Ain’t I Done Told Ya So? (Part II)

Posted on | April 5, 2012 | 73 Comments

“If Romney gets the nomination and we reach late September with Romney leading the polls, what do you think the Democrat-Media Complex will do? Whatever It Takes to Win, sweetheart.
“Can’t you see the five-part New York Times series on the history of Mormonism? Can’t you see Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News and David Gregory on Meet the Press doing Serious Journalism about all the beliefs and practices of the LDS, and ponderously asking What It Means for America?”
— Robert Stacy McCain, March 6, 2012

“Now that Democrats are near-certain that Romney is the nominee, however, the media is going to start covering Mitt’s Mormonism in a very serious way — ‘Oh, look, he’s a fringe kook!’ — as if this were an entirely legitimate topic of political discussion.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 2

“Now part of Romney’s religion problem is that he’s a part of a new religion. Established religions like Judaism, which is about 4,000 years old, and Christianity, which is about 2,000 years old, don’t easily warm up to new religions like Romney’s, which is only 182 years old. . . . Mormonism was created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the maid and explained to his wife that God told him to do it. Forty-eight wives later, Joseph Smith’s lifestyle was completely sanctified in the religion he invented to go with it. Which Mitt Romney says he believes.”
— Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC, April 3

Look, I wasn’t the only one to see this coming: Da Tech Guy reminds us he warned us about this back in February.

Everybody’s crying “unfair” now — including Kevin Williamson at National Review — but since when do Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) give a damn about fairness?

And my friends, this has just barely begun. That little shot from O’Donnell? It was like the signal gun to start a massive barrage.

Maybe you have never done any research into the history of Mormonism. Maybe you have no idea how much material there is to work with. Maybe you are unaware of how many ex-Mormons and other critics of Mormonism have already gotten in touch with national news producers and reporters, eager to help them with “research” for all those in-depth feature articles and multi-part series about the LDS church.

If you don’t know any of that stuff, you can be forgiven for thinking that any negative media focus on Mitt Romney’s religion would automatically be seen as unfair and bigoted by independent voters. But just wait and see: If Romney actually does win the Republican nomination, and if it ever appears that Mitt poses a serious threat to Obama’s re-election, then the gloves will come off and you will be disabused of your naïveté.

You know who’s going to be shocked the worst by this? Agnostic secularists, whose general attitude toward religious belief is, “What difference does it make which discredited superstition somebody claims to believe in? All religions are equally false, right?”

A lot of the agnostic secularists in the GOP have that kind of attitude, and can’t imagine that there is anything about Mormonism that might be truly offensive to people.

Like I said: Just wait and see.

UPDATE: Moe Lane asks:

Does Harry Reid have the courage to boycott
MSNBC over Lawrence O’Donnell’s bigotry?

Don’t be silly, Moe! Yes, Harry Reid is nominally a Mormon but, like all Democrats, his true religion is the Democrat Party Gospel. Just look at Nancy Pelosi, who claims to be Catholic.

UPDATE II: Serious Journalism, with David Gregory:

Of Romney’s religion, Gregory said Mormonism was at the core of Romney’s character, but suggested he was afraid to talk about it.
“Let’s be honest, this is the core of who Mitt Romney is,” he said. “He was a missionary in France for two years. He has been a bishop in the church, which, in the Mormon church, is effectively like a a priest. Philanthropically, he’s made huge contributions. He’s had a big impact on the church. And yet he doesn’t talk about it. It’s the core of who he is, and yet he doesn’t feel like it’s safe to talk about.”

It’s so predictable, isn’t it?

Category: Mitt Romney, MSNBC, Religion

Comments

73 Responses to “Ain’t I Done Told Ya So? (Part II)”

Lisa Graas
April 5th, 2012 @ 12:26 am

They’re also indicating that Romney is talking as if his hair is on fire even though Romney insists he isn’t going to set his hair on fire about anything. It is what it is.
Charles
April 5th, 2012 @ 12:44 am

Several of these clowns, most especially Lawrence O’Donnell, may get themselves fired in this process.

Mitt Romney has the hole card. Yes, his great-grandfather may have been a polygamist. But what of Barack Obama’s father? So let MSNBC climb way out on this limb so the conversation cannot be turned back.
Shelleys Playtime
April 5th, 2012 @ 12:53 am

Ha! So you think you are going to be able to have a point-counter point discussion with the MSM? Again….Ha!
Ethel
April 5th, 2012 @ 12:58 am

How about a full-blown Frontline documentary comparing Black Liberation Theology to Mormanism? Hell, you’d think they’ll all be screaming “What happened to that scary little Catholic guy from Pennsylvania? Can we have him back?” I doubt it – it least these two won’t take away their birth control.
Shelleys Playtime
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:06 am

Yeah, cuz we ALL know that is what krazy Rick would do…because eliminating birth control is the 1st thing he thinks about when he wakes up, and the last thing he thinks about when he…wait, where was I going with this?
Janet C
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:09 am

Whoever gets the nomination will have feces furiously flung his way, so I’m not sure if Romney’s at a disadvantage here.
Janet C
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:10 am

Oh and I do hope Mr. Romney has done the opposition research on himself so he knows what will be flying his way…
Confutus
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:23 am

This is part of why, in spite of Obama’s administration being a target-rich environment for a Republican campaign, it isn’t going to be a Romney cakewalk. But if one relies on the ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about Mormonism, one is certain to be badly misinformed. One need do only a very little research to discover that O’Donnell’s tale is about as accurate as a typical negative campaign ad.
Adobe_Walls
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:23 am

Correct, the Winston Smith Media will control the narrative, the story will be that Romney will institute the forced marriage of under aged girls to old codgers. They’ll use some of the stories from some the breakaway groups that have come up the last few years as examples of the whole LDS church.
robertstacymccain
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:26 am

Joseph Smith only had 33 wives, for example.
robertstacymccain
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:30 am

But there will never been an accusation to which he can respond. It will all be done as Serious Journalism. Expect lots of stories out of Colorado City, for example. Also, “victims of polygamy” giving tearful interviews on morning news shows.
CPAguy
April 5th, 2012 @ 1:47 am

Mittens hasn’t won the nomination. Don’t buy into the hype or the gloom.

Santorum 2012!
SDN
April 5th, 2012 @ 2:31 am

And what kind of happy pills would you be on to think that the average voter is going to research anydamnthing that doesn’t involve American Idol? I want some.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 5th, 2012 @ 2:43 am

And if Rick is the nominee we would be getting Opus Dei stories all the time too. All Republicans will be vilified. From Marco Rubio, to Paul Ryan, to Allen West. They will not spare any of them. We need to fight back against it.
elaine
April 5th, 2012 @ 2:45 am

Joseph Smith had one wife. The rest married him after he was dead.

Last time I checked, that doesn’t constitute a legally binding union…

Sorry, but I’m going to be a real b!tch when the anti-Mormon crap starts hitting the fan. I was raised RLDS and had to defend my faith all through high school in Tennessee, heart of the Bible Belt.

That being said, the beliefs of the Utah church are pretty f*d up… there’s plenty of weird stuff the LSM can cart out for everyone to be outraged by. But Joe Smith being a polygamist is the one thing you cannot legitimately say…
elaine
April 5th, 2012 @ 3:06 am

The really sick thing in this is this:

Every religion has “weird” practices or beliefs in it. At least, that’s how it seems to people outside the church.

Take for example those kooky Jews, with their six sets of pots and pans and dishes (if they’re keeping strictly kosher) and eating those Gentile babies. (Okay, that last thing was blood libel, but since when has the fact it isn’t true stopped anyone from repeating it?)

There’s the Muslims, who think that if they blow up infidels, they’ll reap a reward in the hereafter of 72 virgins. Or raisins. Nobody’s quite sure which…

Then there’s the Catholics, who believe that when you eat the communion wafer and drink the wine, it turns into the actual body and blood of Jesus. Meaning they’re a bunch of freaky cannibals!

There are Baptists who think handling snakes during their services is a good idea…

Mormons wear “special underwear”…

The real problem is that religion has been marginalized in our society to the point that nobody thinks such disrespectful ways of discussing religious practices is bad. So the media continues doing it, the elites think that believers are stupid, gullible children who’ll swallow anything that smacks of “magic,” and people of faith end up feeling isolated and constantly under attack.

You don’t see anyone on TV these days mentioning praying, as if that might help them with their current troubles. You don’t see ministers or people of faith being depicted in a particularly positive way. (Good Christian B!tches, anyone?) Belief isn’t mainstream anymore… just ask the left, who constantly portrays people of faith as fringe nutcases, Bible-thumping wingnuts, or scary “godbags” out to steal women’s lady-parts.

This is WHY the media will be able to get away with attacking Romney’s Mormonism (while overlooking Harry Reid’s), or Santorum’s Catholicism (while overlooking that of the Kennedy clan) — because nobody’s going to call them out and make them stop it. Certainly not the President or his minions.

It’s true enough that even if Romney wasn’t a Mormon, they’d find some stick to beat him with come September, if not sooner. Now that they think he’s the likely nominee, we’ll see more vicious attacks. If people of faith remain silent, then they’ll do it again for the next election…
Adjoran
April 5th, 2012 @ 3:44 am

What a scoop! The MSM will cooperate with Obama in attempting vicious smears against our nominee! Stop the presses, Myrtle!

Of course, ONLY if it is Romney. Santorum would only entice pensive and honest coverage from Lawrence O’Donnell and the NYT.

They would NEVER mention his “home-schooling” his kids with PA district resources when they weren’t actually living in the district as required by law, would they? (Yeah, that was resolved long ago, so nice guys like Larry would NEVER bring it up, would they)? They’ll go back 30 years on Romney’s dog, but they would NEVER talk about Santorum’s wife’s past, would they? It would be despicable!

And we all know they would NEVER bring up the fact that Santorum works for a lobbyist law firm and has since getting beat for reelection to the Senate. A guy’s got to earn a living, they know that. And why would they question how he bought the house he lives in from a real estate magnate who took a 40% haircut on the property in a couple years and arranged Byzantine financing for Santorum so his mortgage isn’t on record? I mean, who’d think anything was hinky about that?

No, they will get all over Romney, though, about his religion and his dog 30 years ago. Because they have nothing else on the guy.

If only we had picked Santorum – the media would only circulate the warm, fuzzy human interest stories about what a great guy he is (and he is a righteous dude). Nothing but good stuff. Why, even Obama probably couldn’t think of anything to say against him.
...
April 5th, 2012 @ 5:57 am

What’s really pissy about this is the lack of principle about this. The late great Hitch banged the drum about this long ago, and no one was interested because there was no partisan points to be scored. Now…
smbren
April 5th, 2012 @ 6:00 am

Rick could bring his case to the American people. Mitt has nothing. The GOP had better hope that enough democrats will cross over to win this election, it is doubtful. Mitt will be portrayed as a 1 per center. They will absolutely mop the floor with him. He signifies the very false narrative that the republican party are for the rich, never mind that John Kerry is richer…(who I loathed more than Obama by the way)..I will vote for Mitt should he be the nominee, but I will never be able to persuade enough people in my circle to do so, unfortunately they will sit home.
ThomasD
April 5th, 2012 @ 6:44 am

” Moe Lane asks…”

This is the best they have? Romney’s been their chosen horse for over a year and this is the best they have?

Color (heh) me unimpressed.

It is going to be a non-stop tag team from the media – Romney’s religion, Romney’s money, Romney’s business deals, Romney’s associated kooks and crooks… Anything to keep the discussion away from subjects that hurt BO.

All while BO himself says absolutely nothing personally negative about Romney, instead contenting himself to bash the snot out of “Republicans” for being cold heartless bastards. All of which will go entirely unanswered by team Romney because they are too busy putting out flaming bags of media shit left on the campaign doorstep.

And they’ll gripe to their own side that they’ve never had to deal with this type of negative campaigning. At least on the receiving end that is…

Shorter story: we, the base, take it in the shorts HARD while Romney goes down to a ‘gentleman’s’ defeat.

And nobody saw it coming.
ThomasD
April 5th, 2012 @ 6:48 am

The media does vicious hit pieces on Mormonism and the Dems lose Utah, Idaho, and maybe Nevada.

Big whoop.

The media does vicious hit pieces on Catholicism and loses what?? Maybe Pennsylvania, Michigan, or Ohio?

Slight difference there.
rebecca
April 5th, 2012 @ 7:13 am

Considering the hits that Obama has taken due to the Muslim religion, when there is no real evidence that is his religion and he has steadily denied it, of course, Romney is going to come under fire for a religion that is core to him.

The religion suits him as it is “Etch-a-Sketch in nature. Just cut of the funding sources and it changes its tenets. The Catholic church can take a lesson from that.
ThePaganTemple
April 5th, 2012 @ 7:35 am

For the last time-give me back my god damn car antenna.
spot_the_dog
April 5th, 2012 @ 7:36 am

“He’s had a big impact on the church. And yet he doesn’t talk about it.”

So that’s the deal. The Dems will whinge when a GOP pollie talks publicly about his faith; the Dems will whinge when a GOP pollie doesn’t talk publicly about his faith.

And even mentioning the Rev Wright is raaaaacist.

One interesting thing to see will be – will a large number of non-Mormon conservatives actually come out and put themselves on the line defending Mitt & his religion against these Leftist attacks, the way many non-Catholic conservatives were defensive when Santorum would be attacked for his religious beliefs? Does he have enough personal appeal to make the average Joe want to get out there on Twitter/Facebook/Talkback Radio and defend him & his Mormonism?

IDK, you guys. I think we’re f***ed.
spot_the_dog
April 5th, 2012 @ 7:39 am

“Considering the hits that Obama has taken due to the Muslim religion, when there is no real evidence that is his religion and he has steadily denied it”

Huhwhat? For realz?
ThePaganTemple
April 5th, 2012 @ 7:39 am

Yeah, like the MSM would never talk about Santorum’s hateful, ignorant, bigoted statements against Protestant Christians who practice contraception at their own private expense, which are recorded on video and which he has never denounced or apologized for.

You just keep walking into them Stacy.
Shawn
April 5th, 2012 @ 7:52 am

If they didn’t see it coming they’re entitled to a shiny new white cane and seeing eye dog. This is the same man who lost to John McCain who debated so ineptly he could have been mistaken for an Obama supporter. I cringed and had to turn my T.V. set off.
Shawn
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:02 am

Well, there’s real evidence that he is more than a Muslim sympathizer if he isn’t a practicing Muslim. Actually, I don’t know that the Reverand Right church of the poisoned mind isn’t more disturbing. But one thing he hasn’t denied (and don’t hold your breath for the press to make this a debate question is) “are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?” No religion there.
Bob Belvedere
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:32 am

Do you really think that Willard and his highly paid GOP Establishment consultants will dare bring up any part of Barack Hussein Soetero-Marshall-Obama’s murky past considering they think he’s ‘a nice guy who is in over his head’?

Marvelous!
ThePaganTemple
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:33 am

And yes, that did cause him to lose Ohio, or at least contributed greatly to it, and probably Wisconsin as well. So the Dems already have a record of success with that tactic to work on, and you can be damn sure they’d use it in the general, maybe to great effect, especially in the Midwest, where its doubtful that many care about Mitt’s Mormonism. Admittedly, anti-Mormon propaganda might be useful to the dems in the Deep South. It might cause Mitt to only win Alabama by seven or eight percent instead of over ten.
DJ Meph
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:33 am

The Republicans are afraid because they set this up to happen when they attacked Obama’s faith and his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. The LDS up until 1978 would not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and considered them cursed in the eyes of God because of their dark skin. By that same logic, if Obama was guilty by association, that would make Mitt Romney a racist. In reality, there are much more important issues on the minds of Americans than the candidates’ faith, and only a callous bigot would hold someone’s faith against them in an election. Not to say that all Democrats are above this kind of pettiness, but to say that this is going to be a widespread attack perpetuated by the MSM is just the Republicans’ way of realizing that they set this up in the 2008 election, and now they are going to get a taste of their own medicine.
Bob Belvedere
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:36 am

Exactly. They’ll never fling anything directly at him about it because they want to deny him the possibility of being able to give a Reaganesque response that deflects the attack in an appealing way.

A few of the Leftists might go for his throat, but they will be in the minority, methinks.
Datechguy's Blog » Blog Archive » More Media Mormonism, the shock continues » Datechguy's Blog
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:42 am

[…] as Stacy McCain notes this from Lawrence O’Donnell yesterday: Mormonism was created by a guy in upstate New York in 1830 when he got caught having sex with the […]
Confutus
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:46 am

The exact number is in dispute, as is how many of these marriages were consummated. Partisans rush in where historians tread carefully.
Confutus
April 5th, 2012 @ 8:48 am

Once upon a time, journalists were supposed to do that before rushing into print or in front of the camera. Some of them still do.
spot_the_dog
April 5th, 2012 @ 9:00 am

That was a reply to Friend Rebecca, who seemed to be implying that the MSM went Obama just as hard on his religious beliefs (real or imagined) as they’re apparently prepared to go Romney on his. If someone could point me towards the many MSNBC hit-pieces where they savaged Barry for Rev Wright or for his alleged “secret muslim” beliefs…?
spot_the_dog
April 5th, 2012 @ 9:04 am

“The LDS up until 1978 would not allow black people to hold the priesthood, and considered them cursed in the eyes of God because of their dark skin.”

I would find it easier to believe that this was actually a major concern for Democrats if even a few of them had brought it up previously in regards to Harry Reid and his Mormonism.
Zilla of the Resistance
April 5th, 2012 @ 9:06 am

Support Rick Santorum. Because after 2000 years of relentless attacks, there really isn’t anything new remaining to bash Catholicism with.
Also, when will anyone tell the truth about Obama’s islamic supremacist and communist upbrininging and then later his embrace of black supremacist marxism also known as “black liberation theology”? Granted, much of mormonism is taken directly from islam (it’s true, you can look it up), especially the really messed up stuff, but the modern LDS has moved away from much of the most unpalatable things, whereas islam, communism, marxism, and BLT have NOT – there has been no reform or attempts at reform in any of it.
Just go with the good Catholic and save us all the embarrassment.
RegularGuyPaul
April 5th, 2012 @ 9:16 am

Well said!
rosalie
April 5th, 2012 @ 9:17 am

He’ll be the perfect gentleman just like McCain.
rosalie
April 5th, 2012 @ 9:22 am

I doubt if he’d get fired. He’s only following instructions (probably from the White House).
Tennwriter
April 5th, 2012 @ 9:41 am

Problem Evi is that Mormonism is more explosive, more RESONATING, and more as Stacy points out amenable to the multi-day expose’/brainwashing treatment on national news TV than the other candidates issues.

If I, as evil Democrat TV producer, go after Opus Dei, I run into some well prepared defenses, and well educated folks.Now PT thinks the Mormons are going to defend themselves with an add blitz, and maybe it will work.

And your last point is why it should not be Mitt, and why he needs to Resign Right Now. Go after Gingrich, and in about thirty seconds, he’s going to be pulling out your intestines. Santorum, often called whiny, is a fighter and very resolute. Ron Paul is an idealistic knight errant and would not back off if the Midgard Serpent that coils about the Earth showed up to for snackies.

Romney….ah….he’s a mod, and mods along with their many other faults, don’t fight the MSM or the Dems that well.
richard mcenroe
April 5th, 2012 @ 10:01 am

I don’t have a bitch with Mormons. They were good men to serve with, in my experience, and by all accounts make good neighbors.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand,does not seem to make a very good Mormon based on the campaign he’s running, or setting a very good Mormon example for his subordinates, no matter how much he tithes or how many churchly offices he’s held.

Try to imagine my shock that he would talk one way and act another in this, too.
richard mcenroe
April 5th, 2012 @ 10:10 am

Romney has already said he will not go after Obama. Repeatedly. How often does he have to say it before we decide he really means it?
HedgeMoney2009
April 5th, 2012 @ 10:11 am

You seem to have completely missed the point, which is that democrats care less about a candidate’s faith, and more about the issues. That is why Reid’s faith has not been an issue. Thanks for helping me prove my point.
Bob Belvedere
April 5th, 2012 @ 10:37 am

His SuperPAC may, but not in the balls-to-the-wall way that’s needed.
A Guy From Lithia Springs
April 5th, 2012 @ 10:46 am

Seeing as its spring break all over—-this article gave me a great title idea…….”When conservatives try to have it both ways…..”
daialanye
April 5th, 2012 @ 10:59 am

But Smith was a fraud even before he got the idea of starting a new religion, and the “discovery” and “translation” of the “Golden Plates” as false as Mohammed’s conversations with the angel Gabriel.

Furthermore, even originality was beyond Smith, since much of his narrative was apparently stolen from a work of fiction.
McGehee
April 5th, 2012 @ 11:01 am

The Etch-A-Sketch?
richard mcenroe
April 5th, 2012 @ 11:01 am

Spring break… having it both ways… crap! I forgot. *rushes out to buy a case of Zima and new Binaca spray…*

It’s hell being a coed magnet sometimes…