It's not religion that will sink Mitt Romney's ship.

It's his inability to stick with a position.

He's been all over the board on social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

It's the same thing Rudy Giuliani faces — a conservative candidate with a moderate to liberal stance on social issues.

But, right now, at least, the former Massachusetts governor is being hit more with questions about his being a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than policy and platform.

What's happening here is that neither Romney nor the media is doing a very good job at explaining the LDS church. Romney sort of brushes the questions aside and many in the media cannot get over the fact that many years ago, the church embraced the practice of polygamy and some current-day church doctrine, including a belief that the church will be called upon to "save" the United States.

The doctrine of most religion, we must remember, is to provide salvation, so the church stance there isn't something I would call radical. In fact, it seems rather mainstream to me.

It seems incredibly unfair, however, to challenge Romney as a legitimate presidential candidate because of his religious beliefs.

As a matter of disclosure, I must add at this point that I am not in league with Romney. He's way too conservative for my tastes. And, I am neither Republican nor LDS, so I don't have a dog in this fight other than a desire for fairness.

The same can be said in defense of Barack Obama, who is being assailed because of his middle name and, in some quarters, because he is black. The same can be said about Hillary Clinton, who raises the question of whether a woman can serve as president.

Again, I'm not a fan of Obama or Clinton, but I don't like seeing them skewered because of their gender or ethnicity.

So, while it's great to be suspicious of those who seek power, let's just make sure it's for the right reason and not because of the color of the skin, their gender, their religion or sexual orientation.

Posted by Ed Kociela at 08:58 AM | Permalink | Comments ( 3 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 )

It’s about to get very interesting.

In a story published by the Sunday Times, the claim is made that a handful of America’s top military leaders will quit if the Untied States takes action against Iran.

Of course, no names were given.

If it occurs, it would be a brighter day for the United States, which could certainly use one about now.

It would be a major turn of events if some of these cushy military folks actually gathered the backbone to stand up to the president and tell him enough is enough, that they don’t want to be responsible for the U.S. losing two wars on their watch.

But, the storm clouds continue to gather as Veep Cheney continues to bray about leaving the military option on the table and the U.S. Navy continues to beef up its presence in the Persian Gulf with a second aircraft carrier group arriving on the scene.

Add to this the fact that even the Brits are backing away from this and you’ve got a major mess because at the first hint of a strike against Iran, two things will definitely happen.

First, the entire Middle East will be thrown into an even more vicious conflict resulting in a bloodbath of terrorist attacks as insurgents rally. Israel becomes an active target of opportunity and we all know how that will go. If the Israelis got so bent out of shape over the capture of two soldiers, what will happen if Lebanon, Syria, Iran and Palestine figure that the easiest retaliation is lobbing missiles at Tel Aviv?

Then, there’s the oil factor. With America’s constant Jones for more and more, the prices will explode, which means it will cost Americans more each month to fuel their Hummers, Tahoes and Durangos than it takes to pay their mortgage.

Is this enough for American military leaders to jump ship and call it a career?

It’s never happened before.

But, it would certainly be more meaningful than the “symbolic,” “non-binding” resolution the House recently passed against the war in Iraq.

Posted by Ed Kociela at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments ( 0 ) | TrackBacks ( 0 )