Tag: Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney: A Smooth, Fast-Talking Politician

~ fundyreformed ~ 10 Comments

Okay, I have to vent here about Romney. From the get go, he’s struck me as smooth, fast-talking and the quintessential politician. He says what we want to hear, and he says different things to please different groups of people. I’m sure there is more to him than this, and I’d probably even vote for him if he won the nomination, but my suspicions endure.

Before I air out the dirty laundry here, let me make one thing clear. Huckabee is not my choice because I’m a fundamental Christian. Videos like this one, make me cringe. America is not the Christian land the Bible speaks of. We are wrong to spiritualize politics and I disliked Bush’s many attempts to do just that.

Huckabee, in my view, doesn’t do this. He takes his faith and its morals and applies them to big issues like poverty, health and education. He aims to do what is right, but he isn’t out trying to spiritualize America as the last Christian nation on earth. He may use Biblical tales as metaphors and figures of speech, but he is not trying to win America for the hard Religious right. (They don’t even support him fully.) Sure he is pro-life, and he is a former pastor. But with 10 years of gubernatorial experience, and a record of accomplishing important things in a highly democratic state, Huckabee’s record proves that he aims to bring America up, not into the grips of one particular ideology.

Okay back to Romney. You’re ready to hear me say “flip-flop” right? And Romney supporters roll their eyes.

But wait, let me stress, I welcome conversions to pro-life views and other conservative positions. I genuinely give Romney some benefit of the doubt. But upon looking more closely at other issues, it becomes clear that this conversion may well be a little too politically motivated.

Convenient Exaggerations

In the news recently, Romney has taken flack for claiming to have seen his father march with Martin Luther King, when in fact the evidence strongly points to the contrary. Worse, Romney then tried to spin his former clear statements into literary devices quibbling over the definition of the word “saw” (in Clintonesque fashion).

This reminds us of Romney’s past statements that he was a lifelong hunter, which turned out to be false. And his more recent claim that the NRA endorsed him as a candidate for Governor, when in fact they didn’t.

Converted to the Pro-Life Cause, Or Not?

In light of these convenient mistakes — convenient in that the statements scored points for him at the time, even though they were doubtful in veracity — this excerpt from a Washington Post blog entitled “Mitt Romney’s Flip Flop Flip” should alarm you.

Romney announced his conversion to “pro-life” views in an editorial in the Boston Globe on July 25, 2005, the day after vetoing a bill expanding access to the so-called “morning after” pill, which required that it be made available to rape victims….

That was not the end of the story, however. The controversy over “emergency contraception” continued to haunt Romney. In October 2005, another bill came to his desk, seeking a federal waiver to expand the number of Massachusetts citizens eligible for family planning services, including the “morning after” pill. Romney signed that bill over the objections of his new anti-abortion allies. On this occasion, he was applauded by “pro-choice” advocates.

The issue came up yet again in December 2005. After weeks of agonizing, Romney instructed all hospitals in the state to comply with the terms of the emergency contraception law, and make the morning-after pill available to rape victims. He acted on the advice of his legal counsel, over the objections of half a dozen Catholic hospitals, which had previously refused to provide emergency contraception on the grounds that it conflicted with their religious views.

“Flip,flop,flip,” editorialized the Boston Herald, on December 9, 2005. “Yes, Gov. Mitt Romney has now executed an Olympic-caliber double flip-flop with a gold medal-performance twist-and-a-half on the issue of emergency contraception.”

This raised my eyebrows because it shows that Romney was flip-flopping on the pro-life issue even before he was seriously running for president. And it should cause even more concern in light of his recent and repeated claims that on every bill that came across his desk concerning abortion, he came down firmly on the side of life. “Abortion” maybe, but “pro life issues” not necessarily, or so it seems.

Yet even on abortion, there is cause for concern. On the campaign trail, Romney has repeatedly traced his conversion to a November 2004 meeting with a doctor regarding stem cell embryos. But this ABC News article points out that:

Within two months of his epiphany on this issue, Romney appointed to a judgeship a Democrat who was an avowed supporter of abortion rights.

Notice this wasn’t a “bill” so Romney may be technically correct, yet this is not what a genuinely pro-life governor does. And to add another twist to that story, the doctor involved has publicly disputed Romney’s version of the facts.

Other Flip-Flops

Hold onto your seat, because there are even more evidences of flip-flopping for good ol’ Mitt.

On Reagan

  • In 1994, when running for political office in liberal Massachussetts, he said: “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” — Boston Herald — 10/27/94
  • Now when running for the Republican presidential nomination, he says: “Ronald Reagan is … my hero. … I believe that our party’s ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan’s brand of visionary and courageous leadership.” — Boston Globe — 1/19/07 [HT: Politics & Christianity, drawing from this source, I believe.]

 

On His Desire to Serve in Vietnam

  • “I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam…” — Boston Herald, 5/2/94
  • “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.” — Boston Globe, 6/24/07 [HT: Politics & Christianity, drawing from this source, I believe.]

 

On SCHIP

  • Romney helped expand the federal State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) in Massachusetts by signing a state health care plan depending on SCHIP in 2006.
  • In September 2007, Mitt Romney said he would veto expansions to SCHIP, which Congress passed and President Bush promised to veto. [HT: Politics & Christianity. See also this article for documentation.]

 

Other instances could be given, but many of those could properly be credited to legitimate growing and changing his mind. But all in all, when you add all of this up, the picture becomes fairly convincing that Romney is all talk. Especially when you consider his underhanded (our outright dishonest) campaigning.

So, there you have it. Romney’s Mormonism in no way prejudices me against him. The above mentioned history of political pandering does. And his record on judicial nominations seals the deal.

Religious Bigotry? Mike Huckabee, Mormonism and The New York Times

~ fundyreformed ~ 43 Comments

I hope most Republicans have learned by now that the New York Times and fair journalism are polar opposites. So when the Times takes one short statement out of an 8000 word interview, ignores the context and makes it into a big issue, you’d think Republicans (at least) would know enough to pass this off as leftist bias. Unfortunately that isn’t the case.

Okay then, here’s the scoop. Huckabee was being primed by a reporter to give his judgments on Mormonism and Romney. Huckabee (as he has consistently done in the past), was loathe to comment. He doesn’t think Romney’s Mormonism disqualifies him from the presidency, or that it should be an issue at all. So the reporter, who is also an expert in comparative religion, was pressing the issue. Huckabee at one point thought the reporter knew more about Mormonism than he did, and he innocently asked a clarifying question: “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers?” The original reporter, in the context of his story, explained the question was neutral.

Not so the New York Times. They have read into that statement all kinds of malice. And this is yet another Huckabee attack in the media.

For what it’s worth, Huckabee apologized to Romney, and explained the situation at length in this video, this one, and this one. But perhaps the best response to this uproar is an excellent post by Steven Nielson entitled “I’m no expert on Hinduism, but Don’t Hindus worship cows?” His post is well worth the read, even if you (like me), could care less about yet another New York Times hack job.