Of these six, the last is by far the least well-known. If one were handicapping the race, he would clearly have the longest odds of the six.
Yesterday Mitt Romney became the first of the GOP3 to hold his announcment ceremony. It was less dramatic than either Obama's or Edward's announcments, as it should have been for a man with significantly less name recognition and media attention. It did not make major news, and was not decidedly strong or weak. For Romney it gave him exactly what he needs right now: national media attention.
I first heard about Mitt Romney back when Massachusettes' Supreme Court mandated gay marriage in the Commonwealth. I was aghast to learn the the Union's most Left-leaning state would elect a Red-Teamer to their Executive Office. After doing some research and learning the basics of who he was and from where he had come, I started talking him up as a possible contender for '08. He is brilliant, charming, attractive, well-spoken, conservative, and knows how to win (how else does a Republican get elected in Massachusettes?). He is the perfect candidate. But there was something I didn't konw: he is a Mormon.
Rather than delve into any kind of discussion about Mormonism, per se, let's instead get to the heart of the matter: does it matter if he is a Mormon? To make it even broader, does the faith of the person running for office matter?
On one hand, political ideology seems to matter much more than religious affiliation. If the Commander-in-Chief shares the same philosophy and positions as the rank-and-file members of his/her party, religion should not matter. We heard the extreme side of this argument from people on the Left during Clinton's impeachment: "as long as he does his job well, what he does in his private life is his business". To an extent, that is true. The signature of a Mormon on a partial-birth abortion ban is just as good as that of a Methodist or a Baptist or a Catholic.
On the other hand, a person's faith tells us much about their worldview. It gives us a sense of how they view humans and our place in the world. It gives us a sense of how all of life is/should be ordered. It also gives us a sense of how they were raised and/or how they reason. In this case, if it is true (as many evangelical Christians believe) that Mormonism is a cult built on a foundation of blatant untruths, what does that say about the politician who holds tightly to that faith? Not good things.
Even if we say that a candidate's religion does not matter, we all know that it does. It might not matter to you or to me, but in the scheme of a nationwide election it certainly will make a difference. People want to know everything about their leaders, including their faith. It is unlikely that I have to convince you of this point, but for kicks, ask this question: how would America react if an Atheist or Muslim ran for President. If you think it would not be an issue, you are fooling yourself.
For now, Romney is doing what he needs to do. He is emphasizing his belief in Jesus Christ and downplaying virtually every other part of Mormonism. This is a classic page out of the JFK playbook (to this day, JFK is the only Catholic to serve in the Oval Office).
But JFK didn't have to deal with the Freakshow.
The modern American media salivates over anything it can distory/hype/sensationalize. This is the infotainment age. In many ways, he would be the perfect Freakshow candidate. Image how many exposes MSNBC can run about the "Mysterious Mormons" (it even alliterates well). I can almost hear the previews now: "A good looking, respectable, famous politician wants you to make him President...but is there a dark side of his religious life he doesn't want you to see?" It would bring in a near soap opera element that the media would eat up.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know how I feel about Romney's Mormonism. What I do know, though, is that when I found out about his faith, my heart sank a little. He would make the perfect GOP candidate...but he's Mormon.
4 comments:
From what I hear, our very unpopular Missouri governor Matt Blunt and former US Senator and lobbyist Jim Talent have both thrown their lot in with Romney. I don't know if they should be considered liabilities or advantages.
I had heard about Blunt, but not Talent. From what I understand the Blunt and Romney families even vacationed together, and Blunt accompanied him on some fundraising trips out West. For Romney, using Blunt in almost any public fashion would be a tremndous mistake.
I know you don't like Talent one bit, but he is nowhere near the divisive figure that Blunt is. Were it not for Iraq (and Bush), Talent would easily have won re-election. Voters were throwing out Republicans, not necessarily Talent.
In '08, should Blunt run again, the voters will be throwing him out. His administration might have been a strong political machine (getting a very inexperienced, very young man elected to the Executive Mansion), but it was a horrible administrative and pr team. His entire administration was made up of young, gung-ho partisans who did not know the difference between campaigning and governing. Romney would be well-advised to stay away from him (publically, at least).
I don't know about the stuff you guys are saying but those side burns caught my attention. Are they grey because he can run really fast? Beware everyone! We're about to overruled by super fast mormons!
I think you're right about Blunt being the bigger liability. As for Talent, he had every opportunity to put some daylight between himself and Bush in the last 4 years, but he just didn't. He even had Bush stumping for him during the last weeks of the campaign. Since Talent was so in line with Bush, I think people were tossing him out. McCaskill is also a great candidate and should be a great Senator. Yes, all Republicans had an uphill battle last November, but it had just as much to do with their complicity in the Iraq affair as with the R after their name.
Post a Comment