The Question Remains!
The Michael Steele story is now old news. But little stories keep appearing. The latest we have run across is from the Philadephia Bulletin. This is a newspaper which claims to be “Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper.” The story says NOTHING that has not been told a thousand times already. We have ignored a dozen such stories here. But the headline makes this one notable:
Romney Defends Mormon Faith As GOP Infighting Continues
And yet, none of the response from Romney nor any of his aides, including those reported in the story make any mention of Mormonism – only Steele said anything about it.
This is the first hint of anything remotely resembling the kind of stuff we saw during the primaries since the election. I was hoping it was over.
Lowell adds: Sigh.
Posted in News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Chino Blanco on 15 May 2009 at 11:18 am #
One headline that’s yet to be read:
“Romney’s muddled strategy of alternately leveraging and minimizing relevance of Mormon faith leads to continued GOP infighting.”
And one that we’ve all long since grown tired of reading:
“Steele to blame.”
Carry on.
Jerald on 15 May 2009 at 2:53 pm #
Chino Blanco,
Your other posts haven’t been real insightful, but this statment “Romney’s muddled strategy of alternately leveraging and minimizing relevance of Mormon faith leads to continued GOP infighting” is offensive.
I will ask you to put your intellect where your mouth is and provide some evidence of “alternately leveraging and minimizing relevance of Mormon faith.”
Don’t worry though, I’m not holding my breath hoping you have the ability to do so.
Chino Blanco on 18 May 2009 at 1:12 am #
Jerald,
Offensive?
Boorish, perhaps, but hardly offensive.
If I’d been looking to offend with my comment, I would’ve remembered to include a disparaging remark (like yours) calling into question the intellectual ability of readers here to mount a rebuttal.
In any case, Adam Reilly, Damon Linker, Jay Cost and so many others have already discussed Romney’s candidacy in similar terms for so long now that I wonder why you didn’t simply choose to dismiss my comment as wholly unoriginal?
Not to worry, you’ll soon have the chance to critique my evidence-gathering technique, which is just as weak as my analysis. And (drumroll) here it is:
Perform a Google search for these words: Romney muddled Mormon strategy.
Ta-dah.
Not that the results constitute “evidence” … but humor me and follow the link that pops up in pole position:
The LDS “bloggernacle” discusses Romney’s “Brand Mormon” strategy
Like most of the the participants in that discussion, I was raised Mormon, from pioneer stock, served an overseas mission, and from my POV (returning to my Google search), would consider this pair of results an example of what I was referring to in my comment:
“My faith is the faith of my fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
vs.
“The practice of polygamy is abhorrent, it’s awful … it’s got nothing to do with my faith.”
The faith of my Mormon fathers took them to Mexico, where they prospered until events forced them to leave in 1911. Too bad they’re unavailable to comment here. I wonder if they’d be as polite as I was?
Doug King on 18 May 2009 at 7:45 pm #
No one can justly take credit or blame for past generations. As MLK said, we should judge people by the content of their character. Pedigree does not define character.
I’m proud of what my Mormon and non-Mormon ancestors achieved, but they do not make me a better or worse American. Likewise, the subject of Romney’s ancestors is politically irrelevant.
As for Steele’s comments, I was initially unhappy. But in retrospect, maybe he’s just telling the ugly truth–Americans are falling short of the founders’ vision of religious diversity and political unity.
K.G. on 19 May 2009 at 7:00 pm #
Doug King: I agree.
I believe Steels was just pointing at the obvious. We will continue to be the stupid party if we continue to refuse to support reasonable candidates for stupid reasons.
A bunch wouldn’t support Rudy because he was pro-choice, even tho he promised to nominate originialists to the bench. A bunch of people were all concerned about Thompson because though Church of Christ, he hadn’t attended church for a long time.
And there are a bunch who would cut off their right arm before they would vote for a Mormon. Yeah, yeah, they said it was Mitt’s former stances they couldn’t accept. However, you have to bet that if he had the correct religious bona fides, the “flips” would not have mattered a bit.
And there are those who will only support one of their own: Palin or Huckabee.
No wonder Steele is tearing his hair trying to herd cats.
Jerald on 23 May 2009 at 3:52 am #
Chino Blanco,
Sorry, I didn’t notice your post until today.
Maybe the word “offensive” is a little strong, but I took issue with your accusation that Romney is willfully engaged in some strategy to play up his religion one day and run from it the next. But you seem confident that he is and that is your opinion. I wasn’t challenging your intellect, just your ability to back up your accusations. But I admit I was rude.
As to your links, it is insightful that some of them lead to sites that are, shall we say, less than balanced regarding Mormonism in general and Romney in particular. That is your evidence, the opinion of these people? Well, I guess a vote for Romney is a vote for the devil.
Anyway, in specific rebuttal, your first link to Bloggernacle about “brand Mormon” was really weak. It dealt mostly with some guy’s opinion that a returned missionary should not say anything negative about the country he served in. As comments to that opinion piece pointed out, that is a lame argument. Romney was discussing France’s political-economic system. What, if somebody serves a mission in Hong Kong, do they have to come back loving communism or at least keep their mouth shut? Strange argument
Your next comparison about “Faith of my fathers” and “polygamy is abhorrent” is also disingenuous, although you probably are unaware of that fact. While some may believe that the only reason Mormons stopped practicing polygamy was because they gave into government pressure and that, if they could, would start it up again tomorrow, is a misunderstanding although an understandable one. We Mormons believe that God commands polygamy at certain times and cases, as in the Old Testament, but at other times commands against it. The command has been “no polygamy” for over 100 years. Today you will not find any faithful Mormon who thinks of polygamy for people living now as anything other than a grievous sin. So although you may believe that idea is nuts (and you might not, I do not know you), faithful Mormons will find no disparity between these two statements made by Romney as both his ancestors were and his family today is living their religion as commanded at the time in question.
And finally, I find it a little unfair to accuse Romney of alternately playing his faith and running from it.
Of course, Romney discussed the “values” of his faith as they bear on public policy and social values. But he was also constantly hounded by the media and others to “explain his faith” in other terms, such as specific doctrines, and to “admit that Mormons are not Christians,” etc., etc. Since such questions have no bearing on public policy, Romney was right to want to avoid them, not to run away from them, but because they were not pertinent to the discussion. But even then, he was pressured to give the “Faith in America” speech, which he probably would rather have not had to do.
Do you think Romney would go into a detailed discussion of the Word of Wisdom in the middle of a business meeting when refusing a cup of coffee? I image if someone was sincerely interested he would do it privately with the individual later, but it certainly wouldn’t be part of his PowerPoint presentation.
So you see, Chino Blanco, at best I felt that you were just expressing your emotional dislike for Romney and not really offering any analysis of the discussion at hand.