Despite breaking Edwards blogger "controversy," NY Times ignored Jewish group's criticism of Romney's nod to Henry Ford
The New York Times ignored the National Jewish Democratic Council's criticism of former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's decision to announce his 2008 presidential candidacy at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, which the group described as "the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe." The Times and the Associated Press were the first to report Catholic League president Bill Donohue's criticism of two bloggers hired by former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) presidential campaign as "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots," and failed to note Donohue's own history of vulgar, trash-talking bigotry, as Media Matters for America documented.
The AP reported the National Jewish Democratic Council's criticism of Romney on February 12:
The former Massachusetts governor, who is scheduled to formally launch his presidential candidacy from the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan, on Tuesday, was taken to task by The National Jewish Democratic Council.
The council "is deeply troubled by Governor Romney's choice of locations to announce his presidential campaign," executive director Ira Forman said Monday in a statement.
"Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life," Forman said. "Yet he chooses to kick (off) his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe."
I wish I could work up outrage at will like all the self-servatives in the media. But I just just don't feel outraged that Romney is playing dog-whistle politics. I mean, what else would you expect? If he was a good person, he wouldn't be running for the Republican nomination.
Sorry, but I think this is stretching the anti-Semitism thing. True, Ford was not the nicest guy in the world, but what is the point?
Personally I'd be willing to give Romney a pass on speaking at a Ford plant. Ford did have a mixed legacy. On one hand he genuinely was a raging anti-Semite. "The International Jew" was an odious work by almost any standard and a favorite among the Nazis. On the other hand, Ford did a lot to create a more humane work environment for workers. (Not necessarily out of any great love for humanity, but because it made good business sense.) It is probably unfair to hold the Ford company circa 2007 responsible for the views of its founder in the 1920s and 30s. I think it's safe to assume that various Democrats over time have visited Ford plants.
It was not a Ford plant, it was the Henry Ford Museum.
There is a Ford plant there and also one of the nations largest muslim populations.
Yes, and the Pontiac Silvedome can also be found there.
Your point being... ?
Duh? Henry Ford was obviously a Muslim, you idiot. That is why he hated the Jews so much. Am I the only one here who understands leathercodpiece?
it's a nasty job, but someone's got to do it. kidding aside, i have wondered whether he's just a troll. but i don't think i can even give him that much credit.
Actually there is no plant at the museum. Ever been to it? You can catch a bus that will take you on a tour of the Rouge plant, but that's it.
Personally I'd be willing to give Romney a pass...by christopher howard
Well Chris I have to ask you the same thing I asked jdz. Would you be willing to give Romney a "pass" if he'd announced his candidacy at the estate of a former White racist?
I personally find this complaint from the National Jewish Democratic Council somewhat silly, but I can't help but notice the selective outrage at this site from time to time..
Okay Jeter, I give up: which Democratic candidate announced his/her candidacy at the estate of a former white racist?
He's saying 'if the tables were turned'... Of course, they are not. Instead, we have another Republican politician pulling a boner...then the right-leaning folks all claim that people are 'too sensitive'. Again, pointing out this strange choice of Romney's is not being too sensitive.
Very similar to that Coulter piece about an "apology for slavery". One cannot dictate another person's feelings. If Romney made this choice... he lives with it. It was a dumb decision.
Hmmm... I may be a littel confused also. My apologies to Jeter, I guess. I don't really understand the 'selective outrage' comment. But, I don't believe Jeter is suggesting that about a Democratic candidate.
I thought maybe Hillary or Obama had announced their candidacy at such a place and I missed it.
I don't think so... Frankly, I think the Democrats are too smart (sensitive?) for that.
just as an aside, it was only in the 1970s that blacks were accepted as priests in the mormon church. joseph smith was an outright racist, and the book of mormon has many racist statements. i've also put this on here before. for some interesting reading, google "mountain meadows massacre". and probably a mistake by romney, but ford was a rabid anti-semite.
Aw come on Rusty are ya pulling my chain here?
Obviously it was a hypothetical. Both christopher howard & JDZ are shrugging this off. My point, which I'm betting you got [but are pretending you didn't] was that IF any candidate chose to announce his candidacy at the estate of a White racist this thread would be filled by now with indignation at the stupidity and insensitivity of such a move.
But because it's a Jewish organization complaining the reaction here seems to be...ho hum.
I'm just curious why.
Actually, I wasn't pretending. (See post above in response to Greekfurnace.)
Now that I get your point, I'd like to venture a guess: people aren't too worked up about this for a couple of reasons. First, Romney seems unlikely to be an anti-Semite. Second, there probably aren't many votes to be had by playing to American anti-Semitism, unlike the number I think can be had by playing to anti-black and/or anti-Hispanic racism (as Reagan did in Neshoba).
This just seems like a dumb move to me, and not a calculated one.
Oh ok Rusty..I just read your other post...got it ;-)
Actually my point is more about the posters HERE. Not if Romney made a dumb move announcing where he did.
As I just wrote to Christopher Howard [scroll down I think] I'm more curious about the lack of interest or outrage by Democratic/Liberal posters. I just have to wonder IF Ford had exhibited Black racism rather than anti-Semitism and the NAACP rather than a Jewish organization had complained that the posters here would be furiously typing away that Romney was a jerk, or an insensitive bigot.
I found this LACK of outrage curious.
Obviously my point got lost along the way...
Maybe most of the other Democrats/liberals agree with me that this looks more like a legitimate goof than a calculated racial ploy. I don't know, they'll have to chime in.
These things are very fact-specific, as you know. Personally, I think Biden's recent controversial statements were at least a little bit racist, but Hillary's "plantation" comment wasn't. Unless something is so blatantly racist that it simply can't be glossed over (like Michael Richards' rant), then these are subjective judgments.
Jeter,
I think this is pretty much a non-issue.
Maybe if Henry Ford wasn't better known as a pioneer of the automobile industry than as an anti-semite, there would likely be more outrage.
Now if Romney had made the announcement from Hitler's jail cell where Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, you might get a bigger reaction from liberals and the media in general.
I think that's about it. I've been there many times on jobs, and it's not like the Klaus Barbie museum from "Rat Race". I think it was just a goof. If he's trying to send a subtle message to nazi sympathizers and other anti-semites, then it's hard to imagine a dumber political strategy.
Ford's personal views aren't something that a lot of people probably take into account when thinking about the museum. If Romney says it was something that didn't occur to him or his staff, I would find that acceptable. If a pattern starts to emerge, that's a different story.
Jeter: Your point may have been simple, but it was phrased in such a way that I was unable to detect your actual complaint. Either you were obscure or I was obtuse but -- your statement in the post above not withstanding -- I do not "pretend" not to get people's points. That is debating in bad faith and I genuinely try to understand what other people are saying. I have read enough of your posts to say that, although I may disagree with you, it has been my impression that you seem to strive for intellectual honesty. I would appreciate it if you extended me the same assumption of good faith. With that out of the way, I will now try to answer your points:1) Your main point seems to be that liberals, generically speaking, are more easily outraged by black-white racism than by anti-Semitism. In this country, at least, you might have a point. I'd say that, in-so-far as that is true, it is largely because of this nation's very particular experience with slavery and Jim Crow. ("Colored Only" restrooms, massive resistance, Nixon's Southern Strategy, etc. are still in living memory for many adults.) While there has clearly been anti-Semitism in this country's history that persists even to this day, its ramifications have not quite affected the nation's history nor penetrated its consciousness in the same way. The reaction to racism in this country is probably more visceral than the reaction to anti-Semitism because of our particular history. (Though I find them both odious.) If you go to Germany, you will find a similar strong reaction to Holocaust revisionism for reasons much the same.
2) Since you said that neither Romney's visit to the Ford Museum nor a hypothetical charge of racism by the NAACP are worth getting into a "tizzy" over, I understand that your posts on this thread are mainly geared to pointing out a liberal double-standard. Again, speaking only for myself, my lack of outrage at this particular story was not because the issue was anti-Semitism, but because this seemed to be more a case of a candidate with a tin-ear, not one who was trying to send an anti-Semitic message. As a Democrat, I'd feel far more inconsistent if I jumped on Republican Romney and screamed "Nazi" at him, even though I genuinely feel his choice of venue was more impolitic than malign.
Sincerely,Hey Christopher,
I didn't read your post till I was getting ready to leave work, I'd planned on answering later, but to be honest I was just too tired. I do hope you get to read this reply at some point today [2/14]
First off, Rusty & I go back away, we have a great "cyber relationship" here, and respect each others opinions. Occasionally we both will write a funny haha wise arse post. That's what I thought he MIGHT be doing. Or he might not have understood my post. That, as you probably have seen for yourself does happen here. Hence I wrote him and asked--are you pulling my chain...are you pretending not to get it when you really do? Notice he didn't display any anger when he replied.
My point, lost here probably because of my own deficiency in getting my thoughts across better, were simply that had Ford had racist past and Romney OR any candidate announced at the Ford museum and the NAACP had complained and the NY Times ignored it and MMFA brought it up in THIS thread I maintain that the [Democratic/Liberal] posters here would have had a different reaction than they had when it was Ford's anti-Semitism, and a Jewish origination lodging the complaint.
Of course this is speculation on my part, BUT it is grounded in having been HERE 2 years and observing certain patterns.
My point had NOTHING to do with jumping on Romney. I don't believe he did anything wrong. My point was the lack of interest of posters towards the complaints of a Jewish organization as unfounded as I personally thought it was. Again, had it been a different scenario and the NAACP had complained I still think the tone here would have been different. Thus the double-standards.
Jeter: No hard feelings here. I can't say, in all truthfullness, that your question was without merit, but I still maintain that much of it is understandable for the historical reasons I mentioned. Thank you for your reply.
Jetter, in my opinion I think maybe it had less to do Ford the man versus political timing.
Mit and Sam (there's a special place in hell for him) Brownback were both in Grand Rapids, Michigan at a Republican event thie past week. I think Mit went to some other events in the Detroit area (have to double check the local news) and just decided to announce there. That may have something to do with lack of anger here. (i.e. he had to do it soon, since Obama did it just last week, I mean everyone else at school is doing it, and they are the cool kids).
Oh. I realize this comment isn't to me directly, etc... But, I now too get your point. And, that's a loaded question. Personally, I think if one were to be incensed or outraged by any of the other pieces here... this is the same.
Hey Greek,
Yes thank you...you got what I was trying to say [but I wasn't doing too good of a job getting across]
No sweat... I'm glad I got it right. I've been gettin' up on my 'high horse' lately re the race-issue ... So, when it was all said and done, I'm just glad that I was being consistent ;-)
Jeter: I'm a little confused as to what you are asking me, so I'll try to take it a point at a time. "A former white racist"? I assume you mean a non-repentent racist who did not have the arguably mixed legacy that we see with Ford? I personally would be offended, especially if the candidate in question had a record that lead me to believe that the visit was a wink (covert or otherwise) to a racist constituency. This particular visit by Romney seemed more like an attempt to drape himself in the Americana that Ford as a company represents. I am not a fan of Romney's, but I am unaware of any particular anti-Semitic charges against him. If you can lay forth compelling evidence that he is playing to that ugly current in American politics, I will gladly reconsider my opinion.
You called the complaint by the NJDC "silly" but you seem to be taking me to task for not taking sufficient offense at his choice of venue. Maybe I misunderstood you, but I sense a contradiction here. Where, on this continuum, do you position yourself?
I can't answer your point about this site's selective outrage; I can only answer for myself. If you feel I am somehow being selective in not being outraged at this particular story, then please feel free to point out where I am being inconsistent. I will be happy to discuss it.
Christopher,
My point was very simple. Let's say Henry Ford's legacy included his racism towards African-Americans. And Romney announced his candidacy at Ford's estate. And then let's say the NAACP complained.
The outrage here would fill this thread at Romney's stupidity & insensitivity.
But because Ford displayed Anti-Semitism, and a Jewish organization is complaining about the venue, the reaction seems to be to give Romney a pass and shrug it off.
That is interesting because I see a double standard here.
I personally don't think either situation is or would be worth getting into a tizzy over....BUT I do believe the Liberal/Democrats that post here would outraged IF it were the NAACP lodging a complaint. And I just find it curious--because that would mean their outrage is selective.
"That is interesting because I see a double standard here." --jeter
I disagree. I think it is a pretty shallow comparison that MMFA is making here. That accounts for most of my own disinterest. I can't speak for others. MMFA is comparing apples to oranges IMO.
The bad thing about hypotheticals or speculative conclusions is putting too much stock in them. I think we can agree it is generally unfair, if not simply because especially in this case it didn't happen. I think you know how I feel about speculation, so I won't bother expanding on that.
I disagree there, it's not apples and oranges. If Bill Donohue is credible enough to have his opinion noted, then this organization is too. I don't think it's a big issue either, but neither was the blogger controversy. By what standard does Donohue's complaint merit mention but this one doesn't?
Sorry, but I think this is stretching the anti-Semitism thing. True, Ford was not the nicest guy in the world, but what is the point?...by jdz
While I agree with you that this is a stretch [when did we all get so hyper-sensitive] I have to wonder IF a Romney [or any candidate] chose to announce his candidacy at an estate of a former White racist if the outrage here would have filled this thread by now.
Would you have thought it a stretch? Just curious.
I find selective outrage interesting....
I also wonder... are these guys (Romny, etc) that dumb? Or, is this calculated? You'd think someone in his camp would've said, "Uh, hey... you know Henry Ford didn't like Jews, right?" I agree that there is a bit of 'hyper-sensitivity' about ... pretty much everything. But, are these Republicans that dumb? Is this poor politics or intentional? There's no good answer for Romny.
Also... as much as everyone has said that this is a good example of PC-hypersensitivity...there's no real story here, etc... Uh, Romney is a professional politician. Just not a very good one, I guess.
In this day and age... with the use of computers, etc...there's no excuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dearborn_Independent
Since when is going to the Ford Museum regarded as being anti-semitic? Does the museum focus on the tradition of Ford cars, or on Henry Ford's personal behavior? Is America allowed to have a museum dedicated to the Ford car history, or do we have to erase that chapter of history? Should the museum be closed down because of Henry Ford's behavior? Are politicians the only people off-limits to the museum? Comparing the Ford Museum to the estate of a white racist is a false choice because for better or worse, the musuem shows the effect Ford had on the industrial age and our country. The white racist's estate shows nothing or perhaps focuses on the racist's lifestyle. If going to the Ford museum is wrong for a politician, it is wrong for everyone, and so should be buying a Ford car. Why stop there? This country was built on black slavery? Does every politician have to research where he makes his political stops in the deep south so he doesn't stop at a place where the ancestors were slave owners?
It's obvious the NJDC needs a fanatical loudmouth to go on the talk shows if it wants to get publicity. Maybe one of those guys enforcing the gender separation rules on the Taliban Lines in Israel would be willing...
Geeze,
He better not show up in the South, while he's at it. After all, people there owned slaves.
I hope he doesn't quote George Washington or Thomas Jefferson in any of his speeches. Everybody knows they too were slaveowners.
Give it up MMFA. You guys are ridiculous.
" Give it up MMFA."
You'd have to find somewhere else to whine.
I know if I frequented an establishment that never met my expectations, I'd find a new place, unless I was a masochist. Or unless the only expectation it met was providing the forum I needed for throwing scorn at the establishment's owner and patrons.
There are people who are into self abuse. We've all seen them from time to time, and it seems they never learn. You know, people who go out in cold weather without a coat on. Couch sleepers. Republican voters. . .
Dog-whistle politics worked for Reagan in 1980, when he kicked off his campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, a hotbed of racism (more then than now) in the town where the real-life "Mississippi Burning" murders took place. Ronnie's topic? "State's rights."
I remember that. Sort of like his visit to Bitburg.
And to top it off he's the son of a famous American politician who claimed he was "brainwashed" about the Vietnam War when he was running for President in 1968.
Romney has much to answer his critics for, he has flip-flopped with the best of them on many issues........but where he announces his candicacy is about as ridiculous as it gets. These PC organizations would serve their members better to concentrate on his positions on issues, rather than this transparent silliness.
At first, I thought you were right. But, I'm not so sure this is all that transparent.
Isn't it clear...?
Romney is undoubtedly courting the anti-Semite and xenophobe vote! ;>)
This stuff does get a little ridiculous, doesn't it? But I still like to know about it anyway...
I had a thought, Do any Jews own Fords?
Also, couldn't they experience a little Schadenfreude considering how much money Ford is losing quarter by quarter?
"Do any Jews own Fords?"
Are you talking about secular Jews? Because Bill Donohue tells us that secular Jews control Hollywood (and they also hate Christians and Catholics... but that's another story). So, I would say that, at least in Hollywood, secular Jews do not drive Fords but, rather, probably drive Ferraris and Lamborghinis... or they have limos. (One can only imagine how much money there is to be made producing anti-Catholic movies.)
I can't speak to other locations but perhaps we can narrow this down some to find an answer for you. Hope this helps... ;>)
I remember when this moron's dad (George Romney) was our Governor here in Michigan. It was a very dark time for this state. I believe he went to Ford only to remind Michigan that his daddy was our Guv. For those who do remember GeoRomney, it won't sell well here.
"I remember when this moron's dad (George Romney) was our Governor here in Michigan." - therick
THAT makes you OLD! (Sorry, me too.)
As to the symbolism of his choice of venue for the announcement, I would have missed it completely save for MMFA's coverage; but I guess I did know that Ford was an ugly example of anti-Zionism, if not outright anti-semitism, since I was blessed in the '50s to work for an old farmer who plied me with tracts sponsored by the Ford Corporation (honest!) detailing the perversity of Jews in general. I laughed, and burned the things for weeks before finally telling him he was being used. End of employment (school was soon to start, anyway.)
I've met George. His son Scott was the Bishop at the Mormon church I went to as a kid, and George was there very often.
I think that was the whole idea too, and there just aren't a whole lot of great venues to go to. We have Custer's birthplace, that wouldn't be good. Auto factories are generally run-down and ugly, as is a disturbingly large portion of Detroit. And you can't go to Ford Field because that's where the Lions play, the very embodiment of mismanagement and ineptitude. He should have just gone to the RenCen.
Speaking of the Edwards blogger controversy, here's a sampling of some of the lovely mail that Amanda Marcotte got from Bill Donohue's godly followers.
Hey those were pretty good. Maybe Edwards can hire them to replace Amanda.
Those samples, well they were....I mean...obviously, they were written by.....lefties. Everyone knows the left wing bloggers are the ones that go after people.
Thank you, Rusty!
What great comments. You have to love it when the only one that will pass the censor here is:
"then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I'm figuring you're just mad at him for making you a woman."
I wonder if those who wrote those comments were products of a good, Catholic education.
Being a good ex-alter boy, I tried to respond to your post with a common latin phrase from the traditional, Latin Catholic Mass and to my surprise, i got a message from MMFA telliing me to try to respond without using profanity.
Catholics are so naughty!
Is this the level of discourse within other blogs? That's pretty bad...
My personal favorite:
"YOU RACIST WH#RE. FAT UGLY B#TCH. S#CK MY LONG C#CK AS$H#LE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU AS$H#LE B#TCH!I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO H#LL YOU B#TCH" --Sir Romanco De Leone
Pure sweet poetry or is it a clever haiku? I think he may have inadvertantly borrowed the first line from Keats, but maybe I am just nitpicking.
Just one question for you other posters about that poem for clarity:
What exactly is a "LONG C#CK AS$H#LE"?
Just one question for you other posters about that poem for clarity:What exactly is a "LONG C#CK AS$H#LE"?- open_mind
Oh, c'mon, Open_Mind. Clearly Amanda Marcotte nefariously removed the comma to make the guy look bad.
Well Rusty....
Two wrongs do make a right..or wait is it one liberal wrong makes a right...or two conservative wrongs?
Nice defense of conservative hate speech, EC.
In order to brush off the controversy of the Romney announcement at the Henry Ford Museum Michael Medved said on his show yesterday that the National Jewish Democratic Council wasn't even a Jewish group. It was a group of DEMOCRATS who HAPPEN to be JEWISH. Spin Mikey, Spin!
"DEMOCRATS who HAPPEN to be JEWISH"
Then perhaps it is possible, after all, that Bill Donohue's Catholic League is a group of right wing, reactionary Republicans who happen to be Catholic. Makes sense in that case, at least...
Did you mean "pretend to be Catholic"?
We know for sure that no sentient being could be both Catholic AND conservative Republican.
A Mormon as President? Never.
Someone please tell me what I'm missing....
The media accurately reports that Edwards decided to keep anti-catholic bloggers on his staff even after he was told about their statements.
Romney anounces his run at the Ford Museum, a company that symbolizes the great American business. And this is misinformation because the Media is supposed to mention that Henry Ford was an anti-semite??
Is this what I am supposed to take from this piece??
This is not a compareable analogy.
I agree. Apparently people are supposed to remember Henry Ford as an antii-semite instead what he is more widely known as, which is a pioneer of the automobile.
They really aren't comparable situations as you say.
None of the Catholics I know (a few dozen) have complained about Edwards' bloggers, either the currently resigned, or the still-hanging-in. Rather, they sort of rushed to remind me that Donohue's rant is not representative - actually MISrepresentative - of mainstream Catholic opinion in our area. When I shared with them the sampling of response to "Punk . . . .com", they were uniformly condemnatory, insisting that MANY repentences were in order from Donohue's rabid pack.
As to Romney, I continue to suspect that he was winking at a base he hopes to exploit, and wishing that MMFA had not been so acute as to catch him.
You actually missed the point of MMFa's post. It was not to "catch" Romney but it was rather an attempt to demonstrate a conservative bias on the part of the NY Times for reporting Donohue's criticism of Edwards's decision to hire anti-Catholic bloggers but not reporting this Jewish group's criticism of Romney for speaking at the Ford Museum. The difference of course is that Donohue's criticism was against what the bloggers wrote, which is that the reason the Catholic church opposes contraception is so that more "tithing Catholics" could be produced. Romney on the other hand merely spoke at a venue--it is no different from driving a Ford or going to see a Wagner opera, or for that matter, listen to Strauss's symphonies (come to think of it, better throw out all those 2001: A Space Odyssey tapes lest I should ever run for office and face the wrath of the National Jewish Democratic Council!)
The difference of course is that the bloggers actually wrote anti-Catholic things whereas the Ford Museum, to my knowledge is: a. incapable of speech/thought and to that extent b. has not written or said any anti-Catholic things. I can understand MMFA's attempt though: desperation often breeds faulty logic.
I meant "anti-Semitic things" with regard to the Ford Museum.
OK -
I'm still not sure what the whole issue is here.
I am Jewish. I do not know who the National Jewish Democratic Council is. I've looked at their website, and I still don't know who they are. I agree with most of their points, but I've still never heard of them before.
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being Hitler, I'm not sure where Henry Ford falls on the anti-Semitism scale. I know he was no friend of the Jews, but we clearly have many more dangerous enemies.
I guess the question is why did Romney choose the museum? Has he said anything?
Henry Ford was a vicious anti-Semite there is ABSOLUTELY no question about that. But that does not mean that we should fail to recognize that he was also a genius and contributed greatly to the world. No reasonable person could criticize someone for the mere fact of speaking at his museum or choosing that venue to run for president. But it is reasonable to criticize hiring someone to work on a political campaign themed as "bridging divides" who wrote that the only reason Catholics oppose contraception is so that "more tithing Catholics" could be produced. The NY Times has every right to use its editorial judgment to filter out reasonable criticism from partisan lunacy. I commend them for doing so here.
I must defer to your imminent wisdom: I, too, will commend the NYT for discriminating - against the Dems and Jews, as has been forever their wont. After all, that IS the mission of the S.C.U.M. (thanks, Easy To Refute!), isn't it? And it would behoove the Times to adhere to their mission, lest their membership in S.C.U.M. be revoked.
As to missing the point, I may not always agree with you about the point: in this case, it is to compare and contrast the treatments by the S.C.U.M., of two cases of outcry against perceived mistreatment. In the case of the bloggers, perhaps it is that I agree with much of what they said, and understand how they could have said, from their perspectives, the things with which I may disagree. In the case of Romney's choice of venue, I, too, discern a beckoning to the very worst of America, an America in which I grew up surrounded by minions of the "despise the Jew" movement backed by Henry Ford, and, at least in the '50s, by the Ford Motor Company. Even though they may not know what anti-semitism IS, many adherents remain today, battling every day against the "Hollywood Jews", the "Wall Street Jews", the "U.N. Jews", and all the other Jews participating in this vast conspiracy. Why else would/DO the "religious right" whackos denounce the Jews in every major address? And this is the base which Romney wishes to cultivate in his quest for the WH.
In case you wonder, I am Caucasian, and Appalachian hillbilly; it is only the outrageous nature of the group to which Romney wishes to appeal, here at Ford Museum, that triggers my support for MMFA's highlighting that issue, AND highlighting the S.C.U.M. response to the issue.
And how does the drivel you felt the need to share with us have any relation to Romney's choice to speak at the Henry Ford museum?
Having deferred already to your Eminent wisdom, I feel guilty about continuing to disagree with everything you say - yet, I do disagree, and therefore I must express that disagreement!
He chose that venue specifically, *I believe*, to "show some love" to the wingers who still follow Henry's line of anti-semitism. All the "drivel" either posits and explains my perception, connects it to MMFA's article, rebuts your inane attempt to defend Donohue's attack on Edwards' bloggers, or rebuts your effort to trivialize the legacy of Ford and Romney insofar as anti-semitism in Michigan - after all, the site of the subject announcement.
You are free to provide YOUR alternative explanation, but be certain not to support your explanation with any context, any substance, nor with any logic - else you will have broken your current impressive consecutive drivel-post streak.
Your random insertions of bold text only serves to highlight your hysteria and lack of anything resembling logic, ingelligence or coherence.
Interesting that 1. you would focus on the formatting of the text, rather than the content; 2. you would attack that formatting, rather than the content; 3. your comprehension would be such that you would perceive the "bold" as other than the same emphasis to be applied in reading aloud.
Other than that, I suppose I have no counter-argument to your usual substance-free drivel.
I was pointing out your choice of bold text because it is apparent from the non-sensical "substance" of your posts that you are using said text as your typing equivalent of shouting, a hallmark of those bereft of intelligence but replete with anger. Basically, it means conversation over until you undergo a "cooling off" period.
Mr. Gwinn,
If I were to characterize our disagreement, I would say it would be as follows: I believe in forming arguments on the basis of empirical evidence, and you on the basis of gut instincts. You have in fact offered nothing but your gut instincts in most of these posts. For example, you wrote that you "believe" (a word you bolded and asterisked) that Romney was catering to a "certain base" by speaking at the Ford Museum, yet presented no evidence that that was his motive. I, on the other hand, quoted the bloggers that Edwards hired (in other words, cited empirical evidence) to demonstrate a more reasonable basis for reporting the claim of anti-Catholic bias. My intention is not to brush aside "gut instincts" as a way of arriving at truth--it's simply to show that the two modes of argument are not easily reconcilable, thus lending themselves to the kind of mud slinging that you began by sarcastically citing my "imminent (sic) wisdom."
Interesting :
Specifically, I have several times rejected your "take" on the cited comments by the accused bloggers: they were not anti-Catholic, but rather anti-Church-idiocy; you have done nothing to evidence any empirical assault on that position, substituting your own gut "outrage" for evidence and argument. I offer admittedly anecdotal evidence that Catholics do not perceive the citations from Pandagon or Shakespeare's Sister as evidence of bigotry, but, at worst, as difference of opinion; I suppose you can counter by defending the minions of Donohue whose public pronouncements on the Pandagon matter will not pass the filters at this site? Or, you could explain why it is not true that the purposes of the Church lying about birth control have nothing to do with the additional tithing from those whose parents have already agreed to raise them "in the Church"; and nothing to do with the enforcement of Church-mandated subserviance of women? Just pick one, either would do.
"Imminent wisdom", later post updated to "Eminent" basically WAS a slam (I confess, I do slam from time to time, but rarely am I so egotistical as to order a "time-out" to those childish enough to disagree with me) at wisdom you apparently lack, but may eventually attain; the update occurred because I found it so difficult to wait for the emergence of said wisdom: I am old, and don't have unlimited time to invest. I would wager (another "gut instinct" move) that it was in fact the update itself which triggered your recognition of the difference between imminent and eminent - and the bolding might have helped you discern the change? Why do you suppose, in your empirical approach, and your certified reading comprehension, that I applied that bold?
Moreover, I find it quite curious that you argue against me as though I were one of the women you think belong in subservience (citing specifically attributes argued by the Church as reasons to enforce that subservience - i.e., "hysteria", equivalence of emphasis to "shouting", acting "unreasonable" [no reasonable person . . .]); I wonder that you did not yet dredge up "woman's intuition" to counter some point that you could not otherwise refute. I expect I had better have a DNA test done to ensure that I am the father of four, rather than the mother? And that you will want a copy of the results before you can relent and discuss with me, the issues between us?
Fnally, yes! Although I may argue with evidence, and logic, without hysteria, nor even "shouting", when I do express an opinion crucial to the argument, I do most certainly define that opinion as opinion. This is *my* opinion! Would that all were as conscientious.
Now I think I will begin the time-out you have ordered, to end when you grow up and acquire wisdom.
Dear JDZ:
If you want to know where Henry Ford ranks on an Anti-Semitism scale ---- on a scale of 1 to 10 ---- Ford is about a 12.
Read a copy of the Dearborn Independent in the 1920's and read what stuff Ford spewed forth about the Jews. It was the kind of material that helped the Nazis rise to power in Germany, and closed the doors of immigration to the USA to the Jews of Europe in the 1930's, thus enabling the Holocaust.
Henry Ford was also a huge financial contributor to Hitler in the 1920's, and his money helped the Nazis take over Germany in 1933.
Who and what is the National Jewish Democratic Committee is not very important. What Henry Ford stood for is the vital thing. No American presidential candidate should associate himself in any way with Henry Ford or what Ford represented.
Anti-Semites know very well who Henry Ford was. Jews should remember it, too.
That's not to say that Donohue does not have his own political agenda: of course he does. But there is also no question that his criticism is far more reasonable, for the reasons I stated in my above post, than this Jewish group's criticism.
If the Henry Ford Museum were closed to racial, ethnic or religious groups, there would be a story here. NYT (not a hotbed of conservative misinformation) decided, properly from my perspective, that the "flap" is/was a non-issue and treated it as such.
You kid about the NYT, but they are the same people who brought us the stories of Judith Miller, which almost single-handedly enabled one of the biggest conservative frauds in history to occur.
HANNITY & COLMES ON FOX NEWS JUST ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE.
COLMES ASKED IF ROMNEY SHOULD HAVE CHOSEN ANOTHER VENUE!!
THOSE DAMN RIGHT WINGERS AT THE NY TIMES BETTER CATCH UP...LOL.
The funny thing is that most of you will not get the joke because some of your minds are so warped that you think the NYT is a Right-wing paper.
I'll plead guilty to the charge you have levied against me: I believe the NYT to be an organ of the Corporate Media Oligopoly.
Undifferentiated in mission from the rest of S.C.U.M. (So-Called Unbiased Media - thanks, Easy To Refute!), the Times is simply more facile at slipping the discrimination, the BS, the outright lies (see Judy Miller, among many) into the stream, than, say, FoxLies.
Yet, although I do not laugh, I suspect I see the attempt at humor as well as you present it. Concise is not the same thing as precise, and humor sometimes requires both to be effective.
Phew. I kept seeing references to SCUM and am glad to finally see what it stands for. I thought people were referring to the Valeria Solanas manifesto.
Hey, I'm a guy, too! Valeria is not exactly my cup of tea, although many of the points she makes are accurate. AND I'm old enough have substantial perspective on both societal misogyny and the failures of the feminist movement to change much of anything societally.
Easy To Refute Wingnuts (frequent poster on MMFA)was first to introduce me to the "S.C.U.M." usage. Although I had (somewhere around Veronica Mars) encountered Valeria Solanas' version (SCUM manifesto), I confess to getting bored with it before I had got fairly started on the investigation. Thanks for reminding me to finish what I started!
The Prosecution rests.
You have assembled a mountain of evidence proving that you have no clue what is going on; most of that evidence is provided by the defendant. If that is your style of prosecution, I suppose the jury will now be forced to convict YOU of being clueless.
All I need is to look at your post to demonstrate my point: your minds are so warped that you think the NYT is a Right-wing paper.
While their journalism overall is the best in the Country - Comparable to the Washington Post, nobody, even most liberals, would think it is a right-wing paper.
Just look at the editorial page...you'd be lucky to find a conservative voice.
That would not be luck, but rather a BAD luck (finding a Conservative voice).
Look into MORA, see if you can boost Hinchley's effort to end the Corporate Media Oligarchy, the perception that the NYT is a "liberal" paper being only a by-product of the righty-Corporate skew of the MSM - ooops, S.C.U.M (apologies to Easy-To-Refute - I almost forgot!)
Unfortunately, I read a copy of the Dearborn Independent of January, 1921 on the Internet the other day. I had no idea of how vile and atrocious it was.
Anyone who reads that garbage would fully understand the objections raised by Jewish organizations and other responsible Americans to Romney's visit.
Frankly, I wouldn't get within 100 miles of Henry Ford.
Any sensible political candidate today should be distancing himself from the memory of Henry Ford rather than embracing it.
I think too many Liberals suffer from anti-Semitism exhaustion. We're so sick of seeing any legitimate criticism of Israel or America's support for Israel as "anti-Semitism" that one can easily lose sight of what real anti-Semitism looks like. Although in fairness to Romney, a man I don't really know a whole lot about, I don't think his motivation was anti-Semitism.
Besides.. a Mormon anti-Semite? That would be the first time I've ever heard that. I've heard the whole Mormon white supremacist line, sure, but not that one. (I was raised Mormon and spent much of my young life attending church. I was never taught to hate Jews or judge anyone based on their skin color. In fact, I was taught to always be the best person I could be because fairly or unfairly, people would judge the LDS church based on my actions.)
It's not quite on the level of Reagan going to Bitburg and saying, "These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazaism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps." Gosh Reagan, sounding like such a liberal.
Assuming Romney is not an anti-semite, assuming Romney was NOT trying to give a wink and a nod to anti-semites, can someone please explain to me the rationale for Romney declaring his candidacy at the Henry Ford museum? If it was all about promoting a "can-do spirit," why not the Edison museum, or the Lewis and Clark memorial, or someplace like that? If he wanted to announce in Michigan, why not at the actual Ford plant in Flint? Too depressing?
As for announcing his candidacy in the state he was born rather than the state he governed until a month ago-- I guess he just didnt want to get booed at such an important moment in his race.
The ford museum demonstrates the great american business. Period.
He shouldn't have to move the venue because 10 people who aren't a member of his political party think he shouldn't speak there.
Agreed - but remember, those 10 represent the tip of the 70% of the electorate who are fed up with Bungle and the entire Repugnant movement. We do not require that Romney move the announcement, but only that all should recognize the hidden wink involved, then judge (Romney and those bigots to whom he winks in the attempt to secure their votes) accordingly.
The above based solely upon *my* opinion that, indeed, Romney wishes to corral the currently 27% idiot vote - those driven by ignorance and "religious"-right "Zionist conspiracy", "Feminazi", "Islamofascist"-laced rhetoric.
Bill Donohue should be audited by the IRS along with a couple hundred rightwing evangelists such as Rod Parsely, Jerry Falwell and of course Pat Roberts, there's hundred more but none as outrageous as these four. Donhue is a ranting rightwing zealot and he ALWAYS gets TV time, doesn't he? especially on CNN and MSNBC.
Well, of course Romney is inclusive of prospective voters from the anti-semitic; and quite understanding of them, as well.
This Iraq Veteran's blog has been silenced! We have started to lose our democracy! This is his email! Greetings all: Just wanted you to know that the IrritatedVet (AKA yours truly) has been cyber-banned by the National Guard Bureau (and presumably other military services) for daring to speak his mind on the issues of the day. Don't try to look up that site on a military computer...you'll get a nasty-gram from those who (in theory) "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States." Yes, the First Amendment of that Constitution is apparently to military's cyber-cops. The IrritatedVet is not daunted, and will continue to call b*llsh*t when he sees it and smells it...which usually doesn't require more effort than calling up CNN or FauxNews on the Internet. I’m not sure whether that’s more funny, or more sad. Remember that old saying about how you don’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel? I think the same thing, only more so, applies to folks who speak their minds on the Internet.
-- Rob WeireMprint Managing EditorColumbia Missourian221 S. 8th St.Columbia, MO 65201(573) 882-5057
A NEW WAY TO GET NEWS: The Missourian eMprint edition. Check it out at http://www.columbiamissourian.com/emprint
Greetings all: I’m not sure whether that’s more funny, or more sad. Remember that old saying about how you don’t pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel? I think the same thing, only more so, applies to folks who speak their minds on the Internet.
-- Rob WeireMprint Managing EditorColumbia Missourian221 S. 8th St.Columbia, MO 65201(573) 882-5057
A NEW WAY TO GET NEWS: The Missourian eMprint edition. Check it out at http://www.columbiamissourian.com/emprint
Note to those who would have the IV silenced: I write in SUPPORT of the military, which has been woefully abused by the current administration since 9-11-01. It lacks equipment, guys are on their fifth tours in various places, and we are gonna have a hell of a time keeping the military together in coming years.
There IS a problem out there, and it rests with the current ADMINISTRATION, not the government.
This American Patriot will not go away quietly.
http://irritatedvet.blogspot.com
Pass it along