Scary Halloween Thoughts

On this Halloween, I can’t think of anything scarier than the thought of another Obama term. But the GOP race is lately a bit scary, as well, with mud flying.



Following up on my last blog, regarding Romneycare, I now feel vindicated for my intuition. Perry is scaring people by running an ad with clips of Romney that show him apparently endorsing Romneycare for the nation like Obamacare. But when interviewed on the Russert program, Romney said that Perry’s ad misleadingly left out the explicit qualification he gave at the same time of “not at the federal level.”

Sometimes you have to suspend judgment or use common sense until you have the facts. As the saying goes, a lie (or half-truth) goes halfway around the world before the truth gets out the door. To raise an accusation is always easier and less time-consuming than to answer it.

But to prove I can be objective and reasonably fair, I was disappointed at an ad I saw run by the Romney campaign showing Perry bumbling in the debates. I felt that was an unnecessarily below-the-belt, personal attack, when there is so much more substance he could use against him. Clearly Perry is a newcomer to presidential politics, and some slack should be cut, although one important presidential quality is communication. But Romney did graciously cut him some in the first debates – it just wasn’t reciprocated. Clearly there is animosity between the two, and with Perry’s war chest, more may be expected.

And though I don’t endorse Cain for president (I think he’d be great as VP with Mitt), I think the dredging up of accusations of sexual harassment some 20 years ago were also beyond the pale. Shades of Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court justice hearings. In both cases, even if the charges are true, they amount to no more than minor verbal gaffes. And the preliminary evidence shows that the charges were unsubstantiated, and leveled by underperformers who stood to lose their jobs anyway, and who by making charges stood to gain monetarily. Cain absolutely denies them, saying they were fabricated, and those who know him vouch for his character.

Apparently the liberal Left cannot stomach Black conservatives -- they don’t fit their world view of racial stereotypes – and that’s not racism? And they will pull out all the stops, including making baseless charges, to smear one, when they have nothing more substantial, and see one within reach of a high office. Again, the usual liberal/Left double standard – every Democrat (Clinton, congressmen, etc.) with more substantial and substantiated charges of actual sexual acts are defended and kept in office. Republicans generally step down in shame. And the liberal/Left of course only raise it because they believe it important to conservatives who generally have higher moral standards.

No Core?

Back to Romney, the Obama administration (at least a couple of them) have been accusing Romney of having no core. I was amazed at Karl Rove’s response to that – an amazingly long litany of Obama’s continual shifts – no tax raising in a recession & then raise them, no Guantanamo or military trials and then keep them, as senator he attacked deficit spending and now has outdone all previous spenders, etc., etc. He said, “Please, Mr. Obama, don’t lecture us on lack of core.” And again, while Mitt has evolved over time in the more conservative direction (a good thing), he’s not a flip-flopper. And when asked why he’s depicted as not conservative, he cites his record as Mass. governor with lowered taxes & spending, budget surplus, anti-abortion, defense of marriage, etc.

More on The Religion Card

Here are some interesting links.

“Just for the Record: Anti-Mormonism is Bigotry Too,” by James Fallows in The Atlantic:

“I am no big fan of Mitt Romney's. ..... But for people to come out and say that they won't back a candidate because he's Mormon and therefore a "cult" member is no better than saying "I'd never trust a Jew" or "a black could never do the job" or "women should stay in their place" or "Latinos? Let 'em go back home." Maybe it makes things more "honest" for people to be open about their anti-Mormonism and discreet about other prejudices. The only two biases people aren't embarrassed expressing publicly are anti-Southern (the "Bubba factor") and anti-Mormon. Still, it's bigotry. [more at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/just-for-the-record-anti-mormonism-is-bigotry-too/241444/#.TpM8eK06fRB.facebook]

“Why don’t we challenge anti-Mormonism? Because it’s the prejudice of our age.”
By William Saletan on Slate.com

He noted the divergent responses to the “Niggerhead” rock on Perry’s property and the religious attack on Romney. “...The gap between these two episodes—clear condemnations of racism, but silence and ambiguity about anti-Mormonism—illustrates a fundamental weakness in our understanding of bigotry. We’re always fighting the last war.” He cites a Gallup survey showing only between 5 and 10% wouldn’t vote for a black, woman, Catholic, Jew or Hispanic, “...But 22 percent said they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. Gallup reported:

‘The stability in U.S. bias against voting for a Mormon presidential candidate contrasts markedly with steep declines in similar views toward several other groups over the past half-century,...

Similar or worse survey results were found in Quinnipiac & Pew surveys. “...it does mean that nearly everyone now recognizes anti-black prejudice as socially unacceptable. That isn’t true of anti-Mormon sentiment: 22 to 35 percent of respondents are willing to declare their anti-Mormon views.”

“If you think liberals are immune to such bias, think again. In the Pew poll, 31 percent of Democrats, compared to 23 percent of Republicans, said they’d be less likely to support a candidate if he were Mormon. In the Quinnipiac poll, 46 percent of Democrats, compared to 29 percent of Republicans, said they’d be uncomfortable with a Mormon president. In the Gallup poll, 27 percent of Democrats, compared to 18 percent of Republicans, said they wouldn’t vote for a Mormon for president. In the Poll Position survey, 37 percent of Democrats said they’d never vote for a Mormon, compared to 26 percent of Republicans.

“The lesson in these numbers is that we should focus our scrutiny not where we all agree, but where we don’t. What happened to that rock at Perry’s hunting camp—once proudly displayed, then painted over, and now universally condemned—tells a timeless story about bigotry: You’ll know it when you see it, but you won’t see it till you know that’s what it is. The prejudices you need to work on aren’t the ones you recognize in your grandparents’ generation. They’re the ones you don’t recognize in your own generation, and in yourself.”

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/10/mitt_romney_s_mormon_cult_controversy_anti_mormonism_is_the_prej.html]

And for all their smug, chest-thumping pride over their tolerance and political correctness, the polls show the liberals to be the worst offenders and hypocrites. They love to just keep reliving and fighting those glorious battles long over (although historically the Democrats were the worst offenders), and keep gratuitously raising the race card to show their Johnny-come-lately moral “superiority,” and inferiority of their opponents. Even when there’s no basis in fact, and especially when they have no other arguments.

And now, for a very un- (or anti-) biased view, here's Kathleen Parker: “If only all the candidates were Mormon” [http://www.dailybreeze.com/columnists/ci_19109056]

“Rather than worrying about whether Mormons worship the right God in the right way, Republicans should insist that only Mormons run for president.

“Only half-joking.

“Anyone watching the Republican debates, especially Tuesday night's on the economy, can't be missing the obvious. The two smartest, coolest, most independent and least ideological - this is to say, most presidential and electable - candidates are the two Mormons, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman.

“Instead of wondering what's up with Mormons, Americans should be asking: Whoa, what do they know that we don't?

“It is utterly ludicrous that at this point in our history some conservatives insist on raising the question of religious belief in a presidential election. The latest embarrassment comes from a Texas pastor and Rick Perry supporter, who said recently that Mormonism is a cult.

“If the "cult" of Mormonism means you raise a solid family, work hard, make money and do good for the greater community of mankind, then by all means pass the Kool-Aid.

“Regrettably, we have but one presidency and two Mormons. Both Romney and Huntsman, as former governors, would bring considerable talent to the White House - “Romney primarily on the economy and Huntsman, also one-time ambassador to China, on foreign policy. If anything, Republicans should be trying to figure out how best to use them both.

“Two Mormons on one ticket? Wouldn't happen, but it might/could/should.

“Romney has been at politics longer and, according to Republican tradition, it's his turn. He's paid his dues and, most important, raised lots of cash for fellow Republicans. He's pulled his weight for the party as few others have, even hitting the campaign trail for John McCain after dropping out of the race in 2008.

“He's also the candidate most qualified to win a national election, where swing votes and independents matter. The Republican "base," which insists on a purity test on social issues, and Tea Party conservatives, who insist on a perfect record of anti-government rhetoric, may as well be working for the Democratic National Committee.

“For those needing a primer on why it's un-American and counterproductive, not to mention medieval, to also require a religious test, Romney provided an eloquent lesson four years ago. In his "Faith in America" speech, he reminded Americans of why and the ways we honor freedom of religion in this country. Romney recognized the role of religious life in the public square and acknowledged the divine source of liberty. But he also declined to dignify the insistence of some that he explain his personal beliefs:

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

"The text of Romney's speech can easily be found [see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/politics/06text-romney.html]. While we're in a reading mood, please get thee to a Kindle, Nook, iPad or other electronic device of your choosing - or better, a library or bookstore - and feast your eyes upon "Elmer Gantry." For good measure, you might also pick up Robert Penn Warren's "All the King's Men." If you are unfamiliar with these two titles, please surrender your voter registration card to the nearest Dumpster.

"The use and abuse of religion to advance politically is a scourge on any nation, and no witness to Islamist theocracy should doubt it. Less dramatically, it is simply bad form. Americans of a certain age remember when preachers preached and politicians didn't. Tent revivals took place on the outskirts of small towns, not in mega-coliseums led by presidential contenders. (See Rick Perry.)

"Sometimes, especially within the African-American community, the roles of politician and preacher have overlapped. Even Republican contender Herman Cain is, in addition to being a businessman, a minister. This intersection has been tolerated because the black church historically was the only place those isolated by segregation could congregate and speak openly about issues of concern, including voting rights. The tradition remains, but the need for the overlap has expired. Bless Cain for saying so last Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union."

"Asked about the Mormonism-as-cult comment, Cain replied:
"I'm not running for theologian in chief. ... I am not going to do an analysis of Mormonism vs. Christianity."

"Amen, brother. "

There are some interesting parallels noted in this Washington Post article by Daniel Burke: “Well before Romney, Mormon founder ran for president” http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/well-before-romney-mormon-founder-ran-for-president/2011/10/25/gIQA2BHfGM_print.html

P.S. on OWS

A short comment on the Occupy Wall Street (& many other places) movement – they claim to be “the 99%.” Yes, 99% of the useful idiots, who are a miniscule fraction of hard-working, responsible, freedom-loving America.