Sen. Reid’s not-so high opinion of Romney and his fellow Nevada Mormons

Dave, as an LDS living in southern Nevada, I am often asked in Sen. Reid is active in the church. It is accepted by most that the answer is yes, but he gets really active around the election, attending three to four sacrament meetings a week. A friend of mine, who is a bishop here, said that Reid showed up to his sacrament meeting during the last election cycle and came up on the stand to shake my friend’s hand right before the meeting started, and after this brief encounter, he (Reid) sat right down on the stand next to my friend without being invited to do so. My friend quickly, and politely, told him to get lost.

I would prefer that members of the church stay out of national politics other than those that represent Utah. I would call Senator Reid a disaster. Although I am no George Bush fan I am appalled at the disrespect and contemp that Senator Reid shows for the President. Senator Hatch has made very strange bedfellows during his tenure (I guess that is what you do in politics) and Rep. John Doolittle (R-Roseville CA) just quit after decades of service under a cloud of ethics violations.

I think that Gov. Romney is a great businessman but I am not fond his positions on important issues changing with the political climate. I think there was more disinformation surrounding the church during his primary run than I have ever witnessed. I know the saying that any press is good press but I think that this was not the case during the primaries.

“Although I am no George Bush fan I am appalled at the disrespect and contemp that Senator Reid shows for the President.”

Maybe it is because I share that disrespect and contempt, but the contempt the Reid shows for Bush, is only matched by the contempt that Mormons show to Reid. To borrow from the Clash: Mormons can be democrats, but they better not dare try it.

Sorry Michael, I am not buying that story. My aunt goes to church with Reid in DC. While she is very conservative, she has nothing negative to say about him personally.

“Maybe it is because I share that disrespect and contempt, but the contempt the Reid shows for Bush, is only matched by the contempt that Mormons show to Reid. To borrow from the Clash: Mormons can be democrats, but they better not dare try it.”

The contempt is there because of the disrespectful tone. GW is not, in my opinion, very bright but the one thing Iwill give him credit for is being a classy guy in that he is quite respectful verbally of everyone even those that lambast him daily. Speaker Pelosi most recently said that he is a “total failure”. Pretty strong words for someone who has done absolutely nothing that she promised her constituency. Classy politicians are a dying breed. When I think of outstanding statesman that knew how to play the game and do it brilliantly I think of Moynihan, Nunn, Rudman, Dole etc. Those guys got it and actually got things done together.

At the end of the day you cannot be a “good” politician and be a member of the church that is honest about it. Romney is a perfect case in point. Not to long ago he was pro abortion then changed. I have heard is reasoning and though it is personal it all smacks of political expediency. I am sorry you just have to lie to much to be an effective politician and that just does not coincide with discipleship.

Chris,

Say what you will but GW tries to reach out. He just is not very bright and does not always do it at the right times. Like I said I am not a fan and I think over the past 8 years and going forward we really have weak choices for presidential leadership.

Clinton (not a personal fan but a political fan) was at least an absolute genius at being a politician.

Moynihan would have indeed used the snobby rhetoric but it would have went right over GW’s head.

Sorry, ThomasB, but with “GW tries to reach out” you just won the snarf-the-beverage-of-your-choice-through-your-nose award for the week.

I mean, we *are* talking about the same George W. Bush who, even while speaking of the need for bipartisanship, went about saying that anyone who disagreed with him on policy was supporting the terrorists, and working to defeat America? Why yes, i do believe we are.

Being highly partisan isn’t a bad thing (even though it has a bad name in the popular press). However, being highly partisan while claiming not to be–that’s just hypocrisy (and stupid hypocrisy, at that).

Erm, Dave, NCLB was most definitely *not* a Democratic proposal–standardized testing regimens for schools is something close to anathema for most of the Democratic power brokers out there. Similarly, the expansion of Medicare was not a friendly overture to the Democrats–expanding Medicare, sure, that’d be good, but doing so by essentially outsourcing the project to private companies (and nearly guaranteeing profits, rather than requiring them to take on risk in exchange for it)? Very much not good. Yeah, there were some Democrats who strongly supported them, but having a number of co-sponsors of legislation from the opposing party does not constitute proof of bipartisanship.

And that’s ignoring the utter lack of executive willingness to compromise on one of the two biggest legislative vs. executive issue of our day, continued funding for the war in Iraq. (The other is the somewhat more arcane issue of whether the legislature has the ability to freely investigate potentially illegal activities undertaken by the executive branch, though i’ll allow that that one’s not really a partisan issue.)

And having someone impune your patriotism for not supporting *everything* you’re after, even after going along with such “half a loaf” compromises such as what came out of NCLB and Medicare expansion? Really, that insanely anti-bipartisan practice pretty much trumps occasional bipartisan horse-trading on legislation, at least as i see it.

Since when did i mention the “with us or against us” line?

So anyway, how about Max Cleland and John Kerry? No matter what the WSJ says, these were both the subjects of rather intense attacks on their patriotism by those who were promoting GWB’s interests–and GWB didn’t do anything, anything at all, to distance himself from the attacks (even when given the clear opportunity). There were certainly policy differences that were raised, but raising a few policy differences in the midst of aspersions against patriotism (have you actually *read* Unfit for Command?–i wouldn’t call that a policy-based book) does not absolve someone of charges of attacking someone’s patriotism.

I’d argue that the whole reaction of certain people to Michelle Obama’s “for the first time I’m proud to be an American” line also falls into patriotism-questioning.

‘Nother concrete example: HDS Greenway wrote up a catalog of questions against Rep. Murtha’s patriotism by Bush allies in 2005: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/11/29/bushs_patriotism_smear/

Yeah, yeah, i know, you can always say that GWB didn’t say any of this himself, so his hands are clean. Well, aside from the fact that he rarely says much of anything on the record (when compared to most previous presidents), what has he said to counter these sorts of attacks? When his allies are doing the dirty work, he really oughtn’t be given the luxury of sitting back to keep his his hands clean–you know, the whole sin of omission thing.

And i’d certainly agree with anyone who says that the reverse has occurred, and Bush’s opponents have criticized his (and his allies’) patriotism. I’m not even sure who started it. I do not that i’m tired of it, not least because it’s led to a horrible, horrible state of debate in this country right now.

p.s. Re: NCLB, i will repeat: Just because something has Democratic co-sponsors, even when one of them is a Kennedy, does not automatically make it Democratic legislation.