The devil made Larry do it.
Don't blame Lawrence O'Donnell for his ugly anti-Mormon rant. It was really the fault of O'Donnell's fellow panelists. That's Frank Rich's take on the unseemly episode on the McLaughlin Group a couple Fridays ago.In his NY Times column of today, Rich claims that O'Donnell was:
pushed over the edge by his peers’ polite chatter about Mitt Romney’s sermon on “Faith in America.” [Emphasis added.]
Questions:
How does Frank Rich know this? - What's his evidence that O'Donnell didn't act with malice aforethought?
- Why does the Times columnist believe that a few polite words about the speech by Pat Buchanan and Eleanor Clift were enough to send poor Larry off the deep end?
- Would Rich be so quick to excuse Pat Buchanan if he went similarly off on, oh I don't know -- Islam?
Rich later reveals his profound misunderstanding -- or cynicism -- about religion in general and Mormonism in particular. He writes [emphasis added]:
Mr. O’Donnell then raised the rude question that almost no one in Washington asks aloud: Why didn’t Mr. Romney publicly renounce his church’s discriminatory practices before they were revoked? As the scion of one of America’s most prominent Mormon families, he might have made a difference.
Rich doesn't explain just how he thinks Romney might have made that difference. But consider that according to the LDS church, the policy was changed in accordance with a revelation received by the religion's leader directly from God. If Frank thinks Mitt is truly that influential, then surely he should be supporting him for president!
Note: O'Donnell just can't help himself. On the one hand, he's written a [l-o-n-n-n-g] column at HuffPo clarifying his comments about Romney and the LDS, claiming "religious affiliation is not a good reason to vote for or against a candidate for president." But he then proceeds to twice refer to Mormonism as "crazy" and to rehash all his objections to the religion.
Perhaps O'Donnell should issue his personal list of crazy and non-crazy religions. Don't expect him to be entirely candid, though. Larry has admitted that he's afraid to criticize Islam.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Liberal creep defends crazy
December 16, 2007 - 08:12 ET by Jack BauerLiberal creep defends crazy liberal. What else is new.
What do you expect from Rosie O'Donnell's step-dad?
Well, Mark, considering
December 16, 2007 - 08:32 ET by motherbeltWell, Mark, considering O'Donnel's history of "lack of control" shall we say, and propensity to fly off on a rant...they should have known that this was likely to set him off, and avoided saying anything that might get him upset.
Rich says: As the scion of one of America’s most prominent Mormon families, [Romney] might have made a difference.
But Rich also thinks that if enough Catholics protest, they can "make a difference" and the Pope will decide that abortion is OK, or women can be priests, so what do you expect?
Is O'Donnell really wrong?
December 16, 2007 - 08:48 ET by Cool ArrowIs this really an issue for which Mr. Romney deserves a free pass?
Maybe it's a little tough to dance around but Mitt will eventually have to answer this question. He wouldn't have been the first individual to speak out against a wrong teaching.
O'Donnell is no more off base questioning Romney's past decision than we are with Hillary's college internship at a Communist Law office.
I ♣ My Seal
Cool, I don't think it's so
December 16, 2007 - 09:12 ET by motherbeltCool, I don't think it's so much giving Romney a "free pass" as a matter of leaving people's religion out of politics and campaigning.
Rich says O'Donnell raised the question: Why didn’t Mr. Romney publicly renounce his church’s discriminatory practices before they were revoked?
Because publicly renouncing one's faith is not easily done. It's easy to look back and say "that was racist and he should have said something." People have fears that if they go against their Church's teaching, they could be putting their immortal souls in danger. It's easy for Rich to stand here 40 years later and say "he should have spoken up."
I'll agree that Romney should be pilloried for not renouncing his faith in the 60's just as soon as Robert Byrd is drummed out of the Senate for being a Grand Kleagle of the KKK way back when.
}}---> We differ MB
December 16, 2007 - 09:21 ET by Cool ArrowIn that I did leave a faith for a wrong teaching years before my 30th birthday. Not easy? So what.
And comparing Mitt Romney with Robert Byrd shouldn't give anybody a warm fuzzy feeling.
By the way, the teaching changed in 1978, not the '60's.
I ♣ My Seal
By the way, the teaching
December 16, 2007 - 09:34 ET by motherbeltBy the way, the teaching changed in 1978, not the '60's.
Well, the beef they have with Romney is that he didn't renounce it before the teaching changed. So my point was valid.
comparing Mitt Romney with Robert Byrd shouldn't give anybody a warm fuzzy feeling.
Did I say it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling? I don't think so. So I don't know why you would assume that.
My point was that I don't think we should go that deeply into people's religion for the purpose of politics. I guess we disagree on that point.
And that's all I'm going to say on that, because I've found that arguments about religion never change any minds.
Warm and fuzzy
December 16, 2007 - 09:44 ET by Cool ArrowMaybe you didn't use the "warm and fuzzy reference, but you did offer the following forgiving caveat to which I object:
I'll agree that Romney should be pilloried for not renouncing his faith in the 60's just as soon as Robert Byrd is drummed out of the Senate for being a Grand Kleagle of the KKK way back when.
We can justify bad behavior with bad behavior all the way back to Cain with that logic.
And you really can't see that one's view of specific Races has impact beyond one's Religion?
'Fraid this goes beyond the usual "once saved, always saved" theological debate.
O'Donnel's question was a valid one
Sorry you don't see it
I ♣ My Seal
Thanks for admitting that
December 16, 2007 - 10:09 ET by motherbeltThanks for admitting that the "warm and fuzzy" thing was your own interpretation, although I hardly see what the Byrd reference has to do with it, but I'll let that lie.
My point was the double standard. I'll bet O'Donnel doesn't have a problem with Byrd, or he would have been ranting about him long before now.
}}---> Kleagle Byrd
December 16, 2007 - 10:12 ET by Cool ArrowIt's just that I love to rub Dem faces in their acceptance of racial hatred in the form of "patronizing condescension" (Larry Elder's term).
I ♣ My Seal
Has Reid's Mormonism been
December 16, 2007 - 10:31 ET by NortoHas Reid's Mormonism been vetted? I mean, maybe Mitt and Harry(another "influential" person) could have a joint statement explaining the faith's coming to the light on the race issue. Unless of course, there is some skeletal remains that would be an embarrassment to HR or he is not a practicing faithful?!!
My most serious vetting for a POTUS candidate is whether or not he will uphold the values this nation was founded on regarding what's right and wrong.
1. Are we a sovereign nation with borders?
2. Is abortion simply wrong?
3. Should morality be acted on by judicial fiat or decided at a personal level?
4. Is our government too big(NEA) and should it reflect more closely what the Founders envisioned, letting the people keep their hard-earned gains to do locally as they chose?
Those are some of my concerns for the leader of our nation firstly, and if necessary if he is called to show guidance as a world leader.
i don't mind the rant or
December 16, 2007 - 11:30 ET by Edhenryi don't mind the rant or tough questions.
The rub is the liberal cover. No dialogue, just insular weak, co-dependent group think by liberal media.
Rich and krugman maybe/are the least capable urinalists (did i mispronounce journalists?). But like pelosi and reid, they make the communist left look foolish, which is a good thing.
"O'Donnell is no more off
December 16, 2007 - 11:59 ET by ckc1227"O'Donnell is no more off base questioning Romney's past decision than
we are with Hillary's college internship at a Communist Law office."
Except that Hillary has many Communist tendencies, and wants some of them to become public policy. I don't think Mitt wants to bring back slavery, has never promoted slavery, and has never owned slaves.
When will O'donnell
December 16, 2007 - 11:49 ET by ckc1227When will O'donnell renounce his party for its support of slavery, and should we hold him, or maybe Hillary and Obama accountable for the actions of an entire party?
For this precise reason
December 16, 2007 - 12:06 ET by c5thenThe founders put in the Bill of rights the First amendment which specifiaclly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.
So Congress and the States cannot step into the religeous issue either to establish or to prevent anything (the ACLU and the atheists don't like to admit that last part). If a particular candidate is the practitioner of a particular religion or denomination of a religion, that is for the voters to determine it's importance.
I am not a Mormon but I do have some freinds who are. We've discussed the principles and the beliefs of it and Christianity in general occassionaly over the years. The Moromon's basic foundation is Chrstianity, but some of their more detailed beliefs as to the after-life and the spiritual realm are different. None of that could impact a President's policy or view of the World that would affect his foreign policy.
IMO this is being used by the left to try and undermine the entire conservative/religeous electorate's principles and values. The left would like nothing better than to imply that religion must be kept personal and "in-the-closet".
IMO Mit Ronmey would be a FAR superior president compared to a Obama or Hillary or Edwards. Mostly because of his values and character and morality which come directly from his religious beliefs. I do not see that Obama or Edwards or especially Clinton manifest the character or values or morality that their claimed religion demands, therefore I suspect they are hypocrits.
If you want to see the person I think would make the BEST choice for President, check out the link in my tag line at the end.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
"The founders put in the
December 16, 2007 - 13:12 ET by celator"The founders put in the Bill of rights the First amendment which
specifiaclly states that Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof."
Yes. And that there shall be NO religious test for those seeking office. I am very troubled by the continuing rants about "what Mormons believe" regarding Romeny. I don't care what Mormons believe. I seek a candidate who can run the DOD effectively, keep us strong in foreign affairs, can clean up the illegal immigration mess, keep gov spending down, etc. If a candidate can deliver on these issues, I don't care if he worships three headed giraffes and bays at the moon.
Here! Here!
December 16, 2007 - 14:31 ET by okiehawk44ditto and again ditto! Larry O. is, was and will always be an angry human being -- why? don't know. don't really care. it's just a fact -- go back and review any of his on-air performances. you'll see it displayed over and over.
Larry Odonnell
December 16, 2007 - 12:30 ET by Edward CropperI don't know anyone who doesn't have some issue with some particular aspect of the faith they not only hold but truly believe. The are usually spiritual not political. They do not denounce their faith but accept it and ignore those individual issues, or work to have them changed . Christians not only were instrumental in bringing slaves to America but taught for years it was acceptable on biblical grounds. If Romney was so disposed to denounce his faith that was his decision. It was also his decision not to openly denounce the racial issues in his church that ended in 1978. Has O'Donnell shown any such courage toward the crazy liberals in his party? For all we know Romney and others of his stature in the church may have been a factor in removing them by working behind the scenes. The church claims a divine revelation, but be that as it may they ended it. O'Donnell is a kook and only gets kookier as he ages.
Consider this...
December 16, 2007 - 13:15 ET by c5thenWhat was Romney's "stature" in the Mormon church 30 years ago?
How old would he have been? It WAS 30-40 years ago that this issue was being debated in the Mormon church.
This is typical revisionist history used to smear someone.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Frank Rich just validated
December 16, 2007 - 13:24 ET by Sonny LykosFrank Rich just validated every wife beater who states: "SHE made me do it because..........."
And every rapist because: "She really wanted it."
What a complete asshole!
personally
December 16, 2007 - 14:16 ET by jdubI don't know much about Mormonism, so I can't comment on Mitt being Mormon, but what if Mitt were Muslim? Would everyone be all upset about delving into his religious beliefs for political purposes then? Kind of a double standard?
Not to get into Mormonism itself, but...
December 16, 2007 - 14:32 ET by americaneagleI don't feel like getting into the theology of Mormonism itself, because that is opening a huge can of worms. Suffice it to say that I have been a Mormon at one time in my life, I left the LDS church, and have some grave misgivings about the religion.
But many have brought up the fact that the Constitution has provisions that protect religion from government interference and that there is no religious litmus test for people seeking public office, and those are great things. But I have no problem if people look at a candidate's religious beliefs and practices in making a determination whether they can support that person's candidacy. It is not out of bounds, IMO because what you believe is a major part of WHO you are. Political candidates don't just ask us to vote for them on grounds of policy preferences, but on WHO they are as people. They want us to trust them, to have faith in them, and to allow them to take the reins of government on our behalf. If they are asking that of us, then it behooves us to take a look at the totality of the candidate to see if we SHOULD trust them. And religious belief and practice are a part of the equation. No one had a problem with questioning the logic of electing Keith Ellison, a Muslim, to the Congress on the basis of his religion so the same should be allowed in the case of Mitt Romney and his Mormonism.
Do you think he will get
December 16, 2007 - 15:34 ET by robert108Do you think he will get the same treatment as Rush and Imus got?
Probably not, because today's MSM doesn't regard bashing anything related to Christianity as bad.
Coward Journalism
December 16, 2007 - 16:56 ET by pocomocoO'DONNELL: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do.
Why does the word ‘coward’ come to mind. He maligns Christianity with impunity because he considers himself ‘safe’ to do so as Christians don’t kill people.
Well, as the ‘church lady’ might say - isn’t that conv-e-e-e-enient.
This way of thinking is prevalent throughout the MSM where ‘a discouraging word will never be heard’ or seen, about Islam.
This also illustrates another characteristic of liberalism, a lack of intestinal fortitude - guts, to those in Rio Linda.
Mormons Not Always Saints
December 16, 2007 - 20:02 ET by ChuchulainnWith all due respect Pocomoco, you may want to rethink your statement that Christians don't kill people, or at least modify your parameters a bit. Since this thread concerns Mormons, I bring your attention to a horrible incident in Mormon history known as the "Mountain Meadows Massacre" which occured on September 11th, 1857. A Mormon militia slaughtered 125 members of a wagon train from Arkansas that was passing through southern Utah at the time. I don't mean to dump on Mormons with this incident, but it is a historic fact, and is one of the largest mass murders in American history. I believe it was the worst American on American mass murder before Oklahoma City, but I could be wrong on that. History buffs can Google "Mountain Meadows Massacre" for more information. Wiki has a good overview of the incident.
And this is relevant....
December 16, 2007 - 20:13 ET by BlondeHow?
This is just another attempt to discredit Romney, IMO.
I could hardly care less about his religion. But, apparently, you care to bring ancient history into the current Run for the Presidency. Why is that?
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
December 16, 2007 - 20:24 ET by BlazerChuchulainn, you may want to refrain referencing Mormonism pertaining to Christianity since most Christian's haven't anything to do with them. Kind of like Muslim's and the 5%'rs, if that help's in any kind of referential way.
I dont' usually jump into theology, but here I feel it's a must.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
Another crude, cheapshot, Blazer
December 16, 2007 - 23:33 ET by RJAs Huckabee and many others have said, it's not up to you or me to tell others they're "not Christian."
Chuchulainn, I speak of
December 16, 2007 - 21:07 ET by pocomocoChuchulainn,
I speak of the ‘clear and present danger’ of today not of yesteryear. As far as I am aware, Christians and Mormons haven’t been beheading people, at least lately.
To hear people like you, O’Donnell, and the MSM, one would think it’s a daily occurrence.
In the history of mankind, every religion has been responsible for some form of atrocity. However, over time most religions have ceased them, save one – Islam.
}}---> Crocodile Romney
December 17, 2007 - 08:06 ET by Cool Arrow"Crikey Mate, I was driving home from Law School in 1978 when I heard the news the Church of LDS had lifted its ban lifting its ban on Arfican Americans being huma. . . er, I mean members of the priesthood.
I tell you mr. Russert, I wept. Can you get a closeup of me? See, I'm getting misty.
Thank you Mitt for silently suffering through those years of knowing and not doing.
I ♣ My Seal
Math isn't my best subject, but,
December 17, 2007 - 14:58 ET by IamTinmanMitt Romney graduated from college in 1975. He would have been in the workplace for 3 years when the church changed its racial policy. Hardly enough time for him to become an influential public figure or rise far in the heirarchy of the church. O'Donnell is an idiot and a cowardly one at that.