Asks Glenn Beck, a Mormon, speaking to Evangelical Christians, reported in the NYT.
During his special program, Mr. Beck took questions from mostly evangelical Christian listeners, colorfully debunking misperceptions about Mormonism. The “magic underwear” was compared to a skullcap, and Mr. Beck insisted that polygamy was seen as a “perversion” in the modern church.
“It’s not weird to be a Mormon,” he assured his listeners at the end of the program, “and it’s not weird to be president if you’re Mormon.”
It's fascinating — isn't it? — how little anti-Mormon material has been spread about in this election. The only notable person who seems to be going there is
Andrew Sullivan:
Andrew Sullivan recently posted YouTube footage of LDS temple ceremonies in an effort to turn Romney’s Mormonism into an argument against his candidacy.
The video posted by Sullivan was shot surreptitiously inside LDS temples by a former Mormon who wanted to use the publicity connected with the Romney campaign to embarrass the LDS community. (The video creator enhanced the footage with his own monologue — wearing a gorilla mask — and spooky "Carmina Burana" soundtrack.)...
I think most Americans have a deep sensibility respecting religion and don't care to look into details about any given sect that could be exploited to make outsiders see it as bizarre. Sullivan, like Joe Biden, is a Catholic. You could make an equivalent YouTube video holding Catholics up to derision and contempt. That's generally not how we behave in America. I wonder who is more susceptible to this anti-Mormon material: the middle Americans who are aggregated under the "Evangelical Christians" label, who listen to Glenn Beck, or the affluent, educated coastal Americans who read Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times? Whichever, the notable fact is that there has been very little effort to stimulate anti-Mormon sentiment, and that's an excellent thing about America.
Posts
607 comments:
1 – 200 of 607 Newer› Newest»Andrew Sullivan is petty and small-minded. He has my pity.
There was lots of effort to stimulate anti Mormon thinking. They stopped because it wasn't working.
There was a time when I enjoyed Sullivan's writing. He's good at it, and back in about 2002, he was good at writing daring things that he seemed to believe.
Maybe he's doing the same thing now.
I can't answer your question about who is more likely to view Mormons with suspicion.
I encountered many Mormons in Oregon. Portland and Eugene are preferred landing spots for children who have left the family compounds. Many of them were friends of my late wife.
They had all become evangelical Christians, but bore no ill will, so far as I could tell, toward their Mormon families.
What was noticeable in the families of these Mormons, and the lapsed Mormons, was devotion to family, to educating and rearing children in the right way, and just general decency. I learned to really respect Mormon tradition and values. I see Romney's Mormon background as a plus.
I thought the drive-by media would make this election a referendum on Mormonism. They didn't, I was wrong.
We could have a president elect in a few days who would be the first one who belongs to a legitimate, homegrown American religion. About time.
It's fascinating — isn't it? — how little anti-Mormon material has been spread about in this election. The only notable person who seems to be going there is Andrew Sullivan:
Crack was going there nonstop in these comment pages--I wonder if some imaginary Christianist enforcers got to him--the same ones relighting the ovens for gays and blacks.
I suspect Sullivan would have had a different opinion if Booosh surrogates had whispered about Kerry being vampiric cannibal for eating bodies and drinking the "Blood of the Lord" in weird satanic rituals where High Priests performed "Transubstantiation".
If you have worked with and known Mormons (I'm a lapsed Methodist myself), you come to realize that most of them (Harry Reid excepted) are really decent people. Some of their ideas may be a little out there insofar as the secularists in our society are concerned.
But what you see is generally what you get---Honest, polite, hardworking people who are devoted to their family--and I ask you, what's not to like about that?
And, like Shouting Thomas, I see Romney's Mormon background as a plus.
As a practical matter is Mormonism any crazier than Marxism?
You would think that as an English Catholic, Sullivan would be more aware of the dangers of distorting religious practices of any religious sect for political purposes. But I suppose that would require he have some core decency and true principles. In a few days his fellow countrymen will be burning Catholics in effigy. A practice they haven't given up despite the passage of centuries. Mr. Sullivan, kindly keep your bigotries to yourself.
Why does every religion have some weird stuff that even the adherents wish just wasn't there? I'm agnostic, and you wouldn't believe the weird crap we have to do. That's why you never hear about our traditions. It's just too embarrassing, and guarantees that one of us will never get elected President.
It smacks of bigotry to single out Mormonism for criticism because of perceived "weirdness". Read Leviticus, Ezekiel, John's gospel, Paul's letters, or (ta-da!) the Book of Revelation. Utter weirdness, to which millions of serious non-Mormon voters profess to subscribe.
Mormonism is pretty friggin' weird. But, hey, let us just wave our freak flags high.
Marxism is weird because it immamentizes the escutcheon. Mormonism's weirdness is on the other side of death, I think.
The Mormon equation was complicated by the fact that the second most-powerful Democrat in the country -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- shares the same religious faith as Mitt Romney. Reid may hate Romney with a white-hot passion, but going after Mitt on his religious beliefs would have simply opened up the door to ask why the leader of the Senate wasn't being held to the same standards (and the fact that Reid knows he may have been something of a secular firewall for the Republican nominee may in part explain why he seems so hyper-angry at the Republican nominee).
"Sullivan, like Biden, is a Catholic."
Yes, a Catholic who sometimes uses the name, gets belligerent if anybody questions his non-adherence to the doctrines of the Church. (I think Joe once threatened to shove his rosary beads down the throats of his Catholic critics)
For the last 2 months people report getting robo calls in 4, 5 swing states... with anit Mormon talking points... And mailers sent to evangelical Christians... Asking how they could vote for a Mormon
A lot of stuff happens under the radar in elections... Especially by democrats that the media doesn't report, if Joe Biden's willing to say in front of the camera's. "republicans will put you all back in chains"..... Imagine what blacks who go to church are hearing about what republicans will do, there's a reason why democrats like early voting, especially on Sunday's , it's called the soul something or other... They go in mass from their church's to the voting booth.
Will work to impose his own version of morality on the country.
Who does that describe better, Obama or Romney
It just isn't as mainstream, but on forums, Facebook and Twitter, virulent religious bigotry against Romney is apparent.
I don't know where Sullivan got his values, but it's clear to me that he should maybe try Mormonism. He couldn't possibly end up worse than he is. Hysterical, stupid and wrong is a bad way to go through life.
If we were voting for Pastor of the United States, Romney wouldn't get my vote. But we aren't.
I think most of this was hashed over during his run in 2008. I seem to remember more discussion about the effects of his Mormonism on his presidency then.
Mormon doctrine is in error in many respects, from my Evangelical Christian perspective, but then so is Catholicism-- the Pope and Transubstantiation-- off the top of my head.
It wasn't very long ago that Catholics, Mormons and Evangelicals united under the Moral Majority movement to effect change.
We view God's work in this world differently, but we do share common values that are under attack by secularism.
My Dad, who refused to vote for JFK because of his Catholic tradition, today would be voting for a Mormon AND a Catholic.
Every time I hear Romney speak, I'm more impressed with him. Will he disappoint me as President? Sure. Will he compromise, when my conservative roots shout 'no compromise'? No doubt.
He's not a conservative. But put him next to the current POTUS and at least he looks like an adult. I'll settle for that.
There is only one solution to the economic cliff the US teeters on. Growing the economy. No amount of spending cuts or tax hikes can bridge the chasm. Romney understands that.
chickelit said...
It's fascinating — isn't it? — how little anti-Mormon material has been spread about in this election. The only notable person who seems to be going there is Andrew Sullivan:
Crack was going there nonstop in these comment pages--I wonder if some imaginary Christianist enforcers got to him--the same ones relighting the ovens for gays and blacks.
11/4/12 9:57 AM
Should we petition our hostess to allow Crack back?
For all of his "issues' over Mormonism he was a pretty unique and entertaining character and commenter. Not having read every thread and comment I don't know if he crossed the line of irreversible behavior towards Ann or Meade but if not, perhaps to use a cold war term,raproachmont.
Huffpo ran this yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/helen-c-whitney/romney-mormonism_b_2068070.html
I think there was so little anti-Mormonism because that would open the gate further on Obama's past religious connections.
I expected more anti-Mormon in the media too, but it's hard to do since there are so many examples of uncommon decency among Mormons, plus the ugly nature of attacking a whole religion, and then the comparison the Reverend Wright. Even all that does not explain it though. The left has done all kinds of blatantly stupid things in this campaign with the war on women, binders, foul-mouthed seniors, etc, etc. I don't really understand why they haven't gone that route. There is still time.
Should we petition our hostess to allow Crack back?
I wasn't aware that Althouse had disallowed him. He asked to be delisted on the sidebar if I recall correctly.
For all we know he could be in chains in someone's basement in SLC.
I regret ever giving time to reading Sullivan's posts and ever thinking the guy was anything but a far left gay quack who basically is a single issue pundit. Jonah Goldberg's mom pegged him long ago, and she was right.
Um...it's the economy, stupid!
Really Romney's Mormonism is a lot less interesting to people now than his business acumen.
Then there's Obama's history with Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology. The MSM doesn't want to have that conversation again, and you know it would be brought up the minute people started talking about Romney's religion.
Wow. You're going through a real posting frenzy. It must be a real challenge to keep up with the amount of redirection and obfuscation you're reduced to these days.
Anyway, it's good to know that even corporate America has abandoned the Romney Reality Distortion Machine Bullshit. Here's Chrysler's VP letting his pussy surrogate know just how foul, dishonest and desperate his economic message to Ohio really is.
Good times.
Even corporate America has had enough of the Republican bullshit. Their only hope is some ignorant know-nothings, and a few petty bosses who need to scare them with threats of job loss.
Have you ever been to a "High Church" Episcopal service where the priests are dressed in $5000 embroidered robes, swing incense burners and jingle little hand chimes at appointed moments? Where the Communicants line up like 6-year-olds at the altar rail to have a cracker and a sip of grape juice and read in droning unison the entire service from a Book of Common Prayer (as I have most Sundays for 50 years)?
How less weird is that than modern Mormonism?
Nevertheless, Glenn Beck might think twice about telling Andrew Sullivan, "suck my balls".
You could make an equivalent YouTube video holding Catholics up to derision and contempt. That's generally not how we behave in America.
How blind are those who simply will not see.
Catholics and the Catholic faith are routinely held up to derision and contempt, including in these pages.
I know one hell of a lot more about corporate America than you do, Ritmo, and corporate America has not turned against Romney.
They turned against Obama a long time ago, at least in NYC.
The reason: Obama came to them, hat in hand, pleading for $1 billion in 2008. Then he spent the next four years calling the people who gave him the money "blood sucking vampires."
Corporate America is hedging its bets and putting money into both candidates, as it always does, to ensure access. But, Obama is hated in the NYC biz world, and the hatred is blood hatred.
deborah said...
I think there was so little anti-Mormonism because that would open the gate further on Obama's past religious connections.
I think you nailed it, deborah. Once they started bringing up Mormonism, Reverend Wright would have been fair game. Obama could not have stood the comparison.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Here's Chrysler's VP letting his pussy surrogate know just how foul, dishonest and desperate his economic message to Ohio really is.
That's funny, Montana. I was just going to post about Sullivan's dismissal of his marijuana charge by the Obama's AG office, then you bring up this story about a recipient of Obama's auto bailout. Interesting we had such similar thoughts at the same time.
One of the biggest surprises of this election season for me has been the lack of a concerted anti-Mormon line in the MSM. And, I agree, it does say something good about our country.
I'm also surprised that there wasn't a big October Surprise or Wag the Dog effort from the Obama campaign. One theory is that the 47% tape was supposed to be released in late October, but was deployed early when Obama needed to shift the conversation away from Benghazi.
jr565 said...
"I regret ever giving time to reading Sullivan's posts and ever thinking the guy was anything but a far left gay quack who basically is a single issue pundit. Jonah Goldberg's mom pegged him long ago, and she was right."
I swear he used to be better. I really enjoyed his blog, something like ten years ago. Sometime midway through Bush's first term, Sullivan just started to go completely bonkers.
Sad to say, it only shows how the Lefties will resort to hate-mongering if it will get them their way.
The days of the Mormon War and Mountain Meadows are over.
Ann Althouse said...
Sullivan, like Joe Biden, is a Catholic.
Sullivan, like Joe Biden, is a cafeteria Catholic.
FIFY
I agree with conserve liberty and briane
Mr. Beck insisted that polygamy was seen as a “perversion” in the modern church.
Wow. That's pretty relevant and up-to-date. And with the astute and prescient Glenn Blech as a messenger, what could go wrong?
The problem with this is that the LDS only ended their policy of declaring blacks inferior in 1978. That's a full fourteen years after civil rights, a full one hundred eleven years after the Emancipation Proclamation.
And you wonder what issues Crack could have, or that anyone else could have in the context of an election between Mitt and a black guy?
The only ones concerned with Mormonism in this election are the conservatives eager to challenge their naturally sectarian and theocratic impulses, and conservatives who'd prefer to support someone with less institutional discomfort deploying the "black president as a lazy, good-for-nothing" trope.
With Mitt, they get a two-for-one deal.
Born again Christians don't care and I'm from the bible belt. I don't think its an issue.
I was just going to post about Sullivan's dismissal of his marijuana charge by the Obama's AG office, then you bring up this story about a recipient of Obama's auto bailout. Interesting we had such similar thoughts at the same time.
As long as we're going to shoot messengers, I figured I'd go for the really big guns, and the one most allied with Romney's core dishonesty.
But good on you trying to make this election about a columnist for an on-line newsmagazine. That's REALLY CLEVER!!!
As per usual, Ritmo conjures up the most evil motives possible in his political opponents, and then proceeds to beat the devil out of the strawman he's constructed.
The fact that Ritmo always thinks that other people are motivated by pure evil leads me to question whether might be Ritmo himself who is motivated by pure evil, and then projects his own motivations onto his perceived enemies.
The political aspect of Romney's faith is very different from any theological consideration of his faith.
Many of the revilers of Romney's Mormon faith on-line aren't going to vote for him in any case. It's just one more stick to beat him with.
For those who are going to vote for him, sure, many of the Evangelicals, Catholics, etc are not thrilled about his faith. But compared to what? Obama's faith?
Also, if you're conservative you are accustomed reaching compromises among faith communities (fundamentalist Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, etc) who really aren't that fond of each other in many ways. If those communities couldn't reach compromise, you'd have no modern Republican party at all.
Based on the tightness of the polls, it looks like anti-Mormonism isn't a big factor in this election. If it was, Romney would be way behind. That's a good thing. And as Conserve Liberty points out above, most of the really cool religions have some degree of pomp, weirdness and theater. That's part of what makes them enjoyable and encourages group bonding, and most people get that.
Today, the first Sunday of the month, I participate in a weird Mormon ritual called "Fasting" where my family and I skip two meals. Later today, we'll donate the money we would have spent on those meals to a Mormon fund used to help the poor and afflicted (including Sandy relief efforts). Weird. Yeah. -CP
I agree, somefeller.
The Mormon thing seems mostly a non-factor.
Fark.
Who cares???
The tolerance that the Left has laid claim to for the past 45 years in evident in Right.
After all, when you've spent 45 years being called 'racist', 'bigoted', 'war-monger', 'anti-woman' 'wanting slavery to return', etc. a candidate's religion starts to be a small thing as long as his or her political beliefs are basically orthodox.
The fact that Ritmo always thinks that other people are motivated by pure evil leads me to question whether might be Ritmo himself who is motivated by pure evil, and then projects his own motivations onto his perceived enemies.
That's because you're ignorant of all fact and incapable of logic.
But Althouse posted on Glenn Beck's musings about the role of Mormonism in this election.
Do tell me, Mr Thomas, with all your characteristic good-faith, decency, honor and forthrightness, what happened to the Mormon priesthood in 1978 that impacts the dynamic of this presidential race?
Please feel free to give an answer as congenial, good natured, down-homesy as you like. Ok, Big Guy?
What's crazier: believing in universal health care, or believing you'll become a god one day and rule over your own planet?
Just the guy I want to hand over our nuclear codes to!
The Mormon priesthood in 1978 isn't a factor in my opinions about Mitt Romney, you fucking idiot.
garage constructs his own strawman, and does almost as good a job as Ritmo.
The Mormon priesthood in 1978 isn't a factor in my opinions about Mitt Romney, you fucking idiot.
Oh, but they are a factor in Mitt's thoughts about people unlike himself, you fucking idiot.
Anyway, Althouse chose the topic, not me. I'm just looking at where it's possible to go with the topic she chose.
Plus, most people who interact with Mormons notice that they have a culture that encourages honesty, hard work and learning. It speaks well for them that one of the first things they did was create a fine university (BYU).
Personally, the lack of booze, tobacco and coffee would prevent me from joining their religion, but to each his own. And thankfully, Episcopalianism and Catholicism exist for those of us who need that trinity also.
No, Ritmo, as usual you're trying to project your own vicious, evil motives on others.
What in the world happened to you in your personal life to lead you to view others as possessed by evil?
The problem is in you, kid.
"Really Romney's Mormonism is a lot less interesting to people now than his business acumen."
We would have had a McCain presidency if he'd chosen Romney instead of Palin. People would have clung in desperate hope to Romney's business acumen.
Isn't Sullivan the well known proponent of receptive anal intercourse? Maybe the Mormons aren't too hep to that.
What in the world happened to you in your personal life to lead you to view others as possessed by evil?
Wait, so you're saying that Mitt's church's decision to declare blacks ineligible for leadership positions means that I have a problem viewing others as possessed by evil?
Good Lord, dear Boy! You seem to be saying that you agree with that policy. Did you therefore have a problem with its reversal, too?
Your thoughts on this, to the extent that they can be said to exist, seem to be more complex than your pretension to a simple, happy-go-lucky self would suggest.
Good Lord, dear Boy! You seem to be saying that you agree with that policy. Did you therefore have a problem with its reversal, too?
Exhibit A in what I was saying about you, Ritmo.
What in the world is your problem? You're a seriously bad case in every possible way.
Yes. It is a striking difference to the way the right behaved towards Obama and his church.
Not long now, is it Ritmo, before you descend into a serious fit of fury?
Have at it.
You're a seriously bad case in every possible way.
Which ways would those be? The ways in which certain people were excluded from Mitt's priesthood in 1978?
You seem to have a problem even understanding the meaning of the word "problem".
Keep it coming,k Ritmo. I expect you to let all your demons out now.
That's the usual pattern.
Not long now, is it Ritmo, before you descend into a serious fit of fury?
No fury. I just like exposing the less, er, savvy supporters of a thoughtless agenda. But do tell me what you think people like Mitt (and you?) are entitled and privileged to. And where thoughts like that might come from.
@ARM,
Yes. It is a striking difference to the way the right behaved towards Obama and his church.
I don't seem to remember the phrase "God damn America!" occurring anywhere in the Book of Mormon.
I think after this nation's history of intolerance, that electing the first Mormon President is enough reason alone to vote for Romney. We don't need to know anything else. Let's all be on the right side of history here. We are the change we've been waiting for.
But do tell me what you think people like Mitt (and you?) are entitled and privileged to.
The demons gather in Ritmo's mind. Soon, the deluge.
"But do tell me what you think people like Mitt (and you?) are entitled and privileged to."
It's all in the Constitution, including the right to vote which is going to rock your world this week.
I don't seem to remember the phrase "God damn America!" occurring anywhere in the Book of Mormon.
Substitute the word "America" with "Israel" and you should find it comfortably scattered all across the Book of Jeremiah.
Or what's the problem with you? Don't you actually read the same biblical precepts of which you pretend to be so supportive?
Yes, the Mormonism is a loser for Obama.
If you want to talk about that, then it's time to rekindle the discussion about Rev. Wright.
Who's worse?
Apparently unaware that Chrysler is now 61.8% owned by Fiat, Ritmo quotes a Chrysler VP as representing "corporate America". Make that "corporate Italy" and it would be more or less true.
deborah said...
Really Romney's Mormonism is a lot less interesting to people now than his business acumen.
We would have had a McCain presidency if he'd chosen Romney instead of Palin. People would have clung in desperate hope to Romney's business acumen.
No, sad to say, Junior didn't want to make a fight of it if it meant him being called a racist, rightly or wrongly.
Also, the market crash pretty much sealed it.
It's all in the Constitution, including the right to vote which is going to rock your world this week.
No right even to vote in the Constitution. Hey, I had to find this out recently in the wake of your buddies' voter suppression efforts. You can probably ask the hostess about it.
But I didn't find a right in the constitution for the already rich to be taxed less so as to keep opportunity from becoming more widespread. Perhaps you got that at one of your meetings of the John Birch Society.
" Shouting Thomas said...
I know one hell of a lot more about corporate America than you do, Ritmo, and corporate America has not turned against Romney.
They turned against Obama a long time ago, at least in NYC."
I saw an interesting piece the other day about a CEO roundtable of Obama supporters in 2009. They met and he appeared with a Teleprompter ! They were deeply offended and, after another such meeting or two, decided he wasn't serious in asking their views. He was using them as backdrops.
"We would have had a McCain presidency if he'd chosen Romney instead of Palin. People would have clung in desperate hope to Romney's business acumen."
I don't think so. Palin was a great energizing pick, but there was a perfect storm against the Republicans.
Eight years of anti-Bush media hatred, the real estate market collapse, the Obama hope-and-change-first black president hype, etc.
It wasn't going to happen, and I guess we needed to have the American people see Obama for the fraudulent, empty suit that he was and get it out of their system.
Kind of like adolescents on a cocaine and champagne binge and
suffering from the ensuing hideous hangover, America is waking up battered and nauseous but ready to assume responsibility for their folly and elect some adult leadership.
Perhaps you got that at one of your meetings of the John Birch Society.
On cue, the demented ranting commences!
Won't be long now before the thousand word denunciation posts appear.
@Ritmo,
So, are we to take a work of prophecy aimed at pre-captivity Israel, and blithely apply that to modern American politics? Is that what you want lefty Christians to do? Would you like it if righty Christians did it? I mean, Jeremiah lambasted Israel as prophet of the Lord for whoring after idols and falling away from His Law. And they weren't even into abortion & gay marriage!
Stop saying things just to be provocative. If the Right went down that path, you'd be bitching about them using their superstition in the public square. It's their faith and they've chosen not to go that way. Be grateful.
Apparently unaware that Chrysler is now 61.8% owned by Fiat, Ritmo quotes a Chrysler VP as representing "corporate America". Make that "corporate Italy" and it would be more or less true.
This should play well to all the auto workers employed (at a greater percentage than nationally) in Ohio.
Or you could just take the Romney route and threaten their jobs should they fail to vote for him. That's the American way, in your mind at least.
Nixon was a bloody Quaker and we survived him, so how bad can a Mormon be?
Give credit where credit is due.
I credit to the Obama campaign for staying away from the issue. I expected it would be different and I am glad I was wrong.
"No right even to vote in the Constitution."
That's right, so tell your friends to stay home. Voting is unconstitutional, just like arguing with the President. I can't wait for Chris Mathews to tell us that when people start dissing President Romney. Ahhh yes, President Romney.
Has anyone called the hospitals or morgue regarding Crack?
Ritmo isn't trying to be provocative. He's demented.
In search of a scapegoat. The reasons why, we do not know.
I do believe we are more religiously tolerant than any other nation on earth, but the media would have gone after Mormonism if they thought it would have worked. I remember the during the 2008 primaries the New York Times was running articles on polygamy and Mormons. (And Andrew Sullivan was going on about "secret underwear" , etc. back then, too.) They didn't do it this time for all the reasons everyone else has already stated.
ST, better to just ignore the asshole. His sole purpose is to poison the well and ruin the thread. Don't give him the oxygen he needs.
Stop saying things just to be provocative. If the Right went down that path...
LOL!
I'm sorry, I had to stop reading right there as I almost spit a bunch of orange juice all over the keyboard!!!
Hahahah!!! IF the right ever said things just to be provocative!!! THAT'S THE MOST HILARIOUS THING I'VE HEARD.
Everything Althouse posts is for provocation. As are a majority of the comments in response.
I'm beside myself at the thought that you don't see this.
Hello, paging Jessica Valenti...
Or you could just take the Romney route and threaten their jobs should they fail to vote for him. That's the American way, in your mind at least.
We're headed toward the full deluge from Ritmo.
His opponents favor threatening peoples' jobs!
Much more to come as Ritmo exorcises his demons and attempts to find the scapegoat for the voices in his head.
I'm fascinated by this tendency. It seems to have overtaken most of the web, Facebook in particular.
I am moving away from the actual topic a little here, but I'm fascinated by the orgy of scapegoating on the web.
I played my own small role in developing this technology, and I am a little bit amazed at the results.
Instead of encouraging people to give some credence and tolerance to the views of others, the net results seems to be furious political polarization and bitter scapegoating on all sides.
Fascinating!
"Matthew Sablan said...
It just isn't as mainstream, but on forums, Facebook and Twitter, virulent religious bigotry against Romney is apparent."
This. No shortage of it all. And the sources are all lefty blogs and websites. Nasty stuff.
"Paul said...
Then there's Obama's history with Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology. The MSM doesn't want to have that conversation again, and you know it would be brought up the minute people started talking about Romney's religion."
The reason this is avoided by the MSM but not lefties in general, is that the latter has no idea about BLT because of the MSM. My sister, a big lib, and also a former Mormon, posted on her FB page that the MSM ought to pound Romney on his Mormonis. When I said fine, but let talk about Obama's Church and teachings she replied "I have no idea what you are talking about".
Libs live in an echo chamber.
Like, you know, if Matt Drudge or Rush Limbaugh ever said things just to be provocative...
Lol. They perfected the "artform". After spending the seventies going after universities and the press, and electing an actor in the eighties, what other format was left for them?
Mindless provocation. It's the stock-in-trade of their empire.
Hell, even Shouting Tacos lauded the buffoon Don Trump last spring because of his "entertainment value" as a possible candidate.
Give me a BREAK!
But failing that, it's good to know that you'll at least give me a good laugh.
HAHAhahahahaha.
@sydney,
I do believe we are more religiously tolerant than any other nation on earth
I strongly suspect that Romney's rampant unpopularity in Europe is MUCH more related to his Mormonism than Europeans would like to let on. As for Obama's faith, well, for Europeans, immersing one's religious tradition into a lefty political movement is S.O.P.
Mormonism may be strange, but it's our American-born strangeness.
I've been taking a break at the gym. Time to shower and go to a party.
But, I'll check back later.
I expect Ritmo will still be here 10 hours from now, and that his rhetoric will escalate into ever more profound hatred and viciousness, and will reach a fever pitch by this evening.
Interesting to watch, in a sick sort of way.
His opponents favor threatening peoples' jobs!
It is a "fascinating" tactic, isn't it? So "fascinating" that even I wouldn't have believed it. And yet, here it is, right in front of you...
Your capacity for denial and disbelief almost rivals your buddies' capacity for believing... in magical things.
I think that the "low information" religious conservative voter who might worry about Romney being a Mormon would see it all as a choice between a Mormon and a Muslim.
For better informed Evangelicals who think that Catholics or any other denomination they're not in are going to hell... well, they're used to that and if being in doctrinal error disqualified a political candidate they'd never vote for anyone at all.
And the others who might be slightly uncomfortable with Mormonism distrust "educated coastal Americans" more.
"I strongly suspect that Romney's rampant unpopularity in Europe is MUCH more related to his Mormonism than Europeans would like to let on. As for Obama's faith, well, for Europeans, immersing one's religious tradition into a lefty political movement is S.O.P."
I don't think so. I think it's more of a hatred for for American Conservatism and the Republican Party in general over there. They are are lot like our liberals...Gramscian neo-Marxists who despise American Classical Liberalism as enshrined in our Constitution.
They are the philosophical descendants of Rousseau, we are the descendants of Locke and Adam Smith. Two diametrically opposing viewpoints of how society and government should be structured, and of human nature itself.
Our legacy is free people and prosperity. Theirs is tyranny and declining standards of living and liberty, and ultimately the gulags and graveyards.
They hate us the way the Jihadists do...as the successful winners we are while they, being the "high moraled" and sanctimonious supremacists that they are unfairly, in their minds, fall way behind. A particularly ugly mixture of arrogance and envy.
Am I the only one here who has learned with age and experience that some of the more bizarre religions (judged purely by what they believe) tend to produce some of the most decent people, and vice versa?
Years ago I worked at a high-tech company whose DB Administrator, a recent Chinese immigrant, was an incredibly nice guy and a damned near perfect employee. He didn't drink or smoke, kept some weird religious cult books in his cubicle to give away to anyone who asked, and also kept close to his keyboard a slightly creepy picture of a smiling bald guy in a robe and halo whom he seemed to worship. (He didn't light candles to him, though, at least at work.) I thought Dong was a member of a tiny cult no one had ever heard of, and only realized a few years later that his cult was actually huge, and severely persecuted in China. When the Falun Gong became famous, I immediately realized that he was a member. (I recognized the bald guy.) So, judging from the one member I've known, Falun Gong is another religion with bizarre beliefs that actually work quite well for its members. I currently work with a dozen Mormons every day, and the same goes for them: polite, hard working, decent people. Unless they happen to mention elders or missions or consulting bishops about relatively minor matters, you'd never know there was anything unusual about their beliefs. The same applies to the many Mennonites I've met, and the one Hasidic Jew I've worked with. (I've never known any Christian Scientists or Jehovah's Witnesses, so I don't know if this applies to them.)
So, has anyone else noticed a significant correlation between bizarreness and usefulness (can't think of a better word) of religious beliefs?
Sullivan my be the most prominent of the anti-Mormons out there, but he isn't the only one. I had this dialogue with Dawkins back in the middle of October:
Richard Dawkins:
Romney believes a religion which is not only barking mad and utterly unscientific. It is also deeply racist. Mr Deity: http://bit.ly/Qu74Pv
David Pecchia:
@RichardDawkins Obama also claims to be a Christian. Are we assuming that this is somehow different, or that he is being insincere?
Richard Dawkins:
@dpecchia I hope he's being insincere. I'd hate to think he really believes it. But even Christianity is not in the same league as Mormonism
Ed, I mean that Palin was picked before the Crash. After the crash people were absolutely terrified, and I think a resolute Romney at the financial helm would have helped tremendously. But Paul, you're correct, it was Palin who got him as close as he did come, a final 6-point margin.
"We would have had a McCain presidency if he'd chosen Romney instead of Palin. People would have clung in desperate hope to Romney's business acumen."
I think that Romney would have won the presidency if he'd gotten the nomination, but the economy went to heck after that choice was made. I don't know if Romney as a VP would have put the Republicans over or not.
I'd always assumed that Romney couldn't get the nomination "next time" either because we'd be out of crisis by now and Romney is still so very boring... all those words; boring, plastic, generic...
But we're not out of crisis. I never thought it would be possible that we'd have hit a economic holding pattern in 2009 and we'd still be there in 2012.
Yes, it's a little OT (because I'm not wasting time fixing breakfast or lunch today), but whenever I see a post by Ritmo, Garage, Harrowgate, et.al., whose only contribution is a cry for attention, I'm reminded of this post by Leo Traynor.
The gist is, this troll (that came to dominate the blogger's life) was actually the teenage son of a close friend and was treating the whole series of sick, perverted incidents as a "game."
I tend to skip the trolls, because they only exist to argue that the sky can't be blue, gravity is not "down," Obama is awesome. They need the response. They certainly can't act that way in the flesh-world so they spew their nonsense here.
I see a post and I immediate relegate them to the kiddies table. I prefer the conversation of adults.
There is no good faith. There is only adolescent fixations on attention. They exist only to attempt to exasperate. They offer no challenging facts, no exchange of new ideas, no refreshing outlook. They offer nothing but stale strawmen, ad hominem attacks and squirrel.
The only value I can possibly attribute is that we need these voices only as examples of "My God! How stupid can these mouthbreathers be and still function in a modern society?"
It's all about the points. "No one knows you're not a dog"--but we can discern the mindless barking.
Still, they're not nearly as irritating as DWS. -CP
Romney has already proven that he doesn't Mormonize his elected office. So there's that.
Also I think the campaign said to Bamster, you go there and we will go THERE, meaning Jeremiah Gol Dang America.
No doubt this has been said already, but evangelicals are going to vote for Romney this time and in great numbers. Sullivan is a moron.
When I went to church this morning I heard this Gospel (31 Sunday in Ordinary Time)
One of the scribes came to Jesus and asked him,
"Which is the first of all the commandments?"
Jesus replied, "The first is this:
Hear, O Israel!
The Lord our God is Lord alone!
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart,
with all your soul,
with all your mind,
and with all your strength.
The second is this:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
There is no other commandment greater than these."
The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher.
You are right in saying,
'He is One and there is no other than he.'
And 'to love him with all your heart,
with all your understanding,
with all your strength,
and to love your neighbor as yourself'
is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."
And when Jesus saw that he answered with understanding,
he said to him,
"You are not far from the kingdom of God."
And no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Who needs "Hitler Finds Out Obama Is Losing The Election" videos?
We have Ritmo!
Do you think Andrew Sullivan truly loves God and will love his neighbor as much as he loves himself?
Do you think Barack Obama truly loves God and will love his neighbor as much as he loves himself?
Do you think Mitt Romney truly loves God and will love his neighbor as much as he loves himself?
When you answer those questions you can make a choice as to where you should put your trust.
Thanks, dbp (11:32am). Apparently Richard Dawkins has managed to reach whatever age he is . . . wait, let me look that up, it'll only take 30 seconds . . . has managed to reach the age of 71 without noticing that religious beliefs he personally finds bizarre do in fact 'work' for many people, helping them to live their lives as decent and useful citizens. What narrow circles he must have spent his whole life in!
I think that part of it too is that Romney has been shown to be a generally good, caring, and giving person. Far different than Obama, or esp. Biden, who want to just give away your money in the name of charity to buy votes. Almost never their own.
Romney has quietly, over the decades, given help, his own, his money, his family, and his church, to those in need for one reason or another, and many of the recipients were not Mormons. He gives maybe 1/3 of his income to charity, including, of course, the requisite tithe to his church.
The side of Mormonism that we are seeing with Romney is very positive. More caring of others than many, if not most, and definitely much than the godless on the left.
There are negatives about Mormons and their religion, which is why Crack is presumably so antagonistic towards them, and you see it when you are around them a lot, and, yes Crack, esp. in Utah. One is that they are cliquey, and take care of their own first, probably almost as much as Jews do. You see it in a lot of small ways - for example, it is accepted wisdom that you don't try a big case in Las Vegas without a Mormon at counsel table. Sure that SLC would be worse.
Another thing that you see a fair amount of, and that they share with a lot of evangelicals, is the attitude that they are saved, and we are not. I see this a lot more with Mormon women than with Mormon men, which is why I like most of the Mormon men I have known throughout my life. Some quite a bit. Less so with the women (though I did have one great LDS GF when I lived in SLC).
One thing to keep in mind is that there are really almost two types of Mormons - those living near the center of their power and history, and those living out of it. The closer you are to Utah and SLC, the more you will see the negative attributes that I mentioned above. I think it maybe when they are in or close to a majority that these things come out. Romney, growing up in MI and living in MA, doesn't exhibit these characteristics one bit.
Keep in mind that these somewhat negative characteristics are probably much more historical than religiously based (though religion can, of course, be used to justify such). Mormons were run out of the mid-west in first half of the nineteenth century, with their stores and farms seized or on fire behind them. It wasn't just Illinois, but that was maybe the worst. They picked up and moved better than a thousand miles over pretty harsh terrain, often on foot pushing handcarts, to get somewhere where they could practice their religion in peace. And, when they did so, they had no one else to help them, so they bonded together, helped themselves and each other.
I don't think any GOP ticket could have beat Obama in 08. He had over 50%, no matter who else was running, because the right was just in no mood to fight back then, and the first Black President idea was enough alone to get a lot of moderates and new voters. Besides, there were few negatives - he was unknown (which should in itself be a negative, but wasn't) Obama simply could not have lost 08.
cold pizza:
I've said it before on this very site, but it's worth saying again: On the Internet, everyone knows you're a dog.
We may never know Ritmo's real name, age, gender, state of health, address, telephone number, profession, height, weight, or anything else about him - even (especially!) if he tells us, but we all know what kind of person he is from the way he argues.
"So, has anyone else noticed a significant correlation between bizarreness and usefulness (can't think of a better word) of religious beliefs?"
I don't know if it's the bizarre nature of the beliefs, but I can easily see how a habit of personal discipline would hold over to all areas of a person's life. I won't say that there are not non-religious ways to practice delayed gratification (or denied gratification) and self-discipline, but when someone says that God bestows blessings (in life) on the faithful, I think that the blessings are generally a natural consequence of a controlled way of life. Following the rules makes it easier to make better choices and follow other rules. (Like not getting pregnant in high school and not getting divorced and not getting into drug abuse and showing up reliably to work and not giving into temptation to cut corners or shortchange employers... at least *usually*, since no one is perfect.)
As an example... when I was in basic training we had a bunch of what seemed to be entirely arbitrary and pointless rules that we had to follow. I had to come to the conclusion that for some people following them for the sake of it was near impossible for them. Trivial stuff that took no effort at all and how simple was it to do *this* and do *that*? Little crap that wasn't any sort of burden to do and a large number of the girls found it near impossible.
Other stuff was hard for me, like running... but the girls who had a lot of *practice* running had no problem with that part of it.
Same-same.
There is no good faith.
Really? See, for me, it depends on what timeframe we're talking. Prior to 1978 I had no such thing as good faith. After 1978, I did. Or was it the other way around? Either way, the point is that my good faith is so entirely NOT opportunistic or based on ulterior motives. Because if it were, I might have had to choose less convenient times for deciding when to act on it. Like 1965. Or 2012.
That Sullivan and Biden self-identify as Catholics is public knowledge. Their public behavior demonstrates that they are either delusional or very comfortable with lying to everyone around them.
<a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54003962-80/mormons-church-percent-believe.html.csp>5 Types of Mormons.</a> -CP
Let's try that again with the closing html code: 5 Types of Mormons. -CP
Ah, I guess I forgot the actual point.
Not bizarre nature of beliefs but how extensive various rituals and rules are over how a person lives every day.
Dr. W.
There are times I miss Archie the cockroach and the Ghost of "whats-his-name." They were good dogs.
"Woof."
-CP
I guess being a Muslim does not scare them. Or being a 'God Damn America' Christian does not scare them. So why would a Mormon scare them?
I don't really care what religion the savior is. I just want to be saved from being ruined by the current dopey president.
4 of the latest 5 polls in the RCP average show a tie. Awesome!
"4 of the latest 5 polls in the RCP average show a tie. Awesome!"
If we get the 2008 Dem turnout it will be a tie too.
@Ritmo: 2012 - 1978 = 34 years ago. We're voting on events since 2008.
Incidentally, Ritmo, I notice a convenient lack of curiosity, on your part, about the positions of organizations Obama was part of in the 1980s and 1990s, such as the New Party and the Rev. Wright's church.
Mitt Romney is the not Pope of the Mormons. And BTW, they still don't allow women priests!
Just like your VP candidate, Joe Biden's, church...
See, Ritmo, you don't care at all about Obama killing brown people all over the world, with a kill list which he personally puts their names on--we spent a good number of posts back and forth on that and you said it was not an issue for you.
But for some reason you care very much about the exact date when an organization that Mitt Romney has never been the boss of, decided to allow people of all races equal opportunity to be in its priesthood--which to me, as an atheist, is utterly irrelevant, I don't care how they decide who has what imaginary status with their imaginary divinity and fake scriptures.
The answer to this conundrum is, you are a feces flinging primate, and voting for Obama is your tribal identity. I've tried to shame you into behaving like an evolved human, to no effect.
I too, wonder why anyone bothers engaging commenters like Ritmo, who's clearly deranged with paranoia. How does that add to the discussion? Garage used to be semi-rational, but Bark's impending electoral doom has also driven him into the fever-swamps of leftist lunacy. Inga's simply dumber-than-a-stump, a classic example of Boomer narcissism that must share it's righteous world view no matter how ignorant or ill-reasoned. Now I love arguing politics, but when you get sucked into Internet pissing matches with the willfully clueless you're just making a fool of yourself.
Mitt Romney’s Mormonism make him too scary or weird to be elected to president of the United States...
Crack 2012... where are you?
O Ritmo wrote:
Anyway, it's good to know that even corporate America has abandoned the Romney Reality Distortion Machine Bullshit. Here's Chrysler's VP letting his pussy surrogate know just how foul, dishonest and desperate his economic message to Ohio really is.
Good times.
Even corporate America has had enough of the Republican bullshit. Their only hope is some ignorant know-nothings, and a few petty bosses who need to scare them with threats of job loss.
And even the Daily News is not endorsing Obama again. The New York Daily News. A NY paper! That endorsed Obama last time! Even they are seeing through the Obama Reality distortion bullshit.
The Crack Emcee has left the building. I would be very surprised if he was being deleted. It is of his own volition.
I think he just got tired of arguments that he could not win. His bigotry started to make him a outlier and he had to pull back till after the election.
Seriously, no one worried much about Obama, who joined and attended a church where Jeremiah Wright has preached Black Liberation Theology for more than two decades. Them BLT folks are certifiable Marxists.
Garage might be alot of things, but he isn't a troll.
He is more of a gnome.
You know squat and beefy with a dirty beard and a slack jawed cretin sort of style.
Who is more susceptible to that type of thing? You have to ask, after the last 20 years of Democrats getting hysterical about evangelicals, Sarah Palin, etc.?
bagoh20 said... "I think after this nation's history of intolerance, that electing the first Mormon President is enough reason alone to vote for Romney. We don't need to know anything else."
leslyn: "We cure intolerance by tolerating somebody else? You think that works? In the face of history?"
You didn't even see what Bagoh did there, did you.
deborah said...
""Really Romney's Mormonism is a lot less interesting to people now than his business acumen."
We would have had a McCain presidency if he'd chosen Romney instead of Palin. People would have clung in desperate hope to Romney's business acumen."
The conservative base of the Republican Party would have stayed home in droves instead of the drabbles it stayed home in.
The anti-Obama vote is strong enough this year that Nelson Rockefeller would see conservatives turn out for him- even running from the grave, as he would need to be...
I love BLT sandwiches!
leslyn,
Look in the mirror.
Gallup:
2008 D 54% R 42%
2012 R 49% D 46%
Looks like Michael Barone may be right.
leslyn said...
I think that one thing we should know is how Romney's beliefs from his church affect his political views.
How many times do people have to refer to Rev. Wright before you get the point?
"The conservative base of the Republican Party would have stayed home in droves instead of the drabbles it stayed home in."
I don't think so. If you recall, at the time, the economy went into free-fall. It wouldn't have been hard at all for Romney to convince frightened people that he had real, and absolutely relevant, experience.
Yes, *McCain* beat him in the primaries. He's about the least exciting person on the planet. Still is.
So what has changed *now* that hadn't changed those few weeks after the Republican convention in 2008? Romney is the same politician he was then, and people aren't staying home in droves instead of dribbles.
what about Harry Reid and his Mormonism. Oh, he is a Democrat. They can be and do anything they want with no criticism.
Right over your head, leslyn. Shall I spell it out for you?
Major premise: Obama was elected merely so that we could say we had elected the first black president.
Minor premise: Mitt Romney would be the first Mormon president.
Conclusion: Romney should be elected merely so we can say we had elected the first Mormon president.
The logic is flawless.
How many times do people have to refer to Rev. Wright before you get the point?
WHat point? THat the tactic didn't work for your guys? Yes, we got that point.
The election won't turn on Romney's sniveling obeisance to a sectarian Church edict banning blacks from leadership, either. But it's fun to speculate on how it "affected his worldview", just as much as it was fun for you to do the same with Obama and Wright.
Also, this dynamic has the virtue of a certain context:
1. Romney's running against one of "those guys" his church had told him were inferior and not fit for leadership.
2. Wright's denunciations of national sin and the retribution that could result were not only similar to the biblical literary tradition, but of a kind with the same crap that Pat Robertson and the rest of the religious right pulled.
But the hypocrisy of the latter is as likely to be lost on your guys as is the unique issue at play in this election with the former.
Have fun. I noticed that Rasmussen is also trying to "tighten the polls" in-line with an every so much more slightly accurate "tie/dead heat". I guess that's the way they'll prep you for the more probable reality.
Either that, or they took to actually polling people who were modern enough to use cell phones instead of land-lines.
"So what has changed *now* that hadn't changed those few weeks after the Republican convention in 2008? Romney is the same politician he was then, and people aren't staying home in droves instead of dribbles."
Four years of President Golf Pants?
The New York Daily News. A NY paper! That endorsed Obama last time!
Like a light from heaven, the ideological diversity of NYC finally dawns on jr.
As previously stated Mr. Biden is no longer a Catholic as he excommunicated himself by his support of elective abortion.
The "fruits" of the tree of Mormonism are: Sobriety; Clean (Tobacco free) living; Close family life; Preparation for disaster by required storage of foods in each family home (No doubt that the effete East Coast wimps could learn from them).
There are downsides to that religion but, fact or fiction, they need not be noted here.
Leslyn - Bago was being ironic...
"I think that one thing we should know is how Romney's beliefs from his church affect his political views." And now you are...
"Disavowed."
When? Why?
Oh, forget it. I don't really give a god damn about candidates' religious views.
Judge each faith by the principles it engenders.
The answer to this conundrum is, you are a feces flinging primate, and voting for Obama is your tribal identity.
As voting for Romney (or any genericrepublican) is yours.
Obama renounced Wright. Biden could renounce the Catholic Church, but it's a bigger, stronger and much more popular institution than is Romney's. Romney is a presidential candidate, running in an economy that his party battered, and has come close to tying or surpassing the incumbent in the polls. He is the most powerful Mormon to date. If anyone could use that authority to challenge a church, he could.
But he won't. And he wouldn't. And he didn't.
Don't question the ability of liberals to challenge institutions, let alone those to which they belong. If you haven't gotten around to understanding that the whole point of conservatism is to strengthen, reward, and follow institutions, no matter how wrong, arbitrary and authoritarian they are, then you failed everything that anyone knows about politics.
Hope you don't mind the smell of that. Ask any political philosopher whose ever written or observed anything on the subject.
Now go back to studying the science that your tribally affiliated party can't seem to acknowledge, let alone want to do anything about.
DIckhead. (Just because I didn't want to leave you out of that "flinging" thing).
But seriously, I have much less tolerance for argumentative ignoramuses than you do. Argumentative, well-informed blokes? THat's fine. But if you're just going to be disagreeable, at least tell me something I don't already fucking know already.
O Ritmo wrote
Like a light from heaven, the ideological diversity of NYC finally dawns on jr.
What ideological diversity. Obama would have to have done extremely poorly to have not gotten the Daily News endorsement. You do know they endorsed him previously, right?
So unless, all the editors were fired then conservatives came on board, this lack of endorsement is actually a referendum on Obama's policies. And they are sayng that they can't endorse him AGAIN. Because he sucks. (They didn't use those words of course, but you get the jist).
Obama is "inferior and not fit for leadership." I don't need anyone to tell me that, I've watched him for 5 years.
Sullivan wouldn't bother me so much if I thought he was being sincere. I believe he's doing this because of politics. He'd have no problem with a president Reid.
So Romney is personally responsible for offensive but long-since-altered teachings of the church he never chose but was born into, while Obama is not personally responsible for offensive and still-taught teachings of the church he chose to join as an adult, out of the literally hundreds of different Protestant churches in Chicago he could have joined when he moved there, the church he stayed a member of for 20+ years, whose pastor he only repudiated when it was politically advantageous to do so? Have I got that right?
i was visiting lefty political sites last night (i do it so you don't have to) and, apparently, the word had gone out and the threads were suddenly ablaze with snarky 'magic underwear' and IT'S A CULT!! comments. a last-ditch effort to stir the troops, i suppose, but it gave me the creeps and i'm not real big on organized religions myself.
What ideological diversity. Obama would have to have done extremely poorly to have not gotten the Daily News endorsement. You do know they endorsed him previously, right?
YOu are a dumbass, plain and simple. They endorsed Bush. They are conservatives, (not as stupidly or blindly conservative as you), and therefore still care about partisan aims. The jury's still out on whether the Tea Parblicans can escape blame for refusing to help economic recovery over the last 2 years, but most partisans are betting that they can and therefore wrongly blaming Obama while coddling a Romnesiac like Mittens.
Once the election's over we'll either get a party and a presidency and a congress that will speed recovery or impede it. The damage done to your party depends on not only those scenarios, but what happens next and who can be blamed for it, accurately or inaccurately.
However, I'm getting the feeling that the Republican penchant for lying shamelessly has reached a point of diminished returns in this election, and I hope that ends up factoring in decisively to the result.
Take a look at Richard Cohen's "endorsement" of Obama.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-cohen-obama-the-president-who-seems-not-to-care/2012/10/29/a52246a0-21e2-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html
"I will vote for Obama with regret. I wish he was the man I once mistook him for."
"The president who seems not to care".
You get the gist. This is someone who pretty much HAS to vote for Obama. And yet he's telling you Ritmo all the negatives of Obama. He just doens't seem to care He.s not the man that dems mistook him for. Cohen is holding his nose voting for the cold fish.
THat's nto Cohen's racism speaking, that is him simply stating factual truth.
Obama is a cold fish, aloof candidate who is completley devisive and is advocating policies that will keep the economy stagnant for another 4 years.
Do you really think that if he weren't such a loser that Cohen woudln't be GLAD to vote for him, or that the Daily News wouldn't GLADLY endorse him?
In fact, it would take an awful lot for them NOT to do so. And yet they aren't.
YOu should ask yourself that question, and answer it honestly.
Were you even around for the last election? Have you ignored Congress's last two years?
He sure as hell did. As has every one of his cohorts. His whole party's existence depends on pretending that a whole branch of government hasn't existed since 2010 and that Obama, alone, is to be blamed for what they failed to do.
This is the entire Republican modus operandi.
In 1976 I voted for Jimmuh because he was an Evangelical. I have never voted for or against a candidate on the basis of their religious affiliation since then.
Have the people who make fun of 'magic underwear' never heard of scapulars and mezuzahs? Wearing reminders of one's religion under one's clothes where others won't even see them is a widespread practice in many religions. It's also a lot less 'in your face' than a chador, or a kippa, or a WWJD bracelet, or any kind of religious T-shirt, or a Sikh beard and dagger ensemble, or a Mennonite bonnet, or . . . a lot of other things. People who complain about Mormon underwear are simply bigots with a slightly prurient edge to their bigotry.
In 1976 I voted for Jimmuh because he was an Evangelical. I have never voted for or against a candidate on the basis of their religious affiliation since then.
But your party has and therein lies their problem.
LOL.
O Ritmo wrote:
YOu are a dumbass, plain and simple. They endorsed Bush. They are conservatives,
They are not conservatives. If you read the Editorials, most of the writers are left of center. The Post is the paper that leans right. THe Times is the paper that leans FAR left. Newsday and the Daily News were the more centrist of the New York papers. (though as a I said the Daily News leans more left than right).
I know this, because I live in NYC. Do you Ritmo?
THere is no reason why the Daily News would not endorse Obama again, unless he didn't live up to the hype (the whole reason that the Daily News endorsed him in the first place). He didn't live up to the hype.
Cohen's "endorsement' pegs Obama exactly. He'll pull the lever for him, but it's only reluctantly.
O Ritmo wrote;
They are conservatives, (not as stupidly or blindly conservative as you), and therefore still care about partisan aims.
And you, Ritmo don't care about partisan aims? The left isn't partisan and doesn't care about partisan aims?
Oh ok my bad. Then,
they are a fluffy, tabloid-type entertainment-driven periodical and therefore endorse based on who can appeal most effectively to their short memories and even shorter attention spans. In which case, ROMNEY IT IS!!!
The whole state of NY and the city are still deep blue, 100% likely to give their electoral votes to Obama.
I'd ask "Why are we even talking about this," but then, I remember who I'm talking with..
And you, Ritmo don't care about partisan aims? The left isn't partisan and doesn't care about partisan aims?
I have principles, and among those principles is a willingness to reason that if deregulating finance and rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
@Ritmo: Romney's church changed its stance 34 years ago, and Romney accepted that change then.
Obama changed his stance on the Rev Wright 4 years ago and on gay marriage 6 months ago. You don't care about any of those things, you are a hack.
Now you've accused me of being the same--but at the same time you mock me for arguing about the things I believe in that the party you falsely accuse of belonging to rejects.
You can;t even stick to the same argument in the same post. Whatever it takes to support Obama, whatever you think will make a Republican look bad, you will say. And you cannot seem to grasp that concept that someone who disagrees with you might not be a Republican, and might not be a conservative--not that you can tell the difference.
You're a troll, and when you show up supporting something, you actually push them away from the thing you are claiming to defend. Because you would rather fling feces than convince anyone of anything.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
You have no shame or principles of any sort. Piss off, you disgusting hack.
You're a troll, and when you show up supporting something, you actually push them away from the thing you are claiming to defend. Because you would rather fling feces than convince anyone of anything.
Lol. A "troll" who you're still not only talking to, but showing up on this thread to address exclusively.
I'm not going to convince anyone HERE of anything, and neither is anyone who doesn't toe the conserva-tarian line. It is a bubble here. I like it because it is interesting to see just how unreasonable their type is scared into reacting.
If my statements here push the resident partisan lounge-lizards into even MORE extreme positions, then that is all to the good.
There was another bit in your butt-hurt post that I thought worthy of addressing, but you are busy troll-hunting, and troll-hunters can't be bothered with a cogent point.
Ritmo is voting for the only candidate in the race who:
attacked a Middle Eastern country that posed no threat
whose lawyers are defending warrantless wiretapping in court right now
who signed the Bush tax cuts and the Patriot Act
doubled the national debt in four years
was opposed to gay marriage until six months ago
kills American citizens without trial or process
Just get out. No one believes a goddamned thing you say. You don't actually mean any of it.
The Post and the Daily News generally are in competition. The Post is the paper of more conservative white ethnics. The Daily News is much more liberal and is the paper of the minorities of the city. The Times is for elistists and the far left.
Major columnists in the News like Mike Lupica and Juan Gonzalez and Denis Hamil hammer Republicans and Romney every day. The Post is Fox News, The Daily News is CBS and the Times is MSNBC.
The fact that the Daily News endorses Romney is a major surprise to anyone who knows anything about the newspapers in NYC.
But then perhaps they remember David Dinkins.
@Ritmo:I'm not going to convince anyone HERE of anything, and neither is anyone who doesn't toe the conserva-tarian line. It is a bubble here. I like it because it is interesting to see just how unreasonable their type is scared into reacting.
Finally an honest sentence. You are now a self-admitted troll. Piss off, you hack.
O Ritmo wrote;
deregulating finance and rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years
That argument doesn't even make sense, except from an extremely far left perspective. You can't then argue that you are simply arguing from common sense and not from ideology.
And, for the record, it was Clinton that did all that deregulation of the banks that the far left say is responsible for our current predicament (not to mention requiring banks to loosen credit requirement to get houses). Don't give credit to Clinton for his robust economy if you want to maintain consistency. Most dems can't do that, since Clinton has been the only successful democrat economically in decades, other than say Kennedy, who had the wisdom to lower taxes, which actually increased revenue to the govt, something the current crop of dems can't grok.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
All the answer you ever get from me, again. It's the most concise proof of your hackery.
The NY Post is Shouting Thomas.
The NY Daily News is MadisonMan.
The NY Times is AlphaLiberal.
There. That should sort it out for you.
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
You have no shame or principles of any sort. Piss off, you disgusting hack.
Disregard for political timing is NOT a principle, it is an ignorant denial of reality. Just like the rest of your party denies the reality of geophysics, you stupid, stupid moron. YOU deny that politics requires COALITIONS of SUPPORT.
I'll bet that even THEY aren't so dumb as you, to deny that timing means something in politics.
GO back to your bubble and beat your partisan meat alone, you selectively stupid dipshit.
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
All the answer you ever get from me, again. It's the most concise proof of your hackery. Troll.
Finally an honest sentence.
Hey, I never blamed myself for their hyperpartisan denial of reality. Nor should I.
I blame you for that. ;-)
Gabe's going into hyperventilatory re-posting mode. Lol!
@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!! Only when he did it it was all, like nuanced.
All the answer you ever get from me, again. It's the most concise proof of your hackery. Troll. Piss off.
2008 quotes from person after person saying how proud they were to vote for the first black president.
Two years of spending ALL of his political capital on Obamacare and simply expecting the stimulus to eventually work.
And it's conservatives who are suffering memory loss?
When Ritmo loses his cool over Gabe Hanna, he's lost pretty much everyone.
His only hope now is Inga.
By the way Ritmo, for all the talk about partisanship, you'll note that I was a democrat until 9/11. And became a republican BECAUSE of the partisanship exhibited by the dems towards Bush. I didn't vote for him the first time, when he ran against Gore, (though didn't think that he stole the election). but I'll be damned if I was going to give any of those traitorous cunts my vote any time in the future so long as they are in thrall to their left wing (people like yourself) who are bunch of a holes, commies, babies, racists. you name it.
The Democratic party is simply not the party it was back when Clinton was in charge, nor when Kennedy was in charge. As such I don't think I owe it any fealty.
Wow Gaby, you really are fond of that last post of yours. Care to re-post it another three times in a row?
@Synova:And it's conservatives who are suffering memory loss?
blackwhite:. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.
Like when you say the Bush tax cuts were so bad you could never vote for someone who supported them, and then you go vote for the one guy in the race who actually signed them into law. Then you complain that everyone else is too stupid to understand the subtle logic that proves it was always exactly the right thing to do.
The Daily News endorsing Romney is like Hockey Fans brushing their teeth.
Theoretically possible but very surprising.
Chick, Gabe can't find a reason to support Romney, and that is why he is soooo butthurt as to go ape-wild on me.
Just because he is the only conservative here to understand physics, doesn't mean that he has given me any reason to support whatever he does (or apparently doesn't) believe when it comes to articulating a coherent social policy.
I don't take his meltdown personally. You shouldn't either. If he's unable to take the heat, that reflects more poorly on himself than on anything else.
Ritmo said,
"I have principles, and among those principles is a willingness to reason that if deregulating finance and rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!"
11/4/12 2:07 PM
But they will do it again, gladly, proudly, blindly.
"and rewarding privilege for its own sake"
Rewarding privilege for it's own sake?
At what point ever is "privilege" rewarded for it's own sake? Success is rewarded. Building a business is rewarded. Hard work is rewarded. Wise investments are rewarded. Someone ultimately privileged can fritter it all away just as surely as any lotto winner.
The phrase itself reeks of assumptions and bias.
The Democratic party is simply not the party it was back when Clinton was in charge, nor when Kennedy was in charge. As such I don't think I owe it any fealty.
Lol. "Fealty" is for retards, royalists, racists and Republicans.
When you come around to discovering a sense of something called "reason" (or equally, "rationality" or "reality") then Democrats will be glad to take you back. ;-)
The Daily News endorsing Romney is like Cedarford sending a campaign contribution to Dov Hikind.
But they will do it again, gladly, proudly, blindly.
But hey - it gets them power and THEY CAN BLAME IT ON SOMEONE ELSE! (The only adult doing something about it).
That's their way.
"Just get out. No one believes a goddamned thing you say. You don't actually mean any of it. "
+270
leslyn: I think that one thing we should know is how Romney's beliefs from his church affect his political views.
Bummer for you:
...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. -- Constitution, Article VII.
The Daily News endorsing Romney is like James Lipton doing an hour long special with Honey Boo Boo.
@Inga:But they will do it again, gla dly, proudly, blindly.
You are aware that you are speaking of President Obama, who signed them into law, and is the only candidate in the race who has done so.
His only hope now is Inga.
...right on cue...
Inga: But they will do it again, gladly, proudly, blindly.
...like flies to manure.
At what point ever is "privilege" rewarded for it's own sake? Success is rewarded. Building a business is rewarded. Hard work is rewarded. Wise investments are rewarded.
None of which Romney would have had without being born into a hell of a lot of it to begin with already.
The people know this. Hell, even the people of Joe the Plumber's state know this.
Someday, you will know this too.
Someone ultimately privileged can fritter it all away just as surely as any lotto winner.
So PRAISE BE TO ROMNEY for not failing from a position of high-born privilege, because that's just SO MUCH MORE RESPECTABLE AND DIFFICULT than getting there without those head-starts to begin with.
Look at this chart, Synnie. You see the part about opportunity in America? It sucks, thanks to the policies we started implementing 30 years ago and that ROmney has vowed to continue.
JUst admit it - he's bad for the American dream. He's looking out for himself, not for you. He just wants to convince him that there is no difference between him and you.
@Ritmo:@Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
You are aware that you are speaking of President Obama, who signed them into law, and is the only candidate in the race who has done so.
Just because Gaby's too hurt to address the only person on this thread who can destroy his political arguments, doesn't mean I won't address them.
Inga's aware that timing matters in politics. She is not as dumb as Gaby would hope, to believe that timing doesn't matter, or that agreeing to less than ideal choices for political practicality matters.
No, she's not so pure as to think that cleansing her bowels will obviate the need to defecate ever again.
But Gaby just might... ;-)
@Inga: The people you support supported the "Bush tax cuts", which are now the Obama tax cuts.
On December 15, the Senate passed the compromise package with an 81–19 vote, with large majorities of both Democrats and Republicans supporting it.[32] Near midnight of December 16, the House passed it 277–148, with it getting only a modest majority among Democrats and a large majority among Republicans (of the 148 votes against the bill in the House, 112 were cast by Democrats and only 36 by Republicans).[6][33] Before that, an amendment put forward by Democratic Representative Earl Pomeroy and the progressives among the Democratic caucus to raise the estate tax – the ultimate sticking point of the deal for them and the cause of a minor revolt among those against it – had failed on a 194–233 vote.[6][27][34] The Washington Post called the approved deal "the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade".[33]
Obama signed the bill into law on December 17, 2010.[3] Much of the Democratic Congressional leadership was absent from the signing ceremony, indicating their ongoing unhappiness with the law.
"Sullivan, like Biden, is a Catholic."
Sorta' like the Kennedys are Catholic.
Sort of like Henry the VIII was Catholic.
Ritmo:rewarding privilege for its own sake led to the two biggest economic disasters of the last 100 years, DON'T DO IT AGAIN!
So you are voting for Obama, who signed the Bush tax cuts into law--who DID IT AGAIN!!ELEVENTY!!
Inga wrote:
But they will do it again, gladly, proudly, blindly.
Inga, Clinton deregulated the Banks. Clinton started the ball rolling to demand that banks loosen credit requirements and give loans to minorities who previously couldn't afford said houses. And I bet you voted for Clinton.
Apparently you are not famiiar with his policies - this came up again in the whole Iraq debate by the way. Democrats incapable of doing a simple google search to see what the administration right before Bush took office said about Iraq. Do you realize how STUPID this makes you?
I could totally understand if Clinton did things 20 years ago and thus people who weren't around at the time couldn't describe the policies. But Clinton's administration was the administration RIGHT before Bush's.
And yet democrats are still carping about "deregulation" as if they aren't aware that Clinton was the president when the banks got deregulated.
And you're going to accuse repulicans of following people blindly? Wow!
Post a Comment