Monday, November 30, 2009

A mormon president?

There are two online editorials today about Mitt Romney and his “mormon problem”. A number of polls show some distressing signs for Mitt Romney as we slowly start down the road to 2012. A sizeable segment of the population polled (about 1/3) declared that they be less likely for a mormon as President. That is a problem.

The first article was by David Frum, posted on Writing from a conservative standpoint, Frum argues that we shouldn’t let Romney’s mormonism preclude him from office.

Simultaneously, USA Today ran an editorial today chastising the perceived religious intolerance of those who would not vote for a mormon for President. I say perceived because one’s faith is not a value neutral issue. When you believe that God is a created being and that Jesus and Satan are brothers, the offspring of “heavenly parents” and that faithful mormons become gods and rule over their own worlds, your judgment is suspect. His faith is one of the factors about him that people use to judge whether or not to vote for a candidate. There are plenty of people that are legally eligible for office that I wouldn’t support for a variety of reasons.

Regardless, I certainly agree that Mitt Romney’s mormonism is not a disqualifier for elected office. In fact I would prefer Romney as a candidate to any number of other moderate “Republicans” and certainly I would prefer him to Barack Obama. Romney was gracious in defeat and a good soldier after he withdrew. He did everything right in defeat and supported the GOP nominee. I think that by and large Romney would be an o.k. President, reliably conservative and predictable. We could certainly use someone who is stable and not afraid to extol America’s virtues, someone who doesn’t see America as the biggest problem in the world. On top of that, Romney, compared to the Boy Wonder in office now, has actually had some experience in the real world. So if it comes down to Romney versus Obama, I will heartily cast my vote for him and I would also support Romney over people like Rudy Giuliani or other socially liberal Republicans.

Having said that, I do recognize the danger here and it is a danger that goes way beyond fiscal policy or foreign relations. A Mitt Romney Presidency would expose and mainstream mormonism like never before. That could be quite interesting. Would a President Romney, with the press always on his heels, go to the temple in Washington, D.C. and risk having the major media outlets start publishing details of what goes on in the temple? Would the scrutiny of a mormon President bring to light the quirky and heretical views of mormonism? Or would a mormon President make it that much easier for mormon proselytizing? Mormon missionaries already find themselves in a world that is by and large ignorant of God. The more Biblically literate people are, the less effective mormon evangelism becomes. Unfortunately with each passing year, Americans become less Biblically literate and more relativistic. When you combine a mormon President to make the religion seem less scary and an ignorant populace, you have fertile soil for the lies of mormonism to take root.

It should be an interesting story to watch as the race for 2012 unfolds. I think that if Romney were a Methodist, he would be a popular choice as a safe selection, an adult alternative to the childish Obama administration. But as a mormon, coupled with his “Johnny come lately” conservative principles, Romney may find it hard to pull out a primary win in the GOP.

Friday, November 20, 2009

One in seven

That is the stat this morning in the Wall Street Journal. One in seven mortgages is behind on payments or already in foreclosure. That is a big percentage and is up from one in ten last year. 7.5 million households are in danger of losing their homes and those bad loans are going to hit someone’s balance sheet (and you can rest assured that eventually it will be you the taxpayer). Things are not getting better in the housing market and both demand and financing are still shaky at best. The artificial demand for new housing starts has apparently dried up and new housing starts are down 10.6%.

Also this morning, 29 states saw unemployment rise and 13 saw it go down. One of those that saw a “reduction” was Michigan from 15.3% to 15.1%. Now that is progress for ya! I imagine that the “reduction” has more to do with people giving up or moving out of our state than any increase in jobs.

So for those of you keeping score, the “stimulus” package that we just had to have for $800,000,000,000 or so has accomplished: higher unemployment and higher mortgage foreclosures. We are still hearing whispers about the need for the Son of Stimulus, the Stimulus That Is Not A Stimulus, Cash For Christmas or any number of other schemes. If one stimulus was a failure, think how catastrophically bad a second stimulus would be! In spite of the gross incompetence of this administration, the Congress and the government in general we are still threatened with a socialized medicine bill that no one wants, no one understands and no one can pay for.

Let’s hope President Obama spends more time on his “Grovel-A-Thon” worldwide tour. At least when he is out making a fool of himself and shaming our nation, he is not at home further destroying our economy.

Friday, November 6, 2009

Due prcoess, NOW style

The National Organization for (a very small group of) Women, or NOW, is demanding that Tom Cable, the coach of the Oakland Raiders, be suspended pending an investigation that he abuses women. Now, I find the allegations nauseating and if true are both criminal and cowardly. But before the screech owls at NOW get their pitchforks and torches, there are a couple of issues. One, Tom Cable is not charged with any crime and last time I checked that means he is "innocent until proven guilty". Second, the older incident is one he has admitted to and is 20 years old. Doesn't make it right but it also doesn't make it a suspendable offense. Third, the recent incident has already been investigated by the police and Cable at that time was cleared of wrongdoing:

Cable has acknowledged striking Sandy Cable with an open hand more than 20 years ago and said it was the only time he’s ever touched a woman inappropriately. Marie Lutz accused Cable of assaulting her as recently as last January, but Cable said previously he was cleared by police of any wrongdoing in that case.

“I take the accusations very seriously,” (NOW president Terry) O’Neill said. “What you have is a man who seems to be a person who habitually uses violence to get what he wants. That’s what batterers do.”

I guess that NOW thinks that it should take over as the chief investigative body for any crimes against women. I would like to point out to Terry that one incident 20 years ago is hardly grounds for charges that he "habitually". I would hazard that NOW is opening itself up to charges of libel and slander here. Tom Cable beat up an assistant recently and admits hitting a woman two decades ago, so he has issues. Let's let the legal system work here and refrain from knee-jerk suspensions.

Domestic violence is a serious issue and the charges here are serious. All NOW is doing is looking vindictive by trying to convict a man outside of the due process of the legal system. NOW should spend more time pondering the damage that the feminist movement they peddle has done to the women and families of this country and less on what one man allegedly did in order to score publicity points for their ever more irrelevant organization.