Nati Harnik/AP Photo
Mitt Romney at a campaign stop in Orange City, Iowa on Friday.
It doesn't appear that Mitt Romney is going to make a play for independent voters any time soon. The GOP nominee gave a ringing endorsement of Republican Congressman Steve King during a speech in Orange City, Iowa.
"I'm looking here at Steve King...He needs to be your Congressman again," Romney declared during his speech at Northwestern College. "I want him as my partner in Washington!"
Romney, possibly the next president of the United States, wants Steve King as his partner in Washington. Not Stephen King, but Steve King — a hardline conservative who once suggested that U.S. immigration policy should be more like picking dogs out of a litter. A man who just last month defended Todd Akin's assertion that the female body had ways of staving off pregnancy during rape. The Iowa congressman also has the distinction of saying this: "The argument that diversity is our strength has really never been backed up by logic."
Apparently the feeling is mutual because when King took the stage he praised his party's nominee by saying, "Don't doubt this man's faith. Don't doubt his convictions." Speaking to one of the most conservative communities in the Hawkeye State, King added, "Do not doubt his patriotism or his faith and his love for Jesus Christ our savior."
Although both Romney's and King's remarks received the approval of the 2,600 people they were speaking to, the Obama campaign immediately issued its disapproval. Spokeswoman Lis Smith responded, "And, if his speech today praising Rep. Steve King — who has questioned whether women get pregnant from rape and incest and said hateful things about immigrants — is any indication, we know he wouldn't stand up to the most strident voices in his party."
Romney's support of the Congressman arrived one day after the Democratic National Convention where he was attacked as being weak and out of touch with the American people.
Leave a Comment:
Romney's support of the Congressman (who is proud of his religious beliefs) comes two days after the Democrat Party Convention where they rained boos down on GOD being put back into their Party Platform.
Hey Keith - who made you God? If you believe in God, leave the judging to Him/Her instead of being a hypocrite...which Jesus found contemptible. If you're a "good Christian, Jew, whatever", you won't have to tell a soul, we'll notice. See Jimmy Carter.
Oh, Dianne, honey! You're in the wrong business. We have not had a draft in this country since the 1970s, when the Romney kids were all still in grammar school or diapers, I believe. Hard for them to evade our all volunteer military services therefore. In today's Armed Forces, our combat arms branches are more career tracts, the just one "patriotic" duty is really more of an rarity, and the military prefers it that way, for when they expend a lot of money and time training military personnel, they don't want to lose them after a few short years of service, you know! But if you are arguing for a return of the draft, I doubt if you will find many in your Party or the Military that favor that.
Now, because Romney is a Bishop in the Mormon Church that excludes him from the Presidency of the US for what reason? You not wanting to vote for a Catholic for President is your business, it certainly isn't any business of yours who votes for anyone other than your own self. But if you want to check it out, Democrat Jack Kennedy was Catholic and the last to meet that "all catholics own obedience to the POPE argument" head on. You should go read his speech on the subject. Democrat Al Smith was another famous man with Presidential ambitions, who happened to be Catholic, and really seemed to suffer because of it...but we have made great strides away from bigotry from the early part of the last century in this country, dear. Even Jack Kennedy's daughter Carroline, who is still angling to get into politics, was up in front of the Democrat Convention arguing for the Democrat Party's doctrine found in their Platform of Federal Govenmnent supported free access to abortion for all, as is found under ObamaCare. Better let her know of your concerns, Dianne.
Dianne, if you're feeling patronized by Longey here, there's a reason for it. Romney's role in the church as an LDS bishop and stake president is markedly different than JFK' s Catholicism. That's one of those talking points Romney's surrogates have been putting forth to sidetrack debate on this subject. And of course factual accounts of LDS history are denounced as acts of religious bigotry.
Here's a marvelous video from Al Jazeera. Before Grandpa Fuzz hollers too loudly--he will anyway, of course--I note that the host of this show, Bob Abeshouse, is Jewish, and two Mormons, Joanna Brooks and Richard G. HInckler are featured extensively. Hinckley is the son of the late LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley and an emeritus "General Authority."
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/peopleandpower/2012/04/201244114433199395.html
This video is as objective and fair as can be, and I would point viewers to my close friend, iconoclastic historian Will Bagley, and another former Mormon, Mike Moody, who served in Vietnam while Romney was off in France on a mission. Moody attended BYU at the same time as Romney and ran in the same circles.
That "badge of persecution" Mormons wear does date back to the polygamist era, which, contrary to denials, persisted here in the Salt Lake Valley until the 1940's. "Plural marriage" is still practiced by a number of fundamentalist sects, including the one led by Warren Jeffs who is in a Texas prison on child rape convictions. Mormons have been unsuccessful in separating themselves from this "heritage" because they have consistently maintained theirs is "the one true church with a living prophet."
And despite the Romney camp's disavowals, I see that Brooks described Romney as "dialed in to LDS leadership in Salt Lake." In fact, when we see his flip flops on gay marriage and abortion rights, he first consulted with LDS leaders, saying he couldn't get elected in Massachusetts if he adopted mainstream Republican views on those two issues. Will notes the essentially Machiavellian nature of the entire "corporate mentality" of the church, and speaks of his own familiarity with LDS doctrine (he's still technically a member).
Finally, I received this little e-mail from my "history mentor" with a link to a story by another author, Judith Freeman, a former Mormon who was married in the LDS Temple. She wrote a novel about Will's and my "favorite" historical subject, the Mountain Meadows Massacre... Okay, that sound bizarre, since the 1857 slaughter of innocent Arkansas emigrants--80 of them women and children--by Southern Utah Mormons is a gruesome and complex story, but Bagley has treated the subject with an insider's sensitivity. Despite the LDS church spending millions of dollars--and eight years-- on a "rebuttal," his Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and The Mountain Meadows Massacre has received widespread scholarly acclaim.
http://lareviewofbooks.org/article.php?type=&id=877&fulltext=1&media=
The e-mail accompanying this link simply said, "Make it viral, Cabbie."
Done deal, my friend...
Boos – a protest of Villaigosa’s parliamentary procedure, not against God
“On the 3rd vote, [Los Angeles Mayor Antonio] Villaigosa ruled that the “Ayes” had won—by a two-thirds majority… [Re-inserting the word God in the platform] That ruling from the chair was an obvious abuse of power. It was impossible to say, simply from the volume of voices, whether the “Ayes” outnumbered the “Nays.” To assert that the “Ayes” predominated by a 2-to-1 margin was simply absurd. Quite understandably, many delegates objected to the ruling. So their boos were aimed at Villaraigosa, not at God.”
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?id=402
Language added back to the Democratic platform
God
“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.”
Not in the Constitution – for a very good reason. The vanilla ice cream, manure analogy comes to mind as well as the Danbury Baptists.
Jerusalem
“is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.”
More or less balanced article showing the growing Evangelical view that God is “finished” with Israel and thus the original covenant is no longer valid. Note this view is being promoted by Evangelicals – not atheists.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-dnc-platform-god-jerusalem-20120905,0,558903.story
Another article showing small but growing Evangelical support for Palestinians over Israel. In either case, "inserting" religion into politics harms religion far more than it harms politics. (Suggested reading: Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America.)
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/97155/christians-for-palestine
The vast number of older American's grew up with the instruction in our public schools of the importance of freedom of religion to our founding fathers, and the belief incorporated into our constitution that our INDIVIDUAL rights are endowed to us by our Creator, and that the unifying priniciple of America in our government isn't in Big Government we Trust, but in fact as is printed on our very currency, "In God We Trust". I'm guessing that the delegates that were voting NO to allowing the reinsertion of God back into their curriculum were mostly folks that had come along since athiests managed to successfully object to recitation of the Lord's Prayer or even moments of silent prayer in our Schools, the striking of One Nation "Under God" from the pledge of alliegance in our public schools, and peoples whose education was not in our public schools but those of other nations.
And the ones that joined the secularists and atheists amongst the Democrat delegates to vote NO on the reinsertion of recognition of Jerusalem were the same anti-War crowd that swept Obama to the forefront 4 years ago, and have no sympathy or intention to see the United States support Israel, even when threatened by a soon to be nuclear armed and missle owning Iran, who so far has only materially threatened that Jewish state with support and arming with rockets and small arms and bomb making materials to the Palestinian Hezbollah, but verbally has threatened continuously to annihilate the Jewish peoples and their state of Israel. And these "Peace at any Price"delegates were augmented with a small but growing number of Muslims, especially in the Michigan Democrat Delegation.
Taking God out of the Soviet Union, and dividing up Berlin as the rightful capital of Germany didn't do any good as history will tell the tale. Doing the same with God in the United States and Jerusalem for Israel is the same deal, Adam. And when they didn't prevail in their vote against the amendment, that vocal 1/2 of the delegates rained boos down upon that outcome, not the Mayor of San Francisco! They wanted a roll call vote so that they could prevail on keeping God out of their Platform, and Jerusalem too.
For readers to have a good grasp of why the founding fathers did not mention "God" in the Constitution, it is necessary to read the "state" constitutions that were in force before the Constitution was ratified. In several "states" only Protestants could hold government office, in others only Christians. In at least one state the collection of "tithes" was the responsibility of the state and those funds were distributed in a way that favored the "majority" religion this even continued after the Constitution. Technically, the Constitution (as originally written) does not forbid "state" religions or a state "religious test" for holding state office. While many early state constitutions followed the lead of the federal constitution and removed religious tests and state preferences to particular religions - a few maintained them. The Supreme Court has in the past few decades, found these state tests to be unconstitutional.
The founding fathers - understood that the inclusion of religion in the Constitution would result in constant strife between denominations and a debasement of all religions.
They were reasonably successful - again - read Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America. He attributes the vitality of religion in the US in the 1830's to the absolute separation of church and state and the total avoidance of politics by religious leaders.
If one is determined to believe that the Democrats booed "God" at their convention rather than the flawed voting procedure, it might be helpful to determine which god they were booing. The "god" of the Buddhists, one or all of the 330 million Hindu dieties, Waheguru of the Sikh's. Allah of the Muslims, the plurality of gods taught by Joseph Smith (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2 p.48), or the Creator,Mother Earth and Elders of native american spiritualism? Since many if not most Evangelicals believe all of these to be not only "false gods" but Satan - would it not be appropriate to boo them if you are an Evangelical?
"But wait" the reader counters, "we're talking about the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - the God of the old and new testament. That's who the Democrats booed."
Ahhh - thank you for that clarification - now I have a better understanding of "under God", "in God we trust", "prayer in public schools" and several other things.
So the United States is the "Christian Nation" of the Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, and Reconstructionists where Christians have "rights" and all others have "privileges"?
"We find these truths to be self evident. We are blessed by our Creator with the God given individaul rights of life, liberty, and the pursuits of happiness......"
Sound familiar, Adam? I don't believe the forefathers were contemplating Buddha, or the Hindu Gods, or Allah, although the Unitarians amongst them might have had a blurred image of that universality of the Creative Spirit. And the guarantee in our Constitution of the Freedom of Religion does not incorporate the ascendancy of the rights of the non religious over the religious, which is very much the path we are headed on in this country, much to our chagrin as our societies, especially are family lives, continue to suffer for that.