…and in the Church…should watch this entire video.
To sum up: Mitt Romney was secretly videotaped by an Iowa radio show host. The host then starts claiming Romney violated Church rules by at one time supporting abortion rights. Romney is visibly upset and gives some testy responses. Then, during a break, Romney gets into an incredible debate with the radio host that touches on Cleon Skousen, Mormon doctrine and many other interesting topics.
Could I please ask that nobody comment on this until they have watched the entire video, which is 20 minutes long? Some of the best bits are near the end. Thanks.
Some quick thoughts:
1)We get to see another side of Mitt in this video, the fired-up business leader debating the big issues.
2)Mitt is visibly upset that the host seems to be trying to peg him as “the Mormon candidate” as says several times he “not running as the Mormon candidate.”
3)Mitt points out several times that there are Church leaders who are pro-choice. His logic will be very reassuring to denizens of the Bloggernacle. He basically says that the Church allows people to have different views, including being pro-choice.
4)I doubt Cleon Skousen will ever get this much play in a media event ever again. Two of his books are mentioned!
5)Mitt’s campaign is promoting this video, but I am not convinced it is an overwhelmingly positive view of the candidate. It’s nice to see how knowledgeable and logical Mitt is on the issues, and it’s great to see him getting in the trenches to debate these issues, but I’m sure we’ll get people who react negatively to this video, perhaps even here on this blog!
It was good to see Mitt take the gloves off.
Well, he didn’t do a very good job of quoting Isaiah 2:3
But I like the separation of church and state Romney better than the pandering Romney. He did a good job standing up for himself and not letting the interviewer shoehorn him into some predetermined category.
Still difficult for me to figure out if the old Romney or the new Romney, both or neither, is authentic. Changing his abortion views based on a stem-cell bill seems a little stretching it to me, but my vote is not going to hinge on that issue anyway.
I thought he came off well. I read through the comments over on Politico.com following a Jonathan Martin blog posting and the consensus appeared to be that the host was obnoxious and Romney showed that he won’t be pushed around.
Mitt Romney is certainly eloquent and knowledgeable. But I don’t think anyone ever doubted that, considering his success in public and private life. So the video only really provides evidence of what everyone already knew.
Personally I’m more concerned about his stance on the issues, like his chimerical linking of 9/11 with Iraq and his recent flopping into bed with the right-wing conservative Christians on abortion and stem cell research.
(Required positive comment: Nice guy, nice family.)
Interesting interview. Romney handled himself extremely well. I admire Romney as a person, though, I am not sold on his politics.
I was a huge Romney fan until he started massively flip flopping and pandering to Evangelicals. I think his pretending to be a hunter and shooter when he wasn’t was the last straw. I’m hoping Thompson gets in things. (Rumor is that he’s held off due to NBC and Law and Order repeats)
I’m basically an “anyone but Hilary” person in this upcoming election, although I fear she’ll win the Democratic nomination and then the election.
his chimerical linking of 9/11 with Iraq and his recent flopping into bed with the right-wing conservative Christians on abortion and stem cell research
Awesome. And he’s a nice guy with a nice family to boot? Sign me up.
Clark: Hillary had absolutely no chance of winning in 2008 because of widespread voter antipathy toward her. But the Bush presidency has been such a train wreck that I believe she has a good shot at winning the White House.
Adam: You might want to look up “chimerical” in the dictionary. 🙂
Its not everyone, Mike Parker, who can link 9-11 and Iraq using a fire-breathing lion-headed snake-goat.
I LOVE the way everyone has glommed onto the “Romney flip-flop” factor –
hello? politicians “flip” on their positions ALL the time, what is new here? Oh, yeah, Romney is a MORMON, therefore he is supposed to be perfect in all things – at least, that is how it comes off in discussions/debates about Romney’s “flips”……
Joseph Smith rightly told his detractors that if they expect him to be perfect, he will expect them to be perfect. I plan on judging all the candidates against each other first, THEN seriously attempting to determine how I believe they will act on what comes up in office, as hard as that will be.
I have a dream – that the “public” will not be so easily led in what is considered “substantive” issues, i.e., “did Hillary show too much cleavage?” – yes, take that to mean this “flipping” by Romney
One of my (many) hangups over Romney is the “Venture Capitalist-in-Chief” persona. I don’t know if launching Staples and a host of other companies is *really* the experience we want in the White House. A “just get it done” mindset is often at odds in government, where you have to balance principles more complicated than a bottom-line. Yes, saving the Olympics is impressive. But he had the ability to be fairly autocratic in that role — something that just doesn’t work in Washington. We need someone that can govern, not someone who will likely require every ounce of executive privilege to get anything done.
Re his being a one-term (and not likely to have been reelected) Governor of Massachusetts — it’s not any more impressive than Dubya being Governor of Texas (where he had extremely little power). I saw Dubya up close for 6-7 years here in TGSOT.
I want to believe, I really, really do — in light of the fact that Hillary is the presumptive Democrat nominee — but Romney’s not showing me that he’s anything but a slicker, more self-assured version of Dubya.
I just don’t know if I want another “businessman” running the country.
Adam:
chimerical (adjective):
1. unreal; imaginary; visionary: a chimerical terrestrial paradise.
2. wildly fanciful; highly unrealistic: a chimerical plan.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=chimerical
The 9/11 attacks had absolutely nothing to do with Saddam Hussein or the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Ron Paul rightly pointed this out in the last Republican debate, and Mitt Romney tried to interrupt with “has he forgotten about 9/11?”
Here’s the video:
Paul’s comment begins about 1:50, and Romney’s interjection is about 2:25.
My number one reason for not supporting Romney? His support for continuing Bush’s illegal, unconstitutional, disastrous nation-building experiment in Iraq, along with his support for continued violations of basic human and civil rights (he wants to “double Guantanamo”).
I honestly don’t care how eloquent he is about the finer points of Mormon doctrine. If he even has to distort the basic facts about the run-up to the Iraq invasion to support his views, I have no interest in supporting him.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060013
Sorry, Geoff. I forgot my obligatory positive statement in my last comment:
Nice hair.
Surprising as it may seem to you, Mike P., I do have some passing familiarity with the meaning of chimerical and with garden-variety leftist rhetoric on Iraq. You couldn’t have known this, of course, but I frequent parts of the ‘internet’ that use words and sometimes mention politics.
It may surprise you to know, Adam, since your passing familiarity with leftist rhetoric stems mostly from its caricature in the increasingly ghettoized right-wing blogosphere, that not only is Ron Paul not a leftist, but neither are the majority of the opponents of Bush’s policies in Iraq, policies Romney has long endorsed, despite recent distancing attempts.
And he’s playing the fool and pandering to the worst among us on immigration.
Bill: Thank you for the clarification. I am far from a “leftist” and despise most of their agenda. In fact I would still be a Republican if they hadn’t abandoned virtually all of the small-government principles they embraced until around 1996.
Mark B.: I think you’re confusing Ron Paul with Tom Tancredo, whose single-issue platform and thinly-concealed racism I personally abhor.
Why does the word “soci@list” trigger the comment blocking algorithm?
Mike Parker –
take out “so” at the beginning and “t” at the end, and you get the name of a drug that shows up in many a spam.
c
i
a
l
i
s
Re 16 and 17:
Mark B. may have been referring to Romney. But there’s no doubt Tancredo is the ultimate demagogue on the issue.
hello? politicians “flip” on their positions ALL the time, what is new here? Oh, yeah, Romney is a MORMON, therefore he is supposed to be perfect in all things – at least, that is how it comes off in discussions/debates about Romney’s “flips”……
I don’t think that’s the reason. I’ve felt similarly about other politicians. And of course politicians have to compromise. Indeed compromise with others is the essence of politics. (Something far too many activists forget)
What is different about Romney is just how glaring, pandering, and blatant the flip flops are. Ditto with other figures. It makes one question whether we can trust them on the issues at all. Clearly many, if not all politicians, say what the will to be elected – often with no intention of following through. I think we all have to fight back against this.
Both Romney and Clinton just bother me immensely by how calculated and frankly manipulative they are of the process.
And I say that suspecting I’d agree with Romney on many matters and recognizing that in many ways Clinton is more reasonable on many issues (such as Iraq) than her main competitors (Edwards and Obama)
[blockquote]My number one reason for not supporting Romney? His support for continuing Bush’s illegal, unconstitutional, disastrous nation-building experiment in Iraq, along with his support for continued violations of basic human and civil rights (he wants to “double Guantanamo”).[/blockquote]
Mike- I don’t want to threadjack here, but I have to call this. Iraq isn’t and never was a nation-building experiment. The real goal with Iraq was to put a huge Western military presence in radical Islam’s backyard and relocate the front of the war on terror. It was a good idea. And I had no problem with it from a legal or constitutional standpoint. Is it disastrous? Well, it’s a mess, but if we are to believe some of the stuff coming from the NY Times lately, things aren’t looking as bad there as most leftists and Ron Paul groupies would like it to look.
Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, but it has everything to do with it. Agree with that assertion or not, if you don’t understand the Bush’s rational on that, it’s not worth arguing over.
Tossman:
A unique interpretation of events. Since “the front” was Afghanistan, a location already in “radical Islam’s backyard” (even more so than Iraq) why would there be a need to relocate it? I don’t think the facts of history or statements from the administration back your reasoning.
I’m constantly amused at how, with things going badly in Iraq, the Bushies don’t blame their President — they blame the media for simply reporting the facts on the ground. You can build as many schools as you want, but it doesn’t counterbalance the hundreds of thousands dead; the millions who have fled, been displaced, or become refugees; the lack of electricity and other basic services in Baghdad; the torture and death squads; the revenge killings; and the fact that our actions there have created more people willing to fight us than existed before we entered (not to mention the youth of Iraq, many of whom will grow up hating us).
Iraq did not attack us on 9/11 or at any other time, and that has everything to do with it. No, I don’t understand Bush’s rationale on Iraq, but it is worth arguing over because we face two clear futures: One of total power vested solely in a tyrannical executive, or one of a return to the constitutional principles of limited government with checks and balances.
And since I don’t want to threadjack, Romney’s biggest problem is that he supports more of the former and less of the latter.
I’m not a “Bushie” and I do blame the president. I will admit, un-PC as it sounds, I’m not way concerned about Iraqi refugees. Iraq is at the same stage in recovery as a cancer patient is the day after surgery. Technically, you could say the surgeon came in, cut you open, and screwed up your body. But while he was at it, he removed a deadly cancer. Are you worse off now?
As far as location goes, Iraq is smack dab between the shia and sunni Muslim strongholds in the region. Afghanistan is not. If you want to keep them both in check (since Syria is related to most other problems in the ME, including Palestine/Lebanon and Iran is, well, Iran), Iraq is the perfect place to set up shop.
One of the areas I fault the Bush admin for is the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. They used the WMD argument, which was the best argument at the time. But that’s not why we went there. That was the excuse we used.
The way I see it, we must choose between a president that understands the threat of radical Islam and has the balls to do something about it, and a president that will simply ignore the problem. If Romney will be the former, he’s got my vote.
Mitt Romney, as a person and a business man is brilliant. I admire him on that side. I also acknowledge what a good governor he was in Boston. To the video I applaud how he separates Church and State with the Church ruling, yet he clearly confuses a bit, and you can clearly see and notice he’s flip-flops for political gain.
TO those of you who don’t agree on getting mad at Mitt Romney for flip-flopping because he is a political figure. WHAAAAAT? heh. I don’t agree on voting for Mitt Romney just because he’s a Mormon. I look in a political figure further then that. The issues. The issues are what matter and the knowledge that the persona has about current affairs.
I had high hopes on Mitt Romney when I heard he was running for president, as a possible solution to the Republican party mess ( Corruption, dishonesty, and abuse of power during the Bush administration ), but when I started hearing he’s change in ideas out of the blue, with a clear alienation with the hardcore right wing of America ( to the likes of Rumnsfeld type of supporters ) I became very hesitant. When I started hearing deeper on he’s ideas of issues such as Iraq, Inmigration, Environment I was shock and saddened.
Ive been studying as major in International Relations ( Political Sciences, International Businesses ) for about 2 years, and this has led me to read a varied amount of publications, peer-reviewed articles and just outside media such as NPR and BBC, CSPAN and the likes( Non that is Fox, CNN, or any other American Mainstream media ), it’s hard not to see and realize what is really going on in the world and our Nation. Mitt Romney is just following on Bush’s footsteps with a spin just to appeal to the hardcore mass of Evangelicals in this Nation. I know Mormons aren’t like that . Other thing I don’t understand is how people can see Hilary as more evil then Bush kind of comments. Look at the broad spectrum, the true American values and what it once was a respected Diplomacy.
I don’t really see any candidate in the Republican party that would deserve my vote purely on the issues. Democratic party I’m not too happy with what they have to offer either. ALthough Barack Obama could make a good candidate down the road once he has a lot more experience, and if you’ve heard Hillary, I agree with a lot more on the most important issues of this nation. Now it’s funny to see how everyone would probably label me as liberal ? heh but I just can’t seem to agree on the War on Iraq and screwing up our environment further, and fixing our local issues such as the Economy, Inmigration Reform, and now Infrastructure which is now been said that too much money has gone to Iraq that our Infrastructure has been damped by it. Mitt Romney just makes an excellent Businessman, hoping that he could just come out, talk to outside leaders and look at things from the outside perspective.
Tossman:
Your surgeon analogy is a helpful one, but it doesn’t go quite far enough. The situation is much more like a surgeon going in against your will to remove a deadly tumor, but in the process causing massive internal bleeding and infecting all the other patients in the ward. Are you better off? Are the other patients? No, and no.
I suppose the real difference between us, then, is in how we see the limits of power and in what is appropriate use of US military power in foreign policy.
Jim Babka, president of DownsizeDC, wrote the following just this morning:
I think this accurately sums up the real issue. “The thread of radical Islam” is nothing more than the use of FUD by the neoconservatives in order to obtain and maintain political power.
I don’t know what scares me more- radical Islam or Americans who discount it.
It may surprise you, Bill, but when I’ve watched Ron Paul in the various Republican debates, I formed the impression that he was there because he was some kind of Republican. This flash of insight may have been statistically rare for a stupid and gullible pawn of the ghettoized right-wing blogosphere such as myself, but it did occur.
Tossman:
A great President — one certainly much greater than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — once boldly told the American people “that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself–nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.”
You have nothing to fear from radical Islam. Your chances of being hurt by a terrorist attack are infinitesimally small. You are far, far more likely to die by slipping in your own bathroom, or even from a rare genetic disease or from being struck by lightning.
Those in power who have a vested interest in keeping that power — be they on the political right or left — will use any means to do so. One of the best is the spread of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. “You need them, otherwise you would be in mortal danger,” so the thinking goes. And yet, curiously, it is they themselves that create those dangers that keep FUD alive. They WANT you to be scared.
You can win “the war on terror” TODAY by simply refusing to be scared. When you begin to act and vote from reason rather than emotion, you are truly free.
Mike- Please tell me you’re kidding.
I don’t define my concern about the threat of radical islam by the soul factor of my chances of dying as the result of it. Radical Islam poses many, many threats to Western Society. The cultural and political ramifications are vast.
I may not die, but my kids’ kids may one day live as dhimmis under shari’a law.
Sorry, but refusing to be scared of radical Islam will no more eliminate the problem than refusing to be scared of my bills will get them paid.
Tossman,
Paying $500 for a bill that only required $20 is a more apt analogy here.
Are there dangers in the world that need to be met? Of course. But invading and occupying a Middle East country that posed no threat to us in order to “fight terror” makes as much sense as pouring gasoline on your house in hopes it will stop a fire.
You don’t seriously believe we’re only one generation from sharia law in the United States, do you?
Mike Parker,
Is it posible for you to consider that what you choose to call overreaction was really a case of the administration erring on the side of caution?
Also, is it possible for you to consider that those who oppose the adminstration’s actions are themselves overreacting, sorry, make that VASTLY OVERREACTING, with the exagerrated rants about Dubya shredding a copy of the constitution every day, etc.
Your psionic abilities apparently surpass mine. I have a nagging suspicion that I can’t make all the determined, organized, and hateful Islamic militants disappear simply by choosing not to be scared of them.
Despite the naivety of John Edwards the War on Terror is not a bumper sticker slogan. There are people that want to kill us. You are free to stick your head in the sand as you wish but I will continue to vote and support leaders like President Bush that will do something about it.
Tossman
Have you ever considered or thought about what has sparked and is fueling extremists now a-days? .
What the US is doing now is supporting Bin Ladin’s wishes. Al Quaeda is bigger then ever, the recruiting has expanded so has the hatred. Bin Laden wanted the United States to do what is doing now, did you not realize that? Did You not know that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies too? ( Everyone knows there’s 0 connection between Saddam and 9/11 ).
Sadly, all the efforts and intelligence has been switched into Iraq instead of what could have been all focused into Pakistan and Afghanistan where the real Killer’s are hiding.
I might as well bring into consideration the Why President Bush let go around 100+ Saudis flee from the US, some kin to Bin Laden in a time when the Aero Space was Shut Down, instead of holding them for interrogation ( Terrorists are all Saudies, yet they are allies ). People forget about facts this days. Wouldn’t it be logical to hold anyone that might know anything about Bin Laden?? I guess not.
Communication and understanding is Key in Foreign Policy, something this Adminstration has lacked big time … ( like forgetting about Palestine and Israel problem too ).
I just pop in once in awhile. I have a perverse but fortunately only occassional interest in the blogoshpere. This is a great reminder of why I like my Sacrament Meeting Mormons and not any other kind.
Boy, did this thread go off track. Mike, for the record, you were the primary ‘jacker, way back in #12. I don’t think you’re convincing anybody with your anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war rants. Libertarians just don’t get it: Ron Paul comes across to most of America as completely wacky. I know you and a small group of vocal fanatics are watching him salivating at all the air time for a fringe candidate, but his position on Iraq is isolationist, short-sighted and dangerous for America. And the problem is that this makes normally rational people like yourself think that if you keep on repeating “illegal,” “unconstitutional,” “disastrous” enough times you might convince somebody. But of course if you were to stop and think you would know that that is not how you convince people.
Sorry I was not around to keep this thread on track. The real world got in the way.
So far the most interesting and on-topic comments have been #11 and #25.
Just a reminder: Mitt did not even discuss Iraq in the video. It was mostly about abortion, the Church’s position on abortion and Constitutional issues. There were lots of interesting things there for Mormon intellectuals and even two references to Cleon Skausen.
I’m sure I’ll post on Iraq sometime again in the next month or so. Could I ask everybody to save their invective — and the occasional praise — until then? Thanks.
I suppose “erring on the side of caution” is in the eye of the beholder. While I had concerns about our use of military force in Afghanistan, I at least recognized that he had something approaching a right to do what we did. But I can quite honestly see no justification for attacking Iraq — a sovereign nation against whom we did not declare war, who had never threatened us, and for which we had to manufacture evidence to provide a reason for attacking.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration at all to accuse the Bush administration of violating habeas corpus (a right in the constitution itself) as well as major portions of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
But since so few people are aware of what rights these Amendments guarantee, and since so many in the legislative and judiciary branches of government are willing to ignore the constitution in the name of “the greater good,” I’m angry and saddened, but not surprised.
Of course not. But you CAN act from ration and reason rather than emotion. Ration and reason would call for a much more limited police-style anti-terrorist effort. Instead, emotion ruled the day and we created a problem much, much worse than the one we originally had.
What on earth makes you believe I’m a John Edwards supporter? His campaign is based solely on class-warfare, and I find it shockingly repulsive.
I am certainly not sticking my head in the sand. But neither am I willing to use a sledgehammer to drive nails, which has been the policy of this administration.
And considering that this is a Mormon blog, I’m surprised that virtually no one seems to think that D&C 98 has anything to say about our current state of affairs.
I’m glad we don’t discuss this stuff at church either. Church is for fellowship, for strengthening the saints, for service.
But I’m glad there’s a place where Mormons can discuss important issues where they won’t interfere with the real task of building the kingdom of God.
Geoff #36:
I confess to threadjacking. My apologies. The issue started with Mitt Romney, then got onto why some of us are uncomfortable with his positions, and then to his position on Iraq, and then it was off to the races. This will be my last comment in this post.
You can repeat the “isolationist, short-sighted and dangerous for America” mantra all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. Bush has been very good at defining the options as either full-bore military engagement or “fortress America.” (Actually, he sees a lot of issues in two dimensions, so this isn’t surprising.) But he and his supporters completely fail to see the many shades of color in between those two extremes. It is certainly possible to be active and engaged in the world without being either the world’s police force OR completely withdrawing and shutting the door behind us. Ron Paul represents a return to a more modest foreign policy, one that operates within the dictates of the constitution and common sense.
You accuse me of being irrational and not thinking about my positions and how to communicate them. Quite the contrary — I’ve spent much of the last ten years reading, studying, and thinking about the proper role of government and the abuse of power that Lord Acton rightly said was inevitable. I feel somewhat justified that around 70% of Americans agree with me; I only wish that had been the case in October 2001, March 2003, November 2004, and at other crucial steps in our long national slide into neo-dicatatorship.
“neo-dictatorship.” Oh brother. More rhetoric. But to your credit your #37 and #38 made actual arguments rather than just repeat various talking points.
OK, no more Iraq!!!
I promise all of you out there there will be other opportunities. But this is not the time or place.
Pretty-please?
Geoff,
What makes you think I’m being rhetorical when I use the term “neo-dictatorship”? Isn’t the very definition of a dictatorship a supreme executive who believes he can do anything he wants, regardless of written authorization or legislative checks on his power? Just because Bush doesn’t have a little hat and a funny mustache doesn’t mean he isn’t seeking uncontrolled authority. His actions with regard to detention camps, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and his signing statements (to name just a few) are clear evidence of that.
In the words of James Madison, “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Romney’s big problem? He pretty much wants the same thing.
No more Iraq. I promise.
I am from Texas and I despise Ron Paul. This man with all his sycophants is totally loopy. Welcome to the twilight zone.
Thank you for your reasoned, well-argued analysis, georged.
Back to Mitt Romney.
Here’s an interesting analysis of what Romney’s feelings for Cleon Skousen have to say about his personal beliefs:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=08&year=2007&base_name=post_4520
I largely agree with the writer. Skousen was paranoid, even by 1950s-60s standards, and anyone who is still reading and admiring his anti-communist writings is a troubling candidate for any elected office higher than the local water resources board.
Mike, I know you’re trying hard to be on-topic, and I say, “good for you!”
However, there is no evidence anywhere, including in the National Review article you link, that Romney “admires” Skousen’s anti-Communist writings (I have “The Naked Communist,” and it is certainly a book that appears way-out there by our standards).
All we can glean from the 20-minute interview above is that Romney had Skousen as a teacher and that he read “The First 1000 Years,” which is an extremely uncontroversial book that deals with Genesis and weaves in the Book of Moses to explain Skousen’s take on what we know about the 1,000 years after Adam. Romney professes ignorance at the interviewer’s take on Skousen’s book on the Constitution and never says he admires Skousen’s paranoid take on anti-Communism, although he says he admires Skousen the man.
Here is what the National Review article has to say on Romney and Skousen:
“I sincerely doubt that Mitt Romney believes anything near as outlandish as many of the things Cleon Skousen espoused, and to be fair Skousen wrote on numerous topics with wildly varying degrees of intellectual sobriety. In fact, as the radio host in the YouTube video notes, Skousen’s writings on original intent and the U.S. Constitution in The Making of America are compellingly argued, and to this day are often cited by conservatives unaware of Skousen’s more checkered writings. Further, Skousen’s scriptural commentaries are still very popular well-regarded within the relatively unradical world of mainstream Mormonism, insofar as Mormon theology can be considered unradical.”
So, Mike, unless you have some special information that you are not sharing with us, there is no evidence that Romney is “still reading and admiring his (Skousen’s) anti-communist writings.”
You are going to have to come up with other evidence that Romney is a “troubling” candidate. So far, your take is misleading and incorrect.
Geoff,
Upon further reflection, you may be right. Romney expressed his admiration for Skousen, so I thought that included his works. Many Mormons are (unfortunately, IMO) still aware of The First 2,000 Years and its two sequels, but not as many are aware of his bizarre conspiracy theories in The Naked Communist, The Naked Capitalist, and other works from the 1950s and -60s. It’s quite possible that Romney falls into this camp, knowing Skousen’s religious views but not his political ones.
Unfortunately, to his critics, this makes Romney appear uninformed when he discusses Skousen — much as he appeared uninformed of the controversy surrounding L. Ron Hubbard when he praised Battlefield Earth.
GeoffB,
I hope nobody here denies the fact that the Republicans were seriously thrashed during last year’s elections. The seriousness was no more manifest than the “retiring” of Donald Rumsfeld. If this guy was doing a heckuva job (ie, winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), why retire him? Doesn’t make sense, does it? Especially right after the elections.
You see, we can talk about abortion and all the other issues that rightwing Christians want to talk about, but that isn’t the most pressing issue of the day. Majority of Americans are sick and tired of the failed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is the ONLY issue worth talking about. That is why the electorate voted the Democrats. They want an end to the wars.
That’s why Republicans wanted Rumsfeld’s hide after they got thrashed. They didn’t see it coming although it was heading for them.
If anyone wants to be president of the US, he has to deal with the issue of the Iraq and Afghan wars squarely. That is what the voting public demands. To talk of other issues is to be irrelevant.
As for Ron Paul being an isolationist, I don’t think you understand his position on foreign policy. He doesn’t advocate isolationism. He advocates a non-interventionist position. Those two aren’t the same. Maybe you shouldn’t call “dangerous” something that you don’t really understand.
(My name in Spanish is “Miguel,” but #46 was not written by me. FYI.)
It might as well have been.
Tossman, do you have anything of thought and value to contribute to this blog? Because most of your posts seem to be aimed at insulting people who disagree with you.
You found that insulting? Seems to me he’s saying the same thing you are. Just making the observation. At the end of a really long day, I might add.
Reading thru my posts on this thread, Mike, I don’t see anything remotely offensive or insulting. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
And I’ll bet that were I in agreement with you, using the same wording and tone in my posts, you would be cheering me on.
Wow, Mike, I don’t see the insult there. You say you agree with Miguel, and Tossman says he agrees with you that it sounds like your argument.
This is why I want to save Iraq for the right forum — people get WAY too sensitive about the subject.
Unless anybody has anything to add on the Mitt Romney video (remember, this is the video where he doesn’t discuss Iraq), I’m going to close comments on this thread. I’ll give it another day or two.
I find it highly unlikely that someone at BYU in the late 60’s/early 70’s did not know about the lunatic writings of Cleon Skousen. The Freemen Institute had a big storefront on 7th East just south of campus, and half the d*$% Republicans on campus seemed to be reading something that Skousen could have written.
Since Romney has shown himself to be a kook on immigration issues, it may well be that he’s a kook on others as well. Of course, as a really rich guy, he may be one of Skousen’s naked capitalists. Love the irony!
Tossman: Perhaps this is an example of written posts not communicating tone or emphasis. I took “It might as well have been” to be preceded by a snort with an emphasis on “well” — i.e., written with derision for me, Miguel, and Miguel’s sentiments. If I was wrong, I apologize.
Geoff: I’ve been pondering this issue the past few days, and you’re right — I am sensitive about it. I’m generally an easygoing guy who gets along with just about everyone. There are very few things that I can’t control that I allow to make me angry. The Iraq war and the entire attitude and performance of the Bush administration is one of them.
I (and millions of other Americans) am extremely angry and bitter at the great damage this President has done to America’s reputation, security, and liberty. In January 2001 I was genuinely glad to be done with Bill Clinton, who I thought was one of the biggest scoundrels ever to hold the office. I was looking forward to a more modest foreign policy (remember the one Bush promised in 2000?) and a smaller government. I could not have been more disappointed.
The worst part is that Bush’s horrible performance as President has literally paved the way for Hillary Clinton to win in 2008. The woman was so detested that she had no chance, and now the public’s contempt for the Republican Party has handed her the White House. Great job, guys.
So when this issue comes up on one of the few blogs I regularly read, it gives me one of the only outlets through which I can vent my frustration. If my tone or choice of words bothers you, I’ll refrain from commenting in M* posts. Otherwise, if the issues of politics or war come up, please expect fervent debate from me.
Mike- You misread me. Or perhaps I misspoke. I plinked it out on my Blackberry at the end of a long day. I was short mostly because I can’t stand typing on that little keyboard. No offense was intended.
Mark B, #53, your comment is actually on-subject (at least it addresses the issue of Cleon Skousen).
I think Romney is wrong (although not kooky) on the immigration issue, so I agree with you kind of there.
However, it’s simply a low blow and a complete non-sequiter to claim that Romney should come out and point out to the world that he thinks Cleon Skousen is a kook (which, btw, I agree some of his books are kooky). There are several reasons. The first is that it would not have fit the flow of the interview. The interviewer was discussing abortion and Cleon Skousen’s well-respected (in some circles) take on the Constitution. It would have been completely inappropriate for Romney to say, “I’ve had Cleon Skousen for a professor, and I’ve read some of his books, and some are pretty good, but I just want to say for the record that he’s a kook on the Communism issue.” If we applied that standard to all of our public figures, they could never say anything about anybody because they’d have to be spending all their time covering their bases in case one writer wrote or said something they didn’t like 30 years ago, etc, etc.
It is also worth pointing out that at one point the MTC was actually giving out Cleon Skousen articles to missionaries, so the Church does not seem to think he is as all-fired kooky as Mark B and Mike Parker seem to think he is (for the record, his “the Naked Communist” book is pretty kooky, but he has written literally dozens of other books, and some are pretty good).
Mike, regarding your #54, my personal advice is that if a subject is making you angry you need to moderate your views and the way you express them for your own good. I feel very strongly about a lot of issues, but I really try not to go overboard for my own happiness and my own sense of well-being. I don’t believe in “blowing off steam.” I believe in trying to keep an even keel as much as possible no matter what the situation. I don’t always succeed, but that’s my goal.