Article VI Blog

The book Game Change by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin is one of those “inside the campaign” books that is both fascinating and gossipy all at the same time.  But the purpose of this post is not to review the book.  Chapter 6 of that book has the intriguing title “Barack in a Box” which we have here borrowed.  In that chapter is this most insightful paragraph:

The debates fed a narrative that was becoming pervasive in the press: Edwards was running on bold ideas (universal health care, a new war on poverty); Hillary was the mistress of the nitty-gritty; and Obama was a lightweight, all sizzle and no steak. This is what the media did—it put every candidate in a neat little box and slapped a pithy label on it. Obama understood. But for the past three years, as the press fawned over him, the box he was stuffed into bore a succession of tags that were flattering and advantageous. New. Fresh. Inspiring. Post-racial. He’d never had a negative run of press on the national level, and therefore never developed the kind of thick protective hide that repelled the media’s slings and arrows.

[Emphasis added.]  There is little question,  as we discussed in our review of campaign ‘08, that the box Romney was most stuffed into was labeled “Mormon.”  As Romney has begun, with his book tour, to reemerge publicly, some in the press are continuing with that narrative, as we saw in yesterday’s review of the coverage.   Due to Mike Huckabee’s deliberate attempts to box in Evangelicals, being stuffed in the “Mormon” box harmed Romney significantly in ‘08.

Questions:

• Will the press be able to put Romney in that box this time, or will it be so “old news” that to use it is a sign of poor reporting?
• What strategies, if any, can Romney employ to break out of the box?
• Should Romney ignore the box – pretend it is not there?
• Assume neither Huckabee nor Palin are in, will the box be harmful?  Assume one or both are in?
• Should the CJCLDS take steps to reduce the potential harm the box might cause?  What would those steps be?

We are interested in our readers’ input here.  Comments on this blog are subject to moderation, which means they may not get up for a while as your moderators have limited time to check.  This post should appear on our Facebook fan page within 24 hours (although at this moment the Facebook servers seems to be a bit behind) and there comment is immediate and unmoderated, though limited by size.  Either place, let us know what you think.  Answer these questions and any others that may come up in the course of the discussion.

Lowell adds . . .

 

Since John posed the questions, I guess I can try to answer them.  (It would be bad form for John to answer himself.)  Here goes:

 

• Will the press be able to put Romney in that box this time, or will it be so “old news” that to use it is a sign of poor reporting?

I think they will because for so many of the liberal members of the MSM, Romney’s religion is important because he is conservative.  They do not manifest any concern over any liberal politician’s religion.  Example:  Harry Reid, Romney’s fellow Mormon.

• What strategies, if any, can Romney employ to break out of the box?

His only hope is to continue to respond patiently that his religion doesn’t matter to the American people, which he has been doing for years now.  I certainly do not think any overt effort, like The Speech, will be necessary.  I think such a step would attract attention to, and legitimize the issue.

• Should Romney ignore the box – pretend it is not there?

See comments above.

• Assume neither Huckabee nor Palin are in, will the box be harmful?  Assume one or both are in?

If neither is in, then I think the issue is almost neutralized.  If one of them is in, it will be present, if for not other reason than that “The Question” is like catnip to the MSM and the blogosphere if there is an Evangelical-Mormon divide they can write about.

• Should the CJCLDS take steps to reduce the potential harm the box might cause?  What would those steps be?

Hard to imagine what the Church could do without making things worse for everyone.  But that’s just my opinion, and I the Church never consults me. (Very wise of them.)

And, in the words of Forrest Gump, “That’s what I have to say about that.”

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Let’s see . . .

. . . the man who first stepped on the national and international stage by rescuing the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from themselves is starting to look more and more like he will run for President in 2012 – coincidentally, just as the Winter Olympics get underway; and, he has a book coming out.  Here are some clues:

• People continue to take shots at him – like those we discussed last time;
• He’s hiring great staff, as reported by NRO – Ben Smith – Race42012;
• He is showing up in the usual places, and
• He is showing a great deal of grace under fire.  (This incident caused Nancy French to make what may be the funniest comment of this or any other political campaign.)

By the time such clues were showing up last cycle we were hearing ALL about the whole Mormon thing.  Not so much this time.  Does that mean the issue is dead?  Not likely.  It does mean it will have to be played much more shrewdly, or desperately, than last time.  We will continue to here it overtly from the usual places, but in the end they do not matter so much.  Some might try to take shots at Mormonism without naming names, since by now everyone knows Romney is one.

Where the real danger lies is that it may have transmogrified.  We saw the beginning of such transmogrification in the “authentic” thing last time and that does seem to be hanging about to some  extent, but I’m not sure the change is yet over.

Also, as the left continues to sink deeper and deeper into irrelevancy, look for them to get VERY shrill about this.  They will likely guise it as all religion, but they will work very hard to split the party over religion.  I mean sometimes even “true Christians” get into it.

Meanwhile, In The “Opposition” Camps . . .

A certain Minnesota governor seems to be making a couple of serious missteps.

Some are having their motives questioned.

Some are engaging in silly speculation.

Hugh Hewitt thinks the most startling political news of the week is a set-up.   The object of Hugh’s analysis denies it, but then politicians are often known to do things like that.  What’s for sure is that the Dems are in trouble.

A “Fun Fact” For Your Next Party . . .

I almost said “Cocktail Party,” but then remembered most of our readers are Mormon and have probably never been to one of those.  Anyway, this ought to raise a few hairs on the back of the neck of some Palin true believers.

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sphere: Related Content

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

When Smart People Analyze Scott Brown’s “Massachusetts Miracle”. . .

They say what we said the night of the event – that after Scott Brown himself, Mitt Romney and 2008’s (soon to be 2012’s?) Team Romney were the biggest winners.   Consider:

• Utah Policy
• KSL-TV, Salt Lake City
• David Catanese at Politico
• The Boston Herald
• Chris Good on Marc Ambinder’s “Atlantic” Blog
• Kim Strassel
• Even The Boston Globe

Let’s consider a pull quote from that last link:

“Scott Brown has certainly put a lot of wind in the sails of my campaign,’’ said Charles Djou of Hawaii . . . .

Now, first of all, it is a huge story if the Globe has to write it, as they are loath to say anything nice about Mitt Romney or anyone associated with him.  Even this piece reads like it was written with gritted teeth.   But let’s do a little political math here.  Scott Brown has completely changed the equation in the current Congress.  Jam-downs are now impossible.  Scott Brown owes that to Team Romney – thus every Republican in Congress owes Team Romney.  Now, Team Romney spreads out and works with new candidates, who in all likelihood are  going to ride this wave into office, at least a majority of them.  So now a large segment of the Republican elected officials in the nation owe Team Romney.

That, dear friends, is how presidential elections are typically won.  The hitch in this get-along are poll results like this showing Huckabee as the only candidate out-polling Obama at the moment.  What the many independents that elected Brown, and currently seem to favor the Huckster, have to realize is that parties are necessary, very necessary, for actual governance.  Scott Brown’s effectiveness in Congress is not based on Scott Brown himself, but on the fact that he allows a filibuster to hold in the Senate along party lines.  The Party Matters.

And of course, religion matters, but not in the way you might think.  The Brown election has been described as “ecumenical.”  Now, that can be a loaded word.  Religious ecumenism is not something I favor, but political ecumenism – across religious lines – well, that’s a different story.  Mike Potemra at The Corner points out:

Some on the Internet are upset because Senator Brown is pro-choice, but most are wise enough to realize that he is a friend to life in many ways that will actually count over the next couple of years. Brown, like the rest of us, is what religious folk like to call a “work in progress” – and he is an instance of yet another notable development in American religious history, one First Things editor Jody Bottum recently pointed to: “As my friend Paul Mankowski, S.J., once remarked, the Catholic Church’s moral agenda would be much advanced if every Catholic in Congress was replaced with a Mormon or a Muslim.” When I first read that, I thought it was somewhat overstated, but the longer I think about it the more true it appears.

Mitt Romney is now clearly the most influential Republican in the country.  Voting for Huckabee, or Palin, or any other presidential possible other than him is to vote against the party – which means it is to vote against effectiveness, even on so-called social issues.  At this point, all one could do by supporting someone other than Mitt Romney, should he decide to run, would be to express whatever negative feelings they might have towards the Republican party.  They can accomplish nothing else, because without the party, nothing can be accomplished.

Scott Brown’s victory was such a coup for Team Romney, that if I am Tim Pawlenty, I am thinking about shelving my presidential hopes for at least a cycle.  What was an obstacle (Romney’s prior run and the experience and friends that brings) has, with the Brown victory, become a fortress that is well-nigh unassailable.

Which is why. . .

Romney Is  In The Crosshairs . . .

. . . Of the Prop 8 Foes

The federal Prop 8 trial continues in San Francisco, and all we can do is read and pray for the lawyers and judges.  Frankly the trial is flawed by its very existence – Prop 8 is none of the federal government’s business, nor is it the place of any court to override the twice expressed will of the electorate (even the California Supreme Court could figure that one out), yet here we are.  Courts are also supposed to be about facts and law, not feelings, but in our society of abundance feelings seems to have taken a disproportionate place.  (Now there is something for religion to ponder!)

The plaintiffs in the case, that is to say opponents to Prop 8, appear to be rank religious bigots and act like it too.  But likely fearing a loss, they have launched a campaign aimed right at Mitt Romney.   You can read about it here and here.  From the latter of those two links:

Coming just two years ahead of New Hampshire’s First-in-the-Nation Presidential Primary, Californians Against Hate’s Fred Karger is running “Call MittRomney” ads in three major daily newspapers in states where Romney resides: the New Hampshire Union-Leader, the Boston Globe, and the Salt Lake Tribune.

The online ads ask former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to use his vast influence with the president of his church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church), to get them out of the anti-gay marriage business.

Folks, that is massively ugly, but in many ways it is brilliant politics.  What Karger is doing here is reminding everybody he can that Mitt Romney is, oh no, a Mormon.  And sadly, that fact makes some Republicans very unsettled.  Unsettled enough that in the last cycle, divided Republicans suffered huge electoral losses.  The ideological overreach of the current administration and Congress has reunited us in the Brown victory and that spells serious trouble for Democrats and liberals.  So in a matter of days we see our opponents start hammering on the wedge that divided us last time.  One can only hope, and pray, that we are smarter this time around.

. . . And Others

There have been a lot of people trying to make political hay out of some surface similarities between the now dead Obamacare and the healthcare plan that passed in Massachusetts when Romney was governor.  The Wall Street Journal fired the latest salvo in that effort just last Thursday.  As we have discussed here many times, what was enacted in Massachusetts and what Mitt Romney wanted and proposed were two very different things.  Not to mention Romney veoted, only to have that veto overridden, the most objectionable portions of the package.  And of course, Romney has said from the inception that the states should be doing this, not the fed.  On this latter point, it looks like a lot of people in Massachusetts agree.

It is nothing more than anti-Romney spin to try and make a case that he is tarred by the now dead-in-the-water Obamacare.  As we show above, Romney had a huge role in electing Scott Brown which is what made Obamacare dead-in-the-water.  One cannot possibly reasonably assert that Mitt Romney wants some sort of federal health care package when he just worked so hard to defeat it.

Of course, reason has often been absent when it comes to opposition to Mitt Romney.  As I have said many times, the Massachusetts health care legislation kept me off the Romney bandwagon, even if I was on the anti-religious bigotry one, for a very long time.  But actions speak louder than words and more recent actions matter more than the past;  we all learn things.  Anyone beating this issue now is beating a dead horse.

Related Things . . .

From a reader we get a story about a Ponzi scheme with Mormon overtones.  Is it a sign of bigotry against Mormons?  In a sense, yes, but Ponzi schemes thrive in faith communities of all sorts.  The grandest of them all, the Madoff scandal, was largely a Jewish phenomena, and that fact is definitely under-reported in comparison to something like this.  But I personally tend to look at these stories as more testament to the fact that in our faith communities we tend to suspend our faculties for reason and caution.  On an emotional level its part of where religious bigotry comes from – we trust those within our group and suspect those without.  The real lesson to learn here is that our faith communities, whether Mormon, Evangelical, or Jewish, contain both good people and bad people.  The trick is not to figure out who is of our religious community, but who is good or bad.

Finally, Joe Carter writes on why a pro-life president matters, even when abortion is largely a judicial issue.  I would like to challenge Mr. Carter to explain how the religious affiliation of any pro-life president matters to any of those reasons.  What matters, simply, is that they are pro-life.

Lowell adds . . .

These are fascinating subjects. A few quick hits:

Isn’t it interesting that no one is asking Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader who is an active Mormon in good standing, to influence The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on same-sex marriage?  Reid opposes such marriages, as this Salt Lake Tribune article, reprinted by Californians Against Hate themselves, reported:

Even on the most recent issue of gay marriage, Reid says he doesn’t disagree with the church’s position on traditional marriage. The senator says he voted in Nevada for the state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. But he says he’s expressed his concern for years to leaders about the church stepping into the debate and that the millions the church invested in the Prop 8 campaign was bad strategy.

Reid said he’s not suggesting the church change its position, just that it not speak out so strongly. “It’s just bad strategy to create so much ill-will in California.”.

Well, that’s a reasonably nuanced position to take, and one that more than a few politically liberal Mormons have adopted.  But Reid voted for Nevada’s constitutional rule on same-sex marriage that is just like Prop 8. So why is Californians Against Hate not running ads, asking people to call Harry Reid and urge him to lobby the Church on the issue?  The most logical explanation is that Fred Karger and company want to hurt Romney and not Reid. (Yes, Karger has historically been a Republican but this is an attack coming from the left.)  We will see more of this as Romney’s 2012 campaign efforts become more prominent.

Regarding Ponzi schemes:  It’s well known that some Mormons prey on other Mormons.  As John notes, this goes on in all kinds of affinity groups.  Utah was once known as the penny stock fraud capital of the United States.  Church leaders have warned members against investing in schemes in which the promoters tout their Mormon faith as a basis for trust.  Enough said about that sad human tendency.

And One More Thought About Haiti

If you have not felt moved to donate to the Haiti relief efforts before, you will after watching this privately-produced video:

Have I Done Any Good?

(HT: Meridian Magazine.)

And the week is off to a great start!

Sphere: Related Content

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

Sarah Palin . . .

. . . signed with FOXNews last week at the same time “Game Change” showed us she thought her Veep nomination was “God’s will.”  What can we conclude?  She is not running – I repeat – she is not running – at least not for real.  People run for POTUS for a lot of reasons, and in the last decade we have seen a new one arise – running for media credibility.  It seems clear that both Palin and Huckabee, if they throw their hat in the ring, will be doing so simply to accumulate the kind of cred that delivers five-to-six figure speaking fees and TV time.

Media is rapidly becoming about niche marketing.  Develop an audience and hit its pockets over and over again.  That is what both Palin and the Huckster are up to.  You can make a lot of money that way.  But becoming president is still about broad appeal, and that is what Romney and Pawlenty are up to – maybe Thune?  (I still say that if Thune throws in it’s a “practice” round.)

What’s sad is the ridicule the behavior of someone like Palin of the Huckster sets the rest of us up for.

The Whole “Double Standard” Thing . . .

Everybody was talking about how the media was cutting Harry Reid a break over his racist comments in re: The One.  The comments are reported in “Game Change.”  Of all the comments, Cal Thomas hit the salient point for this blog: (HT: Jay Evensen)

Reid belongs to the Mormon church, which waited until 1978 to announce a “revelation” that black people were welcome in that denomination. That is mostly ignored by the media, though reporters kept bringing up Mitt Romney’s Mormon beliefs — even questioning what undergarments he wore — during the last presidential campaign.

Watch what happens here.  Not only is no one mentioning Reid’s faith – they are not pointing out the Mormon church’s troubled history with race.  But have no fear.  Reid is about to get his head handed to him when he stands for re-election this year.  He will then become a discredited political figure.

Once that is done, if Romney runs again, you can bet we will hear all about Reid, his racism, and his Mormon faith – as a cudgel to beat Romney.  Mark my words, the swami has spoken.

The Invisible Primary . . .

Frum is trying to cause trouble here, but he does not have to work very hard at it.  When it is all said and done, I think we are going to find a close correlation between the Tea Party people and the “don’t vote for a Mormon” people.  I heard one on Michael Medved Friday say he would rather have his “conscious right with God” than vote against “his principles.”  That is just a rephrasing of the “Damn the environment, bring on the apocalypse” mentality that many on the left accuse we religious folk of having.  We really can be our own worst enemy.

Is Romney a health care hypocrite?  Tough call.  Ask Lowell, the Mass. healthcare plan kept me in the purely-academic, not-supporting-Romney mode for a long time last cycle.  It is the only thing I do not like when I look at Romney.  That said, it is a far cry better than anything that has been considered by the Fed to date.

But this I will say, the word “hypocrite” carries with it religious overtones.  Don’t be surprised to see Romney’s faith and “healthcare hypocrisy” wrapped up into a nonsensical, but somewhat effective, ball sometime in the future.

And while we are in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney is now firmly in front of the Scott Brown parade and Barack Obama the Martha Coakley death march.  In both cases it’s a huge bet on a Senate race for president or presidential candidate.  For a president there is no up side – only the preservation of existing political capital, or not.  For a candidate, the upsides are tremendous, and the downside is to look like a loser in your home state.  But at this point the “loser” label has fled the race.  Should Brown lose, which is looking less and less likely, there will be moral loss and moral victory only.  Romney comes out of this smelling like a rose, regardless.

UPDATE: Politico says Romney is missing from the Brown campaign?  Maybe he failed to appear as predicted in the link above, but if my email is any measure Romney is doing everything he can to help Scott Brown.  Why just yesterday I got emails for support activities for Brown from the Romney operation BEFORE I got them from Brown’s campaign.  And of course there are the Romney TV appearances discussing Brown that are buried in the story.  Politico is shooting at Romney here — I wonder why?  Back to the original post.

Ya gotta love it.  We laugh, but on reflection, Huck’s comment that Romney “has no soul,” is so ugly that laughter is the only viable response.   To question someone’s essential humanity is, in the end, contemptible.  I can come up with a list of negative adjectives in re: the Huckster much longer than my arm, but he is a human being – a wrong one – but a human being nonetheless.  Shame on Huckabee.

Deep Thoughts . . .

Bias and ignorance are close kin.

Using freedom to deny it.  Interesting concept.

Finally . . .

We have added MLK’s “I Have A Dream” Speech to our video widget at left – apropos the day and the raison d’être for this blog.

Lowell adds . . .

Viewing Mike Huckabee’s comments in “Game Changer” charitably, I suppose he was using “soul” in the sense of “a moral compass,” or “integrity.” Still . . . it was a most unfortunate choice of words by a candidate who everyone knows was a Baptist preacher in a religion-charged campaign. The most telling aspect of the Huck-Romney rivalry as it now stands is that Huck is the only one still taking shots at the other guy.

As for Romney’s involvement in the Scott Brown campaign, here’s an analysis that finds Romney’s fingerprints everywhere:  “Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects [is] the hidden hand of Mitt Romney.”  Read the whole thing; it describes a lot of the political bridge-building Romney is doing.  I don’t see any other candidate doing anything comparable.

Romney and healthcare:  is he a hypocrite?  The answer is no, but understanding that  requires more than a superficial understanding of what Romney did in Massachusetts.  Here’s what you need to know:  Romney’s plan was for Massachusetts, not the USA.   He has always said that he would not be in favor of the Massachusetts system (including the “individual mandate” requiring everyone to have health insurance)  being imposed nationally.  That said, 96% of Massachusetts’ citizens have health insurance.  Not a bad feat; I wish California could come even close to that.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

C.S. Lewis is a figure admired by orthodox and Mormon Christians alike.  One of his most widely read and influential works is “The Screwtape Letters” - a book I happen to be going through with two groups right now.  This past weekend I came across a passage in that book that I thought worthy of discussion in this space, but before I get there, some set-up.

The book consists of a series of letters written by a senior tempter to his junior, and nephew, as the latter attempts to steer his “patient” into eternity in the nether regions.  They did not originally appear in book form but rather were serialized, letter by letter, in a newspaper in England during World War II.  Needless to say the war, which certainly means politics, is a large presence in the “discussions.”

The passage of interest here comes in the seventh chapter, or letter, in the book.  From my perspective as an Evangelical it hits right at the heart of much that has gone wrong in Evangelical political involvement in the last few years.  I am, however, wondering about the Mormon reaction.  The Mormon view of America and its exceptionalism is rooted very differently than the traditional Christian view.  That said, the passage in question:

Whichever he adopts, your main task will be the same. Let him begin by treating the Patriotism or the Pacifism as a part of his religion. Then let him, under the influence of partisan spirit, come to regard it as the most important part. Then quietly and gradually nurse him on to the stage at which the religion becomes merely part of the “cause”, in which Christianity is valued chiefly because of the excellent arguments it can produce in favour of the British war-effort or of Pacifism. The attitude which you want to guard against is that in which temporal affairs are treated primarily as material for obedience. Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours—and the more “religious” (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.

Of course, many Evangelicals over-react to the ideas here and withdraw from the political altogether, but that is an issue for a different time.  The point as I see it is one of balance – of properly melding and prioritizing religious and political concerns, specifically making religion the tool of politics.

Thoughts?

Quick post-script from Lowell: I am late to the party here, but our LDS commenters have done a good job of laying out the views of Mormon Christianity on this issue.  I can think of some Mormons I have known who have crossed the line Lewis describes, but those folks were not acting in harmony with the church’s teachings, in my opinion.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post