Update (13 Feb. | Ken Shepherd): Tomaso responds here, dismissing the notion that he exhibited any liberal bias. Commenters to his blog post are divided.
Condescending secular elitism isn’t just for the coasts anymore. It can even come from red state Texas.
On The Dallas Morning News’s Religion blog Feb. 12, Bruce Tomaso wrote a post called “Alabama and Iran Have Something in Common.” It stemmed from a recent Gallup poll that asked people around the world, “How important is religion in your daily life?” The poll found, among many other things, that nearly the same percentage of the population of Iran (83 percent) and Alabama (82 percent) said that religion was important to them.
Tomaso thought this was a riot: “Since I've never been to Iran and haven't spent enough time in Alabama to have a well-formed opinion, I refrain from cleverly drawing further comparisons,” he wrote. “But that doesn't mean you wiseakers can't!”
In case readers didn’t get the parallel between the murderous, bigoted, dark-age theocracy and The Yellowhammer State, Tomaso’s post sported photos of Ayatollah Khomeini and George Wallace. It didn’t make clear whether it was comparing the segregationist Wallace or the later, born-again Christian Wallace to Khomeini.
In fairness to Tomaso, Gallup’s own article was titled “What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common.” In fairness to Gallup, it left the elitist yuks to religion bloggers.
Matt Philbin is managing editor of the Culture & Media Institute.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This will be rectified
February 12, 2009 - 13:46 ET by Chris NormanThis will be rectified soon, when Alabama is renamed AlObama...
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
As an Alabama resident...
February 12, 2009 - 14:34 ET by Mike Bratton...I can assure you that renaming will not take place.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Mike, Hey, I hear that
February 12, 2009 - 14:44 ET by Chris NormanMike,
Hey, I hear that Obama's comin' to Alabama with Chris Matthews on his knee... ")
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
-------------> Bama girl here!
February 13, 2009 - 02:19 ET by thebutlerdiditMessing with Rednecks with mucho firepower, and mucho firewater, not a good plan. If anyone cared to read the whole piece, it was just paralelling how important religion (unspecified) is to your life. It had states that don't seem very religious stacked up to other countries, as well. It was only mildly interesting, as far as polls go.
All a Democrat needs is the upper-story window of public attention and the chamber pot of rhetoric. How else to explain the rise of Joe Biden? P.J. O' Rourke
As a resident of LA (Lower Alabama),
February 13, 2009 - 07:35 ET by LajawI can back you up on that.
George Wallace was a bigoted
February 12, 2009 - 13:49 ET by jdhawkGeorge Wallace was a bigoted racist that also happened to be a dimocrat from a long line of bigoted racist dimocrats in the south, but I am sure the (D) was not appended to his name - as usual.
Good evening jd
February 12, 2009 - 13:58 ET by cocodrieThe difference between George Wallace and the dimocrats of today is George was honest about his bigoted racism. He didn't hide behind racist "reverends". Jesus Loves You
One more difference, folks.
February 12, 2009 - 14:41 ET by Mike BrattonFormer Gov. Wallace, after becoming a Christian, actually repented of his sin of racism.
I know of no Democrat today who has exhibited similar repentance. As a matter of fact, many of today's Democrats (and liberals in general) have supplanted racism with idolatry--as in the rampant Obama worship to which we are regularly subjected.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Well, Mike... He is not a
February 13, 2009 - 03:04 ET by JerWell, Mike...
He is not a Democrat and I don't believe it would qualify as repentance, but Newt Gingrinch has acknowledged that civil rights is one major area where conservatives were generally on the wrong side.
Jer
If Newt said that,
February 13, 2009 - 08:13 ET by LajawHe is wrong. A classical Conservative believes that the Constitution should be followed. No "special" rights for anyone. If someones rights are denied, then you must prosecute. And by the way, who supported the 1964 act? It was the Republicans. Who freed the slaves? The Republicans.
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition. In 1955 Eisenhower administration bans racial segregation of interstate bus travel. The list is long. The Democrats have been demonizing Republicans for so long, the leftists have come to believe it all.
Conservatives
February 13, 2009 - 08:20 ET by Sergeant ROCKWhat leftists will say to that is that the conservatives were responsible for the democRAT votes in the past. And they gradually migrated, for whatever reason, over to the GOP where they continue their racist ways. Of course, that's BS.
If Newt said something like that, which I doubt, I'm sure it was taken out of context. To a liberal, to be denied a hand-out based on race is racist. But, the other way around is not. See? Makes sense, huh?
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Not that I don't believe you...
February 13, 2009 - 09:10 ET by Mike Bratton...but I'd love to see a sourced quote from former Rep. Gingrich to support that statement.
And even if he did say it, the statement would be factually inaccurate. I could talk at length about this factual inaccuracy, but I ran across a nice little summation from congresslink.org: "In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Do you trust me as a
February 13, 2009 - 19:19 ET by JerDo you trust me as a source, because I personally heard Newt make the statement--or at least a statement to that effect--during an appearance on Fox News Channel a few years ago. [I believe it was on H&C but it could have been O'Reilly.]
He also reportedly made related comments back in 1995 after becoming Speaker of the U.S. House as follows:
"No Republican here should kid themselves about it. The greatest leaders in fighting for an integrated America in the 20th century were in the Democratic Party. The fact is, it was the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that ended segregation. The fact is that it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who gave hope to a nation that was in distress and could have slid into dictatorship. Every Republican has much to learn from studying what the Democrats did right." [emphasis mine]
Now, that is quoted from a progressive blogger @ http://conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.com/ but I believe it to be accurate based on my having seen other secondary references to it. [The quote is found a little over one-third of the way through the article under the subheading "But hasn't the left been wrong too?"
The problem with your and others oft-cited statistics is that they fail to factor in the monolithic opposition to civil rights legislation by southern conservative Democrats [and also southern Republicans--although at the relevant times there were only a handful of the latter].
Jer
By all means, I trust your recollection.
February 13, 2009 - 20:02 ET by Mike BrattonI would like to see the context in which he made that inaccurate statement, though. It would be disappointing to find that someone as intelligent as former Rep. Gingrich is so uninformed about history, particularly political history.
And there really isn't a problem, Jer--unless you want to suggest that Democrats can't be Democrats unless they're from somewhere other than the southern United States. Historically, Republicans have been friendly to civil rights, while Democrats have demonstrated antipathy.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Typical secular elitist schtick
February 12, 2009 - 14:16 ET by moderncommentaries83Yes...all Abrahamic religions are the same!
Why, those darned Christians regularly stone adulterous women, behead infidels, imprison non-Christians, engage in holy war with neighboring states, pray for the extermination of Jews retired to Florida, blow up buildings and hijack airplanes, and seek to impose Christian theocratic law on all the world, subjugating all to their inconsistent, warped, and mysoginistic ideology. They behead and tax those who don't pray daily or attend services.
Darn those facist Christians!
/sarcasm
Of course, Islam has all those aims, but why ask a reporter/blogger to bother exploring or - gasp! - understand the differences between Christianity and Islam. It would require work, objectivity, and draw the obvious conclusion that comparing Christianity and Islam is like comparing apples and kiwi fruit.
This guy obviously graduated from the "Rosie O'Donnell School of Theology"...
Aut viam inveniam aut faciam
I'm sure in this guys mind
February 12, 2009 - 14:26 ET by Chris NormanI'm sure in this guys mind (or his posturing) The Little Sisters of Mercy = Al Qaeda
The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.
welcome to the new nazi
February 12, 2009 - 14:36 ET by TruthMongerwelcome to the new nazi germany people - bring on the cross arm bands and Christian ghettos
IRNA: The Iranian News
February 12, 2009 - 14:49 ET by SickofLibsIRNA: The Iranian News Agency today reported that the 17% of Iranians who DID NOT say religion was important to them are being rounded up and will be executed within one week.
–Wiseaker
Just for clarification.
February 12, 2009 - 15:13 ET by mizflame98I don't know a lot of Texans that claim Dallas as one of our cities. I think they're kind of on the outskirts of civilization along with Austin.
"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head." - Francois Guisot
Don't mistake the Dallas Morning News as a "conservative" paper
February 12, 2009 - 15:17 ET by ironchefofmunchiesI would just like to say that using the Dallas Morning News as a guide to what "red state Texans" think is a major stretch.
The truth is the Dallas Morning News (the conservative paper) put the Dallas Times Herald (the liberal paper) out of business over 10 years ago. Then all the Times Herald journalists went over to the Morning News and *poof* the Morning News became a liberal paper.
They thought it would increase their circulation among African Americans and Hispanics but the truth is they've doubled the price and are STILL losing readers.
But it doesn't matter what the people want to read-it only matters what the journalists want to MAKE you read. Which is why journalism as we knew it is dead.
Let me suggest...
February 12, 2009 - 15:29 ET by Mike Bratton...that all of us pay a visit directly to Tomaso's DMN blog, and leave comments there for him.
Nothing like being able to go right to the heart of the problem.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
Update
February 13, 2009 - 20:52 ET by Mike BrattonAfter commenting on Bruce's blog for awhile, he has indeed demonstrated a regrettable anti-Christian strain of liberal bias. As do some of his more ardent aficionados.
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport...
San Francisco Parallels
February 12, 2009 - 15:46 ET by slickwillie2001I think Iran and San Francisco have much in common; studies show that in both places, around 82% of the citizens spend a lot of time on their hands and knees with their butt in the air.
slickwille
February 12, 2009 - 15:54 ET by misterbilleeeeeeeewwwwwww!!!
bigots
February 13, 2009 - 07:39 ET by dmntd1So, if I get this story right, Iran and AlObama are clinging to guns and religion?
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." - Winston Churchill
Iran & The NY Times parallels
February 13, 2009 - 19:41 ET by Jack BauerAnyone else noticed the similarities between The New York Times and Iran.
It's uncanny.
1. Iran is run by an unelected claque of special Mullah class which cannot be voted out of power. The New York Times is run by an unelected claque of special shareholder class which cannot be voted out of power.
2. Iran hates the Unied States and thinks its power should be hobbled. The NY Times hates the United States and thinks its power should be hobbled.
3. Iran's spy network seeks to damage the US military at every opportunity. The NYT spy network seeks to damage the US military at every opportunity.
Oh -- and both entities SUCK!