Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/election2012/6370/mitt_romney%E2%80%99s_best-known_mormon_critic_tells_it_all._one_last_time.__%7c_election_2012_%7c_/" target="_blank">http://www.religiondispatches....12_%7c_/</a> This piggy-backs off of what I'd posted a week ago about what kind of President Mitt Romney would be based off of his Mormonism. I argued then, and still do, that magic underwear and Kolob are not the issues you want to focus on. Judy Dushku, a really terrific lady, talks about her association for years with Romney in Boston as a member of his congregation. This interview with her is worth your time. Here's a couple of interesting passages: >>I told him I was interested in politics, that I heard he was taking a pro-choice stance [during his Senate campaign], and that I was wondering if, as a Democrat and fellow Mormon, maybe I could work for him. I wanted to understand his stance better. “Yes, I’m definitely for choice,” he said. And I said, “Great, we agree on that.” Then, he said, “In Salt Lake, they told me it was okay to take that position in a liberal state.” I said, “That doesn’t make me quite as happy. I’d rather know you really believe it.”<< >>If you were ever at a ward party and sat down with your plate of food and found yourself at a table with Mitt and five other men, you would just expect that you wouldn’t be in the conversation. No one was particularly unkind, but there was an in-group made of up those who were in the circle of male leaders—many Harvard Business School types—and their wives. I was spouseless, and I didn’t live in Belmont, but Watertown, which is economically less privileged. I tried and always came to church, but it was often awkward.<<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Then, he said, “In Salt Lake, they told me it was okay to take that position in a liberal state.” I was slammed by Josh for saying that the Mormons are okay with "Lying for the Lord", but this seems to support my assertion. <a href="http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord" target="_blank">http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lyin...the_Lord</a>
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Thanks, ecdc and TS, for the links. Josh can continue to deny the charge that he's only voting for Romney because he's a Mormon, but I'll continue to disbelieve him. It's been obvious from the start that Massachusetts Mitt was a totally different iteration than the Mitt we're seeing now, because Massachusetts is a mostly liberal state, like California. I have no doubt whatsoever that Mitt said these things, nor do I doubt that conservative Mormon politicians take marching orders from LDS Salt Lake.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<I have no doubt whatsoever that Mitt said these things, nor do I doubt that conservative Mormon politicians take marching orders from LDS Salt Lake.>> That's a little bit of a reach, IMO. There are Mormon politicians of all different persuasions who are deemed faithful members in good standing with the church. What of Harry Reid, the Udals, etc.? If church leaders have sway on their policies, what then accounts for the variety these men as opposed to uniformity (which, if the premise is true, would be the result, correct)? Nor do they tell us how to vote, even if a Mormon is running. Here's another interesting piece. <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54826919-90/utah-democrats-reid-lds.html.csp" target="_blank">http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/p...html.csp</a> With that said, I don't doubt Mrs. Dushku account for a moment. Romney is a untrustworthy, chameleon politician who will conform himself into whatever he feels would please the present audience. Excellent find, ecdc!
Originally Posted By wahooskipper How many politicians on either side of the aisle can you really say you "trust"? I'm not trying to defend Romney because I agree...I don't trust him either. Then again, I don't trust Obama. If I had to think really hard about politicians I trust I don't think I would come up with many.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Well, there are some I can think of off the top of my head, (and, I have to admit, I don't disagree with some of the things he didn't do but it goes to the heart of the trust issue): Gitmo Bush Tax Cuts Transparent Process for Health Care Reform Going to war without approval of Congress But, by and large it isn't an issue I have solely with Obama. I think elected officials are in the business of getting reelected first and foremost and that discolors the entire process.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda << I think elected officials are in the business of getting reelected first and foremost and that discolors the entire process.>> Hence the need for term limits. One term only. Maybe make the term longer, such as 6 years for a president. For a president, the first year is learning the job, the second year is doing the job, the third year is getting to run for reelection, and the fourth year is running for reelection.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Oh, one more thing. For those against term limits this strict, how about you can't serve CONSECUTIVE terms?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There might be some merit in the idea of officials not being able to serve consecutive terms. The problem with term limits, as we are finding out in Florida, is that you are left with a ton of inexperience that can be easily manipulated by the minority that might have experience. It is taking a long time for our new representatives to get up to speed and by that point they are on the way out the door. Both chambers have become largely ineffective.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The problem with term limits, as we are finding out in Florida, is that you are left with a ton of inexperience that can be easily manipulated by the minority that might have experience.<< This is an important point. I still prefer that voters enforce their own term limits -- by voting someone they're unhappy with out of office.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Harry Reid converted to the LDS as an adult and has faced criticism from the LDS because of his positions on gay marriage. He never held high offices within the LDS like Romney did, and his ancestors were not among the founding members of it.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It seems like people really want term limits for other people's representatives, but not their own. Here in Washington, the people in Spokane voted out their congressman, who was Speaker of the House, in favor of a guy who mostly ran on term limits. When he faced the amount of time in Congress that he himself thought no congressman should ever serve longer than, he ran for re-election and won. He was a Republican, of course.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I think candidates on both sides are often "pro term limits" publicly because that seems to be the predominant sentiment across the country. Then, they enjoy the comforts of elected office after getting in and their tune changes. Nothing new here.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'm not aware of any Democratic members of Congress who are in favor of term limits. I'm sure that there are a few, but they are in the minority.
Originally Posted By andyll <<Gitmo Bush Tax Cuts Transparent Process for Health Care Reform Going to war without approval of Congress>> This highlights the problem Obama has. Wahooskipper is not an Obama hater but look at the issues he has a problem with: Gitmo - Obama signed an executive order his 1st month in office shutting it down. Congress blocked it. HCR - I don't get this one. I followed this daily because it is important to me. This year long process was as transparent as anything I can think of. It was congress anyway... not obama. Bush tax cuts - You can lay this on on the gutless democrats in the house. They should have taken care of it when they had the super majority but were afraid too. After the 2010 elections... there is no way they could have passed a bill that allowed them to expire only for the rich and the CBO was saying letting them all expire could put us back into a recession. By delaying the battle for a year they made it a non-issue for the election. If they continue next year then I'll agree with you. What war? The usa took the lead in a limited NATO action that even the Arab League supported. Under the war powers act it was justified otherwise you would have seen the house impeach him
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Thanks, Andy, for taking the time to refute wahoo's criticisms regarding Obama. It highlights a very important problem with the majority of Obama's critics: They base their dislike/mistrust/hatred of Obama on falsehoods and misinformation. These people think they know the truth, that they have all the facts, when in reality, they don't. Gitmo is a classic example. Several times Donny has made the same complaint that wahoo made in this thread, that Obama didn't close Gitmo like he promised on the campaign trail. Well... Obama did sign an executive order to close it. But Congress has tied the President's hands with their NIMBY attitude about transferring the prisoners stateside or to other countries. Congress won't even let the prisoners be tried in criminal court as was done with Moussaoui. That begs the question: How is Obama -- or any other President -- supposed to close Gitmo if Congress won't allow the prisoners to be transferred, tried, or released? This isn't Obama's fault. The blame belongs squarely on Congress.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper If that all is true, and I take exception to the transparent health care reform, the tax cuts and to some extent the war in Libya (if W had done that Obama would have roasted it for him), then I pose these questions: How come the great mediator couldn't get his party in line with him early on when they had the power in Congress? And, how come the Great Communicator can't seem to get the message across that it isn't his fault? Independents will decide this election and I'm trying to stay objective to the end and he hasn't sold me. Of course, neither has the other guy.
