Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: June 2012

On the morning of the Supreme Court vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare), GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney stood at a podium with a sign that read: “Repeal and Replace Obamacare.” (I can only imagine there was another sign printed up that said: “In Your Face, Obama” to be used had the Supreme Court ruled the other way.) So, undoubtedly, Romney is all about repealing Obamacare and replacing it with something that would be “better” law. Assuming he is elected and can successfully repeal this law what would he replace it with? Well, what is interesting, is that this is a candidate with plenty of experience developing and instituting healthcare policy. You only have to look to the state he governed and the bill he signed into law to see what a Romney healthcare act might¬† look like. Wow! Expanded coverage, a government mandate and it even limits the factors insurers can do, such as pre-existing conditions, to increase premiums. This Romney plan is genius! Of course, if he implemented such a plan, I bet he will just turn around and repeal it. Because, apparently, Mitt is against what he once was for.

So why was Barack Obama’s religion such a focal point 4 years ago and Mitt Romney’s faith gets little media scrutiny?¬† Andrew Sullivan has a theory.

Here’s a question: if Barack Obama had to go through a brutal process of defending the doctrines, sermons and ideology of a church he merely attended, why is Mitt Romney exempted from explaining the doctrines and statements and ideology of a church he was an actual leading official in? I’ve been doing my best to read up on Romney’s life and career and the more you read, the more you agree with one of his fellow worshippers who told the New York Times that Mormonism is at the center of who he really is, if you scrape everything else off.

You could argue, as I do, that politics and religion are separate spheres and that a candidate’s faith should not be a major issue for anyone. But Romney is running as the leader of a party whose modern incarnation is defined by an insistence that religion and politics are inseparable, and Romney’s runner-up memorably described president Kennedy’s strict affirmation of political secularism as puke-worthy. So there really is no solid defense against an examination of Romney’s faith and how it formed him – or questioning some of his faith’s stranger doctrines. The media thus far have trod gingerly around the subject for good reason. Anti-Mormon bigotry, like racism, has been part of this country for a long while and in many ways, an election between a black man and a Mormon is a stupendous achievement for toleration in America.

I’ve often wondered why Romney runs on his experience as a businessman as opposed to his success as a governor. After all, his past record as a businessman has far less relevance than his record as a governor. Right? Now I am starting to better understand.