home

Mitt Romney: The Undisciplined Candidate

A funny thing has happened on the way to the November election - Mitt Romney has become a clown car of a candidate. It's one thing to be "inauthentic," it's another to make the mistakes Romney is now making on a regular basis. Gail Collins writes:

On the morning after the Florida primary, Mitt Romney bounded out of bed, inhaled the sweet air of victory, donned his new cloak of invulnerability ...

... and went on CNN to announce that he doesn’t care about poor people. “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he told a slightly stunned-looking Soledad O’Brien.

Whenever the topic turns to wealth, or the lack thereof, some inner demon seems to make Romney say something that sounds ridiculous, offensive or ridiculously offensive.

(Emphasis supplied.) Erick Erickson and his cohorts are engaged in a slash and burn against Romney, but the fact is Romney is the guy who is self destructing. Of course, Newt remains a Democrat's dream Republican nominee, Erickson's silly statements about how Romney dooms the GOP slate notwithstanding. It's a pretty shocking development that at this stage Romney is incapable of discussing fairness issues without putting two feet in his mouth. Are you telling me that his expensive team can't write a vanilla paragraph for him to repeat ad nauseum on the subject?

Speaking for me only

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | CO Medical Group's Patient Data Hacked >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    the claim is that romney's comment (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 07:47:10 AM EST
    is "being taken out of context". by definition, quotes are almost always taken out of context. however, if you read the entire transcript, and then read the transcript of his interview with rachel maddow, it becomes clear that it is most certainly "in context": he meant it exactly the way it has been reflected in the news.

    mr. romney lives in a rarified atmosphere, a reality that doesn't really recognize the existence of other than very wealthy people. their servants aren't actually fellow human beings, simply creatures who tend to the light work.

    he has less than the proverbial snow ball's chance come november.

    Erik Erikson is after him though (none / 0) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:11:17 AM EST
    They are coming after him from within.  

    Parent
    that's always been the case, (none / 0) (#63)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    They are coming after him from within.

    nothing new there. the only thing that's new is the emergence of multiple media platforms from which to attack him, and a republican party with a significant minority that seems to have gone completely around the bend.

    Parent

    This is what Republicans think and are (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:03:25 AM EST
    and, if you were to get among them - particularly the wealthier ones - and get them loosened up either with a couple drinks or the comfortable feeling that they're among like-minded individuals and can let their hair down a little, what Mitt said is what you'd hear from them.  Actually, you'd hear worse.

    I've been there.  I've heard wealthy Republican matrons rail in cut-glass diction (slurred by some wine) against damned liberals and how they wanted to see them slaughtered.  I've heard WASP funders of wingnut welfare go on about the gross inconsideracy of the poor and their Democratic friends having the temerity to point out the pain Republicans were causing.

    Actually, the subtext to Romney's Freudian slip was more interesting to me.  Listening to it at length, he also remarks how the poor have the Democrat people to take care of them.  The not-so-subtle implication is that social justice issues are chick/n*gger jobs for the pansy Democrats, while Real Men Are Republicans and rape, pillage and take to their heart's content, then settle back with steaks, scotch, cigars, and a couple of pretty young things lapdancing and more.

    The chick job thing among Republicans wss exemplified by the Bush administration's approach to staffing.  They put EPA (Christie Whitman), Labor (Mrs. Mitch McConnell Elaine Chao), and State (Colin Powell and Condi Rice), inter alia, in the hands of women and blacks.  They then proceeded to punk and ignore them for years on end. Where there was real money to be looted and real power to be grabbed, only Real Men got in the door.

    That's what Romney is promising.

    True Republicans believe the poor (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 10:09:04 AM EST
    are poor because they are lazy, and that unemployment is only a problem for "those" people.

    They of course can use the unemployment figures for political effect.

    But you hear their true beliefs when they talk about how so many do not pay federal income taxes, and how the jobless benefits just encourage laziness.

    The Christianity of many such Republicans is really just about maintaining their cultural hegemony.

    Parent

    it's pre-destination theology, (none / 0) (#64)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 01:12:13 PM EST
    The Christianity of many such Republicans is really just about maintaining their cultural hegemony.

    pure and simple. and those destined for heaven are identified on earth by their material wealth. really, the only thing different is that calvin is still (technically) dead.

    Parent

    You can't get the moderate (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:08:54 AM EST
    or the independents with Mitt though now.  Not when he was crowned once again "the inevitable" and then he says things like he said.  You'll just go down in a hail storm of bullets in November.  Which I'm fine with.

    Parent
    of course (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:23:25 AM EST
    Romney doesn't care about the poor. Why should anyone be stunned. Does anyone care about the poor in this country? I'm not seeing it from anyone in politics.

    Whats stunning is... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    Romney's sloppiness in letting the truth slip.

    A seasoned pol knows to wax poetic about their infinite concern over the plight of poor and working people while the cameras are rolling.

    So I guess we should be grateful for to Willard for the honesty??? ;)

    Parent

    I am not convinced that Romney (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:39:55 AM EST
    let the truth "slip".  More likely, it is a calculated dog whistle to supporters (we will hear from the Democrat Party.... the plight of the poor (those people),  coupled with a conviction based on Mormon theology (God wants us to be rich, and if you are not, you just aren't trying).  In any event, I agree, we should be grateful to Mittens for his honesty--it just needs a magic decoder ring.

    Parent
    Agreed with the Bonus of His Wealth (none / 0) (#50)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:57:02 AM EST
    ...being front stage lately... this is going to stick and it's so blatant, it can't be dismissed as 'out of context' or some other rubbish.

    I suspect this could be that defining moment we talk about for years when discussing future, foot-in-the-mouth truth tellers who, we will say, are going down in flames just like Romney...

    Parent

    *and* he's doubling down on it! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by rise hillary rise on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    keeps repeating that he meant exactly said, "look at it in context!" as if it would mean something different or sound less insensitive.

    he might as well have said "Are there no workhouses?"

    it's quite telling that there doesn't seem to be anybody on the staff who can tell this guy when to shut up-and that nobody issued a "he misspoke" sort of disclaimer.

    If Romney had really wanted to speak to (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    the plight of the middle class, he didn't need to reference the poor at all - except to note that there are more people in poverty now and they're coming from the ranks of the middle class, which is shrinking.  

    I mean, this is a no-brainer kind of observation that can serve as a segue into references to how he intends to change that dynamic, but Mitt may be a classic case of the candidate who can't deliver a message he doesn't believe in, or one who thinks he knows better than all the people advising him; either way, he ends up saying something that is now going to follow him wherever he goes now and magnify the problem he has of relating to the average voter.

    With Obama we had - and have - WORM, and now, it seems we're going to have WRRM; isn't it weird that they both sound the same?  An acronymic homonym...now there's a mouthful.


    Parent

    And that segment of "the poor" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    who even Clinton-Obama bourgeois liberals have come view as a permanent underclass (they'll always be with us, sigh) were, in former times, union members who through hard work and the blood, sweat and tears of many, were enabled to move into the vicinity of the middle class and escape living on the fringes of desperation and all it's attendant evils..

    I personally don't know you can talk honestly and realistically about "the middle class" without talking about the poor -- and without talking about the outsourcing and downsizing-hungry investor class that's increasingly comandeered the wills of both parties for the last few decades.

     

    Parent

    If Romney is too repulsive (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:04:55 AM EST
    And Newt is too repulsive, and Santorum is so unable to be "vanilla" that a whole group of people gave his last name a special definition, and Paul is too humbly crazy on some issues and also has documented crazy racist moments, what's left?  What's the plan?  Broker in Jeb?

    Speaking (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:19:47 AM EST
    of Jeb, somebody was saying today that they couldn't wait for Jeb to run for president. I'm thinking he's one of the 19% to be wanting Jeb to run for prez.

    Parent
    IMO Jeb is slated for 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:50:11 AM EST
    Good chance he will win and finalize all of the Republican agenda for the benefit of the 1%.

    Parent
    That's what I see; this clown show (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:12:29 PM EST
    is allowed, because the GOP elites are just going to let 2012 go by, as they have so messed up the economy that a Repub elected in 2012 would be a one-termer, and they're getting a lot of what they need from Obama, anyway.  Then they take back the reins in 2016 and don't even have to tolerate "just words," even if those don't match the actions.  Jeb could not win now; memories of his brother are too fresh and raw.  But in 2016. . . .

    Parent
    perfect (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    chance for Hillary if that happens.

    Parent
    Erick (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:16:52 AM EST
    Erickson lives in the south and he is coming at this whole thing from strictly a southern fundamentalist POV. So yeah, Romney probably does not help and might even hurt candidates in the south but can you imagine what Gingrich would do across the country?

    I think you may have answered (none / 0) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:30:27 AM EST
    a question that was floating around in my noodle.  How was the Southy South going to "express" its rage over being completely priced out of the market of having a Republican voice that counted in Federal elections? Because they can't be happy about this money equals total power thing.  We've prided ourselves for generations around here by not living all high and mighty and moneyed and over educated like those thieving Yankees :)

    I didn't know Erikson was from the Southy South.  I think he might carry in his heart the inspiration and ability to burn the whole house down for as long as he can keep the fire going.

    Parent

    I believ (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:56:25 AM EST
    Erick erickson lives in Macon, GA. I have no idea how the south would react to a Romney nomination though it would be interesting to watch because they are so used to being coddled and told they are "speshul" from the GOP.

    Parent
    They have been special until now (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:29:53 AM EST
    With the new money though, you can blow their party leaders off now.  I hate to say that Republicans are low information voters, but Republicans as they exist at this time are low information voters.  He with the bestest mostest commercials is most likely to win in the Southern states that have any impact in the Republican primary.  The only higher information voters they have seem to belong to Ron Paul.

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:50:13 AM EST
    but the advantage that Romney has is in the perception department. i mean who is going to think that a former GOP governor from MA is a bush league radical fundamentalist?

    Parent
    He's a damned Yankee though to the (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    Super South.  He exudes Super Yankee, it's seeping out of his pores :)  He owns corduroys by Lands End, you can tell.  I looked it up that he carried Bay County Fl in 2008, but he carried Okaloosa County Fl too this time.  The more populated areas of the panhandle are either losing their Yankee hatred, or they can't help but vote for the guy with the best most commercials, or both :)

    Parent
    I'm talking (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:27:14 AM EST
    about the rest of the country. People in the south have been voting for Newt because they think "he's one of them".

    Maybe the demographics of the panhandle are changing? I know a friend of mine lives in the panhandle and she is entirely southern but would not vote for Newt if he was the only person on the ticket.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:29:01 AM EST
    Maybe (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    being a Navy wife changed her perspective? She had a lot of times where she had the children to deal with all by herself.

    Parent
    It was hand made for out of context use. (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:06:36 AM EST
    And when you hand your opponent a hammer don't be surprised when they hit you on the head with it.

    But here is the complete quote.

    "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling."

    How any Social Liberal could disagree with that is beyond me.


    Any social liberal... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    who wasn't born yesterday knows that in context he's his usual full of sh*t.

    While the snippet "I am not concerned about the poor" rings true.

    Parent

    Come on, man! (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:01:10 PM EST
    "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

    If I have a choice between someone says they will fix a problem and someone who moans over a problem...

    I will take the fixer.

    Parent

    It' easy to just SAY you will ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 08:33:13 AM EST
    ... "fix a problem".

    BTW - He didn't even say he would fix the problem.  He said "if it needs repair".  That's a qualifier you could pilot an aircraft carrier through ...

    Parent

    Jon Stewart's response to (none / 0) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    repairing the net if there was a hole in it was, "It's a net".

    Parent
    And my response to the comedian (I guess) (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 08:57:59 AM EST
    Jon Stewart is that if Romney does anything it will be more, much more, than John Stewart has done.

    Tracy, you can complain/attack Romney all you want, after all Clinton's troops told us that politics is a "blood sport" but what Romney said was perfectly clear and understandable.

    If the safety is broke/breaks he will fix it.

    Would he?? I don't know and neither do you.

    One thing is for sure.

    Get unemployment back to where it was under Bush and many of the problems will go away.

    Who has the policies and expertise to do that is the question. And Obama isn't on that list.

    Parent

    Oh yeah! (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 09:10:37 AM EST
    It was Clinton's troops who told YOU that politics is a "blood sport".  Up to that day were you asleep since birth?  Politics has always been a "blood sport", really bloody sometimes....like Rome and Europe.  Sometimes Jim your are so "stuck".  And unemployment back to where it was under Bush?  You mean 12%, cuz that super sucked my friend.  Bush is who put us here!  There won't be a Republican President again in the White House for the next 12 years.  And that is only if you crazy phuckers come to terms with how despicable you have across the board become.

    Parent
    12% under Bush? (none / 0) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 04:15:49 PM EST
    Tracy, I truly do worry about you.

    The highest it ever got under Bush was 7.3% in 12/2009 and that was the last month he was Prez. I think the average was around 5%. Here, you can check the BLS figures:

    Link

    And you really should so some checking before you decide you want to argue about who have what to charity. You aren't gonna like the figures.

    Parent

    Yes yes.....we know (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:33:06 AM EST
    He's a compassionate conservative who has such incredible leadership skills that every now and then he expresses himself in such a manner that comes off as being too brisk.  Been there though already, already been on that trip :)

    Parent
    No...Romney is what you get when (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:51:49 AM EST
    the bar for Republican voters is also "the lesser of two evils" or "well, he's better than those other guys."

    Perhaps the new metric for them is, "how much crazy can we hide behind a veneer of sanity?"  

    [Careful, Mitt - the crazy's starting to bleed through the Sanity Wrap...]

    Parent

    Gee, Gingrich, on the poor, seems (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:49:23 AM EST
    the lesser of the two eels.   Gingrich responded  " I am running to be the president of all the American people,"  "and I am concerned about all the American people."    

    Parent
    But both eels (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    are slippery, aren't they?

    Parent
    This is the same guy who (none / 0) (#14)
    by scribe on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    used his veto to save $600,000 that would have been spent on kosher meals for elderly Jewish nursing home residents.  The veto was later overriden by the Mass. legislature and the kosher food not cut off.

    Quite compassionate.

    Parent

    This is actually a crock (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    or mostly a crock.  The funding was a small part of a large spending bill full of miscellaneous stuff that the legislature passed, and Romney and everyone else knew his veto would be overridden.

    Also, it was not for the provision of kosher food, it was so nursing homes could stop keeping kosher kitchens for their minority of residents who wanted to keep kosher and could instead outsource the cooking and have it brought in.  There was no question of not providing kosher food ever, just where it would be prepared and how it would be paid for.

    So nobody was thinking of "cutting off" anything.

    (Disclaimer -- NOT a Romney fan, then or now)

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#23)
    by BTAL on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    Out of context and misrepresentations are nonsense regardless of which side uses them and should be called out as such.

    Parent
    Agree wholeheartedly (none / 0) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    This was in a robo-call the Gingrich campaign made to Jewish voters in Florida (who overwhelmingly vote Dem. anyway, so a bonehead move twice over).  I don't have the text at hand, but it's easily found on the Web, claiming resentfully that Romney had denied kosher meals to "Holocaust survivors."

    Really incredibly crude.

    I actually loathe Romney more than I do Gingrich, but nobody should resort to this kind of grotesque and elaborate lie.

    Parent

    I wonder how many people who didn't (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    get fed any food could have been fed with the money that was ultimately spent by the MA legislature??

    Parent
    His full remarks (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:56:40 AM EST
    are even more bizarre.

    Folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college. These are the people who have been most badly hurt during the Obama years. We have a very ample safety net, and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps. We have Medicaid. We have housing vouchers. We have programs to help the poor. ...

    His basic position is that the safety net is fine as is.  Which I don't think Democrats would necessarily agree with (we would like it to be strengthened, esp. as we are in a recession) and I imagine Republicans are retching right now.

    Parent

    Romney keeps "slipping" (none / 0) (#25)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    because that is what he really believes....

    And, the Mormon angle is illuminating.  The LDS Church has had leaders state that being poor is a sin, and that with hard work, no one should be poor.  The Mormon work ethic is very "Protestant."

    Also, the LDS Church strongly discourages any member from accepting government benefits.  The LDS Church runs its own Church Welfare program that is controlled by local Bishops.

    The LDS Church has longed been very opposed to the Federal Government--going back the Reynolds decision upholding the prohibition of plural marriage in spite of the First Amendment protections of religious liberty; the Federal government's sending troops to Utah to stop the practice of polygamy; and most humiliating, the 1904-1907 Reed Smoot Senate hearings during which new Utah Senator Reed Smoot was repeatedly grilled on the Mormon faith and whether polygamy still existed.  A majority voted to expel Smoot because he was not "American" enough.  But he kept his seat because a 2/3 vote was required.

    The LDS Church thus has a similar background of humiliation and resentment as the Deep South.  That is why imo they vote the same.

    The LDS Church spent the latter part of the 20th century focused on improving its reputation.  It has tried to create the public image that is just another Protestant denomination like the Lutheran Church.  It rarely mentions polygamy or Brigham Young's or Joseph Smith's wives, or the prohibition against Blacks holding the (lay) Priesthood until 1978, in effect consigning Blacks to less than full membership, as every male over 12 is expected to hold some rank of Priesthood.

    So, the LDS Church has been trying to be more "American" than apple pie--just like the over compensation in the South.

    Look at the Red States.  Largely, the Deep South and the Mormon West (Utah, Idaho and Arizona.)  Being a Republican is mainly a cultural choice imo.  And the lowly regard for the poor is part of that cultural choice.

    People say Romney has no core because he always changes his views.  Romney has responded that he has been loyal to his Church and his family.  True.  And, yes, Romney does have a core.  It is a Mormon core.  He donates millions to the LDS Church, is the grandson of polygamists who fled to Mexico so they could continue to practice polygmay, and (unlike other Mormon elected officials like Harry Reid) has held significant leadership positions in the Church.

    Romney is the perfect Mormon:  Stake President, former Missionary, six kids (and having a lot of kids is the ideal), wife who stays at home, businessman, and rich. That is the paradigm in American Mormon cultre.  And, Romney's passion is in being the perfect Mormon.  Understanding that is the Rosetta Stone of understanding Romney.

    Parent

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    The Romneys have 5 children, not 6.  That is not an abmormally large family, especially considering their ages. So that's not really a reason to consider him a"perfect Mormon".

    Parent
    Having a large family with lots (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    of kids has been the ideal.  It has been part of American Mormon culture.  

    Protestants the same age as the Romneys were part of the two-children ideal.

    The Pill came into widespread use in the early 1960s, and the Romneys' kids were all born well after that.

    Whether having a large family is good, bad or neutral all depends on one's views.  But it has been the conscious emphasis--until perhaps very recently--for Mormons to have a lot of kids.  So much so that American Mormon couples who did not have kids, or a lot of kids, had a lesser social standing in the church because of that fact.


    Parent

    It is part of Mormon doctrine (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:26:02 AM EST
    that women's highest calling is to have children.  Women cannot hold the Mormon Priesthood because they have the ability to give birth.  Women's highest calling is to have kids; whereas, the men are called to Church leadership.

    And, in the afterlife faithful Mormon women will become like gods and have even more children to populate other worlds.

    Having a lot of kids in Mormon culture is not just about not using birth control but is central to the faith.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    I had a boss in one company that I worked for who was a branch manager in Utah and he said that he was really reluctant to hire women out there because of that view. He said you would train them and then they wouldn't last long.

    Parent
    Alot of Joseph Smith's (none / 0) (#49)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    quasi-gnostic mythologizing sounds like it was lifted right out of Emmanuel Swedenborg..

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    I had not heard that one.....

    Parent
    Joseph Smith as gnostic (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    What an interesting take....

    Someone should write a paper on that.

    Parent

    someone probably already has.. (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    the almost-forgotten Swedenborg was very hot stuff
    in the early 1800s..Goethe references him; Balzac references him all over the place, and Blake had an ongoing 'debate' with Swedenborg in his writings..

    Smith obviously had a fascination with, and smattering of familiarity with, a lot of Hermetic, alchemical, and other types of 'occult' literature..

    Parent

    Not convincing (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:38:37 AM EST
    I'm from a family of 4 kids.  Many of my friends from school (and I'm a year older than the oldest Romney kid), both Catholics and Protestant, had 2,3, or more kids.  

     Trying to play the "ooh, scary Mormon!" card by saying they have 5 kids is weak.

    Parent

    The sheer numbers is the least (none / 0) (#48)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    of what makes them scarey. As anyone with half a brain knows.

    Parent
    Wrong, not what I did at all (none / 0) (#53)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:01:46 PM EST
    I presented what was intended to be a neutral description of Mormon belief and culture.  What is scarey is up to you.

    Parent
    the large family thing (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    is not restricted to Mormons.  Hard core Catholics are the same.  I am amazed at the size of one branch of my family.  So many kids, and the kids have so many kids.  They can often barely afford to feed them.

    They're in good standing with their church, though.

    Parent

    This calls for Monty Python... (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    Mr Blackitt: Look at them, bloody Catholics. Filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.

    Mrs Blackitt: What are we dear?

    Mr Blackitt: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it...

    Mrs Blackitt: Why do they have so many children...?

    Mr Blackitt: Because every time they have sexual intercourse they have to have a baby.

    Mrs Blackitt: But it's the same with us, Harry.

    Mr Blackitt: What d'you mean...?

    Mrs Blackitt: Well I mean we've got two children and we've had sexual intercourse twice.



    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    I don't see having 5 kids as a big drawback because one of my best friends comes from a family of 8 and birth control was available when her parents were having all these children. Not too many Catholics these days having that many children but, on average, the Catholics I know have more children than protestants.

    Parent
    It isn't to me, either (none / 0) (#77)
    by sj on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 07:42:10 PM EST
    My father was one of ten.  I have four siblings and would have had more but for my Mom's health issues.  My generation took it down a notch.  My feelings aren't about having a lot of kids, it's about can you care for them.

    Parent
    Among Mormons it is a sign of affluence (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    to have large families.  Who else could have five or six kids and have a stay-at-home mom and not be poor--a big no-no among Mormons.

    And there are differences between Catholics and Mormons relating to the view of birth control as sin.  Catholics emphasize the inherent immorality of birth control, and Mormon views on birth control are not exactly like that.  According to Mormon doctrine, although this is a bit murky, there is nothing inherently wrong with birth control, but women should always try to have as many kids as they can because that is their destiny and calling--to be mothers and take care of kids......

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:23:43 PM EST
    there are doctrinal differences but I'm only coming from the standpoint of having 5 kids. I just don't think it's that big of a deal in and of itself. I mean the new thing among evangelicals is to have a ton of kids too.

    Parent
    The point was skewed (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:39:46 PM EST
    by a focus on how many kids Romney has.....It was one point among many.......about Mormon culture.

    The overall point is that to understand Romney, one has to understand that first and foremost he is Mormon.   For some, that may be a very good thing.  

    Parent

    The point is (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 02:50:27 PM EST
    Many times here you have voiced your concern about abourthe scariness of Romney because he's a Mormon.  We get it - you're afraid of Mormons.

    Although one has to wonder if you would feel the same way if another commenter went on and about the scariness of a Muslim candidate.  My guess is that you'd be calling them out as a racist.

    Parent

    No, you are wrong (none / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 03:46:40 PM EST
    That is your gloss.

    My point is that Romney will act consistently with his Mormon beliefs--and that means he will be a social conservative.  I in fact said when I first raised this issue that I was not saying that Mitt eats live kittens in the basement.

    My list of Mormon cultural and theological issues was very neutral and I think with respect to the Reynolds decision and the Reed Smoot hearings, quite sympathetic to the LDS Church.

    I do not find the LDS Church scarey because it is familiar to me.  Much of what I say here would be quite familiar to those who know the Mormon faith and probably even found in the BYU student newspaper.   But many really seem to not know much about Mormons.

    That Romney has spent so much of his life and money trying to be a good Mormon tells us a lot about his views. He will be solidly pro-life.

    I have not said anything like it would be unfortunate if the Mormons were to build a temple near ground zero.  That would be bigotry.

    I did not try to start a fight with you on this subject but you are sure trying to go that way.

    Parent

    The same kinds of things were said (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 04:09:58 PM EST
    About Catholics and John Kennedy.

    I appreciate that you know a great deal about Mormons, but let's not forget that the Romney family has managed quite nicely to fit into mainstream America and politics for almost 50 years.

    You may not like what Mitt stands for now (or what he says he stands for) but beating rhe scary religion thing is the same as those who don't like Muslims.

    What's ironic is that I never heard Romney talk about his faith until recently to ward off those who want to fear him because of it.  He does not wear it on his sleeve like Newt or the Ricks or Michelle, etc.

    Parent

    It is different (none / 0) (#70)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 04:38:14 PM EST
    And there is a difference between Huntsman and Romney.  Romney is very tight with Salt Lake leadership.  Hunstman is not--he is very publicly flirting with Epsicopalian apostasy (the Mormon word for heresy) and it shows in their differences on social issues.

    Of course, Romney does not speak of his faith.  Mormons became very sophisticated in the use media and PR (as part ot ehir 20th Century mainstreaming efforts to live down polygamy) and any national politican who is a devout member of  the Mormon Church leadership, as is Romney, would of course downplay it.

    It is as if a Bishop who were a member of Opus Dei with close ties to the Vatican were running for President.  There is a public account of Romney specifically asking permission from, or perhaps consulting with, Church leaders about taking a pro-choice view when running in Massachusetts.  He was told by Church leaders that saying he was pro-choice was what he needed to do to advance his career.

    As a Mormon Bishop, he accosted a women in a hospital bed whom he had learned was going to have a life-saving abortion. He personally rebuked her for what she was doing.  He apparently made the visit unannounced.

    It is not bigotry to assume that Romney's faith will control much of his decision making, as no one can seem to figure out his changes in stated policy otherwise.   If you understand Romney as a devout Mormon leader groomed for decades for high national office, it becomes quite clear.

    No, jb, it is not just what Romney says about abortion now.  Do not be fooled--he will very much toe the Salt Lake line on abortion and gay marriage.  That Republicans think he is not solidly in the corner of social conservatives is a humourous mistake they are making.

    Much of this has been said here before.  My earlier comment tread new ground.  You want to toss out the bias label to quash this conversation.  But that is a mistake.  And you try this while apparently knowing very little about Romney's view of his faith or that faith.   It needs to be discussed.

    Parent

    MKS (none / 0) (#74)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:31:14 PM EST
    It is not bigotry to assume that Romney's faith will control much of his decision making, as no one can seem to figure out his changes in stated policy otherwise.   If you understand Romney as a devout Mormon leader groomed for decades for high national office, it becomes quite clear.

    It is Bigotry if your can't actually give reasons for the fear that are specific to his religion.  Everything you listed is republican platform stuff, how will Romney differ from Bush or Obama in using his faith to guide his decisions ?

    Is there a tangible fear in there, or are you just uncomfortable that his beliefs are different then yours ?  Is he going to make SLC the capital, bring back polygamy, make ritualistic sacrifice in the West Wing, summoning the devil to kill the rest of us.  

    As a liberal, what should I fear in Romney that I don't fear with any other republican ?  So far you haven't listed one thing, except the fear of the unknown because he is different, and that to me is the very definition of bigotry.

    And for the record, the Vatican is bit more powerful then SLC, and if a Bishop were running, he'd be wearing some religious costume, wifeless, kidless, bible in hand making it very clear, that jesus will run the show if he has any say about it.

    Not the best analogy.

    Parent

    Romney would be the same as Bush 43 (none / 0) (#75)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:51:10 PM EST
    That is the point.

    There will be an upcoming attempt by many to say that Romney is a moderate, and many may support him thinking that he really is a moderate on social issues.  He is not.  Remember Bush 43 being touted as a compassionate conservative?....How many were fooled by that?  The same concept applies here.

    Re: Catholic Bishops. Romney was a Stake President for close to a decade.  The closest analogous position in the Catholic Church is a Bishop.  The LDS Church has a lay clergy and Stake Presidents are just a couple of levels below the Church President.  And it is not my analogy--it is widely accepted by most who analyze and write about LDS Church leadership.

    Of course, the Vatican is bigger and more powerful than Salt Lake--but don't tell them that.

    Wikipedia has a useful article on the White Horse Prophecy.  That will tell you how Salt Lake views itself politically.

    Glenn Beck is Mormon and that is where some of his more right wing ideas come from.  Romney is the polished version.

    And, with respect to polygamy, from time to time, Church leaders have toyed with the idea of trying to overturn the Reynolds decision.  Mormons still believe in polygamy--in heaven, if not here.

    Of more concern, Mormons believe in a literal Armageddon and return of Jesus in our lifetime.  A couple of Mormon leaders have said it is pointless to try and broker a peace in the Middle East, as propehcy tells us the end of the world will occur there.  Sure, it is basically the same view as Santorum--but the point is to recognize it as such....not fall into the Mitt as moderate refrain.

    Parent

    Here's (none / 0) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 06:12:18 PM EST
    the problem you are going to have in selling that: Romney comes from MA a state that would never elect a radical fundamentalist like Bush to the governorship. Nobody was really fooled by Bush I don't think. People knew that a GOP gov. of Texas had to be a nut. If Rick Perry had come off better than a trained monkey, do you think anyone would have been fooled into thinking that he was anywhere near a "moderate".

    Parent
    My Best Friend Until About 9th Grade (none / 0) (#71)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    ...was Mormon.

    I went to church with his family occasionally and I'm not about to bash any of it, they were good people, and since we weren't religious, I didn't give it much thought.

    The thing that shocked me the most, was far later, in my 20's, I went to Lutheran service with a girl.  Eating/drinking the body/blood of Christ seriously freaked me out.

    People who think a virgin kicked out an almighty being's kid who eventually turned water in wine, got murdered, and came back to life don't have any business making fun of other beliefs IMO.

    I have never seen a Star Wars movie because my friend's parents wouldn't let him see it, and he got picked on enough, no reason to him feel like an outcast more then he had to.  I did cheat and watch the Dukes of Hazard, but kept that under wraps.  But other then being a little more strict with TV and bedtime, they were far more normal then most, especially mine.

    I really wish people would stop, he's not going to push his religion in office, it a fairly pathetic cheap shot that even Gingrich hasn't succumb to.

    The one thing that to a kid was extremely cool, yet odd, and that no one else had, was the nuclear shelter we used to raid for for weird food and candy.  At the time is was a requirement of the faith, not sure if that is still true.

    Parent

    Romney is a social conservative (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:01:30 PM EST
    and will act consistently with Mormon belief on social issues--that is the issue.

    The LDS Church was instrumental in its support of the anti-gay Prop 8.  Some 80-90% of the volunteers in the pro-Prop 8 campaign were recruited directly by LDS Church leaders. The Catholic Church also supported Prop 8, but the Mormon Church made it happen.

    The LDS Church was instrumental a generation ago in killing the almost-passed Equal Rights Amendment for women.

    It is about the use of political muscle, not the Book of Mormon.

    Parent

    MKS - What everyone is trying to tell you (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 08:54:36 PM EST
    is that your fixation with the fact that Romney is a Mormon is appearing to be an obsession.

    If you want to keep the nut cases from the Right at bay don't get in the same game they're in.

    Parent

    You mean the "game" ... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Yman on Fri Feb 03, 2012 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    ... where they scream about "Shariah Law!" and call Obama "Hussein"?

    Heh.

    Parent

    The lowly (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    regard for the poor is not a "cultural choice". At least in the south, most of the poor whites vote for the GOP. For one thing, the GOP has convinced them that they are going to be rich one day if they just keep voting for the GOP and the other thing is that it's about "self esteem". The GOP comes down here and tells them they are "speshul" and "nobody understands their problems" like the GOP does and then blame someone else for their problems like "the other". It used to be black people the GOP was always blaming for the fact that their policies are basically plantation renewal until now they are dumping on Hispanics.

    Parent
    Yes, now that you mention it (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    there is a different view of poverty among Southern Republicans and Mormons.  
    \

    In the South, the "poor" is often coded language for African Americans....and that creates a different context.

    Parent

    I Disagree (none / 0) (#39)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    Nearly one in six people in this country are living in poverty, which is 46.2 million people that Mitt Romney doesn't care about.
    LINK

    Saying 90-95% is a real testament to how clueless he is in regards to how many Americans are actually very poor, or in poverty.  And most folks, even republicans, realize that it is political suicide to actually say you don't care about the poor, even with a silly safety net qualifier.

    The context was not changed, he doesn't care about the very poor, and to be honest, I don't think many politicians on either side.  But this is politics and stating publicly that you don't care about the a whole lot of really poor Americans does not site well with anyone.

    Americans care that their fellow citizens are in poverty, at least decent republicans and democrats do, where we split is on the solutions.

    Which brings be back to Romney, he doesn't care, he's not out there today saying he does, he's sticking with not caring.  Plus of course, if he actually did care he might actually know how many people he was actually writing off.

    Parent

    one name: (none / 0) (#82)
    by cpinva on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:55:01 PM EST
    rep. paul ryan.

    the republican (romney) method of "repairing" the safety net is to destroy it. problem solved. next issue please!

    Parent

    Psychoboy... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:31:09 AM EST
    Mark Levin was rabid last night...I caught a little of his show coming home from the rez (don't judge me, unintentional comedy only!;)...he basically called Romney a leftist.

    Can you imagine?  Funny sh*t.

    I know but (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:43:45 AM EST
    actually the fact that the lunatics in the party are attacking Romney actually would help him I would think.

    Just like McCain attacking Bush from the left in 2000 probably made him look pretty radical to the population at large this is kind of the reverse of that.

    Parent

    Perhaps... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    but the lunatics are committed voters, the GOP needs them all to come out to have any hope of winning.  

    When the diehards don't like ya and the independents don't like ya, ya got a problem.  I just don't see attacks from the far right helping Romney's image with independents all that much.

    Come to think of it, does anybody like Romney?  I saw a poll somewheres that said about a third of Fla GOP primary voters would have preferred another choice.    

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 11:58:10 AM EST
    but if you actually know any lunatics they are convinced that Obama is "evil" so that portion of the party will vote for anybody the GOP puts up.

    I certainly don't know what independents will do in the fall because apparently they don't care for Obama either.

    Heck probably 1/3 of Dem voters want someone else besides Obama too. What if they had an election and nobody showed up to vote?


    Parent

    That would be the day... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 12:02:10 PM EST
    things start to get better;)

    PJ O'Rourke has a point when he says "Don't vote, you only encourage the bastards."

    Parent

    So Romney (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    is not concerned about the very poor.

    What evidence do we have that Obama is concerned about the very poor?

    The old "Silent Majority" is back (none / 0) (#81)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 02, 2012 at 09:21:22 PM EST
    The old Republican "silent majority" meme is that the poor have the safety net, the rich are rich, and the middle class is screwed by the system.  The more you carp on Romney's interview, the more you make Romney's point for the people who he wants to hear it.