MuddyPolitics's picture

    Voter Ignorance is Bliss: Romney avoids 'the Mormon issue' this time around

    By MuddyPolitics on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 10:45pm |

     

    A majority of Americans don’t know that Mitt Romney is Mormon.
     
    Unlike in 2008, Romney isn't wearing his faith
    on his sleeve...or his forehead.
     
    According to the a Public Religion Research Institute poll, 42 percent of Americans can correctly identify Romney’s religious faith, while 45 percent admitted they didn’t know. Another 10 percent falsely answered that he is Protestant, Catholic, “something else” or “not religious.”
     
    When a Pew Research Center poll in early October showed that Romney is less known as the frontrunner in the 2012 Republican presidential race (27 percent) than he was as a third-tier, third-place finisher in the 2008 election cycle (30 percent), I put forth a theory that Romney’s under-the-radar campaign presence was more of a “victory-by-default” strategy than it was a casualty or a curse. 
     
    With his unflattering record of flip-flopping on hot-button issues, his unconventional religious views and his awkwardness when courting voters during off-camera public events, staying out of the limelight (including foregoing the presidential straw polls, as he’s done) serves to perpetuate the public’s disinterest in and ignorance of the Republican nomination contest.
     
    And maybe that’s the point.
     
     

    “If the party can’t make up its mind, and if the base doesn’t have a mind at all, the sensation-seeking Perrys, Bachmanns, Pauls and Cains will rise and inevitably fall by the sword of the media recognition they so ardently seek, leaving Romney as the last man standing.”

     
    So is this latest poll at all surprising?
     
    Not really.
     
    There are obvious reasons for not running on faith-based presidential campaign – the biggest one being that a third of Americans do not view Mormonism as a Christian religion (bad news for a Mormon Republican in the primary race). The other is that America is now more secular than it ever has been in its entire history (bad news for any religiously affiliated candidate in the general election).
     
    Other than a few controversial statements recently about Mormonism being a cult, the general public has had few opportunities to learn about Romney’s faith. Out of nine Republican presidential debates this year, Mormonism was mentioned a grand total of four times.
     
    And as the rather boring, uninspiring, buttoned-up frontrunner-by-default, Romney has steered clear of excessive media attention, which has allowed him to sit back and watch as the struggling campaigns of Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and most recently Herman Cain fight for the media’s and public’s attention with controversial statements, weird campaign advertisements or targeted character assassinations against one another. The other good news for Romney is that attacking a candidate’s religion is viewed no less harshly than attacking one’s family. His GOP challengers have mostly avoided the issue.
     
    That fact that Romney doesn’t mention his own religion in his own biography on his own presidential election website I think pretty well sums up the former Massachusetts governor’s strategy for winning the Republican nomination: voter ignorance is bliss.
     
    So far, the strategy seems to be working.
     
    In the two most recent public opinion polls (from Fox News and CBS News/NYT), Romney ranked just 4 percent and 6 percent above the “don’t know/too soon to tell/someone else” option. 
     
    This obviously isn’t where Romney needs to be polling in order to win the nomination, but it’s not something Romney is out on the campaign trail trying to correct. An under-the-radar strategy, given the extremist views of his competitors, may actually prove effective for the comparatively sane, level-headed Romney as voters start paying more attention to these candidates.
     
    In response to the question, “which Republican candidate for president has political views closest to your own?” 20 percent of respondents in the Public Religion Research Institute pollchose Romney, 17 percent said Herman Cain, and 12 percent picked Ron Paul. But the most revealing figure is the 42 percent didn’t know, refused to answer or chose “none” or “other.”
     
    In the same poll, when asked about which candidate’s religious beliefs are closest to their own, a combined 63 percent of respondents didn’t know, refused to answer or chose “none” or “other.” Only 7 percent said Romney.
     
    Again, this may not necessarily be a hindrance as much as it has the potential to be an asset.
     
     
    The Romney campaign has reason to celebrate the findings of this and other surveys.
     
    Though 36 percent of Americans do not believe Mormonism is a Christian religion, a majority (52 percent) don’t actually know that Romney is Mormon.
     
    Late 2010 and early 2011 presidential polls consistently showed that a generic, nameless, faceless Republican candidate was more popular than President Obama, but when poll respondents were asked to pick between specific Republican candidates, Obama had a clear advantage.
     
    Could the same theory apply to Romney and Mormonism?
     
    If a majority doesn’t know that Romney is a Mormon, then a majority is viewing this question more as a survey of religious tolerance in America than as a survey of the country’s sentiments toward Romney specifically. It is a generic question about a generic Mormon candidate in a hypothetical scenario, and few will be inclined to answer yes, they are intolerant of other, “non-Christian” religions.
     
    A Gallup poll over the summer showed that one in five Americans would not vote for a Mormon candidate. That is fairly consistent with the 17 percent in the CNN/ORC International poll who said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate.
     
    When nearly a fifth of the electorate is willing to cast him out regardless of his views on domestic policy, his plans for the economy, or his ideas about tax reform, Romney is smart not to mention his faith during the debates or to include anything whatsoever about Mormonism in the biography on his website.
     
    We unfortunately don’t live in a country whose voters are adequately educated about or even terribly interested in the differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the more publicized, more scandalized Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
     
    Unless Romney can find a big enough microphone – an American Idol-sized microphone – to explain to the American people that he is not in a cult, that he is not a polygamist, and that regular, everyday Mormons actually don’t marry their teenaged cousins, he’s better off doing what he’s doing now: ignoring the issue.
     
    Perhaps he learned a lesson from his 2008 presidential bid, when he publicly acknowledged his faith in a speech aimed at voters who were skeptical about Mormonism. As evidenced by his third-place finish in that primary, the speech wasn’t nearly as effective as the Romney camp might have hoped.
     
    “A 2007 Pew poll showed that 41 percent of white evangelicals who went to church weekly said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon,” The Christian Post wrote recently. “John Green, a Pew analyst and expert in religion and politics at the University of Akron in Ohio, said in a February 2011 commentary that Mormonism continues to be among the least popular religions in America. White evangelical Protestants, he continued, view the faith’s doctrines with suspicion and its missionaries as ‘competitors.’ ”

    Comments

    Wow. Really? This is going to be the narrative Democrats use to open their acknowledgement Romney is the likely candidate ... stoke the fires of religious bigotry?

    Oh, wait ... it's not YOU being bigoted; it's just you *observing* that others are ... and if that involves pointing out time after time after time (with a big-ole graphic in case someone missed it) ... on the off chance someone *does* happen to be bigoted ... THIS GUY IS THE ONE TO BE BIGOTED AGAINST!!!! ... well, it's not your fault.

    Of course, you have no problem with the idea of a Mormon for president. Right?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 11:09pm

    Stoking 'fires of bigotry' is a tried and true means to get out the vote in America! To demean it is to derogate our traditions! Bigotry is, in fact, the last and steadfast refuge for the low information voter.

    I wouldn't mind voting for a Mormon, it would be easier though if they'd open up The Great Temple in SLC to all, so we can see.....what the heck goes on in there!


    by NCD on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 7:11pm

     

    MP, you write reasonably well. Why not leave the pseudo-authoritative analysis of pointless polls and uninformed opinion to TV pundits and Op-Ed columnists, who do it so well all day long, and write instead about things that matter?

    There will be time to cover the politicians when people actually start caring about the next election, which, according to the polls you cite, is not happening yet.

    For example, I'd be curious to know your thoughts about Medicare for all; the financial transactions tax; public financing of political campaigns; public financing of education, for goodness sake; getting our troops out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later; expanding the benefits of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; a public takeover of Bank of America and Citibank; prosecuting Wall Street criminals; solving the housing crisis; ending the War on Drugs and more.


    by Red Planet on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:05am

    Hmmmm, not sure why everyone's so down on Muddy.

    Typically everyone makes a big show of their religion going into elections - it's right up there with kissing baby butts.

    Since the GOP draws much of its passion by conflating religion with policy, it's interesting watching a GOP leader who downplays his religious ties.

    Frankly, I like it if Mitt flip-flops rather than adhere to a rigid hateful Republican mindset. Some doubts would be a good thing.

    Re: "It will be a weird irony if the black guy beats the Mormon guy because more people are bigoted in voting against Mormons than black people." Well, that was part of what happened in 2008 - sexism was more acceptable than racial bigotry - not the full story, but certainly had its effect on the race.

    In any case, I somehow think GOP voters will grit teeth and vote Mormon before sitting it out or voting for Obama. I don't think Muddy's sending out a dog whistle by posting to a backwater liberal site, vs. say whatever Karl Rove & Rush Limbaugh determine will be the outrage du jour for the conservative side of the aisle.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 7:44am

    Hmmmm, not sure why everyone's so down on Muddy.

    Two  possible explanation

    1) There was a slight lull in the activity here at Dag.

    Now theres blood in the water, "Look out Muddy, Don't thrash in these waters, the smarter sharks are not fooled so easily. Chum

    2) Some of us are so frustrated by the inept leadership of the Democratic party, we'll take our frustrations out, on supporters of the inept. It's the supporters fault we've got this mess, nothing will change, if the supporters continue to support ineptness.

    (I just threw out some red meat,...... wheres TMC?)   smiley


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:47am

    If you can unify your theory into 1, we can get all the piranhas, barracudas and Venus flytraps out as well. La Grande Bouffe..


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:57am

    I believe someone mentioned in an earlier post, about the different levels of ability.

    I could extrapolate that information and say it represents the food chain. Sharks at the top  Venus fly traps at the bottom. If only I could make a graph.

    That would bring in number two as well, there are bait fish.......... worms and slugs.

    With worms and slugs, the higher predators are less satisfied, they don't take the bait, easily spitting out the hook.

    La Grande Bouffe indeed.  

    Problem is, whose eating our lunch, ........the greedy 1% ? Those at the top of the food chain?


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:23am

    Resistance,  you seem intent on bringing me into a discussion I could care less about. Why is that?

    Do you think I am here to defend MP and whatever he writes? He doesn't need me to do that you know. And let's be clear, I wasn't defending MP's blog content down there, I was defending his right to blog and not be accused of being an operative sent here by Barack Obama himself.  In case you didn't understand it, that is what the entire discussion was about. 

    You think on that for a while, k, if you can actually see the distinction.  Do you want me here so you can copy and paste more wiki stuff and twist it into insults and name calling?  Well good luck with that okay, in the meantime, if I am not commenting on someone's blog, then leave me the hell out of your discussions.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:10am

    I was dog whistling someone named TMC, why the hell you sticking your nose in someone elses business tmccarthy0

    Are you stalking?

    I threw red meat out there and you came running.

    Muddy threw red meat out there and you came running.

    Why should I ignore a truth; whenever anybody slams Obama, or threatens to undermine the Obamabots objectives,  you'll come running to defend Obamabots, attacking Dan K viciously.

    The name TMC is synonymous with defenders of the Obamabots. 

    Hypocrite

    You say "I was defending his right to blog" and out of the same mind set you say,

    "Do you want me here so you can copy and paste more wiki stuff "

    Sorry to disappoint you,  tmccarthy0,  Copy and paste is the way I blog.

    Dan believed Muddy had an agenda. Obamas campaign staff has an agenda.

    Is it possible Muddy and Obama's handlers are in collusion? That was Dan's issue, as I understood the thread.

    I'm sorry, did I out TMC........ TMC is really tmccarthy?  

    From my understanding when reading Muddy's post and accompanying thread , your incitement and panic created the firestorm.   Quinn became a casualty, because you set the tone by raising issues of TOS. 

    This ones a real gem “Resistance, you seem intent on bringing me into a discussion I could care less about. Why is that?

    Why is that,  Gets to motive.

    How dare Dan questions muddys motive,  "of being an operative sent here by Barack Obama himself"  (hyperbole?)

    Addressing the motive behind your attack on Dan; Go after anybody that might cause a splintering of the Democratic party.

    Quinn down, and you were looking to accuse Dan, so he could be stricken too, leaving only a few in opposition to TMC s agenda.


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:09pm

    Some tips for you:

    http://smartzonepsychology.blogspot.com/2010/07/how-not-to-be-drama-quee...


    by artappraiser on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 4:43pm

    I think you can give this tip to someone else wink


    by Resistance on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 2:25am

    I'm not down on Muddy, Peracles. I'm down on election chatter. Seems nothing is important except in terms of how it affects the next election.


    by Red Planet on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:31am

    You wouldn't want your Social Security cut by anyone other than a Democrat ... WOULD YOU?


    by kgb999 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:45pm

    Well, that was part of what happened in 2008 - sexism was more acceptable than racial bigotry - not the full story, but certainly had its effect on the race.

    It couldn't have been that Hillary was a totally polarizing figure and while she entered the race with sky-high name recognition, she also carried a plethora of long-simmering ill will from internal partisan struggles along with significant negatives for a pretty decent chunk of the wider electorate carried over from the triangulated partisan bickering and Free Trade bullshit from the Clinton years?

    MP's post here really did give me an instant flash to Geraldine Ferraro's "Inadequate black man" tirade. Seems progressives/democrats certainly have no problem promoting and benefiting from prejudice if it suits their objectives ... just like Republicans/conservatives. The fact that it's commonly done in American politics doesn't make those who are willing to do it any less lame as shit.

    IMO, this actually isn't about the general election though. This kind of shit is gets broken out closer to voting - you try and flog it for a year after Romney's answered the questions and the press starts to get antsy. Going all-in with it now kind of burns the issue for team Obama to an extent later on closer to the general when it might be useful to shave a point or two if the election is close. To me this shows Obama is scared as hell about this election - he's already breaking out the dirty tricks with a year to go.

    I don't know if you noticed, the Democrats have spent the last 12 months fantasizing about every fringe-character and loon rising to be Obama's opponent - thus fulfilling their fantasy of them-against-the-teabag-nation-for-the-hearts-of-reasonable-conservative-America. All of a sudden it's dawning on them ... "Hey, wait a second ... we're almost to the primaries; nobody from the GOP has really been beating up the guy who's clearly most likely to prevail; and we've been wasting all of our time stroking our base's fear of Teabaggers to get them to swallow this fucked up agenda and haven't framed the guy at all."

    The Dem strategists know Obama's been polling pretty much even or behind Romney for quite some time. Their best bet is to try and influence the primary to draw a candidate other than Romney. IMO, this push is geared to trying to get the GOP primary voters who would be expected to break his direction after the Perry/Cain media implosions to balk at embracing Romney.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:44pm

    "The Dem strategists know Obama's been polling pretty much even or behind Romney for quite some time."

    Um, no:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html


    by Ethanator on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 4:37pm

    Oh yes, Hillary polarizing, Obama kumbaya.

    Glad he kept us out of wars and didn't triangulate and pulled us away from poor Free Trade agreements and ...

    But yes, it's her fault that the WaPo had to cover her cleavage-showing sweater - twice - and put up a front page article on why Bill might be sleeping with someone else because they spend so much time apart, and TV announcers had to do Nurse Ratched/cross legs jokes and rhymes with "rich" and come on to advertise "cunt t-shirts" 

    It's Hillary's fault - she's so polarizing.

    And Sarah Palin once won a beauty pageant, so she deserved every gratuitous physical comment she got.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 4:48pm

    I don't object to your noting that being Mormon is a tough sell politically—lots of people have written about that—but I thought your piece ran on and some of the statements seemed repetitive. There were also a few stats cited without obvious sources. On the positive side, I hadn't considered whether Romney was downplaying it this time, which says something about Romney as chameleon.


    by Donal on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 8:38am

    Worth considering 2 items you mention:

    "In the same poll, when asked about which candidate’s religious beliefs are closest to their own, a combined 63 percent of respondents didn’t know, refused to answer or chose “none” or “other.” Only 7 percent said Romney."

    “A 2007 Pew poll showed that 41 percent of white evangelicals who went to church weekly said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon,” 

    It seems that there's a bigger disconnect between general Republicans and evangelicals. 63% of Republicans haven't figured out the candidates' religions, and 7% support Romney, leaving only 30% who might be holding out for a non-Mormon.

    My guess is this is all less of an issue than the press would like it to be. Not something to promote, certainly, as that drops a few percentage points in best case, but no one's checking out church credentials (nor birth certificates, I'd hazard)

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 9:43am

    The prospective Republican presidential nominee is hiding from his own religion.

    That is interesting on several levels. One, he's a Republican trying his best to prove to the conservative base that he's conservative enough to represent them not only in the general election, but as the leader of the free world. Typically, Republicans use their religion to appeal to conservative voters. Because Romney's religion is unconventional (however offensive that statement of fact may be), and because it is unpopular among the conservatives he needs in order to win, Romney is smart to avoid it.

    2. The fact is, the skepticism about Mormonism is indeed proof of bigotry. But Romney already attempted to explain that his faith in his last presidential bid. It didn't move the needle for him. The American people remained skeptical, and one in five still admit they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. That fact may be offensive to Mormons, but stating that fact isn't; analyzing closed-mindedness in America is not a justification for said closed-mindedness.

    3. Romney has accepted the dark reality on this subject, and he has avoided making an issue of it. That is politically intelligent.

    We unfortunately don’t live in a country whose voters are adequately educated about or even terribly interested in the differences between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the more publicized, more scandalized Fundamentalist ​Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    It's wrong that this matters, but Romney is the one who has decided that it's better to avoid the issue than to try and educate the entire country about religious tolerance. It didn't work before, and it won't work this time.

    ​This is America, folks. It's not always beautiful, although I apologize to those who want to continue believing that it is.


    by MuddyPolitics on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 10:50am

    For those who are questioning MP's motives, while I can't claim to know what they are (heck, I often don't know what my motives are for posting things), I do think a critical analysis of some of the more devious suggestions is worthwhile:

    1. MP wants us to know that Romney is a Mormon because he's read that many Americans don't know this (AKA the "dogwhistle hypothesis"). I can't completely rule this out, but if MP is at all familiar with the typical dagblogger, he'd know that we already know that Romney is a Mormon. Additionally, I'm pretty sure he's not the first dagblogger to mention this as an issue for Romney, or even to stress it.
    2. MP wants to convince us not to vote for Romney. Again, if MP is at all familiar with the typical dagblogger, that would be like trying to convince me not to pray.

    So, what does that leave? Well, maybe he's just like many of us here and he likes to ruminate on things he finds interesting, such as the difference in Romney's strategy now and for the 2008 election.

    Edit to add: However, MP should also take note of how he's being received. When even Articleman begins questioning your motives, perhaps it's time to consider what aspects of your message are causing these alarms to go off. In this case, one thing might be the unnecessary picture of Romney with the word "Mormon" stamped on his head.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:02am

    Thanks for this.  Reading the reaction to MP's posts, I can't escape the feeling that the only type of sentiment that lefties find objectionable any more is unqualified support for Barack Obama.


    by Ethanator on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:09am

    The thing is, I greatly respect many of MP's critics, and although I don't know why they're finding his posts particularly onerous (except for the Gadaffi one - that one I also found quite objectionable), I know that for several of them at least (e.g., the aforementioned Articleman) it's not because MP has strongly supported Obama.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:19am

    I agree with you on the Mormon stamp on the forehead.  It's a fine line to walk between pointing out that the side that votes based on bigotry against the other is in the position of being forced to support that other on a political campaign, and making statements that can be construed as bigoted yourself.  and I'm not sure it's line MP has successfully walked in this case.

    But I still think the way many of the regulars have jumped on this blogger en masse and with both feet have more to do with the fact that they will use any means to tamp down writing that is unreservedly pro-Obama than these matters of tone or style which they are trying to focus on.   


    by Ethanator on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:41pm

    But I still think the way many of the regulars have jumped on this blogger en masse and with both feet have more to do with the fact that they will use any means to tamp down writing that is unreservedly pro-Obama than these matters of tone or style which they are trying to focus on.

    I reject that. Many of MP's harshest critics here are also some of the loudest pro-Obama voices here.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:04pm

    And a few less-than-fans-of-Obama have defended MP's right to speak.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 4:51pm

    "Many of MP's harshest critics here are also some of the loudest pro-Obama voices here."

    If we're thinking of the same individuals, then you would define "loudly pro-Obama" differently than I.


    by Ethanator on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:19pm

    I've read a lot about Romney, and every other candidate. I found it interesting that nowhere did I see anyone note that Romney's biography failed to mention his faith. Nor have I come across the statistic that "Mormon" or any derivation thereof had been mentioned only four times in nine debates. These facts may be out there, but again, I hadn't come across them.

     


    by MuddyPolitics on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:43am

    Nor have I come across the statistic that "Mormon" or any derivation thereof had been mentioned only four times in nine debates.

    I don't think that is very unusual.  Although the standards have changed a bit, there is a long-standing convention in American politics that a person's religion is a private matter, and is out of bounds.


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:55am

    Just as a thought experiment, are any of us surprised that "Methodist" (what Perry was before recently joining a mega-church) or "Lutheran" (what Bachmann presumably still is, although she recently left her church) haven't been mentioned at all (as far as I know) during the debates?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:10pm

    John Huntsman's bio also doesn't mention it.

    Nor does Barack Obama's.

    Herman Cain's mentions "faith in God," but only in reference to his parents.

    The absence of something might not imply that it's being hidden.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 11:58am

    Even two of the most overtly religious candidates, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann, don't mention their faiths in their bios. (Bachmann's bio does say "She is also a defender of the unborn and staunchly stands for religious liberties", but if one didn't know her better one might imagine that applied to all religions.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:07pm

    FWIW, although I've just argued that the low frequency of "Mormon" in his bio and in the debates isn't very telling, I do think that people have expressly mentioned a lack of willingness to vote for a Mormon and Romney's change in strategy from 2008 are.

    I agree with many here (and presumably you) that his faith shouldn't be an issue. Again, as a thought experiment, I wonder how opinions even here would differ if he were a Scientologist? We already know that opinions would be even worse of him (not for most dagbloggers, but for many voters) if he were an atheist.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:14pm

    Stuff like this is only interesting to those interested in flogging bigotry. If you can't beat the guy on ideas ... just hang it up and go home.

    The thing I find most interesting is that you appear to have jumped the gun by 12 hours. I was wondering where the OFA crew was going to break this over into the mainstream (with a big-ole splash on the Mains no less).

    Hint: if you aren't filling the role of opinion-driver ... wait until after a big-boy implements the strategy before showing your team's hand. Otherwise the whole "this is really important to people" line doesn't actually make much sense yet. You simply made it totally obvious where your teammates were heading. And, frankly, to me, this really does give a LOT more weight to the observation others have made about it appearing you are professionally coordinating with a branch of the party's messaging apparatus. That fact doesn't bug me like it seems to bug some of the others ... but it should be noted.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:22pm

    OK, I withdrew my objections because I didn't want to be the center of another foray, but to those of you who think this is no big deal, I have to ask what the fuck is wrong with you?   Really, and with respect.

    Call me tribal, but if somebody did this to a Jewish candidate, and stamped "Jew" on his picture, I'd find out who that person was and make his or her as miserable as I possibly could. 

    This lofty tolerance meme, and alleged parsing of some kind of scientific exception to this kind of "analysis" is absolute nonsense and inexcusable. There is a difference between focusing on whether the American voting public will vote for a mormon, versus making a thing out of the fact that Romney is allegedly hiding his religion.  What kind of garbage logic is it to write "other than the stamp on the friggin picture of the dude" there is nothing wrong with this dog-whistling stuff?  Give me a break.

    This is really ridiculous.  Now we have people coming in and saying people like me who have gone to the mat for the president on here are just criticizing this kind of irresponsible bigotry because we don't like Obama?  Give me a fucking break.

    I am really disappointed in some of these responses.  MP is MP, and he's going to keep doing this stuff.  But some of you I know and respect, and I'm surprised at the level of enabling going on here.

    I wouldn't vote for Romney in a million years, but I will defend him against this tripe.  And so too should each and every one of you.

    Bruce S. Levine

    New York, New York

     


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:24pm

    What, like this?


    by Donal on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:37pm

    I don't get your point Donal.  Are you joking, or are you suggesting that we evaluate comedy in the same way we evaluate political analysis?  I think I hold the Onion to different standards than I do the New York Times.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:49pm

    I think Jon Stewart is clearly more than just a comedian. Did you see that piece?

     


    by Donal on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:59pm

    No, and can't do that now.  I will, and remind me if it changes my fence-straddling views on this subject!


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:03pm

    A few things. First, although I explicitly mentioned Articleman as someone who definitely wasn't doing this just because he didn't like Obama, I could have just as easily mentioned you (in fact, I almost added your name, but then I thought that if I mentioned more than one person explicitly, those I didn't mention would think I was questioning their motives). I know that your dislike of MP's writing has nothing to do with MP's support of Obama.

    Secondly, I agree that the picture with "Mormon" stamped on Romney's head was ill-advised, but I'd also argue that it's not the same as stamping "Jew" because of the difference in the history of those two groups. I'm definitely not intending to give you (of all people) a lecture on that, just saying that I do think there is a difference between the two.

    I also think that referring to his Mormonism as "unconventional religious views" probably unwittingly revealed MP's own bias and is a legitimate point of criticism. However, I've also seen some here have a much less generous description of Scientology. (That shouldn't be taken as a defense of being dismissive of Mormonism, however.)

    So, why do we read this so differently? I don't know, but clearly we do. I think MP is comparing the strategies of Romney in 2008 versus Romney in 2012 and saying that he thinks that the Romney strategy in 2012 is more savvy. I don't see that bit as a criticism of Romney. It's also true that I can occasionally be guilty of being blind to things I don't want to see. Maybe that's the case here. I'm definitely given pause that you (and Articleman and others I respect) read this very differently than I do.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:44pm

    My bad, so it's not just "other than the picture with the stamp", it's now "other than the picture with the stamp and "unconventional religious views" everything is OK, and why should anyone be disturbed?  Sorry VA, I don't buy what you're saying here.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:49pm

    The picture was bizarre in my opinion, and the "unconventional religious views" usage telling. But, yes, other than those two things I didn't see anything in there that couldn't have been written by Another Trope, coatesd, or Articleman (see also here), just to name a few dagbloggers who clinically analyze controversial topics.

    In fact, I made a similar point about a month ago. No one got upset with me, as far as I can tell.

    Maybe I'm missing something. Seriously, I'm not just saying that. Other than those two things, what else about this post is problematic?


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:59pm

    Don't forget my personal favorite!

    Unless Romney can find a big enough microphone – an American Idol-sized microphone – to explain to the American people that he is not in a cult, that he is not a polygamist, and that regular, everyday Mormons actually don’t marry their teenaged cousins, he’s better off doing what he’s doing now: ignoring the issue.

    Yes, yes. Romney needs to find a big enough micropohone to explain to the American people that regular, every-day Mormons actually don't marry their teenaged cousins. WTF.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:13pm

    OK, I can understand how if one thinks that MP is "concern trolling" then this would be supporting evidence. However, if MP is not concern trolling, then couldn't this be interpreted as an indictment on the American people? Yes, maybe I'm guilty of giving him too much benefit of the doubt, but if one assumes that he's not trolling then I find it pretty easy to compare what he's written to stuff that other people have written (including me) and that I linked to in my response to bslev above. The picture is another story, but then again, most of us don't usually use pictures. I know that many of us here have said some pretty offensive things at one point or another.

    I remember a while back there was an "oreo" debate with a surprising number (but gladly a minority) of people not being bothered by it. Maybe I'm as deaf to the Mormon insults as some here were to the oreo insults. I'll admit that I don't know a single Mormon, even on a casual basis. The closest I've come is the Mormons I met while I was working on my genealogy research many years ago, but I don't think I ever exchanged more than a few words with them. Maybe if I knew more Mormons, I'd understand more of the heated responses here. Maybe the same applies to MP.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 2:01pm

    Indeed. This here.

    Is totally different ... than this.

     

    Seriously, the measure you use to determine if a group deserves defense in the face of prejudice and basic respect for their beliefs in public discourse is number of people that have lost their lives within the group as a result of the wider public failing to stand up and say "fuck that shit" as they were being attacked with prejudice and intolerance historically? Doesn't it kind of piss in the face of "learning from history" if we wait until AFTER a holocaust to speak out against this kind of shit?


    by kgb999 on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:00pm

    Obviously both of those pictures you posted are offensive, and I also take objection to the picture that MP posted. Also obviously I shouldn't have attempted to create some sort of "scale of offensiveness". It's never a good idea, as it usually gets misunderstood as a defense of items deemed "less offensive" by the scale's creator. My point was that I think that Mormons currently have less of a feeling of being targeted than Jews, but even that is based purely on my uninformed ignorance, as I don't have any meaningful way to measure such a claim.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:07pm

    "Doesn't it kind of piss in the face of "learning from history" if we wait until AFTER a holocaust to speak out against this kind of shit?"

    Aargh, that's the kind of hysterical reasoning that turns Godwin's Law into a necessity. There wasn't a huge pogrom against Mormons the way there was against Russian Jews with thousands killed over several waves.

    And of course, Jews weren't bringing in polygamy, they weren't a young cult, they weren't ex-communicating their own for not toeing the line with official dogma.

    There were of course historical wars due to the Reformation, and funny, I don't see that.

    So get a grip. Every ethnic group in America had discrimination, from Irish and Poles and Italians and Blacks and natives, while religious groups have had their own discrimination, such as Catholics in the south, Muslims now, etc.

    In other words, put away the smelling salts. Mitt was governor of Mass, his father governor of Michigan, no one's pulling out pitchforks - he's the front runner for GOP candidate after all.

     


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:39pm

    Be careful, someone might accuse you of a Godwin, because you mentioned holocaust.

    They don't want to hear the truth, of how in the modern history of civilized people, some starved and incinerated others, because of religion.

    Don't bring up German atrocities, they would rather remain blind and deaf.

    Then they can deny it could ever happen again.  

    LA, LA, LA, LA, LA  I cant hear you. you're breaking the rules/law  Godwins law , Godwins law, Godwins law. Shut up! You're breaking Godwins law" 


    by Resistance on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 3:38pm

    Bruce, Mormons haven't suffered like Jews from labeling and pogroms.

    So you really can't just equate the two and pretend it holds water.

    I understand your view and you're squeamish about it, but it's not even close to anti-semitism, racism against Blacks & Hispanics, or even the current targeting of Muslims in the US.

    Yes, it's bigotry, but it's not like Mormons don't have major control in 3 or 4 states and are still accepted except for *possibly* a rare presidential run. (we haven't actually proved that being Mormon has significant detriment at the ballot, and of course it didn't seem to hurt the political fortunes of 2 generations of Romneys)


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 12:54pm

    Peracles, for what it's worth, I believe that Mormons suffered quite a bit in the 19th century at the hands of their American brothers and sisters.  But I'm not sure I understand why that's relevant.  Bigotry is bigotry, and we should try to be vigilant in combating it whenever it rears its incredibly ugly and divisive head. 


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:01pm

    No, we don't rush around tilting at windmills or getting gas because of every ethnic or religious affront.

    People fight all the time, they're prejudiced all the time, it sometimes gets out of hand, most times it's contained.

    Most people can't even name a single Mormon outside of the Osmond family.

    This is a non-problem in search of an outrage.


    by PeraclesPlease (not verified) on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:42pm

     

    Bruce, Mormons haven't suffered like Jews from labeling and pogroms.

    Well, although I don't think it has the same historic importance, there is Missouri Executive Order 44, where Governor Boggs

    directed that "the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace—their outrages are beyond all description."


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:03pm

     

    Seriously...Mitt Romney is attempting to appeal to a base that doesn't understand his faith but whichconsiders religion to be an important factor in gauging a candidate's eligibility for public office.

    While 21% of evangelical voters say Romney's political views are closest to their own, he continues to struggle with a demographic that distrusts his religion.

    http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2011/10/poll_of_the_week_faith_of_the....

    OMG! They said his religion can't be trusted! 

    Cain is singing Gospel music at public events, for cryin' out loud. Bachmann's entire reason for joining the race, similar to George W. Bush's and Rick Perry's, was because God called on her to run. Santorum talks about his faith every time he gets on stage.

    There's a difference here folks. The fact is, Romney will not be judged based on the policies he proposes or the merit of his economic plans. It's petty and ignorant, but it's a fact. Oh wait, I already said as much.

    When nearly a fifth of the electorate is willing to cast him out regardless of his views on domestic policy, his plans for the economy, or his ideas about tax reform, Romney is smart not to mention his faith during the debates or to include anything whatsoever about Mormonism in the biography on his website. 


    by MuddyPolitics on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:15pm

    Your tactical approach seems to be that since many conservative voters are bigoted, its up to liberal bloggers to trumpet information about Romney's religion - framed in the right concern-trolling context of course - so that we can take advantage of conservative bigotry to damage Romney.

     

    What other information should we promote and stamp in scarlet letters on the pictures of our opponents?

    Lesbian sister?

    African-American great grandfather?

    Best friend is Catholic?

    Sired a baby with Vietnamese woman?

    Father was Muslim?

     

    There is nothing unusual about these techniques, of course.  They are old-school campaign tricks.

     


    by Dan Kervick on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 1:46pm

    This is an interesting comment from a previous Romney-related post. http://dagblog.com/politics/wolfrums-morning-say-it-mitts-face-10746

    Mitt, I understand that Mormons are supposed to wear their funny undies at any time that it is appropriate. If you are elected will you consider your inauguration to be an appropriate time to wear them?

     

     The objections it raised are startling. Oh wait.


    by MuddyPolitics on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 7:47pm

    You must have done quite a bit of research to find one comment in a thread, not a blogpost, from June of 2011, to prove what?  In my world we call that flailing.


    by Bruce Levine on Wed, 11/02/2011 - 8:12pm

    Latest Comments