Important Quotes
In this week’s copy of The Economist, they have quotes from the campaign trail.
“‘I only got three [dollars] in my pocket.’ Multimillionaire Mitt Romney has to borrow from an aide to buy a cup of coffee. ” emphasis my own.
Coffee? Did they say coffee? Mitt the Mormon drinks coffee?
I wonder then if his delinquency in keeping the Word of Wisdom is what spurred this comment: “‘What they have done is, they have totally dismissed that fact that this guy’s influence is going to lead people to hell.’ Televangelist Bill Keller on Christian conservative leaders who endorse Mitt Romney, a Mormon.” (all this on page 37 of the Nov 10th issue of the Economist)
Should I be nervous about a coffee-drinking Mormon too?
My favorite quote however does not concern Mormons in any way whatsoever but it is not to be missed.
“‘I took a city that was known for pornography and licked it to a large extent.’ Rudy Giuliani on how he saved New York.”
You what? Rudy?
Did the Economist mean to out Mitt like this? Terrible.
Though Ronan, in the UK does coffee really mean hot chocolate or delicious herbal tea?
I thought so.
Comment by amri — November 12, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Was it coffee or a vanilla steamer?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/romney-returns-.html
Comment by adcama — November 12, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Oh I’m sure it wasn’t coffee. It’s just cute that they throw around coffee so breezily. But hello? coffee is a big deal. You can’t just drop that word and not have it mean anything, silly Economist.
Comment by amri — November 12, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
It was probably Sanka. Sanka’s okay, right? Mission presidents drink Sanka. I’m sure he said “Sanka” but his people just call it “his coffee.”
Comment by David T. — November 12, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Coffee? This is the first positive thing I’ve heard about the Mitt Robot. Don’t spoil it.
Comment by pdmallamo — November 12, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Obviously, Mitt should be avoiding the *appearance* of drinking coffee altogether. I don’t believe for a second that someone with his gospel experience would have an issue with coffee. Porn maybe - coffee? No.
Comment by Nebraska — November 12, 2007 @ 10:49 pm
“I only got” ????
I don’t think that coffee is the worst part of that quote.
Comment by a random John — November 12, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
The first quote is funny in its ignorance; the second is absolutely hilarious. I share a lot of what I read here with my teenagers, but that one will go only to my son in college.
Comment by Ray — November 12, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
I like this quote, just for the mangled metaphor:
(Emphasis added.)
Comment by Norbert — November 13, 2007 @ 12:32 am
I read that same column in the Economist yesterday as well and was commenting to my husband that it must be the generic no caffeine “coffee” that Mormons might get at Starbucks. What a relief to get the clarification (no doubt to reassure Mormons everywhere) that it was just a vanilla steamer. I was also laughing about the Guiliani quote. I doubt he really was thinking about his word choice there. I can’t imagine being a candidate with all that media coverage and having people record and scrutinize every word that comes out your mouth.
Comment by CAW — November 13, 2007 @ 4:23 am
Yeah….the lack of attention to the taboo issue of coffee for the mormon candidate speaks volumes. With all of the press coverage of Mitt’s mormonism (I feel like that’s all the press talks about when it comes to Romney), how could ANYONE not know that Mitt is mormon, and “mormons who know” don’t partake? Any bets that the Deseret News will print this “substantive issue” front page?
Comment by adcama — November 13, 2007 @ 6:22 am
Back when the Democrats took control of the congress, an article appeared that said the President invited Harry Reid to the White House for coffee. I can’t say what beverage Brother Harry actually imbibed on that occasion, but I’m sure the invitation and the reporting thereof was more about the nature of the meeting than the beverage selection. I doubt the President or the reporter gave a second thought to the implications.
The source provided by adcama indicates that Mitt’s beverage was not coffee (and gives a more grammatical version of the quote). Buying a cup of coffee is a common metaphor for making a small purchase, so I suspect the Economist reporter just had no idea that the distinction between coffee and a vanilla steamer might be important.
What do you bet that if Mitt had a Coke, the press would be all over it? In my experience, more people “know” that Mormons don’t drink Coke than know that we don’t drink coffee.
Comment by Left Field — November 13, 2007 @ 7:00 am
Lucky me, I just had the last piece of leftover cinnamon streusel coffee cake for breakfast.
I think the funniest malapropism I have ever heard com out of a politician’s mouth was when Jimmy Carter intended to pay tribute to Hubert Horatio Humphrey at the national party convention and introduced him as “Hubert Horatio Hornblower. . .I mean Humphrey!”
Comment by Mark IV — November 13, 2007 @ 8:50 am
What do you bet that if Mitt had a Coke, the press would be all over it? In my experience, more people “know” that Mormons don’t drink Coke than know that we don’t drink coffee.
Considsering I’ve actually run across press reports (in local and alternative zines, not in mainstream papers) that claim the Church owns Coca-Cola - well, I’ve actually been told by several (non-lds) people that they “know” it’s Pepsi or RC Cola we can’t drink, but Coke is okay, since our church owns it.
There are some weird theories about us out there.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — November 13, 2007 @ 8:53 am
I don’t know Mitt Romney personally, but I know one of his sons. Based on what I know about them, he’s not drinking coffee.
I also know enough about news reporting to know that these reporters are almost right most of the time. I’m sure it was a reporter who doesn’t know the significance of his erroneous details.
Comment by scott — November 13, 2007 @ 9:33 am
Isn’t “cup of coffee” just a euphamism
Comment by StillConfused — November 13, 2007 @ 9:40 am
StillConfused — yes: for CRACK COCAINE. Ol’ Romney is complaining he can’t even afford a dime bag.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 13, 2007 @ 9:42 am
You know what bothers me about the implication that a Mormon who drinks coffee isn’t a good Mormon?
Other Mormons who don’t drink coffee are breaking other commandments that aren’t as easily exposed (I grant you, he probably wasn’t drinking coffee).
We just hit so hard on the word of wisdom and don’t even know if that totally teetotaler is a jerk to his neighbors.
Everyone sins. Everyone has flaws. I think we keep score way too much. If I pay my tithing, go to church, read the scriptures, try to serve my fellow man, but have a cup of coffee once in awhile, am I less a “good” Mormon than the jerk down the street who wouldn’t touch coffee if his life depended on it, but whose yard is a mess?
You guys have a weird comment thing, you can’t see half the screen.
Comment by annegb — November 13, 2007 @ 9:43 am
annegb, I usually agree with you, but the Word of Wisdom is a commandment now - keeping a clean yard is not. Now, if you had said the jerk down the street who constantly criticizes his wife and kids, or the jerk down the street who hides his p*rn addiction from everyone else, I would line up to cast my vote for the coffee drinker all day, every day.
Having said that, I agree completely that we keep score way too much.
Comment by Ray — November 13, 2007 @ 9:53 am
No one ever accused the media of performing thorough research and getting stories precisely accurate. Then why should we being to believe the Economist?
Honestly, this post is much ado about nothing. If Mitt Romney weren’t a faithful member of the church, then why hold him in high regard? Let’s cast stones and rid ourselves of such unworthiness (see John 8:7).
Comment by Andrew H — November 13, 2007 @ 11:14 am
Look Andrew, I am fine if you want to slander the one true and living church in this apostate forum, but I will not allow you to sully the good name of God’s favorite news magazine. If the Economist says that it is so, then it is so. Period. Sheesh! Next thing I know BCC is going to start claiming that the Lexington collumn is only true “in so far as it is translated correctly.”
Frankly I am outraged — OUTRAGED! — that BCC would even host a thread in which people are able to make cheap, drive by comments attacking the Economist. Have you people no sense of shame at all?!?!?
Comment by Nate Oman — November 13, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Nate, I apologise for Andrew’s ill-suited behavior. I expected more from him.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 13, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
(If Mitt takes, well, “coffee,” vanilla-steamer white; he prefers counter-terrorism advice, J. Coffer Black)
Comment by truebluethru'n'thru — November 13, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Any magazine whose writers are too ashamed of their work to put their names on their articles doesn’t deserve to be trusted.
Comment by Aaron Brown — November 13, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Well, at least the Economist can be given credit for coverage of areas of the world that rarely make an appearance in Time or Newsweek. But it’s still a rather superficial coverage, sufficient perhaps for the cocktail party circuit. These days when I read it, I get an empty sort of feeling, wondering why I wasted my time learning so little. Apparently, I’m not alone.
Comment by Bill — November 13, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Hello? Licking pornography? You can’t dislike anyone who chooses that quote over all other presidential race 08 quotes. Even if they don’t list their names. And even if they are from the UK.
Steve?! I didn’t know Mitt did cocaine. Does anyone else know? This is delicious, though I bet it could hurt his candidacy. If you want a Mormon in the White House you best keep that one quiet.
Comment by amri — November 13, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
Aaron: I assume that there are no bylines in the Economist because all of the content is written by God, or at least published with his approval.
Bill: Name a single news magazine (as opposed to a policy or academic journal) that provides better all around coverage than the Ecnomist. To read Time, Newsweek, or the rest of the drek put out in the name of news, you would assume that American readers are incabable of making it through a page that is more than fifty percent text, and have absolutely no interest in or knowledge of European, Latin American, African, Asian, or Canadian (I recently discovered that Canada is in fact an independent country with its own politics; sort of) events. And don’t even get me started on the crap that passes for financial or economic coverage in Time or Newsweek…
Comment by Nate Oman — November 13, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
What the Oman said. I know that the Economist is true. My idea of the best gift ever would be a lifetime subscription.
Comment by RonanJH — November 13, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Nate: how about Cigar Aficionado?
Comment by Steve Evans — November 13, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Of course it’s better than those others, but that’s damning it with faint praise.
Comment by Bill — November 13, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
AS long as he’s drinking coffee, he should try the new Coke Black–a newly marketed cola/coffee drink from the American soda giant. As a politician, I feel it’s his duty to add further confusion to the whole, “you guys can drink coke but not coffee?” thing.
Comment by Neal Peters — November 13, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
RE: Left Field:
Since when did Mormons not drink Coke?
Comment by Neal Peters — November 13, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Nate, and yet the Economist also does a terrible job with Latin America.
Comment by J. Nelson-Seawright — November 13, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Reading WSJ, Financial Times, Barron’s, New Yorker, and the New York Review of Books, as well as a variety of websites with more interesting analysis, I don’t have time for the Economist any more. I cut out Business Week (which has suffered a similar decline) for the same reasons.
Comment by Bill — November 13, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
I wonder if all of these intellectuals raving about the Economist have a secret stash of People, US Weekly, and Star that they read when no one’s looking.
And I think it’s Coke “Blak,” not “Black.”
Comment by California Condor — November 13, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Bill, the WSJ is not long for pre-eminence. Good call on the FT, but I’d drop Barron’s for The Economist in a heartbeat.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 13, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
And before everyone starts congratulating themselves, Romney was outed as a caffeine-drinking Mormon a long time ago.
Comment by California Condor — November 13, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
CC,
I read Esquire but only (you won’t believe this) because my dad (65) gives me his copy. When no-one’s looking, I read the UK’s Daily Mirror and the Sun. For anthropological reasons, of course. Plus, you can’t win an election in the UK without getting tabloid support, so, you know, it’s a legitimate activity to see what the British Street is thinking…
Comment by RonanJH — November 13, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
The important lesson is that mooching is part of what it takes to become and remain a multimillionaire. There’s probably more to it than that, but I’ll try mooching this week and see how much richer it makes me.
Comment by John Mansfield — November 13, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
“Bill, the WSJ is not long for pre-eminence.”
The editorial page is already worthless, but they still have some of the best writing and investigative reporting around. You’re right, however, that all that is likely to soon change.
Comment by Bill — November 13, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Obviously my point above was well received. However, I must clarify I did not intend to “slander” any Mormon belief. Being a faithful member myself, why would I want to cast stones at the foundation of my own personal belief system?
Besides, even if Brother Romney were drinking coffee, would this seemingly insignificant habit really have an impact on his ability to lead the country as president? I’d much rather have as president a faithful Mormon drinking coffee than a certain senior senator from Utah who’s lips are constantly spewing out lies and exhibits the disdainful pleasure of drawing constant, needless attention to himself who hasn’t had an original thought in years!
Comment by Andrew H — November 13, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
The New York Review of Books???!!!
Comment by Nate Oman — November 13, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
JNS: I don’t think that the Economist’s unwillingness to endorse populist strongmen should be held against them…
Comment by Nate Oman — November 13, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
My question is this…..how’s he going to stay awake at all of those Kindie’garten book readings drinking turkish delight, or vanilla steamer or whatever it is? I’ll only vote for someone who unabashedly drinks coffee (or Sanka or Pero or at least something that doesn’t sound all Shirley Templeish).
As for becoming a multi-bizzilionaire, it’s tough to be rich when you’re dropping $6 every other hour on a Starbucks frothy…..
Comment by adcama — November 13, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Maybe you’re confusing it with the New York Times Book Review which is at least as glib, shallow, and predictable as the Economist. The NYRB, on the other hand, never fails to nourish.
Time/Newsweek = McDonalds
Economist = Sizzler
NYRB = Smith & Wollensky
Comment by Bill — November 13, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
#44: Isn’t turkish delight that jelly-reddish dessert/candy that the White Witch feeds Edmund according to C.S. Lewis, the well-respected Christian writer? Are we sure we want someone who might have been eating of the witch’s food as our president?
JL
Comment by Jami — November 13, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Jami - that’s the one. Is turkish delight against the word of wisdom…..?
Comment by adcama — November 13, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
I’d much rather have as president a faithful Mormon drinking coffee than a certain senior senator from Utah who’s lips are constantly spewing out lies and exhibits the disdainful pleasure of drawing constant, needless attention to himself who hasn’t had an original thought in years!
Comment by Reno — November 13, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
47. Only when it’s not winter. (Darn temperate climate!)
Comment by KyleM — November 13, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
A blogger at http://www.exilelife.com/exileblog/?p=31 writes:
During a recent visit to Indy, I was introduced to a delicious, hot drink at Starbucks. My friend called it a Vanilla Steamer. Simply, steamed milk with vanilla flavoring and whipped creme. But oh so yum, tastes like a warm vanilla milk shake from Sycamores (and I am not kidding). So, I order a “Vanilla Steamer” on the way home. Starbucks calls it a “Vanilla Creme”. I think to myself .. what a great name…steamer. Why don’t they use it? Curiousity gets the best of Hud. So, tonight I Google “Vanilla Steamer” and read the entry from the Urban Dictionary. ‘nuf said. One “Vanilla Creme”, please.
Comment by truebluethru'n'thru — November 13, 2007 @ 6:12 pm
adcama–I think it depends on your recipe.
Comment by Jami — November 13, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
And now the Romney campaign waits for yet another shoe to drop. Breaking news:
( http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i24388 )
BOSTON. Reeling from the Larry Craig scandal, the Republican Party is preparing to take another body blow over the weekend as sources close to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney say he will come clean about his decades-long addiction to coke, a habit that puts him at odds with his faith and the GOP’s family-values constituency.
“I have come to the conclusion that I am addicted to Vanilla Coke,” Romney says.
Comment by truebluethru'n'thru — November 13, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
And this from the economist dot com
( http://www.economist.com/blogs/theinbox/2007/07/mr_smooth_of_massachusetts_jul.cfm )
SIR —
Even Vanilla Coke would be too strong of a drink for Mr Romney. As a Mormon, he is forbidden from drinking anything with caffeine, which includes Coke. He could have a caffeine-free Coke, but that doesn’t come in vanilla flavor.
Andrey Utkin
Moscow
Comment by truebluethru'n'thru — November 13, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
re: 45
The Economist = Sizzler ???? No way.
The Economist = Morton’s, at the very least.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 13, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
It’s funny how a “vanilla steamer” gets reported as either a vanilla Coke or a cup of coffee.
However, now that I re-read the article, I see that Romney not only bought a vanilla steamer for himself, but also an unspecified drink for the mayor of DeWitt. Quite plausibly, the Economist reference to Romney “buying” (not drinking) coffee is in reference the the drink he bought for the mayor.
Comment by Left Field — November 13, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Ahhh, so it wasn’t Mitt’s “principal” drink, but it was “among” the drinks he purchased. Now it makes sense.
Comment by adcama — November 14, 2007 @ 5:52 am
In reference to my comment #41 above, do I need to be any more direct than to say THIS is the senior senator from UTAH!
Comment by Andrew H — November 14, 2007 @ 8:34 am
#56 - Nice. I wish I had thought of that response.
Comment by Ray — November 14, 2007 @ 8:49 am
I have never drank coffee, but I am always meeting with business associates and friends “for a coffee” it has become such a cliche. It in fact means that you are meeting in an establishment that sells food and drink.
Comment by Deaco — November 14, 2007 @ 9:15 am
The Economist used to be like Morton’s. I’d classify it more like Sizzler now.
Comment by Sean — November 14, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Just make sure you don’t order a Cleveland Steamer instead of a vanilla steamer!
Comment by The Dude — November 14, 2007 @ 11:01 am
Just to be clear in case anyone is confused:
Mitt Romney does not drink coffee. He drinks caffeinated cola beverages.
Comment by California Condor — November 14, 2007 @ 11:02 am
Maybe he was buying it for someone else. On someone else’s dime. Practicing being president already, I guess.
Comment by tbird — November 14, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
A cultured friend of mine speed dialed the epicure deli on his street corner and, having just read the above thread, was inspired to include in his order a vanilla steamer. However, he got distracted and ended up saying, “Oh, and a Cleveland steamer to go.” My friend continued, “Put it in a bag. I’ll be down in 15 minutes and pick it up.”
Comment by truebluethru'n'thru — November 14, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
#57 Andrew H.
Oh my mistake. I was sure, from your description, that you were talking about the senator from Nevada. It seems to fit more closely. Are you sure you didn’t miss it by just one state?
Comment by Reno — November 14, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
#19 But Ray, well that was a bad example. What about the golden rule? I know people who follow the visible commandments to the letter, but treat other people like crap.
That’s more what I meant. I believe in and follow, to the best of my ability, the word of wisdom (I’m going to turkey burger and canola oil soon), don’t get me wrong.
But none of us is without sin. And so if we’re all sinners, why should we judge a person who might further along in treating others like themselves, but who drinks coffee?
Comment by annegb — November 15, 2007 @ 11:53 am
Cooking-sherry Gate
[In Hopkinton a little girl wants to know about the governor's Thanksgiving traditions and Romney's narrative references]
“…Ann’s ‘perfectly smooth’ sweet potatoes, which she prepares with lots of butter and a little cooking sherry. (With this detail, an aide rushes to the press corps to explain that the alcohol burns off in the cooking and is therefore not a violation of Mormon law.) Then they all retire to the couches for a post-feast nap.
“Perfect.”
–Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-perfect24nov24,1,556808.story?track=rss
Comment by Anonymous — November 24, 2007 @ 3:03 am
Wait just a darn second are you guys and gals telling me that coffee is against our religion…shoot I’ve been drinking that for years and nobody informed me about this new change..jk
Comment by foxjones — November 27, 2007 @ 12:15 am