Jim Geraghty of NR calls out NY Times columnist Charles Blow for a religious slur aimed at Mitt Romney:
Hmm, mocking Mormon's religious undergarments? My, my. Are these the standards at the Times?
As to what set Blow off, the offending portion of the debate seems to be this:
ROMNEY: John, you know, I think as Rick has just said, this isn't an argument about contraceptives, this is a discussion about, are we going to have a nation which preserves the foundation of the nation, which is the family, or are we not? And Rick is absolutely right.
When you have 40 percent of kids being born out of wedlock, and among certain ethnic groups the vast majority being born out of wedlock, you ask yourself, how are we going to have a society in the future? Because these kids are raised in poverty in many cases, they're in abusive settings. The likelihood of them being able to finish high school or college drops dramatically in single-family homes. And we haven't been willing to talk about this.
Romney alludes to the fact that Rick Santorum made a similar point earlier, yet he didn't draw any Blow-tweets about his Magic Rosary - whatever.
Is it possible that Romney and Santorum had a point about the perils of broken homes? Let's cut to a Times columnist for guidance:
Now allow me to set aside the personal issues for a moment and refocus on the issue at the crux of Mr. Obama’s speeches (lest it be lost in the hullabaloo): more black men need to be present in the lives of their children. On that, there can be no argument.
According to the United States Census Bureau, black children are the only group more likely to live with a single mother than in a two-parent household. (That’s in part because black men are the least likely to be married and most likely to be divorced or separated.) And, according to a 2002 report by Child Trends, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group, in 1997 single black mothers were the least likely to receive full child support payments (and most likely to receive none) and only about half of black children had any contact with their absent fathers in 1996.
That was Charles Blow writing in 2008 in praise of Barack Obama - no "Hey, Muddle Mouth, my kids are amazing" here. Evidently, how one takes the message depends on the messenger.
For another voice, let's turn to Times columnist Bob Herbert, writing on the crisis facing young black men:
I was going over the dismal information in a new report about the tragic conditions confronting a large portion of America’s black population, especially black males.
We know by now, of course, that the situation is grave. We know that more than a third of black children live in poverty; that more than 70 percent are born to unwed mothers; that by the time they reach their mid-30s, a majority of black men without a high school diploma has spent time in prison.
...Black children — boys and girls — are three times more likely to live in single-parent households than white children and twice as likely to live in a home where no parent has full-time or year-round employment.
He keeps writing abut single-parent households as though it were a bad thing. Hater. Doesn't he know Charles Blow has amazing kids so its all good?
Here is Times columnist, Nick Kristof on the poverty trap:
Over the last 35 years, our economy has almost tripled in size, but, according to the United States Census Bureau, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has been stuck at roughly 1 in 8.
One reason is that wages for blue-collar and other ordinary workers peaked in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A second is the breakdown in the family and the explosion in single-parent households.
...In effect, what’s needed to overcome poverty in part seems to be a change of culture, to break self-destructive behaviors — resignation to unemployment, self-doubt, alcohol and drug abuse, disintegrating families, lack of engagement in children’s education — that create self-replicating cycles of poverty.
He keeps mentioning the breakdown in families as if its a bad thing. Don't these Times columnists socialize at all? Charles Blow's kids are amazing, so pipe down, Nick.
Here is Times contributor Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode Blog talking to a sociologist about the rise in singe fathers raising families:
With More Single Fathers, a Changing Family Picture
Q: Is there any measurable difference to a child being raised by a single father versus a single mother?
A: That, of course, is the most important question! In my opinion, this needs much more research, but last year, there was a marvelous study showing that children of single fathers and single mothers faced greater developmental risks than children raised by their own two parents — risks like not completing high school and being both unemployed and out of school as young adults. The really interesting thing here is that for children with a single mom, the risks were reduced a bit if the mother found a new partner, but for children with a single dad, the risks increased when he found a new partner. Maybe this is only because I have a four-year-old girl, but this study conjured images of the wicked stepmother archetype from so many fairy tales.
Sweet Jiminy, doesn't the Times have any editors up to speed on the Blow household? If they did, they would quit printing this research-based drivel and deliver the only news we need to know - single fathers raise amazing kids!
And in keeping with our goal of leaving no dead horse behind, unbeaten, we have one last bit of non-anecdotal evidence, this time torn from this weeks headlines:
For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage
By JASON DePARLE and SABRINA TAVERNISE
...The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.
Times editors have a wonderful opportunity to correct the record. Or to address Blow's ignorant bigotry. Does anybody anywhere think Blow will be asked to address either the Mormon slur or the anecdotal sociology?
A HATE GROUP OF ONE: Bill Jacobson notes that Mr. Bow was quick to spot the bigotry and hate in the Tea Party. Maybe we could chip in and buy him a mirror.
CAN'T MAKE THIS UP: Was it really only two weeks ago that Charles Blow led a column with "Twitter claims another casualty"?!?
Twitter claims another casualty.
This week, Roland Martin, a bombastic cultural and political commentator was suspended by CNN from his role as a political analyst on the network for Twitter messages published during the Super Bowl.
One message read: “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.” Another read: “Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass.”
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said the messages advocated “violence against gay people” and asked CNN to fire Martin. CNN called the messages “regrettable and offensive” and suspended him “for the time being.” Martin issued an apology in which he said that he was just “joking about smacking someone.”
And we get the expected verbiage about tolerance, diversity and respect for others. None of which seems to apply to Mormons, none of which Mr. Blow seems to have internalized, and none of which will be applied by the Times.
Some parting wisdom from Mr. Blow:
We all have to understand that effects can operate independent of intent, that subconscious biases can move counter to conscious egalitarianism, and that malice need not be present within the individual to fuel the maliciousness of the society at large.
By "we all have to understand", naturally he means "You all have to understand...". Pressing on:
Start with this fact: The truest measure of a man, indeed of a person, is not whom he lies down with but what he stands up for. If we must be judged, let it be in this way. And when we fall short, as we sometimes will, because humanity is fallible, let us greet each other with compassion and encouragement rather than ridicule and resentment.
Let us greet each other with compassion, unless the other guy is a Mormon. Then he can stick it in his magic underwear.
I am marveling at this trifecta of bigotry, stupidity and hypocrisy.
First.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 09:22 PM
1-A
Posted by: MarkO | February 23, 2012 at 09:27 PM
We've got to get lives, DoT. Seriously. You beat me 2-1 today. Where's my horse?
Posted by: MarkO | February 23, 2012 at 09:28 PM
OT, but speaking of Mormons:
No nepotism there! And it is an eeeevil chemical company!
Posted by: DrJ | February 23, 2012 at 09:28 PM
Jon went out of his way to renounce any affiliation with the Mormons. But, that's not what made DoT's skin crawl.
Posted by: MarkO | February 23, 2012 at 09:33 PM
Let me pose the unaskable question: could a white man as stupid as Charles Blow have a column in published regularly in the New York Times?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Well Mike Barnicle, sort of works for the Times, at the Globe, next question.
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Of course not. Could I start in the NBA?
Posted by: MarkO | February 23, 2012 at 09:37 PM
Does anybody anywhere think Blow will be asked to address either the Mormon slur or the woeful sociology?
Hard to imagine any Mormons getting the vapors over this and playing the victim card Al Sharpton-style. I mean, it's Charles Blow we're talking about. So if they don't press charges, Charlie walks.
Evidently, how one takes the message depends on the messenger.
That's got to be one of the ten commandments for the MSM. You'd think they could be caught by giving them a statement and insisting they comment on it without knowing who made it.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 23, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Rev. Graham up next on Gretta. He needs to do some old fashioned tent shows and heal some folks before he has street cred. I used to watch Oral Roberts in the '50's when he would bring a deaf man up to the front, slap him silly and restore his hearing. That was change I could believe in.
Posted by: MarkO | February 23, 2012 at 09:44 PM
Maybe there's a chink in Blow's armor now.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 09:46 PM
You are being niggardly.
Posted by: MarkO | February 23, 2012 at 09:48 PM
"could a white man as stupid as Charles Blow have a column in published regularly in the New York Times?"
Two for starters - FriedKrugman.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 23, 2012 at 09:53 PM
"Could I start in the NBA?"
Start what? I think you could handle the clock, for instance. I myself could start screening the Laker Girls.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 09:57 PM
It's a pretty shallow pool over at the Times, DOT. They are a rainbow of stupidity.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM
I was so happy until I realized there was an "l" in that word. I have loved the Laker girls from the days of the Fabulous Forum.
Posted by: MarkO | February 23, 2012 at 10:06 PM
Could anybody squander as much of a fortune as Pinch? He probably makes AI look like a relative success although I'm sure he has a hefty personal nest egg.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM
We should do a word[s] association test on "New York Times columnist".
I'll take Dueling Banjos
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM
I remember when W asked Pinch, how he got his start in life,
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Rick: Looks like Zero's internal polling data is telling him that gas prices are going to cost him big and he can't do anything about them so he is going to try and demagogue the issue. I wonder what he'll do when your Feb (un)employment numbers come in!
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM
I eagerly await our outrage over Charles Blow's tweet.
Tough.
Posted by: (Another) Barbara | February 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM
I'll take "Upper West Side."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Well he's not going for the 'inflating tires' scam, he's moved on to 'algae cars.
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 10:19 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 23, 2012 at 10:19 PM
See LUN for an Act of Valor review.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 10:25 PM
Sorry about that, the Daily News, which despite some exceptions, is a 'den of scum and villainy' and the Herald hired him as well.
Of course, the irony is the same tactics, that
the excoriated Bush for, were used to find Bin Laden,
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Thanks Narciso. My brother sent me a text earlier this evening asking if I had any algae stock. Didn't know wtf he was talking about. Now I know. Yikes.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM
The "algae cars" reminds me of when Pee-wee Dukakis was telling struggling fly-over state farmers that they should grow Belgian endive, or Jughead's own 'arugula' remarks from the '08 campaign.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM
From his malicious attacks on religion and religious (Republican) politicians, it is clear that Charles Blow was separated at birth from Cleo.
Posted by: Frau Misgeburt | February 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM
wa Po reports in astonishment that Santorum's gaining support among women voters.http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorum-winning-more-support-from-republican-women/2012/02/22/gIQAPDJjWR_story.html
You mean not all women are NOW members? I'll be.
Posted by: Clarice | February 23, 2012 at 10:32 PM
The Duke and belgian endive came to my mind as well, Dave. Must be something those of us who suffered all those years with that pompous idiot as Gov will never forget.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM
MadJack,
A little caution is in order. The Vampire Squid countered the Great White (JPM) $120 call with an $107 October call. Supply and demand has nothing to do with the price (outside of Russia-OPEC ratcheting down production) and Mel's hot money thesis is now a bit of a grudge match.
It would be lots of fun to watch the Great White bite off a tentacle every few days going forward. They polished off MF Global too quickly. The Vampire Squid has earned hanging, drawing and eighthing and there's no sense rushing through it.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM
I'm outraged, (A)B, and I'm not religious. I am, however, glad that I live in a country founded on Judeo-Christian teachings and values.
It's a crime that Mr. Blow has three children to misinform: "Train up a child in the way he shall go and when he is old he will not depart from it."
MLK weeps
Posted by: Frau Misgeburt | February 23, 2012 at 10:40 PM
The "algae cars" reminds me of when Pee-wee Dukakis was telling struggling fly-over state farmers that they should grow Belgian endive
And people wonder why Kitty was doing shots by noon.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 23, 2012 at 10:42 PM
So they are doing Lehman's Morse play, but that's a long call, October, has someone 'turned those machines on' at Solomon's Phibro' division,
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM
The nicest thing I'll say about Blow is that he seems to be more involved with his bastard offspring than Shakedown Jackson.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM
"And people wonder why Kitty was doing shots by noon"
And then she got into the Mennen's Skin Bracer and vanilla extract.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM
Philadelphia Inquirer
"A Franklin and Marshall College poll released Thursday gave Santorum a nearly 30-point lead over Romney among Pennsylvania Republicans - a far cry from what some expected in a state that tossed the senator out on his ear in 2006 with an embarrassing 18-point rout.
The poll conducted Feb. 14 to 20, which had a margin of error of plus or minus 5.9 percentage points, found that 22 percent of GOP voters here were undecided.
"There's a growing support here, like nationally, for someone like Rick - someone who wasn't Pennsylvania's top choice in December," said James Lee, president of Susquehanna Polling & Research. "I think a lot of Pennsylvanians are giving him a second look."
Key to Santorum's Pennsylvania push will be the Lehigh Valley and Philadelphia suburbs, seen as his weakest points of support in the state. In recent weeks, backers in those areas have hosted fund-raising dinners hoping to give voters a fresh take on their former senator."
Posted by: Clarice | February 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Hot Air
Update (Allahpundit): Speaking of losing on your home turf, I’m thinking this might finish Newt off if it happens:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich leads the pack in the first Rasmussen Reports survey of the Republican Primary race in his home state of Georgia. A new telephone survey of Likely Georgia Republican Primary Voters shows Gingrich with 33% support, followed by former Senator Rick Santorum at 28%. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney runs third with 20% of the vote, and Texas Congressman Ron Paul trails with nine percent (9%).
Georgia is one of three southern states scheduled for Super Tuesday, but Newt’s not on the ballot in one of the others (Virginia) so he needs to win at home and in Tennessee to prove that he’s still a regional force. If Santorum bumps him off in his home state, it’s hard to see why he’d go forward. All it would do is help Romney by siphoning off conservative votes from Sweater Vest and there’s no reason for Newt to want to do that.
Posted by: Clarice | February 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Best description I've seen of PA is Philly in the east, Pittsburgh in the west, and Alabama everywhere in between.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM
I'll defer to your wisdom on the matter of the Squid(Goldman I presume) vs the Great White. It's like the Iran - Iraq war. Hope they both lose.
Posted by: Mad Jack | February 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM
Ay, Dios mio, or 'lord love a duck'
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/212243-dnc-head-wasserman-schultz-slams-gop-on-energy-ahead-of-obama-speech
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Insty has a nice link to a video where Mayonnaise-Head complains about having to pay $3/gal for gas in '05. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/137711/
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | February 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Nevertheless, DoT, their votes count.
Posted by: Clarice | February 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM
Can't make this shit up:
"Slovaks have been voting overwhelmingly in favour of naming a new pedestrian and cycling bridge near their capital after 1980s US action film and TV star Chuck Norris.
"The two other top names in the running for the bridge, which will span the Morava river and cross the border to Austria, were Maria Theresa after an Austro-Hungarian empress and the Devinska cycling bridge in honour of the closest village.
"Norris, a martial arts expert-turned film star, is known for playing tough guy characters in such movies as Lone Wolf McQuade, Missing in Action and The Delta Force.
"The actor's work has become a popular source of kitschy fun among Slovaks and a mainstay for local jokes about macho strength and invincibility."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Yes, this was unexpected, not;
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lstranahan/2012/02/23/writers-guild-gives-anti-law-enforcement-film-better-this-world-screenplay-award/
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM
DoT there's a reason I refer to it as Pennsyltucky.
Some commentors @ AoS from the Keystone state have explained Santorum's Senate loss as just being caught up in the perfect storm of 2006 that Rove's defenders like to pretend never happened. They assure me that nobody with an R after his name could've won then; hopefully the opposite will happen in November.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 23, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Well it's not like the 1984-85 season of Dallas, it actually happened, I remember back when Hewitt's show was still audible, how Rove
was talking of the ground game, that was just
ready to go 'voom' just like the Norwegian Blue
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 11:23 PM
As I recall, CH, that is what happened. Murtha was using his ill-gotten pelf to gain re-election and the anti war crowd was at full throttle...
Posted by: Clarice | February 23, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Yeah that permanent majority through compassionate conservatism worked out well. I wish Hewitt was inaudible here. I heard that idiot telling Rick Perry some garbage about how lucky he was that Texas didn't play the cheating Dorkeyes in football. This from somebody who never went to O$U (rather went to Meeeechigan) and lives in Cali. I wish Perry hadn't been such a gentleman in dealing with that annoying imbecile. And I wish I could send lethal rays through my car radio.
Posted by: Captain Hate | February 23, 2012 at 11:28 PM
Mad Jack,
The folks at the Great White are still a bit miffed at Paulson for ramming TARP money down their throat to cover up the fact that the Vampire Squid was broke. Especially after the $150 call the Vampire Squid made in the spring '08 that was as meritless as the current $120 call. In one sense, the $150 call put BOzo in the Oval Office.
Just remember as this unfolds, there is no supply problem. Not now and not for as far as anyone can see.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 23, 2012 at 11:29 PM
I think that at this point I should confess that most of the time I have absolutely no idea what Rick is talking about.
There! I've said it!
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Saw this story, was h/t by our very own Janet;
http://freebeacon.com/public-radio-pay-to-play/
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Let me give it a go, Treasury Secretary Paulson former CEO of Goldman, the Vampire Squid, floated the TARP
to cover their bad bet on oil,
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Sorry, missed the byline, Clarice;
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/02/23/pro-iranian-ploughshares-and-nprpaying-to-play/
Posted by: narciso | February 23, 2012 at 11:49 PM
niters..
Posted by: Clarice | February 23, 2012 at 11:52 PM
"floated the TARP to cover their bad bet on oil"
Who made the bad bet, and how? How would TARP have "covered" it? Can any of this be proved or disproved, or must we simply accept that the players were motivated by bad faith or stupidity?
If we must, what were those who were in good faith and wise counseling at the time? Who are they?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | February 23, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Watched WDIV Local 4 Detroit's Devon Scillian present his prerecorded interviews with the four candidates. Afterwards he talked to WDIV's pollster out of Chicago who said in their latest projection, looks like Santorum could take 9 of our 14 Congressional districts.
Posted by: SWarren | February 24, 2012 at 12:19 AM
DOT,
Good point, how can we tell who acted in good faith? Even the republican canidates appear to be playing by a different set of rules then the rest of us. Mainstream media is certainly no help figuring things out. Vote Republican you will be less boned is hardly a rallying cry
Posted by: abad man | February 24, 2012 at 12:42 AM
How many scams did we see of Goldman and other firms, betting against their subprime holdings,
Posted by: narciso | February 24, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Alabama everywhere in between
I don't think Pennsylvania allows black people to live west of Philly, so the rest isn't quite like Alabama.
My belly button is red and itchy tonight. Any advice?
Posted by: Ralph L | February 24, 2012 at 01:55 AM
I thought initially those three lines of Blow were enough, but I've reconsidered now that TM has supplied a fresh highlight:
:: Snort ::
Posted by: Elliott | February 24, 2012 at 04:00 AM
Great post TM.
Posted by: daddy | February 24, 2012 at 04:36 AM
daddy,
How'd the visit to The Bull Temple go?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | February 24, 2012 at 07:01 AM
Blow's angry reaction is very interesting. In the left's eyes, the right is not allowed to use dire social statistics to advocate against the left. The left thinks it has exclusive claim to those statistics to use as a hammer on the "1%" and evil capitalism. The right's arguments are seen as a threat because they are more grounded in reality and common sense and offer substantial solutions. But no! no! no! that cat must not get out of the bag!!!
As a side benefit, we will see the true stuff that Mitt is made of as these firestorms arise.
Posted by: Chubby | February 24, 2012 at 07:19 AM
The Bull Temple
That could be a new name for the DNC/MFM propaganda complex.
Posted by: Janet | February 24, 2012 at 07:26 AM
((Just remember as this unfolds, there is no supply problem. Not now and not for as far as anyone can see))
but the perception of a supply problem can wreak temporary havoc on the markets almost as much as an actual supply problem. In the short term, the markets are not just not that smart.
Posted by: Chubby | February 24, 2012 at 07:30 AM
hahaha! Janet. Love your quick wit!
they certainly do have a lot of sacred cows
Posted by: Chubby | February 24, 2012 at 07:33 AM
The Vampire Squid's bad bet was having AIG manufacture the CDS suicide vest insuring their MBS games. The TARP money (plus Buffets "investment") were used to paper over the hole created by their error. They weren't the only Too Big to Fail enterprise which should have died in October of '08 but the $150 call on oil and the contango set up to facilitate maintenance of the illusion of scarcity was, IMO, a trigger for the general collapse which ensued.
TARP was designed to obscure the fact that some TBTF companies should have died, been dismembered and redistributed through the normal BK process while some had managed their risk exposure and could have survived. GS and Citi should have died, JPM would have survived.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | February 24, 2012 at 07:51 AM
When we say it, it's because we're mean spirited, judgmental, and want to shove our values down their throats.
When they say it, it's because they really really care.
See? No hypocrisy. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Posted by: AliceH | February 24, 2012 at 07:52 AM
The medium is the message.
Posted by: AliceH | February 24, 2012 at 07:57 AM
With a name like Blow and (in a photo I saw) a large bulbous nose, you would think this *sshole would be more careful in his remarks.
Byron York has an article today that is quite depressing, yet I feel, accurate in its assessment. I know I experienced exactly what he describes with the last debate.
Sour Race Heads to Michigan
Posted by: centralcal | February 24, 2012 at 07:58 AM
I'm not fond of "Pennsyltucky" and the Alabama reference wrt PA. Those are way too close to the "bitter clingers" and "flyover country" type snobbish attitudes we've come to expect from the left.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 24, 2012 at 08:02 AM
On the other hand:http://freebeacon.com/column-the-sloppy-incumbent/
Posted by: Clarice | February 24, 2012 at 08:05 AM
Amen, Porchlight.
Posted by: Janet | February 24, 2012 at 08:07 AM
From Twitter, Byron York mentioning the Blow blowback posts these stats:
Byron York @ByronYork
Gallup found attitudes toward Mormons remarkably unchanged over time. In 2011, 76% overall said they would vote for Mormon for president…
5m Byron York Byron York @ByronYork
Last year Gallup found 27% of Democrats said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, while 18% of Republicans and 19% of Independents said same.
He says it is basically unchanged from 1967 (75% would vote for a Mormon for President).
Doesn't seem to be the really big problem people think, except among Democrats.
Posted by: centralcal | February 24, 2012 at 08:10 AM
What i wouldn't pay to see Obama's teleprompter break down.
Posted by: Jane | February 24, 2012 at 08:12 AM
I am really liking Free Beacon, Clarice.
Did you all see a few days ago that Bill Kristol's daughter married Matt Continetti (the Editor of Free Beacon and a columnist with Weekly Standard)?
Posted by: centralcal | February 24, 2012 at 08:13 AM
Is this the Rush call that Ann told us about?
Rush referred to Cathy as “the most glittering jewel of colossal ignorance”
Posted by: Janet | February 24, 2012 at 08:18 AM
Yes it is, Janet!!! I am a Rush member but was unable to link it for everyone else to see. So glad you found a linkable one.
Posted by: centralcal | February 24, 2012 at 08:19 AM
What i wouldn't pay to see Obama's teleprompter break down.
Actually it has a time or two Jane, and the results weren't pretty. I am sure if you google it you will find examples of him becoming a blathering idiot without his TOTUS.
Posted by: centralcal | February 24, 2012 at 08:22 AM
Clarice,
The column made my (so far) very short day.
CC, I think the pessimism is an Obama plot. They want us to concentrate on how screwed up the republicans are. As far as I'm concerned, every republican candidate is a finely oiled machine next to the joke that occupies PA Avenue.
Posted by: Jane | February 24, 2012 at 08:22 AM
I didn't see that,cc, but Continetti is always great and I agree the Free Beacon is good. I almost always find good stuff there.
Posted by: Clarice | February 24, 2012 at 08:27 AM
Over the last 35 years, our economy has almost tripled in size, but, according to the United States Census Bureau, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has been stuck at roughly 1 in 8.
At the end of last year, poverty in America was back to where it was when LBJ started all those wonderful 'Great Society' programs.
I really don't know the government definition of the 'poverty line' but for years I have strongly suspected that it was some sort of 'moving goal post' with a definition of some thing like 'roughly 1 in 8.'
Posted by: Neo | February 24, 2012 at 08:28 AM
Wow, the fnork on the warpath at the WSJ--two columns by ladies getting the vapors over the specter of a Santorum nomination: Strassel and Rabinowitz.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 24, 2012 at 08:29 AM
I really don't know the government definition of the 'poverty line' but for years I have strongly suspected that it was some sort of 'moving goal post' with a definition of some thing like 'roughly 1 in 8.'
Got it in one.
Posted by: AliceH | February 24, 2012 at 08:31 AM
I really don't know the government definition of the 'poverty line' but for years I have strongly suspected that it was some sort of 'moving goal post' with a definition of some thing like 'roughly 1 in 8.'
It's definitely a squishy concept. I'm pretty sure it ignores "in-kind" transfers like food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. Never mind the fact that people at the poverty line are probably at the 90th percentile worldwide in standard of living.
Posted by: jimmyk | February 24, 2012 at 08:33 AM
Gallup found 27% of Democrats said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon,(UNLESS the Mormon happened to have a D after their name on the ballot ).
Fixed that part for ya, you're welcome
Posted by: GMAX | February 24, 2012 at 08:36 AM
The United States is one of the only places on the planet where the "poor" are statistically fatter than the overall public. Nearly all the "poor" have big screen tvs, and even more have cell phones. For all intents and purposes we need a new word, poor in Haiti is most definitely not what poor mean in the USA.
Posted by: GMAX | February 24, 2012 at 08:41 AM
Here you go, Clarice:
Anne Kristol and Matthew Continetti
Posted by: centralcal | February 24, 2012 at 08:46 AM
Considering the function they serve, it's not terribly surprising;
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowldc/females-on-campaign-trail-get-sexy_b65740
Posted by: narciso | February 24, 2012 at 08:47 AM
Weekly Standard has linked to the Send in the Clowns thread. Congrats, TM - you've been getting noticed a lot lately.
Posted by: centralcal | February 24, 2012 at 08:50 AM
TomM-- great post. Blow is a fool and a bigot. If if we've reached the point where you can call out a black man publicly for being a fool and a bigot, we've made some progress in 30 years. Pinch destroyed the NYT brand with his Left-Wing journalism, but in addition to that he destroyed the professionalism at the Times. 1968-1985 when I read the NYT 7 days a week, it was extremely well written. The last 15 years it's been unreadable, not just the message but the writing and editing. I chalk that up to Pinch's 'affirmative action ' hires.
Posted by: NK | February 24, 2012 at 08:52 AM
We have the richest poor people in the world - and not only that, our poor have a higher standard of living than most rich people in history. I mentioned to a lib friend the other day that all Americans today are part of the worldwide 1% and she said "wow, I never thought of it that way." Shocker.
The left is now reduced to using "access to healthcare" and "participation in reduced-price lunch programs" or "food anxiety" as definitions of poverty in order to maximize their numbers.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 24, 2012 at 08:54 AM
Neo -- you make a good point at 08:28. 2 things explain the long-term poverty level. 1. 'welfare' programs 1964- 1996 that created a generational underclass (Pat Moynahan warned about that happening in the 1960s), and 2. Mass Immigration since the 1970s. Immigrants come to the US poor, so they show up in poverty rates -- the question is will they advance economically as in prior mass immigration periods, or will become a new generational underclass?
Posted by: NK | February 24, 2012 at 08:58 AM
TomM-- is Blow a hypocrit? Nah, he's probably just and ignorant BS artist.
Posted by: NK | February 24, 2012 at 09:01 AM
the question is will they advance economically as in prior mass immigration periods, or will become a new generational underclass?
Some of each, I imagine. Same goes for Blow - he is both a hypocrite and an ignorant BS artist.
Posted by: Porchlight | February 24, 2012 at 09:06 AM
The left is now reduced to using "access to healthcare" and "participation in reduced-price lunch programs" or "food anxiety" as definitions of poverty in order to maximize their numbers.
The sad (or is it despicable?) thing is, there actually are Americans living in real poverty, but having stretched the operative definition to include those whose paychecks fall short of affording ALL the cable channels, the ones who really do need help may as well be invisible.
Posted by: AliceH | February 24, 2012 at 09:07 AM
Dad hit son for not watching Obama SOTU recording
Posted by: Extraneus | February 24, 2012 at 09:08 AM
Rick,
((IMO, a trigger for the general collapse which ensued.))
I've never been able to settle on what the specific catalyst was ...
I find it "ironic" that QE3 will be happening in harmony with Obama's re-election year. Markets up will surely help him?
Posted by: Chubby | February 24, 2012 at 09:09 AM