In an effort to drum up interest in his presidential bid for the 1968 elections, Michigan’s governor, George Romney — Mitt Romney’s father — went into the belly of the beast. During the summer of 1967, the elder Romney gave a stump speech in San Francisco’s Golden Gate panhandle, a couple of blocks from Haight and Ashbury, the epicenter of hippiedom.
I was there the day that several buses pulled up at the panhandle and disgorged George Romney, his entourage and reporters. No vote-getting reason could possibly justify Romney’s being there, in front of this group of people, most of whom had probably never voted. (The voting age was then 21.) What must the former CEO of American Motors have been thinking?
This surely qualifies as one of the strangest moments in the history of presidential campaigns. As he surveyed us, what George Romney saw was a large crowd of young people in wild array, a group that resembled a kind of free-form, nonstop Mardi Gras, a thousand times stranger than the Occupy Wall Street crowd. One woman, pacing quickly back and forth, carried a placard that read: “SPEED FREAKS FOR ROMNEY.”
Romney didn’t seem fazed by us, as if it was all perfectly natural. Many were smoking marijuana and couldn’t have cared less about Romney’s political ambitions, though if the crowd had listened, they might have liked what he said. He was against the war in Vietnam. He was for community service. He believed strongly in civil rights.
George Romney managed to get through his stump speech even though some of my friends were banging drums during it, giving it more rhythm than the speech warranted. Afterward, Romney loosened his tie and tried to endear himself, coming off like a man who could interact with anyone, even in this crowd.
“Look,” Romney said, “I want to know what you people want. Your generation, you’re the children of my generation. I have kids your age, so I really want to know what you want. What you really want.” He pointed at one young man. “You. What do you want?’
The young man, hair halfway down his back, seemed very stoned. He said, “My friend’s in jail, I wanna get him out.” Romney signaled to one of his aides to take down the information. “I’ll look into it,” he said. Then he pointed to a young woman.
“You,” said Romney. “What is it that you want?”
The woman shouted, “Life without death and acid without speed!” Like someone in an insane asylum who’s finally being taken seriously by authority figures, she yelled it again and again, louder and louder: “Life without death! Acid without speed!”
The Secret Service men tensed, but Romney merely said, “OK, OK,” nodded seriously and again signaled to one of his aides to write this down.
Lately, while watching Mitt Romney on television, I’ve recalled that day from the Summer of Love. Mitt Romney certainly looks presidential, as his father did. And he’s capable of changing his mind, as his father famously did.
But there’s a vast difference between father and son.
George Romney changed his pro-war stance on Vietnam, claiming that military brass had “brainwashed” him into believing rosy predictions about the war. He became convinced it was going badly and should be abandoned. This was a courageous stance in 1967 — and, as it turned out, political suicide. These comments sank George Romney’s campaign and made it easier for Richard Nixon to win the nomination and, eventually, the White House.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, seems to have rejected a slew of his earlier positions — on abortion rights, stem cell research, gay rights, gun rights, universal health care — for a very different reason. Unlike his father, Mitt Romney has changed his views because it would have been political suicide not to do so. Whereas his father showed courage, Mitt Romney has shown expediency, telling voters what he thinks they want to hear.
What would Mitt Romney have said to a woman who told him she wanted life without death and acid without speed? Like his father, would he have nodded and told an aide to note it down? Maybe, but I don’t think Mitt Romney’s aides would ever let him do what his father did: bravely wade into a crowd of outlandish young people where you had no idea what kind of off-the-wall questions they would ask.
• Loiederman is co-author of “The Eagle Mutiny,” a nonfiction account of the only armed shipboard mutiny on a U.S. vessel in modern times.
Comments (22)
Add commentI expect Romney, like Bush...
...would have carefully controlled events, where only 'approved' attendees are allowed in...after renewing their loyalty oaths, of course.
Promise them anything
Mitt's butt is showing through his magic underpants.
"Promise them anything. ANYTHING!" seems to be his mantra.
I agree with my bud Latitude above. Mitt is more artificial than Splenda.
But, ya gotta love a presidential candidate whose religion (Mormon) requires him to wear special underwear (called "the magic underwear") 24 hours/day (snicker):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment
and here's a more amusing version of the magic underwear:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Magic%20Underwear
(snicker) (giggle) (snort)
Wish *I* had magic undies...
You know, Jo, making fun of
You know, Jo, making fun of Willard Romney's religion is a bit silly. It either makes you a bigoted religious person of another flavor who doesn't realize her religion is just as ridiculous to outside observers, or it makes you a hypocritical non-religious person for trying to make out Mormonism to be less of a religion than other, equally ridiculous religions.
There are many things to castigate Multiple-Choice Mitt for. His religion is not one of them.
Anybody but Obama...
Anybody but Obama...
Calypso's comment sums up the
Calypso's comment sums up the Republican Party base's thoughts exactly. They would vote for Pol Pot over Obama because they aren't concerned with governing or bettering the country (or, apparently, themselves). They are concerned with one thing: beating Obama. I bet they'd even vote for Josef Stalin over Obama, because in their tiny little minds, Obama is a bigger socialist than even Uncle Joe.
Don't be blaming the current President
It took this country a long time to get into the mess it's in know. It's going to take this country a while to get out of the same mess. With that said,,,I think the man we have as President now is doing the best he can. I'm totally disgusted with congress. It's like watching a bunch of bad behaved 5 yr olds. Until we get rid of the lobbyists that are writing the laws for the entities they represent this country imo is going to continue to be in trouble. The reason for the high unemployment is all the jobs being shipped over seas.
Religion
Oh, dearest PP, normally you and I are normally on the same page, but you play the "bigot" and the "Stalin" cards a little too frequently. Calling someone a racist or a bigot is usually the other cards played when the attacker can think of nothing else more substantial to accuse. Feel free to call me all the names you wish.
For the record, I've never met a Mormon I didn't like. Whenever they come to my door, I cheerfully invite them in, hear their sales pitch, then tell them why I disagree and why I think their church is controlling their minds. Their mission is to collect souls. My mission is to expand minds and save people from their religion. Remember, I grew up Catholic. I have a little personal experience in churches and mind control.
And I hold all religions with contempt. I am a deeply spiritual person, but not religious in the least. Religion is the opiate of the masses. So, I feel justified in pointing out parts of various religions which I believe to be just silly, such as magic underwear.
But boil it all down, and this was my point...that this person Romney, who is a serious contender to be POTUS belongs to a belief system which requires special underwear, and believes in a three tier level of heaven, and that Jesus visited Utah.
How can anyone take someone like that seriously?
That was my point.
And your point is invalid,
And your point is invalid, because Mormon beliefs are no more silly than Catholic beliefs, but I don't see you making fun of Santorum for believing that holy wafers and wine literally become the body and blood of Christ in his tummy. Nor do I hear you making fun of Gingrich's current religion (I can't keep track, the man changes too often), or Perry's brand of anti-Christianity.
With all the substantive criticism you could make about Romney, harping on his underwear is pretty juvenile and doesn't help your case.
You can't take Romney seriously not because of his religion, but because of his propensity for pandering and his CEO mentality.
p - take a breath, man!
You are trying to make an argument here where there is none. The only reason Joe didn't point out the particular crazy bits in the Catholic religion (he has now said several times that all religions are silly - which they are) is because he was commenting particularly on the current GOP front runner.
Relax, and cut down on the caffine a bit. :)
I don't think it's
I don't think it's appropriate to belittle the religion of a presidential candidate unless they're using it as a platform in their campaign, and Romney has been trying to downplay it, if anything, because people think Mormons are nuts. It also makes little sense to say Romney is unfit to lead us because of his religion when Obama is also religious, and follows a just-as-ridiculous belief system.
There is nothing about Mormonism that makes it a lesser religion than mainstream Christianity, Islam, Jainism, Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shinto, Voodoo, or Taoism.
Wow, p, sticking up for
Wow, p, sticking up for religions? Maybe there is some hope for you.
Sooooo, deep down, you're kind of liking Romney?!!
I can only guess that you're projecting when you say the conservatives would vote for communists over Obama. That's just stupid talk...
@PP
Swimmergirl said it all correctly above. I think you just enjoy calling people names like Stalin, juvenile, bigot etc. I don't care.
I beat up other politician's religions all the time. You just must selective in what you've been reading.
And it is totally appropriate to belittle a presidential candidate on any view they hold which I view as silly or I disagree with. His religion is not above scrutiny, nor is his voting record, clubs he belongs to, women (or men) he might have sex with or groups he bashes. EVERYTHING is fair game, including a candidate's religion.
So, you are wrong. Nothing is off limits. And I am amused at which points you feel are valid and which are not. Keep trying.
p.s., I doubt Obama wears magic underwear.
p.s.s., I make fun of Catholics and Santorum all the time, and I constantly delight in the disgusting results a search engine produces when you simply type in his last name!
Jo - the google is bad.
Jo - yeah, the google should be an automatic reason why Santorum could NOT be president, as if we needed another reason besides his politics.
Look - I have said before, and I'll say again - to me freedom of religion is a lot like freedom of speech. I may not like how somene else uses this freedom (i.e. the kkk) and I may be opposed with everything I believe in to their way of doing things, but if I respect the FREEDOM ITSELF then I MUST allow them to wear their pointy hats and print their newsletters and march. By the same token, a devoutly religious person who would never marry a same-sex partner, if they believe in the freedoms of this country, MUST allow that someone else has the right to. To say otherwise is to say that they do not believe in freedom of religion. And that, my friends, leads down a dark and scary path, the likes of which saw centuries of wars and slayings and book burnings etc. etc. in Europe.
Someone who cannot lay their religion aside long enough to recognize that the rule of law in this country must accommodate even those who may, according to you, burn forever in the hearafter, will never, ever get my vote.
Points taken. But I still
Points taken. But I still think it's juvenile to bash a religion for silly underwear or some other harmless ritual that doesn't reflect at all on someone's ability to be president.
Religious beliefs shouldn't matter. The issues are what matters.
In this country we are guaranteed,,, freedom of religion. I don't see where what type of underwear a person wears has to do with what type of job that person will do as president.
In Related News:
New Hampshire Republicans Remove Santorum From The Number Two Spot
In Related News
After a wild night in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney thanks Paul and Huntsman for helping to push Santorum back into the rear.
Religion? No. It's the
Religion? No. It's the economy stupid!
pp and chapter - - -
Agreed. Up until the person who proposes to be President indicates that he/she intends to craft laws which govern all of us based on their religion, regardless of whether it's the silly underwear or wine into blood version.
Art -
Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she's a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.