Article VI Blog

In the latest Imprimis, Fred Barnes, talking about the MSM, says:

With regard to religion, Christianity in particularâ€”but also religious faith in generalâ€”is reflexively treated as something dangerous and pernicious by the mainstream media. Back in the early 1990s when I was still at The New Republic, I was invited to a dinner in Washington with Mario Cuomo. He was then governor of New York, and had invited several reporters to dinner because he was thinking about running for president. At one point that night he mentioned that he sent his children to Catholic schools in New York because he wanted them to be taught about a God-centered universe. This was in the context of expressing his whole-hearted support for public schools. But from the reaction, you would have thought he had said that one day a week he would bring out the snakes in his office and make policy decisions based on where they bit him. He was subsequently pummeled with stories about how improper it was for him, one, to send his kids to religious schools, and two, to talk about it. It was amazing. The most rigid form of secularism passes as the standard in mainstream journalism these days.

President Bush is similarly treated as someone who is obsessive about his religion. And what does he do? Well, he reads a devotional every day; he tries to get through the Bible, I think, once a year; and he prays. Now, I know many, many people who do this. Tens of millions of people do it. And yet the media treats Bush as some religious nut and pursues this story inaccurately. Again, it is clear that partisan bias is involved, too, because in fact, Bush talks publicly about his faith much less than other presidents have. There is a good book about Bush’s religion by Paul Kengor, who went back to every word President Clinton spoke and found out that Clinton quoted scripture and mentioned God and Jesus Christ more than President Bush has. You would never get that from the mainstream media.

Which begs the question - What’s the real source of “the Mormon question?”

Lowell: Barnes’ point hits home with anyone who takes his or her religion seriously and works in a “blue” environment. I am such a person, and live and work in West Los Angeles– one of the bluest places in the country. My colleagues and professional acquaintances treat me with respect, now that I am more established; but when I was younger, I was often treated as if I had two heads. (I still am by some people who don’t know me, but it’s more muted now.) That’s the way the secular left (excuse the redundancy) looks at religious people. John rightly suggests that the MSM is the source of “The Question,” but I’d take it a step farther– it’s the left generally, whose thinking dominates the MSM, who finds religious commitment scary because they don’t understand it.

I’d also add that the way one talks about religion is important. President Bush is characteristically blunt, unvarnished, and sincere as the day is long when he mentions his faith. That also drives the MSM nuts. Romney is more of a Yankee and will address faith with language reflecting his Anglo-Saxon Mormon reserve. So with him, the MSM will not be able to seize on what he says; they’ll try to focus on what he is. Analyzing the impact of that approach is a major goal of this blog.

On Romney’s political strategery. Smart or not? Time will tell - but I should remind everyone it’s way early, earlier than any previous presidential race to even be having this kind of discussion - we’re in unprecedented and uncharted territory here strategically.

Lowell: My guess is that the explanation for the early video is that Romney wants to define himself before he is defined by others — who are incessantly raising The Question.

This Hotline post absolutely dominated the Romney discussion yesterday. I’m with KLo, Ambinder is a overstating things a tad. [Lowell: More than a tad, I think.] This blog has consistently wondered whether Romney is really right and moderated to govern Mass., or whether his current rightward move is posturing for the sake of the national run - that, frankly is THE question concerning his candidacy, as opposed to the religious one. Meanwhile someone at RedState piles on.

Lowell: I’m going to go on a mini-rant here, so I apologize in advance. I will try to suppress my pro-Romney sentiments.

Concern over Romney’s ideological purity is vastly overblown, I think. Only a small slice of the GOP actually cares about such things anyway. Yes, they are the activists, and they vote; so their opinions matter disproportionately. In the primaries, the real question will be whether Romney can convince enough of such voters of his sincerity. In light of his interpersonal and communications skills, I’d say the odds are good that he can. In the general election, his views will sell very well in Middle America.

Meanwhile, I hope bloggers, pundits, and voters alike will keep their critical thinking skills handy and look hard at the motivations of those who attack Romney on ideological grounds. One recent attacker is a Gingrich operative, for example. Gary Glenn, the subject of the the Hotline post, is described as a type of very conservative gadfly with which we are all familiar: “[I]f Glenn is for you, he doesn’t help much. If he’s dead set against you, he can hurt you.”

So who is Gary Glenn? Is he really someone who should be driving voter thinking on these issues? This site gives a little insight into his agenda. Glenn also is the chairman of Campaign for Michigan Families, described as “a group allied with the religious right,” and the president of the American Family Association in Michigan. If you Google those organizations and Glenn himself, you’ll see that Glenn has a history of trying to defeat Republican candidates whom he considers insuficiently committed to a pro-family agenda. Same-sex marriage is one of the issues Glenn follows most closely, so his opposition to Romney seems counter-intuitive at best.

Let me be clear: I am not attacking Glenn; I’d never heard of him before today. Nor have I consulted any pro-Romney websites (or any pro-Romney sources at all) in response to the Glenn story. I’m just raising questions. Does Glenn have a favored candidate in the race? Is there any religious bigotry at work? What else is going on behind the scenes here? One of this blog’s purposes is to shed light on the facts behind the issues. I’m just suggesting that blogs like Hotline apply the same careful analysis to very conservative attackers that it applies to true believers on the left.

Meanwhile, here’s an interesting angle: McCain is trying to use Romney’s shift on abortion against him in Iowa. By taking Romney to task on that issue, will people like Glenn end up helping McCain?

John adds: One thing does baffle me about anybody coming out hard against Romney for being too moderate, or RINO, or whatever you want to call it - in comparision to the MSM declared frontrunners, McCain and Guliani, his conservative credentials are much stronger.

Technorati Tags: Fred Barnes, Mormon, evangelical, Mitt Romney, Campaign for Michigan Families, American Family Association in Michigan, John Glenn, John McCain,