Romney is a joke, he tried meeting w/black folks

• Anyone interested in the candidates houses? SM - fallow sallow
  • That is his vacation home - mamt
    • Romney is a phony, but at least not a lunatic. sm - LVMT
      • Romney is a joke, he tried meeting w/black folks - sang *who let the dogs out* - which was....sm
      • I agree - scmt
        • I know it, if it comes up between clinton and McCain I just - may not vote at all

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Does Romney’s America Include Non-Believers?

James Joyner | Friday, December 7, 2007

New York Times" href=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?ex=1354683600&en=8a31b02ef8ccfd20&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss>David Brooks has a sober and thought-provoking take on Mitt Romney’s “Mormon speech,” simultaneously praising its intricate weaving of philosophy and worrying that his method of arguing for inclusion of Mormons in the political sphere was at the cost of excluding non-believers.

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.

The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.

The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.

In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?

Indeed. The problem with the secularization of religion is that it winds up being insufficiently secular and insufficiently religious.

Brooks is also right that non-believers are more excluded from our process than even aggrieved religious groups like Mormons and Muslims. As noted here months ago, an atheist would have a much harder time getting elected president than a homosexual, black, or Hispanic — let alone a Mormon.

Memeorandum rounds up the blogger reactions to Brooks’ column. Most, like Ron Beasley, seem to agree with Brooks.

An exception is Red Stater Hunter Baker (who doesn’t appear to have read Brooks’ column) takes the opposite view, though: “The United States has traditionally been a nation that recognizes freedom must be paired with religion and morality if it is to persevere in political society. Mitt said it. Libertarians need to hear it. So do secularists.”

While there’s not much question that the Protestant Reformation played a role in the rise of democratic governance in the West, it’s far from clear that religion is necessary for freedom. Indeed, it’s difficult to think of a free theocracy.

The Washington Post weighing in on the question this morning with an editorial entitled, “No Freedom Without Religion? There’s a gap in Mitt Romney’s admirable call for tolerance.”

Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. “Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom,” Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government,” Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

The estimable John O’Sullivan, though, thinks Brooks and others are reading something into Romney’s message that was not there.

The religious liberty celebrated by Romney plainly entails the liberty to be non-religious. What Romney is opposing in those sections of the speech that seem to concern the culture wars is an obligation to be non-religious in the public square.

David’s arguments seems to be that if religious people were to unite against secularists to fight the their joint battles more effectively in the culture war, that would be an aggressive, divisive, and regrettable act. But that argument itself rests on the unstated assumption that the culture wars would stop if religious people stopped fighting them. In fact the culture wars began because the Left employed the courts to change America on everything from abortion to school prayer to gay marriage. This has not stopped. The obligation to be non-religious in the public square, though a very recent invention of liberal philosophers, is treated seriously in legal arguments and court decisions today.

So why shouldn’t religious people, while affirming the right to be non-religious, organize to defend their joint beliefs and interests in the way deplored by David?

No reason at all, of course. Indeed, while I would prefer that public policy decisions be decided on purely secular grounds, religious convictions are ultimately no less legitimate motivation for policy preferences that economic interest, party loyalty, or “we’ve always done it this way.”

It seems inevitable, though, that the overwhelming majority who are religious will mount their fight to protect their cultural values (even those shared by many secularists) on Us vs. Them grounds.

Further, as Eric Klee reports, Romney is thus far refusing to distance himself from the Brooksean interpretation.

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.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. “It is as if they’re intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They’re wrong,” Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

Romney’s strategy, if indeed it was intentional, is a politically sound one. The numbers favor pandering to the religious to the exclusion of non-believers; that’s especially so in the Republican primaries. It’s not the way to national unity but that’s generally well behind winning votes in a politician’s calculus.

So...seems the upper echelon doesn't give a darn about cutting back. Their dinner consisted of

"fruitwood-smoked quail with quince gastrique; quinoa risotto; thyme-roasted rack of lamb; tomato, fennel and eggplant fondue; a salad course of endive, baked brie and walnuts; and a pear torte to cap the meal.

Among the wines: bottles of Shafer Cabernet "Hillside Select" 2003 — about $300 per bottle — for the main course and the much cheaper Landmark Chardonnay "Damaris Reserve" 2006 for about $40 per bottle with the appetizer course. The Chandon DEtoile RosDe sparkling wine that accompanied dessert runs around $30 a bottle.

Presidents pay for their own groceries, even while living in the White House. But during official or state dinners, such as Friday night's, U.S. taxpayers foot the bill.

Bush's guests for the dinner included Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Joseph Harper; Chinese President Hu Jintao; French President Nicolas Sarkozy; German Chancellor Angela Merkel; and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. About two dozen leaders in all attended the dinner in the White House's State Dining Room."

It must be nice. Oh, and BTW, since my DH is self-employed and work as been so slow this year, does he qualify for a bailout??? Of course not.

November 14, 2008
World leaders dine in style as they discuss financial crisis

(CNN) – The global economy may be undergoing a significant downturn, but the White House's dinner budget still appears flush with cash.

After all, world leaders who are in town to discuss the economic crisis are set to dine in style Friday night while sipping wine listed at nearly $500 a bottle.

According to the White House, tonight's dinner to kick off the G-20 summit includes such dishes as "Fruitwood-smoked Quail," "Thyme-roasted Rack of Lamb," and "Tomato, Fennel and Eggplant Fondue Chanterelle Jus."

To wash it all down, world leaders will be served Shafer Cabernet “Hillside Select” 2003, a wine that sells at $499 on Wine.com.

The exceedingly pricey wine may seem a bit peculiar given leaders are in Washington to discuss a possible world financial meltdown, but Sally McDonough, a spokeswoman for Laura Bush, said it "was the most appropriate wine that we had in the White House wine cellar for such a gathering.

McDonough also said the White House purchased the wine at a "significantly lower price" than what it is listed at.

"Of course the White House gets its wine at wholesale prices," she said. "Given the intimate size of the group, it was an appropriate time for The White House to use this stock."

The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey and 11 developing economies have all come to Washington at the behest of President Bush in an effort to express confidence in the fundamental underpinnings of the world's economy.

– CNN's Becky Brittain contributed to this report

Obama is going to have to *waterboard* that info out of him....ROFL....

Yeah, I often amuse myself.

Who really derailed the Thursday meeting?? It's coming out on the Internet now, See below.... ***Edited by Moderator***

 http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/26/in-wh-meeting-obama-muddied-waters/

By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 30, 2008; A01

Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went unarmed into his first meeting with the new commander in chief -- no aides, no PowerPoint presentation, no briefing books. Summoned nine days ago to President-elect Barack Obama's Chicago transition office, Mullen showed up with just a pad, a pen and a desire to take the measure of his incoming boss.

There was little talk of exiting Iraq or beefing up the U.S. force in Afghanistan; the one-on-one, 45-minute conversation ranged from the personal to the philosophical. Mullen came away with what he wanted: a view of the next president as a non-ideological pragmatist who was willing to both listen and lead. After the meeting, the chairman "felt very good, very positive," according to Mullen spokesman Capt. John Kirby.

As Obama prepares to announce his national security team tomorrow, he faces a military that has long mistrusted Democrats and is particularly wary of a young, intellectual leader with no experience in uniform, who once called Iraq a "dumb" war. Military leaders have all heard his pledge to withdraw most combat forces from Iraq within 16 months -- sooner than commanders on the ground have recommended -- and his implied criticism of the Afghanistan war effort during the Bush administration.

But so far, Obama appears to be going out of his way to reassure them that he will do nothing rash and will seek their advice, even while making clear that he may not always take it. He has demonstrated an ability to speak the lingo, talk about "mission plans" and "tasking," and to differentiate between strategy and tactics, a distinction Republican nominee John McCain accused him of misunderstanding during the campaign.

Obama has been careful to separate his criticism of Bush policy from his praise of the military's valor and performance, while Michelle Obama's public expressions of concern for military families have gone over well. But most important, according to several senior officers and civilian Pentagon officials who would speak about their incoming leader only on the condition of anonymity, is the expectation of renewed respect for the chain of command and greater realism about U.S. military goals and capabilities, which many found lacking during the Bush years.

"Open and serious debate versus ideological certitude will be a great relief to the military leaders," said retired Maj. Gen. William L. Nash of the Council on Foreign Relations. Senior officers are aware that few in their ranks voiced misgivings over the Iraq war, but they counter that they were not encouraged to do so by the Bush White House or the Pentagon under Donald H. Rumsfeld.

"The joke was that when you leave a meeting, everybody is supposed to drink the Kool-Aid," Nash said. "In the Bush administration, you had to drink the Kool-Aid before you got to go to the meeting."

Obama's expected retention of Robert M. Gates as defense secretary and expected appointment of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state and retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones as national security adviser have been greeted with relief at the Pentagon.

Clinton is respected at the Pentagon and is considered a defense moderate, at times bordering on hawkish. Through her membership on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- sought early in her congressional career to add gravitas to her presidential aspirations -- she has developed close ties with senior military figures.

Some in the military are suspicious of "flagpole" officers such as Jones, whose assignments included Supreme Allied Commander at NATO, Marine commandant and other headquarters service, and who grew up in France and is a graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. But Jones also saw combat in Vietnam and served in Bosnia.

"His reputation is pretty good," one Pentagon official said. "He's savvy about Washington, worked the Hill," and at a lean 6-foot-4, the former Georgetown basketball player "looks great in a suit."

Although Jones occasionally and privately briefed candidate Obama on foreign policy matters -- on Afghanistan, in particular, as did current deputy NATO commander Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry -- he is not considered an intimate of the president-elect.

But as Obama's closest national security adviser, or at least the one who will spend the most time with him, Jones is expected to follow the pattern of two military predecessors in the job, Brent Scowcroft and Colin L. Powell, who injected order and discipline to a National Security Council full of strong personalities with independent power bases.

Although exit polls did not break out active-duty voters, it is virtually certain that McCain won the military vote.

In an October survey by the Military Times, nearly 70 percent of more than 4,000 officers and enlisted respondents said they favored McCain, while about 23 percent preferred Obama. Only African American service members gave Obama a majority.

In exit polls, those who said they had "ever served in the U.S. military" made up 15 percent of voters and broke 54 percent for McCain to 44 percent for Obama. "As a culture, we are more conservative and Republican," a senior officer said.

Obama has said he will meet with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs as well as the service chiefs during his first week in office. At the top of his agenda for that meeting will be what he has called the military's "new mission" of planning the 16-month withdrawal timeline for Iraq. Senior officers have publicly grumbled about the risk involved.

"Moving forward in a measured way, tied to conditions as they continue to evolve, over time, is important," Mullen said at a media briefing four days before his Nov. 21 meeting with Obama. "I'm certainly aware of what has been said" prior to the election, he said.

The last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, clashed with the chiefs during his first sit-down with them when they opposed his campaign pledge to end the ban on gays in the military. The chiefs, some of whom held the commander in chief in thinly veiled contempt as a supposed Vietnam draft dodger, won the battle, and Clinton spent much of his two terms seen as an adversary.

But Mullen came away from the Chicago talk reassured that Obama will engage in a discussion with them, balancing risks and "asking tough questions . . . but not in a combative, finger-pointing way," one official said.

The president-elect's invitation to Mullen, whom Obama previously had met only in passing on Capitol Hill and whose first two-year term as chairman does not expire until the end of September, was seen as an attempt to establish a relationship and avoid early conflict. While some Pentagon officials believe an Iraq withdrawal order could become Obama's equivalent of the Clinton controversy over gays, several senior Defense Department sources said that Gates, Mullen and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of the military's Central Command, are untroubled by the 16-month plan and feel it can be accomplished with a month or two of wiggle room.

These sources noted that Obama himself has said he would not be "careless" about withdrawal and would retain a "residual" force of unspecified size to fight terrorists and protect U.S. diplomats and civilians. The officer most concerned about untimely withdrawal, sources said, is the Iraq commander, Gen. Ray Odierno.

Even as the Iraq war continues, defense officials are far more worried about Afghanistan, where they see policy drift and an unfocused mission. With strategy reviews now being completed at the White House and by the chairman's office, an internal Pentagon debate is well underway over whether goals should be lowered.

Although Gen. David McKiernan, the U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has requested four more U.S. combat brigades, some Pentagon strategists believe a smaller presence of Special Forces and trainers for Afghan forces -- and more attention to Pakistan -- is advisable.

Bush's ideological objective of a modern Afghan democracy, several officials said, is unattainable with current U.S. resources, and there is optimism that Obama will have a more realistic view.

A number of senior officers also look with favor on Obama's call for talks with Iran over Iraq and Afghanistan, separating those issues from U.S. demands over Tehran's nuclear program.

One of the biggest long-term military issues on Obama's plate will be the defense budget, currently topping 4.3 percent of gross domestic product once war expenditures are included.

Obama has said he will increase the size of the Army and the Marine Corps, finding savings in the Iraq drawdown and in new scrutiny of spending, including on contractors, weapons programs and missile defense.

"They know the money is coming down," a Pentagon official said of the uniformed services, and many welcome increased discipline.

But it's neither the military's nature nor its role to volunteer the cuts, the official said. "It's for Congress and the administration to say 'Stop it.' "

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and research Editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Don't know of anyone who thinks this country is the great Satan.  Not at all.  The folks I talk to feel this country has its foibles, failings and quirks just like most other nations.  We are not perfect and never will be.  But we shouldn't give up simply because we're not perfect.  Turning a blind eye to this country's problems will solve nothing, though, only perpetuate its problems and make us weaker in the end.

You may see some of us as spouting hatred for this country when in reality it is love, albeit sometimes a tough love.  If you care about your child you want them to improve and become the best they can.  Same with the U.S.

Otherwise, all these Satan =U.S. folks....can you provide compelling statistical evidence for this statement?

Here are your civil rights being stripped to the core.  Excuse me, but I believe that is what our police force is for.  Only this is disguised as taking care of the citizens at home.  We do not need a miliary brigade "specifically" detailed to take care of "our" citizens.  You need to read very carefully what is being said here, folks, and it AIN'T for your own good, even though there will be those who think this is wonderful news!!!

Please pay close attention to the "crowd and traffic control equipment" they will be using on you, which they are sooooo excited about!   These will be your relatives being deployed within our borders not to protect us against intruders but to do just what you see in other countries, when you see their military all over their streets,  monitoring their citizens' every move.... and, of course, there is the brainwashing where some of these military indivdiuals believe they are doing an "honorable" thing and "noble mission".....Mission?  You want a mission?..... find another job besides the one where you are "monitoring" and stripping your citizens of their civil rights. 

Consequence Management Response Force.....I believe is what they call it now.....  consequences of what?  Protests, which is our right, speaking up and out against our government, which is our civil rights......just watch what will be happening if you don't start screaming loudly and long. 

I always wonder what is going on behind the scenes with our government when something "big" starts going on that distracts our attention away from something else.  Well, like they didn't know the Wall Street crowd and all the financial institutions weren't corrupt and crooked as sin.....right!!!  Now seems like a good time to distract you and SUDDENLY it all comes out.   Better keep your eye on your government folks.    There's the real problem!!!!!

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

Here's your global economy...........want to move to India?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/05/news/companies/ibm_jobs/index.htm

Yes, I voted against McCain/Palin which effectively means I voted for Obama.  Okay, I'm not sorry about that, still would not like to have seen McCain/Palin in the White House.  Don't think they'd be looking out for the interest of America either.

Am I happy with Obama?  No.  First he's run us into debt so that the only light at the end of the tunnel, as I see it, is a freight train, and a BIG one at that, coming.  The stimulus may  have stimulated the economy in the moment, Arkansas is planning a hiring spree with that extra "free" cash which obviously will create jobs but they say that when that free money is gone, the jobs will also be gone.  So we will be left no better off than we were before, just deeper in debt.  Oh yeah, as retirees, my husband and I got that $250 stimulus check.  News flash....we didn't run out and spend it nor did we use it to pay debts as we have none.  It's sitting right in the bank where it will remain as we are hoarding money for worse times to come.  Those I have talked to who are working and get the supposed reduction in taxes say it isn't enough that they've even noticed any extra money.

This morning I read that he is all primed and cocked to sign the long awaited smoking reform.  Do people not realize that this is just one more of our personal freedoms that is being taken away?  So some of you are glad but what about when the next freedom that affects YOU is taken away?  Maybe it's guns or whatever is dear to your heart.  The push is on to  legalize marijuana.  Sorry but my experience with marijuana is that it is not harmless.  But maybe it'll make all of us who smoke feel better about the direction our country is headed, something tobacco really doesn't provide.

What we need is NOT a Democrat and NOT a Republican.  What we need is someone in the White House (and other branches of the government) with some common sense and who are not puppets for special interests.  And I don't care how much Obama says "no more business as usual in Washington," from where I sit it most certainly is business as usual.  God save us all!!

Here in NW Arkansas I've had the inside scoop for some time on a situation that ought to scare the living dickens out of everyone who works for a living.

I have known for some time that Don Tyson was going to come out of retirement and take over the reins of Tyson Food again.  The news story broke yesterday.  By the way, Don Tyson is a rabid Republican.  None of the following is heresay, I know the guy.

Most of you probably find Tyson products in your local grocery.  If you eat at McDonalds you eat Tyson chicken tenders.

In the farming area where I live probably 75% of the people have either worked in some facet of the chicken industry or they have retired with a fortune they made in the chicken industry.  Most people contracted with Tyson to raise their chickens.  Low income workers worked in the hatcheries and chicken processing plants.  Not to mention the people who had good jobs in the corporate offices.  Within the last several years Tyson replaced their low income workers with illegal aliens.  They started building their own chicken farms and imported Mongs from (Minnesota or somewhere) to run them at much less cost than their contract growers but they are so big they didn't replace all of their growers.

What some of you call the "low lifes" worked  in this chicken business, a dirty, nasty job.  Some of them did  this because there is nothing else they can do.  They are uneducated, some are not too bright but they WORK.  I know one who can't even read and write.   Most of them now drive 25-30 miles to Fayetteville to work in fast food, as janitors or whatever low-paying job they can find and you see their old jalopies by the side of the road where they've either broken down or run out of gas.  These "low life people" don't want handouts, they want to work.  I feel sorry for them.

Now the news flash?  Tyson has  bought chicken processing plants in Argentina, Brazil  and China because "the cost of feed is making it cost prohibitive to do business here."  This is going to not only take jobs out of this country, it is going to leave many farmers who are still growing  chickens (and pork) not only unemployed but with thousands of dollars in debt because of the investments they have made in chicken farming.  20 years ago it cost $100,000 for a farmer to build a commercial chicken house.  I shudder to think what it costs today.  The plan is to raise chickens abroad and process them and bring them home to America.

So  all of you who work for a living whether you work in the chicken industry or another, had better be scared.  John McCain from his own mouth proclaimed himself to be the biggest free trader ever.  Free trade hasn't worked too well for Americans has it?

The inside scoop is buy Tyson stock now.  Not me.  I will NOT profit by costing American people their jobs.

I've changed my plean from "God Bless America" to "God Have Mercy on America."

How does this relate to the election?  For one thing I don't think we need another "biggest free trader ever" in the White House.

Stop throwing accusations at one another and blaming whatever party on Capitol Hill you hate!!!!!!!!!    All this blame game crap is absolutely nauseating..... all parties have been part of the government since way back when.  The parties in Washington at this moment had absolutely NOTHING to do with the situation at hand......the problem started decades ago with an absolutely desperate president who started up the Federal Reserve program, trying to coax people into believing their money was safe to put in the banks after the banks collapsed.  They were lulled into a false sense of security in hopes they would start putting their money back in the bank and being told their government would guarantee it.........nothing to do with rep or dem, just a desperate president at the helm at the time and all those idiots who should have known better but let it continue nonetheless. 

The corrupt companies in this fix now have been allowed to go this route because of an institution that was started up a looooong time ago, this just didn't happen overnight or a few years.  

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553