dagblog - Comments for "Romney's Not A Witch"

You know what IS garbage?

Kudra — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 17:37:35 +0000

In reply to Oh Muddy, you make me laugh

You know what IS garbage? Calling someone "garbage".

I thought we had moderators on this site?

Thank you, Erica, for the

MuddyPolitics — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:49:07 +0000

In reply to Muddy, you will no doubt be

Thank you, Erica, for the constructive feedback.

McCain competed against

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:40:16 +0000

In reply to Gingrich won the South

McCain competed against Baptist Huckabee.

The only Baptist in this contest was Ron Paul - Santorum is also Catholic.

Oddly, Gingrich did best among evangelicals, not among Catholics.

And someone noted that Catholicism & Mormons are both rather conservative, and more welcome to the GOP than say Methodists.

Muddy, you will no doubt be

erica20 — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:58:08 +0000

In reply to Stung by defeat, Romney

Muddy, you will no doubt be taken to task for the dreadful things you've written here, but actually it's less calculated and slicky-boy than some of the other pieces I've seen from you, and in that sense it's quite refreshing--there's an opinion that comes through instead of something that's all tied up in journalistic knots.

(And I think you are right about Mormonism--I'm sure it makes perfect sense if you've grown up with it, but if you haven't, it looks a bubble off plumb, just like any other religion looks to people who haven't grown up in it. Quite a few people are too busy just getting through life to really think through the idea that weirdness seems to go along with religion, period, rather than one in particular.

These are funny times, though--who knew that Mitt's money might be more of a turnoff to Republican voters than his religion?)

But you don't actually care

Dan Kervick — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:36:17 +0000

In reply to Haha. Good point(s). Except

But you don't actually care who wins do you? In all of your several piece of political horserace analysis here, I don't think any of them have argued forthrightly in defense of any particular moral or policy positions.

Gingrich won the South

MuddyPolitics — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:43:05 +0000

In reply to Well, I still contend he

Gingrich won the South Carolina primary as a Catholic, with 8 percent more than McCain (a Baptist) did in '08.

Well, I still contend he

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:53:14 +0000

In reply to I'm fully satisfied that I

Well, I still contend he hasn't done anything ugly.

Mitt has a religion problem, and that problem is he's not Rick Santorum with a completely knee-jerk conservative Protestant agenda to please some 17% of the masses. If Santorum had any other skills, he'd be up to 40%, but he hasn't.

Gingrich can pretend to be on the road to forgiveness, and because he's the right denomination, he can be rich, censured, have a diamond account at Macy's, get lobbyist payouts from Fannie Mae and still he's at the front of the pack. Did Gingrich actually release his taxes? No, everything's buried in lump payouts with no itemized sourcing. But 43% of those who vote religion as important supported Gingrich - he's got his Lutheran, Southern Baptist & Roman Catholic roots covered, and the forgive-and-washed-of-sin works especially well in the south.

I think Muddy overstates the dog bit - the only one who seems to really care is Gail Collins, who's written about it 40 times. As for conservatives, no, this is just one of those National Lampoon Summer Vacation bits and you move on.

So basically Mitt is an outsider. Religion is one aspect, his actual success in business - however rapacious - is another. And he's not from the fringe of the fringe of the Republican party. Religion isn't his only problem, but it forms part of the trinity.

I'm fully satisfied that I

Bruce Levine — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:53:09 +0000

In reply to Haha. Good point(s). Except

I'm fully satisfied that I have done here what I intended to do. I have nothing against discussing religion and politics, but that is hardly what you've done here and certainly not previously. You've practiced what is ugly. Those who wish to believe otherwise are free to do so, and give you yet another benefit of the doubt. I think you've had enough benefits of the doubt. When you begin to write about religion and politics for the purpose of the type of analysis that makes this a wonderful place to exchange ideas, count me in. . .maybe. When you continue to play politics on here, and are ugly about it, and if I have the time or the inclination to bother responding, I'll write whatever I wish in the style I please. And you can take solace in accusing my suit of being empty and my ideas of being hollow. As I said to your buddy below, whatever rocks your boat.

Bruce, get a life, this is

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:14:54 +0000

In reply to Oh Muddy, you make me laugh

Bruce, get a life, this is all too boring but nasty as well.

People often don't use their real name because they don't want assholes calling them "garbage" in real life situations, or having the slightest controversial position discussing these sensitive topics thrown back in real life as "racist" or other slurs.

Or just don't want to make it easier to get on some don't fly list or government tracking list (yeah, it doesn't stop it - they've got the tools - but why make life easier?)

So stick to real points, please, not internet Miss Manners.

Haha. Good point(s). Except

MuddyPolitics — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 05:08:57 +0000

In reply to Oh Muddy, you make me laugh

Haha. Good point(s). Except where they fall apart. For one, I'm not hiding behind a screen name, as most people here know after the big fiasco a few months ago when I was "outed," even though such an investigation required only a quick Google search of "Muddy Politics," my "screen name."

Second, how quick you are to accuse me of discrimination in one paragraph, then in the next to undermine your own argument by making a rather broad claim that I'm inexperienced and lacking profundity...which is the same tired ageism argument some of your friends here have employed when they couldn't actually engage in a civil conversation about religion in American politics.

Gingrich, a serial philanderer who was booted from Congress for ethics violations, just won the South Carolina primary. They chose him over Romney, and nearly half of all voters said religion was a major factor in that decision.

Finally, I agree with your only real point--about Jews and "Moslems," as you call them--but the point itself is rather weakly constructed. A Jew or a Muslim indeed would have a difficult time getting elected in this country, and saying as much isn't bigotry. Being a Catholic isn't as big a deal, I don't believe, for two reasons: 1.) that social barrier was shattered by JFK's presidency; and 2.) there are millions more Catholics in America than Jews or Muslims or Mormons. But substituting Mormonism with Judaism would lead to the same conclusion, would it not? (I don't mean the "you're garbage" conclusion.) All you've proven here is that if I wrote something about a Jewish presidential candidate that you felt compelled to disagree with, but against which you couldn't mount a logical counter-argument, the same character attacks would be the first arrows out of your quiver, because that's all you've got. Never mind that the "Romney's not a witch" post contains not one single argument about Romney's religion, but five points about the difficulty he will have getting elected president. As tonight's S.C. primary has proven, and, arguably, as the Iowa caucuses demonstrated as well, Romney's issues are not singular, nor are they problems specific to his general election odds.