comMITTed to Romney!

Re: “Mitt’s Mission” by: Jonathan Darman and Lisa Miller

“Another presidential candidate, upon learning of a reporter’s visit there, might jump on the opportunity to reminisce about the faith of his childhood, to trot out fond stories about his pastor and the inspirational lessons learned at his knee.”

Have you heard any other candidate react this way?

“But not Romney . Seated in a plane between campaign stops near the olive groves of northern California, Romney hears of such a visit and the wattage seeps out of his smile.
“In Pontiac?” he asks.
Yes, the reporter answers.
“Oh, yeah. Wow. I don’t know where that is,” Romney says.
It’s still a church, the reporter says.
“Oh, it is. Oh, interesting.”
Full stop. Never has a man so polished looked so uncomfortable.”

Jon and Lisa assumes that Romney has a problem. If reporters weren’t so arrogant, they might realize that they are the ones having problems. They are the ones that should be embarrassed for asking Romney questions that no other candidate has to answer.

“Nothing is more politically vexing or personally crucial for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney than the story of his faith. Raised in a devout Mormon family by parents who were both principled and powerful, Romney has downplayed both his religion and his own family history…”

When I took 3rd grade English, my teacher taught me that you shouldn’t make assertions, without giving DATA that supports those assertions. Jon and Lisa, have no idea what data is. They think they can call Romney’s parents “principled and powerful” without giving any reason to agree with them. They can just say it because gosh darn it, they are reporters and they can say what ever they want. Data is for nerds. Reasons to agree are for lawyers. They don’t need to explain their conclusion, this is journalism!
I want some data. Journalist just make crud up. Like saying that Romney has downplayed his family. What other candidate has spoken more about their family?  

They just say stupid stuff like this without giving any evidence to prove that it is true. How has Romney “downplayed both his religion and his own family history”? What other candidates have spoken more about their religion ? They say the stupidest stuff! Rudy doesn’t talk about his religion more than Romney. Hillary doesn’t talk about her religion more than Romney. Newt doesn’t talk about his religion more than Romney. McCain doesn’t talk about the specifics of his religion more than Romney. And Fred Thompson doesn’t talk about his religion more than Romney. No one talks about their family more than Romney. These people say stuff that is not true. Why does anyone read it? These punks at newsweek just make stuff up about how Mitt Romney downplays his religion , and his family! How can reporters who get paid for putting their words on paper say such stupid things?

“Mindful of the sway of evangelical Christians over the GOP base, he has positioned himself as the candidate with conservative principles and strong faith…”

So these things aren’t real? Romney does not have strong faith? Romney does not have conservative principles? He just made these up to “position himself”. This gets me so mad. I don’t know what to say. I am dumbfounded. This is why Romney doesn’t talk about his faith, is because the media twist and distort everything anyone says. Lets read it again. “Mindful of the sway of evangelical Christians over the GOP base, he has positioned himself as the candidate with conservative principles and strong faith…”

“But when he’s pressed on the particulars of his own religious practice, his answers grow terse and he is quick to repeat that his values are rooted in “the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

First, what other candidate is “pressed on the particulars of his own religious practice”. Is Rudy asked if he prays to Saints? GIVE US CONTEXT! HOW WAS IT ASKED? BY WHO? When? You don’t give any data! No background! No information! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHY SHOULD ROMNEY HAVE TO ANSWER MORE SPECIFICS ABOUT HIS RELIGION? IF YOU WANT TO KNOW SO GOSH DARN MUCH ABOUT THE CHURCH, WHY DON’T YOU GO TO THE CHURCH?

“Romney ’s candidacy will be many voters’ first glimpse into the world of Mormonism, a world that embraces American ideals of hard work, frugality, self-reliance and optimism, as well as more off-putting aspects-such as a zeal for evangelism, an image that some see as overly wholesome and plastic…”

Is the media throwing the idea that stereotypes are bad out the door? Should we discuss stereotypes with regard to other candidates? Who are these “some people” who see the religion as “overly wholesome”? Are we going to entertain stereotypes about Jews, Blacks, Catholics, and Wemon?

“For all his strengths, however, Romney has been unable to shake his authenticity problem, the sense that he is a glossy and robotic candidate who will say anything to get elected and believes nothing in his heart.”

Yeah. Many people think Romney is the front runner… He has a great big authenticity problem (sarcasm)…

According to the MSM does Hillary have an authenticity problem? According to the MSM does Rudy who just changed his mind on gun control “say anything to get elected”?
How about McCain? McCain called Falwell an “agent of intolerance.” McCain said that he would never back down from his earlier statement. Then McCain stated that Falwell is no longer that divisive figure and the two have discussed their shared values.

Abortion: In 1999, the “moderate” version of John McCain said that overturning Roe v. Wade would be dangerous for women and he would not support it, even in “the long term.” Here’s McCain in the San Francisco Chronicle: “I’d love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because Abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.”

Then on ABC, McCain - now aggressively courting the likes of Jerry Falwell - expressed his unequivocal support for overturning Roe v. Wade. Watch it:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about Abortion . Then I want to turn to Iraq. You’re for a constitutional amendment banning Abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.

MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn’t advanced in the six years he’s been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn’t done?

MCCAIN: I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should - could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’d be for that?

MCCAIN: Yes, because I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states. And I don’t believe the Supreme Court should be legislating in the way that they did on Roe v. Wade.

McCain has been a critic of ethanol. That doesn’t play in Iowa. So the Straight Talk Express has taken a detour. McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

The only flip that Romney has made has been on Abortion , and these idiots in the media ignore all these facts, because gosh darn it other media sources have said than Romney is a flipper, and so he must be one.

Back to the statement:

“For all his strengths, however, Romney has been unable to shake his authenticity problem, the sense that he is a glossy and robotic candidate who will say anything to get elected and believes nothing in his heart.”

Do you think that part of this is because the media keeps repeating that he is glossy and Robotic? Why does the media think that he is glossy and robotic? Because he won’t indulge their lust to get some controversial statement from him about his religion. Because he won’t have a heart to heart with every reporter who wants to ask him about his underwear, he is somehow too reserved…

“His trouble starts with his all-too-convenient conservative-conversion narrative: the pro-choice, pro- gay-rights governor of Massachusetts was miraculously transformed into a crusader for unborn life and the sanctity of marriage, just in time to run for the Republican nomination for president.”

What do they mean? How has Romney changed his position on the sanctity of marriage (he hasn’t). I wouldn’t be so ticked off about these statements, if every time I heard it; it wasn’t treated with so little intellectual honesty. They never point out that Ronald Reagan, and the first George Bush became pro-life. They never complained when All Gore became pro-choice. They never question Al Gores motivation. Did he do it just because of convenience? “No. That was the right decision. We shouldn’t only criticize those who turn to being pro-life…” And they never go into any details. They paint Romney as a liar. Never do they explain, that he said from the very beginning in Massachusetts that he was pro-life, but that he made a deal that he would not change the laws. He was “in-effect” pro-choice, because he promised to take the issue off the table. These liberal reporters will be so nuanced, and detail oriented when defending democrats, but they will just glaze right over all of the details of republicans, so they can more easily mischaracterize them.

“But underlying the “flip-flopper” charge against Romney is a more disturbing perception, that the numbers-driven candidate is too cautious and committed to winning to explain what he believes in, including his church.”

That is so BS. Romney explains everything he believes in that has to do with being president. In fact when he switched from being “effectively pro-choice” to “pro-life” he wrote a letter to the editor explaining why. These people in the news media, their job is to explain to us what is going on. Their job is to inform us, not mislead us. So you think they would run out to explain the whole story of Romney’s beliefs about Abortion. They would always point out, and link to this important document where Romney EXPLAINED HIS BELIEFS about Abortion. But I have never seen anyone in the media bring up this news. They don’t try to educate, they try to influence. But I will educate. Here is what he wrote:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Why+I+vetoed+contraception+bill

The use the word “disturbing” to explain that he won’t answer questions. This is from a guy who has more town halls than all the other republicans candidates put together. HOW can these reporters look themselves in the mirror? They just make stuff up!

“George drove his children hard, encouraging them to be industrious and to “make good choices,” a phrase common in Mormon circles.”

What? “Make good choices” is a phrase that is “common in Mormon circles”? This is written in Newsweek? Newsweek is supposed to be a respectable organization, and I just had to laugh, and what kind of 3 rd grader would say something so stupid…! Mormons are the most creativity deprived people on the face of the planet if they go around repeating to each other “make good choices”!

“If Mitt chafed under the demands of his idiosyncratic father and his faith, he didn’t show it. At Cranbrook, the elite private high school he attended in Bloomfield Hills, Mich., classmates say he was the only Mormon they knew, but that he wore his religion, and his social status, lightly-seemingly perfectly at ease with the contradictions in his life.”

What do these reporters expect? Was he going to sneek up behind people and baptize them? They say his father was idiosyncratic but never give an example. What contradictions? Am I the only one who didn’t get what contradictions Romney supposedly had to endure? The contradiction of being religious, but letting people smoke and drink in their home? Is that supposed to be some sort of contradiction? I don’t get it? They say that Mitt’s father was “idiosyncratic” but they give no evidence to agree with this conclusion… They give no data….

“Bain’s ethic was essentially Mormon: make good choices because you’ll have to live with their consequences.”

Why do Lisa and Jon keep going back to the Mormon thing? Every religion teaches there are consequences of their beliefs. Earlier they pointed out that the Mormon church teaches that pre-marital, and extramarital sex is bad. Wow, those Mormons are crazy! No other religion teaches that sex is ba… wait a second… I mean I just have to laugh. It sounds like a 3 rd grader wrote this…

“In his private life, Romney stuck even closer to the principles of his youth. In 1971, he and Ann bought a house in Belmont, a quiet bedroom community that would be the Romneys’ home base for the next 30-plus years. Here, Romney could raise his five sons much as he had been raised. The boys were children of privilege, but were nonetheless expected to follow a strict routine of Saturday-morning chores, youth group on weeknights and church on Sunday. The Romneys wanted their boys to live a life of order, discipline and faith, but most important, they had to choose it for themselves. “There was never any ‘You have to go to church or else’,” Romney’s son Tagg told NEWS WEEK earlier this year. “They led by example.”

How is any of this “sticking even closer to the principals of his youth”? It’s not that what they are saying is bad, just that it is so poorly written. How is going to church, and having your kids do choirs, “sticking even closer to the principals of his youth”? They just come to conclusions, without any data.

Broad generalized statements that mean nothing:

“Romney the churchgoer was much like Romney the capitalist. Serving as Boston stake president in the early ’90s, he led an effort to build a new chapel on a patch of undeveloped land in one of the city’s industrial suburbs. Others in the stake were skeptical-the lot was a desolate expanse of concrete and weeds. Would there be enough Mormons in the area to go to church there? But Romney saw a good deal for a rapidly growing faith and insisted. “He was right,” says Kent Bowen, a member of the Belmont ward. “There are now many, many people who go to chapel over there.”

So because Romney picked out a certain spot for a church, “ Romney the church goer was much like Romney the capitalist”. Do you think these reporters are a little bit prone to making generalized, childish conclusions? This is seriously one of the worst pieces of writing that I have ever read. They talk to some guy and the best story they get is that Romney picked out a piece of property, and so they have got to get that somehow into the front page story of newsweek as an example of Romney the capitalist, and Romney the Mormon, who is the same Romney as Romney the capitalist…

“But Romney was careful to keep his professional and private lives separate. Many of his colleagues at Bain knew little about the details of his religious observance. Like his father, he kept liquor in his home for non- Mormon guests and was careful not to impose the strictures of his faith on the outside world.” How exactly would Romney go about “imposing the structures of his faith on the outside world.”

These guys are such idiots. Would he give out book of Mormon s at business meetings? Are they surprised that he didn’t play the Mormon Tabernacle choir over the intercom system?

“But Romney ’s carefully constructed barrier between secular and spiritual came down when he entered politics… From the start, Romney made clear that questions about his faith were out of bounds, and from the start, his faith was all anyone wanted to talk about.”

Is the irony somehow lost on the reporters that all they want to talk about is Romney’s religion? That the title of this article is “A Mormon’s Journey”?

“Romney finally had his chance to fulfill his father’s wish for him, to govern with principle, and his own wish for himself, to be his state’s white knight. The problem was that the powers on Beacon Hill, where a Democratic legislature was entrenched, weren’t convinced Massachusetts needed saving. By his own admission, Romney was best at throwing his energy at a single, looming threat. When asked about his greatest flaws, he says, “I’m not the most organized of managers. I tend to immediately concentrate on what I think is the most difficult problem.” It was a strategy that served him well in business, where his subordinates could sweat the small stuff. But a governor had to be comfortable making tiny compromises to gain the opposition’s trust. Romney recoiled from backroom dealmaking, and many legislators wrote him off as a prissy novice.”

I don’t mean to be nit picking, but this article is one of the biggest pieces of crud I have ever read. It’s not all big stuff, but is just all falls apart. In this last paragraph it changed topics like 12 times. It starts off talking about how hard it would be for a republican in an overwhelming democratic state, and the democrats resistance to change. Then it goes into Romney’s management style of focusing on one issue. Then they stick to one issue for the rest of the paragraph trying to explain why focusing on one big issue didn’t work. It said that as a governor he had to make compromises to gain his opponents trust. What does this have to do Mitt focusing on the biggest obstacle? It is given as an explanation of why that doesn’t work, but making backroom deals has nothing to do with it… then it jumps into some random accusation from democrats that Romney was a “prissy novice”. Ah, OK. Prissy is “excessively or affectedly prim and proper.” I don’t see what that has to do with anything. Some people think that Romney wear’s a tie too often, but did that really belong in that paragraph? What does that have to do with anything? And how is Romney a novice? He got a degree from Harvard in business and law? Was he a novice in budgets? Did the democrats know more about the economy than Romney? Did the democrats making the law know more about the law than Romney? Is that why he was a novice. Again an accusation with no evidence… No Data!

This is where Jonathan Darman and Lisa Miller are doing the country a great disservice. They are just spewing out stupid crud that has nothing to do with anything. Some people think Romney dresses to formally. They want him to talk more about his religion. And they throw this all together without seriously investigating any idea, but just reapeating all the stupid echo chamber that they hear other people say. They heard some democrats trying to say Romney looks to formal, and they heard some story about Romney buying some property, and they try to throw all this stupid stuff into some context of Romney buying property being an example of the capitalist at work, but they give no justification for the reason why it was a move that only a venture capitalist would have made, and no sane reason why Romney should talk more about his religion, just a incomprehensible accusation that he is trying to hide something by not talking about it…

” Apart from an innovative plan to provide universal health care, Romney’s single term as governor was in many senses a disappointment.”

How so? Balancing the budget, and leaving a runny day fund is disappointing? They don’t even try to justify this accusation with a balanced analysis.

“Unable to work with the Democrats…”

What? Romney was “Unable to work with Democrats…”? So he never balanced a budget? Do Jonathan and Lisa think this might be a slight oversimplification? I come from Illinois, that has a democrat governor and legislature, but they were unable to pass a budget, because they couldn’t agree. If reporters are going to say that Romney was unable to work with democrats, they need to give at least one freaking example of how he was unable to work with democrats.

“When he announced his candidacy for the presidency, shortly after leaving the governor’s office in January 2007, he had reinvented himself as a social conservative ready to take on a moderate GOP field.”

This is getting so freaking old. When Romney ran in 1994, and 2002, he ran against gay marriage and civil unions. So, no, he had not “reinvented himself”, unless changing one issue (Abortion) is “reinventing” himself, and “Gore” also reinvented himself, when he changed sides, even though Romney never changed sides, he just promised not to change Massachusetts law as Governor.

“Conversions of convenience were frowned upon in young Mitt’s upbringing, but the adult Romney seemed untroubled.”

Yeah, well Jon and Lisa are untroubled about lying about misrepresenting Mitt Romney. In the olden days Journalist used to try and tell the truth. In the old days journalist were embarrassed when coming out as partisan hacks. Jon and Lisa are flat out state that Romney had a “conversion of convenience”. Perhaps they should do a little history before making such an accusation. Romney did not convert for convenience. It is a fact. Jon and Lisa should look it up, and so should you. Romney always said that he was pro-life, but he knew he would never get elected as Governor as a pro-life candidate, so he took the issue off the table and promised not to change the law. People who are working for the DNC and don’t want Romney to win, call that a conversion of choice. PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT COMPLETE TOOLS OF THE DEMOCRAT PARTY CALL THIS RESPECTING THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

Mitt Romney, like most grown up, chooses to live in the world of what is possible. Mitt Romney doesn’t play pretend. Mitt Romney new that making all of Massachusetts pro-life was impossible. But again, this is all stuff a 3 rd grader can understand. It’s not that Jon and Lisa don’t get it, they choose not to get it.

“From the outside, Romney ’s ideological conversions looked opportunistic. He had been a social moderate to win election in liberal Massachusetts-and reinvented himself as a social conservative to be viable in the primary race.”

The MSM is truly stupid. Again, Abortion is the only thing Romney changed. They NEVER give examples, but they claim that he re-invented himself. Apparently, “Democrats hate balanced budges. Democrats hate people with businss expereience. Democrats hate smart accomplished people. There is no way Romney could have one except by being a liberal. There is no possible way that Romney could have won in Massachusetts, because his apponent was even too liberal for Massachusetts. He must have changed. We aren’t going to give any evidence that he changed, besides Abortion, but we are going to gerneralize aout the rest, and accuse him of changing everything else, but never give any specifics. Be very specific about Abortion, but very general about everything else. The truth doesn’t matter that Abortion is the only possition he changed, we have an agenda to drive. We have a story line that we have heard, and we wouldn’t be an echo chamber if we didn’t keep that story line alive.”

“With Romney reluctant to keep talking about the full story of his faith and family, he seemed to be failing to live up to the high principles of either.”

Jon and Lisa are punks. They have no right to say that Mitt Romney is not living up to the principals of his family or his faith. They can not get over their lust to hear Mitt Romney read from the book of Mormon, and how the hell can he speak about his family any more than he does? How is Romney , “not speaking the whole story of his family “? Is Romney supposed to discuss his great-great-great grandparents? Is that what Jon and Lisa want? Romney not only has to defend himself, but they demand that he talks about his great-great grandpa, or you are going to accuse him of not living up to their principals?

“Candidate Mitt seemed a far cry from his father, who had condemned his party’s presidential nominee in 1964 for making insensitive comments on race…”

Yeah, Romney has never condemned his own party. Oh, wait, that has been in every newspaper in the country, that Romney has called on his party to clean their own house first… Oh, wait, Romney has paid millions of dollars telling his party that they need to live up to their ideals…

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Change

Also:

• “This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice . This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians.”
  • Governor Mitt Romney, 06-22-2004 Press Release

“So what kind of president would Mitt Romney be? It often seems that Romney himself doesn’t know.”

How so? They make accusations but don’t even try to back them up! We know more specifics about a Mitt Romney candidacy than any other candidate. Since January 2007, Governor Romney Has Announced OVER 50 NEW SPECIFIC POLICY PROPOSALS. Go here to read them:

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Over+50+New+Policy+Proposals+from+ Romney

“More disturbing, he is also unwilling to truly look to his own history for the answer. Asked by NEWSWEEK how he is most like his father, Romney saw only an opportunity to recite a familiar talking point about his own style as a manager, noting that George “did not just ask for opinions but for thoughtful analysis and data.” Everything his family has lived through-religious persecution, the traversing of a continent, a noble tradition of service and the depths of political disappointment-it all pales in comparison with data. This is the man who in the great wisdom of political insiders is seen as congenitally presidential?”

The lack of Data is the whole problem with this article by Lisa and Jon. They make stupid accusation like Romney “recreated his whole self” without giving any evidence to agree with their conclusion. They assume they knew Mitt Romney’s dad better than he did. They assume they know when he is not living up to the principals that his family believes in, better than he does. They assume that they know when Romney is living up to the principals of his religion better than he did. The make accusations that he doesn’t even know what his presidency would be like, without bothering to do the research, that would have lead them to understand that Mitt Romney has painted a more procisese vision of what his candidacy would be like than any other candidates. That is the great thing about Romney. Unlike Jon and Lisa at newsweek, he doesn’t just pull stuff out of thin air.

Jon and Lisa say that Romney doesn’t talk about his religion enough. Why don’t you read questions of Romney about his religion, and see if he has spoken about it enough…

Religion

1. 1st Debate
   1. What do you say to bishops who deny Communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?
   2. Do you accept Huckabee’s statement that he wasn’t talking about you ?
2. Mike Allen
   1. Why are key tenets of your faith still misunderstood ?
3. How is your church so successful in getting its young people to follow its teachings ?
4. Brian Lamb
   1. Who was Brigham Young?
   2. Well, if you go back — and I found the name Pratt in your background who was some circuitous route related to Joseph Smith who was one of the founders of Mormonism .
   3. Are you prepared to deal with attacks on your religion ?
   4. Do you have an evangelical problem ?
   5. Has there been a mood change in the country about the importance of talking about religion?
   6. One place that I found that you almost died (His Mission)
5. Wolf Blitzer
   1. How do you deal with the fact that you are a Mormon ?
6. Robert B Bluey
   1. Are you prepared to deal with what is bound to be attacks from the media and opponents about your religious faith ?
7. Wolf Blitzer
   1. Will evangelicals support a Mormon ?
8. Hugh Hewitt
   1. Does the country know enough about radical islam ?
   2. Do you stand by your use of the word Islamic-facism ?
   3. How many times are you going to have to ask and answer these questions ?
9. Jay Leno
   1. Is their enough diversity within the Mormon Church ?
10. Katherine Jean Lopez
    1. Will an exposé on Mormon Christmas celebrations hurt you in the primaries ?
11. George Stephanopoulos
    1. How does your faith inform your politics ?
12. Chris Wallace
    1. Are you a cultist?

Also here is a great new post about this subject.

Share on Facebook

Share This