Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 12, 2011 12:48 pm

Last August, Stephen Prothero, a religion professor at Boston University and a blogger on CNN, wrote two different posts about the Mormon reaction to a Muslim group’s efforts to build a mosque at Ground Zero. The first lamented the fact that some prominent Mormons–Mitt Romney and Harry Reid–had both spoken against the mosque. So had Glenn Beck. Prothero was particularly disturbed that Romney had done so (through a spokesperson) because he had been so impressed by Romney’s religion speech during the most recent presidential campaign and because of Romney’s experience with the opposition to the Boston Temple. (Prothero, by the way, seems to have a good grasp on Latter-day Saint history.) He writes,

As I wrote in my 2007 piece on this speech, for Romney, the moral of this history lesson was clear:

Americans today should rise above religious bigotry, not least by evaluating presidential candidates on the basis of their credentials instead of their religious tradition. After all, Romney said, “Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.”

These were the words that came to me when Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and other Republican leaders started to double down on the anti-Islamic rhetoric.

I thought that Romney, as a Mormon, might speak out passionately for the First Amendment. I thought he might remember how the founder of his religion, Joseph Smith Jr., was murdered by an anti-Mormon mob. I thought he might recall how the U.S. government brought down much of its coercive power against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the last decades of the nineteenth century.

Apparently not. According to a statement released on August 10 by his spokesperson Eric Fehrnstrom, “Governor Romney opposes the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero. The wishes of the families of the deceased and the potential for extremists to use the mosque for global recruiting and propaganda compel rejection of this site.”

The second discussed Senator Hatch’s position, which was captured by Salt Lake City’s Fox News 13:

Prothero’s reaction to Romney’s and Hatch’s statements prompted me to think about what my stance on the proposed mosque was back then. I realized that I disagreed with Romney. My stance was then and is now similar to Hatch’s: it would be a nice gesture if the mosque’s proponents chose to build elsewhere out of respect for what happened on 9/11; however, I recognize and support their 1st Amendment rights to build where they are planning to build.

I have a long memory, a memory that extends back to the persecution of my Church in the 19th and early 20th centuries, a memory of recent times when people in Boston, Billings, Denver, and places north and south, east and west, opposed the building of a Mormon temple–always for allegedly non-religious reasons. That opposition was a predictable as the rising sun was an irony that always escaped the protestors.

I suspect that religious bigotry imbues most of the opposition to the mosque as well. I don’t think Romney is bigoted. I do think he is in a rush to the Right, however, in his pursuit of the presidency. I have defended him in the past from the flip criticism that he flip flops a lot. I’ll take a flip from anybody if it demonstrates that they’ve learned something. However, too much pandering is not a good thing. I’ll be watching him closely, as I will Hatch, now that he’s pursuing the Tea Party vote.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 10, 2011 8:58 am

Is the time ripe for a Mormon to be President, or will religion get in Mitt Romney’s or Jon Huntsman Jr.’s way? Sally Quinn asks the question in On Belief, her religious bailiwick at The Washington Post. Eight panelists, including the likes of Barry Lynn who writes,

There really is only one question that needs to be answered: can you faithfully execute the laws of the United States or is there some religious view you hold that you believe transcends that duty?

Which begs the question: Would he, or anyone else, accept the answer, “Yes, I can,” and move on? Or would that question actually be an open door through which the inquisitor would parade his even deeper-held beliefs that “there ain’t no way a Mormon President won’t do the bidding of his (or her) hierarchical superiors in Salt Lake!”

I’ll be back for further comment on this subject.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 7, 2011 12:00 pm

Adam Liptak struggles to find a distinction between corporations in general and the so-called institutional media (which are usually corporations) in particular, in his piece on Citizens United and campaign finance reform. Of course, the is no distinction, or there shouldn’t be.

But that’s beside the point, the point at which the government lost the case. Liptak hints at it in his story when he writes,

Consider this telling exchange between Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. and a lawyer for the Obama administration at the first of two arguments in Citizens United. The lawyer, Malcolm L. Stewart, said Congress had the power to regulate corporate speech about political candidates under the First Amendment.

“Most publishers are corporations,” Justice Alito said. “And a publisher that is a corporation could be prohibited from selling a book?”

It was a hypothetical question, but it cut to the core of the meaning of the press clause of the First Amendment. There was a lot of back and forth, and other justices jumped in. In the end, though, Mr. Stewart gave a candid answer.

“We could prohibit the publication of the book,” he said.

But Stewart was not talking about just any book with his answer. No, he was responding to a very specific question about a very specific kind of book.

I was out for a run and listening on my MP3 player to the exchange between Stewart and various Justices on this point (courtesy of the Oyez Project), and I remember saying to myself, “he [Stewart] just lost this case.” And this is where he lost it:

Justice Roberts: If it’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, and so vote for X, the government could ban that?

Mr. Stewart: Well, if it says vote for X, it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by pre-existing Federal Election Campaign act provisions . . . we could prohibit the publication of the book using corporate treasury funds.

So, did you get that? One request that you vote for candidate X, at the end of a very long book, and zippo facto manulo, the government could ban that 500-page book published by a corporation under pre-Citizens United law, at least according to the government in the first oral argument. No wonder the Court ruled the way it did. No wonder, at least to me.

Liptak is right, however. The government backed away from that argument in reargument. Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the case this time around, and she went nowhere near Stewart’s bold claim. But the damage was done, and in my view, the case had already been lost because, fortunately, five Justices couldn’t see their way clear to ban a 500-page book because of one pitch at the very end, a simple plea to “vote for X.”

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, October 30, 2010 1:54 pm

According to Reason TV, this campaign season is absolutely sugar and spice compared to some we’ve had in the past.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, March 29, 2010 5:36 pm

You all know the story. A shepherd boy gets bored with his duties and craves something more exciting than watching a herd of sheep graze, so he cries “Wolf!” and the townspeople come running. That ruse worked so well that he tries it again and again and again, each time bringing the townspeople to his rescue.

Then one day a real wolf actually shows up, but when the shepherd boy cries “Wolf!” the townspeople don’t respond. Been there, done that, not doing it again, they say.

Do you think those on the left side of the isle have heard that story? I don’t.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 28, 2010 1:55 am

Decorum indeed! “You lie!”

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 16, 2010 3:12 pm

How do these guys manage to run a campaign, let alone the country, with their foot always planted firmly in their mouths? First, second, third, and fourth (etc.) it was Coakley, now it’s Van Hollen’s turn. Hollen, chairman of he Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, had this to say about how the Republicans shouldn’t be handed the keys to the Cadillac, er, I mean, the House, just after he said that it was “pure hallucination” to think that Scott Brown might beat Martha Coakley in the contest to see who will succeed Teddy Kennedy as the new senator from Massachusettes:

“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” Van Hollen said. “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner.”

Okay, so Chappaquiddick isn’t a ditch.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 16, 2010 2:29 pm

Last night my wife and I were watching the talking heads–can’t remember who–and someone quoted someone else about how we need to raise taxes to pay for the war in Afghanistan, and my wife says, and I quote (loosely):

I am so sick of this! How dare they! Why should they raise taxes on us to pay for the one thing that our Constitution very clearly says our government is supposed to do? The tax revenue they already have should pay for the common defense first. So cut other programs if you have to, but don’t tell me you have to raise my already-high taxes to do the one thing the Constitution says our government is supposed to do.

Hard to argue with that, especially if the person saying it is a babe–my wife.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, November 8, 2008 5:51 pm

As I wrote the other day, Obama is my President. I will not call him Hitler. I will not call him stupid. I will not say he is a fascist. And I will hope and pray for him to do his best for us. That said, I will express my concerns here and again. And here is one of them.

This is a screen shot from Obama’s transition site as it appeared on November 7, 2008 at 19:05:13 GMT that I retrieved from Google cache. Note the words “When you choose to serve” at the beginning of the block quote. Now read the 5th line of the explanation below the block quote: “by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service . . .” 

What’s going on here? When have “you choose” and I “require” ever meant the same thing? Words? Just words? Words have meaning, and the moment that you “require” something, my choice goes out the window. 

This is not the first time that our President-elect has played with the English language to make a point. Near the end of the recent Presidential campaign, then candidate, now President-elect Obama chided McCain/Palin for calling him a socialist because of his Joe-the-Plumber “spread the wealth” comment. According to Jake Tapper, Obama was stumping for his tax policies the other day and let loose this little gem:

“John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this [his desire to spread the wealth] socialistic,” Obama continued. “You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness.”

Now, I’m seeing a pattern here. In this case, Obama seems to feel that we become selfless when we involuntarily pay taxes, as opposed to becoming selfless by donating or giving away our hard-earned money. In the case of service, he talks of choosing to serve because that way “you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . . for all Americans,” yet instead of allowing us to choose to do that, he’s going to require us to do it.

Apart from his obvious sleight of hand that results in his requiring that we choose or his acting as if mandatory taxes are selfless, there’s a larger point here: You can’t mandate character, so please Mr. President-elect, don’t talk as if character is one of the prizes that comes in your package of promises.

And speaking of character, I had to go to Google cache for that image above because soon after another blogger started talking about that page, someone at Obama HQ airbrushed the word “require” out of the picture. Instead, in the screen shot below, you’ll find the words “by setting a goal.”

We’ll see. As Instapundit points out, this is another pattern we’re seeing with President-elect Obama.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, October 16, 2008 2:46 pm

Joe the Plumber is famous. And so is Barack Obama’s response to Joe’s question:

Barack Obama told a tax-burdened plumber over the weekend that his economic philosophy is to “spread the wealth around” — a comment that may only draw fire from riled-up John McCain supporters who have taken to calling Obama a “socialist” at the Republican’s rallies. 

Obama made the remark, caught on camera, after fielding some tough questions from the plumber Sunday in Ohio, where the Democratic candidate canvassed neighborhoods and encouraged residents to vote early. 

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed “more and more for fulfilling the American dream.” 

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too,” Obama responded. “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” 

But let’s take a little look at the bolded part of the quote, the redistribution part. Who is the ‘you’ in Barack’s world? Your neighbor? Your best friend? Me? You? No, of course not. The ‘you’ is Uncle Sam, or better, some bureaucrat in Washington who feels that s/he knows better than you what to do with your money–which brings us to ‘the wealth.”

Whose ‘wealth’ is the good Senator referring to? Again, you know the answer: Your wealth. The wealth that you created by your own hard labor. But the way Barack says it, people instinctively think of their neighbor or that banker fellow downtown or Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, anybody but them. 

And finally, who is the “everybody” in “it’s gonna be good for everybody”? Certainly not me. Barack has taken something away from me, with no guarantee that I’m going to get anything in return for it. I don’t even get the good feelings I receive when I voluntarily give something to someone or some organization of my choice. In fact, I probably end up feeling resentful because what I “gave,” the government actually took from me. 

So, given that Barack is going to take my wealth and spread it around, allow me this one feel-good exercise. Allow me to change his quote, so it’s an honest reflection of what will happen when he gets into office:

When I my ACORN and other liberal buddies and I grab your money without your permission and  give it to our political constituency–which probably doesn’t include you–it’s good for them (maybe) and for us (certainly). And by the way, by doing this year after year, it virtually insures that we’ll be in Washington D.C. for a long time, so don’t get too attached to your paycheck.

There, I feel better.