Article VI Blog

"Religion, Politics, the Presidency: Commentary by a Mormon, an Evangelical, and an Orthodox Christian"

United States Constitution — Article VI:

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Palin on Fox, “Double Standards,” The Invisible Primary, and more…

Posted by: John Schroeder at 06:48 am, January 18th 2010     —    5 Comments »

Sarah Palin . . .

. . . signed with FOXNews last week at the same time “Game Change” showed us she thought her Veep nomination was “God’s will.”  What can we conclude?  She is not running – I repeat – she is not running – at least not for real.  People run for POTUS for a lot of reasons, and in the last decade we have seen a new one arise – running for media credibility.  It seems clear that both Palin and Huckabee, if they throw their hat in the ring, will be doing so simply to accumulate the kind of cred that delivers five-to-six figure speaking fees and TV time.

Media is rapidly becoming about niche marketing.  Develop an audience and hit its pockets over and over again.  That is what both Palin and the Huckster are up to.  You can make a lot of money that way.  But becoming president is still about broad appeal, and that is what Romney and Pawlenty are up to – maybe Thune?  (I still say that if Thune throws in it’s a “practice” round.)

What’s sad is the ridicule the behavior of someone like Palin of the Huckster sets the rest of us up for.

The Whole “Double Standard” Thing . . .

Everybody was talking about how the media was cutting Harry Reid a break over his racist comments in re: The One.  The comments are reported in “Game Change.”  Of all the comments, Cal Thomas hit the salient point for this blog: (HT: Jay Evensen)

Reid belongs to the Mormon church, which waited until 1978 to announce a “revelation” that black people were welcome in that denomination. That is mostly ignored by the media, though reporters kept bringing up Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs — even questioning what undergarments he wore — during the last presidential campaign.

Watch what happens here.  Not only is no one mentioning Reid’s faith – they are not pointing out the Mormon church’s troubled history with race.  But have no fear.  Reid is about to get his head handed to him when he stands for re-election this year.  He will then become a discredited political figure.

Once that is done, if Romney runs again, you can bet we will hear all about Reid, his racism, and his Mormon faith – as a cudgel to beat Romney.  Mark my words, the swami has spoken.

The Invisible Primary . . .

Frum is trying to cause trouble here, but he does not have to work very hard at it.  When it is all said and done, I think we are going to find a close correlation between the Tea Party people and the “don’t vote for a Mormon” people.  I heard one on Michael Medved Friday say he would rather have his “conscious right with God” than vote against “his principles.”  That is just a rephrasing of the “Damn the environment, bring on the apocalypse” mentality that many on the left accuse we religious folk of having.  We really can be our own worst enemy.

Is Romney a health care hypocrite?  Tough call.  Ask Lowell, the Mass. healthcare plan kept me in the purely-academic, not-supporting-Romney mode for a long time last cycle.  It is the only thing I do not like when I look at Romney.  That said, it is a far cry better than anything that has been considered by the Fed to date.

But this I will say, the word “hypocrite” carries with it religious overtones.  Don’t be surprised to see Romney’s faith and “healthcare hypocrisy” wrapped up into a nonsensical, but somewhat effective, ball sometime in the future.

And while we are in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney is now firmly in front of the Scott Brown parade and Barack Obama the Martha Coakley death march.  In both cases it’s a huge bet on a Senate race for president or presidential candidate.  For a president there is no up side – only the preservation of existing political capital, or not.  For a candidate, the upsides are tremendous, and the downside is to look like a loser in your home state.  But at this point the “loser” label has fled the race.  Should Brown lose, which is looking less and less likely, there will be moral loss and moral victory only.  Romney comes out of this smelling like a rose, regardless.

UPDATE: Politico says Romney is missing from the Brown campaign?  Maybe he failed to appear as predicted in the link above, but if my email is any measure Romney is doing everything he can to help Scott Brown.  Why just yesterday I got emails for support activities for Brown from the Romney operation BEFORE I got them from Brown’s campaign.  And of course there are the Romney TV appearances discussing Brown that are buried in the story.  Politico is shooting at Romney here — I wonder why?  Back to the original post.

Ya gotta love it.  We laugh, but on reflection, Huck’s comment that Romney “has no soul,” is so ugly that laughter is the only viable response.   To question someone’s essential humanity is, in the end, contemptible.  I can come up with a list of negative adjectives in re: the Huckster much longer than my arm, but he is a human being – a wrong one – but a human being nonetheless.  Shame on Huckabee.

Deep Thoughts . . .

Bias and ignorance are close kin.

Using freedom to deny it.  Interesting concept.

Finally . . .

We have added MLK’s “I Have A Dream” Speech to our video widget at left – apropos the day and the raison d’être for this blog.

Lowell adds . . .

Viewing Mike Huckabee’s comments in “Game Changer” charitably, I suppose he was using “soul” in the sense of “a moral compass,” or “integrity.” Still . . . it was a most unfortunate choice of words by a candidate who everyone knows was a Baptist preacher in a religion-charged campaign. The most telling aspect of the Huck-Romney rivalry as it now stands is that Huck is the only one still taking shots at the other guy.

As for Romney’s involvement in the Scott Brown campaign, here’s an analysis that finds Romney’s fingerprints everywhere:  “Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects [is] the hidden hand of Mitt Romney.”  Read the whole thing; it describes a lot of the political bridge-building Romney is doing.  I don’t see any other candidate doing anything comparable.

Romney and healthcare:  is he a hypocrite?  The answer is no, but understanding that  requires more than a superficial understanding of what Romney did in Massachusetts.  Here’s what you need to know:  Romney’s plan was for Massachusetts, not the USA.   He has always said that he would not be in favor of the Massachusetts system (including the “individual mandate” requiring everyone to have health insurance)  being imposed nationally.  That said, 96% of Massachusetts’ citizens have health insurance.  Not a bad feat; I wish California could come even close to that.

Share

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments » | Print this post Print this post | Email This Post Email This Post

Recently Posted:

5 Responses to “Palin on Fox, “Double Standards,” The Invisible Primary, and more…”

  1. Tweets that mention Palin on Fox, “Double Standards,” The Invisible Primary, and more… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 18 Jan 2010 at 7:18 am #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012!, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: #hhrs New @ Article VI Blog:: Palin on Fox, "Double Standards," The Invisible Primary, and more… http://bit.ly/4L2R61 [...]

  2. coltakashi on 19 Jan 2010 at 11:59 am #

    I usually agree with Cal Thomas, but his trying to use Harry Reid’s membership in the LDS church as a reason to call him racist is even more offensive than what Reid said about Obama. Basically, Reid said that Obama had a better chance at election than black candidates (like Jesse Jackson) who were more characteristically “black” in their appearance and speech, something which my local newspaper her in eastern Washington (which is liberal and whose publisher is black) pointed out was politically savvy but not “politically correct”.

    Thomas basically implies that a policy that was ended 32 years ago makes current Mormons racist. If the policy were still in effect, he might have an argument. But how does ENDING a racial policy make you racist a generation later? By that logic, all Americans are racist because we didn’t end legal discrimination until 1964!

    When the Mormons include millions of people who are black, Latin-American, Asian, Polynesian, etc., when you call Mormons racist, you are calling all those people of diverse ethnicities racist (including Japanese-Americans like me). Half od Mormons live outside the US and speak languages in their homes other than English. Calling a diverse international population “racist” is nonsensical, a complete departure from reality. The LDS Church membership binds together people of 150 nations. White Americans live as unpaid missionaries for two years among people of all races. And missionaries of all nations are called to proselyte in the USA. My congregation in eastern Idaho had one missionary from Kenya and two from Mongolia.

    Besides, Thomas can’t even get his facts straight. Blacks were welcome to join the LDS Church through its entire history. They were in integrated congregations in Utah and places like Maryland (both places where I lived). A lot of Mormons in Brazil were and are black. The one thing they lacked until 1978 was ordination in the unpaid Mormon priesthood. According to non-Mormon historian Jan Schipps, who has written books about the Mormons, a major reason for the change in 1978 was the large number of black Mormons who were faithful LDS Church members, along with several thousand people in Africa who were pleading for the Church to send missionaries to baptize them. In the 32 years since 1978, the membership in Africa has grown to over 250,000 in a dozen nations, all in congregations led by unpaid local members as bishops.

    When someone we consider as generally informed as Cal Thomas can display this level of ignorance about who the Mormons really are, it will definitely be an uphill climb for Mitt Romney if he runs again.

  3. John Schroeder on 19 Jan 2010 at 6:12 pm #

    I do not believe Thomas was attempting to make the point that Reid’s faith is the problem – He was attempting to point out that ALL the MSM could talk about was Romney’s faith, including the accusation of hidden racism, but that they are unwilling to in Reid’s case.

  4. K.G. on 19 Jan 2010 at 10:46 pm #

    John,

    Your interpretation makes me feel a little better about Thomas. But still, it brings up this old issue. He didn’t have to do that.

  5. Romney Wins! Romney Wins! Romney Wins! . . . Sort Of | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 19 Jan 2010 at 11:35 pm #

    [...] Schroeder — Topsy.com on Romney Wins! Romney Wins! Romney Wins! . . . Sort OfJohn Schroeder on Palin on Fox, “Double Standards,” The Invisible Primary, and more…coltakashi on Palin on Fox, “Double Standards,” The Invisible Primary, and [...]

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

« The Truth About Religion In Public and Romney is Emerging  |  Romney Wins! Romney Wins! Romney Wins! . . . Sort Of »