Article VI Blog

In 2008, Evangelicals, particularly from western Iowa, pretty much cost Mitt Romney the Republican nomination for the presidency.  And yet, yesterday the Editorial Board of the Des Moines Register, the biggest journalistic voice in that state,  endorsed Mitt Romney for the 2012 general election now less than 10 days away.  This marks the first time in 40 years that the paper has backed a Republican.

Newspaper endorsements do not matter like they used to, but they do matter, and this one is huge.  The signs continue to mount that Mitt Romney has captured, fully, the Evangelical vote.  The Catholic Bishops are coming dangerously close to outright endorsing him, so the Catholic vote is seemingly his as well.  That is quite possibly an unbeatable combination.  Once again we see evidence that Barack Obama thinks the world thinks like he does.  I don’t think he realized that for many of us, faith matters deeply and predominantly.

CNN is recycling an old story, by their own admission, about Romney’s “faith journey.”  There is a sort of “at a distance” about the story that simply rings hollow to the believer of any stripe.  Faith is not a demographic, and identity, nor a mere affiliation.  It is something much deeper, something that we seek to allow to change us fundamentally – to make us better and to allow us to rise above our base desires.  But then the press has not “gotten” deep, committed faith for quite some time.

I am not sure Obama understood this either as he began his assault on religious conscience and freedom.  I have to believe he thought most people of faith would just shrug their shoulders, as he obviously did when listing to the rants and “God Damn America’s” of Jeremiah Wright, because in his mind faith was just a box we tick off on Sunday.

It may be without historical precedent that an incumbent candidate for the presidency has so profoundly misunderstood the American people.  We will probably never know whether he was intentionally not listening or simply lacked the mental capacity to hear.  And the possibility remains, though it is shrinking, that he may yet prevail.  But it is now clear that were that unlikely event to occur, that like the first time, it would not be because he represents the will of the American people.  It would be because he capitalized on an extraneous set of circumstances that made the election about something other than what really matters most to most Americans.

But that is not the “big picture” I am getting.  I am getting a picture of Mitt Romney, rising from the Iowa that rejected him some four years ago, becoming the next President of the United States and unleashing the natural forces that have made this nation uniquely great in the history of nations.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, character, Electability, Governance, Political Strategy | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

From the start of year I have argued:

First, an incumbent President of the United States is hard to beat. He will appear to be winning for most of the year, even if he is going to lose.

Second, the economy dooms President Obama if the GOP nominated a centrist or plausible candidate (such as Mr. Romney).

I have consistently argued the race would be 51/2- 48/7 in favor of Mr. Romney. Polling does not capture historic trends. Most Americans feel the country is going in the wrong direction. They want change. They liked Mr. Obama, but like him less now and have not approved of his job performance until things got very partisan. (I take favorability most seriously in the spring as it is less jerked about by ads and campaigning. Obama was plainly upside down then.)

Romney defeated the President in the last debate in what I called (that night) the worst defeat I have ever seen between two well matched foes. Ask Mr. Gingrich (who sharpened Mr. Romney) what happens when Romney prepares.

So where are we today?

Mr. Romney is winning, as he has been from the start, but he can still lose. He needs Mr. Ryan to avoid gaffes. He does not need need Mr. Ryan to win. Biden is underestimated as a debater, Slow Joe can bring it if he wishes. Mr. Ryan is too smart to be “Quayled” and so the Veep debate will be a wash.

If Mr. Biden loses badly, as is possible if he is in his gaffe-tastic mode, then Mr. Obama is in big trouble.

The Town Hall debate should be good for Obama, but also not the sort of event that changes many things. In fact, it gives Mr. Romney a chance to be empathetic but strong. I don’t see the format helping Obama take Romney down.

Foreign policy should be good for Mr. Obama (given Bin Laden), but the Libya mess makes that less obvious.

The money should be even . . .itself a disaster for Obama given 2008 and enthusiasm is with Mr. Romney.

And so this election remains Mr. Romney’s to lose. He still might.

Two further facts the media is not reporting:

Evangelicals are overwhelmingly for Romney. Young Evangelicals are overwhelmingly for Romney.

You would have known both things if you read my compatriots here . . .

Posted in Electability | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I will not bother to recount or critique Obama’s acceptance speech last night, I’ll leave that up to friends Hugh Hewitt and Jim Geraghty.  “Been there, done that,” seems to the the sentiment amongst all but the unthinking die-hards.  Leaves me wondering if Obama has figured out he is in over his head and really does not want to do it again.

I will make one comment.  Check out this observation from WaPo blogger Robert P. Jones:

Obama made his entrance to the national stage with a speech at the 2004 Democratic national convention that was full of religious language, such as traditional biblical allusions (“It is that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sisters’ keeper — that makes this country work”) and references to contemporary Christian music (“we worship an awesome God in the blue states”). This speech was also remarkable because it broke through at a time when the “values voters” movement was on the rise and Democrats were being lambasted for being perceived as unfriendly to religion.

Check the test of the speech from last night.  You will find no such rhetoric.  Is it any wonder they had to work so hard to correct the “oversight” concerning the inclusion of “God” in the platform?  CNN is trying to help them out of the fiasco, but as John Hinderaker says:

The Democrats, bluntly put, have become the party of those who don’t go to church.

Which leaves David French wondering, “Wither the Pro-Obama Evangelical?”

War, poverty, unemployment, and abortion? That wasn’t supposed to be the deal. Expect to see Mitt Romney’s share of the evangelical vote match or exceed President Bush’s in 2004.

He’s right – at least for those whose faith is deep and not merely convenient.  I think Kathryn Jean Lopez summed it up best in a single sentence yesterday:

If this administration didn’t treat religious liberty as something government grants rather than robustly protects, I wouldn’t be so worried . . .

That does; however, describe the point where this all stops being pathetic and starts being scary.  They really do act that way, which is of course the kind of attitude that leads to extra-constitutional power grabs and legislative action rammed down the throat of a clearly disagreeing public.  But in light of Obama’s “mail it in” approach to his speech last night, I wonder if they are out of energy for such shenanigans?  I wonder if the sheer weight of fighting against the will of the populace has not simply worn them out?  Ruling as king is a lot harder than serving as president.

But on the bright side, if you’re a Dem, you can most certainly rely on the home-brewers vote:

One of the oldest political cliches states that people vote for the person they would most like to have a beer with – and Mr Obama’s rival in the November election, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, does not drink.

That officially hits the books as the longest reach for a Mormon shot in the history of Romney seeking national office.  BTW, I’ve had a conversation with Mitt Romney with a drink in my hand – I’d say it’s about the same as having a conversation without a drink in my hand – either way, a pleasant experience.

And back to pathetic, yesterday Glenn Beck dedicated his online TV show to discussing Mormonism:

He ultimately decided to take on the issue after growing frustrated with the “intentional vilification and political grandstanding” he sees being aimed at his faith, and the attention being given to “jaded ex-members brought on as experts to speak about what they never truly understood.”

Uh-huh, or maybe the money flow from on-line broadcasting just ain’t what he expected and the topic is really, really hot.  When was the last time you saw press articles on what the topic of Beck’s show was going to be?  Smells like a plug push to me.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, Political Strategy, Reading List, Religious Freedom | 6 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mr. Romney will soon be the nominee of my party, an honor that eluded him four years ago and that his father never achieved.

Outsiders think of running for President of the United States as a glamorous job, but Mr. Romney surely has given up more so far than he has gotten from the Grand Old Party.

First, Mr. Romney did not need to run for office to have a good life. He is at the age when men in his position think of retiring. He is a wealthy, healthy man that turned his attention to public service following the example of his father and the Father of our Country: George Washington. This is surely a commendable thing.

Second, Mr. Romney’s immediate award for service was abuse. President Obama and former President George W. Bush were examples of the kind of abuse he could expect. Mr. Obama has been denied his birthplace, been the subject of racist attacks, and called “antichrist.” Mr. Bush was compared to Hitler, had his faith questioned, and was compared to a chimp. Mr. Romney knew that he would go from collecting philanthropic awards at adoring “roasts” to this sort of attack.

In a Republic, this is not altogether unhealthy, we put no trust in princes, but a successful man cannot enjoy it.

Third, Romney picked Mr. Ryan as his force presidential level appointment. He picked a man to help him govern and not just to win an election. Mr. Romney is a leader unafraid of strong people who might overshadow him. Like William McKinley with Theodore Roosevelt, Mr. Romney was aware of the fact that many delegates and voters will prefer Mr. Ryan to him, but Romney has the self-confidence to know if he wins, then he will be President.

By picking Ryan, Mr. Romney presents Americans with a real choice in this election.

Fourth, I am thankful that as we have learned about Mr. Romney’s finances, we have been set an example of generosity. From classical times, a good leader was expected to be magnanimous. Romney is. He reminds me to do better.

Finally, Mr. Romney has forced me to learn more about his church. He knew the hostility and bigotry that Mormons have historically faced. Americans murdered the founder of his faith, after all. And yet, he has been a nearly-perfect representative of how a good American negotiates the tension between faith and patriotism. He has spoken eloquently and well on faith and government in a way far superior to President Kennedy.

He hasn’t left his Mormon values at the voting booth door. He is forcing American bigots to stop standing in front of the door of the White House.

Whatever the outcome, Mr. Romney is running a race that should Americans proud that he will be honored with the same nomination as Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan.

Posted in Electability | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Jeff Greenfield appears to be the first to note this factoid:

Ryan only 2nd Catholic ever on GOP national ticket (Wm. Miller, ’64, only other one).

That Ryan’s faith came up pretty much as an afterthought is significant in itself.

BONUS: Romneys’s “Be Not Afraid” ad.

Posted in Electability, Political Strategy, Prejudice, Religious Bigotry, Uncategorized | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

This weekend Mitt Romney won the presidency, because he won the hearts and minds of  a majority of Americans. If you are in the sizable minority immune to his message, you will not understand this, but in the hills of West Virginia, in upstate Michigan, and in rural Nevada they will get it.

They may not know it yet, but the man who spoke at Liberty University is the man Evangelicals have awaited. He was honest, he was plain, he was a gentleman. He did not pretend to agree with the theology of the Liberty University audience, but the crowd there knows their Bible and they know that a God who can anoint the Persian Cyrus can find his man any place.

And Romney, or at least his speech writer, was on point. He did not fall for the latest shiny distraction of the Obama campaign, but laid out the essential differences. Romney stands with Liberty for the future. There is no future in adopting ancient decadence sped up with technology. There is no victory in growing angry and merely reacting with the slogans of past campaigns.

Some media did not understand his message. They wanted the Governor to fixate on one issue, but Romney is not a hater. He is an American,  so he is happy to see people left alone, but unwilling to change the Constitution and our heritage lightly or because of one generation’s claims. Romney likes Christian morality.

Many Americans have seen the future President Obama has painted and have decided: “No thank you.” Governor Romney suggested an alternate view at Liberty and the forty-six percent that voted for John McCain will be behind him with a large chunk of the middle that gave the President a chance.

Decent men will not lightly abandon a good man like President Obama, but a majority will vote him out of office if he fails. Romney is pressing the case that he is failing. Americans develop dispositions based on the economy, but they vote their consciences.

The economy has made them surly, but Romney refused to play to their fears. At Liberty, he appealed to the better angels within us.

Mitt Romney only needs Evangelicals to come home, moderates to trust him, and the base to give him a chance. Mitt Romney in Lynchburg showed the capacity to do all three. He  did not ignore difference, but stressed common ground with the vast Evangelical plurality. He is a moderate man by nature and expressed his views without rancor and he appealed to the grandness of the Grand Old Party.

He tied economic progress to moral decency. A rich, but wicked Babylon is no fit place for republicans. A poor, but virtuous nation cannot defend herself in a dangerous world.

This man will win. Count on it. This weekend made Mitt Romney the next President of the United States . . . if he can repeat the Lynchburg mantra: a decent America works.

Posted in Electability | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post