Today’s Reading List – November 14, 2007 | Article VI Blog

About Robert Redford…

Jim Geragthy got all over him, not just once, but twice.

We know that while most Democratic officeholders have relatively careful tongues, many parts of the Democratic machine shoot their mouths off so regularly that you can set your clock to them. We know foot-in-mouth disease plagues Hollywood stars, a significant number of lefty bloggers, some liberal columnists and talking heads, consultants, and even low-level officials.

I suspect that if Romney were to get the nomination, we would hear a great deal from those folks about just what's wrong with "those" Mormons, and the rhetoric would be ugly enough to match the seething disdain, and irrational bigotry lurking in the hearts of the intemperate. Somebody ought to set up a pool to guess which figure makes the first horrific statement painting all Mormons with a broad brush: Rosie O'Donnell? Bill Maher? Michael Moore? Keith Olbermann? Frank Rich?

While Tom Bevan is pithy:

I missed the fact that Robert Redford made a total and complete fool of himself recently with his comments about Mormons, though I am aware that he's made what appears to be one of the worst movies of all time.

We have always said The Question would only worsen in the general, but it had not occurred to me that it might also be a weapon in our arsenal. I keep forgetting the leftie tendency to hyperbolic insult.

Lowell: I'm one of those who pays little attention to what famous people say about politics. I like Dennis Prager's rule that there is a big difference between fame and significance. So the comments of a Robert Redford about the presidential campaign seem mostly quaint to me. But . . . like John, I see great potential in the stupid statements of such folk. Think back to the benefit show put on for John Kerry in 2004 by Whoopie Goldberg and others, which probably lost Ohio for Kerry all by itself.

It Has Become Code . . .

. . . in not one but two senses. I note with chest-thumping dismay that a Gannett writer wonders yet again about a speech and opens with:

Before a roomful of supporters at his New Hampshire headquarters, Mitt Romney gets The Question.

Note the reference to "The Question." Hey! That's ours! Hugh Hewitt even documented it as ours. That is code one. I guess we have become part of the political cultural lexicon. But code two is all this "speech talk" – it is code for continuing the endless, pointless, and unoriginal talk about The Question. And yet Richard Land keeps pushing for it.

Lowell: I knew we should have trademarked that term . . . .

I love Romney's response to the latest inquiries about a speech as reported by Hotline and The Boston Globe, quoting the The Concord Monitor:

In 1960, when he was running for president, President John F. Kennedy gave a speech aimed at questions about his Catholicism. Kennedy extolled the separation of church and state and assured voters that would never take orders from the Pope. Romney is often asked whether he'll give a similar speech; yesterday, he said he wasn't sure.

"John F. Kennedy gave the landmark speech on the topic. He said what needs to be said," Romney said. "I don't know that there's something different that needs to be said than what he said. I guess I could go back and reprint it!"

Speaking of "endless, pointless, and unoriginal talk about The Question"…

Some people just can't help themselves.

When is it hatred?…

Perhaps when it defies reason? This WSJ op-ed has nothing to do with Romney, Mormonism, or religion in general, but I find it fascinating on the level of labels mattering more than reason, identity more than cause.

Finally…

The theo-nerds at Get Religion seems to finally be getting it. (Lowell: As I recall, the author of the post, Mollie Ziegler, has not been much of a theo-nerd on GetReligion. The other contributors there, however, seem pretty hopeless.)

And yet – theo-nerds abound. I would love to know just one thing in that entire piece that has anything to do with Mitt Romney's qualifications to serve as POTUS.