Should he withdraw from the race he hasn't officially entered yet.
Mitt: Look, maybe us Mormons do believe in crazy stories that make absolutely no sense, and maybe Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I have a great life. and a great family, and I have the Book of Mormon to thank for that. The truth is, I don't care if Joseph Smith made it all up, because what the church teaches now is loving your family, being nice and helping people. And even though people in this country might think that's stupid, I still choose to believe in it. All I ever did was try to be your friend, America, but you're so high and mighty you couldn't look past my religion and just be my friend back. You've got a lot of growing up to do, buddy. Suck my balls.
[turns around and walks off. All four boys just look at him in wonder, even Weisberg.]
Weisberg: Damn, that kid is cool, huh?
Wiesberg’s column is way off. For the most complete, entertaining, yet surprisingly even-handed treatment of the controversial Joseph Smith story, look here. [The episode, not the site, which I haven't bothered to look at.]
Mitt is the man to beat, this election. He’s smart, he’s good looking in a most presidential kind’ve way, he’s a business-oriented conservative who can play nice with liberals, his values appeal to Southern Christian conservatives, he's a Northeast governer with ties to the West, and he’s going to impress the hell out of the voting public (if perhaps not the political pundits) once the debates get underway. It’s foolish and arrogant to underestimate this man because of his religion. “Let he who is without sin…” and all that.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Mitt Romney's Concession Speech.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Even with the banter on CB's blogg, i have grown fond of your entries! You do have a great sense of humor.
Really well done, TK. "Suck my balls" was a nice touch.
I'm not sure exactly what makes Weisberg so stupid. I'm really surprised he doesn't accidentally forget to continue to inhale and exhale and die.
So, you've got me intrigued about this cat Romney. So, yeah, well done.
Hope all's cool with you and yours. If I don’t see you, have a great holiday, m'boy.
Dear anon:
I'm glad you liked the post! I must admit, however, that you probably have me confused with someone else. This is a group blog, you see, and there are several of us contributing. I'm guessing CB refers to the Company Bitch, which I've only visited once or twice. You're probably looking for DawnCoyote, I'm guessing, or perhaps Ms.Zilla [God, I'm so sexist!]. I'm glad you liked the post, however - please feel free to visit anytime.
Swit: Thanks! I ripped the whole thing off, of course, including the "suck my balls", from the South Park episode I linked to. I'm particularly fond of that paragraph, however. I think it's the most compelling, and honest defense of Mormonism I've come across.
We're all getting by, here in the cultural wasteland of the West [actually, I think that would be Idaho], and the kid's are anticipating a reasonable haul this year. So, happy holidays to you too!
Tenacious et al.:
Pardon the interruption, but please be good enough to bring this note to Elbo Ruum's attention:
Dear Elbo Ruum,
Your friends have done you a disservice. For nearly a year now, you've misspelled "Cacophony" in the title of your blog (Cacaphony And Discord), yet no one has pointed that out to you. Also, in the blurb in your profile, you may indeed mean "quiet retrospection," but I'd bet the farm that you mean "quiet introspection."
Language matters, not least for a parodist. I'll be looking for corrections.
--Cruel to Be Kind
My Dearest Cruel One:
Pardon my interjection, but your sensibilities have done you a disservice. I believe the gifted satirists on the blog, and imitators such as myself, have always assumed there was in embedded joke in the title of Elbo Ruum’s blog (hint: think potty-humor). Also, I’d bet the farm that the author did, in fact, mean quiet retrospection, rather than introspection.
A sense of humor matters, not least for those with the temerity to suggest corrections to parodists. I’ll be looking for retractions.
If we've learned nothing from Dubya (and I don't think anyone would say we've learned nothing from Dubya) we've learned to take seriously anyone who decides they might want to become president. I also hope we've learned to take care when "looking beyond" one's religion. Some folks are deadly serious about that stuff.
Merry Christmas, TK! Come home soon.
Hi Arch! Thanks for visiting.
I'll be home in the Spring.
The objection to Romney is no different than the objection to Kennedy - will Romney accede secular authority to his ecclesiastical leader? Will he maintain a personal separation between church and state? Does he support the rights of those with disparate belief systems?
W's taught us a lot, but I don't think he taught us a thing about religion and national leadership. I hope he taught us about the importance of discriminating folksy-sounding wisdom and idiocy, and the importance of maintaining separation between big business, and state.
Christians come in all stripes, and I certainly wouldn't use Christian belief as an exclusionary criteria for presidency. I wouldn't want to use it as an inclusionary one, either - some conservative Christians are among the scariest people I've ever met!
I think there are plenty of objections to Romney. But objecting on the basis of his Mormonism isn't very different than objecting to Lieberman because he's Jewish. While there might be related issues, it shouldn't really be an issue in its own right.
But, you know how politics works. I'm sure that whipping up prejudice to Mormons won't be any more socially destructive than whipping up prejudice for any other issue. I just feel compelled to discourage it.
I don't think the problem with Subya was people who would have ordinarily disqualify him because of his religion looking past it. I thnk it was some people failing to look past it to evaluate anything else.
Good point, John. For some, religious belief becomes an excuse to shut their brain off. In this sense, its no different than any other ideology someone has attempted to swallow whole, without digesting it first.
Whether one is a Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Humanist, Christian or Atheist isn't really all that important. What's important is that the candidate demonstrate a continuing willingness to think and consider issues even when their belief system would encourage premature cognitive closure and thoughtless decision.
In the case of "W", I don't even think his religion was much of an issue at all (unless perhaps a little symptomatic in the manner in which he applied it). He apparently shut his brain off just as effectively when one of his trusted advisors whispered in his ear. I think the religion just provides him with a convenient avenue for post-hoc rationalization. It's a more socially acceptable way of saying "because I said so." Some even consider that to be a virtue, incredible is it may seem.
Post a Comment