Dobson on the edge, it’s a hammer . . .

Another bit of left-leaning coverage this time from “Right Wing Watch:”

As for the possibility that James Dobson might end up endorsing Mitt Romney, Minnery called it “doubtful,” citing “the tremendous difference in theological views.”

Dobson keeps coming up to this edge, but has yet to jump off the cliff; however, that does not prevent this very leftie blog from using these comments as a hammer on the right. Consider the headline to the post:

Dobson Won’t Support a Mormon or Launch His Own Campaign

As we have contended all along, Evangelicals not voting for Romney better be VERY clear about why not. Citing religion will not be a winner for any of us, in any branch of the Republican party.

Speaking of Evangelical Bias Against Mormons…

EFM went off on the Huckabee ad. They comment off of Fred Barnes’ piece.

Secondly, I think the message from Governor Huckabee’s ad is pretty clear. He’s telling evangelicals in Iowa, “I’m one of you.” That’s why — as Barnes points out — the “conservative leader” stuff isn’t mentioned until the very end. Leave aside the fact that it’s not true — true or false, it’s just not the point of the ad.

And I think Barnes is on to something when he says this may be what our people want to hear. Maybe I’m just grumpy because I’m under the weather this week, but regrettably, I think it’s exactly what many well-meaning evangelicals want to hear.

But the big news is in the NYTimes, quietly, and anonymously, some Huckabee people seem to admit what they are doing:

Danny Carroll, a former speaker pro tem in the Iowa House and Mr. Huckabee’s Iowa campaign co-chairman, said he was drawn to Mr. Huckabee in large part because of the way religion permeates the former Arkansas governor’s life. Mr. Carroll said he had reservations about Mr. Romney because of his more moderate past positions in addition to his religion, saying he was concerned about where Mr. Romney went for strength and wisdom.

“I think it just causes some uneasiness as to how somebody is going to respond when heavy responsibility is placed on them,” Mr. Carroll said. “I think the Christian would like to know that the person has a strong anchor and prays to the God of the Bible.”

But most interesting from that piece is this quote:

“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues,” Ms. Gherkey said. “I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.”

She wondered, Would Mr. Romney’s prayers “even get through”?

I am sorry, but that is a statement that has no place whatsoever in American political discourse. Of course, the individual voter is permitted her thoughts, but Huckabee should respond to such comments with a gentle reminder that in American we don’t vote on such basis. Besides, as far as I am concerned, the question is “Do MY prayers get through?”

Romney and Muslims…

This whole thing looks like much ado about nothing. It began with a fairly biased Christian Science Monitor op-ed about which Captain Ed said:

He claims, as do others linking to this story, that Romney’s answer demonstrates a latent anti-Muslim bias. Instead, Ijaz demonstrates the absurdity of identity politics. [emphasis added]

Those are wise words indeed. Captain Ed has proven to be the best observer of this story and his latest post calls the CSM piece “journalistic malpractice.”

But what is most fascinating has been to watch the MSM coverage. Compare FOXNews and the NYTimes Opinionator blog. Looking at those two side-by-side should remove all doubt that newspapers have definitive points of view and advocate for them.

But Captain Ed’s comment about identity politics is the real take-away from this whole sordid affair. What will happen when they count Mormons and Evangelicals on a Romney cabinet? Can questions about same be far behind? This discussion is beneath our nation.

Even the Left gets it…

…well, if you can equate the Left and the LATimes. (Gosh, ya think?) Anyway, yesterday they carried an op-ed out of Beliefnet:

But in a country founded firmly on religious pluralism, watching the Christian right pick and choose among candidates could be a positive development. It’s a sure sign that many evangelical leaders have moved beyond mere identity politics and toward an overdue openness to compromise in a political system that’s built on it.

Does a proudly pluralistic nation want candidates openly appealing to voters on sectarian grounds — as Huckabee seemed to do at the Values Voter Summit — so that evangelicals back only solidly evangelical candidates, Catholics support orthodox Catholics and Jews vote for faithful Jews?

There are parts of this piece that I disagree with pretty seriously, but its major thesis, that the Religious Right is growing up politically, is something I think I talked about in the very early days of this blog. Evangelicals that figure this out will solidify their position in the Republican party for years to come, those that don’t might quite likely find themselves on the outside looking in.

Mormons on The Mormon…

Marie Osmond makes the same mistake many Evangelicals are making:

“She’s leaning very heavily toward Mitt Romney,” says a source very close to Osmond. “Just because she brought her 90-or-so Mormon relatives on the Oprah show, it doesn’t mean she’s backing exactly who Oprah is backing. She’s interested in seeing a Mormon become president.”

Marie, may I respectfully suggest as a non-Mormon that you adopt the somewhat more sober tones of your fellow Mormon Orrin Hatch:

“All Mitt has to do is make it very clear that he’s his own man. … He doesn’t tell the Mormon church what to do but neither does the Mormon church tell him what to do,” Hatch told AP.

Of course, those sober tones do not prevent the AP from writing the same story that has been written so many times before.

Lowell: Marie Osmond ought to push that “source very close” much farther away from her. What a dumb thing to say.

Quick Links…

Peter Robinson - Jonah Goldberg and Andy McCarthy (who brings the discussion full cirlce to the Muslim thing) throw down about the Hitchens piece at The Corner.

Even an areligious milblogger gets it.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Stuff That Has Been Hanging Around
• Wrong-Headed Blogging
• Some Things Are A Little Hard To Swallow…
• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”