To the MSM: Stop this shit
There are plenty of substantive reasons one can find to critique Mitt Romney’s public record. But what his ancestors did have zero bearing on weighing the qualifications of this candidate.
If his Mormon background matters at all, stick to what those practices have been within the period of Mitt’s adult life. His sole lasting marriage suffices as evidence that he doesn’t buy into practices that existed before he was born.
Did Kennedy get pinned with the Catholic Church’s bloody Crusades? Obviously not. If Mormonism in Romney’s adult life has any black marks against it, it’s fair to look for evidence of Romney’s support of that.
Otherwise, stick to his record in public service. I view him as a probable top tier candidate. And I believe there’s plenty in his record and in his opinion changes that deserve serious scrutiny. Pandering to rightwing religious bigots should simply be beneath the ethics of serious journalists with such critical issues needing address in the national interest.
February 24th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
… And Brigham Young’s Great-Great-Great-Grandson Won A Super Bowl…
Are the media really this desperate to find some dirt on Mitt Romney? I guess they must be: While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and…..
February 24th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
For crying out loud, we have become trivialized nitpickers alway looking for something, anything, to get on the other guy. I like him because he is a good looking hunk. Bout the same reasoning as his great grandfather’ wives, ya think??
February 24th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
“right wing religious bigots”, AP? Cal State-Fullerton? Come on.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
[…] If prominent evangelical Christians put out this story I’d expect the AP to publish a story about their anti-Mormon behavior. This story is a cheap shot, a smear. It adds nothing to readers trying to learn about Romney. It does say the AP is quite pathetic to launch such a miserable, meaningless attack. To steal from Iowa Voice, “Does this mean we can start going through Hillary’s family tree? Or Edwards? Or Obama?” There’s also Kevin Hayden: “Did Kennedy get pinned with the Catholic Church’s bloody Crusades? Obviously not. If Mormonism in Romney’s adult life has any black marks against it, it’s fair to look for evidence of Romney’s support of that.” […]
February 25th, 2007 at 4:07 am
[…] Ed Morrissey, Captain’s Quarters, thinks the media is really despereate. Kevin Hayden, American Street, tells the MSM to “Stop this shit.” […]
February 25th, 2007 at 6:24 am
“Pandering to rightwing religious bigots should simply be beneath the ethics of serious journalists…”
The AP could certainly learn a thing or two from a “progressive” like you about how to deliver a real smear! And then, without a hint of irony, the smooth transition into an ethics tip! This has been such an epiphany… up till reading this, I had never fully appreciated the meaning of the word “preening”.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:53 am
[…] Kevin Hayden notices that John Kennedy didn’t have to explain the Crusades (and has some strongly worded advice for the MSM). […]
February 25th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Sherlock, WHAT SMEAR? That there are religious bigots in this country? Color me shocked. No, obviously, color you shocked. You should get out of that cave you live in more often.
February 25th, 2007 at 8:07 am
You are correct Emma, I am indeed shocked that Mr. Hayden casually attributes the behavior of the AP to some convenient group without bothering to mention any evidence whatsoever, while simultaneously expounding to us on journalistic ethics.
That religious bigots exist I have no doubt, but I just don’t recall seeing the AP play to that audience very often, do you? Why not just criticize the AP for it’s behavior and stop right there… is it necessary to invoke a redneck boogeyman to explain every misstep of the MSM? Maybe it is, here, but over in my cave, I see the MSM screw up all the time, all by themselves, and usually at the EXPENSE of the right, not at it’s bidding.
February 25th, 2007 at 9:12 am
You’re right, of course. But I’m not crying any tears for Romney.
February 25th, 2007 at 10:56 am
At the expense of the Right???!!!
Shirley, you jest, Holmes. Are you suggesting that liberal religious extremists would oppose wanton sex with multiple partners?
Which religion would that be?
The AP story clearly is aimed at the GOP base of conservative Christians. A simple deduction, my good man. It may not be court-worthy, but it’s rather commonsense.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Kindly allow me to explain the true purpose of this AP article. What the AP was doing was a pre-emptive strike designed to air out the issue of bigamy / polygamy, NOT against Mr. Romney who they care not a whit about, but to innoculate another candidate they DO care deeply about. A candidate who has a “bigamy problem” much, much more recently in his family history. And your (to be sure, correct) reaction declaring such talk to be “shit” now allows all the right-thinking people to dismiss it as slanderous - if it happens to surface against the “wrong” candidate.
The AP’s motives had nothing to do with exposing someone’s great-great-great grandfather’s interpretation of holy writ, and everything to do with carrying water for the Democrats, the crown jewel of the AP’s ever-dwindling list of core competencies.
Cheers
February 25th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Sorry, Sherlock, I have no idea who you’re referring to with a bigamy problem. Which makes it difficult to comprehend your claim.
I’m aware that the AP was attacked incessantly by a small group of Righties, but overall, they’ve seemed one of the more neutrally managed orgs in the field.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
“Sorry, Sherlock, I have no idea who you’re referring to with a bigamy problem.”
Then, permit me to enlighten you…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=431908&in_page_id=1770
ps. Don’t bother calling me names - my position on these kinds of accusations (be they factual or not) is the same as yours. But you dispute my explanation of AP’s motives as “difficult to comprehend” because you claim that you don’t know who I am talking about. Now you do.
February 25th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Fair enough. The sins (and addiction) of the father don’t fairly reflect on the son if he hasn’t emulated him. I agree that it’s smearing of Obama and Romney, in the examples given.
You might note, however, in my original post, I wrote: “If Mormonism in Romney’s adult life has any black marks against it, it’s fair to look for evidence of Romney’s support of that.”
And, in fact, certain tenets of the Mormon faith have been or still are contentious, bigoted and reprehensible. Thus I think it fair to ask Romney if he supported those views, or supports others that remain a part of its present doctrines.
But what his ancestors did is not his responsibility.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
All any media member should have to do is ask Mitt if he believes that God lives on a planet named Kolob.
Yeah, that ought to do it
February 28th, 2007 at 8:22 am
To Mitt witt,
Take the magic underwear and go home.
Another repug-boob is all you are.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Kevin, I liked some of your comments. There is one part that puzzled me a bit though:
“And, in fact, certain tenets of the Mormon faith have been or still are contentious, bigoted and reprehensible. Thus I think it fair to ask Romney if he supported those views, or supports others that remain a part of its present doctrines.”
It is the “or still are” part of that statement that interests me. To what are you referring?
Jane
February 28th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Jane, I’m not an expert on Mormonism, so I can’t speak of things like ritual kitten sacrifices or forced viewings of Joe vs. the Volcano. Near beer, however, is a crime against humanity.
Seriously, the major complaint I’ve heard registered in recent years has been the lesser role of women within the church. It may not be exceptional in that regard, compared to many other churches, yet I find that “contentious, bigoted and reprehensible” in all that advance serious gender differences in administrative and ministerial roles.
February 28th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
So was that Kenndy feller the son of an infamous Drug king pin, or the son of a famous RumRunner?
Oh wait, there was not prohibition against drugs then, so he was indeed a RumRunner who as well purchased an ambassadorship as well right?
I’m that we can now exhume all of hillary’s corpses as well then eh?