Romney's Decision Process for Vote on Impeachment

[Kevin Christensen]

This is worth reading.  Much is made of Romney as LDS and the kinds of social pressure and criticism he is taking in order to vote his conscience.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/romney-impeach-trump/606127/

Quote

The truth is that Romney’s decisive break with Trump could end up hurting him even in Utah, a red state where the president is uncommonly unpopular. What that means for his reelection prospects, the senator couldn’t say. (He doesn’t have to face voters again until 2024.) But as he thought about it, another hymn came to mind. “Do what is right; let the consequence follow,” he recited. “And I don’t know what all the consequences will be.”

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bsjkki]

He should join the other party. It's where his heart lies so he should just make it official.

[Kevin Christensen]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

He should join the other party. It's where his heart lies so he should just make it official.

From the essay:

Quote

When I asked how it felt to be formally disinvited from this month’s Conservative Political Action Conference, he laughed and noted that he hadn’t attended the conference since 2013. But it seems clear that his journey from GOP standard-bearer to party supervillain has been jarring.

“I was under the misimpression that what brought Republican voters together was conviction in a certain number of policy points of view,” Romney said. He recalled a political strategist during one of his early campaigns explaining how to court the three main factions of the GOP coalition—social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and foreign-policy hawks. Much of Romney’s career since then has been spent trying to win over ideological purists on the right. In 2012, he said, some Tea Party activists refused to support him, because he didn’t have a plan to balance the federal budget within a single year.

Now the conservative movement is ruled by a president who routinely makes a mockery of such litmus tests. Deficit reduction? “There’s no purchase for that,” Romney said. Foreign policy? “The letters with Kim Jong Un didn’t seem to frighten people away … The meeting with the Russian ambassador in the White House right after the election didn’t seem to bother people.” Somehow, Romney said, he is the one constantly being told that he needs to “be with the president.”

“I get that a lot—‘Be with the president,’” Romney told me, sounding slightly perplexed. “And I’ll say, ‘Regardless of his point of view? Regardless of the issue?’ And they say yes. And … it’s like, ‘Well, no, I can’t do that.’”

Has the Republican party become a Cult of Personality rather than a set of principles?

[bdouglas]

History will show Romney was right … and that Mike Lee and the rest of the Republican Party were wrong. Whether Trump is reelected or not, it is downhill from here on out for the Republican Party. As Republican (and wise man of the party) George Will said, "You can't unring the bell."

(And no, I am not a "liberal Dem". I am a Republican, but a Never-Trump Republican.)

Edited February 5, 2020 by bdouglas

[bsjkki]

8 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

From the essay:

Has the Republican party become a Cult of Personality rather than a set of principles?

The case the House Managers brought to the Senate did not have enough evidence for conviction. It had hearsay, presumption and assumption and that is not enough to convict anyone. His vote is anti-constitutional.  There was no evidence presented that President Trump had any motive that included effecting the 2020 election. 

[Kevin Christensen]

I followed the case, read hundreds of pages in the House reports, from people who saw what happened, listened to and watched the testimony, noted the report from the Office of Budget and Management noting that the hold was illegal, and was immediately noted as such by the people who saw it happen. 

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

They had an array of eye witnesses to the call and to the months of effort that went into setting up the environment.   The obstruction, in preventing more eyewitness testimony and documentation, was itself impeachable.   Obstruction brought down Nixon.   Tossing around labels like "heresay, presumption and assumption" does not describe the actual evidence I have seen.  It is a rhetorical dodge.  The constitution provides for impeachment by the House and Senate, so the "anti-constitutional argument" is nonsense.  Trump's motives have been plain to see from the start, admitted on camera on several notable occasions.   Everything he does is to advance himself.  The single most self evident fact of his life is his constant personal and professional corruption, from the tax avoidance scams he used to plunder his Father's wealth, to Trump University, to politics at Mara Lago, to his cabinet appointments, to his constant lies...

 

[MiserereNobis]

I read the story on Foxnews and then glanced at the comments. Now, I know comment sections on news stories are cesspools, but this was disgusting. The common theme was that he was disloyal, NOT that he was wrong. Many people referred to him as Judas or as having taken the democrats' 30 pieces of silver.

It is telling that loyalty to Trump is the litmus test of a true Republican these days, not policy or ideology or conservatism, and that disloyalty to Trump gets a comparison to Judas (which means Trump is Christ).

What has happened to the Republican party..?

[MiserereNobis]

And to connect it back to LDS issues, how is he so unbelievably popular in Utah when LDS folk place such a high emphasis on personal morality? I have a very hard time squaring the two. Is it because in one's personal life the ends do not justify the means and one must be moral, but in politics the ends do justify the means and thus one's chosen representative does not have to be moral?

How do LDS Trump supporters overlook his blatant immorality in his personal life?

Edited February 5, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[bsjkki]

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

I followed the case, read hundreds of pages in the House reports, from people who saw what happened, listened to and watched the testimony, noted the report from the Office of Budget and Management noting that the hold was illegal, and was immediately noted as such by the people who saw it happen. 

https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

They had an array of eye witnesses to the call and to the months of effort that went into setting up the environment.   The obstruction, in preventing more eyewitness testimony and documentation, was itself impeachable.   Obstruction brought down Nixon.   Tossing around labels like "heresay, presumption and assumption" does not describe the actual evidence I have seen.  It is a rhetorical dodge.  The constitution provides for impeachment by the House and Senate, so the "anti-constitutional argument" is nonsense.  Trump's motives have been plain to see from the start, admitted on camera on several notable occasions.   Everything he does is to advance himself.  The single most self evident fact of his life is his constant personal and professional corruption, from the tax avoidance scams he used to plunder his Father's wealth, to Trump University, to politics at Mara Lago, to his cabinet appointments, to his constant lies...

 

I also watched the whole thing and read all the transcripts that were released. I can agree to disagree. This was a bad case, lacked all due process in  the House. The House did not do its job. There is a reason impeachment was forwarded with no Republican votes.  Republicans were not able to call any witnesses not approved by the majority. The President was not represented in the HPSCI. It was a dog and pony show.  

 

24 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

  Everything he does is to advance himself.  The single most self evident fact of his life is his constant personal and professional corruption, from the tax avoidance scams he used to plunder his Father's wealth, to Trump University, to politics at Mara Lago, to his cabinet appointments, to his constant lies...

 

I get it...you hate him. 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

And to connect it back to LDS issues, how is he so unbelievably popular in Utah when LDS folk place such a high emphasis on personal morality? I have a very hard time squaring the two. Is it because in one's personal life the ends do not justify the means and one must be moral, but in politics the ends do justify the means and thus one's chosen representative does not have to be moral?

How do LDS Trump supporters overlook his blatant immorality in his personal life?

He is not unbelievably popular when compared to other past Republican presidents here it seems to me. My POV is that it is more the Democrats are unpopular and that many are reacting to their actions rather than Trump.  It is probably the circles I run in, but most I talk to can’t stand the guy in a personal sense even if they support him as the president, but most may think he is okay in some areas, awful in others, but tons better than the alternative. 
 

If a viable (as in able to win against a democrat) Republican candidate was around, there might be more criticism of Trump going on. 

Edited February 5, 2020 by Calm

[bsjkki]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I read the story on Foxnews and then glanced at the comments. Now, I know comment sections on news stories are cesspools, but this was disgusting. The common theme was that he was disloyal, NOT that he was wrong. Many people referred to him as Judas or as having taken the democrats' 30 pieces of silver.

It is telling that loyalty to Trump is the litmus test of a true Republican these days, not policy or ideology or conservatism, and that disloyalty to Trump gets a comparison to Judas (which means Trump is Christ).

What has happened to the Republican party..?

My Catholic sister-in-law initially voted for President Trump only because was the pro-life option. She is now a firm supporter because of his economic policies, support of life and support of religious freedom. I am grateful he is pro-life, pro religious freedom and that his economic policies have helped our nation thrive. And, I believe those who commented believe Romney is wrong on the facts but most upset because they feel he betrayed their vote. That is what they are taking personally.

[Calm]

Tracking by state:

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
 

Utah has decreased by 19 percentage points since office. 
 

Utah had the highest approval rating for Bush of any state in 2006:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Domestic_perception_of_Bush

Edited February 5, 2020 by Calm

[halconero]

I found his speech to the Senate very moving. It was interesting to pick up the tidbits here and there that hearken to his membership in the Church.

[let’s roll]

Sen. Romney convinced me that his vote was motivated by his conscience.  I respect that.

 

[MiserereNobis]

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I am grateful he is pro-life, pro religious freedom and that his economic policies have helped our nation thrive.

This is what I was referring to in my post as "ends justify the means." I know for most it's not a big deal, but my experience with LDS is that they are very focused on morality and take morals and ethics very seriously. In this case, it appears that his blatant and wild moral failings (I'm not talking policy issues here, but personal behavior) doesn't matter because of what he does politically. It's just not an argument I expected in general from republicans, and in particular from evangelicals and even more so LDS.

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

And, I believe those who commented believe Romney is wrong on the facts but most upset because they feel he betrayed their vote. That is what they are taking personally.

Did they vote for Romney to follow Trump no matter what or did they vote for Romney because he is Romney? That's exactly what I am pointing out: the litmus test for republicans is whether or not you are loyal to Trump. Loyalty in general is a decent thing, but only if the thing/person you are loyal to is good. How do moral people place loyalty to a person who has been in his life grossly immoral (again, I'm not talking policy, I'm talking personal behavior)?

I really don't get it.

Edited February 5, 2020 by MiserereNobis

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Tracking by state:

https://morningconsult.com/tracking-trump-2/
 

Utah has decreased by 19 percentage points since office. 
 

Utah had the highest approval rating for Bush of any state in 2006:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_George_W._Bush#Domestic_perception_of_Bush

Thanks for the data. I guess I was going off of a thread sometime back that said he had a 70% approval rate in Utah.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bdouglas said:

History will show Romney was right … and that Mike Lee and the rest of the Republican Party were wrong. Whether Trump is reelected or not, it is downhill from here on out for the Republican Party. As Republican (and wise man of the party) George Will said, "You can't unring the bell."

(And no, I am not a "liberal Dem". I am a Republican, but a Never-Trump Republican.)

I believe you may be right. I struggle because I have a friend that stomped all over Romney today for his decision and I didn't have the guts to stand up to her, so chicken. So I'm grateful for this (possibly short lived) thread to shout out my impression of Mitt's decision. I think he has too much integrity to not vote his gut/heart. So proud of him. 

I am not a liberal Dem either, I call myself an Independant, which sadly doesn't do much in the arena of voting for a president. 

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

This is worth reading.  Much is made of Romney as LDS and the kinds of social pressure and criticism he is taking in order to vote his conscience.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/02/romney-impeach-trump/606127/

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Another thing...isn't it remarkable that Romney probably knew what the outcome would be and still voted that way? And isn't it funny that most likely several Republicans voted not guilty despite them knowing deep down that he was guilty?

[MiserereNobis]

39 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I get it...you hate him. 

Pointing out someone's clear ethical failures spanning decades does not mean you hate that person, especially when that person is in the highest office in our country. In fact, it seems to me that it is our responsibility to hold such a person accountable for their actions.

I will agree that some people hate Trump, and that some people are "deranged" because of him, but TDS and the hate-card are pulled out way too often. Nothing Kevin said shows he hates him, just that he is informed.

[halconero]

Side note for all those here who have family or friends who disagree with them over this, or any other political, religious or other matter, really. I've been reading a lot lately about how to change other people's minds, or even change my own mind, on a given topic. A lot of research has gone on to show that the most effective way of changing someone's mind involves the following steps:

1. Acknowledge the other's view point.

2. Invite them to explain how they arrived to that view point.

3. Explain how you arrived at your view point.

Now, the interesting thing about this pattern is that you still might not convince the other person, but you will walk away with a better and more cordial understanding of each other. It is also more likely convince them than any other method. And who knows? Maybe their argument is in fact better, and you might be convinced. The point of the whole exercise is to lower each other's defences, and then engage in a dialectical exercise. In this case, it may look like this:

1. "I 100% recognize that the Democrat's vote for impeachment is politically motivated, and share the same concerns about recklessly convicting the president.

2. Could you explain to me your thought process as to why the Republicans would not allow witnesses?

3. I can see that reasoning. From my perspective, this is why I think it's important that we still allow witnesses, maybe vote for conviction.

Again, you can apply this pattern to anything else. The point, once again, is not to change the person's mind. It's to open a discussion that is more likely to open each participant up to the other's views. Put another way, you immediately put down the defences, step into their shoes, and then invite them into yours.

Edited February 6, 2020 by halconero

[bdouglas]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I get it...you hate him. 

Opposing Trump does not mean that one “hates him”. It means your eyes are open. It means that, even if you are a Republican like me, you can look past the extreme partisanship that exists in politics today and see the man for what he is: a narcissist and a sociopath who has no moral compass whatever.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

The case the House Managers brought to the Senate did not have enough evidence for conviction. It had hearsay, presumption and assumption and that is not enough to convict anyone. His vote is anti-constitutional.  There was no evidence presented that President Trump had any motive that included effecting the 2020 election. 

I was under the impression that Romney wanted to call witnesses so that any evidence could be brought forth to be considered.  Am I misunderstanding that?

[strappinglad]

Unfortunately being a good moral person does not always overlap with intelligence and competence. Would that it did. 

Take a good moral man and put him as captain of a battleship during a war. If he also has 25 years of experience with ships and war and leadership , great. If not , thousands will die needlessly.

Look back over the last 60 years and judge the moral character of the past Presidents . Make a list of the ones with outstanding purity. Short list isn't it.

Was Moses a good moral man... Joshua … how about David ? Let's not be naïve. Politics is war. 

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, bdouglas said:

Opposing Trump does not mean that one “hates him”. It means your eyes are open. It means that, even if you are a Republican like me, you can look past the extreme partisanship that exists in politics today and see the man for what he is: a narcissist and a sociopath who has no moral compass whatever.

Thanks...this gave me a chuckle. So, since you are a Republican, who will you vote for in the next election. Lets keep it simple. The Republican candidate will be President Trump and the other choice could be Sanders, Warren or Buttigieg.  (I don't think Biden is going to make it.) What do you do?

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Pointing out someone's clear ethical failures spanning decades does not mean you hate that person, especially when that person is in the highest office in our country. In fact, it seems to me that it is our responsibility to hold such a person accountable for their actions.

I will agree that some people hate Trump, and that some people are "deranged" because of him, but TDS and the hate-card are pulled out way too often. Nothing Kevin said shows he hates him, just that he is informed.

 

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Everything he does is to advance himself.

This says it all. It is not 'clear, ethical failures.' His cabinet appointments are not 'clear ethical failures.' People don't have to like President Trump. I did not like President Obama but when people throw around the "everything he does is to advance himself' narrative, I think it leaves the realm of reasoned discourse. His comments, IMO, seem to show he is not well informed. We can disagree...it's okay.

Is it better to be a bad man and do good things or be good man who does bad things. Personally, I prefer the latter. But philosophically speaking, would a good man do bad things? Likewise, does a bad man do good things? Life is nuanced so I will vote for those who share my policies because deciding who is a good or bad man based on what is publicly known, is a bit difficult. Most thought Kennedy a nice, family man but the truth is he makes Trump look like a choir boy. https://www.history.com/news/presidential-affairs-jfk-lbj-fdr-harding-clinton-trump What about the changed or repentant man?