Today’s Reading List – November 19, 2007
Compare and . . . well maybe NOT contrast . . .
The now infamous bigot piece from definite lefty Jacob Weisberg in Slate December 2006:
By the same token, I wouldn't vote for someone who truly believed in the founding whoppers of Mormonism.
. . . with this by definite right-winger Joel Belz in World Magazine November 2007:
It's not a trivial matter that Mormonism, as a cultic movement, has a bad reputation when it comes to getting its own story straight.
"Whoppers" and "story straight" – It seems that only bigotry is a force sufficient to bring left and right together. That is just pathetic.
Lowell: I see a pattern emerging here. Extremes of both left and right tend toward . . . bigotry! Why is this not surprising? I think the left's bigotry is just a bit more prevalent. On the right, at least in this in this case, we're talking about the "Religious Really Right." Only theo-nerds share Belz's beliefs. At least I hope so.
Speaking of left and right joining up…
One writer is trying to bundle McCain and Chris Matthews into a bigotry ball. Regardless of who is actually behind the push-polling, McCain seems to be suffering the most for any anti-Mormon message. He probably deserves it, but it is a bit like shooting a corpse.
Lowell: I personally don't believe McCain had anything to do with the push polling, but his bill, McCain-Feingold, had everything to do with it. That's the point Romney's trying to make here, on Larry Kudlow's show.
Oh, and the U.K. papers are noticing the push poll scandal too.
Meanwhile, on The Speech…
Great! Welcome aboard. We've said it from the beginning.
Lowell: The National Review Online editorial needs broader play than it's getting. I think it was drowned out by the push poll dust-up. Everyone should read it and circulate the link widely.
Deep Background…
Richard John Neuhaus describes the church/state debate of a week or two ago.
Evangelicals, Rudy, Robertson, and GWOT. Hmmmm . . .
PBS on religious bigotry in elections. Funny, it seems to only run left v right, not religion v religion. Somebody is sleeping under a rock.
Opinions…
The San Diego Union-Tribune on Romney. Yada, yada, yada.
Paul Weyrich defends his endorsement of Romney in an op-ed.
And some late add-ons from Lowell (with a handoff from John):
Here's a writer who (refreshingly) focuses on . . . Romney's intelligence, rather than his religion. Sample graphs:
The man is truly smart, someone with a proven ability to analyze problems and find solutions, and the question is whether that will be enough to overcome his electoral disabilities, such as prejudiced attitudes about his Mormon faith, a style that can come across as glib, slick and insincere and a relative lack of name recognition.
The Mormon issue should never have surfaced, but bigots have hounded Mormons in this country going back now to the 19th century, and I don't think they're done yet. I've personally bumped into several people who have said they could never vote for a Mormon as president. When I've pressed them on why not, they fail to come up with the only answer that would justify their position – that there is something in Mormon beliefs that would clearly translate into disastrous public policy.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 19 Nov 2007 at 6:45 pm #
The wing nuts of the left and right both state as a given that Mormons are both devious and stupid. Yet they offer no evidence to support that conclusion. Their claim that Romney is an example of the devious/stupid Mormons is where their argument breaks down.
Romney is both intelligent and clearly honest. (If he were dishonest, we would have heard from someone by now.) Therefore, the argument of the wingnuts that he is a Mormon, and therefore, deceptive and stupid, is disproved. Therefore, basic logic requires the conclusion that the assumptions that led to this false conclusion are plainly false. If the wingnuts can’t admit that their assertions about Mormons are not false, then they themselves are stupid or devious. QED. I suggest my conclusion is based on solid facts and real logic, whereas their arguments have neither.