talkpolitics | The Game Changer?

Entry tags:

mitt romney

The Game Changer?

Well, it looks like Mitt Romney has been playing the "Selective Family Album" game and kinda/sorta/oppsies forgot to tell everyone he is 1/4 Mexican.

And just did why did Mitt's father flee Mexico for the safety of the US?

In his public life Mitt Romney has said and written little about his ancestors' history in Mexico. In one oft-repeated quote he said his family left the U.S. for Mexico to escape persecution for their religious beliefs.

In fact, Romney's great grandfather, Miles Park Romney, led that first expedition to escape not persecution but prosecution for polygamy, or what Mormons called ‘plural marriage.’

Well, this is rather awkward, from a race standpoint. So we have the Southern US. There is a strong showing of rather simple minded voters who are Crusading Voters for Christ and All Other Things White™.

Who they going to vote for. Mitt the Mex? Barrak the Magic Negro?

Or maybe that white guy Gary Johnson, the only real social liberal/fiscal conservative in the race.

God DAMN I love Southern Idiocracy.

Question: Game changer? If Mitt embraces his SOTB roots, will this swing brown skins to his camp? WILL ANYONE DEMAND TO SEE HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE?

ETA: This just in! Cain demands to know more about this polygamy thing!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I agreed wholeheartedly with

badlydrawnjeff above and think this focus on Romney's religious beliefs is despicable. Romney is, in his way, like Kennedy in 1960: a majority of Americans are misinformed about and mistrustful, if not outright hostile, towards his religion. In order to get enough votes to win, Kennedy had to pander to various Protestant groups and swear up and down that he wouldn't be taking orders from Rome if elected (a ridiculous assumption, as any Catholic then or now could tell you). Romney on the other hand has had to try his hardest to gloss over the differences between the LDS and contemporary evangelical Protestantism and fit his religious beliefs inside a generalized happy Religious Right vibe.

The way Mormons have been treated in this country, historically, is shameful. As much as we Catholics complain about anti-Catholicism in America, some of which continues to this day, at least the president never sent the U.S. Army to force us to conform to Protestant norms. Articles like this are especially disturbing, considering how much Evangelical America has molded itself around the semi-mythological image of poor, oppressed Puritans forced to flee England for new shores because of religious persecution. The Puritans were heroes of freedom and religious liberty who came to America to establish a place where people could worship God as they pleased (provided they wanted to worship a strictly Puritan God). But Catholics fleeing persecution in Ireland, Jews fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe, and Mormons fleeing persecution right here in the United States? Buncha riff-raff traitors and scofflaws.

Whether Romney ends up more like Kennedy in 1960 or Al Smith in 1928 remains to be seen. I've noticed that people on both the right (http://townhall.com/columnists/janetmefferd/2011/10/10/in_defense_of_robert_jeffress_mormonism_is_not_christianity/page/full/) and left (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2011/10/is_mormonism_a_cult_who_cares_it_s_their_weird_and_sinister_beli.html) have been criticizing and ridiculing Romney's Mormon faith, and it's just plain disgusting. A lot of Republicans here in the South will not vote for Romney, no matter what; they would rather have Obama win a second term than elect a Mormon.

. . . a majority of Americans are misinformed about and mistrustful, if not outright hostile, towards his religion.

I dream of the day when I can proudly use a modified version of that quote of yours. It should read, "A majority of Americans mistrustful, if not outright hostile, towards religion."

Romney's plight would not be, therefore, one of distrusted because of his religion, but because he openly declares he has one.

Off topic, I know. Carry on.

Well, I dream of a day when all Americans will be respectful and civil towards the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of their fellow citizens.

Judging from comments like this, religious fundamentalists and intolerant atheists both will continue to push that day farther and farther away.

I'm far from an intolerant atheist. Most of my faithful friends and acquaintances don't know where I stand on religion. I just smile and nod politely when they talk of churchy stuff.

Then again, I have to be polite, don't I? A majority of Americans of faith consider me the lowest of scum. While you and I might share the vision represented in your first sentence in principal, in reality I find myself occasionally having to speak up and represent when "them godless folks" get maligned publicly.

I often find after I speak up, afterward I actually get closer to those that complain of the godless forces. I get the feeling (and have been told) that no one actually seems proud of atheism, so no one has actually told them of atheist beliefs. When they find such a mellow guy getting riled up on this one topic and out of the blue "coming out" as it were, it gives them a human face to place on the whole nebulous concept of "the other" out there to get "us." Like a well-liked relative or friend who comes out, these people seem to have more charitable thoughts toward the godless, something that wouldn't happen at all if I remained always polite and respectful . . . "tolerant" of the bashing I get, as you put it.

"A majority of Americans of faith consider me the lowest of scum"

Even considering this is the internet, I think that's a bit hyperbolic! I mean, I doubt quite seriously that the majority of Americans of faith even know you. Not to mention out of the scores (if not hundreds) of atheists I have known over the years, I can only think of maybe two that I thought of as scum, and atheism didn't even enter the equation.

Yes, I was being a bit hyperbolic. I was referring, though, not to how people view me, but how they view atheists and agnostics in general. The picture ain't pretty (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist8.htm):

In her book, "The Last Taboo," Author Wendy Kaminer referred to an unidentified survey published in the 1980's. It showed that almost 70% of Americans agreed that freedom of religion applies "to all religious groups, regardless of how extreme their ideas are." But only 26% agreed that Atheists should be given freedom of speech to ridicule religion and God, "no matter who might be offended." 71% believed that Atheists "who preach against God and religion" should not be permitted to rent or otherwise use civic auditoriums i.e. lecture halls supported by general taxation.

(I emphasized.)

And that was from a religious website after a quicky Googling.

I see this as an echo chamber effect. People gather together and discuss. Those who aren't in the gathering don't get a place at the discussion, and are therefore absent to defend their position when topics pertaining to them arise. The more people chat within their groups, the less dissenting voices even enter their worldview. This is how demonization starts, IMNSHO.

That's why I speak up, not to be a prick, but to represent views many have never considered. That's also why the current kerfuffle over the New Atheists is largely missing the point: Yes, they're vocal and abrasive, dismissive and the like. But their points need to be considered whether or not others feel they need to consider them.

His religion should have no bearing on how well he will do his job in public office.

SO WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY POLITICIAN SMEAR JESUS BLOOD ALL OVER THEIR FACES AS THE REASON TO VOTE FOR THEM??

I agree, but if he's 1/4th mexican... His stance on immigration becomes a BIG deal.

Yup.

It would be interesting to hear Romney explain how HIS family sought refuge
in Mexico to escape conditions here but he doesn't want people
seeking refuge here.

Wouldn't we have to do a bit of research to find out if his family immigrated illegally or not? (It may have been done, but I missed where that part was discussed) My understanding is that Rommney is against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. If you are for "open borders" I can see why you might disagree.

If it's "upholding the law" -- remember the family left to avoid prosecution,
and his campaign has already talked about "drawing on their experiences of strength if he were elected"...

So if you want to use compliance with the law as a difference, that one's not going to fly here.

If disregarding the law travelling SOUTH is "alright", then again it's
inconsistent to disregard the law travelling NORTH. Right?

I think it's a stretch, the same way I thought most of the "generational" arguments against Obama were. But that's me. I do my best to try and consider the individual, what they are, in spite of or because of their background.

I think what you are seeing here is a lot of TAT for the other positions' TIT, generally neutralizing snark attacks by both sides.

Not so much the focus of what is 'really' important.

Because we all know what's REALLY REALLY important is proving that guy on the internet WRONG!

heh

If it's "upholding the law" -- remember the family left to avoid prosecution,

Avoid persecution. Anti-Mormon laws - including anti-polygamy laws - were put in place to drive the Mormons out, period.

It's like saying that if the US passed a law banning the building of any more mosques and a state said "Muslims aren't allowed here," the fleeing Muslims would be fleeing prosecution? Really?

SO, let's review:

* The mormons fled the conditions of their land to seek refuge in another country -- and by your argument, that is OK

* Mexicans fled the conditions of their land to seek refuge in another country -- and that is NOT OK.

Ah, yes. Good to see we're consistent.

This has nothing to do with "conditions" and everything to do with religious persecution. You completely missed the entire point.

No, *You* missed the point.

Regardless of why the people fled, the fact is that they DID.

They felt conditions in their country were intolerable and fled. and YET, many of the GOP are strongly opposed for other people fleeing here to escape their countries in a similar manner.

You seem to think the reasons matter to the point -- in this case, they dont.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

euqal opportunity

no subject