Today’s Reading List – February 19, 2007 | Article VI Blog

Bigotry raised a very ugly head over the weekend:

This video speaks for itself :!!!!: (for an explanation of the Jell-o cube scale see here) I'm ashamed I share a faith with the questioner – he's just flat out rude.
This example is much more subtle. :!!!: A prominent evangelical blogger and McCain leaner links to a NYTimes piece on the trouble McCain is having with conservatives in his home state of Arizona with the words "Mitt Romney targets Arizona Mormons." What the Times piece actually says is, "Among some Republicans here, Mr. Romney, a Mormon who may benefit from his faith’s strongholds around the state, is also mentioned as a viable alternative to Mr. McCain. Mr. Romney is supported by Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County sheriff, among others." That's a far cry from "targeting," a word choice that in this context implies a conspiratorial tone to a natural political phenomenon. Besides, if Evangelicals can organize themselves politically….

Romney was on ABC's "This Week" yesterday There is video available at that link and the story coverage is here. It's a great line and now Romney himself is saying it

"I'm not running for pastor-in-chief. I'm running for commander-in-chief," Romney said…

Stephanopolous appears to have gotten under K-Lo's skin a bit though. (Personally, I just think he embarassed himself, he was about as subtle as a bull in a China shop and he never laid a glove on Romney. He thought he found a way to phrase the questions that avoided the religious discussion taboo, but instead all he did was reveal an enormous ignorance about all religion.) The full transcript is here. K-Lo also takes on the latest bit of hateful nonsense from Andrew Sullivan, as does Tom Bevan. Fair enough, but unless Sullivan comes up with something original, and slightly less hateful, I'm done with him — he has nasty-talked his way into irrelevance – at least until the general election.

Remember that French language outlet that carried the "Mormon warning" a while back – well now they are carrying a piece that says it's no big thing. I'd say they have an indiscriminate editorial policy. But here's something to think about: The piece urging acceptance of Romney features Hugh Hewitt, who has said he hasn't made up his mind yet, but seems to like Romney a great deal. I have seen previous utterings by Hugh on these lines dismissed because "he is a Romney guy." Now here is what I wonder, why would the warnings of an ex-Mormon carry more weight than the thoughts of former government professional, established attorney and religious reporter?

Speaking of Hugh, his book on Romney and The Question is due out in a few weeks. He kicks off the discussion with a Townhall column. Needless to say, given the commonality of interest, we've crossed paths as he readied the book. I think it will be great – in fact I know so, a pre-order is recommended – I know I have done so.

Wondering about the effect of humor. This Ohio politics site quotes Conan O'Brien telling a Mitt Romney joke.

"Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney announced he’s running for president. If he wins, he’d be the first Mormon president. Apparently, Romney is planning on winning the soccer mom vote by marrying all of them.” –Conan O’Brien

Now, to my mind, the joke's absurdity makes it very funny, sounds like something Mitt himself might say. However, I can't shake the picture of some ignorant wretch out there saying, "See Bubba, I told you…."

Even the Washington Post editorializes on The Question, "we hope [it] dissipates as an issue over time…" Smart lefties are figuring out the religious angle is a loser. Witness the booing in the bigoted video above.

An excellent overview of The Question from London.

The Christian Science Monitor keeps sounding pro-Romney. This is not surprising since Christian Science is another "cultic Christian offshoot." Remind me to do a little digging into the numbers, if all such groups lined up behind Romney, it might amount to a lot of votes….

A new Evangelical power broker is feeling his wings, and Hugh Hewitt takes him to task. It is Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Fortunately he does say:

Of Romney’s Mormon religion, Land said it’s not a “deal-killer.”

What I find distressing is that he has a book coming out on politics. I do not think ecclesiastical leaders should be doing politics – it dilutes the church.

NPR Boston does an hour on The Question. SSDO – Same stuff, different outlet – presented sonorously as only NPR can.

Polling data – there are bigger issues than being Mormon. More, as Giuliani has made his intentions clear, McCain is fading fast. (Sorry MSM) I wonder if Giuliani will fade just as fast once people realize that he did indeed walk towards the Towers, but he also favors partial-birth abortion?

If religion becomes a genuine election issue, this is the kind of ugliness that could ensue.

This is the worst kind of story conceivable on any religion – it asks questions, but provides no answers. Such serves only to illuminate differences.

Lowell: The author, Richard Ostling, is well-known to Mormons as the author of Mormon America, an anti-Mormon book, highly celebrated by critics of the church. Ostling's authorship is disclosed at the end of his piece, but not the nature of his book. There is a scholarly and critical pro-Mormon review of Ostling's book here.

Sadly, I think this Stromberg piece for the same paper is in the same vein. Stromberg spends several paragraphs talking about how Mormons are different, but then says "it doesn't matter." Imagine if you will a piece that says "It doesn't matter that the candidate's hairs are really curly. It doesn't matter that the candidate's nose is large and flattish." See my point? Here's another example of the same thing.

Lowell: The point is increasingly obvious, and excellent. (I think the Stromberg piece is quite good, actually. Disclosure: Stephen Stromberg's parents have been friends of mine since long before he was born.) Almost every such article refers to the Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, now months old, reportedly concluding that "thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate." Those poll findings have fueled dozens of articles like the ones John cites, all concluding, in essence, "Well, doggone, it's too bad that Romney's Mormonism matters, and it really shouldn't, but it does." The poll thus is being used as license to make Romney's religion an issue.

The problem is, the Times/Bloomberg poll is not worthy of the weight such writers are giving it. Power Line saw that months ago:

In any case, the underlying report shows the Times' July 3 story to be misleading, in my view. The question posed by the pollsters was, "Just thinking about a candidate's religion, do you think you could vote for a Mormon [or Jewish, or Catholic, or Evangelical, or Muslim] candidate." Thus, contrary to what the Times reported, the poll does not show that 37 percent of those questioned would not vote for a Mormon candidate; it shows that 37 percent of those questioned would not vote for a Mormon candidate if they thought only about that candidate's religion. Indeed, the report (but not the story) acknowledges that "there is nothing to indicate that numbers such as these, while certainly indicative of a basic level of resistance, are a real barrier to legitimate candidacy." In addition, the report (but not the story) states that there is no evidence "to infer that a candidate's religion would trump other important voter criteria such as trust, charisma, shared values… or the candidate's stand on [issues]."

Unfortunately, such thoughtful analysis requires effort. It's much easier simply to report the headline, which is what most commentators and news reporters are doing.