Article VI Blog

K-Lo comments on Brownback in Massachusetts, with lots of interesting detail about Romney's record on issues important to religious conservatives. Note the comments of David French, one of the proprietors of Evangelicals for Mitt. John comments: Brownback seems to be positioning himself as the Republican in favor of defeat in Iraq. Very much in opposition to Romney. This serves primarily to reduce my interest in Brownback to almost nil unless he manages to find his way onto the map as a top tier candidate. Forgive me for getting far more political than usual for this blog, but some things….

Romney, the new media candidate. Romney's campaign seems very comfortable with, and quick to use, the internet. (I wonder if this has anything to do with the relative youth of some of his top campaign people, like 28 year-old Spencer Zwick?) Here, in quick succession, is today's new media-Romney story:

1. This YouTube video, entitled, "The Real Romney?" is a clip from a Romney-Ted Kennedy debate in the 1994 Senate campaign. The video shows on tape the statements Romney's already been quoted on– his more moderate 1994 positions on abortion, gays in the Boy Scouts, Reagan-Bush, affirmative action, and takes one cheap shot at an answer that made Romney seem self-congratulatory.

2. Romney appeared right away, January 10, in, of all things, a podcast interview on InstaPundit, with Glenn and Helen Reynolds. You've got to give the man credit; he fights his detractors' use of the YouTube phenomenon with his own use of the most widely-read conservative/libertarian blog. Listen to the podcast; it's 34 minutes long. John comments: I am most impressed by his willingness to admit to change and growth, and the implication that he can be wrong. Real leadership owns its mistakes and builds from them. There is a heck of a contrast between Romney and the other two on that account.

3 . Apparently not content with the longer-form information transfer of a podcast, Romney put up the same evening his own YouTube video, which is nothing more than video of Romney himself while on the phone to Glenn and Helen Reynolds, refuting the first video. (Thank you, Power Line.) Watch it and judge for yourself. One might conclude that this very well-spoken, telegenic candidate was made for "Viral video" technology.

If the religion issue becomes prominent in parts of the campaign (think South Carolina), we may well see this kind of instant response. It's totally unfiltered, which must drive the MSM crazy. John comments: It shows an amazing amount of finesse, which at least one person at RCP seems to think is what is needed. And yet, she cannot resist the Mormon shot. I am growing increasingly irritated at the standard picture of Evangelicals as drooling simpletons that cannot distinguish much and are apparently too dumb to live in Massachusetts.

Hugh Hewitt, a keen observer of politics and the blogosphere, comments:

Romney's push-back at the YouTubing of his '94 debate with Ted Kennedy –happening in rapid response fashion– means an entire news cycle on a somewhat significant story has played out before even one newspaper reported it, with the anti-Romney forces (clearly worried about the big $ Monday and the DeMint Tuesday) trying to put a stick in the spokes, and Romney's team finding a way to knock it down in the same cycle.

One more thought on this: John has wondered to me whether Mitch Davis of OurSharedValues.org, whom we interviewed a while back, will be using his cinematographic skills to create viral videos refuting the type of video attacks that surely will be coming Romney's way.

John continues with the list:

While we are doing strict politics, consider this piece from The Hill on Romney and McCain's efforts to win over Congressional Republicans. Most notable about the piece is the total absence of any mention of Giuliani, renewing my thought that Rudy is not serious about the effort.

From a blog operated by the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School:

Those who raise concerns like Linker's have an obligation, it seems fair to say, to take particular care to get the facts right about the religious traditions and teachings they address, and not to go after cartoonish straw-men.

I am sure that, in many quarters, conversations about Romney's religion (or, to go back a few months, then-Judge Roberts's Catholicism) are distorted by inaccurate understandings of Mormonism, or plain prejudice. This is unfortunate. That said, it strikes me that the response of religious believers to questions like Linkers' should not be to insist that religious beliefs are "private," and therefore irrelevant to public life.

Agreed, but it does seem to me incumbent on those in the conversation to draw the line from religious belief to political and governmental consequence or else those beliefs are indeed a private matter.

A North Carolina columnist looks at The Question and shares a story of an ugly, ugly episode of religious identity politics in Arizona. Lowell: Just to add a little context, the Arizona episode involved Evan Mecham, who became governor and was a very, very conservative Republican in the Pat Buchanan mold. I daresay he was embarrassing to the majority of Mormons, even Mormon Republicans. The religious attacks he suffered were disgusting, but he was a very controversial public figure to begin with. Any analogy to Romney is flawed at best.

Katie Couric considers The Question. God help us all, this is one of the "Big Three" anchors and she quotes old, out-of-date polling numbers and has all the depth of the Reflecting Pool on The Mall in D.C. Without the teleprompter, she appears to be pointless.

Sphere: Related Content

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