Now that Mitt Romney has long since dropped out of the race, we can stop and reflect. Some of us want to pat ourselves on the back as a nation, and others are probably fuming. Why? After what feels like forever, in a campaign that got more and more negative, nobody ever attacked Romney over his religion - which many Christians and other Americans find weird or worse.

This is a triumph for political correctness - just like the parents at a softball games who sign contracts saying they can only yell encouraging things at the players. Here's a man who routinely chose not to answer policy questions when religion had anything to do with the question. Running for president. Being coddled by the media.

There really hasn't been any real ugliness toward Barak or Hillary, either. Lots of valid criticism, and a bit from the 8 % of America who still support the Republican platform. But race, gender, and religion all turn out not to be something that disqualifies a person from being president.

Knowing how popular political correctness isn't, is this a crying shame, or an accomplishment as a culture?

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

and a bit from the 8 % of America who still support the Republican platform.

If that were true, why does McCain poll higher than Hillary. Also, regarding your PC assertion. There were a large number of people who didn't vote for Barak because he is black, and a much larger group who voted FOR him for the same reason. The same could be said of Romney and Mormonism. I saw a guy refuse to shake his hand on national TV because he is Mormon. People don't run attack ads on race, gender, and religion because they are counter productive, not because the PC culture has won. Besides, like many, I didn't need any attack ad to know I wasn't going to vote for Hucklebee because he was a preacher by trade for a very long time.

Originally Posted by cbwm

People don't run attack ads on race, gender, and religion because they are counter productive, not because the PC culture has won.

You're very right here. No politician wanting to get elected would ever run that kind of attack ad in today's climate. During Andrew Jackson's time, race baiting against Injun culture would have flown like a kite, but everybody is too smart today.

Hillary's strategists were urging caucus goers to support Barak Obama instead of John Edwards, because she thought she stood a batter chance against the Junior Senator. That's still pretty dirty. It's not hard to imagine semi-orgnized bands of people making a fuss (like the supposed war on Christmas) saying "We can't vote for that (insert slur here) for President of the United States!" People who feel that way at least keep it to themselves.

Until the mid 1970s, when it was discovered, faithful Mormons ritually gathered in Salt Lake City and swore vengeance against the United States for the plight of the Mormon People. When they chose to settle in Utah, it was outside the US borders. They thought it always would be. Lincoln was more or less indifferent toward slavery, but he hated Mormons. And the feeling was returned. Many of the cowboys and Indians massacres were committed by Mormons dressed up like Indians, like the Boston Tea Party. A horrible example is the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

In all honesty, I'm surprised nobody leveled the "anti American" charge against Mitt Romney as a proxy for the secretive Mormon People. Liberals get that all the time for trying to improve our homeland, but swearing revenge against America is apparently pro American.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Hillary's strategists were urging caucus goers to support Barak Obama instead of John Edwards, because she thought she stood a batter chance against the Junior Senator. That's still pretty dirty.

John McCain, same thing in West Virginia against Romney.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Until the mid 1970s, when it was discovered, faithful Mormons ritually gathered in Salt Lake City and swore vengeance against the United States for the plight of the Mormon People. When they chose to settle in Utah, it was outside the US borders. They thought it always would be. Lincoln was more or less indifferent toward slavery, but he hated Mormons. And the feeling was returned. Many of the cowboys and Indians massacres were committed by Mormons dressed up like Indians, like the Boston Tea Party. A horrible example is the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Well there is something I didn't know. I'll have to look that up.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

In all honesty, I'm surprised nobody leveled the "anti American" charge against Mitt Romney as a proxy for the secretive Mormon People. Liberals get that all the time for trying to improve our homeland, but swearing revenge against America is apparently pro American.

Again, counter productive, though I'm sure lots of people who remember the historical factoids you presented feel that way anyway. The American electorate, or any other electorate for that matter, has a notoriously short memory. Nicaragua just put Daniel Ortega back in power, just as they were finally starting to make a financial recovery from their long term civil strife. Ortega, the man who nationalized a great many foreign investor's property. Sadly, foreign investment is now leaving like rats from a sinking ship. Hello poverty once again.

I think you would need more recent and egregious behavior for the many of todays electorate to give a cr*p. Think about this, in not too long, anyone alive during Hitler's germany will be dead.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Think about this, in not too long, anyone alive during Hitler's germany will be dead.

I wonder if that will be good or bad for Holocaust denial? It's off topic, but I wonder if as that sad chapter of history fades into the text books, if people will be less interested in trying to change the past? Nazism still makes a great historical comparison, but that stands apart from downright anti-Sematism.

It didn’t for slavery in America.

Well, there should be a difference between remembering, and holding the present generation accountable for the crimes of their ancestors. Nobody I know handed smallpox infested blankets to American Indian people as they were forced to migrate, nor would I ever endorse such an action, yet they can still open a casino in California and I can't. Turn the page for gods sakes.

On topic, I cant think of any reason I wouldn't vote for a Mormon, just because he was Mormon, unless I really thought he would try to blur the lines between church and state(Mitt? don't think so). That said, the state of Utah does have some pretty scary integration of Mormon rules from what I've heard. Specifically, the tithing is apparently taken directly from your paycheck.

^^
Why Christians have been doing it since this country was started after all it was only till recently when our country opened its eyes and found it ok to kill babies. I look forward when I can say I live in a country that has no basic morals for which we live.

Again, there is a difference between setting laws based on moral values founded on Christian beliefs, such as we have in America, and turning priests into legislators, executives, and judges, and scripture interpretation into law. I'm for the former and against the later.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Well, there should be a difference between remembering, and holding the present generation accountable for the crimes of their ancestors. Nobody I know handed smallpox infested blankets to American Indian people as they were forced to migrate, nor would I ever endorse such an action, yet they can still open a casino in California and I can't. Turn the page for gods sakes.

You had me until that last part. How many Indian CEOs do you know? What % of them work for casinos? You can't turn the page until you've read the page, and since Indians are not full members of society, have a small fraction of the opportunties available to you or me, I really don't have a problem with them having one way to climb out of poverty.

It's ironic, tho. White man steal Indian land using fire water. Indian man stead white money using greed.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

You had me until that last part. How many Indian CEOs do you know? What % of them work for casinos? You can't turn the page until you've read the page, and since Indians are not full members of society, have a small fraction of the opportunties available to you or me, I really don't have a problem with them having one way to climb out of poverty.

It's ironic, tho. White man steal Indian land using fire water. Indian man stead white money using greed.

US law doesn't legislate Indian poverty, or who holds executive positions(positions given based on performance by the way). US law DOES however legislate racial prejudice by granting these casino licenses only to a particular race of people based on left over guilt from waging a war of empire and seizing their lands. Its pathetic. My wife actually has enough Indian blood to where I think we can qualify for some of that special treatment, you think we should apply? Though I don't think itll happen in my lifetime, I'd love to see that cr*p go the way Affirmative Action will soon be going on a federal level once Bush's judges get ahold of the right case.

Social mobility should be based on performance, not race.