K-Lo reviews the Hewitt book for the NYPost.  She does not appear to be a huge fan of the book, but her concluding paragraph is dead nuts good:

The evangelical Hewitt says that if Romney doesn't get to the White House in 2008 because he's Mormon, it's bigotry plain and simple. Hewitt's right - the prospect that Romney could be barred from the White House on that basis is a disturbing one. The next year may tell us a lot - about Mitt Romney and about ourselves.

Herman Cain challenges readers to look at the substance of all the candidates.  His efforts to be positive are laudable, but barely any deeper than the negatives he derides.  He does say something that strike me as quite wise:

The eventual president will also be elected by, at best, 50 percent of the registered voters. Probably only half of those will vote for a candidate based on substance. The other half will instead choose the candidate whose baggage they dislike the least.

That has I think always been the case, at least in the last century, regarding presidential elections.  I understand Cain's desire for it to be different, but it's not and I don't know how to change it, do you?

But this cycle beginning stands out in what "baggage" we are considering and therein lies the real problem.  In the America envisioned in our constitution, religion is to be a non-factor, not part of the "baggage" we tote around.

California political newsletter, FlashReport profiles Romney's SoCal swing last Friday.  Here's an interview and some video.  As I reported yesterday, I was at the Friday night event and I must comment that these reports, and the event itself were blessedly and properly devoid of any mention of the word religion.  It came up only in conversations with me since this blog has become a magnet for such things.  The issue seems to be much more prevalent with reporters looking for something to talk about than with the general public.

And while we are talking California, one California political observer gets on his high horse about "outsiders."  He does; however say something pretty wise:

Ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Is that supposed to give him a big leg up, on the assumption that California Mormons are as conservative as he is and would vote for any Mormon because of his faith? That's as dumb as the pre-John Kennedy assumption that all Catholics will vote for any Catholic.

It's also silly because while there are a lot of Mormons in California there are not enough to settle anything.  But more, it puts religion in its proper perspective with elections - they are not about religion.

Lowell:  There are reportedly 533,741 Mormons in California, or 1.79 per cent of the State's total population.  This has made our secret plan for domination of California very difficult to execute.

Miami oops.  Romney misspoke, but then he was dealing with a foreign language and setting.

Lowell:  ¡Ay caramba! ¿Quién se responsibilitará de este fracaso?

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » |  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”