Article VI Blog

Virtually all the analysis that has followed in the wake of the president’s announcement of support for same-sex marriage has noted it is risky.  (Gee – coming the day after North Caroline soundly defeated it, ya think?)  Some are quick to point out that there are liberal religious types out there that think this is a good thing.

My initial reaction reaction, like that of Dan Gilgoff, was that all it really did was seal the deal between Romney and social cons; which at first blush is a loser.  There is increasing evidence that those that opposed him so vehemently in the primary are rallying.  This move seems to provide impetus to the rally.

Karl @ Hot Air sees this move as right in line with the Obama strategy:

What yesterday’s elections may have told Team Obama is that the bitter clingers out there are bitter enough to give 41% of the Democrat vote in West Virginia to a convicted felon and to ease a ban on same-sex marriage into the North Carolina constitution. They may have concluded that their energies are better spent targeting more socially liberal white college graduates in the suburbs of northern Virginia, Philadeplphia, Denver, etc. than wasting time on trying to persuade Rust Belt Jacksonians to pull the lever for Barack Obama again while (as Allahpundit suggests) considering discontent among socially conservative African-Americans an acceptable risk now. The establishment’s mockery of Obama’s unevolved position may have suggested to Team Obama that painting Mitt Romney as a right-wing extremist is made more difficult when the president shares Romney’s position on SSM.

There is some sense there – it’s a move to build separation.  But on an issue that is a loser virtually every time it is put directly to the people, like just happened in North Carolina?  Well, yeah, when that is all you have.

Obama cannot talk about the economy, national security or foreign policy.  In those places he is a known loser – there is his entire administration to date to prove it.  Social issues are all he has, and he knows they are Romney’s weak point.  Have we forgotten Stephanoupolis’ obvious briefing from the White House on contraception pre-debate in a clear effort to put social issues on the table in the primary and help Santorum over Romney?

It should also be remembered that Prop 8 branded same-sex marriage as a “Mormon” issue and this is a subtle reminder to the electorate that his opponent is a member in good standing of that particular church.  Not to mention that his base is so incensed over Prop 8 that they resorted to violence in the wake of its passage aimed specifically at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

There are still a lot of people out there that want to make an issue out of Romney’s faith.

There is also the fact early on that Obama said he would not mind being a one-term president if it aided his policies in the long run.  Maybe he has figured out he is doomed and thrown all caution to the wind in order to retire to a life of liberal stardom – which will make him some cash.

One thing is for sure, yesterday is a marker in the election.  It may not have been won or lost, but it was most certainly defined.  Obama has now abandoned all pretext of moderation.  That dear friends is the ultimate flip-flop given how he ran last time.

Closing With An “I Told You So”

I said on Saturday that Tagg Romney’s children by surrogacy would be an issue in some circles.  I was right.  Given that Obama is trying to put the election on social issues, this will grow.

Posted in Political Strategy, Reading List | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Well, if you are the Obama campaign, you have to make mountains out of molehills, because you have no actual mountains.  There was a slightly awkward moment at a campaign stop in Ohio yesterday.  Given the coverage you would think there was an assignation attempt.  The Boston Globe’ headline is the closest to the truth:

Obama campaign blasts Mitt Romney for initial silence after supporter says president ‘should be tried for treason’

The LATimes “describes” the action:

A backer introduced Romney by slamming President Obama for taking credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden, comparing Obama to Ronald McDonald. And when a woman said Obama should be tried for treason, Romney didn’t disagree and asked the woman to follow up her question.

Later, when asked by reporters about the treason comment, Romney said he did not believe the president should be tried.

There was aghast coverage by NPR. and David Plum pointed out that all us common voters are crazy.   This whole thing is kind of unbelievable.  The event presented Romney with a clear choice – chastise, publicly, an ardent supporter or provide the Obama campaign with this bit of fodder.  What he chose to do was respect the freedom of his supporter, a freedom that includes the right to overstate things and spin from time to time.  But of course the press would know nothing about that.

Or would they?  Believe it or not, someone found a way to make the incident about Mormonism:

According to the Post’s Phil Rucker, who was with Romney in Euclid, Ohio, the presumptive Republican nominee was answering questions at a town-hall style rally when a woman asked him what he would do as president to “restore our Constitution in this country,’’ given that President

Obama “should be tried for treason.”

Many in the crowd of 500 responded by applauding the woman, and the candidate had this to say: “I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired. I believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence.”

Which was not exactly on point, and not at all a stand-up response.

Mark Silk, a professor of religion in public life at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, said it’s Mormon teaching that the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired. And this is the first time Silk remembers hearing Romney reference an LDS teaching on the campaign trail.

Any excuse I guess.  A lot of us believe that God works in history, including the drafting of the constitution.  Yes, Romney used some distinctively Mormon phraseology in his statement, but he has been using that phrase throughout his campaign.  Apparently this writer wanted to take the anthill on the molehill and try to build a mountain.

Meanwhile everyone is trying to “explain” Mitt and Mormonism.  One guy said it is a “club,” not a “cult.“  I don’t think this is helpful, the last thing Mormons need is to be portrayed as insulated.  Dane McBride remember what it was like to be on mission with Mitt.  That’s a story that should get wider spread.

Salon pulls more quotes from Alex Pareene’s “The Rude Guide To Mitt.”  Won’t quote and shouldn’t link.  Pareene is clearly an ugly petty man.  Apparently that passes for funny and entertaining in some places.  And here I always thought to be considered witty you had to be smart, not merely derisive.  Oh well, I am just old and not “tuned in,” as they say.

Seriously In Closing

Leading Godblogger Justin Taylor, quotes leading Christian author Vern Polythress:

Many Western humanists expect the state to cure all ills. When they see a problem, such as suicide, drug addiction, oppression, war, poverty, sexual exploitation, racial hatred, or mere ignorance, they are greatly distressed. Their feelings of distress and indignation are in a sense proper, but because they do not admit that the root of these ills is found in human sin, they look for immediately engineered human solutions. After all, if human nature is basically good, the difficulty must not really be that intractable. It must be solvable, and solvable now. Any delay is reprehensible. The state has the maximum concentration of power and resources for the job. Hence the state must institute a program to solve the problem. If the problem cannot be solved merely by throwing money at it, then a state-run educational program can do the job.

Hence in the twentieth century we have seen the growth of huge state bureaucracies. Moreover, in many political arguments it is simply assumed that the state is the proper agent for the job. The debates tend to be confined to the question of expediency and quantity: whether the citizens are willing to foot the bill for still another program, and whether one program rather than another will be effective.

We must break out of this foolishness. The state is not god, nor is it the savior of humanity. It cannot remedy all ills.

Closing in Laughter

Big story yesterday about how dino farting lead to climate change which lead to dino extinction.  So much for the meteor impact theory of dinosaur extinction.  But worry not, referencing our section just prior the South Coast Air Quality Management District already has rules in place to control emissions from livestock operations.  Look out cow farts – they’re coming for you!

Posted in Reading List | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I have said for quite some time now that when religion and politics mix, religion typically loses.  Religion is, at its heart, about character formation.  When people with well formed character live in a democracy, the democracy thrives, and thus religion has strong indirect influence.  But when you see stories like this:

Ask ten people to name the most critical swing voting bloc in the 2012 presidential election and you’re likely to get at least five — and maybe ten — different answers.

But, new polling from Gallup suggests that it’s Catholics who could well be the best bellwether of whether President Obama or former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will be elected president this November.

you find that the temptation to exercise DIRECT influence becomes very strong, and the religion in question forgets its primary mission of character formation.  There is a bit of chicken-and-egg here becasue truly well formed character would not succumb to the temptation, but the presses’ and to a large extent political consultants desire to capture demographics is a serious culprit as well.  Food for thought.

The Atlantic asks, “Can Mitt Romney Co-Opt the Conservative Media?” Co-Opt? CO-OPT?!  Like his majesty, er, Obama, did not have the MSM willing prostrate itself at his throne, er, feet.

The Grenell thing has moved from distraction to full blown red herring.  Perpetual victimhood for anybody or group of bodies is just unbecoming.

Now even the wire services say nothing to get an online discussion going.  Mostly this just proves that the whole Mormon topic brings a lot of eyeballs (‘cept maybe to this blog he said sounding like a perpetual victim )

This is not a bad anthropological analysis of Mormonism,  save for the fact that roughly the same thing could be written about virtually any expression of Christianity, hetero- or orthodox.  But while we are analyzing religion, we need to remember, that they are composed on people and people always want to draw outside the lines.  Which just means generalizations are not as general as we might hope.

And so, the weekend begins and this weekend there is but a single possible way to express our good wishes for you -

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

It is certainly a sign of something that Richard Grenell’s resignation from the Romney campaign drew far more press than Newt Gingrich’s formal withdrawal from the race.  Many will rush to the conclusion that such is not extraordinary because Gingrich has 1) drawn out his withdrawal over a week or so, and 2) ran such a feckless campaign that no one cares to begin with.  But I think there is more at play.

JMR wrote quite elegantly yesterday about l’affaire de Grenell, presuming the now widespread story that Grenell was driven from his post by conservative forces is in fact what happened.  Byron York; however, is not sure that the prevailing narrative is in fact the case:

Now, some observers are suggesting that Fischer has so much influence inside the Romney campaign that he could drive Richard Grenell out of his new job.  In fact, Fischer has no sway at all inside the Romney campaign, and he didn’t drive Grenell or anyone else out of a job at Romney headquarters.  Neither did the other (relatively few) social conservatives who complained about the Grenell hire.

But what about the possibility that the heat Fischer and others generated from the outside made Team Romney reluctant to put Grenell in such a prominent position?  Rubin reported that Grenell “decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign.”  One Grenell ally suggests he was worried that the Romney team might try to downplay his presence all the way through November’s elections.  All that suggests that Romney campaign officials, apparently cowed by the criticism from the social conservatives, did not want Grenell speaking publicly for the campaign.  (Or, perhaps, that campaign officials were also concerned about some of Grenell’s somewhat intemperate tweets.)

But Romney campaign officials say strongly that they did not keep Grenell under wraps or in any other way discourage him from taking the job.  First, they point out that at the time (last week) in which Grenell was supposedly being held back, he was not yet an employee of the Romney campaign.  Like a number of other new hires, officials say, Grenell was getting ready to move to Boston to begin work May 1.  Romney officials fully anticipated he would begin his public role as spokesman then.

Instead, last weekend, officials say, Grenell got in touch with the campaign to say he would not take the job, after all.  Some top Romney staffers, including Eric Fehrnstrom, one of Mitt Romney’s closest advisers, urged Grenell to reconsider.  In all, several Romney aides encouraged Grenell to come to Boston and start work.  Whatever the criticisms from social conservatives, officials say, they wanted Grenell on the job.

In a brief statement on his departure, Grenell said, “While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign.”  Grenell thanked Romney for “his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.”

Grenell certainly seemed to direct blame toward the social conservatives who criticized his appointment, although he didn’t say so directly.  But it’s also possible that gay politics more generally played a role in recent events.

In other words, this whole thing may have been a set up from the outset.  If so it is a brilliant political move, it potentially weakens Romney with both the conservative base and the moderate middle.  I find it fascinating that the Grenell story has really only resonated in left wing outlets.  Yes, Jen Rubin broke the story, but all she was operating on at the time was Grenell’s statement and the few pieces that had been written about Grenell’s support of same-sex marriage being a potential wedge issue that Obama could exploit.

Two very brief observations.  1) If York is correct and this is a gay politics thing, then either it was the gay political community that hounded Grenell or it was a set up from the beginning.  If the former, who’s intolerant?  If the latter, why does it always seem like it is the gay community that is willing to dip so low?  From the vandalism, violence, and shunning post Prop 8 to this kind of very dirty trick it seems like the coarsening of our political process has a source.

Second comment is that even if the facts are not what they appear, JMR’s advice generally is well taken.  If this story has any legs (????) it is because many on the “Religious Right” are perceived as coarse as it appears the gay community may be.  As I read scripture Jesus was winsome, the Pharisees on the other hand….

Quick Hits

There is an Evangelical blogger that I read frequently for my own Christian edification.  He has worked for anybody but Romney form the start.  He has now set aside his “counter-cult expertise” to endorse Romney.  He does so quite well.  So why is it when some others try to make nice about the whole Mormon thing, they STILL have to mention the theological differences?  Recall the words of Tripper in “Meatballs” – “It just doesn’t matter.”  Certainly not in these circumstances.

Wait just a minute! Says this book review:

One-third of young adults in a major survey reported having no religion in 2011 – up from a quarter just five years earlier – and many are acting in disgust over the fusion of religion, Republican politics and anti-gay activism, two prominent scholars write.

“Republican” politics?!  The mainline denominations are dead or dying largely because they are so liberal.  One senses an agenda here.

Mormons on the move numerically and politically.  The latter is a story about a black, Mormon, female, Republican candidate for the House by the name of Mia Love.  The story is written in a fashion that seems to say, “See Mormons aren’t racist or sexist after all,” which repeats the meme they are attempting to build without stating it outright.  Give me a break, there is no news here unless one concedes the fallacious meme.

Way back in 2007, this blog did an extensive five part (I, II, III, IV, V) review and discussion of Vanderbilt Professor Kathleen Flake’s book “Yhe Politics of American Religious Identity.”  The book is an exploration Utah statehood and the Smoot hearings.  At the time we tried and failed to score an interview with Flake. Joanna Brooks gets the interview this cycle.  Long overdue.

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

It seems we are officially between the primary and the general.  Just a few things worth mentioning this morning.

Yet another story on how Evangelicals will vote for Romney, but not be enthused.  Evangelical petulance or a media desire to create a self-fulfilling prophecy?

It saddens me to read something like this from Catholic circles.  It does lend credence to the Evangelical petulance theory.  (Evangelicalism is a movement both within and independent from various denominations.)  However, I think it is a minority of Evangelicals.

There are lefties that have gone beyond the pale – Maureen Down being the leader of that pack.  No longer simply knee jerk, she is so convinced of her correctness that thought is simply not called for any more.  E.J. Dionne has typically been a step below that; instinctively and knee-jerk leftie, but there was usually some thought and argument behind his assertions, but he may have crossed the line with this piece:

He would never put it this way, of course, but his approach looks forward by looking backward to the late 19th century, when government let market forces rip and a conservative Supreme Court swept aside almost every effort to write rules for the economic game. This magical capitalism is the centerpiece of Romney’s campaign, and it may prove to be his undoing.

[...]

What Romney has going for him is a journalistic presumption that he is either a closet “moderate” or so opportunistic that he is altogether lacking in a coherent worldview. The first is wrong. The second is unfair to Romney. What he believes matters, and it is the biggest obstacle between him and the White House.

[Emphasis added]  Folks, that may be the most dishonest ringing of the Mormon bell we have yet to run across.  While arguing about “unfettered” capitalism, Dionne manages to utter every religious dog whistle phrase he has heard.  It may be a cute literary device, but it is also manipulative, deceptive and most of all ugly.  This language was deliberately chosen, make no mistake.

Finally, in closing, Weasel Zippers quotes this Daily Mail piece:

Barack Obama has already held more re-election fundraising events than every elected president since Richard Nixon combined, according to figures to be published in a new book.

Obama is also the only president in the past 35 years to visit every electoral battleground state in his first year of office.

And says:

He excels at two things and two things only: Running up enormous debt with other peoples’ money and raising cash for his own self-serving ends. He is nothing more than an ordinary street hustler in an extraordinary position.

Very plain spoken and very sensible, also quite troubling.  Not so much because of who he is, the world has been and always will be full of hustlers, but because we fell for it.  But then sometime such things happen.  Most important to remember is the old adage, “Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.”  Something for those less-than-enthusiastic Evangelicals to think about.

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

LATimes political cartoonist/blogger David Horsey, under a cartoon that manages to make fun of religiosity generally says:

Jokes about polygamy and funny long underwear aside, Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith has not been, and will not become, a factor in the presidential campaign of 2012.

Horsey’s cartoon and post make it an issue, even if he says it’s not an issue.  You cannot set aside jokes about “long underwear” in drawing a conclusion.  The six remaining readers of the LATimes know that the LAT has rung the Mormon bell in re: Romney more times in the last year than Big Ben has chimed the hour.  No, of course Obama is not going to get up and say “Don’t vote for my opponent, he’s a Mormon.”  But not an issue?!  Already is and has been for quite some time.

If it wasn’t an issue, why would the BBC go to all this trouble?:

A startling investigation into America’s fastest growing religion and the former Mormon bishop who says he now wants to be President of the United States.

[...]

“Mitt Romney and the Mormons”, reported by John Sweeney and presented by Kerry O’Brien, goes to air on Monday 30th April at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is replayed on Tuesday 1st May at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 at 8.00pm on Saturdays or on ABC iview .

If it wasn’t an issue, why would McKay Coppins, who has is trying to carve out a niche for himself as the “Mormon guy” in the media keep playing this kind of gotcha:

But in a 2002 interview with the Mormon newspaper Church News, Romney was much more forthright about the extent to which he is influenced by his faith.[...]

In October 2000, just a few days before the closing ceremony of the Summer Olympic Games, Brother Romney flew from Sydney, Australia, to Boston, Mass., to attend the dedication of the [Boston, MA Mormon] temple.

While he needed to be in Australia for the closing ceremonies, he felt it more important to attend the dedication. With no time to rest following a 24-hour flight, he was among the throng waiting in line early that morning for the dedication.

“My commitment to my Church and faith is all encompassing,” he said. “The opportunity to attend a temple dedication in the presence of a prophet in my hometown, where I served as stake president and bishop, is an opportunity that I would never miss.”

Coppins will no doubt defend himself by saying what he said when he started the Mormons and women meme, “This may be the way Dems will raise Mormon issue: not attack it, but say Mitt’s afraid to talk about it (thus making it sound spooky)” Oh good Coppins, so you’ll just use an out of context quotation to make it sound like a brainwashing cult.  Coppins cannot blame the Dems for an attack that he is clearly making.

Amazing Stuff

Mitt Romney may not be the first Mormon president of a nation.  The story concerns the heavily Islamic African nation of Mali.  If a Muslim nation elects a Mormon president, and Romney’s Mormonism is a factor HERE – something is very wrong in America.

Amazingly bad taste.

Amazing levels of hatred.  It is frightening that such levels exist in our nation.

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