Drip, Drip, Drip: ‘Mormon Mitt’ Meme Keeps Popping Up in Mainstream Media

Posted on Comments

OK, maybe it’s stretching the definition of “mainstream” to include the Daily Beast and MSNBC, but the predicted eruptions of the “Mormon Mitt” meme keep occurring with increasing frequency.

Notice how Newsweek/Daily Beast reporter Ben Jacobs hands a cue to Montana’s Democrat Gov. Brian Schweitzer:

While discussing swing states, Schweitzer said Romney would have a “tall order to position Hispanics to vote for him,” and I replied that was mildly ironic since Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, giving the clan a nominal claim to being Hispanic. Schweitzer replied that it is “kinda ironic given that his family came from a polygamy commune in Mexico, but then he’d have to talk about his family coming from a polygamy commune in Mexico, given the gender discrepancy.” Women, he said, are “not great fans of polygamy, 86 percent were not great fans of polygamy. I am not alleging by any stretch that Romney is a polygamist and approves of [the] polygamy lifestyle, but his father was born into [a] polygamy commune in Mexico.”
Romney’s father, George — who served as governor of Michigan and was a member of the Nixon cabinet and also a presidential candidate — was born in Mexico in 1907 to a family of American Mormons who fled to Mexico when the United States government cracked down on the practice of polygamy. George Romney’s parents were in a monogamous marriage, but Mexico was the last bastion for the practice of plural marriage in the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Jacobs just casually mentions — oh, by the way, how ironic! — Romney’s father being born in Mexico, and this automatically triggers Schweitzer to start in on a rant about a “polygamy commune,” and to then further contextualize this in terms of what percentage of women voters disapprove of polygamy. This rant then provides an excuse for Jacobs to relate the biographical/historical facts.

Completely coincidental, you see. Just a reporter doing his job.

Meanwhile, on MSNBC, Martin Bashir delivered a sermon Thursday:

It’s now time to clear the air and on Wednesday’s broadcast we brought you a spirited discussion about Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith and one pastor’s view that Mormonism is both theologically heretical and a cult.
Today, we wanted to focus on what Mormonism says about lying and the reason is quite simple — Mr. Romney seems to be having some trouble telling the truth . . .
Which brings us to the moral codes of Mormonism that Mr. Romney claims to live by. In section 63 and verse 17 of the Doctrine and Covenants of the Mormon Church we find this: “All liars, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie, and the whoremonger, and the sorcerer, shall have their part in that lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
And from the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 2:34, we find this: “Woe unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell.” Given what the Book of Mormon is clearly saying, Mr. Romney has but two choices — he can either keep lying and potentially win the White House but bring eternal damnation upon himself, or he can start telling the truth.

Now, the video:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

As you can see, Bashir calls Romney “Mitt the Mendacious” three times. The crudeness of Bashir’s rhetorical method is enough to make Allahpundit pine for “the relative subtlety and understated good taste of Keith Olbermann.” Bashir also reminds MSNBC viewers that on Wednesday, he interviewed Pastor Robert Jeffress, the Southern Baptist who endorsed Romney despite Jeffress’s continued insistence that Mormonism is a heretical cult.

What Bashir is doing is something I explained two weeks ago: Using evangelicals as a “hook” to bring up Romney’s Mormonism. This is a familiar theme that mainstream reporters have been working on ever since the 2008 campaign. The supposed anti-Mormon prejudices of evangelical Christians that were much talked about in terms of Romney’s difficulties in GOP primaries will now be reinterpreted as an excuse to talk about Mitt’s Mormonism for the general election campaign.

It’s a great two-birds-with-one-stone-stone trick for liberals: “Look how bigoted these holy rollers are and — hey, by the way — did you notice that Romney’s religion is kinda weird and has a history of polygamy, violence and racism? Also, coming up next, we have an exclusive interview with an ex-Mormon woman who has written a book that says the church is horribly sexist . . .”

There will be no end to this, and those who are sanguine about Romney’s election chances — Ace seems positively giddy these days — may be naive in thinking the media’s steady drip, drip, drip about Mormonism will not hurt Mitt with independents.

Three words: “Low-information voters.”

The kind of people who never vote in primaries and seldom vote in mid-terms, but who feel it their patriotic duty to vote in presidential elections, are notoriously disengaged from politics on a day-to-day basis. They don’t pay much attention to the news, and have only a superificial knowledge of issues and ideologies. They usually show up in poll data as “don’t know/don’t care/undecided.”

What will these voters know about Mitt Romney by Nov. 6? They’ll know he’s rich, and they’ll know he’s Mormon.

What the media are doing now is establishing a pretext for future in-depth coverage of the history, beliefs and practices of LDS. When the “low-information voters” start paying attention, what they will learn about Mormonism from the media will be . . .

Well, it won’t be anything that makes independent “swing” voters want to go storming to the polls to vote for Romney, that’s for sure.

Remember George Allen’s 2006 campaign? Liberals spent months laying down the background of Allen’s alleged “neo-Confederate” connections, with articles in the New Republic and other outlets, so that when he said “macaca,” it was like he had hit a trip-wire that exploded a mine and set off a massive ambush.

They’re now doing the same to Romney with the “Mormon Mitt” meme: Establishing the map-grid coordinates, as it were, so that when the signal flare goes up, everybody is aiming at the same target and Romney is helplessly trapped in the media kill-zone. They’ve got Romney zeroed in already: When he attempts to “distance” himself from whatever out-of-the-mainstream Mormon belief he’s accused of holding, his denial will then be used as evidence that he is just an insincere panderer with no core principles. If Mitt complains that he is the victim of religious bigotry, they’ll mock him as a whining crybaby.

All of this is perfectly predictable, you see: It is foreshadowed already, and the fact that they held back until after they were sure Romney had the nomination locked up — once Mitt won Wisconsin — was a clear clue of their ultimate intention. Yesterday, it was announced that Mitt would give the commencement address at Liberty University. Look how the New York Times played it:

Mitt Romney will deliver the commencement address at Liberty University, the evangelical institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, Va.
Mr. Romney’s campaign said the university invited him to speak to the approximately 48,000 people expected to attend the graduation ceremony on May 12.
Virginia is a swing state, but for Mr. Romney, this invitation offers a chance to shore up one of his weaknesses within his base, as many evangelicals remain wary of his Mormon faith.
Jerry Falwell Jr., the university’s chancellor, said in a statement that “we are delighted” that Mr. Romney would be speaking, and he compared the visit to those of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the elder George Bush in 1990. However, the decision has already sparked controversy among students and alumni of Liberty University, with nearly 300 people commenting on the institution’s Facebook announcement within two hours of its posting.
“I am so disappointed in my university for their choice in commencement speaker Romney. You have lost a potential grad student,” wrote Paige Farmer. “It is shameful that you would allow him a stage for political gain. What could a Mormon possibly have to share with Christians?”

You can see it coming a mile away, folks. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

UPDATE (Wombat-socho): INSTALANCHE!

UPDATE II: Linked by Bob Belvedere at the Camp of the Saints, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, The Conservatory, Andrew J. Patrick, Daley Gator, Da Tech Guy, John Schroeder, The Crawdad Hole and by His Vorpal Sword, who awards me the “Golden Buttplug.” Uh, thanks, I guess.

 

 

RECENTLY:


153 comments

  3. You wouldn’t be perpetuating the Mormon Mitt Meme with your in depth coverage of the Mormon Mitt Meme, would you?  Oh, of course not…

  4. We may have to cut Martin Bashir a little slack. He is from Britain, a country that had religious standards for voting and holding political offices for centuries. He is probably unaware that such religious tests are expressly forbidden by our Constitution.

    After all, the guy is a real berk. 

  5. I’m inclined to think any Republican Presidential Candidate would have a problem To them, Santorum wanted to establish a theocracy and be the Pope’s right hand man. Bachmann and Perry were crazy right wing Evangelicals and  Newt “changed” his religion. (They don’t get the fact that converting to Roman Catholicsm is not changing your religion-just your church and denomination.)

  8. Considering that President Pupeater McFailpants’ daddy dabbled him in some polygamy himself, I’d say this is a wash.

    All Romney has to do for those low-info voters is make the equivalent of JFK’s “I’m not THAT Catholic” speech.

     

  9. Mitt’s cheerleaders seem really pleased with themselves of late – what with being able to volley back the attack on his wife, and the dog on the roof thing.  Ever failing to realize they are still fighting on Obama’s chosen court and that Obama still has the serve.   

    Meanwhile Romney struggles to argue that, while Obama has failed, he can do it better.  As if the problem is one of management, not fundamentals.  Thereby confirming that Obama, and the left in general, will always retain serve, and that the RINOs remain content to ever play defense.

  11. A interesting retort that should be played frequently. At least Mormons don’t eat dogs after ritually sacrificing them.

  12.  He already tried that and it went over like a lead balloon. What he needs to do is just say, “I’m a Mormon, a proud Mormon, I’m happy in my faith, and if anybody doesn’t like it, they are welcome to bite me.”

  13.  Yeah what we really need is a self-righteous religious fanatic who used to be a RINO member of the Senate leadership during those dreaded RINO Bush years, who claims he is a conservative out of one side of his mouth while out of the other side he insists that earmarks are just the way business gets done in Washington. I wonder where we can find a guy like that.

  16. Once again Stacy, don’t think that the MSM wouldn’t be doing the same thing to Santorum about his “crazy religion.”  We were destined to fight this religion attack, either on the hill of Mormonism or or the mountain of strict Catholicism.  Either way, they were going to make this attack.  At least Romney (not my first choice) is showing the will to fight and fight well.  Santorum was too hot-headed and would had shot himself in the foot sooner rather than later.

  17. Well it isn’t as if we didn’t already know that we needed to abolish Martin Basher.
    Being born in Mexico doesn’t make one hispanic anymore than being born in Britain makes one AngloSaxon. The whole Romney is hispanic and therefore should have more compassion for immigrants meme that pops up from time to time is preposterous. As for the Mormons such as Mitt’s grandfather who fled to Mexico when their church and state ban polygamy, what were they supposed to do? Pick one woman to be his lawfully wedded wife and declare the rest concubines?

  18. So Stacy’s contention is that we should have disqualified Mitt on the basis of his Mormonism.  That seems pretty sick in my opinion,

    How long is this obsession of yours going to run?

    And I’ll echo what others have said, Sanotrum’s “convictions” would have been a MUCH bigger problem.  They have Santorum on record calling married Protestant couples who use birth control “sexual libertines” and that mainline Protestants are not real Christians.

  19. So the GOP goes instead with a pandering RINO governor who has in the past called himself a progressive?

    and nobody knows if he’s a religious fanatic or not because nobody really knows what his core principles are, if any?

    This is just the piddly stuff for now, and a way to get conservatives defending Mitt to the hilt — if you look at some of the things they are already starting to let drip (besides the mommy/doggy/cookie “gates) it doesn’t look good. 
    The more you find out about Mitt; the more there is to be troubled by — and that’s not a nice place to be.

  21.  So like I keep saying, the next time out if conservatives don’t want to end up with a RINO they need to do a hell of a better job at picking what “conservative” candidates to support (hopefully one that doesn’t require scare quotes around the word conservative). Until such time, this is just going to be one constant merry-go-round ending in a Ford, Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney, etc. Who knows, the next time around maybe we’ll end up with good old Jeb. But hey, those Bushes do know how to pick a good conservative token for a running mate at least.

    We’ve spend the last four months or so playing Whack-A-Mole with all of our candidates, or every little mistake they make, real or perceived. When you do that, you shouldn’t be surprised when the biggest RINO of the bunch makes his way to the top.

  22. I think Mr. McCain’s contention is that there is a lot there that could/should disqualify Mitt and the Mormon issue, while not necessarily a disqualifier, is going to be used against him in a way that creates big problems.

    The big difference is Santorum came out and spoke up about his religion and beliefs — some didn’t like it, but not once did he ever say (in fact, he refuted, and gave good reasons for it too) he’d force his religious beliefs onto the American people; he just admitted they were a part of his core, personal (!) principles.  And he didn’t pussyfoot around about it either (which I can respect).

    Has Mitt Romney ever done the same? (and there is another crux of the matter, because one would have to know enough about Mormonism to know if he had or not…Catholicism and Evangelicism is well enough comprehended by most people that they will “get” it when a politician says either one makes up core principles of their personal beliefs or determines/doesn’t determine how they will likely govern — and accept or reject as you will).

  23. We’ve answered this before Ninja.  Of course, they would, but….
     It would not nearly be as effective for a variety of reasons.

  25.  The primary is over. Like it or not, Mittens is what we have. And we can continue to lose our shit over how Tea Party he’s not (as if any of them really were) until we’re red in the face. In fact, we can primary his ass in 2016 if we like.

    Just so long as we un-Occupy the Resolute Desk first.

  26. What’s being lost in the religious discussion is the fact that Mitt is mendacious.   Lies, lies, and more lies.

    And the 2nd point is that conservative religious institutions, the tea party and even Faux News are all lining up behind Mitt.  The great pivot is well underway. 

  27. Exactly. We need to get people in our party past this delusional bullshit that we might be able to engineer a brokered convention that will somehow magically end up nominating a man who got less than half the delegates of the front-runner, and who himself came to realize he needed to drop out to avoid the embarrassment of potentially losing his own damn state.

    Then we need to concentrate on electing as many Republicans, conservative Tea Party ones wherever possible, to the House and hopefully retake the Senate by a substantial margin.

    Then we can either deal with Mitt, or marginalize him. That would be wholly up to him.

  29. There is likely not going to be a “next time” for conservatives (or classic liberals or true libertarians)…certainly within the GOP, perhaps anywhere else.

    Either the people speak up now or learn to shut up and accept their lot (or something else happens, which isn’t a happy thought for me).

  31. You can tell Stacy is REALLY pissed that Romney is winning right now according to both Gallup and Rasmussen.

    Such a team player! 

    How dare Romney get support without people hating him for his religion! 

    And BTW, the fact that they’re shooting off about this Mormon nonsense at this stage of the game shows the LEFT is scared sh!tless right now.

  32. Yes there will be a next time, though maybe not until 2020, provided Mitt is elected. If Obama is reelected, looking forward to 2016 might well be the last thing on our minds. We might have other things to do, like for example scrounging around dumpsters to try to find enough food to feed our families before the rats get to it.

    Of course in order to get to it, we might have to worry about who’s car we’re going to have to siphon gas from to make it to those dumpsters. And what weapons we might need to take to run off the bums who sleep in the dumpsters waiting for the nightly dump.

    You know, those kinds of things.

    But no, let’s not worry about all that, let’s try to disrupt the convention so we can force through somebody two thirds of GOP primary voters have made clear they don’t want.

    You know, because he’s the only one who is “electable” and stuff.

  34. Romney’s family: no bigamists or polygamists
    Obama’s family: his father was already married when he “married” Obama’s mother, making him a bigamist under US law. He later married many other women without divorcing other wives, making him a polygamist, a long – standing family practice. The real question is, did he eat dog?

  35. “The supposed anti-Mormon prejudices of evangelical Christians”

    There’s no “supposed” about it.

    Whether or not the prejudices are justified is of course a separate question, as is the question of whether or not it’s proper to use them as a political disruptor.

    But as to whether or not the prejudices exist, I’ve witnessed them extensively, firsthand and from both sides of that divide.

  36. I am in no way surprised about the anti-Mormon tactics here.   How so, you ask?  To wit:

    1.  Bush Derangement Syndrome, enabled by the media.

    2. Al Gore’s descent into political useless immediately after his loss to Bush in 2000, followed by his ascent into environmental godhood, with the full support of the media.

    3.  The careful whitewashing of Bill Clinton’s policies that George Bush followed on with (e.g., deposing Saddam Hussein).

    4.  McCain’s shellacking in 2008, but especially the vitriol aimed at him by the left.

    5.  Palin Derangement Syndrome, enabled by the media.

    6.  Bush Derangement Syndrome, enabled by the media.

    (Say, did I mention the Bush Derangement Syndrome?)

    In any case, these are standard Alinksy tactics, i.e., demonize your opponents.  Get used to it people.  And if you aren’t used to it, wake the f**k up.

    I’d like to also note that while I am not a Mormon, I do live and work in that part of the United States where there is a significant Mormon population.  Aside from that 5% of any population who are genetically inclined to be assholes, I’ve never had problems dealing with them.  Indeed, I’ve often admired their community spirit, fostered in some part by the church. 

    Many of them are model Americans.  Including the sort of American who shoots back.  A point that the lefties might want to remember.

  37. I’d like to throw in the definite anti-Mormon prejudices of (supposedly agnostic) liberals.  I’ve witnessed them firsthand, even before Romney started winning primaries. 

  38. Stacy:  I understand you think Rick Santorum would have been a better choice than Mitt Romney.  But constantly bringing up this Mormon thing as an “I told you so” is for what purpose?  

    I am not an LDS member (and I have looked at the basis of the faith) but I would like to judge people and faiths on how they treat others.  Mormons, for the most part, are good people.  I do not have to agree with their faith to support a Mormon candidate.  Being Mormon is not an automatic deal breaker. I look to the candidate for pluses and minuses (I would reject Harry Reid not because he is Mormon but because is a lying crap weasel; I do not agree with all of Mitt’s positions and past actions but I can support Mitt Romney over Barack Obama).  And Mitt, Barack Obama is not a “nice guy.”  

    Had Santorum won the nomination, he would have been pillared (falsely) as some sort of religious nut case (it would have been Martin Bashir and others making him an Opus Dei albino).  And I would have defended Santorum on that rather than say “I told you so.”  Would he have beaten Obama?  Possibly.  But Rick Santorum failed to beat Mitt Romney in the primaries (and then he suspended his campaign).  So he is not going to be the nominee.  

    Yes the party elites went for Romney.  Yes Romney had more money.  Yes there were unfair attacks on Santorum.  But ultimately, Santorum failed to get support from independents and others and that prevented him from over taking Romney (and part of that was Rick Santorum’s fault).  

    If you are going third party, so be it.  I get that many are doing that and while I disagree (because I think we have to get rid of Obama) I understand the motivation. But if you are not, then isn’t the job of partisan conservatives to at least attack the crap weasel lies of Martin the Mendoucheous?

  41.  This tea partier is NOT lining up behind Mitt.

    Remember the 2004 ALCS series with Mitt as the Yankees in the series.

    The rules are best of 7, so they didn’t stop playing just because the Yanks were up 3 games to 0 and winning in the 9th inning of the fourth game. And NO team had ever come back from an 0-3 deficit.

    Rule: Best of 7

    The rules are 1,144 delegates voted on the convention floor. We don’t stop playing just because Mitt has the most delegates now. He doesn’t have 1,144. And he has to get them on the convention, floor.

    Several states’ delegates are unbound.

    For example, Missouri and Colorado are confirmed that most or all of their delegates will be for Ron Paul on the first round. Possibly Minnesota’s as well.

    We don’t stop playing.

    Rule: 1,144 delegates on the convention floor.

  42.  Good thing you won’t have your profane way about it. It’s still a free country. And you control no one but yourself.

  43. Like a man desperately clinging to the top edge of a sheer cliff by his fingernails, Stacy is holding on to this nonsensical hope that we might be able to manufacture a brokered convention that will nominate Rick Santorum-a man who at least two thirds of GOP primary voters rejected and who by the time he dropped out to avoid the potential embarrassment of losing his own state had amassed less than half the delegates of front-runner Mitt.

    Lost in all of this is any kind of satisfactory or sensible explanation as to why all these delegates would even think about changing their votes at the convention, and even if they would, why in the hell they would go for Santorum as opposed to any number of candidates, such as Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, or Chris Christie, any of whom would make a far more acceptable compromise candidate, at least from their perspective, than a man who got his ass handed to him over and over again, a man who on some occasions went out of his was to insult the federalist, fiscon Tea Parties that made our victories in 2010 possible, and any Christian who didn’t adhere to his version of the scriptures.

    Unless he is killed or something really devastating about him surfaces, Mitt is going to be the nominee, and even in the event one of those things happened, there’s no coherent reason to think Santorum should be the one to replace him.

  44.  I didn’t say I control anyone but myself, nor do I have any desire to control anyone but myself, unlike some people I could mention. But I do have a voice, and like I said, if I have my way, the Tea Party will stand behind our Republican nominee. And if you don’t like it you’re welcome to hit the fucking road. The less religious fanatics we have throwing their little temper tantrums the better off the party will be in the long run.

  45.  And BTW, not to put too fine a point on it, but I have already gotten my profane way, as you put it, seeing as how in a good many states Mitt won the Tea Party vote against your darling little Ricky Poo, including at least one or two southern states.

  46. Exactly. Any Republican who helps our enemies attack our Republican nominee, especially over his religion of all things, deserves another four years of Barak Obama. The thing about that is, the rest of us do not want another four years of Barak Obama and we do not deserve it, so its incumbent on us to call out this bullshit wherever we find it.

  47.  Here’s the problem we have too many Republicans who are looking for somebody that “shares their values”, which is fine up to a point, but in all too many cases “shares our values” translates into “shares our religious beliefs” in effect putting more emphasis on electing a Pastor-In-Chief than a Commander-In-Chief, and even more to the point, jumping to the conclusion that such a person by definition absolutely has to be “conservative”.

    Never mind that he supported earmarks, and even spoke in support of them as recently as during this very primary season.

    Never mind that this same candidate probably in many cases doesn’t even see a good many of these people as true Christians.

    Don’t even bring up the fact that he said out of his own mouth that he has “serious concerns about the Tea Party” which happened to be the people who were majorly in not in fact solely responsible for our 2010 mid-term election gains in the House and the various statehouses, many of whom thanks to them, Republicans came to control for the first time in over a century.

    Never mind that many of the few losses we experienced in the Senate that year were losses by candidates who were the very SoCons (Hello, Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, etc.) they claim we need more of. They’re ready and willing to chuck all of our gains out the window if they don’t get a prayer warrior for President. It’s sickening.

  49. Did anyone mention polygamous ancestors? Well, that is just another issue that balances out since both Romney and Obama have them.
     
    Obama’s dreamy old dad probably practice it. But that is okay on two counts because he was both a Muslim and thus allowed 4 wives and  belonged to a tribe that had a heritage of polygamy.

    HT Gateway Pundit

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-and-romney-both-come-from-a-ancestry-of-polygamy/2012/04/12/gIQA3TI8CT_story.html?hpid=z3

    … The line of polygamists in Obama’s family can be traced back generations in western Kenya, where it was an accepted practice within the Luo (pronounced LOO-oh) tribe. His great-grandfather, Obama Opiyo, had five wives, including two who were sisters. His grandfather, Hussein Onyango,
    had at least four wives, one of whom, Akumu, gave birth to the president’s father, Barack Obama, before fleeing her abusive husband.
    Obama Sr. was already married when he left Kenya to study at the University of Hawaii, where he married again. His American wife-to-be, Stanley Ann Dunham, was not yet 18 and unaware of his marital situation when she became pregnant with his namesake son in 1961….

  50. “Low-information” voters could very well make up a large chunk of the electorate that has become unemployed under Obama.  I have a feeling that’s going to resonate with them a lot more than Romney’s religious faith.

Comments are closed.