Nooner, who’s apparently been in a coma for the past 30 years, is shocked, shocked! to find that the GOP’s base is a bunch of flat-earther homophobic religious bigots.
Did Mitt Romney have to give a speech on religion? Yes. When you’re in a race so close you could lose due to one issue, your Mormonism, you must address the issue of your Mormonism. The only question was timing: now, in the primaries, or later, as the nominee? But could he get to the general without The Speech? Apparently he judged not.
And why would that be?
His problem, a Romney aide told me, had more to do with a particular fundamentalist strain within evangelical Protestantism.
You don’t say! Goodness, who let them in? Ronald Reagan would never associate with such people!
Anyway, Nooner. How’d Willard do? Did he win ‘em over?
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots.
If by "we" you mean "the Republican Party" — then yes, Nooner, you have.
And some of us have been saying this for a hell of a long time.
Related posts:
- Peggy Noonan Calls Rush, Newt, Conservative Activists “Idiots” for Attacking Sotomayor
- Joe Scarborough & Peggy Noonan: Americans Secretly Yearning for Republican-Controlled Congress
- Peggy Noonan: 9/11 Wasn’t Bush’s Fault, But the Great Recession is All Obama’s
- Peggy Noonan: Catering to the Base Hurts the Country, Except When Republicans are in Charge
- Peggy Noonan: Health Care Protests Haven’t “Gotten Out of Hand”, Just “Plenty of Booing”
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
BT!
Told them downstairs. Now to read the post!
Noonan, shooting straight from the hip there.
I think we’re going to see more of this behavior from bigger G.O.P. members. There has already been quite an exodus of Replubicans not running for another term. Classic Republicans like Gengrich and Buchanic have been lambasting current G.O.P. for years as well.
So, yes, the next six months we will see the G.O.P. destroy themselves. Rove somehow put it all together for two elections, and now it is falling apart.
The Democratic party has its own problems, sure, but one regard that voters may feel comfortable with: Not the lock-step, one-heart-one-mind behavior that the Republicans have had for all these years. That’s a big selling point.
First we waterboard the unbelievers until they believe.
-Mitt Romeny Election Platform
So it is preferable to lose the non-idiot vote?
My local rag (Idaho Statesman) has an article this morning about how all the Mormons in Idaho were quite happy with Willard’s speech – that it reflected well on their religion. Best as I can determine, he didn’t say much about their religion, just assured us they were bigots. Nice.
Given that there’s no evidence of any turns on the road they’re headed down, we’ll no doubt be able to continue saying this for a helluva long time to come.
I suppose we should be happy that people seem to be coming to their senses, finally.
Excellent post Blue Texan!
Now that they’re realizing which side of the bread is buttered, what will the repubs do?
No, no, no. Don’t fall for that shit. They’re only “coming to their senses” because they realize that it’s hurting them politically.
Nooner is just now figuring out that the party she has been an unswerving cheerleader for is full of bigots and idiots? I guess that the rock she lives under must have not have cable news or talk radio.
Better late than never? Now, how long before the mainline wingnut blogs start discussing the state of Nooners Marbles?
I remember last year when it was clear Bush was hurting them, she wrote a column where she criticized him and they pretty much wrote her off, said she was senile, etc.
So if some on the right start to see things our way, they’re just being deceptive and devious? Methinks you are posing enemies.
Noonan says,
“We were founded by believing Christians…”
No, we weren’t. Many of the founders (e.g., Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Washington, Ethan Allen) were Deists, believing in a “creator” simply as a distant architect who then leaves us to survive by the reason He gave us.
Wow- I didn’t know Mitt’s first name was Willard. I was so struck, I had to check it out at Wikipedia. Apparently his parents named him Willard after some hotel magnate and Mitt after a football player. I know
Willard’sMitt’s speech was supposed to be his JFK moment. Now I have to say I know there is at least one difference between Catholics and Mormons because Catholics have to be named after a saint. I guess not so for Mormons, unless they consider hotel magnates and football players some kind of latter day saints and all.Imagine that, a religious bigot has to ask his colleagues for religious tolerance. Not only has he shown that he is intolerant of Muslims, now he openly stating that you must believe in Christ to be President. Sounds like an unconstitutional religious test to me!
Nooner is so, so lost in the dark forest of conservatism. She may have seen that first light streak over the hilltop, but, she’ll never bring herself to say, ‘I was wrong.’ Guaranteed.
His real first name is Mork.
Former God in a prior celestial life of some distant planet or something…
Nahnoo, nahnoo.
Tithonia, do you really think if they hadn’t lost in ‘06 and were in bad shape now that people like Peggy Noonan would be writing articles like this?
I don’t.
Here’s a question.
We say that folks on The Other Side don’t like people who are different.
Can we honestly say that we are more tolerant?
You don’t have to be a rightwing christian repuglican to be a bigot or to be intolerant.
I think.
You should never be so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance, as Bill Maher correctly said.
When they stop demonizing gays and Muslims, and everyone else, I’ll stop calling them bigots. Until then, not so much.
But yeah, you’re right — there’s bigotry everywhere obviously.
There is no St. Willard?
funny post. funny story.
and she’s calling them idiots?
Noon-unit may be trying to wipe some of the egg off her face.
Administrations come and go, but a career in punditry can, apparently, go on forever.
No, but Condi Canonization is in the wings.
Wasn’t Willard a pet rat somewhere?
I’m sure there is, but in Wikipedia it says he was named after hotel magnate, J. Willard Marriott, his father’s best friend.
“Noon could have predicted….”
You can call them anything you want.
Tolerating intolerance is not the same as trying to keep an open mind and not label people.
Otherwise, you are just preaching to the choir.
A closed circle.
How does that make us better people?
How does that move us toward a better place to try to get along and work together?
Put that on her headstone.
Preview still no worky.
Can we honestly say that we are more tolerant?
Yes demi, I think so. I have no problem with the doctrine of live and let live, and I try and reach out to help someone in need, and believe that’s what the moral thing to do is. I feel no need to express intolerance towards others except those who preach intolerance and hatred.
So yeah, I think we’re more tolerant. I have heard any prominent Democrats saying “kill them all or convert them”.
To be truthful, I have absolutely nothing against Mormons. Being in AZ, I have worked with some, and they were very good people from what I can tell. They do not smoke, drink (even coffee), or do recreational drugs as it seems to be against their religion to put anything foreign that is harmful into their body. I understand that they are supposed to have at least six children or at least try to. And they seem quite generous. One of the VPs of one of the companies I worked for took money out of his pocket, along with three other officers in the company, to help with tuition for continuing education courses because I said I was going to let my RE license lapse because I couldn’t afford the tuition and fees.
It’s not Mormonism I have a problem with; it’s Mitt’s intended policies that I object to. Expand Guantanamo, is he crazy? Etc., etc., etc.
I, for one, have no tolerence for gay bashing, toilet stall foot tapping hypocrites. It’s practically involuntary.
Demi @19, good point – there has been a lot of intolerance to Mormons due to Romney’s campaign. This is seen on both sides of the aisle.
Blue Texan, I wasn’t referring to Peggy Noonan specifically. She may very well be trying to save her own speech-writing ass. What I do know, as a blue girl minority in a very red county, is that lots of people who have been voting Republican for these last twenty five years are starting to doubt what they’ve been believing all these years. These people are good people who are undereducated and misinformed. They are not the enemy. When those people become convinced of the wrongness of Karl Rove’s America, we will start winning elections again.
How can we NOT call out intolerance that discriminates, with intolerance?
Irony is alive and well.
breaking speed. Whitehouse, the senator, reveals secret exec order and constitutional extreme danger. EW all over it.
http://whitehouse.senate.gov/r…..88537&
I agree with you. There may well be good Repugs. But I think of any at the moment…
Yeah, that is some amazing stuff.
See Whitehouse’s press release here.
I’m glad to hear tolerant voices here.
I agree with yellowsnapdragon that we should not tolerate gay bashing. Totally agree.
There’s a lot of selfish, idiotic attitudes which are not good in any way.
I’m just a peaceful old hippiechick that gets uncomfortable in ANY group that points too many fingers and starts to go down a hyprocritcal path. Not saying we ARE, just worried that sometimes it feels it might be going in that direction.
Really trying to keep the faith.
demi:
Check the hiding place…
Irony indeed.
I never said we shouldn’t call out against intolerance.
You might have missed my point.
Rove somehow put it all together for two elections, and now it is falling apart.
It was in Austin last night at a fundraiser for Texas Rethugs, claiming the war is going *much* better, blah blah blah ad nauseam. I’m sure he had a very nice relaxing time with his boytoy afterwards.
My experience with Mormons is that they have close ties in their stakes. If something happens to someone, they are right there supporting the person. This is admirable. They also tend to network with each other. This is also great for businesses. The problem comes when the lines between family, business and government blur.
When a Mormon runs for office, they have a ready campaign team from their stake. If the person is elected, they will be sure to give contracts and bennies to their Mormon friends. And they sometimes impose their religious values on everyone in the community. A local city councilperson sent out an email to everyone on her list warning them to try to get their children in classes taught by some teachers and to keep a close watch on the others. The “others” were ones who promoted tolerance of gay and lesbians. She used her position as council person to reach more people.
I want distinct lines between government and religion. Civil laws, not religious laws. We are supposedly fighting a war against religious extremists, and all the while religious extremists are taking over our own government.
You are damn right I am intolerant of that.
She’s so ignored by the GOP nowadays–they’d rather listen to Limbaugh and Coulter demonize everyone. It would be sad — except that she’s always tried to make the GOP falsely seem heroic and manly and noble, etc — so it’s just truly pathetic instead. Like when the first wife gets dumped for a stripper or something.
(Now if we could just get our party to not listen to pundits like Klein and others pretending to be on our side we’d be ahead.)
Noonan is wrong when she says “We were founded by believing Christians”. Some of the founders were Christians, but many of the most prominent founders (including Jefferson, Frankin, Washington, and Madison) were deists, who believed in a creator (basically Aristotle’s Prime Mover) but rejected the Bible, miracles, and prayer, rejected the idea that God actively intervenes in the world (other than starting it up) and considered Jesus an ordinary human being.
Fundamentalist revisionists will be able to point to quotes from all these men paying lip service to Christianity, because they were politicians.
demi – no, I don’t think so.
The only way I can think, at this point, to call a halt to the kind of intolerance about which we are speaking, is for like minded Constitutionalists to band together in common cause and say “No more”.
That, IMO, isn’t intolerance as you speak of, but common cause for the common good. It is done with the restoration of historical principles in mind, and the very intolerance we oppose (or, I oppose) is extra-Constitutional, and uncivil.
If our Senators and Representatives will not stand up, then it is left to the rabble. That is us.
Loudly, and in large numbers, please.
Bruce Fein! Mickey Edwards. I know there are more, but I just can’t think of them on such short notice.
I despise Romney not because he’s a Mormon, but because of who he is. He’s arrogant and intellectually dishonest. For whatever reason, he badly wants to be President of the United States, and it seems he’ll say or do anything to get it. For reasons known only to himself, he also thinks he’s entitled to be in the Oval Office. I doubt that he’ll get the Repug nomination, and if he does, I know he’ll not be elected in general.
Sound like anyone else you know?
Why are persons religious beliefs not fair game for evaluation of a political candidate. The Constitution prohibits a religious test to hold an office; it doesn’t say a persons beliefs can’t be used to evaluate the candidate.
I would have a real problem voting for a presidential candidate who says he speaks and listens to a super-natural being who wants thw human race to fight a world ending war and that a select few will go to heaven. He also believes it is his/her duty to bring the end time. I really don’t want a person with those religious beliefs to have the missile launch codes.
The “General” has a piece on some of Mitt’s beliefs that will likely influence his decisions as President. This is info not humor.
Double DING newtonusr! And not a moment too soon.
I didn’t mean to imply that The LDS Church has end time theology.
Tithonia, one big difference I’ve noticed between the R’s and D’s: When the D’s talk about the R’s, they mean the pig-hearted leaders and their keyboard echo chamber, not, usually, the guy who voted them in.
They, OTOH, always mean us, you and me, their friends and neighbors and gardeners and maids and nannies. They spit liberal like rapist. The small town city council people are afraid, still, to claim the Dem affiliation too loudly.
I sure hope their disgusting displays of greed and corruption of the last 30 years become their epithet for the next 30. I have a feeling this is going to be a really good Christmas for progressives.
EPU’d from last thread, a beauty of a tip…
Biodun says:
The rat was Ben. Willard was the kid who organized rats into a killing machine of sorts.
Hey, there. Since we’re in the middle of a big cancer mess, curious about your moniker.
“There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family.” On The Newshour last night this point was a big part of the commentary. That secular, humanist, atheists, etc. can be very moral people, let alone patriotic etc. But earlier in the day, I had heard Laura Ingraham having the vapors over the success/intelligence/beauty of the speech, esp. the focus on ritual and ceremony. (She’s the only “news” I can get since Air America left; I don’t indulge very often.)
The part that troubled me the most was the doctrinal “Jesus is son of God and salvation of mankind.” Let alone that women need not apply, but what does that have to do with qualifications. And such a departure from the JFK model he supposedly had in mind.
Supposely, the setting and introduction (GHWB) were to be read as an endorsement as well.
Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots.
Sorry Peg. You’re no longer part of the “we”. This is what is left of your party. Willard and the other candidates all recognize this. You’ve got the racists and knuckledraggers. That’s your party, the one who think Saddam Hussien masterminded 9/11, which took place in Sodom.
BTW, if *xyz is around, I’d appreciate an email. I’ve forgotten your new handle jay AT ackroyd.org.
http://texbetsy.headonradionet…..s-willard/
from Huff Po by The Huffington Post News Editors
A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday
It’s a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney’s speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.
Just curious. Did Mitt have to give a similar speech when he ran for governor of Massachusetts? Did his father have to give one when he ran for governor of Michigan?
Newtonuser,
You are correct of course that we should not tolerate intolerance.
I also agree that likeminded people should band together in support of the constituion.
My question really was coming from a place that wants the best for this site and all the people here.
OTOH, it doesn’t seem much different than what’s been going on for the last seven years! If you think about it, Halliburton, the Carlyle group, rampant earmarks, etc.
I’d be careful about referring to them as “undereducated” as some recent converts are in my family, and are very well educated. Different issue.
I’m happy to have converts. I’m also happy to shove people like Noonan’s faces in it now that they’re upset that Karl and St. Ronnie and W. have destroyed their country club party by letting in the snake handlers.
I don’t even remember his father giving such a speech when he ran for President, although I couldn’t swear to it. His father was a serious contender as I remember it.
Yeah, I’d agree that Peggy Noonan deserves that, figuratively anyway :)
Papa Romney’s Mormonism didn’t matter. That was when the GOP was still a secular party.
Nixon as the “Christian candidate”? Hilarious.
And yes, Repugs are in bad shape now and the rats are jumping ship, but they have only themselves to blame. I think we shouldn’t laud or admire them for jumping ship, when they shouldn’t have been on that ship to begin with.
His father was a serious contender until admitting that the Generals had “brainwashed him” about Vietnam
True, and funny!
Do you remember any big fuss being made of his religion back then? ‘Cuz I don’t! Have we progressed (as a culture, a society)?
I don’t recall the Mormonism bein an issue at all (I was in HS those days so might have missed it). But I think it means we’ve regressed more than progressed in this issue.
I wasn’t born when Willard’s dad ran. But I do remember St. Ronnie and Jimmy doing it.
I’d have to agree with you on that. I’ve read some pretty broad-brush statements right here in these toobz about religion and religious believers. And I am saying this as a person of no particular faith.
No fuss about Nixon being a Quaker either. This is completely and entirely a development of Rove’s. He wanted this voting bloc. He even helped create it, by using church leaders as messengers. And by legitamizing the national hucksters. These are Rove’s shock troops, and he’s lost control of them. Peggy and Karl don’t have anyone to put out there that will satisfy the Beast and pay fealty to Haliburton. That was supposed to be George Allen this cycle….
Scott Ritter on NIE-must listen. He agrees with Gordon Prather that there is NO evidence that Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program, and that the CIA’s NIE was to get out before ElBaradei issues his IAEA report before the end of the year declaring that Iran never had a weapons program.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/20…..-ritter-4/
Prather link here, but he speaks science & is much more difficult to understand.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/20…..prather-4/
How fitting that Romney was introduced by George H.W. Bush, who famously declared, “No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.”
In his over-hyped address Thursday on “Faith in America,” Romney sought to disarm evangelicals’ fears about the role of his Mormon faith. But while he likely failed in that task, Romney assuredly succeeded in redefining the U.S. Constitution’s ban on religious tests for political office. According to Romney’s notion of public service, Muslims and atheists need not apply.
For the details, see:
“Mitt Romney Creates His Own Religious Test.”
my tolerance for religiosity stops at the point where “they” question my secular humanity. the golden rule is non-denominational.
Ya’ know, I seem to recall Barack Obama made a big deal about people of faith or that Americans should have a faith or something to that effect. Does anyone remember this from about a year ago? I remember I was not too happy about it at the time. I’m no atheist but my 11 year old is. The fact that some of out presidential candidates are of the opinion that only people of faith are moral people disturbs me greatly. Are people of faith also better Americans?
It smacks of discrimination and a religious test for good citizenship.
I would like to hear a member of the Kennedy family–perhaps Senator Ted, perhaps Carolyn–come out and proclaim that Willard’s speech was not the equivalent of JFK’s famous 1960 speech, and object to such a comparison being made. They could point out the crucial differences in a way that shows how inappropriate Willard’s position is.
I haven’t heard anything like this from a Kennedy. Has anyone else?
OTOH, I do remember it being a big deal that Carter was a “born again Christian”! I remember some people having serious misgivings about that, in fact. But he probably proved to the worriers that there was no reason to worry, and then look what happened.
I do agree that it was supposed to be George Allen this cycle, and that’s the one thing I’ve been overjoyed about!
It wasn’t a Kennedy per se, but CNN had an interview on their site yesterday with Ted Sorensen, JFK speechwriter who pretty much panned Willard’s attempt.
Jane’s upstairs…
That’s such a good point. All hail Jim Webb!
Yes, it’s true that Carter’s born again status was part of his appeal. Frankly, Clinton used the pew as well. And now that i think about it, I do recall discomfort among northern wasps, as with the Playboy interview.
It’s interesting that Peggy’s “we” lost control of the candidates this time around. First time in my recollection.
Oops. I meant Caroline, not Carolyn. Should have known better.
I feel compelled to point out: Peggy Noonan acknowledged that we atheists are a part of America, too. I can’t think of another Republican who has done so, and I never expected that she would.
Well, yeah, but it’s not like anyone else is going to vote for a party whose platform is tax cuts for the rich and bombs for brown people.
Reply to 40. Some Senators do have website access to speeches. I know Obama used to; been awhile since I checked. But his were archived for quite a period of time.
holy pot calling the kettle black batman! POW! ZONK! BLAM!
.
I hate that phrase, “people of faith.” It is so insufferably smug — just like the xtianists themselves.
“People of faith” = cult followers.
Obama totally did, and he also used the same strawman thing, but against us whose votes he needs. It was very similar to Romney’s speech and just as wrong.
Sirota: Reinforcing Dishonest Storylines: http://davidsirota.com/index.p…..torylines/
Obama, of course, is trying to portray himself as having the courage to stand up against these supposed Democrats that constitute the “we” in his rhetoric – the “we” that supposedly make this mistake of “fail[ing] to acknowledge the power of faith.” Yet, again, he doesn’t offer any names to tell us who constitutes the “we.” Why? Because there are none. What Democrat of any prominence at all in America “fails to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people?” I can’t think of one. It is a straw man – one that might make Obama look like a man of “courage” or “principle” – but one that dishonestly reinforces right-wing stereotypes about supposedly “godless” liberals/Democrats.
The Fundie’s are a weak yet reliable link in the GOP. They will NEVER control the agenda, it’s just that the GOP offers them a better shot at what they would prefer than the Democrats. Don’t worry too much about them anyway, they don’t want to convert, enslave or kill unbelievers or stone adulterers, rape victims and gays to death. Those fascists are the neo-Liberals and the classic liberals biggest enemies.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
politics is religion
feeling is most important
thinking is not required
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
claim to care for people
call yourself progressive
bad policies hurt poor folk
http://absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com/
.
Then there was Willard the weather guy on morning TV for a long time. Wore Carmen Miranda hats (lots of bananas, pineapples and other tropical vegetation) and that kinda stuff.
Well said.
When we start taking the public school system away from the profiteers we’ll have a chance to truly educate our children. “A well-informed citizenry…” and all that.
To 97, etc above. Early in this post there are some thoughtful comments about tolerance or not so much. There are at least 2 ministers who post here, and speaking only for myself, I do not think that I belong to any cult. Of course, who knows what to say about Texans or Democrats or Lawyer associations! So as you choose your labels, it may be that you are using much too broad a stroke.
BLUE -
Thanx for reading Noonan so I don’t have to! Having her admit that there are idiots in the GOP’s Fundie base is terrific.
Moses Michael Hayes, David Franks, Haym Salomon, Mordecai Sheftall and Francis Salvador – these were patriots, and refused to accept the idea that America was a “Christian nation”. In fact, Hayes, pointed out that a loyalty oath required of those supporting and fighting in the Revolution contained an offensive reference to “as Christians”. He noted that there were Jews, Native Americans, and those who doubted the divinity of Jesus amongst their ranks…and they changed the phrase to “as men of reason”.
Apparently Romney would rather imply that he is one with the evangelical fundamentalists rather than one with the country when he states that he would exclude Moslems categorically from his cabinet because they are “all extremists” and, besides, make up such a small percentage of the country (despite the fact that Mormons only make up about 3.5% of the population…and HE would be President).
Mitch is a case of being a bigot who wants to belong to the club that won’t have him.
I’m wondering if there is a reason that the only agnostic or atheist or freethinker she could think of was “Jeremiah ‘Liver Eatin’ Johnson”? Not Einstein? Not Paine? Not Mark Twain? Or Richard Feynman? Or Robert Frost?
Instead she refers to the “village atheist” (aka “some village has lost its ‘atheist’”), antisocial survivalist, and Brahmin (i.e. elitist) doubters.
Code words, anyone?