Whatcha doing this Tuesday, May 15th. Why on come over to our house for Sign-up America. I'd love to see you here.



For more information click here:
http://signup.mittromney.com/edit/rsvp/127

Labels: event, signup america

At 7:00pm ET/PT on Sunday night, Governor Romney and the Romney family will be featured on CBS' "60 Minutes with Mike Wallace." Make sure to watch Mitt on Sunday!

While some of the forward information about the interview seems to suggest that it will get distracted by tertiary questions at times, it should be good.

Romney is worth millions? I knew I wanted that guy to run the national economy for a reason.

In the wake of Romney's speech to MA Citizens for Life, some have been questioning anew Romney's moral convictions on life. William F. Buckley takes the opportunity to reflect. Some clips:

"There is pretty outspoken derision, on the hustings, on the matter of Mitt Romney and his evolved stand on abortion. In Iowa, which Romney recently visited, a county chairman accosted a skeptic. What he said was that Romney's opposition to abortion was the result of a 'thoughtful moral process.' People on the other side, whether of Romney, or of abortion, are expressing their skepticism."

"What I have found most arresting is the refusal of so many in the pro-choice army to submit the question to 'thoughtful moral process,' as we have been told Mitt Romney did. One can choose to ignore the moral question, but one cannot easily decline to acknowledge that there is a moral question underlying the dispute."

"The movement to eliminate thought on abortion has failed. Failed, because there is an assertive human point at issue, which cannot be denied consideration, any more than the question of slavery could forever be denied consideration."

"Mitt Romney is hardly entitled to the Republican nomination just because he has confessed his doubts on the subject of abortion. But moral history is likely to bow its head to remark this sign of life of the moral conscience. "

I think Buckley is hitting upon something significant here, which is, much of the skepticism regarding Romney's reasoning for becoming more pro-life is largely rooted in an aversion to moral contemplation and discourse. Romney's "conversion" experience strike sincere to those who believe in coming to an understanding through learning and seeking to become better. I suspect that many of those who view it as pandering would prefer moral thought be driven from the res publica.

Significant moral problems are ignored in the guise of abstract notions of precedent and penumbras. What is lost is the limitation on human understanding that should inform even those who do not have faith in the sanctity of unborn life. A moral inquiry might proceed like this...

Hopefully, everyone can agree that it would be wrong to kill a person for no good reason. The best science can do in determining when a developing baby becomes a person is to say "I don't know." Consciousness is difficult to discern. In light of the fact that we do not know when a developing baby becomes a "person" it would be very reckless indeed to destroy that life for no good reason because it could be a person. As such, abortion on demand in the first trimester is very reckless. You could be killing a person. Society's basic function should be to protect people, especially those who cannot protect themselves. Hence, it would be fair for society to legislate restrictions on abortion pursuant to that duty.

When Mitt Romney says, he thinks state's should be able to legislate on the issue of abortion, he is essentially saying that state's should be allowed to have a moral discourse about life. Simply put, "The Roe v. Wade mentality has so cheapened the value of human life that rational people [see] human life as mere research material to be used, then destroyed."

Romney gave an excellent speech to Massachusetts Citizens For Life yesterday. Some Highlights...

The Goodridge decision in MA: "I believe that the Court erred because it focused on adults and adult rights. They should have focused on the rights of children. The ideal setting for the raising of a child is a home with a loving mother and father."

Cloning: "What some see as a mere clump of cells is actually a human life. Human life has identity. Human life has the capacity to love and be loved. Human life has a profound dignity, undiminished by age or infirmity."

Judicial Temperment: "I think Chief Justice John Roberts put it best at his confirmation hearing, when he described the role of a judge. Chief Justice Roberts said, 'Judges and Justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them...and I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.' Now that's the type of Justice that I would appoint to the court. "

The American People: "We are a decent people who have a commitment to the worth and dignity of every person, ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose."

Tim Magazine has two articles on Mitt for its upcoming issue. One political, one religious. We'll discuss the later for the moment

Nancy Gibbs writes in "Romney's Mormon Question".

Here are some excerpts and some comments.

The piece is generally fair. But there are two troubling aspects that I can summarize in two questions:

• To Nancy: Can you point me to a religious view that Mormons hold that would directly call into question Mitt's fitness for office?
  
  
• To Jacob Weisberg (whom Nancy quotes prominently): Should the "Weisberg Principle of Nutiness" (my phrase) apply just to people running for President? How about Senate Majority Leader? Congressman? Councilman? Dog Catcher? At what point does someone's faith hit the Weisberg religious ceiling?

OK... now that I have that out of the way. Let's discuss the article in detail:

The Mormon question has settled in right next to the issue of whether a twice-divorced man has credibility discussing family values or whether changing one's mind on an issue like abortion is a sign of moral growth or cynical retreat. Unlike in 1960, today the argument is less about the role of religion in public life than in private. It is about what our faith says about our judgment and how our traditions shape our instincts--and about what we have the right to ask those who run for the highest office in the land.

This is a fair assessment of the general problem before us. I should point out - there's nothing new here - there were similar questions in 2000 and 2004. What's changed? A Mormon has entered the race.

[Referring to Romney's explanation of a "person of faith"] But he can hardly suggest to the devout voters of the G.O.P. base that religious views don't matter, don't warrant discussion or don't affect one's conduct in office. These are voters inclined to think the wall of church-state separation is too high; it is certainly not one any candidate can hide behind. So his challenge is to draw the lines about what's relevant and what's not.

Of course religious views matter and I love discussing them. Here's where I raise my first question from above: Can someone point me to one religious view that Mormons hold that directly disqualifies someone from a political office?

But when it comes to religiously conservative voters, the more people learn, the greater Romney's problem may become. And he will have to decide whether he's willing to provide the kind of public theology lesson that no other candidate has been asked to deliver.

I've found quite the opposite. Everyone I speak to who gets to know Romney is quite taken with him. Take this instance cited in today's New York Times (h/t HH)

Even among evangelicals who say they are at least willing to consider Mr. Romney, support in many cases appears to be shaky. Larry Gordon, senior pastor of Cornerstone World Outreach in Sioux City, said his initial instinct was to rule out Mr. Romney because of his faith. But after his son, who is also a pastor at the church, came away impressed by Mr. Romney after an event, he began to examine him more closely.

Back to Nancy. One error (minor or not):

A separate ceremony was held for "gentiles," as non- Mormons are called.

We don't call them "gentiles". Michael Medved makes a joke about that sometimes. But we refer to non-mormons internally as non-Mormons. I've never heard anyone refer to non-Mormons as gentiles. This is a quibble... but any Mormon proofing the article could have told her that - which indicates that probably no Mormon did review this. Not a big deal... moving on...

"Someone who believes, seriously believes, in a modern hoax is someone we should think hard about," Weisberg argues, "whether they have the skepticism and intellectual seriousness to take on this job."

Here's where our second question comes up: should the "Weisberg Principle of Nuttiness" apply only to people running for President? How about Speaker of the House? How about Congressman? Councilman? Dog catcher? What is the level of importance in public life where the religious ceiling is hit? The other aspect has already been asked... what level of nuttiness is needed? What do you qualify as nutty?

Lastly, it would be great if someone acknowledged or wrote about the thaw happening between Evangelicals and Mormons.

In short, Nancy piece is all around pretty fair. Kudos.

Labels: Mormon, mormonism, nancy gibbs, Time magazine, weisberg

On May 15th... the Romney campaign is encouraging people to take action and sign up 24,000 new supporters. To help jump start this effort they have invited fans across the country to host "Sign-up America" parties on the night of the South Carolina debates (May 15th.)

MMM will be hosting events at various homes. For those of you in the DC/VA/MD area here's our local event:
http://signup.mittromney.com/edit/rsvp/127

Labels: debate, event, signup america, south carolina

UPDATED

• Sharpton backtracks!
• Will apologize in SLC.
• Says spoke with two apostles.
• Recognizes Mormons as Christians.
• Meant to imply non-athiests.

"If I offended Mormons with the misuse of my words I would apologize to Mormons."

(Matthews then goes off trying to blame Romney and projecting future political calculation to his camp - whatever?!)

The real question is... when will Sharpton come on our Podcast to discuss the issue and apologize (ala Imus) :)

Labels: al sharpton

The cover of Time Magazine!

Tagg R. posts the covers of Time where Mitt's father donned the front page:

Labels: press

So after offending Mormons, conservatives and lefties... Sharpton goes on CNN with Paula Z to explain.

It turns out... it's all my fault!

You see, before 1978, black males were not allowed to hold the priesthood (for a deeper discussion see here). So Mormons are bigots and don't deserve to run for President.

I can't cite the quote yet (I'll look for the transcript somewhere shortly here) but essentially Al's logic is thus:

1) The Mormon church didn't allow blacks to hold the Priesthood until 1978
2) The Mormon church was therefore racist and bigoted
3) If you belonged to the Mormon church before 1978 that made you a racist and a bigot
4) Therefore he can decry any Mormon running for public office and wave them off because "true" believers in God will defeat them.

Did I get that right? Can I take that shovel from you Reverend?

You will seriously not believe what you hear when the YouTube is posted.

UPDATE: Hitchens digs in now as well