The Spin Begins Before The Caucuses
All week long we have been bombarded with Mormon stories and most of them are about the fact that Romney will win Nevada because it has a heavy Mormon population. The story has featured prominently in Politico ad WaPo:
Despite comprising about 7 percent of the state’s population, they made up more than one-quarter of the GOP caucus electorate, and entrance polls showed Romney winning a stunning 95 percent of their vote.
In other words, half of Romney’s vote in Nevada came from fellow Mormons, and he could have won the state’s caucuses even if he hadn’t gotten a single vote from anyone else.
Because Mormons vote in unison and because they turn out in large numbers, a state like Nevada is virtually impossible for any of Romney’s opponents to win.
OK, forgive me, I only majored in chemistry and minored in mathematics so I might not be as good as this as a political reporter at the Washington Post but let’s assume 100 votes in the caucus. 25% of those votes are Mormon and 95% of those are going to vote for Romney. That’s 22 votes. But last polls in Nevada had Gingrich at 25% – or in our model 25 votes. So how precisely does Romney win if only Mormons vote for him? And then, all those non-Mormon votes that Romney just gave up are gong to land somewhere.
And what about that canard that “Mormons vote in unison?” The most quoted Mormon pundit this cycle is Joanna Brooks. She has risen to the defense of Mormonism many times, but she also is not afraid to take it head-on, and I could be wrong, but a Romney vote is not likely from her. Mormons in Nevada, all 140,000 of them may vote more or less in lockstep, but in California, or urban Utah – I’m not buying it. Will the majority of Mormons vote for Romney? Sure, but not in lockstep.
What is all this really? Just an attempt to paint Mormons as a creepy cult. Obviously any large group that would be that single-minded would be both creepy and cultic. (Unless of course you are a knee jerk liberal, in which case spouting the “party line” is just reasonable.) The latest raft of stories that attempt to be balanced by calling all the Mormon attention a “mixed blessing (LA Times) or wearing out the alliterative “Mormon Moment” meme (Politico) by their very nature make Mormons seem “odd” because they have to be explained. I am sure Lowell could cite any number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations in these pieces, but I am concerned that the very existence of these articles, even if correct, has a subliminal effect.
There are also attacks that are far less that subtle. Dana Milbank writes about a cousin Romney has never met that has some “issues” to say the least. Here is the funny part:
This isn’t necessarily bad news for Mitt Romney. In most cases, family antics are more embarrassing than politically damaging. And the emergence of a “crazy cousin” might remind voters that Romney, a candidate who too often comes across as programmed, is just like the rest of us.
In other words, “This isn’t really news, but I just spent a whole column on it reminding you that Romney is a Mormon and some people don’t like that.” I don’t know what’s worse, that people write such transparent drivel or that a significant number of people fail to see through it.
In the meantime, Romney has come out hard defending the Catholic Church against the latest assault by the Obama administration in an op-ed. Coverage here, highlights here, full text here. But there remains a messaging problem. This is only making it through the conservative outlets. (The left-leaning outlets have their own truly misleading spin.) The MSM just is not covering the issue left, right or center.
Romney alone has a big enough profile currently to push this issue onto the front pages. Should he do so? I am sure many are thinking that since this is a part of the larger issue of Obamacare that handling that issue will handle this one. True enough. However, it is not all about the issue. Romney, as the frontrunner and presumptive nominee, needs to begin his efforts to unite Republicans. Getting loud and proud about this issue can go a long way to accomplishing that. Not to mention it is the perfect opportunity for Romney to get indignant – something that a lot of voters seem to want to see. To borrow some papal language – This ruling is anathema – it is worthy of strong emotion. Romney has said “It’s not worth getting angry about.” There is wisdom in that – anger often clouds judgement, but somethings are so heinous that they are repulsive and they deserve a visceral response. This is one of them.
Vic Lundquist at Mitt Romney Central wrote yesterday about how many people of very serious, non-Mormon Christian faith are supporting Romney. It’s an impressive list. But it needs to expand. The ruling by HHS is the perfect open door for Romney to move from being the Mormon candidate to the candidate of faith. For some of us he has been that for a while, but a lot of people still need to get the message. The op-ed is a great start, but unless Romney pushes hard on this – really, really hard – it will languish within the wide circle that is his supporters. That circle needs to grow for the general.
Lowell adds . . .
Romney as the candidate of faith is an interesting idea. I agree that he should step forward as a faith-friendly, but at this point in the race he should not try to out-Santorum rick Santorum. I think the time will come when people of faith (well, most of them) will turn to Romney as their guy.
What does seem clear is that Romney himself is the one who decides on his message and the language he will use:
“There are a lot of people who make suggestions to the governor and provide drafts to him, but the governor uses a heavy red pencil” in his speeches, said spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “Everything that he says — whether it’s at a news conference, a debate, or a formal speech — flows from his own pen. He is ultimately his own speechwriter.”
For his own reasons (at which I can only guess) Gov. Romney has taken a very measured approach to discussions about faith. I can’t say that I blame him, since he can’t say anything right about that subject in the eyes of so many people, including prominently the MSM that filters and repackages his statements.
Even on the conservative side there is constant niggling about what Romney says, as is evident in Stephen F. Hayes’ latest explanation of why Romney makes conservatives nervous. Predictably, Hayes concludes his piece wishing Romney were more like someone else. At least this time it’s a living person, Marco Rubio, and not Ronald Reagan, who never made mistakes or misstatements and was consistently and reliably conservative on every issue. (Insert eye-rolling smiley face here.)
Posted in Reading List | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
sewinglady on 04 Feb 2012 at 4:56 pm #
I keep hearing that “Mormons” will vote for Romney. How frustrating that is! I am sure that there are some members of our Church who are identity voters, but what the press mostly ignores is how many “Mormons” voted for George W. Bush and many other “most electable conservative” candidates. In fact, we members of the CJCLDS have a track record of voting conservatively for MANY other people. Mostly not members of our faith. We have demonstrated a complete willingness to vote for people who aren’t part of our Church, unlike some evangelicals.
If we had been dead set on voting for a Mormon, why did we choose to vote for George W. Bush against Orrin Hatch in 2000? This is simply foolishness on the part of the media trying to further divide Republicans.
I would like to make one more point. Mitt Romney was the hero of the Olympics in 2002. EVERYONE in Utah and many neighboring states knew it. Romney was a hero, not a politician in Utah. Politicians have to make policy choices which usually lessens their popularity. Romney didn’t have to do that; his position allowed him much of the exposure of a politician without the down side of a voting record. The power of what happened with the Olympics should NOT be underestimated.
| Article VI Blog | Lowell Brown on 04 Feb 2012 at 9:13 pm #
[...] The Spin Begins Before The Caucuses [...]
lstokes on 04 Feb 2012 at 11:06 pm #
Along those lines, here is an article I just read: <c
It appears to me the writer is attempting to ring the “weirdness” bell. The criticism about Romney not going out with the boys after work was probably due to the same reasons I did not nor do most of the LDS men I know do not: we have better things to do with our time such as being at home with our families rather than seeing how quickly we can work our way into a drunken stupor. Not that I’m condemning someone who has a beer or two in at home in the evening or wants to have a cocktail. Heck, I’ve tasted a sip or two of alcohol before and it was actually pretty good–a sign that perhaps I really ought to toe the line on the LDS Church’s “Word of Wisdom”. Second, Romney had a Church “calling” such as Bishop or Stake President, which require a lot of time. There are also other less visible positions requiring significant time commitments. Most LDS wards or branches sponsor Cub Scout Packs or Boy Scout troops. Someone genuinely committed to helping boys grow into honest, productive men and fathers will want to do the job properly. Lastly is d the Church’s heavy emphasis on paternal involvement with one’s children. We are counseled by our Church leadership to do all we can to ease the many burdens on our wives. We are told not to expect our wives to do it all. But again, I suspect a faithful, practicing male member of any church will have similar attitudes and demands on his time. Another reason for Romney not revealing his inner core or faith self is he considers that part of his life private and sacred. The last thing anyone of faith wants is for his beliefs to be mocked and ridiculed. Mormons early on develop a keen instinct for when to open up to sincere questions or curiosity and when the questioner merely wishes to mock and criticize. With our relentlessly secular culture’s active hostility towards any public expression of faith, an active church-goer learns caution about publicly revealing things he considers most valuable and important because the World does not nor never will understand. It’s all part of being in the world but not part of it. Had the writer been genuinely interested rather than looking for a mocking or critical angle, all he had to do was ask a practicing Latter-day Saint to have learned most of what I’ve explained. I’m trying not to be judgmental, but the writer may not know anyone of any deep religious convictions let alone an active Latter-day Saint and was too lazy to find out. He instead consulted his prejudices in place of genuine research.
Retrocon on 05 Feb 2012 at 11:10 am #
I think it was during Newt’s press conference after the Nevada results had been coming in, but one reporter hit on the right question. He pointed out the excuses Newt kept making after every loss, then asked, “Is it maybe the voters just aren’t buying what you’re selling?”
Serious analysis should reveal that South Carolina was the aberration.
1) Neighboring to Newt’s home state, with similar demographics. Note that the northern Florida counties, those more similar to Georgia, also tilted more toward Gingrich. So we have Gingrich-friendly territory in SC.
2) Knee-jerk reaction to the Marianne Gingrich interview which Newt was able to turn back initially with a forceful, albeit full of pious baloney, denunciation of the media and anyone who would believe a spurned ex-wife. Of course, once things settled in, women in Florida turned away in droves. Because whether you want to believe Marianne Gingrich or not, Newt’s answer was really full of holes* and the fact of the serial adultery is not in question — Marianne serving as a reminder.
3) A misstep by Romney in the debates, where he did not look strong or decisive on the issue of his taxes, that he was going to wait until later, maybe, etc.
4) A sudden sound of the alarm by the likes of Sarah Palin that South Carolinians MUST NOT give Romney a win or it would all be over — “We must keep this going”, she implored, apparently just for the sake of keeping it going. Neither Gingrich nor the upstart Santorum had been able to make a dent in Romney’s New Hampshire support as they had hoped, and Romney was looking strong. (After Florida, I don’t see Palin holding much sway.)
So other than in South Carolina, with it’s particular confluence of circumstances, Gingrich has not been moving the needle much and is degenerating back into the surly Newt.
* Remember Newt claimed all of his personal friends “knew” Marianne’s story was false and that several of them were prepared to offer proof to ABC news that the charges were false. As it turns out, the only “proof” ever offered by anyone was a statement from Newt’s two daughters that they had asked their father about the allegations and he had “assured them” the charges were false. I’m still hoping a reporter will ask Gingrich what proof he was talking about when he turned his fire on John King — or was Newt being a little dishonest.
coltakashi on 05 Feb 2012 at 11:30 am #
Any reporter who had done the five minutes of research on Mormons and politics would know from the press section of lds.org that the CJCLDS emphatically does NOT tell its members who to vote for in partisan elections, and any Mormon who claimed that thete was some kind of secret endorsement of a candidate by Church leaders would be rebuked by experienced members and his church leaders and denounced by the Church. A few years ago a Mormon csndidate in Idaho tried to hold a Mormons-only political rally in eastern Idaho, which is abput 50% Mormon, and that is exactly what happened. One if my law professors, Edwin Brwon Firmage, ran for Congress as a Democrat (in the same district around Salt Lake where later Representative Matheson, a Mormon Democrat, has been repeatedly elected) using a brochure that featured his grandfather, Hugh B. Brown, a counselor in the First Presidency who had been a Democrat in his own day. It led to criticism by his opponents that he was improperly using his Church affiliation. In any case, he lost.
In this time when campaign contributions can be tracked on the internet, the Church leadership has asked all the full time senior leadership to refrain from making any contributions to any campaign, so overzealous members don’t take it as a sign they should do likewise. The fact that Romney is popular among many Mormons is because he has impressed them (just as Jon Huntsman did not, despite his popularity as governor) as a good potential president. Other Mormons are Democrats or are attracted to the characteristics of Gingrich and Santorum or Paul. But the important thing to understand is that Mormons make their own decisions on such issues.
Indeed, in many Mormon Sunday Schools today, the lesson will be based on the farewell sermon of the aging prophet Lehi, teaching that part of God’s grace to us is the freedom to choose Christ, liberty and eternal life, or the devil, captivity and death. We are free to choose, but cannot change the natural consequences of our choices. Direction on how to vote in an election would offend the Mormon dedication to making one’s own choices, based on what the Church has taught as principles of right and wrong. Even when the Church has asked members to support or oppose a policy in a referendum, it has never threatened members who decline to participate or even campaign for the other side with release from Church callings, or excommunication. Back when the Church opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, vocal proponent Sonia Johnson was excommunicated because she made ad hominem attacks on Church leaders and called on people to refuse to listen to Mormon missionaries, going beyond supporting the ERA and harming the Church itself.
Witnessing The Creation Of A Straw Man | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 28 Feb 2012 at 7:06 pm #
[...] obviously demonstrates having been briefed by the current administration. It took solid form when the Obama administration made a policy ruling clearly designed to have ripples in Republican [...]