Article VI Blog

Here's a long, analytical Washington Post article on Romney's campaign so far. It's a mostly excellent piece, but — call me weird– what struck me as most interesting about it is . . . of at least 1,000 words, only 29 related to The Question, and they were buried deep in the article:

Romney has yet to demonstrate convincingly that he can win over evangelical Christians, an important constituency in Republican primaries; some are skeptical about him because of his Mormon religion, and others may doubt that his conversion on abortion is genuine.

I guess that's progress.

John comments: That's what I like about Lowell, he is a glass half full kind of guy! The piece outlines Romney's strategy and how well he is executing it, polling, fundraising, etc, and then, out of nowhere, comes that paragraph. Maybe it's in the name of balance, but I'm betting it is because, once again, the MSM cannot let go of their preconcieved narrative, even if it does not apply or is not true, it simply must be repeated. Which begs the question - When does the preconceived narrative become "The Big Lie"? You know, the one that if you repeat it enough times it becomes the truth?

Lowell: John's right. I guess I have low expectations.

And John adds some links:

OK, So MSNBC, and a blog called The Democratic Daily both point to the latest entry in the Boston Globe's Romney profile series about his Vietnam era draft deferments. This comes under the somewhat "sinister" headline:

Mormon church obtained Vietnam draft deferrals for Romney, other missionaries

They point out that such deferments became controversial later in the war, which pretty much did all deferements, but I cannot help but think this is another sign of anti-Mormon bias. Ministers of all stripes routinely obtained deferments and being a lay run church, an LDS missionary fits the definition pretty well.

Imagine this headline "Young Life staffer obtained Vietnam deferment" - a lot did. So the question is - Is this news because he is running for President, or because he is Mormon? Given that the story fails to mention other religious deferments, you decide.

Lowell: Clearly one result of Romney's status as a serious candidate is that the MSM is looking for something, anything that looks like a skeleton in his closet. As someone who was around in the Vietnam draft era, and a was Mormon growing up in Salt Lake City, I can add some perspective.

I was just a couple of years too young to have to worry about the draft (I was required to register and I did get a lottery number), but I was surrounded by family and friends who were involved. During much of that time– certainly in Romney's era– each LDS ward (congregation) could send only two missionaries per year. In those days in my own ward, we had enough missionary-age young men to send out a half-dozen missionaries annually, were it not for the draft. As a result, many young men entered the military, then served missions; others served missions, then entered the military. But that varied from ward to ward. Timing and luck were everything — just as they were for hundreds of thousands of other young men thoughout the country, who worked the system for college deferments, 4-F status due to athletic injuries, and so forth.

I don't know Romney's story but it looks like he was one of those who was able to serve a mission, then became ineligible for military service because of college deferments and marriage, just like so many other young men in that era. Any claim that the "LDS Church" intervened in some way to get him out of military service is simply nonsense. The system at that time just wasn't set up to work that way. Romney is no different from thousands of other young Mormons in the 60's. There is no story here.

Today's entry into BG's "profile" series, looking at his academic years, contains several "wonderful" little snippets:

Romney also occasionally attended weekend parties and group dinners at Cambridge restaurants such as Legal Seafoods and the now-closed Joyce Chen. The restrictions of his Mormon faith never interfered in these affairs.

I'm sorry, but that is just laughable. On the good side, I'm not sure it is bigoted because I can easily see them wrting the same thing about any person in Romney's position of any deeply held religious conviction, but the whole "religious people are human too" aspect of that paragraph is stunning. But then there is this:

Romney's classmates were widely aware he was Mormon, but said he never proselytized. Mark E. Mazo, one of Romney's law school study group partners, recalls that Romney offered to discuss his faith with any classmates interested in learning more about it. "He mentioned it once and only once, and it never came up again," Mazo said.

On occasion, Mitt and Ann invited classmates to "family home evening," a Mormon tradition in which families set aside time each week to spend together. Visitors to their house at the time, on Winn Street near Belmont Hill, remember it as modest, without any obvious trappings of wealth.

Well, what do you know, Mormons are people too! I'm sorry, but give me a break. It's as if the Globe thinks mission work is all there is to Mormonism - even when they are not knocking on your door. I'm not a Mormon and even I know they don't do that all the time. Besides, I wonder if anyone remembers that we creedal Christians have been known to do door-to-door evangelism too, I certainly have.

When Lowell and I appeared on Hugh Hewitt's radio program last week, I said that I thought MSM coverage of Romney's faith was getting freakshowish - like Jerry Springer or Maury Povich. This piece sure carries that air to it.

The NYT covers Guiliani's continuing troubles with the Roman Catholic Church. While the story definitely works to portray the church as somehow close-minded, at least there is some "there" there. The church is arguing how to handle candidates who disagree with the church's stance on certain issues.

Finally, and quite ironically, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Al Mohler begins a blog post (different seminary than yesterday, but we are hearing from these Baptist seminaries a lot) with this rhetorical question:

Have we reached the point that a Christian who affirms traditional church teachings cannot be appointed to public office?

He then goes on to examine the case of Bush's appointment for Surgeon General who is under attack for his classic creedal Christian faith. Mohler has yet to go so far as to say Evangelicals cannot or should not vote for a Mormon, but he has expressed "concern" because of Mormon beliefs.

Lowell: He's done more than express concern; he said that for for him, deciding whether or not to vote for a Mormon for president would be "agonizing" as a matter of Christian discipleship.

I hate to tell you this, Al, but in this country what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If you are going to be concerned about Mormon office-seekers' beliefs, then someone else is going to be concerned about yours. That, my friend and brother, is the whole point.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post