Comments on: Romney II: The Story Continues http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/ Truth Will Prevail Thu, 24 May 2012 19:37:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Bill MacKinnon http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-221732 Bill MacKinnon Sat, 14 Apr 2007 17:53:57 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-221732 Lost in the religiously-oriented controversy over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's candidacy for the Republican Party's presidential nomination is the controversy that arose forty years ago during the similar candidacy of his father, former Michigan Governor George Wilcken Romney. In GWR's case the controversy was not over the tenents of his religion or the fact that his maternal grandfather, Charles Henry Wilcken, had deserted from the U.S. Army's Fourth Regiment of Artillery during the Utah War (a subject covered here in a separate essay by Ardis Parshall), but rather by a legal issue. The controversy over GWR's candidacy was primarily over whether legally he was barred from serving as president by the U.S. Constitution's requirement that presidents be "natural born" citizens. GWR had, of course, been born during the late 19th century in one of Mormonism's colonias in northern Mexico to which his family had fled to avoid prosecution under the federal polygamy statutes. (The family was then driven back across the border into the U.S. by the violence and anti-Americanism of the Mexican Revolution of 1910.) While GWR was running in the 1968 New Hampshire primary, the Attorney General of New Hampshire brought suit to bar his candidacy on Constitutional rather than religious grounds, although the Romney family's flight to Mexico had been rooted in their religious principles and practices. There then followed the publication during 1968 of several fascinating legal briefs on both sides of this issue, one drafted by a GWR friend prominent in the Detroit legal community and another (anti) by a New York City attorney. Both briefs were published in the "New York Law Journal" and can probably be dredged up by an internet search engine. The history of this controversy can also be found in a more recent issue of "Michigan Historical Review." When George W. Romney dropped his candidacy in 1968 following a flap over his war-time visit to South Vietnam, the New Hampshire law suit became moot. Periodically, though, bills are still introduced into Congress to amend the Constitution to eliminate the prohibition on foreign birth -- most recently to benefit such prospective presidetial candidates as Henry Kissinger (Germany), Madeline Albright (Czechoslovakia) and Michigan's current Governor Jennifer Granholm (Canada). Relatively minor as it was in 1968, religion was not totally absent as an issue in GWR's presidential campaign and took the form primarily of criticism about the Latter-day Saints' then prohibition on the priesthood for blacks rather than about the Romney family's history with plural marriage. Fortunately Mitt Romney (born in Michigan) does not have those two issues with which to contend, although the focus has shifted to other, still-difficult ground. Lost in the religiously-oriented controversy over former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s candidacy for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination is the controversy that arose forty years ago during the similar candidacy of his father, former Michigan Governor George Wilcken Romney. In GWR’s case the controversy was not over the tenents of his religion or the fact that his maternal grandfather, Charles Henry Wilcken, had deserted from the U.S. Army’s Fourth Regiment of Artillery during the Utah War (a subject covered here in a separate essay by Ardis Parshall), but rather by a legal issue. The controversy over GWR’s candidacy was primarily over whether legally he was barred from serving as president by the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that presidents be “natural born” citizens. GWR had, of course, been born during the late 19th century in one of Mormonism’s colonias in northern Mexico to which his family had fled to avoid prosecution under the federal polygamy statutes. (The family was then driven back across the border into the U.S. by the violence and anti-Americanism of the Mexican Revolution of 1910.) While GWR was running in the 1968 New Hampshire primary, the Attorney General of New Hampshire brought suit to bar his candidacy on Constitutional rather than religious grounds, although the Romney family’s flight to Mexico had been rooted in their religious principles and practices. There then followed the publication during 1968 of several fascinating legal briefs on both sides of this issue, one drafted by a GWR friend prominent in the Detroit legal community and another (anti) by a New York City attorney. Both briefs were published in the “New York Law Journal” and can probably be dredged up by an internet search engine. The history of this controversy can also be found in a more recent issue of “Michigan Historical Review.” When George W. Romney dropped his candidacy in 1968 following a flap over his war-time visit to South Vietnam, the New Hampshire law suit became moot. Periodically, though, bills are still introduced into Congress to amend the Constitution to eliminate the prohibition on foreign birth — most recently to benefit such prospective presidetial candidates as Henry Kissinger (Germany), Madeline Albright (Czechoslovakia) and Michigan’s current Governor Jennifer Granholm (Canada). Relatively minor as it was in 1968, religion was not totally absent as an issue in GWR’s presidential campaign and took the form primarily of criticism about the Latter-day Saints’ then prohibition on the priesthood for blacks rather than about the Romney family’s history with plural marriage. Fortunately Mitt Romney (born in Michigan) does not have those two issues with which to contend, although the focus has shifted to other, still-difficult ground.

]]> By: Christian http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218462 Christian Sat, 24 Feb 2007 03:57:00 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218462 Jacob Weisberg certainly is a bigoted blundering hack, and I agree that Linker was overall more thoughtful, but Russell, you're too easy on your friend. Your site did not address the one argument of linker that frankly ammounted to hate speech, the vague description of his personal "research" where he asked students (age and gender unknown) whether they'd kill someone if the prophet asked them to. Linker goes on to say that while President GBH doesn't tell mormons to run off and kill people, that who knows who the next prophet will be (as it that was hard to tell!). Essentially, he's labeled mormons as ticking time-bombs. Next time you speak to your friend, could you do me the favor of asking him a question? When he guest-professors at other universities, does he ask 17-19 year old boys if there's any adult figure whom they trust implicitly, and if so, would they honor a request from that adult figure to go kill someone? Or does he only ask his mormon students that sort of question? Jacob Weisberg certainly is a bigoted blundering hack, and I agree that Linker was overall more thoughtful, but Russell, you’re too easy on your friend. Your site did not address the one argument of linker that frankly ammounted to hate speech, the vague description of his personal “research” where he asked students (age and gender unknown) whether they’d kill someone if the prophet asked them to. Linker goes on to say that while President GBH doesn’t tell mormons to run off and kill people, that who knows who the next prophet will be (as it that was hard to tell!). Essentially, he’s labeled mormons as ticking time-bombs.

Next time you speak to your friend, could you do me the favor of asking him a question? When he guest-professors at other universities, does he ask 17-19 year old boys if there’s any adult figure whom they trust implicitly, and if so, would they honor a request from that adult figure to go kill someone? Or does he only ask his mormon students that sort of question?

]]> By: Russell Arben Fox http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218415 Russell Arben Fox Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:45:18 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218415 "The first TNR piece on Romney (not this one) arguably amounted to hate speech." I would disagree, but then I'm friends with the author. It was harsh, polemical, and perhaps intentionally misleading (knowing as I do what the author actually knows or at least ought to know about Mormons), but the arguments which animated then were logical ones to ask, even if the sort of answers Damon wanted are impossible to give him. (The article was discussed <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3656" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3649" rel="nofollow">here</a> on Times and Seasons, and <a href="http://inmedias.blogspot.com/2007/01/on-mitt-and-mormonism.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> on my own blog.) The piece that Seth linked to above, by contrast, is just moronic conspiracy-mongering. I mean, really, Mitt's use of the Ford Museum as a location to announce his candidacy is a secret message to anti-Semites that he's one of them? Matt's right; that's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. “The first TNR piece on Romney (not this one) arguably amounted to hate speech.”

I would disagree, but then I’m friends with the author. It was harsh, polemical, and perhaps intentionally misleading (knowing as I do what the author actually knows or at least ought to know about Mormons), but the arguments which animated then were logical ones to ask, even if the sort of answers Damon wanted are impossible to give him. (The article was discussed here and here on Times and Seasons, and here on my own blog.)

The piece that Seth linked to above, by contrast, is just moronic conspiracy-mongering. I mean, really, Mitt’s use of the Ford Museum as a location to announce his candidacy is a secret message to anti-Semites that he’s one of them? Matt’s right; that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in a long time.

]]> By: Christian http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218414 Christian Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:35:22 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218414 The first TNR piece on Romney (not this one) arguably ammounted to hate speech. The loser painted us as some dangerous group that could go off at any moment, willing to kill for our prophet. Sure, he says, this Gorden B. Hinckley seems like a reasonable guy and won't order them to go on a killing frenzy, but we have no way of knowing who the *next* prophet might be. That article was also deeply preoccupied with the "Latter Day" aspect of our faith. The author emphasized our beliefs that Jesus is coming back, and that these are the later days as opposed to the earlier ones, and seemed very concerned about how Romney would handle some unspecified conflict of interest. He didn't outright say that he was afraid that Jesus might actually come back during the Romney Presidency and that Romney would just turn the country over to him, but that's where he seemed to be pointing, and he didn't articulate any other reason for that whole "latter days" concern. Seems odd. TNR did follow up with a later article that criticized the previous article, and praised Romney. But once you bring up that whole "mormons are ticking timebombs" argument, it's a little difficult to unpoison the well. Glad to hear that they can actually talk about his politics for a change. The first TNR piece on Romney (not this one) arguably ammounted to hate speech. The loser painted us as some dangerous group that could go off at any moment, willing to kill for our prophet. Sure, he says, this Gorden B. Hinckley seems like a reasonable guy and won’t order them to go on a killing frenzy, but we have no way of knowing who the *next* prophet might be.

That article was also deeply preoccupied with the “Latter Day” aspect of our faith. The author emphasized our beliefs that Jesus is coming back, and that these are the later days as opposed to the earlier ones, and seemed very concerned about how Romney would handle some unspecified conflict of interest. He didn’t outright say that he was afraid that Jesus might actually come back during the Romney Presidency and that Romney would just turn the country over to him, but that’s where he seemed to be pointing, and he didn’t articulate any other reason for that whole “latter days” concern. Seems odd.

TNR did follow up with a later article that criticized the previous article, and praised Romney. But once you bring up that whole “mormons are ticking timebombs” argument, it’s a little difficult to unpoison the well. Glad to hear that they can actually talk about his politics for a change.

]]> By: Dan http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218413 Dan Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:06:02 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218413 Seth, <blockquote>What I found interesting was that for the first time, we’ve got liberal media coverage of Romney and it didn’t mention the Mormon non-controversy.</blockquote> Okay, hang on a sec. This is not true. The "liberal media" has in fact had numerous pieces about Romney that has not touched his religion. In fact, I wager that I've seen more pieces about Romney's religion from "non-liberal media" than not. I'm really curious about this, because you're not the first (nor the last) to blast the "liberal" or "mainstream" media and their supposed anti-Romney bias. Why do you feel this is the case? I mean I can probably pull out a number of articles from many national media sources that focus solely on his politics. What is it that makes you feel the "liberal" media focuses so much on his religion? Seth,

What I found interesting was that for the first time, we’ve got liberal media coverage of Romney and it didn’t mention the Mormon non-controversy.

Okay, hang on a sec. This is not true. The “liberal media” has in fact had numerous pieces about Romney that has not touched his religion. In fact, I wager that I’ve seen more pieces about Romney’s religion from “non-liberal media” than not.

I’m really curious about this, because you’re not the first (nor the last) to blast the “liberal” or “mainstream” media and their supposed anti-Romney bias. Why do you feel this is the case? I mean I can probably pull out a number of articles from many national media sources that focus solely on his politics. What is it that makes you feel the “liberal” media focuses so much on his religion?

]]> By: Chris Hayes http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218408 Chris Hayes Thu, 22 Feb 2007 18:34:31 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218408 Russell Arben Fox, thanks for pointing out Larison\'s site here in T&S. I think your responses to Larison and Linker are well thought out (even when I don\'t agree with them), and I\'m glad you\'re a regular over there. Russell Arben Fox,
thanks for pointing out Larison\’s site here in T&S. I think your responses to Larison and Linker are well thought out (even when I don\’t agree with them), and I\’m glad you\’re a regular over there.

]]> By: Seth R. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218405 Seth R. Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:57:49 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218405 Whoops, right acronym, wrong title. I have nothing to say, one way or the other, about the quality of the article. What I found interesting was that for the first time, we've got liberal media coverage of Romney and it didn't mention the Mormon non-controversy. Seemed newsworthy in itself almost. Whoops, right acronym, wrong title. I have nothing to say, one way or the other, about the quality of the article. What I found interesting was that for the first time, we’ve got liberal media coverage of Romney and it didn’t mention the Mormon non-controversy. Seemed newsworthy in itself almost.

]]> By: Matt Evans http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218399 Matt Evans Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:19:20 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218399 Seth, the article's in The New Republic (National Review is William Buckley's conservative magazine; they've given Romney good press). The TNR article is the dumbest hit piece I've read in a long, long time. So long I can't remember a dumber one. What I can't believe is that multiple people on the staff at TNR presumably approved running this paranoid conspiracy theory. Hard times at TNR. Seth, the article’s in The New Republic (National Review is William Buckley’s conservative magazine; they’ve given Romney good press). The TNR article is the dumbest hit piece I’ve read in a long, long time. So long I can’t remember a dumber one. What I can’t believe is that multiple people on the staff at TNR presumably approved running this paranoid conspiracy theory. Hard times at TNR.

]]> By: Seth R. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218390 Seth R. Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:49:28 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218390 Wonder of wonders! The liberal National Review just wrote a piece on Romney. And they didn't even mention his Mormonism! http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070219&s=perlstein022107 Wonder of wonders!

The liberal National Review just wrote a piece on Romney. And they didn’t even mention his Mormonism!

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070219&s=perlstein022107

]]> By: Tim Lahaye http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2007/02/romney-ii-the-story-continues/#comment-218388 Tim Lahaye Thu, 22 Feb 2007 01:10:31 +0000 http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=3725#comment-218388 \"the gossip from his inner circles is starting to suggest that he won’t be in the race in six months.\" Does this mean the rapture\'s gonna come in the next 6 months? \”the gossip from his inner circles is starting to suggest that he won’t be in the race in six months.\”

Does this mean the rapture\’s gonna come in the next 6 months?

]]>