Wishing John And His Family Well

John's parents were in an auto accident in Mississippi and he dropped everything to go there and be with them. I know all our readers join me in wishing him and his family every good thing and keeping them in our thoughts and prayers.

The Mormon Missionary Advantage? 

Noam Schreiber in today's New Republic on-line edition (link requires subscription; also available here) has decided that Romney's Mormonism gives him "at least one truly unprecedented advantage:"

one that could be decisive in a closely contested primary. It derives from an aspect of the Mormon community that the press has largely underplayed: the vast grassroots organizing potential of thousands of highly-disciplined young missionaries.

I hardly know where to begin, so I will simply encourage you all to read the whole thing.  As you do so, and if you are not a Mormon, a couple of warnings.  

First, don't pay too much attention to his description of Mormon Missionary life.  Schrieber seems to have tried hard, but apparently he got his information about what it's like to be a Mormon missionary from two of his Mormon acquaintances who served in the 1990s.  That's always dangerous.  Just trust me, it ain't necessarily the way Schreiber describes it.  

Second, Schreiber makes a gigantic leap in assuming that Romney's volunteers are predominantly former Mormon missionaries.  What basis is there for that belief?  After their missions, Mormon young men and women get on with their lives, getting an education, marrying, working, and so forth.  Most of them are not all that interested in politics.  They are not going to drop everything and flock to Iowa to help Brother Romney.

Even so, Mormons generally have lots of organizational experience, especially those who have served full-time missions.  So to the extent Romney has a lot of Mormon volunteers on his campaign, they should be very effective workers.

So in the end, Schreiber's piece is another rather quaint effort by an outsider to find an interesting angle on the possible impact of Romney's Mormonism on his candidacy. 

The Bigotry Thing

Small-market and late-night talk radio host Mike Gallagher complains about charges of bigotry against those who won't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon: 

But if a presidential candidate has a set of religious beliefs that seem contrary to the vast majority of Bible-believing Christians and those beliefs might cause someone to decide not to vote for that person, how can that possibly be called bigotry? [snip]

 

There’s nothing wrong with believing that a candidate who wants to become the leader of our country should have the same kind of religious beliefs that most Americans have. We should be allowed to disagree with a political candidate for just about any doggone reason we want to, and even be able to stand up on a soapbox and proclaim our reasons in this free country of ours without being afraid of being labeled a racist or a bigot or a hatemonger. 

Let's see:   If I say I will not vote for Smith because he is a

Catholic/Jew/Asian-American/Evangelical/Hispanic.

Does that sound all right to you? 

Didn't think so. 

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

This could get really ugly.

Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton will be attending “Pentecost 2007: Taking the Vision to the Streets” forum on Monday, June 4 at George Washington University in the District of Columbia.

So now instead of arguing whether Romney's Mormonism is Christian or not, we are going to get into a discussion about whether God is left or right, Republican or Democrat?  I have got to think that is the path to hell.

If you think things are ugly now, can you imagine how they will be if this is what happens?  Imagine if rather than deciding who to vote for based on faith we start deciding who is faithful based on their vote.  Now we just do not have improper religious issues in politics, we have politics driving the religious bus.  Wouldn't it cease to be religion at all under those circumstances?

That's why the goal of this blog is to reduce the influence of religion, if NOT religious people, in political debate.

John Mark Reynolds agrees, media has it in for us Evangelicals - they want to paint us as losers however they can.

Lowell:  Here's JMR's first paragraph, denoted the "Bottom Line:"

Soon the media is going to tell you, traditional Christian, that you are voting for Romney because you are too stupid not to do so . . . just as one month ago they were implying that you were too big of a bigot to vote for Romney.

The whole thing is simply delightful, and a must-read. 

Nancy from EFM lands on NewsMax.

Lowell:  Another great read.  And more:

David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register analyzes Romney's polling surge there:

The polls also indicate some of the national story lines are having little impact on caucus-goers.  . . . On the GOP side, all the yammering about Romney's Mormon religious faith being a liability appears to be more of an obsession with the political community than it is to caucus-goers. The same is true of all the talk about his flip flopping or changing his position on issues. Like Edwards, Romney has organized well and spent lots of time here. He combines an upbeat message with an executive persona.

 

Both candidates are doing well because they are seen by activists as guys who can be winners in November 2008.

HT:  John Hood at NRO's The Corner, who also notes that Yepsen "has for years been the go-to journalist when the national media want to understand Iowa caucus politics."

And finally . . .

K-Lo interviews Bay Buchanan, who happens to be one of those Mormons:

Lopez: You share a religion with Mitt Romney and you’re an active movement-conservative type. Are people tolerant toward Mormons? Are conservative Christians — or could they do him in?

Buchanan: I am most aware of an anti-Mormon bias among elements of the Christian conservatives. To a lesser degree I saw anti-Catholic bias among the same crowd when I was involved in my brother’s campaigns. I do not believe religious bigotry is enough to derail Governor Romney’s campaign for President, but it does present a significant primary hurdle for him.

Translation:  Yes, there's bias but it need not be fatal to Romney's candidacy.  In one way, a disappointingly bland answer; in another, further evidence that there's just not much more to say about the ultimate impact of The Question.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

As Romney continues to succeed, the real agenda behind the media's relentless beating of The Question drum seems to become apparent.  The Washington Post ran a piece yesterday on the changing political face of Evangelicals and NBC News, via The Today Show, ran a related piece.  Both pieces ostensibly are about the death of Jerry Falwell and the supposed shake-up that creates in the movement.  Unfortunately, Falwell's influence waned long ago.  In the last several years he has been more elder statesman and adviser than actual leader.

It is noteworthy that some Evangelical leaders could perceive Romney as a threat to the Evangelical order, although as the campaign proceeds, that concern seems to be moving to the side.  That, in my opinion, represents the real origin of The Question.  From the Evangelical side, there was a threat to power structures; from the left, there appeared to be a gap into which a divisive wedge could be driven.

On the Evangelical side, the threat was never that real, and such became apparent early - which is why the left, through its media mouthpieces, has gotten more and more shrill.  The TV piece here centers on Giuiliani as the real "threat" to Evangelical power (his stances on social issues that is and frankly I think he is more of a threat to it than Romney, but the precise extent of that threat remains undetermined) which may signal a change in tactic from the left.  There is little doubt they want to drive that wedge somehow and pick up some Evangelicals for themselves.

If that change in tactic is real, The Question should quiet down considerably, only time will tell.  If; however,  Romney gets the Repblican nod, look for stuff that will make what we have seen to date look paltry.

An excellent speech by Charles Chaput on religious tolerance.

Here’s my point. People who take the question of human truth, freedom and meaning seriously will never remain silent about it. They can’t. They’ll always act on what they believe, even at the cost of their reputations and lives. That’s the way it should be. Religious faith is always personal, but it’s never private. It always has social consequences, or it isn’t real. And this is why any definition of “tolerance” that tries to turn religious faith into a private idiosyncrasy, or a set of personal opinions that we can have at home but that we need to be quiet about in public, is doomed to fail.

 

The mentality of suspicion toward religion is becoming its own form of intolerance. I have seen a kind of secular intolerance develop in our own country over the past two decades. The modern secular view of the world assumes that religion is superstitious and false; that it creates division and conflict; and that real freedom can only be ensured by keeping God out of the public square.

 

But if we remove God from public discourse, we also remove the only authority higher than political authority, and the only authority that guarantees the sanctity of the individual. If the twentieth century taught us anything, it’s that modern states tend to eat their own people, and the only thing stopping this is a resistance based in the human spirit but anchored in a higher authority—which almost always means religious witness.

Note that the Bishop's discussion here is theologically generic, but discusses the importance of faith in public service.  Given what we looked at above, how can we hope to keep God in public discourse if we discard one such voice simply because his precise concept of God differs from ours?  There simply is a bigger question, that is the general question of higher authority.

Finally from that most fundamentalist of corners - Bob Jones University quoting Bob Jones III, the founders grandson:

He likes a lot of what Mitt Romney says and isn't troubled by the Mormon's religion and "unless he confuses that with Christianity, I don't have a problem," Jones said. "As long as I don't see that, I can be happy."

Lowell adds:  In a way, Jones III's statement highlights the difficulty of Romney's situation. I hope that if Romney makes it clear that he believes in Jesus Christ, Jones III will not consider the Governor to be confusing his Mormon faith with Christianity.  But who can predict?

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Gov. Romney has in the past been fond of quoting Abraham Lincoln's concept of a "civil religion," when it comes to the differences and especially the lack of differences between faiths in our nation.  He rightly says that we desire in our public officials some adherence to that civil religion, if not our individual, sacred, theology-based religion.  I agree with him fully on that thought and it seems to me that one important hallmark of that civil religion would be simple civility in public discourse.

In that light, compare the comments of John McCain when confronted with Romney's comments on the pending immigration deal (via The Corner) with Romney's response to Sen. McCain's comments (via Hugh Hewitt who also carries McCain's original swipe) — Res Ipsa Loquitur.

Speaking of civil religion, some interesting thoughts on same from the Action Institute.

At USAToday, Dan Gilgoff wonders about how Christians define the term and its political consequences.  This may be one of the least helpful, non-attack, major outlet pieces I have seen on this subject yet.  The definition question is better left for the seminarians and as to its political consequences - there simply should not be any.  I cannot help but think that once again we are back to the media phenomenon - it's way past what the electorate is thinking about.

Lowell:  Gilgoff's piece does highlight one interesting aspect of this issue, I think:  By widely using a specialized definition of an otherwise commonly-understood word, thereby casting Mormonism in what Mormons see as a terribly false light, many orthodox Christians have confused and inflamed the discussion– whether they intend to or not.  We've been talking about this for a long time, for example here and here.

Speaking of the media phenomena, Christianity Today "reviews" a conference that was in Florida last week ostensibly to help journalists have knowledge to cover faith.  John Wilson reaches some good and some not so good conclusions:

From an evangelical viewpoint, what was most interesting about Richard Bushman's session was the overlap between skepticism about Mormons (remember the question: are Mormonism and democratic politics compatible?) and skepticism about evangelicals and Catholics, as expressed in a host of books and articles and op-ed pieces in the last year. Jacob Weisberg's widely quoted piece from Slate, in which he said that someone who believes what Romney believes lacks the "capacity" to hold the highest office in our country, reminded me of similar judgments in the past about women: they are very good at other things, you see, but they lack a certain "rational capacity" that is the birthright of males. (By the way, doesn't it follow from Weisberg's statement that Mormons should be denied the vote, as women long were?) In this vein it's interesting to note how, running on a very different track from the jokes about polygamy, there's a vein of disdainful commentary that seeks to dismiss Mormons by feminizing them—a tactic that may be potent precisely because it is so politically incorrect, and often in contradiction to the stated pieties of the very people it's pitched to. Romney as a candidate? That won't be newsworthy much longer: he has no chance at the nomination. But the issues raised in connection with his candidacy will continue to be relevant, and not just for Mormons.

Romney has no chance?  Don't know what political news Mr. Wilson is reading, but I sure ain't seeing that.  As to the issues being relevant to more than Mormons?  Durn tootin'.  I think we have been saying that for a while now.

Dennis Byrne, in the Chicago Tribune, lets go with both barrels at Mike Wallace's chastity question to the Romney's a while back.

Oh, you mean as in: Lots of people have an "issue" with Mormonism because it — as do many religions, millions of Americans and social commentators — opposes pre- and extramarital sex.

Byrne has a heck of a point there.  Wallace's question was not just a shot at Mormonism, it was shot at conservatism in general, especially religiously supported conservatism.  There's support for that thesis of ours again.  If we let them get away with this about the Mormons, we're next, fellow Evangelicals.

We reported yesterday that James Dobson may be softening his earlier remarks a bit.  David Brody seems to agree and suggests:

If I were Romney, I would travel to Colorado Springs, have lunch with the good doctor, attend a chapel service and then go see a private screening of "Passion of the Christ" with him.

Uh, David, I know you hear the same rumors I do.  If they are to be believed, while the details may differ, that's a meeting that happened months ago.  But one commentator apparently did not hear Dr. Dobson on Laura Ingraham last Friday.  The guy is right about quite a few things in the piece, but his tone sort of disqualifies him from serious consideration.  And there we are back at that whole civility thing again.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

BEYOND THE PALE

We have argued on this blog all along that Gov. Romney should not get into the tall grass when it comes to theology.  Given that, I nearly panicked when I saw an ABC News piece with a subhead that read: "Romney Blasts Immigration Bill, Defends Mormonism Against 'Cult' Charge" - fortunately, when I got to the story, here is what was actually there:

On the Web site of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting News, Mormonism is repeatedly described as "a cult."

 

Asked why he didn't attempt to refute that rhetorical assault on his faith, Romney pushed back.

 

"I'm not running for pastor in chief and I'm not running as someone who defends my religion or explains my religion," he said. "I'm running for a secular office, the presidency of the United States."

 

In terms of actually addressing the Christian Broadcasting Network and Regent University, Romney said, "You know if my church wants to respond, they're certainly welcome to. But that's not what I'm doing."

It is now officially ridiculous.  Romney refused to give them what they wanted and yet they headline the piece as if he did.  The press is without shame.  This is so blatantly pandering to a story line when there is no actual news as to border on a flat-out lie.

Lowell:  By Sunday night at 8:50 p.m. Pacific, ABC had changed the headline to "Romney Blasts Immigration Bill, Discusses Change in Abortion Stance."  Maybe they read this blog!

That Romney is so consistently failing to give the theo-nerds what they want on this issue does not prevent Terry Mattingly from once again calling for it. Although in this case he is using Richard Ostling as a stand-in, Mattingly has discussed this before on GetReligion.  Once again, for the record, no candidate for the presidency, even the oft-mis-cited JFK, has answered these kinds of questions about their faith.

Here's the thing: Theo-nerds not only love the intricacies of their own faith, they love proving why their theology is superior to yours.  Being seminary-trained, I have engaged in this game and enjoy it from time to time; I understand the impulse.  But it is simply immaterial.  I am sorry these guys are not going to get to show off their theology chops, but that's politics in a religiously diverse nation.  This is a presidential election, not a seminary.  Give it up, guys!

IN OTHER NEWS

Lowell: In this aside, Peggy Noonan, who seems to have drunk at least a little Fred Thompson Kool-Aid, show us how far into the MSM Romney's Mormonism has penetrated:

While the other candidates bang away earnestly in a frozen format, Thompson continues to sneak up from the creek and steal their underwear–boxers, briefs and temple garments.

As a Mormon, I am now hardened to such light-minded treatment of one of our faith's more sacred symbols, so I don't find this jarring at all.  But it intrigues me that 12 months ago I would have been shocked to see that in print.

John: I don't know what Kool-Aid Peggy drank, but as one of the brightest, most articulate pundits out there, I find this disappointing.  Says Hugh Hewitt of Peggy's apparent humor:

If an orthodox Jew was in the running, would Peggy have added "yarmulke?" Or if a devout Catholic, a mention of a rosary or a scapula? I doubt it.  There are acceptable bigotries and unacceptable bigotries.  Anti-Mormon drive-bys that are good for a laugh play well in some circles — the same circles that used to indulge Catholic and Irish jokes.

Just to give you a little insight into how this blog works, these kinds of drive-by jokes occur to Lowell and I all the time, and we share them with each other and we chuckle a bit, and then figure out it is better to keep them to ourselves.  Maybe Noonan needs a partner?  Also, given that there were reports a while back that Noonan was going to write some speeches for Romney, but to date I have not heard of Romney giving a Noonan speech, I wonder if there is not a little personal pique buried in that "punchline"?

Lowell:  The word on the street is that Romney decided not to work with Peggy.  An example  of the ethical pitfalls created when MSM columnists moonlight, or want to moonlight, for the candidates they write about.

Even Tim Rutten, the LATimes media critic, finds Noonan's quip out of bounds.  But then, being reliably lefty, he uses The Question as a cudgel to beat religious conservatives over the head, and does so by picking on the recently deceased:

That's the story the political press corps missed this week: Jerry Falwell's legacy is Mitt Romney's real problem.

Frankly, I have been expecting this and am somewhat surprised it has taken this long to be seen.  This is the old "Evangelicals won't vote for a Mormon" line in a new guise.  As we see a little further down, the few Evangelical forces that were expressing concern about Romney's faith are starting to melt, so that line is getting hollower and hollower.  But once again we see the left using The Question to beat up the religious right in general.  Tasteless as Rutten's shot at a dead man may be (which by the way seems to have become journalistic sport this past week, even in the UK), I will give him style points for at least finding a slightly new way to approach what has become a very old and tired song. 

Lowell:  Rutten did turn out this good paragraph:

You'd swear [Romney] was auditioning for a part on "Big Love" rather than running for president. It's as if Roman Catholic candidates were being asked to declare where they stand on the slaughter of the Albigensians or the trial of Galileo. Why not demand that Presbyterian candidates declare their views regarding the excesses of John Calvin's theocratic Sparta in Geneva? Let's ask Episcopalians to account for the execution of the London Carthusians or Lutherans for Martin Luther's anti-Semitism.

Update:  Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO says he thought Noonan's line

was funny. I wouldn't be shocked if Mitt Romney did, too. And I doubt she would get all worked up over a good Irish joke, either.

Well, I would be quite surprised if Romney thought the line was funny under the circumstances.  As John says, in private the joke could be funny.  In the first paragraph of a well-known, almost iconic national columnist, it is not.

Back to John: As we have said all along, the left (well, maybe except for Rutten) has a hard time telling the difference between Evangelicals and Mormons - proof.

The lefties are just dying to show conservatives as religiously intolerant.

WOW!  Sometime those tiny little local papers can talk plainly in a way that the big media just cannot.

On radio programs, and among friends, I have seen this dilemma resolved with a kind of self-inflicted intellectual violence. Rational thought was murdered before danger was assessed. It’s as if in a state of paranoia, they shot dead a cousin who was trying to gain entry to the common house simply by knocking.

 

Did they try to determine if their otherwise rightly ostracized cousin was trying to help them? Did they consider that by the rules they helped establish, that their cousin had every right to try and enter the house by knocking?

That "cousin" analogy is a great one!  Not unlike cousins, Mormons are "family," perhaps distant family, but family nonetheless, whether we like it or not.

FROM THE SILLY DEPARTMENT

Democrats seek diversity in advisers, a trait lacking in GOP

WHAT!?!?!?  A Mormon candidate doesn't count?  Some people are never satisfied, especially not Earl Ofari Hutchinson, but then he is, in my opinion, a professional reverse racist.

This actually brings up one of the key points in all of this - identity politics.  The democrats play it like a symphony and we simply do not.  One of the reasons the left bangs The Mormon Question drum so hard, so often is they want to get us playing their game; it has very little to do with the actual labels and very much to do with shifting the playing field on to ground where they think they can win.  That is not so silly.

CONCERNING EVANGELICALS

Is James Dobson softening a bit?  Well, if Evangelicals for Mitt and K-Lo's read of his appearance on Laura Ingraham's show on Friday is any indication, the answer is "yes."

That is unsurprising actually - funny thing about being the only candidate consistently performing well and rising in the polls, trivial objections start to melt away.

MEDIA WHORES

A Mormon President, the first documentary film to explore the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith’s campaign for the US Presidency and its implications for the candidacy of another Mormon, Mitt Romney, has begun production and is slated for a fall 2007 release.

 

Produced and directed by filmmaker Adam Christing, the film will be released in the heat of a presidential campaign that includes Romney and is part of a movie-making trend of examining the history of the Mormon religion,…

From the looks of things here and here, Mr. Christing is one of those people that will try anything to get attention, and so far does not appear to have been too successful at any of it.

Which takes us back to the ABC News piece at top.  The Question has now morphed from a concern about a presidential candidate, less than legitimate though it may be, into a full-fledged media phenomenon.  It's just a bandwagon, that's all.  Full of much sound and fury that we can only wish is signifying nothing.  However, in this day and age when people allow media to sweep over them like a Christmas time tsunami, who can tell.

And finally from Lowell . . .

This op-ed in Salt Lake City's Deseret News appears in a regular column by a Mormon and a creedal Christian (gee, where else have we seen that combination? ).  The creedal is Frank Pignanelli, a Democrat and former minority leader of the Utah House of Representatives.  (Full disclosure:  I have known Frank for nearly 30 years and supported him from afar when he ran for Mayor of Salt Lake City several years ago, but he has no other connection this this blog.)  This graph caught my eye, as it accurately expresses the typical Mormon resignation to MSM slams, in contrast with the outside observer's outrage over the same slams:

When I confront my LDS friends (loudly, with arms waving) about responding to these horrible insults, the usual reaction is a shrug of the shoulders and a mumble "what can one do about it?" But something has to be done. Insidious discrimination, whether against Mormons or others, is a disease that permeates all the fabric of our country. Both Mormons and non-Mormons, in a very public manner, must paint this intolerance for what it is: bigotry. This is not the time for passive-aggressive behavior. Indeed, these narrow-minded fools will learn that there are serious ramifications for their stupidity, if we aggressively counter religious discrimination. We may not be able to convince the bigots overnight, but we can at least shame them out of releasing their poisonous thoughts.

To borrow a phrase from Glenn Reynolds: Read the whole thing. 

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

A leftie takes a shot at Sharpton:

I’m a firm believer in the freedom of speech. I don’t care what Sharpton says about Mormons. And I don’t care what Imus says about black girls. What I care about is when someone like Sharpton infers Mormons don’t believe in God only a few short weeks after getting a disc jockey fired.

 

Say what you will about Imus, but he was an equal opportunity offender. Sharpton, on the other hand, is selective. He can say whatever he wants about your group of people, but he’ll be all over your case, bringing down your career, if you say something offensive—read: opportunistic—about his.

If Evangelicals exclude Romney because of his faith, it is precisely this logic that will doom Evangelicals in future elections.  What's more, this is very clear thinking, very sharp reasoning, and I agree with it.  It's not just that the lefties will use it against us, it's that we will have disqualified ourselves - at least made ourselves as much of a laughingstock as Sharpton has made himself.

Worse, because the lefties very much want to use this argument against us, if Romney loses, this is how they will paint it, or at least try to, regardless of the actual facts.  That is why it is terribly important for all Evangelicals that have any political interest to make themselves loud and clear about The Question.  We simply cannot let the lefties and their MSM allies make this assertion - we will lose if there is not an avalanche of evidence to the contrary.

Speaking of which, Froma Harrop writing at Real Clear Politics discusses preachers and the press.  It is an interesting look at how spin gets spun.  We all need to think about it as we see what the press has and is doing regarding The Question, and what they might do in the future.

There is absolutely nothing in this article about The Question, which is why it is refreshing.  This is some of the first serious political writing from a major outlet on the campaign I have seen that treats Romney as a serious contender without mentioning religion.  It is all about how Romney and McCain appear to be aiming for each other.  I am not at all sure that is correct, it is just refreshing to note the absence of The Question.  I wonder if McCain's associates can keep it that way?

NPR, in the wake of Falwell's passing, takes a look at the changes in the "Religious Right."  Like the story discussed above there is a lot of wishful thinking in the analysis, but one thing is definitely true: The Religious Right is not a solid voting bloc, even if NPR is somewhat clueless about the factions and divisions.  That fact alone is why the continued haranguing that Evangelicals will never vote for a Mormon is somewhat nonsensical.  Evangelicals are just not that much in lockstep about anything.  And yet, when they are not trying to co-opt a significant group of us on a particular issue, as they are in this story concerning issues related to the environment, they try to portray us as precisely in that lockstep.  Once again, we have to be loud with our opinions to prevent them from writing them for us.

Lowell adds a couple of notes:  I was reflecting on a Mike Allen Politico piece that we linked to on Wednesday, about a person who has sent out a

blast e-mail to radio talk show hosts . . . headed, "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters? The Mormon Church vs. the United States of America." It went on for eight pages, with color photos, about "secret names and many other bizarre proceedings" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

A series of sensational "Mormons believe" bullet points concluded: "If Mitt Romney does not follow what the prophet of the Mormon Church dictates, he will be an apostate."

It occurred to me that this absolutely makes our point about the MSM not getting enough on this story, even when they are the story. 

In a truly ironic comment, Allen refers to the e-mail's author as "a fringe figure who is not likely to be embraced by Romney's GOP rivals or taken seriously by mainstream journalists."  Excuse me, but isn't Allen a mainstream journalist, and isn't he giving very high-profile space to this "fringe figure?"

This Pennsylvania writer did not think much of Time Magazine's treatment of Romney or The Question. 

On the other end of the political spectrum, this ordained minister, who is the California Director of Norman Lear's People for the American Way, gets some things right, but thinks the biggest problem in religion and politics is "ultraconservative Christian leaders."  So how come the high-profile attacks come from liberals?

John comments:  This one cracks me up -

Democratic strategists may also be tempted to exploit religion if Romney is the Republican nominee.

May?…if?  Oh, I think "Democratic strategists" (Weisberg, Linker, et.al.) are way past the temptation and into the execution phase.

Back to Lowell:

And finally, a Boston NPR show introduces an interview podcast with these words:

But with both McCain and Giuliani carrying baggage of their own, the Mormon ex-governor of Massachusetts is still very much in the race. [Emphasis added.]

Like I said, they just can't get enough of it. 

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »