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.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Essentially, the Mormon issue has shown local appeal, but is not playing generally – and might even be backfiring with moderates and independents.  Gingrich misplayed it in Florida and got trounced.  Santorum’s surrogates played it and he had no traction at all.  (Note to Santorum – lose this guy and lose him publicly.  The plausible deniability is spent.)  Iowa was a virtual tie and the Evangelical vote split in Florida.  You can bet your bottom dollar the “not Romney” votes from there will either go Romney or stay home in the general – they will not go Obama.

People may indeed think Mormonism “weird,” but in a world where we are all a little weird, we don’t like being attacked for it.  Tone matters too.  Romney payed hardball in Florida but Gingrich was just flat out nasty.  A “vitriolic” and “spiteful” Obama might not be a good idea.

Which brings me to the Obama administration’s latest swipe at folks of faith:

The Obama Administration is standing by a decision to require all insurance plans to cover the use of contraceptives, but said Friday it would give some employers an additional year to comply.

The rule, which goes into effect August 1, 2012, requires all insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control. Many non-profits with religious affiliations, such as Catholic universities and hospitals, say that will force them to violate their basic tenets.

The Department of Health and Services announced Friday those employers would have until August 1, 2013, to meet the new requirement.

The push back from the Catholic church has been enormous – you can read about here, here and here.  Politically, this is a very shrewd move on Obama’s part, even if it is onerous.  The policy is based on his conviction that “most Americans” think the religious prohibitions against contraception and abortion are “weird.”  But as things are shaping up, that conclusion has to be called into question.  By making an announcement, any announcement, he has pushed the issue to the fore so he can test the waters before the general.  By making THIS announcement he has 1) appealed to his base by keeping the policy in place, 2) appealed to moderates with the “reasonable” delay, and 3) really punted the issue into the next administration – hoping inertia, or his victory in November, will prevent it from being changed.

Unfortunately, this is policy, not simply an effort to shape public perception of someone in an election cycle.  This matters.

And It Provides Mitt Romney With An Opportunity

Tuesday our friend Timothy Dalrymple suggested some “course corrections” to Governor Romney.  Given what an effective spokesperson against a religion test Dalrymple has been this cycle, Team Romney would do well to listen.

Point #1: It’s never, never “all about the economy.”

[...]

Point #2: Don’t give up on evangelicals. Some very public evangelicals have very publicly denounced you and your faith.  Your cherished religious community, the community in which you were raised by loving parents, in which you’ve raised your own children, the same community that you have served so tirelessly over decades, was slandered as a “cult” by an influential pastor.  You, ergo, were portrayed as a cult member.  Many evangelical leaders defended this choice of wording, and few have spoken out even against the more obvious efflorescences of anti-Mormon bigotry.  To make matters worse, an entire generation of conservative evangelical activists/leaders gathered in Texas to rally around some candidate other than you.  So it would be perfectly understandable if you felt that you had little incentive — or no stomach — for further engagement with evangelicals.

[...]

Of those evangelicals who oppose you, few do so passionately, and most are compelled not by prejudice but by misinformation about your record and your positions.  In other words, many evangelicals support you now, and many more are willing to support you if they can be convinced that your stances on abortion, the family and religious liberties are sincere and impassioned, and not simply assumed for political convenience.

[...]

Point #3: Own your faith.

This may be the most important point of all.  Your discipline is the stuff of legend.  And after your father’s campaign for the presidency ran off the rails when he referred to a “brainwashing” on the Vietnam issue, the exercise of an extraordinarily meticulous self-control has become a pervasive theme in your family.  But these things are largely responsible for the “Romneybot” moniker.  Your behavior seems a little too programmed, too scripted, and therefore artificial.  It makes it hard for many people to connect with you.  And although Richard Land meant it in a different (and incorrect) sense, I believe he was inadvertently onto something when he said you’re “not Mormon enough” for many evangelicals.

You love God.  You strive to follow God’s leading in your life.  Although we would differ on the metaphysics of Christ’s nature, in practice your personal relationship with Jesus Christ looks an awful lot like the one that evangelicals enjoy.  These are not things that northeasterners typically wear on their sleeves, and your campaign is understandably reluctant to shine a spotlight on your Mormonism.  Evangelicals would grow more uncomfortable with you if they thought you were going to be making an argument on behalf of Mormonism throughout your presidency.  So you should not engage in apologetics.  But they will grow more comfortable with you if they see the depth, the vitality, and the heartfelt authenticity of your relationship with God.  They will grow more comfortable if they better understand your pastoral experience (let’s call it what it is) as ward bishop and stake president.  You have rich experiences in missions and preaching and pastoral counseling, and in all these ways you connected with ordinary people, ordinary workers, in the struggles of everyday life.

This ruling by the Obama administration gives Romney the perfect opportunity to follow this advise – simply by getting in front of the issue.  This ruling by the Obama administration could be the force that heals the rift inside the Republican coalition.  Mitt Romney in front of this issue accomplishes two very important things – it pulls social conservatives into camp Romney and in so doing it neutralizes “weird.”  If that happens, Obama will have no choice but to get shrill and Gingrich just showed us how that will go.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Speaking to supporters on Monday, Gingrich was defiant. Enraged by Romney’s “dishonest” television ads, he pledged to stay in the hunt until the convention, almost out of spite.

[...]

Indeed, as Romney said tonight, addressing his cheering supporters, “a competitive primary does not divide us, it prepares us.” If he’s right, Florida will have been a tumultuous stepping stone. If not, his negative ads, along with Gingrich’s barbs, may be only the start of an extended, bitter battle.

But a wounded animal tends to lash out and not exercise strategery.  Consider this tweet from an obvious Newt supporter:

This is why I can’t stand Mitt and a lot of his supporters…they are whine like a toddles and have the same level of self awareness of one.

COPY EDITOR!  Honestly, I thought I was bad at typing and spelling (Thank you Lowell!).  Anyway, we spent all last week looking at Gingrich’s total lack of self-awareness among his many other character flaws.  Fortunately, people are not bears.  When wounded they lash out, and they lash out with the increased vigor of an adrenaline rush.  But such adrenaline rushes also tend to block out the higher functions of the cerebral cortex.  Thus we get, “I know I am, but what are you.”  If this is what we have to worry about from a wounded Team Gingrich, I have better things to worry about.

Such as…

Mitt Romney may have taken his opposition to sound bit heaven to this morning.  He did an interview with CNN, from which a single sentence has been excerpted and is already being tweeted and facebooked and spread throughout the land:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it.”

Now, it’ll be interesting to watch this.  Romney is, of course, talking on a policy level, not a personal concern level.  But that doesn’t undo the damage such a quote can inflict.  I also think that is a much more potent weapon in the general than it is now.  So, will it be held in check or will its power be wasted by Team Gingrich?

Whatever, Team Romney needs to get on this fast and hard or else “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” is going to join “I was for the 47 billion before I was against it,” in the pantheon of killer sound bites.

Of Course, It’s Nonsense…

The benevolence of the Mormon Chruch should be more renown than it is, but nobody wants to pay attention to the good stuff about the LDS.  A South Carolina professor has now studied the vote out of that state and found that religion played a significant role.  Well shucks, we know that – and the results out of Florida confirmed it.  But people suspicious of Romney’s faith are running out of places to go.  Friend David French pointed out in a special piece for CNN that Evangelicals will soon be abandoning Gingrich in droves:

But they also understand that we don’t discard our core values for the sake of political victories. Fidelity, honesty, humility and charity matter.

No one doubts that God forgives, but only God knows Newt Gingrich’s heart.  We only know his actions, and we know that he has a history of deceiving even those who are closest to him.

Three other Republican candidates are anti-abortion. Three other Republican candidates have been faithful and honest in their personal and professional lives. With honest alternatives to choose from, evangelicals will soon abandon Gingrich.

Santorum is a good man that deserves a better shot than he has received, too late now.  Paul is a good man, but a political looney tune.  They have no place to go but to Romney.

A lot of people are worried about a divided Republican base, fortunately…

The Left Will Unite Us

The really no longer relevant NYTimes has been carrying a series of blog posts about Mormonism.  They have many ominous titles:

• A Male Dominated World
• Can a Candidate be Too Perfect?
• It May Look Good on Paper
• What Is It About Mormons?
• Mormon’s Double Legacy

My favorite is the horror movie title sounding, There is a Dark Side To Mormonism.  (Can you hear the organ sting?)  These are all far-left hits pieces about Mormon being “anti-gay” or believing that the sexes are actually, you know, different from one another.  This is all stuff we conventional Christians hold very much in common with Mormons.  I believe come the general election, given this kind of attack, we will see our similarities more than our differences.

Besides, according to the left we are all crazy:

Coming this spring: The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science — and Reality by Chris Mooney.

Of course.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

This excellent speech, showing a relaxed, confident Romney, needs to be better known.

(HT: Hot Air.)

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Newt Gingrich accused Mitt Romney of repeatedly disregarding the religious rights of Americans at a campaign stop in Tampa Monday, telling reporters that his opponent had a “lack of concern for religious liberty.”

When it comes to how they handle faith, Gingrich said, Romney and President Barack Obama are cut from the same cloth.

“You want a war on the Catholic Church by Obama? Guess what: Romney refused to allow Catholic hospitals to have conscience in their dealing with certain circumstances,” Gingrich said, apparently referring to the handling of emergency contraception in universal health care laws.

He went on, speaking to a CNN reporter as a pack of press surrounded him: “Romney cut off kosher food to elderly Jews on Medicare. Both of them have the same lack of concern for religious liberty.”

Gingrich escalated the attack in his remarks in an airplane hangar, saying Americans deserve a “government that respects our religions.”

“I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every … religion on the planet, I would like him to respect our religion,” he said. A campaign spokesman confirmed Gingrich was referring to Romney.

What?  I mean seriously – WHAT? The kosher meal crack has already been shown to be a lie.  Jennifer Rubin:

His attacks on Mitt Romney have gotten loonier by the day. The latest is that Romney denied kosher meals to Medicare patients while he was governor of Massachusetts. According to the Romney camp, he issued numerous vetoes during his tenure for cost-cutting measures and restored funding for the kosher meals. The New York Post backs up Romney’s account: “The Massachusetts Legislature approved an amendment to restore the $600,000 to finance the kosher meals allowing a ‘most vulnerable segment of our population’ to ‘enjoy a special dignity,’ according to the Jewish Community Council.”

OK – lying – that’s not new with Gingrich, but he usually reserves his lies for talking about himself.  Now he is lying about Romney and his record.  Rubin handled the kosher meal issue pretty well.  I am getting tired of people conflating Massachusetts healthcare with what Romney wanted to do.  Romney vetoed efforts by the Democrat legislature to do what Gingrich complains about, and the legislature overrode the veto.  There is no credible way to lay that one in Romney’s lap.

But all of that would have been just politics at their ugly usual save for that last crack by the Newtser:

“I’m a little bit tired of being lectured about respecting every … religion on the planet, I would like him to respect our religion,” he said. A campaign spokesman confirmed Gingrich was referring to Romney.

At a minimum that’s a dog whistle.  Look, I understand there is a significant group of people out there who do not want to vote for Romney because of his faith - and I am sure that they are upset that their argument has been shot down to the point that virtually all reasonable people feel it illegitimate.  But that does not change the facts.  Apparently, however, Gingrich is willing to change some other facts in order to get that religious argument back into the debate.

What is worst of all is that in the middle of a very serious war on religion in all its expressions from the government along precisely the lines that Gingrich outlines, he is willing to aim his barbs at others on his team rather than at those that deserve the fire.  Newt Gingrich clearly is about nothing but Newt Gingrich.

And He Has Help, from None Other Than…Sarah Palin

Everyone knows Sarah Palin, a noted Gingrich supporter, has a much-visited Facebook page.  It looks like any defense of Romney’s Mormonism on Palin’s page is promptly removed.  Consider these two screen shots:

See that middle post – with the girl’s picture beside it (we have erased the names for obvious reasons).  It reads:

I was told if we defend the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints, we are then banned form your Facebook page.  I would hope “RELIGIOUS FREEDOM” is still part of your beliefs, and this is not true.  I am a catholic, yet I have researched hte LDS< visited their headquarters in SLC when there on vacation.  I have many firends who are members of the LDS, and a family member who converted to the Mormon Religion.  I am sick of the bashing of a religion by supposed Conservatives and Republicans.  It must end!

Now, take a look at the screenshot below.  It is taken from that same place on Palin’s Facebook page about 5 hours later; the comment just quoted is missing.  This blog does not provide room for us to reproduce these screenshots full size and maintain readability; just click the picture and it will come up full size.

These screenshots were sent to us by  loyal reader Chanelle Jones, who emailed us.  We’ll let her tell her own story:

Some one [ed. note: on the Facebook page] said that Romney was a Mormon that vowed to destroy America … which comment is still available BTW  – I can find it if you want … she said a couple other things that were pretty nasty towards our religion and Romney. My brother left a comment asking that the offensive comment  be removed and remember to keep Church and State seperate. His comment was deleted and then he was banned. He emailed me, frustrated, and out of couriosity I checked it out. I then left a comment pointing out that Sarah was censoring her comments and violating freedom of speech. I asked that she remember what our nation was founded on … freedom of religion … and also asked to have the offensive comments removed. One reader left a comment of “Wow … censorship?” His and my comments were then deleted and I was banned. BUT the same vile comment {and now many others} were left for all to see. I really wish I could have seen it coming and took a screen shot of it. That’s why when I saw the comment today I did and then watched it.

Well, that pretty much speaks for itself.  Sarah Palin is a private citizen and entitled to handle her Facebook page as she sees fit, but she is an influential private citizen and by defending Gingrich in this fashion, she paints him with the same bigoted brush she has painted herself.

Newt Gingrich and, sadly, Sarah Palin have just disqualified themselves from serious consideration for high office.

ADDENDUM – 5 HOURS AFTER INITIAL PUBLICATION

The Wall Street Journal gives us more on Gingrich’s statements:

“He has no understanding of the importance of conscience or the importance of religious liberty in this country,” said Mr. Gingrich of Mr. Romney, who is a Mormon. “I will make religious liberty your right, to go with God with no government interference.”

Now wait just a doggone minute.  I thought Newt Gingrich was an historian.  And yet saying that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, “has no understanding of the importance of conscience or the importance of religious liberty in this country,” may be one of the most historically ignorant statements made in this cycle.  A good deal of the religious liberty law that has been written or decided in this nation is a direct result of Mormons and their early practices.  I don’t think there is a religion in this nation that has more direct experience with religious liberty than the Mormons.

This nation now stands by silently while Islamic men practice polygamy in major urban centers.  Can you imagine what a different nation this would be if the same had been true for the Mormons practice?  The settling of the west and the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad would be very different and less consequential stories than they actually are.  Some historian.

And then, the “importance of conscience.”  Well, Newt Gingrich followed his own conscience into serial adultery – ’nuff said.

Should Florida come out as the polls predict and Romney wins, we will be able to consider Gingrich’s downward spiral into this sort of ignorant pathetic tripe pitiable, but humorous.  But for the next few hours at least it’s just wrong, nasty and ugly.

Lowell adds . . .

As to John’s comments above I’ll just note that in 2008 Mitt Romney shared the Canterbury Medal for religious freedom with Elie Wiesel and a few others.

The Canterbury Medal is the Becket Fund’s highest honor. It recognizes courage in the defense of religious liberty and is named for Canterbury Cathedral, where Thomas à Becket was martyred by the knights of King Henry II for his own defense of religious freedom. The Canterbury Medal is thus given annually to one “who has resolutely and publicly refused to render to Caesar that which is God’s.”

Gingrich’s criticism of Romney is absurd and embarrassing.  A “lack of concern for religious liberty?” Oh, please.
.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

He will understand then why the Republican Party must not nominate him. We tried nominating an aging former Speaker of the House scarred by scandal and lost an election we should have won.

Newt Gingrich is James G. Blaine for the twenty-first century.

Like Gingrich, former Speaker Blaine was a man of amazing accomplishments and talents. Also like Gingrich he had longed for the White House, but had seen it won by lesser men.

Finally, in a weak field his time came. But a run for President of the United States has always stripped a man of every fig leaf that covers his nakedness. Few of us could stand such scrutiny and James G. Blaine could not.

He had used his time near power to enrich himself and the scandals of his past were tattooed over his record obscuring all the good he had done.

And he had done great good.

The scrutiny to be President is greater than that of almost any job and few can stand it. Rogues have become President, see Warren G. Harding, and cads have been able to do some good, see Franklin D. Roosevelt, but mostly when a roué runs he is exposed.

Even the most honorable candidate, like Theodore Roosevelt, will not have unblemished history, but the scars we see will be those of victory over human failings, not indulging in them. Blaine’s problems were captured in the political cartoon “The Tattooed Man” a terrible heritage for a man who tried to go further than character would allow.

The President of the United States has three basic jobs: head of state, head of government, and Commander in Chief. Like Blaine, Newt Gingrich has made himself unfit for all of them.

The role of head of state gives you access to the largest pulpit in the world, what Theodore Roosevelt called the “bully pulpit.” Fortunately, it is a civic pulpit and not a religious one. We are electing a civil role model to represent us to the planet on human concerns, not a pope, pastor, or priest to pray for us to God.

Some might argue that a candidate like Romney has broken the Ten Commandments by a “defective theology.” Fortunately for Governor Romney, we need him to argue for human life, liberty, and happiness—not stand as a prophet or priest before the Almighty.

Speaker Gingrich has, I am told, developed a sound theology toward divine things, but has sadly a bad history in loving humans well. If electing a President to talk about theology to the nation, the traditional Christian might prefer Gingrich to Romney.

But the bully pulpit should never be used that way and will not be used that way. Instead, in these times it must be used to defend the right to life and traditional marriage.

By his choices, Mr. Gingrich has marred his ability to make that case beyond all hope. He cannot use the bully pulpit as we need him to use it.

Mr. Gingrich has attempted the role of “head of government” in the past. A weakened Bill Clinton seemed unable to govern and Mr. Gingrich wrested control of the agenda from him.

The result was a disaster for the Republican Party and helped reelect Bill Clinton. Mr. Gingrich has never run anything successfully. His campaign this year is constantly marred by staff turnover, organizational flaws, and lack of funding. Mr. Gingrich is undisciplined mentally and rhetorically.

While a good campaigner may not be able to be a good head of government, a bad campaigner surely will never get the chance. Each failure in House leadership and failure in controlling his own “consulting” organizations branded Mr. Gingrich.

A lifetime of failure to govern leaves him unfit for the next level.

The President is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. As a civilian he must command non-civilians, but this requires having their respect. A President also has the ability to press the nuclear button, start a war by imprudence, or destroy the peace with an errant word.

Mr. Gingrich has never shown the prudence in speech or action we need from the man with the bomb.

None of this is to deny Mr. Gingrich’s skills. He is and has been a major player in American politics. He is a transformational figure with great gifts, but like an equally gifted man, James G. Blaine, his weaknesses mean he never will or should be President.

Like Gingrich, most of us should never run for President. We covet the grace that God gives but the media has not and never will give. We wish to be judged as men and women and not as Leaders of the Free World.

We temper our expectations to our character and past errors.

God has a good work for Mr. Gingrich, but over the years he chose to use his connections to enrich himself. That tattoo will not vanish. He indulged his desires at the expense of his character. That tattoo will not vanish. He has refused to discipline his intellect.

For his own good and the good of the party, Mr. Gingrich should retire to head a think tank or teach at a college lest he be remembered simply as a freak in the nominating show: the Tattooed Man of 2012.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

One has to do with the no longer widely practiced Mormon ritual of baptism for the dead.  On Wednesday we were warned at HuffPo that this might be an issue.  Then on Friday we learned (Gawker – HT: Political Wire):

Gawker’s substantial Mormon readership has come through for us: Two readers have sent us confirmation that Edward Davies, Mitt Romney’s militantly atheist father-in-law, was indeed posthumously converted to Mormonism by his family, despite the fact that when he was alive he regarded all religions as “hogwash.”

Frankly, I am unsure of how many children Edward Davies had, but I know three of them – and I can promise you those three would have agreed to this ritual.  Now I’m sorry – if the survivors agreed to it, where’s the beef?  This entire story is just out there to feed suspicion of Mormons.

Addendum a few hours after publication – One of Edward Davies surviving children contacted me after reading this post today.  “Mitt did NOT convert his father in-law. He had nothing to do with it. Dad’s information was prepared and submitted for temple ordinances by,” one of the surviving children. “We were all present in the Salt Lake Temple for these ordinances.”  He then goes on to explain the distinction between conversion and the ordinances that Lowell describes below.  The more we learn, the less there is to Gawker’s story.  Back to the original post.

Second Addendum, the following day – There is one other area of the Gawker story that requires correction.  Edward Davies, according to the representations of his children, was most assuredly not a “militant atheist.”  They describe him as a “hopeful agnostic.”  They acknowledge his problems with religious institutions, say that he firmly hoped for some sort of higher power. Back to the original post.

The second guise is Romney’s tithing practices.  Consider this CSM headline:

Mitt Romney’s tithing: Do voters see it as very generous or very Mormon?

Mona Charen responds with “Romney Should Be Proud”:

Beyond that, Mr. Romney’s tax returns reveal the most generous charitable donor to run for president in recent history. The Romneys donated about 14 percent of their income to charity in 2010 and about 19 percent in 2011. The average donation for people at the Romneys’ level of income is 6 percent.

Would Romney’s money have done more good if he’d forked those extra millions to the IRS rather than to the Mormon Church and the other charities they selected? Well, that would certainly have provided a few more bucks for Solyndra and the urgently necessary high-speed rail from Fresno to Bakersfield. But, on balance, private charities are probably a better bet for improving the world.

I’ll take it a step further – tithing (donating 10%) is something in the Bible – not the Book of Mormon.  All Christians should do so.  Yet only 9% of Evangelicals bother.  Romney’s charitable habits put Evangelicals to shame.

The final guise is discussing his ancestors in Mexico.  Anybody that knows Mormon history knows that as the LDS church did away with the practice of polygamy, many Mormons that did not want to give it up, moved to Mexico.  This story is just flat out a dog whistle.

Some wonder if Gingrich is behind some of this playing a passive-aggressive game.  I don’t think so.  Of course some of the usual suspects on the right just cannot help themselves,  but I think Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker has it exactly right:

If Mitt Romney manages to win the GOP nomination, then we need to hope he is far better-prepared to handle the liberals’ anti-Mormon slime machine than he was prepared to handle intra-party jabs at his Bain record, his tax returns, and his flip-flopping.

I would be quite dishonest if I said that I wasn’t worried about what the liberals and their lackeys in the press will do to defame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in their win-at-any-cost zeal to re-elect Barack Obama.  Mitt Romney’s religious faith is likely to be mocked, sensationalized, disparaged, and dragged through the media gutters.  It could even be uglier than the fanning of racial tensions and demonization of the wealthy, also projects pushed by the Obama machine.

I think that at this all those guises are really the left trying to influence the outcome in Florida and beyond which we have seen them do in far more direct ways with union funded ad buys and other nonsense.  Of course some, like the NYTimes, and its chief columnist from another planet, Maureen Dowd, just cannot resist hitting the issue directly.

It is truly amazing that we set ourselves up with these sorts of things for our opponents to use against us.  You’d think we would be smarter.

Lowell adds . . .

Just a quick note on vicarious baptisms for the dead:  Doing such work is central to the mission of the Church and we could write volumes about it here.  There is no doubt that the practice will get a lot of attention in the coming months. Rather than provide apologetics about related LDS beliefs, I’ll limit myself to the most important aspect of the ritual:  Central to our beliefs on the subject is the principle of choice.  We do this work for our ancestors, who we believe are still alive in the spirit, awaiting the Resurrection; and we believe they have the right to choose whether or not to accept the ordinances (rituals) performed in their behalf.  So to say anyone “converted” Ann Romney’s late father is grossly to misunderstand and mischaracterize what his Mormon descendants are doing for him.  As they see it, they’re really just giving him the option to accept the gospel where he is now.  Whether or not to convert is, and always has been, up to him.

Moral: It is always a bad idea to ridicule the religious beliefs of others, because there is an excellent chance you don’t understand what you are ridiculing. If Romney gets the nomination, I suspect we will have many opportunities to repeat this moral.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Look; seeing Newt sock the MBM is always fun, but that’s not really what resonated the most with me, and I have to assume that at least some of the SC electorate think the way I do, since they are members of my very common demographic (female, white, 40+ y/o, some college, hunchbacked, three large teeth that don’t meet anywhere, likes pudding. Understandably. It’s frickin’ delicious! Also there’s the tooth situation).

For me, it was the part where he stood up for work. Where he discussed the essential virtues of work. Nobody does that anymore. It was refreshing. It was important to me to hear someone say it. To hear that someone has a f*cking clue what’s going on down here in Realityland. We are out of work and we want it.

This administration seems to think that Americans should view work as a vampire perceives holy water, and nearly every policy out of DC reflects that.

Well, we don’t think that way. We’re Americans. We want to work. Dammit, we’re ready to get back to it. Give us the reins to our own lives, stick your food stamps back in your ass where they came from, and get out of the way. You’re killing us.

This message resonates. That’s why Gingrich won. Not just the slap at ‘the elites,’ but the content of the slap. The part where all work is good work and no one should consider themselves demeaned by what is *good.* Yeah, that may have been pre-formulated, and Juan Williams walked right into it. So? It needed to be said. Most of us thoroughly enjoyed hearing it clearly and unambiguously elucidated.

Fair enough, but remember, Gingrich “stood up for work” in the context of Williams’ question about racism.  Gingrich was ringing the racism bell, without question when he “stood up for work.”  Not directly, of course, but in the context of that question in that environment – it was dog whistle time.

But that is not really the point I want to make in this post.  Rather I want to look at a couple of aspects that go to what this series has been all about – character.

For one thing, what is “work” and has Gingrich ever done it?  I am not saying Gingrich has not made an honest living, but has he worked?  Since leaving congress he has more-or-less been a professional fundraiser.  Oh, sure he “consulted” but have you seen the consulting contract?  He was paid to put his name on a letterhead.  Is that work?  He has established organizations that raise money to carry on for a cause, but what has he produced of value that other people are willing to pay a profitable price to obtain?  In all the stuff Newt Gingrich has done, what is his product?  Beyond Newt Gingrich being the product of Newt Gingrich, I’m not sure I can answer that question.  Is it work when your work consists of developing and promoting yourself?  That is a complex question to answer, more than we can deal with in a blog post like this, but this is worth thinking about:

Prov 21:23-26 – He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles.   “Proud,” “Haughty,” “Scoffer,” are his names, who acts with insolent pride.  The desire of the sluggard puts him to death, for his hands refuse to work; All day long he is craving, while the righteous gives and does not hold back. (NAS)

So, how to close these series of blog posts?  I think maybe with a short quotation of the Apostle John:

I Jn 3:18 – Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. (NAS)

Much has been said about how wonderful Newt Gingrich is at expressing the feelings and anger and desire for work that people feel.  Words are JUST words.  Feelings can change with the state of your digestion.  In the end it is not the words that matter.  Had Moses simply talked to Pharaoh, the Jews would still be in Egyptian captivity.   Had Jesus come and preached, but never been crucified nor resurrected,  we would not even know of Him, let alone call Him Lord.

Mitt Romney may not be seem to be as eloquent as Newt Gingrich.  Mitt Romney may not seem to connect with the emotions of the electorate as well as Newt Gingrich, but Mitt Romney’s actions in the campaign, as Governor of Massachusetts, as head of the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as a private business man are what matter.

Listen to Newt Gingrich – enjoy his words, revel in them.  But remember this is about who we want to govern the nation.  If words made a good president, then the president we have right now would be the best we have ever had.  Examine the records and lives of these two men.  On the one hand we have the twice-divorce, thrice-married, philandering, deeply prevaricating life-long politician of great words.  On the other hand we have a man married to one woman for decades, of immense character, who only after a remarkable career in business came to politics as a matter of service.  Not much a decision in my book.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The consensus seems to be that Romney did not hurt himself in last night’s debate, Gingrich did and Santorum won.  If you’re a Romney supporter, that’s an A-/ B+.

The most interesting reaction was from Kimberly Strassel at the WSJ:

It won’t be because Mr. Romney has become a better or more effective candidate. Primaries exist to help with that process, to let contenders read signals from the political landscape, to adapt, become stronger. Successful politicians absorb the signals and change up. Not Mr. Romney. If politics were evolution, the governor would still be swimming in the primordial soup.

That much was clear this week. The first signal was Mr. Gingrich’s resounding victory in South Carolina. If Mr. Romney were listening, he’d have understood that vote was as much against him as it was for Mr. Gingrich. It took but one punchy Gingrich debate performance to have voters abandoning the front-runner in droves.

South Carolina voters also clearly explained why. Exit polls showed that Mr. Romney’s two (and only) messages—that he is the best suited to turn around the economy and to defeat Barack Obama—aren’t working for the majority of voters. Mr. Gingrich beat Mr. Romney on both issues. The electorate explained that they first and foremost want a candidate willing to passionately promote conservative ideals.

Even I will confess to sometimes wanting to hear Romney want to “passionately promote conservative ideals.”  However, I also know why he doesn’t.  For one, George W. Bush’s “No New Taxes” pledge.  Any president is going to have to make some decisions that are unpopular with the base – nature of the job.  But I don’t think Romney is so concerned about angering the base.  A man of his character would be more concerned about breaking his word.   If he made such broad sweeping statements, he would feel honor bound to abide by them.  The people of very high integrity that I know operate on the principle of “under-promise and over-perform.”  That’s pretty rare in this world, but a treasure when found.

But there is another aspect to Ms. Strassel’s criticism that I find interesting.  From Dan Gilgoff @ CNN:

In a recent conference call with conservatives across the country, Mitt Romney expounded upon subjects he usually doesn’t talk much about: Jesus and eternity.

Asked on the call how his faith had shaped his success as a businessman and his political career, the presidential candidate spoke about “a conviction that life is eternal, that your family is your greatest prize, that ultimately what we accomplish in life is of little significance compared to the interests of the savior Jesus Christ and his purposes.”

“It puts everything into perspective and the perspective is that there are things more important than the here and now,” Romney continued on the Wednesday call, which was organized by the Faith and Freedom Coalition and included thousands of participants.

His answer may sound to some like boilerplate Christian thinking, but Romney was expressing core Mormon beliefs in a way he almost never does on the campaign trail.

When Romney does go “big idea,” it triggers a whole raft of Mormon talk.  “Does he really believe that or is that one of those things Mormons try and make you think they believe?”  “Do Mormons really have big ideas?”  “Are there verses in the Book of Mormon about that?”  It goes on and on and on.  In chat rooms, in local papers, in conversations across the nation these question and much worse go on throughout the nation.

USAToday put it quite well in this headline:

Many Americans uninformed, but still wary of Mormon beliefs

Suspicion of Mormonism is different than bigotry or opposition.  Suspicion of Mormonism means that everything Romney does has to be checked, rechecked, doubled checked – then checked again, because well…. No candidate, no person, can stand up to that kind of scrutiny unscathed.  Not because they are bad or mistaken, but simply because they are human.

But people need to remember it will be a different world come the general election.  The stark contracts between parties, and their respective candidates, will give Romney much more room to state broad principles.  In a primary, the debate is over shades of grey – you are looking for the candidate with just the right amount of “greyness.”  In the general election things will be quite black-and-white.

In the primary as it now stands, we have a black-and-white choice as well.  As we have chronicled here all week, we have a choice between a man of immense character and one who struggles mightily (and often loses the struggle) to maintain his character.  But even that immense gulf is a shade of grey in comparison to what comes in the general election.

There is a time and a place to speak broadly.  It is not yet that time.  It is yet another measure of character to know that time and to stay within its boundaries.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.