But For Religion
January 5th, 2008 by JonAs I surveyed the campaign coverage of post-Iowa, mid-Wyoming, and pre-New Hampshire I found pretty much a mixed bag. Nobody really knows what’s going to happen, but everyone’s willing to hazard a guess.
Then I happened upon Michael Medved’s latest Townhall column and I started to get just a little miffed. I don’t really have an opinion on Medved – I’ve never really listened to his show, I don’t read his stuff and my only exposure to him has been via Blogfather Hugh’s radio show. Medved has now come out as a McCain backer, but his latest diatribe will most likely find its way to Team Huck for distribution.
Medved would have you believe there is no anti-Mormon bigotry behind Huck’s success in Iowa and in other evangelical heavy states. I’m not going to take Medved’s data apart here, simply because its not necessary to prove my point. I’d simply like to pose a question which turn’s Medved’s logic on it’s head:
But for religion, where would the race stand today?
But for religion, Mike Huckabee would be lagging back in single digit polling no matter what state he ran in. He’d be rightly labeled as a populist tax and spend governor of a state that – were it not for its alphabetical ranking – most Americans would never have heard about. His attitude toward and record on crime – demonstrated by his seemingly endless string of pardons – would subject him to an endless barrage of questions and commentary which would subsequently consign his campaign to the Dukakis Memorial Dust Bin. His Carter-esque foreign policy ideas would lead most responsible Republicans to run screaming from the room – to say nothing of his economic ideals which appeal to the masses but portend fiscal danger and disaster should they ever actually be implemented.
So what, pray tell, is Huck’s appeal? He plays the religion card and manages to convince some Iowans that he’s one of them. He brands himself as the “Christian Leader†thereby calling into question the religiosity of every other candidate – a not-at-all veiled jab at Mitt Romney. He then takes an even less-veiled broadside at Mitt specifically and Mormonism in general with his throwaway line to the New York Times Magazine specifically designed to put religious and not political differences on the front page – again.
While Huck may have apologized for that insult, and Mitt may have accepted said apology, the intent was clear. No, I don’t buy Huck’s explanation and I don’t accept his apology. After so many years at the pulpit, Huck knew exactly what he was saying and the publicity and religious furor it would generate. Huck’s “apology†is a bout as valid as Typhoid Mary’s would have been weeks after she came to town.
In short, but for religion, Huck would already be an also-ran.
On the other side of the spectrum you find Mitt Romney. Here is an exceptionally accomplished man – by any yardstick you choose to measure him. He has succeeded at nearly everything he’s ever even thought of attempting – be it professional, personal, or political. When the chips were down and conventional wisdom said it couldn’t be done, somebody called Mitt and the impossible got done.
Mitt has made over a quarter-billion dollars for himself, and untold billions for others in the private sector. Unlike any other candidate, he has created and saved untold millions of jobs for Americans. He enjoys new challenges, so he took it upon himself to save the 2002 Olympics and then serve his state. Having given Uncle Ted the race of his life and not being stymied by defeat he took a shot at the Governor’s chair and turned a state around. Most people would think Mitt had done enough and deserved a well earned early retirement.
In any other universe, Mitt would be so far beyond any other candidate – Democrat or Republican – this race would all but be over. He personifies the all American family man – married to the same woman for nearly four decades with five strapping sons all successful on their own merits. Norman Rockwell couldn’t have painted a better picture of a presidential candidate.
And yes, in case you were wondering, my picture does include all Mitt’s rightward shifts on the issues he takes hammers on. It wouldn’t matter – and in reality it doesn’t matter.
But for religion, Mitt would all but be sworn in. Were he Baptist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Catholic, or Methodist the only questions in this campaign would be aimed at policy. But Mitt is Mormon, and evidently that changes the rules set down by over 200 years of American political tradition.
Were there no Mormon Question, the media might have to focus on issues that really matter rather than the actual location of the Garden of Eden or the actions of Mitt’s long dead relatives. They might actually have to work for a decent newsworthy story.
No matter what Mr. Medved claims, there is an undercurrent of religious bigotry which has and will continue to dog the Romney campaign. Bear in mind with the exception of the occasional reference to “faithâ€, Mitt has been fairly neutral on the subject of religion. He’s gone to great lengths to avoid bringing religion into a race for a secular office. Never the less, Mitt’s opponents and their surrogates seem to revel in reverting to religion at every opportunity.
What proof do I have of this undercurrent? I won’t bother pointing you to the surrogate blogs filled with a never ending diatribe of combined anti-Mitt and anti-Mormonism. I’ll just point you to Mike Huckabee’s officially sanctioned blog. What you’ll find there is just one example of many I could point you in what is fast becoming little more than a cesspool of anti-Morminism. Spare me the “Huck isn’t responsible for comments†excuse. It’s got his name on it, he’s responsible for it.
I’m not going so far as to blame all the woes of Team Mitt on religious bigotry – I’m not quite that naïve. What I am saying is that Mitt has one hurdle the other candidates are free to bypass – and it makes this campaign race much like Mitt having to run100 yard dash in knee-deep water while his opponents sprint down the track.
Even with that obstacle, Mitt is still running neck and neck with them.
That says more about Mitt that I ever could.
Sphere: Related ContentPosted in 2008 presidential campaign, mitt romney |
January 6th, 2008 at 9:52 am
I was just watching Fox News Sunday. I felt that Wallace was harder on Romney than he was on the Huckster.
The other candidates wouldn’t be attacking Romney the way they did last night if they didn’t feel that Romney is a totally viable presidental candidate.
Even though I didn’t start out as a Romney supporter, I now feel that he is intelligent, articulate, and level-headed. He clearly exhibits leadership whenever he opens his mouth. I wonder why some people in this country shy away from excellence?
January 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Huckabee chides Mitt for being rich. Mitt excelled in school and started from scratch to get where he is. Don’t the American people want someone who will help us prosper? He knows how to do that. No one else who is running can do that.
January 6th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
What a horrible debate performance by Mitt! As expected, Thompson was comically bad, Giuliani was bumblingly evasive, Paul seemed like he was on loan to the Republicans from another planet, but Mitt, well…he was awful, by far the worst in the field. I thought he was supposed to be a statesman, tested, cool under fire. Last night he was shrill, defensive, panicked. His opponents, sensing blood in the water, went for the kill which, given Mitt’s limp wristed defense, turned out to be surprisingly easy. When pressured, one would have expected Mitt to react with pressure of his own, coolly returning fire. Instead Mitt was petulant, his poorly reasoned responses mostly consisting of whiny requests for his opponents to stop picking on him. Instead of a statesman, Mitt seemed more like a petulant teenager, his performance resembling what one might have expected from a 13 year old girl. This is a guy we’re expecting as president to go eye to eye with foreign leaders? It wasn’t even that nasty, and poor Mitt folded, collapsed. You can’t tell me that he was ill-prepared; Mitt’s nothing if not thorough. But under light flogging from McCain and Giuliani Mitt was worse even than that bumbling nincompoop Bush. Everyone’s familiar with Mitt’s penchant for lying and with his ethical handicaps. But it seems that some Republicans were willing to look past that based on their expectations that Mitt was tried, tested, intelligent, a professional. But that façade was cruelly punctured last night as Mitt, under light pressure, folded like a cheap tent. I’m not sure what else was learned from last nights debate, but one thing is glaringly apparent, and that if that Mitt is tragically unsuited for the job of president. One hopes that the people of New Hampshire bestow upon Mitt the electoral thumping he so richly deserves.
Have a great day!
Phil
January 6th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Good ole Phil is leaving the exact same comment at others places. Luckily people are ignoring his pathetic attempt at logic. Go Mitt! I’m proud of Mitt supporters, logical and passionate.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Mitt Romney should stop getting entangled w/ other candidates in a sort-of close-quarter battle. He plays right into their hands by engaging in hair-splitting the nuances of who said or did what, which pretty much plunge the voters into confusion and stupor. He should run firmly and unabashedly on his triple-crown achievements in private sector, international Olympic event and state governership. He is three for three as far as being successful and accomplished in turning things around. The paltry record of his opponents from both parties pales in comparison, and they couldn’t even carry his shoes. In addition to touting his records, he should also state clearly his lofty motive in running for president. Yes, he was born in privilege; yes, he’s led a charmed life; yes, there is no skeleton in his closet; yes, his hair is almost always perfect. However, instead of being one of those misbehaving trust fund kid, he’s made marks for himself, and, in so doing, he’s changed many people’s lives for the better in both private sector and public sphere. He doesn’t have to do these, he could easily sleep on his laurels. Yet, he’s here and he’s running, withstanding all those undeserved attacks and wrestling with all these snakes. By method of exclusion, he should be among the very few, if not the only one in this race, who doesn’t have any ulterior motives and does have a sterling record to run on. So, Mitt should stay above the fray, not down in the mud pit. Keep in mind, when mud starts flying and bodies gets intertwined, nobody can really see the difference, then, unfortunately, they might have to rely on on the opinions of those corrupt media types and be swayed by those demagogues.
January 6th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Normally Phil’s comments wind up in the trash heap due to profanity or plan old boneheadedness.
Today, however, I’ll let his comment stand as it illustrates the shallowness of his intellectual cul-de-sac.
January 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Jon,
My intellectual cul-de-sac may be indeed be shallow, I’ll not dispute that. But for all you Mitt cheerleaders to ignore his 180 degree switch on issues which you claim to be of critical importance to you indicates that you are in desperate need of a conscience transplant, or at minimum that you have misplaced your moral compass. Shame on you all for siding with Mitt instead of your so-called principles.
Have a nice evening!
Phil
January 6th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Jon, he is rather comical. This is the fourth site I’ve seen this on. I agree with your shallowness logic.
January 7th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Mitt should embrace the fact that he has changed positions. As new data comes in and he learns more of course he would change his thinking. We want someone who will make decisions based upon today’s information not someone locked in the past because 5 years ago they made up their mind.
January 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I am going crazy. I tired of just existing. I work 15 hour days just to get by. I want to taste life the way i used to. I want the best for my 10 year old daughter. I want her to get all life has to offer. Lets stop this now! Governor Romney is only choice. He will fight to bring us a better life. With family and a thriving economy. Let our children be heard. They want it all and they deserve it. And so do us all. Lets live life not just exist through it. we have the elderly to care for, which he will do. Lets really start educating our children as well as the American people. There is so much to learn. I have taken the time to know all the presidential hopefulls. The only choice is Mitt Romney. He will help this economy thrive again. So we all will live a free safe and unlimited potential life for our chidren and our childrens children. Learn, listen and you will see the only choice is Governor Mitt Romney.
January 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Keith, I have heard embrace those facts a number of times. Many of the flip-flop accusations are false but for a couple of them, he has explained.
Hang in there, Anthony, we’re working hard.
January 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Can someone please explain why anyone who questions Mitt is called a religious bigot?
January 8th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Deb:
I’ve never made the assertion that “anyone who questions Mitt is called a religious bigot”.
Much to the contrary.
Question Mitt all you want. Go find him at one of his events and ask him any question you want. You want to vote against him because of one of his policy positions, be my guest.
However, if you question his qualifications for the Oval Office based solely on his religion, than prepare to be labeled a religious bigot, because that’s what you’ll be.
Thanks for stopping by. Come anytime.
February 18th, 2008 at 10:25 am
[…] Much of the Mitt-O-Sphere is still grappling with the reality that - but for religion - this primary race would have been much different. I summed up my opinions on this matter some time ago. […]
February 19th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Nice to see religious bigotry is still alive and well for Mitt supporters.
There is no factual base to evangelicals being the cause of Mitt failure, and this has been well documented.
But Mitt supporters continue an all out attack on anyone of faith.
Headlines like:
Does the party need evangelicals, Evangelicals cost republicans race, does religion have any place in politics.
We expect religious bigotry from the left, but for Mitt it has become stock and trade to explain his failure.
I have seen little anti-Mormon talk (except from Mitt’s campaign) but lots of attack on Huckabee and his faith.
Mitt’s failure was based on the fact that he was not a conservative.
He had no record on social issues (except bad, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage)
And o Record on fiscal issues (again bad raising every fee he could find and cutting those evil tax loop holes)
Add that to his pro gun control record and you have a person who is doomed to lose.