Article VI Blog

Lee Gomes, who has the Wall Street Journal internet beat, writes about the impact of blogs on campaigns, and politicians' efforts to "tame" blogs. This bit caught my eye:

The season of user-generated political videos has begun anew. Last month, a reworking of Apple's famous "1984" Macintosh TV commercial, with Hillary Clinton subbing for Big Brother, appeared online. It had been made on a Sunday afternoon — on a Mac, of course — by a now-former employee of one of the Obama campaign's contractors.

The ad came to the attention of political reporters (them again) as well as the Drudge Report and as a result, millions saw it. So now there is a new concern: that the Web will be home to similar kinds of video hit pieces for which no one will claim sponsorship.

My crystal ball is telling me that we'll see such ads attacking all the candidates. I'm also sure we will see religion-based ads against Romney. I can envision one in particular: A well-done. professional-looking ad, viciously focusing on some debatable aspect of Mormonism and powerfully telling evangelicals they cannot in good conscience support Romney. (Maybe it will use the Al Mohler line of reasoning.) The MSM are all over it because it highlights tensions between evangelicals and Mormons– a story line the MSM adores– and it gets wide exposure,

A nightmare scenario? Maybe. But it could happen.

John comments: Oh, it will happen, but it will appeal only to people that are already concerned about such things, which is an increasingly small number, at least on the right. There are already a number of YouTube videos about Mormon "weirdness" and theology out there, but they are just not generating much heat.

Lowell: I'm not as sanguine as John. If a particularly inventive and attractive ad comes out (think of the anti-Hillary Clinton "1984" ad referred to above), and the ad strikes the MSM's fancy, watch out.

Here's a Harris poll concluding that at the presidential level, "being a Mormon candidate is an electoral liability." The report is basically a teaser, without in-depth data, so it's hard to know how much credibility it deserves. Then we find polls like this one, which is never analyzed, only widely broadcast and published. Or this one. It's unscientific, yes, but this kind of stuff is all over the place out there. I find it all somewhat depressing.

What is even more depressing to me is the absence of loud, influential voices decrying such views, or urging people to change them. Instead we get voices like this, who seem to think we should all simply accept the reality of the prejudice. How does that square with the American ideal?

Lest you all think I am in down in the dumps over all this, here's one contrary view from K-Lo:

Is there real evidence that Mormonism is going to kill [Romney's] candidacy? (There are polls, many of them based on a generic Mormon — who even if you know Romney's name, if you're not a geek, you don't really know him.) I think it is still early and insulting to suggest that's what could do him in.

And here's one more from her:

You'd be amazed how many people who don't work for the Romney campaign have said to me some variation on "national polls mean nothing this far out" today. There's some wisdom to this.

And Hugh Hewitt says what I think, in the end:

Mitt Romney has a Mormon problem, as does the rest of the country. It's much bigger than I thought, and it's going to require a lot of conversation and focused study.

That's what John and I are here for. Let the conversation continue!

John adds some links: Ann Romney in Alabama.

Ann Romney, the wife of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said Wednesday concerns about their Mormon faith disappear once people get to know them.

I think that applies to Mormons in general, but especially to the Romneys. Abstractions and realities are two different things. Polls like those above are abstractions and the results vary tremendously depending on how questions are asked. Generic questions about Mormon candidates reflect "problems," generic questions about voting for a different religion and the "problems" disappear. Romney's numbers are in general improving - that is a reality.

I also wonder about timing. Romney has a "bad week" and we do not hear about this stuff; a "good week" and here comes "the data."

The bottom line is the same as always for presidential candidates, it is about establishing and controlling the narrative. If the narrative about Romney ends up as the MSM and the left want it to be, the Mormon thing, then he will lose. If he can successfully establish the narrative as Mitt Romney himself he is going to be darn hard to beat.

The Question is unique as a competitive narrative because it is decidedly unAmerican. There have always been religiously fanatical voters on the right, but they have always been, as they are today, small in number and relatively ineffective. However, as government has gone more and more into values territory, religious values voters have increasingly stymied the agenda of the left and has therefore become the enemy. The left has always been about identity politics (e.g. affirmative action versus the erasure of race considerations) it is not surprising that they would choose to play the religious thing as identity politics.

Romney's religious idenitity is different, though the differences are exaggerated and misunderstood, that is an undeniable fact. Romney confronts the right with a couple of options. One is to allow the differences to matter, in which case we have taken a step down the slope towards the left, we have made identity matter. The other option is to understand identity, religious, racial, or otherwise, does not matter - which is entirely in line with the principles and values that we hold.

That is what I see when I review the polling data. When the polls are about identity, then Romney loses, when they are about principle Romney wins. But most importantly, when they are about Romney, Romney wins.

Which brings me to this.

A new congressional campaign group could piggyback on Mitt Romney's apparent success in rounding up political cash from first-time Mormon contributors.

Neither the website nor filing papers for the Eagle Political Action Committee, or Eagle PAC, mentions Mormons. But those familiar with the PAC say one of the reasons Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah), a Mormon, created it this year was to solicit money from Mormons for distribution to Republican congressional candidates.

I am of very mixed opinion about this. Creedal Christians have been doing the same thing for quite a few years now, so the Mormons have every right to do this, I am not a big fan of it for creedal Christians either. It is playing to the labels instead of the issues. It is also very effective for fund-raising. It is one of those things that is probably necessary, but sadly so.

Lowell's parting thought: I think it's time for me to come forward and state publicly that I have never hunted in my life– not even for varmints. I did fire a few guns when I was a Scoutmaster. I hope my lack of gun credentials doesn't mean I can't be a Republican any more.