The Animal Takes A Swipe Through The Cage Bars
We began this week making the case that the Mormon issue is more or less controlled at the moment, but it is definitely not tamed and still very dangerous. Last night was strong evidence of that fact.
Mitt Romney is first and foremost a smart businessman, and part of being a smart business man is knowing where to invest resources and where not to invest resources. Given that in terms of actual convention delegates last night meant nothing whatsoever, Romney chose not to invest his resources. After all there would be no significant return on his investment. The result was he did not win any of the three states. With the amount of momentum he had built prior to these beauty contests asking why that momentum did not carry these states is important to analyze.
In physics, momentum is rapidly drained if there is an opposing force. So what was the opposing force? Well, significantly Rick Santorum punted Florida and Nevada to go to work in these states – that matters more than most pundits realize. But even that would not have mattered had not this still been an issue. Why does everybody view Mitt Romney as “inauthentic?”
We have long contended that the Mormon issue lay at the heart of such objections. It goes back a long way. The Osmonds were the “plastic” Jackson 5. (Given the way Michael Jackson’s life ended, do we really want to talk about”authentic?”) Evangelicals have their theological objections, but generally speaking this is the view.
One emailer tells us people left the Colorado caucus’ saying things like, “Thank the Lord that Romney didn’t win!!!” This is a clear indication of the opposing force we discussed, but is it indication of religious prejudice? I actually prayed thanks to God last night that Gingrich did not win, so this utterance could be a sign of religious commitment and political opposition, we’ll never know.
But it is clear that the press is still beating the Mormon drums. They are telling us it is an issue in Michigan. That’s amazing given that Romney’s father was governor there, but that was then and this is now. Some of the coverage is vicarious, some tries to appear objective (*snicker*), some of it is disingenuous, and some of it is just nasty.
Clearly religious concerns lay in the mix of Romney objections somewhere, but pinning it down is not easy. The next real test of the issue will be Texas on Super Tuesday where Rick Perry, and his buddy Robert Jeffress, have been busy on Newt Gingrich’s behalf. Given that it is in the mix; however, you can count on the left, largely in the form of the press, to keep hammering and hammering.
On the right, those that object to Romney are starting to run out of ammunition save for pure religious identity concerns. The Washington Post points out that the debate since Nevada has started to focus on social issues, driven largely by Obama’s direct assault on the Roman Catholic church.
Every social conservative out there should read Hugh Hewit’ts interview with Mitt Romney from yesterday. I defy anyone to tell me where the statements, positions and promises Romney makes differ from the standard social conservative line, and most importantly how they differ from his opponents. They don’t. Not one iota.
While we are on the subject of that interview consider this:
MR: Well, one of the great things about America is that people have confidence in something greater than themselves. And the religious institutions in our country encourage us to be bigger than ourselves, to have purposes that are larger than our selfish interests. And as a result, we are a greater people than we would be if we were an entirely selfish people. And I believe part of the greatness of America flows from the religious convictions of our many citizens. And even those who are not members of any particular faith typically have a vision of something greater than themselves. This is quintessentially an American attribute. And the attack on religion is unseemly, it’s unconstitutional, and I think it’s unwise.
Maybe, just maybe, Governor Romney reads this blog from time-to-time – that sounds mighty familiar. But humility demands that I get back on point.
Social conservatives that object to Romney have no option save to disbelieve him. He is dead nuts on on the issues so their only retort is to say he does not mean what he says. That is skating on pretty thin ice – particularly with the structural and financial advantages the Romney campaign has. Then there is the fact, that such claims are precisely what Team Obama is counting on to push them over the top in the general, so all such claims really accomplish is to give the Dems ammo.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Reading List | 6 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLF9999 on 08 Feb 2012 at 12:35 pm #
Let me see if I got this right. Romney , and by extension all Mormons, must defend things we do not believe as articulated by people who think we are lying when we tell them they misunderstand and we must do this in order to be taken seriously. Is that it? When we object THEY tell us we don’t know what we believe and our banishment from the real community of Christianity is our fault for not believing thier version of Christianity. Did I miss something?
Retrocon on 08 Feb 2012 at 4:15 pm #
Yeah, I think JLF has just about pegged it.
I think all the calls for answers about Mormon theology ought to be directed to Harry Reid. Mitt has enough to worry about than to wade through the sludge drudged up to attack Romney by attacking Mormonism.
Where is Harry, by the way?
Watchman on 08 Feb 2012 at 7:36 pm #
You wrote: I defy anyone to tell me where the statements, positions and promises Romney makes differ from the standard social conservative line.
On the off chance that you’re actually interested in an answer to your challenge rather than simply making a rhetorical point, that’s not the reason this conservative opposes Romney. The problem is that the “statements, positions and promises Romeny makes” don’t match his record or his earlier rounds of “statements, positions and promises” in other campaigns. Those of us with long memories are not persuaded that this version is more genuine than the past one.
Romney’s record, not his religion is the problem for me. I believe your chosen candidate would benefit greatly if his supporters would spend more time addressing the real issue rather than the red herring. This social conservative does disbelieve him, because seen no reason yet to think 2012 Romney is more the real thing than 1994 Romney (or even worse 2002 Romney).
Present me with evidence that this latest version of Romney is real rather than accuse me of bad faith for asking for proof and I’m willing to listen.
lizzie on 08 Feb 2012 at 11:54 pm #
Last night in the Colorado caucus, one lady spoke on behalf of Newt and said, let’s not elect a Mormon, they believe such strange things. Another woman was heard leaving her precinct saying, “Thank God we didn’t elect a Mormon.”
You think it’s not about religion? It is.
Frankly, I’m weary. I’m tired of feeling out of place, tired of the hostility and tired of having my religion torn to shreds and mocked over the open airwaves and decimated on countless blog entries. I just want to believe the way I believe and not be belittled for it, or be told that tenets of my faith are horrific.
Oh, I should humble myself, and overlook it so Mitt can serve the country. Hey, the country doesn’t want Mitt. Not the Mormon.
I’ve decided I’m good with Rick Santorum. He is a good man, and I think he would make an honorable president. Do I think he has the talents to fix the economy? Not that I know of, but maybe. Do I think he will beat Obama. Nope. I don’t.
But I don’t care anymore. Because they aren’t going to elect the Mormon anyway. At least I hope to worship in peace.
JLF9999 on 09 Feb 2012 at 10:56 am #
Lizzie. According to our theology we all knew what we were getting into before we were born. None of us were sent into something we could not handle. We can do with this. We have the best role model ever in Jesus Christ – each according to his ability. You can deal with this. Turn the TV and talk radio off. What you are feeling is a temprary condition. Seek the Holy Ghost in selfless service to others. A little deed is as important as a big sacrifice.
JLF9999 on 09 Feb 2012 at 11:35 am #
Watchman
You have expressed some common concerns. However, if you had done some independent research I doubt you would not be making such comments. If I may, the first thing to do is look at what Romney did while governor and asks yourself what else he could have done in his situation. How does a fiscal conservative get elected in the most liberal state in the union and would you have done otherwise? I use fiscal conservative rather than social conservative because Mitt would have zero chance of being elected governor if he had focused on social issues.
Next, just what are your principles? Are they based in reality or some fantasy? Do you ever compromise on anything you once thought sacrosanct? What ever they are, my bet is they are not always doable in the real world outside of where you live. Is it better to make small steps or no steps? Is it better to make some progress or allow things to get worse? Additionally, Mormons are very conservative people as is our theology and our practice of self reliance, loyalty, personal integrity and family values. Anyone who has ever studied us will tell you that. (I do not know what your religious preference is.)
Next, just what are the most important issues in the race? If social issues motivate you above all others then fiscal issues are not so important and neither is your commitment to get rid of Obama. Each Republican candidate will likely govern day-to-day pretty much like the others. Few people doubt that.
The rub seems to be between Romney, who understands he has to get elected in order to govern, versus the people who think they have to come across with flamboyant or hard-core social ideas that scare the devil out of everyone but his fellow travelers. The bottom line is only one of our candidates has the best chance of unseating Barack Obama and historically that person is the one who the widest portion of the voting public can relate to not the one who wants to burn Congress to the ground and remake the world in his own image.