Article VI Blog

As Romney has re-emerged with his book tour, we have seen some efforts to put him in the “Mormon box,” but in general things have been much, much quieter than last time around.  No major pieces on Romney’s “evangelical problem,” none of that.  But last Friday Bill Maher decided to turn the heat to levels we have not seen since Weisberg and “the founding whoppers of Mormonism” slam.  In discussing the airplane incident, Maher said:

“I just couldn’t help but think maybe this has something to do with the fact that the Mormons traditionally have not had a great relation with the black people.”

So, now by religious implication, Romney is a racist.  There are no words to describe this but “despicable.”  The Mormon church has worked very hard to undo  the racial injustices that were a part of its history, as frankly have all churches.  My own Presbyterian church actually went through a northern/southern split (in later years the split was more about the role of women in the church, but its roots were in the Civil War)  and did not manage to pull itself back together again until the 1980’s – 10 years after the Mormons fixed their racial issues.

These comments by Maher are an outrage.  Sadly there is nothing new in Maher being outrageous, particularly about Mormons, but this one just cuts too close.  This is a not a stereotype – this is an implied accusation that Mitt Romney, and all Mormons, are racists.  Such cannot and should not be suffered.  The Newsbusters piece linked show the paucity of the evidence that Maher brings to bear, which is fine, but that is not the issue.  This is simply not a charge to be leveled without DIRECT evidence concerning the individual.

But I have already given this more attention than it deserves because no one really listens to Maher anymore, at least no one serious.  That he has a TV show, even one that only like 6 people watch. is criminal but in this day and age we have more television distribution capability than we have decent programming so fools are going to get outlets.  That’s what Bill Maher is – a fool.

And while we are discussing outrages – you remember Joe Carter.  Joe is a leading Evangelical blogger, now serving as blog editor at First Things.  You’ll also remember that Joe seconded, loudly and influentially, Joel Belz’ utterly bigoted “Mormons lie” piece last cycle.  Well, writing last week about the religious affiliation of recent Supreme Court nominees (it has been tilting very Catholic of late) Joe said this:

I think I can speak for many of my fellow conservative evangelicals, however, in saying that even if the quota wasn’t going to go to another mainline Protestant WASP, we wouldn’t have much interest in a religious affirmative action program. Personally, I’d rather have someone on the bench like Scalia, Thomas, or Roberts who shares my judicial philosophy than have  a quota for someone merely because they can share a pew with me on Sunday morning.

[Emphasis added.]  Gee Joe – when it comes to Catholics you are willing to judge them by their stances on issues, but when it comes to Mormons you are not?  When you examine Carter’s body of work here you discover nothing more than simple, base discrimination, and that is outrageous.  For one group he will judge the individual, but another group is beyond such evaluation and simply discarded.

Who knows, maybe Carter’s comments here are evidence that he is learning, even changing his mind, but he needs to write about that if such is the case.

And speaking of Carter’s writings, another piece he did at the “First Thoughts” blog illustrates part of the problem when many evangelicals approach politics.  He works very hard, in the tall grass, to distinguish Rousseau’s “civil religion” from Ben Franklin’s “public religion.”  There are a couple of comments to be made here.  In citing “public religion,” Carter relies on Jon Meacham.  I know for a fact that Mecham’s book was one of the major sources Romney used in preparing his “Faith in America” speech – talk about sharing public philosophy!  Secondly, the distinction Carter is making here, while intellectually valid, is so far past the average voter that it can only serve to confuse matters.  In the modern era, when discussing retail level politics, messaging matters almost as much as message.

When it comes to religion and politics and the general public our messaging has to make our message accessible – this sort of stuff is simply off-putting, it practically reeks of “you’re not smart enough to participate in this discussion.”  We need to be searching for language that unites conservatives of faith, not makes distinctions no one wants to bother with.  Recent studies show:

. . . that young adults hold their religious beliefs in abstract, “mentally checked off and filed away.” Doctrine does not determine their lives. Religion is about being good and living a good life, not believing the right things.

Now, the article I just cited goes on to argue  the need for doctrine, but that is a religious argument and we are talking politics here.  Politics are about meeting people where they are in order to get stuff done that needs to be done.  If this is where people are, then when it comes to political activism, that’s where we need to go.

Moving on . . .

That’s a lot of discussion and there is still a lot of news, so let’s go bullet form.

Glenn Beck Is Simply No Help . . .

Because people think “all Mormons are alike,” Glenn Beck matters, but he sure has moved into silly land.  And by the way, it is no more Beck’s business to tell Catholics how to behave than it is my business to tell Mormons what to do.  Here’s the coverage:

• The “Contentions” blog
• The “First Thoughts” blog
• The New York Times
• The “Out of Ur” blog (Christianity Today)
• HuffPo

“Candidate” News . . .

Romney . . .

Both Politics Daily and the CSM note Romney’s comments about the Tea Party Movement, and seeking to bring it in/keep it in the Republican fold.  That’s ironic, since apparently the movement “scares” evangelicals.  But then Instapundit and Gateway Pundit and GetReligion see through the canard.

If there is a new narrative  meme forming around Romney, it’s Massachusetts health care.  Slate and David Brody have observations.

“Team Romney” continues to advance.

Finally, Romney talks about last time.

Thune takes the first action to demonstrate the rumors are probably real.

Pawlenty is just not getting anywhere, and in this case taking religious punches.

Huckabee continues to poll well in Iowa.  (Gee, there’s a surprise)

Palin continues to have an identity crisis.

Religion In The News . . .

• Religious schools, homosexuality, demonstrations.
• Curtailing religious speech?

Deep Thoughts . . .

These are all pieces worthy of a lot of discussion, but Maher’s outrage had to consume that, so here they are for your edification and thought.  Feel free to discuss in the comments – or use the discussion center at our Facebook page.

• About Romney’s father
• About Kennedy
• “On Faith” asks the first interesting question in months
• John Mark Reynolds
• John Piper

Lowell adds . . .

No one pays much attention to Bill Maher. That’s why he says outrageous things – to get noticed.  Enough said about him.

As for former Huckabee supporter, outspoken Romney detractor and foe of Mormonism generally Joe Carter, his much-labored-over First Thoughts piece is summarized well in one of the comments:

[T]here is too much confusion, in my opinion, in your essay’s articulations of “civil religion” for one even to agree or disagree with it.

And Glenn Beck. Oh, dear, Glenn Beck.  Most Mormons who are not hard-core right-wingers will tell you they wince often when they hear what he has to say (and only the hard-core watch him).  Still, it was interesting to see how some of the commenters to Joe Carter’s piece on Beck took the opportunity to bash Beck’s Mormonism, although his show is political.  I guess those are the kinds of reader Carter attracts.  That’s not the high-minded First Things crowd I have known.

As for the ludicrous notion that the tea partiers scare Evangelicals (doesn’t the MSM love a rift among conservatives?), I liked this quote from Grover Norquist in the L.A. Times:

“The reason why social conservatives and economic conservatives can play well together … is the guy who wants to go to church all day just wants to be left alone. So does the guy who wants to play with his gun all day, and the guy who wants to make money all day,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. “They don’t agree on how to spend their time, but they do agree on their central issue: They want to be left alone.”

Well, yes.  Common ground is common ground.  I wish more conservative leaders would talk about this.

And yes, Romney has to come up with a convincing reponse to the claim that RomneyCare and ObamaCare are the same thing.  They are not, but the charge is sticking.  Mitt needs a short, non-wonkish answer to the charge.  If you watch the video just below all the way through, you will see that he is getting closer, but he’s not there.  The right 38 words at the beginning of his answer would have done the trick:

In Massachusetts we imposed a state plan, not a federal one.  Health care should not be reformed at the federal level.  Besides, our plan was based on conservative free-market principles, and you don’t find any of those in ObamaCare.

Somewhat ironically, Romney’s superb intellect is causing him problems. As a health care lawyer I know exactly what he is saying, but most people don’t spend every day in the tall grass the way I do. Romney needs to break this stuff down a little more for people.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Romney Remains Front-and-Center…

…funny how a book tour does that.  We’ll start with a sampling of the headlines:

• Mitt Romney Makes No Apologies – Greta Van Susteren interview
• Interview: Romney grilled on health, policy and private life – Fox Utah coverage of the Cavuto interview.  Special note, Ann Romney tackles “the Mormon Question” and she is a converted Episcopalian.
• Mitt Romney Says He Will Make 2012 Presidential Decision At Year’s End – FOXNews – and relatedly – Romney Ties Decision on Presidential Bid to Outcome of November Elections
• Mitt Romney Offers Ideas And ‘No Apology’ – NPR audio and transcript
• Romney in the Wilderness, Waiting – Robert Costa at NRO
• Romney: GOP’s 2012 nominee must be Reaganesque – The Washington Times
• Mitt Romney: Rejecter of Populism – The Atlantic

You just have to love this letter-to-the-editor out of Des Moines:

Had Republicans set aside their problem with Mitt Romney’s religion, I have no doubt we would now have a president leading our nation with honesty and integrity, who actually understands fiscal responsibility and who has a track record of fixing institutions that are broken.

And some coverage just won’t help.  Consider this from The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room on comment by Orrin Hatch:

Hatch endorsed Romney, a fellow Mormon, for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, though Romney eventually lost the GOP primary to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Why the “fellow Mormon” crack?  Do we read such things about Episcopalians or Presbyterians or Catholics?  Clearly the press, at least some of the press, is not through playing with this particular toy . . .

and “Flip-Flop/Inauthentic” is still out there . . .

Mitt Romney is still trying to be what he isn’t – Jay Bookman, Atlanta Journal Constitution

Mitt Romney, version 2012 – The Boston Globe (hey, there’s a surprise!)

Compared To Other Possibles . . .

. . . Romney looks pretty good though.  Palin is shopping a reality TV show.  That’s new, and inadvisable, ground for a presidential possible, but then we have contended all along, she’s not running.  In London they think she came out ahead in last Tuesday’s late night wars, but conclude with this stunner:

Neither candidate has yet said whether they will stand. Romney told Fox News: “I’m not going to make that decision until I have to . . . and it’ll be after November.”

He was given a boost from the blogging sphere by claims that the Tonight Show manipulated Palin’s performance by adding laughter tracks to cover up audience groans and silence. “I can recount many portions where there was little or no laughter or response,” wrote Michael Stinson, who was at the recording.

“But at the later broadcast they are smoothed over with applause and laughter that were not there at the taping.”

And poor Tim Pawlenty, he has gone from losing traction to spinning on ice.

Meanwhile the assault on religion generally continues . . .

. . . although it is getting “grayer.”  There was this story out of Tennessee covered by a couple of different Catholic bloggers on a tract put out by a Baptist church proclaiming Catholics not be “Christian” and calling Eucharist wafers “death cookies.”  Just a couple of comments.  Thankfully this is not political debate – it’s religious, and religions differ.  But this is just ugly.  Talk about places where Catholic doctrine is wrong, argue, but “death cookies” is just over the edge!

Which brings me to this interesting piece from a blog featuring religion conversations between Mormons and more conventional forms of Christianity:

A common characterization of the difference between Mormonism and Evangelicalism is the idea that Evangelicals emphasize orthodoxy (right belief) and Mormons emphasize orthopraxy (right action).  If you ask an Evangelical and a Mormon “what is more important a correct understanding of God or the proper mode for baptism?”  you will most likely get different answers from each.

Catholics, like Mormons, emphasize orthopraxy and it is funny how the conversation seems to get really ugly along that othropraxy/orthodoxy line.  Of course when all you have is the intellectual ascent of orthodoxy, it is very hard to do much but argue.

Which brings me to this interesting piece of health care reform:

Now I do not object to those whose opposition to even indirect funding of abortion is unrelated to matters of faith.  If they feel strongly about abortion as a public policy issue, fine.  I can live with that.  More important, so could James Madison.  (Although I absolutely have nothing but contempt for those who argue that all life is precious while supporting war and capital punishment — and opposing free health care for every child in America out of concern for “life”).

But if the issue is one of personal faith (i.e., the particular religion a Member of Congress adheres to), legislators must not consider it in the making or unmaking of policy.  Frankly, I apply the same logic to Jewish Members and Israel.  Their belief — if some actually hold the belief — that God gave the land to the Jews should be utterly irrelevant to US policymaking.

The views of the various religious orthodoxies on any of the so-called social issues like abortion or marriage should be confined to their respective house of worship and their homes, not the houses of Congress.

Interesting statements.  Policy is based on the will of the people and if the majority of the people have a particular religious view, or multiple religious views arrive at the same policy conclusion forming a majority, then it seems to me that religious view should prevail and become policy.  Also, his argument is somewhat self-defeating.  If you cannot form a policy based on religion, you cannot reasonable reject one based on religion either.

But there is an interesting hypothetical in all this – what is an elected official to do if his personal religious views are at odds with his constituency, or the law?  It seems to me that unlike most politicians, Mitt Romney had to face this very dilemma when it comes to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.  I think he made the right choice – follow the law.

Speaking of Interesting . . .

I found this really interesting about freedom.

And this is interesting as well.  A leading Evangelical blogger is quoting one of the preeminent Calvinistic preachers trying to sum up that preachers views on political action.  Quoth the preacher (John Piper):

My main job is not to unite believers and unbelievers behind worthwhile causes.  Somebody should do this.  But that is not my job.  Some of you ought to be doing that with a deep sense of Christian calling.  My job is to glorify Jesus Christ by calling his people to be distinctively Christian in the way they live their lives.

[Emphasis added.]  So many preachers use politics as a lever to gain converts or at least proclaim their viewpoint, never understanding that such is politically self-defeating.  It is great to see a preacher that understands the inter-relationship between the two.

Lowell adds . . .

The blog post about Mormons, Orthopraxy and orthodoxy caught my eye.  Not surprisingly, I think most Mormons would find it an oversimplification at best, flat-out wrong at worst.  But that is how religious discussions go.  There is just so much nuance and it is so hard to convey.  For the record, Mormons believe that the foundational principles of the Gospel are first, faith in Jesus Christ and second, repentance.  Not much orthopraxy there.  After a person has, by faith in Christ, repented, next are the first “ordinances” (a term unique to Mormons, I think) of the Gospel:  baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.  So practices (ordinances) are preceded by belief (faith) and are animated by it.  But I’ll stop there.  This little discussion is an excellent reason why such “inside baseball” aspects of religion are not appropriate for evaluating candidates.  Indeed, I daresay that my theological cousins among Evangelicals who promote the idea that such nuances are in fact important are much more familiar with their own faith’s nuances then those of others.  Not pointing fingers, just trying to analyze the problem.  By the way, if you ask two Mormons “what is more important a correct understanding of God or the proper mode for baptism?”  you will still probably get different answers from each.

Regarding Orrin Hatch’s endorsement of Romney, by the way, I am still waiting for the MSM to report that Chuck Schumer has been endorsed by one of his “fellow Jews.”

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Book was released this week and with it Romney went public.  The Tour does not really start until next week as this week has been consumed pretty much with sticking around New York and doing so much media that one could have mistakenly thought he already was president.  I have been in New York all week myself and managed to miss him at every turn, but then its a big place for such a small island.

I think the best summary of all the media was, unsurprisingly, by Kathryn Jean Lopez.

If you had any doubts about who he is, you’re seeing the real thing now. Watching Mitt Romney on the No Apology

And if a social issue hits his desk — based on his Massachusetts record — he’s going to do what he can to preserve families and life. (And that, by the way, makes a huge difference. We don’t, for instance, have such a person in the White House right now. And it can have a chilling effect: in executive orders, in the courts, on staffing, in health care, etc.) tour thus far, he’s talking about what he wants to talk about, what moves him: being a Mr. Fix-It businessman — on the economy, on diplomacy, on health care. He wants to do this because he believes America is great and should and can continue to be. He appreciates — in a firsthand and in a practical, sociological way — that families are the building block of a great country, and he sees how good policies help them. And that’s what he wants to talk about.

[...]

That, I believe, is the No Apology big picture: This is Mitt Romney.

She accuses him of making “dorky” jokes, and she’s right.  Here’s some video.  Even “The Hill” got into the dorky joke act.  Can’t be too dorky if they keep getting repeated this way.

And speaking of video, it is boutiful with all this media.  The Hannity interview, courtesy “ComMITTed to Romney”, was one of my favs.  But that same interview was used to “prove” flip-flopping by some lefties.  Romney is answering two different questions, not flip-flopping in the mash-up.  I don’t think I need to break it down for you, but if I do, leave a comment, we’ll be happy to ’splain.

On the right, the big issue confronting Romney is Palin, populism, and the tea party movement.  There were some interesting takes from the Economist and Allahpundit.  Which takes us back to K-Lo’s comments.  Romney is Romney, which means populism is not what he is about – smart, capable and pragmatic is.  What happens in the next few years is going to be based on which direction the nation, and Republicans go, not Mitt Romney.

But Sadly, The Mormon Thing Seems To Be Coming Back With Him

Says David Brody, who is pimping an appearance by ROmney at his media outlet:

Mitt Romney, who is clearly positioning himself for a 2012 run at the White House starts his book tour this week.

The book is called “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness.”

Despite the rumor, it is not called “Mitt Romney Goes Rogue”. That’s Palin territory. And it is not called, “I’m a Mormon. Deal With It.”

I think Brody is trying to be funny there, but he is missing the mark pretty badly.  Joel Campbell at Mormon Times points out a couple of other examples where Romney can’t escape the issue.  Campbell opens his comments by linking to the USAToday piece that Lowell commented on last week.  That seems to be happening with Campbell now and then – picking something up that we have commented on and expanding it slightly.  (Just thought we’d remind our loyal readers who is in the lead here.)

But the most egregious Mormon shot came, again unsurprisingly, from Newsweek.  (Serious readers of this blog will remember that in our comprehensive review of ‘08 we named Newsweek as the most egregious example of beating the Mormon drum in the MSM.)  The photo essay by Newsweek seems to go out of its way to drive home a single message – “Romney is Mormon.”

Mormons do not talk about Evangelicals like myself this way, I really do wonder why Evangelicals are compelled to do so?

But the most interesting development on this front is from a small post on an Evangelical discussion blog I routinely haunt.  Remember that somewhat controversial “Christ and the constitution” painting – well, some obvious leftie thought it needed “improvement.”  The original painting is indicative of the newly emerging issue between Mormons and Evangelicals, but this “parody” should emphasize that we have far more in common than we do differences.

And Speaking Of Those Commonalities…

JFK’s now famous Houston speech was considered a centerpiece for religious tolerance when he ran in 1960.  This week, Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput delivered a speech at Houston Baptist University criticizing and refining the Kennedy approach to religion and governance. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)  The criticism:

Fifty years ago this fall, in September 1960, Sen. John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate for president, spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.  He had one purpose.  He needed to convince 300 uneasy Protestant ministers, and the country at large, that a Catholic like himself could serve loyally as our nation’s chief executive.  Kennedy convinced the country, if not the ministers, and went on to be elected.  And his speech left a lasting mark on American politics.  It was sincere, compelling, articulate – and wrong.  Not wrong about the patriotism of Catholics, but wrong about American history and very wrong about the role of religious faith in our nation’s life.  And he wasn’t merely “wrong.”  His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation.  Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.

[...]

For his audience of Protestant ministers, Kennedy’s stress on personal conscience may have sounded familiar and reassuring.  But what Kennedy actually did, according to Jesuit scholar Mark Massa, was something quite alien and new.  He “‘secularize[d]’ the American presidency in order to win it.”  In other words,  “[P]recisely because Kennedy was not an adherent of that mainstream Protestant religiosity that had created and buttressed the ‘plausibility structures’ of [American] political culture at least since Lincoln, he had to ‘privatize’ presidential religious belief – including and especially his own – in order to win that office.”⁶

In Massa’s view, the kind of secularity pushed by the Houston speech “represented a near total privatization of religious belief – so much a privatization that religious observers from both sides of the Catholic/Protestant fence commented on its remarkable atheistic implications for public life and discourse.”  And the irony — again as told by Massa — is that some of the same people who worried publicly about Kennedy’s Catholic faith got a result very different from the one they expected.  In effect, “the raising of the [Catholic] issue itself went a considerable way toward ‘secularizing’ the American public square by privatizing personal belief.  The very effort to ‘safeguard’ the [essentially Protestant] religious aura of the presidency . . . contributed in significant ways to its secularization.”

But t comes with a warning:

The vocation of Christians in American public life does not have a Baptist or Catholic or Greek Orthodox or any other brand-specific label.  John 14:6 – “I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me” – which is so key to the identity of Houston Baptist University, burns just as hot in this heart, and the heart of every Catholic who truly understands his faith.  Our job is to love God, preach Jesus Christ, serve and defend God’s people, and sanctify the world as his agents.  To do that work, we need to be one.  Not “one” in pious words or good intentions, but really one, perfectly one, in mind and heart and action, as Christ intended.  This is what Jesus meant when he said, “I do not pray for these only, but also those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn17:20-21).

We live in a country that was once – despite its sins and flaws — deeply shaped by Christian faith.  It can be so again.  But we will do that together, or we won’t do it at all.  We need to remember the words of St. Hilary from so long ago: Unum sunt, qui invicem sunt. “They are one, who are wholly for each other.”⁹ May God grant us the grace to love each other, support each other and live wholly for each other in Jesus Christ – so that we might work together in renewing the nation that has served human freedom so well.

Read the whole thing.

There Were Several Trial Balloons This Week…

Somebody, and I am pretty sure it is not Mitch Daniels, is trying to get Mitch Daniels to run.  He got a big mention from Mona Charen,  Ross Douthat mentioned him twice, even Ed Morrisey got into it.  This is too much to be idle speculation.  Someone is running a whisper campaign and trying to test the waters – maybe leverage Daniels into something.  My opinion, if someone is not interested in the job- let them be – the demands are simply too great for someone not to jump in wholeheartedly.

There is also talk of Jeb Bush.  I like Jeb, but he and Romney are pretty friendly and unlikely to go head-to-head.  Further, the leftie opposition to the name Bush needs a few ore years to loose its edge before Je would have a prayer.

Religion Under Fire…

This is kind of weird, but the bottom line is this – religious people are typically not so smart, and Roney is smart, which means, a) he is not that religious, and b) the religious people that pretty well control the right won’t vote for him.  Yep – it may be the most high-handed insult ever thrown my way.

Maggie Gallagher points out that thing really are getting out of hand:

New legislation now being proposed in the Massachusetts state legislature to ban circumcision of any male children, including Jewish children, comes very close to saying, “Yes, it should be a crime.” Circumcision of infant males has been a requirement of Jewish faith and identity since the time of Abraham.

Meanwhile, just a year ago this week, two very powerful state legislators in Connecticut proposed a bill that would have had the government take over the finances of the Catholic Church. (It took a rally drawing thousands of folks to the state capitol to persuade them to withdraw the measure.)

And in the UK, things are even worse:

Traditionalist bishops and peers fear that vicars could be taken to court and accused of discrimination if they turn down requests to hold civil partnerships on religious premises.

Their concerns have been raised following a landmark vote by peers that will allow the ceremonies for same-sex couples to be held in places of worship for the first time.

Which takes us back to Chaput’s speech.  If we do not unite, across religious boundaries, religion will simply be legislated out of existence.  My religion, your religion, their religion.  That’s where we stand.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Mitt Romney’s life as a presidential candidate seems to revolve around the various CPAC conferences, and the one that was conducted this past weekend was no exception.  He seems to have wowed the crowd – which is typical for him at CPAC.  Race42012 has the video, and the transcript is here – it is typically good Mitt.  There were, needless to say, massive amounts of commentary in the wake of not only Romney but the other possibles that appeared.  We will forgo most of it, but there are a few interesting bits.

First of all, Romney was introduced, quite successfully, by Scott Brown.    Some of the punditry/”journalism” crowd are trying to use Brown to make trouble for Romney, but if Brown is that disloyal this soon after getting into the Senate, he would suffer from levels of hubris that make Obama look like a piker, and I do not read Brown that way.

With his book tour coming on the heels of this appearance Romney appears poised to take maximum advantage of the momentum gained.

Jennifer Rubin quotes Ben Smith in a way that puts just the right read on it, even if Smith (or his headline writers anyway) are putting a less accurate spin on it.  Quoting Smith:

Mitt Romney has gone from being an overeager suitor to being a favored son of the Conservative Political Action Conference since he ended his presidential campaign here in 2008 . . .

Romney has matured as a presidential possible.  But there are a lot of people out there, including Smith, talking about “the New Mitt,” both on the left and within Romney supporters.  There is nothing “new” about Mitt or what he is doing.  Yes, he is maturing, yes he is better learning how to handle the overwhelming scrutiny that his current position brings upon him, yes he is learning better how to manage message – but nothing, really, has changed.  It is an odd phenomenon amongst the punditry, and the electorate for that matter, to assume a candidate has changed, when they are, in fact, just figuring the guy out.  What we are seeing here is the Romney I have known since I met him – smart, capable, genuinely conservative.

The other interesting comment came from, of all places, E.J. Dionne:

And I am starting to think that Sarah Palin is Mitt Romney’s other best friend.

[...]

Third, I am absolutely convinced that Palin will not run for president, but that it’s in her interest not to say so until the very last moment. Attention is what she needs for all her other enterprises, and being a possible candidate for as long as possible will get her lots of attention. Romney wants her out there as long as possible as his blocking back. This will make it harder and harder for the alternative to him to emerge.

Allapundit agrees with Dionne’s analysis, amplifying:

There’s some sense to that. Like it or not, the prefab narrative for the 2012 primaries is Palin vs. anti-Palin, partly because the media wants/needs a moderate opposite their Grim Reaper of “true conservatism” and partly because everyone likes a simplistic binary “hero vs. villain” storyline. Huckabee’s too much like her to qualify as anti-Palin — he’s rural, Christian, and all that other supposedly bad stuff — but Mitt, as a wealthy northeastern child of privilege, fits the role to a T. And of course he’s almost certainly running, so all that’s left to lock in the storyline is for Sarahcuda herself to declare her candidacy.

What is amazing from all of this, is the lack of religion talk.  When this stuff was happening last cycle, these kinds of things simply could not be written without the seemingly mandatory, “BUT . . . the Mormon thing,” being inserted into the discussions somewhere.  By this point last cycle we had been treated to any number of stories asking, if not answering The Question.  But the issue barely gets a rise anymore.  Given the further circumstances that emerged from the airplane incident last week, one would have expected all sorts of religiously based mischief at Romney’s expense.  And yet, with the exception of one virtually unnotable attempt and one extremely lame one, it is simply NOT being discussed.

So why the lack of religious chatter?  One big reason is that from the perspective of the punditry it’s an old worn out toy.  But there is another, perhaps bigger, reason.

From my part of this blog, it began with a thesis – that if Evangelicals insisted on “playing the religion card” when it concerns Romney, they would set themselves apart into some sort of Evangelical ghetto of political non-relevance.  It would seem that the current situation bears out that thesis.  There is no religious discussion in re: Romney because at the moment, Evangelical voters, those that would oppose Romney on religious grounds, just don’t matter that much.

Consider, the presumed spokesman of the gang, Mike Huckabee, is reduced to television stunts. and throwing tantrums.  And George Will’s penetrating analysis of the other possible for that role, Sarah Palin, points out that such behavior is never a route to actual power.

It is a long time between now and 2012.  Things will change a lot, and coalitions can regroup, but I frankly do not think Evangelicals have it in them to get back to a point where they truly matter before 2012.  I do not think Romney will win in Iowa – the anti-Mormon strain there is simply too virulent, thanks to the Huckster.  But the issue will likely begin and end there, and the rest of the nation will not care that much what happened in Iowa.

The religious battle this time will be with the left almost exclusively, and it will be very different.  It will be against Mormons as representative of all religious people.  The key question is will Evangelicals and other Christians have it in them to rise to the defense of Romney and Mormons from those attacks.  They’d better, because they will be next.

Other Possibles Did Appear At CPAC . . .

Tim Pawlenty . . .

. . . seems to be trying very hard, but falling very flat.  His CPAC speech was derided by Jennifer Rubin at Contentions and Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner.  Even his “Minnesota Home Boys” at Powerline were unimpressed.  TPaw has time to regroup, but he better get busy or his possible candidacy is over before it actually gets started.

Haley Barbour . . .

. . . is trying to stir the pot a little.  Frankly, I just do not see it.  Barbour is a consummate insider and an amazing fundraiser, but he has virtually no profile outside of the south and people in a position to know tell me that there is a lot of oppo ammo against him sitting in closets awaiting the appropriate time for use.

Rick Santorum . . .

. . . just is not getting any traction.

Ron Paul . . .

. . . won the straw poll, but this far in advance, who cares?

Finally . . .

This would be a mistake.

I just attended a forum that got my attention with “Is it time for a Catholic Tea Party?” (The idea is outlined in a column here.)

Deal Hudson, President of Catholic Advocate, was the main speaker- he feels that Catholics have let Evangelicals take the lead on life and gay marriage issues, and Catholics need to step up, donate money, vote for the right candidates, take the body shots, etc.

What we need to AVOID is religiously labeled movements of any sort.  We need to learn to work together.  A “Worshiping Tea Party” maybe, but all that would happen if you start dividing things up by denominational/theological lines is we end up infighting.  And as we saw above, that is a recipe for irrelevancy.

Lowell adds . . .

This business of “the new Mitt” seems to be the punditry looking for an angle.  Like some nations, they want to fight the last war, this one about Romney the chameleon.  All Romney is doing is to change his focus – to the economy.  Every single GOP candidate is doing that.  To do otherwise would be crazy.

As for Governor Palin, if you missed Dorothy Rabinowitz’s analysis, read it right away.  She refers to the

unsavory echoes of [Palin's] regular references to “the real America” as opposed to those shadowy “elites,” now charged with threats to the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of all real Americans. . . . she [does not] seem to have any idea of how that low soap-box oratory—embracing one kind of American as the real kind, those builders in the towns and cities across America—rings in the ear today. It is not new. . . .

Mrs. Palin regularly invokes the name of the most revered of her heroes, Ronald Reagan—among the sunniest stars ever to mount the political stage, and a leader who spoke to all of America. He did not appeal to the aggrieved. Nor did he see in the oratory of grievance, or talk of real Americans and those who were not, a political platform.

Mrs. Palin would do well to look to his model . . . .  At a time when Republican hopes are in the ascendancy, as now (and even when they are not), it’s impossible to imagine the Sarah Palin known to the world today as their leader.

The contrast with Romney’s message and tone is striking.  I remember hearing him speak to a fund-raiser crowd gathered in the yard of a very fine home.  “Democrats,” he said, “think no one should have a house like this.  I think everyone should have a house like this!”  The Governor seems to be about promoting opportunity and possibility – the American Dream – as opposed to complaining about elites.

Mike Huckabee’s comments about CPAC are interesting:

“CPAC has becoming increasingly more libertarian and less Republican over the last years, one of the reasons I didn’t go this year.”

Golly, I always thought the GOP had a strong libertarian strain.  You know, the three legs to the Republican stool – foreign policy conservatives, fiscal policy conservatives, social policy conservatives.  Sounds like Huck thinks the only one that really means anything is social policy.  I hope he enjoys his small-tent conservativism.

But enough about that. John and I love to make predictions, and here’s my first one for 2012 – borrowing from John’s comment about anti-religion and anti-Mormon attacks from the left:

The left will hit Romney hard on same-sex marriage not only because of his own opposition to it in Massachusetts, but also because of his church’s activity on the issue.  It’s just to easy a target for them to pass up.  That will be a tricky strategy, because same-sex marriage is not a popular idea at this point.  But his position on the issue, together with his Mormon faith, can be used to make Romney look scary to independent voters.  So no candidate will use the issue overtly against him.  Instead, the candidates’ surrogates and MSM commentators (excuse my redundancy) will do their level best to use Romney’s position on same-sex marriage to depict him as a knuckle-dragging neo-fascist.

Mark my words. You read it here first.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

…Mostly Because Romney’s Book is in Pre-release

Speaking of which – Where’s our copy?  I have one on order, will get it the day of actual release, but….  Sigh, just a humble blogger.

It starts with a discussion of the electoral map at Utah Policy.   The analysis which they present is by someone else and it is based on Palin as the presumptive and defines a strategy on how to beat her.  Wrong approach, the only two reliably in the running at this point are Romney and Pawlenty.  Both could choose not to run, but Palin has to choose to run – big difference.

The other thing about the analysis is a discussion of Iowa.  Romney needs to stay very clear of Iowa.  Even if he has a shot at winning it, which he does in many possible opponent scenarios – his participation there this time will give the press too much fodder to raise The Question again.  Iowa is a no-win scenario, even if he wins.

Romney’s appeal is in it’s breadth.  As noted in statistics like these presented by Race42012.  Romney polls well among Christian Conservatives.  Not as well as Christian identity possibilities like Palin and Huckabee, but well.  He polls far better than anyone else among other Republican groups.  That it what he needs to play on.  Which also means he cannot, as some would try to contend, regionalize his campaign.  Yes, Huckabee owns the South right now, but it’s way too early.  The story of his commutations lasted a single news cycle – wait until the ad makers get a hold of it in a campaign.

The astute reader may ask, “If he cannot regionalize, how can he skip Iowa?”  Well, there is skipping and there is skipping.  He should not stay off the ballot ala McCain and Giuliani last time, rather he should simply put in a token effort, as if to punch the Iowa ticket, but de-emphasize its importance.  The idea is to create the image that win, lose, or draw Iowa just does not matter that much – which in reality, it does not.

But The Real ‘Meme’ Out Of the Book Pre-release…

…seems to be that “Mitt is reinventing himself…again.”  That hurts as it seems purposefully designed to play on the “flip-flop” (”inauthentic”?) charge that resonated strongly last time – based , at least in part, on the religion issue as we have documented endlessly here.   Here it is from Taegan Goddard and here the LATimes.  Goddard is quoting the “Boston Phoenix” – a newspaper devoted to the gay lifestyle that has had Romney in its sights since he opposed the imposition of same sex marriage by the Massachusetts Supreme Court when he was governor.  Nah, there is no agenda here at all.

Charles Mitchell at EFM had a great response, and he cites Ben Smith as the source of the meme – but Smith is again citing the “Phoenix.”   David French at EFM had a fantastic rebuttal:

Good leaders respond to objectively existing national conditions. It’s not all positioning and spin and “moves” to this or that part of the political spectrum.

I could not agree more.  In the first place, Romney did not necessarily play himself that far right last time – the press did, and they did so intentionally to stir up the Mormon issue.  But any smart leader is going to deal with the problems facing the nation now, and social issues are in serious second place at the moment.  If we do not arrest the fiscal slide we are currently on, there will be no reasonable semblance of a nation upon which to have the social debates upon.  It’s not hard to do that math.

There is a difference between “re-invention” and shifting emphasis.  Anybody who has ever run anything bigger than a breadbox knows that to run it different things will attract your attention at different times.  If I run a factory, at times I emphasize productivity, because I want to improve margins.  But, if parts start coming back for quality reasons, you can bet I am going to start paying less attention to production and more to QC.

But Speaking of David French…

Please read this.  I certainly do not have the service-at-arms angle, but I understand completely, agree completely, and add a hearty AMEN!

And While We Are Getting A Little Sentimental…

…just a little.  I understand the pain many people feel about Prop 8.  But the law is the law, and that is what it is up to the court to decide – THE LAW.  And frankly, I object strongly into turning our courts into some sort of therapeutic exercise.  Dispassion in the law, not passion, is what insures equal treatment under it.

Finally…

This is an interesting church/state issue. I mostly find it sad that downtown churches of other faiths have grow so weak that they no longer can be effective players in re-development.  The Mormons have to be doing something well.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

James Dobson, now divorced from Focus on The Family, has endorsed a candidate.  There is no a big stretch here, but it is the kind of leadership that Dobson failed to show in ‘08.  We have wondered if his departure from FOTF was in part motivated by the political restraints that organization forced upon him.  This could get interesting . . .

The “Tea Party”

Last week, Lowell and I had a minor disagreement about the Tea Party movement.  Given that there was a convention of the movement this past weekend, there has been much analysis and efforts to define it.  See, the problem is it’s not well-organized; it’s a bunch of organizations with a lot of different things in mind.  National Journal profiles some of the “leading” groups.  The Christian Science Monitor tries to profile it and says this is how it started:

CNBC editor Rick Santelli’s on-air “rant” last February about a proposed mortgage bailout is widely considered to be the “big bang” moment for the birth of the movement.

Interesting thesis, and it probably is right for one branch of the movement, but this thing is too diverse to have a single “big bang” moment.  Zogby does some numbers, and Chris Good theorizes that it will “fail” – being subsumed by the Republican party.  This later is an interesting choice of words – the history of the United States is that we are a definitively two-party state, third party movements always fail in the sense that they do not last.  But, if they are indeed subsumed by one of the two parties, and in that process move that party towards their ideals – can they truly be said to have “failed?”  I, for one, do not think so.  [Lowell slips this in: Good point!]

But let’s get the heart of the disagreement between Lowell and me:  Is there a religious element to the movement?  There certainly is not an overt one, but I do think there is an undercurrent.  Let’s consider two pieces.  One from the Financial Times, looking at Republicans and the South:

The south is the spiritual and – along with the mountain states of the west – electoral base of the Republican party.  And yet, as the party ­struggles back into national relevance with recent gubernatorial triumphs in both New Jersey and Virginia and a genuinely shocking upset last month with the victory by Scott Brown in the race for Ted Kennedy’s former seat in ­Massachusetts, the south has become as much a curse as a blessing.  If the “Grand Ol’ Party” wants to win nationally in 2010, it must attract ­voters who do not identify with southern values.  And if it wants to harness, as it did in Massachusetts, the power of the anti-Washington “tea party” ­protests – the grassroots movement that emerged in 2009 in opposition to Obama’s tax and spending plans – it may have to distance itself from the southern establishment.  The great paradox of recovery, then, is that it now seems that the fastest way for the Republican party to return to its broader base of the late 1990s and early 2000s is at the expense of its most loyal and ardent followers.

[Emphasis added.]  Note the reference to “spiritual.”  There are other references in the piece to the Bible Belt and its importance to Republicans.  As I said before, the issue lies in the word “authentic.”  The Republicans lost so broadly last time because they were no longer “authentically” conservative.  Romney lost last time for similar reasons, and those concerns were given great force, as we have documented endlessly here, by the ugly “Mormons lie” meme, the roots of which lie in theology.

More importantly, this blog post contends that Sarah Palin is the only uniting figure in the entire Tea Party Movement.  The heart of Palin’s appeal, for most everyone I talk to, is the “authenticity” she demonstrated in carrying her Down Syndrome son to term and raising him.  They can rely on her to be a “real” Christian.

Speaking of Palin, she is leaving the door open to a run.  And she does not appear to want to do so for a third party:

Asked whether she sees herself as a member of the tea party movement or a member of the Republican Party, Mrs. Palin said, “I think the two are, and should be even more so, merging.”

“Because the tea party movement is quite reflective of what the GOP, the planks in the platform, are supposed to be about — limited government and more freedom, more respect for equality. That’s what the tea party movement is about. So I think that the two are much entwined,” she said.

Actually, I’d call that hedging her bets.  In many senses the Tea Party movement is her base.  The other thing, aside from Trig, that gave her “authenticity” last time was how far she was from the mainstream of the party.  Lowell said when this discussion started that the movement was similar to the “Perotistas” of the Bush/Clinton election – which is a good analogy.  Palin is going to find herself with a problem if she actually does try to run.  More in a moment – back to the movement and religion.

It is fair to say that the Tea Party movement as a whole is not going to dip into the religious wars we saw last time.  You are not going to see leading religious figures arguing about genuine faith in the movement, at least not until the movements death throes.  But there is little doubt in my mind that religious impulses lie in the emotional mix of a large section of the Tea Party people.

Someone could come along and play on that impulse, and religion could come front-and-center again.

The future for the movement is, from my perspective fractured.  It’s single defining characteristic is dissatisfaction and such people can only ever agree to disagree, thus they will never be able to organize sufficiently to stand alone.  Those interested in changing things will indeed be “subsumed” into the GOP because that is how they will get things done.  Those interested solely in being dissatisfied will begin to grow dissatisfied with each other and they will fracture into a million pieces.  Some of those pieces will be overtly religious and they could get really ugly in 2012.  But it will be rhetorical ugliness only, their very nature will render them ineffective.

This is where Palin’s problems will arise, if she decides to run.  The fractures will be such that she will not have enough support in the Republican party to prevail in the primaries, and there will not be enough of a party outside of it to succeed in the general.  From our perspective, the question is which direction will the religiously motivated amongst the movement go?  My guess is the third party route.  Wonder if the Huckster will try and get in front of that parade?

But then political predictions are worse than Super Bowl picks, so take it for what its worth.

Lowell adds . . .

I still see the tea partiers as mostly libertarian in outlook. Their primary message is about economic liberty.  A quick visit to the Tea Party Nation web site seems to confirm my sense of them.  The links there to “strategic partner” sites includes only a couple of faith-based organizations.

Still, I think John is right that most religious conservatives tend to identify with tea partiers.  There’s little doubt that religious folk who are also politically conservative are generally liberty-oriented as well, even if the liberty they care about relates to government staying out of religion or out of parents’ ability to raise their families in accordance with their beliefs.  All in I think the tea party movement is going to strengthen the GOP, not weaken it (assuming the organized GOP and indvidual Republican politicians are not stupid in their dealings with the movement).

As John suggests, one positive result from the tea partiers’ infusion of vigor and fire into the Republicans will be the balancing of the “Religious Right’s” influence.  Putting it another way, the party does not do well when one of the three legs of the GOP “stool” (family values, economic liberty/small government, and strong foreign policy) is longer than the other two.   I think we had that problem with the family values leg in 2006 and 2008.  In 2009-10, we saw the economic liberty forces come roaring back, and as a result we got two Republican governors in New Jersey and Virginia and a Republican senator in the seat Ted Kennedy held.

Finally, in relation to this blog’s mission, I think religious concerns will fall behind, or at least even with, economic liberty in 2010 and 2012.  That’s a good thing.  If we’ve learned anything in 222 years under the Constitution, the country does better when the “public religion” Lincoln talked about is at the forefront of our politics, rather than more sectarian views.  Here’s an interesting First Things summary of Lincoln’s views and their impact:

It is to Lincoln that we owe our modern–day Thanksgiving, and the fact that it is celebrated by Americans of every religion and no religion also bears traces of Lincoln’s attitude. Owing, perhaps, to his own theological skepticism, he steered clear of sectarian squabbles, refused to countenance nativist anti–Catholicism, and changed “Christian” to “religious” in the chaplaincy program to accommodate Jewish chaplains.

In Lincoln’s mind, public religion and nationalism were bound up together. From his “Young Man’s Lyceum Address” in 1838 . . . to his presidential speeches, Lincoln made clear that he wanted national unity “under God” and reverence for law as “the political religion of the nation.” Whatever else this mix of sanctity and politics produced, for generations after his death it had the effect of uniting a diverse people in the belief that they were all, somehow, participating in a great eschatological drama.

That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post