Harry Reid is a political partisan, and his job is to promote his party. He has a unique wit that sometimes doesn’t translate well in print. Still, I find this kind of language offensive and divisive, and I’m going to call him on it:
Not only did Mr. Reid have no advice to offer but he also said that he had no particular desire to ever meet Mr. Romney face to face.
“Well,” Mr. Reid said, “I believe Mitt Romney, who’s a man I’ve never met — don’t particularly want to — a man I’ve never met, that I would hope that his running for president would be determined on his politics and not his religion.”
Mr. Reid added: “He can give his speech and handle it however he wants. I can’t give him any advice in that regard.” Further proof, as if there was any doubt, that political beliefs are the ties that bind in the spiritual center known as Washington.
So, if you disagree with somebody politically, you don’t even want to meet them? This does appear to be Harry’s position.
Kudos to the majority leader for pointing out, rightly, “I would hope that his running for president would be determined on his politics and not his religion.” Well said.
If Mitt Romney were to say publicly that he did not want to meet Harry Reid because he is a Democrat, I would call him on it as well. There’s no call for that kind of talk. I can’t fault Harry for not wanting to give Mitt advice on his speech — that’s his right and probably smart politics. I definitely wish our leading Democratic Mormon were more civil.
See — this just proves that Mormons have clandestine conspiracy: they act like they don’t even want to see each other. What more evidence do we need? Banish them from the country! Exterminate them, if necessary!
More civil? Geoff, should we even get into a discussion about civility from our political leaders? You’re really bothered by him not particularly wanting to meet Mr. Romney? Who gives a darn. This really is nitpicking, Geoff.
Well, I give a darn. If Mitt said the same thing about Harry, I would criticize him for it. Dan, you’re the same guy who won’t even listen to Glenn Beck because of some things you read from Media Matters. You demand civility from Glenn but not from your majority leader? Hmmm. I’m consistent — I ask for civility from everybody, but especially from Church members (and commenters on this blog). 🙂
Wouldn’t it be funny if Romney wins the presidency and then he and Reid are in the same ward and are made home teaching companions?
Maybe he’s just irritated by the Assumption That Just Won’t Die that all Mormons, or at least all prominent Mormons, know each other. Ask me stupid questions over and over and on the wrong day, you’ll get a snarky answer.
Yeah, I’ve fantasized about that. I’m sure Harry would find a way to overcome his political revulsion and shake Mitt’s hand.
RCH, #5, that’s possible. But if you read the entire article the reporter who asked the question made it pretty clear from the context that it was their political differences that made Harry say he doesn’t want to meet Mitt.
Please note the following from the article:
“An aide to Mr. Reid confirmed later that the majority leader had no reservations whatsoever about a Mormon in the White House, but that it is Republican beliefs that he finds suspicious and in conflict with his values.”
Clark: Sorry to break it to you, but if Mitt wins, he would be in the Capitol Hill Ward, while Harry Reid is in the Chevy Chase Ward. (I served my mission in the area.) But, they would have to go to the same stake conference….
What this says is that your political party association is more important than being a member of Christ’s church. I know Harry doesn’t really think so, but it’s hard to get anything other than that from this statment. He’s not doing the Democrats any favors among Mormon voters with this one.
Maybe I’d have to hear how he said it, but I’m not reading it like you. Lacking the desire to meet someone is not the same as desiring to avoid them.
Clark for the win in #4!
Reid needs to break out the Book of Mormon and read about contention.
Of course, I think Romney needs to read the verses about being lukewarm.
And I need to go review the verses about being judgemental.
So there’s plenty to go around.
“So, if you disagree with somebody politically, you don’t even want to meet them?”
That’s not what he said. He affirmed that he had never met him, which is a very important bit of news for non-members who think we are all one secretive cabal.
And my reading of “don’t particularly want to meet him” is more along the lines of “not anxious to meet him” or “meeting him is not on my top 10 list right now.” (I agree with comment #10.)
BrianJ and Naismith, you need to go back and re-read the original article. Harry Reid said he did not want to meet Mitt Romney. Then, an aide re-iterated and clarified the message by saying that what Reid meant is:
“An aide to Mr. Reid confirmed later that the majority leader had no reservations whatsoever about a Mormon in the White House, but that it is Republican beliefs that he finds suspicious and in conflict with his values.”
So, Harry Reid does not want to meet Mitt because he has Republican beliefs that are suspicious and against his values. The message could not be clearer: Harry Reid only wants to meet people with whom he agrees politically. You can try to twist his words and explain them away, but that is what he very, very clearly said, and he even had an aide talk to the NY Times again to make it clear that is exactly what he meant.
First of all, let’s put this in context: Harry Reid has done more good for Mitt Romney than any of the Romney boys, or any other member of the church. Sen. Reid is the ultimate proof that not all faithful Mormons march in lockstep, nor do they all take orders from SLC.
Also, it must be incredibly frustrating for Sen. Reid to constantly asked to give advice to a stranger. The first time I heard someone do that was on December 17 of LAST year, on ABC This Week with GS. Can you imagine a full year of being asked to give this stranger advice?
And yes, I re-read it, but don’t see any reason to change my interpretation. I’m not putting words in his mouth; he said “particularly.” He did not say he wouldn’t mind meeting him if they happened to show up at the same party.
FWIW, I don’t particularly care if I ever meet Hillary Clinton. I wouldn’t run away if we ended up at the same meeting or something, though.
I expected Reid to say this but I suppose I am still under covenant to help bear Harry;’s burdens so the least I could do is shake his hand but don’t ask me to look him in the eye.
Geoff B: I re-read the article. I still don’t see the loathing that you describe as “very, very clearly said.” The word “particularly” is pretty significant, I think. Now, if Reid had said, “I definitely do not want to” or “I certainly don’t want to” or “I don’t ever want to”—well, then I’d agree that he was very, very clear.
Note also that you put words in the aide’s mouth. The aide—as far as your quote goes—didn’t say anything about a meeting. The aide clarified that Reid doesn’t want a Republican in the White House because Reid disagrees with Republicans (as though that needs clarification). Thus, the aide’s message was not “Reid only wants to meet people he agrees with politically”, it was “Reid only wants Presidents that he agrees with politically.”
As it stands, I think the only things Reid was clear on is 1) that he and Romney haven’t met (an important point—how many times have you been identified as a Mormon, and then asked, “Oh, so you must know so-and-so”?) And 2) that Reid doesn’t think it’s important to meet with Romney. Reid has as much reason to meet with Romney as he does to meet with Giuliani, Huckabee, Thompson, and any other Republican hopeful—exactly zero. Should any one of them become president, then Reid would have very good reason to meet with them.
I took the “don’t want to him” as a bit of ill-advised sarcastic wit (because it wasn’t really funny). I’m sure that if Reid and Romney were invited to Ron Paul’s annual Christmas Party, they’d both attend and make small talk about the Jazz.
Nothing to see here…
(For some odd reason, whenever I read something Reid has said, I try to mentally voice it using H. Ross Perot’s voice, or perhaps Dana Carvey doing Harry Reid. I think it makes the wry wit bubble to the surface better.)
Geoff, who cares?! I’m a Mormon and I don’t ever want to meet Mitt Romney, are you going to write a post about that? I heard that my Democrat friend once said something mean to Mitt Romney’s son. Is that enough for a post?
This is silly.
Rusty, it’s a mighty good thing that the Bloggernacle has someone like you to visit sites and tell people what they should and should not write about. Otherwise, people might write things with which you disagree. I can’t imagine anything more horrible.
Geoff,
I think Rusty’s point is that there are far weightier matters to discuss than this. It really is silly.
Dan, it’s obvious you don’t think this issue is important. But I think it is. And, by the way, so do hundreds of other people who have read this post since yesterday (and not read other posts for whatever reason). There are all kinds of things that people write about on the Bloggernacle and elsewhere that I don’t think are important. When they write those things, I don’t comment and I usually don’t read them and I move on to those things that I do think are important. I don’t think it’s my job to police what other people write about.
Ummmm. . . Why is it wrong for Harry Reid not to want to meet a political opponent? He didn’t say that he wanted to avoid him. I think he was just maintaining a political fence. That’s OK. It doesn’t violate any sort of camaraderie that we want to inculcate in the Church. Seems like a non-issue to me.
I can imagine Harry and Mitt meeting on the bridge at the Washington Temple, you know, the one between the entrance and the main building. Handshakes, smiles, “great to see you.”
If you think Harry’s comment means he would turn away, look out the window, stare down at his feet, etc. etc., I think you’re misjudging the man.
Heck, there’s a lot that Mitt has said in the past year that disappoint me (so much so that if this were some other Mormon blog, that first word would end with two l’s), and I’d like to meet him and give him some better advice than what his stupid campaign advisers have been giving him. But, other than that, I don’t particularly want to meet him–there are a few thousand folks ahead of him on that list.
Mark B, there is a difference between you not particularly wanting to meet somebody and telling a reporter you would not particularly want to meet somebody if you are the majority leader. There are certain things that have clear political messages — “I disagree with him so much I wouldn’t even want to meet him” — is the message Harry Reid is trying to get across.
I would love to meet both Harry Reid and Mitt, neither of whom I have ever met. I disagree strongly with Harry, but I would never tell a reporter I wouldn’t like to meet him because of it.
What an overreaction. If I had a nickel for every time I heard a fellow Mormon mention that they would not want to meet someone with differing political views I would be rich. How many criticizing Sentator Reid would say the same thing about meeting Bill & Hillary? Exactly. This has nothing do do with religion only politics.
Bronco, agreed that this is about politics — that is exactly my point. I would love to meet Bill and Hillary.
Oh Geoff, I’m not trying to tell you what to write about, because frankly I don’t care. What I’m trying to do is tell you that your opinion on this matter is silly. You aren’t silly, your kids aren’t silly, your mother isn’t silly, it’s your opinion that’s silly. Saying it’s “offensive and divisive” is silly. There are thousands of examples of things Republicans have said that are much more offensive and divisive than that and you haven’t “called them on it.”
This is silly.
Interesting Geoff. I had the opportunity to meet Clinton when he came to my workplace at Los Alamos. I stayed home that day. (Since I knew I wasn’t going to be able to get any work done)
Well, Geoff, now you’ve gone too far. I heard Don Imus the other morning say, among other things, that “Hillary Clinton is still Satan”.
And I believe him. And I wanna stay as far away from Satan as possible.
I know Hillary is not Satan. You know why?
“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
Now, Bill I’m not sure about….
I think that without a Youtube link, it’s too hard to judge a man on 4 words. What was the tone? Sarcastic, intent, droll?
Say Reid’s quote in a Limbaugh voice, a Dana Carvey voice, a Chris Berman voice … it just sounds kind of sarcastic/joking to me. It just doesn’t sound like he’s really dissing Romney.