Article VI Blog

An "In Your Face" to McCain? I think so, it seems pretty clear he is not the choice of the party insiders.

So, it looks like McCain will play dangerously close to the edge of dirty. But then, we knew that didn't we?

Kennedy likes Romney?!? At least for a Republican.

Pat Robertson's outfit continues to pay close attention to Romney, Friday confirming what the first item above would appear to indicate. Then reporting a Romney trip to Israel. If Robertson is covering him this closely and not ranting, it;s a heck of an "up" with Evangelicals.

The Christian Science Monitor does not think Romney's religion will be a big deal. Gee I wonder why?

Obama continues to step in it on religion. ROOKIE! Meanwhile, another pointless Dem takes a shot.

Reliable leftie Bill Press on The Question. Says, it's not an issue, but…. However, that is not his worst offense:

Several prominent evangelicals have said they could never vote for a Mormon.

Who? When? We sure don't know about it here. Wishful thinking on Bill's part, or a bit of mischeif making?

The view from Canada on The Question - sort of. There is some history about Romney's father which is interesting, but I can't tell what the guys point is. Seriously, I think he is trying to imply that religion is brainwashing, but he never draws the line, just sort of lays out the data, maybe because he knows that to actually say so would be an invitation to gross repudiation, even in Canada.

Damon Linker foil Richard Lyman Bushman gets his own piece on The New Republic, as opposed to an open correspondance with Linker. Bushman beats me to the punch on a point I am doing some reading up on to make - the amazing similarities between the current opposition to Romney on religious grounds, and the charges made against Reed Smoot on his qualifications to serve in the Senate in 1901-1905. Fertile territory that we will look at fully.

A Dallas Morning News piece on The Question. Two obvious flaws. One, Marvin Olasky is quoted out of context. The 'skepticism' to which he refers as quoted is the flip-flop allegations, and not religion related - I've seen Olasky on this elsewhere and can't find it…. Secondly, the extensive quoting of another guy on Brownback (who's official now). When reviewing the article propotionally, it seems obviously advocative. But more importantly, it's wishful thinking. No conservative will support Brownback given his current Iraq stance.

Speaking of Brownback, I love the way this blogger describes his announcement:

Brownback seemed to be running for a fictional national pastor's slot rather than the presidency.

Is Brownback taking a shot at Romney or just making a stupid mistake? I'm guessing a little of both.

Back to the DMN, another piece. Couple of comments. Dallas has, I think, the highest concentration of evangelical mega-churches in the nation. We're gonna hear a lot out of Dallas, thus two pieces this past weekend. This piece attempts to be even handed by looking at Ried and Romney together, but succeeds in explaining nothing, really. The headline is simply not addressed in the piece. The examination of Mormon thought is surface at best, and closing with Brigham Young who lead the Mormons out of America just doesn't make sense. What was the church thinking when they rejoined America is a far more pertinent question. Frankly, this is a piece I would expect out of a religious weekly, not a major metropolitan newspaper.

Lowell adds: Three members of Congress have signed on to the Romney campaign to serve at the Governor's "eyes and ears" on the Hill. One them happens to be– gasp!– a Mormon. Apparently he has already had to make assurances that he is not supporting Romney just because the two men are of the same faith. It will be interesting to see if we all get past the need to make such assurances as the campaign progresses.

This piece out of Los Angeles is fascinating. (NOTE: KTLA television is owned by Tribune broadcasting - as in "Chicago Tribune" - as in LA Times, just so you know your sources) It looks at the conservative credentials of the major Republican candidates and goes running off to the very religious Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, for comment, though it never mentions religion. An effort by the left to raise the specter that religion defines conservatism?

Just a comment: I note an increasing trend across the pro-not-Romney blogs not to mention him or to be simply dismissive thereof. All this while his campaign is gaining traction, especially with those that matter in the Repubican party. Are they trying to change the battlefront because everytime they enagage there they lose? Are they trying to somehow "de-buzz" Romney? I do think it's a sign that the man is a very good politician.

Sphere: Related Content

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