The big two- abortion & gay rights, also the idea that deep down she’s more an economic collectivist that Bill, but like Bill, an internationalist.
Sorry, but I can’t buy that – not as an explanation of the visceral rage with which she’s demonized. Those are policy disagreements, about which people can passionately disagree without casting their opponent as the Antichrist. The level of insanely over-the-top vitriol infusing so much of the attacks on Hillary goes way beyond that into some deepseated pathology.
Perhaps from the kid’s book Ben and Me, about the rat who lived in Benjamin Franklin’s hat and gave him advice? Just a WAG. Maybe a poor one, too, considering the actual rodent was named Amos.
Where does his ‘those decadent French have seven year marriage contracts’ speech fit into this? To me, it says that he’s either abjectly ignorance of the world outside America’s borders, or that he’s willing to pull any lie out of his ass, no matter how blatantly false, if he thinks it will score points with his audience.
So why don’t they hate Giuliani then? He’s just as pro-choice and even more pro-gay. He’s also anti-gun.
I don’t buy that it’s policy alone. It’s something else. Most of the conservatives I’ve heard ranting about Hillary – some of them in my own extended family – aren’t even talking about the real person. They’ve created a fantasy villain with little relationship to reality and projcted all their worst fears and prejudices onto her. They’ve made her into the ultimate personification of an evil, liberal “feminazi.” It’s like the opposite of what they do with Reagan where they idealize him into a Christ-like figure of perfect goodness and infallible wisdom. Religionists tend to be fantasists. They also tend to dumb down their worldviews into childishly simplistic categories of exaggerated good and evil.
Everyone not running for reelection says the nation is at a turning point, this is just an incorrect and pseudo-mathematical way of saying the same thing. Perhaps he meant tipping point from Gladwell’s book? Basically, I see it as the moral equivalent of calling the internet a series of tubes.
<Groucho>Mitt may talk like an idiot and act like an idiot, but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot. </Groucho>
Huh? Color me confused here. Are you saying that Mitt isn’t a devout Mormon? Or that LDS isn’t the religion of his base? Or what? 
I am aware that Reid is a Mormon–so what? What is your point? Or are you referring to the Constitution? (as if that has a lot to say about the way modern elections are managed. The system may still be in place, but the influence has shifted).
I didn’t say he would say anything like that or that anyone is shouting from rooftops. Who’s paranoid now? Since all the Presidents have been Christians of one stripe or another (Ok, Jefferson was a Deist), I’d say one religion fairly dominates, no?
IMO, (and you are welcome to yours), anyone who needs to talk up their religion or spiritual beliefs, especially in a political campaign, raises a red flag. JFK did indeed have to reassure folks that he wouldn’t take his advice from the Pope (and ironically, Kerry was demonized for not being Catholic “enough”). Pols who tout their religion seem to do it for several reasons, not all of them respectable: to influence their supportes–it can and is a shorthand way of saying, “hey, I’m a good person.”; to present an image that is palatable to those undecided; to show repentance for “mis-speaking” or fooling around; to use the very base they succor as a means to win and then not deliver. There are more, I’m sure.
Again, Mitt was quoting another “thinker” when he used the term “inflection point.” It sounded to me like such jargon as “tipping point,” etc.
No, I did not say that. I did not imply that. Please don’t pretend that I said something that I did not say, okay?
It is not “the religion of his base.” The man is a Republican. More to the point he is (currently) a conservative Republican. That particular segment of the Republican Party and its supporters/voters (recognizing that not everyone who loyally votes Republican is a party member) covers a wide range of faith groups.
You sould not be confused. I said what I meant and meant what I said.
It is quite convincing proof that Romney’s political stance is not based on his faith’s teachings, at least not them alone. Reid is also a faithful and practicing LDS and is quite at odds with Romney.
That is my point and it was quite obvious that is what the point was and is.
I was clearly addressing your “concern” regarding Romney’s religion.
I’m not paranoid. I was clearly addressing your comment about “fallout.”
That’s a nice little set-up, then, isn’t it? You’re too concerned about the candidate’s religious beliefs which means he must voice them. But then, if he voices them, then he’s “raised a red flag?” Reminds me of an exchange on Mork & Mindy:
It was wrong then just as it is wrong now to force a candidate to do such a thing. If it’s the correct thing to do, then every single candidate for every single office in the country, from the lowest elected office all the way to President should announce, “from the rooftops” even, that he or she is not taking orders from the candidate’s faith group. I don’t recall anyone questioning the loyalty of all of those Episcopalians running for office where I grew up in Virginia and, yet, their faith is connected to a foreign spiritual leader.
No doubt. Care to prove that any or all of them actually apply to Romney and/or Reid?
Oh- a lot of them/us aren’t crazy about Giuliani- and if he looks close to getting the nomination, expect a hell of a challenge. However, he built himself a BIG
wave of good will on 9/11. AND there’s a perception that his pro-choice, pro-gay,
anti-gun record is part of being a New York politician, and won’t carry over to
a national Presidency because the GOPs in Congress wouldn’t stand it. If he gets the nomination, look for a lot of deals to be made, including a very socially conservative VP nominee.
Hillary has been a polarizing figure- who, I will concede, is not as Lefty as she seemed. Bill seemed the pragmatist & she the ideologue, and that may have been true when comparing the two of them. However, I think she’s demonstrated that she’ll also be quite the pragmatist, and IF she’s elected, she won’t come in with the “radicalism” expected, which would just hand Congress to the GOP in 2010 as in 1994. IF in Nov 2008, we get a President Hillary, expect two GOP factions to emerge- one to work with her to get the best deal we can, and one to really dog at her heels. These factions will seemingly swipe & nip at one another but I think they’ll be colluding to shift her rightward.
I’m gonna make a big bold prediction also- look at her to offer some concessions on the Dems’ pro-choice consensus.
I am not implying anything. I am not implying that you are implying anything. I was asking for clarification because I didn’t understand your reference to “root”.
Do you mean to say that you don’t think that Mormons support him? I’m sure they do. Yes, he is a Republican–and some Reps support him as well-there are probably Independents. Libertarians, Democrats and undeclareds who support him, too. The political party he belongs to and the relighion he professes are not one and the same. I don’t think they are-but you seem to think I do(?)
I have no doubt of this. However, I didn’t understand what you were referring to until the paragraph below, when all became clear to me. See below.
Well, I agree that his political stance wasn’t based on his faith’s teachings, but since his election as governor, he has backpeddled and contradicted his previous stances. See abortion for one.
No, it wasn’t. But thank you for clarifying it.
It is a concern. You have not reassured me, but that wasn’t your goal. I don’t appreciate the quotations marks–it appears you are not convinced that my concern valid. That is your privilege.
Not quite. We should know certain things about all the candidates, and religious affiliation is one of those things. What I dislike (and this applies to all candidates, not just Mitt) is when their religion or faith or spirituality is trumpeted, used as photo op or similar. Mitt is in a slightly different place than most other candidates because he must explain his faith to those ignorant of it. I am leery of a candidate who says one thing to win one election and then makes a 180 to win another. That has nothing to do with his religion-although I’m fairly certain the LDS condemn a woman’s right to choose. So which is it-he is ruled by the principals of his faith (now) or he is ruled by the rule of law (as governor)? I dunno–and that raises a red flag for me.
I’d be happy for the Episcopalians to state that they won’t take their orders from their archbishop. I’d be happy to hear anyone of any faith running for office that they would serve the people, not their faith, first. I am not sure just who (whom?) Mitt is intent on serving at this point. I’m not sure he is, either.
I think I understand the problem now. We have been talking at cross purposes. I have made general remarks in terms of candidates usage of religion to bolster their image etc. You have taken them to all be directed at Mitt. This is not the case. I do not like Mitt as a candidate–I am a liberal Democrat. But my comments were more in line with candidacy in general, and Mitt’s use of obscure calculus terms, specifically. I have no beef with you, Monty; you appear to have one with me.
You appear to think that the LDS are a hive-mind who will vote en masse for Romney. I have already shown that is not the case. Yes, there may be some Democrats or Libertarians or so on who support Romney just as there are some Republicans who don’t. The simple fact of the matter is that there are plenty of Mormons who don’t.
I can see no compelling reason why a candidate should be required to declare to the public what his religious belief is.
Perhaps neither.
I see no reason fro anyone of any faith to be required to make such a declaration.
It’s whom (the accusative case). Maybe he’s intent on serving the general public. And maybe he’s only intent on getting elected.
I have a beef with your attitude towards Romney having to clarify his religious views. I also have a beef with your statement that “Mormonism is the religion of his base.” To be blunt, that statement is a product of lazy thinking, in my opinion.
Oh. Is that all? I didn’t say that “Mormonism is the religion of his base.” I said that Mormons support him. Perhaps not all do-who knows? We’ll find out soon enough.
Re the lazy thinking. Have at it. I’d make a note of it and revise my approach to your posts in future, but that sounds like a lot of work. How about we keep it at you think I’m a lazy thinker and I’ll keep my thoughts regarding you to myself?
Did you or did you not post this?
“Perhaps not all do?” :smack:
Facts must be anathema to you.