Today’s Reading List – May 4, 2007
Yesterday's Robert Novak puzzler dominated The Question discussion in the past 24 hours. K-Lo calls it "weird." Unlike K-Lo, Hugh Hewitt is not afraid to call it bigotry. Ed Morrisey called it "despicable." "Straw Man" is Dean Barnett's description who also says:
If Novak really felt the need to write about a movie coming out tomorrow, he should have talked about Spiderman III.
And an Arkansas newspaper blogger found humor there as well.
Lowell interjects: I think Novak's column is simply odd. What a strange thing to expect Romney to do. As long as we're asking Romney about the alleged actions of 19th century Mormon leaders, why not ask Giuliani about Pope Pius IX, who reigned in the Vatican at the time of the atrocity in Utah:
Pius IX was responsible for calling the First Vatican Council – the one responsible for implementing the doctrine that popes are capable of being infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals.
I mean, isn't it just as important to know what Rudy thinks about that? Especially in the context of his position, as a Catholic, on abortion rights?
Of course it isn't. Neither Romney's views on the Mountain Meadows Massacre nor Rudy's views on 19th-century statements on papal infallibility are important in deciding whether to vote for them now. But you see my point.
And . . . Blake Dvorak at Real Clear Politics has more on Novak. Back to you, John.
Powerline's John Hinderaker thinks Romney did a fantastic job on Leno, where as we noted yesterday, The Question did briefly come up. The video is here. The appearance inspired a bit of frivolity from John Mark Reynolds.
DEBATE FOLLOW UP:
Hugh Hewitt did some great interviews from the Reagan Library post-debate (Our live blog of the debate is here), though only for his Los Angeles audience. In a couple of them he brought up the fact that Chris Matthews could not help himself and had to take a slant at The Question. The first interview was with Tagg Romney who said something I have wanted to know for a long time, "We’re not getting those questions out in the field." The other such interview was with the Dean of the Pepperdine Law School, Ken Starr, who when asked about such questions said they were "out of line."
I got on the air with Hugh briefly a bit later and commented that I think the news media is going to have to lay off The Question for a while now. Despite Matthew's (and Huckabee's!) best efforts last night it went over like a lead balloon. But then with all the other media picking up on Mormonism at the moment, they can leave it lie. But it'll be back.
Lowell: Here's the video of a debate excerpt with Romney's comments on the religion question.
This morning Peggy Noonan called Romney’s response “a quick witted answer when Mr. Mathews asked him if the Roman Catholic Church should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. . . . He deftly flipped it into a church-state issue.”
John adds a late comment: Which may make it the only comment on the sheer audacity and ham-fistedness of Matthews inquiry. I spent the last 45 minutes this morning looking for anybody that was commenting on the fact that both that question and Matthew’s “divinely inspired” crack were completely out of line, and I have come up with zilch. Where were the “defiance of Rome” cracks when Guiliani sounded so upset to have to admit ending abortion might be a good thing? The fact of the matter is singling out Romney for that crack and that question was and expression of at best morbid curiosity, but given the source, more likely genuine bigotry. The media has got to at least begin to play fair here. If they are going to hit Romney with this stuff, they have got to hit everybody else. That’s why Brownback, despite a generally poor showing, is a hero – he amongst all the candidates moved to Romney when Matthews got stupid. I for one, as a Republican, want a candidate that stands for the proper role of religion in our social and political structure. The entire panel shold have jumped all over Matthews. Romney handled it, as Noonan says, brilliantly, but where were the rest of them?
I am beginning to think that through this crucible Romney will end up being the only viable Republican candidate (Sorry Sam) that will stand for faith – my faith, his faith, any faith. Evangelicals that are still holding reservations need to take a careful look at what happened last night. It was short, it was laughed off, but it was not pretty. There is trouble afoot here and it is not just for the Mormons.
Late add-on from Lowell:
There are many comments among the punditry about the political aspects of the debate. All seem to admire Romney’s handling of the religion issue. For example, here’s Chris Cillizza of the WaPo:
He sounded authoritative when he talked about Iraq (not an easy task for a one-term governor of Massachusetts) and effectively cast himself – a Mormon – as part of the broad faith community in America.
Yes. I’m kind of wondering if in his ham-handed way, Matthews did Romney (and religious conservatives everywhere) a favor: A few more questions like Matthews’, together with similar “out of the park” Romney answers, and maybe, just maybe, MSM questioners will look so bad, and public revulsion will be so clear, that the whole subject will fade into the background.
We can only hope.
More Debate Updates:
In NRO, Mark Hemingway, a former Mormon who converted to Lutheranism, calls Matthews’ query “the most asinine question of the night.” He further comments on the weirdness of Novak’s column:
Let’s put it this way: In 2000, the Vatican essentially issued an apology for having persecuted Galileo as part of the inquisition and contributing to his death under house arrest. What if in 1959 a film about Galileo had come out starring Peter Lorre as Pope Urban VIII and Walter Winchell had written a column suggesting that Catholic presidential hopeful John F. Kennedy had better comment on the film and clarify his views on heliocentricity? It would be absurd. Every Catholic in 1959 believed the world revolved around the sun, just as every Mormon now believes that murdering women and children in the name of their church is reprehensible.
Finally:
David French returned to Evangelicals For Mitt and penned a great post in response to the overwhelming Mormon media concentration of late:
As for me, I'm proud to stand with Mormons as we confront the cultural rot that is destroying our country from within, and I'm proud to serve with Mormons as fellow soldiers facing a hideous evil overseas. I appreciate them more than they could know. I'm grateful for their presence in my life and in the life of this nation. So, I leave the question of "cult, denomination, or religion" to the Judge of all things. I'm content with a fourth category — one not on that list — the category of "friends."
AMEN!
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
CarlH on 04 May 2007 at 9:14 am #
Ex-Mormon Lutheran, Mark Hemingway, put the lunacy of both Robert Novak and Chris Matthews over at National Review: