Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney

Intro: For the 2012 election, the Republicans might end up nominating Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, though not necessarily in that order.

Yes, by all means, write a book:

I was skimming Sarah Palin’s new book and came across two interesting sections. From America by Heart:

Palin relates an anecdote, from our Wild West days, which climaxes in a woman firing a pistol through her hotel room door into a hallway. On the other side was a man who claimed she was in his room. She threatened to shoot. He dared her. She shot but didn’t hit anybody. Sarah didn’t bother to condemn this woman who could have hit an innocent passerby. The shooter didn’t know if there was anyone on the other side of that door, besides that man of course.

So it seems Sarah endorses “shoot first, ask questions later.” Or she just plain doesn’t think about the potential consequences of deadly force. [Not a very good trait in a President.]

The last 10 pages of this book are entitled “Commonsense Constitutional Conservative.” Which is brief and says nothing about any of those 3 C’s. But that’s not the point, I suppose. The point is to use buzzwords with no follow through.


Sarah/Mitt or Mitt/Sarah?

But the good news is: Sarah Palin is not the overwhelming favorite among the GOP rank-and-file. At this time, Palin, Romney, and Huckabee are pretty much running neck and neck to see who will oppose Obama.

So why do I consider this “good news?” Maybe, just maybe, Sarah might pave the way for Mitt Romney, who might end up offering her the VP slot. In America by Heart, Palin makes heroic efforts to define the US as, since the beginning, a devoutly religious republic. Moreover, she’s obviously trying to spin the 2012 election in terms of moral values and religious sentiment.

I’m not a Romney supporter, by the way. I’m a candidate who will oppose him as an Independent should he be nominated. However, Mitt Romney as GOP standard-bearer will benefit me immensely, which I’ll make clear in a moment. Palin’s book speaks well of Romney and says we don’t need a new political party. That will pretty much invalidate the Tea Party, which I refer to as the National White People’s Party. [You won’t see many Blacks or Latinos at their rallies.]

Of course, Palin will serve the useful function of bringing Tea Party activists into the GOP fold. This will happen when it becomes painfully obvious that TP doesn’t have a platform or a chance – just a litany of complaints. [Just what could it possibly mean to say, “We’re here to take our country back?”]

Sarah will also serve by making Mitt Romney more acceptable to the US Protestant denominations’ more conservative members. These folks harbor deep suspicions about Mormonism, which is Mitt’s lifelong faith. Who knows? Maybe a wink and a smile from Sarah will assure them that Romney’s an okay guy.


What Mitt means to me?

I’ve been looking for a bridge that connects my Buddhist beliefs to Christianity, and I believe Mormonism is that bridge. Consider the following:


QUOTE: "I am going to tell you how God came to be God," declared Joseph Smith [founder of the Mormon faith] in his "King Follett Discourse" of 1844..."God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man...If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form [What color, asks Steven Searle?]...We have imagined and supposed God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea..." ... fifth president of Latter Day Saints Church Lorenzo Snow: "As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be." UNQUOTE*.


Ah, those last two sentences: “As man is, God once was. As God is, man might be.”

My personal belief: What Westerners call “God” is actually one of untold trillions of Bodhisattvas (inferior to many, superior to some), who practice Buddhism with the goal of becoming fully enlightened Buddhas. That’s right: I’m saying God is less than a Buddha (of which there are also untold trillions, by the way), but He’s working on it. And He’s been working on it for a long time, but He still has a long way to go.

I have reasons for making these claims about God, which I’ll discuss in greater detail as election 2012 draws nearer. But it will be interesting to hear how Mitt Romney deals with “those last two sentences.” He or his handlers might try to dismiss my challenge by saying, “The US Constitution doesn’t allow a litmus test, involving religion, for higher office.”

True enough. However, I will insist based on two grounds:

·       As the great-great-grandson of Parley Pratt, who was one of the original Twelve Apostles of Mormonism, I don’t see how Mitt Romney can stay silent. Especially since he himself had promoted his faith as a missionary in France for 30 months.

·       Even though, of course, there shouldn’t be any “litmus test” for higher office, the American people should be given the opportunity to hear Romney speak on “God was Man, and Man can become God.” They have a right to obtain a sense of how Mitt thinks, as reflected by how he’ll address the implications of this doctrine.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Things are about to get interestinger and interestinger as election 2012 draws ever closer.”

* Footnote: All material above, marked QUOTE/UNQUOTE, came from Hugh Hewitt's book, A Mormon in the White House?