“Romney’s vote will do little to reorient the political landscape. The president’s acquittal has been all but certain for weeks, as Republicans have circled the wagons to protect Trump. But the Utahan’s sharp indictment ensures that at least one dissenting voice from within the president’s party will be on the record—and Romney seems to believe history will vindicate his decision.”
Speaking as some who never voted for Romney (not in 2012, and not before, and not since; I don’t live in Massachusetts, and I haven’t lived in Utah since 1995), and who has never had any contact with him personally, and who never especially liked his public persona (except for his personal frugality; I thought that was kind of charming), and who disagreed with most of his political positions, and who thinks he mostly had no idea what to do with the whole “Mormon Moment” thing from a decade ago, and thus failed to provide the sort of leadership which American Mormon culture could have benefited from, I want to thank him. He’s a U.S. senator, subject to pressures and problems and possibilities that I know something about from my studies, but have no intimate knowledge of–and hence, have no intimate sense of how much he is distraught over what President Trump has done to his political party, to people that at one time may have been his political friends, and to his own sense of what the American presidency, and Congress’s relationship to it, ought to amount to. But that he is distraught about it is clear; McKay is a good enough reporter to have communicated any such pretension if he’d seen it, and he didn’t, so he must not have. So here stands Mitt Romney: definitely ambitious, somewhat aristocratic, and but also rather avuncular, in that particular stake president-style mix we all know so well. A solid, ordinary member of the American Mormon elite. Against him: a dangerous idiot president who is stumbling towards autocratic claims of power, and a political party either too paralyzed or too corrupt or too stupid to do the right thing. Distraught though he may be over this vote, he’ll cast it, because his conscience demands it. In the end it won’t matter, except to those who do know him personally. And to history, of course. And to, perhaps, even cynics and critics like me, who for all our words have never thrown our hat into the ring like Romney did, never been buffeted around like Romney was, never had to deal with expectations impossible to fulfill like he has.
Thanks, Senator. Thanks for making the choice that had seemed obvious to me; I honestly wondered if you would. Much respect.
By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog 
Proud of you Mitt! You have a spine just like your Dad after all!
>
Amen to that. Watching some of the other Utah politicians, even living the the East, has all to often been cringe worthy at times. But at least there is one person following their conscience, rather than the Great and Spacious. And that counts for something in these times.
I call for Josh Romney and Don Jr. to face off in the octagon. I’ll put $20 on Josh, because he grew up fighting four brothers, whereas the Trump boys only like to kill endangered apex predators with guns.
Yea thanks. Another latter day liar on full display. Someone will run to his right in 2024. Get ready.
— Via IPhone
>
Thank you, Senator Romney.
The hate coming in response in comments on other social media (altho it looks like it’s starting here, too, already) carries a shockingly high percentage of anti-Mormon bigotry from self-identifying Christians, mingled with party politics and the non-religious sneering at any religious expression. Romney said he expected that from Trump&Co.; I wonder how much he expected from other quarters?
A comment from Noah Millman, a writer on politics and culture and a Jewish friend of mine:
“Mitt Romney always struck me as a basically decent guy who was disciplined and accomplished and quite bad at politics. And the core of his badness was how transparently phony he was in his acts of self-presentation.
“He pretended to be far more liberal than he was when running (unsuccessfully) for Senate in Massachusetts and (successfully) for governor of that state. He then pretended to be far more of a rabid right-winger than he was to run (unsuccessfully) for president in 2008 and (successfully for the nomination, unsuccessfully for the presidency) in 2012. Successful politicians change their stripes and dissimulate all the time, but are good at projecting the impression of authenticity and sincerity through it all. And like the saying goes: once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
“Romney was never good at faking that. I think it was Chris Orr who said, way back in 2008, that the Romney we saw was like Clark Kent, an unconvincing attempt by an alien to seem human. The alien knew himself to be superior, and the bumbling loser persona he created to fit in with humanity betrayed that knowledge. It was how he saw us. But to us, it just made him look like a loser, and so — more often than not — he lost.
“I think Romney’s announcement today was effectively his goodbye to all that. If you’re a Trump partisan, he’s probably just revealed how extravagantly he overrates himself and his own importance. If you’re a partisan Democrat, perhaps he just revealed the big “S” he’s been hiding under his button-down shirt all this time. But I do genuinely believe that this is what he felt he had to do, that if he was going to end his career he might as well do it here, even here, upon this bank and shoal of time — but to achieve rather than jump the life to come.
“Whether, after this, he’s feted with a ticker-tape parade or has to retreat to his fortress of solitude is kind of beside the point. Either way, any powers he may have thought he had are gone. And he can finally be himself.”
What is it you assert he lies about? It seems to me, a liberal, that he has taken a brave, coherent stand.
Russell: Hey, whoa! I will not stand for Clark Kent being called unconvincingly human!
Impeachment has always been a political process. I don’t see anything to celebrate in Mitt’s vote here. Democrats are praising him and republicans are condemning him.
I wish for Mitt would have found a way to vote that maybe could do something to bridge the division between the left and right. I appreciated his remarks explaining his vote.
I stand with Dr. Fox in respect for this courageous moral stance by a man I have never voted for because he represent voters in other states and have more often than not seen as a living, breathing example of white privelege.
He stands in oppostion to the truly malevolent force that is Donald Trump and the Republican Senate. These people are venial and vindictive, and he knows this, but he stands. In his place, I think I would become a waffling coward. This is a brave man. I salute him.
I’m curious how this will play out in LDS congregations now that Romney has provided a middle way, a path to conscientiously object to Trump while still remaining conservative. The prevalence of both hard core Trump enthusiasts and reluctant, issue-based supporters is the source of a lot of pain in our wards. Politics—not equality, LGBTQ, or historical, is the core of not a few faith crises.
As an overseas member I have been concerened at the lack of moral judgement shown by members in voting for Trump. It is good to see Romney standing up for what is morally right. Hopefully other members can follow his lead, and members might show an example of moralaty to other republicans, by voting against Trump.
If we can’t show moral leadership, can we claim to be Christs church and people?
Thanks for this. I read McKay’s piece on my way out the door for the day. I’m going to take some pride in this vote. And as hard as it was for him politically, i fully believe that history will eventually smile on this action.
Amen!
It was the right thing to do. It was braver, probably, than many will recognize or give him credit for (Michael Luo of The New Yorker has a good piece on this).
Mitt Romney’s politics are not mine. But today I am proud that Mitt is my people.
Thank you, Brother.
The demented Democrats never stood a chance they have weaponized impeachment who knows how this is going to play out in the future?
THIS is the Mormon moment.
I suppose how one views Senator Romney’s vote depends on one’s party affiliation. That said, he showed far more courage and conviction than the senators who said the resident’s actions were “inappropriate” but did not rise to the level of impeachment. Whatever that means.
The most ludicrous claims by the Donald’s enablers was that he had been denied due process. Impeachment is essentially a job evaluation. It is not a criminal trial and the requirements of due process do not apply. Moreover, the administration never presented any exculpatory evidence; indeed, it adamantly refused to submit any, probably because there was none.
Oh. well.
Way to go, Mitt. Politics aside, being brave enough to do what you know is right even when it means standing up to your friends (or colleagues) is cause for immense pride and celebration. Ten points to Gryffindor.
A brief thought:
I enjoyed Russell Fox’s posting, and agree with him that Mitt Romney was an island of integrity in an ocean of moral mush. Like Fox, I am glad that Romney voted to convict, and am grateful for his speech. But Fox set my cynical eyes and ears aquiver with his offering Romney his “respect.” Not to be sour, but in my experience, “respect” is something that one’s opponents offer you, when they realize that they have conned you into playing by their rules, and that you are therefore going to lose, and they are going to win. It was that realization that caused the revolt of the despised masses in 2016, and got them to vote for Trump, because they knew he would throw out the accepted rule book that turned the “deplorables” into losers in our changing world—with the horrible consequences that have followed for our country, because of Trump’s behavior. Please don’t offer me your respect—just treat me fairly, and try not to show your contempt.
Too late Tawain Missionary. I’m legitimately afraid democrats couldn’t be doing a better job of getting Trump reelected if they tried.
Mitt “the Corporate Pirate” Romney, aka, Mister Flip Flop, suddenly has a conscience?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Wow. I understand Romney and his performance in 2012 so much better after reading this post. Pretending to be human indeed. Lol
Okay, I’d like to take this moment to say I was wrong. I predicted in another blog that Romney would not, in the end, vote to convict the president, but that it he would convince himself that the charges were not that serious or some such explanation, and vote to acquit. I’m pleased to see I was wrong.
But I’m left worried about the state of our partisan system. Why can not more congress people vote on the merits? I believe that if they all voted on the merits, we would see more people crossing party lines, one direction or the other.
I enjoyed watching Romney’s speech and interview with Chris Wallace. It made me feel like there is at least one person in Congress that really tries to do the right thing. It’s too bad that makes for being a bad politician.
Senator Romney painted himself into a corner long ago with his opposition to Trump. Either way he voted, he knew he would come out of this with his reputation maligned by half of the U.S.
Rockwell: Virtually everyone, Congress member or not, seemed completely unable to impartially judge the merits of this impeachment (and I’m including myself). Unless of course everyone impartially weighed the evidence and just happened to come down on the side that matched their pre-existing feelings about this president. The ability to honestly assess whether, or even acknowledge that, one’s bias swayed one’s judgement seems to be impossible in politics.
I had voted on Republican principles and affiliation for 30 years until 2016. It was obvious to me What Trump was from the beginning and I am SHOcKeD and saddened that there is only one Republican in the what has become most non-deliberative body in the world who crossed party lines and voted for the obvious need for removal. Can one person save a party from its own ravenous slide into autocratic cult of personality? No. But I am grateful for his vote. We need to stop dialing down on the need to justify ourselves as right, and actually choose the right.
Thanks, Russell. You speak perfectly for me and, I suppose, for many others.
“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends [or Republican colleagues].” – Albus Dumbledore
And honor and integrity. Thank you, Senator Romney!!
While I applaud Mitt’s courage, and am grateful to see someone take a stand, I am still skeptical. His reputation as a flip-flopper is well-earned, and I’ll be interested to see if he supports/votes for Trump in the next election. I can’t imagine a line of reasoning that would allow him to vote to remove Trump from office because he is unfit for the Presidency but still vote for him to remain President for another 4 years, but I look forward to hearing Mitt come up with just such an argument.
Turtle – In the linked article, he says he is likely to vote for his wife (which is what he apparently did in the 2016 election).
Honestly, I was a bit disappointed that Mitt didn’t agree with article 2, although I understand that he could justify disagreement with it on the grounds that the House should have attempted to legally compel the president to comply with the investigation. Trump clearly obstructed congress. From all I’ve heard, the House’s rationale not to take it to court was because it would just run the clock out longer and longer; a court process could have been going on well into the next election cycle, resulting in no impeachment at all.
It’s crazy to me that there is currently no way to remove an unfit president from office. Impeachment has effectively been nullified due to how partisan this country has become. Nobody wants to risk the ire of their party because they will lose their seat. Trump was right when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and have no consequences. Those Republicans who claim Trump will be more circumspect in future because of this process are turning a blind eye.
I’m more impressed with Romney now that I’ve seen the vitriol hurled at him. To me this one was a no brainer, but I am not part of either party nor subject to its pressures.
Bill:
You had me at the first emoticon. But when you included 42 more, you really drove the point home with such erudition that it is difficult to see how anyone could disagree with you.
Say what you may about past flip flopping, Mitt is a man of principle. The sad thing for our country is that that no longer makes for a good politician.
Mitt voted for his wife? I think I’ll follow suit. Ann Romney for President!
Angela C,
In what could almost be read as a direct extension of your comment, James Madison posed this question:
“Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend upon their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.”
It appears that Americans lack “sufficient” civic virtue to remove this sitting president from office. Whether we ever had any to begin with (Madison owned human beings) is an interesting historical and moral question. But it is becoming increasingly clear that institutions by themselves, no matter how well designed or well understood, are no match for bad faith actors emboldened by civic ignorance or acquiescence. As virtually all of the Framers admitted, even the best of our political institutions were not designed – could never be designed – to govern a people who want bad things.
Trump’s xenophobia and racism, his stupidity, hubris, and petulant selfishness, the blinkered, vicious loyalty he demands (and gets!) are all bad things. But they are the things that millions of Americans want. Unless that changes, we will not keep this Republic, as even its creators knew.
sorry to be a dissident. Mitt is having trouble with the word “constituency.” He never should have brought up religion, so many people are judging “Mormons” by his example. (remember, he has spewed a lot of hate towards Trump.) He was elected by Republicans to the Republican team. I thought a Senator was supposed to represent his people, not himself. What if you were Catholic or Jewish or Presbyterian or whatever and lived in Utah? Would you be so thrilled that your Senator followed his “Choose the Right” hymn mentality to frame his vote? Just for the record, I adored Mitt and campaigned mightily for him when he ran for Prez. But now he thinks he’s an Apostle representing his church. THIS IS POLITICS. Represent Utah, Mr. Romney. He made the whole thing all about himself!!!!!!!!
I honor Senator Romney for his principled stand. I believe that he is endeavoring to do what he sees as right regardless of the consequences. Country over party. Integrity over loyalty. I honor him for his decision to “Stand for something.”
thinkermama, I disagree. Senator Romney made it about the Constitution. If all of this had been about representing the people, the majority of senators would have had to vote for witnesses at the trial.
thinkermama said: “He was elected by Republicans to the Republican team. I thought a senator was supposed to represent his people…”
I have a lot of family in Utah who are Republicans who cannot stand President Trump and who like and support Mitt in large part because he is the one person who has attempted to stand up to the president. I’d venture to say that these are the people the senator is representing.
All of us do well today to honor his courage to stand up for what he feels is right. Fat lot of good any of you did for his 2008 and 2012 races, I’m sure. Meanwhile Utah voters are going to run him out with pitchforks. But moderates and progressives, thanks for all of your support? and encouragement?….now?…
Does anybody not see the atrocious way the Democrats are behaving?
Democrats are running on open borders, gun confiscation, medicare for all, the green new deal, abolishing ICE, eliminating the Electoral College, elevating foreign nationals above Americans and Infanticide.
They have no policies to run on. They have nothing to offer.
Thinkermama: I think your question is the one at the heart of politics: should a politician vote as he believes the majority of his constituents would vote or vote his conscience. I believe when it comes to the Senate especially that it should be the latter. The Senate is intended to be more elitist in how its members are selected. They are supposed to have impeccable character and to represent the best the state offers. The house is more tied to the populace. But this is ultimately the question of democratic government. We are a republic, and Senators shouldn’t be replaceable by a poll in my opinion. Reasonable people can disagree on this point, and I am glad you raised it. At heart it’s a question of whether politicians should lead or follow. It was the most frequent critique of Bill Clinton that he never took a stand without consulting a poll.
Jon, This blog was about a man who stood up and said the president should be impeached. He has done atrocious things and required his party to support them, and they have given up their agency to the devil.
In your mind we should all ignore how terrible trump is because the democrats are worse? Is it possible to agree Trump is terrible, and should have been impeached without saying but the democrats are terrible too.
Your earlier point about democrats weaponising impeachment is rediculous. It was weaponised by republicans against Clinton. He had an affair and lied about it, trump has done that numerous times but trying to undermine democracy was his problem.
Your list of terrible things the democrats advocate are either lies or if worded differently positives.
Open borders and gun confiscation, elevating foreigners above americans, and infanticide, all lies.
Universal healthcare, being environmentally responsible, and making elections fair by removing some of the republican gerrymanders (so the election results represent the votes cast) are all good things that would make America a better place to live.
So no need to see the world from your distorted place.
Geoff,
Is it an abuse of power to sexually harass an intern and then lie about it to a grand jury to protect yourself in the midst of being sued for sexually harassing a prior female staffer? Ya….
I would be fine with Trump being impeached if we understood the standard here. Obama wouldn’t have lasted either with the same standard. And likewise anyone in the future who doesn’t follow the letter of the constitution.
The obstruction charge was nonsense Angela. The case would certainly have been fast tracked through the courts. You can’t just claim the courts are too slow, so we’re going to impeach on obstruction when he’s never been compelled by the courts to turn the docs over.
The other charge is relatively petty and minor, but he did do it. Derschowitz was right in essence. Every president could be impeached by that standard if you follow it. Just start with Obama backing down to Putin for election flexibility when funding and plans were actually made for eastern European bases. And interestingly enough after that election, after Obama withheld aid in Czech, Ukraine was invaded… then you have Bidens own bragging.
So ya, impeach one rat and impeach them all. We’d likely end up with virtuous people like Romney if we were consistent.
As it is, the country is worse for this whole affair and the Dems bare some responsibility for that.
Geoff Aus
infanticide, all lies.
the democrat governor of New York signed into a law that babies may be aborted up to delivery. And all the people around him were smiling as he signed it. If that’s not evil, I don’t know what it is.
Jon,
There are different ways to address abortion. I expect you would make it illegal. When abortion is illegal, womens services and rights are usually reduced too, so there are more unwanted pregnancies, and more women die in backyard abortions. Of course the wealthy can buy what they need.
The alternative is to try to reduce abortion to a minimum. This is done by respecting womens choices, providing sex education, providing affordable birth control, and as a last resort abortion.
Now where abortion is illegal the rate of abortion is between 20 and 50 abortions/10000 women.
Where womens services are provided countries can get to 5 abortions.
Black and white thinking, that making it illegal will result in 0 abortions is a lie.
So if your NY example is true and they also privide womens reproductive health services they will reduce the number of abortions. Thats why they were smiling, not because they are evil.
Your line about abortion right up until birth is right wing lie too. 99% of abortions are before 20 weeks, the only late term abortions are because of health problems for the mother or feotus. This is in line with church policy. Why would a woman carry a baby for 9 months and then abort a healthy baby. If the feotus dies the removal is listed as an abortion. How do women deal with these problems if it is illegal.
There are more abortions when republicans are in power than when democrats. Fact. Does that make republicans evil? Republicans also defund ngos that provide womens health services in Africa, causing millions of abortions, and thousands of deaths of women in back yard abortions.
When you have universal health care the number of abortions will drop, because birth control will be affordable. You will also increase your life expectancy by 5 years at least, because in a universal system they can see statistical problems and address them. Bowell cancer causes a lot of deaths in older people so we get sent a test (which we can choose to ignore) every 10 years from 50th birthday. At 70 mine returned positive, within a month I had a colonoscopy and am now clear till 75.
Our universal health care (the test and colonoscopy cost me nothing) costs less than half what your system does, why would you resist that? Imagine not having to be concerned about health costs, and it costing the country half as much?
I bet you’ll be voting democrat now?
Sute, you think the abuse of power is comparable. One abuse of power is with one woman who seemed to consent.
Comparing to a president using withholding of military aid to get a foreign country to investigate an opponent in a presidential election. When he did what Clinton did no one impeached him.
He then refused to cooperate with the congress.
If he losses the election and refuses to leave office would that concern you?
How many steps from defying the parliament to refusingbto accept the election?
You seem to be setting the bar pretty low for your boy, but trying to make out like he’s the poor little victim.
Geoff Aus
This is coming from a gospel perspective. we’ve been warned in these last days that good will be called evil and evil will be called good. Spirits coming to this Earth are denied their bodies. people used to claim that abortion was only when the fetus was very very tiny but look at what its progressed to up to nine months now. Remember the story of the boiling frog.
Not sure what you are talking about? Are you saying the method that reduces abortions to the least number is not best? Is ideology more important. The idea that women carry a baby for 9 months and then get an abortion is rediculous. Women are not stupid. Late term abortions are because there is a problem withe the feotus or the mothers health. You are repeating/
accepting right wing lies.
You earlier called someone evil who has a more effective way of reducing the number of abortions, than the one you advocate. So which is good and which is evil?
Do you want to reduce abortions to a minimum, or do you want your ideology?
Let’s get real about “late term abortions”, please.
A late term abortion is one that is performed after 20 or 21 weeks or in the second trimester. NOT at 9 months or even at 6 months. Late term abortions account for about 1% of pregnancies and they are limited to circumstances endangering the life or health of the mother or non-viability of the fetus. Many of that 1% are instances where state laws are restrictive of early term abortions or abortion services are not available. Both of these circumstances pregnancies to advance before necessary termination becomes possible. 75% of late term abortions are performed for women who live more than 50 miles from a clinic which can provide services for her. Six states have only 1 abortion clinic statewide. 90% of counties in the US are without providers.
Abortions after the 20th or 21st week still occur well before the 30 weeks at which time the brain structures which can process what we know as pain form.
I agree with Geoff that laws restricting abortion are the real culprit in late term abortions and that the phrase, itself, has created unrealistic hysteria among the people who use it most. Facts are our friends if we want to eliminate or reduce the need for abortions after the 20th-21st week of gestation.
“good will be called evil and evil will be called good” I literally watched Trump do this when he called those who impeached him “evil.” It’s not evil to attempt to hold someone accountable for their unethical actions.
I want to respect the rights of other Latter-day Saints to support the public officials or candidates for public office they see fit (just as would hope to get the same respect in return for my views).
Personally, though, I marvel at how anyone can say they champion what is written in For the Strength of Youth, or in the Family Proclamation, or a host of other church materials and still say they support anything that comes from Donald Trump (but that is only my opinion).
Serious question for the group here: I recall that Julie Beck (former RS General President) gave the opening prayer at a Trump rally in Utah during the 2016 campaign. Does anyone know if that rally occurred before or after the Access Hollywood tape came out?
I have never been a fan of Mitt Romney or his politics, but he has my total respect not just for his vote, but for the very eloquent remarks he gave on the Senate floor explaining his reasons behind his decision. He went out of his to verbally disembowel the arguments of his some of Republican colleagues on why they would not vote to convict. It was, frankly, a brilliant speech. I am glad to live in a world where people can still surprise you by saying or doing good things. Hats off to Mitt.
We have in Australia a chat show called “the drum” on the ABC which is government owned and required to be balanced. Last night one of the segments was on Mitt Romneys actions. One of the panelists is a religious broadcaster. He pointed out that Mitt is a mormon, that all the senators took an oath at the beginning of the trial, that only one appeared to take his oath seriously, and that if there is only one republican senator of integrity, and he is a mormon, then God help America. He added that the president then bullying and abusing the one with integridy was a big concern.
Everyone on the panel from across the spectrum agreed.
President Trump has endured hit after hit after hit to try to take him out and yet he still emerges victorious.
I wonder why?
Jon, I’d say because he is a bully, and the sycophants in the republican party don’t stop him. Now they have given him free reign. So he will start weeding out any who question him.
Am not aware of anyone trying to take him out. Is that the same as questioning his actions?
I would be very worried about what he will do now he has been enabled.
If he looses the election will he go, will the republican senators support him in staying? America is in real strife. Is there a process for that, and will it work?
Romney tanking in Utah in new poll
https://kutv.com/news/local/romneys-job-approval-from-utah-voters-drops-significantly-during-impeachment
Dylan (Feb 7, 11:45 am) the tape of Trump was published by the Washington Post on October 7, 2016. Julie Beck prayed at the Trump/Pence rally in Utah on October 26, 2016.
Geoff USA
Jeff you must be blind because the Democrats have been gunning for him even before he was elected. the Democrats thought that their Queen Hillary was going to get elected and that they would have four to eight more years of being able to do as they please. Donald Trump does not mess around. Like when he told Sally Yates
you’re fired.
Loretta Lynch was so surprised that happened because in the Obama administration you could disobey a directive from the president and probably still keep your job.
Correction
Geoff
Sure, there were a few Democrats talking about impeachment before Trump was elected. And there were some Republicans talking about impeachment ahead of Hillary’s potential election. And there are already some Republicans talking about impeachment ahead of Biden’s potential election.
Talking.
Talk is cheap.
Speaking of talking, one of the Republicans’ repeated talking points is that Trump should be immune from impeachment because some Democrats were talking about impeachment even before the election.
A risible claim, whether applied to Clinton, Trump, or Biden.
Suggestions that Trump is “good” from a christian perspective are evidences of a results based understanding of God. Love is not results oriented. Love dosent “work”. Love permits space. If permitting space doesnt work to produce the result you desire you might disagree with someone who suggests you love your enemies at a national prayer breakfast. If Christs gospel is results based He should probably be fired, look around He is “choking like a dog” #graceisforwinners
While giving his address about his vote, I sure would have liked to hear Mitt address his feelings about a couple other topics:
1) Whether he believes the actions of Joe and Hunter Biden had any appearance of corruption to them, and if so, whether apparently corrupt actions by government officials should be off limits from investigation if said officials are running in an election
2) How he feels about secret combinations attempting to overthrow elections.
Nomad, This is a new and crazy concept, that if you say there is evidence of wrongdoing by a republican, it is not credible unless you also criticise democrats.
Especially when neither of your examples is comparable or credible, why would he?
After watching Mitt vote with Trump 80+% of the time, I feel his impeachment vote necessitates Winston Churchill’s quote. “Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing after exhausting all the alternatives.”
To a few of the previous comments, shining light on corruption is never the fault of the whistleblower, and if this country is damaged by the impeachment it is the d&$! President who broke laws. Whose fault was Watergate and the black eye to America that even today causes mistrust and lack of confidence in government? Nixon and his cronies, not those who blew the whistle! Likewise if crimes are committed in a neighborhood causing property values to go down, is it the victims reporting the problem who are responsible for the effects or the criminals? No, of course not, the problem is the criminals. What’s the best way to protect the country or your neighborhood? A) turning a blind eye and blaming those who call attention to it? B) shining light on the problem, holding higher standards and cleaning house. The correct answer is “B”.
Geoff, I appreciate your perspective outside the “Moridor” (I-15 corridor through Utah). It’s refreshing and informative.
Dave Boyce is an old friends of mine–and someone known to many who remember the original days of Vocal Point at BYU back in the early 1990s. He was a longtime resident in Mitt Romney’s ward, and shared this perspective this afternoon on FB. I asked if I could post it here, and he said yes. It’s long, but worth reading, at least for anyone open to a sympathetic assessment of a political figure trying to find a balance between ambition, principle, and the Spirit.
“I loved watching Mitt Romney’s speech to the Senate. I’ve watched it a few times now, and I’ve shown it to my kids. We were MItt’s neighbors and co-congregants for about 10 years in Belmont, MA. I watched as he ran for Senate and lost, then ran for Governor and won, then President 2x and lost. It was always clear to me that Mitt was smart and educated, and that he relied on data and analysis to make decisions. Once Mitt was in office as Governor, I thought he did an amazing job on universal health care, fiscal responsibility, and overall governance. When Mitt was running for President, I was less impressed than I expected to be. I felt like his handlers and advisors guided him out of his swim lane, tacking further right than he actually is (although Mitt is a life-long conservative). I believe they did that to win the Republican nomination. Mitt took stances that were less rooted in analysis and more geared toward gaining Republican primary favor. This is something you have to do as a politician, but I felt it made Mitt come across as less genuine, and I started not recognizing my neighbor and gospel doctrine teacher when he spoke publicly.
“My view (and admittedly I’m deep in personal analysis, apologies. At the very least I have 10 years of close-contact direct association with Mitt, so hopefully that is more of a qualification than just knowing him through media coverage) is that I saw the real Mitt in that speech to the Senate. I recognized his sincerity and the process he described. His process is rooted deep in the LDS religious tradition, and specifically a special version of that tradition that exists among kind and thoughtful LDS intellectuals–the same people Mitt and my family shared our congregation with in Boston.
“I believe this was a hard decision for Mitt because he knew if he followed his predilection, he would vote to convict, and he would become a political pariah. His party would disown him, and he would be accused of having a vendetta against Trump based on past squabbles. More easy would be to vote along party lines. He could keep his head down, not subject himself to ridicule and scorn, and do what he’s expected to do by the Republican party (this, in my opinion, is what he did during his Presidential campaigns). On the other hand, would the skeptics have a point? If he votes to convict, would he be doing that with the right motives? Maybe he is feeling personally offended or slighted by Trump? Is he letting that cloud his judgement? The last thing he would want to do is cast a vote born of personal vendetta–that is also not who wants to be. So stuck in that predicament, he turned to his faith tradition. I don’t believe he expected to find an answer to his question in prayer, scripture, or hymns. I think he was trying to make sure his mind was right. He was searching for spiritual strength and clarity of mind and conscience as he made this difficult decision. In my experience making hard decisions, scriptures, prayer, and meditation can help me raise my thoughts beyond any petty grievances or biases that may be clouding my judgement. With a spiritual perspective, I can see more clearly the issue before me. I do believe I can get answers through prayer, but I only remember 3 times in my entire life when I got a distinct answer to a prayer. Beyond that, I use prayer to re-center and calibrate to principles I believe in. That is what I heard in Mitt’s Senate speech. He was not claiming to have found an answer in doctrine or scripture. He was merely saying he had done the work spiritually to make sure whichever vote he cast it was for the right reasons, not clouded by a bias or self-interest one way or the other. And in that I recognized the Mitt I know personally. The thoughtful, kind, intellectual Mitt who uses data and reasoning to make decisions. It made me happy to see the real Mitt in public life.
“I wonder if the public will vote the “real Mitt” into office? I’m sure he wonders that too. This could be the end of his political career. Those on the right might see aspects of Mitt that don’t represent them and feel angry and betrayed by him. Those on the left may see the same. And Mitt may be caught in political no-man’s-land. In that case, “oh, well.” He’s had an amazing career, he has an amazing family, and he will be able to live out his days with his family knowing he voted his conscience and did the best he knows how to do. On the other hand (and this is what I hope for), maybe the public will have enough time with the “real Mitt” to learn to love and appreciate his true intellect and sincerity and strategic acumen. If we want a politician, the “real Mitt” is probably not our guy. He’s not good at playing those games. But if we want a leader, I’d vote for “real Mitt” 10 times out of 10.
“So I believe Mitt used spirituality as a way to center himself and make a decision he knew–no matter which vote he cast–he would have to live with, consequences and all. And then he geared up and put his future and his career on the altar and did what he believed. I am a fan of this approach, obviously.”
–Dave Boyce
I wasn’t inclined to jump in until David Boyce’s comment. I would 80% subscribe. He describes the Mitt Romney I know. I am not as enthusiastic a supporter–I am too far left, and I think the real Mitt Romney is too far right, to come to terms politically. I do have many years of observation (and the same ward, and some common ancestors) to my credit.
I agree that the Mitt Romney giving the speech is the closest to the “real Mitt” I have seen on a political stage. I would rate as second the first debate against Barack Obama in October 2012 as Romney pivoted to the center (as I saw it). I do think the “real Mitt” would be an attractive candidate in a national popular vote election. (I told him as much, once upon a time.) I don’t think the real Mitt could win the nomination of either party, nor win at the electoral college. And I am worried about the Utah Republican Party caucus in 2024. .
I appreciate Dave Boyce’s nuanced view of Romney’s use of prayer. To make the point in another way, I believe that similarly religious Congressmen and Senators, of the same and other traditions, could have and probably did make impeachment a matter of prayer, and could have and probably did reach different conclusions, honestly and sincerely.
Christian Kimball–
Like boys at BYU who tell girls God told them she’s the one? Thankfully, the girls have the common sense to know better.
“maybe the public will have enough time with the ‘real Mitt’ to learn to love and appreciate his true intellect and sincerity and strategic acumen.”
Sorry, Mr. Boyce and others. When you are 72 years old, have run for president twice, been the governor for a major state, and are currently a senator in congress, and people still don’t know if you are real or authentic, or have to pontificate how THIS TIME you were authentic, it’s too late. It’s embarrassing to be 72 years old and people have to weigh in on whether you have integrity.