An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Porno Mitt
Here’s the alluring headline at WaPo: Romney Criticized for Hotel Pornography
And what an amusing story it is: “Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, who rails against the ‘cesspool’ of pornography, is being criticized by social conservatives who argue that he should have tried to halt hardcore hotel movie offerings during his near-decade on the Marriott board.”
Yes, horny men (and women, too) in hotel rooms all over America, and all around the world, are, at this very moment, not being masters of their domain — and it’s all Romney’s fault!
Sort of makes you go limp, when you think about it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
19 Responses to “Porno Mitt”
I’m sorry, I’m not a huge Romney fan, but this is just blatantly unfair.
I guess if Tony Perkins gets to pick our next president, hotel guests at the Marriott will be viewing reruns of The Waltons,lol.
Lord, save us from Focus on the Family.
What makes these social conservatives so different from the dudes in the Middle East that don’t let women show their ankles?
I hope this story dies on the vine.
It’s just another version of the Edeards haircut story.
It is very nice to see some of those who deeply disagree with Mitt Romney defending him against what amounts to a major cheap shot.
I’d like to do the same about “social conservatives’ in this case. I disagree with them about nearly everything (especially relevant here, I disagree with their frequent ill-concealed anti-Mormonism), but I think it important to note differences in degree as well as direction. They may be more traditionalist in their beliefs about sexuality and the role of women, but to say that they are no different than Muslim fundamentalists who don’t allow women to show ankles upon pain of death is absurd.
Jason, why shouldn’t “real” Christians, who are not considered Christians but “gentiles” by the Mormons, have a similar not-true-Christian bias against Mormons? My bias is about the lack of character of Joseph Smith and the complete absurdity of the Mormon story line, not to mention their history of forced marriage and pedophilia. Their “latter day saint” coerced a 13 year old into marrying him and her family into allowing it.
Social conservatives in the US are certainly not the same as extremists in the ME.
While not equating the two, though, it’ can be interesting to note the similarities in mind-set.
It’s quite astounding how much of their worries concerns sex and the role of women.
Considering the number of commandments and precepts contained in holy books, this focus seems hugely disproportionate.
An examination of why that is so would make an interesting topic for someone’s theses.
oh, as for the story at hand, of course Mitt should not be criticized for supporting the profitability of the hotel chain over his religious and moral beliefs. Hell, that’s business! Can’t have deeply held beliefs tainting your decisions when there’s money to be made.
This is false.
I’m not going to get into a point-by-point argument with anti-Mormon stereotypes and myths. Those who want to know what Mormons believe individually (they don’t all think exactly alike) should ask them individually instead of posting scurrilous and irrelevant misrepresentations on a blog comment.
P.S. I was a Mormon myself for most of my life and I spent about 5 years intensely involved with debates with anti-Mormons, so don’t even try to peddle the usual list of “Mormons believe this weird stuff, lolololol” stuff here.
Green Dreams,
If your 13 yr old girl story refers to anything recent, you should keep in mind that the splinter group practising polygamy has been disavowed by the Mormon Church a long time ago.
It’s a rreligion that has volutarily undergone many changes.
Chirstianity as a whole has undergone many changes. Even as conservative a church as the Catholic one has changed; not too many Spanish Inquisitions lately.
It would be better to speak of Mormons as they are today,.
It’s ridiculous, of course. Some people are either just too desperate to come up with a criticism of Romney or just too puritanical and interested in running other people’s lives. Or both, of course.
What religious narrative doesn’t sound like a bad fantasy novel when you think about it disspassionately?
Certainly there are degrees of ridiculousness, but don’t all religions start at level way out there?
But the lesson out of this is that the religious right will attempt to exert puritanical influence over who Republican voters pick-based on their own prudish standards. All the more reason to put as much distance between politics and religion as possible. If it still is possible.
Gag- what could be worse than living in an America dictated to by the Tony Perkins of the worlds?
I think the comparison with fundamentalist Islam of course is over the top- but still it is scary to think that evangelicals are giving their stamp fo approval to “Stepford” Christian candidates with one wife, a beautiful family, etc.
K. Ritter:
Actually, Americans are, and have. Scandals involving personal misconduct are rightfully harmful to a candidate’s prospects. If he has been wrong or demonstrated to be untrustworthy already, why risk him in office and why tarnish the office?
Also, few are truly prudish, while those of us who do not accept the truly vulgar or more importantly, the wrongful radical insistence that people can personally do whatever they want to do (which is what children believe, not real adults), will not accept being mischaracterized as prudish or oppressive — such claims are outright lies.
Now, Americans are more enlightened than they were prior to the 1960s, and even many who would not vote for him due to politics would accept a President Obama if Obama were elected. But one thing going for Obama is the wholesome, happily-married, family-man image rather than, say, an underclass gang-banger image. Obama has also managed to avoid nearly any scandal involving misconduct (just a goof when sparring with Hillary’s group earlier this year which he stupidly said was merely “a mistake.” It was not an error.) As was said (with stupid howling when it was said), “He’s clean.” (Don’t do much to put you in the news, it’s less than can be used against you when you run for President.) That has as much weight with voters as do his youth and looks and his appeal as an alternative to Hillary Clinton.
Republicans are on course to lose badly. These mud campaigns against a candidate with an excellent organization, family, and record show how nuts some in the base are.
Evangelicals are desperate to trash Mitt because he is a Mormon. And ironically they intend to endorse someone with multiple wifes, childeren with their teenage girl friends, and support for the recording and motion picture associates’ every whim.
I see your point DLS- but almost every great president had some skeleton hidden in his closet- FDR had a mistress, Reagan was on his second marriage and had a terrible relationship with his kids, Jefferson had children with one of his slaves, Eisenhower had a wartime affair, Kennedy was a serial womanizer. Yet they managed to make decisions on the job that worked well for the country.
There are other presidents with nice Christian families- Bush 43 and Carter who made poor decisions as president. IMO, people can comparmentalize. Rudy Giuliani is on his third wife, and had affairs while he was married- yet managed to bring crime under control in NYC, and provided leadership during 9/11 that is his claim to fame.
I didn’t make up this debate about “gentiles“. Non-Mormons are referred to as gentiles by Mormons.
God told St. Joe when he was 15, that all other churches are:
I can’t argue with someone who has been in the LDS church, but have heard first-hand, a Mormon friend referring to a Jewish friend as a “gentile” which amused my Jewish friend greatly.
I have been surrounded by Mormons for years, and find their beliefs about women and minorities deplorable. I do admit that much of my knowledge of Mormon history comes from Under the Banner of Heaven, by Jon Krakauer (Mormons are not allowed to read the book). It appears to be quite well researched.
Domajot, the story is not about a recent churchgoer, but speaking from memory, I was off by a year. Joseph Smith married helen Mar Kimball, 14, convincing her parents and her that God told him she must marry him or be cast into Hell. He later married his 16 year old cousin. Some other wives of Saint Joe. Here’s the whole list of 34 !
This is all fine by God according to the scripture as dictated by Joe:
After practicing as a swindler, doing “readings” by burying his face in a white tophat, he then “dictated” the received book of Mormon in the same way. (He had to, because he had lost the magic glasses he needed to read the gold tablets given to him, then taken back, by the angel Moroni.) The word of God, right from inside that hat. I kid you not.
Now I’m not out to trash anyone’s religion, but it does baffle me how anyone could revere this man.
Um, wow. That’s just flatly wrong. There is no list of “banned books” and there are several Mormons who make a hobby of reading and debating with anti-Mormon works.
Please, please, PLEASE avoid regurgitating anti-Mormon myths. Yet again, Mormons often have a great deal of individuality in their beliefs. For example, both Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid are Mormons. And like any other religion, there are parts of the “official” doctrine and teaching that individual Mormons emphasize or de-emphasize. The “gentiles” thing is one of those areas as is the “only true Church” thing.
The best way to avoid prejudice and stereotyping is to allow individual Mormons to define their OWN beliefs.
This episode just reinforces my already strong regret that the religion of politicians or other leaders is such prominent issue in the US. I thought we got past that widh the election of Kennedy
I care nothing about the religion to which a candidate adheres, unless he stresses it too much.
If he does, it makes me trust him less. For pokicies, I opt for rational, logical thought voer unquestioning faith – every time.
.
As attacks go, this one is really bad. I think Romney has plenty of weak spots, but this ain’t one of them. The WaPo article actually makes him sound rather reasonable:
Now, I do take some issue with the fact that seeing a bare breast is considered equivalent (or worse!) than seeing someone shot to death in terms of childhood experience, but that’s just me. He seems to be clear that the fact he finds it repugnant doesn’t mean he wants to prevent others from doing it. Frankly I think this shows tolerance, not a lack thereof. That quote almost makes me forgive the WaPo for their shamelessly suggestive headline.
I see this story getting very little pull and only strengthening, not weakening, a possible Romney candidacy, as he’s showing the reasonable Republicans that he’s not a fringe wacko, while still being conservative.