57 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Thanks for sharing this video. I am impressed with Romney’s vim and vigor. While I agree with Romney Experience’s view of how little Romney’s Mormon beliefs should color a discussion on Romney as presidential candidate, it is extremely informative to know, as an LDS, how he feels about the faith when he thinks nobody is watching. My in-laws were in Romney’s ward back in the 70′s, and they tell me that he is the real deal–everything he seems, and more. After seeing this video, I’m starting to believe them. |
Hmmm, I wonder why Romney doesn’t fight like this when he’s actually on the air? You note that this video was taken without his permission, i.e. he didn’t know he was live. So here is the question: Which is the Romney that will be president? The one who is trying to fashion himself for the television, or the one who stands for what he believes. See, he would never subject himself to this kind of actual debate publicly, because it could tarnish the “image”, the “persona” he wishes to project, not the real person he actually is. And frankly his answer about why he switched was definitely politically oriented. As much as he may want us to believe his conversion from pro-choice to pro-life was sincere, the timing is far too political. You also note that when off the air, he didn’t use political zingers but actual real answers. I wonder, if not in a scripted moment, would he reconsider his answer to “double Guantanamo?” Who is the real Romney? |
Now, watch a Real Republican be combative and stand for what he believes LIVE! I give you Ron Paul, who schools Mitt Romney. |
Mickelson was just embarrassing. Mitt would do well to avoid getting into conversations with complete idiots. |
Mickelson simply read a portion of the LDS policy on abortion (notably missing the exemptions), and assumed that it was intended to dictate the political activity of LDS members. I’m not sure that’s an unfair assumption, given how the right wing attacked John Kerry for not politically promoting the Catholic church’s doctrine on the same subject. So far as that went, I don’t think Mickelson was in the wrong. Where he crossed the line was his beligerent refusal to listen to Romney telling him that this wasn’t the case. That said, this interview did not endear me to Romney as a candidate. At least twice, he made the point that his church has certain doctrinal positions, but that it “vehemently” insists that people should have the right to choose. He actually manages to say this in regard to elective abortion, right after proudly telling of his efforts to circumvent and/or change the law of Massachussetts to reflect the religious views of his church. While it’s not said in the interview, we’re all well aware here of the LDS church’s attempts to promote a constitutional amendment to *eliminate* the fundamental right of all Americans to marry the person of their choice. One is left to conclude that Romney (who boasted that he knows several top LDS leaders well) thinks LDS leaders feel it’s okay to politically promote the killing of innocent fetuses, but NOT okay to politically promote recognition of the right for two committed loving partners to obtain legal recognition of their union. And please…before I get slammed for “threadjacking,” please note that I’m only discussing what Romney actually spoke of in this video. |
For those not wanting to wait, the sparks begin to fly at about the halfway point. For some reason YouTube tends to show the time remaining for me rather than the elapsed time, so on mine it starts at about the 9:45 remaining mark. |
I’m a little disturbed that there is so much love of Cleon Skousen. Mostly on the part of the interviewer. I think Romney does a great job of articulating both the abortion issue and the second coming issue. The interviewer is misinformed and stubbornly holds to his misconceptions. |
Nick, And please…before I get slammed for “threadjacking,†please note that I’m only discussing what Romney actually spoke of in this video. Consider yourself slammed. Gay marriage did not come up in the video. You brought it up. There are other threads for that. |
Ummm….john….you’re mistaken. Quite near the beginning of the video, Romney goes on and on about how he felt the Massachussetts supreme court was wrong, and discusses his actions in trying to circumvent/change the ruling. Please view it again, and I think you’ll agree that I’m right. Maybe you’ll even “unslam” me. ;-) |
arj, Romney did indeed talk about gay marriage. |
Nick: One is left to conclude that Romney (who boasted that he knows several top LDS leaders well) thinks LDS leaders feel it’s okay to politically promote the killing of innocent fetuses, but NOT okay to politically promote recognition of the right for two committed loving partners to obtain legal recognition of their union. That’s not reasonable at all. Romney says that the LDS Church allows its members to believe that members of our society should be allowed to choose abortion. That’s not even close to the same thing as “promot[ing] the killing of innocent fetuses.” And he never said anything that would indicate that he believes that the LDS Church would not allow its members to favor legalization of gay marriage. In fact, his stated position is that the Church’s rules governing its members own actions don’t translate into a requirement to seek to impose those rules on the broader society. Just like he said plainly that he believes that one can be a faithful member of the Church and be pro-Choice, he would likely say that he believes that one can be a faithful member of the Church and be pro-gay marriage. |
I was actually impressed with the unscripted Romney. I think the clip illustrates well the difficulties that he’s experiencing trying to run. I think that his point that he knows his church better than the interviewer was an obvious one that the interviewer was refusing to concede. |
Eeek! A little too much second coming stuff for me… “Christ will come and stop all of the people from killing the Jews…” |
Fishhead, you’re welcome. It sounds like we were both impressed for the same reasons. Nick, I think that arj’s comment was tongue in cheek. I don’t believe that there’s such a thing as threadjacking. All decent conversations, both online and in person, meander among different topics. I agree with you that Mickelson crosses the line when he insists on his interpretation of Mormon doctrine rather than hearing the interpretation of an actual Mormon. For what it’s worth, I know a man who served in a temple presidency, and he and his wife both believed that same-sex unions should be legal. I don’t know whether they believed that same-sex marriage was a good idea. But I don’t think that you can say that if someone opposes same-sex marriage, then they oppose granting same-sex couples the same legal protection as mixed-sex couples. These are two separate issues. arj, I also thought the Skousen thing was a little creepy. Tom, I agree with you. Lutita, I agree. I expect him to act that way when he disagrees with people on issues of principle in private meetings. In such situations, we wouldn’t want a president who just smiled and said, “I think you’re mistaken, but we can agree to disagree.” Dan Ellsworth, I agree that Mickelson is embarrassing. Based on the conclusion of the exchange, I don’t think that Romney will be appearing there again. TT, it sounds a bit bad, to make predictions about jews being killed — especially when put that bluntly. But jews in Israel are being killed today by terrorists who penetrate their society to kill themselves and others with suicide bombs, and such activity is celebrated among those with whom Israel is expected to make peace. Dan, Ron Paul is an interesting candidate, but he has an untenable view of the war in Iraq — basically the same as Obama. Anyone who thinks that the Vietnam comparison is workable deserves them both. |
#11 Tom, I simply find it interesting that the LDS church won’t push its members to fight abortion (a.k.a. killing innocent fetuses), but will push its members to fight gay marriage. Apparently the latter is seen by LDS leaders now as a greater “sin.” |
Nick and Dan are right. It came up in the most tangential way possible and only in the context of how the executive interacts with the judicial. It did not come up in the discussion of how faith and political positions interact. |
It is so much more interesting and informative to see candidates in an unscripted, off-air conversation. I’d like to see something similar for Harry Reid, Giuliani, Hillary, et al. It made me laugh that Mickelson thought he was trying to do Romney a favor helping him appeal to his religious base, but Romney wasn’t having any of it. He got visibly annoyed and lost his cool a bit more than I expected. I love that he was really sticking it to him about knowing more about his own religion than Mickelson. Bugs me to no end that people think they know more after reading three quotes. (and yes, the “Cleon Skousen test” at the beginning of the interview was embarrassing. Mickelson made himself look like an idiot trying to stay on that for so long.) |
LOL! Nevermind apologizing for the “slam,” eh john? By all means, justify it by stressing “in the most tangential way possible..” ;-) |
Nick, I am sorry for the brutal and unjustified way in which I slammed you. I hope to be a more careful listener of Gov. Romeny’s radio discussions of gay marriage in the future. Also, in order to demonstrate how contrite I am, I will forgo the next opportunity that I have to justifiable slam you. So if I slam you in the future, just remember that I’ve skipped one at some point. |
Hehehe….thanks, john! :-) |
Not a problem. I hope it doesn’t happen again. |
DKL’s post is right on, including the bit about this allaying doubts about Mitt. Maybe the rumors that I’m DDKL’s sock puppet are well founded after all. |
I can’t get this on my computer. My speakers are working, but I accessed it a couple of days ago and no sound. Any suggestions? I watched an appearance Romney had in New Jersey the other day and he got a heckler and I think he could have handled it much better. I think I’m a little Bill Clinton-y in that, because I would have stopped and engaged the woman, asked a few questions, and listened compassionately, then said “I fixed that problem in Massachussetts and if you vote for me, I promise I’ll never forget you and I will fix it nationally. Thank you so much for your courage in sharing with me.” Then I’d have sent her a follow up card, in a week, and months later. I think he’s too Mormon that way, he acts like a Bishop (or my Stake President LOL) would if an uppity woman asked a hard question. David, tell him to hire me, I could help him with his image problem. For reals. |
Since I work at BYU, I am not allowed to view You Tube presentations–even ones focused on Romney. I’ll just say that I’ve spent the day editing. Today’s editing involved shaping an interview with Darius in which he talked about being invited to a movie at BYU (Varsity Theater) in 1965 called _Civil Rights_. Turned out it was a John Birch production called _Civil RIOTS_–a complete degradation of the Civil Rights Movement. Shades of Cleon Skousen. Oh the memories! But amazingly, Skousen was more responsible than anyone else for bringing Eldridge Cleaver into the church. (Cleaver died a Mormon, though he was not active.) I just find myself embarrassed when I remember those years at BYU when everyone was spying on their professors and finding conspiracies written in invisible ink in the history texts. Disclaimer: I support Obama, and though I have not donated to his campaign yet, I have read his autobiography. Romney has not yet written an autobiography, that I know of. Or maybe he has and he’s continually revising it. |
Like DKL, I was also impressed with Romney’s performance. I guess I more sympathethic to him than some because I simply do not believe his membership in the Church should be the focus. Nick, in your experience, have members of the Church lost their membership for being against a ban on same-sex marriage. When the proposition to ban domestic partnership benefits was on the ballot in AZ last fall (and failed) many LDS friends were openly against the proposal and I do not recall anyone worrying that somehow their political views placed their membership in jeopardy, but I am interested if your experience is different. Thanks. |
Wow, I’ve seen this posted on a few LDS blogs but until now didn’t get a chance to listen through it. Very interesting and I think Mitt Romney does a great job of explaining his views and in a sense, LDS views too – at least to limited extent that this radio host allows. |
Margaret: I supported Obama until you just said that he’s already written an auotbiography. That makes him either extremely vain or a looney in my book. I guess now I’ll have to vote for my Dad in the write-in Box. Jim for President! |
Margaret: “Disclaimer: I support Obama,…” Drat. You just fell off the pedestal I had you on. |
I have no plans to vote for Romney but I wish him well. I have to say that I was impressed by the second half of this tape, though the same sort of conversation with someone more intelligent than the interviewer would have been even more interesting. It looks like the video was released by the Romney campaign. I wonder who was filming it? The radio station or Romney? It might be less unplanned than it appears at first glance. If so, this is a great way of testing people’s reaction to a particular style of addressing these issues. |
arj, the story is this: Romney didn’t know that the tape was running. His campaign got word of the fact that the video was going to be released. They asked for a copy, watched it, and requested that the radio station not release it. The radio station declined, claiming that it airs the off-air footage of all the candidates that visit (which actually turns out to be false). The Romney campaign then released the tape early in order to steel the thunder of the radio show and to allow them to put there own spin on it. It’s pretty clear that the interviewer is hostile to Romney from the get-go. Margaret, I’m shocked to here that you support Obama. I took you for a Hillary supporter. According to Donna Brazille, Hillary is married to this country’s first black president. Kimberly, I’m glad you liked it. Adam Greenwood, thanks. I’m so glad I had you stop by and comment. |
Kimberly, I have not personally known anyone who has formally lost his membership for not supporting a ban on SSM. For what its worth, though, a man I used to home teach did lose his temple recommend (or more accurately, he was denied a temple recommend) because he was candid in saying that he thought the church was wrong to support the failed constitutional amendment banning SSM. This man was attempting to come back after years of inactivity, and what could have been a small doubt easily resolved was escalated by my bishop and stake president who instead of explaining to him that he can still sustain the prophet while disagreeing with the specific decision to join evangelical groups in supporting a constitutional amendment told him that he should repent of his political opinions and until he does, he can’t have a temple recommend. Unsurprisingly, his return to activity fizzled out. Last I heard he was reading a lot about Scientology. I have no idea how representative this brother’s experience is, though, of the church at large. I’d like to think that my bishop and stake pres. are a bit removed from normal on this one. Though I still don’t think I’ll vote for him, I liked Romney in this video. It was a glimpse of the reasonable, moderate, pre-campaign Romney that I’ve heard about. He didn’t seem so scripted. More honest, more open, more real. |
I think that what this video reveals is a deeply sincere Romney, sincere about his Mormonism, sincere about his past as an “effectively” pro-choice person, and sincere about his current position. While I am not sure that I see a connection between embryonic stem cells and Roe v Wade, he does and he is passionate about it. |
DKL–I don’t think women should wear pantsuits (to quote the guy in _Breach_) so of course I couldn’t support Hillary. Matt W: Jim would be GREAT. Obama has actually written two memoirs. Theyr’e well-done and really interesting. What I like about him is his devotion to what he believes in–including his Christianity and work with the poor. And Chris Cannon told me that Barak really will cross a political line to support a worthy cause. That’s a high mark in my book. Bookslinger–there are SO MANY reasons why I should not be on anyone’s pedastal. I’m glad you found one of the easy ones. I’m much more comfortable walking on the ground. |
#24 Margaret Young: There is a really funny incident about him trying to explain to one of the 12 (Eyring?) that it was okay for the band “Bare Naked Ladies” to perform on the church-owned medals plaza–that the name was just “one of their favorite things,” and not indicative that their music was naughty. Eyring: “Well then, why would they want to name their group that?” LOL! |
Don’t forget Hugh Hewitt’s book, which can effectively be considered a biography… |
#25: Not in my experience, no. Then again, I left the LDS church prior to the unprecedented two-week-repeated letter essentially TELLING members to support the proposed constitutional amendment. I’m sure leaders on a local level responded to varying degrees, with at least a few being adamant about it. After all, my own last bishop transformed Gordon B. Hinckley’s invitation to read The Book of Mormon in the latter half of 2005 into a “commandment,” to the point that he actually required home teachers to bring him a full accounting of whether each man, woman and child in the ward had complied. (I kid you not.) I expect that at least certain local leaders would consider a disciplinary council for “apostacy,” if a member of the LDS church vocally opposed a ban on gay marriage, particularly if they actually said openly that they felt the FP was wrong on the issue. |
“Eyring: ‘Well then, why would they want to name their group that?’” They’re Canadian. |
Blame Canada! Blame Canada! :-D |
Nick, I’m not sure it’s fair to say the Church doesn’t push members regarding abortion. It seems the Church is very anti-abortion. However, unlike SSM, there’s no real political progress going on in the abortion debate that I can see. Further, given our notion of pre-existence, our presuppositions on the issue are quite different from Evangelicals. One could argue that while we see abortion as wrong, given US legalities (i.e. no 3rd term abortions) that the issue isn’t quite how you portray it. I have a hard time seeing 1st trimester abortions as murder, although I think them wrong. But as a realistic issue, the abortion laws aren’t going to significantly change. Laws on issues like SSM, gambling and so forth will which is why the Church focuses in on that. |
DKL, What’s your source for the info on how this got released? |
arj, it’s posted here by the political blog Politico, at the end of the post under the subtitle “UPDATED.” He uses Mickelson’s press releases and a Romney aid as his source. I’d checked out the source before I posted this article, because I don’t want to fall prey to intimations such as yours that I’m guilty of being a dupe for Romney. |
#39 Clark: |
Adam Greenwood, thanks. I’m so glad I had you stop by and comment. DKL, I’m delighted that you have me tell you you’re welcome. |
LOL. Me too. |
I like Romney. Some people are platform voters; some people are values voters–I am the latter. This video just made me like him more. I want to vote for he who I think is the most honest, the most spiritually sensitive, the most integrity-bound candidate. Who is the man who will seek the Lord’s guidance when making decisions? If you believe that is important, than vote that way. I could care less whether he disagrees with me on all issues–I simply trust the man more than I trust some of the others. |
Thanks JKC and Nick for responding to my question. JKC, I do find the experience of the man in your ward somewhat disconcerting. I also hope that your bishop and stake president are not representative. |
Okay, here’s a “Romney Value” for you. It seems Romney was participating in a recent town hall meeting, at which a potential voter asked whether any of Romney’s five sons had served in the military (this was at least partially in reaction to Romney saying we need an even bigger troop “surge” in Iraq). Romney said his sons were adults, and that he respected their choice not to serve in the all-volunteer military. So far, so good, right? Then he stepped in it, badly. He told the audience that his sons were “serving their country” after all, by campaigning for HIM! |
Nick, that was definitely a big bit of mis-speach by Romney. However one has to expect a few of these in the campaign. |
Romney has said, “We have to lighten up a bit as a society and not always be looking for ‘gotcha.’” I’m down with that, Mitt, but when you make ‘gotcha’ this easy, well … … in future, perhaps it’s better to ignore altogether any little people with pesky questions for the plutocracy. Unlike you, they’ve obviously forgotten the lessons of 9/11 and reverted back to their retrograde notions of shared national sacrifice … In any case, I don’t think anyone mis-spoke, it’s just that our National Guard has become a Praetorian Guard in the minds of our ruling class … |
While it was a slip up to say what Mitt did, being actively involved in the political process is a way to serve your country. My guess is most of the people ragging on Mitt didn’t serve in the military either. The mistake was seeing the question as an attack on him rather than an opportunity at let people know his son’s think for themselves. |
That he thinks he’s America incarnate is no slip up. Read the transcript, it wasn’t a single line, it was a friggin’ soliloquy. Most of the people supporting Mitt haven’t served in the military either. Your point is? |
I finally figured out how to listen. I turned up the audio on the Youtube site. Thanks to all of you who rushed in to help me :). This guy interviewing him bothers me. He says “this is important to me” when questioning him about the church, but he doesn’t know enough to ask the question. He takes what George Stephanopolous said about the church as gospel and uses that to question him. He didn’t even do his own research. I actually like Mitt better after listening to this. He shows some personality. |
I like Mitt better since Sunday … “I misspoke. It’s not service to the country, it’s service for me, and there’s just no comparison there.” |
Yeah, he just…ummm…”misspoke.” He didn’t mean anything he said. Kind of like most of his political positions, which sway to and fro with the gentle breezes. It wasn’t a “slip-up,” folks. It was pure arrogance. |
I’m so easily swayed that I even thought Hillary Clinton looked slightly less repulsive this morning. I’m becoming more feminist and more democrat by the minute. That health plan is important. Canada’s medicine sucks, but people in Europe seem to be healthier than Americans and it’s highway robbery to go to the doctor if you don’t have insurance. And insurance doesn’t cover everything. Or maybe I’ll like Mitt’s plan. I am a powerful voter–undecided. I think they should send me to the Bahamas and have my own personal straw poll. In a nice tent with virgin strawberry daquiris and somebody to fan my fevered brow. |
Interesting that he “misspoke” AFTER the Iowa straw poll. We wouldn’t want to say we are wrong before anybody has to make a choice, now would we? |