DiscussMormonism.com

I thought this article by Robert Shrum was interesting.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -gore.html

It discusses how other charisma impaired presidential candidates were able to finesse the issue by admitting the weakness and linking it to a strength. The author’s examples are Bush I and Gore. He says Mitt didn’t do this in his acceptance speech. And I’m wondering why.

Here are three suggestions from Shrum how Mitt could have handled it:

Shrum wrote:Why couldn’t Romney bring himself to say something like this: “I’ve been criticized for being stiff and too earnest”—and then turn it—“but our problems are big, and I’m in earnest about solving them; I am unbending in my resolve to do the job of freeing our economy to create millions of new jobs.”

Or this: “Tonight I’ve tried to tell you a little about who I am and what makes me tick, but I am a private man, and I don’t like to spend a lot of time talking about myself. Perhaps there’s good in that, too. As president, I will focus on what’s happening to you, not me.”

Or: “I won’t be flashy, but I will have a guiding star—to work my heart out each and every day to end the heartache of unemployment and put America back to work.” Message bonus: Romney does have a heart.

I wonder if part of the issue is that Mormon perfectionism, the Mormon idea that God is on our side, that God is inspiring us and God can do no wrong is the problem. Mormons can never publically admit to a specific weakness. Sure a Mormon will say “if I have offended anyone, I apologize.” Or “I am humbled.” I think this is particularly true of the leadership. You never hear I did “x” and I apologize. Or I’m the new bishop and I'm not good at “y.”

Would Pres. Hinckley ever have said, “I may not have the doctrinal background of Elder McConkie, but what I know about the church I will present in the best possible way to the world as we spread the gospel.” He couldn’t, he had to be too near perfect to acknowledge a deficiency and anyway, it didn’t matter, the unerring God was whispering day-to-day in his ear.

Mitt faced the same problem. God wants him to run for president, hell, he probably thinks God wants him to be president and that God is guiding his campaign. What different does it make if he is stiff and a lot of people can’t relate to him. He’s on God’s errand whether a Stake President or a presidential candidate. Anyone who criticizes his stiffness as a weakness is just wrong. Why would God give a weakness to the person he wants to be president?

And this is one way I think knowing a bit about the specifics of Mitt’s religion helps illuminate the man.

I agree. I also think that if (WHEN) he loses, he will view the experience as God-inspired, if only for the nudge of Mormonism into mainstream society that has been facilitated by his campaigning.

madeleine wrote:I agree. I also think that if (WHEN) he loses, he will view the experience as God-inspired, if only for the nudge of Mormonism into mainstream society that has been facilitated by his campaigning.

Good insight.

I believe that things to comes to pass as you have predicted.

I just can't imagine the USA (or the Mormon Church) with Mitt Romney as President.

Both are too frightening to contemplate right now.

DrW wrote:Good insight.

I believe that things to comes to pass as you have predicted.

I just can't imagine the USA (or the Mormon Church) with Mitt Romney as President.

Both are too frightening to contemplate right now.

A couple of weeks ago, a British journalist commented:

... With his uncanny prediction that the British would be indifferent to the Olympics so fresh in the memory, it would've course be folly to disregard Romney's gift for prescience. If Murdoch and Bill Kristol, the Mr Wrong of uber-right US journalism who did so much to foist Palin on John McCain, are convinced that Ryan is the Jesus to Romney's Lazarus, then who are bemused observers from across the ocean to doubt their soothsaying? Whatever orthodoxy holds about elections being won from the centre, perhaps the most eye-poppingly, mouth-foamingly distempered right-wing extreme of the spectrum is the best ground from which to take down as canny a pragmatic centrist as Obama. If so, God have mercy on America – and also, considering the tendency of American trends to cross the Atlantic, on us.

If the Prez and his team cannot shred this preposterous ticket into tiny pieces, and turn what was shaping into a squeaky-bum kinda victory into the least flatulent stroll back to the Oval Office since Bill Clinton in 1996, it will be proof that the crazification of the US is complete.

But of course what did he know about it?

Chap wrote:

DrW wrote:Good insight.

I believe that things to comes to pass as you have predicted.

I just can't imagine the USA (or the Mormon Church) with Mitt Romney as President.

Both are too frightening to contemplate right now.

A couple of weeks ago, a British journalist commented:

... With his uncanny prediction that the British would be indifferent to the Olympics so fresh in the memory, it would've course be folly to disregard Romney's gift for prescience. If Murdoch and Bill Kristol, the Mr Wrong of uber-right US journalism who did so much to foist Palin on John McCain, are convinced that Ryan is the Jesus to Romney's Lazarus, then who are bemused observers from across the ocean to doubt their soothsaying? Whatever orthodoxy holds about elections being won from the centre, perhaps the most eye-poppingly, mouth-foamingly distempered right-wing extreme of the spectrum is the best ground from which to take down as canny a pragmatic centrist as Obama. If so, God have mercy on America – and also, considering the tendency of American trends to cross the Atlantic, on us.

If the Prez and his team cannot shred this preposterous ticket into tiny pieces, and turn what was shaping into a squeaky-bum kinda victory into the least flatulent stroll back to the Oval Office since Bill Clinton in 1996, it will be proof that the crazification of the US is complete.

But of course what did he know about it?

A great deal, apparently.