It is generally agreed that Maureen Dowd’s New York Times columns are bitter claptrap. This week, she decided to bash Mitt Romney, Mormons, Republicans, and religious people in a hodgepodge of words thrown at the page to form a themeless mass. An excerpt:
The problem with Mitt is not his religion; it is his overeager policy shape-shifting. He did not give a brave speech, but a pandering one. Disguised as a courageous, Kennedyesque statement of principle, the talk was really just an attempt to compete with the evolution-disdaining, religion-baiting Huckabee and get Baptists to concede that Mormons are Christians.
…
The world is globalizing, nuclear weapons are proliferating, the Middle East is seething, but Republicans are still arguing the Scopes trial.
Mitt was right when he said that “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.” Now if he would only admit he’s describing himself.
Read it all. I’m sure you’ll love it.
Craig
When she moves away from attacking the Church and hits Flip Romney with the truth.
I challenge anyone to tell me where the statement you posted above is wrong.
This is ridiculous. Making a speech to a group whose support you will need to get elected does not make you a believer of convenience. He’s playing the political game. Why should he be expected not to? Dowd is a snide, unhappy little woman who treats people as if they were idiots.
Since when did John Krakauer become an expert on Mormonism?
His book is entertaining, but sloppy and written like a dime store novel and has absolutely no academic attributes.
What, was Jan Shipps unavailable for comment?
Or is it that a real academic non-Mormon on Mormonism wouldn’t give Dowd the salacious comments she was fishing for?