Today’s Reading List – November 21, 2007 | Article VI Blog

TRENDS…

Trend 1:

Jim Geraghty said something quite interesting yesterday:

The question of who’s behind the calls has quickly turned into, who do you trust least? Who do you think is the most likely to make an underhanded move at a time like this? Who has the least benefit of the doubt in your mind, and who are you quickest to accuse?

Me? Well, no secret, I’m thinking some deep-pocketed liberal like George Soros.

I think he is more-or-less right, but I’m not sure it’s about trust. I think it is more about using the available weapon. The push-poll scandal is a weapon – everyone knows whoever it was, if discovered, is through in politics forever, so the most discussed suspect in any one place is probably less about trust and more about threat. That includes this blog and leads me to

Trend 2 – The Huckabee boomlet is making the religion in politics discussion worse, not better.

Huckabee is gaining some ground amongst Evangelicals. Unfortunate, but predictable. As Richard Cohen points out:

Romney, of course, is a Mormon while JFK was a Catholic, but if the question is whether a candidate’s religion should be of concern to the American people, the candidates who should respond are those who repeatedly assert that faith, not ideology, is what drives them and even leads them to question evolution.

Now, this is a very leftist piece, and I disagree with much of it, but he draws a distinction that I find very important. Huckabee is running on, at least in part, his religious convictions. Romney is running as a religious person. There is a huge difference there. One, Huckabee’s choice almost mandates the politics of identity because the discussion almost always comes down to “God said it, I believe it, and that’s that.” [Lowell: Huckabee has also said, to crowds full of evangelicals, "I come from you." Sounds like identity politics to me.] The other, Romney’s choice, gives religion and religious conviction a strong voice in the political process but avoids the “my club, your club” stuff that is inevitable with the Huckabee approach.

The NYTimes Opinionator notes that Huckabee is drawing a lot of fire and much of it is religiously based. If we run on religion, it will be a weapon used against us, and if we lose, our religion loses. Something to think about.

Speaking of lefties…

Consider this from TNR via CBS:

If it were possible for a politician to sue voters for religious discrimination, Mitt Romney would have an open-and-shut case against the Republican electorate.

We are not looking very good here. This is what I mean when I say if we run on religion it will be used as a weapon against us. Which is why Steve Stark, reprinted at RCP, has a heck of a point:

But the real question is why another candidate hasn’t stepped forward to defend Romney against the religious bigotry he’s facing – not with an offhand comment or two – but with a major Mormon speech of his own. True, doing so might seem like a risky political maneuver, since it would aid a fellow contender. But it’s the right thing to do — and could even help the campaign of the candidate who rises to Romney’s defense.

If we allow the push-polling scandal is used as an excuse to play the religion card, only Republicans and religious conservatives can lose.

Lowell interjects again: My co-blogger at the Hedgehog Blog posted an extensive critique of the New Republic piece. And Ross Douthat writes a lot about the same piece without saying much.

Fortunately, the Dems don’t do religion in politics very well either, but then I used to think that was part of the reason we generally won the White House.

Speaking of the Push-Poll Scandal…

Western Wats denies connection to Romney. That’s both ends. So much for the “Romney dunnit” theory. Except that people seem to love it so much they keep grasping at straws. (Of course it would be people that support Mitt that would blow the whistle on the push-poll, but the calls were real and random) Even most visible proponent of the theory, Mark Hemingway is backing down some. The campaign continues to deny it directly and forcefully.

Dean Barnett summarizes.

In general…

How refreshing, Fred Barnes profiles Romney and never ONCE brings up his faith.

A reasonable op-ed out of Evansville, Indiana:

The Mormon issue should never have surfaced, but bigots have hounded Mormons going back now to the 19th century, and I don’t think they’re done. I’ve personally bumped into several people who have said they could never vote for a Mormon as president. When I’ve pressed them, they fail to come up with the only answer that would justify their position — that there is something in Mormon beliefs that would translate into disastrous public policy.

A story about a campaign stop in Seattle cannot help but bring up The Question.

Reuters revisits what has now become old and well traveled ground.