My first reaction was: it’s another classic Washington Post hit piece on the Republican candidate. This is sheer religious bigotry disguised as a news story. We are supposed to think less of Mitt Romney for what a gang of Mormons did 150 years ago? Romney’s a Mormon, the inference goes so he’s part of a murderous killer cult.
That was after the same paper had a book-length front page article about him being a “bully” for cutting a classmate’s hair … 40 years ago.
And remember the awful thing that George Allen did? He called some opposition researcher who was following him around videotaping his appearances “macaca.” No one on this continent recognizes that term as a racial slur and to this day I’m not convinced it is, but it convinced enough people that Allen spent the rest of the campaign trying to prove he wasn’t a racist based on a word no one had ever heard before. It was an incredible story made up out of whole cloth. It worked for the race-baiters at the Washington Post because it helped them defeat Allen.
But there is another way to look at this. Forget about the Post’s motives, consider the impact. It may actually generate sympathy for Romney.
Have you ever been in a situation in which you wish the people on your side were not on your side? They were so foolish, bigoted, stupid, choose-your-own-adjective that you really didn’t want to be associated with them? I’m glad that the Washington Post is not on our side because I would be embarrassed. The Washington Post with its hit pieces is a problem for the Democrats. Not content with making a federal case out of where dogs should rid on car trips, it goes back 40 years to find fault with Romney as a high school student and 150 years to smear his religion. That’s not just weak, it’s fodder for ridicule. If I were Mitt Romney, I would buy copies of the article and pass them out at rallies.
And if you think I’m wrong, click on the link, go to the article and begin reading the comments (there are over 400); virtually all negative.