Of course, the big "news" was the strategy document. I, however, am with Hugh Hewitt. We don't know what the document really says because all we have to rely upon is the representations of the Boston Globe whose anti-Romney sentiments are so over the top as to make anything they say on the subject unreliable. Two quick comments:
- The piece suggests that the tactic of Romney directly addressing specific Mormon beliefs is on the table. I hope not! To date he has deferred to Salt Lake City on such questions. He simply must continue that policy for reasons we outlined Monday.
- The piece does, I think establish, Romney's campaign slogan (Git-R-Done!) and official spokesman – Larry, The Cable Guy. No, really:
The case for Romney, according to the plan, is this: "Mitt Romney, tested, intelligent, get-it-done, turnaround CEO Governor and strong leader from outside Washington, is a better candidate than McCain & Giuliani to ensure that America's strength is maintained so we can meet a new generation of global challenges."
OK, OK, my complete lack of refined taste when it comes to comedy is showing, so sue me.
Lowell: Here is how Globe reporter Scott Helman interprets the Power Point on Romney's religion issue:
Romney's sensitivity to his Mormon faith as a campaign issue is apparent throughout the plan.
It acknowledges that some view Mormonism as weird and lists ways Romney should defend his faith, from highlighting the way he has lived his life, rather than which church he attends, to acknowledging theological differences with mainline Christian denominations while refusing to be drawn into an extensive discussion of Mormon doctrine and practices. It also suggests Romney might soon need to address the issue head-on, perhaps as John F. Kennedy did in a 1960 speech amid concerns about his relationship to the Catholic Church.
The document appears to raise the possibility of Romney delivering such an address at George H.W. Bush's presidential library outside Houston, the same city where Kennedy gave his.
The key aspect of this, as John notes, is that this is all what Helman thinks the slides mean.
I'm glad it's EFM getting this stuff and not me. Of course, given the attitude of the e-mailer Charles so effectively dismembers, I am likely beyond redemption since I dare have a Mormon co-blogger.
Every time a creedal Christian has a problem with Romney's faith, the libs get a notch in their gun belt. Proof.
Lowell: Further proof: Media Matters, a left-leaning news media monitoring blog, is very eager to highlight creedal Christian unhappiness with Romney's faith– devoting a couple thousand words to the effort. It's the old "let's you and them fight" approach.
Hugh Hewitt in Christianity Today, very briefly, on his upcoming book. Knowing Hugh, I think the book will be excellent. Hugh! – Where's our Q&A???
McCain appears to have a bigger issue than The Question is for Romney - his age. Sometimes I really wish we were in a more substantive era. Speaking of which – the ultimate in identity politics. I really am wondering of that is the heart of The Question – "Doesn't look like me."
Oh really? Maybe papers should have fact checkers on their Letters To The Editors page. Theory and reality don't necessary blend in the CJCLDS as our continuing series on the Reed Smoot hearings is demonstrating. The series so far – Part I — Part II.
Lowell: As a Mormon, I love it when people who are not of my faith tell me what I believe, as in this choice nugget:
God's revelations must be obeyed by all good Mormons at the risk of excommunication.
Well, no. Saying something ridiculous ike that is the surest way to reveal one's ignorance.
Romney is "inconsistent," but Guliani is "reaganesque"? Some other thoughts on Rudy here and here. Can I confess some confusion — sure Rudy is the guy this week, that's going to ebb and flow over the coming months, but I think we need to find some consistency in how we evaluate candidates. If the way we are going to select candidates is because they never change their mind, we could start electing some consistent fools. What gravely concerns me is we are making decisions based on less substantive stuuf like The Question, or age, or appearance and then looking for arguments to justify the decisions. The pros are, of course, just trying to read the voters so they look smart when the votes are actually cast, but can't we, when trying to read the voters, talk about what matters?