I saw this on the news last night. I’m left to wonder what is so newsworthy about a grumpy old man yelling at a presidential candidate. This seems to have been covered pretty widely too.

Dan, apparently we are not in bed with these people, at least not in this instance. The linked article shows that a reporter followed up and found out the man’s name and political affiliation:

Michaud later told reporters he was not “a right-winger,” alluding to some evangelical Christians who have compared Romney’s faith to a cult. Instead, Michaud stated he was “a liberal.” He said he planned to vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

If you read the other linked article, at least one writer speculates that it’s liberal prejudice against Mormons that will drive many evangelicals to support Romney.

And look for religion-friendly conservatives to close ranks behind Romney when they see where the bigoted attacks are coming from.

Dan, just one more blog comment by Hugh Hewitt on the subject:

In A Mormon In The White House I pointed out that most of the high profile attacks on Mitt Romney’s faith have come from the left from such folks as the anti-Mormon bigot Jacob Weisberg, editor of Slate. Since then Weisberg’s been joined by others including Al Sharpton, but still the MSM continues to push the line that the anti-Mormon vote will come from the right, where the truth remains much more complicated.

I think this interaction may be news simply because at least some high-profile bloggers have chosen to give it attention.

Dan, why all the hate on Christian Conservatives? Seriously? They are crazy, but don’t hate–procreate!

I didn’t see the video of this – and so far haven’t been able to find anything on YouTube. Anyone know where this can be viewed?

danithew,

Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t read the article (I did see it this morning on the Today show—Matt Lauer was interviewing Mr. Romney). My inclination to connect that man to Christian conservatives comes from a similar incident that had occurred to Mr. Romney not too long ago in Florida where a person who identified himself as a evangelical had basically said the same thing, that he couldn’t bring himself to vote for a Mormon. In that incident, the audience replied with boos towards the individual.

As to why a liberal would not vote for a Mormon, well, it comes down to so many Mormons tying their religion to the Republican party. Most liberals that I know of don’t really care what you believe when it comes to religion. But if you start to press your religion upon them, especially through politics, they get pretty angry. I’m sure this old codger, if he knew that Senator Reid was Mormon would start to rethink his position about Mormons. Would that more Mormons get away from the corrupt and more and more delusional Republicans.

It’s Christmas at the Romneys and Al Michaud is Santa Claus. Like Al Sharpton before him. It’s called a campaign, and they’re called useful idiots. It was covered widely because, well, that’s what a media-savvy candidate does with a war chest these days.

Nick,

What’s so bad about money and power?

Dan,

Oooh! Keep it up with the gross generalities!

Personally, I don’t understand the conservative christians, I don’t agree with them on many, many issues but I don’t like myself when I just write someone off because I disagree with them. Instead, I try to figure out why they think the way I do, treat those I disagree with with respect, and I find I’m a lot happier.

Oh sure, there’s issues I’m just as passionate as you are about torture, but I don’t think anger to be angry is a means-all. I’m not monomaniacal for one issue, and I don’t understand those that do, but it happens a lot and I try to understand. I don’t think in absolutes or in black and white, and I think that may be where I part ways with some.

I think there’s a lot to learn about conservative christians. Like them or not, they are here to stay and will continue to shape politics for the next 50 years or so. Because of that, I can’t write them off if I claim to be enough sort of student of the US govt and current affairs.

Most liberals that I know of don’t really care what you believe when it comes to religion. But if you start to press your religion upon them, especially through politics, they get pretty angry.

Funny, I think many Conservative Christians feel the same exact way as Liberals do in this regard. They do not want “commie Liberal pigs” telling them how to live their lives, religion etc.

As far as Mitt goes, I might’ve voted for him if he kept the same point on issues he did 10 years ago. Not to mention all the other stuff, right now I’m getting big whiffs of the current chief executive and its scaring me off.

Here’s a question, who would you rather vote for President? Someone who is a complete idealist, or someone who is a little corrupt?

Sherpa,

Here’s a question, who would you rather vote for President? Someone who is a complete idealist, or someone who is a little corrupt?

I’d vote for Mickey Mouse, to highlight the stupidity of the situation.

I think there’s a lot to learn about conservative christians. Like them or not, they are here to stay and will continue to shape politics for the next 50 years or so.

I know. Sad isn’t it? I was just thinking about something akin to this. Neo-conservatives like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Fred Kagan, and the rest of the delusional lot are still rather young, most in their mid to late 40s. They are hardened in their positions. Even a magnificent failure as Iraq won’t change their perception; to do so would undermine what they’ve lived for for so long. So sad that we have to live with these kinds of people for still several decades longer.

Hear, hear, thank g-d Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity finally ended with Bush’s election, ushering in a new era of, oh, well, nevermind.

Sherpa,

Mickey Mouse is also a fictional character, and I see a fictional character having more abilities to lead this country than all of the Republican candidates and most of the Democratic candidates.

Dan,
Aren’t the public personas of *most* major politicians fictional characters?

It’s easy to say that all politicians are evil, corrupt, idiots, etc. – because they are human beings and they are under such intense scrutiny.

Put any one of us under that kind of scrutiny, and he or she would probably look just as evil, corrupt, stupid, etc.

Which is why anyone who is really smart and capable stays outside of the political process.

Which just further proves the point that all politicians are idiots.

Douglas Adams had a more succinct way of saying many of the things that are being stated in this thread:

“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”

john,

I could lead the country. You could too. Heck, if George Bush can “lead” the country for six and a half years now, ANYBODY can.

But when you hear a candidate state that he would like to see Guantanamo’s Camp X-ray doubled in size, you really have to question just what kind of leader that candidate is portraying himself to be. Certainly not one that understands the real world around him. Maybe conservatives just don’t realize how terribly detrimental our torture policies are. Conservatives applauded Romney’s Gitmo comment. Unfortunately, that is a blight upon our fine nation, a cancer that is destroying us, and we’re not even realizing how badly it is destroying us.

danithew,

I’m a stubborn eastern European male. I don’t get tired of ranting against Bush. :P

Dan, I am talking about his ability as an executive. You entirely discount his competence over a simple statement far too easily. I find it puzzling that a statement about doubling Guantanamo negates the amazing successes he had created in his numerous roles as an executive.

On the Guantanamo statement, I wonder if that actually meant something like we should be seeing more terrorists behind bars.

I could lead the country.

Dan, no you can’t.

Off topic.. Thanks danithew and annegb for your kind words about my family blog.

john,

Dan, I am talking about his ability as an executive. You entirely discount his competence over a simple statement far too easily. I find it puzzling that a statement about doubling Guantanamo negates the amazing successes he had created in his numerous roles as an executive.

Being a good executive does not make one a good president. I thought George W. Bush proved that, seeing that he’s the first and to this point only business executive to be president. And yes, his statements regarding Guantanamo Bay are highly important. At least, to people who don’t shift their standards for the votes of some constituents.

I’m up for that danithew. Have you ever eaten at Penang?

Yes I can

Dan, unless you are planning to overthrow the Constitution, you can’t be President of the United States. Sorry buddy to dash your hopes. So, no…you can’t lead the United States.

Re #49

How long until the governator attempts to do just that??

Dan, it looks like you are comparing George W. Bush’s pre-president record as an executive to Mitt Romney’s. I am not sure that Bush compares favorably. Mitt Romney has a record of creating amazing success stories where he has filled the role of executive.

It might be more effective to argue against Romney because you disagree with his view on abortion or Guantanamo and not on the grounds that he is an incompetent executive.

That grumpy old man must have seen Helen Whitney’s documentary and come away thinking that we worship Joseph Smith.

john,

I look at Romney’s ridiculous comments about French marriages being seven year contracts. He lived in France, for Pete’s sake! (He really must have had a bad mission to deride that country so much). I look at his ridiculous comments about Guantanamo Bay. I look at his ridiculous comments about Massachusetts, the state he resides in, and I wonder, does this man even know what the heck he is talking about?

Men may excel in business, but that does not make them smart, capable and competent political leaders.

Success managing huge organizations, institutions, and political entities indicates competence in the executive role, including when that executive role is President of the United States. Political rhetoric during an election season does not discount a successful and creative career.

Romney’s statements about France and Guantanamo are unfortunate although not as sinister or depraved as you are depicting. His statements about Mass. aren’t really outrageous coming from a Republican politician speaking to Republican primary voters in an election season.

My personal preference would be to see Romney praising France for its pro-family policies and for the enjoyable life-loving attitude that many French people have. My hope not so much on a political level but just on a policy level is that with the Guantanamo comment he meant that more terrorists should be removed from society where they kill innocent people and not that he was endorsing the Bush Administration’s interrogation techniques.

Seth, if you have a comment related to the original post, by all means, interrupt the other discussion that is taking place. I won’t complain.

It’s always interesting when DKL gets involved – so I’m not minding the other discussion either.

Oh, give me a break. “We” have nothing to lose or gain. He’s a guy running for president who happens to be Mormon. He’s not “our” candidate.

annegb, I agree with you entirely. From what I read on various LDS blogs, however, I’m not convinced that all LDS bloggers share your good sense. :-)

I have to wonder how many conversations “around the water-cooler” so to speak, are taking place because of a Mormon candidate and how many opportunities that is creating for Mormons to share their beliefs, thoughts, etc.

Just yesterday my wife told me about a work conversation she had on the subject of Romney, polygamy, etc.

Nick, one reason might be that a successful run by Romney would be evidence to Latter-day Saints that their religion is not a bar to attaining the highest goals they can set for themselves professionally.

john f.:
So you’d compare Romney becoming president with Halle Barre winning the Academy Award for Best Actress? ;-)

Does anybody know what religion Fred Thompson is? Or John McCain? Or Barak Obama? Or Hilary Clinton, for that matter? I don’t.

Also – we have to remember as well that the U.S. campaign is not just on the national stage, but to at least some degree (arguably, a great degree) on the international stage.

If you think about it, some people in other countries may be reading the front-page of the newspaper – just reading about current events or whatever – and because of Romney they may read the word “Mormon” or “Mormonism” – a topic that they could very well possibly have never heard of before. The typical response to that kind of thing is to wonder about something and to want to know more.

What that means to me is that some people might become curious (as people are inclined to be) and they may ask more questions. With the internet being what it is, information and answers are more available than ever. These days, a person in just about any country, I suppose, could find the official church website and request a free Book of Mormon.

Again, I don’t think from a spiritual, temporal, public relations or whatever perspective – that you can really argue that this has zero/zilch influence. It’s actually a very big deal.

Wouldn’t it be funny if Romney were elected president, only to have the president of the LDS church receive a revelation a year later, calling him as a mission president in Africa? I wonder which he’d choose?

On a less whimsical note, LDS apostles have been called upon to serve as U.S. senators and cabinet members. Imagine if a vacancy occurred in the Twelve, and the president of the church called Romney to fill the vacancy, while simultaneously serving the remainder of his presidential term!

danithew,

I have to wonder how many conversations “around the water-cooler” so to speak, are taking place because of a Mormon candidate and how many opportunities that is creating for Mormons to share their beliefs, thoughts, etc.

My coworkers haven’t talked about him, though we have talked politics, and they know I’m a Mormon. I live in the backwoods of northeast PA though, not a key primary state, so Romney doesn’t pay this area a visit at all.

Dan, I think you’re giving liberals waay too much credit. I know the stereotype is that liberals are whiny smart people and conservatives are dumb hicks, but I’ve met plenty of liberals who were dumb as a bag of rocks too.

And explain to me how opposing a Mormon candidate because “them lousy Mormons is all narrow-minded conservative throwbacks” is supposedly superior to opposing a Mormon candidate because “them lousy Mormons ain’t God-fearin’ Christian folk.”

I see no practical difference.

And I’ve been on plenty of liberal discussion forums where these allegedly open-minded liberals mercilessly mock Mormons for wearing “funny underwear,” call Joseph Smith “an obvious fraud” and proclaim all Mormons to be brainwashed retards for believing all that $#%& that Smith was talking about.

I think you’re essentially talking about a distinction without a difference. Leftists are every bit as bigoted as Rightists at far as I’m concerned.

The only difference is the Rightists are largely keeping quiet about Romney, while the Leftists have been both vocal and vitriolic.

Dan, I’m registering as a Democrat this year and I have no intention of giving the GOP another chance. I pretty-much agree with your stance on torture. But your comments are often waay too blindly partisan for me.

Is it even remotely possible to you that Democrats might suck too?

Seth, I think there really is a practical difference between the attitudes you describe.

If a religiously conservative person opposes Romney because he or she opposes Romney’s religion (i.e. for not being “christian), then he or she is acting like a bigot. There is not a policy-related reason for their opposition, especially since Romney is touting precisely the policy values which these people claim to support.

If a liberal person opposes Romney for his religion (i.e. because he or she views most, if not all, American LDS as “narrow-minded conservative throwbacks”), then he or she is opposing Romney on the basis of policy. Granted, not all LDS are narrow-minded conservative throwbacks, but surely we can agree that most American LDS are, in fact, politically conservative. Would such a liberal voter be acting on a stereotype? Technically, but Romney’s words and actions make it rather clear that he happens to fit that stereotype. A liberal voter has substantial reason to believe that Romney would promote policies which are threatening to his or her political philosophy—not because Romney is LDS, but because Romney is, as you put it, a narrow-minded conservative throwback. The stereotyping here is incidental, rather than an actual reason for liberal opposition.

Seth,

Is it even remotely possible to you that Democrats might suck too?

Yes, actually. They’ve been a dismal failure at pushing back against the warmongering Republicans. They won last November based solely on Iraq. The people want out. But the Democrats in Congress are sniveling cowards who cower at a threat from Rove to call them defeatocrats! What a bunch of pansies!

Unfortunately, they’re the best we’ve got to do real damage to Republicans who have abrogated their Constitutional responsibility to hold the Executive branch in check. There is a lot of mess to clean up.

While Nick Literski’s comment #84 list is pretty true and an interesting read – most of those points don’t bother me all that much. One or two of them might raise slight concerns, I suppose. But none of them raises my concerns to such a level that I’d absolutely forbid myself from voting for Romney.

Romney is savvy and scripted. Sometimes that’s a plus and sometimes it’s a minus. I like to see evidence of spontaneity, self-confidence, sincerity, personal values – these days campaigns are so highly-funded and carefully plotted out that it’s hard to tell what we are actually seeing. I think in some ways that is very detrimental. But it may be unavoidable, to a great extent.

I’ve brought this up before, but I’ll never forget attending a George Bush (the first one) event at Brigham Young University (during his campaign) and being hugely disappointed. Here was a man who had been a pilot in WWII, a diplomat to China, the head of the CIA, etc. and etc., and instead of teaching us anything or sharing any personal wisdom he had gained over time, he served us up political twinkies that were calculated to please the local audience. It was a total joke and for some reason the audience was cheering the whole time. It felt like I was at an early Beatles rock concert with a couple of thousand brainless 14-year-old girls (not a good thing, at all).

Politics really interests me – but the process can be quite a disappointment sometimes.

I don’t think he’s all that savvy. Give him time, he’s going to shoot himself in the foot.

And you know I really hope he doesn’t. I really hope he’s the man for the job. I’m just afraid he isn’t.

Ronald Reagan was a professional actor, the kind of person who is scripted. He naturally fit in to the modern media president.

Bill Clinton had the natural ability that few have in politics.

Mitt Romney does not have Bill Clinton’s natural ability, or Ronald Reagan’s trained ability. What Mitt Romney should do is be himself, which at this point, he is not attempting to do. Let the cards fall where they may, but be yourself, Mr. Romney.

danithew,

Ronald Reagan employed his professional skills as an actor to portray his political beliefs on television in a way that would attract an audience. You are definitely right that something like this cannot just happen with any actor; they do need that motivation and skill in politics that many actors just don’t have. Arnold Schwartzenegger is showing that he has that skill. He’s been doing some pretty good things for California from what I’ve been seeing. Ronald Reagan believed in the things he was saying, so it made it easy. A lot of actors who speak out politically also believe in what they are saying, but they aren’t going into politics itself; they don’t go get elected. Reagan, Schwartzeneger, Thompson, and a few others, did something about what they believed in. That’s, I think the biggest difference between someone like Reagan and someone like Streisand.

danithew,

I was actually agreeing with you. :) I was merely expounding.

Does Mitt Romney represent what you want the world to think of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? When I heard him recently explain his position on torture, my answer quickly became a resounding no.

JJohnsen,

I imagine the reason many showed up was because they were Republicans – but that doesn’t really explain to me why they don’t sit down, sober up and use their brains. It seems that if you congregate a lot of people in a stadium seating atmosphere and they are listening to a celebrity, they can’t help but start screaming, shouting and applauding. I’ve seen this at popular music concerts as well. You’d think people went to listen to music but instead they just want to make a lot of noise themselves.

Boy am I a boring old dud. I know, I know.

I’ve actually heard from several friends and (have read it too) that Mitt is extremely charismatic. This is one thing that he does have going for him.

Since when has the New York Times been proclaimed the Great Satan? Its an awesome newspaper.

If Sen. Clinton is mad…then they must be doing something good..

;)