It's sickening. They seem to be saying, "We know you Christian conservatives are a bunch of backward, close-minded, bigots. Hey, Mitt Romney is a Mormon! You can't possibly want to support someone like him."
In the same vein, The New York Times has a slimy piece about the potential for Romney's Mormonism to derail his presidential hopes.
As he begins campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is facing a threshold issue: Will his religion — he is a Mormon — be a big obstacle to winning the White House?
Polls show a substantial number of Americans will not vote for a Mormon for president. The religion is viewed with suspicion by Christian conservatives, a vital part of the Republicans’ primary base.
Mr. Romney’s advisers acknowledged that popular misconceptions about Mormonism — as well as questions about whether Mormons are beholden to their church’s leaders on public policy — could give his opponents ammunition in the wide-open fight among Republicans to become the consensus candidate of social conservatives.
Mr. Romney, in an extended interview on the subject as he drove through South Carolina last week, expressed confidence that he could quell concerns about his faith, pointing to his own experience winning in Massachusetts. He said he shared with many Americans the bafflement over obsolete Mormon practices like polygamy — he described it as “bizarre” — and disputed the argument that his faith would require him to be loyal to his church before his country.
I get the feeling that The Times is cheering for Christian conservatives to turn their backs on Romney.
It's similar to the way John Kerry and John Edwards and the lib media exploited Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, during the 2004 campaign.
They hoped they could turn Christian conservatives against the Vice President by highlighting his daughter. That turned out to be just one of many mistakes the Dems made in 2004.
The lib media are still trying to play on those presumed prejudices among conservatives today. The coverage of Mary Cheney's pregnancy is a case in point.
I can't imagine The Times running an article about Barack Obama and suggesting that his connections with Islam would be a negative.
Picture this headline:
"Muslim School Educated Candidate Braces for Religion as Issue"
It wouldn't happen because Obama's a lib.
To the contrary, Reuters bothered to explain that Obama's school wasn't a "hotbed of Islamic radicalism."
The lib media have bent over backwards to disassociate Obama from his Muslim roots because they believe that Obama's time in a Muslim school in Indonesia and his father being raised as a Muslim is being used to hurt Obama politically.
So in Obama's case, his religious background is minimized, explained away, irrelevant.
It's a non-issue, right? Perhaps it isn't.
If we need to obsess about Romney's Mormonism, maybe we should continue to look more closely at Obama's religious influences as well.
The lib media have to decide whether or not to focus on a candidate's religion and apply the standard across the board. This cherry picking is so transparent.
I'm especially troubled by the suggestion that if Romney landed in the White House, he'd put his religion ahead of his country.
Didn't the country settle the issue of one's religious beliefs and their impact on one's ability to serve in public office at least 47 years ago? Wasn't that put to rest when John Kennedy broke the religion barrier?
It's particularly weird for The Times to ponder about whether Romney's Mormonism would get in his way if he were elected president.
The Times doesn't care about Harry Reid's Mormonism. His religion isn't an issue. I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise. The struggling Times doesn't care about Reid's shady land deals either. Why would Reid's religious affiliation be an issue?
Is Reid ever accused of being loyal to his church before his country?
It's a non-issue when Reid is the Mormon in question. It's an entirely different matter when it's Mitt Romney.
Of course, a double standard is being applied. In addition, I think there's a subtle bigotry at play.
Focusing on ONE poll by The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News from June 2006, it's noted that "37 percent [of Americans] said they would not vote for a Mormon for president."
(Where are the poll results on whether Americans would vote for a Muslim candidate?)
It's as if The Times has stepped back to 1960 and is asserting that Americans will not even consider Romney solely because of his faith.
...Gloria A. Haskins, a state representative from South Carolina who is supporting Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination, said discussions with her constituents in Greenville, an evangelical stronghold, convinced her that a Mormon like Mr. Romney could not win a Republican primary in her state. South Carolina has one of the earliest, and most critical, primaries next year.
“From what I hear in my district, it is very doubtful,” Ms. Haskins said. “This is South Carolina. We’re very mainstream, evangelical, Christian, conservative. It will come up. In this of all states, it will come up.”
In other words, most people in South Carolina will automatically dismiss Romney. The evangelicals don't like his kind.
Give me a break!
Mormonism is like a cult.
Evangelicalism is like a cult.
Is Islam like a cult?
Speaking of cults, what about the cult of liberalism at The New York Times?
No comments:
Post a Comment