Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Morrissey relies upon an (uncertain) analysis published in USA Today to make his point; regardless, I'm not it's correct, as the field was large enough to allow the candidate with a plurality of support to rise, and two candidates, Giuliani and Thompson made strategic and tactical errors. Had the field been smaller to start with, or Giuliani or Thompson competed more vigorously earlier, the outcome might have been different. But, it seems despite all of that, the Republicans have probably nominated the one guy who can (and probably will) win in November.Hillary! is unlikable, and Obama is an inexperienced, walking platitude signifying nothing but optics. Democrats will love him even more for this.
Why is it either bigotry or petulance for a Christian - who may very well consider Mormonism to be a heretical cult - to have withheld his vote from Romney? Are all secularists so lacking in imagination that they can only classify religious conviction as a hang-up? And secularists call the religious provincial!
I met two people who would not vote for Romney because of his religion, no doubt there were many more.I held my nose and pressed his button, not because he is Mormon, but because of his record. I have no doubt that President Bush and I agree about a lot spiritually. That made not one whit of difference in our substantial political differences.Trey
Who got the Johavah's Witness endorsement? Those are the only ones I run into.I keep by the door my edition of Harold Bloom's _The American Religion_ so I can read it to them (``What do you make of this?'')Though there are a number of rather savage apocalyptic scenarios current among American Fundamentalists, I am aware of none quite so inhumane as the Jehovah's Witnesses' accounts of the End of our Time. There is something peculiarly childish in these Watchtower yearnings : they remind me of why very small children cannot be left alone with wounded and suffering household pets.
As a member of the religious right I couldn't vote for Romney because of his flip flopping. It had nothing to do with his mormonism.Also, I didn't care for him tieing his dog on top of the car, trying to get down with black people (his who let the dogs out and then woofing while standing with black people was painful), saying he saw his father march with MLK-then trying to explain the definition of "saw", changing his mind about his favorite book because conservatives might not like it and on and on and on.Other than that he was a very principle candidate.
I dissent from what seems to be implicit (that where Hillary is unlikable, Obama is likable; I see nothing likable about him at all), and I think it may overstate it to say McCain's the only candidate who can win, but otherwise echo Tim's 8:06 AM comment.I don't think there's anything wrong with assessing a candidate based on their religious views - moral convictions inform political views - but I don't think it's accurate to say that many people voted against Romney because of his religion.
Romney seemed like Wonder Bread in a whole wheat era....the hair and jaw and golly-goshness of Reagan...the three home states and MBA ala Bush...the giant all-white non-blended 1950s sitcom family...not to mention being Mormon (whatever that is...pioneers? prairie schooners? polygamy? zzzzzz...) when it's cool for Emirate hipsters to perceive you as Muslim (even when you're not)...
The problem the non-religious right had in this primary was the hang-up over belly-fire. I think this all is a situation where folks repeated something so much--"Romney is the true conservative"--they finally got to believing it themselves and now are trying to figure out why he didn't attract people.His religion did have a part in it. But had he a record that was consistently conservative that religious part would have been overlooked. Instead, we were told to trust that his latter day changes of policy opinions were trustworthy. Romney won because he is a Northeastern governor with a record that didn't altogether match his rhetoric. So we went with the Southwesterner, as we Republicans are apt to do.
I'll agree with this guy only to the extent that it was Romney's Mormonism that did in his candidacy. But it's not something that the Christian right can be singled out as having caused. I don't believe that a Mormon can win it, period.
Silly arguments:"Romney isn't a true conservative."And McCain is?"Mormonisn did him in."No, Huckabutt's exploitation of Mormonism did him in."He flip-flopped."Stop reading NYT propaganda."He was mean to his dog."Can you spell t-r-i-v-i-a?Pathetic.
Reverend H.W. Smith: This is God's purpose, but not knowing the purpose is my portion of suffering. Doc Cochran: If this is His will, He is a son of a bitch. (Deadwood, 2005)
"Romney isn't a true conservative."And McCain is?McCain is as much as Romney. That's the important distinction. Huckabee wasn't either. Thompson was. National Review, for instance, noted this fact but refused to endorse Thompson because they didn't think he could win. They noted Romney's past, but believed him when he said he changed just in time for the election, and endorsed him because they thought he could win. McCain might not be a pure conservative, but at least I know where he stands. And I think he's more conservative and strong on some key issues. Though I really, really don't like his immigration stances. But what can be done? He's the more conservative of the lot we had left there by the end.I'm an Evangelical, and I liked McCain over Romney not because of Romney's religion but because I didn't really believe his conversion to true conservative was really solid. And I know that McCain gets mad at his opposition, and this year it's the Democrats who are going to make him mad, thus pushing him more to the Right again. And I'm tired of silly chickenhawk arguments that distract from policy. And I prefer that McCain is the one sitting across from the leaders of Iran or Russia or North Korea. Romney being a Mormon didn't help. But there was a whole lot more to the vote than his religion.
As "titus" points out, Romney came across as a bullshitter. Who's going to put their trust in a chameleon? McCain's robocalls favorably contrasted his conservative record with Romney's. Mormonism wasn't on the radar screen; in closed-primary California where Mormons are mainstream and Republicans normally shun RINOs, Romney + Huckabee didn't add up to McCain.Urging Fundamentalist pastors to endorse political candidates violates my understanding of The Iron Wall of Separation of Church and State.
Nobody has ever been elected to the presidency who didn't profess at least some kind of adherence to one degree or another to mainline or conservative Christianity. None. Ever. No Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, or Mormons, or anything else, need apply.
Who's going to put their trust in a chameleon?Don't leave them alone with pet insects, I can tell you that.
That analysis is way wrong. Christian conservatives will gravitate toward the candidate that sounds most Christian, and in many cases that is one person.After hearing the candidate, his record is checked to see if his actual record matches the rhetoric.If you have multiple candidates all sort of suggesting they are Christian, or the most conservative, then you look even harder at their positions over time.The problem with Romney was that he was never consistently anything, so you had to match up his rhetoric with McCain's actual record. Ultimately your actions define you.In my case I leaned toward Huckabee, but knowing it would likely default to McCain.Mormonism was less of a factor. Romney changed with each political job he saught, so finding his core was a little more difficult.I would also like to challenge the idea presented further up in the comments that Obama is mere fluff. There are any number of issues he has been detailed or explicit about. But if one of your strengths is giving a good speech, you don't abandon that unless you are a moron. I think he is aware that anyone truly interested in his positions has a plethora of resources at their disposal.It's notable to hear that Republican/Hillary talking point about "blank slate" being repeated, despite all written evidence to the contrary. More often, people like to find seemingly rational phrases to cover often purely emotional biases against one candidate or another.
I agree with George (see above). Romney looked as if he came out of Central Casting, so obiously so that it probably caused bullshit detectors to go off right and left.
There was a four-hour documentary about Mormonism on last week on PBS which I suppose was calculated to derail Romney's campaign. It was pretty good: the supposedly ancient tablets that Joseph Smith found in his backyard reeked of debates and rhetoric prevalent at the time they were "discovered," plus they spent an entire hour on a wagon train that Mormons sacked in something called the Mountain Meadow Massacre, where 120 men and women going through Utah were slaughtered for no apparent reason by Mormons.Women have almost no rights at all within Mormonism except to obey. Perfect obedience. And the documentary said that Utah has four or five times the rate of anti-depressant users, since the religion basically destroys the mood of almost everyone except something called the General Election, a handful of dictators who determine everything for their faithful.But Mitt had already dropped out, and all this paranoia-inducing documentary did was to make me wonder who cared.The temples are quite beautiful, and they showed the insides of these: very lovely, but outsiders can't enter into them. They are only for the "temple-worthy."Mormons believe that Jesus evangelized among the American Indians, and that the lost tribe of Israel came to America and were Indians (Native Americans). However, no trace of Hebrew has ever been found in any American Indian tribe, one Mormon scholar noted, and he lost his position at Brigham Young for pointing this out. Also, Jewish DNA and American Indian DNA is radically different, another scholar noted. He too was excommunicated.As a Lutheran, in which freedom of inquiry is a right, I was appalled by the lack of same among Mormon intellectuals.
Well, for of you who aren't Romney fans, what will you do next election? There's an interesting analysis in the post today on how the #2 Republican becomes the #1 Republican in the next election.Here is the story.
Nobody has ever been elected to the presidency who didn't profess at least some kind of adherence to one degree or another to mainline or conservative Christianity.Sure, like the mackerel-snappers are mainline or conservative Christianity all-of-a-sudden. Ask a Bible-thumper if he's Catholic, and he'll say, "No, I'm Christian."
The Mormon temple in Salt Lake City is wide open to outsiders.Jews are not gonna live in teepees, I can tellya that!
"what will you do next election?"Same thing the Democrats did. Come up with more candidates and vote for them. Romney is out of office. He has no way to improve on what he has already said. All those who had come back from 2nd place finishes before had an office in which to continue and develop their national presence. Neither Romney nor Huckabee have that. And there are plenty of Republican governors right now who are building solid resumes for a run in 2012 if McCain loses. The article's phrasing is curious too. He notes that if you go back thirty years the only candidate to have won the presidency without coming in second was GWB. But, going back thirty years is an interesting way of putting it. Since in the last 12 years there is no pattern at all. You have to go back decades to find the pattern and then it's not really a pattern but a kind of temporary trend. This is why politicians don't often leave office to run for president. If you lose, you have no way to get better. Had Edwards stayed in the Senate and led on the issues he talked about, then I'll bet he would have done a whole lot better... assuming of course that the issues he talked about were actually issues he would lead on, as opposed to just talk about.
Finn--What say you to the "plethora of [speechwriting] resources" (i.e. plaigarism) that Clinton is accusing Obama of?
"what will you do next election?"If McCain wins, part of the reason will be the quality of his VP pick, because McCain is very likely to be a 1-term president, due to age. The VP will be the heir presumptive for the Republican nomination, should (s)he so choose.
Sure, like the mackerel-snappers are mainline or conservative Christianity all-of-a-sudden. Ask a Bible-thumper if he's Catholic, and he'll say, "No, I'm Christian."You seem to be unwittingly supporting my point, which is that the conservative Christian right fringe really doesn't control very much. It's the electorate en masse that refuses to elect a non-Christian to the presidency.
Finn Kristiansen said...It's notable to hear that Republican/Hillary talking point about "blank slate" being repeated, despite all written evidence to the contrary.Aside from what she has done for the people of New York as their Senator, what evidence are you talking about? Hillary is a blank slate. She will list none of her accomplishments for her “thirty five years in public service”. She will state what she has supported, but hell, any of us can do that. What has she done? How can it be verified? Where is the documentation? So, if you have some evidence that Hillary is not a blank slate, let us see it. Her resume is about the same as Obama’s.
because McCain is very likely to be a 1-term president, due to age. The VP pick is crucial for this reason, so it mystifies me when people say they'll choose McCain over anyone else.McCain (71) has outlived his grandfather (61) and father (70). Some will note his mother still lives, but in my family, at least, women live for*ever* -- 90s -- and men drop dead in their mid-50s. (Actually, that's Mom's family...men are hardier in Dad's).
Zeb Quinn said... Nobody has ever been elected to the presidency who didn't profess at least some kind of adherence to one degree or another to mainline or conservative Christianity. Um, John F. Kennedy was a Liberal Catholic. He did not adhere to mainline or conservative Christians, though he diffused the issue and appealed to them.
I don't think his religion played that big a role. At some point it could have, but that wasn't his biggest problem. Conservative pundits spent a year picking over the non-ideal record of Rudy and Romney (and McCain when they weren't ignoring him) and in the end, when they realized he was the best they had, were dismayed that he could not generate any momentum.
Um, John F. Kennedy was a Liberal Catholic. He did not adhere to mainline or conservative Christians, though he diffused the issue and appealed to them.I said Christian, not Protestant. In my book Roman Catholicism is the quintessential mainline Christian denomination, indeed the sine qua non of it. With Kennedy the question was whether Protestants would vote for a Catholic. The question now and since is whether Christians will vote for a non-Christian.
Romney's problem wasn't religion. It was that he's rich. Voters hate rich people. Class envy. Simple as that.
Eisenhower & Truman were our last "poor" presidents. How many Rockefellers and Kennedys have won elections?
Um, John F. Kennedy was a Liberal CatholicUm, are you saying that Catholics are not Christians?
Romney's problem wasn't religion. It was that he's rich. Voters hate rich people. Class envy. Simple as that.I think you hit on part of the issue, but it's not all class envy. I'm surprised on how few analyses have focused on the class-differentials in the Republican primary. Huckabee's primary appeal is a very blue-collar conservatism: he frequenly mentions truck drivers and lower-income Americans as his strongest supporters. Huckabee's crack about Romney looking like more like the guy who laid you off than the guy you work next to really hits on this aspect of the campaign.That being said, Romney's problem is that he didn't appear to have conservative core beliefs. He came off as malleable, willing to be shaped into whatever it is voters were supposed to want. It's not that his positions as governor are so very different from his positions as Presidential candidate, it's that he isn't Clintonian enough to pull it off. Nothing seems genuine coming from Romney.Personally, religion was never a factor in choosing my candidate.
To Middle Class guy:Perhaps I did not phrase my point clearly. I was referring to both Hillary and McCain accusing Obama of being a blank slate. AndGeorge said... Finn--What say you to the "plethora of [speechwriting] resources" (i.e. plaigarism) that Clinton is accusing Obama of?11:06 AMI would say, look how Hillary is back in Wisconsin, and it's the day before election, and suddenly this comes out, and how you can ask Deval Patrick how he feels about it and get greater ambiance on the matter.
bouncing tits in a tight sweater walking down 5th Avenue.
tits in a t shirt running to get the bus
little tits and large tits, tits in various sizes and shapes and colors and texturestits
Yes all of those things!T.I.T.S.This is too sexy.
tits giving nourishment to a newborn as well as filling my ceral bowl.the left tit feeds the newborn while the right tit fills my cherrios bowl to the brimtits
I think even Mormons like tits.Something we can all agree on. Gayand straight. Protestant and Catholic. Trolls and serious boring nerd guys. Everyone loves tits.
tits during an aerobic class,swaying to and fro to the classicstits standing at attentiontits
large tits to lay my head down on after a rough day at work.the comfort of the large tit enveloping my head.tits
Ta-ta's. Fun bags. Breasses. Grand Tetons. Mom, apple pie, Cheverolt.And tits.God bless America.I miss Jeri Thompson.
the smaller tit is there and demands to be respectedlarge tits tend to get the most attention and credit but small tits are nice too
More than a mouthful can be wasteful. But you can put a nipple in each ear and tune in the radio.You can pick up Venus.
Grab a cab, come on, See the wizard at Park and 73rd
Paddy O - Romney won because he is a Northeastern governor with a record that didn't altogether match his rhetoric. So we went with the Southwesterner, as we Republicans are apt to do.And in so writing, Paddy O shows why Republicans are a shrinking Party, now nearly absent in the Northeast and Left Coast, in steep decline in certain Midweast States, and watching formerly Red Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Virginia, Florida, Missouri becoming more Purple -Republicans from those Outside Dixie parts of the Party fail the Southern Baptist religious and ideological purity test.(So do Northern Reagan Democrats, ethnic Catholics, "as bad as Mormon" Jews and Latin Pentacostalists plus jungle Christians like African Methodists, and all Midwest Republicans who to serve in office must embrace certain secular heresies..) All while seriously dissing the Reddest of States - Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho for the apparant crime of being infested with heretics...Which may precipitate a little "Interfaith dialogue" after the 2008 election between Western Republicans and Southern Republicans on the status of Mormons within the Republican PartyAs James Lipton would say; "Brilliant! Absolutely....brilliant!"*******************************Paddy O - Romney is out of office. He has no way to improve on what he has already said. All those who had come back from 2nd place finishes before had an office in which to continue and develop their national presence. Not true. The 3 most famous, Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan - were out of office 11, 8, and 5 years respectively before claiming the White House after 2nd place finishes. *****************More Paddy O - I'm an Evangelical, and I liked McCain over Romney not because of Romney's religion but because I didn't really believe his conversion to true conservative was really solid.Your choice appears to be to reject being a broad-based Party into a narrow unelectable ideological one. Until, of course, another agnostic ex-Democrat with a 2nd or 3rd wife and a ton of gay and union friends comes to seek the office after signing the most liberal abortion law in the nation in his progressive state, runs for office.Then, 30 years later, you can light candles at his Party Memorial Shrine and call him the purest and best of the "true" Jesus-Loving Republican conservatives.******************
I thought we were talking about tits. You know Cedarford, Jewish girls often have very nice tits.Just sayn'
George said... Finn--What say you to the "plethora of [speechwriting] resources" (i.e. plaigarism) that Clinton is accusing Obama of?Is anyone dissecting Hillary’s speeches to check if they are her original words or plagiarism? This is a non-issue that shows how desperate Hillaryland is. All politicians plagiarize speeches. They rarely cite the original wordsmiths.Remember “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” No one, to this day, accuses JFK of plagiarism. He never cited Oliver Wendell Holmes.
You know when I used to go to the strip clubs, the girls always dressed up as Presidents for Presidents Day at the Doll House. There was this girl from Boston who always said:Ask not what my tits can do for you, but what can you do for my tits.Stuffing a dollar bill between them would usually suffice.Happy Presidents Day Besty, wherever you are.
Given all the ice around here, I don't think many of Hillary's arguments will have traction. Obama will win tomorrow in Wisconsin.
Cedarford, you do realize I was writing about McCain and not Huckabee right? I feel like you were saying why I was wrong to support Huckabee, as your points fit him much more than McCain. But I dislike Huckabee more than any of the Republicans who have ever been in this race. And I voted for Thompson in the CA primary... out of principle. Paddy O - So we went with the Southwesterner, as we Republicans are apt to do.And in so writing, Paddy O shows why Republicans are a shrinking Party, now nearly absent in the Northeast and Left Coast, in steep decline in certain Midweast States, and watching formerly Red Colorado, Montana, Nevada, Virginia, Florida, Missouri becoming more Purple.Well, I'm a Californian, not a Southerner. And if the Republican party has been shrinking for choosing those from South or Western states, with bias shown elsewhere, it's not because of me or my ilk. It's the 20th century, and has seen some of the Republicans biggest successes.The last Republican to be elected President who didn't come out of working in the West or South was Calvin Coolidge, if my history memory is right. So it's nothing new. Romney was fighting a long trend. Which may precipitate a little "Interfaith dialogue" after the 2008 election between Western Republicans and Southern Republicans on the status of Mormons within the Republican PartyNot really necessary. If Romney had the politics that would have won in Utah, he would have won the nomination. Instead he was a Mormon in religion, but not in his political expressions. It's not the Mormon we don't like, it's the Massachusetts politician. The political smell of Kennedy is like the BO in Jerry Seinfeld's car. Very difficult to get out. The 3 most famous, Lincoln, Nixon, and Reagan - were out of office 11, 8, and 5 years respectively before claiming the White House after 2nd place finishes.So it is possible I suppose. Though Lincoln was from a very, very, very, very, very, very different political era. And he had whiskers and was ugly, and was homespun and told folksy stories from his time in the log cabin out West. And talk about a single issue party. Sheesh. All Republicans cared about, the reason they joined together, was slavery. So alienating to the border states! Reagan was world famous. Like Governor Arnold, his time in office was by no means the only way people got to know him. Plus, he was a westerner. People like westerners better. Nixon is an anomaly. He had at least a national stage under Eisenhower. And maybe too we feel like it's best to not have another Nixon. I don't think Romney has the fire in his belly like Nixon. Your choice appears to be to reject being a broad-based Party into a narrow unelectable ideological one. ha! This is my favorite. McCain is much more broadly accepted than Romney. Yet because McCain offends your particular issues you feel he's narrow. Very open-minded. It's a big tent as long as everyone agrees with what you think is important. But what others think is important will lead to the narrowing of the party. It might be a little narrow for you, but it's widening in other directions under McCain, a little too wide on some issues in my estimation, but certainly wider. And certainly just as, if not more, expressive of Reagan Democrats and Republican politics of the last decades.
I'm having second thoughts about supporting McCain today, after he committed to continuing the huge deficit W. ran up.I thought Republicans were fiscally conservative -- another myth shatteredIn my book Roman Catholicism is the quintessential mainline Christian denomination, indeed the sine qua non of it.That's because Quinn's Irish Catholic. Out in Prod land, Catholics are weird cultists, much like Mormons in their refusal to stick to the Bible as the only authority. Put down your Aquinas and your Augustine, and stop listening to Papa Ratzi. Fathers of the Church, indeed.
They all use speechwriters, sure....it's just that so much is made of Obama's orations...amusing to learn that his peroration is a nearly a word-for-word lift from another politician...At least with Clinton, we know all the dirt under her fingernails....plus I like watching Ol' Bill lay into people who give him a hard time....
Re Obamaplagiarism: Patrick could get only a very thin copyright indeed on "words matter". If Obama's a plagiarist for citing two of the most familiar examples of inspirational speech in living memory, Hillary! is equally culpable of violating the rights of whomever has the patent on "talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than words."
Hillary! is equally culpable of violating the rights of whomever has the patent on "talk is cheap" and "actions speak louder than words."Don't forget, she has the solution. The final solution.
Sometimes tits don't get along with other tits.
Tits quench your thirst.So do grapes.
FLS wrote: "I thought Republicans were fiscally conservative"Nope. Republicans like to use big business to get in power while Democrats like to use the poor to get in power.Conservatives do indeed believe in being fiscally conservative!Many Conservatives end up voting Republican, but we are NOT Republicans, and more and more of us are waking to that truth.Trey
Political parties are evil wise people would shun them.Incidentally, T. Kennedy is looking great lately. Compliments to his embalmer.
In the comments on the Jane Fonda post on Friday February 15 at 4:34 PM about two thirds of the way through is a series of posts under the name "titusvart" who joined Blogger in February 2008. It was, for this site, uncharacteristically crude to say the least. Then I noticed the comment thread on the religious right posted today the sixth comment at 8:41 AM was from a "titusisgay" who also joined Blogger February 2008. He then picks up again at 12:43 with a crude,juvenile and unimaginative theme on "tits".Now "titusisgay" identifdies himself as a member of the religious right in his 8:41 post. I am going to venture an observation that folks who are genuinely of the "Religious Right" do not write the kind of stuff that "titusisgay" has posted and as he has posted probably under "titusvart". I suspect sir you are some sort of troll.
Wow caplight you are brillant and intuitive.
Women have almost no rights at all within Mormonism except to obey. Perfect obedience. And the documentary said that Utah has four or five times the rate of anti-depressant users, since the religion basically destroys the mood of almost everyone except something called the General Election, a handful of dictators who determine everything for their faithful.As to the role of Mormon women, I have noted that SOME are that way, but no worse really than you find in many fundamentalist churches. And as for their role in their church, compare it that of Roman Catholics. When was the last time that you saw a female Roman Catholic bishop, cardinal, Pope, etc.? Or even, priest/priestess? But that is somehow acceptable, while Mormonism is not. I have one Mormon friend who occasionally follows this blog and whose wife worked for me as my secretary a number of years ago. That time was quite enjoyable, esp. since she wouldn't let me get away with anything. Of course, I wasn't her husband, but I spent plenty of time around both of them, enough to believe that she didn't mind her role as a Mormon wife. And if her husband reads this, I do miss those Monday lunches, you, I, and sometimes she, had before I moved away.Of course, not all Mormon women/wives are like that. I spent time in SLC, home of the LDS Church, and got along with the Mormon men far better than I did with the Mormon women. With the men, my being a gentile was never much of a deal, but it often seemed to be a big deal with the women.
As for Romney's wealth, note that if it was a big deal, it was with the rank and file of the party of the wealthy. JFK was, of course, rich. But not at the level of John Kerry, or more specifically of course, his wife. She is worth several times that of Romney, yet that wealth did not turn off very many Democrat Party voters. I find it humorous that in the party of the rich, Romney's level of wealth was a detriment, while in the party of the common many, much more wealth was not.
Post a Comment