Romney lies: are they bad enough to disqualify him?

I started telling people about this time last year that the only Republican Candidate I Would consider voting for is the one they are going to nominate: Mitt Romney.

After the fiasco of the last election—the only one in which I did not cast a vote for President—I wanted some real choices. Four years ago, I didn’t think Barack Obama had the requisite experience, and after McCain selected the running mate who looked the best in skirts, well, he was out too. Bad judgment killed it for me.

Who are we to pick a President anyway?

But, in a way, it is odd how we actually think we are qualified to pick the leader of the free world.  I mean, who are we to say this United States Senator or Governor doesn’t have what it takes? Could we even comprehend what it is they are asked to absorb, much less act on?

The candidate’s ability to absorb and deal with information is beyond comprehension at their ages.  Look at Clinton: attorney general of Arkansas at 28 years of age; Gov at 32 and Pres at 46; Obama was elected at age 47—the first President in my life who is younger than me and by a  lot. The job would overwhelm me, and yet these people are capable of it.

And we think we have the knowledge to elect them.  The Hallowed and Revered Founding Fathers did not think so.  They didn’t trust us probably because they understood us and our penchant for second guessing.

But we elevated ourselves to the task and amazingly, the Union has survived, often in spite of whom it is we elect to be our leaders.

My issue with Obama’s lack of experience is gone.  He is qualified. Taking on the health care sector and causing significant long-lasting change is enough for me to respect him, but I am still not happy with him, and the elephants had a chance to get my vote. Past tense: had.

Now, what bugs me is the lies.  Yes, all Americans lie, so why does this bother us in our leaders? Its the same thing: we couldn’t coach the long snapper ont he team, yet we know every mistale the head coach makes.  That is us. And me, I guess.

Romney Falls

My infatuation with Romney started to end when he took credit for the recovery of the automobile industry.  He opposed everything that was done.  And yet, he takes credit for it? He wasn’t even on the same team.  Amazing.

He runs on his business experience and cries foul whenever anyone looks at?

Now, he says he “retroactively retired” from Bain Capital before the outsourcing to China took place.  The only thing I can make out of this is that when Bain’s actions in the three years he was “inactive” and yet still the Chairman and President and CEO became unpopular, he rewrote history and now says he took a retroactive retirement three years before he left management? I do  not even know what this means.

Then he says he had other people managing the business.  He doesn’t manage his money either, he says, so he cannot be blamed for where it is invested. So, why are his business and money management record important if he was not responsible?

Some say they cannot vote for him because he is a Mormon.  This doesn’t bother me, in and of itself.

When I was in the church, in Priesthood meetings, a topic called “Lying for the Lord” was discussed.  This had its start in Judaism, Islam and Christianity when Abraham lied about the status of his wife. In LDS circles, it started with the prophet’s permission for some to lie about the status of plural marriages after the Manifesto stopped the practice officially. It continues to this day. A couple of examples:

Apostle Boyd K. Packer said that LDS scholars and historians are in peril of damnation if they choose to reveal the whole truth about the LDS church:

“Church history can be so interesting and so inspiring as to be a powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer…

“There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful…

“The writer or teacher who has an exaggerated loyalty to the theory that everything must be told is laying a foundation for his own judgment…The Lord made it clear that some things are to be taught selectively and some things are to be given only to those who are worthy…

“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith – particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith – places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities…Do not spread disease germs!” (Boyd K. Packer, 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271)

President Gordon B. Hinckley has deliberately obfuscated the issue in discussing it with the press. For example, in a Time interview on August, 1997 he said:

“Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follett discourse by the Prophet.

“Hinckley: Yeah

“Q: … about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

“Hinckley: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.” (Time Magazine original transcript, Aug 4, 1997)

This is the central point of the LDS Church, the thing that makes it different, more correct than all the others. Was Hinkley being even close to honest?

I personally remember one summer a new film came out we were encouraged to have our neighbors and friends watch. I asked what to do if they did not want to. I was told to lie to them, to deceive them—to do anything necessary to get them to watch it and when they are in heaven they will thank me for the lie.

Why bring up this stuff about the LDS church? Maybe it is context. In order to do anything, it is first necessary to be elected.  If a few lies need to be told along the way? Well, ok.

I do not know many LDS people who routinely lie; in fact, most I know are upstanding honorable people who I am proud to know and who make very good neighbors and citizens. I don’t see this with Romney.  Maybe his lies are a means to the end of getting elected and once elected, things will change and he would govern effectively.  And does he lie any more than the typical politician? Maybe, maybe not.  I just expected more from him, I guess.

3 thoughts on “Romney lies: are they bad enough to disqualify him?

  1. I think Romney is really out of the loop as far as we 99% are concerned. He speaks of capitalism, investment, entrepreneurship, small business, etc. Well certainly all these things built America, but the great majority of us are teachers, carpenters, clerks, mechanics, secretaries, nurses. and bus drivers. We will never have a business. We are wage earners. All the people he glorifies are the ones that destroyed the middle class. No pension, $11 an hour, no family benefits, no med insurance, vacation or sick days – take it or leave it. Capitalism has become as exploitive as Karl Marx described and there is no balance as politicians are owned by the megabanks and megacorps and unions busting continues so the people have no advocacy.

    I don’t concern myself with people’s spiritual relationship with Creator, but the Book of Mormon posits a history of North America that denies all historical fact. It is absolutely preposterous. Much of the old Testament contains myths(I am not a literalist) and the New Testament has been edited by 4th century church for proto orthodox agenda (which becomes Roman Church )to where we have no primary source for Gospel, but both are fairly accurate and important historical documents.

    Thanks visit my blog. Think I’ll write in Ralph Nader. Again.

  2. Romney will keep coming with the lies. The people who are financing him will expect him to follow their agenda and he will, but he can’t admit that to his followers, even if he’d actually take different political stands if it were up to him. I think the worst part of it is that his words are condescending. The lies fly out of his mouth as if he thinks people won’t notice his statements are not factually accurate or that they’re contradictions. I think deep down, he’s more of a man than that. I wish he’d dig down deep and speak of and stand for what he believes in. I wouldn’t agree with most of it, but it would be his truth, his opinion, that I was opposing. Then people could have intelligent debates and make progress with the challenges this country faces.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s