LDS Church and Mitt Romney: No Meddling in Politics?

[_Trevor]

The following comes from an interview with Judy Dushku, mother of actress Eliza Dushku, by Suzan Mazur of Scoop:

Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women -- which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.

And he said – Yes, come to my office.

I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?

Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.

And I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience.

He said – Oh no, I actually had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. So I have some positive feelings about choice, but basically I know that I have to take that position.

So I said – How do you feel about choice for poor women and state funding of abortion for poor women?

He said, I’m against that. The state has no right or responsibility to fund abortions for poor women.

And I said – Well Mitt, I thought there was possibly some kind of room for mutual agreement on this issue but it appears there’s really not. I think we’re quite far apart on the issue of choice. It’s nice meeting with you here and talking with you. Good luck with your campaign, however, I can’t support you.

So, can we really believe the LDS Church, when they claim not to involve themselves in politics? If Dushku is telling the truth, then it seems to me they're giving Mitt political direction, which he feels he needs to follow. Why would non-LDS folks vote for Mitt, when that is at least partly a vote for the LDS Church (unless, of course, they like the idea of a minority religious group having undue influence over the president of the United States)?

See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot! Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

On a sidenote: Has this interview been posted on MAD? I would be interested in seeing how the Mopologists (predictably) go about smearing Sister Dushku.

[_Trevor]

On a sidenote: Has this interview been posted on MAD? I would be interested in seeing how the Mopologists (predictably) go about smearing Sister Dushku.

I don't know whether this has been posted at MAD or not. I wonder how long it would last. Feel free to do it yourself. I have no interest in involving myself in that level of participation over there. I got this bit from a post over at RfM. There they did not seem to appreciate all of the implications of what was said in the interview. I think this truly is troubling and deserves further investigation and comment. I doubt that Ms. Dushku, being an active LDS member, would make this stuff up simply out of spite, but maybe she dislikes Mitt so much that she is willing to throw caution and her LDS membership to the wind together.

[_The Nehor]

Anyone else finding this hard to swallow after reading the whole interview?

It seems she and Mitt had had strong differences for some time. Why would Mitt confess in a private meeting that the Brethren gave permission for him to flop on an issue with someone he disliked as strongly as SHE indicates in this article? They seem to have been on the outs before this.

On a side-note Eliza Dushku is hot.

[_Trevor]

Anyone else finding this hard to swallow after reading the whole interview?

It seems she and Mitt had had strong differences for some time. Why would Mitt confess in a private meeting that the Brethren gave permission for him to flop on an issue with someone he disliked as strongly as SHE indicates in this article? They seem to have been on the outs before this.

First, they were not always "on the outs." At one time it seems they were friends, but a disagreement over his position on another woman's abortion decision, and Dushku's public opposition of his position, led to a break. It is not inconceivable that at some point they might look to mend fences, especially when it seemed he might be changing his position. Mitt is, after all, a political animal, and I doubt that he would stick to a hardline position on anything, if he could benefit by doing otherwise.

In fact, I find what she says credible enough, especially given the fact that she was unwilling to go to the lengths the interviewer wanted to take her in implicating the LDS Church in bizarre conspiracies involving the CIA, drugs, and South America.

I really find nothing that unbelievable about an LDS politician like Mitt seeking the council of the Bretheren about taking a position they seem to disagree with. I seem to recall a BYU professor being fired over public support for choice.

[_Mister Scratch]

Anyone else finding this hard to swallow after reading the whole interview?

(emphasis added)

Boy, I sure do hate being right. Let the smearing commence!

[_Jason Bourne]

The following comes from an interview with Judy Dushku, mother of actress Eliza Dushku, by Suzan Mazur of Scoop:

Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women -- which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.

And he said – Yes, come to my office.

I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?

Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.

And I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience.

He said – Oh no, I actually had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. So I have some positive feelings about choice, but basically I know that I have to take that position.

So I said – How do you feel about choice for poor women and state funding of abortion for poor women?

He said, I’m against that. The state has no right or responsibility to fund abortions for poor women.

And I said – Well Mitt, I thought there was possibly some kind of room for mutual agreement on this issue but it appears there’s really not. I think we’re quite far apart on the issue of choice. It’s nice meeting with you here and talking with you. Good luck with your campaign, however, I can’t support you.

So, can we really believe the LDS Church, when they claim not to involve themselves in politics? If Dushku is telling the truth, then it seems to me they're giving Mitt political direction, which he feels he needs to follow. Why would non-LDS folks vote for Mitt, when that is at least partly a vote for the LDS Church (unless, of course, they like the idea of a minority religious group having undue influence over the president of the United States)?

See: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00066.htm

I find this highly dubious. Who is this person and why should I trust her?

[_Jason Bourne]

Wow... What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot

Were this the 19th century or early 20th I may agree. Other then ERA, Utah liquor issues and Gay marriage, all claimed to be moral issues by the LDS Church I think you may be hard pressed to back up this comment.

Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

Do you really believe this. Let's suppose for a moment it is true. I highly doubt Romney would be dumb enough to so casually admit it. If he is that dumb then he certainly should not be president.

[_Mister Scratch]

I find this highly dubious. Who is this person and why should I trust her?

Chalk up another point for me! Boy, you TBMs sure are predictable!

[_Jason Bourne]

Wow... What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot

Were this the 19th century or early 20th I may agree. Other then ERA, Utah liquor issues and Gay marriage, all claimed to be moral issues by the LDS Church I think you may be hard pressed to back up this comment.

Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

Do you really believe this. Let's suppose for a moment it is true. I highly doubt Romney would be dumb enough to so casually admit it. If he is that dumb then he certainly should not be president.

On a sidenote: Has this interview been posted on MAD? I would be interested in seeing how the Mopologists (predictably) go about smearing Sister Dushku.

Probably in a similar way you just smeared Romney and LDS Church leaders.