Associated Press reporters Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson put together a doozy of a story that ran Saturday on the Mitt Romney family tree. The hook is the fact that several of his ancestors were married multiple times. At the same time. Of course, the supporters of the former Massachusetts governor are quick to note that of the three leading candidates, Romney is the only one to be married once:
Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.
Romney’s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.
Romney’s great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she “used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow” over her own husband’s multiple marriages.
Unfortunately, Romney chose not to comment for the article, which is why this will remain a story.
Now the question is, does any of this matter in determining Romney’s fitness for the presidency? No, not at all. But a key voting bloc courted by the Romney campaign — evangelical Christians — remains deeply suspicious of Mormons. Many of those voters have said that they will not vote for Romney precisely because of his faith. That’s just the reality he is facing.
On Sunday’s Meet the Press, host Tim Russert asked the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, who is quite familiar with political opposition based on faith due to her close association with the John Kennedy presidential campaign, about the parallels:
MS. GOODWIN: Well, in both cases it seems there are people who are worried. Four out of 10 claim in a poll about Romney that they’re worried that somehow the Mormon church will be controlling his actions, just as they were sure that John Kennedy was building a tunnel to Rome to have the Vatican control him. John Kennedy knew he had to take it head on, and he did it twice. I mean, West Virginia, originally, before the primaries, he was way ahead, 70 to 30. And then a few months later, after he got more publicity, they went down, and he had flipped with Humphrey, he was 30-70. He said, “What happened?” “Well, they didn’t realize you were a Catholic before this all began.” So he decided, he said right then, “I can’t believe that my country would deny me the right to be president from the day I was baptized.” But then it still didn’t go away, even though he won West Virginia, so he gave a speech in Houston to the ministers, which some people are urging Romney to do as well, to make a major speech in which he said, you know, “I will not speak for my church. My church will not speak for me. And if the finger of suspicion is pointed toward Catholics, some day it may be towards Baptists, some day towards Quakers,” or he may have said some day toward Mormons. So it may be that Mr. Romney’s going to have to deal with this issue head on, because it does seem like there’s a subterranean concern out there, not knowing much about Mormonism, and fearing he might be controlled by some hierarchy.
As the religious right struggles to find a candidate, Romney has an opportunity to change the public’s perception of his church. Right or wrong, many people remain skeptical of Romney because of his faith. Changing that will take more than asking the media to ignore it.
 | Posted at 6:28 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (34) |
February 25, 2007, at 8:08 pm
I understand Romney’s need to assuage the fears (constantly stirred up and magnified by the media) of some voters over his Mormon religion. But to dig in the graveyard examining the relgious entrails of his great-grandparent in the 19th Century (Hey guys, it’s now the 21st Century) is grave robbing at its sickest. As a Catholic I find the fact he isn’t involved in serial marriages like just about every other Republican candidate to be a very big plus. Why isn’t the media running in-depth stories on why their SINGULAR marriage is such a success instead of their dog and pony show on polygamy? In fact, many Evangelicals have begun joining Catholics in becoming very concerned over the way rampant divorce is ravaging our youth and America’s family structure.
Or is staying married to your “first and only” wife now a debit in the eyes of media personnel who—according to statistics—have a sky-high divorce rate. Maybe the example of his stable marriage is the media’s real worry about Romney—not great-grandaddy’s polygamy.
February 25, 2007, at 8:12 pm
That strikes me as rather odd. I realise that his religion makes him a figure of interest, as much as any candidate that could be the first whatever - female/gay/black/Mormon/clone President of the U.S.
It seems a bit much, though, to drag polygamy into it; after all, there’s no signs Mr. Romney is planning to set up a love-nest if and when he gets into the White House; there’s certainly no need to be Mormon to have several honeys on the go at once, as far as I can see re: politicians.
Which is why I’d like to know why this particular story at this particular time; it just seems strange, of all the angles, to go back into his family history. As though they were to dig back and find Candidate X came from a family that at one time owned slaves or Candidate Y is related to a notorious bootlegger from the Roaring Twenties. Is it that relevant, unless you’re seriously proposing they will re-introduce slavery or Prohibition?
February 25, 2007, at 8:20 pm
No, I’ve read the story, and I still don’t get it. Up at the top, we get the BIG REVELATION that one of his great-grand-fathers was a polygamist, until way down in the bottom it appears that he might not have been, after all.
What I do find interesting is that his father was born in Mexico, yet there was apparently no difficulty in his being elected governor of Michigan. Now, if Mr. Romney was being quizzed about his stance on immigration, this seems to me to be of much more moment and interest rather than ‘great-grandpa had twelve - or maybe only one - wives’.
February 25, 2007, at 8:27 pm
I find this article to be a desprate attempt to find something that will hurt Mr. Romney. Quite frankly, everyone in the United States is statistically related as 22nd cousins. In fact, if a person has a heritage that goes back in this nation far enough, they will likely have a heritage from someone who has had significant challenges whether from war, depressions, earthquakes, tornados, huricanes, etc. The point I am trying to make is that someones’ family heritage is irrelevant to becoming President, except those outlined in the Constitution like not being naturally born here in the US.
Please understand, while my own grandfathers were also Mormon polygamists including Brigham Young, I also have an eighth great grandfather who was Rev. William Brewster who gave the prayer on the first Thanksgiving, other forefathers include St. Augustine who taught that we should read the Bible for ourselves instead of taking the ministers word for it (some considered this heresy). I am also related General Jonathan Greene who was a general under George Washington in the Colonial Army. My wife is also related to Mormon polygamists, as well as Governor William Bradford (first governor of the pilgrim colonists), and John Adams (second President of the United States and original signer of the US Constitution). My point is that just because we are related to someone doesn’t make us any more or less able to become President of the United States.
However, if this article is an issue, I wonder what Osama’s or Hilary’s family tree looks like back several generations and what kind of skeletons we can find in their closet. Or does it really matter? In fact, I almost wonder what skeleton’s are in the closet of the author of this article in order to determine the credibility of the Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson in writing such an absurd article.
Why is religion such an issue for Mitt Romney or for others? Who really cares? Has the Mormon Church ever controlled him as Governor of Massachusetts? Does the Mormon Church control Senator Harry Reid (a Mormon) who is the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, or for that matter any other polititian? If so, why is there nothing in the media that would suggest any religious control in either party? Why has Utah had Governors within the last twenty years who were not Mormon, or a current Mayor of Salt Lake City who is anti-religion? If the Mormon Church had any control over government, why is there no evidence that it has ever happened in the past.
This issue already seems to be dead since there is no evidence that Mr. Romney would be controlled from Salt Lake City since he has never been controlled to date. Strangely enough, neither has any other Mormon politician Republican or Democrat. So, where is the relevance? Why is there nothing to suggest that this is even a possibility in terms of happening in the past.
I remember that during the 2002 olympic games that President Bush came to Utah and visited with President Hinkley, President of the LDS Church. When asked why he went to visit President Hinkley, President Bush responded that he was a good friend and that it was rude to not visit when in Utah. Could President Bush be controlled by President Hinkley? I think this entire issue so mute and rediculous, I wonder why people even consider the possibility. If someone can show me anywhere when a religious leader controlled a politician who belonged to their fold in US politics, I would be thrilled to read about it and do some investigation into the author of it.
February 25, 2007, at 8:33 pm
Please tell me how this article is relative to his run for the presidency. It tells me religious bigotry in the media is alive and well today.
February 25, 2007, at 8:41 pm
Did you know Jesus came from Polygamists? Did you know all the Jews descend from Polygamists? I hope you cover this angle too.
Oh, Obama’s own father was a bigamist.
Did you know Guiliani married his second cousin? Did you know Guiliani is Catholic and they forced people with death to accept Christ? Did you know McCain descends from the Irish who are currently fighting over religion in Northern Ireland?
I mean if this is important stuff on Romney, than I hope you cover all the other important stuff I just mentioned.
http://www.mymanmitt.com
February 25, 2007, at 10:12 pm
I someone over at The Corner (National Review Online) said it best:
What did Mitt know and when did he know it?
Digging up and displaying polygamists in the Romney family tree is at best an attempt to satisfy public curiosity about polygamy (it’s human nature to rubberneck at some things, such as the Anna Nicole Smith saga) and at worst an attempt to bring Romney (and his social conservative views) down.
Everyone has skeletons in their family tree. Unless it is revealed that Romney himself has a few extra wives cloistered away in rural Utah, I refuse to care about this “story.”
February 25, 2007, at 10:41 pm
It’s an interesting story, and Mitt should have commented on it. Of course any Mormon of pioneer stock is almost certain to have ancestors who practiced polygamy. What I find especially interesting is Mitt’s condemnation of polygamy as “bizarre.” The Mormons I know who have polygamous ancestors accept it as something that occurred in the past because God asked it of them. If anything, they have a certain pride in their ancestors for having suffered because of their willingness to follow God.
Mitt’s public attitude toward his faith seems to me really of a piece with his flip-flopping on other matters. Come on Mitt, be proud of it! Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes! I’d respect him more if he did so. If he wants to be a viable candidate, he’s really going to need to address his religion.
February 25, 2007, at 10:46 pm
If Romney were a Democrat, he could come from a long line of pedophiles and the media would downplay that fact.
But since he is a Republican, every sneeze and gas release his ancestors might have produced will be put on the front page.
February 25, 2007, at 11:40 pm
Exactly how improbable is it that a Mormon descended from a Mormon would have polygamous ancestors?
Next from our ace investigative unit: Alarming number of southerners said to have Confederate Army forebearers. Paging Mr. Pulitzer…
February 26, 2007, at 12:01 am
Like many of the others here, I fail to see the relevance of this story. Certainly, in a profile of Romney it would be appropriate to mention his ancestors. Or, a story about the history of Mormon polygamy might properly include a reference to famous descendants of polygamists, including Romney. But the effort that went into this story seems rather pointless, considering that it tells nothing about what kind of president Romney would be.
That said, I found the story fairly interesting. But a story on Giuliani’s marital history (his own, not his ancestors’) would be more interesting and maybe more relevant.
Like Bill, what I found especially interesting about this story is the “bizarre” Romney quote. I’d like to know more about its context.
February 26, 2007, at 12:42 am
This opening line, I thought was particularly disingenuous:
While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.
I don’t think Romney does condemn the “prior practice.” The official Church line, as I understand it, is that God commanded plural marriage for a time, and then rescinded that command. I don’t think I know any LDS who are actually ashamed of the fact that their ancestors obeyed God (at least, so they believed) in spite of persecution, and I doubt Romney is either.
February 26, 2007, at 12:44 am
I should also mention that (again, as I understand it), the Manifesto of 1890 only prohibited polygamy in places where secular law forbade it. In which case, the marriages made in Mexico would have been permitted. (I hope somebody more familiar with it can correct me if I’m wrong.)
February 26, 2007, at 1:46 am
I believe that fears of Romney being controlled by the Mormon church may be plausible due to the structure of the Mormon church.
As I understand the LDS church, members may only achieve the highest spiritual level by being “temple recommended” and participating in sacraments at a temple. To get and maintain this recommend, members must conform to the teachings of the church. As a life long member of the church, I would think that Romney is already conditioned to following the church’s lead.
By contrast, Evangelical churches generally do not force their members to conform in order to reach the highest spiritual level- instead visitors are usually encouraged to accept that highest spiritual level, the gift of eternal salvation, on their very first visit.
This may be tangential to the topic, but I would be real interested in a reply from a Mormon who cares to justify what I perceive to be the controlling structure of the Mormon church. I understand a very key aspect of Jesus’ teaching to be that through Him, believers have full access to the Father and all His blessings- no person or organization can put up any barrier that is at all spiritually effective.
February 26, 2007, at 1:59 am
I had no idea there was so much prejudice about Mormons! I haven’t seen any extended family history on any other candidate, nor should I see it, it’s not relevant.
These reporters could learn a lot from the Mormons. On their Church’s website is an article of faith written by Joseph Smith “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they may”.
I’ve searched and I can’t find any articles written by the Mormon Church condemning or sensationalizing others beliefs or religious history.
So now I have to ask what are the reporters’ motives.
February 26, 2007, at 3:04 am
Tom, the Mormon structure appears not to be too different from the Catholic one. The established church has the role of proclaiming what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and morality. While it’s a lot less organized among Protestants, it still exists to some extent; members are expected to adhere to certain doctrines or not be members.
February 26, 2007, at 8:22 am
These reporters could learn a lot from the Mormons. On their Church’s website is an article of faith written by Joseph Smith “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where or what they mayâ€.
Well, once these non-Mormons are dead and buried, Mormons can then be baptized for them by proxy and they can be made Mormons that way! :^)
February 26, 2007, at 11:27 am
Tom — I’m practicing LDS, and I’ll see if I can answer your question while staying within the purpose of this blog. That would relate to the relevancy of Romney’s religion in the context of his belonging to a hierarchical church that allegedly controls its members. To the extent that a potential president’s actions in office would be controlled by a church, that is a legitimate matter for press inquiry.
First of all, I’d say that there’s a lot that’s paradoxical about the church. On the one hand, it is one of the most hierarchical of churches. On the other hand, it is one of the most egalitarian. Go to almost any church service, and it will be ordinary, nonordained people who are giving the sermons, housewives and doctors, teachers and plumbers. Even in the temple, there’s an air of egalitarianism. Even when the church’s president goes to the temple, he’s dressed the same as everyone else, and you’d never know his position in the church from looking at him.
True, to respond to your comments above, one does need a “temple recommend” in order to enter the temple and receive ordinances that we believe are essential for salvation. However, those who give the temple recommends have a prescribed list of questions they can ask. Most of the questions focus on whether the person is living a Christian life — being honest, loving his/her family, that sort of thing. The paying of tithing and adherence to a dietary code (abstaining from alcohol and eating meat sparingly, for example) are also expected. A recommend isn’t granted to someone teaching apostasy or involved in polygamy. But there are no questions whatsoever about political viewpoints.
Someone who is denied a recommend on grounds that are outside the scope of those questions can appeal that decision. It doesn’t happen often, but it can.
As to the church enforcing a political viewpoint, the church goes out of its way to avoid partisan politics (although there have been lapses at various levels). I have never heard anything from any high levels of the church suggesting that members adopt a particular political philosophy, and worldwide you can find everything from right-wingers to socialists who are members of the church in good standing. I have talked to temple-recommended Mormons of various political persuasions. For what it’s worth, both my wife and I have positions of significant responsibility in the church, and we’ve never hidden our somewhat liberal political views. A year and a half from now, we may have the only Barack Obama bumper sticker in the temple parking lot, but nothing will be said about it on any official level.
In fact, there is at least one prominent Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, who has had (at least recently and probably still currently) a temple recommend.
Cases where Catholic priests have denied (or threatened to deny) the Eucharist because of political positions they have taken have been publicized in the media. In the LDS church, the equivalent couldn’t be done without a formal disciplinary proceeding. I know of no cases where that has happened for political positions someone has taken.
I would also point out that in LDS soteriology, it ultimately isn’t the temple recommend that allows you to make it to heaven (or to reach the highest spiritual level, as you put it). In fact, because ordinances are performed for the dead, the plan is that ultimately all people, members of not, will have had the ordinances performed for them. Baptism for the dead and other temple ordinances are our symbol (or at least one of them) of divine grace in action. So it is still up to people to decide, both now and in the afterlife, whether they wish to follow the teachings of Jesus. Ultimately, the gates of the highest level of heaven or open to all, LDS and non-LDS.
Another issue is that in the church there is a strong emphasis on free will (which we call moral agency). It is probably the most fundamental of LDS doctrines — that it is up to us as individuals to decide whether and when we should follow the teachings of Christ. Bishops and other church leaders are instructed specifically not to tell people how to live their lives; they do have a responsibility to teach gospel principles, but after that it becomes an individual decision how to proceed.
There’s a phrase in the church that’s used to describe a church leader who oversteps his bounds: unrighteous dominion. If the church were telling Romney how to be president, I believe that would be widely perceived in the church as unrighteous dominion, and there are avenues for dealing with that problem.
Because the church is top-down in structure (although no more so than the Catholic church), I can see why there’d be interest among reporters and readers about Romney’s commitment to the church. But I think that a close examination of church teaching, both in theory and practice, would show that there’s really not much to worry about.
February 26, 2007, at 11:40 am
God rest ye merry, Gentile-men?
February 26, 2007, at 12:02 pm
What is next…
Proof that several million years ago Romney’s ancestors lived in caves and hunted mastadons?
I’m more concered about Rudy “the devout” Guliani’s three wives than Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather’s five wives.
“Unfortunately, Romney chose not to comment for the article, which is why this will remain a story.”
No, I think it will remain a story because it is in the political interest of a number of people for it to remain a story.
February 26, 2007, at 12:40 pm
Tom….I from come many generations of Mormons. There are polygamists in in my family tree too. I am not ashamed of it. I have the dairies and journals they kept printed in a book of family heritage and from the reading of those not all polygamist families were unhappy ones. I can only admire them as in these journals they detailed their personal testimonies of their love of the Lord and the much unnoticed abuse and persecutions (some unto death) they endured during their lifetimes. They sound like pretty great people to me and their posterity are pretty decent, law abiding, patriotic and grateful Americans.
I have no idea what you could call “controlling structure” of the Mormon Church. When I was a teenagers many of my friends we not allowed to come to Church with me. I was encouraged to go to church with them. I was told it was important to visit others. I still do that. When we are traveling and I can’t get to a Mormon church I go to a convenient one that is Christian. In my lifetime I have never heard a Mormon personally in or out of church utter a bad word about another religion. My husband a convert of 43 years would say the same.
One of the basic tenants of the Mormon Church is free agency. We do not believe in the doctrine of original sin and believe very much that we are free to choose the dictates of our own conscience. A active and involved member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Christ of Latter-Day-Saints truly loves the Gospel of Christ. Adhering to His teachings is easy for them. It is a blessing of joy and happiness to know we are not burdened with original sin and are free agents to choose how and where and what may be our own destiny. Don’t misunderstand we will be held accountable for our owns sins. Joseph Smith said “teach correct principles and then let them govern ourselves.” That doesn’t sound terribly controlling.
Also every Mormon I know would also agree with your premise of “no person or organization can put up any barrier that is at all spiritually effective.” If you see barriers you truly don’t understand Mormonism. Go to LDS.org and read some of the conference talks by LDS general authorities on any subject you wish. Or watch the worldwide General Conference on TV or on your computer that will be held the first weekend in April 2007. I think you will find it is a religion that not only has no barriers but sheds much light and knowledge.
February 26, 2007, at 5:46 pm
[…] Get Religion’s Daniel Pulliam misses the point on Mitt and Polygamy. Says Daniel: […]
February 26, 2007, at 6:51 pm
Now the question is, does any of this matter in determining Romney’s fitness for the presidency? No, not at all. But a key voting bloc courted by the Romney campaign — evangelical Christians — remains deeply suspicious of Mormons. Many of those voters have said that they will not vote for Romney precisely because of his faith. That’s just the reality he is facing.
Should we dignify this prejudice with a public airing of history that, by everybodys account, is irrelevant to Governor Romney’s fitness to be President? This stinks so bad that there’s not enough perfume in Persia to hide the stench.
February 26, 2007, at 6:53 pm
Um, yeah Jinzang, reporters should just ignore it like it didn’t exist. Even though it looks like it might keep Romney from being the nominee. Yeah, that’s not a story.
February 26, 2007, at 7:37 pm
So why exactly is Romney required to respond to this story? Everyone worth taking seriously agrees that it has no merit.
The getreligion.org writers should just come right out and admit that they’re endorsing Anyody But Romney. They are apparently part of the ” key voting bloc courted by the Romney campaign — evangelical Christians—[that] remains deeply suspicious of Mormons.”
February 26, 2007, at 7:40 pm
“I believe that fears of Romney being controlled by the Mormon church may be plausible due to the structure of the Mormon church.
As I understand the LDS church, members may only achieve the highest spiritual level by being “temple recommended†and participating in sacraments at a temple. To get and maintain this recommend, members must conform to the teachings of the church.”
Huh? The requirements for getting into the temple aren’t stuff like “do you vote the way the Mormon church tells you to?” They’re stuff like “Do you avoid adultery and do you believe in the Book of Mormon?”
February 26, 2007, at 10:24 pm
Thank you LDS’ for your responses to my question. I do think it is unlikely that the Mormon church would control Romney and, if nominated, I personally would vote for him rather than a Democrat. I will not support him for the nomination because I don’t believe, given the biases of evangelicals, he can win.
My concern is more about the perception than the reality. When I recently visited a Mormon meeting house for the first time ever, there was a lot about it, the service, and the people that impressed me. However I did get the very strong impression that it is, as one of y’all stated, a very hierarchial church.
The fact that the church is very hierarchial and therefore may be perceived as controlling and has some doctrines that are perceived as very unusual and heretical by most evangelicals will likely mean that, no matter how well qualified he is, Romney cannot win the presidency.
Romney can’t win Evangelicals in the same way that, despite some degree of effort by church members and sincere interest on my part to learn more, the LDS’ can’t win me. There are deep rooted beliefs that are irreconcilable differences. Every experience I’ve ever had with any LDS has been very positive, including the cordial responses here- but I think I’m a typical Evangelical in my worldview and that worldview does not include enthusiastically supporting any presidential candidate who professes a faith that we consider to have very flawed theology.
If Romney had been born into a conventional Christian faith, I’m sure he would have made an excellent president. And if I had been born into an LDS family, I’m sure I would have been an excellent Mormon. But here in the world as it is in 2007-08, a Mormon won’t get elected president and seriously committed evangelicals don’t become Mormons. The gap between the two groups is just too wide and evangelicals are too big a part of the Republican coalition.
February 27, 2007, at 12:13 am
Tom…..
I hear your message but I find it difficult to understand. I am a committed Mormon but I would vote for an evangelical any day if he/she most closely exemplified the person I wanted to represent me as the President of the United States. To not support the best candidate as the nominee of the party for the reasons you enumerate seems to be not only shooting yourself in the foot but the entire Republican party. By not getting behind a charismatic, capable statesman with a proven record of business and political competence, because of his religion comes across as narrow minded bigotry. It would seem that by the 21st Century we would have made more progress in the area of religious tolerance.
A true evangelical with Christian values and concern for his country in these difficult times, has to find all the other potential alternatives much more onerous than Romney.
February 27, 2007, at 12:14 am
Why is Romney required to respond to this story? Because this story is being published in national media, if he doesn’t respond or offer comment, it will look to some like he has something to hide. And the more people who think that, the less likely he is to get the Republican nomination. It’s not a issue of substance, but it is an issue of perception.
If Mitt needs something to say, he can expand on something like I wrote earlier. I’ll even offer him free use of this: “Polygamy was once practiced by certain members of the LDS Church but is not practiced by us any longer. Indeed, any member of the church who practiced it today would be excommunicated. From a historical standpoint, any person, like myself, who is descended from the LDS pioneers who settled Utah is of course almost certain to have an ancestor somewhere along the family tree who was in a plural marriage.”
But for Mitt to say, “No comment” is just stupid.
February 27, 2007, at 8:41 am
That “story” is of course ridiculous.
Just pointing out various things:
*There is not only prejudice against Mormons but also against Catholics as a misinformed, ignorant posting above clearly shows.
*To my knowledge, the vast majority of Mormon polygamists were not “persecuted” because of polygamy but practised it safely in their state of Utah until Utah’s status within the union made that difficult. But at that moment the LDS church complied.
*Someone claimed to have Saint Augustine as a forefather. That is, from all we know, impossible, as Augustine had only one son who predeceased him at a young age. Of course, other children we know nothing about may exist, but then the descendants know nothing about them either.
February 27, 2007, at 12:42 pm
“Why is Romney required to respond to this story? Because this story is being published in national media, if he doesn’t respond or offer comment, it will look to some like he has something to hide.”
Bunk. Romney is only “required” to respond if the story has any merit. But “no comment” is an appropriate and dignified response to attempts to make political issues out of things that have no possible relevance.
Anyway, its pretty indicative of the biases of this blog that the post wasn’t about the stupidity of the news story but criticisms of Romney for his entirely appropriate refusal to take it seriously.
February 27, 2007, at 1:12 pm
A shrug and a “so what?” would seem the best answer from Romney. I can see why it’s a story, because most Gentiles don’t know that much about Mormons and the polygamy is kind of an oddity in American history. But to Mormons (or those who are familiar with them), it’s still a non-issue, and Romney should communicate that blaseness to the media.
February 27, 2007, at 9:45 pm
You know something. I’ve heard plenty of counter-cultist and anti-Mormon rhetoric from religious quarters. And it rarely brings up the polygamy thing.
The left wing, however, absolutely LOATHES polygamy. Feminists hate it. Atheistic, “all religions are crack-brained gunk,” writers love to rehash it.
But I rarely hear much about it from Evangelicals per se.
I still maintain that the most violent opposition to Romney is, and will continue to be, from the political left and not the political right.
February 27, 2007, at 11:36 pm
“I still maintain that the most violent opposition to Romney is, and will continue to be, from the political left and not the political right.”
I agree. My coreligionists will sometimes run across some particularly virulent bit of hatemongering from evangelicaldom and will start talking nonsense about allying with the secular left. Here’s a clue for my co-religionists: evangelicals don’t want to take your kids away from you.