RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Mormon Women and Mitt Romney's Pregnancy Problem Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=21818"><span class="small">Geoffrey Dunn, Metro Active</span></a>   
Thursday, 18 October 2012 13:39

Dunn writes: "It was also during the sweltering summer of 1983 that the family of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made its celebrated escape."

Mitt Romney visits St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Berlin, New Hampshire. (photo:AP)
Mitt Romney visits St. Paul's Lutheran Church in Berlin, New Hampshire. (photo:AP)


Mormon Women and Mitt Romney's Pregnancy Problem

By Geoffrey Dunn, Metro Active

18 October 12

 

he summer of 1983 was blistering hot in New England. A record heat wave saw temperatures soar toward the 100-degree mark from June well into September. July had been the hottest month ever recorded at Boston's Logan Airport.

The region's beloved Boston Red Sox, full of hope and promise early in spring and claiming first place in the American League East as late as June 1, apparently melted in the heat, losing game after game and tumbling to last place by mid-July, where they were to remain the rest of the season.

It was also during the sweltering summer of 1983 that the family of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made its celebrated escape from the oppressive New England heat for the cooler climes of Beach O'Pines, Ontario, where the Romney family owns a beachfront cottage in a gated community on the shores of Lake Huron. Prior to departure, Mitt Romney placed the family dog-an Irish setter named Seamus-into a dog carrier and lashed it to the roof of the family's Chevy station wagon for the 12-hour drive into Canada.

The infamous dog ride (dubbed the "Seamus incident") was to become a full-blown issue in the 2012 presidential primaries, as Romney's chief Republican opponent, Rick Santorum, invoked the incident to attack Romney's "character."

Political cartoonists and late-night comedians had a field day with the story. The incident inspired a New Yorker cover, while the punk band Devo recorded a song entitled, "Don't Roof Rack Me, Bro." ABC's Diane Sawyer, in an interview with Romney during the primaries, dubbed it the "most wounding thing in the campaign so far."

A far more ominous tale in the Romney canon also took place that summer, one that has been largely swept under the rug as the former governor of Massachusetts challenges incumbent Barack Obama for the presidency. There have been no songs written about it, no cartoons, no gags on late-night television, no magazine covers.

It was in August of that year, shortly after the Romney family returned from their vacation to Lake Huron, that a pregnant woman in her late 30s-Carrel Hilton Sheldon-was informed by her doctor that she had a life-threatening blood clot lodged in her pelvic region.

In treating the clot, Sheldon was administered an overdose of the blood thinner Heparin, an overdose that not only resulted in significant internal bleeding, but also extensive damage to her kidneys, to the point where she was on the verge of needing a transplant. Her life was clearly in peril.

Sheldon's doctor advised her that the overdose of Heparin might have also harmed her 8-week-old fetus and, given the possible fatal repercussions to her, he recommended that she abort her pregnancy.

Sheldon, a mother of four at the time (a fifth child had died as an infant), was then a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), outside of Boston. The LDS leader in Massachusetts at that time, called the "stake president," was a Harvard-trained physician, Dr. Gordon Williams, and he counseled Sheldon to follow her doctor's advice to terminate the pregnancy and protect her own life, so that she could continue caring for her four living children.

"Of course, you should have the abortion," she recalled him saying.

According to an account later written anonymously by Sheldon for the LDS women's journal, Exponent II, it was after receiving this counsel from her Williams supporting the potentially life-saving procedure that she experienced an uninvited visit in her hospital from her Mormon bishop at the time, 36-year-old Mitt Romney, who adamantly opposed the abortion.

"He regaled me with stories of his sister and her retarded child and what a blessing the child had been to the family," Sheldon wrote of the incident. "He told me that 'as your bishop, my concern is with the child.'"

Mitt Bishop

Mormon congregations are called "wards" or "branches," depending on their size. There are no full-time "priests" or "ministers," as there are in most Protestant and Catholic churches, but rather lay "bishops," chosen to serve as the spiritual leaders of their wards.

Larger amalgamations of LDS churches are called "stakes," and their leaders, also lay members of the church, are called "stake presidents," something akin, according to the official LDS website, to the position of a bishop in a Catholic diocese.

By the time of his visit to Sheldon's hospital room, Romney was a rising star in Mormon circles. In the early 1970s, while completing both his MBA and his law degree at Harvard, he served in his LDS ward as a bishop's assistant, a religious instructor for teens, and as a "church elder."

In 1981, when he was only 34-years-old, he was named bishop of a ward just outside of Boston and was serving in that capacity when he confronted Sheldon about her pending abortion.

There was no empathy forthcoming from Romney, according to Sheldon, no warmth or sympathy. Moreover, Sheldon contends, Romney cast doubt on her story about the stake president's approval. He simply didn't believe her. He threatened to call him and track him down. He didn't seem to care a lick about her personal well-being.

"At a time when I would have appreciated nurturing and support from spiritual leaders and friends," Sheldon wrote, "I got judgment, criticism, prejudicial advice, and rejection."

In essence, Romney strapped Sheldon's destiny to the hood of his Chevy and put his foot on the gas pedal, both literally and figuratively. He was so agitated about the matter that he confronted Sheldon's parents about her decision as well.

According to R.B. Scott, author of the insightful Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, Romney's only concern was for the unborn fetus. Last year, Scott, who is also a Mormon, interviewed Sheldon's 90-year-old father, Phil Hilton, who remembered the incident quite vividly.

"I have never been so upset about anything in my life," he told Scott. "[Romney] is an authoritative type fellow who thinks he is in charge of the world."

Hilton was so offended by Romney's single-mindedness and absolute lack of sensitivity to his daughter's health that he ordered the young bishop out of his home. Hilton told Scott that he was fully prepared to "throw [Romney] off the porch if he paused for even a second." Romney kept moving.

Back at the hospital, a distraught Carrel Hilton Sheldon assented to her doctor's advice and terminated her life-threatening pregnancy. She recovered from her medical crisis, moved to the West Coast, and continued to raise her four children.

And because of her ward bishop, Mitt Romney, Sheldon eventually left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, never to return. "Here I-a baptized, endowed, dedicated worker, and tithe-payer in the church-lay helpless, hurt, and frightened, trying to maintain my psychological equilibrium," Sheldon wrote, "and his concern was for the eight-week possibility in my uterus-not for me!"

When he was confronted about the incident by reporters from the Boston Globe in 1994-little more than a decade afterward-Romney claimed no memory of the incident.

""I don't have any memory of what she is referring to," Romney would later declare, "although I certainly can't say it could not have been me." It became the patterned Romney response to other conflicted moments in his life (the bullying of a classmate in prep school was a similar incident). Mormon feminists came up with a term for Romney's calculated lack of memory: "Romnesia."

Disturbing Pattern

"He can seem very distant, unattached at times, almost heartless," says Judith Dushku, a lifelong Mormon and an associate professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston.

Vivacious and energetic, with sparkling blue eyes and a wide range of intellectual interests, Dushku has known Mitt Romney since the early 1970s, when they were both active in the LDS. Romney later served as her ward bishop, from 1981 to 1986, and as her stake president from 1986 until 1994, when he ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate against Edward M. Kennedy.

Dushku was a close friend of Carrel Hilton Sheldon when Sheldon went through her experience with Romney.

"We were all terribly worried about her health," she says of Sheldon's close circle of women friends. "She had had severe medical difficulties, and the idea that she would carry the child to birth was terrifying to us. We loved her. We all expected that Mitt would support the decision of his ecclesiastical superior [the stake president] and when he denounced her and essentially shouted at her that she was wrong-that she was immoral and selfish-I thought, are you kidding me? I couldn't imagine that he would do that. I couldn't imagine anyone doing that."

Dushku sees a disturbing pattern in the Romney resume, one that can be traced as far back as his two years of missionary work in France, during the late 1960s.

"I don't have a sense that Mitt went on his mission to understand people, to engage them as human beings, but rather to excel in the eyes of the church," says Dushku. "It was about fulfilling an assignment, not about compassion. And that has been his modus operandi his entire life."

Raised in a Navy family that moved around the country, and a 1964 graduate of Brigham Young University, Dushku identifies herself as a "social democrat," so she and Romney have often found themselves on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to politics. That said, she describes the two of them of being "friends" in those early years in Boston, along with being Mormon brethren, although never seemingly on the same plane.

Dushku was a single mother of three at the time and, she says, Romney never seemed to be particularly comfortable in the company of unmarried Mormon mothers.

"I mean, if you were seated at a table with him and other Mormon men," she says, "you weren't likely to be included in the conversation. [Romney] thought that any woman that wasn't married to someone who can support them, who wasn't following church tradition in that respect, was just almost too unusual to consider in any collegial way."

Perhaps no other woman in the country-a feminist Mormon who has known Romney for nearly 40 years and who practiced in the LDS Church of Massachusetts while Romney was in various positions of church leadership there-has such a unique perspective on the Republican presidential nominee and his relationship to issues affecting women as does Dushku.

But with rare exception this campaign season-the primary anomaly being an extensive interview in Religion Dispatches with Joanna Brooks, author of The Book of Mormon Girl-her voice has not been heard in the mainstream media as part of the cumulative cacophony defining Romney for the American electorate. In many ways, he's been issued a free pass on his record as a Mormon church leader, particularly in respect to his record on women and issues that impact their lives.

The journalistic vacuum is disturbing. In a lengthy profile of Romney appearing only a few weeks ago in the New Yorker, Nicholas Lemann went through a litany of Romney's "pastoral activities" in the church: rushing over to a friend's house to help after a fire; deploying a group of Bain Capital employees to find a missing teenager; "straightening out" the "wayward son" of another stake member.

Lemann goes into great detail in an account of Romney helping a young husband apply polyurethane to his living-room floor. The spin is all in one direction. There's no reference to Sheldon or Dushku or any of the other Mormon feminists who bristled under Romney's patriarchal church leadership.

"I think some Mormons are intimidated by being put in the spotlight," Dushku says. "People are afraid to speak out against him. I know I've even felt that way. But there's another Romney that people aren't seeing-the dispassionate Romney, absolutely incapable of experiencing empathy for those in need, particularly for those who see the world differently than he does."

Tough on People

As a founder and member of the editorial board of Exponent II, Dushku had helped usher Sheldon's anonymous account of her tribulations with Romney (then unnamed) into print in 1990. So when Romney was claiming to be a proponent of choice in his 1994 Senate race against Kennedy, Dushku knew better. She publicly identified Romney as the previously unidentified ward bishop in Sheldon's chronicle of the disquieting encounter over her pregnancy.

Moreover, she directly confronted Romney about his apparent flip-flop, which she clearly believed was politically motivated. According to Dushku, Romney told her that his change of position on the issue of choice had been approved in Salt Lake City. "They told me it was OK to take such a position in a liberal state," Romney said.

Dushku was appalled. She wanted to know that Romney really believed in choice, that it wasn't a political expediency. Dushku pushed the issue and asked him about women who might be on public assistance. Romney said he could never support the state providing for an abortion.

Dushku explained to him that for a lot of women, that position wouldn't work. Romney grew irritated with her. She pressed him again on the issue of Mormon women who had been excommunicated by the church for their feminists positions. Romney indicated he would not challenge any church decisions about excommunication. He got up to leave, declaring abruptly, "I don't think we have much to talk about."

In an interview with the Globe about Romney's Senate candidacy shortly before Election Day, Dushku acknowledged that while Romney could be "charismatic and inspirational," he could also be "dismissive" of those less privileged than him. She described him as a man who was "used to having his way." He could be "very pleasant," she noted, but at times of conflict, "he can be very tough on people."

As a self-described "Mormon feminist," Dushku had clearly grated Romney for a long time. Mormon women were expected to stay in their home-to be seen, not heard in the realm of public affairs-focusing on their families and children.

According to church prophets, women have "three principal attributes or qualities: namely, the power to bear; the ability to rear, [and] the gift to love." Most of the LDS leadership and the Romney family clearly adhered to those principles. When Dushku was organizing the Exponent II movement within the church, Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney, had was invited to participate but did not attend. She wasn't considered to be that "type of Mormon woman."

Dushku had her own disconcerting encounter with Romney in 1993 that, she says, "shook me up and hurt me greatly."

In spite of her lifelong commitment to feminism and her left-leaning politics, Dushku was (and remains) spiritually committed to the church and to the greater LDS community. She has had her disagreements with many of the church's teachings and many of its practices-particularly as they relate to women-but she found a spiritual comfort in the church that persists to this day.

"I'm so touched and motivated by the basic Christian teachings that I learned all of my life in the Mormon church, that that's the language that reaches me the most deeply," she acknowledged in a 2007 interview with the investigative journalist Susan Mazur, an expert on Mormon polygamy cults. "I deeply value my membership and participation in the church. It is central to my life."

A year prior to Romney's Senate campaign, Dushku sought church permission to make a pilgrimage to the ornate LDS Washington, D.C., Temple (actually located in Kensington, Maryland).

She had wanted to "receive her endowment," a sacred ritual in which Mormons pledge their allegiance to God and their faithfulness to the church. Until recently, Mormons not married to a church member were not allowed to enter an LDS temple. Dushku had never been allowed to enter a temple before-anywhere-and she wanted to "affirm her faith." Her request required approval from both her bishop and, ultimately, her stake president, Mitt Romney.

After meeting with her bishop and one of Romney's counselors (she described the interviews as "lovely" and "affirming"), she went to meet with Romney, who, she said, was confrontational and contemptuous from the start.

In an account she gave to Michael Kranish and Scott Helman for their book The Real Romney (an edited excerpt of which appeared in the February 2012 issue of Vanity Fair), Dushku claims that Romney said something to the effect that "I suspect, if you've gotten through both of the interviews, there's nothing I can do to keep you from going to the temple."

Dushku was startled that Romney would have the slightest interest in keeping her from making her sojourn. In fact, she says, he questioned her allegiance to the LDS religion.

"I just don't understand why you stay in the church," he said. She asked Romney if he really wanted to engage her in such a discussion. "No, actually," he replied. "I don't understand it, but I also don't care. I don't care why you do. But I can tell you one thing: you're not my kind of Mormon."

With that, Dushku recalls, Romney signed her papers and rather "dismissively" bid her adieu. She had come to Romney, in spite of their political differences, as an LDS spiritual leader and was hoping her enthusiasm to visit the temple would be met by Romney on an equal plane. Instead, Dushku told Kranish and Helman, that she felt like she had been "kicked in the stomach."

Adoption Pressure

There was yet another problematic incident that took place during Romney's tenure as ward bishop, in 1984, involving another Mormon woman, Peggie Hayes. This story also first came to light a decade later during Romney's run for the Senate, when it was first reported in the Boston Globe.

Then 24 and active in the LDS church where Romney served as ward bishop, Hayes was a divorced, single mother of a 3-year-old daughter, living in the Boston area after having bounced around from Salt Lake City to Los Angeles and then back to New England.

Her family had been close to the Romneys-she says that she served as a babysitter for the Romney children when she was a teenager-and she trusted Mitt Romney as a friend and mentor, even as a "father figure." When she was in high school, she recalls, Romney even offered her advice on dating.

In the winter of 1984, Hayes had recently given birth to a son, Dane, when Romney visited her home in the blue-collar neighborhood of Somerville. The Romneys had been good to Hayes, she says, hiring her to help clean their basement and then urging other friends to help her find odd jobs. She was expecting more of the same type of support during Romney's visit.

Instead she was "shocked" by what she heard. According to Hayes, Romney "pressured" her to give her son up for adoption through an LDS agency. At first, she thought she had misunderstood him, but much to her horror, she hadn't.

"[Romney] told me it was really important to give the baby up," Hayes said in her original interview with Globe reporters Frank Phillips and Scot Lehigh nearly two decades ago. "He told me he was a representative of the church and by refusing I was failing to comply with the church's wishes and I could be excommunicated."

Hayes took Romney's admonition as a threat. She felt attacked, even intimidated. Moreover, it was insulting: "He was saying that because Dane [her son] didn't have a Mormon father in the home and because of the circumstances of his birth-being born to a single mother-then the expectation of the church was that I give him up for adoption to the church agency so he could be raised by a Mormon couple in good standing."

There was an additional, racial component to the story that has never been reported. Hayes' first child, a girl, was African American on her father's side. "No one ever asked me to give her up for adoption," Hayes said. "They wanted my son because he was a white male who could grow up and be a member of the Mormon priesthood."

It wasn't until 1978 that the LDS Church finally lifted its ban on black men from serving in the Mormon priesthood. "I want to make it clear that I don't think Mitt was a racist," Hayes said in an interview this past week. "But the church was, and remains, a racist institution. And had my son been black, like my daughter, there wouldn't have been this push for adoption."

At the time, Romney issued a formal statement through his campaign organization acknowledging his adoption advice. "This was Peggie's second child," he declared. "At the time, Peggie was not working, had no visible means of support and was living on welfare. She was also a member of a family that had had severe problems in many different ways which, to protect Peggies's privacy, I will not go into in this statement." According to Phillips and Lehigh, Romney strongly denied any threats of excommunication and pointed out that while Hayes had rejected his advice, she remained in the church.

A close friend of Hayes, along with her aunt, however, backed up the story. "I told them what happened the very next day," says Hayes. "This wasn't something that came up later. There were other women in the church who were told the same thing," she says. "The sin was not about having the baby. The sin was not listening to the prophecy of the church."

Hayes acknowledges that there were "family issues" at the time of the incident, but bristles at the way that Romney referenced them in the press. "If I was so unfit to be a mother," she asks, "why was it OK for me to be around his sons, to babysit them, to work at their home?"

LDS officials in Salt Lake City also issued a formal announcement at the time, stating that Mormon policy dictates that unwed parents who are unable or unwilling to marry "should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS social services," the official church social services agency. "Placing the infant for adoption through LDS Social Services helps ensure that the baby will be reared in a faithful Latter-day Saint family."

Romney, who was trying to position himself as a "social moderate" in one of the most liberal states in the union, was clearly irritated by both the Hayes and Sheldon revelations finding their way into the media.

In their initial reporting on the incidents, Phillips and Lehigh included a revelatory caveat about Romney's response to the charges. "While some of his actions as a church leader appear to contradict the image he is projecting as a candidate," they noted, "Romney says he was only carrying out the policies set by church elders. He has repeatedly said that, if elected, his church views would not affect public issues." (Emphasis added.) Romney was trying to distance himself from the church-and from his own record as a leader in it-as early as 1994.

Hayes didn't buy Romney's explanation then, and she doesn't buy it today. "If he was so married to the church policies then," she asks, "how is he going to shut it off if he's president?"

According to Hayes, Romney called her directly in 1994 when the story was about to break and asked her if she'd be willing to talk. Her son was about 10 at the time. She says that they spoke for about "an hour and a half." Romney, she said, "never got her name right once" in the entire conversation.

Hayes, who eventually completed her master's degree at Emerson College and today serves as Coordinator of Volunteers for the Watertown Free Public Library outside of Boston, says that "I made absolutely the best decision for that kid. He is a wonderful kid, and he loves being with me. If there is a God, I think the last thing he would have wanted is for me to give my son away just on somebody else's decision."

Hayes says that she and her son, now working as an electrician in Salt Lake City (and is not a member of the LDS Church), have "an extremely close" bond. "When I'm with my son," she says, "I know who I am. He didn't belong anywhere but with me."

When he was still an infant, Hayes says, her son needed special surgery. "I called [Romney] to come to the hospital and asked him for his blessings. He was still our bishop, our spiritual leader. He didn't come to the hospital to check up on me or my son when he was sick," says Hayes. "He sent somebody else, two people I didn't even know. That's because he didn't really care. I was really reaching out, and for him not to come, well, that was really hurtful. Once I didn't adhere to his dictates and the dictates of the church, he was done with me and my son."

And Hayes was done with the church. She, too, like Carrel Hilton Sheldon a year earlier, eventually dropped out of the church. "My son was a gift to me," she says. "And there was simply no way the church was going to take him."

Always Right

These stories involving Mormon women of different age and different status in the church community-and all taking place when Romney was in a hierarchical (and, indeed, patriarchal) position of power over them-form an alarming, composite pattern of Romney's leadership career for more than a decade in the LDS Church.

"Romney just doesn't have any sensitivity to women's issues in general," says Dushku. "But even more than that, he genuinely believes he's always right, that he's never made a mistake. He can never say, 'I might have made a mistake, I didn't understand that.' In Mitt's view, no one else has anything else to offer. He's always right."

Romney-and Republicans in general-are experiencing a significant gender gap at the polls this election season, with the most recent poll conducted by the YWCA indicating that Obama is leading Romney by 49-31 percent with women voters. In respect to issues that most directly impact women, this should come as no surprise.

"Although Romney once supported Planned Parenthood and other services for women," says Linda Bergthold, Ph. D., a national health policy consultant based in California and a frequent contributor to the Huffington Post, "he is more recently on record saying he would shut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, a program that serves millions of women in every state. He has also said he would support the overturn of Roe v. Wade and, if elected, would likely appoint a Supreme Court judge who shares that position. He has no record of support for equal pay for women or paid family leave, issues of major importance to women. He belongs to a political party whose base wants to cut Medicaid, a program that serves poor women, children and elderly in nursing homes, by a third over the next 10 years."

As Republicans gathered in Tampa to coronate Romney as their nominee, several Republican speakers mocked the Obama slogan of "Forward," calling instead, as noted by Rebecca Traister, Salon columnist and author of Big Girls Don't Cry, for a "moment back in time" when "only a select few-the white, the male, the straight, the Protestant-could reasonably expect to exert political or financial or social or sexual power."

In word and deed, Traister observed, Republicans "have been telegraphing their hope to return us to a moment not just before Roe, but before the birth-control pill, before the sexual revolution, before second-wave feminism hammered pesky terms like 'harassment' and 'equal pay' into our lexicon, to a moment when women's bodies and sexuality and identities were men's to define, patrol and violate at will." Romney, it would appear, is the perfect Republican candidate to bring us back to that patriarchal future.

Of course, one could argue that Romney's backward-looking view of the world is not limited exclusively to women's issues. In respect to economic policies, he would clearly like to revert to the days before workplace safety mandates, the progressive income tax, the right of workers to organize and regulatory controls of financial institutions.

His doubletalk at the first presidential debate last week in Denver about his various economic proposals-many of which directly contradict previous statements he has made-only help to underscore what Dushku has called his "capacity for duplicity" and "his lack of a moral center."

When Romney uttered his now-immortal comments at a Republican fundraiser in Boca Raton, Florida, about 47 percent of Americans being "victims" who think "that government has the responsibility to care for them," Dushku says that we were seeing the "real Romney."

"He sees other people in need as lazy and slackers," Dushku notes. "He doesn't acknowledge that the path he took was a privileged path, from his parents, that gave him distinct advantages."

Romney likes to say that his controversial role at Bain Capital was to "help out" other companies or "assist them" or "provide business expertise." It's a narrative that completely obfuscates the role that Romney and Bain were actually executing with their leveraged buyouts. Romney & Co. were corporate pirates-nothing more and nothing less-in the worst sense of the term.

In what has been the most important work of investigative journalism dealing with Romney's real record at Bain Capital (Rolling Stone, Aug. 29), Matt Taibbi described Bain's business practices as being driven by a "make-nothing, take-everything, screw-everyone ethos" and Romney himself as a "Gordon GekkoÉwithout the PR."

Taibii chronicled a sordid history of Bain takeovers in which Romney saddled the companies with huge debt payments, leaving others holding the bag. "In the past few decades," Taibbi asserted, "Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth."

Of course, many of the victims of Romney's corporate raiders were women-clerical workers and mid-level administrators and line workers-whose jobs were vulnerable when Bain plundered them for profits. Romney's leadership team at Bain-like the national LDS leadership-was all-white and all-male.

In whatever he does-whether it be at Bain or with his work as head of the Olympics or most notably in his run for the presidency-Romney casts himself as a white knight in shining armor coming to the rescue: of a failing business, of the Olympics, of the national economy. But his real record at Bain thoroughly contradicts the narrative of him being a so-called "turnaround specialist."

As Taibbi notes, "In the Bain model, the actual turnaround isn't necessary. It's just a cover story." Huge cash returns are extracted on Bain's behalf, Taibbi noted, "whether the captured firm thrives or not."

The Republican presidential nominee was effective at Bain, Taibbi concludes, but not in the way that he and his inner sanctum tout. "Romney is the front man and apostle of an economic revolution," Taibbi concludes, "in which transactions are manufactured instead of products, wealth is generated without accompanying prosperity, and Cayman Islands partnerships are lovingly erected and nurtured while American communities fall apart."

"He sees it as simply a job that a venture capitalist does," says Dushku. "When a venture fails, when a corporation goes under, there's no guilt. No compassion. He simply sees it as a job. Because he doesn't understand what it means to be out of work, again, no sympathy nor empathy. 'I put them out of work, no problem.' He completely trusts that the private sector is going to serve as the ultimate safety net, that the market will serve as the corrective. And as we all know, it doesn't work that way."

Crushed

Earlier this year, Dushku's daughter, the actress Eliza Dushku (of television's Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame), got cornered at a benefit dinner by a reporter for New York Magazine and was queried about her family relationship with the Romneys.

"I mean, he went from being my first crush at 6 years old," Eliza Dushku recalled, "and then when I was old enough to hear what was coming out of his mouth, it was over. I'm sure he's a nice guy. I knew him to be a nice person, to those around him. He had five sons that I knew, that my brothers would play with growing up, and they were kind to others. But what they stand for I don't find to be tolerant or just."

The resulting headline declared, of course, "Eliza Dushku Recalls Her Childhood Crush on Mitt Romney"-and her more critical position about tolerance and justice was buried beneath the focus on the "crush."

Her mother, Judith, says that her daughter received little LDS criticism for her comments (although some were certainly published at various places online), largely because Eliza is dismissed as a nonpracticing member of the church. "Mormons circle the wagons," the elder Dushku says, "and you're either inside the circle or you're not. It's a very insular community."

Judith Dushku has been the victim of such circling throughout the years and has been specifically targeted by Mitt Romney. After his loss to Ted Kennedy in the Massachusetts Senate race, Dushku went up to Romney to congratulate him on running a competitive campaign.

Dushku says that while Romney "didn't say anything really nasty," his displeasure with her was bristling at the surface. "He told me he was angry with me and didn't ever want to talk to me again," Dushku recalls. She was taken aback by his response. She thought that in spite of their political differences, that they could at least remain cordial. "No," Romney said, "that isn't possible."

Eight years later, following Romney's victory in the Massachusetts governor's race (during which Dushku had once again been a vocal Romney critic), LDS leaders quietly redrew the Boston-area church districts so that Romney and Dushku were no longer in the same ward. According to Romney's biographer R.B. Scott, the maneuver became known as the "Dushku gerrymander," and the Romneys were now free from encountering Dushku at their place of worship.

Dushku says she never knew about the purpose of the redistricting, but she didn't seem disturbed by the outcome. "That way we both didn't have to see each other," she says wryly.

Place of Privelege

The LDS church claims to be apolitical, asserting that "the church does not endorse political parties or candidates, nor does it permit the use of its buildings for political purposes. The church does not participate in politics unless there is a moral question at issue, in which case the church will often speak out."

But the church drew the ire of many-both inside and outside LDS community-in 2008 when it strongly supported the passage of Proposition 8 in California opposing gay marriage, and during the 1970s and 1980s, it served as a bastion for opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. Church leadership has also come to Romney's defense whenever he has been criticized for adhering to LDS policies or principals.

In recent weeks, David Twede, a fifth-generation Mormon who has posted several blogs critical of Romney at MormonThink.com, was threatened with excommunication by his ward bishop and stake president in Orlando, Florida, for "apostasy." While his disciplinary hearing was rescheduled for a "later date," Twede says that he was told by church leaders to "cease and desist" his criticisms of Romney.

On the other hand, Mona Williams, an LDS member from Price, Utah, sent out an email to fellow church members that went viral in the LDS community and that urged Mormons to fast and pray for Romney on the Sunday prior to the first presidential debates.

"I know that seems like such a small thing," Williams wrote, "but I believe 'from small things, great things can come about.' I know that fasting and praying brings about miracles."

Romney's fellow Mormon, Glenn Beck, the controversial right-wing talk radio host, speculated about a Romney victory at the polls by noting, "I think God is trying to make this so clear to us that, if it happens, it's His finger."

Dushku says she's not surprised by the support inside the church for Romney's candidacy. "He's pushing the church into the mainstream," she says, "and that's something they've always wanted. In that sense, it's affirming."

But she also thinks she speaks for many Mormons, particularly women, when she says, "He's simply not one of us. I really think a lot of Mormon women feel that way."

Last week, as Dushku watched the first of the presidential debates, she saw a competent, even "slick" politician sparring with President Obama, but she also witnessed someone who is a political chameleon.

"He's not a man who has anything like a moral core," she says. "He's very loyal to the Mormon church, pays his tithing, is faithful to his wife, and so on, but he doesn't have a set of core values you can count on. I've known him for nearly 40 years. He may have a different suit on, but he hasn't changed. His experience hasn't changed. His performance was very consistent with the Mitt I knew back then. He can't relate to average working women-teachers and nurses and care givers. He's still coming from a place of privilege and entitlement."

Peggie Hayes-who doesn't know Dushku-concurs with her assessment. The prospect of Romney becoming president, she says, "is a horrible idea. It would be terrible." She says Romney's recent positioning as a moderate "is a mask."

"I've known him since I was 13," she says. The Mormon leader who tried to impose church doctrine on her when she was experiencing some difficult challenges in her life hasn't changed. "Not a bit. That's exactly who he was," she declared. "And that's exactly who he is."


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Why I Support the President Print
Thursday, 18 October 2012 12:20

Springsteen writes: "This presidential election is different than the last one because President Obama has a four year record to run on. Last time around, he carried with him a tremendous amount of hope and expectations. Unfortunately, due to the economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough ride.""

Bruce Springsteen campaigning back in November 2008 for Barack Obama. Can his support help the president this time around? (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
Bruce Springsteen campaigning back in November 2008 for Barack Obama. Can his support help the president this time around? (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)


Why I Support the President

By Bruce Springsteen, Reader Supported News

18 October 12

 

ear Friends:

The election is coming up on all of us and we all have strong feelings about it. I've been getting asked a lot about where I stand, so for those who are interested, here goes.

This presidential election is different than the last one because President Obama has a four year record to run on. Last time around, he carried with him a tremendous amount of hope and expectations. Unfortunately, due to the economic chaos the previous administration left him with, and the extraordinary intensity of the opposition, it turned into a really rough ride. But through grit, determination, and focus, the President has been able to do a great many things that many of us deeply support.

Domestically, that record includes working to increase and expand employment for all, protecting our all important social safety net, passing guaranteed health care for most of our citizens, with important new protections for all of the insured, rescuing the auto industry and so many of the American jobs that go with it, protecting and enhancing the rights of women, and bringing us closer to full acceptance of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

In foreign affairs, that record includes following through on the removal of troops from the misguided and deceptive war in Iraq, and vigorously pursuing our real foreign enemies, especially the killing of Osama Bin Laden.

Right now the opposition's resort to voter suppression in so many states is not receiving as much attention as it deserves. I believe that all of us, of whatever views, should be opposing these anti-voter, anti-citizen efforts.

Right now, for the President to be effective in his next term he needs our increased support and he needs support in the Congress, where some sterling candidates, such as current Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, challenger Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and so many others, are fighting to make their constructive voices heard.

Right now, there is an ever increasing division of wealth in this country, with the benefits going more and more to the 1 percent. For me, President Obama is our best choice to begin to reverse this harmful development.

Right now, there is a fight going on to help make this a fairer and more equitable nation. For me, President Obama is our best choice to get us and keep us moving in the right direction.

Right now, we need a President who has a vision that includes all of our citizens, not just some, whether they are our devastated poor, our pressured middle class, and yes, the wealthy too; whether they are male or female, black, white, brown, or yellow, straight or gay, civilian or military.

Right now, there is a choice going on in America, and I'm happy that we live in a country where we all participate in that process. For me, President Obama is our best choice because he has a vision of the United States as a place where we are all in this together. We're still living through very hard times but justice, equality and real freedom are not always a tide rushing in. They are more often a slow march, inch by inch, day after long day. I believe President Obama feels these days in his bones and has the strength to live them with us and to lead us to a country "...where no one crowds you and no one goes it alone."

That's why I plan to be in Ohio and Iowa supporting the re-election of President Obama to lead our country for the next four years.

Bruce Springsteen



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Defeat Romney, Without Illusions About Obama Print
Thursday, 18 October 2012 10:54

Intro: "It is urgently important to prevent a Republican administration under Romney/Ryan from taking office in January 2013."

Long-time anti-war activist and hero of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. (photo: Mark Constantini/SFChronicle)
Long-time anti-war activist and hero of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg. (photo: Mark Constantini/SFChronicle)


Defeat Romney, Without Illusions About Obama

By Daniel Ellsberg, Reader Supported News

18 October 12

 

t is urgently important to prevent a Republican administration under Romney/Ryan from taking office in January 2013.

The election is now just weeks away, and I want to urge those whose values are generally in line with mine -- progressives, especially activists -- to make this goal one of your priorities during this period.

An activist colleague recently said to me: "I hear you're supporting Obama."

I was startled, and took offense. "Supporting Obama? Me?!"

"I lose no opportunity publicly," I told him angrily, to identify Obama as a tool of Wall Street, a man who's decriminalized torture and is still complicit in it, a drone assassin, someone who's launched an unconstitutional war, supports kidnapping and indefinite detention without trial, and has prosecuted more whistleblowers like myself than all previous presidents put together. "Would you call that support?"

My friend said, "But on Democracy Now you urged people in swing states to vote for him! How could you say that? I don't live in a swing state, but I will not and could not vote for Obama under any circumstances."

My answer was: a Romney/Ryan administration would be no better -- no different -- on any of the serious offenses I just mentioned or anything else, and it would be much worse, even catastrophically worse, on a number of other important issues: attacking Iran, Supreme Court appointments, the economy, women's reproductive rights, health coverage, safety net, climate change, green energy, the environment.

I told him: "I don't 'support Obama.' I oppose the current Republican Party. This is not a contest between Barack Obama and a progressive candidate. The voters in a handful or a dozen close-fought swing states are going to determine whether Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to wield great political power for four, maybe eight years, or not."

As Noam Chomsky said recently, "The Republican organization today is extremely dangerous, not just to this country, but to the world. It's worth expending some effort to prevent their rise to power, without sowing illusions about the Democratic alternatives."

Following that logic, he's said to an interviewer what my friend heard me say to Amy Goodman: "If I were a person in a swing state, I'd vote against Romney/Ryan, which means voting for Obama because there is no other choice."

The election is at this moment a toss-up. That means this is one of the uncommon occasions when we progressives -- a small minority of the electorate -- could actually have a significant influence on the outcome of a national election, swinging it one way or the other.

The only way for progressives and Democrats to block Romney from office, at this date, is to persuade enough people in swing states to vote for Obama: not stay home, or vote for someone else. And that has to include, in those states, progressives and disillusioned liberals who are at this moment inclined not to vote at all or to vote for a third-party candidate (because like me they've been not just disappointed but disgusted and enraged by much of what Obama has done in the last four years and will probably keep doing).

They have to be persuaded to vote, and to vote in a battleground state for Obama not anyone else, despite the terrible flaws of the less-bad candidate, the incumbent. That's not easy. As I see it, that's precisely the "effort" Noam is referring to as worth expending right now to prevent the Republicans' rise to power. And it will take progressives -- some of you reading this, I hope -- to make that effort of persuasion effectively.

It will take someone these disheartened progressives and liberals will listen to. Someone manifestly without illusions about the Democrats, someone who sees what they see when they look at the president these days: but who can also see through candidates Romney or Ryan on the split-screen, and keep their real, disastrous policies in focus.

It's true that the differences between the major parties are not nearly as large as they and their candidates claim, let alone what we would want. It's even fair to use Gore Vidal's metaphor that they form two wings ("two right wings," as some have put it) of a single party, the Property or Plutocracy Party, or as Justin Raimondo says, the War Party.

Still, the political reality is that there are two distinguishable wings, and one is reliably even worse than the other, currently much worse overall. To be in denial or to act in neglect of that reality serves only the possibly imminent, yet presently avoidable, victory of the worse.

The traditional third-party mantra, "There's no significant difference between the major parties" amounts to saying: "The Republicans are no worse, overall." And that's absurd. It constitutes shameless apologetics for the Republicans, however unintended. It's crazily divorced from present reality.

And it's not at all harmless to be propagating that absurd falsehood. It has the effect of encouraging progressives even in battleground states to refrain from voting or to vote in a close election for someone other than Obama, and more importantly, to influence others to act likewise.That's an effect that serves no one but the Republicans, and ultimately the 1 percent.

It's not merely understandable, it's entirely appropriate to be enraged at Barack Obama. As I am. He has often acted outrageously, not merely timidly or "disappointingly." If impeachment were politically imaginable on constitutional grounds, he's earned it (like George W. Bush, and many of his predecessors!) It is entirely human to want to punish him, not to "reward" him with another term or a vote that might be taken to express trust, hope or approval.

But rage is not generally conducive to clear thinking. And it often gets worked out against innocent victims, as would be the case here domestically, if refusals to vote for him resulted in Romney's taking key battleground states that decide the outcome of this election.

To punish Obama in this particular way, on Election Day -- by depriving him of votes in swing states and hence of office in favor of Romney and Ryan -- would punish most of all the poor and marginal in society, and workers and middle class as well: not only in the U.S. but worldwide in terms of the economy (I believe the Republicans could still convert this recession to a Great Depression), the environment and climate change. It could well lead to war with Iran (which Obama has been creditably resisting, against pressure from within his own party). And it would spell, via Supreme Court appointments, the end of Roe v. Wade and of the occasional five to four decisions in favor of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The reelection of Barack Obama, in itself, is not going to bring serious progressive change, end militarism and empire, or restore the Constitution and the rule of law. That's for us and the rest of the people to bring about after this election and in the rest of our lives -- through organizing, building movements and agitating.

In the eight to twelve close-fought states -- especially Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, but also Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin -- for any progressive to encourage fellow progressives and others in those states to vote for a third-party candidate is, I would say, to be complicit in facilitating the election of Romney and Ryan, with all its consequences.

To think of that as urging people in swing states to "vote their conscience" is, I believe, dangerously misleading advice. I would say to a progressive that if your conscience tells you on Election Day to vote for someone other than Obama in a battleground state, you need a second opinion. Your conscience is giving you bad counsel.

I often quote a line by Thoreau that had great impact for me: "Cast your whole vote: not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence." He was referring, in that essay, to civil disobedience, or as he titled it himself, "Resistance to Civil Authority."

It still means that to me. But this is a year when for people who think like me -- and who, unlike me, live in battleground states -- casting a strip of paper is also important. Using your whole influence this month to get others to do that, to best effect, is even more important.

That means for progressives in the next couple of weeks -- in addition to the rallies, demonstrations, petitions, lobbying (largely against policies or prospective policies of President Obama, including austerity budgeting next month), movement-building and civil disobedience that are needed all year round and every year -- using one's voice and one's e-mails and op-eds and social media to encourage citizens in swing states to vote against a Romney victory by voting for the only real alternative, Barack Obama.

Daniel Ellsberg is a former State and Defense Department official who has been arrested for acts of non-violent civil disobedience over eighty times, initially for copying and releasing the top secret Pentagon Papers, for which he faced 115 years in prison. Living in a non-swing state, he does not intend to vote for President Obama.



Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'Binders Full of Women' Reconsider Voting for Romney Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9456"><span class="small">Ana Marie Cox, Guardian UK</span></a>   
Thursday, 18 October 2012 08:19

Intro: "Until now, the Republican 'war on women' was mostly a meme wielded by Democrats. But Mitt's mask has slipped on equality."

Mitt Romney's claim to have promoted women in government while governor of Massachusetts did not fact-check out. (photograph: Amy Sussman)
Mitt Romney's claim to have promoted women in government while governor of Massachusetts did not fact-check out. (photograph: Amy Sussman)


'Binders Full of Women' Reconsider Voting for Romney

By Ana Marie Cox, Guardian UK

18 October 12

 

Until now, the Republican 'war on women' was mostly a meme wielded by Democrats. But Mitt's mask has slipped on equality.

itt Romney's real success in the first presidential debate was to not emerge from the wings wearing horns and carrying a pitchfork, demanding that all the women in the audience submit immediately to transvaginal ultrasounds and relieving them of 23 cents for every dollar they happened to have on them. That is what the Obama campaign - with the help of many elected Republican officials who have been championing policies that slip easily into such shocking scenarios - prepared swing voters to expect.

When, instead, he came off as genial and direct, a proclaimed lover of both Big Bird and green energy, a lot of Americans appeared to accept this version of Romney. Polling in the immediate aftermath of the first debate showed that the Obama-Romney gender gap, which had been as high as 20 points in some states, had shrunk to almost nothing. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today:

"Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney, and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them."

In Tuesday night's second presidential debate, however, Mitt Romney not only failed to further his case that he understood women's lives, he made the mistake of revealing exactly what it is he might be able to do for them: commission a "binder full" of their resumes.

Right. I guess this is what makes him a "small-government conservative". Forget creating a law that allows women to sue for equal pay (the Ledbetter Act, Obama's first major piece of legislation); just personally hire a woman every once in a while.

There were certainly moments that I found more offensive than Romney's unintentionally hilarious creation of a new collective noun ("a binder of women" - like, you know, a convocation of eagles), even though it edged right up to the margins of implying actual physical harm. (Binder? I hardly knew her!) There was, for instance, his weird insistence that traditional families could prevent gun violence - as everyone knows there were no mass shooting murders until gay marriage was invented in 2003.

And there's the fact that Romney's whole "binder full of women" anecdote was completely bogus: he commissioned no such binder; it was provided to him by a bipartisan coalition of women's groups, which had created it prior to his election. Further, the number of women working in Massachusetts government actually went down during his tenure. I guess it wasn't really that full a binder.

The biggest problem with making voters believe that Romney (or the Republican party in general) is conducting a "war on women" has been, up until now, that Romney and his colleagues just don't seem very scary. The children's show aficionado and advocate of cautious capitalism of the first debate is a case in point, but even the more combative presence in New York on Tuesday evening doesn't seem like someone that would do women any harm (though he would totally hit Obama if he could).

But the war on women is something more pernicious even than a "cold war". Not only do we rarely see a true battle (exception provided by Todd Akin), but one of the major combatants doesn't really believe their actions count as aggressions. In a contest over civil rights, after all, the oppressor doesn't feel any pain until they start to lose.

Romney just got a paper cut. We'll see if he can make the bleeding stop by election day.

See Also: Mitt Romney's 'Binders Full of Women' Is BS

See Also: Mr. Romney’s Version of Equal Rights



Ana Marie Cox is a political columnist for the Guardian US. The founding editor of the blog Wonkette, she has written about Washington and national politics for a variety of outlets, including Playboy, GQ, Time, the New York Times and the Washington Post. Ana is also a regular guest commentator on MSNBC and NPR, and is the author of the satirical novel Dog Days. She lives in Minneapolis-St Paul, Minnesota.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Romney Is Attacked by His Father's Longtime Aide Print
Wednesday, 17 October 2012 14:38

Barbaro writes: "A longtime aide to George W. Romney issued a harshly worded critique of Mitt Romney, accusing him of shifting political positions."

'That lesson from father (left) to son (right) seems to be lost in the win-at-any-cost fog of politics in the 21st century,' wrote Mr De Vries. (photo: AP)
'That lesson from father (left) to son (right) seems to be lost in the win-at-any-cost fog of politics in the 21st century,' wrote Mr De Vries. (photo: AP)


Romney Is Attacked by His Father's Longtime Aide

By Michael Barbaro, The New York Times

17 October 12

 

longtime aide to George W. Romney issued a harshly worded critique of Mitt Romney, accusing him of shifting political positions in "erratic and startling ways" and failing to live up to the distinguished record of his father, the former governor of Michigan.

Walter De Vries, who worked for the senior Mr. Romney throughout the 1960s, wrote that Mitt Romney's bid for the White House was "a far cry from the kind of campaign and conduct, as a public servant, I saw during the seven years I worked in George Romney's campaigns and served him as governor."

"While it seems that Mitt would say and do anything to close a deal - or an election," he wrote, "George Romney's strength as a politician and public officeholder was his ability and determination to develop and hold consistent policy positions over his life."

Mr. De Vries's stinging assessment was contained in a nearly 700-word essay that he distributed to a small group of journalists with whom he has spoken over the past year. He said it was an outline for a book that may or may not be published. A spokeswoman for the Romney campaign declined to comment.

A registered independent, who said he voted for Barack Obama in 2008, Mr. De Vries has previously expressed reservations about Mr. Romney's political postures in interviews, but never with such sweep.

In a telephone interview, he said he was motivated to write the essay by "an accumulation" of Mr. Romney's actions, like his comment about 47 percent of Americans and his decision to campaign with Donald Trump.

Mr. De Vries said he was annoyed by Mr. Romney's repeated references recently to his father as inspiration and influence on him.

"I just don't see it," he said. "Where is it? Is it on issues, no? On the way he campaigns? No."

Mr. De Vries continued, "George would never have been seen with the likes of Sheldon Adelson or Donald Trump."

(Mr. Adelson, a casino magnate, is a major donor to the "super PACs" that support Mr. Romney.)

Mr. De Vries, who said he wished to the see the Republican Party return to its moderate roots, said he intended to vote for Mr. Obama on Election Day.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3231 3232 3233 3234 3235 3236 3237 3238 3239 3240 Next > End >>

Page 3235 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN