So have you joined "Team Mitt" yet?

--Ray

Here is an article about the type of person who would vote against Romney because he's mormon.
Personally, I would be happy to vote for a mormon, but I'll be voting against Romney because of his politics.

I'll vote for any mormon candidate.

--Ray

According to the article that you linked to, Arbilad, Mitt Romney is a master politician.  Excellent.  Those who always put principles ahead of practicalities always lose elections when their electorate disagrees with all of their principles.  Which makes it impossible for a principled man to have any effect in such a place.

Yes, Mitt Romney is a master politician.  It's true.  Some would say that's reason enough to disqualify him because they loathe politics and politicians as a matter of course.  But, people who are not politicians are ineffective at leading, especially in places that reject their principles.

There was never the slightest chance that Mitt Romney would ever succeed in making abortion illegal in Massachusetts.  It was a fight that it made no sense to wage.  He had a chance instead to solve some of Massachusetts' financial and taxation problems, and succeeded in making real progress there.  By not fighting the unwinnable fights, he was able to win the winnable ones.

The LDS church has never, as far as I know held the position that abortion should be illegal.  They said it was immoral, and wrong, but never commented on the legality of it.  If they have done so, it has not been in recent memory.  Mitt Romney pledged that he would not change the abortion laws.  He accepted the appelation of pro-choice because that is what politicians are called who want to preserve the legal right to an abortion.  However, he did not charm the pro-choice people at all when they learned that as a church leader he counselled women not to have abortions.  He became their enemy at that point because anyone who ever suggested that a woman is better off not having an abortion, even as a private citizen, is really an apostate to their cause.

I'm not so sure it's cut-and-dried that personal opposition to abortion and the preservation of abortion as a legal right are contradictory as we like to claim.  Although I would not personally hold that view, it does give me cause to consider some ramifications of making abortion illegal.  Some of those consequences are very unpleasant, and it's really rather a relief that we don't have to go there right now.  For example, if we hold that there are exceptions to a prohibition on abortion for rape and incest, which the church generally agrees to these days, then what level of proof would be required to qualify for that exception?  If a woman were strongly motivated to qualify for an abortion, would her motivation for making a charge of rape stick increase?  Would there be more men falsely accused so that a woman could have an abortion?  How much time would a woman have to prove a charge of rape?  Would it take a year of legal maneuverings?  Would that not make the exception null and void?  Some would favor that outcome, but it is hard to convince people that justice is served by forcing an emotially fragile woman that she must give birth to the child of rape.  I would still like to see abortion illegal, but some of these consequences really scare the snot out of me.

Have we not been taught that actions speak louder than words?  Do we believe that?  Mitt Romney has said that he has experienced a change of heart on the abortion issue.  He has said that that change was brought about by a realization of the consequences of mining embryos for stem cells.  You know, words are a dime a dozen, and a politician can always change his words.  But what does he actually do?  That should be the real test.  Since Mitt Romney has been governor, we don't have to speculate on what he would do.  We have his record.  And the pro-choice people are severely displeased with it.  No, he has not made abortion illegal in Massachussets.  But he had vigorously opposed liberalization of the abortion law.  He has restricted the mining of stem cells as far as was within his power.

Back in the days when the Log Cabin Republicans (gay Republicans just in case you didn't know) claimed that their entire agenda focussed on gaining equal rights for gays in employment and housing, and also had nothing but scorn and derision for anyone who had the gall to suggest that they would ever want gay marriage, Mitt Romney joined their cause.  I agree with his feeling that it is wrong to deny people jobs and housing because they are gay.  Later, the gays, contrary to their earlier promises campaigned for gay marriage, and now that their agenda had changed, Mitt Romney's course diverged from theirs.  It is difficult to imagine a governor doing more than he did to stymie their goals.  He found an obscure, decades-old, neglected law on the books of Massachussets that made it illegal to perform a marriage in that state for out-of-state people that would be illegal in their home states.  By enforcing that law, he was able to stop the flow of gay marriage from infecting the entire United States, forcing a national Constitutional crisis of sorts.  It was the gays' goal to spread gay marriage throughout the United States by exactly that method, but he stopped them.  Now it's true that some far right conservatives have said that he should have done more.  That he should have fired the Massachussets Supreme Court justices who legalized gay marriage.  There were arguments that it would have been legal for him to do so.  Of course there were arguments that it would have been legal for him to do so.  Lawyers can always find a justification for anything they want to advance.  But the reality is, executives have limits on their powers.  They probably have more limits than their various constitutions spell out, perhaps from general cowardice, and letting gubernatorial and presidential powers erode unduly.  However, this is the reality that we live in today.  As much as we might want some super-governor to ride in on a white horse weilding his magic sword to right all the wrongs, it doesn't seem to be in the cards in todays environment.

If Mitt Romney thinks that the boy scouts should allow gay leaders, then clearly I will disagree on that issue.  There isn't a politician on this planet that I would agree on every issue with.  But Jesus isn't going to be running for president.  Like it or not, we have to select a mortal man.  The Supreme Court has already settled the matter for the boy scouts though, Mitt Romney won't have any power over that.  If Mitt Romney if for letting gays in the military, I'll disagree with that too, although there are military leaders now who are re-thinking their positions on this.  Perhaps there are ways to accomodate them somehow.  Perhaps my view on that matter is fixin' to evolve.

A while back we heard from someone on this forum that Romney's health care plan violated the Constitution.  Since his plan was at the state level, where the founding fathers placed very few restrictions, it is hard to see how that violated the Constitution.  I don't know much about their state constitution, so maybe he's violating that, but I think the objector was more concerned about Mitt Romney violating the views of Ezra Taft Benson than in violating the Massachusetts state constitution.

If our goal is to back the man who calculates what he has the ability to do, and does whatever good he can, then Mitt Romney may well be that man.  In my opinion, he is.  If our goal is to back the dreamer of the impossible dream, the fighter of the unbeatable foe, to reach for the unreachable star, as charming and inspiring as those sentiments are, we'd have to look elsewhere.

I also suggest that we look more at a politicians actions than his words.

But this is all just my opinion.

-Randy

-- Edited by Randy at 22:42, 2007-01-07

Roper wrote:

---

I'm with Ray.  One of the reasons is this:  Mormons, as long as they're living righteously, have the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  I'll support someone who has that guidance constantly available, regardless of their political allegiance.

---

Granted, Romney has a greater potential to receive inspiration. At baptism he was given the gift of the Holy Ghost, which gives us greater access to inspiration. But, we have no guarantee that he is seeking out that inspiration, living worthy of it, etc. We have no indication otherwise, either.
But think of it this way: if we extend your logic, then you should invest in every business that is led by a mormon, you should buy Amway every time your wife's visiting teacher makes a presentation, etc. But, at least at one time, Utah led the nation in fraud.
Here's another example: Romney and Reid are different politically. The were both given the gift of the Holy Ghost. They would lead the country in different manners if elected president. I personally do not believe that the Holy Ghost engages in "situational ethics" and tells different people diametrically opposed things about the same subject. One or the other (or both) are not following the promptings of the Holy Ghost, either in part or in full.

Roper wrote:

---

arbilad wrote:

---

One or the other (or both) are not following the promptings of the Holy Ghost, either in part or in full.

---

Sorry I missed your appointment ceremony, Judge Arbilad.

---

I am not, nor do I claim to be a judge. It is simple logic. They hold opposing views. As LDS, we believe that truth is eternal and unchanging. Therefore, both cannot simultaneously be right when they disagree. Therefore, one of them is wrong. You cannot be wrong when you do what the Holy Ghost tells you. QED

Ray and I hold opposing views on child discipline.  And yet the Holy Ghost prompts me to discipline my children in one way and prompts Ray to take another approach.  On the surface, they seem diametrically opposed, yet I would say without qualification that they are both right.  So where does that leave us?

eta:  I've never believed the best decisions are reached by a right/wrong or a win/lose approach.

-- Edited by Roper at 22:59, 2007-01-07

Reid throws road blocks in the path of judges who would be guided by the Constitution, and gives a free path to activist judges who seek to implement policy by what they feel should be in the Constitution rather than by what is in the Constitution.  He was Daschle's right-hand man in getting good people filibustered.  That's enough for me to oppose him with every fiber in my being.  The Democrats routinely attack the character of good men and women in order to advance their agenda.  The lies that they told about Charles Pickering, from my neck of the woods, is sufficient to raise the bile in the most apathetic person.  Charles Pickering's personal courage in the face of physical threats proved him a man of character, and Mississippi democrats and Mississippi NAACP knew it well, but national figures such as Kennedy, Daschle, and Reid thought nothing of accusing him of racism, or allowing such accusations to go forward without challenge.  It was about their agenda, the truth be damned.

Reading the article doesn't change my opinion. Like Randy, all I see is that Romney is an excellent politician. And guess what? Anyone who gets elected president will be a good politician, if nothing else. I'd rather have something else along with it.

Besides, I'm not sure I can take seriously a journalist who can't even spell "Row v. Wade."

So, it seems that the Romney argument comes back to our pragmatism vs. idealism argument. Are you throwing your vote away?

Most mormons are wary about going with the crowd. It's in their nature to mistrust mobs. So if Romney gets too popular, they'll poopoo it along with every other candidate.

--Ray

 

I’m the guy that stated on this forum that Romney's health care plan violated the Constitution.  Since his plan was at the state level, where the founding fathers placed very few restrictions, one might argue that his plan did not violated the U.S. Constitution.  But it certainly would be unconstitutional if attempted on the national level.

His program forces all MA citizens to purchase health insurance whether they want it or not.  It matters not that anyone else think they should buy it.  It is the moral right of each competent adult to decide for him/herself whether he or she wants that coverage, and nobody elses.  And since the money not paid into the system by persons unable to pay has to come from somewhere, the cost of the program also compels taxpayers to contribute via their taxes to the cost of health insurance for MA citizens who somebody will consider unable to afford it.  This is socialism, which Prophets and Apostles have warned us against.  And it demonstrates disdain for certain constitutional principles and the principle of free agency.

No one has the authority to grant such powers as welfare programs, schemes for re-distributing the wealth, and activities which coerce people into acting in accordance with a prescribed code of social planning.  There is one simple test.  Do I as an individual have a right to use force upon my neighbor to accomplish this goal?  If I do have such a right, then I may delegate that power to my government to exercise on my behalf.  If I do not have that right as an individual, then I cannot delegate it to government, and I cannot ask my government to perform the act for me.

To be sure, there are times when this principle of the proper role of government is most annoying and inconvenient.  If I could only FORCE the ignorant to provided for themselves, or the selfish to be generous with their wealth!  But we shouldn't forget the wise words of President Grover Cleveland and oft repeated by Ezra Taft Benson that "... though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people."  We should also remember, as Frederic Bastiat reminded us, that "Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." (Quotes from ‘Prophets, Principles and National Survival" by J.R. Newquist, one of three books that address this subject that were recommended in the April 1972 General Conference).

You didn't address that question to me, so I hope it's OK if I take a crack at it.

I think that the mechanics by which the general welfare was to be promoted was to be specifically spelled out in the text of the articles and amendments, and the preamble was merely an introductory commentary to summarize the guiding principles that led to the articles.  For example, the patent office was established by the Constitution, no doubt guided by that philosophy to promote the general welfare.  And I would argue that the patent was one of the most powerful innovations that brought us much of our modern technology.  Also, providing for our defense promotes the general welfare.

Whether national human support programs support or reduce the general welfare can be argued both ways, with convincing data that shows that dependency actually makes things worse.  There are many who believe, and who believed in the era of the founding fathers, that the best way to encourage prosperity and general welfare was to facilitate liberty, to get government out of the way.

However, I don't know how many of us have the stomach to watch people starve to death for lack of food or to die from lack of medicine.  And if we know that we're going to help them no matter what, then the question becomes what is the best way to do it.  Some say that private charity is best, and I think that's true, but like all other human-created systems (including government help) it is flawed.

I don't have all the answers.  Mitt Romney has noted some of the problems that his system has caused, such as the rise of insurance rates, and hopes that other states will find solutions to problems such as that with their own programs.  Like it or not, I'd suggest that there are no easy answers.

And here's a good one by David Frum:

http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25405/pub_detail.asp

Politics is the art of the possible.  In this day and age, the views of lundbaek just aren't held by enough Americans to make a difference. 

IMO, Romney has developed a new solution to a very difficult policy problem--one that many people are clamoring for the government to provide some solutions on.  Romney's Massachusetts plan is much better than any kind of government-provided, nationalized approach to health care.  I think it preserves freedom, while at the same time offering a solution to the high cost of health care and the people's expectation of it.

The Romney people had a fundraiser a day or two ago with the goal of raising a million dollars.  they raised 6.5 million.  A good start.

Mmmmmm.... a nice big glass of cold, homogenized political ideology!  Four out of five doctors surveyed agree a glass daily will help grow strong bones and healthy gums in children! 

Hey, Lundbaek, I agree with you on that it is ethically wrong to force people to buy insurance, but since we live in a flawed system (the only perfect system will be when The Savior reigns and greed has been eliminated), do you think it would be wrong for the government to mandate universal health coverage and then to pay the insurance premiums (yes out of tax funds, but since people wouldn't be footing health insurance premiums out of pocket, the tax paid would likely be less than the cost they pay the insurance company directly, so it would be a net increase of cash in pocket for the citizen) so that everyone's incremental cost to be insured is lowered and no one is without access to basic health care?  I'm not saying the government should pay for everyone's health bill, just the insurance premium (like I mentioned in the other thread).  Would that fit the bill of promoting the general welfare concept as found in the Constitution?  Or is that socialist?

But at least we can feel good about ourselves because feelings are more important that actual results!

Plus, you'll have access to those nice mood-altering medications on your government-mandated prescription plan...

Lundbaek contributed the 1000th post to the Current Events forum.  Doesn't he get some sort of prize?

Cat Herder wrote:

---

Back to topic... no, I haven't jumped on the Mitt band wagon yet.  I am pleased he is seriously looking at running now, but it is a little early to put my eggs in one basket right now.

---

I'm pretty much leaning that way right now.  It is too early for me to make a decision.  I can't just base my support on the fact that he is LDS.  I have to look at all his positions and past performance and compare to the other candidates before determining which one I will be supporting in the primary.  Of course, I would support a training monkey if the only other choice were Hillary!

salesortonscom wrote:

---

Of course, I would support a training monkey if the only other choice were Hillary!

---

Well, I'll see your training monkey and raise... I'd support an untrained monkey that flings the stuff the poo crystals come from at the cage windows if the only other choice were Hillary! 

Something weird is going on.  Any ideas Arbi?

Half of my previous post is not showing up, and I've tried going in and editing it to add it again 4 times now.  Preview shows it, but the thread doesn't, and doesn't even show I've tried editing it.  The post just seems to end in the middle of the e-mail message I was trying to show.