I Would Never Bring Up My Opponent’s Weird Religious Views, No Matter How Distasteful I and Most Americans Might Find Them…

I’ve blogged before on Mitt Romney and the Mormon factor. Today Alex Beam of the Boston Globe is asking similar questions. At least he and I are up front about it; however, the Democrats, and particularly Teddy Kennedy, are using the Mary Cheney “I don’t think it’s an issue at all that my opponent’s daughter is a lesbian” smear tactic that has become all to familiar. For evidence, see Beam’s piece, plus the Instapundit and Joe’s Dartblog…

Speaking of Ted Kennedy, the seventh edition of the Carnival of the Clueless is up…don’t delay, read it today!…

15 Responses to “I Would Never Bring Up My Opponent’s Weird Religious Views, No Matter How Distasteful I and Most Americans Might Find Them…”

1. 1 Gerry Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 3:29 pm

   Reminds me of this Flashbunny classic.

2. 2 Mark Coffey Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 3:55 pm

   Now THAT’S good stuff!…

3. 3 bebere Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 4:58 pm

   Gerry: that IS funny.

   Basil’s “Remember not to mention the War!” to the German tourists in an old Fawlty Towers episode comes to mind regarding Romney’s opponents’ and the Globe’s tack on his religion over the past few years. To be honest, I’m not looking forward to this on a national level.

4. 4 evangelicaljunebug Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 4:58 pm

   There has been a lot of buzz about Michael Graham’s comments which declared Islam to be a terrorist organization. I agreed with his comments in general. I believe his comments create a context for a conservative case against the war:

   Most people are slowly beginning to realize that there really is no moderate component to the Islamic faith. Islam is a false religion that promotes hatred and bloodshed around the world. Many knew beforehand that Saddamm Hussein had no WMD’s (If he did have them, no president in his right mind would be willing to go in there and risk having those WMDs used against our soldiers) , Iraq posed no legitimate threat to the world, and had less ties to Al Qaeda than Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (the nation with the most conclusive ties). The question remains: Why did we invade Iraq? The conservative argument: To defeat terrorism, we must promote freedom in a repressed Islamic world, and to promote freedom, we must overthrow dicators who thwart democratic reforms in their country. Although this conservative argument makes sense in general, it is pointless to use it in the Muslim world, since Islam and its adherents are so backward, no matter what we do to give them more freedoms, or promote democracy, Islam will always view the West (particularly the US) as the root cause of problems in the Islamic world. It also doesn’t help when religious clerics cast those who spread freedom as Infidels whose presence pollutes their sacred land. Most intelligent people realized that a US occupation of Iraq would never be successful despite the fact that Iraqis despised Saddam because they understood that winning over people who follow a faith that promotes hatred is impossible. Why throw money at a problem when you know any attempts to solve it will only make matters worse. (See No Child Left Behind, Welfare, etc…) In this sense, George W. Bush has espoused a liberal philosophy in dealing with Iraq. This is why he has been unsuccessful.

   At this rate, I’d rather have the government spending federal taxypayer dollars on healthcare and public schools here, rather than spend it on Muslims whose faith will never ever alow them to moderate and become respectable and tolerant human beings.

5. 5 Mark Coffey Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 5:36 pm

   evangelicaljunebug, your argument, while intriguing, is flawed in my view. The problem is that it involves inaction on our part; how will spending money on healthcare and public schools, worthy as those things are, prevent another 9/11? I also think it goes too far to condemn all of Islam as a terrorist organization (i.e., I don’t endorse Graham’s comments).

   I have, however, gone on the record several times with the argument that moderate Islam must start being much more vocal in condemning the acts of extremists.

   One final thing: if we had not invaded Iraq, what would we have said to history when Saddam finally got the nuke (as he surely would have)? Lack of WMD stockpiles is not proof of lack of intention.

   In any event, thanks for the comments…I can see the sentiment behind the theory, I just don’t quite buy it…

6. 6 Fargus Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 6:55 pm

   Do more like this?

   http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/25/muslims.nonviolence/index.html

   The moderate Muslim community does not in any way endorse the attacks that have happened, and they’re actively doing stuff to try to prevent their happening again. I don’t get people’s insistence that all of Islam must go.

   In fact, I don’t understand how Christian fundamentalists don’t see the hypocrisy in statements like, “Their religion should be wiped from the face of the earth because they think my religion should be wiped from the face of the earth.” Doesn’t make sense, never has.

   And Mark, I think the only reason Cheney’s daughter was brought up was because she was a family member of an administration of a party that had at least wings actively condemning her very lifestyle. Similarly, those same wings tend to take a hard line on things that are not Christian fundamentalism (like Mormonism). I don’t see it as a terrible thing at all to call out such hypocrisy for people to see.

7. 7 Clint Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pm

   Fargus-

   The problem is that ‘hypocrisy’ means a contradiction between what someone says and what someone does.

   The way you are using the word (and the way many other lib’s have come to use the word when justifying mass outing campaigns and nasty innuendo) is a contradiction between your stereotype of conservatives and how they actually are.

   That’s not hypocrisy — it’s a group of people refusing to play the part you’ve cast them in. (Like the “hypocritical” black conservatives and obviously “self-hating” gay conservatives, etc, etc, etc.)

   Many Republicans and many Democrats are bigotted against gay people —- any reasonable look at Dick Cheney’s history will show that he’s not one of them.

   At worst, the “hypocrisy” you’ve discovered in the Republican Party is that it contains people who have different views from one another, and agree to disagree. If Democrats are really surprised by this, their party is doomed.

8. 8 Dennis Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 7:49 pm

   Cheney’s daughter came up in debate in reference to whether gay people should have the right to marry, which is not exactly the equivalent of “actively condemning her lifestyle.” The only way Bush and Cheney could have been hypocritical about the issue is if Cheney’s daughter had spirited off to Canada to marry and they all attended the wedding.

   I favor gay marriage and don’t much care for the anti-gay marriage stances of either the Republicans or Democrats. But I think bringing up Dick Cheney’s daughter in the debate was little more than an attempt to gain votes (or at least depress votes) by appealing to the most rabid homophobes, and that’s not exactly something that covered the Kerry campaign with glory.

9. 9 Fargus Says:
   July 26th, 2005 at 7:53 pm

   Wait, you’re saying that Kerry was trying to appeal to homophobes? Oh, I think I do get what you’re saying. Like he was trying to get homophobes not to vote for the Veep with the lesbian daughter. A little much for me, I think.

   And Clint, your point is well-taken. Perhaps hypocrisy was the wrong word. But maybe a disconnect between support of an administration that represents a party which has some pretty anti-gay wings, and a family not in active opposition to that. It’s the extremists that I was talking about.

10. 10 Clint Says:
    July 26th, 2005 at 7:59 pm

    Junebug-

    If it really were the case that every single one of the billion muslims in the world was a sleeper suicide bomber, as you seem to suggest, then our only sane response would be a genocidal war that would bathe the next generation or two in blood.

    I would have thought that any real conservative, not to mention any real Christian, would want to give muslims a chance to prove him wrong, before advocating such a course.

    Consider this: even if it were true that there existed no moderate strains of Islam, there would still be practicing muslims who are “lukewarm” in their faith.

11. 11 Mark Coffey Says:
    July 26th, 2005 at 8:07 pm

    Fargus, I’m sorry, there was no reason for Kerry to bring up Cheney’s daughter…it was very awkward and widely condemned. I remember reading an account of the reaction from the press watching the debate in the next room - there was an audible gasp when Kerry brought up Mary Cheney (so soon after Edwards did). Frankly, whatever context Kerry was using, whether to appeal to homophobes or to condemn homophobia, is irrelevant to me; what does matter is he was using a family member to score political points. Over the line, in my view…

    Oh, and thanks for the link to the CNN story; it’s good to see Muslim communities actively condemning the atrocities…I do believe there are moderate Muslims (in fact, I know it), but the overall message coming from the religious authority figures, particularly as regards Israel, is one of hate…hopefully, that will change one day, but we’re not there yet…

12. 12 Fargus Says:
    July 26th, 2005 at 8:22 pm

    Is bringing up a family member to score political points the same thing as bringing up a basically powerless former presidential candidate to represent the other side and score political points?

13. 13 Mark Coffey Says:
    July 26th, 2005 at 8:49 pm

    Are you accusing me of exploiting John Kerry? I’m shocked, shocked, I say…

14. 14 Dmac Says:
    July 26th, 2005 at 9:08 pm

    Let’s not forget the recent poll in which a substantial minority of Muslims in Britain felt the recent attacks were “somewhat justified.”

    By continuing to excuse the behavior of pure nihilists, the apologists only infantilize the entire Muslim community.

    The moderates have to call this behavior for what it is - Evil. If they don’t start rooting out the fanatics in their midsts, the Brits will make the Patriot act look like pre - school in a few weeks.

15. 15 Greg Bullock Says:
    July 26th, 2005 at 11:59 pm

    Dmac,

    You make a good point re: a more severe version of the Patriot Act in the UK. In fact, the illustrious Victor Davis Hanson made essentially the same point in a recent interview with Hugh Hewitt.

    Word on the news tonight is that England is moving closer to taking draconian measures with each day. It’s too bad that Europe on the whole was liberal to such an impractical degree through the first few years of the War on Terror.

    As VDH said: “I think what’s going on in Europe has confused Americans, because they thought, you know, here’s a very liberal Holland, and now they’ve not only stepped up to the plate, but they’re going further to the right than we are, if you read what they’re doing in their immigration laws. France just cancelled the EU utopian borderless entry controls. And England is going that way. [A]nd what you’re seeing is what all of us sort of suspected, that we would be hectored and hectored by Europeans from the left, but then, when it finally got to them, they would not only pass us by, but go hard right. And I think we’re going to see how hard right it goes; I don’t know. But [the United States], we should remember, is very, very stable, and has good common sense. We have a post-modern neighbor in the north, and we have a pre-modern neighbor in the south. And we’ve got something that’s unique that we need to protect.”

Leave a Reply

Comments Live Preview: