Ramble inspired by Laura's monologue
I was just listening to Laura Ingraham's monologue. Right before she said "I gotta get to Starbucks" she was talking about Huckabee's wins in the South and about how he appeals to people because he speaks their language. His simple sentences like "Let's abolish the IRS" are worth millions of dollars in targeted ads. Then she "but-monkeyed" to point out that a lot of people didn't know about the negative ad that the Huckabee Campaign showed to the press in Iowa when he decided not to air it, thereby simultaneously showing it anyway to some people, getting credit for not showing it and saving a pile of money he doesn't have to spend on ads.
Here's my reaction to that. It was sneaky for sure, but it was Judo move entirely enabled by the opponent. This is why these guys are in politics. If Romney had never run a negative ad against Huckabee, would it have been news for Huck to go negative against him? But the fact is at that point Romney had spent big bucks running scads of "Governor Huckabee is a good guy BUT" ads in Iowa. Romney enabled the story and made what Huck did seem more defensive, less offensive.
It reminds me of something from earlier in the campaign. I remember anti-Giuliani people complaining about how Rudy was trying to "leverage 9/11" for his campaign because, as Mayor, he helped see his city through the horrendous crisis and aftermath. I kept hearing in my head the implied remark "...as if that's a big deal...." I think that's another instance of enablement, this time by the hesitancy of media outlets to show 9/11 images since they evoke undesirable reactions such as righteous anger, so-called "Islamophobia" and voting for Bush. The fact is that sensible Americans think 9/11 is a big deal, that it changed America and that it continues to be a reality worthy of discussion regardless of whether or not they like Rudy G's beliefs on other issues.
Remember Rush Limbaugh's famous "Hey, I am equal time"? Well, that can be applied within many different sectors of the marketplace of ideas. Rush was the Elvis of conservative talk -- he has enormous talent, but he showed up on the scene when there was nothing like him. Monoliths are easy to chop at. That's the danger of representing a narrow point of view. (Side note to Rush Limbaugh: I hate to tell you, Rush, but you succeeded because you were a maverick. Don't become a monolith.)
Where I'm going with this. Here's my beef: I think Mitt Romney would be an OK President. He's convinced me that he would be better than either Democrat. But how is he going to beat either of them? Neither one remotely resembles Shannon O'Brien (whoever that is) and both have bigger warchests than bargain basement Mike. He is an bumbling campaigner, and an inferior politician. Kudos to him for making piles of money, but it seems like needs to get the memo that it doesn't help to level the playing field when you can't play the game. He still doesn't like to mention the war, thank you Rich Lowry, completely omitting references to the war on Jihad in his first victory speech which sounded like it was being delivered by a Progressive Populist with a pinch of Reagan. His recent Santorum robo-calls were really just an anti-McCain sandwich with his name inserted at the top and bottom like two pieces of white bread. He still has not answered the question "Who is Mitt Romney?" Jennifer Rubin pointed out a few days back on her blog on Commentary Mag (which BTW is completely down currently or else I'd link it) that he recently sounded like Dole crying after George I smacked him in NH back in '88. The failure to be gracious in defeat marked the end of the Dole campaign.
I'll end with this WSJ piece which sums up my thoughts; here's their conclusion:
John McCain's difficulties in selling himself to GOP voters reflect his many liberal lurches over the years -- from taxes to free speech, prescription drugs and global warming cap and trade. Republicans have a pretty good sense of where he might betray them. Yet few doubt that on other issues -- national security, spending -- Mr. McCain will stick to his principles no matter the opinion polls. If Mr. Romney loses to Senator McCain, the cause will be his failure to persuade voters that he has any convictions at all.
UPDATE: The Commentary Magazine site is back up. Here's the Jennifer Rubin post I mentioned.
This is from the WSJ article.
ReplyDelete"The larger danger is that Mr. Romney's conversions are not motivated by expediency or mere pandering but may represent his real governing philosophy."
This alludes to something I said several posts ago. I cannot support the gov because he would probably govern like a CEO. This article says it better than I did.
Most people mistakenly associate senior corporate managers with being right wing capitalists. It's analogous to the same mistaken association of right wing conservatives with fascists. I've seen very little evidence that senior managers behave like conservatives. I am sure that exist, but I've not experienced it.
I see him behaving like a CEO, and he will react more than he will lead. I've learned one thing from my corporate experience. Efficiency and execution come from below, not from above. Managers actively suppress efficiency, innovation, and good execution. Typically because it is a threat. Leaders encourage it from below. I've worked mostly with managers not leaders. Romney is not a good leader, but he is probably a great manager.
Cube, Romney was not an "associate senior corporate manager", he was a CEO. there is a huge difference. "associate senior corporate managers" don't overhaul the US Olympics.
ReplyDeleteRomney, a man of means and concrete achievement, was shut out by the mainstream media, who couldn't stop touting McCain and Huckabee. Romney got noticeably little airtime at every turn because the media wanted it that way. it worked. the media won this election, and they'll win it for the Dems in november. I guarantee you, it's over.
Ross Perot was also a man of means and concrete achievement, but there was something more genuine about him, if a bit nutty.
ReplyDeleteI just don't get why Mitt Romney didn't go positive on himself rather than negative on McCain and Huckabee. Maybe he has shitty advisors.
From Rich Lowry's Corner post:
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, I prefer politicians pandering to the right than to something or someone else. But it won't be enough to sustain a serious presidential campaign, which has to have a deeper rationale than occupying a niche in the marketplace.
"Occupying a niche in the marketplace" perfectly describes what has been so difficult in describing my unease with Romney's positions, above all concerns about his Mormonism.
His decision to run as a Reaganite seems like the result of market research in the consumer base of those who nominate the GOP's candidate.
There's a world of difference between a conservative candidate and a candidate who happens to run on conservatism. For one thing, there's a question of the depth of conviction of the candidate, as Romney illustrated when he heralded ethanol subsidies and federal assistance for the auto industry in order to secure Iowa and Michigan.
For another, there's the degree of enthusiasm for the candidate. To attract votes in large numbers, it's not enough for him not to be McCain, and it's not enough for him to take conservative positions: he must be a man of conservative convictions, and it's clear that he's not.
A truly conservative candidate with his warchest should have wiped the floor with Huckabee, who isn't fiscally conservative, who isn't a federalist, and who doesn't really seem to grasp the war we're in. If Romney was all that great of a candidate, Mary Matalin wouldn't have to ask people to abandon Huckabee for him.
And, on the question of why people aren't supporting Romney in droves, Derbyshire approves of this disgusting theory, from an email from a Romney supporter:
ReplyDelete"Romney lost here for two reasons that are not mutually exclusive: class warfare and envy. People don't like him because he is richer, smarter, better-looking and more successful than they are, and so much so, that it is impossible for him to camouflage the difference. Oh, they will make claims such as religion or flip flops, but it's all hogwash. This is, of course, contrary to what conservatism ought to be, but it is in line with humanity as it is."
It begs all sorts of questions, such as why would Romney run for office to lead a nation of such wicked people, or why Romney wasn't smart enough to see that he's too good for us. It's also proof that if you lie to yourself enough about who Romney is, you have to end up smearing those who disagree with you in order to explain their disagreement.
On the subject, I see no substantial difference between these three claims:
ReplyDelete"Never mind the stated reasons, Republicans won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman."
"Never mind the stated reasons, Republicans won't vote for Obama because he's black."
"Never mind the stated reasons, Republicans haven't voted for Romney because he's clearly so much better than them."
If anything, at least the charges of racism and sexism are premised an objective fact about the candidate's race or sex, not messianic claims that would make even Huckabee blush.
Bubba, who did you vote for?
ReplyDelete"I just don't get why Mitt Romney didn't go positive on himself."
ReplyDeleteI have no idea whether Romney did or did not go positive on himself or anything else, because *he didn't get any air time*. For the past 3 months his name was never even mentioned except when it was preceded by discussion of the excitement surrounding McCain and or Huckabee. His speech on religion was brilliant but minimally covered. His speech last night was plenty positive on himself and timely, too, about how this country is literally losing its Triple AAA rating and becoming "second tier".
Long before this election I have been thinking that conservatives no longer understand what conservatism is. Dreher's magnum opus was a fabulous example of that. People's insistence on living way beyond their means is another fabulous example. Huckabee and McCain -- 2 more fabulous examples, except now I would call the fabulosity depressing and dangerous.
I have to agree with Derb, sorry Bubba -- except i think it was the Mormonism too.
For the past 3 months his name was never even mentioned...
ReplyDelete???
did you read the rest of my sentence pauli?
ReplyDeleteOK, Kathleen, maybe you're right re: TV. I watch very little television. But he was in all the Republican debates which is exposure to the politically engaged and he paid for tons of advertising which is the way to reach the unwashed masses. So I don't know how unlevel the playing field could have been. I think he outspent McCain on ads in SC 10 to 1.
ReplyDeleteI'll concede that the press likes the "story" of Huck's concrete achievement better than Romney's and McCain simply has a longer political career and it's his second presidential run. Reagan lost his first run, too, and learned from it. I hope Romney is learning plenty.
In corporations the phrase “senior management” or “management team”, in context, includes the CEO as well as a lot of other managers like CIO, COO, CFO, CSO, Senior VP of Mergers and Acquisitions, General Counsel, etc. Wasn’t McNamara CEO of Ford? That’s what mean when I say senior management.
ReplyDeleteI would believe that Romney is a very effective manager. I don’t really know what “overhaul” means but I have heard him use that term to describe that accomplishment. I am sure in order to do it, he gathered his management team around him, set goals, objectives, and metrics. Then he probably managed his team to the plan.
There is nothing intangible about Romney the manager. I am sure it is all very measurable and very tangible. His personality leads me to believe that he will govern just like every other CEO I’ve encountered. All business. For me I am looking for a leader not a manager. If he is a CEO, he will react to circumstances in a way which is most expedient, not necessarily the best way. He will take the approach the yields the most utils.
I have no idea if I am correct about how would indeed govern. I am only going on my experience with managers, large organizations, and the people they manage. I think a leader will set goals, inspire, and remove obstacles.
BTW, I live within 300 ft in any direction of conservative Mormans. I'd gladly vote for any one of them.
Pauli, I actually didn't vote Tuesday, mostly because I was unexpectedly slammed at work: I'm scheduled to work 'til 5:00 on Tuesday's and lately I've been working until 8:00. Tuesday night I didn't get out of the office until after 9:00, and as I did so I remember that I missed the 7:00 deadline for polls closing when I started the day intending to vote after work.
ReplyDeleteHad that not happened, I would have voted, somewhat unenthusiastically, for McCain.
Kathleen, Romney's religion speech did get plenty of air time. But let's assume that the media has been covering him less than his opponents; I don't think one can argue that he hasn't been able to get his message out.
GOP candidates broadcast 67,798 TV ads [through Sunday, January 27th], worth an estimated $50 million. Mitt Romney alone, accounted for almost 35,000 of those, spending nearly $29 million on them. John McCain was far behind, with less than one-third as many/much and Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Fred Thompson further behind still. [source]
Romney has spent almost literally twice as much on ads as all his Republican opponents combined. And, on total receipts he's still spending more than twice as much as his nearest competitor, McCain.
I would also argue that many conservatives do know what conservatism is, and Rod Dreher is a poor exhibit of an assertion to the contrary. (I will remind you that conservative pundits didn't rave about his book; the only writers who supported him were the ones he selected to interview for his book and their existing mutual-admiration societies.) Conservatives haven't rallied to Romney because he has not presented a credible reason for us to rally to him: his conservative bona fides have never seemed authentic.
As evidence I will remind you that Romney promised ethanol subsidies and help for the auto industry in attempts to secure must-win primaries in Iowa and Michigan. Limited government, federalism, the free market: these campaign promises were betrayals of these conservative principals.
And, I'm not a fan of Derbyshire's theory, to say the least, but I think that we can both agree that the theory is offensive if it cannot be justified. It is similar to the smear on the left that, issues be damned, Republicans wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black.
How would you argue that this theory isn't just a smear resulting from sour grapes? If you don't have any good reason to agree with Derb's theory, is it really prudent or charitable to indulge it?
"conservative pundits didn't rave about his book; the only writers who supported him were the ones he selected to interview for his book and their existing mutual-admiration societies.) "
ReplyDeleteNRO hosted his blog!! If Dreher weren't an absolutely graceless, socially clueless idiot, he might well still be writing over there. His ideas only ticked NRO off to the extent they became personal (which he still doesn't get).
"Conservatives haven't rallied to Romney because he has not presented a credible reason for us to rally to him: his conservative bona fides have never seemed authentic."
As opposed to McCain's conservative bona fides (which bona fides would include switching parties to be Kerry's VP ...?)
Look, I watched the debates, and I thought McCain was a nasty SOB who offered nothing of substance. I thought Huckabee was a joke. He and Huckabee made content-free attacks at Romney at every opportunity simply for the sake of scoring points, and in my opinion Romney tried to respond in good faith. As far as substance goes, he blew them away. I STILL don't know what their problems are with Romney, other than he threatened their careers. In the latest example, compare the text of Romney's speech which contained his hard-hitting, informed opinions about the economy with that of McCain, which was a string of soporofic platitudes when it wasn't self-congratulating.
My mind boggles when I consider the substance Romney offers compared to the huckabee's puffery and McCain's complete lack of substance. Lest you accuse me of being a "mitten" (since we're discussing offensive accusations), I assure you that helmet-haired mormons are not my idea of a turn-on. Romney simply offered more substsance, and the fact that *so many* conservatives (most of whom are male in my experience) completely ignore him boggles my mind and leads me to a desperate search of some sort of explanation. sorry, but envy fits the bill for me. I don't seek out offensive explanations, I seek out ones that make sense to me.
PS: don't forget that Huckabee himself provided the envy explanation for me when Huckabee said people want to vote for the guy that reminds them of the guy they work with, not one who reminds them of the guy who laid them off.
ReplyDeleteHere is the one instance when Huckabee did offer an idea of substance (substance completely antithetical to the idea of conservatism, but substance nevertheless). and apparently Huckabee was right.
Kathleen
ReplyDeleteIt is not envy or religion.
1) CEOs are not necessarily conservative.
2) Liberal Republican up until this election
3) Seems to pander to his audience making him seem inauthentic
I concede that McCain has not been tops in the debates.
ReplyDeleteBubba brings up a good point about some of Romney's "populist moments". There is an analysis of almost all the candidates, slightly stale (even has John Cox included) which took a bunch of questions posed directly to candidates and classifies them in different degrees as Liberal, Conservative, Populist, Libertarian or Moderate. Romney shows up as "populist-leaning" on the graph whereas Huckabee is more straight conservative. I found it interesting because these were directed questions.
In contrast to Romney on ethanol, McCain went right into Iowa and told them he did not support government subsidies for their corn juice. If I remember correctly, Gingrich didn't even have the nerve to do that.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with this assessment, zen-like though it be: McCain is conservative, not "A Conservative". I think maybe the adjective better describes my politics than the noun as well.
Kathleen, it seems like you want to argue that conservatives would have accepted the content of Rod Dreher's book had he made it less personal. Considering that his entire schtick is nothing but an extension of his own personal preferences, I don't see how one can separate the personal from the rest of the content, whatever that remainder may be. This is a convenient position to take, that any criticism of Crunchy Cons (e.g., in even Brian Anderson's review for NR) is because Dreher lacks any social grace, but NRO's hosting his first blog is proof that NR really doesn't know what conservatism means.
ReplyDeleteConvenient, but utterly unprovable and hard to reconcile with their endorsement of Romney when Rod's so in love with Huckabee.
I didn't say that McCain's conservative bona fides are incredibly stronger than Romney's -- though I think on some issues the argument can be made -- but the comparison is beside the point. My point is that Romney's bona fides don't stand on their own. You can argue that they're good enough in comparison to others but being the anti-McCain or the anti-Huckabee may not be enough to draw enthusiastic support from mainstreams conservatives.
On the question of substance you write:
Romney simply offered more substsance, and the fact that *so many* conservatives (most of whom are male in my experience) completely ignore him boggles my mind and leads me to a desperate search of some sort of explanation. sorry, but envy fits the bill for me. I don't seek out offensive explanations, I seek out ones that make sense to me.
"Mitten" or not, the explanations you're seeking clearly presume that the problem is with the voter rather than the candidate. He may be offering substantive proposals in the debates and in speeches, but the disconnect with some conservative voters may have less to do with their supposed envy and more to do with his lack of credibility in offering those proposals.
He's trying to occupy the niche of Reagan conservatism, but there's no sense that he is himself a Reagan conservative, and a lot in his record -- both recent and over the last decade -- to suggest that he's not.
(About his recent record, I've already mentioned the populism in Iowa and Michigan, but what about that supposedly "brilliant" speech on religion? He tried to argue that asking a candidate questions about his religious beliefs would be in violation of the "religious test" clause. In their editorial praising Romney for the speech, NR admitted that the argument wasn't logical, but that misses how truly offensive it is that a law school grad would try even to make that argument. Is this abuse of the Constitution a result of his principled conservatism?)
Regardless of who we support this late in the race, conservatives should have both eyes open about the differences between our principles and the candidates we support. Huckabee may have signed onto the Fair Tax, but he is fundamentally a populist. McCain will be better on national defense and the SCOTUS than either Democrat, but we're probably going to have to fight him tooth and nail over immigration, just as we did against Bush and his Democratic Congress. And Romney doesn't appear to be a genuine conservative, and there would be consequences with electing him, too.
(At least with Huckabee and McCain we know where the deviations are. Because Romney has no core political principles, who knows if he's going to go through what managers call a paradigm shift if the economy or foreign affairs change dramatically? Who knows if he would try to justify that shift on his managerial skills?)
Instead of men being wary of Romney because of their jealousy, maybe it's because of his inauthenticity. Perhaps women like Kathryn Lopez are so smitten with him because they so desperately want to believe him.
Bubba, I don't understand your retorts to my points about NR and Dreher. over the internet you and i discussed the fact we were disappointed that NR didn't more publicly distance itself from crunchy conservatism. you also might remember that J Goldberg argued with Lowry over whether it should have been a cover story a few years back, tellingly Lowry was unpersuaded.
ReplyDelete"My point is that Romney's bona fides don't stand on their own. You can argue that they're good enough in comparison to others but being the anti-McCain or the anti-Huckabee may not be enough to draw enthusiastic support from mainstreams conservatives."
err, we're talking who's the best candidate in the primaries, not who is the best conservative of all time. if i conclude that McCain and Huckabee are definitely not conservatives, whereas romney *might very well be*, then Romney is clearly the best choice.
I take offense for k-lo that she is "smitten". At least romney knows (knew) enough about conservatism to be able to offer a genuine hope of it, even if it was a mere "hope". McCain and Huckabee are so clueless about conservatism that they don't even have the wherewithal to fake it.
"McCain will be better on national defense and the SCOTUS than either Democrat."
ReplyDeleteI see no evidence for this. McCain wants to close guantano and he sponsored McCain-Feingold, which is going to provide its own litmus test.
Kathleen, the fact that NR published a Crunchy Cons cover story and hosted the first CC blog isn't insignificant, but my point is, neither is the fairly heavy criticism that Dreher received. I'm not persuaded by the argument that the former is important but the latter isn't.
ReplyDeleteAbout Romney, you write something that I think will let me make my point:
err, we're talking who's the best candidate in the primaries, not who is the best conservative of all time. if i conclude that McCain and Huckabee are definitely not conservatives, whereas romney *might very well be*, then Romney is clearly the best choice.
I think this is where my point is lost. Even granting your position that, all else being equal (it's not), Romney is the best choice, the fact that he "might very well be" conservative is NOT going to rally a conservative voters in droves.
You know what really energizes conservatives? Someone who clearly is conservative, not just someone who just might be conservative.
And let's not forget that where his opponents have been conservative, they seem reliably so. If abortion is all that matters to you, I'm not sure how Romney is more attractive than Huckabee: Romney's got breadth in the three legs of the stool, but not the depth, and he hadn't accounted for his health care bill from a few years ago that subsidized abortion. If Iraq is all that matters to you, I'm not sure how Romney's more attractive than McCain: again, McCain's got more depth in this one issue even if Romney has more breadth across issues.
My point is, you act like the decision to support Romney is obviously the right one for conservatives to have made. It isn't; even aside from his Mormonism, reasonable people can and have disagreed. To presume otherwise while presenting less-than-persuasive arguments for your case leads me to think it's premature to start smearing voters for not supporting your candidate.
I hate to hear that you're offended by my comment that Lopez is smitten, but it's been quite obvious. When Huckabee ran his ad wishing voters a Merry Christmas, she went off the rails, repeatedly calling it "unholy"; but she was nearly in ecstasy over Romney's religion speech, where he affirmed his personal belief that Jesus is the Son of God. Just yesterday she even quoted a Mormon emailer who smeared Evangelicals, speculating that "Evangelicals have been taught for years by their pastors that we’re Satanic," but she has yet to allow a fair discussion of what Mormons actually believe -- including the apparent belief that all churches outside the Mormon church are part of "the church of the devil."
She's been quite disgraceful in her cheerleading of Romney.
And, I didn't say that McCain would be perfect on either the war or the Supreme Court, but if you can't see a difference between him and the Dems on either issue, that's hardly anyone's fault but your own. Democrats openly hate strict constructionism, at least McCain is paying it lip service; Democrats want us to retreat from Iraq in disgrace, and McCain is steadfast.
That ought to count for something.
On the subject, I had actually emailed an acquaintance about why K-Lo's cheerleading has been so infuriating:
ReplyDeleteI really don't believe National Review is anti-evangelical, but the way some of NRO's writers are behaving, the effect in practice is to take sides in this struggle over theology.
Kathryn Lopez has been the worst about this, by far. Romney hasn't avoided the theological battle that's taking place -- not really. In his speech on religion, he stated quite plainly that he believes Jesus is the Son of God and then went on to argue, implausibly and outrageously, that asking further questions about his theological beliefs actually violates the Constitution. K-Lo couldn't praise the speech enough for how it will unite us.
On the other hand, Huckabee mentioned that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers -- which Mark Hemingway conceded is true -- and mentioned "the birth of Christ" in a ad wishing voters a merry Christmas. K-Lo repeatedly accused Huckabee of an "unholy" and "offensive" attack.
Again, Romney can make the appalling argument that asking him about his religious beliefs is unconstitutional after professing faith in Christ, and Kathryn doesn't mind; Huckabee mentioned the "birth of Christ" and she can't stop criticizing it.
I don't believe it's because she or National Review is anti-evangelical. She is pro-Romney, and therefore anti-Huckabee, but her criticisms have been so intemperate that the net effect is, at worst, to side with those who want to normalize Mormonism. Even at best, her attacks demonstrate an unwillingness even to appreciate the concerns of Evangelicals and other Christians who believe that Mormonism is deeply heretical.
Her behavior has, quite literally, been enough to make me deeply consider my current subscription to National Review.
Hosting the first CC blog was akin to setting up a self-serve gallows with a number of nooses.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I don't see what is wrong with having any discussion on what conservatism allows or doesn't allow. I think it's more problematic to decide what conservatism IS or IS NOT. I realize that this probaly makes me a "liberal" conservative, or maybe a "cafeteria conservative".
What do you think? Email me or, if you don't think I'm chopped liver, post a comment to my blog.
Bubba, I am sure neither of us can give a comprehensive accounting of Romney's actions as Massachusetts governor and how those actions speak to how he would have behaved as president under any and all circs . Clearly Romney never would have had the chance to be governor if he didn't cave on some issues in the bluest of blue states. You guys preach so vociferously against "ideological purity" exhibited by Rush, Hannity and company, but when it comes to Romney's past pro-choice position you guys turn around and insist on a religious and moral "ideological purity" in a political candidate. Well, guess what? In the realm of politics I'll take my ideological purity in the form of a coherent theory of government -- namey a government that stays out of my way, provides a level playing field for free markets, and sticks to the constitution -- over an "ideological purity" centered on religious morality and whether or not someone was pro-life for the entirety of his career. McCain wouldn't know a coherent theory of government if it hit him on the head (and sometimes I wonder if something did hit him on the head)
ReplyDeleteMcCain doesn't even have the blue state excuse. He was not exhorted by the citizens of Arizona to sponsor McCain Feingold, or insist a la Mark Shea that waterboarding is torture, or argue for shipping all Guantanmo prisoners to leavenworth and treat them like McBurglars, or sponsor an amnesty bill, but he did all that anyway. he has no coherent political philosophy, period. And now the best he can do is to tell conservatives to "calm down". that's helpful.
i don't see how lopez' publishing of an email about evangelicals from a mormon is much different from your insistence that mormons teach non-mormon churches are "of the devil". I'll bet some mormons teach that. i'll bet some evanglicals teach mormons are satanic. in no way is lopez giulty of slandering evangelicals by publishing that email. you are assuming that the mormon who emailed her is a liar, and you might be wrong.
"And, I didn't say that McCain would be perfect on either the war or the Supreme Court, but if you can't see a difference between him and the Dems on either issue, that's hardly anyone's fault but your own. Democrats openly hate strict constructionism, at least McCain is paying it lip service; Democrats want us to retreat from Iraq in disgrace, and McCain is steadfast.
ReplyDeleteThat ought to count for something."
Interesting. This is exactly the defense i used for giuliani a few months ago. I don't recall a lot of support for that line of argument headed my way when i made that point on this blog.
in any case, you are responding to an arugmnet i didn't make. i never said mccain was as bad as the dems regarding the supreme court. but on other issues i care about i think he might be even worse. I have no freaking idea, becuase the guy is a loose cannon (oh sorry, i mean maverick)
Kathleen,
ReplyDelete1) I brought up Romney's actions regarding abortion only to make the point that he's not the clear conservative choice for those for whom abortion is a singularly important issue: Huckabee's depth on that issue could reasonably trump Romney's shallow breadth regarding the three legs of conservatism.
2) But if we're going to discuss Romney and abortion, let's not pretend that we're having to analyze "the entirety of his career." He signed the health care bill subsidizing abortion IN 2006, as one of his last acts as governor, after his supposed transformation into an opponent of abortion.
3) I haven't criticized Rush Limbaugh for his supposed ideological purity, so I'm not sure why you would imply that I am.
4) In offering your justification for Romney, you offer a standard that Romney simply doesn't meet.
Well, guess what? In the realm of politics I'll take my ideological purity in the form of a coherent theory of government -- namey a government that stays out of my way, provides a level playing field for free markets, and sticks to the constitution -- over an "ideological purity" centered on religious morality and whether or not someone was pro-life for the entirety of his career.
I will remind you that, during his campaigning LAST MONTH in Iowa and Michigan, Romney embraced ethanol subsidies and helping out the auto industry. That is not consistent with a coherent philosophy of a limited, unintrusive government that is constrained by federalism and that stays out of the way of the free market.
I will remind you that, during his religion speech two months ago, which you've called "brilliant", Romney made the ridiculous argument that questions about his religious beliefs violate the Constitution, all while otherwise embracing religious freedom when it was convenient to do so.
McCain has no "coherent political philosophy"? Okay, let us be clear that I didn't suggest he did. But do you want to argue that, even in the tiny slice of this primary season, Romney's acted from a coherent political philosophy? The position is not plausible.
4) About Guiliani, I actually would have supported him, too, and in fact would have supported him more enthusiastically than I will McCain. I don't think I criticized you for making an argument that would lend Rudy support.
5) About McCain and the SCOTUS, you write:
in any case, you are responding to an arugmnet i didn't make. i never said mccain was as bad as the dems regarding the supreme court.
Your argument clearly implied precisely that.
Bubba:"McCain will be better on national defense and the SCOTUS than either Democrat."
Kathleen: "I see no evidence for this. McCain wants to close guantano and he sponsored McCain-Feingold, which is going to provide its own litmus test."
You wrote that you see "no evidence" that McCain would be better regarding the Supreme Court, which is only marginally different than saying that he would be just as bad.
6) About Lopez, my problem is not just with her posting that email, but with her consistent indifference to the serious theological concerns that many Christians have -- and that all Christians should have with Mormonism.
It's not just that "some Mormons teach" that non-Mormon churches are part of the "church of the devil." IT'S IN THEIR SCRIPTURE.
In their Doctrines & Covenants 1:30, the Mormon church is called "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth". In their I Nephi 14:10, we are told, "there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil."
In literature from the church's official website, Mormons teach that this last phrase represents "all false doctrine, false worship, and irreligious attitudes."
The idea that Mormons believe that all other churches are part of the "church of the devil" is, in fact, wholly consistent with the very existence of Mormonism, which is premised on the notion that Christian churches had strayed so far from God's plan that God -- and Jesus (two separate people in their polytheistic theology) and Moses and Elijah and John the Baptist -- had to reveal themselves to Joseph Smith and show him golden plates that contained corrective scripture.
My problem is this: K-Lo posted that Mormon's email but nothing from a Christian perspective, choosing instead to denigrate Christian concerns about Mormonism by acting as if they amount to nothing more than a reaction to their undergarments. She was euphoric over Romney's speech on religion, in which Romney asserted a belief that Jesus is the Son of God (which means something wholly different than what Christians mean by it), but she strongly objected to the COMPLETELY ACCURATE statement that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers, and she repeatedly called Huckabee's Christmas ad "unholy."
In doing all this, she demonstrated at worst a willingness to betray small-o orthodoxy for political reasons, and at best a complete ignorance about just how heretical Mormonism really is.
"I will remind you that, during his religion speech two months ago, which you've called "brilliant", Romney made the ridiculous argument that questions about his religious beliefs violate the Constitution, all while otherwise embracing religious freedom when it was convenient to do so."
ReplyDeleteBubba, i simply don't understand your sentence here.
You obviously have problems with Mormonism itself, and I question the wisdom of that when and if it's brought to bear on deciding whether or not to vote for a Mormon political candidate. I still think Romney's speech was brilliant and I'm still not sure why I shouldn't.
regarding McCain and the SCOTUS, I didn't read your sentence carefully enough -- but here is how i erroneously read it: McCain would be "materially better" than a Dem regarding the SCOTUS. He would be better, i grant you that, but not better enough to make me believe that his being the GOP nominee won't seriously damage the party and perhaps even drive me out of it.
"But do you want to argue that, even in the tiny slice of this primary season, Romney's acted from a coherent political philosophy? The position is not plausible."
yup, I do want to argue that. up to a point, the coherence of a given political philosophy is a matter of degree, and the 3 legged stool metaphor illustrates this perfectly. A too-short 3 legged stool might be too short for your liking but *it is still a stool*. a one legged "stool" is never a stool, no matter how long the one leg is.
Kathleen, do you believe that Romney was correct when he said this in his speech on religion?
ReplyDelete"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
I don't, and I think it's such a ridiculous and transparent distortion of Article VI that I don't think that an actual conservative who's ever read the Constitution would make this argument.
And, Romney's embrace of ethanol subsidies is inconsistent with a political philosophy that champions federalism, limited government, and the protection of the free market: I don't see how the issue can be a matter of degree.
Romney went populist on us the moment he thought he needed to do so to win a primary.
You mentioned " a coherent theory of government -- namey a government that stays out of my way, provides a level playing field for free markets, and sticks to the constitution" -- and Romney abandoned that theory almost immediately.
"The idea that Mormons believe that all other churches are part of the "church of the devil" is, in fact, wholly consistent with the very existence of Mormonism, which is premised on the notion that Christian churches had strayed so far from God's plan that God -- and Jesus (two separate people in their polytheistic theology) and Moses and Elijah and John the Baptist -- had to reveal themselves to Joseph Smith and show him golden plates that contained corrective scripture."
ReplyDeleteWow, I didn't know that. That explains a lot. That's probably why the strict Mormons won't let my kids play with their kids. The moderate Mormons stopped letting my kids play with their kids, when their's got baptized. Well the good thing is at least the strict Mormons stop by to sell girl scout cookies. At least as human beings they are consistent.
"The moderate Mormons stopped letting my kids play with their kids, when their's got baptized."
ReplyDeleteCube, earlier in the thread you said that you'd happily vote for any one of these mormon neighbors. even though they don't let their kids play with yours?!
if Romney didn't let his kids play with mine, or if i thought he wouldn't let them, you can be darn sure i wouldn't vote for him.
"ideological purity"
ReplyDeleteK, It's freaking murder. You east coast people live in a different world sometimes. On some things we just can't compromise. Dems stand for piles of dead babies.
Sorry to be the big one note johnny on the blog.
On a another note, I heard about Romney today from one of the many disgusting commies at work. He gloated that his wealth couldn't buy the presidency. I think you have a point about jealousy.
I am very sorry. I was hoping he would go on. Perhaps more time he could have convinced me. I hope that he works for conservative causes and takes intellectual leadership in the party. If he does these things I could vote for him in few years. I am sure in four years he can make it happen.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteI don't, and I think it's such a ridiculous and transparent distortion of Article VI that I don't think that an actual conservative who's ever read the Constitution would make this argument."
Bubba, you cannot be serious. how would requiring an explanation of one's distinctive religious beliefs not "enable" a religious test? and why should romney be required to provide the explanation? there's a book of mormon in every marriott on the globe.
and it would still be a religious test even if we didn't quiz romney himself on mormonism. if the NY Times did an expose on Mormonism in the context of Romney's candidacy you wouldn't find that smacking of a religious test for office?
do you think it impossible that, say, Jimmy Carter or GW Bush believed, while running for office, that all catholics were going to hell since they aren't "born again"? should they have been asked this? as a catholic, I can tell you honestly that I don't personally care if either of them ever believed that, and it would not have affected my vote. If they were idiotic enough to proclaim it, however, I wouldn't vote for them. If anyone had asked them the question and they refused to answer based on Article VI, that would be perfectly reasonable.
the constitution says what it does to avoid precisely these sorts of inquiries.
K
ReplyDeleteThey are just afraid that their kids will be corrupted by my kids. I don't blame them. They are solid people though. They work hard and mind their own business.
Do you guys know how badly Mormons were persecuted in this country? They were murdered out of Illinois and Missouri by the government. It's pretty bad.
Hey your kids can play with my kids anytime. ;-)
Kathleen:
ReplyDeleteArticle VI prevents THE GOVERNMENT from making religious affiliation or religious beliefs qualify or disqualify a candidate for office. It has NOTHING to do with what a citizen asks the candidate, with whether the candidate replies, or with the reasons a citizen casts a particular vote.
Enacting a law prohibiting Mormons (or non-Mormons) from running for office: THAT would violate the religious test.
Asking a Mormon (or non-Mormon) candidate about his beliefs do not.
This is high-school level civics. It's bad enough that so many rank-and-file conservatives don't grasp this: for the intelligent and successful law school grad to distort the Constitution this badly, Romney either thinks we're fools or is a fool himself.
do you think it impossible that, say, Jimmy Carter or GW Bush believed, while running for office, that all catholics were going to hell since they aren't "born again"? should they have been asked this?
ReplyDeleteThe question isn't, "should they have been asked this?"
It's, is asking them unconstitutional. It clearly is permissible; it's outrageous Romney would try to argue to the contrary. Even NRO, in its editorial about the speech, couldn't ignore this.
The logic of his address was not always airtight. He said that for a political leader to describe his church’s teachings in detail “would enable the very religious test the Founders prohibited in the Constitution.” It may be unwise for many reasons for voters to expect political leaders to go into these details, but the Constitution has nothing to do with it: The religious-test clause prevents governments from barring people from running for office because of their religion; it lets voters make their decisions, and politicians try to influence their decisions, however they wish.
And I shouldn't let slide the fundamental hypocrisy of that speech: while Romney was arguing that explaining his beliefs would be unconstitutional, he still just had to claim that he believes Jesus is the Son of God.
ReplyDeleteApparently, what qualified as permissible religious oratory just happened to align perfectly with what was politically expedient.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteI don't, and I think it's such a ridiculous and transparent distortion of Article VI that I don't think that an actual conservative who's ever read the Constitution would make this argument.
Let me introduce you to such conservatives. Their names are Ralph reed, Richard Land, and Deal Hudson.
Bubba, Romney was not writing a law review article or supreme court brief, he was writing a political speech. political speeches have never required "airtight logic" and never will, the legal aspirations of the editors at NR notwithstanding. maybe he should have said "facilitate" instead of "enable".
ReplyDeletein any case, Constitutional law is not an algorithm. the text of the document is interpreted in light of founder's intent (even by "strict constructionists" or "originalists"), and the founders intent behind Article VI is clearly to eliminate any barrier to public life based on the faith of a particular individual. good luck disputing that in court.
in that case, it's unfair for you to suggest it's hypocritical of Romney to say he believes Jesus is the Son of God because he doesn't disclose everything else about mormonism (assuming he knows and adheres to all its tenets and is as good a mormon as he thinks he is). would you require every political candidate to remain mum about every single facet of his religious belief, or only those who refuse to go into it in detail? your all-or-nothing stance is odd, to say the least. I don't understand it.
K
ReplyDeleteWhat's to understand, Bubba's a technologist. That's why you get the hardcore logic. Binary Man.
I have to side with Kathleen on this one. It's all context and intent. In a political context someone grilling me about Catholicism is probably looking to use it against me. I would be especially sensitive to Romeny when his religion's founders were hunted and killed by the municipal authorities.
That's government at work.
Paul, I didn't know that Reed and Land had anything to do with that ridiculous movie, but thank you for pointing that out: I did not think that such utter ignorance about constitutional law was as widespread among conservatives, to our shame. I personally don't put much stock into what Reed or Land says about politics or religion, and I stand by position that no conservative who's actually read the Constitution has any intellectual ground on which to argue that Article VI prohibits voters from asking candidates about their faith.
ReplyDeleteMystic, I'm sorry you find logic so disturbing. Perhaps you would prefer a discussion about how we feel about the Constitution, to hell with its actual contents. I won't be joining such a discussion, as I believe that words mean things, that the Constitution has a clear and coherent meaning, and that its driving purpose is to limit government not the individual: oh, the horrors of my being a technologist.
For what it's worth, I have no problem with concluding that a person who asked Romney about his specific religious beliefs is not trying to help his campaign. (God forbid that actual Christian orthodoxy enter this discussion, and that those who care about small-o orthodoxy actually voice their concerns.) Faced with such questions, Romney is free to evade and avoid answering them. He should not be required to answer them, though how he responds might not be unimportant. My problem is his invoking Article VI to refuse to answer: it's as ridiculous as a journalist invoking the First Amendment if his editor refuses to run an article.
Now, Kathleen.
Your defense of Mitt Romney is increasingly resembling the strained logic of Clinton's defenders. We can't look back into Romney's short career in politics to determine whether his supposed transformation on abortion before becoming governor is sincere: 2006 is ancient history.
Now, we can't look at what Romney said during his campaign, since his speeches -- even ones you think are "brilliant" -- shouldn't actually be scrutinized.
(You still haven't addressed his comments on ethanol subsidies and the auto industry.)
Your message is clear. Don't look at what he's done in even the recent past, and don't look at what he's said in the last two months: Mitt Romney obviously has a coherent political philosophy that embraces limited government, federalism, the free market, and the Constitution. Those who disagree -- and do so by appealling to such ridiculous minutiae as his actual words and deeds -- why, they're just jealous of his perfection.
You don't make your case for Romney very persuasive, and you don't make your support for him seem very principled.
maybe he should have said "facilitate" instead of "enable".
Either way, he would have been wrong, since Article VI has to do only with the legal qualifications of a candidate, not the questions he's asked, the answers he gives, or the reasons voters make their decisions. Invoking Article VI at all was a mistake that a strict constructionist should never make, especially one who went to law school and was then running for president.
in any case, Constitutional law is not an algorithm. the text of the document is interpreted in light of founder's intent (even by "strict constructionists" or "originalists"), and the founders intent behind Article VI is clearly to eliminate any barrier to public life based on the faith of a particular individual. good luck disputing that in court.
The intent of Article VI is to eliminate LEGAL barriers, and asking Romney religious questions isn't a legal barrier: in court we would be arguing over the laws about who can run for office or who can vote. Are you suggesting that Romney could actually file suit against someone who dared to ask him a religious question?
in that case, it's unfair for you to suggest it's hypocritical of Romney to say he believes Jesus is the Son of God because he doesn't disclose everything else about mormonism (assuming he knows and adheres to all its tenets and is as good a mormon as he thinks he is). would you require every political candidate to remain mum about every single facet of his religious belief, or only those who refuse to go into it in detail? your all-or-nothing stance is odd, to say the least. I don't understand it.
My complaint isn't that "it's hypocritical of Romney to say he believes Jesus is the Son of God because he doesn't disclose everything else about mormonism".
It's hypocritical to say that asking for such disclosure is unconstitutional, that it enables or facilitates or has ANYTHING to do with the "religious test."
If he really believed that and was being consistent with all that stuff about how what matters is how faith influences policy, he wouldn't have tried to attract Christian voters by mentioning his belief about Jesus.
Instead, Romney wanted to attract Christian voters by disclosing things about his faith that are superficially reassuring about Mormon faith: see, we all believe Jesus is the Son of God, so vote for me. But he wanted to bury everything else that would have caused concern about his faith, starting with the fact that Mormons mean something truly different than Christians when they say "Jesus is the Son of God."
In order to bury those inconvenient facts of his faith, he abandoned any fidelity to the actual text of the Constitution to make a ridiculous argument about Article VI.
For all your talk about his coherent political philosophy, he abandoned that philosophy when he thought he had to.
Mormon theology is absolutely deadly in an electoral sense for a nation that is still nominally Christian: Mormonism's very premise for existence is Christianity's utter apostasy, and in the place of small-o orthodoxy, they replace monotheism with polytheistic beliefs about becoming deities and then have the audacity to call itself true Christianity. Of those Christians who care about doctrine, many do -- and all should -- find intolerable the notion that the line between Mormon heresy and Christian orthodoxy could become blurred.
But, like I say, Mormon doctrine is politically toxic, so for all your talk about his coherent principles on the Constitution, Romney tried to bury the subject by lying about the Constitution.
Just as, for all your talk about Romney's principles on federalism and limited government, Romney supported ethanol subsidies and helping the auto industry in order to try to prevail in must-win situations in Iowa and Michigan.
He abandoned his principles when he thought his political survival was riding on it.
If you want to argue that he was still better than the others, fine. But this nonsense about his coherent philosophy, your insistance that we should ignore his deeds and words to see that philosophy, and your smearing as "jealous" those who disagree with you are all too much.
It's boosterism and cheerleading rather than a clear eye of who Romney is.
"Are you suggesting that Romney could actually file suit against someone who dared to ask him a religious question?"
ReplyDeletewell, gee, bubba, it depends on the circumstances of the case. In light of the Article VI of the constitution *I'm not going to rule it out*. I'd be surprised if you ever read a Supreme Court holding. You may earnestly wish the law works like you insist it does, but i can assure you that it doesn't. constitutional law comes from case law, not just the text of the constitution. if everything were so cut and dry, we wouldn't need a supreme court -- you come perilously close to arguing that the supreme court is itself unconstitutional.
since you're being such a stickler, maybe it's time for you to provide some citations. like where Romney stated that "mere questions" about his religion would be "unconstitutional" (good luck with that)? like where i argued for Romney's "perfection"? i've never run across a perfect conservative candidate, so i don't know why i should be losing any sleep over the dreaded "ethanol subsidies" -- God knows it's not any sleep i haven't already lost since W or his father were in office.
As far as my "smear" that people are jealous of Romney, I provided a citation for that argument, so take it up with Huckabee.
and the rest of your comment about mormonism ... i'm going to leave that alone.
“Mystic, I'm sorry you find logic so disturbing.”
ReplyDeleteWhy do you jump to conclusions and infer from my comments that I find logic disturbing? Do you have special insight into my intentional states? I find logic refreshing. I find your logic and Kathleen’s logic refreshing. Even Pauli displays primitive capabilities of grasping simple logic, which I find refreshing too.
“Perhaps you would prefer a discussion about how we feel about the Constitution, to hell with its actual contents.”
Again this is your opinion, designed to paint me as a liberal. It is a personal attack. I don’t prefer discussing feelings about the constitution.
“I won't be joining such a discussion, as I believe that words mean things, that the Constitution has a clear and coherent meaning, and that its driving purpose is to limit government not the individual: oh, the horrors of my being a technologist.”
Unclench your buttocks homeboy, I was complementing your razor like logic. Sheesh. :-)
Rather than attacking me why don’t you address context and intent. Perhaps Romney has deduced from historical evidence that mainstream protestants will use his Mormonism as an excuse to murder and persecute him politically as protestant government officials once murdered and persecuted his Mormon ancestors. There is a history of murdering and persecuting Mormons in this country. What context were questions about his faith asked? What was the intent of those questions? Was it to designed to prejudice voters against him because he is a Mormon?
Kathleen, isn’t there some kind of precedent here since Protestants and Government officials in the past have actually murdered and persecuted Mormons for being Mormons, and even passed anti-Mormon legislation, that their questioning him now about his faith might be used against him to deny him running for public office?
If I were Romney I would have diffused the situation by simply answering the questions, and telling everyone how Mormonism has informed my conservative principles.
I do agree with Bubba about what Romney said during the campaign. I don’t think he is that conservative. However, if he uses the next 4 years to work for real conservative causes, support pro-life, works to get judges, works to reduce taxes and limit and even shrink government, he would really earn my vote.
and I stand by position that no conservative who's actually read the Constitution has any intellectual ground on which to argue that Article VI prohibits voters from asking candidates about their faith.
ReplyDeleteThat's not the argument of the movie, Reed, Land, or Hudson. All are arguing against voters applying religious tests - they are not saying that the Constitution forbids voters from making such a choice. Just because one has the right to use religion as a criterion for selecting candidates, it does not mean voters ought to.
I apply my own "tests" all the time based on all kinds of frivolous and non-frivolous attributes. I just don't tell anybody....
ReplyDeleteOOPS! I guess I just did... the cat is out of the bag....
Mystic, I apologize for being needlessly snarky earlier, but I took your prior comments as a personal attack. I apparently did so in error.
ReplyDeleteAbout "content and intent" you write:
Perhaps Romney has deduced from historical evidence that mainstream protestants will use his Mormonism as an excuse to murder and persecute him politically as protestant government officials once murdered and persecuted his Mormon ancestors. There is a history of murdering and persecuting Mormons in this country. What context were questions about his faith asked? What was the intent of those questions? Was it to designed to prejudice voters against him because he is a Mormon?
By that logic, we can't ask Obama about the apparent black supremecism in his church because there used to be Jim Crow laws.
Because Mormons used to be murdered and persecuted through unfair laws, we can't ask a Mormon candidate about his religion? Even as Romney spoke about how his faith informs his life, we can't ask about the details of his faith? As his campaign suggests that his being a faithful churchgoer is a reason to support him, we can't ask about the contents of his church's doctrines?
To do so would be unconstitutional?
That's bullshit, Mystic.
Kathleen, if you honestly think that asking a candidate questions about his religious faith is unconstitutional, then your support of a political philosophy that esteems the Constitution is vacuous and devoid of any real content.
You come perilously close to arguing that the Constitution is a living document whose contents are entirely up for discussion.
Apparently, you don't really care about the actual text of our founding document, just like you don't really care about what your candidate actually said about that document, in a speech you hailed as brilliant.
No, you withhold your willingness to study text in detail for really important stuff, like comments in a blog. You expect more precision from me than you do your own candidate.
And I wonder, why leave my comment about Mormonism alone? Did I say anything that was untrue? Or is it just a tiny bit uncomfortable for you to face the fact that your candidate is a member of a deeply heretical religion?
Paul Zummo:
ReplyDeleteThat's not the argument of the movie, Reed, Land, or Hudson. All are arguing against voters applying religious tests - they are not saying that the Constitution forbids voters from making such a choice. Just because one has the right to use religion as a criterion for selecting candidates, it does not mean voters ought to.
If they're doing so, that's a lot better than claiming that the Constitution forbids voters from making religion a criterion. But while that's a lovely position to take theoretically, and while there are times where citizens can and should find common ground, the actual content of a person's religion often does matter and shouldn't be wholly excluded from political considerations.
That I must point this out when we face jihadists who would like to impose sharia law, is disappointing.
"Or is it just a tiny bit uncomfortable for you to face the fact that your candidate is a member of a deeply heretical religion?"
ReplyDeleteI left it alone because people have said the same about catholics for hundreds of years and it's not great that you sound like them. since you asked.
Bubba, you are the one who brought up Article VI and insisted on precision. Romney didn't cite article VI, YOU DID. Romney is allowed to cite constitutional principles in a political speech. it doesn't make him a heretic, it doesn't make him a non-conservative, it doesn't make him dishonest.
bubba, why not just cut right to the chase and press your legislators to pass a "no mormon presidential candidates allowed" law? aren't they your representatives in congress after all? if only it weren't for that darn Article VI, that exists in a vacuum and was written by the founding fathers for reasons wholly unrelated to our situation today. I mean, after all, they lived 200 years ago, and whatever principles they held dear no longer apply in this, the age of jihad.
ReplyDeleteThat I must point this out when we face jihadists who would like to impose sharia law, is disappointing.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but I guess that's why I am sanguine about Mormons. Unless they've slipped in a little jihad in between the personal heavens and Jesus appeared to the Native Americans stuff, I don't really give a fig what they believe (from a political standpoint).
Look, who cares now. McCain won, and we're still debating stuff that is no longer an issue. I do look forward to casting my completely meaningless vote for Thompson next Tuesday in Maryland.
I do look forward to casting my completely meaningless vote for Thompson
ReplyDeleteYou're voting for Tommy Thompson?
Oh, Fred Thomspon, OK....
Why not vote for Jesus? I mean, if you're going to waste a vote, why not go full bore?
Paul Zummo:
ReplyDeleteUnless they've slipped in a little jihad in between the personal heavens and Jesus appeared to the Native Americans stuff, I don't really give a fig what they believe (from a political standpoint).
The doctrine that their church's president is a literal divine prophet who can teach new revelations from God -- rather than simply clarify existing revelation -- gives me pause, but otherwise I agree from a political standpoint. But religious freedom swings both ways, and if it permits a Mormon to run for office, it also permits a Christian to refuse to support him even for non-political reasons.
Kathleen,
Let me make absolutely clear that I would OPPOSE any legislation that sought to prohibit a person from running for office based on his religious beliefs.
if only it weren't for that darn Article VI, that exists in a vacuum and was written by the founding fathers for reasons wholly unrelated to our situation today. I mean, after all, they lived 200 years ago, and whatever principles they held dear no longer apply in this, the age of jihad.
I don't believe that Article VI exists in a vacuum, but the context in which it was created makes it clear that the "religious test" clause forbids the government from creating a religious test: it doesn't limit how the people vote, why they vote, the questions they ask candidates, or the answers the candidates can give.
Article VI is still relevant today, as it should be: it just never limited how people vote or the questions they ask their candidates, and it doesn't today, either.
Bubba, you are the one who brought up Article VI and insisted on precision. Romney didn't cite article VI, YOU DID. Romney is allowed to cite constitutional principles in a political speech. it doesn't make him a heretic, it doesn't make him a non-conservative, it doesn't make him dishonest.
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Romney cited constitutional principles but did not allude to Article VI?
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
He's referencing the "religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution." That test is found in Article VI and is found nowhere else in the Constitution.
In invoking Article VI, he misused its meaning in a way that does make me question his conservative bona fides, because conservatives generally understand that the Constitution limits the government, not the people. And his misuse does make me question his honesty, because he did graduate from law school and should already understand the Constitution.
My use of the word "heresy" has nothing to do with his abuse of Article VI and everything to do with the doctrinal content of Mormonism.
About which, you wrote this:
I left it alone because people have said the same about catholics for hundreds of years and it's not great that you sound like them. since you asked.
I would ask, as politely as possible, that you consider the consequences of this position. What you seem to be saying is that it's never okay for a Christian to argue that a religious group that claims to be Christian is so radical in its beliefs that the descriptive adjective of "Christian" no longer applies.
You seem to suggest that, because any criticism of any group claiming to be Christian would resemble superficially the persecution of Catholics, no criticism is allowed.
With that position, Christianity ceases to mean anything in particular. A group could claim to be Christian while denying the humanity of Christ, or the deity of Christ, or the resurrection of Christ, or the crucifixion of Christ, or even the historicity of Christ, and we would have to let the question of the nature of Christ become something that's negotiable.
I don't think I'm wrong about the extreme divergence between Christian theology and Mormon theology: their central historical claim -- that Joseph Smith was visited by God, Jesus, Moses, Elijah, and John the Baptist; and that he was shown golden plates containing new doctrine -- necessitates extraordinary doctrinal differences. If a Mormon's beliefs about God didn't diverge all that much, there wasn't much point to divine intervention that out of the ordinary.
If I'm right that their doctrinal claims fall far outside of small-o orthodoxy, my commitment to Christianity requires that I point this out so long as they try to claim to be Christian. To do otherwise is to let the truth which God revealed be lost in a sea of deceit.
Why not vote for Jesus? I mean, if you're going to waste a vote, why not go full bore?
ReplyDeleteAh, that would require the effort of writing. At least I can just punch a button and be done with my vote in the case of Fred. I mean Fred!
No apologies among friends. Binary Man was an attempt to give you a superhero name since you like comics. It was meant for fun and comradery.
ReplyDeleteMost folks don't encounter hardcore techies, and seldom experience the intensity of logic. If you don't mind sharing I'd be interested in knowing what field you specialize in.
Mormons were persecuted for their religion, not their race. It's not a good analogy. So yes you can, and should ask Obama about any racism or any other political ideology that is going to impose itself on the people. We are in a difficult area, because we are parsing theology in order to make a political judgment. I don't think racism is a theological concept. It seems to be in the realm of politics.
You can ask Romney anything you want about his beliefs, whatever you mean by beliefs, but it is the context and intent that matters. Why in a political contest do you want to ask theological questions? Do you want to convert to Mormonism? Or is your intent to discover that Mormons are not allowed to govern based on their theology? Are you going to require that they renounce their religion in order to run for political office? I think those are relevant questions to determine intent, because the context in which you are asking the question is very strange. Unless you want to have a theological debate, during a policy speech. If that were the case then, let's take the theology questions off line privately over warm water and cookies.
Given the precedent of Mormon's being murdered, persecuted, ethnically cleansed, and anti-Mormon legislation in this country by Protestants and government I would say that in a political context the intent of the theological questioning was to foment anti-Mormon sentiment that could lead to legislation that would deny Mormons the ability to run for office.
If you think this answer is bullshit, it’s no more bullshit than asking theological questions to a candidate whose peaceful religion as a history of being maligned and persecuted.
Michael Medved just reported on a survey in which the question was asked "Could you ever vote for a Mormon president?" 21% of people said "NO". They asked the same question about Evangelical Christians and the result was 20% said "NO". So if you want to talk about past persecution, sure, but presently it seems like there is a hair's breadth difference between anti-Mormon bigotry and anti-Evangelical bigotry.
ReplyDeleteMystic, what I specifically called bullshit was the notion that asking a candidate religious questions is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteGiven the precedent of Mormon's being murdered, persecuted, ethnically cleansed, and anti-Mormon legislation in this country by Protestants and government I would say that in a political context the intent of the theological questioning was to foment anti-Mormon sentiment that could lead to legislation that would deny Mormons the ability to run for office.
I don't think the conclusion follows the premise, because from the fact that persecution occurred in the past (largely a century ago), it doesn't follow that the person asking the question is either responsible for the persecution or would like to see it repeated. You're trying to deduce the questioner's intent from his other people's actions.
There are other possibilities that mean that the person doesn't want legislation that would forbid Mormons from running for office.
It could be that he wants to encourage people not to support a Mormon candidate, a far cry from denying him a legal right to run.
It could simply be that he doesn't care about the electoral outcome and simply wants to defend theological truth. In campaigning, Romney wanted to present his Mormon faith as just another instance of Christian faith: asking him hard questions about the details of his faith would clarify things greatly and would perhaps make clear that Mormonism cannot credibly claim to be Christian.
And, for what it's worth, as much as I think Mormon persecution was wrong, it doesn't qualify as their being "ethnically cleansed." Mormons aren't an ethnic group.
I'm a software engineer by trade, and I do very much value logic. I don't think that logic is sufficient for wisdom, but it's necessary. Wisdom can transcend logic, but it will not contradict logic.
I don't believe that constitutional principles would remain intact if every newspaper in the country did an exhaustive survey of each candidates' religious beliefs for each election cycle. I believe that exercise would as good as trash the constitution. Fortunately, most of the country agrees with me, the evidence of that being such surveys are unheard of. God bless America.
ReplyDelete</Battle Hymn of the Republic>
ReplyDeleteAre you finished? Because it seems to me that the United States Constitution doesn't actually prohibit what newspapers can publish. On the contrary, it forbids Congress from infringing upon freedom of the press.
With only the possible exception of treason itself, there is nothing newspapers can do to trash the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't dictate what newspapers can do: it dictates what the federal government can do.
I don't even know why you even mention their publishing "an exhaustive survey of each candidates' religious beliefs for each election cycle," since -- while I believe such a survey would be constitutionally permissible -- that's not what I'm advocating.
What I'm saying is simply this:
1) Mormons are and should be free to run for office.
2) Voters are and should be free to ask such candidates and all candidates questions about their religious beliefs, and then discuss all related issues, because...
3) ...voters are and should be free to make political decisions based partially or entirely on their religious beliefs.
The core principle of American society is freedom, but the thing you seem to miss is that that freedom entails both the Mormon's right to run for office and the Christian's right to ask the candidate questions about the Mormon candidate's faith, to discuss that faith in public, and to vote because of that faith.
It's not just the candidate who must be allowed to enjoy religious freedom: IT'S ALSO THE VOTER.
I'm not a Huckabee supporter, but I had to admit it was slick when he asked that reporter "Don't Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?" That was like a hang ten political move, albeit nasty. Then he apologized, of course, but hey, at that point everyone was at the clambake.
ReplyDeleteyou forgot one
ReplyDelete4) the candidate is AND SHOULD BE free to tell the voter who asks for a detailed explanation of his religious beliefs to BUZZ OFF.
Bubba, I take your point that a Christian should be free to vote against a Mormon for religious reasons. My question to you: OUGHT a Christian voter to do this?
ReplyDeleteI could see voting against Romney for many legitimate reasons, but the notion of abstaining from voting for him because he's a Mormon seems extremely silly. (Of course, I happen to think the whole system of democracy is extremely silly, but that's a different issue.)
As I said earlier, Kathleen:
ReplyDeleteFaced with such questions [about his faith], Romney is free to evade and avoid answering them.
I agree with that fourth assertion: the candidate should be free to tell the voter to buzz off, and the voter should be free to interpret that reluctance to answer as he pleases.
What I object to is A) basing that "buzz off" in the ridiculous notion that Article VI outlaws such questions and B) that such a defense would come from a truly principled conservative.
Andy, I personally think that there's no obvious answer to the question of whether a Christian should abstain from supporting a Mormon candidate for high office. If I thought the Bible required one answer or another, I would have said so. Instead, there are a few things I believe are true and difficult to dispute:
1) The Bible is clear that Christians' primary duty is to God.
2) The Bible is also clear that Christians have a duty to protect and defend doctrinal truth; for instance, in II John 1:7, John teaches against the false doctrine that denies the humanity of Christ, that denies that Jesus came in the flesh. Doctrine mattered then; it matters now.
3) I think it is absolutely clear that Mormon doctrine is so radically different from small-o orthodoxy that it cannot be considered merely a minority view within Christianity: its theology is, in a very literal sense, heresy.
4) Mormonism is trying to present itself as another branch of Christianity -- indeed, its claims require the belief that it's the truest expression of Christianity -- and it would be very harmful to the clarity of Christian doctrine if they succeeded.
Now, from this, it doesn't necessarily follow that a devout Christian should have opposed Romney's candidacy, but if you couple these facts that I believe are indisputable with the concern that a Romney victory would bring new legitimacy to Mormonism, then you have something.
Even then, it's a matter of the individual Christian's relationship with God, but I have become convinced that I personally could not support Romney -- knowing the likely consequences to the clarity of Christian doctrine -- and do so with a clear conscience.
Bubba, if you were convinced that a Mormon president would, let us say, end Roe V. Wade and usher in many legislative advances against the Culture of Death, would you still not be sure about voting for him, since having a Mormon as president might give legitimacy to a heretical sect with very strange doctrines?
ReplyDelete"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
ReplyDeleteIf a Christian is convinced that this is an issue concerning his loyalty to God, to God's church, and to the truth that He has revealed, there is no temporal incentive that can be offered to outweigh that. A President who would advance the culture of life at the expense of the Gospel of eternal life may not be the bargain you think it is.
What I object to is A) basing that "buzz off" in the ridiculous notion that Article VI outlaws such questions and B) that such a defense would come from a truly principled conservative.
ReplyDeleteBubba, for that last time, that's. not. what. Romney. said. he didn't say it was "outlawed". he didn't even say it was "unconstitutional". will you finally dump this straw man please.
As far as "gaining the world and losing our soul" goes, I would argue that America is pretty far gone down that road (both in the sense of world-gain and soul-loss)already. Having a pro-life Mormon president certainly isn't likely to make the situation any worse.
ReplyDeleteGod uses imperfect people for his purposes all the time. Anyway, if a Mormon did help end abortion I doubt it would force people into the streets shouting "All hail our Mormon Christian president! He ended abortion! Yes -- now we know Mormons are Christians, just like they always claimed they were." I would welcome any president helping end abortion including Rudy Giuliani, another imperfect candidate, who might become president someday and who I would still vote for if he runs later on.
ReplyDeleteKathleen, this is what Romney said:
ReplyDelete"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution."
I do not think it's an unreasonable "straw man" to conclude from these two sentences that Romney asserted that his explaining his religious beliefs would be unconstitutional, because it would "enable" an unconstitutional religious test.
I don't find your assertion to the contrary to be persuasive, and honestly it seems like a whole different tune than your earlier claim that case law could actually mean that Romney could file suit and win against someone who asked him a religious question; never mind your first defense about this supposedly "brilliant" speech, that the actual contents shouldn't be examined too closely in the first place.
You've moved from arguing that it doesn't matter what Romney said, first to agreeing implicitly with my interpretation of what he said in order to argue that he has a point, now to denying my interpretation with bold certainty but without offering a reasonable alternative to explain what he meant. You give me no reason to find any of your positions persuasive.
Andy, if our nation is so far gone that it does not matter whether or not we defend and affirm Christianity's theological claims and monotheistic character, I don't see why we should make sure our elected officials oppose abortion.
About Pauli's point, I certainly agree that politics is about compromise, the art of the possible, settling for a half a loaf, etc.
But the individual has a right and a duty to refuse to compromise in deference to a higher principle. I will reiterate that I do not believe that the Bible requires the position I've taken, and that thus I believe that other faithful Christians can reach other conclusions about supporting a Mormon for high elected office.
I do not try to persuade others about the rightness of my position, only to assert that I am free to hold this position. If my admittedly imperfect relationship with God leads me to believe that I ought not to suppport a Mormon candidate like Romney, and if there is no clear Biblical command to do otherwise, why should I not be free to follow where I believe this relationship is leading me?
Worked all weekend. Sorry I could not participate. There is a documentary on Mormons, I think tonight or tomorrow on PBS. Check your local listings.
ReplyDeleteThere will be a quiz.
Bubba, law is not black and white. there are no right answers. your insistence that there are is blinkered and naive. it shows your inexperience. if romney believed it was unconstitutional, or if there were case law saying it was unconstitutional he would have said it. as it is, he only "kind of said it", or implied he thinks it might be -- and guess what? THAT'S the right answer. if you want to create in a world where someone is not allowed to cite constiutional principles unless said principles have been fully and exhaustively litigated (as if that's possible) then you aren't on board with the constitution.
ReplyDeletein my opinion, your thinking is dangerous, and reinforces why the founders wanted to separate church and state. i find it dismaying in the extreme that you or anyone else want to turn Romney's candidacy into a referendum on mormonism.
Bubba, abortion remains a great evil whether or not America is still a "nation under God."
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't make sense to say, in essence, that if you dispute America's current state of virtuousness, you might as well not even care about abortion anymore. God forbid I should ever come to that conculsion.
Kathleen, I don't want "a world where someone is not allowed to cite constiutional principles unless said principles have been fully and exhaustively litigated." I just affirm my right to criticize such citations if they are used to draw implausible and incoherent conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI don't want such a world, but you write that if I did, I wouldn't be "on board" with the Constitution. Well, how in the hell would you know that? You just got finished telling me that "law is not black and white. there are no right answers."
This makes the third time you've appealed to the Constitution as if its principles are actually discernible.
About questions regarding a candidate's religious beliefs, you wrote the following:
"the constitution says what it does to avoid precisely these sorts of inquiries."
Then, implausibly, you argue that the Constitution limits the free press.
"I don't believe that constitutional principles would remain intact if every newspaper in the country did an exhaustive survey of each candidates' religious beliefs for each election cycle."
Now, you criticize a position I don't have and argue that it's in conflict with the Constitution.
"if you want to create in a world where someone is not allowed to cite constiutional principles unless said principles have been fully and exhaustively litigated (as if that's possible) then you aren't on board with the constitution."
But, how can you know this? How can it possibly be that the Constitution is clear when you invoke it and murky when I invoke it?
Andy:
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't make sense to say, in essence, that if you dispute America's current state of virtuousness, you might as well not even care about abortion anymore. God forbid I should ever come to that conculsion.
That's not my position. A better way to state my position is this:
Abortion is evil, but so are attacks on the clarity of Christian doctrine. Because the issues are of eternal importance and the stakes are therefore infinite, I believe that the question of the clarity of Christian doctrine is far more important than the legal status of abortion. How this shakes out in one's own life is a matter of personal reflection, but I don't see the point in this attitude: "America is so far gone morally that we should surrender on the question of the clarity of doctrine, but we should still care about abortion." That displays misplaced priorities.
"how can you know this? How can it possibly be that the Constitution is clear when you invoke it and murky when I invoke it?"
ReplyDeletebecause you invoke the constitution to say romney is dishonest, and i'm trying to tell you all that's going to get you is "murky", not a "clearly yeah! he's totally dishonest!".
your real problem with romney is not his purported dishonesty, it's his mormonism. why don't you just come out and say it? you have failed, utterly, to demonstrate that he's any more dishonest than any other candidate.
"This makes the third time you've appealed to the Constitution as if its principles are actually discernible."
ReplyDeletewow! now constitutional principles are not discernible?
Kathleen, I'm not suggesting the Constitution's principles cannot be discerned. I'm pointing out how it seems that you cannot decide whether they can be discerned. In order to attack me, you act as if they are discernible (and I agree that they are), but in order to defend Romney, suddenly the world is nothing but shades of gray.
ReplyDeleteYou now seem willing to admit that your position on the clarity of the Constitution is a result of whether that position helps Romney or hurts him.
I wasn't arguing that Romney was more dishonest than other politicians, only that your claim that he's steadfast in his principles seems strained. He seems willing to abandon federalism, the free market, the Constitution and limited government when doing so would help him: his position on ethanol subsidies and his speech on religion demonstrated this.
Bubba, i'm now beginning to think Dreher had a point when he said you argued in bad faith. YOU have the burden of proving that he "abandoned the Constitution" in his religious speech, and you haven't done so. I'm defending the guy against erroneous accusations, not against the argument that he is an imperfect conservative.
ReplyDeletewhere did i claim that romney was "steadfast in principles"? I said he offered a more coherent theory of government than McCain. Your making inferences all over the place.
Bubba, I'm not sure how voting for a pro-life Mormon represents giving up on the issue of clarity of doctrine. If the Mormon candidate in question is disengenous in his claim to be Christian, a true Christian can call him to task for this while still applauding him for being pro-life. What's the problem there?
ReplyDeleteAndy, as I said before, I don't believe the Bible offers any clear commands in either direction about whether a Christian should support a Mormon pro-lifer candidate for President. It is not that I believe "voting for a pro-life Mormon" necessarily "represents giving up on the issue of clarity of doctrine".
ReplyDeleteMy point was that the issue of doctrinal clarity still matters, and I'm making that point in response to this comment:
As far as "gaining the world and losing our soul" goes, I would argue that America is pretty far gone down that road (both in the sense of world-gain and soul-loss)already.
You seem to imply here that America is too far gone for doctrinal clarity to be important, and I categorically reject that issue.
If the Mormon candidate in question is disengenous in his claim to be Christian, a true Christian can call him to task for this while still applauding him for being pro-life. What's the problem there?
Let me be clear: Mormonism as a religion claims to be Christian -- indeed claims to be the fullest expression of Christianity -- but its doctrine is such a radical deviation that any definition of Christianity that includes Mormonism ceases to mean anything in particular. It's not that any one Mormon is disingenuous, it's that the religion itself is fraudulent in portraying itself as Christian. My concern is that, by electing a Mormon president -- a feat that would require the consent of many millions of Christian -- the central Christian claims that Mormonism rejects, starting with the affirmation of monotheism itself, would be blurred.
Now, Kathleen, I stand by my position that no good conclusion can be drawn about Romney from his statement about religious questions enabling an unconstitutional religious test. As a sixty-year-old law school graduate who was a serious contender for the Republican nomination and who had positioned himself as a mainstream conservative, he should have known better: either his knowledge about our Constitution is incomplete or he thinks that ours is.
A coherent political philosophy he may well have presented, but there were indications that he wasn't conducting even his primary campaign wholly by that philosophy.
As a political philosophy, mainstream American conservatism champions federalism and the free market: it stands by the principle of a limited government, particularly a federal government that is limited to its express Constitutional duties. But when he was facing must-win primaries in Iowa and Michigan, Romney pandered and offered the promise of federal funds to corn farmers and auto workers. In doing so, he briefly abandoned the conservative philosophy.
As a political philosophy, mainstream American conservatism knows that the U.S. Constitution was created to limit the power of government, not to dictate the lives of the people. But knowing the political problems of his religious affiliation, Romney implausibly invoked the Constitution to argue that questions about his faith were themselves unconstitutional, when Article VI prohibits only government restrictions on who can run. Once again, he briefly abandoned the conservative philosophy.
What's my point? Simply that if you want to know why Romney didn't energize conservatives, the problem might not have been voters with envy issues: it might have been a candidate who never truly persuaded conservatives that he was an authentic adherent to the philosophy on which he was (usually) running.
Now, I've argued my position as best as I can. I think I've proven my position fairly well. There's really not much to prove: both Romney's speech and Article VI of the Constitution are matters of public record, and I think it's clear that the former's allusion to the latter was implausible.
You disagree, and that's fine. I don't find your reasons to be persuasive, or even altogether consistent with one another, but if I haven't been able to persuade you to see my point of view before now, there's not much point in trying any more after this. I have nothing more to say to you about this particular topic.
But, more importantly, Kathleen, if you want to accuse me of arguing in bad faith only because I disagree with you and have not been persuaded to change my mind, well, I have nothing more to say to you, period.
I had thought that by now you would know that I am sincere both in the positions that I hold and in my attempt to argue in good faith. I try to be fair in constructing my personal philosophy and in drawing logical conclusions from that philosophy; in considering criticisms of my beliefs and analyzing the beliefs of others; in explaining why I believe what I do and in refuting the alternatives that I reject.
I don't always succeed, but I am always earnest in the attempt. I'm somewhat hurt, frankly, that you question that, but I can quickly learn to disregard your personal opinion of me.
Sorry to digress, Pauli.
bad faith
ReplyDeleteBubba & Kathleen
Before you close the book, perhaps consider that "bad faith" might not be fighting words in a legal context in which K is arguing with you.
Maybe it is like "absurd" in a logic context or how the word "ignorant" is often misunderstood as an insult. Something to think about.
Mystic, even in a legal context, "bad faith" entails deliberate dishonesty. If she didn't intend it as an attack on my character, she has an odd way of showing that by invoking Dreher, but she can explain her intent herself.
ReplyDeleteUntil she explains that she meant something other than the most obvious meaning of what she wrote, I'm taking her comment at face value and concluding that they really were "fighting words."
Bubba
ReplyDeleteContext is everything. Before you go to the mattresses, is it possible that when two lawyers are talking in the office and one says "bad faith" to the other it might not carry the weight of the official meaning? But you or I cannot answer that, only Kathleen.
If I misunderstood Kathleen, she's welcome to correct me. Until then, I can only go by what I read.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, on Valentine's Day NRO published an article in which Kathryn Lopez responded to the apparently common suggestion that she was smitten in her support of Mitt Romney.
ReplyDeleteThe gushing speaks for itself.
"Now, I’ll be honest here, some gals get uncomfortable when they find out that Ann Romney makes her husband homemade granola every morning — and think that that is, in fact, a little “too perfect.” (I, for one, wouldn’t know how to make granola if my life depended on it.) But the occasional too-perfect detail can be overlooked for a true appreciation of something wonderful in our midst.
"What a breath of fresh air the Romneys on the public stage have been. Way too often in pop culture, men are portrayed as dopes; think about just about any sitcom. The dad/husband is portrayed as a doofus. What’s wrong with having somebody in public life who’s like Mitt Romney — a capable, experienced executive who loves his country and also happens to be a God-fearing father and husband? That’s not a bad thing for Americans to see. Forgive him for being easy on the eyes." [emphasis mine]
And, entirely too predictably, the blame for the lack of passionate support for Romney was placed, not with the candidate, but with the electorate.
"Mitt Romney has money, smarts, support, and a loyal staff. He’ll be fine. But the rest of us will have, someday, to face up to the consequences of a culture of political cynicism."
Yes, it's only cyncisim -- and, for some, jealousy -- that can explain the lack of fire for Romney. The possibility that he had faults enough to explain his failed campaign, that cannot even be entertained.