Obama makes a clean hit
By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist February 14, 2007
DURHAM N.H. MR. CLEAN mopped up. He articulated what 3,000 people wanted to hear. Barack Obama left the gymnasium Monday night at the University of New Hampshire beaming as brightly as he came in.
In the dim corners of the nascent 2008 presidential campaign, Joe Biden must be kicking himself even more than before.
It was as if Obama reveled in precisely the words that fellow candidate Biden harpooned himself with two weeks ago. Biden said Obama is "articulate and bright and clean." Those comments sparked a debate about unconscious stereotypes about white people still being shocked in the year 2007 that educated black people can speak, take baths, or aren't running off with your purse.
I wondered if Biden tripped over a much deeper meaning. The potential meaning hit me last week when I served on a panel at Harvard Law School, screening an upcoming PBS documentary on racism and the death penalty, "Race to Execution." One of the most poignant moments was when Illinois defense attorney Andrea Lyon talked about how prosecutors try to keep off the jury any black people who have any "memory of the civil rights movement."
I wondered out loud if the sanitizing of juries unconsciously percolates in the current adulation for Obama. It is well documented that white Americans collectively hold a more sanitized view of racial progress than do African-Americans and Latinos. Part of the result is that old-line civil rights organizations are easy to marginalize. President Bush flirted with being the first president not to address the NAACP convention in over 80 years until he spoke before it last year.
Obama did plenty of civil rights grunt work when few people knew his name, trying in the 1980s to help public housing residents in Chicago rid their buildings of asbestos. He also arrived to national prominence without an official moniker or acronym of civil rights hanging from around his neck.
"He's safer," Chanda Corbett, 36, the vice chair of UNH's presidential office on people of color and a psychologist in the school's counseling service, said of Obama. "There's something about the way he carries himself that says, 'I'm not here to accuse you, trying to force people to say, I'm wrong or I'm a racist.' "
Sean McGhee, 47, the director of UNH's office of multicultural affairs, said, "I think what people are tuning in to is that he did civil rights and human rights the way most so-called civil rights workers actually do it, in small ways: social workers, community activists, teachers who go the extra mile by buying books for their students."
Purnell "Fred" Ross, the 68-year-old president of the New Hampshire Seacoast branch of the NAACP, said, "The fact that he does not have that history I think works to his advantage. As long as he seeks counsel from people who have that history, he will be fine."
Obama played his history perfectly to this vastly white crowd. He could do so because so many Americans are currently in similar boats, watching domestic hopes go down the drain because of Iraq. Obama, who has called for a troop pullout a year from now, proudly told the crowd that he has been a civil rights lawyer and a constitutional lawyer. He said he thought that would be helpful since, in his words, the Bush administration has spent the last six years gutting the constitution.
He received wide applause and few hard questions, unlike Hillary Clinton, who was pressed Saturday in New Hampshire on her vote to allow the invasion in Iraq.
"I haven't seen this much charisma since JFK," said Suzanne Johnson, 47, a high school history teacher from Epping. "I have high school students who know who he is and that's saying a lot."
Two school bus drivers, Amy Tank, 53, of Epping, and Sue Hills, 39, of Exeter, both said that when they mentioned to the students they were going to hear Obama, cries of "He rocks!" and "Get him to sign a picture!" rang out.
Douglas Prince, 64, a UNH media services manager, went to the most recent antiwar protest in Washington. He said he was looking at Obama because Clinton and other Democrats display "too much triangulation, too much manipulation and calculation. I want candidates who say what they believe without parsing and spinning."
Obama had one uncomfortable moment of parsing and spinning, through a tortured explanation of supporting civil unions but not gay marriage. Other than that, Mr. Clean left with no stains on his suit. Of course it is early. The dirt has yet to fly.
Ronald Wilson Reagan
America's 40th President
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
AP: al-Sadr flees Iraq for Iran
Anti-American cleric flees Iraq for Iran
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
20 minutes ago
Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled Iraq for Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and the arrival of 21,500 U.S. troops sent by President Bush to quell sectarian violence, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.
Al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago, the official said, and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr's political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.
Word of al-Sadr's departure coincides with an announcement that Iraq will close its borders with Iran and Syria for 72 hours as part of the drive to end the violence that has threatened to divide the capital along sectarian lines.
The U.S. official said it is not clear how firmly the radical Shiite cleric is controlling his organization and the associated Mahdi Army militia from exile.
"The question for us is to what extent his organization is going to participate in the political process," the official said, referring to al-Sadr's on-again, off-again relationship with the fragile democratic government in Baghdad.
Al-Sadr's departure was reported by several television networks Tuesday.
Al-Sadr's militia is widely seen as the main threat to Iraq's unity and high on the list of targets for the Baghdad security operation.
A ragtag but highly motivated militia that fought U.S. forces twice in 2004, the Mahdi Army is blamed for much of the sectarian strife shaking Iraq since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni militants a year ago. U.S. officials have for months pressed Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to move against the militia, but he has so far done little to comply, largely because he does not want to lose al-Sadr's support.
Al-Sadr rose from obscurity in the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein to lead a movement of young, underprivileged Iraqis united by opposition to U.S. military presence as well as hunger for Shiite domination.
The cleric, who is in his mid-30s, is a master of street politics, and his young lieutenants can rally tens of thousands of protesters at short notice. Once wanted in the 2003 killing of a key cleric, al-Sadr gained much influence when his parliamentary bloc of 30 of 275 deputies was instrumental in al-Maliki's election.
Dismissed by older Shiite politicians as a dangerous upstart, al-Sadr set up the Mahdi Army militia in 2003. It is suspected of being behind the abduction and murder of thousands of Sunnis in what are known as death squad killings.
Two key members of al-Sadr's political and military organization were gunned down last week, the latest of as many as seven key figures in the al-Sadr organization killed or captured in the past two months.
The deaths and captures came after al-Maliki, also a Shiite, dropped his protection for the organization.
Shiite leaders insist that the Shiite militias flourished because the U.S. and its allies could not protect civilians. They say if the Sunni insurgents were crushed, the threat from Shiite hard-liners would go away.
Shiite politicians have long maintained that Sunni militants pose a greater threat to Iraq's stability. Thousands of Shiite civilians have been killed in bombings and suicide attacks carried out by al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni groups.
Thousands regularly cross the porous Iraq-Iran border, and Iran has been a popular destination for elite Shiite Iraq exiles. In Saddam's time those exiles included al-Maliki, who like other educated and politically active Shiites feared for his safety in Iraq.
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic Writer
20 minutes ago
Anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fled Iraq for Iran ahead of a security crackdown in Baghdad and the arrival of 21,500 U.S. troops sent by President Bush to quell sectarian violence, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday.
Al-Sadr left his Baghdad stronghold some weeks ago, the official said, and is believed to be in Tehran, where he has family. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss U.S. monitoring activities, said fractures in al-Sadr's political and militia operations may be part of the reason for his departure. The move is not believed to be permanent, the official said.
Word of al-Sadr's departure coincides with an announcement that Iraq will close its borders with Iran and Syria for 72 hours as part of the drive to end the violence that has threatened to divide the capital along sectarian lines.
The U.S. official said it is not clear how firmly the radical Shiite cleric is controlling his organization and the associated Mahdi Army militia from exile.
"The question for us is to what extent his organization is going to participate in the political process," the official said, referring to al-Sadr's on-again, off-again relationship with the fragile democratic government in Baghdad.
Al-Sadr's departure was reported by several television networks Tuesday.
Al-Sadr's militia is widely seen as the main threat to Iraq's unity and high on the list of targets for the Baghdad security operation.
A ragtag but highly motivated militia that fought U.S. forces twice in 2004, the Mahdi Army is blamed for much of the sectarian strife shaking Iraq since a Shiite shrine was bombed by Sunni militants a year ago. U.S. officials have for months pressed Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to move against the militia, but he has so far done little to comply, largely because he does not want to lose al-Sadr's support.
Al-Sadr rose from obscurity in the aftermath of the ouster of Saddam Hussein to lead a movement of young, underprivileged Iraqis united by opposition to U.S. military presence as well as hunger for Shiite domination.
The cleric, who is in his mid-30s, is a master of street politics, and his young lieutenants can rally tens of thousands of protesters at short notice. Once wanted in the 2003 killing of a key cleric, al-Sadr gained much influence when his parliamentary bloc of 30 of 275 deputies was instrumental in al-Maliki's election.
Dismissed by older Shiite politicians as a dangerous upstart, al-Sadr set up the Mahdi Army militia in 2003. It is suspected of being behind the abduction and murder of thousands of Sunnis in what are known as death squad killings.
Two key members of al-Sadr's political and military organization were gunned down last week, the latest of as many as seven key figures in the al-Sadr organization killed or captured in the past two months.
The deaths and captures came after al-Maliki, also a Shiite, dropped his protection for the organization.
Shiite leaders insist that the Shiite militias flourished because the U.S. and its allies could not protect civilians. They say if the Sunni insurgents were crushed, the threat from Shiite hard-liners would go away.
Shiite politicians have long maintained that Sunni militants pose a greater threat to Iraq's stability. Thousands of Shiite civilians have been killed in bombings and suicide attacks carried out by al-Qaida in Iraq and other Sunni groups.
Thousands regularly cross the porous Iraq-Iran border, and Iran has been a popular destination for elite Shiite Iraq exiles. In Saddam's time those exiles included al-Maliki, who like other educated and politically active Shiites feared for his safety in Iraq.
The New Republic: Biden "the gaffe-prone windbag America needs"
Biden Time
by Peter Beinart
Joe Biden is the reason Barack Obama was smart to run for president. He's a textbook example of why lengthy service in the U.S. Senate makes it harder to win the White House. Once upon a time, Biden--elected to the Senate at age 29--was a political up-and-comer. He was brainy but blue-collar: a Catholic from a state that is more culturally conservative than it seems. And he was eloquent.
People forget, but Biden is one of the best speechmakers in the Democratic Party. When he ran for president in 1988, passion was his forte. Sure, he was undisciplined, but so was Bill Clinton. Two decades ago, his national political future looked bright.
Today, he's in danger of becoming a laughingstock. He's become a windbag--indulged for too long in an institution where no one ever makes you stop talking. And the consequences were on disastrous display last week, when he began riffing on his presidential rivals to the New York Observer and ended up suggesting that, before Obama came along, black presidential candidates were not merely inarticulate but also unclean.
Now half the punditocracy is demanding his head, and the other half is watching the bloodsport with unseemly glee. My colleague and friend Jonathan Chait, in perhaps the oddest column of the entire saga, said Biden would be a "terrific" president and that his Obama quote was "widely misunderstood," but that he should drop out of the presidential race nonetheless, because he's gaffe-prone and thus can't win. This strikes me as a strange conflation of the descriptive and the normative. If Biden wants to waste his time in a quixotic bid for the presidency--a job Chait thinks he'd do extremely well--why stop him?
I have my own reasons for hoping Biden stays in the race. Partly, it's the broader principle: Stupid, insensitive remarks shouldn't sink political candidacies unless they bespeak some larger animus. George Allen's "macaca" comment mattered because, as Ryan Lizza has documented, Allen had a long history of racist sympathies. So did Trent Lott, long before he endorsed Strom Thurmond for president. Biden, by contrast, has another dumb remark on his record (this one about Indian Americans), but his long career in Congress suggests no sympathy for racists. Given that, he doesn't deserve the political death sentence. Journalists shouldn't be hypocrites: You can't ask politicians to be unscripted and then decapitate them any time they misspeak.
There's another reason I hope Biden stays in the race: the effect he'll have on his competitors. Biden's record on Iraq isn't perfect. But he knows more about the issue than anyone else in the field and, as a result, will be a valuable bullshit detector. Consider something else Biden said in his now-infamous Observer interview. He mocked Hillary Clinton's recent suggestion that the United States threaten to withdraw funding from Iraqi troops in order to "send a clear message--that we are finished with their empty promises and with this president's blank check."
Biden was incredulous, and he was right to be incredulous. Almost all of his competitors are saying this kind of thing. John Edwards, for instance, recently told Tim Russert that the United States should begin to withdraw its troops because only then will the Iraqis feel "imminent responsibility" to "reach any kind of reconciliation." It's a politically convenient claim. Democrats want to quickly withdraw U.S. troops, but they don't want to admit that if the United States leaves, things will get worse. So they say things will actually get better, because once Iraq's leaders realize that we won't save them from themselves, they'll finally get serious about overcoming their sectarian divisions. This argument allows Democrats to paint withdrawal not as an admission of defeat, but as a strategy for victory.
But it's wildly unconvincing. After all, you can't threaten people with an outcome they already want. Last November, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki explicitly called for U.S. troops to leave Baghdad, before being strong-armed by the Bush administration into accepting a troop surge. He doesn't fear a U.S. pullout; he welcomes it, because, with U.S. troops out of the way, his Shia allies can more easily cleanse Baghdad of Sunnis. Edwards and Clinton seem to think that, if the United States begins to withdraw its troops or money, Iraqis will peer over the abyss and pull back. But Iraqis don't need help visualizing the abyss; they're living it. The problem is that those Iraqi leaders genuinely interested in sharing power across sectarian lines are mostly sidelined, exiled, or dead. The ones who remain are less interested in averting a civil war than in winning one.
That's not to say Clinton and Edwards are wrong about the policy. The United States should begin to withdraw its troops, not so we can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat but because we've already been defeated--because U.S. troops cannot defeat an insurgency that has mass Sunni support and militias that have mass Shia support in a country where a majority of people want our soldiers out--or dead.
Biden just wants his opponents to be honest about what they're proposing. Because, if they are, they will have to begin a highly unpleasant and urgently needed debate about how to handle the awful consequences of a necessary withdrawal. No one really knows how an all-out Iraqi civil war will affect the Middle East, but, as the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman recently argued, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, and even Iran could be destabilized by waves of refugees, weapons, and jihadists. Keeping those countries from buckling may require aggressive diplomatic, financial, and even military intervention (not to mention a generous refugee policy for the Iraqis whose country we have helped destroy). It's little wonder that top-tier Democratic candidates avoid discussing this for fear of being labeled defeatist.
But, if they do, they'll be allowing George W. Bush to do further damage. Four years ago, the Bush administration didn't plan for how to keep the peace in post-Saddam Iraq. Now Democrats must begin a debate about how to keep the peace in the entire Middle East.
If Biden can force his presidential opponents into that discussion, he'll be doing the country a service. It's not the role he probably imagined for himself. But it's crucial and honorable. And it's why he should stay in the race.
Peter Beinart is editor-at-large at The New Republic, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the author of The Good Fight (HarperCollins).
by Peter Beinart
Joe Biden is the reason Barack Obama was smart to run for president. He's a textbook example of why lengthy service in the U.S. Senate makes it harder to win the White House. Once upon a time, Biden--elected to the Senate at age 29--was a political up-and-comer. He was brainy but blue-collar: a Catholic from a state that is more culturally conservative than it seems. And he was eloquent.
People forget, but Biden is one of the best speechmakers in the Democratic Party. When he ran for president in 1988, passion was his forte. Sure, he was undisciplined, but so was Bill Clinton. Two decades ago, his national political future looked bright.
Today, he's in danger of becoming a laughingstock. He's become a windbag--indulged for too long in an institution where no one ever makes you stop talking. And the consequences were on disastrous display last week, when he began riffing on his presidential rivals to the New York Observer and ended up suggesting that, before Obama came along, black presidential candidates were not merely inarticulate but also unclean.
Now half the punditocracy is demanding his head, and the other half is watching the bloodsport with unseemly glee. My colleague and friend Jonathan Chait, in perhaps the oddest column of the entire saga, said Biden would be a "terrific" president and that his Obama quote was "widely misunderstood," but that he should drop out of the presidential race nonetheless, because he's gaffe-prone and thus can't win. This strikes me as a strange conflation of the descriptive and the normative. If Biden wants to waste his time in a quixotic bid for the presidency--a job Chait thinks he'd do extremely well--why stop him?
I have my own reasons for hoping Biden stays in the race. Partly, it's the broader principle: Stupid, insensitive remarks shouldn't sink political candidacies unless they bespeak some larger animus. George Allen's "macaca" comment mattered because, as Ryan Lizza has documented, Allen had a long history of racist sympathies. So did Trent Lott, long before he endorsed Strom Thurmond for president. Biden, by contrast, has another dumb remark on his record (this one about Indian Americans), but his long career in Congress suggests no sympathy for racists. Given that, he doesn't deserve the political death sentence. Journalists shouldn't be hypocrites: You can't ask politicians to be unscripted and then decapitate them any time they misspeak.
There's another reason I hope Biden stays in the race: the effect he'll have on his competitors. Biden's record on Iraq isn't perfect. But he knows more about the issue than anyone else in the field and, as a result, will be a valuable bullshit detector. Consider something else Biden said in his now-infamous Observer interview. He mocked Hillary Clinton's recent suggestion that the United States threaten to withdraw funding from Iraqi troops in order to "send a clear message--that we are finished with their empty promises and with this president's blank check."
Biden was incredulous, and he was right to be incredulous. Almost all of his competitors are saying this kind of thing. John Edwards, for instance, recently told Tim Russert that the United States should begin to withdraw its troops because only then will the Iraqis feel "imminent responsibility" to "reach any kind of reconciliation." It's a politically convenient claim. Democrats want to quickly withdraw U.S. troops, but they don't want to admit that if the United States leaves, things will get worse. So they say things will actually get better, because once Iraq's leaders realize that we won't save them from themselves, they'll finally get serious about overcoming their sectarian divisions. This argument allows Democrats to paint withdrawal not as an admission of defeat, but as a strategy for victory.
But it's wildly unconvincing. After all, you can't threaten people with an outcome they already want. Last November, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki explicitly called for U.S. troops to leave Baghdad, before being strong-armed by the Bush administration into accepting a troop surge. He doesn't fear a U.S. pullout; he welcomes it, because, with U.S. troops out of the way, his Shia allies can more easily cleanse Baghdad of Sunnis. Edwards and Clinton seem to think that, if the United States begins to withdraw its troops or money, Iraqis will peer over the abyss and pull back. But Iraqis don't need help visualizing the abyss; they're living it. The problem is that those Iraqi leaders genuinely interested in sharing power across sectarian lines are mostly sidelined, exiled, or dead. The ones who remain are less interested in averting a civil war than in winning one.
That's not to say Clinton and Edwards are wrong about the policy. The United States should begin to withdraw its troops, not so we can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat but because we've already been defeated--because U.S. troops cannot defeat an insurgency that has mass Sunni support and militias that have mass Shia support in a country where a majority of people want our soldiers out--or dead.
Biden just wants his opponents to be honest about what they're proposing. Because, if they are, they will have to begin a highly unpleasant and urgently needed debate about how to handle the awful consequences of a necessary withdrawal. No one really knows how an all-out Iraqi civil war will affect the Middle East, but, as the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman recently argued, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Kuwait, and even Iran could be destabilized by waves of refugees, weapons, and jihadists. Keeping those countries from buckling may require aggressive diplomatic, financial, and even military intervention (not to mention a generous refugee policy for the Iraqis whose country we have helped destroy). It's little wonder that top-tier Democratic candidates avoid discussing this for fear of being labeled defeatist.
But, if they do, they'll be allowing George W. Bush to do further damage. Four years ago, the Bush administration didn't plan for how to keep the peace in post-Saddam Iraq. Now Democrats must begin a debate about how to keep the peace in the entire Middle East.
If Biden can force his presidential opponents into that discussion, he'll be doing the country a service. It's not the role he probably imagined for himself. But it's crucial and honorable. And it's why he should stay in the race.
Peter Beinart is editor-at-large at The New Republic, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and the author of The Good Fight (HarperCollins).
Obama's first gaffe: U.S. soldiers' lives "wasted"
Obama regrets saying soldiers' lives 'wasted'
Apologizes for remark in Iowa campaign stop
February 13, 2007
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
DURHAM, N.H. -- In his first stumble, White House hopeful Barack Obama on Monday took back words from the day before, when he said the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were "wasted."
Following his Springfield launch on Saturday, Obama wrapped up a three-day swing in the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, ending at a University of New Hampshire rally where he assailed the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."
In this case, that would be Obama, the Illinois Democrat.
During his first press conference as a presidential candidate at Iowa State University, Obama, discussing his opposition to the Iraq war, said the war "should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''
He immediately realized he made a mistake, he later told a reporter. Even the most severe war critics in Congress have been very careful to praise U.S. troops and say nothing that could upset mourning families.
Reaches out to families
Obama, in an interview with the Des Moines Register right afterward, told the paper, ''I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term,'' he said. ''Their sacrifices are never wasted. . . . What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission."
By Monday, reporters covering Obama making his first visit as a presidential candidate in New Hampshire, asked Obama, campaigning in a Nashua home, if military families deserved an apology.
"Well as I said, it is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any of them felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown. You know, and if you look at all the other speeches that I've made, that is always the starting point in my view of this war.''
At a rally in the gym at the university here -- not quite the stemwinder Obama delivered for University of Illinois at Chicago students on Sunday night -- Obama made a similar point about the Iraq war deaths, talking about the need to "bring that war to a close."
Those who died, he said, were "extraordinarily brave soldiers."
Apologizes for remark in Iowa campaign stop
February 13, 2007
BY LYNN SWEET Sun-Times Columnist
DURHAM, N.H. -- In his first stumble, White House hopeful Barack Obama on Monday took back words from the day before, when he said the lives of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq were "wasted."
Following his Springfield launch on Saturday, Obama wrapped up a three-day swing in the key primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, ending at a University of New Hampshire rally where he assailed the "trivialization of politics" where "it is all about who makes a gaffe."
In this case, that would be Obama, the Illinois Democrat.
During his first press conference as a presidential candidate at Iowa State University, Obama, discussing his opposition to the Iraq war, said the war "should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged, and on which we've now spent $400 billion, and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted.''
He immediately realized he made a mistake, he later told a reporter. Even the most severe war critics in Congress have been very careful to praise U.S. troops and say nothing that could upset mourning families.
Reaches out to families
Obama, in an interview with the Des Moines Register right afterward, told the paper, ''I was actually upset with myself when I said that, because I never use that term,'' he said. ''Their sacrifices are never wasted. . . . What I meant to say was those sacrifices have not been honored by the same attention to strategy, diplomacy and honesty on the part of civilian leadership that would give them a clear mission."
By Monday, reporters covering Obama making his first visit as a presidential candidate in New Hampshire, asked Obama, campaigning in a Nashua home, if military families deserved an apology.
"Well as I said, it is not at all what I intended to say, and I would absolutely apologize if any of them felt that in some ways it had diminished the enormous courage and sacrifice that they'd shown. You know, and if you look at all the other speeches that I've made, that is always the starting point in my view of this war.''
At a rally in the gym at the university here -- not quite the stemwinder Obama delivered for University of Illinois at Chicago students on Sunday night -- Obama made a similar point about the Iraq war deaths, talking about the need to "bring that war to a close."
Those who died, he said, were "extraordinarily brave soldiers."
Rudy Giuliani, Culture Warrior?
Culture Warrior
Don't write off Giuliani's appeal to social conservatives.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:01 a.m.The book on Rudy Giuliani is that he is too liberal on social issues to win the Republican presidential nomination. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, put it succinctly: "I don't see anyone getting the Republican nomination who is not pro-life and a staunch defender of traditional marriage."
But Mr. Giuliani is running strong in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and leading most national surveys of Republicans. He's charming crowds of conservatives everywhere he goes. So it's worth wondering if Mr. Perkins is missing an undercurrent coursing through conservative politics.
Republicans have just experienced a bruising midterm election defeat. The president is suffering dismal approval ratings, and the party's erstwhile front-runner for the presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, made his national reputation as a "maverick." The Giuliani rise evident now may be more than name recognition and residual support from his stalwart leadership following the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Giuliani's support may also arise from his having successfully moved an entrenched political culture in New York City, something national Republicans have not been able to do in Washington.
Mr. Perkins has publicly predicted that Mr. Giuliani's support will evaporate once voters learn more about him. And Mr. Giuliani's track record, both political and personal, may hurt him in the primaries. He's been divorced twice, opposes banning abortion, supports gun control, and for a time as mayor lived with two gay men and (as Time magazine noted recently) their frou-frou dog, Bonnie. None of this will endear him to the party's values voters. But it also may not be what tips the scales in the primaries.
Take South Carolina. The state's influence in presidential politics has only grown since it derailed Mr. McCain's Straight Talk Express in 2000. Two weeks ago, Mr. Giuliani made a trip to the state and struck a chord by speaking to a burning issue in South Carolina--a fight over school choice. This probably won't make the national evening news, but today some 5,000 people--many of whom are black and live in poorly performing rural school districts--are expected to descend on the state capitol in Columbia to rally for school choice. After lobbying their elected leaders, they plan to leave behind chocolates for Valentine's Day embossed with the words "another voice for school choice."
Mr. Giuliani delivered his South Carolina speech to several dozen conservatives. One woman who attended told me she wonders whether electing a president who successfully took on the mob in New York is what it will take to finally break through the entrenched education political culture. Christian conservatives make up the core of the school-choice movement in the state. If they come to the conclusion that Mr. Giuliani is on their side and has the leadership qualities to achieve lasting and meaningful change, he may prove a surprisingly strong contender.
Sen. McCain will have his own problems winning over Christian conservatives. A man who won media accolades by cutting against the base of his party will be ill-equipped to win the nomination. He's recently taken lashes in the media from Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and is reviled among some in the right-to-life movement for pushing through campaign finance restrictions that have made it more difficult for them to get their message out.
Christian conservative leaders will continue to be unhappy with Mr. Giuliani. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recently laid into the former mayor for a shifting stance on abortion, saying that a politician who personally believes the practice is wrong but who refuses to ban it is more repugnant than someone who isn't morally troubled by the termination of a pregnancy.
He's right. But there is little the president can do directly about abortion. in weighing contenders for the party's nomination, will right-to-life Republicans be more worried about Mr. Giuliani's personal beliefs, or will they find comfort in the fact that he says he'll appoint judges in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who may actually overturn Roe v. Wade? If Mr. Giuliani makes a convincing case that he'll also lend his efforts to school choice and other endeavors that will help win the other culture war under way in American politics--the one against an intransient political culture that is unresponsive to the demands of the public--Mr. Perkins could turn out to be mistaken.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Don't write off Giuliani's appeal to social conservatives.
BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:01 a.m.The book on Rudy Giuliani is that he is too liberal on social issues to win the Republican presidential nomination. Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, put it succinctly: "I don't see anyone getting the Republican nomination who is not pro-life and a staunch defender of traditional marriage."
But Mr. Giuliani is running strong in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and leading most national surveys of Republicans. He's charming crowds of conservatives everywhere he goes. So it's worth wondering if Mr. Perkins is missing an undercurrent coursing through conservative politics.
Republicans have just experienced a bruising midterm election defeat. The president is suffering dismal approval ratings, and the party's erstwhile front-runner for the presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain, made his national reputation as a "maverick." The Giuliani rise evident now may be more than name recognition and residual support from his stalwart leadership following the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Giuliani's support may also arise from his having successfully moved an entrenched political culture in New York City, something national Republicans have not been able to do in Washington.
Mr. Perkins has publicly predicted that Mr. Giuliani's support will evaporate once voters learn more about him. And Mr. Giuliani's track record, both political and personal, may hurt him in the primaries. He's been divorced twice, opposes banning abortion, supports gun control, and for a time as mayor lived with two gay men and (as Time magazine noted recently) their frou-frou dog, Bonnie. None of this will endear him to the party's values voters. But it also may not be what tips the scales in the primaries.
Take South Carolina. The state's influence in presidential politics has only grown since it derailed Mr. McCain's Straight Talk Express in 2000. Two weeks ago, Mr. Giuliani made a trip to the state and struck a chord by speaking to a burning issue in South Carolina--a fight over school choice. This probably won't make the national evening news, but today some 5,000 people--many of whom are black and live in poorly performing rural school districts--are expected to descend on the state capitol in Columbia to rally for school choice. After lobbying their elected leaders, they plan to leave behind chocolates for Valentine's Day embossed with the words "another voice for school choice."
Mr. Giuliani delivered his South Carolina speech to several dozen conservatives. One woman who attended told me she wonders whether electing a president who successfully took on the mob in New York is what it will take to finally break through the entrenched education political culture. Christian conservatives make up the core of the school-choice movement in the state. If they come to the conclusion that Mr. Giuliani is on their side and has the leadership qualities to achieve lasting and meaningful change, he may prove a surprisingly strong contender.
Sen. McCain will have his own problems winning over Christian conservatives. A man who won media accolades by cutting against the base of his party will be ill-equipped to win the nomination. He's recently taken lashes in the media from Focus on the Family founder James Dobson and is reviled among some in the right-to-life movement for pushing through campaign finance restrictions that have made it more difficult for them to get their message out.
Christian conservative leaders will continue to be unhappy with Mr. Giuliani. Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recently laid into the former mayor for a shifting stance on abortion, saying that a politician who personally believes the practice is wrong but who refuses to ban it is more repugnant than someone who isn't morally troubled by the termination of a pregnancy.
He's right. But there is little the president can do directly about abortion. in weighing contenders for the party's nomination, will right-to-life Republicans be more worried about Mr. Giuliani's personal beliefs, or will they find comfort in the fact that he says he'll appoint judges in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who may actually overturn Roe v. Wade? If Mr. Giuliani makes a convincing case that he'll also lend his efforts to school choice and other endeavors that will help win the other culture war under way in American politics--the one against an intransient political culture that is unresponsive to the demands of the public--Mr. Perkins could turn out to be mistaken.
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.
Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Fox News: Romney's In
Romney Emphasizes Experience, Outsider Status in 2008 Announcement
Tuesday , February 13, 2007
Washington — Using the backdrop of the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Mich., Mitt Romney formally announced his presidential bid Tuesday, emphasizing the need for Washington to pursue "innovation and transformation" in the face of persistent and heady challenges.
"It is time for innovation and transformation in Washington. It is what our country needs. It is what our people deserve," Romney told supporters. "And so ... with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States."
Trying to distinguish himself from other candidates in the race, including top Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Romney emphasized that he is not a Washington insider, but also not an untested chief executive.
"I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician. There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading," he said.
"I do not believe Washington can be transformed by someone who has never tried doing such a thing before, in any setting, by someone who has never even managed a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world," Romney continued.
But even while the former Massachusetts governor makes his official launch, he faces several challenges, not first of which is that several state representatives who had planned to support Romney are now moving to his rival's camp.
The group of state lawmakers, which had pledged to support Romney in 2008, will announce at a press conference in Lansing that they've switched their support from Romney to McCain.
Three-term state Rep. Judy Emmons said she backed Romney on the word of former House Speaker Craig DeRochem, who will be introducing Romney at the Dearborn event. But Emmons told FOX News on Monday that after researching the candidates on her own, she came to view McCain as the better choice.
Emmons said part of the decision came down to Romney's position on abortion, and a conservative conversion that has plagued Romney since he entered national politics.
McCain's "pro-life record is compelling," Emmons said. "For 20 years, he's been pro-life every step." Romney, on the other hand, has a "consistency issue."
Emmons said she also has respect for McCain's "willingness to be at the forefront of protecting our country from terrorism" and praised him as "fiscally responsible."
Romney is largely acknowledged as the third member of the Republican top tier in the 2008 race, joining McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Romney has demonstrated an ability to rally Republicans to his cause — endorsements range from members of ex-Florida Gov Jeb Bush's inner circle to Capitol Hill lawmakers, including former House Speaker Dennis Hastert — and to raise money. He took in more than $6 million on the day he announced his exploratory committee.
But the "consistency issue" is sure to dog Romney throughout his battle for the GOP nomination for president. Romney favored safe, legal abortions until he became governor of Massachusetts, but says he was dissuaded from his abortion-on-demand position by a Harvard stem cell scientist. Afterward, Romney announced his opposition to embryonic stem cell research and later that year vetoed a bill making available Plan B or "morning after" contraception.
In 1994, Romney also has said he'd be a stronger proponent of gay rights than liberal senator Ted Kennedy, who he ran against that year.
On a separate issue, as a Mormon, Romney could also face resistance from Christian evangelicals, who comprise a sizable and powerful chunk of the Republican Party. A recent FOX News poll showed that 32 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he's Mormon. Nine percent said they'd be more likely.
In that same poll, 11 percent said they had a favorable view of Romney while 22 percent said they had an unfavorable view. But 67 percent said they don't know him or enough about him yet to weigh in.
Last week, Romney told FOX News that "anything's fair in politics" but he didn't think his religion would be a hindrance.
"In my view, the people of America want a person of faith to lead the country. I believe in God. I believe that — that all of His children are — are around us, in the various nations and in this great nation. ... And I believe that if people want to understand the nature of my faith, they can look at my wife and me and our family. They can see that our faith has made us better people, better Americans," he said.
In his announcement, Romney sought to head off questions about where he stands and appeal to conservative voters.
"It has been said that a person is defined by what he loves and by what he believes and by what he dreams. I love America and I believe in the people of America. I believe in God and I believe that every person in this great country, and every person on this grand planet, is a child of God," Romney said.
"I believe the family is the foundation of America — and that we must fight to protect and strengthen it. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that people and their elected representatives should make our laws, not unelected judges. I believe we are overtaxed and government is overfed ... I believe that homeland security begins with securing our borders. I believe the best days of this country are ahead of us," he said.
Romney and McCain have been going toe-to-toe behind the scenes for months.
McCain has announced a slew of endorsement in Romney's home state of Michigan, and the campaign held its first voter rally in Massachusetts. Romney countered by announcing supporters from McCain's home state of Arizona the same day.
With fellow top-tier candidate Rudy Giuliani lagging behind in campaign organization, McCain and Romney have also been battling it out for supporters on Capitol Hill and in the key primary states of Florida and South Carolina.
Romney did misstep among some in the Jewish community, however, by choosing Ford museum for the presidential announcement. Ford, a well-known anti-Semite, was bestowed the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolph Hitler.
Romney's father, George, is a former automobile executive and three term governor of the state. In the face of criticism Monday, his campaign said the announcement would go on as scheduled.
FOX News' Aaron Bruns and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
Tuesday , February 13, 2007
Washington — Using the backdrop of the Henry Ford museum in Dearborn, Mich., Mitt Romney formally announced his presidential bid Tuesday, emphasizing the need for Washington to pursue "innovation and transformation" in the face of persistent and heady challenges.
"It is time for innovation and transformation in Washington. It is what our country needs. It is what our people deserve," Romney told supporters. "And so ... with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States."
Trying to distinguish himself from other candidates in the race, including top Republican rival, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Romney emphasized that he is not a Washington insider, but also not an untested chief executive.
"I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician. There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading," he said.
"I do not believe Washington can be transformed by someone who has never tried doing such a thing before, in any setting, by someone who has never even managed a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world," Romney continued.
But even while the former Massachusetts governor makes his official launch, he faces several challenges, not first of which is that several state representatives who had planned to support Romney are now moving to his rival's camp.
The group of state lawmakers, which had pledged to support Romney in 2008, will announce at a press conference in Lansing that they've switched their support from Romney to McCain.
Three-term state Rep. Judy Emmons said she backed Romney on the word of former House Speaker Craig DeRochem, who will be introducing Romney at the Dearborn event. But Emmons told FOX News on Monday that after researching the candidates on her own, she came to view McCain as the better choice.
Emmons said part of the decision came down to Romney's position on abortion, and a conservative conversion that has plagued Romney since he entered national politics.
McCain's "pro-life record is compelling," Emmons said. "For 20 years, he's been pro-life every step." Romney, on the other hand, has a "consistency issue."
Emmons said she also has respect for McCain's "willingness to be at the forefront of protecting our country from terrorism" and praised him as "fiscally responsible."
Romney is largely acknowledged as the third member of the Republican top tier in the 2008 race, joining McCain and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Romney has demonstrated an ability to rally Republicans to his cause — endorsements range from members of ex-Florida Gov Jeb Bush's inner circle to Capitol Hill lawmakers, including former House Speaker Dennis Hastert — and to raise money. He took in more than $6 million on the day he announced his exploratory committee.
But the "consistency issue" is sure to dog Romney throughout his battle for the GOP nomination for president. Romney favored safe, legal abortions until he became governor of Massachusetts, but says he was dissuaded from his abortion-on-demand position by a Harvard stem cell scientist. Afterward, Romney announced his opposition to embryonic stem cell research and later that year vetoed a bill making available Plan B or "morning after" contraception.
In 1994, Romney also has said he'd be a stronger proponent of gay rights than liberal senator Ted Kennedy, who he ran against that year.
On a separate issue, as a Mormon, Romney could also face resistance from Christian evangelicals, who comprise a sizable and powerful chunk of the Republican Party. A recent FOX News poll showed that 32 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he's Mormon. Nine percent said they'd be more likely.
In that same poll, 11 percent said they had a favorable view of Romney while 22 percent said they had an unfavorable view. But 67 percent said they don't know him or enough about him yet to weigh in.
Last week, Romney told FOX News that "anything's fair in politics" but he didn't think his religion would be a hindrance.
"In my view, the people of America want a person of faith to lead the country. I believe in God. I believe that — that all of His children are — are around us, in the various nations and in this great nation. ... And I believe that if people want to understand the nature of my faith, they can look at my wife and me and our family. They can see that our faith has made us better people, better Americans," he said.
In his announcement, Romney sought to head off questions about where he stands and appeal to conservative voters.
"It has been said that a person is defined by what he loves and by what he believes and by what he dreams. I love America and I believe in the people of America. I believe in God and I believe that every person in this great country, and every person on this grand planet, is a child of God," Romney said.
"I believe the family is the foundation of America — and that we must fight to protect and strengthen it. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe that people and their elected representatives should make our laws, not unelected judges. I believe we are overtaxed and government is overfed ... I believe that homeland security begins with securing our borders. I believe the best days of this country are ahead of us," he said.
Romney and McCain have been going toe-to-toe behind the scenes for months.
McCain has announced a slew of endorsement in Romney's home state of Michigan, and the campaign held its first voter rally in Massachusetts. Romney countered by announcing supporters from McCain's home state of Arizona the same day.
With fellow top-tier candidate Rudy Giuliani lagging behind in campaign organization, McCain and Romney have also been battling it out for supporters on Capitol Hill and in the key primary states of Florida and South Carolina.
Romney did misstep among some in the Jewish community, however, by choosing Ford museum for the presidential announcement. Ford, a well-known anti-Semite, was bestowed the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolph Hitler.
Romney's father, George, is a former automobile executive and three term governor of the state. In the face of criticism Monday, his campaign said the announcement would go on as scheduled.
FOX News' Aaron Bruns and Jake Gibson contributed to this report.
USA Today: Will Mormon faith hurt Romney's run?
Will Mormon faith hurt bid for White House?
Mitt Romney says his religion isn't a factor, but some voters say it is
By Jill Lawrence
USA TODAY
SALT LAKE CITY — It's easy to find Mormons who have run into misconceptions about their faith. Take Jeff Hartley, executive director of the Republican Party in Utah, a state that's 70% Mormon. "I only have one mom. I only have one wife," he says. "That's not the understanding that a lot of people have."
The emergence of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon waging a strong campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, spotlights a religion often viewed as odd despite its rapid growth and attempts to go mainstream. Hartley and others say they welcome the scrutiny. For Romney, set to announce his candidacy today, it may be less than a blessing.
In a diverse 2008 presidential field that includes a woman and an African-American on the Democratic side, polls show being Mormon is a handicap. In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 72% say they would vote for a qualified nominee who is Mormon. That compares with 94% for a black nominee and 88% for a female nominee.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to ease fears about his Catholicism. Joe Lieberman shed light on Orthodox Judaism in 2000 during his vice presidential campaign.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the official name of the Mormon church, has an unusual theology and a past scarred by racism and polygamy. A national political race that conveys its focus on family life and traditional values could improve its image.
"The more people learn about the Mormon faith and culture, the more comfortable they will be," Hartley says. He and others say the same is true for Romney. "A lot of concerns are dispelled once people actually get to know him and his capabilities," says LaVarr Webb, a Mormon and GOP consultant here who plans to donate money to Romney.
There are nearly 6 million Mormons in the USA. Among them are politicians such as Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader; Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who ran for president in 1999; and Romney's late father, George, a Michigan governor and 1968 presidential candidate.
With his Harvard degrees, his success in business, politics, fundraising and as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney draws a new level of attention to his faith. "It's a floodlight," says political scientist David Magleby, a Mormon and a dean at Brigham Young University in Provo.
Mormons got a taste of intense publicity during the Olympics. "We had literally hundreds of sports reporters writing about theology," LDS spokesman Michael Otterson says wryly. The coverage brought some changes in perception, he says, but they were incremental. "You don't change riveted prejudices overnight," he says.
Romney says it is not his job as a presidential candidate to educate people about his church. "I'm running for a secular position," he said in an interview. "I subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln called America's political religion. The Constitution and the rule of law are the highest promises I would make in taking the oath of office."
Willard Mitt Romney grew up in a Mormon family in Michigan. He met his future girlfriend and wife, Ann Davies, in elementary school.
At 19, after a year at Stanford, Romney began the mission required of Mormon men. He was sent to France to help manage church affairs, work with young people and try to win converts. "It's a very Catholic country, and successes are few and far between," he says, "but I made a number of very good friends."
Romney did have some success at home. While he was gone, Ann started college at church-run BYU. She was "officially Episcopalian," Romney says, but wanted to learn about his church and ended up joining it. On his return from France, Romney enrolled at BYU.
The pair married in 1969, when he was 21 and she was 19, and had five sons over the next dozen years. Ann Romney serves on community service boards, including the New England chapter of the MS Society. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1999.
The ex-governor says questions about his faith are fair to ask. Some queries he answers directly. "I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke, I don't drink coffee or tea. I also do a tithe," he says, meaning he donates 10% of his income to the church. All are church requirements.
Romney responds more generally when asked if he has participated in an endowment ceremony, in which men and women take vows of secrecy about temple rites and of obedience to the Lord, and begin the daily practice of wearing a sacred "temple garment" resembling abbreviated long underwear.
"I do attend the temple of my church … and people can learn about that by contacting the church," he says, adding: "I'm sure on the Internet you can find every single aspect of what's entailed."
Lieberman's vice presidential campaign amounted to a "national seminar" on orthodox Judaism, says Alan Wolfe, a religion and politics expert at Boston College. People asked questions, such as whether Lieberman could work on the Jewish Sabbath, and learned from his answers. "Whether we can have the same discussion about Mormonism, I don't know," Wolfe says. "It's going to be harder because it is a more controversial religion."
Conservative Hugh Hewitt, a law professor and talk-show host, says one big speech won't be enough. "Mitt Romney has a Mormon problem, as does the rest of the country. It's much bigger than I thought, and it's going to require a lot of conversation and focused study," says Hewitt, author of A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know about Mitt Romney, due in March.
Joseph Smith, an unschooled diviner in western New York, founded the LDS church in 1830. He said the angel Moroni had directed him to two golden plates engraved with scripture and Christian history. The text he dictated became the Book of Mormon.
Romney describes LDS as similar to other U.S. churches: "My church teaches first and foremost that there's a God who is our heavenly father, that all the children of the world are his, that humanity is one great family, that we have a duty to serve one another and that we should try and live better lives."
The rest of the article can be found here.
Mitt Romney says his religion isn't a factor, but some voters say it is
By Jill Lawrence
USA TODAY
SALT LAKE CITY — It's easy to find Mormons who have run into misconceptions about their faith. Take Jeff Hartley, executive director of the Republican Party in Utah, a state that's 70% Mormon. "I only have one mom. I only have one wife," he says. "That's not the understanding that a lot of people have."
The emergence of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon waging a strong campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, spotlights a religion often viewed as odd despite its rapid growth and attempts to go mainstream. Hartley and others say they welcome the scrutiny. For Romney, set to announce his candidacy today, it may be less than a blessing.
In a diverse 2008 presidential field that includes a woman and an African-American on the Democratic side, polls show being Mormon is a handicap. In a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 72% say they would vote for a qualified nominee who is Mormon. That compares with 94% for a black nominee and 88% for a female nominee.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy gave a major speech to ease fears about his Catholicism. Joe Lieberman shed light on Orthodox Judaism in 2000 during his vice presidential campaign.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the official name of the Mormon church, has an unusual theology and a past scarred by racism and polygamy. A national political race that conveys its focus on family life and traditional values could improve its image.
"The more people learn about the Mormon faith and culture, the more comfortable they will be," Hartley says. He and others say the same is true for Romney. "A lot of concerns are dispelled once people actually get to know him and his capabilities," says LaVarr Webb, a Mormon and GOP consultant here who plans to donate money to Romney.
There are nearly 6 million Mormons in the USA. Among them are politicians such as Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader; Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who ran for president in 1999; and Romney's late father, George, a Michigan governor and 1968 presidential candidate.
With his Harvard degrees, his success in business, politics, fundraising and as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Romney draws a new level of attention to his faith. "It's a floodlight," says political scientist David Magleby, a Mormon and a dean at Brigham Young University in Provo.
Mormons got a taste of intense publicity during the Olympics. "We had literally hundreds of sports reporters writing about theology," LDS spokesman Michael Otterson says wryly. The coverage brought some changes in perception, he says, but they were incremental. "You don't change riveted prejudices overnight," he says.
Romney says it is not his job as a presidential candidate to educate people about his church. "I'm running for a secular position," he said in an interview. "I subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln called America's political religion. The Constitution and the rule of law are the highest promises I would make in taking the oath of office."
Willard Mitt Romney grew up in a Mormon family in Michigan. He met his future girlfriend and wife, Ann Davies, in elementary school.
At 19, after a year at Stanford, Romney began the mission required of Mormon men. He was sent to France to help manage church affairs, work with young people and try to win converts. "It's a very Catholic country, and successes are few and far between," he says, "but I made a number of very good friends."
Romney did have some success at home. While he was gone, Ann started college at church-run BYU. She was "officially Episcopalian," Romney says, but wanted to learn about his church and ended up joining it. On his return from France, Romney enrolled at BYU.
The pair married in 1969, when he was 21 and she was 19, and had five sons over the next dozen years. Ann Romney serves on community service boards, including the New England chapter of the MS Society. She was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1999.
The ex-governor says questions about his faith are fair to ask. Some queries he answers directly. "I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke, I don't drink coffee or tea. I also do a tithe," he says, meaning he donates 10% of his income to the church. All are church requirements.
Romney responds more generally when asked if he has participated in an endowment ceremony, in which men and women take vows of secrecy about temple rites and of obedience to the Lord, and begin the daily practice of wearing a sacred "temple garment" resembling abbreviated long underwear.
"I do attend the temple of my church … and people can learn about that by contacting the church," he says, adding: "I'm sure on the Internet you can find every single aspect of what's entailed."
Lieberman's vice presidential campaign amounted to a "national seminar" on orthodox Judaism, says Alan Wolfe, a religion and politics expert at Boston College. People asked questions, such as whether Lieberman could work on the Jewish Sabbath, and learned from his answers. "Whether we can have the same discussion about Mormonism, I don't know," Wolfe says. "It's going to be harder because it is a more controversial religion."
Conservative Hugh Hewitt, a law professor and talk-show host, says one big speech won't be enough. "Mitt Romney has a Mormon problem, as does the rest of the country. It's much bigger than I thought, and it's going to require a lot of conversation and focused study," says Hewitt, author of A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every Conservative Should Know about Mitt Romney, due in March.
Joseph Smith, an unschooled diviner in western New York, founded the LDS church in 1830. He said the angel Moroni had directed him to two golden plates engraved with scripture and Christian history. The text he dictated became the Book of Mormon.
Romney describes LDS as similar to other U.S. churches: "My church teaches first and foremost that there's a God who is our heavenly father, that all the children of the world are his, that humanity is one great family, that we have a duty to serve one another and that we should try and live better lives."
The rest of the article can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)