dagblog - Comments for "It’s not PC to be candid about candidates"

I, for one, was quite moved

Saladin — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 20:40:59 +0000

In reply to It’s not PC to be candid about candidates

I, for one, was quite moved when real Americans elected the first Muslim half-breed President. But I was sorta hoping that he actually was the AntiChrist. That would have been really interesting and religious distinctions would have significance beyond petty identity politics and misguided world views.

;-)

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 09:53:38 +0000

In reply to Oh crap. Still not entirely

;-)

I agree, kgb999. If Romney

MuddyPolitics — Sat, 05 Nov 2011 03:46:07 +0000

In reply to You are exactly right - Reid

I agree, kgb999. If Romney wins, it will be historic. I'll celebrate our nation's religious tolerance by having a beer. (Or I "would" celebrate assuming Romney were a Democrat and actually had a chance at being elected as a Mormon, and also assuming I and other Democrats embraced his conservative ideas.)

For the record, I wasn't out stoking the fires of religious bigotry then nor am I now. When I said "Americans elected the first black/Catholic president" that was a nice way of saying "Democrats elected the first black/Catholic president."

The fact is, Republicans have no record of racial or religious diversity when it comes to national races.

And the point is that it's ignorant to say that what happens in individual races with individual candidates in individual states somehow applies to every race and every candidate in every state. I'm not making that argument. I'm making the point that when it comes to Republicans being open to non-traditional (dare I say "unconventional") religions, or when it comes to Republicans electing black people, they are not historically open to the idea, nor do they have a strong record of actually doing so.

As for Reid, again he's one candidate in one state -- in this case a Mormon in a state with one of the highest Mormon populations in the country, and a member of the Democratic Party, a party whose voters are historically less encumbered by religious or racial intolerance than are Republicans.

Oh crap. Still not entirely

kgb999 — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:27:25 +0000

In reply to Not sure I see your

Oh crap. Still not entirely seeing your point ... but I *am* seeing it doesn't make much sense to try and construe it as if it was a reply to *my* comment.

My bad.

Not sure I see your

kgb999 — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:15:49 +0000

In reply to George Romney was governor of

Not sure I see your point.

How many members of "on the list" demographics can be said to have achieved similar feats - getting elected to represent regions that don't have a significant population of their particular ethnicity or religion? Shouldn't that mean we can downgrade them to a "Mormon" level and duplicate this agit-prop methodology in relation to any demographic that qualifies for a downgrade ... and proceed to trivially dismiss any who (correctly IMO) protest of racism, anti-Semitism, and so forth?

You are exactly right - Reid

kgb999 — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 23:03:13 +0000

In reply to Reid is a Mormon in a state

You are exactly right - Reid is a Democrat. Hence you, and those like you, weren't out stoking the fires of religious bigotry and hatred against him. It causes me to shudder how closely you stoking it to benefit your political objectives like this looks like what Richard Butler did here in CDA; even in the way you are washing your hands after getting called on the act with a big wink, nod and a shrug.

Americans elected the first Black president. They also elected the first Catholic president. They may just elect the first Mormon president. Americans occasionally celebrate diversity - not sure it matters what party chooses to present it. Democrats would do well not to forget that.

What you appear to be saying is that Romney presents an opportunity for an historic election - symbolic in it's beauty and showing that Americans can overcome old prejudice to elect the very first LDS president in history. Really, what does electing Obama a second time net us besides a "been there - done that" on the whole "historic" scale of elections? Romney provides a golden opportunity to once again feel good about our commitment to diversity. Right?

George Romney was governor of

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:38:40 +0000

In reply to Reid is a Mormon in a state

George Romney was governor of Michigan. Mitt Romney was governor of Massachussetts. Neither state has a significant Mormon population. Neither politician was a Democrat.

Reid is a Mormon in a state

MuddyPolitics — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 22:24:43 +0000

In reply to I find it interesting that

Reid is a Mormon in a state with a large Mormon population. And, he's a Democrat. Democrats will elect the first black president, the first Catholic president, and numerous ethnically diverse congressional representatives. Republicans have no such record of diversity. That's why it's not an issue for Reid. (Of course, the fact that Angle was a nutcase definitely helped. Reid stayed out of the limelight while Angle made a fool of herself every time she opened her mouth.)

Reverend Wright was

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:18:47 +0000

In reply to I find it interesting that

Reverend Wright was completely a Democratic op? Surely you need to sandblast the sparkplugs. McCain might have refrained because he had a whole machine to do his dirty work.

But I'm grateful you showed up to comment on my comment, since Lawd knows if you get upset every time someone Photoshops "person" or other accurate description on a head, you've got a lot of victims to shield.

I used the example of Harry Reid and "nobody knows" because that gives an idea how unimportant being Mormon is in America. Sure, there might be some discrimination, but it's not like the flap over Keith Ellison swearing in on a Koran, or "Obama the Magic Negro" out of Limbaugh. They don't send bug-eyed pictures of Harry Reid around, do they?

It's not whether Joe Lieberman is Jewish - it's whether people care or whether it's just another fact on the bio.

But feel free to worry about the rise in hate ~~crimes~~ Photoshopping against Mormons. Something has to keep you up at night, might as well be this.

I find it interesting that

kgb999 — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 20:12:16 +0000

In reply to I find it laughable that

I find it interesting that Harry Reid is a Mormon - running against what can only be described as the fringes of the fringe of a Tea Party popular lore asserts is defined by evangelical bigotry, prejudice and hate. Yet, amazingly, nobody slapped a big 'ole Mormon on his forehead and declared he had to explain to everyone that Mormons don't fuck their under-aged cousins.

I'm sure it's coincidence this shit seems to happen most in races that concern a Democrat. Thinking back, the whole Reverend Wright thing was also almost entirely a Democratic op too ... McCain specifically refused to let his people go there.

I really don't see as many redeeming qualities and high-road distinctions on "the left" as you all seem to see in yourselves.

Henry Waxman is Jewish ... so is Joe Lieberman ... so are others. Neato. By your math, call the ADL and tell them to find a worthwhile pass-time! Anti-Semitism has been cured as a problem for decades - silly Jews. With the election of Lieberman (as an independent over a Democrat and white guy) - stamping Jew on a candidates' head when they run for office can be seen as just a playful observation now. And, oh dayum, look at this shit - even though is a whole caucus of folks in congress who are black - and nobody even really seems to raise an eyebrow when they win these days - can you believe some folks think of "discrimination" as a problem?

Your logic is truly dizzying of late. In this case especially - when one considers you are speaking out in support of a post that uses as it's underlying premise an exploration of the idea anti-Mormon bigotry is so prevalent in America that being Mormon would disqualify a candidate for higher office. Skin color certainly didn't disqualify a black dude.

Maybe not being on the "big list" is a form of discrimination in itself.