Last week, after Mitt Romney was the subject of Fox News’s “12 in 2012” rundown of potential Republican candidates for President, I wrote a post “A Mormon not for Romney for President.”
I realized that most Latter-day Saints would take exception with this. I fully expect he will take the Mormon vote. But I was still somewhat surprised at the intensity of the response I got. This is just tough for many Latter-day Saints to grapple with. I think some must doubt my faithfulness. Let me assure you – I’m a returned missionary, all my sons went on missions. One is currently in the field. I carry my recommend. I think I’m as solid as they come.
I’m not going to post a lot of comments on this. I have a pretty good idea what I’m going to get. I don’t think people read these long trails of comments that thoroughly. If you’re like me, you scan the comments to get the flavor of them and then you move on.
The latest one, which I will just mention here, is from a woman who identifies herself as Lori. I’m sure she’s a sweet woman, and her emotional reaction comes from simply not being able to deal with this. It doesn’t compute in her mind. She accuses me of being irrational in my negativity and then she invents a rationale to try to grapple with my posting – saying that I’ve been duped, and Obama, Reid and Pelosi are behind this effort to smear Mitt.
I thought I made my thought process pretty clear in the original post, but here it is again, in more detail and hopefully greater clarity.
I like Mitt. I was an enthusiastic supporter of his in 2008. At the time I was a book publisher, and I published a book, Mitt Romney: The Man, His Values and His Vision, supporting his candidacy. I wrote the product description that appears on the Amazon page I just linked.
So I was hearing criticism of Romneycare from conservatives. My reaction to this was, “No, they’ve got it all wrong. Romneycare was a great solution. The truth will come out.” So, when I heard that Mitt was appearing on Hannity on Fox News, I made sure I watched. I eagerly awaited what was going to be a tremendously reassuring answer. When he got done, I thought, “Is that IT?” It was SO weak! I have waited since then for him to come up with a better answer. But instead of giving a better answer, he refuses to grant an interview to Bret Baier. This is NOT looking good.
Some posters have referred to Newt Gingrich’s defense of Romney. They sound good. But it’s MITT who needs to be able to answer this.
The answer I would most like to hear would go something like this. “You know, this was an experiment on the state level. In some ways it has been really helpful, but in some ways it has caused some additional problems. Massachusetts is a very liberal state, and the legislature has tinkered with this plan in ways that I don’t like. But I think it’s important for the Federal Government to stay out of this issue and let states like Massachusetts experiment with various solutions until we can come up with something that works.” If he could just ADMIT that there are some problems with it, that would be SO much better. But he’s REALLY sensitive on this flip-flop business. Remember when Romney was interviewed on “Meet the Press” and Tim Russert brought a pair of flip flops to the interview? I think that stings to this day. Yes, it was very unfair. McCain has a whole closet full of flip-flops, but no one in the establishment media brings that up.
My take here is that, because of this, he feels he has to continue on in an unabashed, full-throttle defense of Romneycare. This won’t do. This won’t work. I’m in no mood for this type of thinking and I believe most of the country feels the same way.
The Article 6 blog mentions my posting. At least they acknowledge that I could be rational. But they are clearly disgusted with me. The title of their post on this is: “Polls and Debates, Comic Books and Wisecracks.” John Schroeder mentions my post as the very last item on the page, and he calls it a wisecrack, with this comment: “Not to mention this post. The guy is entitled to vote as he likes and his reasoning is based on Massachusetts healthcare – something that will be an issue for many – so why the ‘Mormon crack’ in the post heading?”
And then he moans, “It’s going to be a long cycle.”
I think so. I think Mitt has been aced out of this by history and by a twisting of his record, to which he hasn’t responded well. It’s a shame. He’s a good man. But we need someone in 2012 who can give a passionate attack on government-run healthcare, and Romney has been maneuvered into a position where he will simply be unable to do that with credibility.
Wrong again! You seem disappointed with Hannity’s interview. In two minutes you expect a full defense from Romney. That is a bit ridiculous my friend. I would suggest you are still being led by the drumbeat in the media that Romney’s plan is the same as Obamacare. Some sources citing their “remarkable similarities” when the truth is they are barely similar. If the federal bill was modeled after a state plan, why is it the crafters of the state plan were out of the loop? You think anyone even contacted Romney to learn more about it? No one did, according to Romney himself.
Try looking it up yourself. Here is a great resource for all things Romney specific to the health care debate (Romney on the issues). You will be heartened with the thoughtful explanations you missed by your self-limiting source, Hannity.
You my friend are lost in this idea that the plans are the same because you just now paid attention to it. But Obama has been saying that in interviews for a year now. Its a political cheap trick. It overlooks the fact that what Massachusetts did was constitutional, but what Obama did was not. The experiment in Massachusetts was to be studied and learned from, and not imposed on states that did not share Massachusetts unique insurance population. One plan was forced upon us, the other was bi-partisan with nearly unanimous support. One bill was only 70 pages, while the other almost 3k and with the so-called Doc Fix was a thousand more. One began as a way to help the uninured and spend money they were already getting to pay for free healthcare at hospitals and pay for insurance instead. One kept health care in the private sector with decisions made by patients and their doctors, the other took over the healthcare industry and establishing bureaucacies and so called death panels to decide the level of care for all mankind. One plan actually saw more employers offer coverage to their employees, while the other even before its fully implemented is seeing business drop coverage for employees.
So before you say they are the same, I would suggest that you not compare Romney’s plan to Obama’s. But rather compare what should be done to help the uninsured. What plan would work to preserve freedom and encourage personal responsibility and meet the needs of each state? That would be an excellent and fair comparison.
Now as to your membership in the church, no explanation is even necessary. You say you are a good member and fine. I applaud you. But it matters not a whit in political discussions. If you oppose Romney, you believe it is based on his record regarding healthcare, that is fine. But why bring up your shared religion? I abhor identity politics. The sort of thing that makes African Americans believe they must vote for African Americans, Latinos for Latinos, evangelicals for evangelicals (read Huckabee), and Mormons for Mormons is divisive. It is not helpful to any discussion about politics. Lets separate church and politics so that we can come together around our shared values and love of country. This discussion is about Romney, 2012 presidential politics, and issues. There is nothing your particular faith really adds to the discussion. On the contrary, it serves as a distraction.
But best regards to you. I am sorry that you are misinformed and hope you can broaden your sources for facts and all things Romney to see the whole picture rather than listen to what his detractors throw out picking up Obama’s ball and running with it.
Response from David Hall:
I did look up the URL you gave me. While the CNN piece was little help, the Chris Wallace interview did give him the opportunity to explain more. I think I may have heard that interview back 16 months ago. Yes, I see he does express some regrets over the program and does point out some other differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. If that’s his approach, maybe he can pull this off.
I still think his credibility has been weakened on this issue. And it’s also true that elections are fought in sound bites, so he’s going to have to figure out some way to make his point in a 30-second or 60-second spot. And his reputation has this “moderate Republican” overtone bequeathed to him by his father. Plus, I have a problem when supposed conservatives accept the premises of the Statists, and the premise here is that it’s government’s responsibility to take care of the uninsured. Yes, watching these other interviews was helpful. But for me, it doesn’t get him onto my “A” list. The situation in the country has become more dire, and I’m looking for a more solid conservative this time.
And as far as identity politics, my point is precisely to take a stab at identity politics. I mention my faith only to underscore the point that I am not practicing identity politics. It’s a point that needs to be made. And I’m getting hammered for this by other LDS people. I predict that a substantial majority of LDS voters will darken the oval for Mitt.
Run Mitt Run 2012! Romney will make an outstanding President for all Americans. Romney has the experience, education, values, and common sense needed to lead America. There are many important issues at stake including the health care debate. Romney has the mind and intellect to review each issue and develop a proper solution and response. Romney has my vote along with millions of Americans from all different faiths.
Dr. Hall, I found this posting on Mormons and Mitt Romney, and went on to explore other posts on relgion and politics. I found it quite intriguing that you included an entry on the enigma of Jewish liberalism – a topic I find very interesting myself – amid the many other topics of discussion. Thoughtful discourse on the intersection of religion and politics is sadly, and ironically avoided by most. This was actually what intrigued me about your discussion on Mitt Romney. After browsing through your posts, I wanted to share an interesting summary on the aforementioned topic of Jews and liberalism. Although there has been much written on the topic, this particular discussion is quite informative. Perhaps it will provide some additional insight in the event you haven’t already read it.
Thank you for taking the time to read my comment. Regards,
Thank you for sharing that. It had some interesting points explaining Jewish thought. As the Left turns more and more anti-semitic, I wonder how long those traditional idealogical alignments will persist.
Dr Hall, I’d like you to consider this analogy:
There was this patient of Dr X. She had complained and complained about certain symptoms that had caused he much pain over the years. Specialists were called in by Dr X, meetings were held, tests were done, and a plan to remedy this woman’s suffering was put into place specific to here particular situation. With all this information in hand, Dr X proceeded with his treatment and the woman was finally relieved of her pain.
Well, hearing this news, Dr Y who had a patient with a similar problem, decided that he would treat his patient the same way. Why bother with the unnecessary tests and consultations like Dr. X he thought. It was obvious that his patient suffered from the same ailment and required the same treatment. He proceeded and his patient died.
If he had only just consulted with Dr X, before he proceeded. If he had, he would have learned that Dr. X’s patient had mixed results. The pain she was having was lessened, but she would require ongoing treatments and close supervision. for the rest of her life.
Dr. X, finally retired and left his patient in the hands of Dr Z with the recomendation to continue with his treatment under close supervision. Well Dr Z decided to put the woman on additional drugs because he felt they would help her. They didn’t and the woman continues a downward spiral.
Dr Hall, I have 2 questions for you:
1. Is Dr X (Mitt Romney) in anyway responsible for Dr. Y’s (Barack Obama) patient dying?
2. Is Dr. X responsible for his former patients new health issues under Dr. Z (Governor Deval Patrick)?
It sounds like you’re trying to defend against the idea that Romney is responsible for Obama’s disasterous health scheme or that he’s responsible for what Governor Patrick did to health care after Romney left. But no one is asserting that, at least no one that I’m aware of, so I’m confused about the point you’re trying to make.