Article VI Blog

On Monday, the WSJ noticed the importance of the new media (BLOGS!) on this election and on Tuesday Eugene Robinson at WaPo followed suit.  Both pieces suffer from Democratic focus.  As Hugh Hewitt noted in repsonse to the WSJ piece, Romney is playing well in that arena while other Republicans are slow.  Needless to say, we like blog influence on elections, but we have to beware the Dean-like net-burnout.  I'd also like to note, in response to Hugh's comments, that while we are indeed independent of the Romney campaign and we do like the man, we are very narrowly focused on this blog to a single aspect of the campaign.  Whatever we do on Romney's "behalf" is a by-product of our desire to help properly define the role of religion in politics, elections, and governance.  All that said, here is hoping for an effective role for blogs in this campaign.  More from WaPo on new media and campaigns.

This is too important to ignore, even if it is not in the normal scope of this blog:  Romney's plan for dealing with Iran.   Among the top three issues facing all candidates this cycle, unless Bush gets it resolved in the meantime.

This blog is evolving to combat two strains of religious prejudice.  One from the left (Weisberg and Linker) and one from the far right.  The left leaning variety tends to get lots of press and sound like a reasonable debate so we talk about them a lot.  But every now and then we need to remind ourselves about what comes from the far right.  At least the lefties are willing to sign their name; to fail to do so should disqualify one from serious consideration.

Lowell:  A quick look at the site confirms its less-than-serious-nature.  One almost– almost– is embarrassed for the anonymous author, who describes himself as "a former Mormon missionary for 15 years."  That statement alone exposes him as someone who doesn't know what he is talking about.

Evangelicalism may be tearing itself apart.  My theory seems to be born out by this piece.  As political power is ascribed to the label, the fight over the label will render it meaningless, or at least useless.  The rise of the religious right was never just about Evangelicals.  Only the press thought that, and they used the label pretty much in place of the older, disfavored "fundamentalist."  It is the fact that the religious right is much bigger than just evangelicalism that says Romney has a much stronger shot than people may think. 

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Ralph Kostant blogs with me at The Hedgehog Blog, where he is known as The Kosher Hedgehog.  He recently submitted this guest post to us, and we are pleased to share it with our readers.

Would I vote for a Mormon as President?  I see no reason why not.  I haven't hesitated to vote for other professed Christians for President.  Indeed, as far as I am aware, every Presidential candidate that I have voted for since I reached voting age has been a practicing Christian.

Perhaps that statement may seem jarring to a practicing "orthodox" Christian.  If so, please allow me to jar you some more.  Some Christians view Mormons askance because they believe that God is or at least once was a corporeal being.  Well, that is precisely the Jewish reservation about Christianity in general.  To a Torah-observant Jew, God is transcendent and has no material form or limitation.  The Nicene Creed, on the other hand, states that God, in the form of Jesus, was incarnate and "was made man."  To the Jewish ear, that belief sounds just as strange and fantastic as Mormon beliefs are to the orthodox Christian.  (Oh, and for those of you readers who want to acquaint me with "Messianic Judaism," please don't embarrass yourself.)  So, bottom line, I would vote for a Presidential candidate even if he or she entertains what I consider to be irrational religious beliefs, whether those beliefs are Mormon or other from some other version of Christianity.

Now that I have offended the religious sensibilities of both Lowell Brown and John Schroeder, let me go on to explain why it would surprise me if any American hesitates to vote for a Presidential candidate solely because that candidate is Mormon.  The answer is "St. David."  St. David is a town of about 1750 residents, in Cochise County, Arizona.  I first discovered St. David on a drive to Tombstone, Arizona, some 10 years ago.  It was a beautiful, almost impossibly picturesque small town, and the most prominent building was the ward of the Mormon community, to which I suspect the entire population of St. David belongs.  In those days, I was a law partner of Lowell, and after returning to work I told him that I had found the perfect community for him to live in when he retired.

St. David is about 16 miles north of Tombstone.  Tombstone, if you know your frontier history, was a silver mining boom town, built following the discovery of silver there in February 1878, by a prospector named Ed Schiefflien.  The previous December, when Schefflien told a trooper at Camp Huachuca, a U.S. Cavalry camp, that he planned to prospect for ore in the surrounding hills, the soldier told him that the area was controlled by hostile Apaches, and that "all you will find is your tombstone."  Schiefflien humorously named his first silver claim "The Tombstone."  Of course, Schiefflien's discovery started a silver rush, and when the town was founded in 1879, its residents adopted Schiefflien's claim name as the name of the town.

What does all this have to do with American presidential elections?  Well, while Tombstone was founded in 1879, St. David was settled 1877.  Mormon farmers started a town in the middle of Apache territory before Ed Schiefflien ever ventured out of Camp Huachuca.  While Tombstone flourished as a Western mining boom town, filling our frontier lore with the tales of Wyatt Earp, the Gunfight at the OK Corral, the Bird Cage Theater and Boot Hill, some 16 miles away Mormon farming families went about their quiet lives, without the bars and brothels of their notorious neighboring community.

Just as Tombstone is part of American history, so is St. David.  St. David itself is just one page from the rich history of the contribution of Mormon pioneers to the development of the American West.    The Mormons have been part of the American scene for over 175 years.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints began in America.  Love the Church or hate it, one cannot deny its essential Americanness.  Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen of the United States.  The Mormon Church is a natural born religion of the United States.  It would be indeed be ironic if American voters were to conclude that an adherent of this most American of religions should not hold the nation's highest office.                

Posted in Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Queer bedfellows - only politically, but you have to admit, Andrew Sullivan linking to Brian Camenker is Twilight Zone stuff.

Voice of America surveys the field – so much coverage of Dems, so little of Republicans.  Is that right for a government-funded radio outlet?

Is this part of the continuing marginalization of James Dobson, OR John McCain starting to lose the primary?  Some of each – for Dobson to retain the impact he has had, he has to move a bit towards the center, and McCain needs the religious vote just as much as any other Republican.

Over at the Commentary magazine blog, a post on the re-emergence of anti-semitism.  Some interesting parallels in that discussion and the one of this blog.  Could it be that increasing political influence by religion is causing a rise in religious bigotry of all types?  There is something sad in that possibility.  The response to political action should be contrary political action, if contrary action is even called for, not bigotry.  Bigotry is an expression or a raw lust for power, not to goals of political action.

Lowell:  I really do not intend this as a partisan comment, but I must say that it's fascinating to me that the resurgence of anti-Semitism seems to be coming from the Left.  (Pat Buchanan being the obvious exception on the hard-core Right.) It all seems to be part of the Left's hostility toward any religion that believes in more than social action as an expression of belief.

Somewhat relatedly, Dennis Prager concludes it is not acceptable to judge religions, only religious practitioners.  Most religion-based objections to Romney have little or nothing to do with the man and almost everything to do with Mormonism, and that is only sometimes properly perceived.  But that, in terms of this blog, is secondary.  The point is, get to know Romney before you decide. 

Pentecostals and political action.  Positive conservative action as outlined, well, except for the social program stuff.  However, given the similarities with Mormonism why would Pentecostal action be welcomed and Mormon would not be?

USAToday op/ed – Romney's religion a non-factor, at least ideally.

Late update from Lowell:  Some political news: Dennis Hastert plans to endorse Romney.  It appears that this is no surprise, given Hastert's feelings about John McCain.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

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.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Hillary is "in."  Two brief comments.  This makes this a one issue election – Who can beat her?  She cannot be allowed to have this office.  She is making noises on the side of those that Hewitt has called "retreatists."  Can't afford to argue silliness like creedal/non-creedal theology when this much is at stake.

Which is why she will play as nasty or nastier than McCain on The Question.

If this goes well, Lowell and I should rapidly run out of things to talk about, at least on the Republican side, but somehow I think the other side of the aisle will give us more material than we can handle.

Remember, one question – WHO CAN BEAT HER?

Lowell:  I will once again pull out my crystal ball:  The religious attacks coming from Hillary Clinton's campaign will be both ugly and cunning.  She will follow the Ted Kennedy 1994 playbook and find a way to preserve deniability for herself and her campaign.  She may, in true Clintonian fashion, even find a way to position herself as appalled– appalled! — by the use of Romney's religion against him, but not until she feels sufficient damage has been done.

Look for her to use these issues:  racism (based on the LDS Church's policy on African-American men and the church's lay priesthood, which was abolished 30 years ago); the status of women in the church (our lay priesthood is male only), and, to a certain extent, polygamy. (They won't use polygamy 1/10  as much as the other two, but somehow, some way, the Clintonistas will find a way make use of it.)

In answer to John's "who can beat her?" question, I'll say that what intrigues me most about that is the prospect of head-to-head debates between Clinton and Romney.  Bottom line:  She does not have a likeable persona, and Romney is the walking, talking definition of likeable.  John McCain, in contrast, is not all that warm and fuzzy, and along with a very acerbic side, has a famously bad temper.  How will that play out?  I have a hunch, but time will tell.

Posted in Electability, Issues, Political Strategy | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

USNews says "Romney Is On The Fast Track".  Isn't that pretty much headlining the obvious?

John Mark Reynolds tackles Heather MacDonald.  She of conservative atheist fame.

Rosanne Barr (Arnold?…whatever she is going by now), that washed up former sitcom star, has something that vaguely passes as a completely uninformed opinion on The Question.  But then what do you expect from the woman responsible for this?  Certainly not depth of understanding about our nation and its traditions.  There is an old adage that applies here: "When arguing with a fool, make sure he (she) is not similarly occupied." 

From a small local Southern California paper.  Sacrastic and biting - even by my standards. Perhaps not even really politically smart pointing out theological differences instead of emphasizing common values.  Nonetheless the guy has a point.

A very funny Clinton joke.  I can't resist them, there's even a religious angle on this one.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post