Romney

[TripletDaddy]

I think Romney and his campaign want to avoid going down the rabbit hole and becoming spokesmen for the church. Our beliefs are not widely known and take a lot of time to explain (one reason why we have 50,000 missionaries out there). Also, his political opponents would love the distraction. One theme the political consultants for his opponents are pushing is that Mormonism (and thus Romney) are weird. Mitt's getting bogged down into our doctrinal/historical controversies would play right into that. Agree with it or not, that's the campaign's approach and I don't see it changing.

This CNN piece is pretty fair, I think:

The shaping of a candidate: A look at Mitt Romney's faith journey

2012 has the potential to be one of the most interesting elections of our lifetime, if not the most interesting. A black incumbent running against a Mormon challenger. And I submit that religion is one of the primary reasons why it could be so interesting.

I get what you are saying about not getting bogged down by the religious issue, but practically speaking, how many empty campaign promises, promises of grand future visions, and bridges to the future can the public stomach in one election year. The vast majority of "on point" political discussion is mostly windbaggery anyway (from both parties). Let me guess...each candidate wants whats best for the country, wants national defense, is concerned about healthcare and the economy, wants to improve schools. At the same time, either candidate will be hamstrung by the maze of Congress and Washington partisan politics. Yawn.

I view this as a great opportunity for the Church. It is time for Mormonism to come front and center...to be a central theme of vigorous public debate at the highest levels over a sustained period of time. The more we are out there, the more people realize that we are normal good people who tend to get more fat than the average American and who single-handedly subsidize the mini-van and pleated jean industries. I believe Mitt will win the R nomination and in doing so, he has a unique opportunity to help mainstream Mormonism like no other recent public figure has ever been able to do so. He would do well to take a few cues from goatnapper'96's style of response...not an all caps incoherent shout fest, but a straightforward pull no punches approach to these religious issues that will continue to surface and resurface. I'm not suggestion Mitt offer to give the 6 discussions, but these are our beliefs, for better or worse. Why hide them? Why fear? This is the time...a Mo POTUS would be the capstone to the Rise of Modern Mormonism. You can't get much more mainstream than Leader of the Free World.

[TripletDaddy]

I understand that POV and don't actually disagree with it - but the question for me is not what criteria individual voters use to vote, but what role the media play in framing decontextualized, isolated aspects of a religion that highlight the apparent "weirdness" of that religion without enabling a meaningful discussion of the rest of it.

When the media zero in on religious idiosyncrasies they create the impression among voters that an individual candidate is somehow accountable for the weirdness or should have to explain it.

I think it's fair for media to highlight anything that factors in a candidate's core identity and is likely to influence his/her decisions. But a Roman Catholic's view of putting Jesus in his/her mouth via transubstantiation or an LDS view of whether or not Jesus set foot on the American continent doesn't really measure up to that standard, IMO.

The media has been pretty consistent. Their job is to pull numbers and sell papers. This is the same media that made disparaging comments about a teenage Chelsea Clinton's braces, speculated about sexual affairs between Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan () and who also wondered what a Roman Catholic in office would do if the Pope tried to call the shots from afar. Nothing has changed. The media has always delved below the surface. They ask because the public wants to know. If the public didn't want to know, they wouldn't ask.

[Goatnapper'96]

2012 has the potential to be one of the most interesting elections of our lifetime, if not the most interesting. A black incumbent running against a Mormon challenger. And I submit that religion is one of the primary reasons why it could be so interesting.

I get what you are saying about not getting bogged down by the religious issue, but practically speaking, how many empty campaign promises, promises of grand future visions, and bridges to the future can the public stomach in one election year. The vast majority of "on point" political discussion is mostly windbaggery anyway (from both parties). Let me guess...each candidate wants whats best for the country, wants national defense, is concerned about healthcare and the economy, wants to improve schools. At the same time, either candidate will be hamstrung by the maze of Congress and Washington partisan politics. Yawn.

I view this as a great opportunity for the Church. It is time for Mormonism to come front and center...to be a central theme of vigorous public debate at the highest levels over a sustained period of time. The more we are out there, the more people realize that we are normal good people who tend to get more fat than the average American and who single-handedly subsidize the mini-van and pleated jean industries. I believe Mitt will win the R nomination and in doing so, he has a unique opportunity to help mainstream Mormonism like no other recent public figure has ever been able to do so. He would do well to take a few cues from goatnapper'96's style of response...not an all caps incoherent shout fest, but a straightforward pull no punches approach to these religious issues that will continue to surface and resurface. I'm not suggestion Mitt offer to give the 6 discussions, but these are our beliefs, for better or worse. Why hide them? Why fear? This is the time...a Mo POTUS would be the capstone to the Rise of Modern Mormonism. You can't get much more mainstream than Leader of the Free World.

If I can point out in a rational, grammatically correct and extremely coherent manner, we also prefer our womenfolk to get knocker augmetations. Either natural or pumped full of silicone makes no difference to us. From our OL to our Cistern's breast sizes bigger be mo beautiful!

Other than that you hit the saliant cultural highlights I want the world to know about us.

[il Padrino Ute]

I think Romney should answer any questions asked about Mormonism, but he should start each answer with "The economy is in the crapper and unemployment is still over 9%, but you want to talk about my religion? Okay..."

[oxcoug]

I think Romney should answer any questions asked about Mormonism, but he should start each answer with "The economy is in the crapper and unemployment is still over 9%, but you want to talk about my religion? Okay..."

I actually agree that something along these lines cld be an effective stock response - the only trick wld be to do it w/o seeming petulant or defensive, which Romney isn't always good at.

[oxcoug]

The media has been pretty consistent. Their job is to pull numbers and sell papers. This is the same media that made disparaging comments about a teenage Chelsea Clinton's braces, speculated about sexual affairs between Frank Sinatra and Nancy Reagan () and who also wondered what a Roman Catholic in office would do if the Pope tried to call the shots from afar. Nothing has changed. The media has always delved below the surface. They ask because the public wants to know. If the public didn't want to know, they wouldn't ask.

I like how this posts collapses media activity of today with media activity of 25 and 50 years ago - and puts all of media of today in one basket. Maybe I'm partly to blame for the latter since I also generalized "media" as one entity.

While it doesn't divide as cleanly as we'd like it to, there is / should be the responsible media of public record and sellout media of sensation / speculation. Most likely voters know the difference, even though the lines occasionally blur.

What the media of our grandparents' generation did with the Roman Catholic issue in an entirely different socio-demographic day (and abt a candidate who had never held a public executive office) doesn't seem especially relevant to what they are doing in 2011 w/ a candidate who spent six years under the microscope as Governor of the bluest state in the Union. What the National Enquirer wrote abt Nancy and Frank in 1985 doesn't have implications for what CNN shld focus on in 2012. And so on.

[LA Ute]

2012 has the potential to be one of the most interesting elections of our lifetime, if not the most interesting. A black incumbent running against a Mormon challenger. And I submit that religion is one of the primary reasons why it could be so interesting.

I get what you are saying about not getting bogged down by the religious issue, but practically speaking, how many empty campaign promises, promises of grand future visions, and bridges to the future can the public stomach in one election year. The vast majority of "on point" political discussion is mostly windbaggery anyway (from both parties). Let me guess...each candidate wants whats best for the country, wants national defense, is concerned about healthcare and the economy, wants to improve schools. At the same time, either candidate will be hamstrung by the maze of Congress and Washington partisan politics. Yawn.

I view this as a great opportunity for the Church. It is time for Mormonism to come front and center...to be a central theme of vigorous public debate at the highest levels over a sustained period of time. The more we are out there, the more people realize that we are normal good people who tend to get more fat than the average American and who single-handedly subsidize the mini-van and pleated jean industries. I believe Mitt will win the R nomination and in doing so, he has a unique opportunity to help mainstream Mormonism like no other recent public figure has ever been able to do so. He would do well to take a few cues from goatnapper'96's style of response...not an all caps incoherent shout fest, but a straightforward pull no punches approach to these religious issues that will continue to surface and resurface. I'm not suggestion Mitt offer to give the 6 discussions, but these are our beliefs, for better or worse. Why hide them? Why fear? This is the time...a Mo POTUS would be the capstone to the Rise of Modern Mormonism. You can't get much more mainstream than Leader of the Free World.

I tend to agree to a certain extent. think the CNN piece I linked to below is a good bit of work. It's balanced and pretty informative for people who are curious. It's also inevitable. If MR remains the front-runner, the news media is going to get into Mormonism in a big way, and I think what they produce will be all over the map - from terrible and unfair to insightful and interesting. Ultimately, Mormonism will be better understood by more people. They might not like what they learn but that's never been our main goal.

I think Mitt and Co. will leave that process to the news media, though.

[TripletDaddy]

While it doesn't divide as cleanly as we'd like it to, there is / should be the responsible media of public record and sellout media of sensation / speculation. Most likely voters know the difference, even though the lines occasionally blur.

I was speaking generally and you seem to recognize that. I agree that the "media" today have a drastically greater impact than the media of yesteryear. However, to be fair, the ethical questions you raise aren't new, either. They are not unique to today's era of blogging, online TV, websites, paparazzi, and what SaPa likes to call "gotcha journalism." The role of the media will always be at issue.

I'm not sure I agree that they shouldn't ask these questions. Perhaps you feel that way because you are Mormon. Also, you are a world traveler, you are a multicultural literate, you are a polyglot, you are politically active, you are highly educated, you have enjoyed a relatively privileged lifestyle, you are entrepreneurial, you are a critical thinker, and in certain soft lighting, you are passable as a complex and ruggedly handsome Lothario who is unaffected by the sight of another man's soiled sheets. In other words, you are not reflective of the general electorate. Your lens is not the lens to which the media is catering.

If the current front runner was a devout Muslim, I am convinced that there would be many, if not infinitely MORE questions about beliefs than what we are seeing with Mitt. The reason being is simple...Main Street USA knows nothing about Islam. We are finding out that despite our hopes and personal anecdotes, Main Street USA doesn't really know much about Mormons, either. And people want to know.

I think the media should ask. I also like EPU's stylistic response...."Yes, I believe I may eventually have my own planet....but currently on THIS planet the economy stinks and here is my plan...."

[il Padrino Ute]

I tend to agree to a certain extent. think the CNN piece I linked to below is a good bit of work. It's balanced and pretty informative for people who are curious. It's also inevitable. If MR remains the front-runner, the news media is going to get into Mormonism in a big way, and I think what they produce will be all over the map - from terrible and unfair to insightful and interesting. Ultimately, Mormonism will be better understood by more people. They might not like what they learn but that's never been our main goal.

I think Mitt and Co. will leave that process to the news media, though.

Leaving it to the media will result in a distorted view, as religion is something that very few people are able to talk about without injecting personal bias and misinformation. Romney would be best served if he were the one telling people what he believes, rather than allowing others talking about what they think Romney believes.

[LA Ute]

Leaving it to the media will result in a distorted view, as religion is something that very few people are able to talk about without injecting personal bias and misinformation. Romney would be best served if he were the one telling people what he believes, rather than allowing others talking about what they think Romney believes.

I see what you are saying but Romney can't be in a position where he's responding to question after question about everything -- from the priesthood ban to polygamy to Adam-God to Mountain Meadows to exaltation to each of us having our own planet someday. Not to mention whether Jesus and Satan are brothers, and if so, how. Maybe a question or two about garments, to boot.

He is smart, IMO, to avoid doing that. Other candidates are not asked to explain the intricacies of their religions, because (also IMO) their religions are more familiar to most people. If Mitt opens this door he'll never be able to close it.

[TripletDaddy]

I see what you are saying but Romney can't be in a position where he's responding to question after question about everything -- from the priesthood ban to polygamy to Adam-God to Mountain Meadows to exaltation to each of us having our own planet someday. Not to mention whether Jesus and Satan are brothers, and if so, how. Maybe a question or two about garments, to boot.

He is smart, IMO, to avoid doing that. Other candidates are not asked to explain the intricacies of their religions, because (also IMO) their religions are more familiar to most people. If Mitt opens this door he'll never be able to close it.

Some of this is a test. The media use troll tactics and are not legitimately curious as to Mitt's religious beliefs, except to the extent that the issue will drive readership. While it is definitely possible that this could be a never-ending parade of religious questions, I don't see that as a probability. On a smaller scale, how often did Mitt or Harry Reid have to answer religious questions as Senator or Governor? There will come a time sooner rather than later when the reporter that raises his or her hand at a PC simply to ask another tedious religious question will look more foolish for having asked it. Religion is the flavor of the day, but not forever. I think the best way to hasten this is to accept the onslaught now and develop sharp yet fair responses to questions that have already been asked an answered.

Again, trolling is an art. Defusing a troll is an even greater art. Perhaps Mitt should have hired me instead of Spencer Zwick!

[il Padrino Ute]

I see what you are saying but Romney can't be in a position where he's responding to question after question about everything -- from the priesthood ban to polygamy to Adam-God to Mountain Meadows to exaltation to each of us having our own planet someday. Not to mention whether Jesus and Satan are brothers, and if so, how. Maybe a question or two about garments, to boot.

He is smart, IMO, to avoid doing that. Other candidates are not asked to explain the intricacies of their religions, because (also IMO) their religions are more familiar to most people. If Mitt opens this door he'll never be able to close it.

You make good points. Of course, I have to remember that I'm not a politician and have no desire to be a politician, so I should try to remember that what my answers would be most likely aren't what Romney's answers, or not answering the questions for that matter, would be.

[il Padrino Ute]

Some of this is a test. The media use troll tactics and are not legitimately curious as to Mitt's religious beliefs, except to the extent that the issue will drive readership. While it is definitely possible that this could be a never-ending parade of religious questions, I don't see that as a probability. On a smaller scale, how often did Mitt or Harry Reid have to answer religious questions as Senator or Governor? There will come a time sooner rather than later when the reporter that raises his or her hand at a PC simply to ask another tedious religious question will look more foolish for having asked it. Religion is the flavor of the day, but not forever. I think the best way to hasten this is to accept the onslaught now and develop sharp yet fair responses to questions that have already been asked an answered.

Again, trolling is an art. Defusing a troll is an even greater art. Perhaps Mitt should have hired me instead of Spencer Zwick!

I don't think Reid was ever questioned, nor will he ever be questioned about Mormonism because he has the same political philosophies as the media. It's only weird or wrong if a conservative believes something.

[TripletDaddy]

I don't think Reid was ever questioned, nor will he ever be questioned about Mormonism because he has the same political philosophies as the media. It's only weird or wrong if a conservative believes something.

Mitt is conservative? he socialized medicine and was for gay marriage!

[Goatnapper'96]

Mitt is conservative? he socialized medicine and was for gay marriage!

That socializaton was at the state level...that makes all the difference. Mitt is a Confedervative!

He also decided he was in favor of curtailing collective bargaining agreements for public employee unions!

With Herman's recent issues is it time to declare it a Mitt romp? I mean within 3 weeks the #2 guy trailing Mitt will be Newt and he can't be president because my favorite progressive columnist, the esteemed Eugene Robinson, thinks Newt is a meany.

Brother Herman might want to bust out Swing Low, but the womenfolk might thought he was swinging a bit too high....:condom: