JPTV: What I'm Watching Tomorrow

Mind you, I am not a political pundit

grumble...grumble...RESTORE ACT...grumble...Joe Klein...grumble...'well beyond stupid'...grumble, grumble...Greenwald...grumble...Stengel...grumble...grumble

Or is it a media briar patch he's willingly throwing himself into--whether to change the subject, create a comeback narrative, or just dominate a few TV-news cycles?

BINGO!!!!

With the emergence of Huckabee in Iowa and South Carolina, Romney is now getting desperate -- he has to win in Iowa at this point -- if he doesn't McCain will become viable in New Hampshire, he'll lose South Carolina, and Rudy will crush him on February 5. And with his "illegal immigrant" problem, Romney has to change the subject...fast.

And since the media loves the whole "can someone who wears magic underpants be elected President" narrative, this is the only way for Romney to refocus attention on his candidacy and get positive press (I mean, unless he strips off his shirt to reveal a glowing Pentangle and declares "ALL HAIL SATAN", the media is going to give him high marks for whatever he says...)

@James - Wow! You got a mention from the Wonkette! Say, do you happen to have her phone number? I have a weakness for cute red heads.

@Keith: Sorry, no can do. Wonkette's husband is bigger than me.

So does her husband.

---sigh---

It has been good seeing her coming up here to New Hampsha, though. Even if she does seem to be spending most of her time around McCain.

Interesting thoughts, James..

..how many times the press mentions his name and John F. Kennedy's in the same sentence..

Again, Mitch Romney is no John F. Kennedy.

..is Romney's Mormonism a subject he has no choice but to face now?

Yes, before all of his support is siphoned off to other candidates. Right now, both Romney and Clinton are proving that you can't quite buy an election.

How does Romney balance the two apparently contradictory goals of the speech?

One: Conservatives, in general, are pretty good at cognitive dissonance...but..
Two: The GOP is the party of faith-based intolerance, so Romney was religiously screwed as a GOPer candidate the minute Huckabee announced.

..why, exactly, does it constitute "bigotry" to vote against someone on the basis of their religion?

Prolly for reasons similar to why it constitutes bigotry to vote against someone if they are female, or gay, or hispanic, or...

..we've decided that you're allowed to make judgments based on a candidate's religion--but only positive ones.

Good point, but people are still judging candidates negatively based on their profession of faith or evidence of lack thereof. It's only verboten if you do it openly, see?

Is it possible that Romney is banking on the squeamishness of the media when it comes to religion?..The media are nervous to begin with about being painted as secularist elitists out of touch with "real America."

Lately the US media is a tool used to disseminate propaganda. It's only when they step out of line with the preferred narrative do they get 'painted' as anything...Face it; there is no 'real America' to be in touch with, so all you mainstream media types need to do is:

- Either be biased, uninformed, non-fact-based and take the lumps that you deserve (hi Joe Klein!), or
- Be straight with your readers, who - even if they don't agree with your conclusions - will know that you came about them honestly and thus preserve your credibility, which is the only thing you really have as a media person.

Great post, Jim (as they call you at Swampland)--I thought my favorite part would be about the contradictory goals ("religion shouldn't matter but..."). After all, Huckabee is running an ad that specifically refers to him as a "Christian leader," and yet he claims when asked that Romney's religion shouldn't matter. It's all a game of "read between the lines" directed at the Christianists.

But, no, your most trenchant observation is that only positive judgments are allowed--about Christians, anyway. If you're Mormon, or--God forbid (Allah forbid?)--Muslim, the judgment can be negative. Those people who say religion needs more of a place in the public square (who, ironically, include Romney)? They don't mean religion--they mean Christianity and only Christianity.

@grape_crush:

"..why, exactly, does it constitute "bigotry" to vote against someone on the basis of their religion?
Prolly for reasons similar to why it constitutes bigotry to vote against someone if they are female, or gay, or hispanic, or..."

Except that those don't constitute belief systems. There's no Holy Book of Gay, or what have you. (I feel like I'm setting up an obvious punchline, but it's not coming to me.)

But also, I didn't really express this point well. It's certainly possible to make bigoted blanket assumptions about an entire religion: to assume that a candidate who is Mormon or Christian or Jewish must automatically feel X about Issue Y, to say that, across the board you'd never vote for a person of such-and-such religion. Yeah, I get that that's bigotry. (In which case it is also bigotry to say that you would only vote for someone, or would automatically prefer someone, of a given religion.)

But there's a difference--to me--between that and deciding that *a particular candidate's particular beliefs" are reason not to vote for him, or one factor among many. My objection is that we seem to have lost the distinction between informed choice and ignorant prejudice, so that *any* negative consideration of a person's religious beliefs are taboo.

To my way of seeing it, this is part of a general cultural squeamishness about taking religion seriously (which is not the same as treating it deferentially). It's part of the reason that, as a TV critic, I'm especially fascinated by shows that take faith seriously, like Friday Night Lights or Big Love (which would teach people a thing or two about the differences between polygamists and modern LDS Mormons, for instance).

Anyhoo, I fully recognize that I'm wading out of my depth here, but it's a pretty interesting phenomenon to me. Thanks for engaging.

Doubt any of these swamp creatures are going to agree that you're out of your depth- they seem to be casting about for better blogging these days anyway.

I agree with you on the difficulty of treating the subject seriously- in the media, or anywhere else in the public sphere. I guess that somewhere between the knee-jerk instinct to skee-daddle at the mention of the word 'religion' from the Dems, and its habitual use as a bludgeon from the Republicans, the thing just sort of slipped through the cracks of rational political discourse. JFK did a good job of putting it in perspective- I have absolutely zero expectation that Romney will be able to follow suit.

James: Except that those don't constitute belief systems.

Institutionalized belief systems, maybe..but even then, there's orgs like the Klu Klux Klan that exist as a manifestation of racist beliefs. I feel that bigotry, defined as:

The practice of prejudgement by a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his own.

can exist independently from, be incorporated into, or form the basis for a belief system.

My objection is that we seem to have lost the distinction between informed choice and ignorant prejudice, so that *any* negative consideration of a person's religious beliefs are taboo.

Kennedy made the distinction between legitimate inquiry and bigotry in his 1960 speech, as Karen Tumulty pointed out in a response to your post.

To my way of seeing it, this is part of a general cultural squeamishness about taking religion seriously..

And I tend to view it as evidence of a general cultural tendency towards taking ones' beliefs too seriously; for some, their beliefs acts as a substitute for reason, evidence, and compassionate thought.

..as a TV critic, I'm especially fascinated by shows that take faith seriously, like Friday Night Lights or Big Love..

Nice. All that ever seems to be on in my house is Hannah Montana...If it weren't for those meddling kids...

I fully recognize that I'm wading out of my depth here..

Not with this posting, James. You just zoomed out to see a bigger picture, that's all. Thanks.

how can a dedicated mormon say his beleifs will not affect his standing as president?? Is the world blind, not that the world cares or (outside USA) has a choice, but come on..