May 20th, 2012
12:55 PM ET

Media Play The Bain Game

Erin McPike, John Avlon, Ramesh Ponnuru and Howard Kurtz on the Obama campaign's ad targeting Mitt Romney for his work at Bain Capital; did the media give it too much free publicity?

Posted by
Filed under: 2012 Campaign • Barack Obama • Mitt Romney
soundoff (4 Responses)
  1. JL Fuller

    For journalists and fact checkers and anyone who needs to know the other side of anything to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, may I suggest http://www.mormon.org, http://www.lds.orgt or http://www.fairlds.org as their FIRST source. http://www.lds.org has a link the official Church newsite. Poorly researched facts only lead to a poorly presented story such as we saw on Reliable Sources today. You don;t have to agree with what Mormons believe but you should at least get the easy stuff right.

    May 20, 2012 at 2:43 pm | Reply
  2. JL Fuller

    Kurtz got it wrong AGAIN!! How can you take the man as reliable when he can't even get the name of the LDS church right? He is supposed to be a professional but yet he refuses to do due diligence. It is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints NOT the Church of the Latter-day Saints. LDS Church is common short hand too. It is as though Kurtz wants to contribute to the myth that Mormons are not Christian by ignoring the fact that the most important aspect to Mormonism is Jesus Christ.

    Moving on. No where in the lead in to the Romney-Mormon story today did either of the guests or Kurtz say or even suggest that they contacted the LDS Church to see if they were presenting the Church's view accurately. The claim that Mormonism is less than sympathetic to working women is another myth. It has no basis in fact yet Kurtz presented it as though there was no question that it was true. People can disagree with LDS views on subjects but professional writers and journalists seem to be OK with just going with the popular notions without finding out before hand what is legitimate and what is not.

    May 20, 2012 at 2:33 pm | Reply
    • Celestino

      “God made a covenant with Abraham and hoonred it. He did not ‘exclude’ the Gentiles, only delayed the preaching of the Gospel to them, to fulfill his promise to his chosen people, who he made the promise to not because of some phony works explanation but because of their FAITH IN GOD.”Amen, brother.In this argument, it doesn’t matter if it was a result of faith, works, or because a particular group sharing the same lineage wore boots with red stripes, there was a “delay” in the time when they could have the blessings of the gospel. God knows all the whys and hows.Bottom line- God has in the past “delayed” when groups of people with a particular ancestry could receive what other people were favored with up front.Like so many reasons you all have for not accepting modern prophets, you insist on understanding the whys yourself- even while accepting ancient prophets who could be rejected for the very same reasons you reject modern prophets.You cannot refute that non-Levites were not given the priesthood duties associated with the temple.You cannot refute that Christ was preferentially sent to those who descended from Jacob/Israel, not gentiles.You have not attempted to address the favoritism I pointed out before that is so fundamental to your theology- that God sends some people to hell while saving others for absolutely no obvious reason that we can determine. Some people are simply created on this earth in a position that will never allow them to be converted to Christ. If that is not favoritism, I really do not know what is.Any objective thinker can see the double standard EVs on this thread are attempting to apply to this topic. You can quote what you think are racist statements and stories all you want to distract from the logical conclusion that the modern “delay” was no different in principle than that practiced in ancient times.It has always been so much easier to accept a dead prophet than a living prophet.

      August 1, 2012 at 7:57 am | Reply
      • Evandro

        Bill, #69, ha ha ha. Running a country, and all the caibnet level departments, especially the really important ones, is far more complicated and a whole nuther animal, than a political campaign.The _team_ I was talking about was not necessarily his campaign team, but all his appointments for his administration, from his chief-of-staff on down, and the caibnet level appointments, and all their people they are going to put in position.There are hundreds of people that a new president has to put into place, and those people are then in charge of hiring/appointment many more who are still outside of the civil-service positions.In other words, who are going to be his Cheneys, Rices, etc?And , Obama is _not_ that smart. He's got charisma, and a good campaign manager and _campaign_ staff, but smarts, in terms of intellect and knowledge, no.And Hillary is not all that bad-looking or fat for a woman her age. She's better looking than most single women her age that I know. Most single women in the church who are her age are fatter.I'm really really torn. I'm a die-hard conservative, and I'm seriously tempted to vote democrat in the general election, just so Republicans don't get the blame for the mess we're going to have in the next 4 years.Wouldn't be ironic if many democrats voted republican for same reasoning?Hmmm, would it be too morbid to hope that Romney is McCain's running mate, they win the general election, and then McCain soon throws one of his temper-trantrums and pops a blood-vessel in his brain?

        September 9, 2012 at 3:35 pm |

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.