Today’s Reading List – November 16, 2007
It gets ugly and the press finally covers it right…
Jonathan Martin broke it yesterday and has been all over it. The AP has done some follow-up and Hugh Hewitt comments:
If the campaign that used appeals to religious bigotry is identified, it will be over for that candidate.
So how? What? Anti-Mormon, anti-Romney push polls in New Hampshire and Iowa. Frankly, I did not expect this until the general. The polling firm identified as doing this denies push polling in general and release no details on any clientele. I could speculate a lot about who is behind this, but it would be pure speculation, there simply is no data available. Hewitt is right , if it ever comes to light, it spells the end of the candidate's candidacy. The polling company is trying to point fingers at an unnamed 527, according to Martin.
What is good, in fact excellent, is that Martin and the AP's Phillip Elliot are treating this as the scandal and outrage that it is. What is sad is that they have failed to see similar scandal in the press which has gratuitously brought up Romney's religion over and over and over again in the journalistic equivalent of push-polling.
It is likely that whoever is behind this has covered their tracks very well, but there is always a trail and this one needs to be followed.
Lowell: Martin really is all over this. The AP has picked up the story too. The latest update on Martin's blog (11:00 p.m. Pacific time, November 15) includes this non-denial denial, a "letter from Western Wats, the survey firm behind the calls:"
Ed,
It was good to talk to you tonight. As you know Western Wats is not currently conducting any work for your firm, The Tarrance Group, in the state of New Hampshire or Iowa, nor have we for the period in question. As you also know Western Wats is a survey research data collection firm that services the opinion survey research industry.
Confidentiality agreements prohibit us from commenting on specific projects and/or clients. Often we find there is confusion on the question of what is legitimate opinion survey research and what is commonly referred to as push polling. Western Wats has never, currently does not, nor will it ever engage in push polling.
We have found it helpful to direct people who may have questions about the differences between opinion survey research and push polling to the following website:
http://aapor.org/aaporstatementonpushpolls.
I do hope that this information is helpful to you and The Tarrance Group.
Regards,
Robert Maccabee
Director, Client Services
In other words, "Yes, we're making the calls, but it's real research, not a push poll."
Right.
It will be interesting to see if anyone in the MSM, with all those resources, digs into this story. I can assure our readers that there will be some bloggers digging into it. In any case, it's only a matter of time before someone talks. Watch this space!
John makes and early morning addition on this: K-Lo calls out Huckabee.
If southern Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee wants to do some real good, he would denounce this.
I agree, but then so should every candidate on both sides of the aisle. K-Lo is right; however, in asserting that a denial from Huckabee would have far more impact than from anyone else. If you were to ask me where my suspicions immediately fell….
And now John makes a prediction: This story is everywhere that matters this morning. That means that whoever is behind it will be calling a halt, rolling-up the operation, and trying to kill the trail. That's good news. Whether we ever find out who is responsible or not I have no idea, but the press has already played an important role. There will be no more calls like this for quite a while.
This is how it works…
Yesterday's NYTimes profile of Romney's missionary years seemed fairly balanced, but was of concern. Well, later in the day, a CBS blog picked out the juicy bits thus distilling it into a religious attack. Now in some sense that is just blogging – the echo chamber of political discourse. But when the juicy throw-aways become the story one has to wonder about the motive for including the throwaways to begin with.
There is no news like "Speech" news…
Now here is a heck of a point . . .
Jonah Goldberg on "splintering" the Christian Right.
Moreover, it misses what's disturbing about the potential rebirth of Social Gospelism on the right, particularly in the form of Mike Huckabee's compassionate conservatism with better bible quotes. If the Christian right — diverse though it may be — starts to become more sympathetic to using activist government as a instrument to impose God's teachings — or one interpretation of them — then the largest and most reliable voting bloc in the Republican Party will become merely rightwing progressives, using government at all levels to do what they think is good, regardless of whether it's constitutional or federalist or liberal in the classical sense. Huckabee's support for a national federal ban on workplace and/or public smoking should be very scary to believers in limited government. Huckabee's economic populism, likewise, is not a good omen. And the fact that Huckabee is popular in this "everybody's doing it" climate is not reassuring in the least.
Could that be why the left wants us to "splinter"? . . .
With the LATimes chest-thumping about it one has to wonder. What is most notable about this piece is that it attempted to define "Evangelical."
The term "evangelical" refers to Christians who claim a personal relationship with Christ and consider the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed. They are a huge group — about one in four voters — and far from monolithic; their ranks include Pentecostals, charismatics, Southern Baptists and many others. Some worship to rock music, others to hymns; some speak in tongues. Some believe God preordained those headed to heaven; others hold that anyone can achieve salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. Former Presidents Carter and Clinton are evangelicals, as is President Bush.
What is most interesting is that if you asked Southern Baptists if Pentecostals were "Evangelical" some would most certainly have a problem with that. What is also interesting is that as I understand Mormon theology (Lowell?) they would fit, "claim a personal relationship with Christ and consider the Bible the word of God, to be faithfully obeyed," which I promise you will rankle Evangelical hearts and minds across the nation. Let the harumphing begin.
Lowell: Yes, as I read that lame definition, I thought, "Hey! I guess to the L.A. Times, I am an Evangelical!" (Don't worry, my friends, I am not claiming that title.)
Speaking of which…
A fairly prominent Southern Baptist blog wrote that Romney's faith should not be an issue in a voting decision. Well, he caught a bit of flak for that. He makes some devastating points:
The one aspect of my last post that disturbs me most stems from the fact that some who commented not only failed to deal with the post per se, they appeared to intentionally misstate what the post actually said.
Funny how bigotry, which cannot argue, always changes the subject. But his most devastating answer to his critics:
One final note: I could have written the same post I did yesterday with virtually the same message if I had substituted Mike Huckabee's name in it instead. The post wasn't about a personality, but about a principle . . . not a particular candidate, but a guiding thought by which to choose or not to choose any candidate.
There it is folks. You cannot separate candidates on purely religious grounds; any argument you use to do it will boomerang.
Finally…
I guess we both have our theo-nerd fundamentalists, huh Lowell?
Lowell: You know, John, I recommend that New Republic piece to everyone as an example of agenda journalism. I could go through the entire article and "fisk" it, but I'll simply say this: The author is entirely selective in his examples; quotes people who are generally liberals and Democrats anyway; makes a number of unsupported or unsupportable statements; and really tries to make a lot out of nothing. And yes, the aroma of theo-nerdishness pervades the whoooole thing– especially some of the interviewees!
John responds: While of a bit of a different stripe, the MSM is also quite selective with we "Evangelicals" when it comes to the examples of anti-Mormon bigotry they write about. What is worse is that with the exception of EFM, about which the MSM almost always use a tone of incredulity, they don't talk about creedal Christians who don't see Mormonism as an issue. We are in the same boat.
Late addition by Lowell: Hugh Hewitt interviewed Romney Thursday and got the Governor's response to Robert Redford's ugly slam from a couple of days ago:
HH: Robert Redford attacked you and Mormons generally this week, saying that they, Mormons, are very adept at not being fazed, and speaking fluently and gracefully. Why? Because every single male who’s a Mormon goes on a mission for two years when they’re 19 or 20, they learn how to deflect blows and stay on message. No wonder Utah’s the place that all these Republican Senators go. It’s perfect. So when you see Mitt Romney, he’s already been practicing how to deflect blows and stay on message, but it’s plastic. Your reaction, Governor Romney?
MR: (laughing) Well, I’m not going to worry too much about Robert Redford. You know, I must admit that I learned a great deal as I had the chance to serve my Church, and that was how many years ago? 40 years ago?
HH: Yup.
MR: I’ve lived a lot of life since then, I’ve had a lot of experiences, and frankly, my experience of 25 years in the private sector, and then helping run the Olympics there, and then being the governor of Massachusetts, those are probably the skills that are most relevant to the job I’m seeking now.
What a concept: Focusing on the candidate's actual life experience rather than his faith and related stereotypes.
Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post