Debby Hartman sent this to Tara the other day and I thought you might enjoy it.
Top ten reasons to vote for a Mormon President
10) The National Cathedral could be renamed the National Tabernacle
9) NASA could commission a satellite to "hie to Kolob"
8) The Secret Service could be renamed the Sacred Service
7) All official government prayers could include the phrase "that we
all can get home safely"
6) Napoleon Dynamite could get someone other than Pedro elected
5) The President could not only explain things in Layman's terms, but
also Lemuel's terms
4) The President could issue pardons in exchange for 100% home
teaching
3) Not only could he pronounce "Nuclear" but also "Mahonri
Moriancumer" and "Maher Shalal Hash Baz".
2) At his inauguration he would swear on the Bible "as far as it is
translated correctly"
1) Finally a first family large enough to fill up the White House
Bottom line . . . Romney has always been opposed to gay marriage and civil unions and he has always been against discrimination (and therefore "unequal or lesser rights") of gays and lesbians. Those are the facts, no matter how anyone else tries to paint them. These pieces take Romney's statements wildly out of context and try to get the reader to believe that there is no room for someone to be against sexual-orientation discrimination and in favor of preserving the traditional family unit.
BOSTON GLOBE--Gov. Mitt Romney's beliefs on gay issues are under scrutiny after the re-emergence of a letter he wrote during his 1994 run for U.S. Senate in which he promised a gay Republicans group he would be a stronger advocate for gays than Sen. Edward Kennedy.
One paragraph and one lie already . . . Romney never promised to be "a stronger advocate for gays" than Teddy . . . he promised to be a more effective leader and a more respectable voice against gay-discrimination. Romney IS an effective leader and he made some good points about Romney, as a Republican, could be a more effective voice among possible Senate colleagues than Teddy on these issues.
"I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts."
SEE, IT'S ALL ABOUT ROMNEY BEING ANTI-DISCRIMINATION . . . NOT about him wanting to grant special rights and priviledges to gays.
Romney even ended his interview:
I believe that while I would further the efforts Ted Kennedy has led, I would also lead the country in new and far more positive ways in taxing and spending, welfare reform, criminal justice and education. That's why I believe many gay and lesbian individuals will support my candidacy and do support my candidacy.
Romney wasn't trying to be more "pro-gay" than Kennedy, and he realized that it was these other issues would draw some gay voters to him.
What Romney actually said:
On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:
“I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.”
On whether he’d want more studies done on the marriage issue:
“That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.”
--Credits: A little of James, the Boston Globe, and mostly the Free Republic
I understand Romney on this issue. I am also a Mormon who is adamantly against abortion and have been all my life. However, the legality of the issue has always confused me. This, I feel is mostly due to the lack of personal experience regarding the issue and our firm belief that all men and women have been endowed with the inherent rights of freedom to act according to their own consciences. We call this free agency and speak to it often. Four years ago, however I started medical school and I was brought to deal with these issues head on, as I imagine Romney did as Governor dealing with stem cell issues. Recently as I interviewed a patient in the emergency department, I asked what had become of her previous pregnancies. 'Elective abortion' was the reply. This struck me clearly with a profound change of heart. It seemed so routine and casual. It seemed as though there were children that were discarded to prevent a shift in lifestyle or schedule. I can understand a sudden change of heart on this issue. I had the exact feeling that Romney had -- that our culture has dramatically cheapened life. I also felt that it had to change. So to me an experience like Romney's is not too far fetched. In fact I would imagine that the vast majority of pro-lifers could point to an experience of seeing an unborn on ultrasound moving, or another experience as motivating them in their pro-life stance. So I believe that the pro-life movement could accept Romney with welcoming arms, as he represents all of us.
--Andrew
One of the biggest reasons that Mitt will have a hard time at his run for prez is that the Republicans have already religionized their party in favor of the Evangelicals who are, as we know, no fans of Mormonism. Two words- Southern baptists. Enough said.
This poll shows that the majority of Evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon in a presidential race. Why does this matter? Because without the Evangelical vote, the Republicans don't have a chance in '08. (See! I told you all this mixing of religion and politics would come back to bite the conservatives in the keister!)
In order for Mitt to even have a chance, he has had to try and distance himself from his moderate past and make himself more of a picture of conservatism, even to the point of supporting torture.
Now he is distancing himself from the moderate voters who elected him Governor in the most liberal state in the nation. Was his religion a question then? No. Will it be for the conservative christians and their Biblical Jesus? Yup. Reid has risen to the tops of the Democratic leadership with no whining about his religion, in fact I think it makes him more appealing because Democrats are looking for moral stability in their own party. I think Mitt would have had a chance if he would have stuck to his moderate roots or if he were a liberal. But now, I'm afraid he will be looked at as a goofball by the Dems and as an unacceptable choice by conservatives, no matter how hard he tries to remake himself in the image of the great God of conservatism.
I think a Mormon would have a great shot at being president if he were a Democrat. There is a great appeal for moderate conservatives who would find a lot in common with his conservative background and for Democrats, well we all know they need some moral direction. That's the great thing about the Democratic part, they are accepting of ALL people, not just rich, white Evangelical Christians. (Low blow! Just kidding!). Seriously, the Mormon thing will be a huge issue, no matter how much we would like to think we live in an enlightened society- there are still millions of idiots out there. Like this guy.
I have no doubts Mitt was a wonderful Bishop and a fantastic Stake Pres. I bet he does his home teaching even in October AND December. But, in a system where you have to remake yourself to fit into the mold of the party, and that party is pinning it's hopes on the conservative Christians- he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in Texas.
As for his 'conversion' to pro-life, as you called it James, all I have to say is that I think that is a particularly interesting choice of words. I, for one, try not to confuse religion and politics. I didn't work particularly well for the Church of England and I think it isn't going so great for the conservatives. When we start thinking about converting ourselves or others to our way of thinking in politics we are going down the wrong road.
"Hi, we are personal representatives of President George Bush. We would love to tell you, and your family, about his plan for us."
I'm not so sure that I would clump Romney in the same category as most politicians. He is and always has been a shrewd businessman with a proven record of turning debts into surpluses. You may think that his political games and words are empty..........but ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS (or even books about hope).
With a name like Romney, I'm not terribly terrified that he will shame the church. As a former bishop and stake president, I think his credentials deserve some sort of character trust.........If the Lord trusts him????? Not that we should just throw our faith and trust around......but is it okay to give a person a benefit of a doubt--especially when there aren't any substantial doubts at this point?
Who cares that our religion will be a topic (can it be worse than Big Love or FLDS issues)? What happens when bigotry is exposed? People become educated and hopefully more tolerant. (That's why I am a true supporter of free speech--hate speeches included--I prefer that to sweeping things under a rug and pretending they don't exist). You know, people will get so bored about hearing about Mormonism that I don't even think it will be an issue. Not supporting someone because he is of the same religion, is like the scenario of many blacks (Al Sharpton) not supporting Obama. That said, vote and support the person who you would think would do the best job. Let's not forget THAT THE STANDARD OF TRUTH HAS BEEN ERECTED--what the heck is there to fear!!!? The church is in good hands....even if we end up the target of jokes for a while.
The argument to support Obama because of his lack of experience (comparing him to someone with more experience like Bush) is scrawny. Lack of experience (regardless of what you think of Bush) should never be viewed as a strength. What happens when someone is choking in a room full of people who don't have experience with the Heimlick maneuver? Some say that Obama is probably less corrupt because of his lack of experience. I say that he is MORE CORRUPTIBLE because of it.
There are many comparisons between Kerry and Romney..........usually from people who supported Kerry........so I find the "flip-flop" name calling is extremely hypocritical. That said, I think the comparison is unfair. The difference from what I've gathered is this: Kerry would say one thing and vote another, while Romney has always been open with his conversions and was careful not to break his supporters' trust. Here's an example--Romney was elected as a "pro-choice" governor; despite his conversion to pro-life (he was always pro-life on a personal basis) he did not seek to change the state laws in place because of his obligation to the voters. But he stayed true to his new stance by disapproving NEW law proposals (4 of them in fact). About him saying that he would fight for gays harder than even Kennedy, not only was that over a decade ago, but gay marriage wasn't even legal at that time. Besides, fighting for gay rights and redefining marriage are separate issues despite the entanglements.
It is quite possible that some of my views will change tommorrow.........and that is the way it should be. I find it interesting that many people think that Mitt should still be pro-choice regardless of his epiphany...........that is unwise, unfair, and can halter one's life progression (pun intended).
I have just recently started reading the book Good to Great authored by Jim Collins. The opening paragraph states, "We don't have great schools, principally because we have good schools. We don't have great government, principally because we have good government. Few people attain great lives, in large part because it is just so easy to settle for a good life." Me thinks we would all concur with the idea that we really haven't had any good government. I think we would all also agree that whatever it would take to make government great, we would embrace it. (Stay with me Josh...) Please look at the history of good to great of Mit Romney. Capital venturist took 11 companies nearly in bankruptcy, (our national debt is now trillions) to exceptionally profitable powerhouses. The 2002 Olympics was laced with bribery scandel, in debt, and behind construction schedule. (Scooter Libby and Abramoff, Iraq, and New Orleans). The Olympics were amazing. He cleaned up the scandel, was the first to turn an olympics profitable in nearly 75 years, and had every venue ready to go ahead of the olympic deadline. There is zero doubt that Mit Romney took not good cirumstances and turned them into great ones. What makes us think his presidency would be any different? Will it be scary to have a Mormon president? I think it will be. I will be on pins and needles every day hoping that the month Mit paid 9% instead of 10% when he was 18 doesn't creep up on him. This guy is as clean as a whistle. Could I be wrong, yes. But prove me otherwise. No one can debate that he is the most moral, and straight laced candidate we have right now. No way Guliani is. There is just something wierd about moving in with a single man and living with him for over two years, then sending divorce papers to his wife. I see a scandel brewing. We are at a turning point in American politics. Never before has there been such a diverse field of candidates. A woman, an african american, and a Mormon. Let the fun begin...
Obama, Obama, Obama....................What is this media obsession with Obama? I won't buy the argument that he's the first black man blah blah blah (Rev. Jackson comes to mind). In the upcoming election we have a woman, a POW survivor, a 911 hero, a Mormon.............oh wait, they don't have Oprah's endorsement. I truly feel like the everpresent media has it as a goal to get the man elected. Furthermore, is the media being fair in their coverage of possible candidates...........hmmm NO! I understand that Mitt does not have Rock Star status, but his past accomplishments outshine anything the 2 year Senator has accomplished--yet Romney's announcement got 1/54 the coverage as Obama's announcement. I know, I know............there's this book: The Audacity of Hope. Since when was hope taboo? What candidate do we have that doesn't hope for a better future................I should really read this self-endorsing book, but I can't stomach his unfounded popularity to get through the first pages.
Oh, and what makes this worse..........my wife adores him!
I won't say anything about our dedication but, at least we're passionate when we the feeling strikes us.
I thought I would be the next to break the silence and I thought I would start another thing for us to do on the blog.
I don't know how many times I've heard Lincoln say something so childishly prosaic that I swore I would write it down before I forgot it. I never do it though- and I've forgotten most of them.
So, here's my resolution. I'm going to try and share the funny things my kids say with you. It won't take long to write and it will probably be much more interesting than my typical liberal drivel.
First one: Lincoln came to visit me for lunch one day. We were walking out of my work toward the car when Lincoln saw some trash in the parking lot. He tugged my hand, scowled his face, pointed at the 7-11 wrapper and said,
"Look, daddy. Somebody glittered!"
Also, we put a whole bunch of new stuff on our family blog, including lots of pictures of Oliver. Go check it out!