MSNBC's O'Donnell on Romney's "Mormon Problem": How Moronism Was "Invented"

MSNBC via YouTube ^ | April 4, 2012 | Lawrence O'Donnell

[NorthernCrunchyCon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_5hww4HNDQ

And so begins the MSM turn on the Republican nominee. And as much as I hate to credit the MSM, and particularly O'Donnell, I cannot find anything in his rant that is inaccurate, other than the number of wives Joseph Smith claimed. O'Donnell says 48, but I believe the most consistent number put forward by historians is 27. On the other hand, Brigham Young claimed 56 wives, so O'Donnell is certainly within range.

[Artemis Webb]

Wow...you sure quote Matt Barber a lot. I’ve never heard of him and don’t think he’s very important but maybe he’s related to you....

[rabidralph]

That’s typical liberterian philosophy: attack all republicans but give the democrats a pass.

[SoConPubbie]

Wow...you sure quote Matt Barber a lot. I’ve never heard of him and don’t think he’s very important but maybe he’s related to you....

Nope, never met the man, however, if you really want to know more about him, here is a list of his articles posted on TownHall.com.

[panaxanax]

The anti-Mormon/anti-Romney gang will be here soon.

Trust me. I’ve been fighting with them for years over the right to exercise our “Freedom of Religion” and I’m not even a Mormom!

They’re emailing and pinging each other as we speak.

Soon, very soon...tick-tock, tick-tock....

[SoConPubbie]

I know for sure that 0bama will appoint more Marxists, Communists & Lesbians to the Supreme Court. That’s a given & proven fact by his actions so far. If re-elected, I guarantee he will appoint an openly gay man.

Romney won’t.

You really need to research your candidate a lot more.

Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.

Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romney’s appointments were constitutional “living document” poster children.

“Many of Romney’s appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different?” Barber asked rhetorically.

“Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romney’s actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.”

Barber cites two specific examples of Romney’s radical appointments.

“As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, ‘living, breathing’-minded judges to the bench,” Barber said.

“Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany,” he said. “They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didn’t hesitate to put them on the bench.”

“These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled ‘gay rights’ trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights,” he said.

Baldwin agreed, citing Romney’s statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.

“Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers,” Baldwin said. “But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romney’s nominees fit that description.”

Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:

“It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.”

[Artemis Webb]

I really don’t. I don’t have time to read all the things I believe are important. I’m sure not going to waste my time reading countless essays from somebody determined to keep Obama in The White House until early 2017.

[Sola Veritas]

“But Obama really needs to be beaten.”

We hold this truth to be self evident.

“That is more important than anything else.”

NOT at the expense of, even potentially, a Romney administration - not any improvement over Obamanation. Nothing will change that...even “after” a convention. IF the convention picks Romney, then the “convention” is invalid and not to be followed.

Any support of Romney, even after a convention, will be met with vigorous opposition. Romney is a bridge to far.

[Longbow1969]

The anti-Mormon/anti-Romney gang will be here soon.

The anti-Mormon stuff disgusts me. The anti-Romney stuff, well, I certainly didn't support him and am very disappointed he's our nominee. I went from Perry to Newt, but it is clear now conservatives did not prevail and we are left with mushy-moderate Mitt as the nominee. It is what it is. I have no expectations for Romney other than to hope he can dislodge Hussein from the White House. RINO though he is, Willard is far better than Obama. He might even actually be more conservative than his record suggests considering he is a political chameleon and the kind of guy who would say and do anything to win and hold on to power in a deep blue state. Beholden to Republicans, even just the GOP establishment, he will still be vastly preferable to Hussein.

Trust me. I’ve been fighting with them for years over the right to exercise our “Freedom of Religion” and I’m not even a Mormom!

Meh, I don't much care about the particulars of their faith. Personally, all the Mormon's I've known have been good, decent family people - all actually far more conservative than Mitt. I am looking at politicians based on how conservative they are, not whether they can quote scripture. The problem with Romney is he is not really a conservative. That he is Mormon is irrelevant to me. I'd vote for a conservative Buddhist, Hindu, etc, before I'd vote for a liberal Christian. In this case, RINO Mitt is simply far better than Obama the socialist liberation theologist.

[Sola Veritas]

Let me be fair about one thing. That is that ultimately we each have to do what our values/conscience/whatever dictates. No one can dictate to others here what they will or won’t do.

I’m not responsible for your actions, and you are not responsible for mine. We each have to live with our decisions.

Mine is that Romeny is no better than Obama, and may potentially be worse. I will not support him ever. It does no good to attempt to insult me or attempt to persuade me otherwise. And I will do whatever necessary (legal and moral of course) to destroy Romney as a candidate even after a convention.

Others, like yourself, hold that he is the lesser of two evils and will give him grudging support because “ABO” is your mantra. It equally is a waste for me to berate or insult you. You must do what you think best. That is what being a citizen of the United States is all about.

The one thing I do know for certain about myself and others, is that we are all falible. So, let us hope that what is best will prevail. We just defer on what we think best in regards to Romney. There is no disagreement that Obama is currently the worst president of my life time (I’m 58).

[Kazan]

If Romney is our nominee (and it’s sure starting to look that way) how about we don’t attack our own guy.

He's not "our" guy because he isn't a conservative. He's merely the Republican nominee.

[Admin Moderator]

The title you created

"MSM pwns Romney over Mormonism"

had to be replaced with the published title at the source.

Please do not make up your own title, nor alter any published titles.

Made-up titles and altered titles interfere with other Posters' ability to use Free Republic's search engine. Also we're trying to reduce the number of threads we have to pull.

Thanks.

[Kazan]

When Romney is the nominee, which is inevitable, is that what you're going to do?

Vote for a third-party candidate and work on getting more conservatives elected to Congress and at the state level.

[Kazan]

Obama will very likely, once no longer restrained by the need for re-election, tear the Constitution into tiny bits of paper

It will the Republicans in Congress and the job of the courts to stop him if he tries that. The Presidency is not a dictatorship and if Obama tried to make it one, measures can be taken to stop him.

[Kazan]

Romney's problem is that he isn't particularly conservative

HE IS A LIBERAL! Why can't you concede that?

[JamesA]

I could give a rip what he believes, He has to be better than “THE ONE” currently at the helm.

[Kazan]

I have no expectations for Romney other than to hope he can dislodge Hussein from the White House. RINO though he is, Willard is far better than Obama.

What evidence is there of that?

The part the owns the White House almost always loses seats in Congress. That will especially be true with Romney in the White House selling out conservatives on issue after issue. We'd maintain or gain seats in Congress if Obama is re-elected.

We're stuck with a Romney or another Democrat for eight years instead of just four more with Obama.

RINOs in Congress are much more likely to betray conservatives with a liberal Republican in office than they are when a Democrat is in office. Romney will have a much easier time passing liberal legislation that Obama, especially with a shrinking number of Republicans in Congress.

So, tell us why, then, Romney is an improvement.

[Artemis Webb]

Re #52:

When your third party school board member gets to nominate a replacement for Scalia or Kennedy or Ginsburg let me know. In the meantime the clock is ticking.

[DariusBane]

Cause he ain’t my guy.

He is Moroni’s guy.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Not one GOP effort has been taken to stop anything he’s done so far.

What in the world would give you even one tiny indication the GOP would stop anyone about anything. When would you expect them to start, if they haven’t already?

Obama needs to lose the next election. Whoever is our candidate, even if ineffectual, won’t be an aspiring dictator.

Pretty much, whomever is our candidate will, once in office, spend most of their time defending themselves from a hostile MSM.

THAT is the difference between (any) Republican and Obama.

Obama has his very own national media, operating as his inhouse propaganda operation.

No Republican will have that power.

So no Republican will ever, be as bad as Obama.

Nor nearly so entrenched.

A GOP win in 2012, will mean a GOP challenger can be found and brought forward starting right now for 2016.

An Obama re-election may mean America is finished.

Stark choice. Focus people.

[greyfoxx39]

Focus people.

I guess you missed the part where Jim Robinson has declared there will be no campaigning for Romney on FR

I'm quite sure he means no front door OR back door campaigning for Mitt. Just sayin'.