Today’s Reading List – May 15, 2007
CASE CLOSED: Noted anti-Mormon bigot Jacob Weisberg Was on Paula Zahn last night. Here is the key exchange:
ZAHN: Jacob, I wanted to start tonight and put up on the screen something you said about the founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith.
"He was an obvious con man. Romney has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does. And, if so, I don't want him running the country."
So, what is it that you think would happen to the country if Mitt Romney were elected?
JACOB WEISBERG, EDITOR, SLATE.COM: If he believed literally in the theology and the tenets of Mormonism, the same way I would feel about an Orthodox Jew who believed that the Bible was literally true, or a fundamentalist Christian who believed that the Earth was 6,000 years old, and didn't believe in evolution for — for that reason.
I think it's relevant what someone believes. I think we ask in a presidential campaign about every aspect of somebody's personal and financial life, about their philosophy. But, somehow, when it gets to their religious beliefs, i.e., what they believe about God, morality and the origin of the universe, it's — a lot of people say, oh, that's off-limits. Don't go near it.
Well, I think it is relevant. I want to understand.
There it is folks, in glorious back-and-white. The most notorious bigoted attacker of Romney admits that his attacks are aimed, not just at Mormons, but the religiously faithful in general. I don't think it can get any plainer. Catholics, Jews, Protestant, and Evangelicals have at much at stake in this discussion as the Mormons do. We cannot let the lefties get away with these religious attacks. They are, now admittedly, coming for us next.
Lowell adds: What remains unanswered is this question: Why is Weisberg not worried sick about the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who is by all accounts a believing Mormon and already occupies a very powerful position, as Hugh Hewitt noted last week? Perhaps Weisberg will now say, "Reid has every right to believe in con men, but I want to know if he does. And, if so, I don't want him running the U.S. Senate." We're waiting. Or is it only politically conservative believers who upset Weisberg?
In the wake of the 60 Minutes interview, Carol Platt Liebau joins the chorus of commentators aghast at Wallace's question about the Romney's sex life. While the CBS blog tries to justify it with this little wonder:
At the same time, there was a journalistic justification for asking the question: Romney's answer, in theory anyway, could go to how serious of a Mormon he really is. And Romney's Mormonism is an issue for many voters.
Talk about missing the point! First of all, if a question about how serious a Mormon Romney is appropriate, why not ask it directly? Why route it through the bedroom? I seem to recall questions in that vein to Reagan and Clinton. In his book, Hugh Hewitt looked at that particular question, how serious and faithful a Mormon Romney is, exactly right – he bothered to learn enough about the Mormon faith to ask questions with actual intelligence, about less prurient and more substantive Mormon practices, missions, offices, and so forth.
But more, are we to allow the polls (the link in that pull quote) to establish the legitimacy of journalistic inquiry? The result of that would be detailed play-by-play questioning of Paris Hilton about that video I have never seen. For crying out loud, if someone, like oh, I don't know, CBS, ran a poll that asking if the breast size of female candidate mattered, and more than 50% said it would, would that justify asking them their bra sizes? Sheesh!
Lowell: I have more applications of Brian Montopoli's "if it's an issue for many voters, then questions about it are legitimate" test:
If "many voters" are concerned about a candidate's religion, it's fair to ask him questions designed to determine how "serious" he really is about his faith. Therefore:
- Mayor Giuliani, are you a practicing Catholic?
- How often do you attend Mass?
- Do you take communion when you attend?
- How often to you go to confession?
- When was your last confession?
- Do you use birth control?
- Senator Lieberman, do you keep the Jewish dietary laws?
- Are you glatt kosher or merely kosher?
- Would you describe your Sabbath observance as strict, or more practical?
If it's appropriate to ask Romney about his underwear, or about his pre-marital chastity (38 years ago), then these questions shouldn't raise an eyebrow either.
Precisely how not to write about the Sharpton silliness. If writing about Romney's faith is off limits then so is Sharpton's. And while we are talking about how not to write – lack of research is right up there at the top of the list. - I mean come on, guy, I could have answered this one even without studying Mormonism by a simple understanding of prophetic revelation in ANY religious tradition.
An Evangelical that gets it, gets it very well.
Meanwhile, unnamed Evanglicals are apparently now in the Thompson camp. This piece features what are represented as direct quotations of persons identifed only as things like "one of the Christian conservative activists." How much credibility can such a story have? I mean, Evangelicals have now been attached to Huckabee, Brownback, Giuliani and now the non-candidate Thompson. I had no idea I was so fickle. Either that or we are so divided amongst ourselves as to be a non-factor. I cannot see the point of a piece like this save to steer people in a direction rather than report the direction they are moving in.
The top item here is just painful to me. The second one is too, but not because it's a pun. Anti-Mormon fliers sent to South Carolina in advance of the debate tonight, anonymously. That's just slimy and I think it'll backfire because of that sliminess.
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post