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”

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, Anti-Christ?

Introduction:

Today I’ll open with this quote, which was the intro to one of my essays posted a few days ago on Yahoo News. A bit further down in this article, I’ll post the entire 332-word essay:

“Here’s a scary thought: Two Mormons in the White House – Romney with Huntsman as Veep. And just when you thought people could actually accept one Mormon in the White House. But two? How acceptable would that be?”

Do I believe there’s an Anti-Christ?

No, I do not. But I do believe it’s entirely possible for individual people/entities to act as if they were – or, more precisely, to fulfill that function. Real, live human beings could become possessed by evil spirits or those spirits – being shapeshifters – could walk among us having assumed human form.

For all intents and purposes, such beings could be perceived as Anti-Christs, though if more than one of them should make the scene at the same time, that would surely confuse the Christians. They might spend too much time wondering, “Which one is the Anti-Christ?” Instead, they should immediately commence fighting these devils.

Since I am a Buddhist, how could I believe in one Anti-Christ? I couldn’t – for the same reason I couldn’t believe in only one God or only one devil. Or, for that matter, only one Buddha. This becomes important when trying to determine where Romney (in particular) or the Mormon Church (in general) fits into any kind of conspiracy scheme.

The importance of identifying the source

QUOTE: Under the doctrine of continuing revelation, Latter-day Saints [aka Mormons] believe that Jesus, under the direction of Heavenly Father, leads the church by revealing his will to its president, whom adherents regard as a modern-day "prophet, seer, and revelator.":UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#cite_note-statistics2011-0

QUESTION: When the Mormons’ president receives such a revelation, how does he know it’s really from the Heavenly Father?

Of course, there are many variations of this question:

·       How did Abraham know it was God telling him to sacrifice Isaac, his son?

·       How did Mohammad know that the entity which revealed the Koran to him was really an angel of the Lord? [Which I always felt was odd, since why didn’t the Lord speak directly to Mohammad, as He did to Adam, Noah, and Jesus?]

·       How did Joseph Smith know the Book of Mormon was really divinely revealed? It could have just as easily been demonically conjured?

·       How do ordinary Mormons know how the Book of Mormon came into being, apart from the story they’ve been told?

How can people be expected to “divine” (pun intended) the source (or the truth) of revealed doctrines? This question is actually irrelevant to the believer, simply because he believes. You will not find Mitt Romney asking such questions, although in all fairness, the Mormon Church does believe God makes revelations to the ordinary among us as well as the exalted. But…I suppose Romney would assume the revelations received by the LDS president would surely be more authoritative than any he would receive. But I digress.

The question still remains: How do we know if the source is holy or demonic, which is important especially in cases where we are asked to do something? Then we’re not just talking doctrine.

The highlighted bit above becomes important in the context of my reply to Brad (on the Yahoo News board):

QUOTE:

@ Brad: I will come right out and say Romney should not be president because of his religion. A lot of people worried that JFK would take orders from the Pope. Even back that far, though, it was well known that the Pope did not command that kind of allegiance. However, I believe Romney would not turn a deaf ear if the LDS president told him (not asked him, told him) to do something because he received a revelation from God. Mormons take such revelations quite seriously. Romney is dangerous simply because he is so bland. He won’t offend anybody, so people might elect him as the lesser of two evils. If they do, that will be the end of the Republic.

:UNQUOTE.

When he receives a revelation from ____(?)

So when President Romney is ordered by the LDS president to implement a revealed instruction, it should be worth his while to ask: “Did God really make this revelation?”

There’s an old expression: He made a deal with the Devil. Of course, the Devil doesn’t always come right out and say, “I’m the Devil.” Even the Buddha spoke of devils pretending to be Buddhas. So what kind of deal was involved?

There was a time when the early Mormon Church was under attack. Even their founding prophet Joseph Smith had been assassinated. Fleeing to Utah afforded them some safety from violent neighbors until the time of the Utah War in 1857-8. LDS settlers and the US army had a confrontation. For years after that, Mormons didn’t quite fit in (not even when granted statehood), so it would be understandable for a certain siege mentality to become ingrained.

It would also be understandable to seek an ally – one whom they (or at least most of them) believed to be the Heavenly Father or his spokesman. That ally could grant protection and lead them to prosperity – a tempting prospect indeed in their desert kingdom. And yes, the Mormons have prospered. But it’s helpful to keep in mind: Unholy allies usually want something in return.

The Game Plan so far

Most Americans have heard of the LDS Church, though most haven’t had any direct contact. Oddly enough, even though Mormonism is an American invention/delusion, most Mormons are natives of other countries living abroad. Out of 14 million Mormons in the world, 6 million live in the US. It’s fairly well-known that those foreigners had been converted due to zealous missionary efforts. Currently, there are about 52,000 such missionaries.

When looking up the distribution of Mormon populations worldwide, I was struck by how many countries are involved. While it’s true enough that there aren’t many Mormons in any one particular country (as a percentage of the native population), they are spread out all over the world. This dispersal might have been part of an intended strategy to protect the faith, should the United States prove fatally hostile to this minority movement. Or it might have been intended to provide bases of operations from which to undermine local regimes.

I’m trying to figure out, though, what attraction this religion has to people from other cultures. The little bit I’ve read about Mormonism does not reveal how it could possibly appeal to anyone other than an American. In fact, even among Americans, Mormonism would have to be rated as a hard sell. But I have to confess my amazement that this faith did catch on to such an extent that over 30,000 Saints (as they call themselves) undertook a trek of over 1,000 miles to flee persecution in order to call a remote desert kingdom their home.

Obviously, some force strong enough to hold these people together was at work. That alone, however, is not enough to convince me of the truth of this matter. After all, there were dedicated German troops in WWII who willingly gave their lives, with “Heil Hitler” being their last words. My own Buddhist tradition honors the miracles of other faiths – though hastening to add, “Miracles alone do not bestow righteousness.” Even demons are capable of working miracles – and people other than Buddhists easily acknowledge that much.

The Game Plan for the future

Now I introduce my 332-word essay recently posted on Yahoo News:

QUOTE:

Here’s a scary thought: Two Mormons in the White House – Romney with Huntsman as Veep. And just when you thought people could actually accept one Mormon in the White House. But two? How acceptable would that be?

Would people start seriously thinking (that is, thinking for perhaps the first time) about the implications of Mormonism? Would they even be tempted to google “Mitt Romney Anti-Christ?” How would they process that information? Or would people instead choose to (only) see two clean-cut solid family men without a whiff of personal scandal whose success in business dwarfs Cain’s – but look nor think any farther?

Certainly neither Mitt nor the Mormons give us much obvious cause for concern. And for precisely that reason, Mitt will most likely coast toward nomination. He might be called a flip-flopper but that could be spun to (something like), “I saw how Obamacare worked out and I’ve seen the error of my ways.” [What Christian Republican could resist such a heartfelt confession?] Also, a lot of pols are flip-floppers – I think that’s in the job description.

Mitt and Jon are so squeaky-clean wholesome, people might be lulled by that. Especially when compared to Cain and Gingrich. Those [first] two might even represent an America (as imagined by the Silent Majority) that was once wholesome and pure in its frontier days – not like the grimy, urbanized mess symbolized by Obama.

Romney seems more in control and smoother than the mercurial Perry. My money is on Romney winning the GOP nod unless…the GOP base wakes up and asserts itself (loudly and clearly), “We don’t want a Christian pretender in the White House.”

As to the outcome of Romney in the White House? He’ll be boring, he’ll be bland, and he’ll stealth us more deeply into a New World Order heavily slanted in favor of an invisible elite – with the Mormon Church in full partnership.

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

“Be careful what you wish for – and who you vote for.”

:UNQUOTE.

I confess easily that I don’t know exactly what form a Mormon Conspiracy will take – or even if there is one. But several factors are worth considering while trying to draw any conclusions:

·       The Mormon Church is very wealthy and seems – as an organization – to be unduly concerned with acquiring businesses and properties.

·       LDS is very secretive about its affairs, with some critics calling it a “nation within a nation.”

·       The Mormon community, which doesn’t boast much in the way of lifestyle options, seems too interested in asserting religious authority from the top.

·       What force convinced the early Mormons to embrace polygamy? And what direction did that force take when the LDS rejected that doctrine?

·       While there are many sects within Christianity and Buddhism, and at least three within Judaism, the LDS is very monolithic – except for a fringe that still practices polygamy.

·       No widespread effort has been made to educate Americans – pro or con – on this faith. And I hardly count those commercials from years ago with the “I am a Mormon” tag line – meant to show Mormons as “just like you and me.”

·       Why haven’t the mainstream US Protestant denominations vehemently denounced LDS? What internal forces are at work preventing an uprising to oppose Romney and the insider advantages his election will bestow upon his church – in spite of his reassuring words to the contrary. Mainstreamers will quickly admit that the Jesus they worship isn’t the same as the Jesus LDS embraces, so why are they so silent?

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

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party

“Why are so few questions being asked about the LDS as Romney, with glacial strength and sureness, moves to wrap up the GOP nomination?”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com