Article VI Blog

Mark Steyn looks at church-state issues as only he can. Note that one of his key points as to how the Bush administration is NOT a religious coup of some sort is the religious diversity present in it.

James Taranto "hates" identity politics. No mention of Mormons or Evangelicals, or even presidential politics in there, but there is a lesson on those matters I think.

Time asks "The Question." Not much new here save the bluntness with which the CJCLDS is divorcing itself from any campaign.

Some personal insight into the man. 'Bout time Dean spoke up. Lowell: I'm a
Romney supporter, so readers may want to take this with a grain or two of salt, but it's always interesting to me when people who have been close to a candidate still admire him. That seems to be uniformly true of those who have been close to Romney. "No man is a hero to his valet," it is said; but some men are, and when that happens I like to take note.

McCain and Giuliani still polling out front, but the gang at FOXNews sees things shifting a bit. Name recognition helps a lot this early in the game, but a lot more counts come election time.

Aligning with Reagan is an excellent idea, but is "becoming" him? Only Reagan could be Reagan.

Lowell: True. The fine line to walk is to learn from Reagan without trying to be him. I've been reading Team of Rivals, about Lincoln's political genius, and there is much to learn from him as well. I guess the secret is to see what principles of leadership and government worked for Reagan (or Lincoln) and emulate the principles, rather than the man himself.

A Reuters look at Romney and a run. What can I say? - it's Reuters. Lowell: The reporter managed to put together a piece containing absolutely nothing new. I guess if you can get someone to pay you for doing that, it's what my son would call a "good gig" . . . .

David Broder looks at Romney's Mass. term as governor. I like this piece as it is reasonably impartial, despite the headline, and no mention of religion at all.

This piece looks at '08 and casts a very broad net regarding the possibles. It does, however, have one thing absolutely right - this one counts more than some.

If the Jews, why not the Mormons?

Dobson appears to lighten up just a little:

KING: Then it would be — could you support a Mormon? Could you support Mitt Romney, who would agree with all five of those?

DOBSON: It is very early to make that judgment.

KING: Would it be…

(CROSSTALK)

DOBSON: I would have to look very carefully at Mitt Romney.

KING: Is there a detraction if he's a Mormon, I mean, in your mind?

DOBSON: I think there…

KING: Mormons are Christian.

DOBSON: I think there will be for many evangelicals, and so the question is: Could he get the nomination? I really don't know. And the question will be: Compared to what?

At least he leaves the door cracked this time instead of slamming it shut. (HT: EFM)

AP, via CNN on a Romney run. To their credit, they handle the "Mormon question" pretty well, which is treat it as a piece of political trivia. Interestingly, this piece does echo the new leftie meme on Romney - "Rich guy." We hear this all the time about Republicans, but I am wondering if combined with "Mormon" it might not be more effective than usual, at least with some sectors of the more ignorant and bigoted public?

Some analysis out of Seattle.

Looniness from the left. This time courtesy ~~PuffHo~~ Huffpo. Warren Jeffs deserves every ounce of venom this guy can muster. He even admits early in the post that there is no connnection between FLDS and CJCLDS, and yet he manages a shot at Romney, Bush, and even Reid. Amazing. Lowell: I tend to lose confidence in a political analyst who, when writing about a candidate, can't even get the candidate's name right . . . .

Speaking of leftie rants, this one, while incredibly critical of Bush and Romney, makes one heck of a point:

From the Evangelical Right point-of-view, a President Mitt Romney in 2008 would be, effectively, a third term for George Bush

So tell me again why Evangelicals are going to have a problem voting for Romney?

Joe Carter grants humor and hope for '08. Here's a hint:

The reason the right side of the blogosphere didn’t fret is because they knew Karl Rove's Ultimate Secret: The fastest way to destroy the Democratic Party is to put the Democrats in charge.

Truth hurts.

Queue up for yours now! Word has it some of your favorite bloggers have a mention or two.

Looking at one of the outsider possibilities - Huckabee. We try not to be personal on this blog and keep it newsy, but I have get a little personal with this guy. Every story on him mentions his weight loss - who cares? Why is it important to an election? Here's some insight into fatties - some lose weight quietly and it's a good thing, some rally a bunch of support somehow and the weight comes back on because after a while they no longer have the adulation and support. (Trust me I know about this, I have doubled his figure for weight loss in the last 3 years) That's a pretty lousy reason to run for President. (It's a pretty lousy reason to blog too, so if you ever hear from me about it again, slap me upside the head.)

Here's an opinion piece from the Dallas Morning News on Romney and "The Question" The only thing really new in the piece is the ancedotal framing of the story around a couple, husband being Evangelical and wife being Mormon. It's a bit inconclusive, but that is, I think, the point.

Lowell: A few additional observations:

1. I rarely pay much attention to Eleanor Clift, but couldn't help noticing her piece today writing off Romney's position on gay marriage as simple political opportunism. A classic MSM lefty with little insight into what so many Americans believe, Clift cannot see that the gay marriage issue touches on principles that resonate widely and involve much more than gay rights. Many religous voters– Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Mormon, Baptist– think matters involving our deepest, most cherished beliefs about society's most important institutions should almost never be decided by courts. That's a matter of deep principle, not opportunism; and it's probably the biggest piece of common ground in existence for that group of voters.

2. Andrew Sullivan writes of "The Mormon who might just go all the way." Andrew, who's very upset with anyone who does not agree with him 100% on gay rights issues, can't seem to get past religious issues:

Personally, I have no interest in someone’s private faith in his or her pursuit of public office. Romney, to my mind, should be judged on his public record. The trouble is: this is not what the religious right has come to expect in a leader. They look for a religious figure in a political leader, “one of them”.

I other words, "I wouldn't write about this on my own; they're making me do it." Well, at least he didn't use the word "Christianist" this time. Look for that word to become increasingly part of popular usage by the Left, with the complicity of the MSM, who love the specious idea that the Taliban and al-Qaeda are the results of excessive religiosity.

Update from Lowell: I hadn't seen this. I'm not sure what is more remarkable about Sullivan's work here– the outright silliness of obessing about someone's underwear, or the clear malice he displays toward Romney and Mormons generally. As you'll see below, Sullivan's post generated a lot of heat (not much light). That seems to have encouraged Sullivan to act like an angry adolescent who's delighted to have struck a nerve. He continues today with some more ridicule. (By the way, please don't accept the South Park clips as correct depictions of history or Mormon beliefs. That I even have to say that speaks volumes about where we've come to on this subject.)

Sullivan lamely attempts a defense of his behavior here, saying he "meant no offense." Really? The revealing money quote:

And none of this would be relevant at all, if the Republicans did not now base their politics on explicitly religious appeals. You wanna play by the rules of theoconservatism? Then deal with the consequences.

Any questions about Sullivan's motivations?

Note: This is the work of someone on the left. As I've said many times, they will be much more vile on the religion issue than any of the small but committed group of anti-Mormon Evangelicals will be. Watch for those folks to gleefully link to Sullivan's posts and offer more "information." If you check the trackback links on Sullivan's blog you'll see that has started already. Dean Barnett summarizes:

The fact that Andrew would casually engage in mocking a major American religion and its practitioners while perhaps not even realizing that he’s doing so gives us a good indication of where his head is these days. It’s becoming increasingly ironic that the great Orwell quote, “To see what is in front of one’s nose is a constant struggle,” sits atop Andrew’s blog. As he has surrendered his analytical skills to his passions and his rages, Andrew doubtlessly doesn’t understand how much he continues to humiliate himself.

John adds to Lowell's update: This is quite unbecoming for me to say this, and perhaps not appropriate to my professed faith, but Andrew Sullivan is just an ass. This is playing by the rules of "theoconservatism"? I don't think so — this is ridicule and unbecoming of anyone who wishes to be taken seriously in a pubic discussion on matters important and serious. In the last few days Sullivan has evidenced himself as more in the class of South Park, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report than as a serious commenter on serious matters. This is clearly Daily Kos territory. It is not coincidental that he is doing this on heels of Romney's actions regarding same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, and with all sympathy to the personal agony that may cause Sullivan, it's no excuse. Public action by politicians always cause someone personal agony on some level, yet we work to maintain civility.

Were he a blogger with less than Time behind him he would be quickly shuffled off to the hinterlands of the blogosphere. I am torn about whether he deserves response and refuation or is to be simply ignored. Sadly the sheer volume of his blog makes ignoring him almost impossible, even if his content warrants it.

Back to Lowell:

3. Law professor Ann Althouse goes off a bit on Sulivan's piece and dives into the Romney-religion issue in a big way. The entire piece– links, comments, and all– is well worth the read. (Warning: If you follow all the links, you'll see some very offensive anti-Mormon material.) Althouse herself comments:

The attack on Romney is different. This is an attempt to weaken him by saying he is a member of a particular group and laying out the reasons why people should feel revulsion toward that group. That is a terrible, terrible thing.

Sounds kind of like what we've been saying here.

Update 2: Prof. Althouse continues the discussion here. The comments are illustrative of the mindset of those who think making fun of sacred things is important political discourse.

Sphere: Related Content

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