A Conversation with Gary Glenn of Michigan’s American Family Association

14 Responses to “A Conversation with Gary Glenn of Michigan’s American Family Association”

1. 4thnephite on 23 Feb 2008 at 3:59 pm #

   After reading the first paragraph of Gary Glenn has lost all credibility with me, just like the New York Times. Some people just refuse to truly look at the real issues.
   It is nice to know that the views of Michigan’s American Family Association has not touched this family in Michigan.

2. JLFuller on 24 Feb 2008 at 9:02 am #

   Gary Glenn’s protests that he has been misunderstood and even unjustly accused of bigotry against his LDS neighbors may be true in his eyes. He may have even participated in some events that mark Mormon history. But there are a lot of “ifs” in digesting what he says. If so, I applaud him for reaching out. If however, as my skeptical side side suggests, he does so with ulterior motives, his participation is a sham. But, if I as a commenter on this site, have misread him and he is not hostile to his Mormon neighbors because of their religion, then I apologize. However if he has been subject to unjust criticisms and he has been hurt by them, then I think his behavior would reflect what is in his heart. Most people in such situations would be a bit conciliatory. But Glenn is combative as shown in these quotes:

   “You can keep up this scurrilous — but frankly, both amusing and pitiful — business of suggesting that anyone who didn’t support Mitt Romney is a religious bigot. But that’s a reflection of your character, not those you falsely accuse.” and “For example, I’m helping folks organizing a reenactment of the Mormon Battalion Trek (overland march in the early 1800’s to join the Mexican War) identify possible donors. Which only “proves” in your eyes, no doubt, that I must be “anti-Mexican” too.”

   It is hard to believe what he says in one instance when what he does in another speaks so loudly.

3. HaroldHutchison on 24 Feb 2008 at 1:15 pm #

   What should I believe, Gary Glenn’s e-mails, or the actions - taken in conjunction with the rest of the evidence (including the Vanderbilt study, the comments on Huckabee’s blog, and elsewhere)?

   It is not so much what Gary Glenn said or did that has me upset (although, I think the standard he would hold candidates to would have disqualified Ronald Reagan). Romney’s handling of the issue was the best anyone could possibly have done given the conditions in Massachusetts (which included a legislature that would have easily impeached him if he did what some of these family values advocates demanded), and for Glenn to imply otherwise is bearing false witness.

   But Glenn’s claims that Mormonism had nothing to do with it… I think he needs to prove it. Why should I trust him in any form of alliance, large or small, given his association with Huckabee?

4. garyglenn on 24 Feb 2008 at 3:25 pm #

   Jeff, so that you’re no longer clueless, be advised:

   When the authors of this blog expressly call me “anti-Mormon” and a “bigot,” and you in response expressly compare me to a thief, a liar, and Judas — not because I’ve said anything disparaging of any religion but simply because I oppose a particular political candidate whose public policy record includes elements that are decidely anathema to LDS values — you can be assured that I will continue to be “combative” rather than “conciliatory.”

   Your half-hearted apology will be accepted when it’s offered without qualification or reservation. (And so you don’t suffer any other delusions, whether or not you decide to do so is irrelevant to me. It’s an indication of your character, not mine.)

   John and Lowell’s apology will be accepted at whatever point they admit the truth: that in January they did precisely what they most recently deny doing: with no basis other than my opposition to Mitt Romney, they expressly labeled me a “bigot” and painted Dr. Don Wildmon with the same brush.

   As I discussed with my wife this afternoon: Barak Obama may well become the first half African-American president of the United States, but if so, precisely because he is not — as Jackson and Sharpton did — running as “the African-American candidate” for president. Similarly, someday there will be an LDS president, but it will be a candidate (1) whose public policy views are not and have never been dramatically at odds with the values of his own faith, and (2) whose supporters don’t immediately accuse anyone who disagrees with the liberal elements of his record of being an “anti-Mormon” “bigot.”

   It is your and other Romney supporters’ incessant resort from the very beginning to such tactics that, despite his $100 million marketing campaign to the contrary, greatly contributed to making him the constantly defensive “Mormon candidate” rather than a truly conservative candidate who happened to be Mormon (the latter being the kind of candidate whose campaigns I managed or consulted two or three dozen times over the last 30 years).

   Just for further entertainment value, can’t resist asking what “ulterior motive” you suspect might be at work in my helping elect all those conservative pro-life, pro-family Mormons to public office.

5. JLFuller on 25 Feb 2008 at 12:06 pm #

   OK Gary. You have always been a loud squawker even when you were on the Ada County Commission. So, in the spirit of total disclosure, I have to say you are the only Republican incumbent I ever voted against. You made such a disaster of your one term in office that you became an embarrassment even in the heart of heavily Republican Ada County, Idaho. That colors my opinion of you. In my prejudiced mind, you started off with two strikes against you. You pretty well burned your bridges here in Idaho with a lot of the Republican party save for a few, You left Idaho because of your reputation. Say whatever you want, but your value in Idaho politics was severely limited by your approach.

   Your ulterior motivation, as I see it, is to split the conservative movement into the hard core right wing which appeals to reactionaries and those who seek real solutions to the problems we face. My side believes your approach spells disaster for Republicans. The conservative movement can not allow reactionaries to set the party agenda.

   We can’t win by appealing to 10% of the electorate. Your part of the party believes most traditional Christians will do as your part of the party dictates and most have proven they will. We saw that in the south. Most Mormons will not. You also know Mormons have a strong commitment to the family and are willing to write checks to further that goal. My cynical side tells me any involvement with Mormon activities has an underlying motivation to line your pockets.

   But that is just part of the problem I have with your way of thinking. You should have recognized early on that Huckabee has no chance of being elected. Zero. You should have supported Romney because, with your help, he could have been elected. Not because he fits your ideal of the ideal arch conservative social candidate but because he can fix the most pressing problem our country is facing today - the deficits, over regulation and out of control spending. But you let one element of Romney’s past take presidence in your decision making. One element that Romney disavowed and was willing to be held accountable on. And that was homosexual rights.

   You seem to be transfixed on that issue. Most Republicans I know believe in the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman and do not support homosexual marriage. But it does not define our lives. It seems to have be one of the things that defines yours. Most families have a homosexual member. Mine did. He is dead now of AIDS. But, even though we were disgusted with his life style, we still loved him and wanted his participation in our lives. We were not willing to throw him overboard. So I guess Romney’s history with homosexual rights parallels my experience. It was an evolving dichotomy between what I believe is God’s commandments versus how to treat valued and loved family members who don’t see things according to my understanding. That is the difference between you and me Gary. I think it is that way with most Republicans.

6. conservativeinbama on 25 Feb 2008 at 1:10 pm #

   I have to say if I were running for public office and Gary Glenn or the AFA endorsed me I’d have to publicly reject it because of the way Gov. Romney was treated even though I line up 100% behind them.

   There’s absolutely nothing wrong in their goal of seeing that the interests of social conservatives and religious conservatives be supported thats part of the “three-legged” stool of being a conservative. But what about the other 2 parts of that stool? one cannot stand on it’s own alone. For the past 8 years now we’ve had a fairly social conservative President who has appointed not 1 but 2 highly qualified Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States and numerous other qualified judges to the lower federal courts. There is no doubt in my mind the social conservatives agenda helped get us those nominees as we’re seeing the success of that today.

   But we also have to have a candidate who is also a fiscal conservative as well as a national security conservative, each of these three areas play an integral part in getting a good candidate elected. For the past 8 years we’ve seen a major expansion of government, through the roof earmark spending with the President hardly ever picking up the veto pen. These economic issues were where I thought Gov. Romney shined the most, and given the current econ. conditions I think we could have used him in the Oval Office.

   When I go on Gov. Huckabee’s blogs and read the despicable remarks made towards Mormons I wonder why the Governor never publicly condemned such remarks; then came the day he made the infamous remark to the NY Times about what he jokingly thought Mormons believe. I found that quite disgusting and extremely poor in judgement of someone who claims himself to be a Man of God.

   I’m a Catholic and live in a major red state, but in seeing this campaign season go the way it has with what I believe is obvious Mormon bigotry, it leads me to decide against ever running for public office because I know that I might one day face the same unofficial religious litmus test that Gov. Romney was put through this year.

   No doubt in my mind, what happened to Gov. Romney will cause more qualified individuals to think twice before entering politics in this country.

7. garyglenn on 25 Feb 2008 at 2:35 pm #

   For the record, Jeff, so as not to allow you to continue to dessiminate false information: I was elected to two terms on the county commission, and the third time I ran, I lost by 77 votes out of 113,000 cast.

   I left Idaho because I had a job offer to run a School Choice ballot measure in Michigan which we originally anticipated would last only through one election, with every intention of returning to Idaho. Didn’t work out that way, though we still make it out to visit family or go to a Bronco game fairly regularly.

   You say, “We can’t win by appealing to 10% of the electorate.”

   Since I was elected twice, got 49.99% of the vote the third time, and since most of the LDS and other candidates I helped actually won, all of us obviously appealed to larger segment of the electorate than your ridiculous hyperbole suggests.

   You also write: “My cynical side tells me any involvement with Mormon activities has an underlying motivation to line your pockets.”

   Should my cynical side characterize your medical services as having an “underlying motivation to line your pockets,” or would you find that offensive? Or should I ask if you were financially compensated, as so many were, for supporting Romney’s candidacy? Would you be “conciliatory” in response to such characterization? Didn’t think so…

   That said, to the best of my recollection, Jeff, I was never paid by any of the dozens of LDS or other candidates whose campaigns I managed or consulted. I voluntarily supported candidates who shared my mainstream conservative values. Likewise, I refused the Mormon Battalion Trek organizers’ inquiry as to whether I was “for hire” to help them identify donors. I helped because they’re friends. (Your ignorant assumptions keep adding more items to the list of things your conscience, if it’s functional, may eventually prod you to apologize for.)

   Your lecture that I should have supported Romney — despite his record of promoting abortion on demand and gun control and the homosexual agenda, while dissing Ronald Reagan and financially supporting and voting for liberal Democrats (that’s more than one issue, in case you’re able to keep count and make false accusations at the same time) — leaves me unmoved.

   As a co-author of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment and a leading campaign spokesman in its behalf, I do believe constitutionally protecting marriage in Michigan was the single most important politically-related effort in which I’ve ever been involved, far more important than supporting or opposing any given candidate at any given time for public office. (And it’s revealing to know that your own conflicted judgments about a family member who was involved in the homosexual lifestyle is the real source of your hostility towards me.)

   So if you know my history, Jeff, and you know that I’m telling the truth about all the LDS candidates whose campaigns I’ve supported (presumably, if you’re from Boise, you’d even recognize some of their names), then just how despicable is it that you were willing — knowing all that — to falsely characterize me as a thief, a liar, and Judas Iscariot himself, all for no reason other than that I did not support your preferred candidate for president?

   And, over the last two years plus, to knowingly and falsely characterize my opposition to Romney as having been based on religious bigotry, as you’ve done multiple times on multiple blogs?

   Now you admit that you knew your allegations of religious bigotry were false, and that the truth is you’ve believed all along that I opposed Romney because of what you perceive to be my narrow focus only on his record regarding homosexual issues.

   (This was, of course, a conscious political tactic on the part of Romney supporters, who apparently thought they could intimidate critics of Romney’s public policy record into silence for fear of being labeled religious “bigots.” Guess again. Some of us — for whom being called a “bigot” by homosexual activists is as routine as getting up in the morning — didn’t run away and hide, and we won’t in 2012 either.)

   But while you’re manning up, Jeff, with all these confessions of your real beliefs and motivations, suck it up just a tad bit more and work up the integrity to apologize for knowingly and repeatedly making false accusations.

   Set an example for John and Lowell, who are right now trying to figure out how to explain to Article VI readers their posting comments last week in which they flatly denied accusing me and others of being religious bigots, little more than a month after they posted commentaries in which they did expressly that.

8. Lowell Brown on 25 Feb 2008 at 4:37 pm #

   To our readers:

   Below is the full text of an e-mail we received from Gary Glenn, in response to the post above. Gary’s responses to the post text are in bold. We chose not to publish Gary’s comments as a blog post, because the points he advances are not consistent with the focus of this blog on The Question. In any event, the issues Gary addresses are “old news,” and his arguments really reflect the quintessential objections of many values voters activists to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. The election is over for Romney, just as it soon will be for Huckabee (who, oddly, continues to take shots at Romney regularly). We wanted to give Gary a chance for his “day in court,” however.

   Turning to the focus of this blog, however, I will note that I have never called Gary Glenn a bigot. John has, for reasons he considers important.

   Also, like most advocates for a cause, Gary seems to want to talk about only the issues that advance his cause. He claims above, for example, that Article VI Blog takes the position that “the only possible motivation for anyone opposing Mitt Romney must have something to do with his religion.” I challenged him to prove we’d ever said that, and he did not even respond.

   Regarding bigotry, Gary does not do a very good job of proving his bona fides in the realm of unbigoted people. Why? Because he does not answer below my question: Will he denounce the religiously bigoted attacks that were undeniably made against Mitt Romney? I don’t see any such denunciation.

   Why won’t Gary do that? Why won’t his candidate, Mike Huckabee, do that? Is it not because they fear alienating the bigots that they know are included within their constituency?

   –Lowell Brown

   Excerpts from our post above, with Gary Glenn’s responses:

   ******

   Gary, I admire your passion, but we have never even suggested that “the only possible motivation for anyone opposing Mitt Romney must have something to do with his religion.” Where on earth are you getting that? You’re not sensitive about this issue, are you?

   I’m simply calling you on (1) your express accusations of religious bigotry based solely on political disagreement with Mitt Romney’s candidacy, and (2) your demonstrably false denial of such express accusations.

   Because this knee-jerk resort to accusations of religious bigotry is unique to the Romney campaign, it’s obvious that it’s you who are sensitive about this issue, so much so that you’ve committed an entire blog solely to the subject.

   For over two years, in virtually every interaction I’ve had regarding the Romney candidacy, whoever was defending Romney either immediately or inevitably ended up suggesting that criticism of his public policy record was motivated by religious bigotry.

   You’re no different, as in the Jan. 11th post in which you wrote: “We reported more than a year and one-half ago that Gary Glenn, Michigan leader of Donald Wildmon’s fundamentalist Christian organization, was anti-Mormon and anti-Romney.”

   In fact, your 2006 posts did not report that I was “anti-Mormon.” That’s a label you applied to me in your Jan. 11th post apparently because in the 18 months between the two, you’ve grown so comfortable with that accusation against those who don’t support Romney’s candidacy, you now just do it reflexively.
   Also, although we have tried to avoid getting deeply into political issues on this blog, I’ll just say that your statement that Romney has a “pro-abortion on demand, pro-homosexual agenda record, and . . . ongoing opposition to the Boy Scouts’ policy on homosexuals and . . . [that he currently supports] state ‘gay rights’ laws” is, well, debatable. I think you’d have to squint pretty hard at Romney’s record as Governor of Massachusetts to find him taking those positions.

   Surely you guys can’t be that out of touch, though I note you attempt to limit inspection of Romney’s public record only to his “record as governor.” His record is not so limited.

   The following facts are not “debatable.” They’re simply facts:

   Romney passionately defended Roe v Wade and abortion on demand in both his 1994 and 2002 campaigns, earning the endorsement of the pro-abortion Majority for Choice PAC. Even after the implausible story of his alleged conversion on the issue, he signed into law a health care plan that provides tax-subsidized abortion on demand and a statutorily allocated seat specifically for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. As he famously said in his 2002 gubernatorial debate: “I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate.”

   In 1994, he promised he’d be more effective than Ted Kennedy at promoting “gay rights.” He endorsed Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” legislation. He endorsed gays in the military, tax-financed same-sex benefits for govt employees, legal recognition of homosexual domestic partnerships, and publicly stated his disagreement with the Boy Scout policy regarding homosexuals. He was endorsed by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.

   In 2002, he opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment to his state constitution and was endorsed a second time by LCR. As governor, he appointed a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association to the bench and publicly supported and signed into law state funding of public school programs that promoted homosexual behavior to school children as normal and healthy.

   Last year, when challenged by Brownback on the issue, he reiterated his disagreement with the BSA’s universal nationwide policy prohibiting open homosexuals’ participation in Scouting (a stand dramatically at odds with his own church). In December 2007, on Meet the Press, he disavowed his earlier endorsement of Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” legislation but reiterated his support for state level “gay rights” laws, which are routinely used to punish the Boy Scouts and to violate the religious freedom of groups such as Catholic Charities in Boston, which was forced to abandon its adoption placement services rather than process homosexual adoptions.

   All facts not subject to debate.

   I’ll also say that after the 2002 Olympics, if Romney had chosen to run for Governor of Utah, he’d be sitting in that State’s Governor’s Mansion right now. And everybody, including Utah’s current Governor, Jon Huntsman Jr., knows it.

   Hmmm…wonder if as a candidate for governor of Utah, he would have opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment as he did in 2002 when running for gov of Massachusetts. Wonder if while running for gov of Utah, he would have indignantly declared in the gubernatorial debate: “I do not take the position of a pro-life candidate.”

   Of course, you know the answer. If he had taken such positions while running for gov of Utah, he wouldn’t have been elected even in the warm afterglow of the Olympics. He’d have been defeated by a fellow Mormon whose politics actually reflected values widely associated with the LDS Church. And you’d have had no one to falsely accuse of religious bigotry.

   And if he wouldn’t have taken the same positions in Utah that he took in Massachusetts…well, that describes Romney’s real problem in a nutshell.

   As Romney himself observed in his Faith in America speech: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience.”

   That’s at the same time both correct and a self-indictment. And that — not his religion — is why he is no longer running for president.

   At least according to three out of four individuals surveyed by Vanderbilt who expressed objections to his candidacy based on his breathtakingly blatant public flip-flops on a wide range of issues.
   As we have stated on this blog since Day 1, we don’t think a candidate’s religion should matter, except in the most extreme circumstances. …Professor Reynolds concludes, and we agree, that Mormonism passes all three tests easily. I assume, based on your constant reminders to us that you have supported many Mormon candidates, that you also agree. So no, we do not believe that merely supporting one candidate means you are against the opposing candidate because of his religion. Gary, for the record, I have no reason to believe you are a religious bigot.

   All prima facie evidence on the record to the contrary, you mean.

   Despite my constant reminders that I have supported — and managed the campaigns of — many Mormon candidates, your Jan. 11th post nonsensically and falsely labeled me “anti-Mormon” nonetheless (unless you’re also now falsely accusing me of lying about having managed those campaigns). http://www.article6blog.com/2008/01/11/an-old-friend-gets-ugly/

   You also thought it appropriate to post a commentary in response to your Jan. 11th post in which the ever-tolerant Dr. Fuller characterized me as someone “who lies about you behind your back or steals your wallet when he visits your home? Or is he an ‘old friend’ like Judas?”

   And you thought it appropriate to post comments comparing me to a liar, a thief, and Judas because I made some disparaging remark about Christ? Or about a particular faith? No. Neither.

   Only because I dared publicly rebuke a man, a politician, and specifically his public comments and actions in support of abortion on demand and the homosexual agenda, his opposition to the Boy Scouts policy on homosexuals, and his personally profiting from the sale of pornography (as reported by the Deseret News). All such instances being anathema to the values of his own church.

   In your Jan. 11th post, you directly questioned my honesty, writing in response to my consistently issues-based opposition to Romney: “After all this time, that smokescreen is wearing thin.”

   No doubt because opposing Romney based on his record on the issues proved effective.

   But a smokescreen for what, in your view?

   You made clear your answer to that in your Jan. 11th post, when you expressly accused Don Wildmon and me of being motivated by religious bigotry:

   “When a Mormon gets uppity enough to think he can actually be president of the United States, (Wildmon’s and Glenn’s) response is: ‘He must be stopped. I mean, we’ve got to keep those people in their place.’” http://www.article6blog.com/2008/01/11/an-old-friend-gets-ugly/

   Notably, Don Wildmon flew to Idaho in 1992 to publicly endorse and appear at two campaign events for a close friend and former business associate of mine, the only LDS candidate in a three-way GOP primary for the U.S. Senate, who I also supported. Thus, you have falsely characterized Dr. Wildmon as well, but if your mind-numbing illogic is consistent, you’ll suggest that Wildmon’s public endorsement of an LDS candidate for the U.S. Senate confirms rather than discredits your false accusation of bigotry.

   Further, the postscript of your Jan. 11th post indicates that you filed it under “Religious Bigotry.”

   And to remove the little if any doubt remaining about your clearly intended accusation, on January 14th, you expressly told your readers:

   “We brought up bigot and Huck supporter Gary Glenn on Friday…”

   http://www.article6blog.com/2008/01/14/political-surrogates-backfires-sc-florida-and-more/

   So which is it, gentlemen?

   Should blog readers assume that in denying in your Feb. 23rd post that you accuse me of being a “bigot,” you’re simply being dishonest ?

   Or since your denials are so easily demonstrated to be false, that you have a very, very poor short-term memory?

   Or is it that you think your readers, and I, either can’t read English, have poor short-term memories ourselves, or are incapable of figuring out how to use the “search” function on your blog?

   You’re as cleanly caught in a falsehood as Mitt Romney was on multiple occasions.
   I think you are a deeply committed conservative “family values” activist. I also think there is evidence that you are willing to use divisive religious identity politics to achieve your ends, as you attempted (with little effect) in Michigan. I think that’s wrong. You’re not evil, you’re not a bigot, you’re just profoundly wrong, and I think your tactics are repulsive and un-American. You may not believe me, but I do separate the sin from the sinner.

   Well, glad that since your Jan. 14th post, you’ve changed your mind about the “bigot” allegation.

   Regardless, turning out voter demographics who support a given candidate, while not helping the other guy turn out demographics that support him, is simple common sense, whether it’s age groups or income levels or union membership or church attendance.

   Falsely accusing someone of bigotry on such basis is certainly repulsive.

   Well, he wasn’t “widely rejected.”

   Sure he was. He spent $100 million and couldn’t win a primary outside his three “home” states. And in the three states where he spent the most time personally, he lost all three.

   But enough primary voters voted for Huckabee based on Romney’s religion…

   So you say.

   …to deny Mitt some wins he clearly would have had otherwise.

   Actually, the reverse is true. In response to a $100 million campaign, enough primary voters voted for Romney to deny Huckabee some wins he clearly would have had otherwise (such as South Carolina). Polling indicated McCain was the second choice of Huckabee voters, not Romney; thus, if Huckabee hadn’t been in the race, McCain would have outpolled Romney by an even larger margin.

   Some of those voters were bigots…

   Just as some of those who didn’t vote for Huckabee didn’t vote for him because they don’t like evangelicals; in fact, one poll indicated that a larger percentage of Americans was uncomfortable with Huckabee’s “evangelical” affiliation than with Romney’s religious affiliation.
   …but probably just as many were voting for Huck because they identified with him.

   As LDS voters in Utah other western states obviously did re: Romney.
   Some probably were simply uninformed about Mormonism or had bought into lies or distortions told to them by bigots. You exploit those mostly benighted attitudes and behavior for political ends, and that’s my real objection to your work this year. By the way, I haven’t seen you denouncing a single one of the despicable attacks directed at Romney. How do you feel about Bill Keller, for example?

   Moreover, I sure would like to see you, or someone on your side of the issue, respond to the Vanderbilt study that made this conclusion: “We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons. Doesn’t that make you just a bit uncomfortable about the religious sentiment on which you have been capitalizing on Huckabee’s behalf?

   Another false accusation. What religious sentiment?

   In the short time frame we had in Michigan, I didn’t have time to delve into why certain demographics supported Huckabee while others supported Romney, aside from the obvious: (1) that in some cases religious identification contributed to their respective electoral support, and (2) Huckabee’s life-long support of protecting prenatal life and marriage stood in stark contrast to Romney’s very recent opposition to both.

   Based on public opinion polls which showed certain demographics supported Huckabee (evangelicals, young people, women) while others did not (Catholics, Mormons, senior citizens, men), we simply did our best to intelligently turn out the former and not help Romney turn out the latter.

   Given that Huckabee’s campaign manager and national campaign chairman and Michigan Meetup chair and one of his two designated Republican National Convention alternates in MI are all Catholic, and I knew Catholic volunteers were among those who received the “get out the vote” e-mail I composed, your suggestion that the e-mail was also motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry is also a figment of your own overwrought but politically self-serving show of hand-wringing.

   Gary, we feel a little “falsely maligned” ourselves when you claim we think everyone who voted against Romney is a bigot. You don’t really believe that, do you?

   “Falsely maligned”? Certainly nothing false about the fact that you expressly labeled me “anti-Mormon” and a “bigot,” using those very terms in your January posts.

   Despite my every statement regarding Romney exclusively addressing his public policy record or his lack of truthfulness, and in fact publicly disavowing any concern for his religious affiliation. As the London Guardian quoted me: “It’s not that he’s Mormon, it’s that he hasn’t been Mormon enough in the public policy arena.”

   Plus, the entire focus of your blog is voter opposition to Romney based on religion, which you make clear you believe is the “real” motive behind most if not all opposition to his candidacy.

   If you treat others who oppose Romney’s candidacy differently than you have me, I have no experience on which to speak to that.

   I know for a fact that having made no disparaging remark about Romney’s faith, and having taken issue only with his record on legitimate public policy issues, you have nonetheless called me both “anti-Mormon” and a “bigot,” using those precise words.

   Thanks, Gary. Although you seem to be saying “Some of my best friends are Mormons”…

   Let me remove any doubt. That is at the same time, both true…and irrelevant to this discussion.

   …I really, truly do not think you are a bigot. I do think you make common cause with them, wittingly or not.

   If so, then by your own flimsy standard — the only commonality being that they and I do not support the same political candidate — you’re no less guilty of making common cause with those who oppose Huckabee because of his faith, since you both do not support Huckabee.

   I wish you’d address that question, rather than accuse us of holding a position that we have never taken.

   I’m sure you would rather I address something other than your obviously false denials that you’ve never expressly accused me of bigotry.

   Though it’s immensely comforting that you now claim that you’ve changed your mind since you expressly called me a “bigot” in your Jan. 14th post. http://www.article6blog.com/2008/01/14/political-surrogates-backfires-sc-florida-and-more/

   But curiously, what exactly have I done in the last month to so dramatically change your view, a position which you now falsely claim you never took in the first place?

   Actually, I may have given you too much credit earlier in this message when I noted that back in August 2006, you didn’t accuse me of bigotry. I vaguely remember now that you edited your original posts about me after I responded to them. In fact, as I recall, you removed one of your original posts in which you had despicably characterized my mentioning that I had recently attended the funeral of an LDS friend whose campaign I’d managed as being proof of bigotry…via an earlier refrain of your hackneyed “some of my best friends are Mormons” construct…

   A very convenient construct, by the way. Falsely accuse someone of harboring prejudice and animus toward members of a particular faith, then when they provide specific evidence to the contrary that any fair person would agree disproves the accusation, you nonsensically instead characterize that evidence as proving the false accusation.

   So if I had no LDS friends, you’d say that confirms your accusation. But if I do have LDS friends, you say that confirms your accusation.

   Sorry, guys, you don’t get to have it both ways.

   You repeatedly and expressly insist in your current Feb. 23rd “Conversation” post that you don’t think I’m a bigot.

   While all any Article VI reader has to do is review your January 11th and 14th posts to see that you’re either not being truthful, or you have a very poor memory.

   Which is it?

   Regardless, if I or any other reader is expected to attach any degree of honesty to your Feb. 23rd post, it would seem appropriate for you to retract, apologize on the record for, and once again self-edit by removing the Jan. 11th and 14th posts in which you expressly accused me of being both “anti-Mormon” and a “bigot.” http://www.article6blog.com/2008/01/14/political-surrogates-backfires-sc-florida-and-more/

   If for no other reason, so that it’s no longer so effortlessly easy for me to prove that what you’re saying now is false, or that what you said then was false.

   In other words, which time weren’t you telling the truth?

   Poetic justice indeed, since ironically, that’s the very question the candidate you’re defending was never able to credibly answer.

   GG

9. pspp on 25 Feb 2008 at 7:22 pm #

   I was wondering if anyone was going to take on the AFA after that appalling email I received endorsing Mike Huckabee in California. It was supposed to be an assessment of all of the Republican candidates, but it was too obviously biased toward Mike Huckabee to be credible. I asked to be taken off of their email list and maybe Gary Glenn is a little sensitive because I am not the only one.

10. conservativeinbama on 25 Feb 2008 at 8:49 pm #

    pspp,
    I think some of these leaders like Glenn in particular feel that they are simply above criticism and that to even make an attempt to question their motives or credibility is just unspeakable. Also, I think they are afraid to confront a real problem within their base that there does exist some obvious form of bigotry towards non Christian religions, if they confront it they risk losing their status within the base and with that goes whatever influence they carry.

    What gets me is this solid belief among many that if a Mormon became President he would be taking orders from Salt Lake City. Do they not realize how ridiculous that kind of thinking is? If the President were found to be doing that the U.S. Congress would be perfectly justified in starting impeachment proceedings against the President for violating their Constitutional oath.

    The more people like Gary Glenn and the AFA continue to act the way they do, the more marginalized their base will become in future elections, and that is Not the way to unite the GOP to win again. For whatever faults Gov. Romney had you can’t say he never labeled the social conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance”, no the man who said that is now well on his way to being our nominee for President this year, how ironic that is.

11. tern on 26 Feb 2008 at 10:08 am #

    I’d characterize our disagreements with Gary as profound, but friendly — not an easy balance to strike.

    Given Gary’s hostile rhetoric, I’d hardly characterize the disagreement as “friendly.”

    I’m not familiar with Gary’s views such that I would opine about whether or not he is a bigot.

    I feel comfortable making a blanket statement that anyone who claims that anti-Mormon prejudice didn’t play a part, however large or small, in the rejection of Romney is either not paying attention or is being deliberately ingenuous.

    Likewise for those who ignore the fact that some of the actions taken by Huckabee, his campaign, some of those associated with his campaign, some of his supporters, and just some so-called Christian leaders in general smack of anti-Mormonism, and even in the most generous light cannot be seen as anything other than playing to anti-Mormon prejudices. (Except, of course, for the explicitly anti-Mormon screeds, which are what they are.)

    Those who are allied with anti-Mormon bigots need to understand that unless you reject the comments made by extremists such as Bill Keller and his ilk, you are tarred with the same brush. As a Mormon who is part of the “seriously p***ed off group”, I condemn both the bigots, and those who remain silent. You are both culpable.

12. fitzwdarcey on 26 Feb 2008 at 3:33 pm #

    There is something I have found interesting (to say the least) in this election. I haven’t posted it here previously, because it really hasn’t anything to do with the topic of this blog.

    Mr. Glenn’s organization and others like them baffle me. It seems that the point of the pro-life movement and family movements, at least in part, is to help people change their minds and come to understand the pro-life viewpoint. At the same time, however, many of these people, Gary Glenn included, refuse to allow for an individual to change their mind. Gov. Romney has openly talked about and allowed himself to be held accountable on the life issue. He has a record as Gov. in Massachusettes of fighting for pro-life issues. Furthermore, when it comes to gay marriage, his record is clearly one of fighting the good and the hard fight. I am truly baffled at how an organization can say they hope to change minds but not allow for the possiblity that minds are changed.

13. bjmmrp on 26 Feb 2008 at 8:49 pm #

    Mr. Glenn keeps pointing to the fact that he has campaigned for Mormons in the past. Has he done so since leaving Idaho where you can’t spit without hitting a mormon candidate.

14. texan on 26 Feb 2008 at 11:08 pm #

    We’ve been circling the elephant in the room, trying to figure out how big it is and now someone says there’s not even an elephant in the room…

    In order to see how much light polls may shed on this subject, I reviewed 15 polls about characteristics of a presidential candidate that make people nervous. There was a wide range in the percentage of people who were nervous about any given trait, partly depending on the exact way the poll was worded. Here are the ranges from the various surveys:

    Nervousness about an African-American presidential candidate: range = 3%-17%, average = 9% (based on 9 polls)
    Nervousness about a female presidential candidate: range = 4%-22%, average = 14% (based on 9 polls)

    Nervousness about an Evangelical/Baptist presidential candidate: range = 15%-54%, average = 30% (based on 5 polls)
    Nervousness about a Mormon presidential candidate: range = 14%-53%, average = 31% (based on 13 polls)
    Nervousness about a presidential candidate older than 70: range = 13%-52%, average = 33% (based on 6 polls)

    The fascinating result from reviewing these polls was that the Democratic race has been described as the race of diversity, yet the Republican race is the race that had candidates with characteristics (religion and age) which had much higher “nervousness ratings” than existed among the Democratic contenders.

    Using the information from these polls as a backdrop, let’s look at the election from four different angles:

    * The elephants in the room - A fair number of people are nervous about an older candidate, a Mormon candidate, and an Evangelical candidate. The figures are very similar for all three categories. I did notice one interesting wording difference among the polls about an Evangelical candidate: the poll that showed the lowest nervousness rating used the word “Baptist” (15%), while the others used the word “Evangelical” (16%-54% nervousness rating). It’s possible that the word “Evangelical” may be more emotionally loaded than the word “Baptist”. It would appear that all three candidates had their own elephant to contend with — elephants, according to the polls, that were bigger than Obama’s or Clinton’s.

    * Going beyond the obvious - The longer you’ve been in the public spotlight, the more opportunity you have to get people to see something about you other than your demographic characteristics (you can squander this opportunity, but the opportunity exists). This factor probably favored McCain over Romney and Huckabee. As a simple example of this, there are more books by / about McCain than by / about Romney or Huckabee, which could mean that the media doesn’t modulate the perception of McCain as heavily.

    * Media focus - Romney being Mormon received far more media time than McCain being older or Huckabee being Evangelical. Romney’s variety of Christianity made a far more interesting story than Huckabee’s variety of Christianity. The media focus clearly favored Huckabee and McCain over Romney.

    * The “alien” factor - Even more damaging than focusing on a given demographic characteristic of a candidate is portraying that characteristic as “alien”. Why would you ever vote for someone who is as much like you as a Martian? The media, as well as some of Huckabee’s backers (see for example, comments by a few bloggers), created some portrayals in which Mormons appear “alien”.

    Looking at these four angles, I think it is probable that Romney’s elephant had the most impact on the outcome, but it clearly would not be fair to say that the other candidates did not have an elephant of their own.

    John may be happy to know that there’s little room for Democrats to take a “holier than thou attitude” toward Evangelicals. One of the polls asked people if they would be less likely to vote for Romney knowing that he’s Mormon … and Evangelicals were in a statistical tie with Democrats (28% of Evangelicals and 30% of Democrats said “yes”).

    The poll I found that had the highest negativity rating of a Mormon candidate was a poll of Christians in which 59% said they would not vote for a Mormon. Most of those in the poll who said they would not vote for a Mormon also said that they believed that Mormons are cultists and that Mormons are non Christians. Perhaps the best way to figure out how big the elephant really was would be to conduct what I’d call a reverse push-poll. Ask people who they voted for, then ask them if they think Mormonism is a cult, and also ask them if Mormons are Christians. It would be very interesting to see if there is a correlation between the perception of Mormonism and how people voted.

    What clues can we gather from the above about the future of these candidates?

    McCain - According to two of the polls, conservatives are slightly more accepting of an older candidate than the national average. Without Romney in the race to draw attention to the more interesting angle of Mormonism, it could be time for a media feeding frenzy regarding McCain’s age, especially if any health issues come up or if he picks a less-than-superb running mate (a VP who is perceived the way Quayle was perceived would toll the death-knell of McCain’s campaign).

    Huckabee - I think he has little chance of being a viable candidate four years from now. He ran third in a three-person race, but failed to gain meaningful traction after the race became a two-person race. Looking at the states for which we have polling data about the religion of the voters:
    * Huckabee only won in states where a majority of the voters were Evangelical.
    * Combining the votes cast in all 12 states for which we have polling data showing Evangelicals made up less than 50% of the voters, Huckabee placed third among the Evangelicals in those states (McCain 36%, Romney 35%, Huckabee 29%). So, not only was Huckabee strongly dependent on voters from his own demographic group (Evangelicals), but he only won the Evangelical vote in states where Evangelicals are heavily concentrated.

    Romney - He ran a solid second place while he was in the race. One analysis shows that, for the past 30 years, Republicans have tended to choose previous second-place winners, George W. Bush being the one exception. Dole, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan all had second place finishes before they won the party’s nomination (ditto for McCain, who is on his way to winning the nomination). In another four years, it is possible that the Mormon angle of the story may become somewhat stale, and it is possible that the voters will have more of a chance to get to know Romney through a lens other than his Mormonism. But, just to be on the safe side, I won’t hold my breath…

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.