Skip to main content

I think it would be pretty stupid for Romney to bring up Reverend Jeremiah Wright

In recent days, more and more Republican talking heads have come out in saying that Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, should attack Barack Obama with regard to his ties to Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Personally, I feel this would be a mistake by the Romney campaign. Yes, I will be voting for the incumbent president, but I'm not saying this because I think attacking him on Wright will hinder his chances any. ...quite the contrary actually...

Why do I feel this way? First off, Jeremiah Wright is old news. The far-right attempted to attack Obama in this way four years ago and guess what? It didn't work. Last I heard, Obama is the president. So it's not going to help them any to give this worn strategy another try.

Secondly and probably most importantly, if Romney goes after Obama due to Reverend Wright, this puts his being a Mormon in play as well. I've said time and time again I don't think that people should factor Romney's religious beliefs into the voting equation and I stand by that. However, not everyone feels that way. The majority of people whom practice religion in this country practice Christianity and most of them don't feel that Mormonism is the equivalent of it. If you've noticed throughout this campaign, Romney has been pretty quiet when it comes to his religious beliefs, strayed away from questions about it and for good reason - because most die-hard Christians would not approve of his religious beliefs. If his campaign team brings up Jeremiah Wright again (or even just far-right groups supposedly not affiliated with the Romney team), I can all but guarantee you that liberal groups will start going after Romney's being a Mormon with more fervor. This would play to a disadvantage to Romney, because Jeremiah Wright-coverage wore out its welcome a long time ago. It's old news. Romney's religious beliefs are new territory for most of the public and due to that, it would likely receive far more coverage than a rehash of Wright's sermons that were played tirelessly four years ago.

I personally don't feel either campaign team should go after the other's religion, but if the far-right decides to take another shot at the Reverend-Wright strategy, they'll likely regret that days and weeks down the line due to the coverage Romney's religious beliefs will receive.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"