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…

Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker. 

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.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

John and I have been living on airplanes and in airports for the last week, but we've still managed to get this blog re-posted every day — and during a news-filled time to boot!  Today's reading list may be just a little shorter than usual as a result.

Facing The Nation

Romney appeared on Bob Schieffer's show Sunday, the morning after the Values Voter Summit and a few hours before Sunday's night's debate.  Transcript and video here.  How does CBS introduce the story?  Like this:

Despite his Mormon faith and the evolution in his position on abortion rights, Mitt Romney insists that he is a consistent conservative and the best choice for Republican voters.

What?  Romney's a "consistent conservative" even though he's a Mormon?  Can the CBS writers spell "non sequitur?"

Here's how CBS reports the Romney interview, which Schieffer introduced as Romney's "most candid yet" on the subject of his faith:

Religion is another issue that could be an obstacle in Romney's run for the White House. Evangelical Christians, like those who gathered at this weekend's Values Voters Summit, are a major force in the Republican Party, and Romney is a Mormon.

 

 

"I'm not going to try and distance myself in any way, shape or form from my faith. It was the faith of my fathers, of my sons, a long tradition in my family," he said. "I'm, as I say, true blue through and through. And so I accept the teachings of our church, and I do my best to live by those teachings."

 

 

Romney did not answer specific questions about Mormonism, saying the church would be better at answering them, but he pointed out its similarities with Christianity and Judaism.

 

"What I can tell you is that the values of my faith are founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and the same kind of philosophy that's associated with other Christian faiths and the Jewish faith and others is very much consistent with ours," Romney said.

 

Echoing John F. Kennedy, who in 1960 explained how his Catholic faith would impact his presidency, Romney said that his allegiance was to the Unite States, rather than to his church.

 

"If I'm president of the United States and put my hand on the Bible, I do what the Constitution tells me, what the rule of law tells me," Romney said. "I certainly don't do what leader of my church or any other tells me to do."

I hate to break this to Mr. Schieffer, but Romney has said those things repeatedly now for months.  No ground broken here.  Still, the video is worth watching.

(John interjects: Thanks Lowell for this great analysis of something I only had tie to link to yesterday!) 

Spinning the Endorsements

This comment out of the Thompson campaign, given to Jim Geraghty at NRO, is interesting:

“While everybody’s  talking about these semi-obscure religious leaders who are endorsing Romney, I’d ask, where are the big three right now? I’d say the big three are Gary Bauer [president of American Values], Tony Perkins [president of the Family Research Council], and Richard Land [president of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the  policy wing of the Southern Baptist Convention] … Perkins hosted a fundraiser for us in Louisiana, and Bauer and Land have been helpful to Fred. Jeri speaks with all of them to some degree, and they all speak to Fred.”

Aside from the clearly mendacious claim that Tony Perkins hosted anything for Thompson in Louisiana, this is just spin.  But it's interesting that the Thompson flack would call Romney's recent endorsements "semi-obscure religious leaders."  They must really want people to believe that.  Anyone who's read what our expert John has to say about who those folks are, however, knows what's really going on.

For example, here's one conservative publication that apparently didn't get the same memo the Thompson operative got.

Lazily Looking for A Story

I think when MSM reporters are on deadline and a story about Mitt Romney, they simply recycle material that has been well-known for months now, (John interjects: Like CBS above you mean?) figuring that many people haven't seen it yet.  Here's one from CNN, boldly proclaiming that "To understand Romney, you must understand his mission."  Well, I'll grant that a full-time proselyting mission is an important part of a Mormon man's youth, but to "understand" that experience takes more than reading a short and superficial CNN story. The mission is indeed an important life experience but really is not relevant to deciding whether or not to vote for the man.  Let me ask this:  In 2000, was CNN saying, "To understand George Bush you must understand his decision to stop drinking"?

John adds a few things:

From RedState:

Let he who is without faith cast the first political stone!

You know, there is a heck of a point there.  We all believe in something.  It is the results those beliefs produce that matters.

Voice of America declares Romney "In Lead."  Not a bad pieces, but it goes where everyone has gone before on The Question, thankfully not at length.  I guess it's obligatory, although why I have no idea.

Wait a minute! - What?  Mormons are politically diverse you say?

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

VALUE VOTERS SUMMIT - THE "BIG" NEWS

Last Friday at the FRC sponsored Value Voters Summit, the premiere gathering of politically active Evangelicals, was a smorgasboard of candidates and their stances on things that matter to evangelicals.  Because of The Question, much of the coverage focused on Romney.  Romney stuck to his guns, addressed the issues and not the theology, and by most accounts I have read did well.

There is so much material and reaction floating around that we are going to present a lot in bullets with little comment.  The thing pretty well went by the numbers, so there is little to comment on that has not been discussed endlessly before.

The Endorsements…

One of the things that made the whole event anti-climactic from this distant perspective was the incredible week Romney had in obtaining endorsements just prior.  Last week we saw Bob Jones III, et. al., Don Wilton and Wayne Grudem, not to mention much discussion of the previous endorsements from Mark DeMoss, James Bopp, and Jay Sekulow. (Please follow that link to a new interview with Jay!)  Well, just before his speech, he picked up another major endorsement, this one the first of those cut loose by Brownback's withdrawal - Jack Willke.  Willke is one of the founders of the National Right-To-Life Committee.

[Lowell interjects:  Jim Geraghty at NRO continued to read tea leaves as the endorsements piled up.  Yes, Romney's people (I suspect Mark DeMoss) may well have orchestrated the endorsements to occur just before the Values Voter Summit speech.  Is this supposed to be a surprise?  The endorsements were given, Jim, and they came from highly-respected evangelicals.  Let's not get so caught up in "inside baseball" that we miss the game that's actually going on!]

{John wisecracks about Lowell's interjection:  Oh, you mean Romney might actually want to win the election and is working professionally and efficiently and effectively towards that end?  I'm flabbergasted!} 

The Build-Up…

The MSM and punditry wished mightily for a Mormon speech, or at least fireworks of some sort.  An Op-Ed in the Indianapolis Star called it, "Romney's day of reckoning."  Other stories in the build-up:

• The AP

Some just flat out tried to stir up trouble:

• The Salt Lake Tribune, without mentioning Romney, discussed Mormonism's radical past.
• Dallas TV kept giving coverage to that pastor that keeps begging for it. (and a Mormon at Red State answers.)
• The Baltimore Sun accused Romney of trying to stack the event associated straw poll. 

And some said amazing things:

• CNN:

To most voters, Romney's religion is not an obstacle for them to elect him the first Mormon president.

 

Nearly 77 percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Thursday said the fact that a candidate is a Mormon would not be a factor in the way they vote for president.

There is a first! A MSM admission that Romney's religious affiliation is not the issue.  Obviously, the tide continues to turn.

The Event…

Here is the text of Romney's speech.  If I was going to sum it up in a word - Discipline.  This is a serious man, trying to get the opportunity to do a serious job, and to do it well.

The Aftermath - the Blogs…

• Red State. 
• EFM answers the "stacking" charge. (This is pretty funny, it addresses Geraghty too.)
• Instapundit passes on a quote KLo took from the speech. (Also very funny)
• Politco's Jonathon Martin.
• The American Prospect. 

In general, reading through the tail, no one could fault the speech, but from some that were there, my buddy Matt being a prime example, there seemed to be a desire for…fireworks?… of some sort.  I think we as Republicans have a job to do.  Fireworks are cool, but they are explosive.  Explosions sort of slow down the work.

The Aftermath - the MSM…

• Examiner
• SLC Tribune
• Fred falls flat
• Reuters
• Washington Post - who appears to get it completely wrong about Romney.
• The Hill
• NYTimes
• The Nation

Trying to make controversy were none was to be found. 

The Results…

Romney won the straw poll, barely.

Huckabee was a close second and huge winner among attendees. 

More coverage:

• Chicago Tribune 
• San Jose Mercury News
• Marc Ambinder 

In light of the results, can anyone make any sense of this? Or this? (OK, it's England, maybe they don't get it?)

There is other news, or at least a few wisecracks… 

Giuliani is a master of understatement. 

Is the Boston Globe going straight? 

Methinks there might be something fishy about that minister in Dallas thing. 

The NYTimes reports that Howard Dean's Chief of Staff, and primary shaper of the Democrats approach to religion is a Pentecostal.  Which explains a lot - I guessing the policy documents are written in tongues.

Just a quick thought from Lowell:  Does anyone else read the Byron York posts collected here and wonder if he is resisting any good news about Romney and The Question?

John responds to Lowell:  Sayeth the pundits, et. al. - "Our narrative must hold!  Nay, the Mormon and relative political naif could not win over the fair Evangelicals, for they be too uneducated and unsophisticated to think smartly about such things.  It must be trickery, trickery I tell you!  I as the wisest in the land shall expose said trickery."

There is a lot of that going on - witness, Luo at the NYTimes - Martin is doing something of the same thing at Politico in discussing the Huckabee attendee win.  What cracks me up is that for weeks now Romney's polling advantage in early primary states has not mattered to these people, they seemed to focus only on the national numbers.  But when it is the local numbers that tell the negative story and the national numbers that fight the narrative . . . .

Lowell again:  Byron York, again, simply oozes love for Giuliani here (the first five paragraphs are about Rudy; five more are on Huckabee; and one paragraph, at the end of the piece, grudgingly commends Romney for doing a "workmanlike" job in the debate Sunday night)  Not one word about the evangelical endorsements.  

I also have some comments on the significance of the Values Voters event, vis-a-vis the endorsements Romney has received.  I spent the weekend in Virginia and happened to see Luo's piece in Sunday's New York Times (linked by John above) in the airport: 

The Romney campaign trumpeted the victory, but there was only a smattering of applause in the auditorium when his name was announced and the event’s organizers cautioned against his deriving any kind of mandate from the results. Mr. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, delivered an address Friday laden with policy commitments, but he faces continued skepticism about his Mormon faith, which he addressed only in passing in his speech. He has also been criticized for his relatively recent conversion to an abortion opponent.

Where to start?  One might reasonably ask:  If the people present in the Values Voters audience really were not enthusiastic about Romney, isn't it likely that the reason is they doubt his "conversion" on their key issues (life, traditional marriage).  Is it fair for him to introduce Romney's Mormonism into the discussion, and to describe the issue as one of "skepticism?"

More questions:  After all is said and done about the Values Voters conference, which is more significant:

• a closely divided but totally unscientific straw poll whose respondents are comprised of deeply committed activists who actually attended the event, as well as partisans organized to vote via the Internet; or
• a series of Romney endorsements by very significant and credible leaders of the Evangelical movement, who are willing to put their reputations on the line in their own community?

We blog, you decide. 

ONE LAST THOUGHT FROM LOWELL: 

When is anyone, in the blogosphere or the MSM, going to slam Mike Huckabee for speaking in code like this?

"There were times … when things amongst us were negotiable," he said. "But some things are not negotiable, the sanctity of life, the definition of marriage. … Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody's politics — not now, not ever."

Huckabee, a former pastor in Pine Bluff and Texarkana, Ark., also was president of the Arkansas Baptist Convention before his election as lieutenant governor and then governor. 

"I come today as one not who comes to you, but as one who comes from you," Huckabee said. "You are my roots."

(Emphasis added.)  Now, we try very hard here not to read too much into statements like Huckabee's, and yet, and yet . . . .  [John interjects:  Hey! I have slammed him for it.]

And by the way . . . Go Red Sox!

STOP THE PRESSES!

(Well, at least Face The Nation)

Check out this Bloomberg Headline: 

Romney Says Mormon Leaders Won't Have Influence If He's Elected 

There, dear friends is your "JFK Speech."  That's pretty much what Kennedy said in that oft cited bit of oratory, and now Romney has said it.  But will they be satisfied?  Bet not.

Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

Lowell Kicks us off… 

When A Negative Isn't Such A Bad Thing

Writing in Opinion Journal's Political Diary (subscription required), Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics analyzes Romney's candidacy in a totally refreshing way.  His subject?  The negative effects of both Romney's and Giuliani's attacks on one another:

According to the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, taken last Friday through Sunday, Mr. Giuliani's unfavorable rating shot up nine points in ten days, while Mr. Romney's jumped eight points. Add the drop in their favorable ratings over the same period and Mr. Giuliani suffered a net 14-point decline in his favorability rating in the last two weeks. Mr. Romney's favorability dropped 11 points.
 

Why is this refreshing?  Because it respectfully analyzes the tactics of two candidates as serious contenders, and it discusses Romney's negatives, with nary a word about religion. (John interjects: Well sort of Lowell.  Same day at the RCP Blog, Bevan says religion still is an issue.)  I suspect this focus on real issues will become more and more prevalent as the field separates.  Now that Sam Brownback is out, his supporters will divide between Romney and Huckabee (Giuliani certainly won't get many of them), with the more victory-oriented supporters flocking to Romney.  Only a few will go to Thompson, who has not distinguished himself as a candidate attractive to the family-values voters who supported Brownback.

I know that's more political analysis than we usually do on this blog, but it's relevant because Romney's emergence as a serious candidate - one of the top two or three - also heralds the subordination of religious questions to questions of policy and the candidates' capability to implement policy.In other words, in the short term Romney's faith will recede into the background.  If he's the GOP nominee, of course, Team Clinton will use religion in ugly and perhaps effective ways. But that's a story for later.

Late update by Lowell:  Bevan's post, which John refers to above, deserves more comment.  First, it brings a smile to me when I read Bevan quote analysts of an Insider Advantage poll:

[B]y calling attention to the former Massachusetts' governor's religion, the endorsement of Bob Jones III, chancellor of the fundamentalist Christian university in Greenville which bears his name, could have hurt Romney more than it helped him.

Don't you love this combination of tea leaf reading and inside baseball?  I would think that maybe the punditocracy could acknowledge that it will take time before the effect of these endorsements is truly felt, but I think it is hard for them to do that; they love their narrative so.

Second, Romney may well give a religion-oriented speech, as Bevan suggests.  But does anyone agree with me that the dynamics of such a speech, if given, are forever changed by the burst of high-level evangelical support for Romney? 

And John takes over…

Lowell and I both find ourselves on the road, skipping time zones like stones on a pond, confused about days, times, and cities.  But this may be perhaps the "busiest" time this blog has seen.  I grow increasingly certain that this period will end up being viewed as the climax of The Question for the primary.  With that, let's dive in:

Endorsements, The Avalanche Continues…

First in his own Townhall column, and then on Hugh Hewitt's radio show, Dr. Wayne Grudem announces his support for Romney.  Grudem may not be a name that will readily rolls off of political tongues across the nation, but his influence on American evangelicalism is HUGE!  To serious students of evangelical theology, Grudem is in "the pantheon."  The introductory portion of the Hewitt interview establishes the bona fides:

HH: It’s been an incredible week for Mitt Romney. He’s achieved a breakthrough of sorts in the Evangelical community, even among the very conservative fundamentalist community, people who were not thought to be favoring him because of his Mormon religion. And today, in an op-ed that will be widely circulated among the senior Evangelical leadership in the United States, Professor Wayne Grudem, who’s a professor at Phoenix Seminary, endorses Mitt Romney’s candidacy. To let you know why this is significant, Dr. Grudem is perhaps one of the best well-known theologians in the United States. He’s a former president of the Evangelical Theological Society, and I think probably his textbook is more widely used in seminaries across the United States than any other. Dr. Grudem joins me now from Phoenix. Dr. Grudem, good to have you on.

 

WG: Thank you, Hugh.

 

HH: What is that textbook? What’s the title of that one which is everywhere?

 

WG: Systematic Theology.

 

HH: And when did that come out?

 

WG: ’94.

 

HH: And so this…is that the best selling theological textbook in America?

 

WG: Well, it does pretty well.

 

HH: All right, that’s a good thing to say. Modesty befits you. Dr. Grudem,…

Grudem begins his column by summarizing his conclusions:

As an evangelical professor of Bible and theology, I have decided to support Mitt Romney for President (even though he is a Mormon) for two old-fashioned reasons: First, he is the best-qualified candidate, and second, he holds moral and political values consistent with those in the Bible.

It is highly significant to note that as perhaps the most influential theologian alive today, Grudem focuses not on theology in making his decision, but on values, even if they result from a different theology.  Grudem does an excellent job of explaining and defending himself.  I urge all interested parties to read through the links above.

Also, another fairly huge endorsement picked up yesterday.  The Brody file:

…Dr. Don Wilton, Senior Pastor At The First Baptist mega Church Of Spartanburg, South Carolina and former President of the South Carolina Baptist Convention has endorsed Mitt Romney.

And our old friend Kevin McCollough continues to warm to Romney, while emphasizing the theological distinctives. These posts make me smile as they show the basic irrelevancy of theology in politics.  They bash Joel Osteen's theology (I told you before he had a problem) while confessing affection for a Mormon for president.  Stuff like this really makes me love America.  It is us and religion and politics at our finest.

Meanwhile, Lowell and I have pointed out that things could get ugly in the general.  Here's proof, a press release from the DNC regarding the Bob Jones endorsements.  I hope they get smarter before this is over.  Simple name-calling just is not going to cut it.

All this and yet some commentators…

still don't get it.  Something called the Southern Political Report, sort of stutters, "But the polls, the polls . . . ."  Way back more than a year ago, when only total political geeks like Lowell and myself paid any attention to this stuff, we quoted Kathryn Jean Lopez (sorry folks, in election time it is far too old to dig up the link in our archives, particularly when Lowell and I are as time confused as we are - use our search feature) on something along the lines of this:  The polls ask about a generic Mormon, but it is Mitt Romney that is running.  If Romney wins, I bet the polls, if conducted sufficiently after the election when the buzz has died, and asked in exactly the same way, will not move all that much.

Roger Simon insists the problem remains, and looks again to a speech.  Does Romney really need a speech when he has the likes of Bob Jones III, Wayne Grudem, James Bopp, Jay Sekulow, and Mark DeMoss doing it for him?  Come on Roger?!

But then the uptick in "speech talk"…

is probably because of the big Voters Values Summit this weekend which Romney will address.  His planned remarks have been released and depending on your viewpoint, they either emphasize the commonalities Evangelicals and Mormons share, or they are disappointing because Romney is refusing to start an in-depth religious discussion, which would spark some sort of mini-religious war in the nation.

Ann Romney says a speech is still under consideration.  Of course, Mitt is not a guy that would take any option off the table until he had to; smart leaders are like that.

You do know the opposition wants that religious mini-war during the primaries…

 – don't you?  As evidence, consider this Examiner piece "Religious Conservatives Face Hard Choices."  As we see a religious voters consensus begin to emerge behind the Romney candidacy (it was inevitable after the Thompson belly-flop, I think) we may see more pieces like this.  It is in the opposition's best interest to have a hotly contested primary - it weakens the  candidates' initial position as the general starts.

If Romney manages to solidify his creedal Christian support in the next few weeks, and I think he will, I predict we will see more pieces like this one, trying to destabilize that foundation.  For one thing, the press will just hate to have been proven so wrong, and for another, there is that whole MSM bias question. 

Finally…

John McCain is genuine American hero, but he will never figure out the religious voter.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

Still Rolling…

EFM reprints an email from James Bopp endorsing Romney.  Like DeMoss, Bopp has been in the Romney camp for quite a while, but apparently no one really noticed until now.

Another important person that has at least said Romney's religion should not be an issue for a very long time is Catholic Bishop Charles Chaput.  He was featured prominently in the Hewitt book. (Even more prominently than Lowell and I - go figure. )  Anyway, he was recently awarded the "2007 Family Values Awards by . . . drum roll please . . . The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Gee! happiness between Mormons and creedal Christians is breaking out all over the place. 

Even Al Mohler agrees!  From his interview with Hugh Hewitt on the radio yesterday, concerning Bob Jones III's endorsement:

HH: Now do you think that this effectively dissipates the Mormon issue that there’s been so much conversation about? You and I have talked about it in the past, and I interviewed you for the book, et cetera, but does this put that one to bed?

 

AM: You know, I don’t think it puts it to bed. I think it, though, gets it into some pajamas, perhaps. Let’s put it that way.

 

H: (laughing)

 

AM: It’s moving it in that direction, because I think what’s taking place is that Evangelicals are having to rethink a lot of this whole political question. It’s been easy in recent election cycles. Evangelicals have basically known here is someone who looks like us, sounds like us, believes like us, goes to Church like us, who on the issues, is right where we want him. And so we’re going to be very clearly aligned behind this one candidate. We’ve had to grow up as an Evangelical movement. And one of the big questions we’ve been having to ask is what exactly do we expect from a candidate, and does that mean that we can’t vote for a candidate who in some life particular, and something as particular as worldview and religious commitment, is in a different place than we are, but will further the goals and protect the gains on moral and cultural issues that are central Evangelical concerns. I think that’s been a maturation process.  I think we’re seeing it before our eyes.

Those are amazing words from a man who has quite publicly worried previously that casting a vote for Romney would enhance Mormon evangelism!  Kudos to Dr. Mohler for his forthrightness in this circumstance.  (BTW, while you are hanging around Hugh Hewitt's site, you might want to listen to the podcast of the hour with Mohler - Wednesday 10/17/07 Christopher Hitchens, Al Mohler, Jonathon Martin.  Politico's Martin tends to agree that this is the break that puts The Question to bed.)

The poor press, "They won't have The Question to kick around any more."

Or will they?  The Salt Lake Tribune describes Romney's forthcoming appearance at the Voters Value Summit as "a test."  CBS reports the Bob Jones III endorsement with a bit of incredulity, And the Dallas Morning News reports on a local pastor that I just have to think smells a way to get some press - leading to the usual statements by the usual suspects.

Why the hesitancy to believe what so obviously seems to be happening?  It's simple, the press has spent the last two terms closely identifying Bush and Evangelicals, even the Religious Right in general, with each other and I think this is a bit of Bush Derangement Syndrome rubbing off.  Given their view of things for the last several years, the Religious Right just must be a bunch of close-minded bigots.

In my opinion, a Romney victory with heavy creedal Christian backing would remove a vital weapon from the left/MSM arsenal aimed in religion's direction.  Although — I still think it will get really ugly in the general if Romney is the nominee.  The Clintons are just too good at the low blow not to use it.

Blogging Matters…

According to the Washington Times:

Gossip may do more to shape a person's opinion than facts they know to be true, even when the chit-chat contradicts the evidence, according to a new study.

This is important for this blog because "the gossip" about Mormons is quite contrary to the evidence.

Blogging, particularly in "the tail," is an online form of gossip.  If you are concerned about the issues that this blog confronts, may I suggest you start talking over the fence, virtually and in 3-D.

On Other Fronts…

William Buckley thinks Giuliani is the one with the religion problem. 

Joel Osteen, pastor of America's current largest congregation, says Romney's religion is no big deal.  What's interesting is that Osteen draws almost universal condemnation from most creedal Christians who view his particular flavor of faith as a bit to happy-clappy and his umbrella a little too big. (Forgive me, but it would take volumes to describe the genuine theological issues.)  Osteen's opinion might just hurt Romney with the bunch that are currently coming into the camp more than it will help.

Should one link to a complete idiot?  Ted Rall on religion in this election, and particularly Romney:

Mitt Romney is one-upping McCain, misrepresenting Mormonism as well as the secular nature of American government. "The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background," he said in New Hampshire. "They're American values, if you will." Or if you won't. As The New York Times notes, "Mormons do not believe in the concept of the unified Trinity; the Book of Mormon is considered to be sacred text, alongside the Bible; and Mormons believe that God has a physical body and human beings can eventually become like God." Also, the Mormon Jesus will eventually return to Independence, Missouri. "Much like." Right.

Uh, for the record - trinitarian matters, conceptions of the Godhead, eschatology, and canon are matters of theology NOT values.  So, Romney misrepresents nothing.  Of course understanding that would mean actually understanding something, anything, about religion.

Speaking Philosophically…

On Faith wonders about the Dalai Lama this week:

The Dalai Lama says 'All major religious traditions carry basically the same message: That is love, compassion and forgiveness.' Do you agree?

The Dalai Lama's statement is a heck of a double-edged sword.  Most religions will intersect in various places, but they need to be distinct to remain on their own so there is generally much more effort poured into emphasizing the difference, than looking at the similarities.  There is also that whole truth thing gumming up the works. 

Which brings me to this post from some very smart academics in Colorado.  The conclusion of the post illustrates the point I just made:

Now according to Romney this should be a matter of indifference, because, after all, what counts is whether or not one has "faith." In this way a disagreement about, for example, the divinity of Christ - something which innumerable people have been burnt at the stake for denying - is transformed into a trivial detail, of no real importance.

 

With "faith" like this, who needs atheism?

But consider the meat of the argument:

What would one think of someone who said that it was important for our leaders to be "persons of politics," while remaining indifferent to just what sort of political beliefs they held? Imagine taking the view that it made no difference whether one was a Maoist or a royalist or a Republican, as long as one's political beliefs were sincere.

 

Or consider a scientist who claims that, while he personally believes that global warming is going to destroy civilization, his opinion has no more value than that of a scientist who denies that global warming represents any sort of serious problem. The important thing, he says, isn't the truth or falsehood of their respective views, but rather that he and the holder of the diametrically opposed opinion are both "persons of science."

These analogies are entirely insufficient to describe the relationship between religion and politics.  These analogies relate to things of this world that have direct natural consequence.  Religion is a set of beliefs, generally about the supernatural, that have only indirect consequence on a person's actions and thoughts in this natural world.

Further, this argument ignores that fact that different religions do have places where they intersect and can often result in the same natural consequences, even with differing beliefs about the supernatural.

The great American public religion is best described as a generic "faith," primarily in some sort of supernatural accountability that holds the citizenry to a common ethical framework.  Without such, government must take that morally and ethically authoritative role and then we are on the road to totalitarianism.  Alternately, if we conflate the governmental authority with religious authority, we arrive at the same totalitarian destination.

The divinity of Christ is in fact a matter of enormous consequence about eternity and the after life.  But until I can be made to understand how the Mormon understanding of Jesus and my own result in consequentially different results with regards to ethics and public policy, it ends there. 

Lowell:  I am on the road this week, and on this particular evening I've tried mightily to come up with something to add.  But John has outdone himself once again.  Amen, I say.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

It's a Fundamental Avalanche…

Yesterday it was an official of Bob Jones University, today it is Bob Jones III himself endorsing Romney.  As we noted yesterday Bob Jones University is FUNDAMENTALIST - those are the creedal Christians that make the Evangelicals look like liberals.  As Hugh Hewitt and I discussed on the radio yesterday, if the Fundamentalists are opening the door, the Evangelicals will likely go through it in droves.

There are those to the right of the Bob Jones University, like Bill Keller, but a move like this puts those people so far out on the fringe as to not be worth the effort.

And yet, Michael Luo at the NYTimes thinks Romney is proceeding "gingerly." Frankly, Romney cannot jump on this too hard or he risks alienating people, but Luo's piece, which is the same old, same old, in light of the recent developments from the third party threat to these BJU endorsement just puts the lie to that narrative.  It is time for the MSM to get their story right.

Lowell:  The news media, especially the MSM, loves a story, and to have a story they need protagonists and antagonists, conflict, and so forth.  So when someone says, "Mormons don't worship the same God (or Jesus) that orthodox Christians do," writers like Luo eat that up.  Fact is, that argument is so esoteric to most people that it just doesn't make sense.  But it makes great copy.

As seems to be typical for the MSM, they are analyzing this election cycle in the last one's terms.  The Dallas Morning News notes how evangelical politics is changing:

For many conservative evangelical Christians younger than 30, family values mean more than the issues of gay marriage, abortion and prayer in school. [Emphasis added.]

That, more than anything, is what creedal Christians and Mormons hold most in common.

Breathlessly reported…

By Matt Lewis - there may be a religion speech?  Key words:

When it comes to making Romney campaign decisions, I'm told, the candidate makes the final decision.  But his advisers are strongly pushing him toward this direction, and it appears his campaign is headed in that direction.

Let me "translate" that for you.  A staffer that thinks there should be a speech is floating yet another in an endless series of trial balloons to the press trying to build public sentiment to lever the Governor with.

If I were the Governor I would listen to the people he meets on the stump, not the reporters mind you, the voters.  Are they asking about it?  I don't think so, at least not most of them. 

Quick Links…

The view from Canada. 

OK, it's official, Slate is just weird. 

Some good words about how this whole politics thing ought to be done. 

Inside Catholic political involvement. 

How It's Not Done…

Witness Obama:

But about 50 people showed up to talk about the war, poverty and trying to seize back the moral mantle some in the GOP claim. The night also featured an Obama video and a campaign altar call…

 

[…]

 

…aid Mark Silk, director of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. "If you are going to parse the different dimensions of how a presidential candidate does religion, he's doing them all."

 

[…]

 

The Mount Olive AME Church member signed on as a "congregation contact."

I thought it was the Republicans that pushed the religion/politics line!? 

Lowell:  It's interesting, isn't it?  It seems that when Democrats rely on religion as a moral basis for using government for charitable purposes (e.g., feeding the hungry, clothing the naked), that is acceptable; but when Republicans rely on religion as a basis for holding the line on, or promoting standards of behavior (anti-pornography, pro-traditional marriage, anti-abortion) that is frightening or disturbing.

Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »