Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Vote Me Up a President - Part Threeve

If you need a reason to NOT vote for Mitt Romney, I have a good one. Cynthia Tucker defends him. Is that good enough? I can't find a permalink for the article, so I will cut and paste it here. Damn, wear some rubber gloves or something. Should I throw some commentary in? Okay.

(She starts off her defense by calling him a zealot? Before we get too far into this, a zealot is a member of an ancient Jewish sect in Judea in the first century who fought to the death against the Romans, just so you know. "Christian Zealot?" Now, on to the stupidity with her article already discredited by the friggin' title!)

For many sophisticated (Rubes wouldn't like this guy, you have to be smart, like John Kerry.) conservatives, Mitt Romney is an appealing presidential candidate. Before he served a respectable (He is the only Mass elected official to NOT get drunk and kill someone.) term as governor of Massachusetts, he rescued (Not like Teddy!) the scandal-plagued 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. (*Yawn* The Olympics? He has my damn vote for nothing.) He has also been very successful in business, making millions as the co-founder of a private equity investment firm. Though his hyper-pandering (?) to the narrow-minded (Cynthia?) in this campaign has cost him some honor, he's still smart, accomplished and photogenic. (I'm wet.)
He's also a Mormon, a biographical note that has caused considerable consternation among the ultraconservative Christians (Damn Christians!) who make up a sizable portion of the GOP's core constituency. Many of them reject Mormonism as a "cult" and would be hard-pressed to vote for Romney because of it. (That would be four people in the country if he wasn't from Mass.) That's the reason he is now under white-hot pressure from Mike Huckabee (The REEEEEL Christian and big taxer-guy.) in Iowa and South Carolina, where hard-core (nasty) believers have pumped up the Baptist preacher's poll numbers.

It's quite a quandary for those among the Republican establishment who see Romney as not only the most electable (Among Democrat voters.) among the GOP nominees (Ooops!)-- he has more intellectual heft (He's Al Gore!) than Huckabee and none of Rudy Giuliani's considerable baggage -- but also as a genuinely well-qualified candidate. (Ms. Tucker's KISS OF DEATH.)

And they're beginning to fret over those right-wing Christians (Someone who worships Jesus is now right-wing? That would be every single Christian that follows the Bible. Awesome!) who have painted Mormons as the children of Satan, a faction that wasn't placated by Romney's recent speech in which he declared his belief that "Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind." (And now, YOU are defending him, even though he professes a belief in Jesus? I think that she is confroooosed about who paints Mormons as a cult. It's the Quakers.)

This curious fracture among the GOP faithful conjures up another bit of biblical wisdom: "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." (Hosea 8:7) (This is absolutely NOT applicable to anything that we are discussing, try to find some reason for this quote, try it. Hosea 8 is about worshipping false idols, I cannot come up with anything that she could mean by reciting this verse other than that is where the Bible fell open when she pulled it from behind her Code Pink binder.) For more than two decades, the Republican Party has employed a deliberate strategy of injecting "moral values" and religious beliefs into political and civic life (Damn, don't want those values in a candidate at all!)-- a strategy that found its apex in the election of George W. Bush, who, during a presidential debate, named "Jesus Christ" as his favorite philosopher. (As opposed to Edwards' favorite philosopher, "Barney" or Kerry's, HIMSELF. And I find it laughable at best that W is the APEX of the moral elected official, that is insane. My "apex" would be Theodore Rex, just saying.)

Though the GOP was historically known for fiscal conservatism and government restraint, party strategists decided back in the 1980s to link arms with Christian zealots (So, let's combine fiscal conservatism with liberal morality? Well, okay, but those seem mutually exclusive to me. And there's that "zealot" word again, damn Jewish Christians.) to secure the votes of their flocks. (Sheeple! No, the sheeple vote Democrat, stupid.)

Thus began a long association with such figures as Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, dogmatic, dictatorial and intolerant. Their Christianity brooks no dissent from a rigid and warped reading of the Bible that denounces homosexuality and decries abortion but has little compassion for the poor. (That warped sense of reading that finds the Bible and G-d might have a problem with killing the unborn? Or allowing homosexuals to have sex at community parks? What warped sense of reading? Or that sense of reading where between the two men that you call out, they have donated upwards of three BILLION dollars to the poor over the last thirty years? That compassion?)

To win Republican primaries, GOP candidates are expected to kowtow to those Christianists, and they have, all the while dismissing as immoral "secular humanists" those Americans who want to protect the wall separating church and state. In recent years, there have been few establishment conservatives willing to stand up to the zealots -- and those who did have paid a price. (John McCain, who rightly labeled Falwell and Robertson "agents of tolerance" in his 2000 presidential campaign, comes to mind.) (Church FROM state, Cynthia, there is a monumental difference. And your article actually says "tolerance" instead of "intolerance," but then again, you are a moron. And remember, McCain is a immortal dumbass. And Romney is a Mormon, ha!)

But with ultraconservative Christians balking at the prospect of a Mormon president, many top conservatives are suddenly annoyed. Earlier this month, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, accusing Huckabee of "exploiting" religion, wrote, "Mormonism should be a total irrelevancy in any political campaign." Trained as a psychiatrist, Krauthammer has never aligned himself with the right-wing religionists, but he has been much more circumspect about Bush's exploitation of religion. (Because psychiatrists don't believe that G-d crap! She should have said, "Trained as a circus juggler, Krauthammer has never aligned himself with the blind and deaf spirograph users." That would have made the same amount of sense.)

A far stranger spectacle has been the sight of Ralph Reed, former Christian Coalition executive, on the airwaves denouncing voters who would use religious beliefs as a test for political office. "We've really gone over the line in this election," Reed said recently, complaining that presidential candidates are being subjected to "a doctrinal frisk." Wow. You may recall Reed and his former mentor, Robertson, as among those who established the procedure, requiring candidates to assume the doctrinal position they laid out. (She said, "Sight of....on the airwaves. I guess Cynthia can SEE people on the radio, too? Because I cannot think of one television station that would ever allow Ralph Reed on their shows. And I do remember Reed and Pat objecting to Clinton because he is a degenerate and a whore. Oddly enough, they were right!)

Time for these folks to stop invoking Christ's name and start listening to Christ's message. Mitt Romney's candidacy should depend on how he leads, not on how he prays. (I am going to assume that to a moron like Cynthia, Mitt IS Christ? Yeah, I can't figure out what she's saying either, but it is stupid anyway.)