Posted on 10/24/2006 12:49:10 PM PDT by Reaganesque
Not to long ago, an article from the Boston Globe titled "Romney and Religion", written by Scot Lehigh, was posted here on FR. I took exception to the article and emailed the author. Here is the brief conversation we had:
Me:
You state:
In 1960, JFK made it clear both that he believed in an absolute separation of church and state and that he should not be considered the Catholic Church's candidate. "I do not speak for the church on public matters and the church does not speak for me," he declared.
What you didn’t tell the reader, is that Mitt said something similar in response to Ted Kennedy's accusations in 1994. "I would not presume to tell the leader of my church how to run the church." He also pledged not to have the Mormon Church run his Senatorial campaign. You further fail to mention that, at the time, The Globe criticized Mr. Kennedy for his attacks on Mitt's religion. Mr. Kennedy stopped his attacks soon after. So, who's trying to have it both ways, Mr. Lehigh?
Mr. Lehigh:
Because whatever the Mittster said back then, what's relevant is what his campaign is doing now.
Scot
Me:
The relevant fact here is that you are requiring something of Mitt that he has already given you. That it does not satisfy you, is your problem, not his. And even if he does give you assurances again, it is likely that you will not accept them, so what's the point?
It is also relevant that your employer was squeamish about running with criticisms of Mormonism in 1994 and yet now finds such criticism entirely relevant. My, how ethics change in 12 years when the subject is now a serious potential candidate for President and not just some throw away Republican candidate running against Ted Kennedy. For most reasonable people, if it was in poor taste in 1994, then chances are, it's still in poor taste today.
What is more, why no concerns about Harry Reid? He too is Mormon. Shouldn't the same be expected of him? And what about Keith Ellison, a Muslim, who is running for Congress here in Minneapolis? Shouldn't he have to proclaim himself to be independent of his religion? Yesterday's article in the Globe sure didn't think so. Why one standard for Mitt and another for Democrats in similar situations?
But ultimately, this isn't about religion, is it? This is about Republican vs. Democrat. Mitt's religion is relevant because he's a Republican. The Kennedy's religion, Harry Reid's religion or Keith Ellison's are not important because they are Democrats. That's the standard here. Religion is just a weapon of convenience in this bloodsport called politics and one that will only be used on Republicans.
Mr. Lehigh:
Maybe the relevant fact is that, despite what the Mittster has previously said, his campaign is working closely with the church ...
Me:
Maybe the fact is that facts are irrelevant when it comes to destroying a Republican. It's for the children, don't you know.
Mr. Lehigh:
Good lord, Mark, perspective, perspective. It's hardly destruction. It's a little Slick Willard tweak.
Scot
Me:
Were a Republican to "tweak" a Democrat in like fashion, you and your employer would be the first to call it "hate speech."
The double standard goes far deeper than that. It's common practice for liberal churches to openly endorse a particular candidate. Ministers of these churches have stood at the pulpit and called on their congregations to vote for one person or another.
For cryin' out loud! Look at "Reverend" Jesse Jackson, or "Reverend" Al Sharpton!
It's astonishing that these people can even pretend to be upset that Mitt has spoken with LDS Church leaders, especially when those leaders have made no efforts to endorse his candidacy.
Liberal hypocrisy is endlessly amazing.
Good Gosh! Don't read that paper and email the sponsers with your complaints; then, find more productive things to do with your time.
I normally don't but, someone posted it here on FR and, well, I was weak. I worked on Mitt's '94 campaign and this stuff gets me going every time.
Good job. I'd like to email this author as well. Do you have his email address?
Looks like he's another school dropout that made his way into "Journalism".
Say hi for me!
Mr. Lehigh
I am curious as to why you have not expressed the same concern for Harry Reid and Keith Ellison's religions that you expressed for Romney's. Reid is also a Mormon and Ellison is a Muslim. Does this exempt them from your concerns about their religion influencing their politics? I would like to assume that you are a non-partisan reporter, but this apparent "oversight" makes that hard to believe. I look foward to your response.
Thank you!
Stephanie
I considered emailing him a brief note welcoming him to FreeRepublic. Maybe later. Heh, heh, heh!
From reading the back and for you posted, you are probably wasting your time trying to having any sort of real discussion with Scott Lehigh. He is most probably intellectually unable to reason above the shallow political comments he is sending back to you.
Art VI Sec 3, US Constitution.
Lehigh@globe.com wrote:
Stephanie,
Well, one reason I wrote about Mitt is that he is the governor of the state where my paper is based. But are Reid and Ellison trying to tap their religion's organizations to benefit they campaigns? I haven't seen those news reporters.
Scot
I'm not understanding if your problem is with the money Romney is accepting from a religious resource that shares his values, or with his religion itself. If its the former, then its a very shallow argument, since politicians have been accepting both money and endorsement from religious institutions since the founding of this country and have managed to keep themselves from becoming "puppets" of the church. If its the latter then my question regarding Reid and Ellison if perfectly valid, since the issue is not money but religious affiliation.
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
????
Or do you mean Article IV, Section 3:
Section 3. New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Still, what the...?
I would love to see how Mr. Lehigh has established this as "fact."
sniff sniff
Why is asking money from people who share his religion wrong? Since when have the Democrats lived by that standard? The reason Mitt went to Jeffrey R. Holland is that Holland is a former President of Brigham Young University and thus has contacts with the people he was trying to raise support from. The Mormon church has historically taken a neutral stance on politics. They deny they did anything wrong here. So who am I going to believe? My church leaders who have a proven track record of neutrality or a bowtied bumkisser with a proven political axe to grind?
Is Mr. Romney trying to do so? I have not seen that report either. I would be very surprised indeed if the LDS Church took any part in his campaign.
Although I am a "Mormon", Mitt Romney would not be my first choice as a candidate. That said, I see Mr. Lehigh's comments as a thinly-veiled attack on a Republican who may be the closest thing to a conservative who is likely to come out of Massachusetts. The religious issue is just a convenient excuse to attack.
Whatsamaatau?
Oh yeah. Missed that bit. Oh boy! A new message for Mr. Lehigh!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.