Don’t Forget, Mormonism is Not the Issue!

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Especially if you came from Mormon Archipelago as it only includes my major article posts.
Thanks for visiting!

Last week, John McCain was quick to repudiate his mother’s pointed comments on Mitt Romney and “the Mormons of Salt Lake”:

“Mormons are great people and the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon should play no role whatsoever in people’s decision,” McCain said. 

But, Jay Nordingler observes a pattern that I have noticed especially coming from the McCain camp (thanks, Article VI Blog).

In future weeks — especially if Romney remains strong in the polls — we should expect to hear statements from the other candidates, along the lines of, “I don’t think the governor’s Mormonism should be an issue in this race.” I think of what John Edwards did, in the vice-presidential debate of 2004: He talked about the Cheneys’ gay daughter (he used the word “lesbian”). (At least he didn’t say “lezbo.”)

Question: Was Edwards simply and innocently making a point about gay marriage? Or was he reminding Americans that the Cheneys had a gay daughter?

And when Republican candidates say, “I don’t think the governor’s Mormonism should be an issue in this race,” will they be making a genuine statement about religion and politics — or reminding people that Romney is Mormon?

I’ve long suspected this as a clever way to focus on the negative implications of a Mormon candiate while appearing otherwise.

The McCain campaign seems to do this especially.  I remember this from this past April:

Stevens, a McCain media adviser, picked up on what McInturff said, seemingly sounding a sympathetic note about what may be a problem for Romney’s campaign. “Mitt Romney is not saying elect me because I’m Mormon and I think that is an important distinction,” he said.

But Castellanos didn’t see the McCain team’s comments as sympathetic to his candidate. He saw them as a backhanded way to put the issue of Romney’s religion into play. “I appreciate the defense today just as much as I appreciate the attacks by the other folks,” he said icily. “It’s awfully nice to be able to whack an opponent and defend him in the same breath.”

Advisers for both campaigns agreed that the media has contributed to this problem by highlighting polls that show, for example, that a third of voters say they are less likely to vote for a candidate who happens to be a Mormon. But Castellanos would not let got of his contention that Romney’s rivals were feeding that story line by decrying it.

Castellanos said he found it interesting that the campaigns of the two best-known GOP candidates appeared anxious to define the lesser-known Romney at least in part through his religion, saying they knew well the political implications of focusing on that topic.

I guess this beats the more direct and ugly attacks that a McCain surrogate tried last year.

Let me keep reminding you, this man’s strange religion should not be the issue!

Tags: , , , , ,

Hm. Really interesting points. Thanks for bringing that up.

I still say that Romney needs a JFK moment–he needs to unambiguously state that he will not take direction from the Church Office Building if he’s elected president. If you read a lot of the blogs out there, that’s half the worry about Mormons–that we’re all mindless drones, set off with our marching orders from Salt Lake City. (And, to be honest, the timing of Romney’s change of heart on legally sanctioned same-sex unions has only fanned the flames of this, I fear, even though I tend to think it had more to do with courting Republican primary voters than religious conviction.) Yeah, he’s said as much here and there, but he hasn’t put it bluntly–and bluntly is what he needs to counter this.

Of course, I wouldn’t vote for him either way, but that’s based on completely separate policy disagreements.

David B -

I’m not sure. I see your point that he needs to put it bluntly but as you say he has already said it.

It’s just that no one seems to HEAR and keeps asking the same questions over and over again, more for the effect than truly seeking answers.

Of course the fact that his message is not getting out is his fault even if it’s unfair. That’s politics.

So maybe a JFK-moment would accomplish that for the record, where reporters would start looking foolish if they tried to keep rehashing these issues again and again.

But I fear that a full-out speech will just legitimize the line of questioning further and make it open season to ask him anything Mormon and he will stop being a presidential candidate and instead be the Church’s chief missionary.