Thread: Mitt Romney: sanity check Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023831
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Last night I read this Rolling Stone article* courtesy of a link from a friend.

Given there are a lot of stroppy Americans here from across the political spectrum [Smile] I thought this might be the best place to get comment on whether it's fairly accurate, or tilting at windmills. Prior to reading this my general impression of Romney from reporting over here was that he was something of a very conservative wing-nut with more style than substance, but that his worryingly loony-tunes views seemed to be born from being a stupid bastard rather than a very intelligent but morally reprehensible one.

Is it a fair piece? Is the bloke who could become POTUS on the back of a wave of "anyone but Obama" feeling genuinely such an odious self-serving sack of the proverbial? Or is it just a wee bit sensationalist?

I'm not under any illusions about most successful politicians, but some of the Romney/Ryan stuff just seems to beggar belief - not that they did it/hold the views, but that people are content to not only look past it, but actively support them.


*Sorry hosts, it's rather long
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think part of the problem is that US politics appears to be more polarised than ever - and what those of us outside of the US (and maybe those inside too?) seem to be presented with are only the more polarised versions.

It's a bit like the reporting of the Pussy Riot thing (just as an example, I'm not going into the detail here). US friends tell me that there was very little, if any, reporting in the US about the other Pussy Riot stunts - the orgy in the museum and so on. They were surprised that the UK media reported this aspect and were still largely on the side of the protestors ...

Any media tends to focus on the sensationalist and the extremes. Beeswax Altar has had to remind me (and others aboard Ship) that the US Republican Party is a broader church than it is popularly portrayed. I'm sure he's right. But from coverage over here you could be forgiven for thinking that the entire American Right consists solely of Klansmen, White-Supremacists, Flat-Earthers, Six-Day Creations and people who sleep with their sisters in trailer-parks during the week and handle rattle-snakes in church on a Sunday.

We all know that isn't the case (well, not entirely [Biased] ) but that's the impression we get. Equally the US impression of the NHS, for instance, is one where patients wait 1500 years for an appointment and are then left naked over open-sewers for the rats to lick their scabs ...

Oppositional politics of the kind we have in the US and the UK and so on are bound to create polarised views. Surely that's a healthy thing?

But it can get out of hand at times.

I just wish they'd all cool down a bit.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
To give an example of a moderate Republican, I'll cite my father.

His issues:
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
US friends tell me that there was very little, if any, reporting in the US about the other Pussy Riot stunts - the orgy in the museum and so on.
[Tangent] The orgy in the museum was I believe the work of performance 'art' group Voina (War) who are not affiliated with Pussy Riot (see this week's Private Eye).[/tangent]

[ 30. August 2012, 10:23: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
To give an example of a moderate Republican, I'll cite my father.

His issues:
I used to be a Republican back in the day when they were fairly moderate. I won't be voting for them in their present extreme move to the right.

The interesting thing about Mitt is he's a classic liberal when he's running for office in a liberal state like Massachusetts and he's right wing hardliner when it's the Tea Party set that are setting the GOP agenda for the Presidency. If he's elected I think for the first 4 years he'll do whatever the winds decree is necessary for re-election and if he wins a 2nd term it's anybody's guess because he won't have any other election to win. I don't think we've ever seen the real Mitt and who knows what Mitt would be like in his last term with no one else to kiss up to to get elected or re-elected.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
Lyda*Rose, if he's against the debt, and that Rolling Stone article is accurate, you might want to wave it in front of him (probably not from the mobile site though, the formatting's a bit harsh!).
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:

The interesting thing about Mitt is he's a classic liberal when he's running for office in a liberal state like Massachusetts and he's right wing hardliner when it's the Tea Party set that are setting the GOP agenda for the Presidency. If he's elected I think for the first 4 years he'll do whatever the winds decree is necessary for re-election and if he wins a 2nd term it's anybody's guess because he won't have any other election to win. I don't think we've ever seen the real Mitt and who knows what Mitt would be like in his last term with no one else to kiss up to to get elected or re-elected.
In other words, he's a politician. Who woulda thunk it!
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:

The interesting thing about Mitt is he's a classic liberal when he's running for office in a liberal state like Massachusetts and he's right wing hardliner when it's the Tea Party set that are setting the GOP agenda for the Presidency. If he's elected I think for the first 4 years he'll do whatever the winds decree is necessary for re-election and if he wins a 2nd term it's anybody's guess because he won't have any other election to win. I don't think we've ever seen the real Mitt and who knows what Mitt would be like in his last term with no one else to kiss up to to get elected or re-elected.
In other words, he's a politician. Who woulda thunk it!
Oh no, no, no, no. He's gone waaay beyond politician. They all spin and all to some extent play to the audience they're in front of, but I've never seen anyone else who has played both ends of the spectrum in a relatively short time span and who has no real explanation as to why he's gone from one end to the other - even condemning the exact policies that he put in place in office in the place that required them in order to get in office and be re-elected. He made it as governor but couldn't beat Teddy. There was no way to turn himself into one of the last of the Camelot generation Kennedy's in Massachusetts.

[ 30. August 2012, 10:55: Message edited by: Niteowl ]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
It's always interesting to see how various elements of the Press set out their stall at election time, an especially topical subject in the UK in view of the Leveson inquiry this year.

Of course, in the US, you can always count on Faux News to toe the Murdoch line. Can't you?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Haven't read the article yet, but a couple of things:

--Sometime during the last week, his wife said that when they were deciding whether he'd run, "he was reluctant". Did she push him??

--Watched closely, his eyes seem very sad--all the time.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I keep noticing something odd in his expression. I'm not sure if it's sadness - possibly. My wife thought that he looks not very convinced by himself. Again, who knows. But there is something there which is a kind of dissonance. I suppose this is true of all politicians, since they have to put on a persona, which may jar a little even with themselves. I suppose Obama has developed a very smooth and relaxed persona, although again, who knows if this is authentic or not?
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
The article basically sets out a case that his entire anti-debt stance is rank hypocrisy, as he got rich on the back of destroying viable businesses by saddling them with enormous debt purely to asset strip them.
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Haven't read the article yet, but a couple of things:

--Sometime during the last week, his wife said that when they were deciding whether he'd run, "he was reluctant". Did she push him??

--Watched closely, his eyes seem very sad--all the time.
If I'm correct, it started when Paul Ryan was put on the ticket to satisfy the far right wing of the party. I'm thinking he realizes he'll be playing 2nd fiddle even if he's President.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
[Tangent reply] To Matt Black -

Yes, I'm aware it was attributed to another group but as far as I'm aware, but I can't cite chapter and verse right now, members of Pussy Riot did take part in the public orgy - including one who was heavily pregnant at the time. I might be wrong, but I have seen links and reportage to that effect. These groups tend to be fairly porous to some extent, part of the anarchic ethos.

Anyway, whether or not this was the case, the point I was making was that all media filters things out - whether it comes from the right or the left.

[Tangent over]
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think part of the problem is that US politics appears to be more polarised than ever - and what those of us outside of the US (and maybe those inside too?) seem to be presented with are only the more polarised versions.
I think that's right. Few people that I know get caught up in these extremes.

Politicians are in the business of demonizing their opponents. I think the truth is that the differences in what happens when either democrats or republicans are in charge are so slight that they are hard to identify with much objectivity.

The simple version of republican and democrat that motivates most people, I think, is this:
Both of these alternatives have their strengths and weaknesses. They are both largely hypocritical because these goals are hard to realize and there is actually little difference in how the two parties act on the issues. National elections, though, do give a perspective and a kind of mandate to one or the other that helps to inch their programs forward.

I myself fall on the Republican side. It seems reasonable to me. I don't care about the candidates so much as the party platforms, even though I know there is little actual difference.

I think Obama is a fine man and a good president. I think the same would be true of Romney. I would rather see Republicans in charge. I simply don't believe or care about the polarising rhetoric that comes with the campaign season. On the other hand, you never know!

[ 01. September 2012, 12:20: Message edited by: Freddy ]
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
The link that Snags posts to is a Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi, detailing Mitt Romney's background as a Bainie. I'm sure that most of the facts are right - they would likely have been double-checked anyway.

But even so, Bain is a classic example of what is called "vulture capitalism", a species that predates businesses to take them over by means of a leveraged buyout, saddle them with enormous debt, and sell their consultancy services to the new management at enormous cost. They are loathed and destested almost as much by other kinds of capitalists as they are by those who would point out that capitalism may have a few flaws needing urgent current attention.

But I think the point is to highlight the amusing notion of Mitt Romney running on an anti-debt ticket, given how he made his millions.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think part of the problem is that US politics appears to be more polarised than ever - and what those of us outside of the US (and maybe those inside too?) seem to be presented with are only the more polarised versions.
I think that's right. Few people that I know get caught up in these extremes.

Politicians are in the business of demonizing their opponents. I think the truth is that the differences in what happens when either democrats or republicans are in charge are so slight that they are hard to identify with much objectivity.

The simple version of republican and democrat that motivates most people, I think, is this:
Both of these alternatives have their strengths and weaknesses. They are both largely hypocritical because these goals are hard to realize and there is actually little difference in how the two parties act on the issues. National elections, though, do give a perspective and a kind of mandate to one or the other that helps to inch their programs forward.

I myself fall on the Republican side. It seems reasonable to me. I don't care about the candidates so much as the party platforms, even though I know there is little actual difference.

I think Obama is a fine man and a good president. I think the same would be true of Romney. I would rather see Republicans in charge. I simply don't believe or care about the polarising rhetoric that comes with the campaign season. On the other hand, you never know!
This sounds way too reasonable to have been written by a Republican (and yes, I realize that statement makes me part of the problem. Ironic).
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
From your description of the two groups, Freddy, I assumed you were a Democrat. Firstly, may I compliment you on being so generous to both sides? Secondly, I'd like to know why you are a Republican? It must be a reflection of my political bias, but your description of the Democratic position sounds far more attractive than the alternative, so you must have good reasons for being a Republican.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Secondly, I'd like to know why you are a Republican? It must be a reflection of my political bias, but your description of the Democratic position sounds far more attractive than the alternative, so you must have good reasons for being a Republican.
I would have thought that my description of the Republican position sounded more attractive. To each his own, I guess.

Maybe one thing would be that all the positive things about each party have their corresponding downside, and we all have our opinions about whether the upside or downside is the more likely result.

I tend to think that the beautiful dreams of the Democratic party are more unrealistic than the beautiful dreams of the Republican party.
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I keep noticing something odd in his expression. I'm not sure if it's sadness - possibly. My wife thought that he looks not very convinced by himself. Again, who knows. But there is something there which is a kind of dissonance. I suppose this is true of all politicians, since they have to put on a persona, which may jar a little even with themselves. I suppose Obama has developed a very smooth and relaxed persona, although again, who knows if this is authentic or not?
My sister who is completely uninterested in politics, and has in fact never voted (!) told me Romney creeps her out and she might vote this fall just to vote for Obama. Basically, she hasn't really paid attention to content (she's not interested); she just gets a vibe from him that he can't be trusted.

I haven't paid enough attention to see this expression you're talking about.

I suspect Romney is basically a good guy, with most of his faults probably chalked up to growing up privileged and being rich. At least I want to be charitable and think that.
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:




And how do you define that ambiguous term in a manner consistent with the other stated policies and observed practices of the party?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
  • Republicans emphasize "family values"...
And how do you define that ambiguous term in a manner consistent with the other stated policies and observed practices of the party?
Heh-heh. Don't forget we are dealing the American public here. No need for any broad measures of consistency. The voting public understands the terms well enough to form their decisions.
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
  • Republicans emphasize "family values"...
And how do you define that ambiguous term in a manner consistent with the other stated policies and observed practices of the party?
Heh-heh. Don't forget we are dealing the American public here. No need for any broad measures of consistency. The voting public understands the terms well enough to form their decisions.
Yes, the voting public knows what it means: a dog whistle for bigoted, misogynistic, head-in-the-sand types recalling the fairytale image of Father Knows Best (where anyone Not Like Us isn't seen), and that tries to pretend that the Republicans have the best interests of families at heart to disguise that fact that, in reality, their policies accomplish just the opposite. Advocated by politicians such as our local representative who hired his mistress as his campaign manager at salary (out of his campaign funds rather than his own pocket) that was found to be far beyond what was reasonable for her contribution, then, as soon as he was elected, he divorced his wife and married the mistress, so, in effect, converting the campaign donations to his personal use. All while advocating "family values", so we can use his actions as a guide to a working definition...


This plank in the party platform is so insidious that they nobody dares to spell out exactly what they mean by it, and you think it is a reason why someone would vote FOR a Republican candidate?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
This plank in the party platform is so insidious that they nobody dares to spell out exactly what they mean by it, and you think it is a reason why someone would vote FOR a Republican candidate?
I see your point. It does sound bad doesn't it!
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
I have a number of friends who can't imagine voting other than Republican whether or not they agree with any of the policies, so a lot of what is going on is, I don't know, emotional? Loyalty to someone/something other than a political party?

Some friends go to churches that apparently teach that Republican is the Christian party. One friend laughed when I mentioned that I had voted for Obama. Obviously it was a joke, all Christians vote Republican.

I don't know that preachers outright say "if you are a Christian you must vote Republican," but I heard Bush referred to as "a prophet of God," and derision of "Godless Democrats," and opposition to abortion as the sole important issue that overrides all other considerations about who to vote for.

I guess if one is repeatedly told the definition of a good Christian is someone who has "asked Jesus to come into my heart" and goes to church every Sunday and tithes and votes Republican, one doesn't admit to not doing any of those if one wants to be thought -- or wants to think oneself -- a good Christian.

A different group of friends intrigue me -- at a gathering they complained about Bush policy after policy, from starting unnecessary wars to torture to the economy, on and on, and yet the topic concluded with one declaring "but I would never vote for a Democrat" and the others vehemently agreeing. "Never!"

If they don't have anything nice to say about Republican policies but won't switch parties, that may suggest some kind of identification that is not related to politics. Loyalty to parents? A way of expressing racism (white supremacy) without quite admitting it? Not wanting to face maybe having voted "wrong" in the past? I have no idea.

(There are of course others who thoughtfully conclude Republican party better matches their views about what if any level of social services government should provide.)
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Some friends go to churches that apparently teach that Republican is the Christian party. One friend laughed when I mentioned that I had voted for Obama. Obviously it was a joke, all Christians vote Republican.
Statistically, churchgoers tend to vote Republican, according to this CNN item.
quote:
A Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Republicans say they attend church weekly.

Twenty-one percent say they attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 38% say they seldom or rarely go to church.

Compare that to only 27% of Democrats who say they go to church every week, 20% who say they go monthly and 52% of Democrats who say they seldom or never go to church.

These polls also show that Democrats are less religious than the average American, and Republicans are more religious.

Consider this: Almost one in five Democrats identify with no religious faith compared to only one in 10 Republicans who feel that way.
These are pretty significant differences.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Statistically, [self-reported] churchgoers tend to vote Republican, according to this CNN item.
quote:
A Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Republicans say they attend church weekly.

Twenty-one percent say they attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 38% say they seldom or rarely go to church.

Compare that to only 27% of Democrats who say they go to church every week, 20% who say they go monthly and 52% of Democrats who say they seldom or never go to church.

These polls also show that Democrats are less [self-reportedly] religious than the average American, and Republicans are more [self-reportedly] religious.

Consider this: Almost one in five Democrats [say they] identify with no religious faith compared to only one in 10 Republicans [say they] who feel that way.
These are pretty significant [self-reported] differences.
Fixed your quote for you.

It is well known among statisticians that self-reported church attendance is significantly different than actual church attendance, especially among Americans.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I'm just glad to be part of the 27%. Sometimes it feels smaller.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Fixed your quote for you.
Good one. [Biased]
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
I learnt today (and have verified) that "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram of "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn".

Just saying.
 
Posted by coniunx (# 15313) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Statistically, churchgoers tend to vote Republican, according to this CNN item.
quote:
A Gallup Poll shows that 40% of Republicans say they attend church weekly.

Twenty-one percent say they attend nearly weekly or monthly, and 38% say they seldom or rarely go to church.

Compare that to only 27% of Democrats who say they go to church every week, 20% who say they go monthly and 52% of Democrats who say they seldom or never go to church.

These polls also show that Democrats are less religious than the average American, and Republicans are more religious.

Consider this: Almost one in five Democrats identify with no religious faith compared to only one in 10 Republicans who feel that way.
These are pretty significant differences.
Errm...

Actually, those figures say that more Republicans than Democrats say they are weekly churchgoers. That's a very different thing from saying most churchgoers are Republican, which is one possible conclusion from the figures, but relies on quite a lot of unstated assumptions. It's not difficult to construct a situation in which those answers would arise, despite most churchgoers voting Republican.
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:
Errm...

Actually, those figures say that more Republicans than Democrats say they are weekly churchgoers. That's a very different thing from saying most churchgoers are Republican, which is one possible conclusion from the figures, but relies on quite a lot of unstated assumptions. It's not difficult to construct a situation in which those answers would arise, despite most churchgoers voting Republican.
You are probably right about unstated assumptions. [Paranoid]

As I read it, those answers show that Republicans are, for the most part, on the path to heaven. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Democrats, although I am sure that some of them are probably perfectly decent individuals. [Angel]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I learnt today (and have verified) that "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram of "My ultimate Ayn Rand porn".

Just saying.
This is worthy of the Quotes file!
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It is well known among statisticians that self-reported church attendance is significantly different than actual church attendance, especially among Americans.
So we can at least figure that more Republicans than Democrats feel sufficiently guilty about not going to church that they are willing to lie about it to pollsters.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
So - honestly not meaning to insult anyone - is Mormonism, the Church of the LDS basically accepted amongst conservative or Republican Americans as just another Christian denomination?
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
I'd have to say "No", but strides may have been made in the last decade.

As evidence, I would point to the recent advertisements from the LDS having various people talk about what they do and then end by saying "...and I am a Mormon". They wouldn't need this sort of 'normalcy' campaign if they came across as normal.

On the other hand, a number of successful political figures of recent years have been Mormons, so it is probably less of a stumbling block than it was.

There may be an odd pop cultural fascination with Mormonism at the moment as something totally other and yet totally homegrown. And yet, I very much doubt Mormonism is accepted as a Christian denomination by most Evangelical Christians in the U.S., among other groups.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
People are perhaps a little less likely to be rude about it, but overall the Christian groups with strong ideas about who will be going to Hell almost universally consign Mormons to the nether regions.
 
Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I'd have to say no, as well.

I think this speaks to the concept of voting for the man or for the party (or politician.). Case in point: Bill Clinton. Possibly a truly fine politician, but I wouldn't want to be in a room alone with him.

Sometimes you just gotta pick your own poison.
 
Posted by Sylvander (# 12857) on :
 
No, they are not regarded as Christian by any other major denomination in the world. But their social positions on family, sexual ethics and a few other things tend to coincide with those of most evangelical Christians in the U.S. And the Republican party's.

Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate. But more helpful to spell out where exactly they are wrong? Surely just looking to the past in order to learn from experience is not in itself bad, is it?
One has to admit that Mormon marriages are far more stable, alcohol and drug abuse among their youngsters is much lower than average and a few other aspects where they do not come out badly at all. As far as I know Mormon women do not rate their own lives as unhappier than other women do (i.e. most people there are happy). I know a few modern, emancipated, professionally successful women in Germany who became Mormon - family values being an important factor. Mormon men want a family and you can be pretty sure they'll stick around to raise them and make time to be with them. Their faith prescribes it.

And I am not sure looking at our socities, dominated as they are by left wing family policies (single parenthood advocated as perfectly fine and equally good, gay marriage legal in most European countries, divorce easy, gay adoptions) have much to brag about when it comes to "family". Or maybe we think the dire reality of our socities does not count? After all we on the left just know we know better AND are better people, so to vote Republican can only be motivated by greed, stupidity and bad faith (no pun intended).

Would it not be more helpful to assume that my political opponent is genuinely motivated by what s/he perceives to be the best for the common good? Just like I am.
I think that is what Freddy did above.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Thanks for the replies. I was just wondering how a Mormon as first citizen of the US would sit with the Republican movement. Or those Americans whose patriotic identity is very much tied in to their Christian faith.

But the point about Mormonism as a 'home-grown' faith is interesting. Persecuted, driven out to find their own corner in the country and stupendously successful. Ticks a lot of boxes.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate.
No one that I know of ridicules family values--and I know some really far-out-there liberals. They ridicule politicians who use the term to play on the fears of people that society is going to Hell in a handbasket. Politicians play on those fears by stigmatizing single parents--many of whom (maybe most?) did not choose to be single. They do it by stigmatizing gay people. They do it by continually harping on "illegal immigration"--which has the unfortunate consequence of meaning that any American citizen who doesn't look like a WASP worries about routine traffic stops. They also bring ridicule to the term when they don't live up to the values they use to beat the rest of us about the ears.

No one on the left is "against" stable families. No one on the left is "against" living up to one's obligations. They are against ostracizing those whose lives have not been as fortunate, and they are concerned right now that the Republican party is trying to turn the nation into government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.

That's not just the left, either. More than a few old-style Republicans aren't terribly thrilled with the direction of the party either, and I think that's one more reason why Romney isn't inspiring the base the way the Bushes did.

I tend to hold the view that each party holds the government until the other party stops being crazy. I don't think the Republicans are quite there, yet.
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Thanks for the replies. I was just wondering how a Mormon as first citizen of the US would sit with the Republican movement. Or those Americans whose patriotic identity is very much tied in to their Christian faith.
The Republican movement's interests are flexible enough to stretch to contain a Mormon first citizen, even if they are uncomfortable with his religion, as long as he's on the right(ward) side of the issues.

The lack of enthusiasm in the base for Romney stems more from his previous record as a much more moderate Republican, at least on social issues, and they worry about 'betrayal' after the election. The religion adds a certain outre flair, but if that was the only concern then you'd see no enthusiasm gap on the right.
 
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:

Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate. But more helpful to spell out where exactly they are wrong?
First, of course, you have to define what they are, because the phrase appears to be intentionally ambiguous, especially as used by politicians. And Mormons aren't alone in using the term. Consider that that would mean translated into laws, and what the impact would be on the rest of the population.

Then look at the the actual impacts of other legislation supported by the same Party and see if it really does support families, and whether the behavior of the politicians that run on a "family values" reflects those values.

So in the case of the local politician who divorced his wife and married his campaign manager, such behavior on its own isn't that remarkable. We've had plenty of national candidates who have divorced and remarried, some multiple times. But the fact that he was a staunch advocate of "family values" in the campaign would imply either that (a) he didn't think it applied to him, or (b) that such behavior was not contrary to whatever one includes in the term "family values".

With enough samples of such behavior, one might come to the conclusion that "family values" is really an empty term, or at least the meaning is limited to "gays should stay in the closet." But perhaps the reason why I never see a specific description of what politicians mean by it is because they don't want to be held to it as a standard for their personal behavior.


From personal discussions and some involvement with therapy, it appears that abuse is not as uncommon in Mormon households, or those of other strong male-headship groups, as surveys might suggest, because it simply is not talked about. Certainly the sexual abuse of young girls by older male family members is significantly under-reported.

(Pretending that such things as sexual abuse, teenage pregnancy and gays don't exist by keeping them out of sight appears to be a major attraction of returning to the mythical 1950's.)
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sylvander:
Incidentally it is all very well to ridicule the "family values" Mormons advocate. But more helpful to spell out where exactly they are wrong? Surely just looking to the past in order to learn from experience is not in itself bad, is it?
I may have missed it. Can you point out here where anyone has ridiculed the Mormons' family values? Or did you have some other input in mind beyond this thread?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
I am very surprised that so many people suggest that Mormons are widely considered "not-Christian." When I was active in my church & representing our congo on the local Council of Churches, the local Mormons were active and accepted members.

Mind you, I didn't consider them Christian at the time. When you take a detailed look under the hood of their religious vehicle, it looks distinctly L. Ron Hubbardish to me.

But then I live in a region of the U.S. regarded as "least religious" in the country. So what do I know?
 
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I may have missed it. Can you point out here where anyone has ridiculed the Mormons' family values? Or did you have some other input in mind beyond this thread?
I had the same thought. I think "family values" has a very specific, well understood meaning, and with Mormons it wouldn't be any different than any other Christians (except for those Mormons who accept "plural marriage").

So many Mormons have been active in politics that they are well accepted, in my view. They stand for nothing more or less than "clean living" and are widely regarded as honest and public spirited.

I was enlightened on this point not too long ago by a family connection who is a Mormon Bishop. He said, rightly or wrongly I don't know, that the specific LDS theology is not really the point of Mormonism. The point is "clean living" and it is rigorously enforced.

Probably his major responsibility is subjecting every single member of his flock to annual interviews (twice annually for teens) to make sure that they are doing everything they are uspposed to be doing, from tithing, to church attendance, to refraining from wrong things such as alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, impure sexual behavior, etc. He said "I know when they are lying." If they fail the examination the consequences are real and severe.

This practice goes a long way, to my way of thinking, in explaining why Mormons have such a positive reputation despite the peculiar theology.

So my opinion is that Romney's LDS faith is not seen by many people as a negative thing. Mormon "family values" dovetail quite well with those of other conservative Christian denominations.
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
Ralph Reed has been raising a huge amount of money to convince evangelical voters to vote for Romney even though he's a Mormon,

Ralph Reed back from the dead
 
Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :
 
Listening to Romney in the first two debates made me think of this article and thread again. He keeps repeating "I know how to create jobs", and I keep wanting to throw something at the TV every time he says it. Can any American shipmates comment on whether the Bain connection gets much discussion or airplay? I see that the Obama campaign and a super-PAC have run ads about it -- are they having any effect?
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Listening to Romney in the first two debates made me think of this article and thread again. He keeps repeating "I know how to create jobs", and I keep wanting to throw something at the TV every time he says it. Can any American shipmates comment on whether the Bain connection gets much discussion or airplay? I see that the Obama campaign and a super-PAC have run ads about it -- are they having any effect?
Bain gets lots of airplay. It is all part of what makes campaigns so bizarre -- Bain is a successful business venture. Romney uses that fact to claim that he knows how to "create jobs," which is simply not the purpose of a business venture. Obama uses that fact to claim that Bain willfully destroys jobs, which is equally absurd.

So the net effect seems to be that folks who don't like rich people feel that Bain is a negative, and folks who admire rich people see it differently. In short, it is used as a mirror to show you your own prejudices and tie them to Romney. My expectation is that people would do that sort of thing on their own anyway.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
So, one can't dislike Bain because of the nature of the business they conducted? Either you like rich people and like Bain, or hate rich people and hate Bain? Black-or-white fallacy, anybody? (with a healthy dose of ad hominem* or at least poisoning the well)

I seem to remember Newt Gingrich had some pretty juicy things to say about Bain. Hard to say he hates rich people.

___________________
*to the man

[ 17. October 2012, 16:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :
 
Mormons are also, on average, wealthier. That does a lot for family stability, or so I've read.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
There's also the Rolling Stone article which claims that, just prior to the rescue of one arm of Bain by its other arm, which involved bringing Romney back on board, his first effort at rescuing the relevant arm nearly bankrupted it.

Romney only managed to pull that chestnut out of the fire by borrowing $10 million in a deal which left the FDIC (and all its little depositors, like those of us lucky enough to have savings accounts) holding the debt. The article claims that was biz-as-usual for the Bains:

1. Borrow $$ for a takeover or buyout;

2. Take over or buy out, writing the deal so that the taken-over or bought-out firm is saddled with the debt;

3. Sell firms off if/when they start making profits, with debt still attached, OR take a write-off if/when they sink.

Either way, Bain walks off with any money made, leaving the company to go belly-up over inability to pay the debt they got saddled with.

Neat game: heads I win, tails you lose.
 
Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Obama uses that fact to claim that Bain willfully destroys jobs, which is equally absurd.
I think it might be fair to say, though, that Bain recklessly destroys jobs. I don't think that Mitt Romney and his business associates huddled in a board room and cackled gleefully about all the people that were going to be fired as they shoveled caviar and blinis in their faces.

On the other hand, if it is your standard practice to buy up successful small businesses through leveraged buyouts and wring all of the cash, leaving a bankrupt husk, the end result is the same and it doesn't really matter that you secretly wished that people would not lose their jobs at the companies you destroyed for profit.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
On the other hand, if it is your standard practice to buy up successful small businesses through leveraged buyouts and wring all of the cash, leaving a bankrupt husk, the end result is the same and it doesn't really matter that you secretly wished that people would not lose their jobs at the companies you destroyed for profit.
Were that the "standard practice" of Bain, I suppose you'd be right. But this strikes me more as a fantasy of opposition researchers than the business strategy of Bain or any other VC that I have encounterred. I am certainly not a fan of VCs -- they are typically way too anxious to get their money back out of a venture to actually be good partners for start-ups.

For example, the big problems that I am familiar with (I have worked at start-ups for most of my career) are that they want to staff up on employees to make a company seem later-stage than it actually is, so they can sell out to the next round of suckers and get out, instead of "right-sizing" for the actual growth of the business. Often, this leaves a business saddled with too many VPs with too little to do yet. You can call that "job creation" if you like, but before you can put those folks to productive use, they are just unneeded overhead, and thus a drag on the business. A surprising number of start-ups go under because they can't support the infrastructure that was created to make them look successful so that the VCs could sell off the company. FWIW.

--Tom Clune

[ 17. October 2012, 18:20: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Except that Bain wasn't interested in funding start-ups. ("There's a lot greater risk in a startup than there is in acquiring an existing company", as Mitt Romney once said.) Its business model revolved around leveraged buyouts of mature-but-floundering firms. From the article:

quote:
Here's how Romney would go about "liberating" a company: A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. When an LBO is done without the consent of the target, it's called a hostile takeover; such thrilling acts of corporate piracy were made legend in the Eighties, most notably the 1988 attack by notorious corporate raiders Kohlberg Kravis Roberts against RJR Nabisco, a deal memorialized in the book Barbarians at the Gate.

Romney and Bain avoided the hostile approach, preferring to secure the cooperation of their takeover targets by buying off a company's management with lucrative bonuses. Once management is on board, the rest is just math. So if the target company is worth $500 million, Bain might put down $20 million of its own cash, then borrow $350 million from an investment bank to take over a controlling stake.

But here's the catch. When Bain borrows all of that money from the bank, it's the target company that ends up on the hook for all of the debt.

Now your troubled firm – let's say you make tricycles in Alabama – has been taken over by a bunch of slick Wall Street dudes who kicked in as little as five percent as a down payment. So in addition to whatever problems you had before, Tricycle Inc. now owes Goldman or Citigroup $350 million. With all that new debt service to pay, the company's bottom line is suddenly untenable: You almost have to start firing people immediately just to get your costs down to a manageable level.

"That interest," says Lynn Turner, former chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission, "just sucks the profit out of the company."

Fortunately, the geniuses at Bain who now run the place are there to help tell you whom to fire. And for the service it performs cutting your company's costs to help you pay off the massive debt that it, Bain, saddled your company with in the first place, Bain naturally charges a management fee, typically millions of dollars a year. So Tricycle Inc. now has two gigantic new burdens it never had before Bain Capital stepped into the picture: tens of millions in annual debt service, and millions more in "management fees." Since the initial acquisition of Tricycle Inc. was probably greased by promising the company's upper management lucrative bonuses, all that pain inevitably comes out of just one place: the benefits and payroll of the hourly workforce.


[ 17. October 2012, 17:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that Bain wasn't interested in funding start-ups.
Tell that to Staples. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Tom, Romney never expressed any desire to build businesses. He talked about "harvesting companies." He wanted to pull everything of value out of them, and leave an empty, barren field.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
Well, Obama has 99 problems, but Mitt is not one.
 
Posted by chicklegirl (# 11741) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Mormons are also, on average, wealthier. That does a lot for family stability, or so I've read.
Sorry, Bullfrog--this is a generalization. In fact, we Mormons are a representative cross-section of the economic pie, where ever we happen to live. Most wards I've lived in may have one or two well-to-do families, but most of them are blue-collar or lower. Most likely that is because my family of origin was lower-middle class, barely above the poverty line sometimes.

That said, our ward members and leaders were always concerned about our situation, provided help when we needed it, and gave us ample opportunities to help those in worse circumstances than our own.

My childhood was a big motivator for me to attend college and improve my own economic circumstances as an adult. Even when my family didn't have much money, we tried to do the best with what we had, and then improve on it where and when we could--and I've found the idea of making the most of one's stewardship is prevalent in the Mormon faith, where ever I've gone.

To address the issue of family stability: yes, overall our demographic does have a lower divorce rate, but my own parents divorced when I was 16 (though as a close observer, this had less to do with our economic situation and more to do with their difficulty communicating and working out their personal differences).

[ 22. October 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: chicklegirl ]
 
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :
 
Welcome back, Chicklegirl! Good to hear from you again, and your input is appreciated.
 
Posted by chicklegirl (# 11741) on :
 
Thanks, Pigwidgeon--it's nice to be back. [Cool]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0