We are shocked — shocked! — to discover liberals in the media hinting at future coverage about Mitt’s Mormonism:
Panelist Jon Meacham asked whether any of the focus on Romney’s “secrecy” may have something to do with his faith, Mormonism, a religion shrouded in mystery for many non-Mormons. “Is this code for the secrecy of the Mormon Church?” he asked Allen. . . .
“As the Obama campaign makes the case that Romney is somehow weird, different,” Allen replied, “some supporters of Romney will say that that is a dog whistle, that is a way to come near the religion issue. The Obama campaign will tell you they’re not going to touch it, they don’t poll on it, they don’t talk about it in focus groups because they know that it would blow up if they did and that got public.”
Host Joe Scarborough, meanwhile, was upset that he’s not allowed to enter a Mormon temple. “You can’t go into the temple, right? … Not even on the West Side? You go to Salt Lake, and I’m like, ‘Oh, that’s pretty, I want to go in.’ And they are like, ‘No, you’re Southern Baptist.’”
Let’s be clear: No one expects the Obama campaign to do anything overt to raise the Mormonism issue. But liberals in the media are already researching articles about the history, beliefs and practices of LDS, interviewing critics and ex-Mormons, and those Serious Journalism stories will start cropping up in due time. You can bet on it.
Meanwhile, this kind of major-media chatter about Mitt’s Mormonism — “Oh, wouldn’t it be terrible if anyone exploited religious bigotry against Romney?” — is a way of legitimizing the trump-card issue that liberals will certainly find some way to exploit if they can.
RECENTLY:
Ok, here’s the secret we’re not supposed to tell: the magic underwear? It’s to suss out who the Muggles are.
There.
Now it’s out.
I refuse to accept Scarborough’s self-declared nomination. What he is, is a boob.
I think every time the Obama camp says something nasty about Mormonism somebody should ambush Harry Reid with the quote and ask what he thinks about this kind of atack.
I always figured Magic Mormon Underwear was meant to enhance the libido and increase sexual fertility. But crap, why would you need it? You can’t smoke, can’t drink caffeine or alcohol, can’t do drugs, what the hell else is there to do but screw?
Get help.
That should be one line of attack.
Any one thinking they’re going to leave Mitten’s Mormonism alone is deluded. If he were a fundamentalist Baptist they wouldn’t, and Mormonism is much more exotic and strange. There are significant skeletons in the Mormon closet. Just because Dingy Harry is a Mormon won’t help either. He’s a Democrat and understands the poor and downtrodden and so he is excused.
Oh well. There was some hope there for a little while, but Mittens has pretty much sucked it all out.
Not to mention that they would expect to be able to drive a wedge between Mormons and all the other godbothery right-wingers by talking about how “exotic” and “strange” Mormonism is.
Just imagine if Bobby Jindal were the nominee — Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) would be regaling us at every opportunity about the many deities of the Indian subcontinent. With a few Kama Sutra quotes in hopes of squicking the fundies even more.
That wouldn’t matter, Jindal is a Christian, isn’t he?
Sure — but the Dems wouldn’t care, and they’d try to target the people who tell pollsters they think Obama’s a Muslim.
How dare you spell “attack” correctly in a reply to a comment where I initially spelled it incorrectly!? H8ER!!!!!
I’ve been in a Mormon temple and I’m not Mormon.
Well, they could talk about Jindal’s exorcisms, but how would they find out about that?
Not that it means anything good or bad, but one interesting thing I read somewhere a while back is that Mormon Temples, or at least the main one, is supposed to be modeled after a beehive. What that means, whether it has something to do with fertility or with work, I don’t really know.
Another thing that just come out lately is Marie Osmond saying she’d rather have food poisoning than to endorse either Romney or Obama. I’m not sure that’s all that bad either.
Before or after it was sealed?
Let’s face it, this was going to be a problem, and calling out “religious bigotry” any time somebody asked a question that could be uncomfortable, or raised a criticism wasn’t and isn’t the best way to confront the issue. People do have a right to ask questions and form opinions — that’s a free society. Romney’s camp is bungling this, and the more close lipped he is the more people are going to wonder why.
And of course it was going to be used against him — the big guns are already lining up for the summer. They see it as a weak spot; Dingy Harry will get off due to not having as high a rank in the faith and the Pelosi gambit — that’s the angle they’ll take, but I wouldn’t doubt that Barry would mind throwing Harry under the bus if the payoff was high enough; he’s did it to some extent with Nancy already.
Hit Bing for [Nikki Haley Sikh Joke], and see how your logic fails.
I’ve attended Mormon baptisms…..and I’m not a Mormon.
“…liberals in the media are already researching articles…”
You’re repeating yourself there, Stacy. Better let that inner editor out more often, hey?
Ignorance and prejudice. By the time you and Stacy are done running down the Mormons, there’ll be nothing left for the Democrats to do.
In a temple or a chapel?
Kind of like how the biased leftwing liberal media gratuitously runs down Christianity? You mean like that?
Already saw an article via RealClearPolitics (I think it was) that primed the pump by mentioning that both Romney and Obama have polygamy in their backgrounds. Of course, we know the MSM will be all over Obama’s connection to polygamy and to the same extent they will cover Romney’s father being born in a Mormon polygamist colony in Mexico (founded to avoid U.S. federal attempts to curb polygamy in this country). I wonder how much time the MSM will spend on the fact that Utha gave up polygamy to become a state and that mainline Mormons no longer practice polygamy.
Bite me, bitch!
Raaaaacist!
Hmmmmmm…….I’m not sure. I didn’t realize there’s a difference.
Shows what I know, eh?
Temples are off limits, but they do have chapels (or something akin to a chapel) where non-Mormons can enter (I think they have open house events as well, but the policy is still not a member, no admittance into a temple after it has been sealed).
Considering that Pagan openly stated lack of knowledge one way or the other about the beehive symbolism and did not appear to be engaging in any running down or prejudice (nor any real judgement at all), I fail to see where PT should be accused.
As for Mr. McCain; he’s never said anything but that there are things to do with Mormonism that will be used against Romney — this is just a statement of reality. There will be; better be ready for them.
If either don’t particularly care for that belief system, then they have a right to their opinions and the expression of the same — but they did not do so here.
Do you have a problem with Mormons?
I don’t have a damn thing against Mormons or Mormonism, or against anybody else’s religion as long as they aren’t going around hijacking planes or committing murder or mayhem, so he’s welcome to suck my fucking dick.
Cool it with the language there, good buddy.
You already know the answer to your questions. My answer is its time to jack the Big Three’s broadcast licenses, especially NBC, and you can add PBS to the mix as well as far as I’m concerned. I think kids can survive without Big Bird.
By the way, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Mormons excluding non-Mormons from their temples. That’s standard practice in many religions, or at least a variation on a theme. Non-Catholics can’t take the Eucharistic, for example, or at least they’re not supposed to, and really if they’re not Catholic, why would they want to? You’re also not supposed to celebrate the Last Supper in a Baptist Church if you haven’t been saved, even though its seen more as symbolic. If this is something people feel the need to bitch about they need to get a life.
I apologize for that, but that really pissed me off.
Okay, let’s discuss Obama’s socialism.
A tale of two prosecutions…
Mittens’ problem has nothing to do with being a Mormon and everything to do with being a flip-flopper….Romney…Obama….no difference there.
You haven’t been reading closely. Here’s what he said upthread:
The “magic underwear” meme is a dishonest canard — and one that Stacy began pushing back when he thought it might help his candidate beat Romney. But calling Mormon temple garments “magic underwear” is like calling the Catholic host “magic cookies.”
Only Mormons with approval from their Bishop may go into a Temple for the ceremonies performed there. Mormons can lose that approval too. Admission is not automatic even for Mormons.
They will often open for tours right after construction is complete, and on rare occasions after that, but once put into service the Temples are normally closed to everyone not possessing the requisite approval from their Bishop.
That’s what I always heard it called, and that’s what I honestly thought they might have been meant for. It was an honest mistake, not intentional prejudice or judgment on my part. So again-bite me, bitch!
You didn’t see Stacy blogging about how Santorum was vulnerable over the Catholic doctrines of transubstantiation and papal infallibility. That’s because this is about Stacy’s animus against Romney. Stacy’s repeated claims that he has “studied” Mormonism make me think there’s a religious rivalry component to this animosity. But it’s pretty silly to hold yourself out as a scholar of a religious movement while describing its doctrines as “magic.” It’s like calling the Jewish tallit katan “magic underwear” and then boasting about your understanding of Judaism.
They play a lot of board games.
Since you offer that advice, don’t you think you now have a moral obligation to Hit The Friggin’ Tip Jar!?!
Well put.
I think many people, once the stories Stacy speaks of start to get circulated, will have the same reaction to Mormonism that the Early Christians had when they heard about the Gnostics and their practices.
Willard really needs to have a sitdown interview with someone at Fox [not O’Reilly or Scientologist Sustern] and talk about his faith. Disarm the Left by bringing up those aspects of Mormonism that will be cited them. His silence on this is not helping. Stop listening to your consultants, Willard.
Transubstantiation and Papal Infallibility are no longer that controversial in The United States, pal. The vast majority of Protestants have made their peace with Catholics and Jews.
Get your head out of the arse of the 19th Century.
I disagree with Papal Infallibility, but…I’m not shocked about it. Its…not exactly a novel doctrine. I’m pretty sure you could find a 17th century Protestant pastor making fun of it.
I have it on good authority that many Mormons are cunning linguists due to the missionary obligation.
I understand completely. Next time you have the urge to flame somebody, though. take five, have a smoke or a beer – or, if Mormon. a refreshing non-alcoholic beverage 😉 – and then come back to the keyboard to think about whether you REALLY want to use that particular language.
It hasn’t been the same since they neutered the Cookie Monster. 🙁
Close enough. Its pointed out that you need to be in good fellowship with God (not just saved) or you’re risking sickness and death from God’s hand.
So if you’re a Christian, but you’re having bitterness in your heart because Joe over in the next pew snagged the closer spot in the parking lot right from under your nose….be a good idea to pass on the Supper.
At one time it was used as a club to beat down any Catholic seeking political office, with the wielder being accused of dual loyalties and all that. But that line of attack, though still used by some on the Left, certainly does not resonate with very many people these days.
The doctrine of Papal Infallibility applies only to interpretation of scripture. Although there might at times be a political component to this (like in Pro-Life matters) generally speaking it has nothing to do with politics, or with anything else.
It’s just assumed that anybody who has been a Cardinal long enough to be qualified to be made Pope has enough grasp of knowledge of scripture and Catholic tradition (almost equally important in the Catholic faith) to be considered doctrinally infallible, with prayer, faith, and God’s help.
In other words, its not what a great many people think it means.