Romney plays to the crazy birthers

[_beastie]

George Romney was a profile in courage.

His son is a profile in craven lust for power, for which he is willing to sell his soul.

Where did he play to the crazy birthers? I must have missed that.

See Quasimodo's link above.

[_krose]

Does Romney decide who speaks at the convention?

His campaign either selected the speakers themselves, or they exercised veto power over them. The presumed nominee usually does. It's his event, his coronation party.

Otherwise, surely Palin, one of the most popular Republicans, would be speaking.

[_Brackite]

Not only that, but SEVEN birthers are speaking at the convention.

My god. The republicans have gone full-on nut. And Mitt ends up looking amoral. At least McCain had the courage to stand up to the nutters in his own party. Mitt is laying down with them and giving them back massages. He wants to be elected so badly he will do and say anything. Isn't there some sort of tipping point here eventually, where even LDS begin to shudder?

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/ ... ?mobile=nc

Donald Trump has Not and will Not speak at the GOP Convention.
The rest of the six people speaking at the GOP Convention are not really birthers to my knowledge.
Thinkprogress.org is a very bias and a far-left leaning website.

[_beastie]

It appears that Rove is the likely mastermind behind the race-baiting welfare ads.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... eapon.html

I doubt that George Romney would ever have gone along with such a tactic.

[_JackMormon1857]

Look, I'm white. I know that if you call a black man "boy," you're a racist, end of story. So when Ann Romney and her son start calling Obama a child, they know that they are making people uncomfortable. African Americans see this for what it is, and some of them are willing to call it for what it is. But we white people know what she's saying, too. Given the history of the Church--and especially, what is written in Church doctrine (Alma 3:14; Abraham 1:21—31; 2 Nephi 5:19—24, to name only a few), they might want to ixnay on the oybay.

Romney spent his most formative years in a Church where black people were denied priesthood authority. I was ten when Spencer W. Kimball published his revelation ending that policy. The news came as a shock to me--not because of the fact that they were now letting black men hold the priesthood, but because the Church I loved and believed in--as Church that talked so much about its own persecution--seemed to have a history of indifference to the persecution of others. It felt like a punch in the gut: how could it be that a just and loving God would not punish me for Adam's transgressions, but this same God would, by creating a group of dark-skinned people in the first place, show such antipathy toward their children, who were no less innocent than myself?

In the context of faith, you cannot tell Group A they are blessed, and then point to Group B and say, "they are accursed," and expect Group A not to mistreat Group B. This was this context in which Mitt and Ann Romney were raised, with only the faintest hints from scripture that the "chosen people" often behave no better than the "accursed" (1 Nephi 12:23; Helaman 7:23—24).

The Church expects us to control our sexual urges. How is the urge to marginalize a man on the basis of his race any less base than the sex drive? There is no denying that both campaigns have used the US and THEM strategy. However, it is equally clear that one of the campaigns defines "US" a lot more narrowly.

[_moksha]

Couldn't we get PriceWaterhouseCooper to release a summary of Obama's Birth Certificate for the last 10 years, in such a way as to question whether they truly saw the document?

[_beastie]

Look, I'm white. I know that if you call a black man "boy," you're a racist, end of story. So when Ann Romney and her son start calling Obama a child, they know that they are making people uncomfortable. African Americans see this for what it is, and some of them are willing to call it for what it is. But we white people know what she's saying, too. Given the history of the Church--and especially, what is written in Church doctrine (Alma 3:14; Abraham 1:21—31; 2 Nephi 5:19—24, to name only a few), they might want to ixnay on the oybay.

Romney spent his most formative years in a Church where black people were denied priesthood authority. I was ten when Spencer W. Kimball published his revelation ending that policy. The news came as a shock to me--not because of the fact that they were now letting black men hold the priesthood, but because the Church I loved and believed in--as Church that talked so much about its own persecution--seemed to have a history of indifference to the persecution of others. It felt like a punch in the gut: how could it be that a just and loving God would not punish me for Adam's transgressions, but this same God would, by creating a group of dark-skinned people in the first place, show such antipathy toward their children, who were no less innocent than myself?

In the context of faith, you cannot tell Group A they are blessed, and then point to Group B and say, "they are accursed," and expect Group A not to mistreat Group B. This was this context in which Mitt and Ann Romney were raised, with only the faintest hints from scripture that the "chosen people" often behave no better than the "accursed" (1 Nephi 12:23; Helaman 7:23—24).

The Church expects us to control our sexual urges. How is the urge to marginalize a man on the basis of his race any less base than the sex drive? There is no denying that both campaigns have used the US and THEM strategy. However, it is equally clear that one of the campaigns defines "US" a lot more narrowly.

I think the Romney campaign is quite deliberately using dog whistles and code words to appeal to a particularly unpleasant portion of the electorate.

[_JackMormon1857]

I think the Romney campaign is quite deliberately using dog whistles and code words to appeal to a particularly unpleasant portion of the electorate.

I agree with you, but I find euphemisms like "dog whistles" and "code words" disgusting. We have a word for Ann Romney and her son's references to the President as "an obstinate child" (some of the less savory Book of Mormon passages refer to the Lamanites as "childish"); we have a word for Romney's not-so-subtle reference to the mythical, yet-to-be-seen, Cadillac-driving "welfare queen", who is, of course, ethnically black. It's called racism. And for a man who wants to be the ultimate ambassador for a uniquely American religion, with a uniquely racist doctrine, regarding black men in particular, watching Mitt Romney's 2nd debate performance was like watching a Southern sheriff telling a black man to, "Sit down, boy." Only in this case, the black man being told to sit down is our President. It was the ugliest public display I've ever seen in a civic setting. One might expect a man claiming to be so proud to be an American to show respect for the office of President, if not the President, himself. But 65 million people saw the former governor disrepecting the office and the President. This is how Mitt Romney responds to adversity: he expects it to get out of his way and throws a tissy when it doesn't.

When Romney was a hothead, Obama was cool; when the former governor tried to bully him, the President smiled and looked his challenger in they eye. Barack Obama has faced people like Mitt Romney his entire life, but Mitt Romney has never faced anyone with the courage and dignity of our President.

[_beastie]

I think the Romney campaign is quite deliberately using dog whistles and code words to appeal to a particularly unpleasant portion of the electorate.

I agree with you, but I find euphemisms like "dog whistles" and "code words" disgusting. We have a word for Ann Romney and her son's references to the President as "an obstinate child" (some of the less savory Book of Mormon passages refer to the Lamanites as "childish"); we have a word for Romney's not-so-subtle reference to the mythical, yet-to-be-seen, Cadillac-driving "welfare queen", who is, of course, ethnically black. It's called racism. And for a man who wants to be the ultimate ambassador for a uniquely American religion, with a uniquely racist doctrine, regarding black men in particular, watching Mitt Romney's 2nd debate performance was like watching a Southern sheriff telling a black man to, "Sit down, boy." Only in this case, the black man being told to sit down is our President. It was the ugliest public display I've ever seen in a civic setting. One might expect a man claiming to be so proud to be an American to show respect for the office of President, if not the President, himself. But 65 million people saw the former governor disrepecting the office and the President. This is how Mitt Romney responds to adversity: he expects it to get out of his way and throws a tissy when it doesn't.

When Romney was a hothead, Obama was cool; when the former governor tried to bully him, the President smiled and looked his challenger in they eye. Barack Obama has faced people like Mitt Romney his entire life, but Mitt Romney has never faced anyone with the courage and dignity of our President.

I agree that it's disgusting. It's a deliberate choice to take advantage of the racist sentiments of a not insignificant portion of the electorate. What makes it even more disgusting is the fact that George Romney was a brave advocate of civil rights, willing to buck both his church and the republican party when they played these racist games. I can't help but think that he would be ashamed.