10/13/11 A Question of Faith
Is Mitt Romney's faith fair game? Do journalists and other candidates have a right and obligation to question him about it? The answer is yes and no. It is no one's business, candidate or not, how Gov. Romney prays or to whom he prays. Further, I would not consider it reasonable or useful to ask a candidate be he Christian or Jew whether he believes Noah actually had an arc or if God created Eve from Adam's rib. Events that occurred 2,000 or 5,000 years ago are not helpful in learning about a man's mind or philosophy.
But I do think it is perfectly fair to ask a candidate about the tenets of his Church as practiced today or during his lifetime as a parishioner. It's perfectly appropriate, in my view, to ask a Catholic candidate for Governor whether his church's view on abortion or gay rights would influence his legislative agenda once in office. The religious views a candidate holds are instructional to me as they demonstrate a man's thinking.
We have a breakthrough moment here with a Mormon coming very close to the Oval Office. Personally, I think the Mormon faith is on par with Scientology. I have only met Mormons who were decent, friendly people. But have you ever met someone in your life who looked totally normal until you struck up a conversation with them and very quickly came to realize that the person was nuts? To me, that's Mormonism. Is it useful to know if Mitt Romney really thinks Joseph Smith spoke to angels and found golden plates that he immediately lost? No, it's not. But he belongs to a Church that as recently as 1978 refused the priesthood to black people. If he belonged to a country club that had refused membership to black people in 1978 I guarantee you'd be hearing all about it.
I'm not a Christian so it doesn't offend me that Mormons adopt an additional text beyond the Bible, as it does so many evangelicals. But I am cautious of electing a man who holds to the weird precepts of the Mormon faith (i.e multiple Heavens, multiple Gods, Jesus visiting America, etc.). Faith is about belief where there is no rationality. But if a candidate came forward who said he believed the only path to spiritual enlightenment came through revering muskrats as God's chosen oracles, I think we'd have a problem with that. It doesn't harm anyone to believe that, but it makes you question what else this person is capable of believing.
Rick Perry should be roundly condemned for using that stooge Jeffries as a front to start what he's hoping will become a disqualifying debate among primary voters. It's a waste of everyone's time to debate whether Mormons are Christians. If Pastor Jeffries comments are meant to imply that only Christians can be president, that's hateful. If not, then what was the point he was trying to make other than sowing discord?
I would prefer if we kept religion out of presidential politics. It's use in the last 30 years has only been cynical. George W. Bush is a born again Christian who shredded the Constitution and started two endless wars. His faith has no relevance to me as it relates to the rest of description. Only what he did - versus what he said he would do - is relevant to me.
But just as it was extremely revealing to learn that Jerry Ford did not believe that Eastern Europe was under Soviet domination - and all that that implied about his thinking and decision making - so too I'd like to know more about Mitt Romney's belief in the recent elevation of black people to human status. I would never vote for a Muslim for president because I believe the Koran to be a hate-filled text that is antithetical to everything we believe in as a pluralistic democracy. To me it's like saying could I separate out a candidate's Klan membership from his policy positions that I otherwise might support? No, I couldn't. The jury is out for me about Mitt Romney's faith. Is it just odd or exclusionary and warping?
I have said I believe he is the only candidate running who can beat Obama and I encourage the party to get behind him. But I also think he needs to say more about his faith, not less. I think he needs to provide some comfort to the many who view his faith as cultish. It's not a matter of whether he should be allowed to run as a Mormon, that's silly. It's what his values and beliefs tell us about the man and how he may govern. Some may find no value in that. I'm not so sure.
Romney Holds, Perry Snoozes
I usually don't much care what post debate polls show, but I am eagerly awaiting the results after tonight's debate. First, my favorite moment was when Gov. Romney threw his only question - and a softball one at that - to Michele Bachmann. Boy was that smart. He needs to kill Perry and keep Cain from surging. All three draw from the same base but Bachmann has the weakest support. So Romney chose to give her more air time to help boost her numbers, if possible. Very smart.
I think the candidates must have read this blog at some point today. Every one of my points, nearly verbatim, was used by the candidates: Nancy Pelosi's new stream of revenue, 666, a new federal stream of revenue without tackling the income tax, all my stuff. I know they didn't read it here but it was nice to see nonetheless. I was wrong about Chris Christie; Romney only mentioned him once.
Rick Perry was downright somnolent. Somebody on his team must have told him to look like he hadn't napped. Boy was he awful. He looked like he was scheduled to be somewhere else and wound up in that auditorium at the last minute by mistake.
Romney wasn't terrific, but with Perry so bad he didn't have to be. Gingrich was very good and Santorum was surprisingly effective. As for Herman Cain, he has this one issue and it sucks. So I don't see where he goes when the news media start tearing apart the plan and explaining to conservatives why they should innately hate this scheme. But for now, he's having his moment.
I must say that I thought Charlie Rose and the debate's sponsors were reckless and wasted a terrific opportunity by not including a 30 second response from each candidate on their view of a US response to the Iranian terror plot. No world breaking news that wasn't economics would be worthy of an answer on a night that had this news with all these candidates sitting there? Seems insane to me.
10/11/11 Way to Go, Mitt
You gotta hand it to the Romney people; they do not let moss grow under their feet. They know what we all know which is that if Rick Perry can't knock one out of the park tonight and gives another bumbling debate performance then he is toast, or soon to be toast. In line with that, they got the Wall Street Journal today to publish a front page story debunking the Perry jobs miracle and basically comparing his economic approach with that of Solyndra. {I don't actually know that the WSJ and Romney campaign are in cahoots. It just looks that way.}
Then, to insure Perry is viewed as second tier status, they apparently will receive the endorsement this afternoon of Gov. Chris Christie. This on top of the self-inflicted wound of Pastor Jeffries' hate-filled embrace of Perry. Strike three. All very nicely timed on the day of the make or break debate.
Of course Perry could live up to his previous billing as an amazing campaigner and surprise us tonight. My guess is that he'll prove true to form: good on the attack in the beginning, bad at defense and flagging by the end. Charlie Rose, for all of his pompous windbaggery, is not the crew from Fox. This is sure to be a fairly high-minded economics debate. I cannot imagine Rick Perry playing well at that level. We shall see. Let's also count tonight how many times Romney mentions the Christie endorsement. Might be a new drinking game.
{BTW - If Romney is smart, he will mention tonight that Rick Perry now has an illegal immigrant college tuition program that is identical to Jerry Brown's. In fact, when he is attacked for being the model for Obamacare he should shoot back that Jerry Brown has clearly used Perry's plan as a model. With Ted Kennedy dead, nothing is worse than being compared to Jerry Brown.}
Addendum: One last thing in the wake of the Christie endorsement. All that Wall Street money that's been waiting for Chris Christie appears to be moving to Romney. One fundraiser in particular worth noting is Paul Singer. I already knew Romney was very strong on Israel, so Singer's signing up doesn't tell me much in that regard. But as you know, Paul Singer is one of the leading financial backers for marriage equality in this country. Can I assume that Paul Singer's endorsement of Romney means he got some OK answers about gay marriage, Don't Ask/Don't Tell or DOMA? As good a Republican as Paul Singer is, I can't imagine he would support a presidential candidate who would be vociferously hostile to his son's lifestyle. At least I'd like to think so.
10/12/11 No No No to 9-9-9
I think if someone asked an evangelical Christian economist what they thought of Herman Cain's tax plan they might point out that 999 is 666 upside down. I would tend to agree that his proposal, leaving out any 'fairness' arguments, is pretty evil.
Herman Cain should be applauded for putting out there his long-term tax plan. His recent meteoric rise in the polls is, I believe, a reflection of voter's appreciation of his candor and willingness to verbalize a refreshingly succinct and comprehensive solution. It just happens to be, however, the plan someone who is the long-term financier for the welfare state might create.
I have spent most of my life being opposed to any introduction in the United States of a European type VAT scheme. I am slightly more sanguine these days about that. But the one thing that hasn't changed for me is my firm belief that in order to introduce one you would first need to repeal the 16th Amendment. Why?
OK, here is where Herman Cain's plan becomes so dangerous that no Republican anywhere would ever support it or actually vote to enact it. These numbers of his - 9% income tax, 9% national sales tax, 9% corporate tax - would be legislatively defined and enacted. That would mean that once created they could be changed by any Congress at any point in the future with a simple vote. No Republican sitting in Congress - and especially this or any new Congress in 2013 - is going to give the federal government a broad new taxing authority while leaving in place the old one. You can just see Grover Norquist's head exploding at the mere thought of this.
There would be nothing stopping a majority Democratic House & Senate in the future from raising the 9% income tax to say 30%; or reintroducing a graduated, progressive tax with several rates. So what you would wind up with would be Nancy Pelosi's ultimate fantasy: an enormous new pool of revenue and greatly increased taxes on higher income earners. Soon, such a Congress would exempt low income earners from the 9% and we would be right back where we are now EXCEPT we would have this broad national sales tax vacuuming up huge amounts of revenue.
Herman Cain's plan would vastly expand the federal government's spending and reduce the need for deficit reduction or scaling back federal power. Many in the Democratic Party would call this a good thing. And from their point of view of far-reaching, expansive federal power it would be. But for any Republican, be they Wall Street, Main Street or Tea Party, the effects of Herman Cain's tax proposal without first repealing the 16th Amendment would be disastrous. 9-9-9? I'm thinking more like 6-6-6.
Comments