Wow, :eek: that’s got to be a new dirty low for any campaign. It’s way, way out of bounds to attack someone like this.
Huckabee for example is a Baptist minister. No one ever said he wasn’t properly representing Baptists. For one thing, he’s never claimed too represent that branch of the church with his politics. He does talk a lot about being a Christian.
Romney has taken a lot of flack for being a Mormon. To his credit, he’s never distanced himself from his church. Take it or leave it. He’s a Mormon and hasn’t danced away from it.
I guess it shows just how deep passion are about this race. I hate seeing it take a turn like this. There are many more legitimate ways to criticize Romney’s politics.
Cudos to USAToday. Very nicely written. They cited the sources for this article properly. I wish more reporters did this.
Harry Reid is a partisan blowhard, not a presidential candidate. I don’t think that anything he says about Romney represents a “turn” of any sort.
Also, Romney hasn’t taken any flack for being a Mormon except from members of his own party, and even they finally shut up about it once the nomination was in the bag.
That said, Harry Reid ought to be ashamed of himself. Not that he is.
There’s a line in the sand for attacking someone in politics. Saying someone isn’t a good enough Methodist or a good enough Mormon just isn’t done. It’s just very poor taste.
OTOH you also don’t say every Methodist will vote for me either. Or every Mormon will vote for me. That’s not done either.
Politics is separate from religion. A candidate brings his values & morals to office. He doesn’t represent his branch of religion in office. That’s a critical distinction.
This is a truly preposterous statement. It’s not low, it’s not out of bounds, it’s not on the level with so many of the lies and distortions we’ve seen during this campaign cycle, and it’s something that happens in almost every campaign.
Reid is saying Romney’s social views don’t live up to the Mormon ideal. I’m not sure that’s true because I’ve seen many people argue that Mormons view charity and the “safety net” as matters for the community and not the government, but Reid is entitled to his opinion. It’s true that Romney is a devout Mormon and he’s the best-known Mormon out there now, so if Reid feels Romney doesn’t present the right image for their religion he can say so. Since they’re members of the same faith, it’s not prejudiced or unfair. In every election you get religious arguments like this.
Once again, the point needs to be made: what is the functional difference between Reid’s comments and, say, claiming the president is an atheist Muslim foreigner?
For the record, I don’t agree with either comment. Calling out Romney’s Mormonism is the same as impugning Obama’s Christianity. But still, you’re outraged about this, and not the far more egregious insults Obama has faced?
Harry Reid is Mormon also, correct? I have no problem with someone of the same faith stating that someone else isn’t representative of all members of that religion.
Besides, I don’t think Mitt Romney is running around claiming to be the face of Mormonism.
Attacking someone based on their religion. In this case, not attacking him for being a Mormon, but rather attacking him for not being a good one, in Harry Reid’s opinion.
If Romney were known for touting his religion as a character reference, it would be a different story.
However, I do get the sense that the article leaves out some important details. For example, it says Reid was agreeing with an author. Does that mean that it was the author who said “Romney is not the face of Mormonism,” and Reid simply assented? If so, what did Reid actually say? Was his agreement tempered with any kind of condition?
Or did Reid actually say the words himself? As usual, context is important.
It sounds like Reid was aware of the criticism (or was made aware of it) and echoed the wording. Like I said, this happens every election: if a Catholic runs, people argue about whether or not he’s a good Catholic. If a Protestant runs, people argue about whether he’s a good Protestant. If a member of the United Church of Christ runs, people say he’s a Muslim who hates America. These arguments don’t concern me and I think they’re a waste of time, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with them.
And there it is. So Reid just agreed, he didn’t actually say the words. And the context makes the whole thing a lot less offensive to me. It sounds as though Prince was attempting to defend his religion against people who see Romney’s character in a negative way and attribute it to his religion.
I’d still be curious to know what Reid actually said.
He never said he was a bad Mormon. He said Romney isn’t the face of Mormonism-- people look at Mitt Romney right now and think that that represents the ideology of all Mormons. Harry Reid is saying “Nope.”
Likewise, there’s a difference between someone saying “Mike Huckabee isn’t the face of Christianity” and “Mike Huckabee is a bad Christian.”
Because Obama is factually not a Muslim foreigner.
Whether Romney is a good representative of Mormonism isn’t really a factual question. Presumably Reid doesn’t think so. I’m sure some more conservative Mormons disagree. But its not anything you can answer definitively.
But that is the context I was looking for. The USA Today article implies that Reid’s statement was a bitter attack. Actually it was part of a larger discussion of the perception of the Mormon religion. I’m not really bothered by this.
I do find it ironic that the OP gives “kudos” to USA Today for this.