Article VI Blog

Posted in Image Gallery | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Regular readers can tell we have done a little remodel here at Article VI Blog.  We hope you like it – please feel free to leave your comments.

We’re here because what we are about still matters.  It matters because religious discrimination is a problem in politics in this nation.  It matters because some would have the religious voice leave politics altogether, and religious people that misuse that voice often help them.  It matters because it looks increasingly like Mitt Romney will run for president again.

Things will not change that much around here from what we have been doing, but that has changed quite a bit from our original mission.  We have broadened our view a bit to cover religion in politics generally.  However, that is such a broad topic that we cannot possibly cover it all, we will limit by what interests us, or what has an affect on our core concern, which is the role of Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith on his electoral fortunes.  This took us heavily into the Prop 8 fight in California last election, particularly given the specific aim that was taken at the CJCLDS in the aftermath of its passage.  You can bet we will follow similar stories in the future.

Last cycle, Lowell was a Romney guy pretty much from the get-go and I was in the end, but held my ammo until the day before Super Tuesday.  Lowell will no doubt continue to be Lowell this time around (presuming there is a this time around) while I am now a declared Romney guy.  I reserve the right to change my mind as circumstances develop, but until further notice we’re both looking for Romney victories.

We have no intention of letting this slight change of position change the quality, focus, honesty or integrity of what we do at this blog.  We are going to call it like we see it, and lay out facts as best we know them and can research them.

Also note that our remodel is not quite complete.  We will be rewriting the “about” pages and looking at making a few other changes as time goes forward.

We hope you find the remodeling we have done entertaining and informative.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Yesterday, Nation Review Digital posted, with a 10/19 date, Ramesh Ponneru’s assessment of Romney and 2012.  Frankly, he sounds remarkably like us.

Romney’s current and former consultants tend to agree about what he did wrong last time. They do not fault the flip-flops. But “inauthentic” is a word that often comes up. “It’s a matter of emphasis,” says one former adviser. “He emphasized issues that didn’t fit his profile. The volume, the way he presented them, didn’t fit with who he is.” This adviser cites Romney’s attacks on McCain and Giuliani over their support for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Another ’08 veteran agrees that Romney was badly positioned but mostly blames reporters. “They wanted to write the Mormon story and the abortion flip-flop story. And then in Iowa when the marriage issue [came] up, you [had] to talk about it.”

These Romneyites do not believe that the governor should abandon his conservative positions on the social issues. Most of them share those positions, and also know that flip-flopping again would render Romney ridiculous. They just want him to avoid emphasizing the social issues. It is advice he appears to be taking to heart. Economics and foreign policy, in that order, have been the focus of his public comments. His critique of Obama has been that the president is endangering our currency by spending so much on domestic programs, threatening our security by cutting defense spending, and reducing our credibility with allies by drawing closer to our enemies. Romney has not complained about Obama’s social liberalism. At one point, Romney was fighting against liberal policies on stem cells more actively than any other governor in the country. When I asked him about Obama’s record on the subject, he began his answer by noting that he had not been following it much over the last year.

How was it we put it?  Oh yeah, it went like this:

This pains me deeply to say, but a front-burner social conservative simply cannot win the general.  We want a candidate that has social conservative tendencies, but not one that leads with them, that is a recipe for being out of power for four more years.  Social conservatives (evangelicals, the Religious Right…) have got to wake up to their role in the party and play that role, or they are gong to have to be sent packing.  It’s a vitally important role for crying out loud – it’s just not the lead.  Supporting is always where the best acting is done.

And then there is this goodie from Ramesh:

Yet it is extremely difficult — more difficult than many people realize — to capture the Republican presidential nomination from the right in the modern era. The politics of religion largely account for this difficulty. The movement candidacy always runs a risk of being destroyed by an evangelical candidacy. No movement candidate can win without strong support from evangelical voters. But an evangelical candidate running on the basis of his religion can win a lot of votes from his coreligionists, and thus block the movement candidate’s progress, without being able to win the nomination himself. As Huckabee showed in the last race, the evangelical candidate need not be well-known or well-funded to play this role. Pat Robertson played it in 1988. (Pat Buchanan splintered the movement in a slightly different way in 1996.)

Romney’s problem was not that he is a Mormon. It was that he is not an evangelical. A strong plurality of evangelicals “would have backed Huckabee against anybody — Mormon, Buddhist, or Catholic,” says another former Romney adviser. “They were voting for one of their own.” To attribute Romney’s loss in Iowa to anti-Mormon prejudice from evangelicals, he says, is like attributing Romney’s victories in Utah and Nevada to Mormons’ hostility to people from all other faiths. But this adviser reaches the same conclusion as his colleagues who blamed anti-Mormonism: Romney should not spend as much time and resources on Iowa next time.

In the broadest brushstroke that is correct, although I think it discounts the effect anti-Mormon rhetoric can play in emphasizing that tendency more than even usual.   As we analyzed a while ago in Iowa new votes, votes that did not typically caucus, were the difference.  They were not there for Robertson and they were not there for Buchanan – they were there because there was a Mormon in the race.  Evangelicals, by their nature, want their “independence” from political alliances to be very clear.  That’s why there is always a dance between the social conservatives and the rest of the party.  It does not take a big effort, just a small one to send them spinning off into space.

The biggest problem, frankly, was that the few anti-Mormons got the press’ ear and established the story line – and Huckabee’s particular political genius allowed him to play it like a maestro.  Evangelicals felt like they had to make a religious decision rather than just sort of look the other way and make a purely political decision – something they normally would have done with an areligious (McCain) or even Catholic (Giuliani) candidate.

It is agreed with Ramesh that Romney has to de-emphasize Iowa.  But there is one other thing that has to happen – the press needs to be neutralized on the Mormon meme to some extent.  It would not take much, a few huge name Evangelicals leaders to endorse Romney outright without the qualifications about how Mormons are different – just a straightforward “I endorse him.”  Of course, there is a chance that the press is just bored of the meme – Goodness knows they beat it to death last time, but I would not count on it.  We already know that the anti-Mormons are agitating, and the press loves nothing more than a religious fight.  Not to mention the left is going to hammer on it hard (it works for them – divide and conquer and all that.)  Of course, if there is no blatant Evangelical for the anti-Mormons to coalesce around it won’t matter, but Huckabee still has to make a buck, so I wouldn’t count on that either.

However, if Romney does as Ramesh suggests, runs as the establishment candidate not the movement candidate, then the anti-Mormon agitators will appear to be out of the mainstream and be far less effective.  That’ll help quite a bit.  Richard Albert at The Hill just this morning in burnishing Romney’s credentials as both the establishment guy and “the next in line.”

Romney has less of a hill to climb this time than last time, but it is still there.  Frankly, I think the biggest thing in his favor this time around is that the current administration is so antithetical to all branches of the Republican coalition that they will just forget the differences to regain the White House.  The effects of last time, whether they be anti-Mormonism of Evangelical independence, are far less effective in the face of a common opponent.  Last time we were in power, this time we are not.  That is the biggest difference.

Lowell: I cannot add much to John’s fine post, other than to say “met too!”  I was especially impressed with Ramesh’s comments about how “it is extremely difficult — more difficult than many people realize — to capture the Republican presidential nomination from the right in the modern era.” Romney very understandably tried to run with those realities in mind and came across as not fully believable.

Folks, John and I have spent a fair amount of time with Mitt Romney. He’s believable. He’s the real deal. He seemed to struggle at communicating to the public who he really is. I think he can overcome that and I will be watching to see the impact the change will have. It could be quite significant.

Posted in Political Strategy | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

They call it the Invisible Primary, and it matters a lot:

It may be known as the invisible primary, but the months leading up to the midterm elections are a time for possible Republican presidential candidates to increase their national presence.

The first presidential votes won’t be cast for 40 months, but candidates are using the time to build organization and support around the country under the guise of helping the Republican Party in the 2009 and 2010 elections.

This Hill piece also has something very cogent to say about Sarah Palin’s future:

But GOP strategists remain torn about Palin’s future. Though most acknowledge her fan base among social conservatives, many question whether her presence on the national stage benefits their party.

[...]

“There is zero — zero — coordinated effort on her behalf, nor have I seen anything in the past 12 months that suggests she has the people around her who can do a competent job of organizing on her behalf,” Cullen said. “Of course, her fundraising ability is significant and she could hire such people in a hurry.”

Told you I did not think she was running.

And as the Invisible Primary proceeds apace we see some interesting things.  Romney is picking up the fund-raising pace.  While Pawlenty is off to Iowa. (Hardly a commute from Minnesota.)  We see old arguments against Romney being dusted off.

Then there are those who engage in knowledgable prognostication.

But former Republican Rep. Tom Davis, who used to run the House Republican campaign operation, added a few more to the mix today…

[...]

“But if you want to look beyond that to people who I think are really good, I look at a Thune,” Davis said, referencing South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune, who famously unseated former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004 and is oft-mentioned as a rising star on Capitol Hill. “He’s just a very attractive guy, he’s a good candidate. Daschle will tell you that.”

Also on Davis’s watch list, former Ohio GOP Rep. John Kasich, who briefly eyed a presidential bid in 2000 and who is currently running for governor in Ohio.

Thune and Kasich are both good people.  They may get in the race later, but if they do it will be for motivations other than actually achieving the office.  Think Fred Thompson.  Thune might run as  practice for doing it for real in the future, which would be welcome in that future, but he is not ripe yet.

And finally in the Invisible Primary we see alliances forming.  We have already seen a Romney/McCain infant alliance and now we see an indirect alliance forming with Rudy Giuliani.  Great respect from his former opponents for Mitt Romney.  Politco is trying to portray a Pawlenty/Gingrich alliance, but I don’t see it in the text.  Newt is looking increasingly like a spent force battling for attention instead of commanding it.  Crying shame for one of the most astute political minds of a generation.

Speaking of alliances, Dan Gilgoff is a bit premature here.

Religious Discrimination…

When we feel it here, we must always remember it is worse elsewhere.  It is even deadly in some places.  (Think about current Iraq policy after reading that last link.)

And we do need to remember that fact, because here it comes to an election near us.  The “Boston Phoenix,” a hard left web-outlet that took a number of below-the-belt shots at Romney last time around, fires the opening salvo in the ugly religious  attacks from the left for this time around. (HT: Juvenile Instructor)  The piece is titled “Latter day taint” which ought to give you a hint at what lies ahead.  The piece is an attack on Glenn Beck, but ends by opening the door, rather invitingly, to making similar attacks on Romney:

But as Beck’s example shows, shared moral conviction can mask radically different ideas about important subjects. If the press starts examining Beck’s Mormon influences in detail, they just might follow suit with Romney.

Back in 2007, after Romney cited Skousen during a radio interview, the National Review’s Mark Hemingway — himself a former Mormon — struck a deeply skeptical note in a piece titled “Romney’s Radical Roots.” Skousen’s anti-communism, Hemingway wrote, was “so irrational in its paranoia that it would have made Whittaker Chambers blush. . . . For better and for worse, Romney’s familiarity with Cleon Skousen does convincingly demonstrate that Mitt Romney is not far removed and indeed well-acquainted with a radical and firebrand conservatism — even if it is of the variety he might want to keep chained to a radiator in the attic.”

That’s precisely the sort of talk that Romney’s speech on faith was supposed to quash. Instead, thanks to the converted zealotry of Glenn Beck, the conversation might just be getting started.

Hence my and Lowell’s concern about Beck’s cartoonish antics of late.  Were this piece 1) aimed directly at Romney, and 2) in a more widely read outlet it would be worthy of the left-attack pantheon.  Long before Beck started this current cycle of media presence and antics, not coincidentally coming around the release of his latest book, I worried that he would become a surrogate for religiously based attacks on Romney.  We saw inklings of it last Christmas.  (See here – here – here – here – here) Looks like I was right to worry.

Sadly, Beck’s behavior of late leaves us little room to mount a defense.  Beginning with the atrocious cover photo of his latest tome, he seems determined to dig deeper into his niche audience while destroying any opportunity for broader appeal.  If he doesn’t quiet down soon, Romney will have to divorce himself from Beck – but then that might not be a bad thing since it will change the impression of the LDS as a “bloc” – except of course those that cry “cult” will not believe the divorce and contend that it was all stage managed. *SIGH*

Late post-script from Lowell: Sorry,  I ‘ve been away!  Other than “amen,” all I will say is that Glenn Beck is a showman.  He has an audience and a “schtick.”  It is absurd to tie him to Romney simply because they share the same faith, but that didn’t stop the Phoenix, and it won’t stop others.

By the same token, for Mark Hemingway to say “Romney’s familiarity with Cleon Skousen does convincingly demonstrate that Mitt Romney is not far removed and indeed well-acquainted with a radical and firebrand conservatism” is also ridiculous.  I knew Cleon Skousen and heard him speak a few times.  His son and I knew each other in high school.   Does that mean I share in some way his political views?  It certainly does not.  In fact, I have little patience for those views.

It seems that guilt by association is all right as long as the association is with a little-known religious group.  Then again, most people didn’t find such guilt acceptable in Barack Obama’s and Jeremiah Wright’s case.  I wonder why?

Posted in Reading List | 7 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

On the road again for a few days, and not a lot of time, but here are some links to stay up to date

Romney News

• Pre-Chicago rejection prognostications from Romney.  A little egg on his face, but not enough to sweat.
• Another shot at Mass. health care.  Go for it now cause it won’t matter when the going gets serious.

Palin News

• OUCH - that’s gonna leave a mark.
• Good idea to sell books, bad idea to run for POTUS.

Pawlenty News

• Jim Geraghty’s not a big fan. -  His emailers respond.
• I love it when major outlets write a lot and say nothing because they are way behind the curve.
• The Insiders.

Other “Candidates”

• Santorum
• Pence

Other News

• One of the many problems we have inthe public eye.
• Fund raising figures.
• We Evangelicals waking up? (Yeah I think we are getting that message – but there is that other one about religious bigotry I remain uncertain about)
• David Brooks ill-informed diatribe about talk radio.  Brooks has the narrative of the last cycle so wrong that it disqualifies the column from serious consideration.  As we’ll see when we get around to the next couple of posts in the “Telling the Story” series, talk radio played is way too cool in the cycle, waiting to late to get serious.

And now…at least this weekend’s travel does not involve an airplane!

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Discussion about POTUS  ’12 amongst the punditry and political watchers is starting to get quite serious indeed.  And with it, The Question gets asked again. When it comes to the GOP side of things, clearly…

…Romney is the Presumptive Leader

We know this if for no other reason than the attack dogs are growling.  Matt Lewis reports that an “ad hoc” group called Conservatives for Truth have attacked Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council for having Romney at the Value Voters Summit. (HT:  race42012)  Says Lewis:

Whether the reason is anti-Mormon bigotry, political chicanery orchestrated by an opponent, jealousy over his perfectly coiffed head of hair, or legitimate concerns over his past positions (ranging from abortion to health care), Mitt Romney never ceases to arouse anger from certain corners of the conservative movement.

But given the stuff that Lewis described above that paragraph, one thing is abundantly clear, they are driven by more than simple political opposition.  The chicanery and nastiness involved is a level worthy of the average leftie.  It’s the kind of stuff that happens when politics becomes one’s religion, a hallmark of the left, and a hint at their motivations – and a first answer to The Question for this round.

The real news from the piece is that for the first time, names are emerging.  They are “Steven Deace, Gregg Jackson, Dr. Earle Fox, Phil Magnan, and John Haskins and others” – they even have a web site.  Names to watch as things move forward.

There is a really great quote from the piece:

“He is well-oiled,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said of Huckabee.

That’s a subtle back-handed slap if ever I read one.  Think about it.

But all this nonsense notwithstanding, Romney continues to play things very smart (go down a bit – you’ll see it) and have friends in the right places.  (Follow this link – the sting value to the Huckster alone makes it worthwhile.)

And His Presumed Toughest Rival Has An Issue

Seems that most Minnesotans do not want Pawlenty to run.  (Bear in mind that he has already said he will not seek re-election as governor.)  Chris Cillizza does not think the poll results are that big a deal.  I think Cillizza is correct, the amount of press this got is largely do to the Dems pushing the results out there.  This is almost a standard story for a governor coming out like Pawlenty is. I remember similar stories regarding Romney last time around.

Could a New Serious Rival Be Emerging?

We’ve reported before, but now is happening, Rick Santorum is off to Iowa.  Cillizza does an interesting analysis on whether he is serious or not, at least about a POTUS run.  When we first looked at this, I did pretty much the same math Cillizza does, with one exception.  Cillizza looks at the social conservative competition and does not include Romney in the mix anywhere.

Based on what we discussed above, the social conservative vote is going to be tough for Romney, but can he win without?  More, can the person who has it win without the rest of the party?  The last cycle certainly indicates the answer is ‘NO!” to both questions.  Thinking about that, at this point I want Santorum in.  The more carved up the social conservative vote becomes, the less important it becomes in determining the nominee.

This pains me deeply to say, but a front-burner social conservative simply cannot win the general.  We want a candidate that has social conservative tendencies, but not one that leads with them, that is a recipe for being out of power for four more years.  Social conservatives (evangelicals, the Religious Right…) have got to wake up to their role in the party and play that role, or they are gong to have to be sent packing.  It’s a vitally important role for crying out loud – it’s just not the lead.  Supporting is always where the best acting is done.

Interesting Bits…

…Met Glenn Beck during Campaign ’08 – seems like a really nice guy – but, while this is a bit harsh, I tend to agree.  He is becoming a cartoon – not helpful.

…Is this where the problem lies for Mormons?

…This is definitely one of the places problems lie for “Christians.“  (quotes because we don’t all think that way.)

…OK, it seems apparent that Gilgoff is in the bag for Gingrich.

…Inside the stats.

And Finally…

What?! We’re not included?

Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post