Of all places, the LATimes had an interesting op-ed on Romney.  It looks at the anti-semitic charges in the wake of the announcement at the Ford Museum:

The council's shot at Romney also feeds — consciously or not — a more generalized U.S. fear that there is something weird or sinister about the Massachusetts governor's Mormon religion.

You know bigotry is an interesting thing - it turns the common sinister.  This is why it is so important to combat anti-Mormon bigotry.  It's not pro-Romney, it's just a matter of leveling the playing field.  As long as The Question is a lens through which seemingly everything Romney does is viewed, bigotry in some form will be at play.

But I do know something about Mormon government. I lived in Michigan for six years under the rule of Gov. George Romney, and I can attest that the wackiest thing about him was his belief that three holes of golf played with three balls is equivalent to a nine-hole outing. And, based on reports I have heard from Massachusetts, I doubt very much that Mitt Romney believes anything crazier.

 

It is possible, maybe likely, that Romney would make a lousy president. His opponents need to make that case, however, without relying on spurious charges of bigotry by association or ugly whispers about his religious affiliation. That sort of thing was supposed to have been settled by the election of John F. Kennedy back in 1960 — 13 years after the death of Henry Ford.

With the exception of that "maybe likely" crack, it is just good to read something like that.  It is exceptional from a noted left-wing outlet like the LATimes, who generally shuns opposing views in their editorial pages.  There is a lot more at stake here than who is the next Republican nominee and possibly president.  No, what's at stake is the very core of what it means to be American.  If this kind of stuff is how we will do elections from this point forward, we will no longer be the nation the Founders intended us to be and we will definitively be on the slope to our own self-destruction. 

Not unlike war, this is something left and right, Republican and Democrat should share.

Lowell's Jewish blogging partner at his other blog (talk about a religiously pluralistic guy) looks at the anti-semitic charge and the same LAT piece.

This is fascinating to me.  It's coverage of the announcement from the People's Daily - China, yes communist China.  The headline features Romney's religion, even if the story does not.  Now, I have traveled and worked in communist China, and they barely, just barely know Christianity, and the ability to distinguish between denominations. let alone a divide like the creedal/heterodox one would completely escape them.  I'm guessing the headline is written by an American headline writer, since it is the English-language version of the paper, with an axe to grind.

Howard Kurtz looks at "The Preacher Primary," meaning the upcoming meeting of the National Religious Broadcasters.  There is some interesting political analysis there, but I think Kurtz reveals an ignorance about Evangelicals.  He focuses on what he calls "The Three Kingmakers" - Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson.  The evangelical movement is MUCH larger than the constituencies of these three, much.  I would argue that Rick Warren swings a bigger axe than either Robertson or Falwell, both of whom are seriously on the wane.  Warren does not have the television they do, but he doesn't need it.  Dobson is also on the wane, though higher up the slope than the other two.

All three remain important, but their days of "king-making" are well behind them.  At its core, Evangelicalism is about individualism and as the movement proceeds this becomes increasingly apparent.  The days of lining up lockstep behind guys like this are probably behind it.  The NRB meeting is important, but I think Kurtz is giving it an importance it simply does not have.

Powerline reflects on their Romney interview - Part I and Part II.

David Brody reports on Ann Romney's "testimony" and sounds like there absolutely, unquestionably will be a JFK like speech.  I'm not sure about that speech thing.  Here's why.  The left hates religion period, nothing said on the subject will satisfy them.  The unreasonable right is going to assume that anything Romney says is a lie, mostly because they made up their mind that nothing a Mormon says is worth listening to a long time ago.  The center-right, the audience Romney needs to reach, likely already thinks he views his religion as JFK did, or they don't care about a candidate's faith beyond the point that he has one.  In the current media climate, which is much more invasive than the early '60's, the more said, the more questions that will be raised.  I'm thinking Romney might be smarter to stay on point, which isn't religion, and let the chattering classes chatter.  Besides, with the rise of independent Evangelicalism, the audience Kennedy had simply isn't available.

Alan Dershowitz is very smart, and extraodrdinarily reactionary.  That's an unusual combination, often resulting in foolishness.

Lowell adds:

Damon Linker is at it again.  The Kosher Hedgehog comments incisively, with an added thought or two from yours truly. 

Howard Kurtz asks a relevant question and makes an interesting point:

The press seems downright excited at the prospect of the first female president.

 

The idea of the first black president has journalists all but giddy.

 

But the first Mormon president? Whoa! That's a different matter.

 

The skeptical tone toward Mitt Romney's announcement has been impossible to miss. And the major reason is his religion.

 

"Will Mormon faith hurt bid for White House?" said USA Today's front-page headline on the day that the former Massachusetts governor announced.

 

Try to imagine a headline that said, "Will Jewish faith hurt bid for White House?"

I think the explanation is part political correctness, part unfamiliarity with Mormons.  Mormons, in the United States, are perceived largely as belonging to the white, middle-class surburban dweller establishment.  Among the largely very liberal MSM, the rules of political correctness and sensitivity to minorities do not apply when writing about such folk. 

The general lack of familiarity with the LDS Church is a, well, familiar subject on this blog.  There are lots of reasons for it, from the relatively small (6 million) Mormon population in America to the existence of stubborn myths about the church's beliefs (think of the notion that Mormons still practice polygamy, although the practice has been banned for almost 120 years).

The question that fascinates me is whether this phenonemon will continue.  Yesterday, my crystal ball was telling me the religion issue it will fade with time, as it becomes less interesting to the MSM, who just now seems to discovered it.  My crystal ball is still telling me that.

So by when do I expect this "fade" to occur?  Stay tuned.  On that question, the crystal ball's picture is a little fuzzy right now.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Stuff That Has Been Hanging Around
• Wrong-Headed Blogging
• Some Things Are A Little Hard To Swallow…
• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”