More Insane Questions for Mitt Romney
Because reporting on the sexual history of Mitt Romney's ancestors and the polygamist fundamentalists that are no longer part of the Mormon church then tacking on those sins to Romney while boldly asking the American public "Given that his ancestors were polygamists, is America ready for Mormon Mitt Romney to be President?" weren't enough, Mike Wallace of CBS raises the ante by investigating Mitt Romney's own sexual history.
If there were to be one candidate in the Republican field that would have really expected to see this kind of invasion of their personal lives, it would be Rudy Giuliani, whose tumultuous personal life was on display on the covers of New York's tabloids regularly. Even if this were the case with Giuliani and not Romney, it'd still be wrong to pry this deep into private lives. It's as if nobody knows that we've had more than our share of presidents with messed up personal lives and/or trysts outside of their marriage.
While a lot of this attention on Romney is because, my God, there's a Mormon in the field, more of it seems to be that enough people that will vote in the Republican primaries want the complete reversal from JFK's "I will not take orders from the Pope if elected President" that was the response to persistent doubt that a Roman Catholic could be elected into the presidency.
Romney should have replied "I don't think it's any of your God damn business to know my sexual past, I'm running for President and I have an agenda that deserves to be heard." Of course, if he did that, then the chance of a mini-scandal of yet more Mormon-bashing "questions" about his ability to be President would be greater. However, questions about his sexual history or that of his ancestors will continue until the end of the campaign because Romney didn't put an end to this disgrace.
Mike Wallace did journalism a disservice by diving into such a question, even in the middle of a segment giving Romney's biography. As long as reporters are still willing to forget asking questions that truly matter to the American voters, even if their based on personal belief and experiences, the longer people will be able to fling accusations at one another, often while concealing their own far-from-perfect moral records. Mitt Romney did himself no favors by mentioning how hot young Mormons were for each other, but that does not excuse Wallace's question.
Newt Gingrich comes to mind as one of those that engage in these politics. While he was beating down the Clinton presidency for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Gingrich himself was conducting an affair, though that woman later became his third wife. It took ten years before Gingrich came clean about the affair and probably did so only because he is seeking to enter the presidential free-for-all by this fall. In disclosing that affair, he flogged himself in front of Christian conservative big-wig James Dobson on Dobson's radio show in hopes of seeking forgiveness. There was no plea to forgive Clinton's affair, or Giuliani's, for that matter.
Until the nature of throwing out such questions is changed, expect a lot more time on Romney's polygamist ancestors and focusing on whether he had sex with his wife before marriage (because somehow the positions and decisions made by the President in 2009 will really be based on what he did in bed in 1970) and not enough time spent on Romney's conversion to the social conservative fold or his plans to fix our fiscal woes or his relevant experience as CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics, where he dealt with large budgets and organizational problems as well as matters of security. Until then, expect more and more time in these debates and on the campaign trail focused on such matters rather than issues important for us today.
Wallace should apologize for asking such a question. It may be impossible to get all journalists to keep their noses out of a candidate's bedroom, but it can start with one person.
If there were to be one candidate in the Republican field that would have really expected to see this kind of invasion of their personal lives, it would be Rudy Giuliani, whose tumultuous personal life was on display on the covers of New York's tabloids regularly. Even if this were the case with Giuliani and not Romney, it'd still be wrong to pry this deep into private lives. It's as if nobody knows that we've had more than our share of presidents with messed up personal lives and/or trysts outside of their marriage.
While a lot of this attention on Romney is because, my God, there's a Mormon in the field, more of it seems to be that enough people that will vote in the Republican primaries want the complete reversal from JFK's "I will not take orders from the Pope if elected President" that was the response to persistent doubt that a Roman Catholic could be elected into the presidency.
Romney should have replied "I don't think it's any of your God damn business to know my sexual past, I'm running for President and I have an agenda that deserves to be heard." Of course, if he did that, then the chance of a mini-scandal of yet more Mormon-bashing "questions" about his ability to be President would be greater. However, questions about his sexual history or that of his ancestors will continue until the end of the campaign because Romney didn't put an end to this disgrace.
Mike Wallace did journalism a disservice by diving into such a question, even in the middle of a segment giving Romney's biography. As long as reporters are still willing to forget asking questions that truly matter to the American voters, even if their based on personal belief and experiences, the longer people will be able to fling accusations at one another, often while concealing their own far-from-perfect moral records. Mitt Romney did himself no favors by mentioning how hot young Mormons were for each other, but that does not excuse Wallace's question.
Newt Gingrich comes to mind as one of those that engage in these politics. While he was beating down the Clinton presidency for his affair with Monica Lewinsky, Gingrich himself was conducting an affair, though that woman later became his third wife. It took ten years before Gingrich came clean about the affair and probably did so only because he is seeking to enter the presidential free-for-all by this fall. In disclosing that affair, he flogged himself in front of Christian conservative big-wig James Dobson on Dobson's radio show in hopes of seeking forgiveness. There was no plea to forgive Clinton's affair, or Giuliani's, for that matter.
Until the nature of throwing out such questions is changed, expect a lot more time on Romney's polygamist ancestors and focusing on whether he had sex with his wife before marriage (because somehow the positions and decisions made by the President in 2009 will really be based on what he did in bed in 1970) and not enough time spent on Romney's conversion to the social conservative fold or his plans to fix our fiscal woes or his relevant experience as CEO of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics, where he dealt with large budgets and organizational problems as well as matters of security. Until then, expect more and more time in these debates and on the campaign trail focused on such matters rather than issues important for us today.
Wallace should apologize for asking such a question. It may be impossible to get all journalists to keep their noses out of a candidate's bedroom, but it can start with one person.
Labels: 2008 Elections
posted by Will at 5:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home