Archive for September, 2006

September 26th 2006

Today’s Reading List - September 26, 2006

The Romney team grows.  I continue to be impressed with how Romney does politics.  The man is more organized than any I have ever seen at this early stage of the game.

Since we are a religion and politics blog we have gotten a bit of mail chastising us for not discussing Allen and the attacks made on him concerning his Jewish heritage.  We did link to it at the time, but that story seems to be disappearing from the news as Allen's chances at the GOP nomination are fading.  The big news with Allen at the moment seems to be the racism charge - Hotline - Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt and Powerline, who calls it "The Macaca Offensive."  Given how this stuff keeps creeping up, there is little question in my mind that Allen is undergoing a serious and ugly offensive from some source, but he is so inept at handling it, that he is making himself a non-story.  LowellBesides, Article 6 is about imposing a religous test for public office.  Last time I checked, pundits are not raising the question of whether large blocs of voters will vote against Allen because of his Jewish heritage.  Update:  See post immediately above.  It's gotten dirty in Virginia. 

Joe Carter has some interesting thoughts on last weekends FRC confab.  Best quote:

In a classical statement of ecumenicity, St. Augustine once said, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, love." Those of us on the religious right should adopt a similar principle and clearly define the boundaries between what is essential and what is non-essential in matters of policy and politics.

An interesting look at George Romney's tenure at HUD and lessons for his son therefrom.


Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

September 25th 2006

Today’s Reading List - September 25, 2006

Hotline reviews Romney at FRC meeting.  The Washington Times offers its own review.  Among the other speakers at this thing are those that might represent Romney's Evangelical opposition.  Wish I was backstage, tiny and able to listen closely.

Lowell:  Here's John Fund's take today on Romney's emergence as the conservative alternative to McCain.  It's refreshing that Fund's piece mentions Romney's religion only briefly.

Is a "divorce" between Evangelicals and the GOP looming?  Gimme a break - like Evangelicals can turn to the Democrats?!  Looks like Donald Wildmon agrees with me on this one.  Anyway, does a little friction create an opening for Romney?

Cheat-Seeking Missles breaks down why McCain lost in the deal over interrogation.  Speaking of which, the MSM lefties and their disciples keep reporting that Romney is simply positioning himself as the "anti-McCain" by moving right and playing hardball, compared to McCain's mediative ways.  I have always found this kind of political reporting fascinating - it reduces a genuine stance to a mere political opportunity, thus attacking the holder of the view while merely reporting.  It's important to remember that political consequences are but one of many factors in a leader's decisions, and often the last one considered.

If Catholics and Protestants can find common ground, surely Mormons and Evangelicals can.

Apparently Karl Rove is given aid and comfort to the gubenatorial campaign of Ernest Istook in Oklahoma.  Istook is Mormon.  Clearly this Evangelical and this Mormon are finding some common ground.  Lowell:  I have heard that Rove's a Mormon too, but I can't confirm that, and if he is one, I don't think he's darkened the door of a Mormon chapel for a long, long time.

Apparently, Romney is Bill O'Reilly's guy for the moment.

Christianity and the development of British society and culture.  Good stuff, one more indicator of the importance of religion and how it extends beyond just theology - which is why Evangelicals and Mormons should find common ground.

Is the Pope saying anything about Mormons here?  Will Mormons riot because he might have? Sealed

This may be the worst idea in the history of bad ideas - circumventing the electoral college and the constitution.  First courts legislate, now state legislatures amend the constitution.  So much for the separation of powers.

We've said Romney's open opposition on the religious question is likely to be from the left, not the right - Evidence?

Gingrich's name keeps popping up.  I have to think Newt's smart enough to know he doesn't stand a chance.  Would Romney be smart to bring him aboard as a "policy advisor?"  Lowell:  Like many Republicans I hope Newt doesn't run, but I hope the leading candidates are listening to him.  I especially hope Romney is listening.

Some Dems are upset with Hillary's reported choice in campaign managers.  Meanwhile Jerry Falwell says a run by her would energize the conservative GOP base more than anything ever (Powerline appears to agree) - and the left counterattacks because he used the devil metaphorically in making the statement.  More evidence that the religious question will be most openly fought with the left?  (Or so it appeared until we found out about this)


Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

September 24th 2006

The Gloves Come Off In South Carolina - And The Low Blow Comes from McCain’s Camp

If you think it is too early to see Romney's political opponents using his religion against him, it looks like you should think again.  In South Carolina, a Republican Party functionary who is also an evangelical attempted to confront Romney publicly about Mormonism.  She has drawn news media attention as a result. 

Guess what?  She's been a high-profile McCain adviser.  For years.

The "Confrontation"

An article today by Lee Bandy in The State tells the first part of the story:

The quarterly meeting of the S.C. Republican executive committee Sept. 16 ended on a sour note when one of its more prominent members cornered Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and grilled him about his Mormon faith.

 

It was not a pretty sight, according to witnesses.

 

Romney, a possible Republican candidate for president in 2008, was in town to address the state executive committee.

 

Cyndi Mosteller, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party, one of the largest GOP organizations in the state, came armed with a bunch of material — and questions — about the Mormon church. . . .

 

Mosteller, an evangelical, said she especially was concerned about the church’s attitude toward African-Americans and its stand on polygamy. . . .

 

Mosteller said the issues of race and marriage concern her. She fears they could become campaign issues and hurt Republican chances.

 

Afterward, Mosteller said the governor did not answer any of her questions. She described the meeting as “very tense.”  [Emphasis mine.]

If you're like me your antennae rose when you saw Ms. Mosteller's issue concerns.  African-Americans and polygamy?  Are those really the issues that worry evangelicals?  I thought it was fears about Mormonism being a cult and not truly Christian that motivated evangelical skepticism about Romney.

Notably, the article reports considerable revulsion and denunciation among other South Carolina GOP leaders:

Cindi Costa, a conservative Christian from Charleston and member of the Republican National Committee, waited outside the room. She earlier pleaded with Mosteller not to confront Romney.

 

“This makes me sick,” Costa said. “Your personal faith is not game in politics. It’s a private matter.”

 Who Is Cyndi Mosteller?

A Google search of Ms. Mosteller's name produces numerous hits that make it clear that she is a high-profile conservative political activist who has been a McCain operative in the past, and probably is one now.  Here's a profile that appeared in February 2002, among many other profiles of leaders in McCain's 2000 organization: 

Cyndi Mosteller: Conservative issues adviser. Mosteller is advising McCain on "family/cultural/right to life issues." She is the president of Trident County (S.C.) Citizens for Life. To her knowledge, she is the only one advising McCain on "Christian issues." She had met McCain several times when he came to South Carolina, spoke with him there, and their paths crossed at various GOP functions.

 

The campaign approached her to advise, and she began doing so this past summer. Mosteller began meeting frequently with McCain in South Carolina in late winter 1999, a few months before the start of the Republican primaries. When she meets with the senator, John Weaver, Rick Davis and Trey Walker often accompany him, and she also speaks with John Raidt. She says she likes that the meetings are only about her issues and are not mixed in with other advisers’ topics.

 

Mosteller has advised former South Carolina Gov. David Beasley, as well as presidential contender Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) in 1996. She chairs the South Carolina GOP platform committee, and has done so since 1996. She told the Center she has appeared on television's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher several times over the last two years. 

Ms. Mosteller (photo here) has also identified herself on a radio program as McCain's "National Policy Advisor for Family & Cultural Issues," a position she apparently held in 2000.  She is described here as "a Baptist [who] has a master's degree from Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Mo."  Update:  South Carolinians for Romney has produced still more information about Cyndi Mosteller.  If you're interested in Romney's efforts in South Carolina, that looks like a good blog to visit.

 What Does This Mean?

Probably many things, including:

  1. The gloves are coming off early.  If you think a political operative like Mosteller, who was tied into McCain's 2000 campaign, is attacking Romney in this way without McCain's approval, I think you are sadly mistaken.
  2. This tactic is not new, and we will probably see it again– during the GOP primaries and, if Romney is nominated, in the general election.  As K-Lo has noted, "it was Ted Kennedy himself who, when Romney challenged him for his Senate seat in 1994, tried using Romney's Mormonism against him."
  3. Evangelicals will need to be careful about being used by McCain and other Romney opponents in the upcoming primaries.  Mosteller made a frontal assault on Romney's Mormonism and pretended to do that as an evangelical, yet her "religious" assault does not appear to be genuine at all.  She's simply trying to kick up dust about Romney's religion by raising two hot-button issues.  Neither issue is religious in nature, but the demagogic possibilities are boundless:  Just play on the candidate's relatively obscure religious beliefs and see if you can spook enough voters into supporting you instead.

We will be following this. I know John will have some lively thoughts to add.

John adds:  First of all, I wish I could give a big "Amen" to Lowell's contention that Evangelicals are not concerned about polygamy and racism among Mormons, but alas, I have people talk to me about it too much.  While neither charge can be leveled at the CJCLDS  there are enough splinter groups practicing polygamy and enough Evangelicals poorly enough read not to make the distinction to avoid having to deal with this charge.  Racism also continues to be evidenced by individual Mormons, though it is no longer the practice of the church - I have personally seen it.

Having said that; however, in general, this is no different than Evangelicals being attacked for things that happened during the Crusades, or the Civil Rights Movements of the 60's - it's not a legitimate attack.  This is ugly and this is despicable.

At the same time, it is shrewd politics.  In one stroke this McCain operative has managed to paint Romney in a bad light, and Evangelicals.  Let me repeat that - this is bad news for Evangelicals too.  This paints us as backward looking, bigoted, pushy, rude, and bascially red-necked.

McCain's weakness in the primaries, and the general election for that matter, is his lack of appeal to the so-called "values voters."  It is no accident this was done right on the heels of Romney's appearance at the Family Research Council's Washington Summit this past weekend.  We have have an interview in transcription/editing with John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics right now (look for it next week).  In it, McIntyre opines that McCain, with a united GOP behind him, is unstoppable.  To achieve a united GOP, McCain has to appeal to the values voters (not gonna happen) or he has to marginalize them - which incidents like this one can do.

This, frankly, is my primary motivation for starting this blog.  The religion question as it relates to Romney, when it comes from Evangelicals, reflects badly on Evangelicals.  We are not the close-minded, bigoted rubes so many would paint us.

To date, this is local news - it's in the local section of a local paper.  If it stays that way, to respond would be to expend the ammunition to early in the fight.  But it is a harbinger of things to come.  I think Romney needs to develop the tools to deal with this, and he needs to do so publicly.  Because he dealt with this woman in private and has not commented, she is controlling the news cycle.  It is lucky this paper chose to look at all sides of the issue - I doubt Romney will be so lucky with the MSM.

Romney needs to have answers to this in his arsenal and ready whenever the shots are fired.  This looked a little too stage managed to me.  Romney needs to be entirely comfortable with his faith and answering questions about it.  Properly prepared, this woman could have done what she did publicly and Romney could have made her look the fool.  He also needs to have a few prominent Evangelicals in the wings, not merely to denounce the attack, but also to show his interest in preserving the Evangelical's reputation and well as the Mormons.

I was coming to believe that the religion attack was going to be all in the whispers - Now it appears I was wrong.  I was concentrating too hard on Evangelicals leveling the charge and noting they were smart enough not to want to get smeared in the leveling.  I neglected the fact that others might make it in the Evangelical name and "kill two birds with one stone" as it were.

This is not hardball, this is dirty politics.

UPDATES: 

1.  More about this incident here, at South Carolinians for Romney. Thanks to e-mailer Andru B. for the link.  Andru provides a correction and some additional links and background:

Cyndi Mosteller actually confronted Gov. Romney a week before the story was written so it didn't actually occur "right on the heels of Romney's appearance at the Family Research Council's Washington Summit this past weekend".  We've been covering it since it first appeared in the Contra Costa Times last week.  The State Newspaper is a fairly left-leaning however so their timing may be intentional to offset Romney's positive press at the FRC summit.

2.  Called As Seen suggests a Romney reponse.  And has comments about dirty tricks in the age of Google.

3.  Dean Barnett links to us (thanks, Dean), and expresses an arch but agnostic view about whether there's a connection here to McCain.  McCain can settle that quickly by repudiating Mosteller's efforts and her related statements.

4.  Evangelicals for Mitt says the problem is worse than it looks:

I talked to some of our own sources in South Carolina, and they confirmed this story. Mosteller not only worked with McCain in 2000, she is allied with him now. Here's where the story gets even worse. Mosteller's attack is actually consistent with what other McCain people have been telling prominent South Carolina evangelicals. Over the past couple months, we at EFM have engaged in multiple conversations with South Carolina evangelicals, and most of the people we've talked to have mentioned "McCain folks" who've told them that Mormons "have problems with race and marriage."

5.  Wizbang has more.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,


Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

September 21st 2006

Today’s Reading List - September 22, 2006

Religion and the interrogation issue.  Lowell, there's a question for you in there.

Lowell:  Here's the question:

The big question for me involves how Mormons view the torture issue theologically. As far as I can tell, their leaders do not address the issue directly and it’s unclear that Romney would be willing to allow his religious beliefs to affect his politics. It is not a situation where Romney could be refused the church’s blessing, as was attempted with John Kerry and other Catholic Democrats for their position on abortion, but I could be wrong. Are there any Mormon readers out there who have more information?

I am quite sure the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position on the issue of torture and Islamic jihadist detainees. It would be very unusual for them to do so, for the reasons discussed earlier in this blog.  In terms of how Mormon doctrine might be interpreted by church members as it relates to the issue, I think most Mormons would be very uncomfortable with true torture.  What they consider "true torture," however, would vary according to their political views.  I am sure there are Mormons who support the Administration position wholeheartedly (probably most do), and there are doubtless others who disagree vehemently.  For example, this blog, operated by liberal Mormons who seem to consider themselves not only intellectuals, but also wiser than most Mormons, reflects pretty standard left-liberal views on the subject and includes a heated discussion in the comments section.  Also, the comments to the post above may be interesting to those who wish to explore the issue further. 

On another subject, here's a video like the ones we might see as the 2008 election nears, if Romney is a candidate.  This one is not offensive, however, and really pretty funny, if you ask me.

Hotline seems to think McCain is the big winner in the interrogation "deal"  I'm not so sure, I think Bush may simply have given him the opportunity not to go completely down in flames.  Nonetheless, the same source points out the Romney was doing some real work instead of just posturing.

Lowell:  Meanwhile, a reader pointed us to a post by Jay Nordlinger in National Review Online, containing the following:

An interesting, even touching, letter about the father of the governor of Massachusetts, the late governor of my home state:

Dear Jay,

You mentioned Mitt Romney’s dad, the late Gov. George Romney of Michigan. I wanted to mention something you may find interesting. My late mother was, for most of her adult life, both a resident of the great state of Michigan and a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but she thought George Romney was the greatest. To the best of my knowledge, he was the only Republican she ever voted for, and she often expressed regret that he had never become president.

My mother was not only a Democrat by political inclination; she belonged to nearly every demographic identified with the Democrats, being (a) Jewish, (b) Irish, (c) an immigrant, (d) a graduate of Boston University, and (e) (after my dad died) a single parent with two small children.

And yet she swore by George Romney, a Republican.

If Governor Mitt has inherited even some of his father’s cross-party political appeal, he should be a formidable candidate for president in 2008.

Isn’t that a beautiful letter? (It came from Jerusalem, incidentally.)


Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

September 21st 2006

Today’s Reading List - September 21, 2006

Hotline quotes Romney from his O'Reilly appearance 9/19.  The Weekly Standard takes another brief look at that appearance.

Proof Mormons come in all political stripes.

Andrew Sullivan is so angry at people of faith that he makes no sense.  In two sentences he declares Romney the favorite presumed candidate of people of faith and yet says his stance on interrogations is motiviated by a need to attract Christian voters.  Huh?

According to Howard Fineman all Republican potential candidates are defined by not being McCain.  That makes little sense to me.  This Republican likes to vote for somebody, not against somebody else and I think most Republicans are the same way.

Analysis of the MA primaries and their results on Romney '08, courtesy KLo.

Faith cannot be defined in the political arena and stuff like this will not help faith and it will make politics very ugly.  Lowell:  Agreed.  The prospect of candidates right and left trying to "out-religion" each other is unappealing, to say the least.  Both politics and faith suffer when that happens.


Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

September 20th 2006

Today’s Reading List - September 20, 2006

Yesterday we linked on the IRS watchdogging churches.  Looks like Barry Lynn (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) is driving them in that direction.  The question is how do we drive them back approprately?

Like I said, liberals and religion do not mix well.  (HT: Kruse Kronicle)  There is a huge difference between political action out of one's religious convictions (conservatives) and trying to harness religion to political objectives (liberals).

Lowell:  This is an interesting snippet from the piece:

Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

One could do a lot with that one.  I've always enjoyed the liberal-leftist view that because they are the ones who think clearly and rationally, they really ought to be the ones who are "out front" in the war against extreme ideologies.  Yeah, like they were back in the 1930's when they  recognized the evils of Stalinism and Fascism. No, wait, maybe it wasn't the left who did that . . . .  The real howler is the fascinating notion that Christian belief in Biblical prophecy "is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies."  Oh, please.  The ridiculous notion of moral equivalency between politically conservative Christians and the Taliban is getting sooo tired now.

McIntyre cannot make sense of McCain.  Not surprising, no one can.  Could we be down to Romney v Guliani already?

This is just funny - it's a Kos post by a guy that claims to understand how conservative Republicans think.  Somehow he makes a connection between fundamentalist Christian support and the president's stance on interrogation, based on a single piece that interviewed fundamentalist leaders about it, as if they are the only ones that support the president on this,  and then switches issues completely to Romney and abortion and concludes fundamentalists can't possibly support him?  Most convoluted thing I have ever read.  What he fails to understand is even fundamentalists believe in redemption - something often lacking in Kos land.

Lowell:  In a departure from my usual routine, I actually visited the Daily Kos site and checked a few of the comments to the post John links to.  Here's one:

Do you think the fundies are going to tolerate [Romney's success]?  Maybe a little history lesson from Illinios [sic] about 150 years ago.  Brigham Young moved his people west because the fundies of the time could not put up with the Mormons.  There are lots of single issue people in the Rethug party, but I'd bet a few more issues will come along.  These fundie rethugs are basically bigots.  Utah would vote for him, maybe New York and a few other desert states, but I can't see Mitt as a winning combination.

This is interesting on several levels.  First, the commenter exposes some historical ignorance.  The Mormon exodus from Illinois had almost nothing to do with fundamentalist Christians.  It was more about politics and general religious bigotry from largely un-churched people.  The mob that murdered Joseph Smith, for example, was a bunch of thugs, really.  There's no evidence they were religious at all.  Then, ironically, the commenter engages in bigotry himself while accusing "the fundie rethugs" of being bigots, assuring everyone that fundamentalists won't vote for Romney.  I wonder if this guy even knows a single fundamentalist?  Ah, the clear thinking of the Kos crowd!

Relatedly, Lowry at The Corner think Romney has had a good few months, which he has, but the remark causes KLo to respond with the "tart" McCain quote.  I do so love when we are a day ahead of the bigs.  Lowell:  And I must admit that I love it when McCain's churlish side comes out.


Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

« Prev - Next »

WELL DONE GOVERNOR ROMNEY


Thank you for an incredible journey!