Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Saturday Night Card Game (How nasty will the general election race card get? This nasty)

Saturday Night Card Game (How nasty will the general election race card get? This nasty)

I was hesitant to post the video below, but since it is receiving a lot of press coverage, particularly in Utah, it’s not like I’m helping spread something that’s not already out there.  And you have to see what is coming down the pike.

If you thought 2008 was bad, just you wait for this type of stuff to be spread:

The video has been condemned by Democrats in Utah, and although it purports to be posted by someone supporting Jon Huntsman (who is Mormon), his campaign has disavowed any involvement.

Think this is not mainstream?  Do you recognize the voices in the video?  One of them is Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNBC:

Not only will claims of racism by association be prominent, they will be tied into attacks on Mormons on social issues.  Remember the attempted boycott of Mormon businesses over California Prop. 8? (image here)

While I don’t support Romney for the nomination, it is important that we push back together against trumped up charges of racism.  (added) Regardless of who the nominee is, they will find a way to play the race card.

Because when the race card is played against one of our candidates, it is played against all of us.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Let’s see if I have my logic right.

It’s the Jews’ fault.
It’s the Mormons’ fault.
It’s Bush’s fault.

Therefore, George W. Bush is a Jewish Mormon.

Living in Western Colorado for the past 3 decades has brought me in contact with many a Mormon. They are, with out question, good people, salt of the earth. This crap about racism is fully off base. One LDS girl that I courted admitted that if we were to get married, we could not do it in her church – I being a hereditary member of the Congregational Church. Yeah, the Church of Later Day Saints has some weird protocols, but racist they are not!

Thanks Professor for pointing this out.

Why isn’t this a legitimate point? In the abstract, if you are a voluntary member of an organization that has a well known policy of X then to at least some extent your membership in the organization promotes policy X. The organization being a religion shouldn’t change this.

    The Mormons no longer have that policy/doctrine. If we’re going to hold present-day members of groups responsible for things the group believed long ago, then the GOP gets to start playing the race card too. After all, the Democrats were the party of slavery and then of segregation!

      WarEagle82 in reply to andcar. | January 14, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      “For 20 years, Obama sat in a church and listened to a pastor that spewed racist messages.”

      “For 30 years, Romney was a member of a church that viewed dark-skinned people as inherently inferior and excluded them.”

      Sound familiar? Sound similar? Guess who the MSM gave a free ride? Guess who will get crucified by the MSM?

      Do the math…

        Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 8:42 pm

        Obama’s church still has those doctrines, and he didn’t leave it or repudiate them until it became an issue in his campaign.

    DINORightMarie in reply to JamesDMiller. | January 14, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    Hmmmm…..let’s see. The Democrat Party was the party of slavery, controlled the states that seceded from the Union, and after they lost the Civil War instituted racist segregation policies for the next 100 years.

    By your logic, the Democrat Party is a racist organization that no one should support because of its history.

    How’s that working out, eh?!

I may not be a Romney supporter but the attitude & words of some Republicans when they dispaly their anti-Mormon bias make me cringe.

I am old enough to remember when the big discussion was whether we could/should elect a Roman Catholic because all the Protestants just “knew Catholics would do whatever the Pope told them to do.” Looks like some of those same bigots have either instilled religious bias into their kids or they’re still posting on political forums.

    WarEagle82 in reply to katiejane. | January 14, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    You obviously know nothing of Mormon theology…

    Look up what the Mormons believed about Africans and why they were black…

    Then look into their theology a bit more and you will understand a bit more of this “bias”…

    Astroman in reply to katiejane. | January 14, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    I held it against Robert C. Byrd for having belonged to a racist organization (KKK) in order to catapult himself into politics.

    I held it against Obama for having belonged to an anti-American, racist church.

    So how is it illegitimate to hold it against a politician for being a member of a racist group/church? And even if you argue the Mormon church isn’t racist now, it certainly was then, while Romney was not only an adult, but also a missionary for that group.

    Sure, give me thumbs down, but answer my points, please.

      Milhouse in reply to Astroman. | January 14, 2012 at 8:45 pm

      Because it was a legitimate belief of that religion. He was born and raised a Mormon and had every reason to believe that this was the teaching of God. So why would he repudiate it? If God is racist then racism is right.

        WarEagle82 in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 8:53 pm

        Does that mean that the Holocaust was legitimate because the Nazi Party was a democratically elected political party in Germany? Uh, seriously?

          Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 9:32 pm

          The Mormons never massacred blacks, or harmed them in any way. So how are you comparing them to Nazis?

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 9:40 pm

          So systematic discrimination against all dark-skinned people didn’t harm them in any way?

          And you have missed the whole point of your own original post. Go back and think it through. Maybe with a little thought the comparison will become more obvious…

          Only if one argues that the failure of the Catholic Church to ordain women harms them. You can;t have it both ways — though you have tried.

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:01 pm

          Mormon actions denied dark-skinned people access to “become gods.”

          Catholic actions never denied women “salvation.”

          You seem to know very little about LDS or Christian theology…

          Since I don’t believe any of them become “gods”, I find the entire issue irrelevant.

          But then again, I take seriously the Constitutional position against religious tests for office.

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:10 pm

          The old “religious test” argument? That states that the government cannot impose a religious test for office. It in no way restricts or limits the right of citizens to choose whom to support or why.

          Like I said, you really haven’t thought this through. If the government told Romney he couldn’t run because he was a Mormon I would support Romney for his right to run. But I would not vote for Romney.

          Surely you must recognize the difference…

          I’ll agree with you that the limitation is on government imposing a test — but the underlying value is that we should elect men and women to office based upon their competence, not their theology. I take that value quite seriously.

          Astroman in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:20 pm

          RhymesWithRight said, “but the underlying value is that we should elect men and women to office based upon their competence, not their theology. I take that value quite seriously.”

          And I’m telling you if someone’s religion tells them pizza boxes are divine, and women are subhuman, and they’re stupid/goofy/wicked enough to believe that stuff, I’m holding their religion against them and I won’t be voting for them come election day.

          Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:27 pm

          You tell me in what way blacks were harmed by not being accepted as Mormon converts. Are women harmed by not being accepted in the ministry of most religions?

          Besides which, National Socialism was not a religion. In religion, God makes the rules, not man, and they don’t have to conform to people’s sensibilities.

          Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:50 pm

          You seem incapable of logic, which is par for the course for a bigot. It is impossible for Mormon actions to have denied dark-skinned people access to “become gods.” Only God can do that. Either you believe in Mormonism, in which case it was God Who decided that blacks couldn’t become gods (and then changed His mind); or you don’t, in which case blacks didn’t lose anything at all.

          Whereas even if Roman Catholicism is false women who are denied the ministry are objectively harmed just like anyone who is turned down for a job. The only difference it makes if the religion is true, is that this is God’s will and therefore just. And since this is America we may not make laws or take any public acts that presume Catholicism is false. And the same applies to Mormonism.

        Astroman in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 10:22 pm

        So if one’s religion teaches that Jews are the source of everything that’s wrong in this world, would that be a legitimate religious belief? This is insane!

        So I guess you would have no problem with a religion that teaches its followers to chop peoples heads off just for giggles, eh? Facepalm.

        Then by your logic, every Catholic is against contraception and abortion.

Attacks against Mormons are based on ignorance for the most part. Democrats aren’t going after Mormons as much as Christians in general. You already know they have very little in logic skills anyway, ODonnell is a prime example.
Push back at the tolerance meme that liberals try to push. Liberals are the most intolerant people ever!

I’m a Roman Catholic, and I don’t feel one way or the other about Mormons. As far as I’m concerned, Mormons are people like any other religious group with good and bad, nice and not-so-nice alike. I’ve known a few Mormons and have been to the Hill Cumorah Pageant in Palmyra, NY, a couple of times.

I question just how pervasive this anti-Mormon attitude really is. I’m enough of a skeptic to think this might be the work of pro-Romney people to gin up the guilty vote. It worked for Obama in ’08.

    WarEagle82 in reply to Kitty. | January 14, 2012 at 8:11 pm

    Have you ever studied the difference between Catholic theology and Mormon theology? It might help to understand Mormons if you know what they believe.

    Do you really believe that people who believed that Africans and other dark-skinned people were black because of their sin and were inherently inferior are “good people?”

    The LDS church held this as official doctrine until 1978!

      andcar in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 8:39 pm

      1978 was 34 years ago. How far back do we go? Do we get to tar & feather today’s Democrats because long-dead members of their party once pushed slavery? Since we’re on a religious theme, do we get to condemn all living Christians since their faith used to think the right way to deal with heretics was to set them on fire? And hey, this is equal opportunity, it’s not just the Catholics. John Calvin had plenty of doctrinal barbecues. Should we disavow all Anglo-Saxon heritage because they used to believe in a birth class-based tyranny?

        WarEagle82 in reply to andcar. | January 14, 2012 at 8:47 pm

        Completely irrelevant. Romney was a voluntary member of this organization until the age of 30. If you can’t see the difference then you haven’t thought it through…

        retire05 in reply to andcar. | January 14, 2012 at 8:51 pm

        While you say “that was 34 years ago”, let me know when yankess stop looking down on the South over what happened 150 years ago.

I have known, did business with and otherwise associated with individuals of the Mormon faith and every one of ’em were upstanding citizens.

To use Mormon fear tactics represents just how low some will go to have their way. It shameful, disrespectful, untrue and does not represent in any form the American way.

The only religion I fear and distrust is radical Islam…

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 14, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    The only religions I fear are liberalism and global warming.

    WarEagle82 in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 14, 2012 at 8:13 pm

    There is no reason to fear Mormons. But you should at least try to understand their doctrine before making sweeping statements.

    Astroman in reply to GrumpyOne. | January 14, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    Accurately describing a group’s theology isn’t fear-mongering.

    Unless you think I was fear-mongering when I accurately pointed out to others Obama’s religious/racial statements and views.

I agree. There are a lot of cards in the deck, some legitimate, some selective, and some puerile. Whether they are dealt by people on the left as a rule, or people on the right as the exception, they need to reviewed. When in the second category, they should be qualified. When in the third, they should be rejected — ironically — with prejudice.

Where is the problem with the first Mormon/racism ad? It is either true or false. If it is false, how is it false? We’re not talking about some people’s interpretation of Mormonism, but the official teaching of the Mormon church itself.

If it is true, then I see no problem with it. If you spent the first half of your life as a racist, is that not relevant? If you spent much of your life as a member of a racist group, is that not relevant?

Just because Mormonism is a religion, that doesn’t get it off the hook of answering hard questions. Or should refrain from asking hard questions about Islam just because it is a religion? So call me a Mormon-hater or a bigot or whatever name you will to avoid answering my points, I think this ad is legit.

    Milhouse in reply to Astroman. | January 14, 2012 at 9:27 pm

    We refrain from asking hard questions of Mormonism for the same reason we do so for other religions. We don’t ask most religions about sexism or homophobia. We don’t ask Christians about their belief that the only way out of Hell is through their god. We don’t ask Jews about their belief that intermarriage is a deadly sin. We don’t ask Hindus about the caste system. I don’t even know what questions we don’t ask Buddhists or Shintos or Zoroastrians. This is America, and we operate on the presumption that people of all faiths are equal partners in the public life of the Republic.

      WarEagle82 in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 9:31 pm

      What planet have you lived on for the past 50 years? It certainly isn’t this one…

        Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 9:35 pm

        We have a Catholic vice president, and two of the leading contenders for the Republican nomination are Catholic, we have a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court, and their church’s teachings have not been an issue. Why should the LDS be any different?

          WarEagle82 in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 9:59 pm

          Study the differences between LDS theology and Christian theology and the answer is clear.

          Facts are stubborn things…

          Actually, the theology is irrelevant.

          Well, unless one is a religious bigot.

          WarEagle82 in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 10:12 pm

          That’s just the point. Romney was a member of a religious organization that was officially religiously bigoted. And we have come full circle…

          The 2008 election established the principle that membership in a racist religious is not a disqualifying factor for elective office. Obama and the Democrats open this one up at their own peril, since Obama CHOSE his racist church and racist pastor, while Romney was raised a Mormon and the LDS Church itself has repudiated its past position.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 10:40 pm

          How were Mormons religious bigots? Black is not a religion. YOU are the religious bigot for claiming that we should judge Mormonism as less valid than other forms of Christianity.

          WarEagle82 in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 11:07 pm

          That may be the most illogical and stupidest post of the night. Unless of course, you post again…

        WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:27 pm

        Wrong again. The 2008 election reiterated the fact that the MSM will not hold a Democrat accountable for anything. The same MSM will use this to crucify Romney over something remotely akin. Surely you know that…

        The 2008 election established the principle that membership in a racist religious is not a disqualifying factor for elective office. Obama and the Democrats open this one up at their own peril, since Obama CHOSE his racist church and racist pastor, while Romney was raised a Mormon and the LDS Church itself has repudiated its past position.

          “The 2008 election reiterated the fact that the MSM will not hold a Democrat accountable for anything. The same MSM will use this to crucify Romney over something remotely akin.”

          ergo the reason for this card game…not a discussion of Mormon vs whatever….

Once again the professor is right on. Should Mitt win the nomination, Bain Capital will be the least of his worries. in a country founded in large part as a result of religious persecution, we will see an anti-Mormon movement not seen since the Mormons were driven from New York.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to doubletap. | January 14, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    I think there also exists a strong ‘freedom from religion’ angle .

    Logically a nation of free immigrants ought not be dragged under any religion . So it is not what they bring but co operation /agree -to -disagree that keeps the peace.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm

My only question on LDS is how do they get their shirts so white?

Perhaps someone should ask Mitt Romney if he denounces the teachings of Joseph Smith. It was Smith that labeled Blacks as the “children of Cain” and that they were being punished for their actions in a previous life when they followed Lucifer and not God.

You can bet if a Southerner was running whose family had ancestors who were members of the KKK, it would be splashed all over every newspaper in the U.S.

This attack (when there is sooooo much more to go after Mitt on) is as silly as those who attack someone over a Confederate flag.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to retire05. | January 14, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    Al Gore seemed to have escaped connection with his father.

    But Of course to go too deep there -as in KKK = Democrat is verboten.

      Isn’t it ironic that Obama belongs to the party of the KKK, a northern state, while the South has gone to the party of Lincoln?

      Of course, Democrats, who claim to be the party of emancipation (when they’re not) was also the party that continued to elect Robert KKK Byrd, former Grand Klegel.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to retire05. | January 14, 2012 at 8:21 pm

        Not quite.

        Republicans “Southern strategy ‘ was to get votes for national elections . Perhaps they were able to provide protections. I interpret that there are /were methods to deter republican involvement in state activity.

        US elections are truly not of international standards. Weirdly VA went ape over internal ballots that are not the Va Gov’s business.

        Anybody ought be able to nominate for any election for a fee & civil compliances.

          All the same, the South, which is still labeled with Jim Crow, was once the home of most black Republicans. FDR changed all that and Amity Shales gives quite a good accounting of how FDR managed to force blacks to register as Democrats in the 1930’s in her book, The Forgotten Man.

StrangernFiction | January 14, 2012 at 7:24 pm

Hmmmmm, in what kind of country is Mitt Romney my candidate. Let me think a second……..Oh yes, that’s right, a country that is DOOMED.

celestechristi | January 14, 2012 at 7:40 pm

Racist Romney? Maybe, maybe not…Whatever. This is just another nail for Romney’s coffin. There are plenty more to come.

Romney is the best gift America could give Obama. With Romney as his opponent we might as well go ahead and start emblazoning the money with The United Socialist States of America.

Gingrich First — ABO Second.

Romney will get carpet-bombed by media scrutiny for attending a supposedly “racist church.” Conversely, Obama was scarcely scratched for attending a legitimately racist church headed by Jeremiah Wright.

So, between this, the ‘corporate raider’ narrative, the liberal governing record in MA, RomneyCare, lack of charisma, etc., etc. it looks like the GOP is steadily on course to nominate one of the most vulnerable candidates in election history.

[…] (typeof(addthis_share) == "undefined"){ addthis_share = [];}by SmittyLegal Insurrection has a chilling video about raaaaacism and a prominent GOP candidate, of whom I’m not fan.One […]

That ad is sick.
But what do you expect from the Democratic party?

The Dems WANT Romney as the candidate so they can pull out all of these vile ads to attack him. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I’ll vote for anyone but Obama, and that includes Mitt Romney, but isn’t this just PROOF that Romney is the guy that Obama wants to fight?

My ititial reaction to these ads is that this is Romney’s version of the Jeremiah Wright “God damn America” videos.
It will be interesting to see how he deals with them.

@strangernfiction: Your comment made me laugh out loud.
Have you been hanging out at Ace of Spades a little too much? heh heh.

The only problem with the ad is that it is true! And Mitt Romney, up to the age of 30, didn’t bother to speak out against the racist official theological doctrine of the Mormon Church. Not even once.

And remember, the LDS oppose same-sex “marriage” too. So he will be pictured as a racist, homophobic, greedy, wall street, corporate raider just looking to fire people. And that is just what Ron Paul will say about him…

Like I said, if you don’t disagree with Mormon theology, you are a Mormon or you don’t understand it.

Obama is gonna make this guy look like a combination of George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Nathan Bedford Forrest in September and October.

Electability? Right…

    Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    The only problem with the ad is that it is true! And Mitt Romney, up to the age of 30, didn’t bother to speak out against the racist official theological doctrine of the Mormon Church. Not even once.

    Of course he didn’t. Why would he speak out against God’s command?

    And remember, the LDS oppose same-sex “marriage” too.

    So do most religions; do you expect all their believers to speak out against them too? God is entitled to be racist, sexist, homophobic, or whatever you like. If you believe God has said something, then by definition it is true and right, and you speaking against it is blasphemy.

    The Bible explicitly allows slavery; do you expect Christians and Jews to denounce it and its Author?

The ad is accurate & the implications unsettling.

    If you believe that the information is “unsettling” and that the contents should disqualify Romney, then presumably you also believe that no Catholic ought to hold office because the Church doesn’t ordain women. And if you don’t hold the latter position, then I’m stuck wondering why you hold Mormons to a different standard than Catholics and why you hate women.

      WarEagle82 in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 9:34 pm

      You just really haven’t thought this through. It isn’t the same at all.

      The Catholic church does not deny membership in the church to women. It doesn’t deny women sacraments. It just acknowledges that women aren’t men.

      I know that and I’m not even Catholic…

        Blacks were welcome as members of the LDS Church — men just were not permitted to advance in the priesthood.

        And yes, the Catholic Church does deny women sacraments — in particular, it denies them the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which they would become deacons, priests, and bishops.

        Care to try again?

        Or would you care to acknowledge your personal anti-Mormonism and/or hatred of women?

          You seem to know little about the Catholic Church. Women are not denied the Sacraments, as when a Nun takes her final vows, she symbolically married Christ, and the Church. Marriage, in the Catholic Church, is a Sacrament equal to those a man receives as an ordained priest.

          Also, women play a larger part in the Catholic Church due to the Church’s respect for the Holy Mother of God.

          Actually YOU do not understand Catholic theology on the matter. Might i suggest that you avail yourself of the information in this link — http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4X.HTM — to understand that women are barred from the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

          Furthermore, a nun making vows does not receive any sort of sacrament. In no SACRAMENTAL sense is a nun married to either Christ or the Church, for all that the language is used as an analogy for the lifelong commitment.

          On the historical facts of Mormonism, Wikipedia is quoting their scripture as identifying blacks as a ‘cursed’ people, barred “from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies.” This is very far from Christian practice.

I suppose I should get ready to duck a barrage of indignant political correctness. To me, it is one thing to say that everyone is absolutely entitled to believe as he likes and worship as he likes, to staunchly defend that and to support that. It’s something else entirely to insist that I must convince myself that some beliefs aren’t crackpot, pretend to others that I don’t think so, or be required to prove I’m “tolerant” by subjecting myself to leadership making decisions motivated by these beliefs.

    Milhouse in reply to janitor. | January 14, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    You mean like believing that God impregnated a woman with Himself, and then was born as a human baby and pooped His diapers, and for 33 years was simultaneously living as a man and running the world, and then caused Himself to believe that He had abandoned Himself, and allowed Himself to die and lie dead for three days before rising?

      WarEagle82 in reply to Milhouse. | January 14, 2012 at 11:15 pm

      Well, I obviously spoke too hastily in my previous post. You have outdone yourself with your last several posts. Congratulations…

        Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 15, 2012 at 9:45 pm

        Well, you asked. The beliefs I listed are far more crackpot than the one you object to in Mormonism. If Mormons can be disqualified from the presidency for believing that for a 130-year period God was angry at black people, then Christians ought to be disqualified for believing the truly crackpot notions that they do. And yet while our first three or four presidents did not believe those things, almost every president since then has done so, or has at least claimed to do so.

Anyone want to put an over-under out there on the Hispanic vote for Romney in the general election? The black vote will be about 98-2 in favor of Obama.

This card game appears to have degenerated into a discussion on Mormonism instead of what the professor said…”when the race card is played against one of our candidates, it is played against all of us.”

I’m neither a Mormon nor a fan of Romney but I find this a bit disturbing.

    WarEagle82 in reply to Joy. | January 14, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    So the fact that the ad was TRUE doesn’t matter? The leading GOP candidate was a member of an officially racist organization for 30 years of his life. Newt wasn’t. Santorum wasn’t. Perry had that rock but he wasn’t a member of a racist organization. Neither was Bachmann or Pawlenty. The story is still out on Ron Paul. But the statement is true for Mitt Romney and may Jon Huntsman too…

      I’m not disputing the truth….just the way that many of you have missed the point of the game and have become “nasty” in your comments.

        WarEagle82 in reply to Joy. | January 14, 2012 at 9:35 pm

        So noting the truth is “nasty.” Well, you don’t have to read my comments…

          I wouldn’t call you nasty.

          I’d try “bigoted”, “misinformed” and “hypocritical”.

          But then again, that is just my opinion from having read your comments and pointed out your mistakes.

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 9:56 pm

          So you freely admit your feelings are solely based on your antipathy toward my beliefs.

          How very tolerant of you…

          No feelings involved — judgement based upon the evidence presented in your comments.

          I wasn’t disputing your comments or the “TRUTH” of the Morman theology….my comment was in defense of the point of this game. To quote the Professor again:

          While I don’t support Romney for the nomination, it is important that we push back together against trumped up charges of racism. (added) Regardless of who the nominee is, they will find a way to play the race card.

          Because when the race card is played against one of our candidates, it is played against all of us.

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:03 pm

          But the charges are not “trumped up!” The charges are historically accurate. If you don’t like reality you may ignore it but that doesn’t make it “unreal.”

          Actually, the charge that Romney is a racist is, in fact, trumped up and demonstrably false.

          As to what the Mormon Church taught, that information is accurate — but irrelevant to the issue of fitness for the office of President.

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 10:14 pm

          The information is certainly not irrelevant. The MSM will make certain of that between September and November of 2012…

          Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 11:17 pm

          Then it’s our job to hold them up to shame when they do so, not to join them!

      By the same token, Newt has voluntarily joined a religious organization that doesn’t ordain women. Santorum is a lifelong member of a religious organization that doesn’t ordain women. Ought that disqualify them from holding office and being considered for the presidency.

        WarEagle82 in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 9:36 pm

        The circumstances are not nearly the same. See my response to your same post above. Think it through…

          As noted above, yes they are.

          Blacks were welcome as members of the LDS Church — men just were not permitted to advance in the priesthood.

          And yes, the Catholic Church does deny women sacraments — in particular, it denies them the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which they would become deacons, priests, and bishops.

          WarEagle82 in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm

          And the church refuses to ordain married and divorced men. I guess they discriminate against men too?

          And of course, women are eligible to take vows and become nuns just as men can become monks.

          Ironically, the LDS teach that “god-head” is achieved by advancing through the steps of the “priesthood” so by denying dark-skinned people access to the “priesthood” they were denying them the opportunity to “become gods.” Theologically, that would harm the people they officially and systematically discriminated against since the LDS church was founded.

          1) Vows as a nun are not sacramental.

          2) There’s a simple principle you need to understand — nobody has a RIGHT to the RITES of a particular religion if that faith deems them ineligible.

          Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 14, 2012 at 11:20 pm

          They weren’t denying blacks that opportunity, blacks didn’t have that opportunity in the first place. Do you think that had the church decided to pretend that blacks could become gods, and had gone through the charade of allowing them to be “ordained” and spend their lives purporting to be “priests”, that God would have been fooled and these fake priests would have become gods after all?

        celestechristi in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 9:54 pm

        If we’re to rule out all the sexist religions we’ll have to find a Wiccan Candidate. Be serious. There’s no religion on earth that isn’t sexist. Maybe that will change…..but not before November.

          It will never change. All the false religions may drop the sexism, but the One True Religion will never do so, because the fact is that God is a sexist. And a homophobe.

          celestechristi in reply to celestechristi. | January 15, 2012 at 4:17 pm

          To Milhouse:
          What an absurd comment. Religions are sexist and homophobic. Like it or not. That has nothing to do with God. The man that says he knows what lives in the heart of God is a fool at best, and a liar at worst.

          And you know this how? God has told us exactly what He thinks, but you claim to know better?!

So, O’Donnell is reprehensible. Wow. Most of us just don’t care about Romney’s Mormonism. But some do. The Democrat methodology is to break us up into groups where they pick off just enough in different ways to win…because winning is what is really important.

Perry has the best characteristics of what we wish to have in a President, but he cannot win because of the above (Southern, hick, etc.). It’s the electability thing. What this shows us is that the Mormonism thing is an electability issue. Makes me feel a little sick. If Obama wins again, I will feel much sicker.

Most people see the position we are in and that is why there’s not much enthusiasm.

Henry Hawkins | January 14, 2012 at 9:17 pm

The Obama supporting media will play one of those ‘horrible… but is there something to it?’ qualified, disingenuous, phony denunciations and hope the ‘Mormons are racist!’ theme gains traction. This is predictable.

I’m going to keep an eye and ear out for GOP candidates and surrogates – the first one who tries to take advantage of this sick tactic is off my menu forever.

If one accepts the argument put forward by the video, then one must also argue that no Catholic should ever be elected to office because their church doesn’t ordain women.

    WarEagle82 in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    No. It isn’t nearly the same. You really need to think this through.

      Actually, I have thought it through. Sorry that you haven’t.

      or maybe you have — and decided that it is safe to attack Mormons because of their relatively small numbers, but not to attack Catholics because they constitute the largest single religious group in America.

    To me, beliefs and traditions that are based on scriptures that are thousands of years old count for something. Call me a bigot, I just can’t keep myself from thinking that Romney’s dogged years of running for office would be inexplicable given the absence of his championing any particular causes or doing philanthropy or public service, unless one factors in the belief system. I suspect that it’s about his belief in his superiority leadership destiny here on earth, precedent to becoming a god with his celestial wife on another planet. That, and his clear proclivity for “flipflopping” (lying), which apparently is sanctioned by the Mormon Church, albeit perhaps not as directly as it is in Islam, bothers me. The first step in having respect for someone’s different beliefs (religious or otherwise), is for those beliefs to be stated outright and with honesty, sincerity, and transparency.

Henry Hawkins | January 14, 2012 at 9:53 pm

As for me, I’m a Pastafarian.

“Maybe with a little thought the comparison will become more obvious…”
“If you can’t see the difference then you haven’t thought it through…”
“…if you don’t disagree with Mormon theology, you are a Mormon or you don’t understand it.”

You’ve developed a nasty little habit. It seems that it has never occurred to you that maybe these people have “thought it through,” and came to the conclusion that you are wrong. Maybe they’re even right.

    WarEagle82 in reply to andcar. | January 14, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    From their comments it is clear they haven’t thought it through. No one can read and understand LDS theology and conclude it is even remotely similar to orthodox Christian theology. In fact it is mutually exclusive.

    Facts are stubborn things. You don’t have to like them but that doesn’t change the facts…

      “No one can read and understand LDS theology and conclude it is even remotely similar to orthodox Christian theology.”

      Well, except for the fact that there are millions around the world who do, in fact, read LDS theology and conclude that it is compatible with orthodox Christian theology. The mere fact that you and I do not does not mean that it is impossible to reach a contrary conclusion.

        WarEagle82 in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 10:21 pm

        Compare and contrast the soterology and Christology of LDS and other orthodox Christian denominations and explain how they are NOT mutually exclusive. Please, do so. It should take all of 15 minutes to figure this out.

        Like I said, you don’t seem to know much about theology. And you keep proving it with each comment…

        WarEagle82 in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 10:23 pm

        In fact, Smith concluded that non-Mormoms were not Christians. He claimed the faith was restored with the Mormons and that all other denominations were false religions.

        Facts are stubborn things but you would only need to have a basic understand of Smith’s works to know this…

        Dude — I’ve got a Master’s Degree in Catholic theology, so your assertion about my theological knowledge is an epic failure on the same order of magnitude as the Obama presidency.

        What you missed, or were incapable of understanding, is that my assertion is that there are millions who have read both and have reconciled them. That you and I cannot do so does not mean that no one can do so, because it is demonstrable that there are many who do.

          WarEagle82 in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 10:40 pm

          And alas, they are wrong. And it is easily demonstrable. And you should know that with your Masters and all…

          Why don’t you just come out and admit that you are solidly in Romney’s camp and that you are willing to bash other candidates to promote him, as you do on your own blog?

          RymmesWithRight, perhaps you can cut and paste a copy of that degree so that we can all know that you would never tell a fib. After all, when you bash other candidates on your own website because you are in Romney’s camp, and then come here trying to assume a superior attitude due to a specific degree, the onus is on you to prove that claim.

          No doubt you also argue that a bumblebee’s flight is impossible — even as it takes to the air and flies past your eyes.

          Let’s be clear — I find the claims of Mormonism and traditional Christianity to be incompatible. I studied the former in depth when I was dating a Mormon girl many years ago, and came to the conclusion that I could not accept the teachings of Joseph Smith and his successors because they were at odds with what I understood of Christian teachings. My later studies have not disabused me of that notion. And yet I see practicing members of the LDS Church who take the contrary position — and I therefore acknowledge that it is possible for someone to reach a conclusion that differs from mine, no matter how much my intellect tells me that they should not be able to do so.

          WarEagle82 in reply to RhymesWithRight. | January 14, 2012 at 10:56 pm

          “Read and understand.” You seem to have overlooked that little point. The Mormon missionaries I have met understand almost nothing of Mormon theology. I routinely tied them in knots every time they came to my home over a period of decades. They even returned with elders who didn’t understand their own theology.

          They are so universally uninformed of their own theology they literally don’t know what they believe.

          Retire05 — I could, but I won’t, because it really isn’t relevant. I noted the academic credential only when my knowledge of theology was challenged, not to claim any sort of superiority over anyone.

          And FYI, I made an endorsement in the GOP nominee race a month ago. You might be surprised by it — http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/324662.php — though I will admit to being supportive of Romney because I believe he can win. My preferred candidate was Bolton, and of the candidates in the race I am personally most fond of Santorum (he and I are alums of the same HS, and I’ve long admired him) because his positions most closely resonate with mine of the crop left in the race.

      Milhouse in reply to WarEagle82. | January 15, 2012 at 9:55 pm

      No one can read and understand LDS theology and conclude it is even remotely similar to orthodox Christian theology.

      Who cares whether it’s similar or different? Why is that in any way relevant? The point is that LDS theology is no weirder or more objectionable than that of any other form of Christianity. They’re all weird, and it makes no difference, because this is America where we accept people regardless of how weird their religion is.

huskers-for-palin | January 14, 2012 at 10:05 pm

The establishment is getting desperate. They’re now touting an ONLINE poll (Reuters) showing Romney with a 21 point lead in SC. PURE BS!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2833091/posts

    Yep, I a saw all the Mitt-supporters trumpeting this poll earlier. The methodology is a total sham, and I guarantee you Mitt “ain’t getting no” 40% in the SC primary!

      Astroman in reply to Astroman. | January 14, 2012 at 10:36 pm

      I’d even be willing to bet $10,000 on that!

      ;^)

        Hope Change in reply to Astroman. | January 14, 2012 at 11:10 pm

        ha, Astroman, sweet! I hope you are right!

        Been calling S.C. citizens on behalf of Newt and they are so warm and friendly when you get to talk to them, and even on their answering machine messages!

        They are taking their task very seriously. And they REALLY want to defeat Obama.

        IMO Newt WILL defeat Obama. And with Newt as prezident we will get the conservative, free enterprise solutions we want.

        There are 17 speeches at NEWT GINGRICH SPEECHES on Facebook if you ever feel like checking them out.

Blacks, Hispanics and other minorities were historically denied access to labor unions, due to racism as well as long held animosity by white unionists from employers using southern blacks and recent immigrants as strike breakers during the early 20th century (Bonacich 1976; Piven and Cloward 1977). As a result, many unions did not allow black or Hispanic members until after the passage of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) legislation that was part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Burstein 1985: 23), and even then they did so begrudgingly (Goldfield 1997; Hill 1985; Hill 1993; Nelson 2001)

Dems and labor unions, in the past, held minorities down by denying access to labor unions. History is history. Life moves on. Mormons that I know are not racist. They have moved on.

Far too many members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are quick to accuse anyone of bigotry if they happen to disagree with the doctrines of Mormonism or place the LDS Church outside the parameters of the Christian faith. It is not uncommon for LDS spokespersons to play the victim card in order to get sympathy from the media or even Christians who are ignorant of Mormon claim…

“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense …the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century” (Journal of Discourses 6:167).

“…A set of wicked Apostates, murderers, and idolaters, who …left to follow the wicked imaginations of their own corrupt hearts, and to build up churches by human authority…” (The Seer, pg.205)

theduchessofkitty | January 14, 2012 at 11:57 pm

You know, I’m sure the International Olympic Committee took that into consideration before they decided to reject the bid of Salt Lake City (which was advanced by Mitt Romney, BTW) for the Winter Olympics of 2002…

Oh, wait…

If I were God – and I just might be – I’d be embarrassed right about now.

    WarEagle82 in reply to Henry Hawkins. | January 15, 2012 at 12:04 am

    If you are a Mormon, you could be a “god” and multiple wives and your own planet.

    If you are a Christian, you have to settle for heaven.

    If you don’t know the difference you’ll just have to settle for embarrassed…

Alas, SNL’s opening act was skewering Romney about Bain and his perceived joy at laying off people. It will only get worse.
Regardless who our eventual candidate is, the media will conduct an orgasmic circle jerk whilst intent on re-electing Obama.

    WarEagle82 in reply to sybilll. | January 15, 2012 at 12:25 am

    Obama and his MSM allies including the SNL faction will shred Romney in about 6 weeks at the most.

    We have been told that Romney is the “most electable” candidate but Romney will look worse than Hoover by election day.

    This is what happens when you don’t vet the candidates and the GOP establishment didn’t want Romney to be vetted…

      celestechristi in reply to WarEagle82. | January 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm

      You’re exactly right. Conservatives were apalled that Dems didn’t vet Obama. Now they’re doing the same thing with Romney that the Dems did in 2008. No one is vetting Romney and conservative sheep are going along – just like Dems. It’s pitiful.

      How many Dems do you know that now apologize saying “I didn’t know about Obama!”. Get ready to apologize for Romney. All of you that are too lazy to spend an afternoon vetting Romney will be apologizing soon.

      BTW: “I didn’t know” is not acceptable. If you don’t know it’s because you were too lazy to find out. Lazy is an unforgivable sin when choosing a presidential candidate.

If the circular firing squad wasn’t enough, now we can wage a holy war against each other. Great.

I have refrained from commenting on this particular post because it is effectively religion and politics all in one breath. And I will not comment on anyone else’s position or argument in this particular post. But this is what I think:

I am a Christian and an American Citizen. In general the two may dwell hand-in-hand without rancor. On occasion, I must divorce one from the other in the interest of civil society.

As a Christian, I recognize that there are those who perceive the Latter Day Saints as a legitimate offshoot of Christianity. I however am not among them, I adhere to a *religious* position that Mormonism is a cult, that Mormons are not Christians. However, my religious faith grants me no authority to spiritually denounce or condemn Mormons, merely to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I believe that spiritual destiny is the purview of The Almighty, not Man.

As an American, I recognize that Western civil society relies upon the maximum possible peaceableness of neighboring cultures of men, protected by Law under civil contract. Among those protections is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the free exercise of religion. American civil society recognizes the Latter Day Saints as a legitimate religion, therefore they are protected just as am I. Furthermore, Mormons generally tend toward good citizenship. I have no civil reason to dislike them or take action against them.

Therefore, while I oppose Mormonism on *religious* grounds (for reasons which I will *not* express in this forum), I count Mormons among the Family of Americans on *civil* (or political) grounds.

Thus, I oppose Mitt Romney and John Huntsman for the nomination not on religious grounds but on political.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 15, 2012 at 3:39 am

I have to say The Romneys & The Huntsmans are very good looking.

How on earth do they manage it -not a fugly amongst them.

The bigotry displayed in this thread is… just ugly.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to bains. | January 15, 2012 at 5:13 am

    Not me Bains. I have been an angel on this thread.

    I shall read that pamphlett next time & learn how to be a god.

Midwest Rhino | January 15, 2012 at 9:04 am

The internet is so awesome … read a few links and suddenly I know almost everything about Mormons … like in the Matrix, where it takes just a minute to learn to fly a helicopter … ha.

But here is one link http://www.seafox.com/mormons.html , that seems to document a few problems with calling Mormonism Christian. Of course there are garden variety Christian religions that consider the Bible a “living document”, and don’t really adhere to many of its teachings. But I think the Mormons are on a completely different tack.

“Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.”

LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of “their” world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression.”

I only have a little bachelor of theology, and left that behind 25 years ago, along with any remembrance of Greek or Aramaic syntax. But I recall enough to say in my view, Mormonism cuts many fundamental chords with Christianity AND the God of the old testament.

I MIGHT be able to agree with Smith, that Christian churches had all gone astray … Paul said as much almost 2000 years ago. But the road Smith then goes down is unique. Smith believes men become as gods … which from my recollection, is what the devil promises man as a temptation. “Ye shall be as God” … ye shall NOT surely die.

Beyond the black and white issues, the bigger problem may be that Romney inwardly sees himself as becoming a Mormon God man. “I like to fire people” fits in with that theme. (I know that context, but when I choose an insurance company, I’m not firing people, why did Mitt express it that way?) Actually the God/Man imagery fits in with Obama and liberalism … men that rise to greatness to rule OVER us.

Do we need another president, ordained by the establishment, that thinks he is on the path to becoming a god? But that imagery for the left and Obama is less religious, and more opportunistic. For Mitt it might be how he really believes. We should find out before it’s too late.

In any case, it seems Mormons believe only they will become gods, the rest of us are apparently infidels. Can Mitt be honest about his beliefs?

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | January 15, 2012 at 10:56 am

    I might clarify a little … the important distinction of Christianity and our “endowed by our creator with inalienable rights” country, is recognition that man is given to corruption. So we don’t have royalty, we have separation of powers and elections.

    Being raised with a belief that God was just a man that lived well, and got his own planet (Earth), and that you can have one too, is rather distinct from traditional Christianity or Judaism or anything else. It sets a man’s ego on a different course from humility and subjection to higher powers.

    Even if most Mormons don’t recognize their own theology (as many Christians and Americans don’t recognize their own fundamentals) … it still might be intrinsic in their beliefs.

All the people who righteously keep telling others how the LDS belief’s are so different, so terrible compared to Christianity just keeping working to reinforce the reality that they are bigots.

When did the POTUS become the religious leader of the nation? Are we electing a President or a preacher? Unless the POTUS intends to institute govt chosen religion I don’t care what he/she believes. Part of the reason I didn’t like Huckabee last cycle was he appeared to forget what he was running for. Sounds like someone who is Jewish will be discriminated against by also.

For what it’s worth being allowed to receive communion in the RCC is not the same as serving as a priest and while I personally have no problem with the church’s position it is sexist.Being a nun is not on par with being a priest – no nun has ever risen to being a Cardinal.

If we’re going to institute religion tests as qualifiers for elected office I imagine some of the evangelicals may end up being surprised what many other people think about them and some of their beliefs.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to katiejane. | January 15, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Romney seems very devoted to his church. Taking an honest look at what that church REALLY believes is not bigotry, since the man is running for the highest office in the land. They changed their doctrine to fit the times … fine. But I am not judging a man on his equal opportunity to run a business … we are electing OUR representative as president. If someone was raised in the KKK church till 30, it would not be bigoted to consider whether they had really disavowed any racist elements of their upbringing.

    Most politicians probably don’t hold very strongly to their Christian faith, but use it more as a selling point. Mormons though, tend to be more devoted, from my view. That might be a good thing actually, but it is also more reason to look closely at what those beliefs actually are.

    But from a more practical view, the bigger question is how these realities will play to the general public voter when the attack ads come out in force, fair or not. Just as with the Bain issues, Romney won’t be able to get away with “Why are they attacking freedom of religion”. No Mitt, we want to know details about YOUR business and YOUR belief system.

This thread has gone off the rails in many places. The problem isn’t really theology it’s the effect theology has on electability. A few ads like this played on black and Spanish stations and you can kiss the black and Hispanic vote goodbye. Since we’re not allowed to mention this on our side for fear of appearing like religious bigots, our pundits and politicians are leading not just towards electoral disaster in 2012, but for a long time to come.

Jose Hernandez will long remember that the Republicans nominated a presidential candidate who, in his lifetime, belonged to a church that thought he was inferior or worse.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to KT Cat. | January 15, 2012 at 10:35 am

    very true KT Cat, but you have to look at the theology to decide if it will be revealed as an issue. Most Christians accept Mormons as Christian … a few pointed ads on their actual beliefs could make them appear to be an oddball cult, even beyond the race issues.

      Those ads are coming and they’re going to be creative, funny and engaging even if they live nowhere other than YouTube. The opposition has a lot of creative talent and Romney gives them enough ammunition to keep going for years.

Romney’s best defense here is to say that he didn’t take his church’s teachings on race any more seriously than he took their teachings on abortion or gay rights.

    urpower in reply to OCBill. | January 15, 2012 at 1:45 pm

    Which makes him a sleeper agent in an organization which he outwardly supports & privately undermines. How appealing.

One more thing. The limits of taste and decency fall every day. Sometimes when I stop at a stoplight next to a young man blasting his radio, I hear the most appalling things, songs that would have disqualified you immediately for a date with any self-respecting girl. If you’re counting on societal limits on speech, song and film to keep the details of the Mormon faith under wraps, you’re going to be in for a shock.

Here’s an LDS website that addresses some of the many apparent flaws in the book of Mormon with respect to animals and plants. Good luck keeping that from blowing up into a myriad of mocking songs and YouTube videos. Some will even be hilarious and become viral. With funding from the unions and creativity from the really nasty atheists, it could get really ugly, really fast. You can probably kiss the youth vote goodbye as no one will want to seem unhip enough to give Mormons the benefit of the doubt once the really anachronistic parts of the Book of Mormon come out.

More appalling than Mitt himself is the realization that our political professionals, our A team, hasn’t figured any of this out. Romneycare plus Bain plus Mormonism equals a good chance of total annihilation in November.

By the majority or trend of these comments, Mormonism is certainly a show-stopper. I mean look at the Democrats. Have they ever elected anyone who is LDS? Surely the “racism” charge is enough to derail any Mormon candidate in their ranks. No self-respecting Liberal would ever vote for a person of such a faith.

So, by the above logic: Romney should just give up. He should let Mr. Hissy-Fit, Mr. “Yall’s Heartless”, Mr. Isolationist, and Mr. No Abortion under any circumstances finish the race.

Better yet, use the Harry Reid, Mormon and Senate Majority Leader tactic. Ignore the haters, loudmouth fringe and be who you are. If it was such a bother to Democrats Harry Reid would not be a Senator let alone Majority Leader.

If you want someone else to win, that is your choice but to pin your hopes that you can convince enough people to hate Mormons, that’s a problem. If you don’t like his policies and his beliefs, say so, but quit hiding your frustration that people are not voting for your also flawed “Not Romney” behind bigotry.

I like Romney and I plan to vote for him. Call me what you will.

– Perry lost me when he called us all heartless.
– Newt lost me when he helped expand government and the deficit decades ago. His alliances with Pelosi and his Scozzafava stance did not help.
– Paul lost me when he said Iran should be allowed to have nukes.
– Huntsman lost me when he was dishonest about his beliefs.
– Santorum is an acceptable alternative but I am concerned he is big government like Newt based on his past.

    I’m sorry if I came across as bigoted. I just can’t see the guy winning. I hope I’m wrong because he’d be tons better than Obama.

    So with you, it’s one strike and they’re out, except for Romney? Some people might consider the following things to be strikes:
    – still supports the individual mandate
    – supported TARP
    – supported “assault weapons” ban
    – supported abortion (until running for President)
    – supported government funding for Planned Parenthood
    – supported government funding for abortion (RomneyCare)
    – in favor of government support for auto industry

    See also http://www.mittvmitt.com

      drrogera in reply to OCBill. | January 15, 2012 at 6:41 pm

      No Bill, it was not “One and Done” for me, I was just highlighting the biggest issue. I have with each. My preference in order:
      Romney, Cain, Pawlenty, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman (Some have dropped out but that is how I see it.)

Bain disputes the Journal‘s calculations, but one test of overall success is whether investors keep entrusting a firm with their money. Mr. Romney and his colleagues raised $37 million for their first fund in 1984. Today, Bain Capital manages roughly $66 billion. Its investors include college endowments and public pension funds that have increased their investments in private equity to get larger returns than stocks and bonds provide. The people who benefit from those returns thus include average workers.

Damn, it’s those evil college endowments and public pension funds who have been destroying these jobs, with Mitt Romney as their enabler.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Neo. | January 15, 2012 at 11:50 am

    is that from another thread?

    In any case, it is not the success that is the big issue, it is whether LBO’s really produced jobs, and whether Bain produced 100,000 .. “net net”.

    Putting others in junk debt for a couple decades worked fine for Fannie and Freddie and Bain, as the players got in and out with big profit. Profiting form others debt is rather the opposite of capitalizing. When the easy money bull run ended, Romney got out.

    Individual and government debt is now a huge problem. Does Mitt have the cred’s to get us out of what he partly got us into?

    punfundit in reply to Neo. | January 15, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    Huh, taxpayer dollars.

Does anyone with a whit of intelligence think that the Mormon Church is going to dictate policy?
Don’t vote for Mitt because of policy, but don’t vote for Obama because Mitt is Mormon.

    It’s got nothing to do with dictating policy, it’s about the politics of the next 10 months. Are you ready for late night TV questions about Israelites engaging large-scale in transatlantic crossings ca 600 BC? This stuff never comes up in local elections, but you’re asking for it in a presidential one.

    We’re burying our heads in the sand if we think this isn’t going to be a topic of discussion. Romney wasn’t just some schlub who went to church every Sunday and participated in sack races at picnics, but really wished he was home watching the NFL, he was a serious player in his church.

BannedbytheGuardian | January 15, 2012 at 3:55 pm

Drrego has a point.

How can the Dems complain against Romney when Ried is Senate Leader ?

Blacks won’t be voting .

hispanics would like that his famiy fled to Mexico.

Independents are not religious – & perhaps think all religions need to pull their head in .

No one thinks Romney will Rule as a Mormon.

Yeah, but all those dates…the occurrences…couldn’t the same be said of DEMOCRATS as they fought civil rights? abolition? voting rights?

And Rev. Wright? Who was certainly not a WHITEY?

As a Mormon (but born shortly after ’78, fwiw), I can say I have never heard this doctrine that O’Donnell finds offensive. Heck, I find it offensive too, but I have never heard it attributed to my church except by its enemies.

This video really stretches to make connections. “Faith of my father” gets twisted into bred-in racism, when in fact George Romney was a strong advocate of the civil rights movement. Attending BYU is now a moral defect not because of university policies, but because of the (misrepresented) policies of the church that owned it.

Manipulative, hyperbolic, and deceptive. No matter what otherwise sound arguments a video may make, these qualities always make me disbelieve every bit — just like that “When Mitt Romney Came to Town” video. The character of the video is unreliable.

Wow. Somehow I missed the impassioned discussion of Mormon theology and African Americans in the priesthood. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a thread on LI get so heated and nasty.

Yes, this video is disgusting, but it is so over the top that it’s unlikely to sway any undecided voters. It’s real goal is preaching to the choir: Energize liberals to turn out and vote against the rich, rapacious, heartless (and now racist) Romney. And it will to some extent.

But just remember: Any GOP nominee will face the racism charge. Being a Republican, being conservative is, prima facie, racist in the view of many on the left. And they will twist facts into amazing contortions to buttress this belief.

Let’s consider Newt Gingrich, shall we?

Newt Gingrich attended Emory University from 1961-65. Emory did not admit its first black student until 1962.

http://www.emory.edu/home/about/anniversary/essays/africanamerican.html

So, Newt was part of a racist institution. What did Newt do about that? Did he speak out? Did he protest? Why did he agree to attend a racist university? If he was not racist, shouldn’t he have chosen an integrated university?

Newt Gingrich then enrolled in graduate school at Tulane University. Tulane admitted its first African American students in 1964-65, just before Newt arrived.

http://www.tulanelink.com/tulanelink/racist_legacy_01a.htm#postscript

So, Tulane was almost entirely segregated while Newt was there and certainly the racist legacy remained strong. Where was Newt? Was he speaking out against it? Was he protesting? Why did he pick Tulane? If he was not himself racist, shouldn’t he have pursued graduate study at an integrated university?

If you think this logic is tortured, it is. But the left will use it with zeal and finese.

The point is, the race card will enter the fall campaign regardless of who the GOP nominates; and the Obama-Soros-Union sledge machine will pound on it repeatedly. The GOP needs to be prepared for this, period.

Romney could defuse much of the issue by simply admitting he was wrong not to actively protest the LDS’s policy, apologize, and move on.

Isn’t hindsight a wonderful thing. Just think, everyone should have known back then that those respected universities would fall by the wayside of not being black enough. Back then, you were considered lucky to be able to attend these faciilities. Who knew? I’m tired of religion being used in this election. I am also tired of our country kowtowing to one race and basing everything on appeasing that race. It seems everything, every issue and action is based on black/white and since whites are in the majority, they need to put blacks’ betterment first because they are entitled. If any public servant or private citizen fails this they are rcist. Never mind the dims were for segration during the 60s and 70s. No, I will amend that and say the dims are for anything that will cause rancor and disruption in this country. Class warfare is the least of it.

When I used to watch Fox, O’Donnell appeared pretty regularly. I guess this was Fox’s way of being fair and balanced by giving a format to a ranting hypocrite. I came to despise him for his bigotry and his ultra rudness. I hated his smug expressions that told his guests that he was vastly superior to stupid them. I am here to tell you he has gotten worse. He always loudly interrupted his guests with venom and went on a rant about his favorite peeve of the day. He is now worse. Do I smell desperation? I hope so. Are the rants he has done lately his last ditch effort to convert the rest of us to nilhism. He is the king of ugly and I am sorry I linked to him.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend