Saturday, February 25, 2012

Romney & Reaction

I started this as a comment on yesterday's post, but it got way too long for to handle.

As a further exercise in self-indulgent over-explaining, I changed the initial title of my post of yesterday for which I would have used the cross-out strike-out feature but it's not available in that title box. It originally said "Romney Renounces His Mormon Heritage" which, as admitted in the first line of my piece is a little bit of hyperbole, yet not without a good faith basis, some of which is still in my pocket perhaps for later blogging.

Anyway, I thought it might be informative here to cut and paste in some comments from a Facebook friend who took some objection and did spark my decision to edit the title to tone it down slightly. His first comment was a bit intemperate and included several typos which I interpreted as evidence of angry writing. He later deleted that and toned it down to his credit - and I am grateful. And while I still wonder why some prefer to comment on the FB links rather than here, I will preserve anonymity confidentiality here [by using only initials] as I think it might be because of this blog being totally open to the world as opposed to just the mostly known friends and connections on FB. Here goes:

DN: [PNM], this article is fallacious and really not worthy of your sponsorship.

Me: Thanks for reading, [DN], but I'll stick by my authorship.

I really used to like Romney when he ran against Ted Kennedy and when he was Governor of Massachusetts, and I'm sure he was a good bishop and Stake President. And while I would prefer him hands down over any other Republican still in the race, I think I'll stick with our President unless something changes. Not that the President is perfect, he has his faults as does our party, but that's my choice. My reasons are amply laid out throughout my blog. 

Me [a little later still on lunch break]: OK. Thinking about it, if the word "renounce" was a bit strong and potentially offensive-even if I admitted that in the text, I toned it down to "disrespects." That's what moderate passion does to you.

Me: Now, back to work from my remote lunch break.

DN: well, actually . . . the word "renounces" is the tenor of the whole article and shows how patently false it is. romney IS a good man and has earned some serious spurs and scars along the way. i seriously doubt that all the degradation and spin heaped upon him by the media, his detractors, and enemies is even a tenth of a percent true. i expect those who judge his character is such a way will have to account for it one day. meanwhile, truthfully, it is highly unlikely that any other candidate on either side of the aisle matches the personal character and caliber of Mitt Romney - inspite of all his faults so widely vetted by a hostile media.

And, this just in as I was drafting from another LDS Facebook friend of both DN and me who is a patriotic, military man like DN even if of a different political persuasion.. His public blog is The Liberty Tree. And here's his comment:

Liberty Tree: [PMM's] right on this point, and how can one tell the character of a man who's gone from left to right and back again every time he opens his mouth depending upon which audience he's talking to? He hasn't defended his faith during the campaign he's almost run a way from the question; he didn't save the Olympics; Santorum pointed out in the last debate he balanced the Mass budget four years running because it was a state constituional law ...

He's not trustworthy; he flat out lied to the cadets at the Citadel and agin during the debate on the President's defense record; he flat out lied about his decision to force hospitals in Massachusetts to be required to provide contraception - he's a proven liar and he flip-flops more than any presidential candidate in recent memory.

As for alleging people will be judged one day for judging Brother Romney. It's our place as citizens to judge those running for public office - especially for the presidnecy; if he didn't want to be judged he shouldn't have run. The scripture says to not judge unrighteously, it doesn't say we're not to judge.

This appears to be going on still at my FB page now into issues surrounding the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics. I suppose the internet has infinite capabilities for digital expression - but I'll end here soon on this theme.

And there was a whole other exchange on email between Anonymous/D and me about this. I'll spare you that but we did remain true to our passionate moderate ethic. The one other sidebar to this was as I became concerned about DN's first comment on FB before his more gracious editing, I dashed off a private FB message to my kids and two kids-in-law requesting that they not engage. There has been a little history of FB contention between DN and a couple of my kids - even if mostly about BYU vs. UofU sports - but the tone was similar.

I obviously enjoy expressing myself. I appreciate comments even when they pose an intellectual and sometimes emotional challenge. Passionate moderation is hard work -but fulfilling


  1. (Anon/M) The difference between Santorum and Romney is not at the logical level but more on the emotional level. Santorum can say the most illogical things and sound genuine. Romney cannot open his mouth without sounding false and pandering. And tell me it's not misogyny that contraception is considered so sinful, while coverage of ED pills for libidinous old goats is never questioned?

    1. Yes, Anon/M you raise some good points yet again. And I'm afraid a lot of the "emotional level" in political support is to side with those most like you in religion, background, etc. It's only natural. And then it sometimes turns into partisan cheerleading for your "team" which really annoys me.

    2. Your point on contraception reminds me of this, from a piece about the recent Virginia bill to require an intrusive medical procedure (from the Washington Post):

      "In Virginia, the bill began muscling its way through a legislature that recently came under the rule of GOP conservatives. It moved ahead despite an outcry from women and Democrats, including a female lawmaker who called it “state-mandated rape” and another who made her point with a failed amendment requiring rectal prostate exams for men seeking Viagra prescriptions."

    3. well, I'm glad something got their attention . . .


Comments are welcome. Feel free to disagree as many do. You can even be passionate (in moderation). Comments that contain offensive language, too many caps, conspiracy theories, gratuitous Mormon bashing, personal attacks on others who comment, or commercial solicitations- I send to spam. This is a troll-free zone. Charity always!