Today’s Reading List – October 24, 2007
Big Uh-Oh?…
…or not. Don Wilton has retracted his endorsement, but the AP is trumpeting Romney's increasing support in the place he could never win – South Carolina. Wilton's retraction is quite politically neutral and throws nothing to any other candidate.
Wilton told the news agency. "It was my personal error to agree to support Romney's campaign. Until this incident I had never endorsed any person running for any elected office, Democrat or Republican."
Given Romney's showing at the Value Voters Conference and the other endorsements he picked up, and the fact that this endorsement stood for those few days when it was most needed – sending an important signal, regardless; I'd say this is no big deal.
The REAL Agenda peaks around the corner…
USAToday prints an op-ed that treats religion generally so distastefully as to border on offensive. It is more of that word choice thing, so that it makes everything anyone associated with religion does in the political arena sound somehow tainted or illegitimate.
And, E.J. Dionne "pens" a piece seemingly defending Romney, but at the same time making Republicans in general and religious Republicans in particular look bad.
Romney's biggest problem is that he is running in a Republican Party that has been saturated by religion in recent years.
We've said it before, but it bears repeating – the left hates religious people in politics. They are the most effective block to their agenda yet to arise. They are desperately searching for a way to use Romney's faith as a lever to paint religious people, at least right-leaning religious people, as small minded and bigoted.
If Romney loses, they will blame on religion, regardless of the facts. If he wins they will claim that the religion question will prevent him from winning the general. If he wins the general, they will claim he cannot govern effectively because he lacks the wholesale enthusiasm of the Religious Right. Their goal is to delegitimize the voice of the religious in the public square.
That is why it is vitally important, even if your allegiance belongs to another Republican candidate, to be continuously and absolutely clear that religion is not the reason for your stance. We will all lose otherwise.
The No-Win Scenario…
A Mormon, he sometimes adopts the religious language of Evangelicals when he is addressing conservative Christian groups.
Hugh Hewitt had some good insights into this. But let's just consider that one sentence. It is insincere when a Mormon does it, but when Hillary Clinton tires everything from a fake redneck accent to sounding like she has actually morality (Come on – do you think she'd stay married to a multiple philanderer if she had anything resembling decent moral scruples) it's just campaigning as usual.
This cycle has treated us to story after story about how the left is reaching out to the religious voter. That is all Romney is doing and the gap between Romney and Evangelicals is much smaller, and FAR less significant politically than the gap between Evangelicals and the left.
See here's the thing to my Evangelical ears. When I hear Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama for that matter, try to speak my language, I find only cognitive dissonance given what is known about their home, church and private lives. When I hear Romney talk about religion, I find we have much in common despite our theological differences.
Besides, what precisely is the "religious language of Evangelicals"? – I was unaware I spoke a foreign language. I hope you can read these blog posts…
And another thing (from Lowell): I've seen this "language" comment a number of times now, always in Romney-related MSM commentary and "analysis." It's mostly nonsense. For example, it is relatively uncommon for Mormons to refer to Jesus Christ as our "personal savior," but I still hear that term in our meetings regularly. Whether we actually use those very words seems irrelevant, because anyone with even a passing knowledge of Mormonism knows that is how we regard Jesus — as the personal Savior of every human being born on Earth. That Romney uses language common among evangelicals to describe his beliefs– accurately– means nothing, except that he is trying to communicate in such a way as to be understood by his audience.
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 24 Oct 2007 at 5:43 pm #
With regard to your comments on the attempts by Democrats to “reach out” to religious people, some insight into what they really think about religious folks is offered in a September 5, 2007 entry at http://utdems.blogspot.com/, “the official blog of the Utah State Democratic Partyâ€. In attacking education vouchers because they would allow parents to more easily place their students in parochial schools, Democratic blogger Bill Keshlear states:
“Religiously oriented private schools no matter the faith – mainstream Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, fundamentalist Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, or even atheism – exist to instill in students their own particular doctrines, values, morals and specific practices.
“These doctrines, values, morals and specific practices may or may not be consistent with the idea that the historical role of public education in America, and especially Utah, has been not only to prepare young people for the workplace but also to help them become responsible and engaged citizens in our democracy.
“The values that made America “the shining city upon a hill” – tolerance, fair play, hard work, community, equality, opportunity, and rationality – may or may not be taught in a religious curriculum designed to protect kids from the jungle out there.†[Emphasis in original]
His blog goes on to give examples of how “un-American” these parochial schools are because they actually emphasize religious values, including the notion that the sponsoring religion has greater value than other religions and especially no religion. It seems clear that a lot of Democrats think that “the only good religion is a dead religion”, i.e. one that doesn’t place its doctrines above the doctrines of the Democratic Party.