Today’s Reading List – November 7, 2007
STOP THE PRESSES – LATE BREAKING ADDITION…
Remember yesterday when we mentioned Huckabee had preached in Texas over the weekend? Well, courtesy EFM, comes a link to a deeper story on what happened.
New Beginnings church hasn’t endorsed anybody in the 2008 presidential race, but God probably has, pastor Larry Huch said Sunday.
The Almighty, who chose a Goliath-slayer to reign over Israel years ago, apparently has selected an Arkansan to rule over the United States, the Irving pastor repeatedly told his congregation as Mike Huckabee stood nearby.
Huch, saying he believes he has a word from God for the Republican hopeful, quoted a Scripture passage from 1 Samuel that ends with the Lord declaring: “Arise and anoint [David to lead the nation ] for this is the one.”
Okay, this is flat out beyond the pale. There is always some preacher somewhere saying something dumb like that about some candidate, but that the candidate would appear with such a preacher and accept those words . . . .
Lowell? What if Hinckley proclaimed a prophecy concerning Romney? That is precisely analogous to this guy and his claim to have "received a word." If Hinckley did so it would be front page news in the Washington Post, the New York Times, et. al. and yet here I am reading it on the blog of a local Arkansas reporter when it comes to a Baptist.
I find myself beyond words here. By implication, Huckabee has accepted apparent direct divine selection. And people think Romney will have a problem with his church telling him what to do? Oh please! What happens the first time this fool of a pastor "gets a word" that Huckabee is supposed to declare war on Europe, or liberate some African nation?
I demand Huckabee's JFK speech and I demand it NOW!
Lowell: I just want to see a credible interviewer (MSM or other) ask Huckabee about this on the air.
Back to our regular programming…
Religion is a problem for Republicans!?!?!?
So says Michael Cohen at Politico:
Today, a presidential candidate, particularly a Republican candidate, who said that discussions of his religious beliefs are off-limits would run the very real risk of alienating evangelical or faith-based voters, particularly those who look dubiously upon the notion of church-state separation.
And Mark Boggs out of southern Utah:
But this is life in the Republican Party over the last 25 years. Especially in South Carolina, where Sen. John McCain has conveniently divulged that he has been a Baptist for the past few years after being an Episcopalian for the entirety of his life prior. This is a war hero, who endured vicious treatment by the North Vietnamese, and has served honorably in the Senate since 1987 and been one of its most conservative. Apparently, his conservative chops being a bit thin for the GOP, his conversion will resurrect his campaign hopes.
I am reminded of an old one-liner: "I used to have a drinking problem but now I love the stuff." The point is, yes, inside the Republican party the handling of religion is difficult, but at least we are trying, and we will work it out. What is clear is that if we do not, it will be used as a club to beat us, probably severely.
In this cycle, that does not necessarily mean vote for Romney, but it sure as heck means if you don't, you need to make it absolutely plain that religion had nothing to do with your decision – and the evidence better back your declaration.
Biggest reach to work The Question into a story this week, so far…
The Boston Herald in a story on Romney's internal polling:
Polling also can help Romney determine how voters feel about his Mormon upbringing and record as a Massachusetts lawmaker, Moss said.
About those endorsements…
Hugh Hewitt analyzes the Weyrich endorsement. While we are discussing Hugh, he interviewed Ann Romney yesterday. I heard most of it and religion did come up, but only briefly. While not available at writing time, by post time, the audio should be here and the transcript is already available here.
Lowell: For a little more on Weyrich, read Jim Geraghty's post at NRO. Geraghty has an explanation of the endorsement from Weyrich himself, including this interesting comment:
“Huckabee, I came close to supporting him, and if we were running for some sort of religious organization, I would support him, but we’re not. He has compromised on so many conservative issues, I simply can’t be for him. Every time you turn around, he’s taking the wrong stand on a different issue.”
(Emphasis added.) Also, Weyrich does not share the concern of some that Mormons are natural liars:
“I know there’s the issue that Romney has flip-flopped, but so have most of the other candidates,” Weyrich said. “I’ve questioned him very thoroughly and I’m of a mind that he is sincere in his change of heart. I may be wrong but I have interviewed hundreds of candidates over the years, and I have a sense of these things."
Interesting.
John comments a bit more:
It is interesting to me how Weyrich's comments jive with my personal experience and something Ann Romney said in her interview with Hugh Hewitt yesterday:
But it’s also happening…what’s happening is what I thought would happen earlier on. If all people know about Mitt is about his faith, that’s it, they are less likely to think about voting for him. If instead they know that he has been a successful governor, he’s led the Olympics, he has a great family, all these other things, and that he shares the values of other people, then it becomes really diminished in sort of how they view how they’ll vote for candidates. If, however, that’s all they know about him, then they’re likely not to think oh yeah, I’m going to vote for him then. When you fill in the blanks, which is what I’m always happy to do for people, and you see the whole person, then you say oh, that doesn’t bother me at all anymore.
Having met the governor myself, I also have little doubt about the sincerity of his change of positions. There is much talk about his pre-packaged presentation and his good looks, etc. There is a difference between "accomplished" and "slick." Mitt Romney is accomplished, and the fact that you notice it is what means he is definitely not slick.
With people like Benny Hinn and the Copeland's in our world, we Evangelicals tend to assume that polished means disingenuous. In politics polished is necessary to win. Ask yourself this, who was the last sort of rumbled, humble-seeming, direct-talking, good-ol-boy, to come out of Hope Arkansas? And who ended up being the slickest you-know-what to hold the office in recent memory? I am not saying Huckabee is Clintonesque, but I am saying that appealing approachability, that down-to-earth charm, is as much "put on" as Romney's corporate polish.
Anti-Mormon bias has a role in the assumption that Romney's polish is disingenuous. And yet almost everyone that meets him, myself included, finds that assumption to be false. And for the record, Romney is not the first potential president, or even office holder, I have met and spent a little time with. When you can look them in the eye, it is just not that hard to tell.
Then Why Bother?
Even Fred Thompson doesn't think he will become president. Chatting off-air to a television reporter, a stunningly candid off-the-cuff quip from the Hollywood actor cemented the impression that his heart is not in the 2008 race.
And to think he was once the great Evangelical hope.
Posted in Reading List | 1 Comment » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 07 Nov 2007 at 5:45 pm #
The LDS Church is strict about not supporting candidates or parties. No giving membership mailing lists to parties to allow direct solicitation. No posters in church. No handing out of voter information pamphlets. No invitations to candidates to speak in church. No politicking at church dinners and picnics.
Yet we see individual churches inviting candidates like Huckabee and Bill Clinton to be featured speakers and to give sermons that endorse the one candidate and paint the other(s) as the antichrist. Somehow the IRS never goes down to Arkansas to tell the pastors that their 501(c)(3) charitable organization tax exemption is in jeopardy. But if it were a Mormon church doing it, you can bet they would be down there immediately, with a press conference. The government bureaucrats know whom they can beat up on safely, and whom they cannot.
Romney is demonstrating great restraint in talking about his church service. I guess he thinks that the negative response, from talking about being a leader in the LDS church, would be greater than the positive, for recounting how he gave volunteer service as a leader of hundreds of members of his church in the Boston area. Probably he figures that people don’t understand that Mormons staff all their local leadership positions with unpaid volunteers, and would think Romney was some kind of professional preacher, like Huckabee. It is too bad, because telling about that service would show people that he has experience helping people directly and personally who are having personal struggles, that he exercised compassion in a real way, that he is not an aloof millionaire who doesn’t know how poor people live. And it would affirm that he had personally counseled young women against getting abortions way back before he was running for president. People don’t understand that abortion as a personal and moral issue was long ago decided by Romney, and that what has changed is only his view on the best public policy for everyone else, that it is not improper to make his own view a standard for others as a public policy.