While Romney is not necessarily at the top of my list for 2012 (especially since we have no idea who the other viable candidates will be at that point), he is ON the list, and my chief reason for that is that he has far more extensive and impressive private sector experience than any other remotely viable candidate I see on the horizon. As someone who would like to see the federal government shrunk to a tiny fraction of its current size, it concerns me greatly that the Republican party seems to consistently offer us candidates who are for all practical purposes lifelong creatures of government. Every problem they see appears to them to have “needs government solution” written all over it, because that’s the only sort of problem-solving they’ve ever been involved with.
Hopefully, highlighting positive aspects like this, of candidates like Romney who are overall far too socialist-leaning to qualify as truly conservative candidates, will help convince the Republican movers and shakers that successful private sector experience should be an important resume item for candidates being groomed and promoted for national office. And when the 2012 nomination is done, if Romney is it, hopefully we can agree that given a choice between Romney and Obama, we’d do better with Romney. At least Romney doesn’t pal around with home-grown America-hating terrorists and racist America-hating preachers.
Like you, I see Mr. Romney as someone with some negative things in his past and too much of a tendency to try to find common ground with those who would take us in the wrong direction. On the other hand, he has nearly perfect executive experience to be the president. Fred Thompson also had some negatives, but somehow, he was forgiven for all of them while Mitt Romney was not. While I'd like to see the GOP find another leader for the future, I'll support Mr. Romney if I think he's our best chance to rid the country of Barak Obama. He may not take us exactly in the direction that I think we should go, but he might start the process of making the turn.
I have my qualms about Mr. Romney, but I thought the same thing about George W. Bush in 2000. I was against his nomination, and as a resident of a state that I knew was safe, I was happy voting against him to try to send a message. He was a disappointment in some important ways, but Alan Keyes would not have beaten Algore in the general election. I'm glad that Algore wasn't in the White House when the planes hit the towers, so I'm happy that then-Governor Bush was nominated.
I'm angry but maybe also a bit amused. The anti-Romney rants of today are similar to the same rants that caused many good FReepers to be banned in 2000 because the site decided that we were going to support George Bush regardless of anything. I was careful back then not to say too often that I would vote for Pat Buchanan in the general election. I have no doubt that a few people were trying to have me banned. I wonder whether any of those banned Buchanan or Keyes people still lurk enough to see what is happening. Maybe Free Republic will even open its arms once again to all of those Pat Buchanan supporters who were banned in the past.
All the best,
Bill
Paulson & Giethner had lots of private sector experience too. And with his other liberal positions, I'd want a much more careful autopsy of Romney's private sector experience before thinking it means any more than does Warren Buffets or George Soros experience as far as being conservative credentials.
At least Romney doesn’t pal around with home-grown America-hating terrorists and racist America-hating preachers.
- - - - - - - - - - -
No, but his grandfather did....
Up until the 1930’s (when Mitt’s Grandfather went through the LDS Temple), the LDS were required to take an “oath of vengeance” on Americans for the death of Joesph Smith. There was a strong sense that the ENTIRE US was guilty of his death (he actually died in a gunfight).
Furthermore there are many quotes by their early leaders that show a real hatred and desire for destruction of the United States.
Oath of Vengance:
... Brigham raised his hand and said, “I swear by the eternal Heavens that I have unsheathed my sword, and I will never return it until the blood of the Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, and those who were slain in Missouri, is avenged. This whole nation is guilty of shedding their blood, by assenting to the deed, and holding its peace.” ... Furthermore, every one who had passed through their endowments, in the Temple, were placed under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet, whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the same, thus making the entire Mormon people sworn and avowed enemies of the American nation (The Confessions of John D. Lee, p.160).
About 4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant.... In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of the martyrs (”Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,” December 6, 1889, pp.205-206).
Elder Kimball showed the right fashion for a leaf, spoke of Elder Richards being protected at Carthage Jail, having on the robe, while Joseph and Hyrum and Elder Taylor were shot to pieces, said the Twelve would have to leave shortly, for a charge of treason would be brought against them for swearing us to avenge the blood of the anointed ones, and some one would reveal it and we shall have to part some say between sundown and dark.…and I have covenanted, and never will rest nor my posterity after me until those men who killed Joseph and Hyrum have been wiped out of the earth. (Journal of William Clayton).
Increase McGee Van Dusen, who later left the LDS stated: “We are required to kneel at this altar, where we have an oath administered to the effect, that we will, from this time henceforth and forever, use our influence to murder this nation, and teach it to our posterity and all that we have influence over, in return for their killing the Prophet Joseph. They say the murdering of Smith is a national offense. It is true that all was not personally engaged in the act; but the nation has long winked at the abuse of the Mormons, and in this way they have encouraged mobs from time to time, until they have finally taken the life of the Lord’s Prophet, and now it is the will of the Lord, that the nation should be destroyed; and this is his will, that we shall enter into this secret conspiracy against the Government, &c., for the above reasons and many more given.”
Richard K. Fox wrote “We were then made to swear to avenge the death of Joseph Smith, the martyr, together with that of his brother, Hiram, on this American Nation, and that we would teach our children and children’s children to do so. The penalty for this grip and oath was disembowelment (Mysteries of Mormonsim).
The attitude of many LDS at the time shows antagonism toward the United States:
Heber C. Kimball wrote: “James Buchanan now occupies the chair of state. He and his counsellors, his coadjutors, his cabinet, and Congress have met and planned the destruction of this people—of brother Brigham and his associates in particular; and the priests of the day say amen to it; and they exhort the people to say amen to it; and the whole people of the United States are under condemnation. They consented to the death of Joseph, Hyrum, David, Parley, and lots of men, women, and children. (Journal of Discourses, Vol 5, page 253).
“The order of God’s church and kingdom is the strongest government ever known on this earth, and if the people of this great nation entertain any fears of the consequence or effects of such a government, why, I ask, don’t you of the nation, you of Congress, you of the Cabinet, if you please, embrace this order of government and establish it over the nation! You can do it. You can repent of your sins, every one of you, and be baptized for a remission of them. You can adopt and extend this strong government which God has established in these mountains, and if you will do it, God will establish you and the government and this nation never to depart from before His face; and you shall be made the means of helping to bring everlasting righteousness—the millen[n]ium—upon this land, and of causing the Spirit of God to rest down upon all flesh. Is it not worth your while to engage in a thing of this kind? But, ah! The terrible fact exists that the blood of the prophets is upon this nation, although the nation has not shed their blood, yet a sovereign state permitted it, and the nation have not washed their hands from it. (Apostle F.D Richards, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 26, page 345).
Apostle Orson Hyde wrote the following: “The blood of Joseph and Hyrum was shed—mingled too with the blood of brother Taylor, who survived, and who is here a living witness to the facts that occurred in connection with their death. Has the nation atoned for that blood? No. Have they offered to do it? They never have. But if one poor scamp should happen to be killed in this country, in this region, the whole of the United States are ready to fly to arms to avenge the blood of that individual, that never was worth the powder and lead to kill him. But the Prophets of God that are inspired of the Almighty to do a work for the benefit of the human family can be killed, and no man lay it to heart. Oh, it is all very well: to be sure, it was an outrageous deed to murder them when they were in the hands of the law—when they were held as prisoners; it was a horrid act: at the same time, we are glad it is done. That is the feeling, and the universal feeling almost throughout the United States. There was hardly a man, woman, or child that did not assent to the death of Joseph and Hyrum, but objected to the way in which it was done. “It is not exactly honourable or pleasing, but we are glad of it anyhow.” That is the sentiment of the nation, and by that very sentiment they have drawn upon themselves the anger of God; and that blood has to be atoned for, and it has to be atoned for upon all those that have said, We are glad of it!—that have secretly said so and cherished that idea. It will extend to them all who have consented to the death of the Prophet of God. Now, says the Lord, “To him that overcometh will I give power over the nations.” Did Joseph Smith overcome, even unto death? Yes. Was God with him? Yes, he was. When they were about to cut off his head, behold, the power of the Almighty came down, and the men stood as it were like marble statues: they could not move, but stood there like Lot’s wife—not pillars of salt, but pillars of petrified corruption. The power of the Almighty came down with the vivid glare of lightning’s flash, and they had no power to take his head off. Was God with him? Yes. Was his death glorious? Yes. What was his glory? One portion of it is—”To him that overcometh will I give power over the nations.” A portion of his honour and glory will be to enforce his word and see it take effect among the people and nation that have said, We are glad that he is killed! They cannot avoid it by going through death. They will have to be arraigned under the government and jurisdiction of their murdered victims. (Journal of Discourses, Vol 6, p. 154)
I never intend to winter in the United States except on a visit. We do not owe this country a single sermon. We calculated to go all the while, for I do not intend to stay in such an Hell of a Hole and if this be your mind, signify it by saying Hie—which was loudly responded to by the assembly—they are continually accusing us of stealing their horses and cattle. I wish some of the brethren would steal and kill them. (On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout, 1844-1861, Vol. 1, p73).