Political Punch

Romney is an idiot anyway.. makes people who can't afford it buy health insurance but does nothing to corrupt insurance companies that violate their policy contracts with impunity and refuse to pay claims. Yup, a real winner

I think I'll stick with the Flying Spaghetti Monster and say I'm proud to be a Pastafarian. :)

Religion kills more than it saves.

Well, what exactly has belief in such a non-essential as where the precise location the Second Coming of Jesus will take place have to do with a candidate's stance on political issues??? I just cannot see the need for such inanity--unless Missouri will get special treatment, that is. How stupid can one get???

No problem with you delving into a subject that has been raised by the candidate himself, but what's with the dig about Republicans? You made a sweeping generalization (you said "Republicans," not "some Republicans."

Unless you're talking about all Republicans, it seems an outright prejudice to tar them all with the same brush. It's obviously a false claim if you make it about all members of the GOP, and it's a rather irrelevant comment in any case: if you want to be any kind of fair broker (a role you perform rather well on this blog), then you shouldn't be trying to "counter" the Republican talking points. Your job is not to say "Well, the Republicans say things like this, so why shouldn't I?"

In any case, would you care to point out a single Republican that is guilty of the alleged infraction? Can you cite an example of what you meant? And, finally, are not some Democrats guilty of same vis-a-vis faith in general?

Eamon - Funny, since I was not talking about this post, but the media altogether. I think Jake does an very good job in trying to be fair. Well Romney religion was brought to the Forefront by the media because he is Mormon, and the left wing press thinks some people will not vote for him just on that. Thou I will take a look at the other post.

DKNY - So then why are you not questioning Obama's, since his church is outspokenly racist. Google his reverend and church. There is nothing about Mormonism that is racist.

BTF - Then they should ask fairly.

I think it's a valid line of questioning for any candidate to withstand today, the key being today. We can expect out of a candidate that with which we chose to expect. Religion does or doesn't ahve to play a role. We decide.

Personally, I don't want to know about it. But I'm a cynical tv journalist,

I expect Spock to complain that your post on the Hillary is 44 site is not balanced because it doesn't also mention other goofy sites for Republican candidates. As for Romney's religion, if it helps him define who he is, we should know about it. If he says it's not a part of his composition, then we don't need to know.

If someone voluntarily belongs to an organization--whether it's a club or a religious institution--that discriminates against people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., then that person should expect tobe asked--and indeed should be asked--to explain his or her membership in this discriminatory enterprise. This rule should apply to Lieberman, just as it should apply to Romney.

I've been to Jackson County MO and there is no way the Garden of Eden was there.

If someone is going to define themselves as religious then it is only fair to figure out what exactly that means. Romney is strange and creepy while Brownback is a certified nut running for president only so he can hate on gays and women.

Jake, another great caricature! I believe you've quite correctly defined the line between asking faith-related questions and making faith-related judgments: the former are perfectly permissible for a reporter, but the latter are not. When Gov. Romney purposely blurs an explanation of the tenets of his faith after opening himself to questions about it, he does so from a very cynical position, I think, since he obviously wants to play down certain aspects of it. And you're quite right to follow-up on his equivocations and ask for clarification.

More importantly, though, while questions of a candidate's own faith and its practices are perfectly fine, I firmly believe we have better questions to ask and more important things to find out. Why are we as a nation so insistent on dredging up the same problems concerning the candidates' religions as in the 1960 presidential election? Will any of the discoveries we make about the candidates' faith help in resolving the problems we have in Iraq/with immigration/with health care/with terrorism/with...well, you get the idea.

Interesting exchange. Romney Experience "Ryan" indicates that your inquiry is outside of the scope of relevance, but he doesn't accuse you of bigotry. Yet your counterpoint (counterpost?) addresses the issue of bigotry. Methinks thou dost protest too much?

I agree with Ryan 100%. Romney has never shoved his religion down our throats. He at least purports to respect the separation of church and state. I don't think the mere pronouncement that he's a man of faith invites this type of inquiry. Nor does the fact that he's courting religious voters.

Is a closer inspection of one's religion ever relevant? Maybe. You raised Lieberman as an example. Lieberman has advocated a greater emphasis of religion in public life. He's also a moralist, favoring censorship under certain circumstances. THAT is more than just "I'm a man of faith." When faith becomes policy, a full inspection of the person's individual faith is appropriate. I don't see it here, with Romney. But if and when Romney starts advocating censorship (for religion-based moral reasons) or public displays of religion, then I think the inquiry makes sense.

It becomes an issue when you only ask one party of Candidates their religous beliefs and not the other. Why is there nothing on Hilary's Religion, I do not know even what religion she is? How come no press is pushing to find out the Religious background of Obama who's full name is from Muslim, when it was questioned the press went out of its way to cover it up. but yet Obama's answer actually cause more of a question mark on whether he is Muslim or not. Why can't he give a straight answer or better yet why does not the Press ask him straight.

It is funny how the Libs do not want religion in public square but they keep bringing it up when it come to Republicans.

I think Tancredo is about to land a huge punch.