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:
- April 18: CNN’s Jack Cafferty: ‘Lingering Questions About Mormonism … Odd and Insular’
- April 17: Romney Booster Jen Rubin Getting Worried About ‘Mormon Mitt’ Meme?
- April 16: Ain’t I Done Told Ya So? (Part III)
- April 5: Framing the Narrative: Using Evangelicals as Hook for MSM ‘Mormon Mitt’ Meme
- April 5: Ain’t I Done Told Ya So? (Part II)
- April 2: Ron Paul Supporter Challenges Romney Over Mormon Doctrine in Wisconsin
- March 6: If You Think Mitt Romney Is ‘Electable’ …
I believe Obama’s father had several wives. Was he a mormon too?
OBAMA HAS A BIGGER POLYGAMY PROBLEM IN HIS FAMILY TREE
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/oops-dem-governor-bashes-romney-for-polygamist-great-grandfather-forgets-about-obamas-polygamist-dad/
Of course not! Reid is a Democrat.
Oh for pities sake. Yes, of course, if we don’t get rid of Mitt and find a new candidate who can win RIGHT NOW, we all all finished as Americans, the world will end and a police state will emerge to enforce the ever crazeir and soon to become obvious to everyone abuses of all our constitutional rights. Might as well move to China.
Oh wait, remember how after 2008, the media were saying the same thing, that there had been a fundamental shift to the left in the American public and the Republican party would have to transform or die a slow death. And then it all turned out to be wrong because people became outraged and voted in 2010. The american public hasn’t shifted left, they’ve always been, on average, moderate. We get exactly what we ask and vote for, as a whole. Everytime someone wins, many from the opposite politial party think America is screwed, it is all over, and they are always wrong. Some perspective is in order.
You are overthinking this. At no point did I EVER bring in this “SoCon” crap. “SoCon” = “I don’t want to be a leftie, but I still want that warm and fuzzy feeling from pretending the world is a nice place.”
Nor did I ONCE say “Romney”. I said “Mormon”. I can see where you’d associate the two, but that leap of yours is way too much for what I said.
So, like, chill, m’kay?
BECAUSE I AM NOT A FUCKING REPUBLICAN.
I have not associated myself with a party for years. I am a conservative. For lack of a better term.
Am I being clear? Should I use smaller words?
Good. Now listen.
The “big tent” analogy is a poor one, but I’ve not seen any better. I’m the first to shove idiots out the door into the rain, but I want to know about them first, because there are no clear metrics on what makes a person vote Republican (or, “Not Obama”, if you prefer). And it’s hard to pull them back into the tent if you make a mistake. So it’s best to know who you are looking at.
A lot of Mormons are Republicans. I know some whom are Democrats. If you want a baseline for Mormon Squishiness, look at Romney. Because, at their core, Mormons are humans who follow a different rulebook. Literally.
My point was, is, and remains: Mormons who are Americans are generally model Americans. If you didn’t know their religion, and chatted politics with them, you would never realize they were Mormons. This has been my experience. My issues with Romney (which I have not voiced on this forum) are political, and I do not use him as a yardstick for Mormonism.
The point that I should have made was:
Don’t follow the lead of the lefties, and take Romney as the model of a Mormon. Because that would be stupid.
And that’s all I’m going to say on this.
There is only one acceptable religion to the libs called nihilism: neo-paganism of many forms under the guise of climate change, abortion on demand, Islam, Caesar’s social justice, and a host of other euphemisms.
I get what you’re saying. But the way I see it, a good many SoCons (not all and maybe not even most) are playing by the leftie playbook about the Mormon angle, but they are doing it in a passive-aggressive manner, with this bullshit “this is what we’re going to be hearing about Mormons if Mitt is our nominee”, and then going down the line about the many ways the Mormon faith is “strange and exotic”, or “not really Christian”, etc. They just can’t let it go. Instead of attacking the left in kind, they are to all intents and purposes jumping in the sack with them.
Think about that, all of these people who are “only warning us about what’s coming” don’t seem to bother to even try to come up with any valid responses or counterattacks.
I don’t want to put anybody out in the rain, I just wish they didn’t want to put me out in the rain, or go storming off into the rain themselves in a huff because they can’t get their way.
And as somebody else pointed out somewhere else, it was Mormons who were in great part responsible (along with blacks and Latinos) for passing Proposition 8. Or was it for causing it to fail, I forget. Whatever the case, some of these people are attacking a solid group of conservative allies as a way of getting at Mitt Romney.
I happen to think its wrong from both ends, as an insult to Mormons and as an attack on Mitt. But that’s just me.
As Ockham’s Razor states: ‘the simplest explanation is usually the correct one’
The Malfeasant Media hates religion, hates conservatism, hates traditional America, especially successful capitalists.
Did I miss anything?
On October 19, 2008, Colin Powell said, “But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?”
Today no one asks, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Mormon in this country?
Why could we imagine being a Muslim shouldn’t make a difference but now being a Mormon is somehow a problem? Well MainStream Media? Is being a Mormon a problem?
The “South Park” version of this has the Mormon kid concluding his peroration with “Suck my balls.” I would *so* pay to hear Mitt say that.
Romney has the edge on the ‘economy’ issues. Let’s face it, Tea Partiers should be happy with Mitt. Tea Partiers are all about the size of government, taxes, personal responsibility, etc.
Romney can win this. Hope he picks a strong VP.
He already knows he is facing not only the Obama team but also the MainStream Media.
You must be new here. Either that or you completely fail at reading comprehension.
So someone throwing a cup of water in your face and saying ‘wake up!’ is perpetuating that five hundred foot tall tsunami thats about to lay waste to the whole town.
“Run! Flee for your lives! We’re doomed, the Mittsunami is coming!”
[…] Because if Stacy McCain is right, then the media is readying the battlespace for how weird and odd them Mormons are, with their polygamy and magic underwear and such. […]
The job of partisan conservatives is to make sure this sort of epic disaster does not ever happen again.
It need not happen yet: Mitt can resign; Gingrich or Santorum or Paul can win in a floor fight.
PT, I tend to agree with you (yeah, pick yourself up off the floor) on doing a better job of unifying around a candidate.
Perhaps we can have a pre-convention convention where everyone has to swear to be certified by Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin…and then this guy then goes out and clobberizes the RINO.
Pathfinder’s Wife,
Its not that over….what is almost over is the GOP.If conservatives, libertarians, and people leaning toward one or the other are not welcome at the Party, except as servants, then yeah, time for Operation WHIG!
Any Republican who supported Romney in the long run up to his loss on the floor, deserves another four years of Obama.
FIFY.
To those who say Obama has the same issue as Romney…yeah so? Naivete is so cute. You think this is going to be a fair fight? Remember how Obama got ripped to shreds over hanging out with a terrorist scumbucket? No, wait, that was Palin who got bashed for bringing obvious facts out.In the Right Wing, you might make a point, but unless you’re a lot tougher than you were in 2008, BAHWHOOOOM.
Well, thats the buy in for running for president these days and if Romney isn’t up for it then he isnt a candidate anyone should vote for. Show us a man who is smart and tough enough to fight off this media BS and just maybe he can climb over that “dont give a crap about politics demographic” problem. We dont need another pansy-ass in the white house for four more years, white or black.
How does he have the edge on the economy? His record as governor? His own avowed ideas? The SLC Olympics?
I bring this up because when Clinton ran (the first time) my SIL made the remark “people should check out what he did in Arkansas” (she lives there and is no Clinton fan, to this day and it all stems from AR); when Obama ran several people from IL said: “better check out his record in IL”.
The Mormon stuff is a hook (a mighty big one; they haven’t even begun to reel it in yet), but it sets the stage for a lot of other things and bringing it up is by no means doing the left’s work for them (trust me, they wouldn’t need the help).
I know, I know — Mitt’s said he’s severely conservative now, he says he’ll do xyz differently than what he did when he was governor — great speeches are given to just that very thing, and it will all be better.
All I can think of is the many people who jumped on the Obama train in ’08 because he and his campaign said he’d tack to the middle and would “rule” (that should have been a hint) as a centrist. Yes, yes, yes…nothing at all to be concerned or suspicious of….they promise; they pinky swear even.
Might as well sit back and make myself comfortable. No, there is likely no way there will be a brokered convention (no matter how much I might wish for one — and yes, I do, because I’m afraid this is likely to not end well at all). At least we shall all be well entertained.
1. Mitt will not resign, nor should he resign.
2. Hasn’t Rick had his ass handed to him enough to suit you?
3. Paul? Really, Tennwriter? PAUL?
The evangelical leaders in Iowa said the exact same thing, that we needed to coalesce behind one good solid conservative candidate. And they were right.
Unfortunately, they turned around and endorsed the wrong candidate.
What loss on the floor is that, Tennwriter? Oh yeah, I get it, you’re talking about the loss on the convention floor that’s not going to happen.
Do you want four more years of Obama?
No, she doesn’t want anybody but her darling little Ricky Poo.
By the way, are you going to be ready to eat crow when Mitt wins the nomination? You know its coming, right? Don’t worry, I won’t be mean about it, but surely you do know you have some good natured ribbing coming your way.
I’d like to think that while they definitely exist, they are a marked minority of SoCons. I hope so anyway, because I like to think I have a lot more in common with them than not, at least in a general sense, but I damn sure don’t have that in common with them if its true.
Well, things change over time.
Not all social conservatives are evangelical Christians by a damn sight.
And of those who are, their attitudes do change. Most of them wouldn’t have considered voting for a Catholic half a century ago, but especially since Roe v. Wade conservative Protestants and conservative Catholics have forged an alliance and learned to work together.
My impression is that the same thing is starting to happen with evangelicals and Mormons. They don’t have to agree on religion in order to recognize shared values.
I was just saying that the prejudices DO exist. They may be lessening, at least at the political level. I suspect that liberals are more suspicious of Romney’s Mormonism than evangelical social conservatives are.
Liberals dislike Mormons not so much because of their religion but just because the vast majority of them are conservative, which is a damn good reason the SoCons (evangelicals or otherwise) need to back off and take a deep breath. If Mormons were more like, for example, Unitarians as far as their political beliefs go, liberals would be more likely to defend them as criticize them.
They haven’t even warmed up yet Mr. McCain. It’s going to be cranked up to all crazy racist Mormon all the time. BTW I am not a Mormon/LDS. This is going to be a very difficult time for those who are.
Well, it’s a given that liberals don’t like conservatives, but I think the bigger issue for liberals is the same as it used to be for evangelical Christians with Catholics:
They’re afraid that Romney will receive, and accept, marching orders on the issues from the LDS hierarchy, and that those orders will be more conservative than his own inclinations.
I think that concern is overblown, but it’s not entirely unreasonable.
The South Park episode on Mormonism will not help Romney, I’m sure Comedy Central is going to replay it non-stop.
Though, the jest of the episode wasn’t bad….just because somebody has a bizarre religion, doesn’t preclude them from being good.
Evi and Pagan: Stacy is a reporter and, from all of his years covering politics, has accumulated a lot of knowledge about how politics works.
In these Mormon Mitt Meme posts, Stacy is providing us with – dare I say it – expert analysis of the Left’s tactics. He has a profound understanding of the Leftist Playbook and these posts are laying out for all of us to see the way they operate.
To impugn his motives is to declare that you believe he is so unprofessional that he would allow his emotions to overwhelm his Reason.
One would think, having hung around here for a while, you would know better.
Exactly. With so many Catholics as citizens and the fact that this ain’t 1928, the whole ‘Santorum would take instructions from the Pope’, the whole anti-Catholic BS wouldn’t be as effective.
Let’s face it: to even Christians and Jews, the Mormon religion is ‘strange and weird’ – that’s just a fact.
I tried that, but Mrs. B. threatened to pull my beating heart our with her bare hand so I could watch it as I died.
Dead solid perfect – well put.
Just like Pagan.
Perhaps it’s logical to compare the situation to the Protestants and Catholics in right after Roe.
I don’t think some people are getting the point of these posts, but then it’s not really reasonable to expect Stacy to confine himself to words of one syllable.
For RSM to run around yelling “Run for your lives, folks! The anti-Mormon bigots are coming! We’re doooomed! ” sounds rather silly.
While there is a lot of junk out there, there are also several million Mormons in the US, and a lot more people who know and have a fairly positive impression of Mormons. While it’s strange and unfamiliar, overall it’s not so repellent as, say, eating dog. A media campaign to focus attention on Mormonism has to be very carefully packaged not to make it sound too good, but not so biased that it gains sympathy, as Hilary Rosen demonstrated recently with a different issue. Conservative evangelicals and atheistic secular media types sound like very strange political bedfellows to me.
You talk about conservatives acting like Leftists, but, tell me, what were you acting like when you made that comment?
Exactly. And we non-Mormons must defend them when they’re being wrongly smeared. But, it must be admitted, that they haven’t helped the situation by being so secretive over the years.
Oh God no! We wouldn’t want to emulate the Daily Kos – Heaven [and, yes, there is one, forbid!
Not impugning his motives, I just think he might be letting his emotions get in the way of his objectivity. I don’t think he’s come to grips yet with the idea that Mitt will be the nominee. He can’t accept it and seems to be trying to get us to fight the inevitable.
“Look at all those anti-Mormon bigots! It’s a shame the Mormons have brought it on themelves by being a weird, secretive cult!”
You couldn’t have better illustrated Stacy’s point.
[…] The Other McCain: 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. […]
I was teasing her, you’re reading a different intent into it.
Having said that, its over and there’s nothing to be gained by acting like there’s any chance anybody but Mitt is going to be the nominee.
I want to move on. To those that do not, that’s their right, but the result is going to be their disappointment.
I’ve come to grips with the reality of the situation, and made my peace with it. And frankly, its a relief, to the point I’m actually fine with Mitt as the nominee.
A lot of this desperation is starting to take on elements of a personality cult, frankly.
We The People seem to have turned into We The Reaganites, and We The Palinites, and We The Santorumites.
Better than Mitt.
By God I like, wholly unlikely but just crazy enough to work. Well not really but definitely thinking outside the box.