Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, March 8, 2012 3:31 pm

I support Romney. And I’ve tired of the ridiculous questions about his religion. Most I’ve read have betrayed more about the questioner than they ever will about Romney or his Mormonism. That said, there are legitimate questions. Sarah Posner, Senior Editor at Religion Dispatches, has an article at Salon.com where she asks some of them. What about Blacks and the Mormon priesthood? What about Mormonism and feminism, particularly in the 70s and 80s? And so on. Sarah’s tone is generally fair, as are the questions she asks. I’m interested in how Romney would answer them. Judging by what I’ve already heard about how he felt about the priesthood ban and by what I’ve read in stories like Peggy Stack’s 2008 article for the Salt Lake Tribune, I think he’d do just fine.

That said, the questions do present a problem that Posner fails to acknowledge. Responding to even these appropriate questions involves going deeper into Mormon belief than even the most interested journalist may be willing to go. And that might result in a poor, even unfair story being written by a reporter who tuned out as soon as she heard the bit she wanted to hear. To me, that’s one reason Romney may be reluctant to talk about his religion. Like me, he surely holds his beliefs sacred. Like me, he probably would rather that people understood how the Book of Mormon impacts how he deals with some of these difficult issues. Allow me to give an example of what I’m talking about.

I grew up in the 60s and served my mission in the Brazil North Mission from June 1971 to June 1973, before the 1978 so-called Revelation on the Priesthood. I supported the practice of not extending the priesthood to Blacks. Now, stop there, and I’m a racist. But that’s not even close to the truth. The truth is, I wasn’t a member of the Church because of the ban; I was a member in spite of it. And even that statement just scratches the surface of the story of me and the priesthood ban.

So imagine you’re a reporter, and you want me to go beneath that surface. Do you have the time and interest to hear me explain what I mean by what I just said? Are you ready for me to go into what the Book of Mormon means in my belief system and how it affects so much of what I do? Are you willing to listen to, then write fairly about, what the idea of living prophets means to me and why that belief would affect how I dealt with the priesthood ban? How receptive will you be to the evidence I would muster to demonstrate to you that I have always–always–treated people of color with love, that I have never condescended to them, that I’ve tried to treat everybody everywhere as equals, and so on?

If I were Romney and I could be sure that I’d get a fair hearing and that the writer would report my responses fairly, honestly, and without any mind reading, I’d jump at the chance to talk about the priesthood ban and any other Mormon questions they might have. But like Romney, I have doubts that would happen, and so I hold back. My sacred and deeply held beliefs don’t fit on bumper stickers. They aren’t made–aren’t appropriate–for 15 second sound bites. They just aren’t. Unfortunately, the political public seems to thrive on a diet of gossamer statements truncated to fit on the rear fender. And there’s the conundrum.

Comments (3)

By Gregory Taggart, March 7, 2012 9:28 am

Warning: strong language ahead. I will not defend Rush Limbaugh’s wholly inappropriate word choices in his description of the Georgetown law student. They were wrong, offensive, and wrong-headed. But he has apologized. (Only the mind readers among us know that his apology was insincere.) What I am interested in, however, is where were all the Facebook posts, where was all the outrage, where were all the boycotts when the twits in the following story said what they said? I repeat: strong language ahead. Read at your own risk.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 23, 2012 9:58 am

Senator Marco Rubio was once a Mormon.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 22, 2012 11:02 am

So there the Internet’s in a tizzy over an apparent scheme by someone on the globe’s a’warmin’ side of the climate debate to discredit the “denier” side. I use the word “denier” purposefully and in quotes because that’s the word of choice the other side uses routinely to, I can only assume, stifle debate about the climate science behind global warming. I mean, can you think of another reason to use that pejorative?

In any case, the argument is that if you accept the argument that global warming is happening and that man plays a big part in that warming, you’re rational and accept science and all it has to offer. If you don’t, you’re a “denier” and anti-science. You probably–indeed likely–don’t accept evolution and probably–almost certainly–will vote for Santorum this fall.

If that all makes sense to you and if you accept my premise that the pejorative “denier” is intended to stifle debate, you’ll have trouble like I did making sense of the following by a guy named Peter Gleick, “head of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security in Oakland, California and apparently until very recently, the chair of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics,” according to Megan Mcardle who writes today in The Atlantic about the aforementioned scheme. Quoting Mr. Gleick now (bolded emphasis mine):

I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

Now I’m not a climate scientist, but from my observations, I’d say that the “deniers” would love to have a debate, would love to argue their side in peer reviewed journals, would love to share the stage with global warming alarmist Al Gore. Maybe Mr. Gleick can make that happen–after he comes clean from his misguided efforts to “attack [‘deniers’] and scientists [who don’t accept the so-called global warming consensus] and prevent this debate.” Maybe. Not holding my breath, though that might help stave off global warming–if there is global warming.

Finally, and on a related note, the following quote from Mcardle’s pen should be carved in stone for all to read and re-read (people in the press, you guys and gals in Congress, Mr. President and all the candidates who are running to take their seats, I’m thinking of you):

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

Folks, that last quote accounts for the economic mess we are in right now. Because the people I’ve just named have lost our trust, many of the tools we need to solve/fix this mess are off the table–until trust is restored–and that’s another blog post.

UPDATE: Judith Curry of Georgia Tech adds her two cents.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 21, 2012 7:19 pm

Pat Buchanan is no more–at MSNBC–and Stanley Fish misses him. The left-leaning network dismissed the right-leaning commentator because, apparently, network president Phil Griffin “declared himself uncomfortable” having a man of Buchanan’s views in the mix. That’s too bad, Fish says. Buchanan offered a perspective on politics tempered by a been-there-done-that ability to put political events in their historical context.

Like Griffin, I sometimes felt uncomfortable with some of the views Buchanan expressed. Unlike Griffin, I would never have dismissed him from my network, if I owned a network. I could never put my finger on the reason why until Fish helped me.

My own disappointment at Buchanan’s departure goes in another direction — in fact in two. First, Buchanan is an extraordinarily acute observer of the political scene. His knowledge of past campaigns — including knowledge of what went on behind the scenes — is encyclopedic. No one is more skilled at contextualizing a present moment in our political drama so that viewers can understand the history informing a decision or action that appears on its surface to be inexplicable, even zany. When Buchanan offers that kind of analysis, his pugnacious junkyard-dog persona falls away and is replaced by a precision that is almost professorial. It is a pleasure to watch, just as it is a pleasure to watch some coaches-turned-analyst who can explain what is going on in an athletic contest because they have been there.

Buchanan has also been there. That is the second thing I will miss: the contributions of someone who is not only reporting on history in the making, but has been part of that history himself.

In today’s world of blow-dried, blond, and busty commentators, a world of college drop-out cum talking heads, I’ll miss Buchanan because his opinions are informed by more than his agenda, his appearance on TV a consequence of his knowledge rather than his looks.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 3, 2012 12:45 pm

I hate this time of the month. The jobs figures come out and good or bad, you know immediately what the Democrats are going to say and how the Republicans will respond. But ZeroHedge has the most interesting take–so far. Not sure what to think of it, given my lack of experience and knowledge in the area of employment statistics. But according to ZeroHedge,

it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month! (emphasis in the original)

What to think?

Update: Barry Ritholtz says ZeroHedge doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, February 1, 2012 8:57 am

The Apostle Paul could have been thinking about the Republican chattering class as he scribbled his letter to the Ephesians:

That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive. (Eph. 4:14)

Substitute “another Romney misstep” for “doctrine,” and you get my meaning. Fortunately, cooler heads occasionally talk as well. And on a long, hard slog–and the campaign for the presidency is certainly that–cooler heads almost always prevail.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 28, 2012 12:41 pm

Byron York has reported on it; now the Wall Street Journal is doing the same. I’m Mormon and a Mitt Romney supporter. I don’t see myself ever supporting Newt Gingrich, a man with more baggage than the lost and found at O’Hare, but Mitt (or Mitt’s superPAC) is wrong on the House Ethics charge and should stop campaigning on it.

That said, I’m willing to give Romney (and/or his superPAC) the benefit of a doubt for going with it initially. As I understand from York’s piece, the waters on this episode in the Speaker’s life were muddied considerably by the partisans who pushed it and by their enablers in the press. However, the truth about the charges should now be obvious to the Romney camp. So they should stop playing the Ethics card–now.

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 28, 2012 11:28 am

Somebody stole your idea:

And beat it about the face and head:

Comments (0)

By Gregory Taggart, January 26, 2012 8:38 pm

Romney had to stare down Gingrich in the last Florida debate, and he did a wonderful job of it. Very strong debate for him tonight. Santorum was even stronger, but unfortunately for him, he’s too far behind in Florida for it to matter (or is he? Remember Iowa). The three most recent polls (Thursday, January 26) out of Florida give Romney a lead over Gingrich of an average +7.67 points. His lead over Santorum averages out at +29. Doubtful he can make that ground up.