Jump to Content
welcome to my brain. come, have a seat.

{ Email Connor }

Welcome to the blog of Connor Boyack, a 20-something web designer, political economist, and budding philanthropist.
I'm changing the world, one byte at a time.


blog RSS feed

The Chameleon-Like Qualities of Mitt Romney’s Conservatism

Posted by Connor on March 20th, 2010

photo credit: ylangredleo73

In the past few years, political opponents of Mitt Romney have accused him of being a so-called “flip flopper” for changing his stances on certain key issues. Others have classified him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”—a “demon sheep” before the fad caught on—as one who wears the “habiliments of the priesthood”, as J. Reuben Clark said, and earns the glowing praise of countless Latter-day Saints, yet who violates one principle after another in pursuit of political power.

The label of “flip-flopper” may very well be appropriate, but an analysis of Romney’s positions across the board and over time lend more support to the critique that he is rather like a political chameleon, changing himself to blend in with whatever environment he happens to be in. Indeed, to determine Romney’s political affiliation at any given moment, one need only determine to which audience he is addressing himself in hopes of winning a popular vote. Thus, his foundation-less platform has morphed as he courted voters first in Massachusetts, then later across the nation.

Much can be said about the man himself: he’s a successful businessman who has accumulated a substantial wealth of at least $200 million; he’s an intelligent individual, graduating with honors from prestigious universities; he’s a member of the LDS Church in good standing, having served as a bishop and stake president a couple decades ago; he has a knack for fixing failing businesses, most notably the 2002 Winter Olympics; and, ironically enough, he was a contributing factor in how I met my wife.

Good people are not necessarily good political leaders, however, and the masses who swarm around this man because of his good looks, Obama-esque parlance fine-tuned to appeal to emotions, and business experience, need to understand a bit more about the man, lest they unwittingly mistake the chameleon’s current color for its true colors. Still worse, members of the LDS Church who support Romney because “he is one of us” are like the sheep who welcome the wolf in sheep’s clothing into their flock merely because his outward appearance resembles their own.

In response to this threat of deceit, Jesus Christ told his flock that they would be able to accurately assess another individual by analyzing their fruits—their actions, decisions, and affiliations.

What are Mitt Romney’s political fruits? In an effort to ascertain the chameleon’s true colors, let’s look at a few.

Gun control

In July of 2004, then-Governor Romney signed into a law a permanent assault weapons ban in Massachusetts. “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts,” he declared. His signature continued the 1998 ban that was set to expire, ensuring that so-called “assault weapons” would be entirely banned within the state, regardless of what federal law did or did not ban. Defending his decision during the 2008 presidential race, he justified it by noting that the same bill also relaxed some regulations for gun owners, as if to suggest that adding a little sugar to a rotten egg makes it any more palatable.

This measure was a continuation of a policy he supported as early as his failed 1994 Senate bid, when he backed two gun control bills strongly opposed by the NRA and other related organizations: the Brady Bill and the federal assault weapons ban. “I don’t line up with the NRA,” he said in 1994. Referring to Massachusetts’ gun laws while campaigning for governor in 2002, he stated that “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Just a few years later while on the presidential campaign trail, however, Romney said on a radio show that he hoped states would ease regulations on gun owners, and positively referred to guns and hunting. “I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I’m a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms,” Romney said. Not only did he reverse course on his relationship with the NRA (buying a lifetime membership in late 2006, just prior to launching his presidential campaign), but he also stated in one debate that he would not support a federal assault weapons ban.

Pressed further in an attempt to dig below his standard superficial level, reports learned that although Romney said “I have a gun of my own”, he later admitted that he did not own one, and instead was referring to two guns owned by his son, kept at the family’s vacation home in Utah, which he uses “from time to time”. The reference to going hunting turned out to be a reference to only two occasions in his entire life in which he participated in the activity.

Romney also supports federally-mandated background checks for anybody wishing to purchase a gun, almost in the same breath where he said that he “takes seriously” the oath to support and defend the Constitution—a document which gives the federal government no authority to promote his gun control desires.

Health care

While governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney heavily promoted and finally signed into a law a bill that required every citizen of the state to purchase health insurance or be penalized with fines. It was “the ultimate conservative plan”, he later said of it. It was, at the time of its implementation, and in fact still is, the nation’s most aggressive government-mandated health care program.

Shortly after signing the bill, Romney told reporters: “Issues which have long been the province of the Democratic Party to claim as their own will increasingly move to the Republican side of the aisle.” Asked on another occasion what the biggest difference was between his health care plan (“Romneycare”) and Hillary Clinton’s (“Hillarycare”), he stated: “mine got passed and hers didn’t.”

While running for President, he advocated a similar plan of universal health care that would, in his predictive opinion, require no more than four years to ultimately make it possible for every American to have health insurance. “My approach is based on the free enterprise system and personal responsibility,” he argued, betraying his alleged understanding of what free enterprise entails; a system of government mandates, licensed service providers, and heavy regulations do not a free enterprise system make. Romneycare, like all the other government-run programs, relies on an individual mandate—the government’s decree that an individual must participate in the organized health care system. Challenged on this issue during a New Hampshire presidential debate, Romney repeatedly asserted that he “like[s] mandates”. Asked recently about whether he considers such a mandate to be un-constitutional, he dodged the question in a way that only Romney can.

Just before signing Romneycare into law, the Governor stated:

And how did [so many individuals and groups collaborate together]? I think it is because of what this bill can lead to: every citizen with affordable, comprehensive health insurance; small businesses able to conveniently buy insurance for their employees at a cost that’s competitive with big businesses; medical transparency, bringing marketplace dynamics to healthcare, really for the first time; and finally beginning to rein in health inflation.

Despite such allegedly lofty goals, and rather quite predictably, the program has proved itself a failure, and despite some advocating that a national health care program be patterned after Massachusetts, Romney’s “conservative plan” is one more statist creation riddled with abuse and problems. It is dependent upon federal money, pushes its bloated budget onto future citizens and generations, and features at its core a central planning authority to administer, regulate, and otherwise manage the entire program. Despite Romney’s claims to the contrary, nothing about Romneycare is based in the free enterprise system. The plans being touted by Utah Senator Bob Bennett (whom Romney has endorsed) and President Obama are not that different from Romney’s own plan. In fact, President Obama’s Senior Advisor David Axelrod recently admitted that Romneycare was the “template” for Obama’s own plan.

Homosexuals

Campaigning in 1994, Mitt Romney expressed support for federal anti-discrimination legislation to protect homosexuals in the workplace and pledged that he would “provide more effective leadership” than his opponent, Ted Kennedy, on homosexual rights. He also opined that the Boy Scouts of America—a private organization—should allow homosexuals to participate in their organization, saying “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” (When in charge of the Salt Lake City olympics, he banned the BSA from participating.) Further, in his bid for the Senate he was endorsed by the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans, a homosexual advocacy group.

Campaigning in the governor race a few years later, he courted the same group in a gay bar, promising to “keep [his] head low” in the battle for so-called “gay rights”. He was unanimously endorsed by the group’s members.

During Romney’s tenure as Massachusetts Governor, the state’s Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that it was a violation of the state’s constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry. This opinion called on the legislature to “take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion” within 180 days, effectively ordering the legislative branch to create a revised marriage statute. Refusing to let the judiciary infringe upon its power, the legislature did nothing. On day 181, Governor Romney took it upon himself—absent any authority or legal mandate—to order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, making Massachusetts the first state in the country to allow them.

For all his subsequent grandstanding—criticizing the Court, participating in pro-traditional marriage rallies, and endorsing changes to the U.S. Constitution to require marriage be between a man and a woman—Romney was either ignorant in regards to his duties as governor, or duplicitous in his actions. Being bound in no way (and having no authority) to issue such an executive order prior to legislative action, the first homosexual marriages—and no doubt the impetus for other states to follow suit—occurred due to Mitt Romney’s actions alone.

Abortion

In the 1994 Senate campaign, Romney repeatedly affirmed that he supported “safe and legal” abortion. He promoted “sustain[ing] and support[ing]” Roe v. Wade since it “[had] been the law for twenty years”. “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard,” he said in one debate. Going so far as to attend at least one Planned Parenthood event, Romney was a clear supporter of abortion.

Consistently citing his own personal beliefs that allegedly conflicted with his public policy positions led Ted Kennedy, his opponent in the Senate race, to call him “multiple choice” as opposed to “pro-choice”. In response, Romney re-affirmed his personal belief that abortion should be safe and legal, saying that “you will not see me wavering on that, or be a multiple choice”. (Until a few years goes by, he surely meant to say.)

During the 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney said “Now, I want the voters to know exactly where I’m going to stand as governor, and that is I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachussets in any way. I will preserve them, I will protect them, I will enforce them. And therefore I’m not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself.” And yet, during the 2008 presidential campaign, Romney claimed that every action he had taken as governor was “pro-life”. Reversing himself in regards to Roe v. Wade as well, he said in 2007 that “Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society. This can’t continue.”

During the presidential campaign, Romney was repeatedly challenged on his shifting support for abortion rights, forcing his campaign spokesman to finally admit: “This is an issue that the governor has changed his position on, that the governor was wrong on in the past and believes he is right on now.” During one debate, Romney said: “I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me, it was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision.” Framing the termination of a life as a simple personal decision and nothing more shows clearly what (little) understanding Romney had (has?) about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Terrorism

Mitt Romney’s take on foreign policy and war is no different than your average post-9/11, fear-mongering neoconservative. His policy statement on international terrorism from his presidential campaign frames the issue as being a direct byproduct of “radical Islam”:

The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights.

Devoid of any references to history or fact, this and similarly shallow positions on weighty issues involving the deaths of untold numbers of individuals show how poorly Romney understands the reasons why America is despised in many parts of the world. Instead of seeking to understand and advocating sound foreign policies such as the just war theory and the golden rule, Romney advocates a jingoistic, imperial campaign against something as loose an affiliation as “radical Islam”.

One example of Romney’s misunderstanding of the military, war, and foreign policy occurred while governor in 2003. He said: “Through their service, National Guard and Reservists play an important role in our efforts to advance democracy, peace and freedom across our nation and around the world.” Of course, the National Guard was never intended to “advance democracy, peace and freedom across our nation and around the world”; National Guards were established and are to be properly used only in the legitimate defense and security of the state in which they reside.

In a 2006 interview, Romney explained his overall assessment of the war effort as follows:

Well, I think it shows a complete lack of understanding of the kind of enemy that we’re facing. This is not a small group of wackos in the hills that all we have to do is go find one person and it suddenly goes away. This is, instead, a movement. It’s a jihadist movement. It’s an extreme wing of Islam. It includes people, hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people throughout the world that are intent on bringing down America, bringing down civilization as we know it. It’s going to be a long-time fight against these people. And that’s why the president has called it a war. Iraq is one front in that war. And there will be other fronts in this war, I’m sure. But the idea that somehow if we just go home and sit back quietly that it’ll all go away is just pollyannish and not realistic. After all, what did we do to deserve 9/11? They attacked us also on the USS Cole, they attacked our embassies and we sat back and negotiated.

Making no apologies for continued warfare, nor showing any understanding of the reasons why America is sometimes attacked and oft-despised, Mitt Romney, in short, favors empire. Undeclared, perpetual warfare against a loosely-organized and poorly supplied rag-tag band of “insurgents” is something to which Romney is eager and willing to commit blood and treasure, with no qualifiers whatsoever. As said earlier, this is a full embrace of the neoconservative promotion of warfare to vanquish whatever enemy may exist. Imperial hubris fuels Romney’s misguided rhetoric on matters of foreign policy, and those who disagree are mocked.

On the issue of Guantanamo, Romney said with excitement during a debate in the presidential campaign that he would favor doubling its size as opposed to shutting it down. On Iran, Romney supports “stopping” the “greatest immediate threat to the world since the fall of the Soviet Union,” ignoring the fact that the country has no current nuclear weapons and an obsolete military. And on the subject of waterboarding, Romney refused to label it as torture, noting that by making such an admission, he would be prevented as President from using it. (Such a principled stance, is it not?) His defense was as follows: “I just don’t think it’s productive for a president of the United States to lay out a list of what is specifically referred to as ‘torture’.”

Romney’s policies relating to terrorism were best summed up in a 2007 interview, a summary of which reads as follows:

Romney’s responses — not to some of the questions but to every single one of them — are beyond disturbing. The powers he claims the President possesses are definitively — literally — tyrannical, unrecognizable in the pre-2001 American system of government and, in some meaningful ways, even beyond what the Bush/Cheney cadre of authoritarian legal theorists have claimed.

After reviewing those responses, Marty Lederman concluded: “Romney? Let’s put it this way: If you’ve liked Dick Cheney and David Addington, you’re gonna love Mitt Romney.” Anonymous Liberal similarly observed that his responses reveal that “Romney doesn’t believe the president’s power to be subject to any serious constraints.” To say that the President’s powers are not “subject to any serious constraints” — which is exactly what Romney says — is, of course, to posit the President as tyrant, not metaphorically or with hyperbole, but by definition.

As for the restraints on presidential power, Romney further betrayed any understanding of or adherence to the Constitution when asked during a debate in the presidential race whether he would need authorization from Congress to use a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. He responded:

You sit down with your attorneys and [they] tell you what you have to do. But obviously the president of the United States has to do what’s in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress…

Asked whether he thought President Bush needed such authority from Congress, Romney replied: “You know, we’re going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn’t need to do.” Absent any demonstration of personal opinion, declaration of principle, or any substance whatsoever, these answers support the idea that Romney’s political strategy is to always maintain the ability to adapt to circumstance. Such moral cowardice on issues involving the lives of so many people should rightly be deemed offensive.

And on and on…

Other items of note include (but are certainly not limited to):

  • In an attempt to better understand the base of voters to which he was making an appeal (no doubt to help shape his policies, delivery, and strategy), Romney spent around $1 million during the presidential campaign on polling to gauge voters’ views. Like the nearly $50,000 spent on voter research in the fourth quarter of 2009 by Bob Bennett, whom Romney has endorsed in his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, this money shows an unwillingness to simply advocate one’s beliefs and principles and let the voters decide. To such poll-dependent politicians, campaigns are games in which they must shape themselves to appeal to the electorate.
  • Though a member of and former leader in the LDS Church, which believes that God communicates with a living prophet (of whom there have now been sixteen), Romney said in an interview during the presidential campaign that “well, I don’t recall God speaking to me. I, I don’t recall God speaking to anyone since, uh, Moses and the [burning] bush, or perhaps some others, but, but I don’t have that frequent of communication.” Perhaps he forgot the apostle Peter’s advice: “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.”
  • During his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney was repeatedly asked about his position on medicinal marijuana. One of his replies, indicative of other statements on the issue, was: “The concern, of course, is that marijuana has become the entry drug of choice and contributing a lot to the drug culture. That’s the concern. And that’s why, as the federal government, and I as a candidate, support keeping marijuana illegal, because I don’t want to encourage more involvement in or allow more people to get involved in the marijuana and the drug culture.” Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, of course, does it give the federal government the authority to wage a drug war, much less conduct federal raids against peaceful individuals using medically-prescribed foliage to alleviate pain. “And if you elect me president,” Romney said on another occasion, “you’re not going to see legalized marijuana. I’m going to fight it tooth and nail.” Favoring a pharmaceutical industry whose artificial drugs kill thousands while using the force of government to annihilate the market for a drug that has never killed a single person is not good public policy.
  • In an interview late last year with Larry King, Romney was asked if he thought Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should be appointed to a second term. With only mere seconds connecting the statements, he first said that Bernanke had been doing a “good job”, and then said “Look, we’re printing money like crazy, we’re borrowing, and we’re spending money at a rate that is just unconscionable.” Romney obviously understands nothing about how the Fed was created, why it exists, or how it operates. If he did, he would realize that the ability to print and spend money like crazy are directly and primarily attributable to the existence of the Fed. Indeed, his excoriation of printing money is especially disingenuous (or naive) after having made statements that he approves of “the Federal Reserve [taking] the action necessary to provide more liquidity in the market” and that “the action they already took with regards to providing lower [interest] rates was a good move”.
  • While campaigning for governor, Romney repeatedly assured voters that he would not raise taxes, but after elected proposed three taxes of his own, while passing taxes (also called “fees”) during each of the four years he was in office. Claiming to have passed budget cuts, he actually oversaw an expansion of Massachusetts’ budget to the tune of billions of dollars in just four years’ time. In 2002, the Center for Small Government obtained enough signatures to place an initiative on the ballot that would end the state income tax. Despite a general media blackout and being dismissed and ignored by gubernatorial candidate Romney, the initiative received 45% of the vote. For all his rhetoric about fiscal conservatism, Romney failed to support a key opportunity to prove his colors. Rather than striking at the root, he preferred to hack at the branches by supporting a reduction in the state income tax by a small fraction of one percent.
  • In his new book, Romney asserts that the recent economic stimulus bill “will accelerate” the nation’s economic recovery, while only months before declaring at a visit in Utah that the stimulus “was a bad miscalculation that’s going to cost the American people a lot.” Romney supported—and still supports—TARP, a horribly un-constitutional bank bailout, declaring “Had we not taken action, you could have seen a real devastation.” However, in September of last year Romney said that when government is trying to bailout banks, “we have every good reason to be alarmed”. Which is it, then?
  • And on and on…

Commenting after a 1994 senatorial campaign debate, one Massachusetts reporter wrote the following, which could very well be a sound piece of advice in regards to any Mitt Romney political campaign:

[Romney] demonstrated very clearly in the debate last night that he has more in common with liberal Democrats than he does with conservatives… Conservatives should not let their disgust and anger with Ted Kennedy’s big government liberal record blindly lead them to support Mitt Romney.

Again, Mitt Romney’s private life may very well be worthy of respect, praise, or even emulation. His public record and policy advocacy, however, should lead the astute political observer to completely reject him in consideration as a political candidate, conservative commentator, or individual of influence in regards to any policy making.

As is evidenced by the information here provided, Romney’s so-called conservative record is a long history of flip-flops, hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, and superficial rhetoric not supported by any historical or factual basis. He is a statist wolf in a small government sheep’s clothing—a color-changing chameleon with the ability and willingness to adapt to whatever environment he is in.

Voters beware.

***************

Related Posts (automatically generated)

93 comments so far. Care to chime in?

I’m just making a note of this post, should Mittens! become the GOP nominee in ’12.

#1 jasonthe | March 20th, 2010 4:52 PM

Connor, you may find this movie synopsis relevant. It’s a literal cinematic depiction of the chameleonic property you are describing.

#2 Clumpy | March 20th, 2010 7:46 PM

Awesome job, Connor, compiling all of Mitt’s “problems” in one post. This is a definite keeper.

#3 Ronald Schoedel | March 20th, 2010 7:58 PM

Wow. Great article. A lot of things I knew, and a lot more things I didn’t know.

I cannot support a candidate who tolerates abortion in circumstances other than rape, incest, or if the mother’s life is in peril.

I cannot support a candidate who supports pre-emptive war, the PATRIOT Act, etc.

And I certainly cannot support a candidate who, being LDS and a former Stake President, does not think that God has spoken to him “or any other man since Moses and the burning bush.”

I support Ron Paul or any other candidate who is unwavering in their commitment to the Constitution. We can’t afford any longer to have elected officials who view the Constitution as something open to interpretation. There is enough explanation in the Federalist Papers to make it very clear what our founding fathers meant by the words they chose.

#4 Eric Checketts | March 20th, 2010 9:39 PM

WOW!! His endorsement of Bennett had me convinced already, but seeing all of this info compiled together makes an even stronger case against his supposed conservatism.

#5 a concerned mommy | March 20th, 2010 10:36 PM

Doesn’t Mitt have one of those hot tubs?

#6 Kelly W. | March 20th, 2010 10:42 PM

Yikes! I hadn’t heard his comment about God not speaking to him or any other man. Sad, sad, sad.

#7 Ryan Smith | March 20th, 2010 10:58 PM

Connor,
“…he’s a member of the LDS Church in good standing…”

Well, he does believe the 11th article of the LDS faith. His own conscience on LDS ideals are just different from yours.

#8 jim | March 20th, 2010 11:20 PM

That is a really nice looking suit, does anyone know what brands he tends to wear? Or is that custom made?

#9 jim | March 20th, 2010 11:59 PM

I tried giving Mitt a fare shake in the presidential primaries but I found myself nodding my head at a lot of what he said but shaking my head at most of what he’s done. This proved to me that he is dishonest and will say anything to get votes.

To my fellow Mormons who may consider supporting Romney again in 2012… Please, take to heart the Lords counsel found in D&C 98:10 (5-10) about how to choose your secular leaders:

Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Be honest with yourself and don’t be blinded by his party, religion, eloquence, or appearance. These weren’t qualifiers in the Lord’s verse. Has Mitt REALLY been good? Has Mitt REALLY been wise? Has Mitt REALLY been honest?

If you can answer these three questions with a sincere and educated yes then proceed with your support (although I’d be concerned about what type of education you received if you truly thought Mitt qualifies under the Lord’s standards). But if you’re like most of my fellow Mormons, you’ve blindly supported Mitt while reciting his religion and business experience as qualifiers. Such a member should refrain from voting altogether-for an ignorant vote is far more damaging then no vote at all.

#10 Jim Davis | March 21st, 2010 12:14 AM

I seem to remember some years ago when Mitt was asked about his stand on gay marriage, that he had “repented” of his mistake he made in MA (can’t spell it!) and had since changed his stance on gay marriage. Anyone else remember that and could expound on that?

It seems that governors with Mormon ties are pretty keen on gay marriage. Jon Huntsman was pretty vocal on the issue. He was going to push gay civil unions but got side-tracked in China before Utah could pursue the question.

That would have been a sweet scene — the Church taking a stand against gay civil unions in Utah and Jon Huntsman kicking against the pricks on the issue.

#11 Kelly W. | March 21st, 2010 8:15 AM

Nice work, my friend. Well written and researched – a real gem.

#12 Chris | March 21st, 2010 8:19 AM

Is that shatnez?

#13 jim | March 21st, 2010 11:56 PM

Witness the latest hypocrisy of Mitt Romney:

[Obama's] health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.

::: rolls eyes :::

Why do people trust this man?

#14 Connor | March 22nd, 2010 1:11 PM

Jim Davis: that is the exact same scripture that came to my mind when I read this post.

#15 Tim Harper | March 22nd, 2010 1:35 PM

It’s a good scripture! I especially love how it is prefaced with an admonishment to “befriend the Constitution” (D&C 98:6). One might ask themselves if the people they’ve supported in the past have truly been friends to the Constitution or if they merely give it lip service.

#16 Jim Davis | March 22nd, 2010 1:47 PM

Connor,
To call Mitt a political suck up is one thing; to imply that he is engaged in priestcraft is quite another. I don’t much like the man or the politics, but I think it would be best to leave the “habiliments of the priesthood” out of it. I don’t believe Mitt has used his LDS beliefs as a selling point (beyond the notion that he is a believer in general). It would be wrong to characterize him as playing it up for votes. That some people prefer him because of his religious affiliation (or reject him because of it) is another thing entirely.

#17 John C. | March 22nd, 2010 1:52 PM

No, John, Mitt hasn’t really used his LDS beliefs as a selling point. (I haven’t made that assertion.) Latter-day Saints are doing the selling for him, MLM-style.

#18 Connor | March 22nd, 2010 2:00 PM

Ok. I took the mention of priesthood in this context to imply that you thought he had. Sorry for the misinterpretation.

#19 John C. | March 22nd, 2010 3:35 PM

I agree with that (Latter-day Saints doing the selling for him). I have heard the talk in my own locale about how wonderful it would be to have a president who held the priesthood. Nevermind his policies. Actually, many peopl to whom I mention his flip-flopping say that people can “repent and change.” Agreed, but I don’t think this is one of those situations. I think it is political expedience.

#20 rachel | March 22nd, 2010 5:39 PM

Agreed Rachel. While yes, someone can repent or change… It seems that Mitt has conveniently repented too many times on too many issues for his ‘change of heart’ to be considered genuine. I find it hard to believe that his policies conveniently change depending on who the majority of his potential voters are. Plus, many of his current policies aren’t even worthy of my support anyway. He’s a party hack. He is more loyal to self and party then he is to true principles and the Constitution.

On several occasions a fellow Mormon will act surprised when I say I don’t support Mitt Romney by saying, “But he’s a Mormon!!!” I have two words in response to this reaction:

Harry Reid

#21 Jim Davis | March 22nd, 2010 6:29 PM

Rachel,
“I have heard the talk in my own locale about how wonderful it would be to have a president who held the priesthood. Nevermind his policies.”

What would be the purpose behind that? The rest of the folks here seem to want someone who support core LDS values, even if they aren’t LDS. Tne other issue is finding consistency and follow through with promises. I think you are right about political expedience.

#22 jim | March 22nd, 2010 6:39 PM

GREAT article Connor! This one’s getting book-marked in preparation for 2012. Thank you for such diligent research and great presentation!

#23 John | March 23rd, 2010 12:20 AM

Well researched, intelligent article Connor. I’m interested if you believe there is room for a candidate to change his mind on an issue in light of new evidence? Better stated, is there a line to be drawn between “open-minded” and “flip-flopper?” My question is both as it applies to Romney specifically and candidates generally.

#24 Adam | March 24th, 2010 9:34 PM

Kelly W,
I found something interesting, at one time at least, a significant population of Mormons collectively ‘kicked against the pricks’ over an issue. The state of Utah was very influential in passing the 21st amendment to the U.S. constitution, which repealed the 18th amendment. (prohibition) Despite opposition by the 7th LDS president Heber J. Grant. It would be interesting to know why so many voted against his advice, and what reasoning was used.

Additionally, do you think this is a problem in the LDS belief that the U.S. constitution is an inspired document, given that an amendment was ratified which went against an LDS presidents advice?

#25 jim | March 24th, 2010 11:15 PM

What doesn’t make sense is that the Consitution is so simple and direct that these “high and mighty” people of Washington can’t seem to find their way around it. It’s so annoying really. And the people around me seem to think that the government has nothing to do with them and all to do with politicans. Yet, the very politicans and leaders of this country don’t even know themselves. Is the Constitution ever read? Anyways, I almost wish I could find an island in the middle of the Pacific so I don’t have to put up with the stupdity of people. But, alas, it will never be so. Long live the Republic, down with Socialims and stupidity.

#26 L. Brown | March 25th, 2010 4:47 AM

maybe it doesn’t matter why–

but why, then, do so many LDS ‘revere’ this man?

Is he naive or is he evil?

Can anyone know?

What is it about him that makes most otherwise intelligent LDS stop thinking when his name comes up?

I would love to be illuminated on this–

#27 oldmama | March 25th, 2010 1:38 PM

Well written. But what’s your point? He wouldn’t make a good president? Or perhaps you’re saying, he is a liar and has no soul? Tries to be all things to all people? If so, I find the “shapeshifting” you allege superficial and negligible.

Watch the video clip of him on the steps of the legislature in Mass. leading the protest against the “legalization” of gay marriage without consent of the people. Politically prudent? No. Rock solid principle he’s acting on there. Watch it, seriously.

You have fallen into the trap of believing that words mean more than actions. Romney is that rare politician that acts consistently, regardless of what he says. He is highly intelligent as you say, but he is also morally consistent IF YOU LOOK AT HOW HE GOVERNED.

In addition, I ultimately judge a person by the way they treat their wife and kids. You could argue Obama ranks high using this litmus test. I suspect the full truth isn’t known about Obama’s relationship with his wife and children, but I’m guessing, and perhaps in part my suspicion only serves to fit my own narrative. Nonetheless….

Romney treats his family oh so right, baby. He has now become a politician, yes. But a liar, he is not. And he is our next, BEST hope for 2012.

Keep searching for truth, it makes for an enjoyable read.

#28 Liz | March 25th, 2010 11:24 PM

Has Mitt come out and denounced Obama’s health care plan that Oh So Closely mirrors the health care plan he passed in Massachusets? (Man, how do you spell that state?) If Mitt denounces Obama’s plan, then he has flipped again.

#29 Kelly W. | March 25th, 2010 11:25 PM

Adam,

I’m interested if you believe there is room for a candidate to change his mind on an issue in light of new evidence?

Absolutely. Heck, I was a Romney supporter about four years ago, so I clearly changed my mind!

Red flags pop up, though, when one changes one’s mind during or just before a political campaign, and also when one changes one’s mind on a host of crucial issues—not just one.

Liz,

Watch the video clip of him on the steps of the legislature in Mass. leading the protest against the “legalization” of gay marriage without consent of the people.

Did you even read the above article? Romney was entirely to blame for enacting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Thus, any later outcry is disingenuous if not outright hypocritical.

You have fallen into the trap of believing that words mean more than actions.

Really? Again, did you read the article? Because I painstakingly researched, documented, and explained actions. You know, that whole “by their fruits shall ye know them” thing?

I think you had it right: you’re trying to shape things to fit your own Romney-can-do-no-wrong narrative.

#30 Connor | March 25th, 2010 11:33 PM

Connor, you caught me. I skimmed your article because it is a football field long and I have ADD. Self-diagnosed. But you are, um, disingenuous in a sweet kind of way when you state that “Romney took it upon himself [I paraphrase ADD] to order the marriages of same-sexers…..
Passionate you are, but accurate you are not. Also the statement that Romney is ENTIRELY to blame for same-sex marriage in Mass. is, um…how shall I say, a bit ebullient. I wouldn’t say this if I didn’t think you couldn’t take it.

#31 Liz | March 26th, 2010 12:29 AM

Connor, because you have such fabulous potential I will also point out your use of straw men extremes. Obama is a master at this. “You’re trying to shape things to fit your own Romney-can-do-no-wrong narrative.” Be honest with yourself, was that my narrative? Or are you being a bit ebullient again?

#32 Liz | March 26th, 2010 12:31 AM

But you are, um, disingenuous in a sweet kind of way when you state that “Romney took it upon himself [I paraphrase ADD] to order the marriages of same-sexers….. Passionate you are, but accurate you are not.

Liz, make no assertions without sources to support them. Connor has his. What are yours?

#33 Jeffrey T | March 26th, 2010 3:27 AM

whatever his actions may be, when Romney speaks, his rhetoric is very predictably neo-conservative.

In what other way do *people* convey themselves than by words?

He is a party man.

If he understands the constitution he doesn’t convey that by anything he says.

He is very wealthy, and was Caroll Quigley the man who said that the ‘elite’ don’t conform to the same standards as “the rest of *us*”–?

In other words, Romney sees the world from a very different perspective than those LDS who see him as a political savior. He comes from a political family, and his father was a self-acknowledged “Rockefeller Republican”.

If LDS are comfortable with that–

if it is that important to have an LDS running for president that most other commonalities can be brushed aside . . .

well, then, I would say that those LDS need *their* celebrities. Even *their* royalty, the Book of Mormon prophets, saying, as they sighed, “let *them* have *their* king”–

*used to apologize for writing in the collective

I have ‘brushed up against’ this sort of elitism within “the church”, and it’s not as pretty as it looks on media portrayals.

Priesthood leaders (aka general authorities), at least the vast majority of them, work very hard to keep this sort of elitism out of the “higher courts of church government”.

#34 oldmama | March 26th, 2010 7:56 AM

Watch the video, Jeffery. That, and Romney’s own account, as well as political attacks made on him because of his efforts are my main sources.

#35 Liz | March 26th, 2010 5:56 PM

Liz, links?

#36 Jeffrey T | March 26th, 2010 7:10 PM

A couple relevant news stories:

American Conservative

Romney has taken up the banner of repealing a bill closely modeled on the bill he signed into law. One could say that there are many cynical, opportunistic politicians willing to adopt whatever position works to their advantage. How is Romney any different? Well, he has become a pro-repeal leader while continuing to insist that the state health care bill he signed was good and necessary. So he has continued to advance the completely untenable Scott Brown position: we will never yield in our opposition to the outrageously irresponsible and unaffordable federal bill, and we will defend the outrageously irresponsible and unaffordable Massachusetts bill to the death!

Associated Press

Mitt Romney has a problem with Obamacare. It looks a lot like Romneycare. The prospective Republican presidential candidate’s vulnerability on the issue was evident this week, when he was interrupted during a tour for his new book by a woman upset with the Massachusetts health care law Romney signed as governor in 2006. That law has some of the same core features as the federal law President Barack Obama, a Democrat, signed on Tuesday.

And that’s creating an uncomfortable straddle for Romney as his party makes attacking the new health care law its main message this midterm year.

#37 Connor | March 26th, 2010 10:15 PM

Thanks Connor, I caught that AP article in my morning newspaper. Looks like Mitt is flipping again. But most Utahns will flip with him.

#38 Kelly W. | March 27th, 2010 1:38 PM

And that is what I want to know. Why will “most Utahns . . . flip with him”?

I am curious about this from a sociological point of view.

#39 oldmama | March 27th, 2010 5:21 PM

oldmama, I think that most Utahns, Mormons anyway, have been raised from birth to have an “endure to the end” type of blind faith in their leaders. When Mormons have a blind faith in their religious leaders, they consider this a good trait. But Mormons are much too quick to translate their quality of blind faith to political leaders. They seem to have adopted Mitt as their “blind faith” political leader because of his “sheep’s clothing.”

#40 Kelly W. | March 27th, 2010 8:31 PM

I don’t think the “blind faith” as you term it is nearly as prevalent as it maybe used to be in the Mormon faith. I would also disagree completely with the assertion that Mormons translate the quality of “blind faith” to political leaders. It would be important to qualify that statement with a certain type of political leader.

The fact is, I think most Mormons like Mitt because they have an innate sense that he shares their core values. Despite the 1994 debate that Connor posted where he disavows his core values, most would consider him an inherently “good” and “righteous” person. He is better than the alternative and even in his worst moments of flip floppery, he still shares their basic moral belief system. This seems familiar and comforting and is certainly simpler than really analyzing his political posture. Also, he does a good job of speaking the code words and phrases that remind Mormons that he is one of them. There is an entire vocabulary that is particular to Mormons and they hear it in his speech.

Give it time though. Just because a candidate is Mormon won’t make him enduringly popular with the members-think Harry Reid. Given enough time and enough movement away from a principle defense of their core values, they will leave him.

With all that said, I have been surprised by how many Mormons I have heard who have justified his stances with “Well, he had to say/do that to get elected in Massachussets.” To me, this is the most insidious type of rationalization as it sacrifices true principles and character in the name of political expediency.

By the way, please forgive me the use of the “they” rather than the “we” form as I count myself among the membership of the church. I do not however, count myself among the membership of Romney supporters. I am actually harder on him because he is Mormon and doesn’t stand up for the principles that I would expect. I find that more disappointing than if we didn’t share a religious belief.

#41 Adam | March 27th, 2010 9:36 PM

Two points. Though challenging for some, it is not impossible to understand the not-so-subtle differences between Romney’s success in Massachusetts, and Obamacare. One is that Romneycare passed with 98% approval or the legislature, was it? And Obama’s deal was done forcibly.

The other point is, if Utah can get rid of Bob Bennett in spite of Romney’s aggressive endorsement of said Senator, where does your argument that Mormons worship Romney go now? Could it be possible the majority of Utahns really do think for themselves? Oh no, a primary underpinning of the gripes on this blog may be crumbling…….

#42 Liz | March 27th, 2010 10:56 PM

I suspect that the expectation of some visitors to this site that Romney be more god-like is a bit more weird than those that might think he is god-like. Coin-toss maybe.

#43 Liz | March 27th, 2010 10:58 PM

Though challenging for some, it is not impossible to understand the not-so-subtle differences between Romney’s success in Massachusetts, and Obamacare. One is that Romneycare passed with 98% approval or the legislature, was it? And Obama’s deal was done forcibly.

Whether one voluntarily eats dog poop or is forced to do so, the simple fact remains: it’s dog poop.

#44 Connor | March 27th, 2010 11:01 PM

You know, Connor, under the Constitution, if you want to eat dog poop, you should be able to. Are you joining the liberals in insisting people can only consume what the elite deems is good for them? Seems so.

Remember, one man’s dog poop is another’s filet mignon. It’s called, freedom.

#45 Liz | March 28th, 2010 10:51 AM

Well, this is a fun analogy…

Someone may oddly consider dog poop to be filet mignon, but that doesn’t change the basic fact that it’s a piece of crap. Poo is poo, regardless of what you call it or think it to be.

#46 Yin | March 28th, 2010 12:41 PM

Negative Yin. You have an old mattress with slight urine smell. Garbage to you, garbage to everyone, right?

Wrong. There is a whole industry that revolves around those mattresses. They are money makers. I’m sure you’ve seen them being carted up and down the freeway in old trucks, maybe you’ve seen them lying on the freeway. There are hundreds of secondary markets, millions of different tastes. Allow me to assume you are Asian. We don’t eat certain domesticated animals, rodents, bugs, etc. here in this country. They are desirable as staples in China, if not delicacies elsewhere. If you step out of the elitist mind set, there are other ways of thinking, other ways of valuing. Open your mind to it.

To get back on topic, people in Massachusetts are not your typically Ron Paul posse. They want big government. Romney ultimately delivered it on the healthcare front, but had the presence of mind to keep it private market based and cut out waste to the degree the liberal legislators would allow. The guy’s a freakin’ genius, he’s a tightwad (and I mean that in a complimentary way), and he’s not so arrogant he thinks he knows what’s best for people that are clearly articulating what they want. He also understands federalism, a rarity in politics today, it sometimes seems. So, your dog poop might be another man’s filet mignon.

I am not saying absolute truths don’t exist, but when it comes to placing a VALUE on something, Poo is not poo. Regardless of your opinion that everyone should see things as you do.

#47 Liz | March 28th, 2010 4:32 PM

The point here is that Romney thinks the poo is filet mignon, that is except when he doesn’t. What do we call that? Oh yeah, flopney, or a chameleon.

#48 vontrapp | March 28th, 2010 5:13 PM

Liz,

The point is, Obamacare and Romneycare are the same thing. Romney says that one is poo, and the other is not.

Connor is calling him out on his blatant, disingenuous hypocrisy.

#49 Jeffrey T | March 28th, 2010 6:45 PM

Liz,

I’m not talking about the value being assigned to the poop by anybody, since you correctly point out that perceptions are different, and while most people correctly would not ingest said fecal matter, others may have some odd fetish that entices them to do so.

Similarly, some people love tyranny and bondage. Some people love big government who will tax and tax and then tax some more, so long as they get their welfare check in the mail. This is why, rather than talk about perception, I’m talking about the underline reality: it’s still poop.

The issue here is not whether government-run health care is good or bad, but rather how Romney has any authoritative standing to criticize a plan that was based in part on his own, carries the similarly offensive individual mandate, and is founded on the same philosophy of central economic planning and heavy government regulation.

#50 Connor | March 28th, 2010 7:57 PM

Who do the LDS want to run for office, Thomas S. Monson?

#51 jim | March 28th, 2010 9:18 PM

I’m guessing President Monson is already a bit busy to have time to run for political office :)

I think part of the problem is treating the “LDS” like one large homogeneous group. Certainly there is a commonality of thinking but it isn’t as though all LDS people think/act/vote in lockstep. I know that perception exists because Utah is so staunchly Republican, but Matheson didn’t get elected solely by non-members.

So I’ll just speak for myself. I want someone to run who is consistent and follows through on their word. If LDS, I would prefer that he/she courageously state that their value system does inform their political opinions and agenda rather than pandering to the audience of the day to get votes.

#52 Adam | March 28th, 2010 9:27 PM

While I am a devoted LDS, experiences I have had have taught me what a narrow culture *we* can be. Not always, of course, and not everyone. The intelligent and loving exceptions are refreshing–

This has taught me a lot about ‘group think’–

made me see that comfort at all costs is expensive.

I think I agree with Adam on this; it’s comfort. And Romney knows what he is doing. To me, often, he appears naive, but I think he must not be at all.

#53 oldmama | March 29th, 2010 11:00 AM

And, Yin, I appreciate your humor–

Perhaps the person who responded to you (whether or not you be Asian) has lived in Asia. Well, I have, extensively. And you are correct; *it* is not valued there any more highly than here, except, possibly, as fertilizer.

And, then, why not?

#54 oldmama | March 29th, 2010 11:02 AM

Some people love tyranny and bondage? Connor, your age is showing and you’re losing me here.

#55 Liz | March 30th, 2010 6:28 PM

Liz,

It’s true. Just look around :)

#56 Jeffrey T | March 30th, 2010 7:42 PM

Liz, I’m enjoying your opposing perspective but not your continued attempts to point out Connor’s relative youth and dare I say, inexperience? I don’t want to put words in your mouth. The suggestion that you are therefore older and wiser is also curious. Both are red herrings though I suppose entertaining in an…um…pointless kind of way.

#57 Adam | March 30th, 2010 8:09 PM

Liz,

One of the signs of intellectual sloth is to refer to somebody’s personality or traits to dismiss their argument.

Such petty behavior doesn’t work around here.

In response, I might turn your words back on you and say “[Liz], your [ignorance] is showing and you’re losing me here.”

But, pretending you asked a sincere question rather than launched such a silly attack, I’ll respond.

I said that some people love tyranny and bondage. This is true: Many prison inmates love the three warm meals, exercise, entertainment, and network of like-minded individuals; tens of millions of American welcome a monstrous federal government with open arms; the vast majority of individuals shackle themselves with debt in pursuit of instant gratification; one statist after another is elected into office despite clear evidence of their disdain for the principles of liberty and limited government.

Freedom is a scary thing to most people.

#58 Connor | March 30th, 2010 10:39 PM

Adam,
“I’m guessing President Monson is already a bit busy to have time to run for political office :)”

Joseph Smith ran for office, he was assassinated while in Carthage Jail just a few months into the Campaign. He had some seemingly progressive ideas, and some which seem barbaric. I suppose times where different in 1844.

#59 jim | March 31st, 2010 12:13 AM

Some people love tyranny and bondage?

Do you remember when the children of Israel escaped from captivity? After a while they complained against Moses that it would have been better to die a slave than live free with hunger (Exodus 16:3).

There are millions of people today with this mentality. They would rather live under a government dictating how they should live and giving them what they want than have the responsibilities attached to being free. I know it looks odd at first glance but some people really do love tyranny and bondage. To them it feels safe.

#60 Jim Davis (not to be confused with jim) | March 31st, 2010 1:05 AM

Connor,
“Freedom is a scary thing to most people.”

One definition:
“the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints ”

I know that ‘freedom’ is not absolute. Although there are some that would rather not consider anything in terms of limits.

There are physical and physiological limits. Legally, there are so many limits and exceptions that sometimes only specialists in law really understand them. There are also religious and philosophical limits, detailing what is an ideal way of life. Perhaps most limiting is knowledge. What you don’t know or ignorance.

What kind of freedom are you advocating? in one way or another there are externally imposed restraints on an individual.

#61 jim | March 31st, 2010 1:18 AM

It just keeps on coming…

Mitt Romney offered an enthusiastic defense last night of the comprehensive health care law he helped create four years ago in Massachusetts, even as he pointed to crucial distinctions between it and a similar national program enacted last week by Democrats.
…
Yesterday, Romney proudly acknowledged that his bill included a set of new insurance regulations that “President Obama always likes to talk about in his health care plan — the good stuff.’’ Romney trumpeted the achievement of near-universal coverage in Massachusetts, while declining to acknowledge that the mechanism he used to achieve that goal — a requirement that individuals buy private insurance — is the same as the much-criticized mandate of Obama’s plan.

#62 Connor | March 31st, 2010 8:39 PM

Jim, the freedom I am advocating is the ability to live out your life the way you want, free from any regulation, restriction, or other impediments, provided you do not harm another individual in the process.

#63 Connor | March 31st, 2010 8:42 PM

Yes, I was immediately sorry I said Connor was young. I am sorry. Youth is a virtue.

I don’t think prisoners love tyranny and bondage. If that were so, why the barbed wire? Nice try, though.

#64 Liz | March 31st, 2010 9:51 PM

*Some* people like it. Not all prisoners do, hence the barbed wire.

#65 vontrapp | April 1st, 2010 9:50 AM

Liz, if these are the best arguments you can make against facts and common sense then you’ll continue to get intellectually slaughtered on this blog.

Let’s settle this issue so that we can move on to meatier matters… Do you agree that there are some (whether they’re aware of it or not) that desire bondage over liberty? A simple yes will end this nit-picky argument. If you believe everyone desires liberty over bondage then please provide examples.

Connor, Jeffrey and I have been using the words “some” and “many” when referring to those who love bondage. No one has made the assertion that all people prefer bondage over liberty. We have provided examples such as prison inmates and the children of Israel to prove that some really do desire bondage. On the other hand you’re language infers that no body wants to be in bondage. You tried using barbed wire to refute Connor’s example of “many” inmates preferring luxury over freedom when he wasn’t even saying that all inmates want to be in bondage.

#66 Jim Davis | April 1st, 2010 9:54 AM

“Jim, the freedom I am advocating is the ability to live out your life the way you want, free from any regulation, restriction, or other impediments, provided you do not harm another individual in the process.”

That vaguely sounds like the The Wiccan Rede.

“As Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will”.

Wicca is a neopagan religion which is markedly open to a wide variety of experience, much more so than the LDS faith.

#67 jimmy | April 1st, 2010 10:57 PM

And the LDS faith states “let a man worship how, where, or what he may,” methinks that would include wiccan stuff. It’s not our place to judge others religions, their faith, their motives. It is ONLY to us to judge the affects people have on other people. We can judge a rapist to have broken fundamental natural law, we can judge a politician on his proposed public policy that effects other people. We cannot judge one’s actions alone which cause no harm to another.

#68 vontrapp | April 2nd, 2010 8:46 AM

Vontrapp,
The LDS faith has already judged other religions, what are you talking about? Everything else is apostate and degenerate, to one degree or another, that has been stated by LDS authorities many times over. The entire foundation of the LDS faith is that is a ‘restoration’ from a state of apostasy which the world was under.

My observation is that LDS members tend to judge everyone according to their own standards and belief, regardless of what understanding other people have. Mitt Romney also appears to be judged largely for positive law policies, not ‘natural law’.

#69 jimmy | April 2nd, 2010 4:26 PM

Jimmy, please don’t twist my words, and don’t twist my religion. I can recall off the top of my head several instances where prophets and apostles have *praised* other religions. Pres. Hinckley was particularly fond of finding the goodness in other religions. Yes, we believe that ours is the only *fully* true church, and the only one with authority. It doesn’t mean we judge every one else and condemn them to hell.

And I specifically said it is in any citizens purview to judge a politician on policy, as a politicians policy leanings have a very real potential to effect individuals.

#70 vontrapp | April 2nd, 2010 10:13 PM

Vontrapp,
Do you endorse the Wiccan Rede?
““As Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will”.

The Wiccan Rede a perfectly fine philosophical statement. The 11th article of faith is fine for stating a belief in philosophical freedom on a LEGAL basis. LDS leaders might even endorse the ‘harm none’ stated above. The “do what ye will’ part I imagine is a bit more difficult for them to endorse.

I said nothing of condemning or judging anyone. It is a logical outcome however if one believes another individual or organization is lacking in understanding or behavior. Criticism could be very subtle, or even pitched as a positive. Certainly its more skilled to praise people or organizations whenever possible.

#71 jimmy | April 3rd, 2010 9:07 PM

I do not endorse that anyone “do what ye will”, no, but I do not prohibit it either. I will always extol what I believe to be the virtues of acting one way over another, and I will be glad to see anyone come unto Christ and put away the natural man. But that does not mean I will condemn one who heeds not my beliefs, or prohibit one who acts contrary to my virtues, so long as they harm none.

I see it as a philosophy instead of a faith. Maybe wiccans see it as a faith, maybe some deeply believe that as long as they harm none, they are just fine morally and will see heaven. Who am I to tell them differently except by persuasion and long suffering? It may not be eternally sound, but I believe it is a socially sound philosophy, as far as from what we shall forcefully prohibit an individuals actions and choices.

#72 vontrapp | April 4th, 2010 12:33 AM

Finally, someone has done an excellent job of pulling together many of Mr. Romney’s conflicting positions throughout the years. Men of principle are simply hard to find. Thank you Connor. I would only add one other thing to this list. Hopefully I’ll get a chance to blog about it in the near future. I’m sure I’ll be referring to this piece many times in future posts.

#73 Greg | April 9th, 2010 7:41 PM

I was very surprised to hear that Mitt Romney won a straw poll taken at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference with 24%, but only one vote above Ron Paul, who also came in at 24%. Of course straw polls are not guaranteed to be a whole lot more than interesting, but interesting it was, in my opinion. Here is a link to the poll.

#74 rachel | April 10th, 2010 11:55 PM

“…the freedom I am advocating is the ability to live out your life the way you want, free from any regulation, restriction, or other impediments, provided you do not harm another individual in the process.”

Based on this, I would assume that you would be in support of laws which permit same-sex marriage. Or is there a better way to interpret that?

#75 Chris | April 11th, 2010 10:31 PM

Based on this, I would assume that you would be in support of laws which permit same-sex marriage.

Incorrect.

Living a homosexual lifestyle and entering into a societally-sanctioned union are two entirely different things.

#76 Connor | April 11th, 2010 10:50 PM

“Living a homosexual lifestyle and entering into a societally-sanctioned union are two entirely different things.”

Thanks for the reply, Connor. Those certainly are two entirely different things, but I’m not sure I understand how that plays into the question. It seems like it would be fair to say that individuals who wish to be legally and lawfully wedded to the person of their choosing face “regulation, restriction, or other impediments” and it would be arguable to say that they aren’t harming other individuals in the process. So doesn’t this situation violate their freedom? If marriage was prohibited for heterosexual couples, would it not be a violation of their freedom?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not in favor of same-sex marriage. I’m just trying to figure out how to reason through it (hence I’m playing devil’s advocate).

#77 Chris | April 11th, 2010 11:20 PM

First of all what is meant by “lifestyle”?

#78 jimmy | April 12th, 2010 8:40 PM

Chris:

I (and I suspect Connor) would never prohibit anyone by law from living a homosexual lifestyle; but I would never ask the government place an official stamp of approval on those acts (aka, marriage). I suppose I would ideally not want to the government to do it for heterosexual marriage either.

#79 Jeffrey T | April 12th, 2010 11:12 PM

The JBS highlights Mitt’s latest ruse:

Behind Romney’s [recent straw poll] victory is Romney’s recent magic act: Campaigning against an Obama health care plan almost identical to the one he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts while at the same time positioning himself as the “conservative” Republican presidential contender. With his risible “conservative” packaging, the Republican contender has truly become the greatest pretender.

#80 Connor | April 13th, 2010 9:45 PM

Chris, Jeffery T and others,
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a ‘lifestyle’. When it comes to marriage, its a type of regulation. In a sense anyone married has lost some degree of ‘freedom’, relations outside of marriage now have legal implications, and social sanctions. Homosexuals seeking marriage are requesting more responsibility and more regulations.

#81 jimmy | April 14th, 2010 8:23 PM

If anybody’s still reading this – this has been a nice discussion about homosexual orientations/lifestyles, but nobody has answered my original questions. Any thoughts?

#82 Chris | April 15th, 2010 11:16 PM

Chris, if this is the question you wanted a response to…

If marriage was prohibited for heterosexual couples, would it not be a violation of their freedom?

…then you bring up a very good point. In my perspective the government should not be licensing marriages to begin with. Licensing is the government granting permission to do something. How government got in the business of giving permission to marry is beyond me. Marriage is a religious term/matter. A religion should be able to marry or not marry who ever they want (given that they don’t infringe on anyone’s rights).

In my mind, the only justification for government to be involved in a marriage would be to enforce the contract that two adults undertook and deal justly with the adults in the breaking of that contract. Government granting permission to marry to some and not to others seems absurd to me.

While I have this libertarian philosophy when it comes to marriage I simultaneously agree with what religions have done with Proposition 8. The reason I believe they’re justified is because they’re defending themselves from affirmative-action-type-laws. Affirmative action is legally sanctioned privileges for “minority” groups. A government who grants special privileges for groups and at the same time licenses marriages is the perfect recipe for a loss of freedom for religions. The government, under affirmative action laws, could force a religion to marry homosexuals against their will (they have tried before).

My opinion for now is that while government is in the business of licensing marriage and at the same time granting special privileges/rights to certain groups (e.g. homosexuals) it is in the best interest of organized religions to protect their right to worship/marry who they please.

On a sad side-note… Mitt Romney is for affirmative action. Affirmative action destroys individual rights/freedom because you can’t give special rights to groups without destroying them for others.

#83 Jim Davis | April 15th, 2010 11:45 PM

I direct this question to those who believe, as Mitt Romney should know, that “…it is a part of the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, as much a part as any other tenet of their religion, that the Lord Himself “established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood”, and that this Constitution “should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.” (From an October 1941 First Presidency Letter) and God and Christ spoke to Joseph Smith in the Spring of 1920.

Is there any excuse for so many LDSs to continue to support Mitt Romney for President of the United States?

#84 Ralph Hughes | April 20th, 2010 11:35 AM

Thanks for this in-depth report Connor. HOPEFULLY this lengthy treatise can convince not only Mormons but Republicans in general that Mitt, though he may be a good man, is definitely not a constitutional nor consistent choice.

#85 THOMAS DYCHES | April 21st, 2010 11:03 PM

Romney’s statement “well, I don’t recall God speaking to me. I, I don’t recall God speaking to anyone since, uh, Moses and the [burning] bush, or perhaps some others, but, but I don’t have that frequent of communication.” demonstrates to me a lack of courage and principle. Yet it amazes me how many LDSs are willing to overlook that flaw.

#86 Ralph Hughes | April 21st, 2010 11:27 PM

Connor, salute on your meticulously documented critique. Given Romney’s record, he is indicted by his own words from his famous religious freedom speech: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.”

Here’s one you didn’t mention. On a prominent Iowa radio talk show, defending his record of aggressively promoting abortion on demand prior to running for president, Romney despicably resorted to throwing leaders of the Church under the bus.

Romney said: “There are Mormons in the leadership of my church who are pro-choice. …Every Mormon should be pro-life? That’s not what my church says.”

Video:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html

(Note that by not naming which LDS leaders he alleges support abortion on demand, he outrageously casts aspersions on all of them.)

#87 Gary | April 26th, 2010 4:26 PM

If I had said the things that Romney has said that have demonstrated such disdain for certain moral and constitutional principles, I would find ways to publicly acknowledge and apologize for my errors before ever showing my face in the political arena again, or even among other Latter-day Saints. I don’t know how he does it. I find myself looking for ways to make other Latter-day Saint voters aware of these incidents, and am frustrated by most who simply will not believe that he has said the things that he has. Because of his support for the re-election of Senator John McCain in Arizona he has LDS voters thinking McCain is a good man worth of our votes.

#88 Ralph Hughes | April 26th, 2010 5:26 PM

“am frustrated by most who simply will not believe that he has said the things that he has”

Ralph, your comment is true. Just last month I was talking to a stalwart LDS at church, and told him that Romney said ………

The LDS member simply said: “Well, I never heard him say that!” implying that I was wrong to even imply that Romney would say such a thing!

#89 Kelly W. | April 27th, 2010 8:07 PM

I too have gotten the reply a number of times “Well, I never heard him say that!” or similar. Probably didn’t even pay attention to those debates and interviews. Truth be known, most American LDSs would not recognize the errors in some of the things Ronmey said and did. So anxious and hopeful are many LDSs to get a Mormon into the White House that they excuse his most obvious blunder.

I may have written this before, but my top priority is to awaken LDSs to our responsibility to honoour the US Constitution and awaken ourselves and others to our “awful situation”. Mitt Romney stands out as a reason for and a means of promoting that awakening.

#90 Ralph Hughes | April 27th, 2010 10:36 PM

Kudos. Now if only more LDS would be as diligent in doing their homework about Romney.

#91 Chino Blanco | April 29th, 2010 3:08 AM

Hey! what religion did Obama believe? what wrong after Mitt changed from pro choice to pro life?(is not flip-flop,it is changed from bad to best,or changed from kill babies to save babies)no prresident in the history ever attack America and anti America as Obama is doing now, no president in the U.S. ever linked to terrorist and had a lot of communist friends as Obama, America is for democracy,because it is the free world leader but now the socialism is the president,what wrong about a Mormon to be the president? why a catholic,a Muslim,and a christian can be president,this great country is freedom for every thing,but you guy just blamed Mitt for Mormon,for changed from pro choice to pro life,blamed for what ever you can say because you don’t know the constitution of this country and you don’t know the bill of right and final thing is you very fear Mitt leadership,Mitt experienced,and Mitt character,because he is the America dream,why every sources turn to him,but no other because he is the real leader,the top of all,and the most power full leader at this time in America political now.

#92 Donna | May 8th, 2010 9:22 PM

Donna, you gotta lotta homework to do.

#93 Ralph Hughes | May 8th, 2010 10:01 PM

Post a comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

URL

what's new

Featuring 778 posts w/ 12,505 comments.

Search the blog
[ Sitemap ]
Media/Events
Recent Comments RSS feed
Most Commented
Recent Posts
Church Talks
Aaaaarchives