Article VI Blog

I guess I have to relent on the “Tarbaby” thing. I really thought it had become a slam dunk racial epithet and that Romney had to have grown up in a cave somewhere not to know that - but too many people seem to have used it too recently.

WSJ on the Big Dig fiasco, but in the middle they make a presidential political comment:

Mr. Romney, one of the leading Republican presidential contenders, has arrived at a Rudy Giuliani-type moment that could elevate or ruin his political fortunes.

Isn’t there something just slightly biasing in using one of Romney’s potential primary opponents as an adjective?

Hotline links to a Bill Sammon piece wherein Sammon interviews Grover Norquist and Norquist asserts that Romney’s “Utah” upbringing might make it difficult slogging for him. As Hotline points out, Norquist is just dead wrong, Romney grew up in Michigan. The confusion undoubtedly arises because of Romney’s Mormon faith, which Norquist also discusses. So, the issue becomes, are Utah references “code” for prejudice against Mormons?

KLo on McCain, national security, and a possible McCain advantage because of his Vietnam experiences? Counter question: Would Romney’s status as not being a part of any of the big three religions give him an extra bit of credibility diplomatically with Islamic states? Would such states differentiate between a Mormon and a creedal Christian? Lowell: Probably not, because of Mormonism’s great respect for Judaism. Nevertheless, it may help that the LDS Church has published articles in Church-sponsored publications, like this one and this one, that clearly lend themselves to reaching out to Muslims.

My friend Andy Jackson kindly links to Lowell’s post from yesterday and offers Romney some good political advice if his presumptions about how dear Romney holds his faith are correct - I don’t know yet. But Andy also manages to sound like the CJCLDS is a sinister cabal of sleeper agents waiting to sieze an opportunity to pounce in the name of Mormonism.

In fact, I believe that the elaborate Mormon Church organization and heirarchy will take advantage of the Romney run as much as they can.

All I can say is if they do, they will run a serious risk of killing his candidacy, and potentially violating some campaign laws, so, I don’t think so. Now, once a possible Mormon presidency is concluded? Yeah, then it makes sense.

Lowell: (Updated Comments) In order to determine whether the CJCLDS will “take advantage of the Romney run,” it’s instructive to ask whether they have taken advantage of other Mormon politicians’ campaigns. I can’t think of any example of the Church ever having done that, at least in modern times. (I don’t know about non-modern times.) When Mitt Romney’s father, Michigan Governor George Romney, was a serious presidential candidate in 1968, the president of the LDS Church spoke favorably of the senior Romney’s candidacy, but did not do anything– to my mind, at least– that smacked of taking advantage of George Romney’s run. Here’s what happened, according to David O. McKay and The Rise of Modern Mormonism:

Romney . . . decided late in 1966 to seek the Republican nomination for U.S. President in the 1968 election. At this point, [Church President David O. McKay] . . . temporarily abandoned his public neutrality.

In November 1966, Dan L.Thrapp, a Los Angeles Times reporter, sent a written request for an interview with McKay, during which he asked McKay about Romney’s candidacy. His story quoted McKay’s unqualified endorsement: “If . . . George Romney . . . wins the Republican nomination for president, he will have the full backing of his church but will be his own man, David O. McKay, president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, told The Times. ‘I hope he gets it’ boomed Dr. McKay, 93. ‘He would make a good President. Very good! He is an independent thinker. He will go his own way– and that is usually a very good way.’”

Given the anxiety over the Vatican’s possible influence over John F. Kennedy (which never materialized) , the statement might easily have caused an uproar had it been made concerning Romney-as-nominee. But Romney was still only a candidate for the Republican nomination and never came close to winning it, and so McKay’s statement was soon forgotten.

Wow. What a difference 40 years makes! Such a statement of support is unimaginable now, given the Church’s steadfast neutrality in political matters since that time. In my (more modern) experience, the Church is now much more interested in being understood than in capitalizing on opportunities to burnish its image. I don’t know John’s friend Andy, but I hope he’ll cut us a little slack!
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post