You get Mitt for President and you get hacks all the way down. Just as Mitt weakly opposed excessive sick leave cash-outs by Massport, he can be expectedly to overlook waste in the executive branch.
Mitt as President will leave the U.S.A. the way he left Massachusetts: with all his buddies & donors drawing government paychecks and pensions regardless of their capacity to perform the duties of office.
Yup, Mitt would gladly have the voters discuss his beliefs, because it means they aren’t discussing his actions. His beliefs may be conservative but his actions aren’t conservative–especially with taxpayers’ money.
Please share widely!
I just read all (at the time) 125 comments and even left a little posting in the corner.
<
p>
I want those 30 minutes of my life back.
sucking the life-force out of readers around Massachusetts for over two years! đŸ™‚
Comes to mind as an appropriate fictional counterpart. What I wonder, somewhat sadly, is just what [or who] Willard Mitt Romney sees in the mirror. The person and candidate I knew [or thought I knew] during the Senate race seems to have vanished utterly.
<
p>
See link for those to whom my literary reference is obscure:
<
p>
http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
My analogy is that like the “Picture of Dorian Gray” – as shown in the youtube video linked via this site, every expedient change of opinion for political gain takes on a life of its own, like Dorian’s portrait and is there, really, for all to see.
he sees a future President. I think that’s safe to say.
Comes to mind as an appropriate fictional counterpart. What I wonder, somewhat sadly, is just what [or who] Willard Mitt Romney sees in the mirror. The person and candidate I knew [or thought I knew] during the Senate race seems to have vanished utterly.
<
p>
See link for those to whom my literary reference is obscure:
<
p>
http://en.wikipedia….
<
p>
My analogy is that like the “Picture of Dorian Gray” – every expedient change of opinion for political gain takes on a life of its own, like Dorian’s portrait and is there, really, for all to see. The internet has made such chameleon behavior accessible to all.
Sorry đŸ™‚
<
p>
Religon and specifically Mormonism are topics that we typically have to tip toe around. It has given us the oppurtunity to expose some of our fears, concerns, biases, and ignorances on a topic that affects us all but for some reason never be spoken about.
<
p>
I think there is room for a very real debate about whether or not certain religious views impede progress, and if they do, what are the proper ways to approach discussion.
I think, again looking at Mitt-TV the Romney Problem is one not of “religion” but of what sure looks like packaging himself without integrity in order to get nominated by a Republican party taken over by its right wing.
<
p>
Does anyone seriously think today’s Republican party could nominate someone with the independence of mind of Eisenhower, or the commonsense of Nelson Rockefeller?
<
p>
What does it serve a man to lose his soul and gain a nomination?
For me, Mitt’s religion is only a small, small, portion of the debate. You’re absolutely right, and as others have said, there are so many other things to slag Mitt about.
<
p>
But I am truly fascinated: why does religion and its role in informing political policy get a critical free pass? If reason and evidence shows Mormonism to be on shakey factual ground, why is it wrong to voice this concern out loud? Why is it OK for so many Evangelicals to vote for a candidate based on thier religion but it is not OK for secular types to vote a gainst someone based on religion? Why are people OK with the idea that 67% of Americans would not vote for an atheist running for president?
<
p>
The other thread, for me, isn’t so much about Mitt as it is about the way in which we intergrate the dialogues of politics, faith, and reason. Evangelicals are organized and want to make this nation more Christian. I reject the idea that the US needs to be goverened in accordence to fundemental Christianity. If a politician is going to oppose gay marriage, I want real reasons for opposition, not lame rhetoric about protecting the family, you know? And I think a lot of legitimate criticism towards religion and its political influence is silenced in the name of ‘tolerence’.
<
p>
These are the ideas that I am truly interested in teasing out in the other thread.
advocated by religious candidates, and I certainly am not comfortable with the fundamentalist agenda…however, that is because of the substance of the agenda (such as ditching the separation of church and state) rather than questions of whether their religion is “legitimate.” I think one thing that should be beyond criticism is whether a particular faith is “legitimate.” Unless it can be proven that the faith in question exists for no other reason but to qualify someone for tax-exempt status, the “legitimacy” of the faith itself should not be an issue. However, a candidate who honestly and sincerely believes in things that we regard as … insane… is not someone we want in office.
…to an “All faiths are created equal” position.
<
p>
I mean, I cannot hold Roman Catholicism, Judaism, and Buddhism in the same esteem as say Scientology, that holds that an alien dictator “brought billions of aliens to Earth in DC-8-like spacecraft” 75 million years ago. I feel literally believeing in Xenu speaks to your capacity for ration and reason and would not want that person making decisions for me as an elected official.
<
p>
I brought up the same point about Joseph Smith and Mormonism. I state this again because I really wonder if people percieve me as biggoted because of this position? Do other people feel this way but don’t speak up because we are ‘supposed to be tolerant’?
<
p>
At what point does it become OK to stand up and say, “I don’t respect that particular religious belief set?” Or, if one was to vote against someone for religious reasons, must we do so in private and make up other reasons as to why we voted against that person? I think the religious right is great at doing that, vote against abortion because they believe that once an egg is fertilized it has a soul, then state different arguments publically in order to disguise their position as an intellectual one, and not as it really is, a position based on faith.
<
p>
I honestly don’t know the answers. But I do feel strongly that the issue of religion deserves stronger critical attention in the US.
Christianity was regarded as hopelessly new — even a bit of regression. (There was some pride in having finally gotten rid of the Olympian gods.) Celsus made such an attack on Christianity.
<
p>
That oral tradition that was Christianity in 100 A.D., before the invention of the Bible by St. Jerome a couple hundred years later, was quite a different thing with people, for example, mining the Hebrew scripture for hidden meanings.
didn’t leave behind a New York State arrest record for fraud, in a common con game that used magic stones to “locate” buried treasure (yes, the same stones later used to “translate” the Book of Mormon).
<
p>
I think a lot of folks missing an essential element of the story. As I said before, Romney will rely on evangelical Christians to carry his banner. If he loses them, he has no chance of winning. And he will lose them if they become too familiar with the actual tenets of Mormonism.
<
p>
To prevent that, conservative pundits and bloggers have joined battle to label any discussion of Mormon claims as “bigotry.” Unfortunately, too many liberals and moderates are only too happy too join them.
Well, yes, but I would hasten to add that Samuels I really does advocate genocide — as Voltaire pointed out centuries ago. Saul’s criminal advocacy might be regarded as more harmful than Smith’s. (I Samuel 15:8)
<
p>
And pointing that out offends tender sensibilities, too.
<
p>
To a large extent, religious belief requires a delicate combination of double-think. Talking about it with the coarse, rude stuff of logic is guaranteed to be offensive, because it upsets those delicate compromises.
<
p>
If you’re going to be mean to Mormons, will you turn around and question the moral appropriateness of plaguing Egyptians?
I assume you are aware that there are already thousands and thousands of scholarly and popular books written by both Christians and non-Christians which subject the Bible and various churches to rigorous inquiry, critique and criticism? That fides quarens intellectum–“faith in search of reason”–has been the standard, not the exception, for Western beliefs for two millenia?
<
p>
Are you arguing for a uniquely Mormon exemption from reasoned examination? Because Christianity sure doesn’t have one, and neither does Judaism.
<
p>
In any case, we’re circling back to a false equivalence here: “All religions believe things I don’t; so no one claim can be better or worse than any other.”
<
p>
In your example, we have on the one hand a millennia-old narrative by anonymous authors, redacted by other anonymous parties, of events that were already long past when it was written; the product of an era where the very idea of objective history did not even exist. It is widely understood today (except by fundamentalists) as part of a long chronicle of the evolution of Jewish thinking about the meaning of their own history.
<
p>
On the other hand, we have events and writings that date from fairly recent American history, where historical records were plentiful. Those records point clearly to pseudipigrapha penned by a documented fabricator and fraud who, the evidence shows, at times used his creative gifts to obtain both money and sex. With Samuel, we can deplore the moral principles apparently espoused or point to the general unlikelihood of the events; in Smith’s case, we can directly prove the falsehood of specific factual claims.
<
p>
In short: Of course you can apply logic to the analysis of both works. That doesn’t mean you have to come to the same conclusion.
I was reflecting on the response you were getting rather than disagreeing with you. (I rarely disagree with you. Heck, I’ve rated at least seven of your comments on various threads 6.)
<
p>
And yes, it is pretty absurd to believe Smith’s story. I think the absurdity of other stories is there, but, in a sense, not as visible because of how we (or some of us) practice the necessary suspension of moral values or disbelief.
Specifically, the establishment clause? The one that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”? If we start defining which beliefs are acceptable as “religion” we are halfway down the road to establishment, in my opinion. The only way to guarantee free exercise of religion is to guarantee free exercise of all, including the “nutty” ones (within the law of course–we can still outlaw human sacrifice, underage marriage, slavery, etc.).
Quit makin’ me think – my brain hurts! đŸ˜›
<
p>
I would not ever propose or support a law prohibiting reasonable religious behavior (human sacrifice). I am not looking for a government defined standard of acceptable beliefs.
<
p>
However, as reasonable people, I hypothesize that many of us would use religious beliefs as a factor determining who we vote for the more marginal or out of the mainstream the candidate’s beliefs are.
<
p>
In the other thread, I used the Deval Sun God analogy. To push it to an extreme, if I knew a candidate believed s/he had been abducted by aliens and adopted some alien religion where within the next 50 years the new Messiah would arrive in Boston via a Millennium Falcon type spacecraft, I would call the person crazy and not vote for her or him. They would not get that “automatic religious respect”. On the other side, most elected officials in the US subscribe to some form of Protestantism. We, as a culture, don’t think twice about voting for them and questioning their faith is out of bounds.
<
p>
Where is the line? Now we have Space Alien candidate on one side and Protestant candidate on the other side. It is a clear-cut binary for many of us – Space Alien candidate’s beliefs are too unsettling to earn our votes, but Protestant candidate’s religion is not an issue.
<
p>
The problem is this is not a black and white issue. There is a large spectrum of religious beliefs. These threads show that Mormonism sits in the grey area where people may be uncomfortable with the idea of Joseph Smith. I don’t put Mormonism in the same category as the above Space Alien candidate, but I believe the story put forth by Joseph Smith is a little too far-fetched for rational adults to subscribe to in a literal sense. In the free market of ideas, I think that the Joseph Smith story should be recognized as absurd and probably totally fabricated.
<
p>
I do not want to infringe upon anyone’s right to believe in Mormonism. And I wonder aloud if I can make statements about Smith’s absurdity and not be considered a bigot? 30 years from now I don’t want to be, as PP pointed out, the same as the anti-Catholic paranoia people of the Kennedy era.
<
p>
But we cannot ignore what so many of us liberals are afraid to admit: There is a point in which a candidate’s religion will sway our opinions and our vote.
<
p>
We cannot just accept all religions. And we cannot use deep rooted religious bigotry to reject candidates. How do we critically examine candidate’s personal beliefs in a manner that is both intellectually honest and respectful?
Were these kind of issues raised about Harry Reid? Was there any wringing of hands over the possibility that as President of the Senate he would attempt to enforce temple garments upon us all? Or was he just viewed as another old, Protestant liberal?
<
p>
(And I ask because I don’t know).
<
p>
OR – is religion a hot-button issue ONLY with GOP candidates? And PLEASE don’t drag out that chestnut about how only GOP’s politicize religion – after Gore’s Bhuddist temple fundraiser and the Clinton campaigning in AME Churches, we all know it isn’t so.
It is not as simple as Temple Garments, it’s more about stem cells, abortion, SSM, abstinance only, legislation of sin, and critical thought.
<
p>
To self plagiarize, I know virtually nothing about Harry Reid. I would have to see his record and any statements he may have made regarding his beliefs. But I would apply the same standard to him as I do to Romney or Brownback or Bush et al when it comes to religion.
<
p>
I’m not ducking the question, but I really know little about national politics.
<
p>
The main thing I reject is backing up one’s decision based only on religious faith, or opinions formed to pander to a religious base. Certain religious types will never change their opinions no matter how much evidence and scientific reason is presented (creationism, abstinence only sex education). It is this inflexibility that bothers me. If I found Deval or Harry Reid to be inflexible on key issues due to their religious faiths, I would be upset.
<
p>
On the flip side, I could vote for the “Bizzaro Mitt”-type Mormon. In 1994 Bizzaro Mitt said something like, ‘I am personally pro-life, but I believe strongly against thrusting my beliefs on my constituents.’
<
p>
I think if a candidate uses his or her religious affiliation to gain support, voters are in a legitimate position to reject a candidadte based on how we percieve their religious beliefs. It has to work both ways.
it’s more about stem cells, abortion, SSM, abstinance only, legislation of sin, and critical thought.
<
p>
And what does Mitt feel about this stuff? And how deeply, and for how long? If we have to elect a Republican, the left would want it to be Mitt, just like they did in Massachusetts.
Reid’s work with the Nevada Gaming Commission and his attendance at boxing games, he has already proven his ability to be independent from “orthodox” Mormon teaching on matters of public policy.
I think tblade was wanting to open all religions to critical assessment by we individuals, not by the government. You’re talking about govt prohibiting certain religions, which is not at all the same thing. I have no problem with saying people can freely believe what they want, but I’m going to voice my considered opinion on that belief when their professed beleifs get muddled with civil governmnet meant to serve everyone.
<
p>
Really, the conversation would probably be good for most “middle of the road” christians (or whatever) too. Why? Because most, in my experience, have never bothered to read the rule book (bible) for the religion they ardently defend. Wow, is that stupid or what, to sign a contract blindy like that. Maybe if they get challeneged by some logical inquiry, they’ll actually crack the book, read it and make some INFORMED decisions. Wouldnt the world be better for that?
<
p>
p.s. I called the minister of my former church a few years ago to formally resign my membership for reason of lack of belief. We had a long, wonderful conversation, and she told me she wished even one of her regular parishoners would take their beliefs as seriously as I did my lack of belief. I think that speaks volumes to the self-imposed ignorance of many religious “adherents” in this country. WHat other group of self-imposed ignorants to we coddle in their ignorance? We need religious welfare reform! /rant over/
Another example:
<
p>
Legit criticism: Candidate Bill believes that the Bible says Homosexuality is an abomination so I logically conclude that he will work against gay rights, gay marriage, etc. I am voting against him.
<
p>
Bigotry: Catholic Candidate Jack will have a hotline from the Vatican and will take orders from the Pope. I will vote against him.
<
p>
are human beings with the same rights as everyone else, then I oppose that person’s candidacy whether they are motivated by religion or sheer cussedness (which there is plenty of out there–it isn’t all religiously motivated). I don’t give anyone a pass because their beliefs are motivated by religion…but I don’t judge religous people who may believe crazy things but do not propose to turn those crazy thoughts into policy. Regarding Harry Reid, I think he is a good example of someone who clearly is religious, but does not let his religious beliefs dictate his policy positions.
…not every issue involving faith and politics are as clear cut as my example above.
<
p>
Assume, for the sake of argument, that in a deft political move candidate Bill has never made a statement regarding Homosexuality, yet he is a very high profile member of a church that preaches homosexuality is an abomination. It would be reasonable to logically deduce that he holds anti-gay positions and that would be a legit reason to vote against him.
<
p>
Clear-cut. But, because religion and politics are both incredibly complex and multi layered, there are many issues that escape critical examination because we are (or at lest I am) affraid of looking like the paranoid anti-Catholics of the JFK era.
<
p>
Might it not be valuble to explore today our collective boundries between informed social investigation/criticism and bigotry, between free inquiry and hate fueled bashing?
I would ask him. If I didn’t get a straight answer, then I would consider him untrustworthy. I think this sort of guesswork is very unhealthy…of course, the problem presented by Republican candidates like Mitt is pandering to the religious right by promising to make policy based on their religious beliefs. I’d be more concerned about the influence of “Christian” voters than Mormon politicians, frankly.
I wonder, and this is rhetorical, if he stated that he would not try to block any progress in gay rights, but still maintained a high profile in the hypothetical
anti-gay church' would people believe the candidate or would hey become suspicious of his true feelings, because that suspicion would come the evidence of his religious affiliation. <p>never’, then why never?Given that candidates routinely use their religious beliefs to gain favor form certain constituents, when, if ever, is it OK to apply a candidate's stated religious beliefs to an analysis of his or her qualifications to hold office? Am I wrong in saying that I could not vote for someone who considered the story put forth by Joseph Smith as literal truth? Are the 63% of Americans who claim they would not vote for an atheist presidential candidate wrong and bigoted? Am I, with my Joe Smith statement, merely an analogue to those 63%? (These questions are not rhetorical, I'm asking because I don't know. I will not be offended if you answer 'yes, your positions are bigoted'.) <p>
If the answer is
Find me one person who doesn’t think gays are human beings with the same rights as everyone else. Oh, besides people who think gays are super human, with more rights than everyone else.
in case you were wondering. The Pope is the only person I always agree with. I can’t imagine the Pope taking a position I would hesitate to support.
grant religion the right not to be critized by private parties?
the first step is defining which religions are “acceptable”…that some are genuine and others aren’t. Considering that agnostics and atheists are protected by the same clause…that freedom of worship includes the freedom not to…I think those of us who are so much in the minority should be particularly scrupulous about not discriminating among people in matters of faith. (as far as politicians are concerned, we need to look at what they say and what they do, which is far more relevant than what church they belong to).
is “on the way” to trampling my freedom of speech.
<
p>
Help! Help! I’m being oppressed!
<
p>
I mean, really.
Because such criticism has often in the past masked great bigotry.
<
p>
<
p>
When it comes from the left, it exposes the professed love of “diversity” to be meaningless babble designed to rationalize preferences.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: Flaming Liberal (from my blog – couldn’t resist)
Thanks for pointing me at you.
is still real. Wonder when the mean-spirited, depressing idea that government was bad, and survival of the fittest was better took over?
who wants a president such as that.
<
p>
we now have a president who has brought us to disaster abroad and disorder in the economy at home. We are one economic downturn away from real civil unrest.
<
p>
I the the neocons have to go root and branch.
When religion or religious stances are used as rationale for political actions and religious communities are so obviously courted by candidates, religion is a legitimate topic for discussion. I found the debate very interesting.
While I stayed out of the discussion, largely due to my less than sanguine attitudes towards faith and religion, I think the value of these discussions is immense. The privilege afforded religious faith in our public square as it relates to governmental policy making is appalling, in my view, and any time there is an opportunity to look critically at what our leaders believe in the absence of proof is an opportunity to make informed decisions both about the quality of that individual’s potential governing as well the quality of the decisions he or she will make when facts and real circumstances are on the table.
Your “less than sanguine attitude towards faith and religion” is exactly why you should interject your opinion!
<
p>
I gave you a 6 in the other thread because you admitted your atheism up front.
Mitt is a bishop in the Mormon church. I doubt that is a position handed out lightly. He obviously believes the Mormon faith. He most likely beleives the faith no less than Harry Reid, and probably a whole lot more.
Just a personal opinion that you have?
As I mentioned in the other thread, a Mormon “bishop” is the leader of a local congregation or “ward”. Mormons don’t have professional clergy, so the bishop has both an administrative and a pastoral role, but it’s nothing at all like a Catholic or Episcopal bishop. I think we can infer that he was fairly comfortable teaching Mormon doctrine, but not much more.
Even the young LDS missionary guys, who may be all of 20 years old, have the honorific of “elder”. Although the titles may sound bigger than non-Mormons perceive the positions they label, I can say that the “elders” I’ve met take them extremely seriously. So seriously in fact that they will not divulge their real first names, but insist you use their honorific, whether you subscribe to the religion or not. So, a Mormon bishop may not have the breadth of power a Catholic bishop has, but that doesn’t mean they take their roll any less seriously. My guess is that it is still a big deal to be/have been a LDS bishop. Probably well deserved. Running a church is no small undertaking.
My mother and her friends insisting that ‘St. John’ Kennedy would have a special phone installed in the Oval Office to take his secret orders from the Vatican.
<
p>
And BTW – if that sounds paranoid – ask any woman of a ‘certain age’ in Massachusetts if they could get access to birth control that the Catholic legislature kept illegal. To them, the Hot Line didn’t seem so far fetched.
<
p>
It is that same level of intolerance which seems to be fueling the debate about the Mormon faith, with far less empirical justification.
First of all, there was a law on the books that unmarried women could not get contraception perscription. It was more a problem in the small towns but it was accessible in Boston etc. The laws of course changed with the proliferation of hte pill etc in the 60s.
<
p>
The current refusal to fill birth control perscriptions is being done today as we speak by whacko evalgelicals, off the map catholics and supported, no advocated, by your party.
<
p>
Id this Blue Mass blog a faux democratic blog, a front for rethug politics or what. Why are you on this blog. Why are republicans on this blog it is not billed as a rethug blog?
Publicola – I am here because I was invited here.
The first two paragraphs were pretty good. You pointed out that while the old birth control restrictions came from Dems, now its coming from the GOP.
<
p>
Then you did two things: you stopped using 10 fingers well (minor), and you acted like a jerk (not minor). The BMG community does more than tolerate PP, pers, EB3, gary, etc. We appreciate them.
Is that royal or something?
Most regular posters around here do appreciate them, based on my observations. Do you think that my claim is not true?
I personally know of quite a few people who post here who are not appreciative of the Republicans and their snide one-liners. These folks add nothing to the quality of the dialogue and are here only to shoot spitballs from the back of the blog. There are a couple of Republicans who post substantive comments and appear to wish to participate in the conversation in good faith, but that is by no means all.
<
p>
That aside, I think you are being presumptuous in speaking for those who post here regularly as if this were an entity in which a “we” even exists. It doesn’t.
Yes and Yes. Is there a word for something in between
“recoil from in complete and abject revulsion”“tolerate” and “appreciate”?<
p>
To give Tom a little bit the benefit of the doubt, if there’s anything that “we” appreciate, it’s the (academic and highly-theoretical) principle that a civil dialog can exist among proponents of different viewpoints, and that the discussion needs different viewpoints to be healthy.
<
p>
In practice, unfortunately, even the most civil of our antagonists ultimately will either fall back on shopworn playground-bully rhetorical tactics, or be unable to contribute to a discussion of “blue” values without dismissing the whole premise. Although I can’t speak for all of us, the first right-winger who can avoid those pitfalls here will have my sincere and unreserved appreciation.
<
p>
Modern conservatism is about power consolidation and authoritarianism, and the idea of discussing it in a framework of a democratic, egalitarian society is a non sequitur. The tactics that have been refined over the last couple of decades to cover this are duplicitous by necessity, and the major contribution of the “differently-winged” among us has been to reinforce this notion.
<
p>
Moreover, there is a broad enough spectrum of opinion among the moderate-to-progressive crowd to stimulate a dialog here, and — as seen during the debate on the ConCon recently — it is difficult enough to keep that dialog civil. Adding pathological denial to it doesn’t either make it more civil or more enlightening.
That’s what I’m talking about….
<
p>
Thanks for taking the time to amplify; well said.
The “royal we” refers to one person…(the one speaking)…you are using “we” in its common meaning, ie., speaking for the group. We do welcome them, so long as they are here for an honest exchange of opinions. Having a few conservatives around serves to keep things civilized, strange as it may sound to those unaccustomed to reasoned debate (or to left-wing free-for-alls).
What in blue hell is a “rethug”?
..frequently used on sites such as DU to show a blanket contempt for all conservatives.
It belies an inability to engage in a civil dialogue with anyone with whom the user disagrees.
I believe it is derived from “Republican thug”.
about why there are “republicans on this blog,” yet we’re not billed as a “rethug blog” (whatever that is), this post should clear it up.
<
p>
Echo chambers have some (though, in my experience, very limited) entertainment value, but not much beyond that. We’re trying to avoid that here.
are admirable in theory, in practice what exists here leaves a lot to be desired. If you really wish to cultivate a blog in which meaningful dialogue occurs between the “sides,” I really think you folks need to discourage the behavior that I described and encourage the behavior you want. The conservatives/Republicans who are posting here, with very rare exceptions, rarely contribute much of value, David. I suspect they are capable of it, but they choose not to because their primary purpose is to taunt and mock, not to engage in real exchange. They post sneering jibes in an effort to let everyone know they’re around–and wear, it seems, your well-intentioned invitation as a free pass to do so.
<
p>
In order for a meaningful or even valuable exchange to take place–which is what I think people desire here–there needs to be some attention paid to tone. Everyone lets something fly every now and again, but, really, I think there is a chasm between the echo chamber you wish to avoid and the spitball behavior you have now.
<
p>
Elevate the bar. It’s the only way to achieve the goal you folks seem to desire.
the blog by going through and deleting the dickish comments, or the accounts of those who make them? Or some sort of troll-rating system? I think it’s easier to just put up with the occasional bit of crap by ignoring it, or not, as we choose.
of anyone’s comments. I’m suggesting that the landlords address the issue directly by asking the person either to participate in good faith or get lost. Troll-rating systems are worthless. The tone & tenor are set by the people who run this site; it’s up to them to articulate any standards they may expect with some consistency and volume. If they don’t have any standards particularly, then that’s fine, but they shouldn’t be surprised (or defensive) when someone comments on the quality of the participation–like someone did today.
Your logic doesn’t pass the sniff test. The fact that one president belonging to one religion showed no inclination to impose his Church’s doctrine on America says nothing about another president with a different religion.
<
p>
Haven’t you ever heard of Dominionism, for example, which has largely taken over your party?
On the other hand, it must be handy for you to have access to an anti-religion speaker’s bureau! http://www.theocracy…
<
p>
What’s the fee, I wonder?
<
p>
Please note – Pat Robertson – source of many of the quotes – officially LEFT the GOP in 2000 because GWB was too moderate, taking his seventeen followers with him to form the Constitution Party. If it wasn’t for the media propping him up as a straw man and REFERRING to him as a ‘conservative’ thinker, he’d have faded away like Tammy Faye long ago.
<
p>
This would be like me accusing you of being part of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists because some left-wingnuts think the gubmint blew up the twin towers to seize power.
<
p>
Stevie – you DRIP with contempt for millions of people of faith, regardless of party. By your standards, Deval should not be Governor. You seem consumed by hatred, and you need to think about that.
you have abandoned the pretense of proposing a logical argument, and fallen back haplessly on ad hominem.
<
p>
You can continue to research Dominionism on your own time. There are myriad sources to explore.
He doesn’t agree with Roe v. Wade, why stop there maybe Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird are up for grabs?
<
p>
Did Mitt “think” about it and changed his mind?
His website is silent on birth control, as far as i could see.
<
p>
I’d like to know what he thinks about making condoms available to highschoolers who do not subscribe to the abstenance theology.
<
p>
I’d also like to know if as prez he will continue W’s practice of tying foreign aid dollars to the requirement that Africans abstain from sex, or never use a condom when they do have sex (maximizing the risk of HIV transmission). Is all life really sacred to him, or just the lily white christian-like american life?
You appear to have mistated the President’s position on African aid. You wouldn’t have a link would you?
<
p>
Washington Post
Analysis from the Brookings Institute.
<
p>
http://www.guardian….
I’ve read the links. Apparently, there’s some disagreement about the amount of the INCREASE in dollars sent to Africa. What is irrefutable between the links is that amounts sent in fact increased over years.
<
p>
And there’s no confirmation of the orignal poster’s assertion, with which I took exception, that:
<
p>
<
p>
To the contrary, the Pepfar website promotes the message of abstinance, condoms and testing.
Try PEPFAR Watch for a different view.
Lots of information on Bush’s PEPFAR policy of abstinence over common sense can be found here.
<
p>
An intro article can be found in Ms Magazine
<
p>
Recent Boston Globe article here
Your Boston Globe opinion. Not one mention that the Bush administration makes aid contingent upon a policy of abstinence. Not one.
<
p>
Your Ms Magazine link. 33% of the funding is for abstinance based advocacy. That means 67% is not. The article makes clear that Condoms are recommended for high risks groups.
<
p>
Pepfarwatch.org. The most recently posted news link: Article about the success of pepfar in Kenya, including the 3 pronged approach of abstinence, condoms and testing.
<
p>
You have a legitimate policy argument that perhaps greater use of condoms is more effective, but you’ve not substantiated your assertion that:
<
p>
The right wing bloggers have been pointing to Mitt’s decisions, in March 2005, to sign an annual proclamation establishing a ”Right to Privacy Day” to mark the anniversary of Baird v. Eisenstadt (Boston Globe,3/25/05) as evidence he supports birth control.
<
p>
The left points to his decision not to issue a similar proclamation in March 2006 (Boston Globe, 3/22/06) as evidence of his opposition to birth control.
<
p>
Personally, I am most persuaded by his July 2006 decision to veto a bill which allows trained pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill (Plan B) without a prescription and require hospitals to offer it to rape victims. Mitt explained at the time that “I do support expansion of emergency contraception. I have no problem with emergency contraception. This product not only does that, but in some cases terminates life after conception. In that case, it ceases to be an emergency contraception bill and becomes an emergency abortion bill.” Sounds like a man with little understanding of the science of Plan B or, more likely, with more interest in courting favor with the mostly pro-life Republcan party voters.
<
p>
To confuse matters more, the Plan B bill passed when the Legislature overrode his veto. Romney at first pledged to allow hospitals to exempt themselves from its requirments (to offer the pill to rape victims) and then angered the pro-life crowd by reverssing his decision after consulting with “legal advisors” who explained to Mitt that he didn’t have the legal right to “interpret” the new law in sucha a way that exempted some hospitals.
<
p>
All-in-all, a pretty mixed record.
<
p>
And speaking of the record, I just learned (thanks Google!) that the Morman Church apparantly has a fairly modern view of birth control. I read that the church’s current General Handbook of Instruction further clarifies the church’s policy about the use of birth control:
<
p>
<
p>
Sounds a lot more reasonable than the Catholic Church’s “it’s a sin” position.
Nice reply, Loquacious. Good reminder about his Plan B stances. Of course, it the candidate would just state his position…
<
p>
You said something that makes me realize why Willard so covets the presidency. “legal advisors” who explained to Mitt that he didn’t have the legal right to “interpret” the new law in sucha a way that exempted some hospitals.
Oh to be able to wield the Geo Bush(TM) signing statement!
You even made note of it, where Republican’s pointed out something in 2005 and it was gone in 2006. Mitt Romney’s trend was first to signing the proclamation (2004), then altered to remove Roe v. Wade and sign the proclamation (2005), refused the proclamation entirely (2006).
When doing the veto, Mitt said that the main reason for vetoing the legislation was that he regarded it as a change in the Mass. abortion/choice laws, which he had pledged not to change regardless of his personal opinion.
<
p>
Now, personally, I do not regard Plan B as RU-486, but I do think he was sincere in that concern. If you listen carefully to the tape now known as ‘bizarro Mitt’, he speaks feelingly about the loss of a family friend, and about not CHANGING the law – but he NEVER says he is pro-choice. I always thought he was pro-life, but I was pleased that he picked a pro-choice Lt. Gov., and his word that he would not change existing law was enough for me.
<
p>
I do think he lived up to that.
I think we all understand that Mitt doesn’t have “beliefs” he’s a political chameleon. In MA he’s an independent turned republican moderate that is liberal on social issues. When running for president he is an extreme right wingnut on those same social issues.
<
p>
He didn’t want to belong to the same party as Reagan, now Reagan is his idol.
<
p>
He was against the Contract with America, and now he’s a staunch conservative.
<
p>
He was pro-choice, now he’s against choice.
<
p>
He was an advocate for gay rights, now he’s against gay rights.
<
p>
He was anti gun, he’s was for an assault rifles ban, brady bill, etc. Now he’s pro gun and a member of the NRA (but won’t say how long he was a member) and goes to gun shows.
<
p>
On and on and on…you are right, he ain’t worth a bucket of warm Mitt.
Maybe he’ll become a Baptist if that’s what it takes…
but the debate just goes back-and-forth or round-and-round or pick-your-metaphor for “arriving nowhere new.”
<
p>
It’s really tough to judge people by their denomination/sect but it’s a lot easier to judge them by their actions. Heck, if we looked at private citizen Mitt, he probably did some good community service. But we are talking about where the buck stops in our Executive Branch–and we need to know our next President will not appoint more Brownies into FEMA, the U.S. Attorney positions, OSHA and Mine Safety positions, etc. You know, the positions responsible for saving lives and stopping corruption.
<
p>
This is not just framing here: this is staying on target.
As you pointed out and David on “Hacks gone wild” postings Mitt has some hackery in his background. In the aftermath of Katrina and “Brownie”, Harriet Miers nomination, etc., then in combination with his stance on issues there are some serious questions about Mitt.
…at least here. The christian wackos elsewhere in the country may have a field-day with Mitt’s Mormon “UFO” religion (do a search for “Kolob” and you’ll see what I’m referring to), but it’s boring here.
<
p>
What isn’t boring is Mitt “the snitt”‘s flip-flopping on more than a few issues that may be of interest to Republican primary voters elsewhere. And what also isn’t boring is the fact that Mitt “the snitt” is trying to backpedal on his positions that he might call “youthful indiscretions” (shades of Henry Hyde).