Was Huntsman Romney’s wingman?

THESIS:  I believe Jon Huntsman was Mitt Romney’s wingman, serving to help Mitt win the GOP nomination from the very moment Jon declared his own candidacy. I further believe Jon was ordered into this role by the president of the Mormon Church.

DISCLAIMER: I don’t have any proof of my claim, beyond what follows after this paragraph. That is, neither Jon nor Mitt actually came out and told me, “This is the game plan,” nor was I a fly on the wall that overheard any such scheming. However, I can suggest a compelling case starting with certain common sense elements.

The lineage of the Princes Huntsman and Romney

According to USA Today*:

QUOTE*: Did you know Republicans Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are distant cousins? … Parley Pratt, an early Mormon missionary, is Romney's great-great-grandfather and Huntsman's great-great-great-grandfather. :UNQUOTE*.

What this article fails to mention is that Parley Pratt was more than just “an early Mormon missionary.” He was an original member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. That would place both Huntsman and Romney in very favorable circumstances. But it would also subject them to the dictates of an extremely patriarchal and rule-bound hierarchy.

This becomes a matter of extreme importance when this claim is taken into consideration: Mormons believe that God reveals His will directly and continually to the Mormon Church president. And I find it hard to believe that any prince of the Church could resist an order (in this or similar language) coming directly from their President:

“Jon, I had a revelation from God that you will announce your candidacy for the GOP nomination, while in reality doing everything you can to help Mitt Romney obtain that nomination.”

What was Huntsman role in this ruse?

Jon’s primary role was to, crudely put, double the Mormon presence on the GOP stage. The Church president was primarily interested, not so much in the present and in Romney’s particular chances for success, but in the long-run. The long-term goal of gaining Mormon acceptance among the US general population (not to mention, eventual election of one of the brethren to the White House) wouldn’t be well enough served with only one man – the somewhat wooden Romney – being the standard bearer for the whole church.

More was needed, which Huntsman could provide. Both men are fabulously wealthy, having gained their fortunes in business. Both were state governors, speak a foreign language, have stable marriages of long duration, and aren’t members of the legal profession.

Huntsman had to self-sabotage, so as not to upstage Romney. Hence, his decisions to wear a bright lavender tie during one interview, speak in Mandarin Chinese during one of the GOP debates (way to turn off the base), and not come across as polished as Romney.

It was also important for Huntsman to attack Romney. Given Huntsman’s early emphasis on running a nice guy, civil campaign, I was surprised (at first) that Jon criticized Mitt – almost up to the point when he dropped out of the race and ended up endorsing Romney. The attacks were necessary, though, to disarm any fear that “Mormons are mindless automatons who stick together.”

Consider this item from the LA Times**:

QUOTE**: …Jon Huntsman…accused Mitt Romney of not understanding business…just a few days ago…. (His “Scared Mittless” site is still running, but the videos are gone.)… [and]…Huntsman’s the one who famously called Romney a “perfectly lubricated weathervane” and in New Hampshire said that Romney hadn’t made a “case to the American people” and has been on “three sides of every issue.” In a nod to Romney’s “I like to be able to fire people” remark, Huntsman said “Gov. Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs.” :UNQUOTE**.

That last sentence (about firing people) gave it away. That’s when I started to suspect Huntsman’s role as (secret) wingman. Any neutral and reasonable person who knew the context of Romney’s “firing people” comment would know he didn’t mean it in the sense of “I enjoy firing people so much, I look forward to every opportunity to do so.”

This is what Romney had actually said, “

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I'm going to get someone else to provide this service to me.’”

The highlight, obviously, is mine. Mitt Romney expressed a sentiment that we all could readily understand. Go ahead and say this out loud: “I like being able to fire people who don’t provide good service.” Now, contrast by saying this: “I like being forced to continue suffering with bad service and being denied any right to fire for bad performance.”

And yet, Jon Huntsman jumped on the bandwagon of those who gleefully (and falsely) took Romney’s words to mean he likes to engage in wanton and wholesale terminations of employment.

Anyone hearing Huntsman twist these words out of context would surely have had second thoughts about his civility and reasonableness. And that was precisely why Huntsman twisted as he did – to deflate his own good guy image and to increase sympathy for Romney among thinking people who knew exactly what Romney had meant in the first place.

After all, Huntsman was so low in the public opinion polls and going nowhere fast, he might as well have tried to give his fellow Mormon a sympathy boost, since his own campaign couldn’t have benefitted from any sincere attempt to knock Romney down.

But what about the contradiction?

Earlier this month, Huntsman had called Romney “unelectable because he lacks a core” and is “completely out of touch”…although, when endorsing Mitt, Jon said Mitt is the “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama”

Isn’t that a contradiction – to say he’s “unelectable” and “completely out of touch” while also claiming he’s the “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama?” Actually, no it isn’t, if you consider his exact words:

·       Romney could well be considered “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama” – relative, that is, to Gingrich and Santorum, who could also be accused of “[lacking] a core” and being “completely out of touch.”

·       When Jon said Mitt was “unelectable because he lacks a core,” that doesn’t prevent him from becoming electable (and here’s the interesting part) even without magically obtaining a core – by virtue of being the only person who can stop Obama from being re-elected. Of course, that assumes Mitt wins the nomination.

·       To say that someone “lacks a core” is vague and could be dismissed as merely something one candidate generically says of an opponent. It can’t be said that Romney lacks core personal values. He’s a religious man who has faithfully served his church. Even his foray into Romney Care was well-intended, which could be spun as “compassionate.” Once the one-on-one with Obama gets underway, Romney won’t have to be so defensive about what was, really, quite altruistically (and practically) motivated.

·       This whole notion of Romney lacking a core isn’t damning, in and of itself. A case could be made that Obama lacks a core, which many of his most idealistic supporters should now at least suspect. After all, didn’t Obama sink us deeper into Afghanistan? Didn’t Obama pick financial advisors who were connected to businesses directly responsible for our economic meltdown? How on earth did Obama pick Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff? We’re no closer to peace between Israel and Palestine. And Obama’s position on our eroding civil liberties leaves many liberals wondering, “WTF?”

·       The public’s memory is short, and by the time Romney is nominated, he can settle into specific positions best suited to win the election. As for Romney being a “flip-flopper” – which Huntsman had meant when calling him a “perfectly lubricated weathervane – that won’t be fatal, since all politicians are known to pander when it suits their needs at any particular moment.

·       There’s a delicious irony in calling someone a “perfectly lubricated weathervane.” The intention translates to, “This guy lacks leadership; he goes whichever way the wind blows.” But it could also mean: “This guy is totally responsive to the way the electorate feels and he, therefore, points in that direction.” If he weren’t such a weathervane, he would resist the direction We-the-People would be trying to point him in by not being “sufficiently lubricated” (that is, “flexible”) to yield to their desires. Some people would call such a yielding “being responsive to the electorate, which is more desirable than leading (a euphemism for ‘dragging’) the country where it doesn’t want to go.”

What’s the long-term plan of the Mormon Church?

I believe the Mormon leaders see the Republican Party itself as either ripe for takeover or destined to resign itself to the superior political and financial resources of the LDS. With the huge amounts of money at Romney’s disposal, ads favorable to the Mormon’s long-range plans and viewpoints could prove to have long-lasting power (well past this election cycle) in terms of overwhelming the amateurish and unfocused Tea Party groups.

I believe the LDS leadership thinks Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama. But I also believe they think having Jon Huntsman waiting in the wings for a possible 2016 run is a pretty good insurance policy – especially with the name recognition he has gained by having shared a debating stage with other GOP contenders this time around.

At least the Mormons won’t have the Tea Party to worry about if Obama gets reelected. Having failed to dislodge Obama, they will sink into the obscurity they so richly deserve.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“If you think Jon-as-wingman is too far-fetched and assumes unseen powers are playing you, just remember: Sometimes ‘too far-fetched’ actually works, and we’ve all been played for decades. So what else is new?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

* USA Today’s article, published on June 24, 2011 linked here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/mitt-romney-jon-huntsman-family-ties-/1

 ** http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-huntsman-wipes-history-of-romney-attacks-20120116,0,5885397.story : by James Oliphant, Jan. 16, 2012, “Huntsman wipes his history of Romney attacks”

Did South Carolina’s Democrats beat Romney?

THESIS: Democratic Party voters crossed-over and voted in South Carolina’s GOP primary, with the intention of voting for the candidate they perceived as the weakest opponent Barack Obama could face in November. I believe that this effort was quietly organized well in advance by Democratic Party chieftains.

The Hell, you say!

The Hell, I do say. As indicated in the QUOTE below, Romney suffered a 32% reversal of fortune – within the space of a week. He had led by 20%, only to lose by 12%. Of course, pollsters only asked registered Republican voters about their preferences, not tapping into stealth “Democratic” Republicans.

Polls are notoriously accurate, though of course there are occasional surprises. But a 32-percentage-point shift within a week is hard to explain. However, Dennis Byrne, writing in the Jan. 24 issue of the Chicago Tribune tries to explain it this way:

QUOTE:

Overnight – literally – [Newt Gingrich] surged. The Washington Post-ABC News poll had former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ahead of Gingrich by 20 percentage points just a little more than a week before the balloting. On Saturday, Gingrich creamed Romney by more than 12 points. It might have been the most dramatic and quick turnaround in modern American political history.

:QUOTE.

In this very same article, Byrne tries to credit Gingrich’s tongue-lashing of debate moderator John King of CNN during the Jan. 19 GOP debate. After giving a brief background, King asked:

“As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News…in it she says that you came to her in 1999 at a time when you were having an affair. She says, you asked her, sir, to enter into an open-marriage. Would you like to take some time to respond to that?”

Gingrich lost no time in blasting the media for focusing on this story. Personally, I found this bit from the ex-Speaker of the House to be most interesting:

“The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story is false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested.”

How could “every personal friend” know whether that story is false; that Gingrich had (allegedly) asked his wife for an open-marriage arrangement? I doubt any of these friends were in the room when this topic came up, so how could they possibly know? Frankly, I would like either Gingrich or ABC to cough up that list of names and let these “personal friends” speak for themselves.

I urge you to look up the YouTube clips of this exchange between King and Gingrich, which is brief but speaks volumes.

Back to my Thesis

Why is it so hard to believe that Democrats put Gingrich over the top in South Carolina? This primary saw a record turnout for the GOP, which raises an immediate red flag: Where did all those extra voters come from? Back in 2008, 431,000 votes were cast in SC’s GOP primary; this year, 600,000 were cast. That’s a 40% increase. So, again, where did all those extra GOP voters come from – if not from the ranks of the Democrats?

Looking at the 2008 figures, it turns out that Democrats who voted in their SC primary outnumbered Republicans who voted in theirs – by 20%. So, given the fact that Obama is running unopposed this time, a lot of Democratic voters, with nothing better to do, might have figured, “Let’s help our party by voting in the GOP contest for the easiest candidate [hands down, that would be Newt Gingrich] for Obama to beat in November.” It could have gone down like that, though I suspect Dem Party officials had a hand in motivating their flock.

Conclusion

I have promoted such acts of sabotage against the party primaries for over four years – starting when I was a candidate for President in the 2008 election. I still think it’s a powerful weapon of destabilization, which can pave the way for the election of independents.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Spread the word about this tactic; nothing happens by itself – you’ve got to make it happen” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mitt Romney and the Three Jesuses

There is the Jesus who Mitt Romney believes in. And there is the Jesus who American Evangelicals believe in. They will both readily admit that there are differences in these two versions of Jesus. But in the exchange quoted below, Romney didn’t mention anything about these differences, nor did his questioner appear to either know or care:

QUOTE:

“Gov. Romney, I’m for you,” his second questioner, Betty Treen of Hilton Head, told him, “But I need to ask you a personal question. Do you believe in the divine saving grace of Jesus Christ?”
"Yes I do,” Romney replied…“I happen to believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and my savior…”

:UNQUOTE: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/14/news/la-pn-romney-talks-religion-in-south-carolina-20120114

Let’s imagine an encounter in the Afterlife between Betty Treen, Mitt Romney, and their two Jesuses. [Don’t worry, I’ll get to that third Jesus fairly soon.]

Betty and Mitt are (presumably) in Heaven when two Jesuses appear before them, each claiming to be The Jesus. One embraces Mitt and acknowledges Himself as the Jesus described by the Mormons. The other, as the Jesus as described by the Evangelicals. They look exactly alike, but it’s their pedigree and nature-of-divinity which is in question.

Mitt and Betty each ask their respective Jesus, “Have I been saved?” To which, they get a Yes. Then, on a hunch, they turn to the other Jesus and ask the same question, “Have I been saved?” To which, each gets a No.

Then I walk up to this group with a third Jesus who looks exactly like the other Two. We had been talking before approaching the others, but I won’t get into details about that. I start speaking to the Third Jesus, as Mitt, Betty, and the Other Two listen.

Me – “I can’t tell You that I believe in You, but I can say I have some awareness of You.”

Him – “Tell me about this awareness.”

Me – “I know only that You are one god among untold trillions who has engaged in Buddhist practice for untold trillions of years to become a fully-enlightened Buddha.”

Him – “Tell me what you don’t know.”

Me – “I don’t know how much progress You’ve made or how much farther You’ve yet to go.”

Him – “Do you want to ask Me if you’ve been saved?”

Me – “No, I don’t, for I already know the answer to that: My salvation – like Yours (that is, our attempts to become Buddhas) – is a work in progress.”

Him – “So you don’t want to ask Me if I can save you?”

Me – “No, for I know You can’t – not by Yourself. I want to ask if You think I have done enough in my small capacity as a mortal to save others.”

Him – “That’s funny, for I was about to ask you the same question of My efforts.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Moral

It takes a long time to get it right – far longer than can be done within the space of one lifetime. And our current place in this drama can best be explained by considering lifespan. Here on this Earth, it’s rare for a person to live longer than 100 years. But that relative lack of longevity is a function of our sins. For it is commonly held, among Buddhists at any rate, that the human lifespan has easily exceeded one million years in bygone eons.

So, in spite of the advance of our technology, we are still too petty, mean, self-absorbed, and lacking in compassion. Translated karmically, that means we’ve earned the short lifespans which we, ironically, think of as long – compared to the historical lifespans of which we’re aware. But our shiny gadgets blind us into believing we’re superior to our ancestors. That’s only because we’ve forgotten our ancestors who lived trillions of years ago.

But forgetting is something that has come too naturally to us. There is more and there are ways to remember. One of the ways is to follow the Buddha’s last advice to us: “Don’t follow persons, follow the Law.” He further explained that that Law was to be found in a text called the Lotus Sutra, which he urged future generations to read, recite, ponder, and practice. After having read the Lotus Sutra (aloud, on a daily basis) well over 120 times (all 324-pages of it), I think I’ve solved a mystery. This mystery:

QUOTE:

“…what the Buddha has achieved is the rarest and most difficult-to-understand Law. The true entity of all phenomena can only be understood and shared between Buddhas.”

:UNQUOTE: (source: The Burton Watson translation)

My question is a fairly obvious one: How can we Seekers of the Way be expected to understand the Buddhist Law, even when expounded directly to us by a Buddha, for that Law “can only be understood and shared between Buddhas?” And yet, the Buddha preaches this Law so that we (who aren’t yet Buddhas) can attain Enlightenment which, by definition, means that we understand this Law.

Then it occurred it me, this…some kind of answer, which I won’t claim to be the final answer but will hope is a work in progress:

The only reason the Buddha preaches to us is that he knows: within each of us a Buddha is already living. This is known as our “Buddha nature.” That’s the one to whom the Buddha is talking when he preaches to us. But since we’re such fragmented and (usually) unfocused people, we don’t connect easily or often to that inner Buddha.

All this takes patience and practice, for which the Lotus Sutra is a necessary guide. It also helps to know that Shakyamuni Buddha is still alive, never having passed away in India over 2,000 years ago as is commonly believed. The Lotus Sutra makes clear why that is so.

But why is that important? Didn’t the Buddha say, “Don’t follow persons, follow the Law?” If he’s so important to our attainment of Buddhahood, are we to assume he’s the Law itself and not a person? Again, the Lotus Sutra makes that clear. Shakyamuni Buddha stopped being a “person,” in the ordinary sense of the word, trillions of years ago. And there’s more than one Shakyamuni Buddha since the Lotus teaches how all Buddhas are capable of creating emanations of themselves (or clones, to use a modern though crude word). Since there’s more than one Shakyamuni Buddha and, for that matter, there are trillions of other Buddhas, we wouldn’t be “following persons” – that is, not in the sense of identifying any one in particular as necessary for our salvation (read: for our attainment of Buddhahood).

Disclaimer: All of this is just my opinion; I wouldn’t pretend otherwise. And even if I would, what difference would it make for, who am I?

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“The only thing that needs saving is ourselves, from ourselves, for our non-selves, which can best be done by trying to save others. And that can be best done incognito” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mitt Romney? Wine not.

No, there isn’t a typo in the title to this post. I didn’t mean to type, “Mitt Romney? Why not?”

Actually, some might suggest there are two typos: wine instead of why, and a period instead of a question mark. No…the title is an accurate reflection of my intention and therefore contains no typos.

I meant the title to be understood this way:

“Mitt Romney for President? Why not? Because he believes in ‘wine not’ – that is ‘no wine for me.’”

May, 1968, France

Mitt Romney served as a Mormon missionary in France for 30 months. The fateful month of May in 1968 was toward the end of that stay. My readings of Romney’s time in France brought to mind two questions:

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months without drinking a glass of wine with a Frenchman?

·       How could anyone live in France for 30 months, which culminated in the infamous May 1968 general strike, without being at least somewhat impressed with the anti-authoritarian mood of the protestors?

The French are passionate about their politics, their philosophy, and their wine. And yet, young Mitt Romney managed to spend 30 months there without being influenced by any of those three. As for the first two, there is really no excuse except to say that Romney’s worldview was so hardened into inflexibility, he couldn’t have been moved. And yet he wondered at the time why he had managed to win so few converts to his church. As for the third, the wine – there’s nothing in the Ten Commandments barring alcoholic consumption. In fact, wasn’t Noah (of Noah’s Ark fame) a vintner and wine drinker himself? And yet, Noah found favor with the Lord.

I doubt Mitt Romney had ever gone through an adolescent rebellion stage. That might explain a lot in terms of an oft-repeated accusation: That he’s out of touch with the average man.

On the science of practical conversion

I can see why Romney had problems converting the French to Mormonism. That is, I can see how his personal rigidity got in the way. Nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a one-way conversation. And that’s probably how many of Mitt’s potential converts among the French felt – that he was talking at them instead of to them.

In fact, I have to wonder if Romney had ever made any serious attempt to question his own faith. Did he ever talk to himself? If he did, then he’d have to have realized how strange the Mormon sales pitch would sound to an outsider:

·       “Well, you see, there was this guy named Joseph Smith who claimed an angel told him where a book of golden plates was buried; a book which he translated into English and claimed to be the most perfect book of scripture.”

·       “Well, you see, Mormons originally practiced polygamy which some would see as counter-productive to a fledgling group of religious separatists. I mean, it’s kind of hard to understand how allowing a few men to have many wives (which would mean, many men having no wives at all) would serve to grow our population. Some would see it that way, but I don’t because permission to polygamize was granted as a revelation from God. Just like a mandate to abandon that practice was yet another revelation from that same God.”

The science of practical conversion embraces:

·       A requirement that a believer question his own faith – not necessarily doubt, but question;

·       Enough courage to declare that the closely-held beliefs of your family, friends, and community are fraudulent (should one come to that conclusion); and yet not abandon nor treat them meanly;

·       An ability to interact with others, to the extent of being able to understand their own views;

·       An assessment of “how my religion feels about your religion” – beyond just saying, “Non-believers are going to Hell;”

·       A knack for breaking down complex doctrines into simple, easy-to-understand parts.

That last point brings me to this quote:

QUOTE: Plus, Romney was obsessed with numbers. “My favorite thing to do is to bathe in data,” he says now, “do analysis, reach conclusions, and then find a breakthrough. There is nothing as exciting as that ‘aha!’ moment—seeing something that looks insoluble and finding a way to make it work.”  :UNQUOTE: http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney/

From this, I can see how Romney failed as a proselytizer.  Religious truths don’t yield their meanings to Statistical Analysts – at least not to those SA’s who insist on only applying the methods of statistical analysis. Some other quality is needed, which Romney seems to lack. It’s that same something that prevented him from seeing how badly people would react to his refusal to make his income tax returns public. It’s that same something that fellow Mormon and GOP rival Jon Huntsman referred to when he said Romney was out-of-touch and unelectable.

As for the science of practical political conversion, Mitt Willard Romney has his work cut out for him. Will he bathe himself in data, trying to figure out why his numbers tanked in South Carolina? Will he himself refrain from attacking Newt Gingrich, knowing that his Super Pacs will do this for him – and quite well, I might add?

Will he, like Herman Cain, start telling people God told him to run for the presidency? In fact, a fair question from a reporter to candidate Romney would be: “Have you ever received any revelations from God? And if so, did He tell you to run for the presidency?”  God gives revelations to the president of the Mormon Church and to lesser personages as well. Surely God would have spoken to Mitt Romney on such an important topic.

Side Note: Let’s assume that God had spoken to Romney on at least this one important topic. A proper response would be: “What or if anything had been spoken by our Lord to me is something I wish to remain only between the two of us.”

Closing thoughts

·       I’m surprised, given Mitt Romney’s lifelong dedication to his church and his twelve years of leadership service as a bishop and “stake” president, that he doesn’t wax more poetically about it.  Instead, he has said precious little of that experience or his precepts.

·       I hope Romney doesn’t stonewall by refusing to discuss religion. That would only confirm how secretive and cultish Mormons are. There are ways to charmingly convey one’s love of faith without coming across as close-mindedly triumphal.

·       Even though some might deride Romney as a numbers cruncher in the mold of Robert McNamara, it’s not too late to change. I believe that if a man has an abundance of talent or has developed himself in one way, that can leave him woefully underdeveloped in others. Romney could explore those other areas. As I said, it’s not too late, and this campaign could well turn out to be what decisively motivates him.

·       Stop being so defensive about RomneyCare. He should claim what was good about that initiative, especially compassion for those less fortunate. But he could also admit how some could see this, in its ObamaCare incarnation, as excessively intrusive of Big Government. But…he should hasten to add that even Big Government has its place – for instance, in the realm of its regulatory function. He could (and should) urge that the health care industry be brought under the scope of the anti-trust laws on our books, which affect all other big businesses.

·       Stop being so defensive about how he earned his fortune or what he pays in taxes – neither of which are in violation of the law. Same goes for that part of his fortune which he keeps in the Cayman Islands.

Concerning that last point, Romney could turn the tables: “If my 15% tax rate bothers people, I personally wouldn’t have any problem paying more – if that’s the kind of change in tax law people want to see. I wouldn’t mind paying more in taxes, since I have successfully lived the American Dream and have exceeded my wildest expectations. But I hope that serious tax reform in this country is based on more than how much I’ve got or what my tax rate is. And I hope no one decides to confiscate the wealth I’ve already earned and paid taxes on – that sword cuts many ways.”

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Mitt Romney, just like the rest of us to one degree or another, is both a victim and beneficiary of the system we live in. I’ll say this much, though: He seems a lot better behaved than Newt Gingrich and more honest than Barack Obama” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Mitt Romney: The Bain/Bane of our Existence

Team Obama will exploit Willard Romney in these three areas:

·       His 14 years as CEO of Bain Capital;

·       His relationship, as a Mormon, to Bain Capital;

·       His Mormon faith itself.

If done adroitly, these three will prove to be the bane of Romney’s existence. If done ham-handedly, Obama could lose which would make Romney the bane of our existence.

Romney’s “Mormon Connection” and Bain Capital

Willard Romney is, today, a very wealthy man – with a net worth estimated between $190 to $250 million. And much of that was due to his work at Bain Capital, which is referred to by his detractors as a vulture capital group. Of course, the correct term is venture capital and I think those detractors miss the point with that cheap pun.

So, what is the point? This quote, I believe, leads us there:

QUOTE: During the 14 years Romney headed Bain Capital, the firm’s average annual internal rate of return on realized investments was a staggering 113 percent. At that growth rate, a hypothetical $1,000 investment would grow to $39.6 million before fees. Few, if any, VC firms have ever matched Bain Capital’s performance under Mitt Romney. :UNQUOTE: http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney/

That’s very impressive, to say the least. And all of this without a whiff of scandal. No one ever accused Willard Romney of breaking the law, bending the rules, or operating a business inappropriately. While it’s true some people are offended that jobs were lost due to the machinations of Bain, it must be remembered: Job creation wasn’t in Romney’s job description. Willard Romney did his job and he, at least to all appearances, did it quite well.

But…how much of that job did he actually do? My question brings up the possible benefit of what I call the Mormon Connection. It’s well known that businessmen often profit due to personal connections. This can sometimes cause problems if that leads to the illegal use of insider information. But that only causes problems if (a) one is caught or (b) the information obtained is legally classified as of the insider variety. In any event, if the information is from a network of one’s co-religionists, exposure becomes less of a problem.

At this point, I direct your attention to a Time Magazine cover story, which appeared in its August 4, 1997 issue. Here’s a photo of the actual cover, which is impressive enough in itself: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19970804,00.html .

This text appears on that cover:

Mormons, Inc.

The secrets of America’s most prosperous religion

Time Magazine featured a lengthy article focusing on the Mormons’ obsession with material wealth. And that was 15 years ago. It’s a fair bet that Time or some other magazine will be updating that article well before Election Day 2012. Here’s the link to the original article: http://www.lds-mormon.com/time.shtml .

Willard Romney and Robert McNamara

This quote probably says more about Willard Romney, and how he’d behave as our next president, than any other single source:

QUOTE: Plus, Romney was obsessed with numbers. “My favorite thing to do is to bathe in data,” he says now, “do analysis, reach conclusions, and then find a breakthrough. There is nothing as exciting as that ‘aha!’ moment—seeing something that looks insoluble and finding a way to make it work.”  :UNQUOTE: http://www.american.com/archive/2006/december/mitt-romney/

As soon as I read that, I thought about another numbers guy who was quite prominent in our history: Robert McNamara, who was featured in a brilliant documentary film called The Fog of War [film trailer at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgA98V1Ubk8 ].

Unfortunately, Mac couldn’t look past the numbers. So much so, his detractors wondered if he even had a soul. That was past, but Romney is present. And we need to know if he has a soul as well. Like Robert McNamara, Willard Romney isn’t afraid of hard work and has a keen, analytical mind. Unfortunately, the solutions we need as a nation can’t be solved by people who “bathe in data.”

And that’s what worries me most about Willard Romney, who may very well have two warring facets to his personality: Willard the Analytical Businessman vs. Willard the Man of Faith.  And, yes, it does bother me that he doesn’t defend his faith – not even on his website (scarcely a mention). There was a time in his life when he spent 30 months in France as a Mormon missionary. And he’s held positions of authority in his church. But we have no idea how his faith informs his life.

Or even if it informs his life. I would hate to find out the hard way (say, after he’s elected) that he is capable of compartmentalizing his faith; that he has a soul but doesn’t let it get in the way. I would also hate to find out the hard way that he is nothing more than a Mormon tribalist. That is, one who identifies with the interests of his tribe, while not really caring one whit about its theology except in very general terms.

Of course, a lot of voters wouldn’t care if Romney has a soul if he could answer “yes” to this question: What Romney did for Bain, could he (as POTUS) do for the entire US? That’s a theme which Team Obama should focus on, for the answer to that question must be a resounding “No!” The clientele served by Bain is not the same as the constituency served by the President. While helping one group obtain greater market share at the expense of its competitors is acceptable in the business world, it is totally inappropriate in the political world. There’s simply no comparison.

My one(?) question

One question I would ask Willard Romney: “Do you consider yourself a saint?”

That, of course, is a loaded question since Mormons are officially called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” So there’s really only one answer he could give, if he chose to answer the question at all. However, I wouldn’t allow him the time to answer, since I’d follow up with another question in the same breath: “If you consider you and yours to be saints, how will you, as President, treat the rest of us?”

No small question, that.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Romney doesn’t see himself as a visionary reformer; he sees himself as a tinkerer who’s used to operating under the well-defined, current set of rules. ‘Tinkering,’ I’m afraid, won’t be enough” – Steve.

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com