Jay Cost thinks McCain should pick Romney right away, and listed the pros and cons of a Romney veep selection. One of the cons relates to The Question:

Romney will alienate evangelicals. Maybe, but my feeling is that evangelical voters are going to vote. Again, turnout will be high if the election is close. So if they vote, who will they vote for? Barack Obama? Bob Barr? Ralph Nader? No, no, and no. Evangelicals are usually Republicans, which means we should expect them to vote Republican. Plus, Obama would never touch the “Mormon issue,” not even with a ten-foot poll. That will minimize its salience.

Not much there but gut feeling, but interesting nonetheless.

What really intrigues me about Cost’s piece is his confidence that Obama will not raise the Mormon issue. Of course the candidate himself will stay far away from that, but what about his supporters? I think it is foolish to assume that the Jacob Weisbergs of the world won’t use the “issue” somehow.

But Weisberg’s just a pundit. What’s more interesting to me is the likelihood that political dynamiters like Garry South, who’s already tried to inject religious bigotry into the race here (more about Mr. South in this post). Other Democrat consultants have analyzed the issue and are ready to provide data and analysis. Mark Mellman is one example.

On the religious right, we have people like Gary Glenn, an ardent Romney foe and Huckabee backer. Huck’s people have no reason to see Romney and McCain succeed. Nothing is stopping them from doing their part to get some hard-core Evangelicals to stay home on election day.

John adds his own thoughts: It should go without saying that the Obama campaign will not use The Question directly should Romney get the veep nod.  As we saw last week, direct attack on the religious front is political poison.  In fact, any sort of discriminatory discussion in the race is a two-edged sword.

With the notable exception of Dan Quayle, and perhaps Dick Cheney in 2004, veep discussion is usually background noise. But it probably will not be this cycle. With both candidates having significant weaknesses inside their own parties their choice in running mate is vitally important, and will play a significant role in shaping the campaign.

So, what will happen in the event of a Romney #2 nomination? Well, as always we have to divide between the left and the right. There will be religious attacks from the right as we saw last week. They will be loud, they will get press, but they will be impotent. Their only effect will be to further erode Evangelical influence inside the Republican party. I think the party is smart enough to distinguish between the smart and not-so-smart Evangelicals, but the press is not, which will limit the effectiveness of even the smart ones.

I am of the hope that Evangelicals will see this writing on the wall at the convention and the smart ones will take steps to emphasize the distinction between themselves and the bigots, but if this is not played smart Evangelical political influence stands on the brink.

As to the left, we will doubtless see much of what we saw during the primary - no direct attacks, but the press surrogates will be very busy. I do not think we will be treated to the raft of Mormon descriptive pieces, emphasizing the distinctives with a tone of “weirdness” like we did in the primary; that bell has rung. What we will see is more general diatribes against conservative religious influence from the punditry that will cycle down, because they cannot help themselves, into the grossly bigoted statements of a Weisberg.

There is a sub-text shaping up in this cycle — largely based on Obama’s somewhat specious claims of religious influence — of what constitutes legitimate religious influence in politics. On the right is the worldview crowd and on the left is the social action crowd.  Interestingly Mormons embody the best of both schools of thought. Their heterodox theology results in a worldview, if not an after-worldview, that is pretty similar to your typical conservative Evangelical.  And yet the social action activities of the CJCLDS far outstrip many, if not most, evangelical protestant churches.

Thus, I think the left-leaning punditry’s attacks in this fashion will, in the end backfire.  If they attack Romney’s faith, they will in some sense attack their own candidate’s claims of religiosity - but again, I am not sure they can help themselves - like a bull seeing red, in their minds genuine religious conviction must be attacked - which should tell you something about the depth of religious influence they see in Obama.

I think the most devastating attacks on Romney’s religion will come in the context of discussing McCain’s age. They will be “throw-aways.” Things like, “Well, with president THIS old can we really afford to have a zealot from some erzatz religion half-a-heartbeat away from the Oval Office?” That kind of stuff we will hear, without any further elucidation, from self-appointed surrogates throughout the campaign if it is indeed a McCain/Romney ticket. Such attacks can readily be dealt with by any moderator or interviewer asking for explanation, but given that in the MSM the moderators and interviewers are on their side, look for those statements to sit there with perhaps a pregnant pause.

I am not so bold as to predict outcomes here. I am perhaps more optimistic that the average Republican insider. Despite everything I still have some faith in the native intelligence of the American people.  It is slow to engage, often not thorough, but John McCain is so clearly a superior choice to Barack Obama that I think it will be apparent to more than it will not be.

Should Romney get the nod, religion will be an issue. Will it be effective?  I don’t think so. It worked in the primary only because there was a place around which the opposing forces could rally. Obama does not bring such a place to the table. Will it be ugly? Oh, I think we can count on that. But I also think that reflects more on them than us.
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

Give me that old-time religion . . .

Depending on which pundit’s views you accept, choosing Romney as a running mate will either save McCain’s candidacy or sink it. Here, of course, we focus on The Question and how that plays into the veepstakes. Does it matter that Romney’s a Mormon? Should McCain care? Do Evangelical voters really care? What’s the reality out there?

Charles Lewis, writing in the National Post’s blog, doesn’t take a position on those questions and doesn’t add anything new; but he frames a now very old issue well:

Mitt Romney’s failure to capture the Republican nomination for president was blamed partly on concerns about his Mormon faith. Now that John McCain is reportedly considering the former Massachusetts governor as his running mate there are renewed warnings that American evangelicals will never support a Mormon.

Lewis notes what we (along with Hugh Hewitt) have been saying for months now:

Mormons and evangelicals should make natural allies: they tend to be anti-abortion, pro-family, anti same-sex marriage and generally conservative on a raft of issues. Mormons are generally credited with being industrious and patriotic, and they literally built a shining city on the hill in Utah, in what had been barren desert.

So what’s the problem? Lewis thinks it’s Mormonism’s fundamental newness:

Religions that are new make people nervous. A lot of people felt the same way about Christianity 1,900 years ago and even today there are debates about some of the fundamental elements of the faith.

A thousand years from now, if it survives, Mormonism may be seen like any other religion. In the meantime, it will be subject to the same suspicions that older religions suffered when they were young.

Do we really have to wait a thousand years? After all, Luther founded his church just under 500 years ago. Then again, we’ve never had a Lutheran president, as far as I know. Nixon was a Quaker, and that faith is only 100 years older than Mormonism.

Just kidding. Inexplicably, after all that Lewis decries the situation he seemingly tried to justify:

As for Mitt Romney’s chances of becoming Mr. McCain’s running mate, the Arizona senator may have a better candidate in mind. But it should not be because he is pandering to irrational religious fears.

Come again?

John comments: The “newness” argument pushes my buttons a little because we first heard it from Jacob Weisberg in his now-infamous “founding whoppers of Mormonism” piece. Its invocation strikes me as code. There is no rationalization for the kind of religious exclusion that we have witnessed from some.

Time and again we have seen people who have gut-level distaste for Romney twist themselves into rhetorical circles trying to say “it’s not his faith.” Yet the very protest belies the reality.

As to veep choices, Romney is the only one that would bring the necessary energy among the party’s conservative base to the table to enable McCain to win in November. Any other choice will leave the base at home. Yes, he will cost a few votes from the hardcore religious types, but not nearly so many as he will bring.

Or maybe religion is only an issue for the head of the ticket . . .

Unlike Lewis, Mark Joseph doesn’t see a religion problem when the candidate in question is only the vice presidential selection:

Mitt might be a pain to have to deal with, but he does bring Michigan and maybe Massachusetts, as well as a boatload of Mormon money, and though Evangelicals don’t want him for president, they might be OK with Veep, figuring they can refuse to let him pass Go in eight years.

What is striking about both Lewis’ and Joseph’s analysis is their simple acceptance of religious bigotry as a fact of life. I cannot deny the realism of that approach, but it grates just the same.

What is missing from both the Joseph and Lewis analyses is any new information. Lewis refers only to very old polling data, and Joseph simply speculates. I don’t know how Evangelical voters will respond to McCain choosing Romney, but if people actually stay home in large numbers on election day simply because of the veep candidate’s Mormon religion, then I will weep for my country.

John comments further: As I began to develop above, some will stay home because of Romney’s faith, but not nearly so many as will stay home if McCain chooses some candidate of lesser conservative credentials

As to now new information - PLEASE - we haven’t seen any of that since October or November of last year. We must always remember: reporters are lazy by nature. Why find a controversy when they can try to gin one up? It would be very interesting when this is all over and said and done to do the polling and see how many people cared about Romney’s religion in the primary because they were force fed it on an almost daily basis.
Sphere: Related Content

2 Comments »

The dog days of summer are here in full measure, and there is not much out there related to The Question.  As we head into the weekend, a couple of notes:

Blake Dvorak assembles some of the usual suspects (Philip Klein and Dick Morris) who have always been anti-Romney, who — surprise!– remain anti-Romney and continue to grind the same old axes:  That Romney is not a real conservative (Klein), that he used mean and nasty tactics against the other candidates (Morris).  Klein’s argument is the real laugher:  “it was only because of Romney’s weakness among conservatives that [Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson] had an opening.”  Only someone with a visceral dislike of Romney could think so, and Klein certainly seems to qualify; he has had ideological issues with the Governor from day 1.  Of course, nowhere do we find polling data supporting Klein’s argument.  As for Morris, he’s never had a good word to say about Romney.  I’m not sure why Dvorak find either of them worth quoting.

Finally, Gerard Baker offers a very Biblical-appearing take on the ongoing swoon for Obama.  Read the whole thing, and enjoy your weekend!
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

It was Iowa — better said, a lot of Iowa Republican primary voters — who propelled Mike Huckabee into prominence and punctured the tire on Mitt Romney’s campaign bus.  The latest news about the Iowa GOP is that they’ve denied their senior senator, Charles Grassley, a voting seat among its delegation the to the Republican National Convention.

Is there any earthly reason to allow such a demographic to have such tremendous influence over who the Republican presidential nominee is?

In the encouraging news department, a Google News search for “Mitt Romney” with the words “vice president” and “Mormon” produced nothing notable. That’s good, even if it leaves us with little to write about. Believe me, John and I would be happy if this blog became unnecessary.

Meanwhile, veep speculation runs rampant. We’re biased, of course, but it sure does seem to be trending Romney’s way. That’s what the L.A. Times Opinion LA blog thinks, as well as NPR’s Ron Elving:

[R]ight now pressure is building again for McCain to set aside his personal distaste for Romney and put him on the ticket. The campaign has put out the story that the obvious animosity between the two men in the primaries has been set aside. No one will ever sense true chemistry in this relationship, but it’s possible McCain could make the same judgement call that Sen. Bob Dole made in 1996.

Dole had endured considerable abuse from former Rep. Jack Kemp of New York when they both served in Congress, and it was clear that the Kansan had little use for the former pro quarterback. But if Kemp could help win the White House, Dole was willing to make the personal sacrifice and put him on the ticket.

It was a sign of some desperation on Dole’s part, and in the end it did not get him elected. But Romney is a more mature and serious politician than Kemp ever was, and he may be a better antidote to McCain’s specific problems than Kemp was for Dole’s.

With his most recent moves, Romney has shown he is willing to forget past wounds and make sacrifices of a material kind that few can dream of making. He has done what he can do.

Will McCain feel the need to do as much?

We’ll see. And the gang at MSNBC says McCain might announce his VP pick while Obama’s overseas. That would be interesting.

And on that note, we wish you a fine day!
Sphere: Related Content

No Comments yet »

First, watch this JibJab cartoon, if you haven’t already. If you’re like me, you’ll laugh out loud and find your mood unexpectedly improved.

Now: Pickings are a little slim these days, it being the dog days of summer and all. (I’m in Washington today, and “dog days” certainly describes the weather.) But there is still a little going on:

Jonathan Martin reports, in one of those anecdotal pieces we dislike so much, that “the reason McCain is garnering less enthusiasm than President Bush [is that] talking about his personal faith is not something he’s comfortable with.”

(Emphasis added.) A plague on all their houses. First, on Martin’s house: His story is based on another story, which is in turn based on yet another set of “person in the street” interviews. Note to journalists: Those anecdotal interviews tell us nothing. Nada. Zilch. They reflect your laziness. They do make good reads, however.

Second, consider this “person in the street” view, as reported by Martin:

SIOUX CENTER, Iowa (AP) — Stirring her morning coffee, lifelong Republican Grace Droog voiced her doubts — and those of many evangelical voters — about what she isn’t hearing from John McCain in this year’s presidential election.

“I look for something about his faith,” she said. “It’s very important, it’s what our nation was founded on.”

Her pal Joan Rens nodded; she, too, wants McCain to talk about his religious beliefs. “I wish he would so we would know how he stands on his religious views and where his faith lies,” she said.

This makes me want to scream. Are you as tired of this approach to voting as I am? Is that all it takes — a candidate must talk about his religious beliefs a lot, even if it’s the social justice religio-babble of an Obama? Please.

(I was just kidding about the plague, by the way.)

And . . . why, pray tell, is Iowa supposed to be such a bellweather for voter sentiment?

For a more forward-looking approach, here’s an interesting e-mailer to K-Lo at NRO:

Evangelicals are going through a massive political identity crisis right now and should not, absolutely should not, be courted according to some outdated pre-2004 model. We are too disjointed right now for our collective views to be a determining factor, especially as doing so would alienate other voting groups.

Read the whole thing, and enjoy your weekend!
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

William McKenzie of the Dallas Morning News suggests Pentecostals might be an important demographic group this fall — particularly Hispanic Evangelicals, a very interesting conservative-religious segment:

What does all this mean for the fall election?

John McCain has the edge among Pentecostals, but this is not a done deal.

Mr. McCain’s strategists would be smart to emphasize to Pentecostals his belief in conservative social values and his dedication to finding a better set of immigration laws. The values part would reassure Pentecostals that he won’t unravel the social order. And his devotion to fairer immigration laws will show he’s not one of those Republicans who is out to demonize immigrants, some of whom worship in Pentecostal iglesias in cities like Dallas, Los Angeles and Chicago.

As far as Barack Obama goes, he could play to the younger Pentecostals who have an interest in a fairer economy. And there are black Pentecostals he could win over in large cities.

Read the whole thing.

Elsewhere, this Religion News Service writer wonders if Evangelicals will turn to Barack Obama, who’d love to see them do that.  The article is not persuasive or even informative, because it’s simply a collection of “man/woman in the street” interviews.  Besides, I see no reason why Evangelicals won’t vote their political beliefs first.  Those who tend to have conservative political views will overwhelmingly vote for McCain; those who are more liberal (a minority within Evangelicalism, I believe) will vote for Obama.

Sigh. Simplistic stories about religious voters seem to be favorites f0r lazy reporters.

Finally,  on the political side of the fence, John, e-mailing from Rome, notes this story about a Romney becoming McCain’s Michigan campaign chair.  It’s Scott, Mitt’s brother.  Hmmm . . . .
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »