Sunday, August 26, 2012

SHOW TIME IN TAMPA---STARRING MITT ROMNEY ( AND HURRICANE ISAAC)

If I were Mitt Romney this weekend, I would be raising my hands to the sky and pleading, "What   next??!!"

The Republican convention in Tampa, Florida is what. It was scheduled to begin Monday night---right about the time Hurricane Isaac is poised to hit close to Tampa.  Is this another  cruel irony for the Republicans?? Talk about your parade being rained upon. At this point in time, the convention has now been delayed until Tuesday, with plans to compact and shorten  appearances and speeches,  but it's not looking so good for Florida or the Republicans. The latter is still trying to clean up  the verbal mess left  by the congressman from Missouri last week, who at best, misspoke about his views on abortion. Never mind that Joe Biden "misspeaks" every other week, most recently casting Romney as a racial chain master.  The man is a loose cannon, a slick pol of the worst kind, posing as a blue collar sympathizer, guffawing and grinning his way through lies and innuendos----and for the most part getting away with it, because he's just old Joe at it again. Whether Americans are buying his schtick of the avuncular, jocular, means- no- harm sidekick to Obama, or see him as the slick politician with a careless tongue stuck on stupid, is anyone's guess at this point, but it's curious that Obama keeps him around.  Maybe it's because Biden makes Obama look good----dumb cop, smart cop.

But regardless, Obama and company seem to be on a roll, and may once again run away with the prize. Amazing really. Here you have a man, the president, who has virtually done nothing to help us get out of this recession, and many argue that he has done great damage, not only domestically, but internationally. But he remains extremely popular because of his personality which seems to speak to the common man in a hip, cool, they versus us, Robin Hood sort of way. Which is odd, because Obama isn't common at all, but is more of an elitist, academia kind of persona in reality, not known to be warm, affable, or approachable. Just the other day, he had the temerity to suggest that he is usually the 5th or 6th most interesting man in the room, but not that particular occasion. How very humble.  He is not humble. Arrogance shows in the slight skyward lift of his head, and the words he uses to disparage anyone who disagrees with him. But still, he charms with his winning smile and a swagger borne from an enviable inner confidence. He knows how to win, even if he plays dirty, while whining that others do---because he has that "it" factor, otherwise known as panache or charisma---he's the homecoming king, even if he doesn't deserve to be.

Enter Mitt Romney, the man who would be president if only he had more-----uh, what do we want him to have??  Look at him----really look at him, beyond his rather reserved, unshowy personality.  He is handsome in a clean cut, wholesome kind of way.  He is  smart, articulate, successful, and a good family man. He's not cool, he doesn't swagger, and one gets the feeling that it's almost painful for him to indulge in the underbelly of politics. He's a gentleman with manners and morals. He may be just what we need now---a good money manager, a proven commodity in the business world, an x-governor, and a man obviously capable of great leadership. What more could we ask? Our problem, the one that's sinking us, keeping us awake at night, is economics, pure and simple. And Romney has much better credentials and experience in that regard. than Obama. Slam dunk.

 So, what's the problem??  Is it simply that the media has once again done a number on this Republican that isn't even known to be a right leaning conservative, but is, regardless, not one of their own?  Or is it the Dems who have painted Romney's success as somehow undeserving and even underhanded?? Never mind that he saved many a company from bankruptcy and did what it took to do so, salvaging many jobs in the process. Unable to find any personal baggage with which to smear him, the Dems have savagely attacked his business accomplishments , resorted to name calling, and even accused him of indirect murder!  Incredible, really, and proof that there is no accounting for taste, opinion, or how we vote these days----it's not even all about image, but more about connectability. Obama connects, he clicks, he's the king of popularity. Romney is the  straight man to Obama's star quality dazzle. At least that's what we're being told by the media---it's more important to "connect", the new media buzz word,  than to actually fill  the need, more important for the suit to look good, than to fit properly.

Well, what can Romney do to change this, to connect with the American people? The media has the answer, as always--- he cannot change his personality, become what he's  not, but he can get very clear about who and what he is. Tell us his vision and how it will make us better.  Then tell us how he plans to get there. This is what we're told---Romney just doesn't have "it".

 But here's the kicker--- hello??  He's  already done that, in his own quiet way.  The media, and perhaps we as well, just aren't paying enough attention to a mild mannered man, who may very well have the answers to our problems, but isn't oozing "connectability". He has told us clearly that he plans to repeal Obamacare, begin to restore our budget,  and stop our bleeding Medicare and Medicaid programs. He is a man who  believes  in the "American Dream", the old fashioned way---with a government  that is there to help, not hinder progress.  He is the polar opposite of Obama in terms of ideology, but he is not radical within his own party, given to extreme partisanship. I believe he will put country before faith, but that his faith will inform his charity to others.  He is a straight man, not a rock star.  But can he shine at least enough to win?  The polls show the two men in almost a dead heat.

 And now perhaps there will be the perfectly timed storm to deny Romney and the Republicans the bright lights and bounce they need.  But maybe it will supply the electricity the Romney campaign needs ---Mother Nature will do what Romney can't---CONNECT!  In any case,  it ain't over till the fat lady sings, and there's still the simmering pots of Syria,  Israel threatening war against Iran, and the economy. There's still time for the American people to mull, compare, consider their choice. There is, however, no time to get sidetracked by silly sideshows and issues blown out of proportion for political expediency.

 Is it a horse race, or a popularity contest?  No,  it's much more--- the biggest election in years. Buckle your seat belts and get ready for the last laps around the arena of  media hype, vicious ads, public perception, and the winds of war and weather.  Keep an eye out for the winner---he'll be coming around the mountain soon.  Let's hope he's wearing the serious mantle of a leader, not the sparkly crown of a king.   

       

43 comments:

  1. You're right about one thing: They're in a dead heat. So why are you feeling sorry for either of them? The convention will give the GOP a temporary bump in popularity. Since they have closed the door to super stars, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, perhaps they can get away without any disasterous blunders, at least. Seriously, Mitt
    Romney doesn't seem to stand for anything in particular, which may be comforting, but he has chosen an extremist for a running mate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who would you have preferred for a running mate?
    Maybe Sara Palin or Donald Trump??

    What did Obama stand for? Oh, I forgot, "Hope and change"! Yes, that was it, how could I forget---such a specific agenda. Read above blog again for what Romney stands for---or his lips. Smaller government and a better economy based on lots of governing and business experience, guts, and integrity to get the job done.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll bet you would---just like I would like for Obama to replace Biden with oh, let me see---so many to choose from. Maybe, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. No, old Joe is doing a fine job---lol.

    Be sure to watch Paul Ryan hit it out of the park tonight---no matter what he says, the dems will ridicule, slash, and burn. Gotta love politics ---love thy neighbor, but not the competition!Actuallly, I thought, Mrs. Romney and Chris Chisty were pretty easy on Obama last night---didn't you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought Ann was schmaltzy. How very Mormon of her! Chris is indeed a fine public speaker! But I didn't hear any substance--just as "smaller government" doesn't mean anything. Where is small enough? What parts should be smaller? By how much? Why does smaller government mean intruding on the private lives of women? Does it mean smaller military? What of the reduction in govenrnment employees (about $500,000)during the Obama administration? Does that count?

    Paul Ryan is another incredible public speaker--extremely articulate, formidable. My problem with him is Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek on economics and the conservative wing of the Catholic church (including the current Pope)on social issues, e.g., birth control. What's as scary is the Republican platform, which could have been written by Ryan, in my opinion.

    I'm not looking forward to hearing Condolizza Rice. Are you?

    Actually, I'm not going to be home tonight. ...Going to hear the author of THE SHALLOWS, Nicholas Carr, speak on the way technology is changing the way we think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I should have stayed home for the RNC. Nicholas Carr came off more shallow than even political schtick.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry to hear that---do you not want to read the book now?? Have to tell you---it looks pretty interesting, but there is still time to change your mind!

    You missed a good speech tonight by Ryan---wish Romney could rile the crowd like he did.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, I still need to read the book as it's for one of my book discussion groups. Maybe I'm wrong. You might find it interesting.

    I know I missed a good speech last night--a very hard act for Romney to follow! You don't seem to have much hope of that. We shall see. He has some pretty heavy hitting speech writers working for him, too. I'm helping a friend babysit his grandchildren tonight, so I don't know if the TV will be on the RNC or not. I hope so, so you and we out here in blogland have something to discuss!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Romney isn't a "riler", or a fancy speechifier, but the good news is he's a "get it done" kind of guy, and that's exactly we need now. I'll be watching him and wishing him well. I have to agree, I thought Ann Romney's speech was a little gushy, buy the woman isn't a pro and loves her man. It glowed from her face and showed in her own schmaltzy way. I believe her sincerity and her words when she promised that her husband won't let us down, and that he loves this country, and will work hard to help us get over this crisis. I hope he can convey some of her passion tonight----

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unfortunately for the Repubs "Showtime" seemed to be starring Clint Eastwood. And the cameo by Isaak didn't help much either. Of course, those were the only spontaneous events of the RNC. Romney's speach was good--no surprise there. Of course, the DNC will be thoroughly scripted, too. ...Can't afford bloopers in front of 20 million people. Some drama would be nice though. Don't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps, but I think the financial crisis we are experiencing is drama enough---we need a steady hand and some know-how. The conventions are all well and good, but talk is cheap---and balloons and singing and cheering somehow seem so out of place. There is a great sense of loss going on, and nobody out here is in the mood for speeches and party hats---we want action and answers, and soon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The DNC is coming close on the heals of the RNC--an attempt to eclipse any gains garnered by the opposition. Will you be watching? One way to action and answers is to elect a super majority of Dems to the Senate and a majority in the House, not just the incumbent President. Another four years of gridlock won't put anyone in a party mood. But just think: Refurbished highways and bridges, super fast rails (especially in the East), more earth-friendly technology and energy, more money in the pockets of those who really do stimulate the economy:
      The middle class consumers. Think of the jobs and commerce such initiatives could produce. The Repubs have formally pledged never to raise taxes. They're captives of Grover Norquist! Only the Dems have any wiggle room for tax reform. The financial crisis began with tax inequity beginning with Ronald Reagan and going down hill through both of his tax-cutting Republican successors, and it can only be dodged through increasing revenue. Well, the Democratic superstars will say all this and more at the DNC. So, let's wait and see how the noncommitted voters will respond.

      When we get the economy up and running again, welfare reform may take a place on stage again. Recipients of TANF (which replaced AFDC) have been losing ground fast ever since Clinton unleashed it on them. We need to take another look at those whose lives have already been trashed through the focus on the deficit. They and others in real need of entitlements must not be singled out to solve this crisis. Their vulnerability is greater than than those who can ante up more.

      Delete
  11. Yes, I will be watching. But I don't expect anything but blame and bashing. I'll even listen if Obama will tell us how he plans to pull us out of this downhill slide---but I don't think he has the answers. More stimulus to build all those bridges, roads, railroads ( the latter of which I understand is not feasible even in a better economy)?? Why wasn't at least some of it done with the first stimulus---"not enough shovel ready jobe", straight from the lips of Obama. You cannot tax the middle class now, and there isn't enough from the rich to make enough difference---how many times have we beaten this horse??

    The sense of loss I referred to in my last comment is real---people are not better off than they were 4 years ago, and they know it. The gridlock is not all the Republicans' fault--such an easy blame game target. Obama had it all his way the first 2 years, both House and Senate filled with Democrats--and after that, there was no compromising, because it was their way ( House and the Senate) or no way. That isn't compromise, that's the The Affordable Healthcare law we have now. We're gagging on it, because it was jammed down our throats.

    Nobody wants to see people in real need suffer, but higher taxes will not make that element of a society go away. Read Steve Forbes' new book--can't remember the name of it now, but he proposes that the free market and capitalism generates a certain level of morality better than big government, by virtue of the fact that it serves the consumer and his/her demands. Fair prices are dictated by competition, products get better and better, again because of competition and the nature of serving the desires of the customer. He further proposes that human nature and its greed is present, no matter whether in govt. or the market place, but the market place is in the business of pleasing the customer, in order to stay in business. It is not necessarily altruism, but nor it it a forced enterprise, like Healthcare---it has to work for the benefit of those it serves, so everyone wins.

    And if you're in the mood for a movie--go see "2016"---then, at least, you may better understand who you are following---really??? Is it biased? Maybe, but it is a documentary produced by an immigrant from the slums of India who grasped and rode the American Dream. His sense of loss of that dream is palpable, as he sees Obama's dreams coming true.



    ReplyDelete
  12. Footnote to above: Steve Forbes' new book: "Freedom Manifesto" ( Why Free Markets are Moral and Big Government Isn't.) Some bedtime reading for you!

    ReplyDelete
  13. First: regarding Steve Forbes. Though not this book, I have read some of his stuff, and he's one of the last persons I'd chose as a mentor of ethics or morality. Fortunately, my bedtime reading is already occupied by a tall stack of books (mostly on Kindle, actually).

    Second: Regarding the beaten horse, just know this: I have done the math and there certainly is a sufficient hoard of riches among the wealthy to reduce the deficit and take care of the least fortunate among us. I have read your arguments on the other side, but I agree that the horse is dead. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this important issue.

    Third: We had gridlock from the first day of Obama's administration, because although he had a Democratic Congress, he didn't have the super-majority in the Senate to stop the unprecedented number of filabusters in the Senate. The Repubs abused this quirk in the law for no other reason than to disallow anything, whether they agreed or not, from passing if could be credited to Barak Obama. Many people have not been fooled by this prank and still intend to vote for Obama. Even after the RNC, it's still a dead heat.

    Fourth: Taxation has already made "that element of our society" disappear. All one has to do is visit our near neighbor, Mexico, to see the results of neglect. Poverty there is far less avoidable than under our system, even with its inadequacy. We have made progress over the years, but the Repubs want to turn the clock back to 19th century capitalism. We've been there; done that.

    Fifth: Free market and a controled economy are neither moral nor immoral, but purism in either is definitely wrong headed. Steve Forbes seems to know all about greed, but fails to acknoledge humanity's general good will--at both (hopefully overlapping)poles. We have recently been buffetted by extremists' ideas, but most of us are not extremists. We (more or less) want to do what's best for all of us.

    Sixth:

    Seventh:

    eighth:

    Etc.

    Etc.

    Etc.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wasn't Michelle's speech great?!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Didn't catch it---but have heard her speak many times. She's a good speaker, and I'm sure she did an admiral job. Most first ladies do their husbands proud and are assets--yea for women!!!

    BUT---really wish the Dems would get off this "war on women" tear--there is no war. There may be issues, but none nearly as important as the economy and jobs and the future of this country. It is a distraction, and such an irony that they would pick Bill Clinton as the star speaker, while at the same time calling themselves protectors of women---Bill Clinton?? Give me a break---aside from his oval office caper with Ms. Lewinski, there were multiple others, some who used words other that "caper" to describe his actions upon them. Hardly a role model, Mr. Clinton,but the hypocrisy and lies continue as we continue to be fed the pablum of politics.

    ReplyDelete
  16. But Clinton gave such a great speech! Everybody loved it. Actually, I liked Joe Biden's speech best. Obama seemed tired. I watched them at a sports bar until it got so noisy I couldn't hear, then I went out to the car and listened to it on the radio. I liked the part about being both good business people and good citizens.

    Ah, yes: Monica Lewinski! I almost had an opportunity to catch a glimps of her coming out of the Watergate Hotel when I was in DC years ago. My wife pulled me away, though. I wonder what she's doing now. ...Not my wife. I know what she's doing!

    Fortunately, this time both candidates are devoted husbands and fathers. But I'm going to break one of my own rules and bring up religion. As a Mormon, is Mitt Romney more beholden to Salt Lake City than America as a whole? What's your take on this? It's a taboo subject in public, but it could be very important.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is Obama more beholden to Muslims than America as a whole?? Was JFK more beholden to the Catholic religion than America as a whole?? I would think and pray that any president would put this country and its people of many different faiths and non-faiths above any personal religion. Romney has stated that he would certainly do that---I believe the man. By the same token, I am glad that he has a faith in a higher being---and real sense of service, which seems to have come from his upbringing as a Mormon. True servanthood is rare in a politician, and I think Romney has that quality.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Obama is not a Muslim, Kellee.

    The rest of your paragraph is well stated.

    BTW: I didn't mean to say that being a Muslim would be any less than any other religion. ...Just setting the record straight.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Correct---Obama's stated faith is that of Christian. But he has great sympathy for the Muslims, as well he might, since his father and his step father were both Muslim; and for awhile he, too, was raised as a Muslim, later converting to the Christian faith. I was meaning to say that these things could color his judjement and perhaps do in terms of mid east diplomatic decisions. I think the chances of his making a decision based on those sympathies are possible, just as it was and is possible for any president of any faith to do the same---you cannot completely separate any man from his personal ideals and source of values and moral code. It is undoubtedly the reason that most of our presidents have strongly supported Israel---and may be the reason Obama seems not quite as enthusiatic, even though it would be more politically beneficial for him. I am not condemning Obama for this---only stating that while most presidents put the office ahead of their personal faiths, it is impossible to completely separate the two.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I must say: A well crafted mini-essay! Of course, it makes my point about Mitt Romney and his religion. Would that we knew more about it. Would that more people knew the tensions now inside the Catholic faith and how they must affect the two vice-presidential candidates.

    Regarding mid-east conflicts: I would prefer a moderate to a hawkish pro-Israel president. We now have an unambiguous pro-Israel president, as were all who have served before him, but matters could be a lot more dangerous were we to elect one hated even more in the Arab world. Frankly, I don't know where Romney comes down on this issue, but you seem to imply that he would be less "sympathetic" to Muslims than Barak Obama. This country was attacked because of perceived American injustice in the Middle East. Obama has been building up trust again around the world without sacrificing our reputation for toughness--far from it! America will thrive and Israel will survive as we become known for dispassionate fairness as well as strength.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It makes your point, only in so much that all presidents are products of their upbringing to a degree. However,the great ones, I believe, transcend party politics, and become even greater as they realize the enormous responsibility to all Americans, not just their party and the power brokers within it. I believe that Reagan and Bush were such men, Clinton was to a point, and I feel that Romney will certainly, if elected, put country before anything else. His faith in God as a supreme being, and his inclination to help those in need will spring from his religion, but I have no fear of his trying to oonvert us all to Mormonism. or to make decisions esoteric to his faith. I also believe, btw, that Obama is a good man, made probably more so by his religious background, but I don't happen to agree with his world view, which is also probably influenced by his faith. Viva la difference and the choice we have this Nov .

    ReplyDelete
  22. ...A very eloquent definition of statesmanship, even though we may differ on the examples. But I'd like to change the subject: Although a religious man myself, I occasionally run into people who seem more accomplished and statesmanlike than myself who are not religious, even atheistic! They are the true secular humanists. The last I heard they made up about 17% of the population in the USA. While at present it is impossible for such to succeed in politics, they still make significant contributions to our body politic and culture. It would be well if such were accepted on the political scene as much as a Mormon or Catholic or any other persuasion. When Romney said in 2008 that we shouldn't be concerned about his brand of religion but should at least approve of his belief in God, I recoiled and hurt for that 17%, many of whom I respect. Are they properly represented in this republic when they are deemed inferior? What the state needs is justice--not religion. Luther once said he'd rather have a competent Turk as a prince than an incomptetent Christian. What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think we are born with an inherent goodness and soul that seeks the light--which should not be surprising, because we come from a divine source, the God of the universe. I believe whether we believe or not in our own divinity, we are intuitively driven to do good, but are often derailed by our human instincts to do bad and wrong things. While I respect the secular humanists among us, I am more comfortable with having our leaders be men/women of faith, whose natural intincts to do good are reinforced by a God who tells us to love one another, among other things. I am not particularly concerned with the 17% of secular humanists---they are not treated as pariahs, nor should they be; but nor should a minority rule the majority. After all,like it or not, we were once founded on Christian/Judeo principles, and it is my opinion that those principles and moral code derived from same, have been part of
    our strength. Justice alone would be cold and merciless. And whose justice, founded on whose moral code would it be?? It is also my feeling that we are becoming dangerously close to someday becoming more sympathetic or supportive of secularity than maintaining our historical foundation of a nation under God. This may sound pedantic or old fashioned, but I believe a nation that stands for nothing, for fear of offending something or somebody, will surely lose its compass---for there will be none, other than a desire to please all, to offend no one, to be nothing but a faceless place devoid of any identity save "tolerance for all", and belief in nothing but our own importance and sense of right and wrong, which is always subjective and often fallible.

    A competent Turk or an incompetent Christian? Why assume that Cristians are incompetent? Don't know many Turks, but there are plenty of competent Christians, Jews, Arabs, etc. around. One is coming to town soon---his name is Netanyahu, and the word is our president refuses to meet with him---do we have a prejudicial issue here???

    ReplyDelete
  24. Our compass regarding slavery didn't come from religion, since both sides had the Bible on their side. We didn't get the principle of tolerance from religion, since religions, including those at the foundation of the nation, have been notorious for their intolerance. Current issues in need of more justice and less religion include birth control and the bias toward Israel. Both evangelical Christians and conservative Jews quote the Bible as defence for Jewish property rights in the Middle East. And Muslims look to the Quran for their right to the Dome of the Rock. The church is a Johnny-come-lately to the conservation movement. "Under God" was added to the Pledge during the Communist scare of the 1950s, and certainly does exclude a large minority of the actual citizens of the country. And marriage is, except in the Mormon and Catholic traditions, a civil arrangement, but hidebound religionists try to impose their version and so make life more complicated for gays and lesbians who wish to take advantage of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. New Zealand is perhaps the most secular nation on the planet, and they seem to get along just fine with their indentity intact. Each religion espouses a set of beliefs at odds with every other. Can they all be right? Or are they one and all based on lies? Is that what we choose for a moral compass? Mormons even teach dissimulation if in the service of the reputation of their church. To them, a lie is better than the truth if the end is to the institution's benefit. Is that the moral compass we want to cultivate in this era already beset by intransparency and cover ups? President Obama had to play down his adherance to the Rev. Wright during the last campaign and assert his own conscience as sovereign over religious bias. The Catholic church probably will never live down its cover up of sexual assault against children over centuries!

    I don't know about the visit by Netanyahu you mention, nor how that's being handled by the White House. But the fact is the USA has unambiguously supported Israel ever since its establishment in 1948 while turning a deaf ear to the cries for justice by the former, ancestral residents of that piece of real estate. The President must be careful over the diplomatic messages he sends out, and every flick of the eyebrow sends a diplomatic message. The recent flap over an obscure film is evidence of just how volatile our relationships with other nations can be. Our Secretary of State made the point that the USA stands for the rights of freedom of speech even when we find that which is expressed highly distasteful. We didn't get that value from religion, but the Muslim nations do use their religion to suppress it.

    I do not necessarily represent the views I've referenced above--merely giving voice to influence secular humanism--even atheism--has had on the development of the contemporary American ideas of right and wrong. Yes, our intuition toward the good, which you beautifully describe in the first part of your essay, must be called forth, even when it is contrary to somebody's idea of religious "truth". BTW: This was the essence of Jesus' message as he quoted the Old Testament prophet's adage, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice", "sacrifice" here meaning mindless religious behavior. He was actually crucified as a threat to religion, both the Jewish and Roman versions. Paul carried on the teaching of love over empty ritual. Yes, it is the human conscience that must be quickened in public affairs in our currently pluralistic society. We have spokesmen and women on all sides who serve to reinforce that movement, some of them religious some nominally not. We can cock our intuitive ears for their leadership. They give public voice to a true moral compass. And we can see it in our own history if we only look with all the objectivity we can muster--never perfect but always a worthy and useful ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Very interesting---but you make religion sound like a culprit, a tool and excuse for bad behavior. I agree it can and has been, but I submit you are only looking at the glass half full---there is much good in religion of all faiths. The problem with all religions are the people who muddy the good that they would/could do---by imposing their man determined doctrines or interpretation of right and wrong upon their followers. Slavery was wrong, but condoned not because of religion, but because of man's desire to serve himself, not God. It had nothing to do with religion per se. Religion also had nothing to do with the horrible sins perpetrated upon children within the Catholic church---it was a sin against all that is good, including the Catholic church. Again,the sin itself had nothing to do with the Catholic religion---but it was a monstrous sin of the church to hide and protect those who had committed those acts and compounded the sin. ---no doubt about it.It was a supreme case oase of man's sinful nature riding rough shod over God's laws, and of the powerful within the church defending the indefensible in order to protect their own power---almost unforgivable.

    The other two examples you gave of religion affecting government were more political than religious---and religion should not be held accountable in my opinion. Birth control, in the context I think you were referring to, via free pills to prevent pregnancy, again has nothing to do with religion--taking the pill does, but providing the means "free" is a political issue, because of course, nothing is free---we, the tax payers, are providing this "free" option. It does not mean, as is so commonly misconstrued, that we are against women's free choice, only that we don't necessarily feel we should all have to chip in for that choice---in this case, it is the Catholic Church which feels they should have the choice to not provide something which is against their religion.

    The issue of Israel is a thorny one--but it is more political again, in reality, than religious, even though it wears the clothes of religiosity. The land was legally bequeathed to the Jews, for there at the time, seemed no other fair and just answer for a people who had suffered terribly at the hands of an unspeakable evil.But yes, there is a religious aspect to the political choices we make re that country---like I said, thorny issue. But all decisions are influenced somewhat by one's morals, whether religious or secular to a degree. But the secular argument is not necessarily more valid than the religious in my view. Religion is only as good as that which it espouses, and should never be confused with true divinity----which is far wiser and more pure than most of us will ever fully know on this earth. The pity is that "religion" is often blamed for the ills of a society, when if fact, it is the twisted, perverted version of man made religion, not at all what being a follower of God is all about. In summary, I still prefer a nation who believes in a supreme God,---and yes, I realize the words, "under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50's. I remember it well. It may not be so important that we say those words, as it is that we conduct ourselves accordingly. For a Godless nation runs the risk, in my view, of being a humanist nation---far less infallible than God, and even those who would follow Him and His laws, errors mis- interpretations not withstanding. And finally, let us not forget all the good that has and is done in the name of religion---too many to enumerate here, but charities and good works abound in their name. We are all God's children, again in my opinion, and the constant challenge is to live as servants of Him and His will in an increasingly scary and war torn world.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Good rebuttal!! To change the subject: What do you think of Romney's criticism of the Commander in Chief over the issue of the Lybian embassy? I think he lost some political capital. As Obama will say on "60 Minutes" tonight, he seems to shoot before he aims.

    ReplyDelete
  27. To be honest, I usually cringe a little when a presidential candidate begins to make statements on foreign policy---but this was an exception, and one sorely needed. I had cringed big time when I heard yet another apology from the administration for rights we hold dear---it's called free speech, and Romney was practicing his.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm very strong on free speech, but I didn't hear the other "apology", so I can't comment on it. I think the administration has been very clear that there's no excuse for the attack in Lybia. We do have to remember that free speech has never been part of the Arab tradition. It's only been part of the West's tradition for about 200 years. I think Muslims have some catching up to do, but it will take time. In the meantime, the USA has some problems in its own back yard. Right here in Loveland, citizens demonstrated against the exhibition of an artist's depiction of Jesus, and one woman finally enterred the museum and vandalized the display. Every time we have a nude sculpture installed, it has to be moved because of public pressure. Censorship is still alive and well in America, although it's been relaxed compared to a generation ago. Foreign films, especially those depicting political points of view at odds with American foreign policy, are stopped at the border, and Americans never have the opportunity to view them. Thus, Europeans are more informed about what we're doing overseas than we are. Commercial and public television must be careful lest they offend their sponsors, further distancing us from honest journalism. Romney was practicing his right to free speech, and I defend his right to say what he thinks he must. My point was that he probably made a lot of people "on the fence" cringe and didn't do his own campaign any favor by taking on the Commander in Chief on this issue.

      Delete
  28. Big difference between censoring and murdering---sorry, can't buy that argument. The power of extreme violence and power through intimidation is the ultimate tool of terrorism, and it must not be tolerated or apologized for.

    We'll see whether Romney suffers for his statement---but you're reading the public a little too soon. I think, on the contrary, if Romney loses, it will not be because of his aggressiveness, but because he didn't show enough of it. Obama is a formidable force, and temerity and politeness will not win this race--Romney's basic personality is that of a gentleman, well mannered, and reserved. He needs to show the passion he displayed while making his well published comments the other day. The public is tired of platitudes, rehearsed rhetoric, and safe teleprompter statements---Romney finally tore his gloves off, took a chance, and spoke his mind. Don't believe everything the media spins---I didn't hear much cringing going on--rather, a sigh of relief and pride, and a mumbling, but growing sentiment that sounded like "Amen, yeah, and alright!" If the people on the fence didn't like it, and if they are the ones Romney needs to win, then he will lose---better to lose honestly,than to win by lies and political pandering. But if enough of the people are tired of presidential promises not kept, cheerleader talk, but no action, and a gut feeling that we're losing it all--- then maybe Romney will pull it off. If not, then bring it on, President Obama. Show us what you've got--4 more years, and it better be good.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Romney's most recent gaffe, that he doesn't care about the 47% "victims" in US society was the most revealing yet. You see, it isn't that he believes supply side, trickle down economics works for everyone, including the poor. He plain, old fashioned doesn't care about the poor. I spoke with the head of the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families--"Welfare" since Clinton) program in Larimer County last Wednesday, and I asked how many clients she had on her rolls. Her answer? Five hundred. That's out of about 300,000 people in the county. And Mitt Romney dares call us a dependency society? He's was caught off guard, all right, and showed his true colors--out of step with reality, and at the very bottom of the compassion index. I don't know anything about The Book of Mormon, but I'm afraid it has distracted Mitt Romney from such as Isaiah 10:1-2 (among many other references)--from the Book you yourself and I believe informs our morals and ethics. Yes, he has backpedaled since the "Freudian slip", but his career, especially with Bain Capital, indicates his initial comment reflected his true bias.

    Your "gut feeling" is no substitute for rational economics. We darned well nearly lost it all by the end of the last Bush administration, one dedicated to the "voodoo economics" begun by Reagan since 1981. The country was pulled from the fire by none other than he you accuse of being all talk and no action. Now you seem to admit that Mitt Romney just may not unseat the incumbent President. Romney is, after all, losing points in the polls by the day, and it's no wonder. Yes! Yes! Bring it on, President Obama. Four more years!--hopefully with a more reasonable Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, than he's had to deal with during the first four years.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ah, it's not easy being perfectly spoken all the time. Ask Obama. If Romney's comments were offensive to you, then please remember Obama's remarks during his presidential campaign, re "guns and religion"--among so many others made by both Obama, his associates, and his gaffe ridden mouthpiece, Joe Biden. It's so easy to view everything through one's own prism, and to believe the slant and spin of the media. Seems you've done just that---read Romney's remarks again, this time with a more unbiased eye. He did not say, nor did he mean he has no concern for the welfare of the 47% percent of Americans that don't vote---he was saying he can't concern himself with chasing after their votes, as he does not think he will get them, for they are no doubt aligned with Obama and a more entitlement philosophy. He's right, and I said as much in my last comments above. Columns have been written, pundits have said it---and now Romney himself admits---this election isn't one of "may the best man win", but more a wooing of would be "on the fence" voters to one of two very different ideologies. It's a stark choice, and one which Obama revels in, because it knew it would be easier to win than one on which his record was on trial. So much easier to divide the country with talk of class warfare, and make promises he hasn't and can't keep--to present himself as the savior to this country and those who are suffering the worst is laughable, if it weren't so pathetically and undeniably without evidence or proof. He has failed. The poor have increased under his reign, as have food stamps and people out of jobs. Yes, he inherited a hot mess, but the measures he has or have not taken have fallen woefully short. And you call this, being pulled from the fire?? More like "from the pot into the frying pan".

    We will not agree on whose fault it was, or which government philosophy is best for the country and its future---but it is becoming increasingly clear that Obama holds an uncanny sway over a large percentage of the people and the trump cards of imcumbency and a media that adores him . So, yes, I am concerned that Romney, a perfectly fine and able man for the office of president, during a time when it is painfully obvious that we need better answers to our problems than what we've been given for the last 4 years, is being trashed and treated as unworthy---and now somehow a cold hearted villain who steals jobs from people and turns his back on the poor. It's political character assasination, untrue---and a disservice to we, who need to hear more about the only issue that really counts this time---the economy, the economy, the economy. Or we'll all be poor, poor, poor--after we've taxed the rich to the max, then ourselves. Heard of a place called Greece??

    ReplyDelete
  31. The last poll shows Obama with an eight point lead. I agree that the economy is important. But I don't think Romney has done his homework or knows anything about economics, academic or through experience. He was born and bred wealthy, and has no experience with just getting by the way most Americans live. Slowly but surely people are realizing this. The electorate probably knows little about economics either, but my own studies and observations make me believe Obama knows who John Maynard Keynes was, at least. The national economy does not follow the same rules as household or business economics. While you're so sure the current administration will make us all poor, you may not realize that study in depth would change your mind. Remember, it was the previous administration that took us to the brink with the very policies Romney is advocationg we adopt again. These are amateurs touting themselves qualified to lead the world. That's democracy. We have the right to elect whomever we want regardless of their level of understanding. We could even elect Mitt Romney, but I don't think so this time. I'll be interested to read your blog after the first debate.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Looking forward to the debates---just wish that for once we could be treated to a conservative moderator, rather the liberals always chosen.

    Keynesian philsophy aside, and btw, I'm sure Romney is well aware of both the author and his views; and the plight of Americans not in his income strata. The man is honorable and compassionate, and there is more than enough evidence to prove that. You don't have to have been poor to help those who are. It is a well knowon fact that charitable giving is very high among those who have much. And Romney is among those. The pity is that he being spun to be quite the opposite.

    If you really are trying to argue that "amateurs" such as, in your opinion, Romney are less qualified than the current president, who had no experience, whatsoever in leading anything, other than that of a community organizer, well, I really don't know what to say---so, I won't.

    Let's let the American people decide---and hope that they will rise above the campaign sound bites, the spin and image building/destroying media hype, the canned speeches---and decide which man is truly the best choice to lead us for another 4 years. We may need divine intervention to pull us out of this morass---but for now, I choose the man with business success, a governorship, and a seemingly true willingness to serve. You may not like him, or his philosophy, but his credentials and his resume fit the job description very well---it reads "HELP!!!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  33. Actually, the more money people accumulate the smaller proportion of their riches they give away to charities. Not only that, the rich tend to choose non-profits that have nothing to do with the poor, which further concentrates wealth at the top. That is not to implicate Mitt Romney. We all know he gives mightily to the LDS.

    Obama was a community organizer on behalf of the poor in Chicago. His sense of balance is out there for all to see. Romney, on the other hand, conceals most of his income tax returns. Even if you're right that Obama didn't have administrative experience when he was inaugurated, he now has under his belt almost four years as President of the United States! If experience counts, no one can say he doesn't have it by now.

    I've been reading a 1968 text by the Brookings Institution, a conservative think tank (AGENDA FOR THE NATION). It's amazing how acceptable its conclusions about the economy would be to me. Republican George Romney was governor of Michigan at the time of its publication and I was living in Detroit. I never found anything objectionable about him (although people made fun of his LDS underwear), but his son, Mitt, has been captured by the extreme right. The Republican Party has gone through such a change since the end of the 20th Century that even other current Republican candidates, since Romney's 47% gaffe, are scrambling to distance themselves from the Romney/Ryan ticket.

    Republicans need to look to their heritage and remember the moderate and reasonable conservativism of their pre-1981 past. We needed the balance they contributed to the direction of the country then. They eschewed extremism. They participated in the democratic process for the good of the country. So right now we desperately need Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress to break the obstructionism of Tea Party "true believers".

    ReplyDelete
  34. All things change, re your remarks about Republicans. And that's as it should be-- and certainly the Democrat party is no exception. The parties must represent the American people and their changing attitudes and collective views on the world, in general, and specifally the country. But the one constant, is big government vs. small government. Simple as most cases, it failed miserably. To try and dismantle our system and reconstruct it into a different ideology foreign to its very reason for exixtance, is to remake it into more or less from whence it came, maybe worse. This election is all about the American people incredible denial that our economy is on the brink of disaster---and very little is being done about it. We are gridlocked into a political paralysis--and when a grass roots organization like the "Tea Party" attempts to rise up and make their voices heard, they are ridiculed and demonized. Is this part of "hope and change" Tolerance only to those who believe as we do, read and agree with the same books, eat and consume only what we tell you, say only that which is politically correct for the entire world, and keep of your wealth only which we deem fair??? Scary, new, old world.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Please excuse all the typos in last comment---don't know what happened--must be the winds of change blowing all the words about! Hope you can make sense of it all---bottome line: Vote for Romney!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. All things change, and I'm confident that one of these days you will realize that I am right and you are wrong and even say so. Just Joking. I thought a little levity was in order. :-) Anyway, back to the "conversation": Now we have Ann Romney jumping into the fray to defend her husband against--who? Not the opposition as one might expect, but against her fellow conservatives, who are beginning to wonder how this man got to be their condidate. At least his wife is still standing by him. This morning I heard a Republican strategist speculating whether the Romney campaign was still in the game. (He guessed that it was.) It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings. I'm looking forward to how your conversation will go after the election. Will you play the victim even more so? But seriously, I couldn't be more pleased that you advocate tolerance for those who differ with you and your encouragement to read books outside the bias of our reference groups. And I agree that Mayor Bloomberg is out of line trying to limit the ounces of pop we consume. I even wince at Boulder's ordinance against smoking OUTSIDE! Yipes! If this is big government in action, save me from the liberals!

    But the President MUST be sensitive to political correctness, and violate it only if calculated for a desireable effect. Yes, Joe Biden is not so good at this either, which bothers me. I admit it.

    But how do you justify a man worth 250 million dollars paying only 14% of an income of over 13 million? "Wealth" is a political construct. Property is what the people decide it is. It is not some divine right. We as a society must decide when enough is enough. If the population as a whole suffers because, through various means, wealth has become over concentrated in the top few percentage points, it's time to examine the system that has allowed this.

    But maybe it's better for everybody if the American middle class fades away. Perhaps a robust middle class despoils the environment worse than a few rich dudes in their yachts. After all, if the rest of us become poor, we'll burn less fossil fuel and we may avert the worst consequences of man-made global climate change. On the other hand, outsourcing all our jobs overseas where environmental costs are uncontrolled (by those hated regulations) may damage the earth even more. What to do? Vote for Romney?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Did you see "60 Minutes" tonight? Scott Pelley interviewed Mitt Romney and Steve Croft interview Barak Obama. Croft was the tougher interviewer. Don't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes and No. Thought the interviews were very good and well balanced. Both men handled themselves well, with Romney coming out the winner in terms of telling it like he really is. Obama was tap dancing, trying very hard not to say anything offensive, and portraying himself as a president for all, doing the best that he can with an overwhelming situation---humble, smart, and confident. The only thing missing were his usual condescending remarks and the Bush blame blah-blah de blah. He was making nice, but it wasn't the real Obama.

    Romney on the other hand, looked like a man not at all on the ropes, but someone with the right stuff, the tool guy who knows how to fix things--- calmy stating his case as to how he would right the ship, if elected. He looked ready,concerned, sincere, and honest---not overly primed to say just the right thing, but to do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hmmm.... I rather thought it was a draw. I liked what Romney said about a sliding scale for Social Security and Medicare pay-outs. In that case a Republican can do what a Democrat wouldn't dare. I think you're overly hard on the President (Your extreme partisanship is showing!), and he did well enough to retain his lead in the polls. Romney made no gaffes in the interview, except when he said a certain comment was his and didn't represent his campaign. What? But in the meantime, he has made some incredible errors in his remarks about Hispanics and his attempt to darken his skin color to appear more acceptable to them. I did think Steve Croft was the more aggresive interviewer (to his credit), but the President answered respectfully and accurately all questions Croft put to him. Is the fist debate October 3? The "60 Minutes" interviews have raised my approximation of Romney's abilities under pressure, so I don't think this one will be a gimme. He'll be well prepared and so will the President. It should be interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Looks like the GOP has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar. Have you been following S. A. C.?

    ReplyDelete