which I see my husband and the perspective in which I understand how he operates."
Meet the Press Sunday September 9th 2012


Yes it might be hard to think of what is like to be Homeless for them.  But, when you begin to consider the other struggles and challenges you begin to see they do have a unique perspective.  They are not totally insensitive and callus.  And his work as a Bishop and Stake President allowed him to come into contact with a bunch of people from all different walks of life.  The labourer or store clerk to the business owner, or operations manager.

And Ann Romney gave another great response earlier on when asked how she would feel if Mitt became the first Mormon President.


"MS. ROMNEY:  …I-- I certainly hope so.  I mean it's always wonderful when milestones like that are accomplished.  And I think that was why we were all so pleased with so many Americans.  We’re so pleased with the-- the last election and seeing that a black man was elected as president of the United States.  It made us proud as Americans to know that those prejudices that we've had in the past are-- are falling away."
Meet the Press Sunday September 9th 2012


So let us give him a little slack for all he's being hit with.  It's not easy to give your life story and have it examined with a fine tooth comb.  Let's look to the good things he has done and hope he can give some more concrete ideas as to how he will fix things.  If you go by the view point that Obama has squandered the last several years then we do need a change.  But, we need to verify what type of change we are getting ourselves into.

But, as for me it is looking much better to have a change then none at all.......   what ever you do please make an informed decision when you vote.  Get additional information and verify the facts from both sides of the isle.  You'll be glad you did and will then vote with a good conscience.


Buiadh - NO - Bas

Here comes the Mormon?

Well it looks like Mitt Romney has won the Iowa Caucuses.   And that bring back up the question of - will the evangelical Christians, so heavily touted in the Republican party, accept as their candidate a Mormon?


As was discussed earlier in another post - Are Mormons Christian? the issues of acceptability will most likely play into a final decision by a large but indeterminate block of voters.  Not to mention if he goes up against Obama will the larger population have as big a problem with the religion of the candidate as they supposedly have in the primaries?


Ultimately, I don't think that the religion of a candidate should have much bearing on their ability to lead.  I do get that it's nice to know a candidate would turn to GOD for help if he feels overwhelmed.  I can also see the flip side where they are worried one would turn to GOD for every little thing, or their local ecclesiastical leader.

So unless they claim to be some kind of devil worshiping, human sacrificing type of person it really should not matter.  Though would it be a problem if the candidate claims to be atheist or that he believes in Tree worship? If one goes at least by the 10 Commandments found in the old testament and other scriptures of other religions, or some similar tenants then they should be OK.  But, I guess to some a few of the difference among religious sects is enough to turn them off.
Is it enough that a candidate not be Christian to be turned off?  That makes for an interesting situation when we get our First Hindu, Muslim or how about an Asian Buddhist candidate with serious potential.

Go here to get a good comparison chart on Mormons and Evangelical Christians. 
Evangelical Christian - LDS comparision chart


As you'll  notice most if not all of these so called "differences" would have any bearing on the ability of one to lead.  I'd take in account the honesty, integrity, and voting record of a person.  Now some of the weaselly candidates will do what is called a flip-flop in regards to an issue, since they might claim it was good at the time or that it is appropriate for just the state they represented.

Remember that there are times that the information available in hind sight lead someone to head in a certain direction they might not have later if the whole "truth" was known.

But, again does it matter that there is a difference of opinion on whether God the Father has a body and the ability of the person to lead?

This also brings up some sordid questions regarding the primary system used by the parties.  Do they bring to the top the extreme left and/or right wing types as candidates try and cater to the "Party Base"?  Republicans are always trying to look more "conservative" then the next in primary season.  Then they go the other direction and try to making themselves look more "moderate" when it comes to the general election.   How in the heck can they really do this?   I think many talk of the topics the "base" wants to hear and then in the general election they hope to heck to not have to deal with it or bring it back up.  Does not always work that way.


So the bottom line is this.  Does the fact that Mitt Romney is a "Mormon" (Member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)  make him unelectable?

I guess only time will tell.  Though, there may be religious differences it should not be what we measure our candidates by!


Buaidh - NO - Bas

Politics and Religion

As the presidential field heats up we are more and more hearing about the religious affiliation of the Republican candidates.  We happen to already know it for our current president even though there are some that take it as a grain of salt and believe it to be something else.

Should the religious affiliation of the candidate really matter that much?  Does it matter that the person is a Jew, Mormon, or a Catholic?

The religious background of a person will drive certain areas of a opinion such as abortion, assisted-suicide, death penalty and the like.  But, when one considers the overall responsibilities of a candidate will these play into the day to day things they are responsible for?

Take a President of the United States.  Does he really deal with the issue of abortion on a daily basis.  More likely he's looking at some spending bill, or helping decide whether to draw down troops in a specific region of the world.  So why do we make such a stink about what religion a person affiliates with?


I've got a few ideas in this regard.  There are several major religions or faiths in the world.  Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Muslim etc.   Sadly, within each of these there are various churches.  There is no central head in most cases even though for the Christian we are all following the teaching of Christ.
Thus it is OK to be a christian and hold to the basic teachings - 10 commandments, love thy neighbor etc.  But, when it comes to central church based leadership people spook.   Holds true for the Catholics and the Mormons.  People are afraid that the supreme leader of the church will dictate policy.  Yes, if you hold to the faith properly you believe the Pope or the President of the LDS church is the mouth piece for God.

So are the people afraid that if Mitt Romney were President that he would always be on the phone with prophet Thomas S. Monson before he makes any decisions?  Or that a catholic candidate would be constantly in contact with the Vatican and if the they tell him to do something he would without question?  Maybe.  Some just like the idea you can have a spiritual advisor you contact but, that this person is not the final word, the definitive voice of God.  Maybe they like the ideas that you switch religions/churches like you switch your underwear.  That when one is convenient you go that way and when another is more readily at hand you go that route.  Always looking to one person or location causes a riff especial when we hold so true to the belief in separation of church and state.

Take England for example.  The queen is the head of the church there.  How would that go over here?  We have had ministers run for the presidency before, and likely at all levels of government for various positions.  But, is having a Baptist minister as a mayor of a city any different then having say an Asian?  You could claim favoritism in both cases.  Would the Mayor favor the Baptists more then another religion or the Asian his tribe more then another?  That is were things get to the ridiculous!

But, we also have to watch out for that kind of stuff.  The people in Germany in the 1930's started to let those types of things enter into the political realm.  One tribe favored over another, one element more then another.  And we know that this lead to things like the rise of the Nazi Party, persecution of not just the Jews, but other ethnic groups considered inferior like the Poles, Russians, Slavs, and the list goes on.  They so bent on this "religion" they even began exterminating people. It started slowing with the mentally and physically handicapped, and then progressed to mass deportations to the concentration camps generally ending in a trip to the gas chamber.


So could that be the fear of the people when it comes to religion?  An indirect dictatorship or theocracy?  I hope not.  Since what I want in a presidential candidate is someone that is honest, forthright, and has the capacity to make decisions that will be for the good of the country.  Basically, a morally upright person that will follow their convictions and do the right thing at the right time and not just in the hopes of being reelected.

Buaidh -  NO  - Bas