Article VI Blog

…Is Spin Passing For News!

And yes, that is most definitely a “failure to communicate,” he said completing the famous and almost trite movie quotation.

Breaking from his vacation, as I am from mine, my friend Hugh Hewitt points out, in this week of way too much race-based news:

Did any of the JournoList participants rebuke Spencer Ackerman’s suggestion that Fred Barnes or Karl Rove be made a target of a manufactured “racist” charge?

Ackerman will be carrying the burden of that despicable suggestion for the rest of his “career” such as it is, but it may even be worse to have been a participant in the list and to have said nothing when such an assault was proposed.  Even if the “journalists” on the list hated Karl Rove as an extension of Bush and thus talked themselves into this repulsive group-think, many of them know for a fact that Fred is among the most decent and large-hearted of journalists.  To have said nothing when a colleague or far worse, a friend, was nominated for the worst sort of slander is an extraordinary personal failure.  Whether any of those who were party to it step forward to apologize will be interesting to watch.

[...]

When Andrew Breitbart posted the NAACP video, he did not know it had been edited. Journalists who commented on the story did not know of the editing either.

But everyone on JournoList knew that Ackerman was proposing a Big Lie in the service of a political agenda –Ackerman admitted that himself– so they all stood by and said nothing. The only defense that any of them have is that Ackerman was an insignificant loon or that they missed his post, even though it appeared in the middle of the biggest story of the time period.

Just this morning, over my hotel breakfast, FoxNews was discussing newly leaked JournoList postings from campaign ‘08 trying to paint the Palin VP nomination as “sexist.”

There are two terribly important lessons for this blog that can be taken away from this scandal and the USDA atrocities of the week.

The first is that the press, at least a significant portion of it, is all too willing to discuss the use of label/identity based spin to aid the Democratic side of the aisle.  It confirms something that people have known all along.  The lack of discrimination is born not in monitoring the use of identity labels, but in being blind to them.  When considered, whether in base discrimination, such as Jim Crow, or in the type of “reverse discrimination” we are seeing from the JournoList crowd they are political weapons, and they are poltical weapons that our common understanding, and in some cases our constitution place off limits.

Religion is one of those identity labels that our constitution places strictly off limits.  The reason for that is very straightforward – all it can do is serve to create conflict when what we need is the finding of common ground to move the nation forward.  The USDA events of the past week show that the opportunity for mischief with identity factors is just too great to use them AT ALL.

Which brings me to this very interesting piece by Kenneth Anderson on the Volokh Conspiracy (HT: a reader that sent it forward.)  Anderson argues that there are some things about religion that should be a part of the public discourse:

But of course, the problem is how to parse the difference between that which is acceptable for inquiry concerning someone who proposes to lead the polis and what is genuinely personal and irrelevant.  My one regret is that the nasty fireworks at the beginning of that long essay tend to obscure the quite serious argument about how to draw those lines that occupies the second half.  (It is not, by the way, a regret for having ridiculed the two principals — I think that it is important, actually, for people to understand the affective side of this and not pretend that it is purely mild cognition, and that was one way to do it.)  But this issue is going to resurface, certainly with Romney, and with others.  The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society.

But religion also has a cognitive content — including doctrines — that are and should be subject to reasoned discussion.  The believer who partakes of them as doctrines of faith might not do that, and might not be able to do that, almost by definition.  Yet it would also be a mistake to draw too sharp a line between things subject to human reason and things not of this world and so not subject to human reason; particularly law-based religions partake of both.  Mormonism, for that matter, incorporates this directly into its prophetic traditions  And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine.  Mormon doctrine regarding human reason is not, so far as I have been able to comprehend, “relativistic” in the sense used in contemporary ethical argument, even if it is more elastic some (including me) would accept.

But irrespective of whether believers are able to participate in the discussion of human reason and prophetic traditions, when adherents go out to offer leadership in the broader political community, then the unbelievers are perfectly warranted to ask that they be discussed in terms that are accessible to public discussion.

Yes, indeed, religion does have a cognitive element, but unless a candidate or elected official insists on making policy based on their religious conviction, why is it necessary to discuss?  All that is really necessary to discuss is the proposed policy, and the stated reasons for bringing it forward.  The attachment of a religious labels, as with race or gender, to either the proposer or the policy itself serves only to turn the reasoned discussion into the kind of vitriolic posturing that we have seen based on race in the last week.  We have seen some very bad decision making based on such labels and we are seeing the public manipulated based on similar labels – they simply do not aid our public discourse.  If reasoned discussion is the goal and the labels serve to override reason rather than aid it – why inject them into the conversation at all?

I am reminded of a Sunday school class I was in a couple of decades ago – it was being taught at the highest levels by a seminary professor of excellent repute.  We were discussing theories of the atonement and at one point a student rose and asserted that the professor’s view of the atonement was “too masculine.”  I objected in the most strenuous of terms and set forth the proposition that I am emphasizing here today.   The theory of the atonement is neither masculine nor feminine, it simply is truth.  Yes, men and women my arrive at that truth by different paths, but that matters not, what matters is that we arrive at the truth – together.  Inserting the labels serves only to make the truth relativistic.

When it comes to public policy, what matters is that we arrive at the best possible policy.  People will come to their policy choices by a variety of methods and thought processes.  By definition, there cannot be different policy for one group or another – that is the definition of discrimination.  Therefore, group identity entering the discussion serves no purpose other than to prevent arriving at a policy at all, or to arrive at a policy that, rather than providing maximum benefit for the most people, benefits mostly the group that can best claim victimization – again, the very definition of discrimination.

In a week of claim and counterclaim based on race, I am deeply saddened that in many ways our nation is no different than it was when I was a child spending summers with extended family in Jim Crow Mississippi.  But we have clung to our labels too hard.  We have to let go of them.

Lowell adds . . .

Professor Anderson’s Volokh post is remarkable on more than one level.  I do not think it will move the discussion much, because it is mostly impenetrable.  Consider these two statements:

The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society. . . .

And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct [sic] Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine.

Each one of those is a single sentence.  I teach young lawyers that if a sentence must be read more than once by an educated reader to be understood, the writer is in trouble; more than twice, and the sentence should be rewritten.

But enough about style.  Anderson’s post is a dogged argument that it is desirable – nay, necessary and proper - to make a candidate’s most private religious beliefs matters of public discussion and inquiry.  We have rejected that argument on this blog dozens of times, so I won’t rehash those posts.  I’ll simply refer our readers to John Mark Reynolds’ analysis, which John and I think is the perfect approach. Here’s a summary:

Freedom of religion does not mean I have to think every religion or irreligion is great! In fact it is demeaning to religion to behave this way. My Catholic friends know that I think the Pope is not the sole head of the Church and my Baptist friends know I think their view of the Eucharist inadequate. They honor me by strongly disagreeing with me. If I thought these ideas had public policies implications that would lead to bad social policy by the state, I would want to examine the views of any Catholic of Baptist politician.

That is not bigotry, just common sense.

So if we assume religious traditions are, at least in part, knowledge traditions, then being wrong about religion does matter. How wrong does one have to be before losing credibility in the public square?

Let me propose a few tests and suggest that Mormonism easily passes all of them.

First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner. . . .

Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy. . . .

Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.

If you want to know why Prof. Reynolds thinks Mormonism passes all three tests, read his post.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Religious Bigotry, Religious Freedom, Understanding Religion | 9 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

We noted Monday that as the mid-terms draw near, the discussion of 2012 is heating up.  Seems like there is another thing driving discussion and it’s silly, just because it is meaningless at this juncture.  PACs issued their financials on schedule this week and that set the world buzzing.  This is a very leftie analysis of the releases, but it is the only one I could find that touched on most of the majors – ignore the commentary, follow the links and look at the numbers for yourself.  I shouldn’t bother, but one shot is too rich not to take.  Consider:

“They’re not interested in necessarily winning the House and Senate back for Republicans. That’s not their No.1 objective,” said Daniel Smith, a University of Florida professor who directs the political campaigning program there. “They’re selectively placing their bets, using their PAC dollars on Republican candidates who can elevate their national profile and also procure free media in key battleground states in the run-up before the 2012 Republican primary.”

Well, the incumbent Democrat gets more free media than the rest of the world put together AND when it comes to not helping congressional candidate in his own party, this guy’s a champ!  Come on, this is politics as usual – why are we trying to cast it as a problem?  Robert Costa on The Corner did look at Palin, Romney and Pawlenty.

Palin Got The Most Attention…

I still don’t think she is running, but her fund raising is impressive (even though Romney out-raised them all) – which caused a lot of people to conclude she was.  Including this bit of analysis obviously designed not to be helpful but to make trouble:

Assuming that the race is then reduced to Palin and Romney, the next critical state primary is South Carolina. At that point, I don’t think the specifics really matter. The fact is that the Republican Party of 2012 is not going to nominate a Mormon as its standard bearer. And the more important fact is that the base of the Republican Party doesn’t just favor Sarah Palin, they love her. She is their standard bearer. And they will not — this time around — be denied.

Please note, the presumption is that Republicans are close-minded bigots.  That bit got someone at Right-O-Sphere pretty worked up, causing them to ask, “Should Mormons Abandon the Republican Party?“  OK – initial response, “For What?”  Yes, there are jerks in the party – but there are jerks everywhere, and in leaving the party all you do is let the jerks win.  Not to mention there is no other party that comes even close to representing your point of view, dear Mormon friend.

But also note this, the jerks are not a majority.  Romney keeps winning straw polls, and anecdotal polling shows Romney’s support is much broader than his faith.  In other words, as we predicted Monday, lefties/Dems are terrified of an Obama/Romney race and they are going to punch the religion ticket as many times as they can to try and change the odds.  Don’t take the bait – this time the jerks are behind the woodshed, and in the primary we can administer the spanking.  Here is why the left fears Romney:

Former supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign who do not approve of his job performance favor former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney over the rest of the GOP field, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey.

They fear Romney so much that one of their big guns (Mark Halperin) decided to stir the pot:

One adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and, by traditional standards, the putative 2012 frontrunner, says of Palin, “She’s not a serious human being.” Another Romney intimate warns, “If she’s standing up there in a debate and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”

So, we have two entirely unattributed quotations of “advisers.”  You know, if Romney reads this blog, and I think he has from time-to-time, I guess I am an adviser too.  And since I have met him I guess I am an “intimate” as well, so does what I say on this blog define the stance of the Romney camp?  Not hardly!

There is also the issue of context.  I am far from alone in thinking Palin is not running. It is really only in the fevered imaginations of the MSM that there is serious hope she will run.  It is quite possible that these sound bites came in the broader context of discussing the unlikelihood of her running and in that context are not nearly as pernicious as they sound quoted here.  As we, and many others, have said all along -  Palin is a marvelous voice for an important wing of our movement, but that does not necessarily translate to a presidential candidacy.

What we have here is is a case of Halperin trying to create a rift inside the Republican coalition – especially between the Tea Party and the rest of the party.  We don’t know who these people are, how close they really are to Romney, or anything else other than they conveniently said something that would create problems, conveniently in the hearing of Mark Halperin.  I’m not putting much stock in this.  Why Allahpundit thinks its worth this much analysis is beyond me.

UPDATE AFTER POSTING: Seems Romney Agrees with this analysis.  Today he tweeted:

“TIME says unnamed advisors disparaged @SarahPalinUSA. Anonymous numbskulls. She’s proven her smarts; they’ve disproven theirs.”

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST:

The left is also very worked up about the WaPo Op-Ed that Romney wrote, which we noted a couple of weeks ago, on the proposed new START Treaty.  Look, foreign policy is not our thing here, so I will not even attempt to round up this discussion, but it has been broad and it has been vitriolic.  I will; however, link to this particular argument against the treaty – when I saw the publishers I laughed out loud.  ‘Nuff Said.

In Other News…

Gingrich is seriously thinking about running?  Read:  Gingrich’s “q” needs a jolt.  That does not mean he will not run, just means that if he does, it will be for reasons other than to win the nomination.  By the way, I am all for Christian forgiveness, but there is a streak of anger out there, still, at Gingrich’s personal behavior that runs pretty deep.  He needs to tread very carefully.

Clear bigotry:

A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.

I’ve heard a lot of legislative prayers from religious leaders of many stripes.  If one goes, they all gotta go since they all invoke their deity.  I’ve heard Vishnu and Allah just to mention a couple.

Moderation disguising a pro-Obama rant.  The court is allowed to change its mind, you know.

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

Tradition has it that the presidential election cycle unofficially begins after the mid-terms – but not this time.  As a massive move towards the GOP seems more and more apparent in the mid-terms, people’s minds are turning to what that means in terms of POTUS 2012.  That’s not entirely unreasonable, but given that Romney remains firmly in the mix, what is unreasonable is that the Mormon shots are starting to abound.  I really thought we’d be over it this cycle, but if the sheer number of hits our many internet-combing robots are getting is any indication, it’s not going to be pretty.   The discussion currently really has four epicenters -

The Idiot, Bill Keller…

I am through being civil with this guy, he’s just a media whore, pure and simple.  He never comes up unless he puts out a press release which he did this week.  This time he is attacking Beck, not Romney, but it is just more of same.  Needless to say, this bit of stuff stuck to the bottom our our shoes was picked up and passed on.  Keller’s antics would be funny if they weren’t so pathetic – and predictable.

Seems like any time there is a media storm surrounding a widely known Mormon, Romney in 2008 and Beck now, Keller starts putting out his press releases and trying to gin up some new names on his mailing list so he can continue to solicit donations.

In this instance, he charges Beck with “lying” because Mormonism itself is a lie.  Rarely have I seen such a myopic, self-absorbed, needless to say self-aggrandizing, view of belief and faith.  By definition people believe their faith to be true, which means all others are false.  Until a specific faith can be proven true (now there is a tall order)  a claim like Keller’s defies reason.

From this point forward, unless he takes a specific shot at Romney that makes sense, Keller is Persona Non Grata around here.  I am embarrassed that most people think he and I are of the same faith.

The Financial Times…

…did a piece on the changing face of Mormonism. (registration required)  The piece is not all bad, but it fails to even directly pose, let alone answer, the essential question that lies at its heart.  The article is about the amazing success being enjoyed by many Mormons in many fields of endeavor.  But in its early stages it talks about Romney’s religion problems in ‘08.  It demands that one ask, “Why are Mormons so successful at so many things, but NOT at running for POTUS?”

Of course, if we could answer that the country would likely be in a very different place than it is at the moment.

The Discussion Around the Boston Globe Piece Continues…

We talked about it last week, but typically it takes people a while to catch up to us.  A Mormon I have never heard of thinks the proposed strategy makes sense.  Meanwhile, Mark Silk seems to think it’s all wrong.  Silk’s analysis discounts a number of pertinent factors like the Tea Party movement and  the fact that people can, and likely will in the current climate, have a very different idea about what matters in the next election cycle.

Silk is right that the Romney campaign has to acknowledge the differences between Mormonism and traditional Christianity, but to ask Mormons not to call themselves Christians is simply to ask too much.  That is like saying, “I’ll vote for a socialist provided they don’t really believe that stuff.”

Evangelical numbers remain impressive, but they are not going to be concentrating on social issues next cycle.

David Frum Makes Trouble…

Of course, that in and of itself is hardly news.  He starts by putting forth Jon Huntsman as “the Mormon.“  – Old, tired, not buying it.  Huntsman took himself out of the hunt (pun intended) when he took the China ambassador job.  Do you honestly think anyone that has worked for Barack Obama is going to get the Republican nomination in 2012?  Be real!

But then Frum had to go and call out Mike Huckabee.  He specifically called out the Huckster for his use of religion last time:

Faith-based politics is fine. But Huckabee’s support in 2008 often seemed sectarian. He says his words were taken out of context, but at least once in the campaign he seemed to criticize Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. This too-narrow religious appeal offended not only many American Mormons, but also a much larger group, Catholics, who readily inferred: “Huckabee, a Baptist, seems to disapprove of Mormonism as non-Christian. What must he think of us?”

This, unsurprisingly, drew a rise out of Huckabee – who deigned to write Frum personally.   EFM has tackled the facts pretty well and later added more to the mix.

Given the vitriolic reaction we have seen on this blog from former Huckabee staffers, and now Huckabee’s personal response to similar accusations, it seems to me that Huckabee wants to do whatever he can to try and erase the record of his obvious playing of the religion card in Iowa in 2008.  The inherent dishonesty in such efforts is what really gets under my skin.  Instead of owning up to the mistake – the Huckster “apologizes” but denies he really did anything wrong.  We analyzed this completely when we did our review of the 2008 cycle.

That’s a lot of Romney/Mormon stuff when the mid-term general is just heating up – a whole lot.  One must wonder if it is the issue in its death throes or a portent of things to come.  If one analyzes the sources for the noise, one sees that the trouble seems to be coming from the left – Huckabee did not raise the issue, he tried to run away from it – Frum caused the stir.

I think what we are seeing is this – Romney is rapidly emerging as presumptive.  If it was entirely a party insider vote, it’d be done.  The only reason there is a window for others is the party insiders are concerned about whether they can convince the rank-and-file on Romney.  Romney’s credentials on the economy are overwhelmingly good – no one comes close.  The economy is likely to be issue #1 come 2012 which puts Obama in a very precarious position against Romney.  The left wants to kill a Romney candidacy before there really is one because they only have a chance in ‘12 if the Republican candidate is not Romney.

So, I think we are going to see a lot of Mormon stuff this cycle, but I think it is going to be more like what we expected last cycle.  It’s going to emanate almost entirely from the left in an effort to stir up divisions on our side.  This is why the proposed Romney strategy of more-or-less punting the hardcore social conservative vote makes a great deal of sense.  If Romney pursues that group he emphasizes a division the other side wants to open up – a division he wants to close.  Better to operate as the presumptive and let them come alongside because they will have little choice if they want a seat at the table.

So, watch the sources when the issue arises, chances are it will be nutbars like Keller or lefties.  Look for Huckabee to keep his head low on the issue, but watch the undercurrent (comments, etc.)  Look for lefties to be making comments on the internet where ever they can, trying to stir the issue, and they will pose as Republicans to do it.  Call them out and fight back.

Meanwhile, In Other Romney News…

A bunch of very left-leaning Republicans are “wishy-washy” on Romney.  So where’s the news there?

And this headline just warms my heart:

Romney, Dobson help Hoekstra in Mich. gov. race

I really do like seeing those names linked.  Now, if we can just keep Dobson from stepping on himself….

PALIN!…

…For RNC Chair makes an enormous amount of sense to me.  She is just not a serious candidate, but she is a valuable political asset to our side.  Polarizing?  Yeah, as a candidate, but as party chair she could solidify a link between the party and the Tea Party.  Her fund raising capability is enormous.  Polarization is also energy and that is a large part of what a party chair is supposed to do – generate energy in the party.   This idea strikes me as allowing us to get the best of what Sarah Palin has to offer while being able to largely ignore her weaknesses.

Steele has to go and hiring Palin has all the plus side stuff Howard Dean offered the Dems without the foot-in-mouth disease.

General God Stuff…

“On Faith” asks a question only a non-believer could ask.

The Dalai Lama, who just celebrated his 75th birthday, often refers to the ‘oneness’ of all religions, the idea that all religions preach the same message of love, tolerance and compassion. Historians Karen Asmstrong and Huston Smith agree that major faiths are more alike than not.

But in his new book “God is not One,” religion scholar and On Faith panelist Steve Prothero says views by the Dalai Lama, Armstrong and Smith that all religions “are different paths to the same God” is untrue, disrespectful and dangerous.

Who’s right? Why?

As we discussed above, believers must, by definition believe in the bottom-line truth of their faith, and therefore the less-than-truth status of others.   Otherwise, they do not truly believe what they claim to believe.  The idea that “all religion is the same”  is designed not to do away with religious conflict, but to do away with religion itself.  That’s part of what makes American truly unique – we want and cherish religious conflict (within civil bounds) as we seek to live together with our different convictions.  We know we are better people for it and better people make a better nation.

Sadly, some people are far more overt in their efforts to remove religion.

This is ugly.  It is also what we seek to avoid on the national level.

Fascinating Captain.

Posted in Electability, Reading List, Religious Bigotry | 11 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

The Boston Globe has an almost pathological distaste for Mitt Romney.  So when I ran across this piece, headlined:

Faith still sticky issue as Romney mulls run

I expected the worst.  While there is little doubt in my mind that the Globe intended to stir up trouble on an issue that has been largely laying dormant of late, the piece itself is not pure hit piece, which is surprising.  There are a couple of good take-aways from it:

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Reading List, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

John and I feel somewhat validated – but not at all surprised – by this report of a scholar’s analysis of Romney and religion in the 2008 presidential election cycle.

The paper, entitled “Mitt Romney’s Religion: A Five Factor Model for Analysis of Media Representation of Mormon Identity,” appeared in the May issue of The Journal of Media and Religion. This paragraph will bring a smile to those who’ve followed this blog for a while:

For many, the combination of Mormonism and Romney’s ‘flip-flops’ on many hot-button issues gave reason to oppose him. Conservative activist Brian Camenker’s report on Romney’s shifting positions gave ammunition to conservatives to withdraw support from Romney. Vanderbilt University researchers found Romney’s flip-flopper label was an easy cover for anti-Mormonism. In the end, it was the rise of Huckabee and the political primaries in the evangelical-dominated South that derailed Romney’s bid for the presidency. For many, Romney’s run represented a misguided attempt to curry the favor of evangelicals.

That almost makes me think Professor Baker is also a regular reader here. (Seriously, with this paper she has moved to the top of my list of “People I’d Like to Have Lunch With.”)

Here is the article abstract from The Journal of Media and Religion (it costs $30 to see the entire piece):

Mitt Romney’s religion accounted for 50% of all religion-related presidential primary campaign stories in 2007, and 30% of Romney’s total media coverage focused on his Mormon faith. This article reviews that coverage and considers it within the larger historical context of the complex relationship between media and Mormonism throughout the 180-year history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. A factorial model (the first in the area of Mormon Media Studies) is proposed by which to document and analyze the wider societal influences that are reflected in media representation of Mormon identity. The model’s 5 factors include the media, the Mormons, other religions, secular influences, and politics/government. The model assumes an interrelationship among the five factors. Factor influence and relationships among factors vary according to time, issue, and circumstance. The model relates to informational (not entertainment) media. Suggestions are made for application of the model to academic studies.

As I jokingly note above, we documented and analyzed all of this as it occurred.  If you’re interested and want to save $30, be sure to read our “Telling The Story” series for our version of this same tale, minus the Smoot comparisons, which we examined in our five-part series reviewing and commenting on Kathleen Flake’s book “The Politics of American Religious Identity.”  You may recall that Flake’s book was about the Smoot seating hearings.  You can find our posts about that here - here – here – here and here.

John Jumps On Board…

..Because The Huckabee “boomlet” has become a “Boom?!”

In the words of Jacob McCandles when confronted with rumors of his death: “Not hardly.“  Here’s how this went down.  Huckabee did Fox News Sunday last Sunday.  If you read the transcript, this is what he says:

I haven’t closed the door. I think that would be foolish on my part, especially when poll after poll shows that there is strong sentiment out there. I end up leading a lot of the polls. I’m the Republican that clearly, at this point, does better against Obama than any other Republican. You know, I’m not totally unaware of that.

At which point the MSM and leftie blogs went ape – The Hill – HuffPo – Politics Daily – The Fix – USAToday – one very right wing outlet sounded the trumpets – News Max.  His home town paper was a bit less impressed.

Let’s analyze what’s really happening here.  Fox commentator Huckabee appears on FNS in a short segment.  That sounds more like a promotional appearance than a serious interview to me.  The idea was to generate some heat for Huckabee’s show and based on the coverage, I think they got it.  Secondly, Huckabee is prone to exaggerated claims.  He still claims to have finished “second” in the 2008 primary race despite the fact the delegate count, and his speaking slot at the convention, clearly indicate to the contrary, even though he stayed in the race far longer than the actual second place finisher – Romney.

Huckabee is a media guy now – he has speaking fees to maintain, and his bread-and-butter constituency is not what it used to be.  The Huckster needs the possibility of a run to continue to make a living.  And of course, the MSM and non-team players are always willing to stir the pot on our side.

There’s a lot of coverage here, but no meat on the bones.  Call me when Huck’s fundraising gets better and he loses at least 60 pounds, until then its all posturing for ratings and fees.

UPDATE (7 hours after initial publication) – Told ya so! I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet….  Back to the initial post.

And Speaking of Lefties Doing Some Pot Stirring…

What do you think Marc Ambinder is up to with this piece?  [Lowell interjects:  I do not like his suggestion that Iowa and New Hampshire just be allowed to go ahead with their February primaries.   Why should those two quirky, small states, whose voting is so easily manipulated, be allowed to set the tone for the entire campaign?]

Mormon Stuff…

This is silly, and discriminatory – CNBC covering “Mormon” business.  Most business school graduates prefer to hire grads of the same business school,  Nothing to see here.

This is just great read.  Would that other forms of Christianity were as open minded.

Here’s another one with idiot commenters.  Why someone has to turn that story into a religio-political comment is beyond.

General Religion Stuff…

This is so utterly simplistic as to be annoying.  (In fact it is self-contradictory, but it is not worth the effort to demonstrate that fully here.)  One can judge a candidate’s character, or stance on issues, without reference to religion.  Religion does indeed influence those things, but it is not wholly determinative.  When you drag religion into it, it indeed starts to get about “us” and “them” instead of about the issues at hand.  And that leads to unnecessary conflict.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Telling The Story, The Speech | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

This news report-video from the Wall Street Journal is eye-opening and more than a little disturbing:

More on this story here. I am a proud conservative Republican and have been all my life, but sometimes my partisan brethren flat-out embarrass me.

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