Category Archives: Mitt Romney

As if the Democrats weren’t bad enough last night…

Now Mitt Romney has jumped in, along with Edwards and Obama, for a twofer — demagogue the immigration issue, and bash Hillary.

Just got around to reading this e-mail that William Holley of the Romney campaign sent me this morning:

    One more for you:
    If y’all didn’t catch the Democratic debate last night, Senator Clinton and other Democrats made some troubling remarks in support of a plan in her home state of New York to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
    That won’t fly here in South Carolina.
    Governor Romney, on the on the other hand, has a clear record of opposing driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants.
    Here is a “Romney Vision” policy document on the issue: http://mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Romney_Vision_Illegal_Immigration

    Enjoy.

Urging me to "enjoy" it is being just a tad optimistic there, William.

Which candidate do YOU hate the most?

Ahillary             "NEVER? Whaddaya mean, ‘never?’"

Seems like I’ll stoop to anything to get you to click on a blog post, doesn’t it? Sorry about the headline. Tacky. I would never encourage you to hate anyone.

But my point was to share with you the results of this Zogby poll, which found that half the electorate says it would never vote for Hillary Clinton. She has the highest negatives, and Mike Huckabee and Bill Richardson have the lowest, going by that standard. (You may have already read about this, as it came out Saturday, but I’m just now getting around to checking the e-mail account the release came to). An excerpt from the report:

    While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party’s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
    The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
    At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed….

Here’s the full list:

Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?

%

Clinton (D)

50%

Kucinich (D)

49%

Gravel (D)

47%

Paul (R)

47%

Brownback (R)

47%

Tancredo (R)

46%

McCain (R)

45%

Hunter (R)

44%

Giuliani (R)

43%

Romney (R)

42%

Edwards (D)

42%

Thompson (R)

41%

Dodd (D)

41%

Biden (D)

40%

Obama (D)

37%

Huckabee (R)

35%

Richardson (D)

34%

Not sure

4%

I got to thinking about it just now, and wondered for the first time which, of all the candidates, would I be least likely to choose at this point? Here’s how I would rank them personally:

Mind you, that’s just off the top of my head, based on what I know now, without any of my editorial board colleagues setting me straight on any of the calls. And I’ll admit I cheated on one — I can’t even picture "Hunter," much left summon up any relevant impressions, so I just sort of buried him in the pack toward the "less likely" end, hoping no one would notice.

How about you?

Buzzword. Buzzword, buzzword, buzzword!

Long, long ago — the ’70s at least, probably during his ’76 run at the presidency — I read a magazine article about Jerry Brown (the slacker blogger — last post, Oct. 2005). It was one of the first things I ever read about him, as I recall. More to the point, it was the first time I ever ran across the term, "buzzword." (It’s even been suggested that he coined the term, that it’s "an old Jerry Brown term for words/phrases that go buzz in your head"".

It was used in the context of showing what a hip, intellectual, cool, detached kind of guy Brown was. It opened, in New Journalism style, with an anecdote that had him seated in front of a TV watching his own TV ad. He was riveted to the tube, and offering a running commentary that consisted of making a slashing or chopping motion with his hand and calling out "Buzzword!" with satisfaction each time the ad used a term to which that definition applied: "Buzzword…. buzzword, buzzword, buzzword!" Chop, slash.

It was probably in either Esquire or Rolling Stone, to list the publications I read at the time that would have been likely to run a piece like that. If anyone can refer me to it, I’d be interested to go back and read it again.

So what got me to thinking about that? Nothing much. I got a press release from the Romney campaign that consisted of nothing more than this statement (I think it was related to the debate yesterday):

A STATEMENT FROM SENATOR JIM DEMINT (R-SC)
"The fact is our federal government has gotten too big, taxes are too high and federal spending is way out of control.  This is why Governor Romney believes Republicans must first make changes in our own house, because as he said, ‘Change must begin with us.’  Today, Mitt Romney once again showed that he is the real candidate of change for fiscal conservatives and that is why I am proud to support his candidacy."

— Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)
October 9, 2007

… and I was struck, for about the billionth time, with the fact that our most ideological politicians — from DeMint to Pelosi — often seem to communicate almost entirely by way of buzzwords and cant phrases.

There were no specifics in that statement. No reference to a particular point made about a particular situation. Just broad generalities of the sort that communicate (I suppose) to like-minded ideologues but one message:

I’m one of you. I speak your language. So does this other guy.

The statement is as bland and ignorable as beige wallpaper, but it is apparently designed to go "buzz" in somebody’s head.

No attempt to cite an example of something government does that is unnecessary (even thought it would be easy, even for an anti-libertarian such as myself), or a tax that’s too high or an economic argument demonstrating why it’s too high, or anything. Just a sort of bumper-sticker sentiment, too boring in its repetitiveness even to evoke a high-five from the truest of true believers; it was worth at the VERY most a slight nod.

When I read non-statement statements such as that, I often wonder whether the person who typed it and sent it out thought, at any point in that process, "This is a useless exercise. It offers nothing to the debate, for good or ill." Or did he or she think, "Well, at least I’m getting paid for this."

Or perhaps: "Buzzword!" Slash, chop. "Buzzword, buzzword, buzzword!"

Looks like Romney’s a phony, too

Just kidding. Actually, I’ve never met the man — although I’ve seen him on YouTube.

But one of my readers DID see him this week, and had a disappointing experience. I just now got around to this e-mail from yesterday:

Hello Brad,

I have been a punctuated reader of your blog, and wanted to express disgust for a recent visit by Mitt Romney (and to ask the best way to go about sharing this with others). Today at a  "Ask Mitt Anything" I finally had my worst fears about the of the American presidential race verified.

After taking away the cameramen, reporters, photographers, staffers, AARP & Ed in ’08 representatives, outspoken Mormons, and political dignitaries there were only a few actual people seeking answers to genuine questions. I thought at this event, I might actually get to ask something. I positioned myself to be seen by those with microphones and was told that I would be able to ask a question next. I looked to the other microphone to see a staffer coaxing a supporter who had already rejected an offer to ask a question, finally ask something.

Another softball… "What would you do about immigration and the illegals already here?" His response, like the thirty minute one from Rudy’s last visit to Columbia was simple – build a fence and avoid addressing the difficult issue of existing illegal aliens.

Anyway, time was winding down and they only had time for one last question. Finally, I thought. Instead someone went on about a lack of spine within the Republican party. Irony…

Next I made my way to the front of the crowd to ask him myself, simply as a concerned citizen. After waiting in the hot building for about 15 minutes –  it was finally my turn. "Hello, Governor Romney, I have a question."

His response: "I’m sorry, i don’t have time, I have a more hands to shake, can we talk later?"

"Sure" I replied in amazement. I was too surprised to be adamant.

His staffer assured me, after my second rejection, that I would be able to ask my question individually as he was leaving.

I stepped aside, and waited another fifteen minutes. As the gentleman (who just assured me that I was going to be able to ask Governor Romney my question) announced to the remaining few individuals the end of the meeting I stepped up to ask my question.

"Governor Romney" I said ask he walked by and out the door smiling without making eye contact with me. "Can I ask my question now?" I inquired to his campaign rep.

"I’m sorry, you’ve gotta be quick," he responded. Then an officer stepped in to push me away.

I’m sorry too. Sorry that I wasted my lunch break to attend a live commercial for Mitt Romney. Sorry, that events like this can be labeled "town hall." Sorry, that candidates fear discussing real issues with real voters. Sorry, that someone running for president would run from an unassuming 22 year old. So much for his platform of strength.

The note was unsigned. But, whoever you are, this is one way to share it with others.

Personally, I don’t make much of this — somebody’s always going to be the questioner on deck when it’s time for the candidate to move on. And feelings are going to be hurt. But since I was unable to attend the event myself (I was out of town), I’ll pass on this correspondent’s experience.

Now — was anybody else among you there? Perhaps someone who’d like to put his name behind his viewpoint? We’re all ears.

Romney campaign prepares warchest spin

Preparing for an FEC campaign finance filing deadline tomorrow, the Mitt Romney campaign has distributed an internal memo today instructing staff on how to spin the fact that, apparently, the candidates’ figures won’t be as impressive as they were last quarter.

I don’t normally get all that interested in this money stuff, but since this fell into my lap today, I share it with you for what you can make of it. (By the way, I’m not claiming any great reporting prowess here. Think about it: What better way to disseminate talking points than to leak the memo?)

Here’s the first of five talking points:

First, the coverage will no doubt fixate on the "horserace numbers." This tells only part of the story given this cycle’s unprecedented nature, and the competing needs of less well-known candidates, such as Governor Romney, for both fundraising dollars and political exposure. For example, we should expect Governor Romney’s total for the quarter will be very strong but less than the first quarter total. Our total will reflect the campaign’s strategic decision to include more political travel days in this quarter than in the first. For example, Governor Romney spent 8 days in New Hampshire and 12 days in Iowa this quarter, which was double the number of days he spent in those states during the first quarter. He also spent time preparing for and participating in three Republican presidential candidate debates. This resulted in important political strides (as increasingly recognized in the media, most recently by Dan Balz’s piece in The Washington Post), but there has been a tradeoff with time spent fundraising.

And here’s the full memo.

Immigration gap column

The GOP split between
rhetoric and reality

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
TUESDAY’S debate revealed a significant split in the Republican Party between Reality and Rhetoric, Ideas and Ideology.
    Sen. John McCain was asked a question that sounded like it had been dreamed up by Tom Clancy: Would he, in a totally “what-if” scenario, torture prisoners to prevent a theoretical terrorist attack?
    Sen. McCain, who has actually been tortured, for years on end, by a ruthless enemy, gave a thoughtful answer based on bitter experience: Knowing the United States would not do what the North Vietnamese were doing to him kept him going, kept him believing in his country and what it stood for. Besides, he didn’t want to give enemies an excuse to torture our troops.
    Rep. Tom Tancredo said he would call the fictional Jack Bauer. Others were no more realistic. Their answers had nothing to do with winning a war and everything to do with stirring the blood.
    Then there’s immigration.
    During the debate, Sen. McCain — again — spoke of his work on the issue that most candidates, and most members of Congress, would rather rant than do anything about.
    Two days later, he stood up with a bipartisan group of senators to announce a deal, months in the making, that represented the first attempt to address immigration comprehensively after a year of stalemate.
    Immediately, the Big GOP Split reasserted itself with a thunderous crack. South Carolina’s U.S. senators illustrated the split. Lindsey Graham — who had been late for the debate Tuesday because the White House had asked him to stay and help hammer out the agreement — hailed the proposal as “the last, best chance we have, probably for decades, to fix immigration.”
    Jim DeMint, sounding peeved at not having been in the room, was dismissive: “I don’t care how you try to spin it, this is amnesty.”
    He didn’t know yet what was in the bill, but he knew the magic word for condemning it.
    Sen. Graham had this to say about that: “Amnesty is a pardon and means all is forgiven. This legislation is not amnesty…. I hope all Senators, particularly those who were not part of the negotiations, will become more informed about the details of the bill before making incorrect statements. Here are the facts… . Illegal aliens will not be allowed to jump in line for citizenship ahead of those currently waiting. If they want to become citizens they must pay fines, learn English, pass a civics exam, undergo background checks and leave the United States and return to their country of origin. The punishment is fair and just. The public expects Members of Congress to speak their minds, but be informed in their opinions.”
    That’s too much trouble for some. I asked Rep. Tancredo Friday morning, when he called into a radio show I was on, whether this compromise wasn’t better than doing nothing. He was unequivocal: “Doing nothing is better.”
    I mentioned that to Sen. Graham Friday afternoon. “The Tancredo model never leads to a solution,” he said.
    “I have decided, as a United States senator, to stand on principle, and try to solve problems. And they’re not inconsistent. One of the principles that made America great is that the problem-solvers have always been greater in number and will than the demagogues.”
    He said, when a reporter asked, that he was not referring to Jim DeMint. “Jim is a very serious guy,” he said. But, he added, “one thing I would suggest is that before you enflame the public by using buzzwords, let’s look and see what we did.”
    Shortly after Sen. Graham said that, Sen. DeMint put out another release, complaining that the negotiators were trying to rush the bill through without letting him and others see whether they could go for it (which may very well be what they’re doing). He raised the “A-word” again, but in a somewhat more conciliatory way: “As we understand it, this plan will grant amnesty… This can be fixed, but it will take time and there is no way the Senate can responsibly complete this debate in one week.”
    On the presidential campaign trail, however, there was little appetite for closing gaps and getting things done. Mitt Romney wasn’t waiting around for details: “I strongly oppose today’s bill going through the Senate. It is the wrong approach.”
    Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign put out a statement purporting to address the proposal that was, to say the least, oblique: “The recent Fort Dix plot is a stark reminder that the threat of terrorism has made immigration an important matter of national security. We need to know who is coming in and who is going out of this country if we are going to deal with those who are here illegally.”
    As Sen. McCain had said during the debate, the Fort Dix plotters didn’t all sneak into the country illegally. The issues are completely unrelated.
    I don’t know what to do about illegal immigration. I want to see the laws enforced. I also want the laws to recognize reality.
    In a different context, I asked former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee about the difference between being a governor and existing inside the Beltway: “You actually are going to have to do something” if you’re a governor, he said. “You don’t have the luxury of being an ideologue.”
    Some inside the Beltway want to do something, too. They’ve made a dramatic effort in that direction with this immigration bill. I don’t know whether it’s the way to go or not. But I suspect that the biggest barrier facing it will be Republicans who prefer to luxuriate in ideology.

The unkindest of all

One of my colleagues yesterday remarked that Mitt Romney’s candidacy is doomed to "the death of 1,000 YouTube cuts."

I’m thinking he may have a point. What think you? Will we South Carolinians, who have seen more of all of these candidates than almost anyone, soon be able to paraphrase Caporegime Clemenza:

"Oh, Romney? Won’t see him no more."

Romney announces

Romneyford

S
o maybe I won’t send out every interesting release I get — but this one has news value. These are the prepared remarks from which Mitt Romney spoke this morning as he announced, at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich., that he (gasp!) is going to run for the presidency.

I thought it interesting that he chose to speak from a monument to 20th century technology and specifically, to the internal combustion engine. Doesn’t seem very forward-looking. But he explains his reasons (and he does mention the hybrid behind him). See what you think of them.

With no further ado, here are his remarks:

    "I am happy to be in Michigan this morning.  I’m happy to have my brother Scott and Sister Lynn here.  And I’m proud to have all my children and grandchildren here too.
     Michigan is where Ann and I were born.  It is where we met and fell in love.  I still love Ann.  And I still love Michigan!
    "During my parents’ campaigns, I visited all 83 Michigan counties, doing my best to convince Michiganders that Romneys and Republicans could lead the state back to prosperity.
     "You know my father as a business leader, a governor, and as an advocate of volunteerism.  But he came from humble roots.  He labored with lath and plaster.  He never graduated from college.  But like many other Americans, he made his dreams come true.
     "And he made a difference.  My father worked here to improve Detroit Schools.  He worked to write a new state constitution.  And he worked as your governor for six years to get Michigan on the move.  His character and integrity left an impression that has lasted through the decades.
     "It was Mom who did the lion’s share of raising Lynn, Jane, Scott and me.  Dad said, that as a successful Mom, she had accomplished more than he.  Later she worked in charities, in foster care, in music and the arts, and in volunteerism.  She even ran for U.S. Senate.
     "I always imagined that I would come back to Michigan someday.  That’s why I took the bar exam here. I hadn’t imagined it would happen this way, but I sure have come back to Michigan today.
     "I chose this site for a number of reasons.  It’s filled with cars and memories.  Dad and I loved cars.  Most kids read the sports box scores.  Dad and I read Automotive News.  We came here together, him teaching me about cars that were built before my time.
     "The Rambler automobile he championed was the first American car designed and marketed for economy and mileage.  He dubbed it a compact car, a car that would slay the gas-guzzling dinosaurs.  It transformed the industry.
     "This place is not just about automobiles; it is about innovation, innovation that transformed an industry, and in doing so, gave Americans a way of life our grandparents could never have imagined.
     "The DC 3 above us was the first true commercial airliner.  It transformed aviation from a luxury to a standard mode of transportation.
     "Next to us is a Ford hybrid.  It is the first giant step away from our reliance on the gasoline engine.  It is already changing the world of transportation.
     "Just outside is Thomas Edison’s laboratory.  There, electricity that Benjamin Franklin discovered was transformed from a novelty into a necessity.
     "Innovation and transformation have been at the heart of America’s success.  If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now.
     "We have lost faith in government, not in just one party, not in just one house, but in government.
     "We are weary of the bickering and bombast, fatigued by the posturing and self-promotion.  For even as America faces a new generation of challenges, the halls of government are clogged with petty politics and stuffed with peddlers of influence.
     "It is time for innovation and transformation in Washington.  It is what our country needs.  It is what our people deserve.
     "I do not believe Washington can be transformed from within by a lifelong politician.  There have been too many deals, too many favors, too many entanglements…and too little real world experience managing, guiding, leading.
     "I do not believe Washington can be transformed by someone who has never tried doing such a thing before, in any setting, by someone who has never even managed a corner store, let alone the largest enterprise in the world.
     "Throughout my life, I have pursued innovation and transformation.  It has taught me the vital lessons that come only from experience, from failures and successes, from the private, public and voluntary sectors, from small and large enterprise, from leading a state, from being in the arena, not just talking about it.  Talk is easy, talk is cheap.  It is doing that is hard.  And it is only in doing that hope and dreams come to life.
     "This Christmas, Ann and I gathered my five sons and five daughters-in-law to ask them whether I should run for President.
     "We talked about the special time this is in the history of America – the challenges and the opportunities. We talked about the qualities that are needed in our leaders.  They were unanimous.  They know our hearts.  They know our values.  They know my experience innovating and transforming, in business, in the Olympics, and in Massachusetts.  And they know we love this country.
     "And so, with them behind us, with the fine people of Michigan before us, and with my sweetheart beside me, I declare my intention to run for President of the United States.
     "It has been said that a person is defined by what he loves and by what he believes and by what he dreams.
     "I love America and I believe in the people of America.
     "I believe in God and I believe that every person in this great country, and every person on this grand planet, is a child of God.  We are all sisters and brothers.
     "I believe the family is the foundation of America – and that we must fight to protect and strengthen it.
     "I believe in the sanctity of human life.
     "I believe that people and their elected representatives should make our laws, not unelected judges.
     "I believe we are overtaxed and government is overfed.  Washington is spending too much money.
     "I believe that homeland security begins with securing our borders.
     "I believe the best days of this country are ahead of us, because…
     "I believe in America!
     "At this critical time, we must 1) transform our role in the world, 2) strengthen our nation, and 3) build a brighter future for the American family.
     "Today, as we stare at the face of radical violent Jihad and at the prospect of nuclear epidemic, our military might should not be subject to the whims of ever-changing political agendas.  The best ally of peace is a strong America!
     "Our role in the world must be defined not only in terms of our might, but also by our willingness to lead, to serve, and to share.  We must campaign for freedom and democracy in our own hemisphere, now threatened by a second aspiring strongman.  We must extend our hand to Africa’s poor and diseased and brutalized.  We must lead the world’s civilized nations in a partnership that will support moderate Muslim nations and peoples, to help them embrace principles of modernity and defeat violent Jihad. We must link arms with all responsible nations to block Iran from realizing its nuclear ambition.  America must never engage and negotiate with Jihadists who want to destroy us, destroy our friends, and destroy our way of life!
     "Across the nation, there is debate about
our future course in Iraq.  Our desire to bring our troops home, safely and soon, is met with our recognition that if Iraq descends into all-out civil war, millions could die; that Iraq’s Sunni region could become a base for Al Qaeda; that its Shia region could be seized by Iran; that Kurd tension could destabilize Turkey; and even that the broader Middle East could be drawn into conflict.  The possible implications for America and for American interests from such developments could be devastating.  It could mean a future with far more military involvement and far more loss of American life.  For these reasons, I believe that so long as there is a reasonable prospect of success, our wisest course is to seek stability in Iraq, with additional troops endeavoring to secure the civilian population.
     "And no matter how Iraq is resolved, we must honor and care for the veterans who risked their lives, and for the families whose loved ones made the ultimate sacrifice.  Our nation has a sacred pact with those who defend freedom.  It is a pact we must never break!
     "America must regain our standing in the world.  Our influence must once again match our generosity. Over the entire 20th century, no nation gave more, shed more precious lives, and took less for itself than America.  Our sacrifice for freedom and for human dignity continues unabated.  But this is not the way it is seen by others.  America’s goodness and leadership in the world, must be as bright and bold as our military might!
     "America can also overcome our challenges and seize our abundant opportunities here at home, but only if we follow the right course.
     "There are some who believe that America’s strength comes from government – that challenges call for bigger government, for more regulation of our lives and livelihood, and for more protection and isolation from competition that comes from open markets.     "That is the path that has been taken by much of Europe.  It is called the welfare state.  It has led to high unemployment and anemic job growth.  It is not the path to prosperity and leadership.
     "I believe the American people are the source of our strength.  They always have been.  They always will be.  The American people: hard working, educated, innovative, ready to sacrifice for family and country, patriotic, seeking opportunity above dependence, God-fearing, free American people.  When we need to call on the strength of America, we should strengthen the American people, not the American government!
     "We strengthen the American people by giving them more freedom, by letting them keep more of what they earn, by making sure our schools are providing the skills our children will need for tomorrow, and by keeping America at the leading edge of innovation and technology.
     "Our government has become a weight on the American people, sapping their strength and slowing their climb. We must transform our government – to become a government that is smaller and less bureaucratic, one with fewer regulations and more freedom for our people.  The innovation we need today is to make government more responsive to the needs of everyday American citizens.  It’s time to put government in its place, and to put the American people first!
     "At America’s core are millions of individual families: families of children and parents, aunts and uncles and cousins, grandparents, foster parents.  There is no work more important for our nation’s future than the work done in the home.
     "But the work done in the home isn’t getting easier.  Values and morals that have long shaped the development of our children are under constant attack.  In too many cases, schools are failing.  For some, healthcare is inadequate.  Family expenses and government taxes take a larger and larger bite.  America cannot continue to lead the family of nations if we fail the families at home.
     "How is the American family made stronger?  With marriage before children.  With a mother and a father in the life of every child.  With healthcare that is affordable and portable.  With schools that succeed.  With taxes that are lower.  And with leaders who strive to demonstrate enduring values and morality.
     "This was the agenda I pursued as Governor of Massachusetts.  This is the agenda I will pursue if elected President.
     "When I was a boy, the American dream meant a house in the suburbs.  The American dream today must mean more than a house.  The new American dream should include a strong family, enduring values, excellence in education, dependable and affordable healthcare, secure employment and secure retirement, and a safe and prosperous homeland.  It’s time to build a new American dream for all of America’s families. 
     "How will this new American dream be built?  Our hopes and dreams will inspire us, for we are an optimistic people.  But hope alone is just crossing fingers, when what we need is industrious hands.  It is time for hope and action.  It is time to do, as well as to dream!
     "As we look around us in this museum, we see the evidence of American innovation – airplanes, automobiles, appliances.  But these are not America’s greatest innovation.  America’s greatest innovation is freedom.  Without freedom, we have nothing. With freedom, nothing can hold us back.
     "Freedom has made the American dream possible.  Freedom will make the new American dream possible.  And with the work, sacrifice, and greatness of spirit of the American people, freedom has made America – and will keep America – the greatest nation on earth. God bless America."

S.C. portrayed as hurdle to Mormon Romney

Romneyaiken1

NPR this morning portrayed Mitt Romney’s Mormonism as an obstacle to his candidacy, and presented South Carolina as just the sort of place where it would pose a problem.

The setup included the words, "Romney’s traveling to places where people aren’t entirely receptive to a Mormon president." We then find ourselves "at a Rotary Club luncheon in Aiken, South Carolina." In case you are not familiar with the Palmetto State, you are informed that "its voters include lots of fundamentalist Christians."

The segment describes the candidate’s speech, then acknowledges that "There wasn’t a single mention of religion until Romney faced reporters outside." You hear him being questioned on the subject by a reporter with an accent that definitely did not come out of South Carolina. The reporter, to his credit, asks whether this is only an obsession of the press. Romney responds that he does hear about it from regular folks — apparently, just not at the Rotary in Aiken.

Not to say the producers couldn’t persuade a South Carolinian to support their thesis. Rep. Gloria Haskins of Greenville obliged them by saying:

I think as an evangelical Christian, it is a big thing for me, yes, because again, his faith is
inconsistent with my faith. His faith is consistent with the Book of
Mormon. My faith is consistent with God’s Word, the Bible, and they’re
not compatible.

So did NPR set up South Carolina unfairly as a symbol of narrow-minded prejudice threatening an otherwise-viable candidacy? I don’t know.

Personally, I don’t think it’s narrow-minded or stupid or intolerant to consider whether a candidate shares your most fundamental beliefs regarding the way this whole thing called existence is set up. It’s infinitely more important than party label, much less whether Mr. Romney is a sufficiently pure "conservative" for the party’s right wing to stomach — the point that actually seems to be giving him more trouble than how he prays.

Where prejudice is a problem is when false and even absurd assumptions come into play — such as the widespread suspicion that JFK would be taking his marching orders as commander in chief from the Pope. (Something about the Pope just seems to freak out a lot of protestants. I used to be a protestant myself, but don’t ask me to explain it.)

I suspect that among most who vote in the GOP primary here, a more likely question will be: Why should I vote for this guy rather than John McCain? That’s who has gone the farthest in sewing up S.C. support at this point.

For some on the party’s ideological extreme, of course, almost anyone is preferable to the man from Arizona. He’s just too reasonable for them. But those hunting for their pure knight of conservatism seem unlikely to dub Mitt "I was for gay marriage before I was against it" Romney. (Fair or not, that’s the rep he’s having to live down.)

McCain’s still the man to beat, and that’s not a theological issue.

Romneyaiken2

Romney to S.C.

Here’s another one. In a strategy you may have heard about, Romney sends out a LOT of these:

FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY
CONTACT: Romney Press Shop

January 26,  2007                                                                                                                           (857) 288-6390

GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY TRAVELS TO SOUTH CAROLINA
Boston, MA – On Monday and Tuesday, January 29-30, Governor Mitt Romney and his son, Tagg Romney, will travel to South Carolina.  Governor Romney will begin his trip by delivering the Keynote Address at the Aiken Rotary Club Meeting in Aiken, SC.  The Romneys will then travel to Mt. Pleasant, SC, and hold a press conference to announce key endorsements from leaders in the Charleston, SC area.  The following day, Governor Romney and his son will meet with local residents in Columbia, SC.  The events listed below will be open to members of the media.

Monday, January 29
12:40 p.m.     Governor Romney Keynotes Meeting of the Aiken Rotary Club
                        Aiken Municipal Conference Center
215 The Alley
Aiken, SC

5:00 p.m.       Governor Romney Announces Key Endorsements of Charleston Area Leaders
                              Coen Capital
                        100 Church Street
                        Mt. Pleasant, SC

Tuesday, January 30
8:30 a.m.       Governor Romney and Tagg Romney Meet with Area Residents
                        Lizard’s Thicket
                        818 Elmwood Avenue
                        Columbia, SC

*All Times Are Eastern Standard Time