Joel Osteen and Mitt Romney

[Dave Roberts]

To reassure the faithful, Joel Osteen has now pronounced his judgement that Mitt Romney is a Christian, just not in a traditional form. Politics makes such strange bedfellows.

[Ed Pettibone]

[Dave Roberts]

[Tim Bonney]

[Stephen Fox]

He and Mitt are gonna have trouble squaring their Different views on immigration with Kris Kobach.

Meanwhile here is my comment on the Bienart and Mitt column by Joanna Brookds at religiondispatches.

[quoteProfessor David Campbell of Notre Dame is one of the authors of the book American Grace, which looks at the evolution of religious practice and belief in modern America based on several detailed surveys and follow up research on precisely the kinds of questions Joanna refers to, the "Why?" questions. In a couple of forums where the issue of anti-Mormon bias has come up (before Romney's achievement of the virtual nomination), Campbell's take on it was (as I understand it) that the bias among Republican conservative Evangelicals was a more significant hurdle for Romney, since it would affect how he was differentiated from other candidates who were Evangelical or (amazingly enough) Catholic in primary voting. During the general election contest, though, he felt pretty sure that the conservative Evangelicals would align with Romney as nominee, since the choice would then be between a Democrat who is liberal and is not a typical Evangelical, and Romney, who at least is a more conservative Republican. The same fervor that leads some to vote against Romney will also push them to vote against Obama.

The more interesting part of the analysis is how independents and Democrats will respond to Romney. Campbell's analysis was that among those groups, their political decisions are not derived from religious concerns per se, but are more based on specific policy viewpoints. In those groups, the people who would oppose a generic Mormon would do so because of perception of opposition to gay rights, abortion and other sexual liberation themes, and that the same people would oppose a conservative Catholic or conservative Evangelical for the exact same reasons. In other words, Campbell did not see any premium in anti-Mormonism that would affect the general election for a Mormon Republican; and Romney can expect to do just as well among those people as any other conservative Republican would do, namely, not that well. Thus, there could well be bias, and it may be labeled bias against Mormons, but it swaps out easily for bias against Evangelicals and bias against conservative Catholics. Romney's major handicap among many voters is that he is a Republican, not that he is a Mormon.

I think this bears out a bit in the way various fringey Democrats have taken off on Romney. The criticism of Ann Romney could not have been made quite as literally against Mrs. Santorum, who was a nurse and an attorney, but she also became an "at home" Mom with many children, and thus offends people like Ms Rosen. They could not mention "polygamy" in connection with Santorum, but they would offer "priest child abuse" or some other touchy Catholic subject.

I personally think that the "Romney is weird" theme can only go so far in being based on attacks on Romney's religious affiliation or his century-old ancestral polygamy, since those are areas where Barack Hussein Obama does not want to get into a contest about the religion and marital habits of Obama Sr., a Muslim Polygamist, and the experiences he had as stepson of a Muslim in Indonesia, such as the promise thaty he was going to get to eat an endgangered tiger! The new issue of Smithsonian Magazine, under the pretext of a "Travel Issue", has correspondents visit the places in Kenya and Mexico where the fathers of the candidates were born. Frankly, the comparison is not positive for Obama. The "polygamy" word is not used, but it does mention Obama Sr's four wives, and the step-siblings of Obama, one an OLDER brother who wanted $1500 for a 30 minute interview. The community in general is economically depressed, waiting for President Obama to bring them prosperity. By contrast, the Mormon colony in Colonia Juarez is a neat and clean community with fruit orchards and its own community high school that "would not be out of place on an ivy league campus." Obama definitely does not want to have people getting into detail comparing the candidates this way.][/quote]

[Gene Scarborough]

Osteen is always going overboard to be nice.

Conservative Evangelicals are in a real dilemma over a Morman Conservative candidate!

I love it!!!!!

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

I am seeing this as well. His pretended conservatism includes destroying the working class and getting joy from not paying his share of taxes!

My question is: "What have you conserved, old buddy, in the last 20 years----except a tax code gone wild for the rich?"

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

Now---if anyone has the guts to offer us a Term Limits demanded for Congress, we might stand a chance of straightening this mess out.

Making candidates disclose their funding is a total farce. Government is bought at this point and only the people wealthy enough to do the buying get the favors which have brought us to this point of un-equal taxation.

Until we address the issue of making goods in America and quit the "money-saving at Wal-Mart" built by foreign labor doing shoddy work cheap, we are still in trouble.

Both citizens and politicians are speaking and buying from both sides of their mouths---and hipocracy rules right now.

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

If it were wise enough to apply to the office of President after the FDR 4th term, why would it not shuffle the Legislative cards enough to stop the long-term purchase of it by PAC's.

A paid Legislature full of more lawyers than you can imagine---was never part of the vision of the Founders who penned the Constitution directing our government.

Their concept was to have a truely representative group of citizens balancing powers with the Executive and Judicial Branches of Government. They would go for a short time they could afford to take off work and debate important matters before them. It was the closest part of the final plan to the Constitutional Conventions which constructed the basics of the "American Dream."

Only since the mid-1900's have we had a paid and well-staffed branch of government staying in Washington or state capitals until they wrote enough legislation to somehow "show" they were constantly needed!

Disclosure of campaign finances is a total farce. Most have big shoeboxes full of unaccounted-for-money. How many have gone into legislative office and walked away with riches and an assured highly paid consultant position waiting for them in Corporate America?

They are clearly "bought" and we need to do something to stop it! What do you suggest, Tim???

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed: And Gene who says it was a wise move after FDR's tenure? How would term limits reduce the number of lawyers in the legislative branches?

Gene the number of those serving lengthy terms in the House and Senate may have increased since the 90's but it did not start then.

Putting tighter controls on lobbying is a better answer than term limits in my view.

[Gene Scarborough]

I totally agree that disclosure and limits on financial contributions would be preferable. However, that is a total failure even though it is in place.

The military rotates their troops. Wise churches rotate their Deacons. I fail to see why forcing rotation on Congress would not help.

Any other practical suggestions?

[Neil Heath]

Here's an interesting web page, part of the Melissa Data web site, that will tell you who contributed to federal election campaigns by year and by zip code. It give you the name, employer, amount and date of each contribution. The date is an active link to the candidate or committee who received the money. You might be surprised to know who gave how much to whom in your own zip code.



The main page is amazing in it's scope and the amount of info gathered in one place. Just remove the "fec.asp" on the end to go up one level and check it out. And it's all free for the looking!

[Tim Bonney]

Gene, I just don't see that term limits actually solves anything. What I would see as a solution would be campaign finance reform. How people are elected is a bigger problem than how long they serve. We already limit the electorate by letting the very rich give thousands to super pacs. We don't need to further take away the power of the electorate with term limits.

[KeithE]

[Gene Scarborough]

Timothy---

Finance reporting is a total failure. The President got Term Limits when FDR was getting his 4th term and more than sick and government was bogging down.

The Legislative Branch has become another fat perk sucking money from taxpayers with little or nothing getting done. If they knew they had 3 terms to get things moving, we would eliminate the seniority fiasco and much money for nothing.

The military rotates its troops to keep down collusion. Churches rotate Deacons to keep things distributed. It seems like a preferable solution to a bought Congress we now have. At the least, the fresh faces would have to bought anew every 3 terms and power would not become so entrenched we get nothing accomplished.

Ever look at the emptiness of C-Span: may seats empty and much empty rhetoric to please folks back home over solving problems which are not being resolved.

How about a 10-year required "renewal-or-out" approach to any legislation? We put things in, like farm credits, which should have expired long ago since they were designed for the family farm and not Corporate Farming going on now. It seems that once something is passed we have it forever along with the paper pushers. Clean up the legislative act or we die.

[Tim Bonney]

[Gene Scarborough]

In this day and time of Madison Avenue politics via the tube, who really knows whom they are electing?

Once a bad apple is in Congress and he lays low, how do you get him out.

I note the Republican flavor of the FDR thing and it's not the first time they squashed the "will of the People" just like CR did the "will of Southern Baptists" replacing Autonomy with BF&M 2000!

[Tim Bonney]

[Ed Pettibone]

[Gene Scarborough]

We are just trying to suggest possible solutions to the stagnation in most states and at the federal level.

I am searching just like everyone else for solutions rather than the continuation of the mess and abuse of tax dollars.

What do your think of a 10-year limitation on any major legislation = vote on it to continue or it automatically expires and ends.

We have some good minds here and I am just part of the discussion---and expect some good solutions to follow---as they should with a good debate on any floor of any Legislative body.

[Tim Bonney]

I don't Gene. To me putting limits on legislation doesn't mean a lot. It just guarentees a fight about that legislation every decade. Some things like our social safety nets shouldn't be up for a vote every decade.

What I'd like to see is the breakup of the two party system so that more than two parties could be represented at all levels. I don't see that happening.

I have friends and relatives who are historic Republicans who now don't have party and consider themselves independents because while they are for small government and less regulation they can't stand being in the party of right wing religion.

IMHO the Democratic part has moved too far to the right in attempt to court disenchanged Republicans so I'd like to see a party that is actually liberal rather than just claiming to be more progressive. I could easily see value in at least two more parties. But I also think the odds are pretty slim against any such thing happening.

[Gene Scarborough]

That is a somwhat "doom and gloom" post, Timothy.

Do you seen anything which might WORK on the horizon?