Quick Hits After The 20th (God Help Us) Debate
On the debate, I got nuthin’ – didn’t watch it and from the coverage, didn’t need to. But, there is stuff to talk about, briefly…
Remember Yesterday…
…When we said the Catholic v Mormon meme would arise? Well, NPR made the first hint in that direction. The Christian Science Monitor sees it a bit differently:
The language of personal faith appears to be helping GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum turn lingering doubts among Protestant evangelicals about Mitt Romney‘s Mormonism (and even President Obama‘s Christianity) into a poll surge.
In other words, Santorum is riding the same wave Huckabee rode. I could not help but think the same thing when Ann Coulter asked, “What’s Their Problem With Romney?“ Coulter does not get into religion, but by the time she is done, you sort of have no place left to turn to explain why there seems to be such resistance to Romney.
Much has been made of Romney’s change from pro-choice to pro-life. Fewer know that Santorum made the very same evolution, just in time to run for office, as Sam Stein reports: “Prior to entering public office, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum was a self-admitted pro-choice Republican unwilling to dabble in the cultural conservative politics that now defines his presidential campaign, a review of old campaign documents and interviews shows.”
Do I really need to belabor that?
I found this from Michael Barone fascinating:
Voters often say they value authenticity and spontaneity in candidates, and Santorum gives them plenty of that. And they admire perseverance in the face of adversity.
But they also want a certain amount of self-discipline in their officeholders, and particularly in their presidents, and they want them to focus on public policy issues they consider important.
That sounds eerily familiar.
I kind of feel sorry for the progression of “not Romneys.” Some are better candidates than others, but they are all good people and they are being ill-served by a significant, but too small to change the ultimate outcome, group within our party. A group motivated almost entirely by religious concerns. This group can create a surge, but then it seems to go to their head. Because they are about religion, once they have surged they just have to talk about it. They must hear it from their surging candidate, somehow. Perry tried surrogates (Jeffress) – EPIC FAIL. Santorum tried the indirect hit (“theology”) which has backfired and descended into the whine we discussed yesterday. (Makes you think the MSM wants to Mormon fight, doesn’t it?) Gingrich, well, Gingrich has other problems and even this group could see it.
Last cycle this group played spoiler. This cycle they seem to continually dash themselves against the rocks. That is in good part a sign of Romney’s strength as a candidate. But it is also a sign that this group needs to learn the discipline that Barone discusses. If they did they could become a positive and useful force in our governance, and we need them.
Finally, Things of Shame
The fact that Daily Caller carried this story should be enough to exclude them from serious consideration about anything. Remember when John Lennon said the Beatles were bigger than Jesus? This does not have the blasphemy angle, but it is far more profane.
There was a bunch of coverage – see here and here for just two examples – of a website that purportedly turns deceased Mormons, oh never mind, I won’t go there. Let’s just turn back to Barone’s “discipline” comment. Mockery, whining, and other forms of emotional expression have their place. But at some point it is just childish, and decidedly off-putting. There is something very perverse about people that claim to want acceptance being this insulting – such does not generally garner acceptance.
Post Script an hour or so later: Two thoughts crossed my mind after I posted this. One, much was made during surge Gingrich 2.0 that Pawlenty likely regretted not staying in at that point. I am now wondering, and we will never know, if Pawlenty saw that the only viable not Romney path lay down anti-Mormon lane? I’ve never met Governor Pawlenty, but I know a lot of people that have, and such would be within the character they describe. If this is the case, Tim Pawlenty may be the biggest hero of this entire primary campaign.
Second thought – the group that is motivated by religious concerns is not going to give up. Presuming, as is looking increasingly likely, that Romney builds very serious momentum next Tuesday (MI and AZ) and the Super Tuesday following they may run out of viable candidates to tilt up, but they will not quit. Romney is not going to reach a coast point until he has this mathematically sealed. Might as well settle in for a long slog.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry | 8 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Lee Allred on 23 Feb 2012 at 10:01 am #
If you go back to the South Carolina exit polls, roughly 75% of the Newt voters said they’d made up their minds a month before the primary or longer.
A month before? Really? Back when Newt was polling 5%? You don’t say? Pull my other leg.
It wasn’t Newt they’d made their minds up about. It was voting for a Not-Romney, whoever the hot new Not-Romney of the moment happened to be.
The rap against Romney is that he’s a flip-flopper, a liar, doesn’t really hold any one conservative ideal to heart, and doesn’t authentically believe what he’s saying.
That sounds more like projection on the Not-Romney crowd’s part. They’re running hither and yon, latching onto any coattails that aren’t Romney’s regardless of the views expressed by the tuxedo wearer or whether they contract the views of the last pair of coattails or whether those views are orthodox conservativism.
Maybe it’s not Romney who’s the flip-flopper, fibber, and say-anyting conservative. (Look how fast a Not-Romney plummets once their flaws are exposed. Real strong personal committment to them by the Not-Romney crows, isn’t there?)
Of course, Occam’s Razor has an easier answer explaining the Not-Romney vote but that’s just me.
I’m sure there’s a Venn diagram somewhere that can successfully chart the wild gyrations of the Not-Romney vote without using a circle labelled “Not-Mormon.”
sewinglady on 23 Feb 2012 at 10:20 am #
If Tim Pawlenty dropped out because he could see the only viable route is the anti-Mormon one, I agree that he is a hero. I have seen Perry and Cain both drop out, and refuse to endorse Mitt. I have seen Palin flirting with anti-Mormonism. This is both sad and unacceptable. Somehow, Mormons can fight in the military, establish businesses, fight the “boots-on-the-ground” culture wars in California, (Prop.
Arizona (Prop. 102), Florida, and other places. Our votes are okay for other Republicans, but if we bring a competent, capable Mormon to the forefront and propose electing him as President, we should sit in the back of the bus? It is quite widely believed that the reason Matt Salmon did not win in his bid for governor of Arizona against the former attorney general, Janet Napolitano, was because he is a Mormon. Now, Mitt is winning in the polls in Arizona because “there are so many Mormons there.” No, he is winning because he is a competent, capable, electable CONSERVATIVE.
One of the problems that Mormons have in Arizona is that many people have moved here in the last 15 years from other states. Lots from places like Michigan and the midwest, looking for employment and trying to leave the snow behind. Some of these people have brought their anti-Mormon prejudice with them. During Salmon’s run for government, I heard an exchange on the radio which I will never forget. A woman called in and expressed her concern that people would not vote for Salmon because “he is a Mormon.” This woman said she had lived in Utah for a number of years, and while not a Mormon herself, she had really liked and respected her neighbors. She said that “Mormons get a bad rap.” The radio talk show host agreed with her. He is a native Arizonan. He explained that a woman who had moved here from another state said to him, “I can’t vote for Matt Salmon because you know how those Mormons are about women.” Charles said, “Well, there might be some of the ‘get-in-the-back-of-the-station-wagon-Mormon women’, but they aren’t the Mormon women I know.” Some members of our Church have been here for seven or eight generations. They have elementary schools and streets named after them. I know at least two women who have served or are serving on the school board. The ideas expressed by this woman about Mormons are as false as they are damaging. The only reason Mormons more often get elected in states with higher Mormon populations (outside of Utah) is because most people know enough members that we don’t frighten them.
JLF9999 on 23 Feb 2012 at 11:37 am #
For politicians, it isn’t cool to be caught being too open about your religious bigotry. It doesn’t poll well. However, given the LDS Church has been described for decades as a cult, it isn’t surprising that the undercurrent of anti-Mormon bias is still strong and an important political force against Mitt. Mormons do not expect that everyone will understand our teachings or believe as we do. But we do ask that folks who comment about us actually know something about the subject. That is the real rub. People who feel compelled to “save” others from the Mormon clutch, as one commenter put it, have not the vaguest idea what our theology is about.
These folks actually believe the gobbledygook espoused by certain Mormon haters and feel no compunction passing that junk along as fact. You would think that Christian pastors in particular would go to great lengths to be sure they got it right but they don’t. Some of the highest profile religious leaders today are willing – if not anxious – to accept this trash as gospel and pass it on as though they had done their homework and knew the whole story. But when asked to provide even the most general level of detail about the subject can’t seem to tell a Nephite from a lost poodle. Yet they regularly make broad sweeping statements about us and our leadership. The level of absurdity among these “experts” is jaw dropping.
lstokes on 23 Feb 2012 at 2:04 pm #
From Hot Air
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/23/report-marco-rubio-has-mormon-roots/
Several of the Hot Air guys have been openly hostile to Romney. Much of the snarkiness appears to this reader as thinly disguised religious prejudice. A lot of the commentary on this conservative web site has been graced with phrases such as: serial flip-flopper, will say anything to get elected, no fixed principles, etc.: These are all variations of the “Mormons Lie” theme. These folks have greated each surge of the serial “not Romney” primary candidates with a certain amount of triumphalism only to be replaced by muted disappointment when the flavor of the month is exposed to increased scrutiny and then displays his or her inherent politcal weaknesses. The article cited above seems to be recognition that at one level the opposition of a certain segment of the Republican primary electorate towards Romney is due to religious bigotry.
Retrocon on 23 Feb 2012 at 2:17 pm #
A point I have been making is that it is not Romney who has flip-flopped or taken a left turn, but it is a large chunk of the conservative base which has lurched into parts unknown. Lee Allred explains it well: this group of Not-Romney’s doesn’t really know what they believe — grasping at whomever seems to be in a position to beat Romney no matter the candidate’s baggage or flaws.
It has been well cataloged how Sen. Santorum and nearly all of the popular conservative talk show hosts rallied behind Gov. Romney back in 2008. It is worth everyone’s time to listen to Rick Santorum’s full-throated support of the conservative Romney on the Laura Ingraham show back then. Santorum admits to initially being wary of Romney, not being sure of his conservative credentials, but after months of watching Romney on the campaign trail, Santorum had concluded that Romney “understands the issues, what conservatives are about”, and “understands traditional values and the traditional way of American life”, and that he (Santorum) was confident Romney “would fight for the soul of the Republican Party.” Santorum glows about Romney’s tireless work to support traditional marriage and how Romney has a “deep understanding of national security issues.”
For her part, Laura couldn’t get enough of the Romney love. “You’re on a roll!,” she encouraged, indicating she was ready to pull the lever for Romney herself.
That was then, this is now. What happened?
Anyone in the running for President during one cycle is going to have an advantage going into the next cycle, as long as the candidate’s brand comes through unscathed. Romney — with the widespread support of the conservative community — had to be (and was) considered to be the front-runner as we geared up for 2012.
But early on, the talk show hosts had turned on Romney — labeling him a “moderate” and as the vilified “Establishment” candidate. Was there someone or some group who had gotten to all of these conservative leaders? Or were they simply trotting along after their unpegged listeners, giving them what they thought those listeners wanted to hear? I’m not sure, but somewhere along the way, it seems to have been impressed upon these talk show hosts that a large segment of the conservative base, loyal talk show listeners, were not going to take kindly to a Mormon as the nominee. Can there be another explanation?
Retrocon on 23 Feb 2012 at 2:54 pm #
Another quick note to follow along with sewinglady’s comment. I live in Texas, and I’ve grown up among other churches who have preached distrust of Mormons from their pulpits. I have been in attendance at some of these meetings, most recently less than a year ago, where a guest speaker steeped in anti-Mormon talking points railed on the evils of the LDS Church.
Back in December, my small local newspaper published an editorial entitled “Jesus loves me, but he can’t stand Romney.” The author is intent on demonstrating that Mormonism is most definitely not Christianity, pointing to such timeworn jabs as “Jesus and Lucifer are brothers” (I’ve told you this has been around a long time, long before Huckabee uttered the phrase four years ago).
Many political commentators seem to express wonderment as to why Romney has been unable to “seal the deal”. This sentiment is cast as if something must be wrong with Romney. From my perspective, the problem is not with Romney but with the acculturization of many of our fellow citizens which has bred distrust of Romney simply because of his faith.
| Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 25 Feb 2012 at 8:27 am #
[...] so, when Stephen Colbert circumcises a hot dog to convert dead Mormons into Jews or a website offers to turn dead Mormons gay – I get angry, really angry. Not because I believe in the Mormon practice – I most [...]
Quotes, Quips and Links | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 26 Feb 2012 at 10:18 am #
[...] – last Thursday: …the group that is motivated by religious concerns is not going to give up. Presuming, as [...]