Finally, as the polls were closing, frequent Romney critic David Freddoso of NRO let loose an inconvenient bit of information:

“Non-Mormons seem to have preferred Romney over Gingrich by 42%-26%, a margin similar to that in Florida” http://bit.ly/wffowM

Oops.

Fox is also reporting that Romney won Catholics by a 2 to 1 margin, against two Catholic opponents.

Oops again.

Finally, Justin Hart, a Romney supporter, tweeted that if not a single Mormon had voted in Nevada, Romney would still have won by 20 points. You can do the arithmetic.

We do not – not – expect the news media to drop its obsession with Romney’s Mormonism as a theme for much of their analysis of his success. But we do like to point out, as often as we can, how specious their analysis is.

We also got this, in Romney’s victory speech:

“I will protect religious freedom and will overturn any regulation that tramples on our first freedom: our right to worship as we choose.”

That is clearly a reference to this week’s Obama administration rule requiring faith-based employers to include contraception services (including elective abortions) in the health insurance plans they offer their employees. We blogged about that in our post this morning. I am sure that John’s heart is gladdened by Romney’s statement, as is mine. No doubt Romney will develop that theme in the coming weeks and months. Jennifer Rubin tweeted that it will probably be a major attack point for him.

We’ll have more to say after all the numbers are in and the dust settles.

UPDATE: Even Gingrich just excused his crushing defeat by noting that “Nevada is a heavily Mormon state.” Will the press let him get away with that? Probably.

John, The Next Morning Says

In all my morning reading, only one source notes Newt’s clear Mormon swipe.  We did the math yesterday morning on this thing.  Not to mention that I fail to understand how 7% of anything is “heavily.”

I spent several years of my life in the early ’90′s working the gold mines in Nevada.  Mining is the second biggest industry in the state, behind gaming.  (I am an environmental consultant after all.)  There are very few roads in the state I have not driven on in part because there are very few roads in the state outside of Las Vegas and Reno.  In all that travel I don’t think I can remember seeing a stake house.  I can not leave my house here in SoCal without tripping over a Mormon structure of some sort, but in Nevada? – give me a break.

Gingrich’s comment is simply despicable.  Gingrich is done as a candidate.  Santorum has a case yet to make, but Gingrich is done.  Sadly, he will garner enormous press because he is a good show – but like most of what passes for “good TV” these days, its side show material – a little off color, trashy, with just a hint of forbidden.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Christian conservatives are gradually coming to terms with the idea that Mitt Romney might be the GOP nominee. And they’ve got some advice if he wants evangelicals to turn out and vote for him in November. Leading social conservatives want Romney to be very public about opposing abortion and gay marriage. The fact that he’s been all over the board on these issues is a problem, along with his Mormonism, but leaders say if Romney has any hopes of rallying the Christian faithful in the fall, he’ll have to be demonstrative in support of the social issues they care about. That, of course, is exactly what the opposite of what his political advisers are likely to recommend for a general election – where Romney will be trolling for votes among independents and moderates

Who knows if this is the true source of the objections or it is cover for simple theological bigotry, but there is one important fact that Evangelicals that are in the camp described have to bear in the mind.  We live in a highly divided nation on the matter of abortion and on the matter of same-sex marriage we are losing ground.  From that essential fact flows one important related fact – it’s not about the presidency.  Abortion is legal due to the courts and same-sex marriage is at the moment a states issue, which is where it should remain.

So, two conclusions flow from these facts.  One, if you want to affect these issues, focusing on the presidential election is pouring your resources down the wrong hole.  Yes the president appoints court members, but even then – a “litmus test” qualification for the court is in violation of the spirit of the constitution.  Which leads me to the second conclusion.

Long before we lost the political and legal battles, we lost in the court of public opinion on abortion.  (If you are among those that believe the court “rammed Roe v Wade down our throat,” check the records – states were legalizing abortion at a rapid pace legislatively.)  We have not yet lost the political battle on same sex marriage, but we re losing the battle in the court of public opinion.  Why?  Somewhere, we have lost our ability to change people’s minds and characters.  That is what the church is supposed to do.  The salvation narrative common to all Christian faiths is about changing people from “sinners” to “saints.”  Among the changes that such a conversion would seemingly create in an individual is an understanding of the social ills of things like abortion and same sex marriage.

The POTUS has to, I repeat HAS TO, be the president for all of the American people – even those that support abortion and same sex marriage.  If my evangelical brethren want a POTUS that is more forceful on these important issues, then maybe they should be spending more time on the the character changing aspects of the church’s mission and less on politics.  I think if they did, the politics might take care of itself.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

No, I want you to think, not about those mistakes, but about how easily he lies about them, how glibly he obfuscates the moral clarity surrounding them.

Not Like Clinton, or Just Like Him?  You Decide

First, the former Speaker of the House was asked in detail about whether he was hypocrital to pursue Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal when Gingrich himself was engaged in a long-term adulterous affair (with the woman who is now his wife).  Gingrich has an interesting way of distinguishing between his own sleazy infidelity and Bill Clinton’s lies about the same kind of behavior:

Gingrich, when pressed that it was hypocrisy, responded that “people listen to your question but don’t listen to the facts.”

When pressed about having an affair himself, he responded many people approached him at the time and explained lots of people had affairs. But he always responded that it was lying under oath that made it an issue.

“I’ve been through two divorces,” Gingrich said. “I’ve been deposed both times under oath. Both times I told the truth in the deposition because I know that it is, I’m not a lawyer and I know it’s a felony, Bill Clinton is a lawyer. He’s a Yale Law School graduate. He knew it was perjury. He knew it was a felony.”

In other words, “I may have been a sleazeball and a hypocrite, but I didn’t lie about it — at least not under oath!” There.  Do you feel better about this man now?

Like so much of what Gingrich says, this response is — how to put this delicately? — an insult to the public’s intelligence. As one of the commenters to the post says, “Gingrich wasn’t the same as Bubba because nobody knew publicly he was having ANOTHER affair, cheating on ANOTHER sick wife…if they had, none of [the Clinton impeachment drama] would’ve proceeded, perjury or no perjury.”

Yet another Politico commenter raises an ominous point: “Well, there’s an opening: Let’s see Newt’s depositions in the 2 divorces to check out whether he told the truth.” As long as he is a candidate, Newt’s past will be the gift that keeps on giving, as closet after closet is opened to reveal yet another skeleton.

And Another Example

Remember the great signature moment of the second South Carolina presidential debate, when Newt Gingrich rose up in righteous indignation and thundered at the elite news media, which had no interest in the truth but simply wanted to to get him, and any other Republican candidate they could?  Remember how he stated, with fiery certainty and crystalline clarity, that his campaign had offered several witnesses to ABC news who would counter his ex-wife Marianne’s story, but ABC was not interested in speaking to those people?

As Rick Perry might say, Oops.  No such thing happened.  Here’s the video:

Well, so much for fiery certainty and crystalline clarity. I must admit, I am impressed, in a morbid way, by the ease with which Newt Gingrich lies so convincingly.  Watching him do that is like observing the behavior of a rare and exotic species of animal. It is astonishing, frightening, and disturbing all at once.  Is this the kind of man we want as President of the United States?  R. Emmett Tyrell doesn’t think so, and reminds us that we have been down this road before.

Conservatives should not be surprised by the scandals that lie ahead, if they stick with him. Those of us, who raised the question of character in 1992, were confronted by an indignant Bill Clinton, treating the topic as a low blow. To listen to him, character was the “c” word of American politics. It was reprehensible to mention it. By now we know. Character matters. Paul, Santorum, and Romney have it. Newt has Clinton’s character.

It sure looks that way. Please, please, voters of Florida — and voters everywhere who care about electing decent men and women to positions of trust and authority — keep that in mind.
 

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Wall Street Journal summarizes the Romney tax returns.

John Kerry, by the way, paid his federal income taxes at a lower rate than Romney – 13.1%, as opposed to Romney’s 13.9%.  This was disclosed in the 2004 election cycle.  No one made an issue of  that.  Why not?

Tithing – what’s that all about, anyway?

A pretty good explanation of tithing by Buzzfeed’s McKay Coppins.

Romney addressed the matter himself on Fox News Sunday:

“If people want to discriminate against someone based upon their commitment to tithe, I’d be very surprised. This is a country that believes in the Bible. The Bible speaks about providing tithes and offerings. I made a commitment to my church a long, long time ago that I would give 10 percent of my income to the church. And I followed through on that commitment,” he said.

“Hopefully, as people look at various individuals running for president, they’d be pleased with someone who made a promise to God and kept that promise. So, if I had given less than 10 percent, then I think people would have had to look at me and say, hey, what’s wrong with you, fella, don’t you follow through on the promises?”

Brief explanatory note:  Faithful Mormons pay tithing at 10% of their annual increase.  Exactly how one pays, and how one computes that 10%, is seen in our faith as a matter between the tithepayer and God.

Hugh Hewitt’s take on Romney’s taxes and charitable giving is a must-read.  Excerpts:

Ann and Mitt Romney are wealthy, and Ann and Mitt Romney are generous.  Very generous.  And this is to be admired.

Much of their giving goes to their church, and Mormon culture is very generous not just to those struggling in the congregation, but to the community, the nation and the world.  A minute or so of googling finds this story from the days after Katrina, representative of how the Mormons respond to disasters, which noted that “[a]s of Sept. 13, 140 truckloads of commodities and supplies, about 5.6 million pounds or 2,800 tons had been shipped into affected areas; with thousands of LDS volunteers giving 9,204 manpower days helping 1,606 Church members and 3,226 people not of the LDS faith, according to Garry Flake, director of Church Emergency Response. In addition, some 3,500 volunteers served Sept. 10-11.”

All denominations of any size have their charitable arms, like Catholic Relief Services and Presbyterian Relief and Development Agency, but the culture of giving is deeply embedded in the LDS community and reflected in the Romney tax returns.  In addition to direct giving to their church, the Romneys have supported cystic fibrosis research and the United Way, but the bulk of their giving is to their church….

They are very generous people, which in turn suggests they are good people, and while good people don’t necessarily make good leaders, it is far less likely they will be indifferent to suffering or intentionally malicious in their politics.

This is quaint stuff, certain to fall on deaf ears among the bare knuckled blogging community and the self-righteous among the media elite.  But it ought to matter to some voters, especially values voters, even those of different denominations.

(Emphasis added.) We couldn’t have said that better.

I’ll add this:  Romney’s tax payments and his level of charitable giving should never be mentioned by any member of the news media, in any publication or forum (yes, even those ridiculous MSM-run debates) without equal attention being paid to the other candidates’ tax payments and level of charitable giving.  Fair is fair.

So who is the best candidate for an American of faith? I’d say Romney or Santorum, depending on which one’s politics best aligns with the religious voter’s views. What say our readers?

Some Additional  Notes On Taxes

John Hood at NRO notes that the 14% number is entirely misleading.

Romney’s real federal tax rate on his investment income was more than 40 percent (being conservative, after deductions and such), since the revenue stream was subject to both a personal tax rate and the corporate tax rate….state taxes would bring the effective income tax rate on Romney’s investment income to 50 percent or higher. Every time a reporter or opposing candidate tried to say Romney’s tax rate was 15 percent, a competent campaign would call them out for misleading the American people.

And, by the way, one might reasonably wonder why the pro-Obama forces are attacking Romney, not Gingrich, in Florida. Big Labor (SEIU-COPE. SEIU.org) has invested $$800,000 in Florida anti-Romney ads.  One of the ads is directed at Hispanics, in Spanish, claiming “Mitt Romney Has No Shame.”

Why, oh why, would Big Labor be attacking Romney, and not Gingrich? Is there some reason they want Romney knocked out of the race?

Then there’s that notion of simply being a good man

Rich Lowry at National Review has some hard things to say about Newt Gingrich, whom he calls “the Republican Clinton, except less lovable and more roguish.” Ouch.  Referring to the now-famous John King incident in the final South Carolina debate:

Only one other politician in America could have played the victim card so expertly when confronted by the story of a wronged woman. Only one other politician would have thrown out so many obfuscating “facts,” or turned his lavish anger on and off so quickly. Only one other politician would have dared hope to turn such an embarrassing imbroglio to his advantage. If he was watching the debate somewhere, Bill Clinton must have chuckled in admiration and thought, “Well played, my friend. Well played.”

Newt is the Republican Clinton — shameless, needy, hopelessly egotistical. The two former adversaries and tentative partners have largely the same set of faults and talents. They are self-indulgent, prone to disregard rules inconvenient to them, and consumed by ambition. They are glib, knowledgeable, and imaginative. They are baby boomers who hadn’t fully grown up even when they occupied two of the most powerful offices in the land.

My friends, this matters.  What kind of a man we elect matters.  Bill Clinton did incalculable damage to our culture.  I recall, for example, having to explain to my then 8 year-old son what oral sex is — because of the President of the United States’ actions.  Do we want another man with a history of flexible morality serving in that office?  Yes, Gingrich says he has changed — has repented, in effect.  Well, I love redemption and forgiveness as much as the next believer in Christ, but I don’t necessarily believe that the redeemed person should be placed in a position of trust – and no office on earth involves greater trust than the American presidency.

And finally….

Jennifer Rubin asks. “Why Gingrich?” Read the whole thing.

And Dennis Prager, in Evangelicals and Romney , argues that “America’s survival is more important than one’s views of Mormonism.”  His best line:

In other words, fight the Left now. You can fight theology later.

Amen to that, Brother Prager.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

But as Romney seemingly steamrolls to an early primary end, a couple of ugly trends are emerging.  One has to do with the anti-capitalistic theme his opposition is striking in an effort to claw back into the race.  Lots and lots and lots of people are pointing how how very ridiculous this line of attack is, as it has been advanced by Gingrich, Perry, and Huntsman.  There is little I can add to the discussion, save to point out that in taking this line of attack, these gentleman join one of Gov. Romney’s former political opponents in its use – Edward Kennedy.  Does any self-respecting Republican want to be grouped with Ted Kennedy?  Really?  Really?

The other trend is the incredible uptick in the Mormon mentions and discussion.  The sheer volume of material our little web spiders and search tools have turned up in the last week is now on par, or may exceed, last cycle – and this after we have struggled to find material this cycle to this point.  One pretty smart person pointed out something from Iowa:

Santorum’s appeal to evangelicals marks one of the great developments in modern American religion and politics: the closure of the once-yawning theological and cultural gap between Catholics and Protestants. Protestants long distrusted and denounced Catholicism almost as much as they did Mormonism. The King James Version of the Bible originally carried an introductory dedication describing the pope as “that man of sin.”

This author is right, but what closed the gap?  I truly wonder if distaste for Mormonism did not sort of “force” the gap closed?  That notwithstanding, I think what we are really seeing out of all the Mormon coverage is foreshadowing.  As Romney becomes more and more inevitable, the left is warming up one of the few arrows they think they have in the quiver.  The shots are coming from msnbc, an msnbc contributor, and some blogger that Salon syndicated, just to name a few.

But consider what is happening on the right generally and in the polls:

• The latest Gallup data shows:

A new Gallup poll finds Mitt Romney is the now the only candidate that a majority of conservative and moderate/liberal Republicans nationwide see as an “acceptable” GOP nominee for president.

• Romney is the only Republican that is beating Obama in the polls.
• There are some amazing pro-Romney pieces appearing from the likes of Ken Starr and our own JMR.

Yep, things are looking good for Mitt Romney.  The only question is will we allow the religious prejudices of the left to use our religious convictions to divide us or will we stand united and win the most vital political battle of our lives.  It does not help that some of our own seem determined to turn left in an effort to garner the moment for themselves, but such is mostly the twitching of an already dead corpse.  We seem, finally, to be figuring this thing out.  Good for us.

John Mark here:

First, I will predict today . . .

Romney will win with more than 35% of the vote. There is no way to spin anything above that number as anything other than a win. I will repeat: Romney will be the nominee and the next President of the United States barring some cataclysm. The election will be 1980 with the electorate finally turning on the incumbent. Most Americans (about sixty percent) are looking for someone new.

Romney will give them that someone.

Second, Ron Paul is over-polling. He will end up in a near tie with the third place finisher. All the action is for third place. Gingrich has ended his career by attacking Bain using William Jennings Bryan rhetoric. Huntsman and Santorum will benefit. If Santorum comes in third, he might become a plausible Huckabee running second all way to the Romney convention. He will not be the Veep choice, but look for Huckabee himself as an outside choice if Santorum muddies things. (My favorite pick: Rubio.)

So here is my call:

Romney 38% (over 40% and it is a huge win, under 30 and he functionally lost)
Paul 20%
Santorum 16%
Huntsman 16%.
Gingrich 11%

(I should add that I write my ‘best reasonable case’ number for candidate and pick their rank in the finish. I do not try to predict percentages out of 100%).

Huntsman is now finished (as if he started). Anything under 20% keeps Daddy from paying to keep his son alive in a race that is a waste of family resources. Gingrich will be under great pressure to drop out with a dismal fifth place showing. He needs third to prevent being a spoiler.

I will be live blogging at johnmarkreynolds.com starting at 4:30 PST.

Feel good, by the way about my call. I was clearly wrong about Santorum’s best case and underestimated Paul, but I think I got the order just right.

(Except by later in the night it looks like I did not. The key thing I missed: Santorum failed to clearly outperform Gingrich or come close to Huntsman. This was, therefore, a bad night for Santorum given best cases. I also over-estimated the percentage of the Pitchfork Buchanan vote Santorum would get compared to Paul.)

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Rick Santorum is speaking to his supporters as if he has won.  As John Mark predicted, Santorum will be “the story,” even if he doesn’t win.  It’s too delicious for the news media:  An internal fight among Republicans!  Social conservative Santorum against moderate Romney; the Catholic adopted by the Evangelicals against the Mormon whom those voters abhor — or at least mistrust on theological grounds.  That Romney, who was not expected even to be competitive in Iowa, is neck and neck late in the evening, will be a side note to those themes.

As we contemplate this scene, a couple of tweets seem significant:

Jim Geraghty:  “Turnout looks like it will be about 20 percent of the state’s active registered Republicans.”

Mike Murphy:  “On to NH! A lot fewer social conservatives there….”

We’ve said it before:  Iowa means nothing.  It’s a lightly-populated state whose Republican voters are among the most conservative in the country– and only the most extreme 20% of those even vote.  Remember:  In 2008, Mike Huckabee won Iowa.  The same slice of Western Iowa voters who came out for Huck also came out for Santorum.  The same slice of Eastern Iowa and urban Republicans who voted for Romney in 2008 are voting for him now.

One aspect of this year’s caucus is encouraging, however:  It was not an Evangelical versus Mormon battle, at least not on the surface.  Still, as John has noted here before, the battle did seem to be Evangelicals against everyone else, as it was in 2008.   It’s just that this time the Evangelicals were scattered among several candidates (Santorum, Perry, and Bachmann).  All of those candidates have one characteristic in common: they have no reasonable chance of becoming President of the United States.  Electability is not a concern for those voters, evidently.  Maybe it shouldn’t be, in a caucus.  But it sure does matter in a general election.

Romney is now speaking, briefly and brightly congratulating Santorum on a great race, then turning to Barack Obama’s failings.
Then he turns to his Iowa theme:

“This election is bigger, even, than jobs and a strong economy….It’s really an election about the soul of America.”  He goes on to talk about the  principles in the Declaration of Independence, based on our inalienable rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

A few lines from “America the Beautiful” and he’s done. So on to New Hampshire.

John Mark here:

I live blogged this at www.johnmarkreynolds.com. Things came out as we expected, though Santorum slightly over performed. Great for him. Great for his Google profile and I like him.

Now let’s be clear:

Perry is done. Bachmann is done. Gingrich is down, because he cannot take a punch. Consider this question. If you had told anyone that: Romney would tie in Iowa and have a double digit lead in New Hampshire and that his major foes would be Rick Santorum and Ron Paul would they have thought Romney in good shape or bad?

Romney will be the GOP nominee.

God created the world in six days. Santorum has eight to create a campaign. Good luck.

John Rises From His Sick Bed…

Almost too ill to be coherent, no clear winner between Romney and Santorum – Bachmann and Perry big losers.  (Newt too, but he is too thick-headed to realize it – more in a moment.)  Romney very well positioned moving forward.  In other words, I agree with my co-bloggers.

Two brief comments.  First, while there was no overt play of the Mormon angle, it played – as Lowell notes in who came out for Santorum.  We noted on last Thursday that Hugh Hewitt interviewed Santorum last week about drawing the backing of Huck’s Army.  That group may have been smart enough to keep their mouth shut this cycle, but history is history.

Secondly, it was clear in his speech that it is personal with Gingrich vis-a-vis Romney.  See Jim Geraghty this morning.  Look for some real ugliness before Newt leaves the scene.

Oh, and by the way – Romney won.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Every four years outsiders try to “understand” Iowa and fail just as many in even conservative media do not understand Evangelical culture. Few media types can write about my own school, Biola University, without calling it the “Bible Institute of Los Angeles,” and not in an admiring tone, though we have not been called that for decades.

Sometimes it is tempting just to vote for the candidate that will irritate these snobs the most. If that is the goal of your vote: give Ron Paul your ballot. But remember this, it will help nothing.

Those invincibly ignorant will not care about our virtues and they will trumpet our vices whatever we do. Voting for a candidate who cannot be nominated, who probably should not be nominated, will accomplish nothing.

Let’s not waste our vote on other candidates that like Mike Huckabee four years ago lack the campaign organization to win. Good candidates can make bad presidents, see Jimmy Carter, but no bad candidate will ever be president. Part of being a good candidate is the discipline and structure to run a good race.

Only one candidate has the national infrastructure, money, and talent to go the distance in the primaries. He is the man good conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum backed four years ago: Mitt Romney.

Now many of these same conservative are not satisfied. Romney will owe them nothing if he is the nominee. He is his own man and they imagine some better choice. There is no such person and this imagined conservative perfect will be the enemy of the good.

If Romney were merely good at running for office, he would not deserve your vote, but Romney is good at running things. He was good at running his business. He helped save an Olympics. He was a successful governor.

You don’t have to like everything he did. Romney’s views on abortion have improved, but so did Ronald Reagan’s. Romney made some bad calls trying to run a liberal state with a Democrat legislature, but so would any human.

If you think he is pretending to be a conservative to get our votes, then ask why this Harvard man bothers. Why did he stick with the party of his father? Why didn’t he become a Democrat? Can anyone doubt that such a man would be lionized by the media if he had done so?

Ask Harry Reid if people with Romney’s background can become leaders in the Democratic Party. Romney stuck with the GOP, because he is a fundamentally conservative man: the product of generations of conservative men and women.

Governor Romney is a good man, a brave man, but a man. As a man he has been wrong, said stupid things, and fallen short of our expectations in an ideal candidate. He is not messiah and if he is elected, neither ignorance nor want will magically vanish.

But we conservatives don’t put our trust in princes. We look for the man or woman best qualified for the job. That man is Governor Mitt Romney.

What makes a successful president? There is no easy answer, but most successful presidents share a few traits.

First, there is executive experience: a good president will generally run something. In the Republican race only Governor Perry and Governor Romney can make that claim. Romney, however, has run big enterprises in the public, non-profit, and private sectors.

Second, a president is not just “head of a government” but represents America to the world. You may not like President Obama, but a huge majority of Americans voted for him and still like him. They believe he is a good family man. They are right to believe this, because President Obama’s personal life is the best advertisement for his own values.

Mitt Romney has a personal life that can stand the comparison.

There was a day when in blissful ignorance voters could ignore private failings. Those days are long past.

Third, a good leader will be smart. This does not have to equal formal education: Lincoln had less than a year of school. Go read a Lincoln speech. He educated himself. A candidate that cannot articulate his views in a Republican primary will not be able to defend his administration from critics.

Theodore Roosevelt could lecture in European universities and talk to cowboys on the range.

That ability is rare, and Romney may or may not have it, but if he doesn’t, we can be sure none of the other candidates do. He is a serious man, well educated, who grasps issues at a deep level. We will not have to watch debates holding our breath hoping he does not blow his chances with a lack of attention to detail.

At the same time, Romney has grown by running for office. He is showing a comfort in dealing with “regular folk.”

Fourth, there is character: Romney has a good character.

How can you know? Look and see which candidates keep their teams in place. How loyal are their subordinates? Mitt Romney inspires loyalty.

They call Romney a “flip-flopper.” I say that Romney, like any conservative, knows that the politics is an art and not a science. On any given issue, there is no “right answer” sent from God to the theocrats ear.

No president is Moses and about tariff policy God has been silent in His Word.

As a result, an astute politician will govern the best he can. Lincoln compromised to win and so radical abolitionists opposed him. Romney compromised to run Massachusetts and so purists and ideologues can never support him. The need to compromise makes politics a dirty game and nobody escapes perfectly clean.

Churchill had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. The English hero had to speak to the Russian devil in his language to beat the monster in Berlin. Of course, most political compromise is between decent men each only partly right and both partly wrong, but the essential point is the same.

Compromise is the language of the devil only when eternal issues are sold out. The prudent man, the conservative man, knows the language of Heaven can motivate, but it cannot govern this side of Paradise. Compromise is the language God’s men use on issues where God has not clearly spoken or to avoid setting up their own opinions as God’s.

Temporizing can be dangerous, but conservatives know there is a greater danger. The moderate man may become useless to the government, but he inflexible politician, the purist, will become a devil chasing utopian dreams in a fallen world.

Mitt Romney has adopted conservative social views and lived them out in his own life. He has made serious mistakes, particular on the issue of abortion, and learned from them. He believes in free markets, but markets checked by the rule of law. He is no zealot or utopian about either the magic of either big business or big government.

He will do what can be done and not fritter away his political bankroll chasing impossible dreams. Government grew incrementally and Romney will shrink it incrementally.

Finally, a conservative should vote for Romney, because Romney might win, but none of the other candidates will. Conservatives are not a majority of Americans. We need to reach out to other voters . . . to gain the ten percent that can be persuaded to join us to form a governing coalition.

All my life extremists promised that if a “pure” candidate was just placed on the ticket a silent majority would appear at the polls. It is a delusion of losers. Think of the last set of Senate races. Republican primary voters got what they wanted, but those candidates lost. The tendency is then to blame the candidate, but this is just loser talk.

Americans are right-of-center on many issues, but not on all issues. We need a right of center man who can begin to move the nation in our direction. Romney is the only candidate to win “blue state” votes for executive office.

Why not Governor Romney?

I don’t believe Iowa Evangelicals will pass on Governor Romney because he is a Mormon.

Why? I know our Evangelical political history.

Lincoln directly appealed for our votes on moral grounds and got them despite his own ambiguous religious beliefs. I know my great-grandfather, a circuit riding preacher in West Virginia voted for the Unitarian Taft and his religion was never an issue. He never voted for fundamentalist WIlliam Jennings Bryan, because great-granddad shared his religion, but not his politics and he was voting for president. Iowa Evangelicals liked Ike in droves though the General was vague on religion and only baptized in the White House.

Iowa Evangelicals should ask: would they rather see the nation governed by values that look more like Utah or Illinois.

You might wonder if Romney is “real” or just a suit of clothes for the Washington establishment. Nothing could be sillier.

Do you really think this Mormon family man is the hero of the cocktail circuit or the ruling elite? Mitt Romney is not anybody’s creature. Nobody owns him and nobody pays his bills, but Mitt Romney.

These are tough times and the crisis in Europe means that things could get tougher. Romney is willing to serve and we should be glad he is. The rest of the candidates, with the exception of Romney, need to be president to salvage battered reputations or to be somebody.

Romney could retire a rich and successful man, but he is willing to serve.

We might make the mistake of passing on this chance, because Romney is not “one of us.” He is not in our “inner circle” and does not speak our insider language. At the caucus it will be sad for Evangelicals to se that none of our own are ready for the White House. There is nothing wrong with pulling for the “home team.”

Truth demands admitting we have failed to raise up a generation of qualified Evangelical politicians.

Humility suggests acknowledging our need for a good leader from outside our community. Evangelicals now in their prime political years are from a generation that did not put sufficient treasure, time, or talent into raising up a generation of leaders as other groups have done. Too often we have embraced a shallow faith, anti-intellectualism, and an “insider” language that does not communicate outside our own circles.

A generation of home-school mothers is solving this problem, but we need time. Meanwhile the nation cannot wait for graduates of programs like the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University to reach their prime political years.

The people of Israel were delivered by Cyrus, a noble Persian ruler. They had to accept that even if he was not part the Chosen People, God had raised him up to deliver the nation.

Imagine the people of Israel refusing to go home, because Cyrus was not a “true believer.” Cyrus was God’s man, but he did not come from approved places!

I would not dare to claim that Mitt Romney is a Cyrus for this age, but the example proves one thing: God can use people we deem “outside” to help his people. If God can call Cyrus His man, then surely an Evangelical can cast a caucus vote for Mitt Romney.

We cannot know for certain God’s plan in history, because God’s ways are often mysterious to us. We can know this for certain: Mitt Romney is a gentleman, an honest man, and a conservative man. Nobody ever was ashamed of voting for such a man.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

The Mormon Lay Ministry

The story York relates makes perfect sense to Mormons, who are steeped in the Church’s organizational makeup.   The key to understanding this story is to understand that Mormonism has a lay ministry.  Romney was a stake president in 1994.  A stake is roughly the Mormon equivalent of a Catholic diocese and usually consists of around 2500 members of the Church in seven or eight wards, which are congregations like parishes.  Each ward is presided over by a bishop, who is like a pastor and does all the things pastors do – care for the poor, provide marriage and life counseling, hear confessions, work with the youth.  (Romney was a bishop before he was a stake president.)  The stake president and the bishops, as well as their counselors and all of the many other members who assist them, are unpaid laity.  In other words, they have a day job, and devote 20-40 hours a week or more to their callings and are deeply loved and respected by the members they serve.

The office of stake president is one of the most responsible in the church.  Stake presidents are selected by the Church’s highest leaders.  They thus are representatives of the Church, both internally and externally.  What they say and do in their personal lives matters a great deal to the Church and its members.

So Why Brief the Church’s Leaders?

In 1994 Romney was about to enter a national political race against Ted Kennedy, one of the most famous political figures in the USA, and was a stake president.  He learned from his pollsters that he could never win in Massachusetts if he took a pro-life position.  York:

How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics,” by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.

Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem….

In light of the polling data, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life….

In November 1993 … Romney … traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott’s words, “laid out for church leaders … what his public position would be on abortion — personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves.”

By Scott’s account, Romney wasn’t seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a “senior church leader” saying Romney “didn’t ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his position. He came to explain, and his explanation was consistent with church teachings and policies.”

According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney’s plan and let him know it. “I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking,” Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.

This story tells us something about what Romney’s true feelings on life are. It also tells us something about his independence from the Church when it comes to political matters.

And So….

John and I have both met Ron Scott, when we were fellow speakers with Scott on a panel about Romney and religion. I’ve also corresponded with Scott. He is no Romney shill and disagrees with him politically.

The time seems right for this kind of information to come out.  In my opinion, it’s helpful to the overall discussion of the role of faith in the candidate’s life.  York notes:

By all accounts, Romney did a lot of good in his time as a Mormon official, and that work was a significant part of his life. In the coming campaign, voters will want to know more about it.

From what I’ve seen it seems to me that Romney’s supporters have been hoping he’d do that very thing.  Watch this space!

Finally….

It’s New Year’s Eve and so it seems fitting to close with this from Stewart Schwartz of The American Thinker:

Yes but “he’s a Mormon — he’s in a cult,” another spat, echoing at least one Baptist leader who urged evangelical Christians not to vote for Romney “because he’s a Mormon[.]”  Ah, but doing and being make for worship in a way that words and song only begin to express, which makes Mitt Romney as evangelical in walk as Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.  Which means this: Evangelicals have three dogs in this hunt.  And Mitt, because of his experience and integrity and faith, his potential to lift a nation economically and emotionally reeling from a Democrat-led descent into the leftist swamps — well, that dog’ll hunt!

Mitt Romney, like Perry and Bachmann, lives and breathes faith in a life so authentic that it automatically makes him a political outsider, the real deal in a political world where love and loyalty are measured in nanoseconds.  Who is Mitt Romney?  New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie answered that simply, telling Iowa primary voters of an enduring and intimate love for his family, a love so un-Beltway that it shines in “a guy who is a father and a husband and loves his wife and his kids.”

Mitt Romney not part of the faith-based conservative traditions that power a culture built by American exceptionalism?  In the words popularized by that great Catholic theologian, Bing Crosby, “‘Tain’t so, honey, ’tain’t so…”  Mitt Romney, in public and private, demonstrates biblical values in walk and talk, in battling an entrenched Beltway class that includes Obama and Newt Gingrich and, he says, is “gutting” a great nation with  ”[s]low growth, out-of-control regulation, and chronic uncertainty.”

And so it doesn’t really matter whether Mitt is Christian, Mormon, atheist, or Pescatarian.  What does matter is that he is not Barack Obama, that he is not a Beltway insider, and that he does not answer every question with the words “more government.”

Happy New Year!

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

I’d like tell you exactly what Bloom’s op-ed is about, or is trying to say; but I can’t find a paragraph in it containing the piece’s essence — it is that diffuse, rambling, inaccurate and internally inconsistent. Even so, Bloom gives us yet another taste of what we can expect from left-of-center writers if Romney becomes the GOP nominee.

He begins by noting that President Obama’s “likely opponent, the Mormon Mitt Romney, will be a pioneer figure whatever the outcome,” and that whether or not Romney wins, “a crucial precedent will have been established,” in that a Mormon will actually have been nominated by a major political party to be President of the United States.  What follows seems generally like a liberal academic’s rant against American religions with devout followers.  You have to read the whole thing to even hope to grasp Bloom’s point.

But he does present some ideas that may presage what we will see from the pro-Obama intelligentsia in the 2012 general election, should Romney get the nomination. First, we get some dark references to alleged Mormon secrecy:

There are other secrets also, not tellable by the Mormon Church to those it calls “Gentiles,” oddly including Jews. That aspects of the religion of a devout president of the United States should be concealed from all but 2 percent of us may be a legitimate question that merits pondering. When I wandered about the South and Southwest from 1989 to 1991, researching American religion, I was heartened by the warmth that greeted me in Pentecostal and Baptist churches, some of them independent indeed. But Gentiles are not allowed in Mormon temples…..

(Emphasis added.)  Okay, nothing new there.  Like everyone else raising the secrecy claim, Professor Bloom doesn’t seem to realize that everything that goes on in the temples of  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long since been revealed by the Church’s critics, who gained access to the information by deception, and is widely available.  Mormons don’t talk about those things because we consider them sacred.

Nor is there anything too startling in the notion that Romney will be controlled by the Mormon heirarchy while he is in office:

Though the powers of the presidency are at this moment somewhat diminished by the Republican House and the atavistic Supreme Court, they remain latent. A Mormon presidency is not quite the same as an ostensibly Catholic or Protestant one, since the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints insists on a religious sanction for its moralistic platitudes….

(Emphasis added again.)  It’s opaquely stated, but it’s there:  Mormons carry dark secrets and won’t share them, and Romney will call Salt Lake City before making important decisions.  (I confess: In that latter one I’m exaggerating.  A little.)  What interests me most is Bloom’s belief that Obama won’t make anything of these “issues:”

We can be certain that President Obama will not care to address these arcane matters in his debates with Mr. Romney. Doubtless Mr. Obama’s Christianity is sincere, but happily it is irrelevant to his governing style and aspirations.

Well, maybe we can be certain that Obama himself won’t raise these matters, but we already know he doesn’t really need to.  He’s got Bloom and others of the same ilk to do that for him.

John makes a brief addition

Lowell’s description of this piece as “diffuse, rambling, inaccurate and internally inconsistent,” is in my opinion kind.  Nonsensical is what came to mind for me.  Lowell is also correct that an essence is difficult to pin down.  But let me tell you what my take-away is.  It comes early in the piece:

However, should Mr. Romney be elected president, Smith’s dream of a Mormon Kingdom of God in America would not be fulfilled, since the 21st-century Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has little resemblance to its 19th-century precursor.

[...]

The Salt Lake City empire of corporate greed has little enough in common with the visions of Joseph Smith. The oligarchs of Salt Lake City, who sponsor Mr. Romney, betray what ought to have been their own religious heritage.

[...]

Persuasively redefining Christianity has been a pastime through the ages, yet the American difference is brazen. What I call the American Religion, and by that I mean nearly all religions in this country, socially manifests itself as the Emancipation of Selfishness. Our Great Emancipator of Selfishness, President Ronald Reagan, refreshingly evaded the rhetoric of religion, but has been appropriated anyway as the archangel of American spiritualized greed.

In the opening paragraphs Bloom attempts to discredit all of American religion – ALL OF IT!  Yes, he picks on Mormons because the likely nominee is Mormon, but he is really picking on right leaning religious folk of all stripes by reasoning, if in fact reason applies anywhere in this piece, that because we are not left-wing we are not genuine.

Now make no mistake, speaking for Evangelicalism, and only that since I am unqualified to speak for others, I do think there is a streak of self-absorption in our modern religious expression, but it is true on both the left and right of the political spectrum and a mistake in emphasis is insufficient to discredit an entire religious movement.  Charity to “feel better about oneself” is no less selfish than he who sits and counts his money all day long.

But that point is not Bloom’s real game here, his real game is twofold.  One, he wishes to delegitimize any candidate of right-leaning faith and particularly the likely Republican candidate for this cycle.  Secondly, he wishes to cash in on the current rash of books my atheists that are printing money for authors and publishers.  He even cites Christopher Hitchens in the article who wrote one of the two biggest sellers of the genre – Richard Dawkins wrote the other.

This, folks, is a hit piece, pure and simple.  Poorly written, disorganized, and almost unreadable, but a hit piece nonetheless.  It is also the latest in a series of pieces by the NYTimes to lay the groundwork for the general and their ordained candidate Barack Obama.  It is despicable that those supporting a president whose greatest achievement to date was to be the first person of color elected to the highest office in the land would chose to express support by appealing to bigotry on a different basis.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

…Emerging Memes

Weird.  Hey the president’s people said they were going this way and the press is right there laying the groundwork.  Unsurprisingly, it is mostly from the newspaper that has drunk most deeply of the Obama Kool-Aid – the NYTimes.  The first was on The Caucus blog about Romney’s “fondness for rules:”

On a ferry ride over to a Republican conference on Mackinac Island, Mich., last month, Mr. Romney and his wife, Ann, found themselves on board with a small group of reporters. Mackinac was where Mr. Romney had taken Ann, then his high school sweetheart, to celebrate her 16th birthday, and the two began fondly reminiscing about their date.

“Separate bedrooms!” Mrs. Romney explained.

“It goes without saying,” Mr. Romney added. “We’re from the 1960s.”

Secretly bunking up, of course, would have been breaking the rules.

It is a strange world indeed where decency and order can be portrayed as a deficit.  Of course, this president was unafraid to break every standard in the book to achieve his agenda (think Obamacare) so I guess it should not be surprising that his supporters (there is no other word for the NYTimes at this point) would find rules and order somehow disdainful.  Note that by taking on the religious imperative of sex inside the bounds of marriage, the Times is taking a shot a religion as well.

Then there is the piece about “young, hip Mormons.“  As GetReligion points out, it is not really about religion at all.  The article is about those inside Mormonism struggling to be “cool” when there is, apparently a tradition of “uncoolness” in the faith.  Of course, the whole thing just implies that Mormon candidates are not cool, while Obama is the epitome of cool.   It’s like these people want to live 1968 all over again.  Despite the impressions of the youthful, there are many of us around that were around in 1968 – it wasn’t good and it should not be revisited.

Ethnicity. So, the BBC asks how Hispanic Mormons will vote and NPR does the same about black Mormons.  This stuff scares me a bit.  Not satisfied with ripping up the country along religious lines, some are apparently ready to inflame racial divides that we have worked for decades to heal.  But then it must be remembered that this president is essentially a thug.

The Mormon past with race is no more troubled than any other faith’s past with race.  They were, however, about a decade later than most (but certainly not all!) in coming to terms with the issue.  That is really not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it is exploitable by an opposition candidate of color.  That’s tragic.

The one good thing this president is still capable of doing is healing whatever racial rifts may remain in the nation.  Yet he, and his MSM allies, seem bound and determined to exploit race for their own political gain.  I wonder how far they will go.  With the Occupy Movement and the 1968 vibe floating about one begins to wonder about rioting and other less seemly forms of civil unrest.  I lived in LA for the Rodney King riots – not something I want to experience again.

Understanding Hardcore Baptists

Just remember Robert Jeffress is a Baptist.

So, the “Are Mormons Christians” discussion continued this week.  It got kicked up a notch when televangelist and leader of the largest congregation in North America, Joel Osteen, declared that Mormons are in fact Christians.  Well this caused our old acquaintance Al Mohler (Baptist), who is on many other fronts defending faith admirably, to have a bit of an apoplectic seizure.

Then we learn that the Baptists are also fighting hard against the intrusion of – GASP – Calvinism! It would take an extensive lesson in systematic theology to explain what Calvinism is, and its theological opponent (Armenianism), but suffice it to say that I am a Calvinist.  Calvinism is pretty mainstream Protestant stuff.

And then we learn that in history Baptists sided with atheists when their religious liberty was at stake.

So I think we have learned what we really need to learn about Baptists – THEY LIKE A FIGHT.  I am not sure it has to be any more complex than that – they seem to be a church that runs around looking for fights to pick.  Speaking of which, I could not find this guy’s specific denominational affiliation, but if it’s not Baptist, it ought to be.

The Same Old Same Old

Mormon this, religion that – when you consume as much of this stuff as I do, you begin to wonder how much originality there really is in journalists.  For every piece I link here, there are probably a dozen from the “Town Too Small To Be On The Map Weekly,” but in the internet age, they all circulate.  Anyway…

Romney’s not the first Mormon to run. (Duh!)  Not to mention, Mormons are not the only “odd man out” faith in American politics.  And remember, no matter how “far out” you think Romney is religiously, there are those that go farther.  (A story clearly written to establish guilt by association.)

Shockingly, Evangelicals are a big deal in Iowa and that presents Romney with some problems.  (The people writing these stories clearly did not read any news about the 2008 primary!)

And then there are polls.  Turns out most Americans do not know Romney is Mormon.  (Despite appearances, that links to a Perry watching blog of the Houston Chronicle – NOT a Perry campaign blog, but then….)  However, Evangelicals are more aware than the average citizen.  This should emphasize that religion generally has a problem in the nation, but doggone it, there’s a election to win.

And then there is yet more attempts, amongst endless attempts, to figure out how being Mormon affect a politician’s stances. That first link is kind of interesting, but should be discussed by a Mormon, not me.  I hope Lowell has a few minutes on his hands to address this.  The second one, well… this pullquote says it all:

“What makes no sense to me is how you continue to push forward in writing about Gov. Romney’s faith journey when we’ve made it clear in every way possible that this is not a story we want to participate in,” campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul wrote in an email.

You know, it is hard to write about stuff like this without the focus of the piece joining the discussion.  Funny though how Hugh Hewitt was able to get him to talk about it.  Of course, Hewitt likes religion  and does not attempt to use it as a cudgel – could be a hint there for you, CNN.

Politics and Religion News

Romney’s New Hampshire numbers look insurmountable.  Not to mention he is the clear insider favorite (well except for George Will).  Shockingly, the Wall Street Journal had something nice to say about Romney.  But most amazingly, particularly for those that think Romney has a Southern problem, he leads in donations in Alabama!

But in the middle of all this comes a piece, “Do science and politics mix?” concerning Romney and climate change.  For those that doubt science has gained religious significance among some in the nation – do you really need more evidence?  There is no way you can say science is religion neutral when you see stuff like that.

And yet, hiding behind science and religious neutrality assaults on faith continue.

Turns out Catholics matter a lot.  Yeah, they are a bit better organized than Evangelicals.

And finally, everybody is trying to cash in on all this talk, which goes a long way to explaining all this talk.

Lowell adds . . .

The Atlantic post to which John links, “How Mormonism Has Moderated Romney’s and Huntsman’s Politics,” actually seems like an attempt at fairness.  The author’s slip-ups are not huge howlers and are mainly mistakes of proportion that reflect a lack of insight.  For example, to say that Non-Mormons are “banned” from weddings in the church’s temples simply strikes a false note.

In the end the writer seems to get it mostly right:

Acknowledging the complexities of Mormon cultural life, we should also be more careful about projecting our own images of Mormonism upon Romney and Huntsman. Their loyalty to the faith community they grew up in doesn’t necessarily translate into strict observance of its rules. That’s one more reason why the attacks on Romney’s faith are so distasteful. They imply that a man can’t be loyal to his Church while also being thoughtful and progressive. That’s not how faith works in modern America.

First, it is specious to suggest that “thoughtful” and “progressive” are inseparable virtues. I know lots of thoughtful non-progressives (keeping in mind that “progressive” is another perfectly fine word that the left has appropriated to described liberalism – but I digress).   Second, I don’t know how strictly Mitt Romney observes Mormonism’s “rules” (we tend to think of them as commandments from God), but I suspect he’s pretty orthodox about the central tenets: paying tithing, not drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco, and chastity, to name a few.

But how much does that really matter, in light of the personal behavior of recent presidents? And how much detail do voters need about such minutiae? Some Mormons drink Coca-Cola and some do not. Do we need to know into which group Romney falls? Some Orthodox Jews are Glatt Kosher and some are not, but I have no idea which approach Joe Lieberman has adopted.

And I don’t care.  Neither should you.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.