In a recent article, I reflected upon the shape that the presidential campaign against Romney will take. I suggested that the Obama administration cannot easily defend its record, and so will focus on attacking the Republican candidate — who, after Super Tuesday, is likely to be Romney. But the problem for the Obama regime is that Romney has no obvious flaws: messy divorces, past affairs, tax dodging, DUIs, misdemeanors, or what have you. So the Regime will be reduced to hammering away at the fact that Romney is rich, white, and Mormon.
The attack is already well underway.
The administration’s war-machine has three phalanxes. First is the direct reelection team, funded by perhaps a billion dollars. The second is the Obama “independent” super-PACs, funded by all those wealthy people to whom Obama gave billions in taxpayer subsidies for their "job-creating" businesses. These super-PACs, which are already being staffed by Regime members, will probably net another billion bucks to reelect their guy. Labor unions alone have pledged $400 million for the upcoming race; 96% of all union contributions go to Democrats.
But let’s not forget the third phalanx — the mainstream media. The soi-disant “journalists” of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CNN, and so on are outright whores for this administration.
No, I retract that: I don’t want to insult hookers. At least they get paid in honest money for their services. By contrast, the pseudo-journalists with the MSM cheerfully service this administration pro bono, or for some motives less creditable than money.
The Obama regime will be reduced to hammering away at the fact that Romney is rich, white, and Mormon.
You can expect the attack on Romney’s wealth (“He’s rich, so he cannot relate to you common folk!”) will be the one openly directed by the administration’s reelection committee. The race card will be played by the Regime’s allies . . . indeed, Obama just set up an “African-Americans for Obama” group to advance that attack. The open attack on Mormonism, however, will not be carried on directly by the Obama campaign, but by super-PACs and especially by the media.
The anti-Mormon card is being dealt even now, in a sudden rush of news “stories” about Romney’s faith.
Let’s start with leftist comic Stephen Colbert, who stepped up to the anti-Mormon plate with his spoof on the Mormon practice of baptisms for the dead, a religious custom that has irked some people (some prominent Jews in particular). Colbert mockingly “converted” all dead Mormons to Judaism. Isn’t that hilarious? But is it purely coincidental that Colbert has only now found this obscure Mormon practice worthy of national notice? Perhaps he will next make fun of the Catholic practice of having masses for the dead. Oh, but wait — JFK, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and many other liberal icons have been — Catholic!
John Turner is concerned to appear more balanced. In a recent piece, he doesn’t say Romney had to answer for Mormon baptismal practices, although he discusses them in lavish detail. But he does say Romney should address the Mormon ban on admitting men of African descent to the priesthood, a ban that Turner notes didn’t end until Romney was 30 (in 1978). Of course, Turner never tells us what Romney could have done about the ban. But Turner got his chance to play the race card, because this issue reminds African-Americans that Romney is white.
At least hookers get paid in honest money for their services. The pseudo-journalists with the mainstream media cheerfully service this administration pro bono.
Also miming some degree of neutrality is one Randall Balmer, who recently wrote an article that obliquely warns us of the Mormon menace. Balmer is an Episcopal priest, and one usually expects Episcopal priests to have better manners. Still, prejudice drips from every line of his article. He construes the fact that only Mormons in good standing are allowed in Mormon temples as a sign of "the Mormon penchant for secrecy" and insinuates that Romney, by refusing to belabor the public with his religious beliefs, is being secretive about their nature. In fact, Mormon beliefs and practices are as well known as those of mainline Christian denominations. If you don't know about them, you're just not interested, that's all.
Balmer says that Romney’s “quest for the White House” will be “buffeted by questions about his religion.” Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy! I haven’t heard many ordinary people who care about it one way or the other, outside of the mainstream media, truth be told. Romney will be buffeted on his faith only by the likes of Balmer, to whom the “essential question” is the very “nature of Mormonism,” an “upstart” religion from — New York state! But wait — isn’t Episcopalianism a variety of Protestantism — from England? From the Roman Catholic point of view, Balmer's denomination is an “upstart” religion. And from the perspective of Judaism, isn’t Christianity itself an “upstart” religion? These are questions clearly beyond Balmer’s capacity to address.
Balmer — the very model of tolerance — moves on to note that Mormons refer to non-Mormons as “Gentiles.” But then, Jews refer to non-Jews as “Gentiles” — which seems to be OK with Balmer. Yet, Balmer intones gravely, “many Americans doubt" that Mormons are Christians, because they accept the Book of Mormon as scripture. What this means, of course, is that most Americans don't believe in the Book of Mormon. This passes for news — in the context of a presidential campaign.
Of course, Balmer reminds us that the Mormons “only” ended polygamy in 1890. But let me expand on this a bit. The Mormons allowed polygamy until 1890. Some Muslims, I believe, practice it to this day. But hasn’t America, at least since the Great Society craze of the 1960s, openly and completely embraced polygamy in practice? I mean, don’t our welfare laws allow — nay, encourage — a young man to impregnate as many young women as he can, secure in the knowledge that the taxpayer will pay for the children? Isn’t the first of the month, when welfare checks arrive, derisively called “Father’s Day” in the inner city? And don’t sperm banks allow many women to impregnate themselves from the same “donor”? I guess what I’m asking is — why all the brouhaha about Mormons allowing polygamy more than a century ago?
It doesn’t seem to occur to Bruni that the reason Romney’s faith is not a big deal in this primary fight is precisely because it is old news.
Balmer notes archly that Mormons believe that the Constitution is divinely inspired. He says that Romney should be asked how that affects his view of it. Why? I daresay many non-Mormons believe that as well. Even nonbelievers such as I think that it is, in some sense, inspired. What does it matter? The president is supposed to execute the law, not make it. He is sworn to uphold the constitution. What is Balmer's view on this? Does he think that reverence for the constitution is a vice?
Another suspicious thing about Romney, according to Balmer, is that Mormons believe they have the true faith. Strange indeed! If they didn't believe that, they would be members of some other faith.
To Balmer, Romney seems “cagey” for answering questions about his religion by saying such things as “I’m not a theologian” and “I don’t speak for my church.” What would he say if Romney proceeded to lecture everyone about the church's theology? Then Romney would be a nut or a weirdo, right? Balmer compliments Joseph Lieberman for having "patiently answered the [very few] questions [asked about his religion], declaring, for example, that he was an observant Jew, not an Orthodox Jew, and explaining the difference." However, if we consistently apply the standard that Balmer applies to Romney, shouldn’t Lieberman have gone into detail about why he is not a (mainstream) Christian, and the political implications of all that?
But after all, Lieberman ran for office on the Democratic ticket. So Balmer naturally does not apply the same standard.
So much for the Reverend Mr. Balmer. Then there is Frank Bruni, New York Times columnist and general attack dog for Obama. His recent snark-piece, “Mitt’s Muffled Soul,” went after Romney for not mentioning in his debate in Florida that his father was born in Mexico because Mitt’s grandfather had fled there to avoid the ban on polygamy that the Mormon Church had instituted. Bruni’s complaint apparently is that there is less discussion of Romney’s Mormon faith than there was four years ago. It doesn’t seem to occur to Bruni that the reason Romney’s faith is not a big deal in this primary fight is precisely because it is old news. That is, everyone on the planet now knows that Romney is a Mormon, because that was thoroughly explored in the last primary campaign. And the fact that Mormons once allowed polygamy is also old news, centuries old, in fact.
Bruni has decided that since most Americans seem indifferent to Romney’s religion — what with $5 a gallon gas and the prospect of our economy going the way of Greece’s — he is personally going to “home in on Romney’s religion.” Bruni’s claim is that the Mormon religion has left a “cultural, psychological and emotional imprint on” Romney. Are his “guardedness” and “defensiveness” due to his belonging to — get this! — a “minority tribe”? Does his stamina reflect his years as a Mormon missionary?
It never occurs to Bruni that his target has every reason to be defensive, given the attacks he and all the members of his faith have had to endure — not least from snarky journalists. The idea that maybe Romney’s stamina reflects a healthy lifestyle seems beyond Bruni's ken.
Of course, Bruni plays the race card, reminding us that the Mormons' ban on blacks in the priesthood lasted until 34 years ago.
The most extended and vitriolic hit-piece on Romney and his faith ejaculates from that monarch of snark, Frank Rich, formerly of — what else? — the New York Times, now of New York Magazine. Reptilian Rich is in a fury about Romney. (But then, he would be in a fury about any Republican — his self-appointed mission being to throw acid at anyone who dares oppose the current Regime.) In his meandering, self-contradictory screed on Romney, he is obviously frustrated at the total lack of real dirt he can find.
Rich never considers why a devout, middle-aged Mormon, trying to raise a large family, might not want to go out boozing it up at Hooters with the other Masters of the Universe.
For example, he quotes unnamed fellow Bain Capital coworkers who say that Romney was a great guy to work with, bright and good at what he did — but, “Still, whenever the rest of us would go out at the end of the day, we’d always find ourselves having the same conversation: None of us knew who the guy was.” The obtuse Rich never considers why a devout, middle-aged Mormon, trying to raise a large family, might not want to go out boozing it up at Hooters with the other Masters of the Universe.
With Rich, no Republican can ever win, no matter what his lifestyle. If he is known to have been a partier, such as Dubya was when younger, that will be used to attack him as a drunk. If he doesn’t party, as Romney doesn't, the Republican will be bashed for being aloof and self-contained.
Then there’s physical appearance. If the Republican candidate is out of shape or unattractive, Rich will attack him for that. If he is good looking, Rich will take the opposite approach: “Unlike Nixon’s craggy face, or, for that matter, Gingrich’s, Romney’s does not look lived in. . . . Even at Mitt’s most human, he resembles George Hamilton without the self-deprecating humor or the perma-tan.”
So Rich wants us to believe that Romney’s so good looking he’s not human! This is weird stuff — Rich comes across here like a jealous schoolgirl with an unrequited crush on the school’s quarterback.
Of course, Mitt’s whiteness becomes important: “Romney is in some ways more exotic and removed from ‘real America’ than Obama ever was, his gleaming white camouflage notwithstanding. Romney is white, all right, but he’s a white shadow.” Budding bien pensant writers please note: this is what passes for witty writing in progressive circles. Romney’s white skin camouflages what? A black interior? So if he is elected, will he be our third black president, after Clinton and Obama? In the oxymoron department: "a white shadow”? What the hell is a “white shadow?”
Rich dismisses Romney as a man of no real accomplishment — unlike Rich’s messiah, Barack Obama: “Aside from his ability to build Bain capital and pile up profits there, Romney has remarkably few visible accomplishments to show for his 64 years.”
Really? Yes, Romney’s accomplishments are truly feeble. He has only done such things as:
Reluctantly, Rich acknowledges that two reporters (Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, of the ultra-liberal Boston Globe) who set out to dig up the dirt on Romney, and published a critical biography, really couldn’t find any “bombshells.” This, however, is somehow “revealing” — revealing of more oxymoronic crap.
Rich is left to fill his piece with anti-Mormon slurs. The title tips us off: “Who in God’s Name is Mitt Romney?” Then the attacks start coming: “The big dog that has yet to bark . . . Romney’s long career as a donor to and lay official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.” “That faith is key to the Romney mystery.” “Romney is not merely a worshipper sitting in the pews but the scion of a family dynasty integral to the progress of an American-born faith . . .”
Naturally, Rich feels obligated to remind to remind us that the Mormons once practiced polygamy, while pretending to say it is irrelevant: “The questions [about Romney’s faith] are not theological. Nor are they about polygamy, the scandalous credo that earlier Romneys practiced even after the church banned it . . .” No, Rich wants to know whether Romney “countenanced or enforced [the Church’s] discriminatory treatment of blacks and women.” Does he also wonder whether Nancy Pelosi has done her part to make the Roman Catholic Church ordain women?
This is weird stuff — Rich comes across like a jealous schoolgirl with an unrequited crush on the school’s quarterback.
Rich is able to get in a dig at Romney’s wealth (yes, yes, Romney is rich) while continuing his bashing of Mormonism: “Much as the isolating cocoon of Romney’s wealth can lead him to dismiss $347,327 in speaking fees as ‘not very much’ . . . so the demographic isolation imposed by his religion takes its own political toll.” And on and on. Rich obviously wants readers to share his disgust about Mormons.
Perhaps the most blatantly bigoted attack on Romney’s religion came from Charles Blow — what else but another New York Times columnist? As the aptly-named Blow listened to Romney on the CNN Republican primary debate, he tweeted his followers the constructive comment, “Let me just tell you this Mitt ‘Muddle Mouth,’ I’m a single parent and my kids are ‘amazing’! Stick that in your magic underwear.” Blow was referring in this derogatory way to the Mormon belief that certain garments are of religious significance. One wonders if Blow has derogatory ways of talking about yarmulkes, or nuns' habits.
It is amazing that nobody at the Times has demanded Blow’s resignation — considering how famously sensitive the paper is when it comes to certain kinds of slurs. Amazing, that is, until you remember that a Mormon is running against the paper's chosen messiah. Notice also that the media hypocrites I have mentioned never seem to have never uttered a peep about the religion of Harry Reid — the buffoon who shoved Obamacare down the nation’s throat. Reid is also a Mormon, but nobody asks him to explain his church’s history, theology, or religious customs.
It is even more hilariously hypocritical that none of these people are busying themselves about Obama’s religion. As far as I know, they have not demanded that Obama explain why he stayed so long in a church that held, for example, that AIDS was created by white people and deliberately inflicted on black people. When this came out in the counter-media, and Obama dropped his affiliation with Reverend Wright, the mainstream dropped what little notice it had paid to the matter. Can you doubt that, had Obama been a Mormon (for there are black Mormons), the media would never have discussed Mormonism at all?
My suggestion to the Romney campaign — not that they are looking for suggestions — is to be under no illusion about what is coming at them. Obama’s minions will attack Romney without mercy, or religious grounds.
How should he handle these attacks? Well, when they come from the press in the form of persistent questions about his faith, he should reply in the same way every time, a la Senator Lieberman: “I am an observant Mormon. Which is irrelevant to my candidacy. If you want to learn about my proposals for fixing what Obama has broken, ask me about them. But if you want to learn about my faith, may I suggest that you go to the library and check out a book?” He should avoid at all costs the media trap trying to get him to discuss any aspect of Mormon theology. Why? Because non-Mormons will then be drawn into disputing it, and then will confuse disagreement with his theology with disagreement with his policy proposals. The mainstream media is hoping that the public will be tricked by this irrelevant association.
In any election, you try to do two things: get your voters out to the polls, and get your opponent’s voters to stay home. It is likely that the Obama super-PACs will run anti-Mormon ads, especially in areas of heavy evangelical Protestant concentration, with the intention of making the evangelicals stay home, under the theory that many evangelical Protestants dislike Mormonism — which, in fact, many do.
Countering this will be a job for the pro-Romney super-PACs. Here’s my suggestion for them: tape some homilies delivered by Romney’s pastor, and play parts of them juxtaposed with the juicier parts of Reverend Wright’s rants (“God Damn America!” comes to mind), with an announcer asking in the background which is more disturbing. Rely on the fact that evangelical Christians are invariably deeply pro-American. Run these ads wherever and whenever the Obama super-PACs run their anti-Mormon propaganda.
So that the reader will know exactly what is motivating me, let me state for the record that I am completely agnostic in matters religious. I was exposed to religion early on, and it didn’t take, whereupon the nuns dropkicked my posterior out of St. Mel’s Catholic School. (They were quite within their rights so to do, and I have never blamed them for it.) Ever since, I have oscillated between total unconcern and complete indifference to religion. I believe no more in Mormonism than I do in Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, or anything else. I just hate intolerance, and I profoundly despise hypocritical intolerance.
Harry Reid is also a Mormon, but nobody asks him to explain his church’s history, theology, or religious customs.
Unless one finds a religion whose practices pose a clear threat to society — say, a crazed Kali cult, setting fire to people’s homes — I see no reason to fear it or demand of its adherents that they explain and justify their faith, to me or anyone else. It’s their business.
While I am far from an expert on Mormon theology, my own eyes tell me that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are far from dangerous citizens. In general, they appear to work hard and avoid harming others. In this respect, they seem exemplary citizens.
That should be an end to it.
Sadly, it won’t be.