In response to the posts about liberal attacks on Romney’s religion, and specifically in answer to Michael’s post about the press’s “hypocrisy,” I think he’s right about the attacks to come, but I think they will backfire.
Barack Obama was the least-vetted presidential candidate in modern American campaign history; almost every official account or Obama denial about Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, and Reverend Wright proved incomplete and misleading. Even after three years in office, we know less about Obama’s earlier years than we did of any other first-term president.
By now most of us have shrugged and accepted the asymmetry, given the press’s long psychological investment in the Obama symbolism. So why now upset that balance by going after Mitt Romney’s religion in very non-liberal fashion as The New Republic and New York Times have done this week? It seems crazy to not let sleeping dogs lie.
The focus on Mormonism is ironic in that this postmodern generation of American liberals wishes to raise the religious issue and probe Romney’s family lineage to a greater extent than nearly a half-century ago when Romney’s father ran for president in supposedly far more bigoted times. After all, what are we to learn — that Romney’s great-grandfather was a polygamist and was married to even more wives at the same time than was Obama’s father? Are we to care about one, and not the other? Is the press standard now that a president’s dad can be a polygamist in Kenya, but not his great-grandfather in Mexico? Do we really wish to go down this sordid road of the sins of the father falling upon the son?
And why revisit the now tired issue of candor about a candidate’s religion? It’s been years since Barack Obama bragged to the Chicago Sun-Times in 2004 that he attended Trinity Church “every Sunday” only later to claim he could not remember any of Reverend Wright’s serial racist or anti-Semitic rants; and when he was officially made aware of them, he refused to distance himself from Wright, declaring instead in morally equivalent fashion that he could no more disown him than his grandmother. (Until, that is, Wright committed the far greater sin of ridiculing the D.C. press at the National Press Club. )
And with this new emphasis on transparency, are we to expect that the media will demand this summer that both candidates disclose to press adjudicators their complete medical records in John McCain fashion, as well as their college transcripts? I think that’s where we are headed, given that the media is protective of one candidate for reelection and is simultaneously demanding an intimate level of inquiry about his possible opponent. Is the logic that an un-vetted Obama is now vetted because he has been president for three years and undisclosed information supposedly did not play a role in the manner of his governance? Are we to take that assumption as gospel, and accept that such thinking cannot apply to other candidates (as in, “Don’t vet me, and then when I am in office, I am de facto vetted”)?
In other words, I doubt the press wants to go down this road of religious intimacy, given that it might tear the scabs off wounds that never quite healed, and there are far more pressing issues — like a looming nuclear Iran and $16 trillion in debt — than Mitt Romney’s Mexican-residing many-times-married ancestor.
If you just re-adjust your mind to see that the mainstream media is nothing more than the PR/propaganda service of the Left then everything they ever do makes perfect sense. "The Press" as you say DOES want to go down this road, because they care not for our calls of hypocrisy, they know their role and they are filling it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe most obvious consequence of that story is not the polygamy... it's the plain fact that George Romney was never qualified to be President. He was born in Mexico and his parents and grandparents were Mexican nationals. They were not just missionaries or visitors.
If he had been elected, the first "Birthers" would have been Democrats, and they would have been perfectly right.
In other words, Obama is hardly the first major candidate who wasn't adequately vetted!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Mormon Quest for the Presidency: From Joseph Smith to Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (2011) by Craig L. Foster and Newell G. Bringhurst discusses whether or not George W. Romney was a U.S. citizen.
Romney's parents never gave up their U.S. citizenship and were, therefore, both citizens. Thus George Romney was considered a U.S. citizen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's my understanding that George Romney's parents were U.S Citizens in a foreign country. As such, George was born a U.S. citizen and eligible to be President.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWasn't Obama's dad fired from his professorship at Harvard for being a bigamist?
Does the Left really want to go down that road?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot only will they go down that road, they will get away with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgain.
If Obama's campaign team decides religion is a legitimate campaign issue, then the American people will be very interested to learn more about Black Liberation Theology as preached by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, dear friend and political promoter of the one and only Barack Obama, who spent 20 years listening to that man's hatred spew from the pulpit. He so admired the Reverend that he and the Mrs. were married in his church, had their children baptized by him and attended church services there as a family. In fact, until counciled against it by political advisors who realized Reverend Wright's rhetoric was a bit rough for general public consumption, Obama had intended Wright to be his campaign's spiritual advisor and invited him to deliver the invocation when he accepted the Democratic nomination for President. Perhaps it's time to revisit Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the political realities of Black Liberation Theology.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJenna,
You've made your Obama-hatred and guilt by association theories clear on (too) many occasions. You and your fellow travelers assuage your sense of frustration that the Wright story didn't have the legs you'd hoped it would by relying on the lazy, fact-free contention that Mr. Obama was given a free pass by the "leftist" media during the 2008 campaign.
You seem to have animosity toward "Black Liberation Theology"; so what is it? Do you know anything about it, or do you simply reject it because it "sounds" contrary to your personal beliefs?
What have you to say about the many, many on the right who've called the LDS church a cult?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are dreaming, Dr. Hanson. Did the press demand the same amount of vetting for *presidential* candidate Obama as for *vice presidential* candidate Palin? Was it logical or fair?
As we keep being reminded regarding Gingrich's complaints, politics is what it is. Claiming it is unfair or asymmetrical is like whining. This will be an issue. There will be no reviewing of Obama's past. Get used to it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOK, where's the proof that the left will make Mr. Romney's religion a key campaign point? Thus far the only things I've seen critical of his faith come from the right, esp the evangelicals who consider Mormonism a cult.
Someone on the right obviously decided to make the "assault on religious freedom" a (specious) campaign point against Mr. Obama, using the contraception decision as the base. Mr. Davis Hanson is just another useful (though hamhanded) tool in the coming jihad against our closet muslim america-hater commander in chief.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin Moriarty asked where the proof was that the left will go after Mitt Romney's religion?
A Different God? Mitt Romney, the Religious Right and the Mormon Question (2011) by Craig L. Foster and The Mormon Quest for the Presidency: From Joseph Smith to Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (2011) by Craig L. Foster and Newell G. Bringhurst both discuss anti-Mormonism from the left and right in 2008 and again in 2012. Critics like Lawrence O'Donnell, Bill Maher, Dana Milbank, and other liberals have attacked Romney's Mormonism by taking pot shots at doctrines, practices and history.
The attack from the left is a more progressive, humanist looki at the LDS Churh rather than the contest between whether or not Mormons are Christians or a non-Christian cult, which is the approach from the right.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think bringing up Romney's religion is a guilt by association attack on his ancestors. People don't care about that and it'd backfire for the left to try to bring it up. It's his being an active tithing member and former missionary of the church. A church that many don't understand or recognize.
Same as Kennedy with Catholicism, Romney's going to have to deal with what it means to be a Mormon to the public at large at some point in the campaign. I'd rather him deal with it earlier and get out in front of the issue. Trying to pretend it isn't an issue or whining about it being talked about by the press seems like a very bad tactic. Even if the press or Obama doesn't bring it up, it'll still going to be talked about by voters in the background, and if Romney hasn't dealt with it, I can't imagine that the whispered conversations will be favorable.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe it is like Obamacare and the Senate's most recent budgets - deemed vetted
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEvery single one of my great-great grandfathers was a polygamist.
Gotta problem with that?
Tough.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis reminds me of Dana Milbank's latest effort (link below) to raise the issue of Mitt's religion. How does Milbank justify this? By bringing us the story of Park Romney. According to Milbank, "Every family has a crazy uncle. The difference is, when you're running for office and you become a famous name, your relatives' surname becomes famous too -- often in unwelcome ways."
Who is Park Romney? He is a second cousin of Mitt. The two have never met. How is he crazy? He dislikes Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church. That's how Milbank justifies raising Mitt's religion. Which reminds me of an episode of Scrubs that guest starred Heather Graham. When Heather's character meets Perry Cox she declares: "Perry! You know, I have a cousin named Perry. But actually, no, he's not my cousin; and, you know, his name isn't Perry, it's... Jeff."
He goes on to cite embarrassing relatives like Neil Bush, Megan McCain, Hugh Rodham, Onyanga & Zeituni Obama, Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, etc - siblings, aunts, uncles, and children of the politicians they embarrassed, and justifies mentioning Park Romney based on such precedent, raising the question: if a relative is distant enough that you could legally marry them in all 50 states and every country on earth (if they were the opposite sex), are they really a close relative?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewhat does harry reid say about attack on mormons??
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt will be easy for the press to once again super vet one candidate while giving a tongue bath to the other.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWho's going to call them on their hypocrisy? The press?
They'll get away with it in 2012 the same way they got away with it in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980, 1976, 1972, 1968, 1964 , 1960, 1956, ...