GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
??????? Nationally syndicated columnist and radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt has come up with still another nutty and egomaniacal idea for Republican voters, which is right up there with his adamant?claim?that?GOPers should?support the nomination of Harriet Miers?for justice of the United States Supreme Court (which history will show was the point at which President George W. Bush lost his moral authority). He wants us all to sign a pledge that we will not contribute to any Republican United States Senator who votes for a resolution repudiating the new surge strategy of President Bush in Iraq or contribute to the National Republican Senatorial (Campaign) Committee if it provides funding to any Republican United States Senator voting in favor of such a resolution. Evidently Hewitt would rather insist on?getting his way on particular issues in which he feels clairvoyant rather than support the larger goals of the Republican Party.
While I strongly disagree with the theory behind such a pledge, believing that we elect officials to office to utilize their best judgment after weighing all the information at their disposal (which is certainly a lot more data than Hewitt has at his disposal) and that a Republican congressional?majority will always be superior to a Democrat one, I am hoping Hewitt can take a different pledge and promise readers that his forthcoming book about the presidential prospects of Mitt Romney will be?penetrating rather than patronizing.
To that end, I think it is imperative that Hewitt ask and probe Romney about the following difficult subject areas: Who did?Romney support for President in 1976, 1980, and 1984 - years when Ronald Reagan, who he claims to be campaigning for president in the spirit of, was on the ballot? Should Republican voters in 2008 be worried that Romney would put the interests of his Mormon Church above the interests of the GOP (as Senator Orrin Hatch did by supporting the elevation by President Bill Clinton of ultra-liberal federal District Court judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ostensibly because the jurist is Mormon and has an undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University) as evidenced by his $250 contribution in 1992 to the campaign of liberal New Hampshire Democrat?congressman Richard Swett, who is Mormon? Does he still think, as he claimed in 1994, that the Contract With America of Republican House of Representatives members was undeserving of support?
If Hewitt is going to be tough on Republicans in the United States Senate, let’s hope he is equally as tough on the Republican presidential candidate his new book will be profiling. But I am not going to hold my breath, Hewitt seems only interested in pursuing specific agendas rather than thoroughly surfacing issues for debate, which is certainly an interesting tack for a purported journalist to take - especially one who is always complaining about media bias.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Why do you care who Romney supported in those years? Who cares? Seriously. Just…who cares? Especially in 1976, when there was an incumbent to consider.
Ronald Reagan is my favorite president. But I couldn’t care less who Romney supported. To me, the whole “who did Romney support in ‘80″ argument is almost as trite and useless as people bringing up Obama’s middle name.
By the way, I was too young to vote in 1980 (I was -6 years old), but I have talked to folks–rabid Reagan supporters, and typical social conservatives– who said they were hesitant to vote for Reagan in 1980 because some suggested he would bring the world to civil war. They turned out to be wrong…why can’t Romney?
January 25th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Because Romney has flip-flopped on so many important national issues, the question naturally arises as to how genuine a Reagan conservative he is. If Romney is going to run as a Reagan conservative, he needs to explain why he may have failed to support the person he purports to now model his politics after when he had the chance.
How strong a Reagan conservative can someone be who had the chance to vote for the Gipper but did not?
Of course Romney has the right to have been wrong back then and to have changed his view since. But he needs to explain the thinking and transformation rather than have the rest of us take on faith that he is a Reagan conservative, even though he apparently did not support Reagan when he had the chance to.
It’s called vetting, and it’s what happens during campaigns. How genuine a candidate’s purported beliefs are matters a lot.
And, by the way, Reagan himself was never hesitant to explain how and why he changed from a New Deal Democrat to conservative Republican. So the supposedly Reaganesque Romney ought to follow suit.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Seriously - a $250 contribution in 1992? When he has contributed more than $90,000 since then to GOP candidates? C’mon, let’s talk about things that really matter in this race.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
It is the principle, not the amount, that matters. Romney ostensibly put issues of Mormonism above politics in supporting Swett (and let us be reminded that the contribution is a proxy for support for the office). So the question needs to be asked to what degree principles of Mormonism would be put above politics as president?
The issue of where Romney’s Mormon faith resides in his priority list matters a lot in this race. Would he nominate liberal federal judges and cabinet members just because they were Mormon?
January 25th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I particularly take offense at Republius’s implication that Romney might conceivably be beholden to the Mormon church. It is beneath you. There is absolutely nothing in his record to indicate he has ever made decisions on the basis of Mormon doctrine, or Mormon influence.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Republius, Romney’s donation in that one case was during the primaries, when Swett was running against other Democrats. Let’s be honest enough to state that. Romney has never donated to a Democrat in a general election, although he has donated tens of thousands of dollars to dozens of Republicans in general elections.
Yet you question his voting record and commitment to country over religion because of a paltry $250? Seriously.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Matt, the Swett contribution is evidence, unfortunately, of putting Mormonism above politics (just as Senator Hatch did with Judge Paez). In 1992, Romney was gearing up to run for the United States Senate as a Republican; supporting a liberal Democrat for Congress was not in his political interest and was not consistent with his purported political beliefs at the time. So why did Romney make the contribution?
January 25th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“Should Republican voters in 2008 be worried that Romney would put the interests of his Mormon Church above the interests of the GOP”
Here is a list of a few prominent LDS leaders who have occupied high office:
-J. Reuben Clark was US Undersecretary of State under Coolidge (later became 1st Counselor to President of the LDS Church as the time)
-Ezra Taft Benson was Sec. Of Agriculture under Eisenhower (later President/ Prophet of the LDS church)
-Stewart Udall was Sec. Of the Interior under Kennedy
-David Kennedy was Sec. Of the Treasury under Nixon
-Bay Buchanan was US Treasurer under Reagan (Pat Buchanan’s sister)
-Terrel Bell was Sec. Of Education under Reagan
-Richard Wirthlin was chief strategist and pollster under Reagan
-Rex Lee was US Solicitor General under Reagan (Later became President of BYU)
-Brent Scowcroft was National Security Adviser under Bush 41
-Michael O. Leavitt is Sec. Of Health and Human Service under Bush 43.
There are hundreds more of other Mormons who have held and do hold both congressional and state offices. Can you give a good example where these individuals put the interest of their church before that of their office? I’m failing to see how a puny $250 donation somehow equates to “put the interests of his Mormon Church above the interests of the GOP.”
What a lousy post..
January 25th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
No, no it’s not Republius. No more then Bush hiring dozens of his Texas friends upon his election to the presidency is evidence that he’s beholden to the people of the Lone Star state. Politicians hire and support those they are familiar with. As a member in good-standing of the Mormon church, its perfectly understandable that many of Romney’s friends would be Mormons, or he’d have connections to various Mormon individuals. That’s an entirely different proposition then being subservient to some sort of diabolical Mormon agenda.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Heavy M, I question the Romney political commitment based on his record of flip flops and saying what his target audience of voters want to hear. And I question the donation to a liberal Democrat when he was gearing up to run as a Republican for the Senate. It is not clear to me what Romney genuinely believes in, other than his own ambition.
Perhaps these things can be adequately explained. But the Romney record deserves scrutiny rather than indignant defenses and denials.
Why are Romney supporters so afraid for the questions to be answered? If there is nothing to all this, prove it.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
You’re perfectly free to question Romney, and I think most of the points you raised are valid questions of contention. Suggesting that Romney is beholden to the Mormon church, on the basis of virtually no evidence whatever, simply isn’t. And it reeks of soft-bigotry.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Cwpete, the Senator Orrin Hatch support of Judge Paez, an ultra-liberal and radical federal jurist (and the only reason the guy got out of committee is because Hatch and Arlen Specter joined Democrats in voting for him), is compelling evidence, I think, of someone putting the interests of the Mormon Church above policy and politics. That is why I included it. I did not mean to imply Mormons always put faith above policy and politics.
And I agree that the Swett contribution may not mean much at the end of the day. But I have not heard Romney’s explanation for it. Sure, it wasn’t much. So why did he do it?
But this is a good political strategy from Romney supporters, indignantly claim that issues of Mormonism and who he supported when Ronald Reagan was running for president are illegitimate. I don’t think it will work, because it only reinforces the perception there is something to hide. But it is a nice try, I think.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Bay Buchanan is Mormon? Does Pat know that?
January 25th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Republius,
I’m sorry if you think we’re attempting to dodge this “issue”. Again, why don’t you demand that Bush explain why he hired numerous, arguably unqualified, Texans upon entering the White House? I’ll tell you why. Because you’re comfortable with Texans, and uncomfortable with Mormonism. That’s your prerogative. But don’t pretend that the notion that Mormons are somehow fundamentally different from other groups (perhaps more prone to nefarious plots?) isn’t implicit in your question.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
It’s not a question of whether or not these questions are “illegitimate”, Republius. It’s a question of whether or not you are making mountains out of mole hills, which seems to be far and away the general consensus around here. Couple that with the fact that you are claiming Romney to be beholden to the Mormon church over his country based on a tiny campaign donation during a primary and you get the soft bigotry charge.
I would not defend you against this charge regardless of whether or not I supported Romney. At least not based on the work presented in this posting.
And while we’re at it, did the other 14 GOP Senators who broke rank at the end of the day to vote to Paez also place Mormon religion over their country? Oh… that’s right, none of the other Senators were Mormons… and Hatch hardly had the go ahead vote since Paez won confirmation by 20 votes!
January 25th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Questioning why Romney gave donations to a Democrat is legitimate. Questioning why he donated to a Mormon is not. Simple as that.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Republius, please do not take post 15 as me saying you are a bigot - I didn’t intend for it to come out that way. Just that based on this one post, your arguments display a shade that could be interpreted that way.
I think you are just looking way too hard for reasons not to like Mitt Romney.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Republius,
As a governer, please offer me one bit of evidence where Romney put the interest of the LDS church over politics.
Can’t wait for your response. Orrin Hatch is not a good example since Orrin Hatch is not Mitt Romney any more than Brownback is the same Kannedy. Why don’t you bring up Reid who is clearly at odds with the LDS position on several issues?
This gets a little silly at some point, and does sound like bigotry. You are assuming something without evidence, based solely upon his religion. Romney detractors say he is clearly out of line by his faith because of his past positions on abortion yet on the other hand the same people claim that he will follow the marching orders of President Hinckley.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Another daring, yet I think ultimately unsuccessful, campaign tactic from the Romney camp - deem all those questioning their guy to be religious bigots.
Newsflash, such tactics only hurt the Romney campaign rather than those debating, who have no inclination to or history of religious bigotry.
I, for one, am a Roman Catholic who finds it appalling that members of my faith are routinely scuttled for positions on the federal bench because of their implied pro-life views. But I would never support a Democrat for the bench or elective office even if they are Catholic. In matters of policy I support the Republican (Bush) rather than the Catholic Democrat (Kerry). And I just want to know that whomever I support in 2008 for the GOP nomination will do the same - in matters of policy and politics forget about their religion and support their party.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
Jason, I assume nothing. I raise issues and questions, the latter of which I would like to see answered rather than indignantly obfuscated.
Let Romney answer the questions so that I can be confident he is no Orrin Hatch in this regard. Let him explain the Swett contribution. (And I would still like the other two sets of questions, which have nothing to do with Mormonism, answered.)
January 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
No offense Republius. I have quite a bit of respect for your contributions here. I’m a conservative, Baptist, Republican. But when I encounter attitudes like yours, I honestly want to leave the Republican Party. I’m not going to post on this subject anymore, as I’m afraid I’ll say something I’ll regret.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Republius:
I think it is a big stretch to attempt to tar Romney with the implication that he will be beholding to the Mormon church due to a $250 donation that Senator Hatch made or even the Swett contribution. However Matt said it best when he stated that this whole thing wreaks of soft-bigotry. This sort of talk resonates well with Evangelical types who incorrectly claim that religion is a non-Christian cult. It will be well received by many none the less and Romney may not be able to overcome any of this. It is my view that if Romney were not Mormon, he’d be the front runner. Many others would be more forgiving of past changes.
To this end, read what is posted on this site regarding Huckabee in his profile :
Political opponents have criticized his former career as a Baptist minister and lack of political experience by some. His public endorsement of “covenant marriage” and appointment of a number of Baptist friends to positions in his administration and state government have concerned proponents of separation of church and state. Further concerns are a result of the Governor’s association with the ‘Reclaim America for Christ Conferences’. The stated mission of the group is to ‘come together to reclaim this land for Christ.’
This is clear evidence of Huckabee doing exactly what you are implying that Mitt has done or may do.
Let’s all agree on one thing here and now. There will not be a hard-core conservative Republican nominee. If we do nominate a bible thumper, we will guarantee a Hilary or a Obama presidency. It called Bush fatigue folks. That’s why Rudy is polling strong.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
If these questions are what constitutes holding Romney’s feet to the fire, I’d say he’s in great shape.
Contract With America: Just to be clear, 13 years ago Romney criticized very minor parts of the CWA. He said he would have supported the crime bill, and would oppose a capital gains tax cut. He did not criticize the rest of the eight major reforms and ten major bills.
Now look at how Romney governed MA over the last 4 years. The guiding themes of his administration were cutting waste/fraud/abuse, increasing transparency of government, incentives for small businesses, balancing of budgets, eliminating general obligation debt, constant attempts to reduce the income tax, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education…I could keep going, but you get the idea.
Tied to his Church: 15 years ago he contributed $250 to a Mormon democrat from another state. Were there any contributions to non-Mormon democrats? Yup, $250 to John LaFalce (Catholic) of NY. And contributions to non-Mormon republicans? Yup, the huge majority of his personal $94,000 GOP contributions. So that makes the “religion-over-party” claim dubious. How about Mormon preferences during his term? I’m not aware of a shred of evidence to support this…but I’m all ears.
Voting habits in ‘76, ‘80, ‘84: Well who knows. But he’s on record saying he wasn’t always a “Reagan conservative”…and for that matter neither was Reagan. How many people who admire Reagan’s legacy voted for him at the time? Should we take all the converts in the last 22 years out into the street and flog them?
January 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Jake:
“Bay Buchanan is Mormon? Does Pat know that?”
Are you surprised at that? You should not be, your neighbor is probably one. Hmn… I wonder if Pat has disowned her?
(Sarcasm off)…
January 25th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Cwpete, if there is evidence Huckabee puts his faith above his party in matters of policy and politics then he will have no chance for my support.
And I ask these questions not to make implications but in order to get answers and move beyond them.
But I do admire people of faith, and would be glad a candidate was such a person. The term “bible thumper” I find revolting and suggestive that we should not someone of faith on the Republican side, a claim I strongly disagree with.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Republius,
I can’t speak for Romney supporters, but I can tell you that my distaste is not in the questioning of Romney’s record, it’s the lack of questioning of other candidates’ records. ESPECIALLY Rudy Giuliani.
I’m a proud Republican. I also donated to Joe Lieberman in 2006. I did not contribute to Joe’s Republican opponent. In fact, Joe is the only candidate I contributed to in 2006; I didn’t even contribute to the RNC during that campaign. I support Republican politics, but I find that there are times where either 1) Another candidate is superior to the GOP candidate or 2) It is more important to support another candidate for American reasons, not political ones (in the case of Joe Lieberman, I found both to be true). If I ever ran for public office, I would hope that my Joe2006 contribution would not play a role, because it had nothing to do with any distaste for the GOP. I don’t know why Romney’s case should be any different.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Lurker, I have only begun to question. I have to start somewhere.
I agree that all the GOP candidates must be scrutinized and too often are not around here.
You will find that by the end of the cycle I will have gotten to Giuliani (who I have already seriously criticized for his ostensible support of partial-birth abortion, which is just an untenable position in my view), McCain, Gingrich, and any other serious Republican candidate.
As to your support of Lieberman, with all due respect, I disagree with it. Lieberman is an ultra-liberal on everything but the War in Iraq. And I do not believe he is nearly as principled as he tries to come off, having backed away from positions against affirmative action and against pornographic song lyrics once he was in line to be a Democrat vice presidential nominee; ask Bill Bennett about how principled Joe Lieberman is.
But it takes all kinds to be Republican. I am willing to call Republican brother or sister whomever claims to be a Republican; but I am only willing to vote for Republicans who prove faithful to the cause.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Republius,
You haven’t asked the same about Brownback being held to the pope? He has been linked to Opus Dei and several other catholic groups that have political intentions.
Where have the questions on Guiliani been? He is an avowed Catholic. The Catholic church still teaches Papal Infalibility. If you were asking these questions I would say ok, he’s being fair across the board, but your not.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Republius:
If you are sincere with your #25 post than you are consistent and I can see your reasoning..
I wish that certain things could remain private; however one chooses to worship should be one of those private things. Religion should be a non-issue here in the US of all places. Too bad that it is not. The truth is we have more in common than what we have uncommon.
People of faith need to come together and not squabble over petty religious differences. Let’s celebrate unity and commonality while respecting diversity and differences. I know that may be hard for some to do, but in order to accomplish anything productive, people of faith need to stick together and support each other no matter what the religion is.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Cwpete, I agree that religion should be private. I am chagrined it comes up in this context. But when there is evidence that a candidate’s religion is less than private, that it is part of their political and policy decision-making process, then we must pursue it.
Jason, as I told Lurker, I will get to all of the candidates in terms of harsh scrutiny. Are you aware that I have severely criticized Giuliani for his support of partial-birth abortion on these pages? Are you aware I have severely criticized McCain and Hagel (while praising Romney) for their positions on same sex marriage? Are you aware that I was maybe the first person to question the fact that Brownback ran for the U.S. House of Representatives as ostensibly the pro-choice candidate against another pro-life GOPer in his first primary even though he now claims to be staunchly pro-life? Are you aware that I have claimed Gingrich has more baggage than Samsonite and had a very poor record in managing the House as Speaker?
I see so many of my esteemed colleagues on this site cheerleading for their favorite candidate that I feel compelled to play the Devil’s Advocate with all of the GOP hopefuls. In addition, as someone who has worked as a congressional aide and political operative, I know from experience that it only makes sense to do opposition research on your own candidates in order to prepare for opposition attacks.
Romney admittedly has received more scrutiny from me to date on this site than the others. But I promise to move on to the others and leave Mitt alone for awhile. And I am honestly not wedded to voting for any particular GOP candidate yet in this race. I think they all have significant weaknesses.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Let me try to dampen the fire a little bit here… I will not try to speak for Republius, but let me try to explain where I think he (and and many others) may be coming from in this regard. Republius, correct me if you think I am mistaken.
People who have not studied the history of the the GOP may not be aware that there was essentially a “Vichy” wing of the Republican party for much of the 1960’s and 1970’s. These are the guys that took over much (but not all) of the party after the Taft’s and the Bricker’s faded from the scene.
Now by “Vichy”, I don’t mean that they were traitorous to the country, but to the Republican Party itself. In the sixties, they basically declared that liberalism had completely defeated conservatism and that the only way for the GOP to survive was to embrace the New Deal and convince people that they would be better managers of it. These jackasses were known as “Rockefeller Republicans” because NY Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was their leader. In the 1970’s, they acted in a similar fashion over Watergate.
Now when the savior of the American Conservative Movement, Ronald Reagan, was elected in 1980 he instituted the 11th Commandment, which stated that no Republican will publicly speak ill of his fellow Republican.
It is for this reason that Romney’s statements against Ronald Reagan in 1994 will hurt him far worse than any other issue (including abortion and gay rights).
Republican primary voters have very, very, long memories. Video of another Northeastern Republican calling himself an “Independent” and stating that he will not seek to return Massachusetts to the time of Reagan probably will have an effect similar to reports of what happened when Vietnam Veterans watched “Platoon” in the theaters for the first time. Call it Post Traumatic Stress.
That is where this suspicion is coming from.
Now once again, I am not trying to speak for Republius here. I am just trying to explain to some of our readers who seem puzzled by why these questions are even being raised.
Republius, if I have stepped on your toes here, I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Kavon, you correctly sense my concern.
I believe that a major reason the GOP has lost its congressional majorities, squandered its hard-earned momentum from the Reagan and Gingrich years, and is carrying a president from its party with some of the lowest approval ratings in the history of the office is because we have elected Republicans who have said one thing in the campaign and then done another thing once in elected office.
And, yeah, I am a conservative and do not want a Rockefeller or Nixon or Ford or Dole or George H.W. Bush nominee who in reality does not truly believe in the legacy of Ronald Reagan. And I am even willing to criticize Reagan himself in this regard, as Ed Rollins and F. Clifton White and other conservative operatives have - he should have chosen a true Reagan conservative heir to be his running mate in 1980 (and in 1976, for that matter) rather than who he went with.
So I am the guy who is going to err on the side of overscrutinizing my own party’s candidates for president in order to help make sure we get exactly what we think we are voting for in a nominee. To paraphrase Justice Clarence Thomas, I don’t want any more evolving nominees.
Given how hard I have been on Romney, I can see where his supporters would long for the same kind of scrutiny to be applied to Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and the rest. Trust me, I will. And then let’s see which guy can take it.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Let Romney answer the questions so that I can be confident he is no Orrin Hatch in this regard.
Charming. That would be the other Mormon robot bent on instituting a theocracy, yes? Along with the 14 GOP senators he had apparently succeeded in capturing by mind control. Anyway, does the fact that the Swett donation was a primary race change your view at all?
On a side note, I appreciate you being the devil’s advocate around here…this $250 donation thing just seems so absurd in the absence of any more concrete evidence during the last 15 years. If Romney does answer your question, it will probably have a lot in similar with what he’s said previously:
That love of the Constitution Romney has would certainly prohibit the use of religion as a requirement or qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. If you examine the details of his record in office, I’m sure you’ll be satisfied.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Republius,
Question: Do you think the country is better off with an excellent Democrat and an excellent Republican candidate running for a political post, or a rotten Democrat and an excellent Republican candidate running for the post? In other words, what’s more important, the country or the party?
January 25th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Murphy, I do not recall exactly, but I am confident that most, if not all, of the 14 other GOP Senators who voted for the elevation of Judge Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were those on the liberal end of our party’s spectrum. Senator Hatch did a terrible disservice to the conservative cause, in my view, by supporting that Clinton nomination. Can you honestly tell me that any other jurist with such ultra-liberal credentials would have gained Hatch’s support absent being Mormon?
As to Romney, I would not make a primary versus general election distinction vis-a-vis the Swett contribution unless Romney donated to other candidates in the race. I assume he only donated to Swett and that therefore Swett was the guy he supported for Congress from that New Hampshire district. And I would ask the same question as with Hatch - would any other liberal Democrat have gained Romney’s support for Congress at that time in his political development absent being a Mormon?
January 25th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
marK, my view has always been that what is best for the country, which is the most important thing, is to elect any Republican over the best Democrat.
I do not vote for Democrats. Period.
Yeah, there are some lousy Republicans, and I would work hard to try and beat them with a better Republican in the primary.
Keep in mind, I worked as a congressional aide and the first member of Congress I ever worked for reminded audiences he spoke to that the most important vote a member ever casts in Congress is the vote for Speaker or Senate Majority Leader, which is always along party lines. I would always rather elect the person who is going to vote for the Republican for Speaker or Senate Majority Leader.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I know I said I wasn’t going to respond on this subject, but I’ve done a bit of research on Romney’s contributions. Nearly 3% of the US Congress are Mormon. Want to guess how many total dollars Romney has given to Mormon candidates over the years? 4250. Out of 98,455. And 2000 of that went to his sister-in-law (who may not even be a Mormon, as I was unable to find any evidence of that connection). So discounting that, Romney has given less money to Mormon candidates, relative to the percentage of Mormons inhabiting office, then he has to the populat as a whole. Maybe he’s anti-Mormon. Whadda ya think?
January 25th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Republius, I don’t know the details of everyone who approved the Paez nomination, nor am I familiar with Hatch’s history on supporting liberal justices. I wouldn’t rule out religion being a factor…it’s possible. But I’d certainly want to know the answer to these other details before declaring religion to be the motive.
In any case, the fact that you’ve implicated Romney by Hatch’s actions is what I have objection to. No doubt there are examples of Catholics in government doing what Hatch may (or not) have done, but I wouldn’t dream of vetting other Catholics based on anything but their own records.
As for other liberal Democrats who gained Romney’s support, there was John Lafalce of NY in 1992. He was also the lucky winner of $250 in a primary race. He is Catholic.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
murphy, I have not claimed Romney would do what I accuse Hatch of. What I say is that I want answers from Romney because the Swett contribution makes me worry that Romney might do what I think Hatch did.
We are all debating the relative importance of the Swett contribution without any information whatsoever from the candidate about it. Let’s get the information and then decide if it can be put to bed or not.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Well I disagree. I would much rather have the choice between Richardson and Romney, than Hillary and Romney. With the first, if the country chooses the Democrat, they get someone who isn’t too bad. If the second, then the country would get a disaster if they went with the Democrat.
The country is always best served when there are two strong parties putting up strong candidates. Why do you think that I am rooting for Giuliani to run even though I think Romney is the better of the two? I have always held that we must support good men (and women) in office no matter what party.
Out of curiousity, how do you know that Romney supported that Democrat back in 1992 because he was a Mormon? Did either Romney or the Democrat say that, or are you just jumping to the worst possible conclusion you can think of?
January 25th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Truth be told, all I know about Swett was that his first name was Richard, and his mother must have hated him.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Murphy,
I heard on a radio program that the US Constitution is said to be as if canonized scripture among Mormons because the US Constitution is mentioned in one of Joseph Smith’s writings as being regarded and respected as holy.
If true, it would be of utmost holy and Godly importance, in Romney’s mind, to support and respect the Constitution’s contents.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Lurker,
That’s an interesting point. I didn’t know that.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
No, Mormons do not hold the Constitution as cannonized scripture. However, they do hold to it to be the product of divinely appointed men. The exact LDS scripture states that the constitution was written by men whom the Lord had raised up for that very purpose. It stops just short of claiming that the constitution is divinely inspired.
In other words, the Lord lays claim to selecting the Founding Fathers and making sure they made it to Philadelphia. He doesn’t lay claim to what they produced. It is a subtle but important difference.
They do have an article of faith that states: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates: in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
So yes, Mormons have a very healthy respect bordering upon the religious for the Constitution and the laws derived under it.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Lurker,
That’s basically correct. While Mormons don’t exactly whip out the Constitution during Sunday School, and it’s not official canon, many of the leaders of the Church have commented on its “divine inspiration” and the predestined purpose of the Framers.
The “discovery” of new rights in the Constitution based upon the popular moods and moral relativism of the day is very poorly thought of.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Lurker, marK has the more accurate description.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
murphy. . .Maybe its due to lack of sleep but it took me way too long to get what you meant. Now that I get it. . .nice one.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Murphy,
I believe you meant to say, “…the foreordained purpose of the Framers.”
January 25th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Yes, marK, that’s exactly what I meant…I had no intention to step on the free agency of the Framers in the execution of their calling.
That’s what I get for being fast and loose with loaded theological terms.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“And I am even willing to criticize Reagan himself in this regard, as Ed Rollins and F. Clifton White and other conservative operatives have - he should have chosen a true Reagan conservative heir to be his running mate in 1980 (and in 1976, for that matter) rather than who he went with.”
I definitely agree with this statement. Rollins made the case quite persuasively in “Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms.” Reagan’s heart was with NV Gov. Laxalt or Jack Kemp, but the Wise Old Men of the GOP told him he had to go with the political choices, Ford or Bush. I think a VP Kemp would’ve been a great choice. My midwestern Reagan Democrat grandmother loved Kemp, and would probably have voted for him in 1988 and 1992, instead of voting for Dukakis and Clinton in those years along with lots of other Reagan Democrats. Bush was one of the reasons they never became Reagan Republicans, and Bush was also solely responsible for Perot. VP Kemp almost certainly would’ve beaten Dukakis in 1988 and, without Perot, would probably have won reelection in 1992, maybe by a wide enough margin that 1994 would’ve taken place two years early.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Bush was the worst VP pick possible.
January 25th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
I don’t know. Many Republicans dislike Bush I, but he’s actually one of my favorite presidents. I’m hugely against tax increases, but I have to admire the courage it took for him to institute one despite knowing it could cost him his re-election. And history has proven him extremely prophetic on Iraq “Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we’re going to show our macho? We’re going into Baghdad. We’re going to be an occupying power America in an Arab land with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.”
January 25th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
It’s one of the many branches of alternate history that we will never know the outcome of.
Wouldn’t it be fascinating to know what the world would look like today if Jack Kemp was Reagan’s Veep in 1980?
January 25th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
I do believe that if Bush I would have been reelected, he would be regarded as one one of our country’s finest Presidents by many mainstream historians.
January 25th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
It is interesting that you ripped on Reagan for aquiescing to party establishment pressure to pick Bush as his VP. Maybe Bush then chose Quayle when he had the chance to pick his own VP–so that he would look good by comparison. I was so disappointed that he didn’t change his running mate in 1992 that I voted for Perot in protest.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
I must speak up in defense of Bush I. I don’t believe for a second that Reagan was ‘forced’ to take him. One, Reagan ran things his way. Two, if Reagan hadn’t wanted Bush as VP, then why did he make him such an integral part of his administration. He even kept him on during his second term when he could have gone with Kemp or someone else. Bush had tons of experience in leadership and in Government. Reagan truly picked a man who could literally step into his shoes if the “awful awful happened”, as he put it.
Reagan gave him enormous responsibilities. He really was worth having as Vice President. The country was better off with him there.
However, while Bush I was very good at implementing policy, he didn’t do so well at setting policy. Where Reagan wasn’t afraid to select a strong VP that might out shine him, Bush I was so insecure that he chose Dan Quayle, someone guarenteed not to be a threat to him. Think Kerry picking Edwards. Where Bush was in the thick of the Reagan admistation, Quayle never had that much to do during Bush’s adminstration.
So Bush I was one of the best Vice Presidents that the country has ever had. Unfortunately, he didn’t do so well as President.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Can I please post again?
January 25th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Yay! OK i just wanted to say that I think Republius’s qualms are fair, though maybe a little weak.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Jack Kemp’s a great guy, but did any of his hypothetical supporters here see the Gore/Kemp VP debate in 1996? Kemp was absolutely awful! He didn’t prepare, and Gore destroyed him. That George W. Bush went on to at least match Gore in debate during the 2000 campaign should show that Kemp was an undisciplined VP candidate who probably would have lost to Dukakis in 1988 had he been the GOP nominee instead of George H. W. Bush.
I had a growing sentimental fondness and appreciation for Bush 41 as his son’s administration has made a mess of Iraq. Thankfully, the abhorrent Jim Baker-led Iraq Study Group reminded me of why I do indeed prefer the son to the father.
January 25th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Responding to Republius’ original post:
I would ask Republius if he will be as hard on Rudy or other candidates as he wants Hugh Hewitt, etc. to be on Mitt Romney.
I would be fine with Rudy as the GOP nominee, but one should consider him with no illusions. He’s very pro-abortion in terms of policy. He has verbalized support of public funding for abortion. He is against a ban on partial-birth abortion. These are real policy positions, past and current. They are not just statements in the heat of a campaign.
In terms of politics alone, Rudy, not Mitt Romney, has said that he was in the tradition of other New York Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. He denied being a “Reagan Republican.” To get elected in New York, he probably had to say some of these things, just like Mitt had to say what he did to have a chance in Mass. I don’t hold them against him, and I don’t hold what Mitt has said about Reagan and the Contract of America against Mitt. Both of these men governed as conservatives, and they should be judged according to their considerable records of conservative accomplishment.
January 25th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
As far as Kemp goes, he was over the hill in 1996. In 1988, I’m sure he would have been far younger and more vibrant. I also do not believe he would’ve lost to Dukakis. We all remember the SNL skit, where Jon Lovitz proclaimed, “I can’t believe I’m losing to this guy!” as Dana Carvey’s Bush character repeated platitudes like “a thousand points of light.” The joke was funny because Bush 41 was considered an uncharismatic debater.
Kemp was interesting. He would’ve expanded Reagan’s pull among Reagan Dems. I know this, because I grew up in a household full of them. Bush 41 was the natural enemy of the Reagan Dems: a northeastern Republican. I never really understood why, but there seemed to be an animosity towards that kind of Republican from middle Americans who left the Democratic Party post-1968 and flirted with Reagan in the ’80s. But they liked Kemp. I remember my grandfather, who is probably best described as a Dole-like moderate-conservative, trying to get my grandmother to vote for Dole in 1996 by arguing, “But Kemp is like a Democrat!”
As far as Bush 41 goes, history will probably prove him a far better POTUS than he was given credit for.
January 26th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Bush’s Thousand Points of Light speech was unquestionably the best of his career. He, like the son, had poor overall communication skills, but he had his moments.