The Meme That Will Not Die
Although remarkably discredited to this point, the Washington Times piece from earlier this week seems to have legs. An NYTimes blog passes it on:
Already, several religious conservative leaders have come forward warning that naming Mitt Romney would be counterproductive. Indeed, Mr. McCain can still rally these voters on his own by talking about national security, tax cuts and energy policy, or by scaring them about Barack Obama. But it’s hard to see how Mr. Romney makes that rally any easier.
But in the sentence just before that one, same paragraph, Dan Shuur, former national communications director for McCain, says:
Mr. Romney’s ability to motivate the G.O.P. base is even more of an open question. While Mr. McCain is still trying to shore up his support among conservatives, there’s no evidence that Mr. Romney, who lost those voters to John McCain and Mike Huckabee in the primaries, would help close the sale.
One would have to determine “former” and the most important word in this man’s claim to know something. The construction of the paragraph indicates no differentiation between “Evangelicals” and “conservatives,” and his contention that McCain and Huckabee drew conservatives is almost laughable.
Here is how it went: Romney and Huck split conservatives which opened the door for McCain to win with everybody else. Romney got more Evangelical and generally conservative votes than Huck, but the Huckster drew enough Evangelicals to do damage. I could understand a Dem misunderstanding Republican stuff this much, but a Republican staffer? But then, he is working for the NYTimes now.
And while we are discussing that increasingly odious Washington Times piece, check out this detailed refutation by Mary Mostert on Renew America.
Tim LaHaye, an evangelical novelist, was quoted as saying “McCain and Romney would be like oil and water. We aren’t against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical and his flip-flopping on issues is understandable in a liberal state like Massachusetts, but our people won’t understand that.”
That statement appears to me not only that LaHaye is against Romney’s Church but also an insult to the intelligence of evangelicals and a display of ignorance on the part of LaHaye concerning Mitt Romney’s record on issues. Romney’s views are easily obtainable by reading the issue page on his website. (http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/index) In the same article, the Rev. Rob McCoy, pastor of a large non-denominational church in Thousand Oaks, California was quoted as saying,
“I will vote for McCain unless he does one thing. You know what that is? If he puts Romney on the ticket as veep. It will alienate the entire evangelical community — 62 million self-professing evangelicals in this country, half of them registered to vote, are going to be deeply saddened.” Are 62 million Evangelicals somehow too ignorant to do a Google search to find out for themselves how Romney and his church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, stand on issues that are important to them such as abortion, illegal immigration or same-sex “marriage”?
[Ed.: insert much well-known data here . . .]
I believe that every evangelical I know, including those in my family, have opinions on those social issues that are pretty much the same as Mitt Romney’s. Yet, according to La Haye and McCoy, evangelicals should vote against a McCain-Romney ticket, thereby paving the way for an Obama presidency.
Oh my goodness, common sense – what remarkable thing.! Read the whole piece. LaHaye, McCoy, et. al. end up looking pretty doggone silly. But then anyone hanging around this blog pretty well knew that already.
One additional thought from Lowell: I continue to find this LaHaye statement fascinating:
We aren’t against Mormonism, but Romney is not a thoroughgoing evangelical . . . .
In other words, “Romney’s Mormonism is not a problem, it’s just that he’s not one of us.” Oh, please. I guess fantasy novelists don’t concern themselves with non-sequiturs.
Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
coltakashi on 02 Aug 2008 at 2:22 pm #
I am amazed that a pastor of a church in California, where the largest non-Catholic denomination is the LDS Church, can be ignorant of the fact that the Mormons are among the leaders in the effort to pass Proposition 8 and amend the California Constitution to preserve traditional marriage. How can he purport to speak for other Evangelicals on politics when the most crucial issue facing his own congregation TODAY is whether they are going to join hands with the Mormons to fight against same-sex marriage? Does he plan to stay away from rallies that include Mormons? Does he plan to tell Mormons that he would rather have gay marriage forced down his throat than to even associate with Samaritans like the Mormons?
And what does he tell his congregation about making common political cause with Catholics or Orthodox or Jews on such issues? That he would rather let America go to hell than to associate with people who are going to hell?
He talks about voting, but does he understand that in a democracy, he doesn’t get to dictate the outcome of elections based on his religious partisanship, but that getting the laws he wants depends on making common cause on public policy with those who share many, but not all, of his religious beliefs? He is clearly more worried that Mormons might gain acceptance as full citizens of society (and gain more membership and influence) than about gay marriage gaining full acceptance in society.
Ironically, if other Evangelicals follow his lead, the next thing that is going to happen is that polygamy will be legalized in California (as was pointed out by the dissenters on the state supreme court). The Mormons will be opposing that development, as well. Will he decide to not help them then?
TVHall on 02 Aug 2008 at 10:02 pm #
Having just returned from my own sojourn in the wilderness, I have been catching up on the goings on here and find much to agree with from coltakashi and kc4rzw. However, appealing to logic with the likes of LaHaye and McCoy is no different than using that approach with liberal/progressive leaders. The only concern (and I emphasize only) for these individuals is power, specifically their power over those that have made themselves dependant on these leaders.
It is the inevitable result when people choose to place their trust in the “arm of flesh.” It is the exact reason that our founding fathers designed a government that kept power as dispersed as possible. Unfortunately, we appear to be fast approaching the time when the “ruling elites” and those willing to be subjugated for expedience sake will reach the tipping point.