For those still stuck in the mode of “Mitt Romney can’t win because the evangelicals hate Mormons,” I have a few things you may want to read.
1)Read this, an article that directly addresses that issue.
2)Read this, a comprehensive look at recent comments by influential conservative pundits.
3)Read this and this, which include recent polling information.
4)Read this article discussing Romney and his visit with conservative opinion-makers in Washington.
There are a raft of pessimists out there anxious to jump on any sign that bad ol’ evangelicals are going to torpedo the Mormon candidate. Based on our history, I can understand the pessimism. But it is way, way, way overstated.
Romney is quickly becoming the conservative candidate of choice and winning over evangelicals of all stripes. Yes, there will be the occasional bigot who refuses to vote for a member of a “cult,” but he will be drowned out by the rising tide of people anxious for an articulate conservative. Romney will be that candidate.
I won’t vote for Romney because of his support of the torture issue. I was saddened to hear he backed it. He can’t go back on his word now. Too bad. I was looking forward to a Mormon president. I guess we’ll have to wait for Senator Reid to run.
This seems to be the anti-Romney meme. Dan, considering you linked “The Good Democrat” as your home page, I doubt very much your sincerity in saying you were ever looking forward to a Republican Mormon president.
For the politically inept, can someone source me to “the torture issue” or give an objective POV?
Geoff,
Yes, my blog is called “The Good Democrat.” That doesn’t mean I vote strictly as a Democrat, just like if you called yourself a Republican does not mean you live and die solely by the Republican party. (at least those used to be the days. perhaps I’m too old school).
I really was interested in Romney’s candidacy. I thought he handled the Salt Lake Olympics extremely well, and ran the state of Massachusetts very well also. But I feel that strongly about the issue of torture that any candidate of any party that backs it no longer has my support.
Matt, I doubt anybody will consider this an objective POV, but here goes: President Bush and administration Republicans consider that we are in a special kind of war where traditional Geneva convention rules don’t apply. Those rules were written when one country attacks another, they did not consider the idea of a stateless terrorist group like Al Qaeda. The idea with Geneva convention rules is that BOTH sides will abide by them. So, you have the Germans for the most part abiding by Geneva convention rules during WWII even though they were heartless fascists. The reason was purely practical — it was better for them to do so, because if they didn’t the Russians and the Americans wouldn’t either. Al Qaeda doesn’t abide by any rules, so from the administration’s POV, it’s not a good use of our resources to abide by arbitrary rules that the other side never will honor. And in fact you can make a good argument that our abiding by the Geneva convention — while Al Qaeda continues to ignore these rules — violates all of the ideas of deterrence. Deterrence is a crucial factor in war conduct — there are rules of conduct in war, and you only keep the other side honest through deterrence. So, if we obey rules that our enemy never will obey, what incentive does Al Qaeda ever have to become civilized?
So, there have been some reports that the Bush administration has engaged in limited forms of torture (water boarding, for example) in some CIA prisons in Europe. I am sure our liberal blogger friends will come up with all kinds of other examples as well. Romney has come out supporting the president’s policy 100 percent. McCain has not.
I side with Romney and the president for the reasons stated above — we are dealing with a different kind of enemy than we have in the past. OK, you can start the outrage now. This is where you get to hear the other side.
Just one last point: in the Pacific in WWII, neither side, the U.S. or the Japanese, abided by the Geneva Convention rules. This was primarily because the Japanese completely rejected the rules in the first place. We would have abided by the rules if they had. If you study Iwo Jima and Okinawa and the history of Japan, the only way we ever could have won was exactly as we did — through the use of massive force and completely dominating and defeating our enemy. Some food for thought for our current war.
Well said Geoff.
Maybe I am alone, but the measures employed for national defense in the Book of Mormon seem to escalate with the rise of the Gadianton Robbers.
Geoff,
Two things:
1. The U.S. actually did abide by the Geneva Conventions as a whole, and more importantly, as a policy, while Japan did not. In fact, after the war, we prosecuted all individuals on any side who broke the Geneva Conventions during the war.
2. Massive force and complete domination does not equal torture and never has.
As to your earlier post, I direct you to what the church has said through its spokesman regarding inhumane treatment ( http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635163735,00.html ):
That seems to me to cover all potential loopholes, including for those who are terrorists.
OK, before the flood of liberal outrage comes, could I please, please, please ask bloggers to be civilized and not attack the writer but instead concentrate on the ideas at hand. This is an emotional subject, but let’s keep the debate rational and focused on ideas, not people. Thanks.
The fact that Ann Coulter likes him makes me think something must be wrong with Romney. Could she possible like anyone that is in any way human?
Also, what do you think of James Dobson saying being LDS could hurt Romney? And does he have enough pull that his view would be taken over some of the pundits in your links? For example, if Dobson liked McCain (I know he doesn’t), does he have enough pull that poeple like Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham would change their tune?
Dan, my #9 is not aimed at you. Your comment was quite good, on topic and food for thought. Let’s see if anybody responds to you. Thanks for such a thoughtful comment.
Geoff,
I didn’t think it was aimed at me. I’m a pretty respectful guy and all, a “Good Democrat” 🙂
JJohnsen, #10, please read what James Dobson actually said:
http://www.nysun.com/article/40802
I consider it more of a prognostication than guidance. He may be right, but I think over time he will be wrong. Please note he also had complimentary things to say about Romney.
Whoops, submitted too soon. I think Romney would do great in a lesser-of-two-evils contest between candidates. Can anyone honestly say evangelicals (or any other Christian Right voter) would pick Clinton over Romney because he’s LDS? The power that the Clinton name has for the Right means they’d elect a chimp in a suit before electing someone with that last name. So Romney has a much better chance if he’s going against her. If he were running against a candidate that is less polarizing, I think they might count other factors like religion against him.
Note to Dems, please don’t pick Hillary.
I’d like to see Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark as a Democratic candidate, personally. On the issue of Romney, I still am not convinced that evangelicals will vote for him. I’ll wait to be surprised.
That article was the source of my question. He mentions that Romney has similar morals to what they want, but still says his religion will stop a large number of voters from going for him. My real question was about his pull. Does Dobson have enough pull that in the thick of things him saying something negative about Romney could change what other pundits like Limbaugh would change their minds?
The Church should condemn inhumane treatment of any person for any reason, since the scriptures teach us to renounce war and to proclaim peace. The Geneva Conventions are nothing but flimsy figleaves that help us pretend that war itself isn’t a gross barbarism.
As Dan implies, the Geneva Conventions do not outlaw the use of weapons of virtually any sort, other than poison gas, and those weapons can be used in quantities sufficient to completely destroy an enemy. So, after tons of high explosive and incendiaries have been dropped on the enemy by air, and additional tons fired at them from artillery and tanks, the infantry attack with automatic and semi-automatic weapons, mortars and grenades and flamethrowers. Then if any of the enemy survive and surrender, we treat them humanely–providing basic medical care to the sick and wounded, and a POW camp and food until repatriation after the war ends for all–and then we pretend that we are civilized.
Does it really make a difference when we drop a 1,000 lb. bomb on somebody that he’s wearing a uniform and carrying a rifle?
Geoff B(#6)- Truman Madsen quotes the prophet of the church as shouting vehemently “We didn’t have to do it!” It was on his presidents of the Church tape series. all other details are forgotten.
In regards to #5, that was a pretty good summary, and I thought fairly objective. Thank you. Now I can wikipedia Geneva Convention etc.
Its sure to be Hillary on the dem side.. now please tell me you wouldn’t vote for Romney, so what if you’re a democrat, we’re talking about Hillary Clinton and all she stands for/or doesn’t.. we’re also talking about the continuation of our democracy, kinda important to have the right person at the top when we can clearly see how few are on our side, anywhere on this dear planet.. and what about all the lost souls thru abortion.. remember she’s for that vs Romney who is prolife, really always has been, just had to mollify liberals in MA
Dan, regarding torture, would you likewise not vote for Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination? Just curious since from what I can tell the two positions on torture are remarkably similar.
Geoff, (not to derail this too much) I was pretty convinced by Bush early on. But I’ve rethought my position regarding the Geneva conventions a lot. First off, from what I can tell most of our foes haven’t kept the Geneva conventions. I mean really, other than Germany in the early part of the war, who has kept it? Further I’m not at all convinced Bush’s solution is really ultimately workable or helpful.
To all, the Geneva convention allows for spies to be shot on sight as I recall. This doesn’t entail that everyone without a uniform would fit, but it would suggest that summary executions of anyone planning attacks on American soil while blending into the populace ought be treated worse than we do.
Mark B, the reason for the uniforms (although it’s not explicitly required in the convention – consider on demand militias) is so that one can identify soldiers from civilians. Once again that’s sometimes blurry. Consider once again a militia called up out of the city. They are regular civilians living at home. But the reason for this prevision was to limit direct attacks on civilians. It was considered such that folks not doing this (within reason) were considered spies and typically subject to immediate execution.
The alternative is having no way to easily discern ones enemies which inexorably leads to more attacks on civilians.
Geoff,
I want to apologize for thread-jacking your post. We’re no longer talking about Romney and evangelicals, but torture and Clinton.
Clark (#20):
I wouldn’t say they are “remarkably similar” ( http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/10/clinton_on_tort.php ) but she certainly won’t get my vote. This is how horrible I think it has gotten in America, where those who stand for righteousness would rather stay silent so they can get political points.
So when he said he was pro-choice in 2002 it was just to make liberals happy? Does that make you feel better about him knowing he’s willing to lie to gain office?
For those of us who can’t quite see the difference between Romney and Clinton on torture could you clarify where exactly they differ? i.e. in terms of content and not rhetoric? It sounds to me like Clinton is trying to have both sides of the issue rhetorically. But in terms of content it seems undeniable that she thinks the President should be able to authorize torture.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the last comment.
I think the torture issue needed to be addressed, but I would still be interested in comments that actually have to do with the main point of this thread….
Does that make you feel better about him knowing he’s willing to lie to gain office?
“You know the definition of politics? Well, ‘poli’ means more than one and ‘tics’ are bloodsucking parasites!” — Kinky Friedman
I am skeptical as to how meaningful the “polling” data you cite is, since of course one is not a real poll and the other is just New Hampshire. A win in New Hampshire can build momentum, but a loss is not a death knell (as seen by the later success of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton). Surviving New Hampshire is important, but Clinton’s survival there (an unknown Southernor) was more challenging than Romney’s (governor of a nearby state). But perhaps your point was that if he can’t do decently there given the geographical advantage, he has no business running.
The poll of bloggers does not impress me, because it isn’t a representative sample of anything. Those folks can each only vote once. If opinion leaders could pick, of course Al Gore would be president today.
I have to warn you, Geoff, that as this goes on, I am going to be merciless in analysis of any polling data you post as this thing unfolds, as it is one of my great interests. For example, I am concerned at the false impression left by current polling saying that 54% of Americans will vote for Democrats this fall to loosen the Republican control of Congress. This may or may not predict a Democratic victory. If the votes are concentrated in highly Democratic areas and Mark Foley’s district, then it doesn’t significantly increase the number of Democrats elected.
Naismith, great comment. Yes, there are many reasons to be skeptical. You cite many of them. For the Romney surge to be meaningful, it will have to come a year from now and will have to include Iowa and South Carolina as well as NH. We’ll have to wait and see if that happens. I think it is very interesting that Romney, who has very little organization, is getting closer to McCain, who has been well-known in NH for the last seven years. So, I do think those numbers are significant.
Naismith, I welcome your comments on polling data. I think you are spot-on regarding the polls for the upcoming election. In reality, electorates move relatively slowly. The huge swing in polling data for the Dems doesn’t make sense, based on historical data. It would make more sense if there was a small swing, which is what we are most likely to see in November.
If Al Qaeda et al want Geneva Convention protections, all they need to do is start wearing identifiable uniforms. Without uniforms, a visible command structure, and some semblance of respect for the laws of war, they are not an army, they are brigandi (i.e. criminals), subject to summary execution. Perhaps the real problem is that we treat them too nicely.
Mark,
Really? The only problem is that they don’t wear identifiable uniforms? The fact that they target civilians is no problem to you, but because they don’t wear identifiable uniforms they are subject to “summary execution.” Sheesh! Harsh man!
Boy, we’re going to be dealing with this problem for far longer than I had hoped. No, Mark, we’re treating them way too harshly for our own good.
Back to the topic on hand:
Hillary! is a polarizing figure, and there is hardly anyone out there who is “undecided” about her. Right now, she is the front-runner, but several outlets are hoping for a knight to come galloping into the fray. Think Obama. People love this junior senator (not just Dems). There is some time for him to make a decision and get into the mix.
There is a groundswell about Romney, but it is too early to tell. Rudy and McCain still poll extremely well with the Conservative base, and they have the purse to go the distance. Romney has to make a bigger entrance into the national spotlight. It could happen.
I need to see more of Obama, but what I’ve read and heard so far is very positive. I think it’s too soon for the Democrats to try to make him a candidate.
I enjoy these Romney threads when they aren’t extremely threadjacked, but not because I think he has a chance of winning. McCain and Guiliani are too strong and have better name recognition.
I don’t wear a uniform. Should I be subject to summary execution, too?
Summary execution is, well, summarily dispensed. No justice, no nothing.
But then, I can’t think of any excuse for summary execution under any circumstances.
We are creating enemies faster than we can kill them, even if the right number of Iraqis now dead in the conflict is 600,000, rather than 30,000. Perhaps the real problem is that we won’t consider taking Jesus seriously and loving our enemies. At least that maneuver would have the tactical advantage of surprise.
Greenfrog,
Yes, you should be subject to summary execution if you are fighting U.S. forces on the battlefield or planning an attack on U.S. citizens, if you are not part of a recognized army with Geneva Convention protections.
We haven’t quite reached 70 times 7, but I don’t think Jesus would fault us for trying to protect Western (i.e., Judeo-Christian) civilization from the barbarians.
Greenfrog, you aren’t engaged in combat. I should add that the requirement for uniforms isn’t absolute since there are troops that simply don’t have them but are still recognized by the Geneva conventions. The problem with the convention is that it is very much a European document viewed in terms of the European conflicts between great powers.
But there does have to be some way to discern who is or isn’t a combat troop. Those who refuse to respect that, in effect acting as spies, are not considered soldiers and historically were treated accordingly. One can say that the Geneva conventions then are not good if you dislike this. But anyone doing this finds themselves ironically doing exactly what George Bush did – thinking the Geneva conventions don’t apply.
I think Guiliani and McCain are simply too disliked by the grassroots Republicans. McCain may pull through simply because he’s been doing the backroom deal thing the past four years. That tends to be more effective in Republican primaries than Democratic. Guiliani may overcome his many, many negatives (which I expect McCain to harp on) simply because he came off so well after 9/11 and is a moderate. But I simply don’t think they’ll be that unscathed. Romney, while hardly perfect and I remain convinced his Mormonism ends up being a political negative, at least doesn’t have the problems of those two.
I think it’s anyone’s guess who will win the nomination. There doesn’t appear to be a real front runner. The closest is McCain but so many people dislike him that I simply have a hard time calling him a front runner.
“If you wage war against an abstraction, you will never win”
(cough) Communism (cough)
Although in principle I agree. However often you end up fighting against ideas with competing ideas. The problem is that such battles can’t be won primarily via military means. And ignoring some of Bush’s questionable strategic and tactical decisions I think a bigger issue are the non-military methods. i.e. soft power. Even as a supporter of the war I thought he was being very unwise in the run-up.
Regarding the 600,000 though one should remember that most of those deaths are due to Muslim on Muslim violence. So while in a certain way the United States is responsible for providing the environment one should also realize that the leadership on all sides in Iraq among the tribes are far more responsible.