Are you kidding me?
I know Hugh Hewitt’s a fan of Mitt Romney, and I knew the Romniacs were going to have a bone to pick or two with today’s piece. But Hugh’s response leaves me shaking my head.
For starters, Hugh calls it “a broadside at Mitt Romney.” How many broadsides begin, “Mitt Romney takes a fantastic photograph (even if he insisted on keeping his suit on for the beach-house shot). He’s leading the polls in several early states. He’s done no worse than “pretty good” or better in the debates. Few would deny he’s in the first tier of serious Republican candidates for 2008.” I go on to say, “It’s a shame that a Republican primary voter has to think defensively, and worry about how the party’s candidate will be portrayed as a far-out religious madman, when everything about Romney’s professional and political career indicates he’s nothing of the sort.”
That’s a broadside?
Hugh notes that more blog posts have used the words “Hillary” and “creepy.” Fine. That’s so far afield of the point I was trying to make he’s going to need MapQuest to find his way back. The point of the Technorati and Google word pairings was to illustrate that the lefty blogs – the Sinestrosphere, to use Ace’s term – have established their narrative/meme/line of attack, and anything that Romney does from here on out that is determined to be one iota out of the norm is going to be cited as one more piece of evidence. And they will harangue the media until they get it into the narrative of coverage that surrounds Romney, if it hasn’t already.
I’m not saying it’s fair, I’m not saying it’s good, but campaigns ought to be aware of it, as should those of us closely watching this campaign. And every candidate faces some variation of this sort of issue: Fred Thompson is going to have to keep up a grueling schedule to dispel the “lazy” line of attack. McCain and Giuliani can never be seen saying anything in too hostile a tone, lest the “temperament” line of attack get thrown at them. For Romney, it’s that the guy is strange and somehow outside the mainstream.
Then he concludes, “there just isn’t any there there in Jim’s column. An idiosyncratic name for a son isn’t a real vulnerability, nor is doggate.” Look, I say so in the column any one of these is “piddling reason to vote against the man.” But doggate AND family first names with a baseball theme AND an aide under investigation for repeatedly impersonating a police officer AND saying his favorite novel was “Battlefield Earth” AND putting thirteen minutes of home movies on the Internet might get a not-insignificant segment of the voting population to think Romney is a little out there, particularly when the Clinton Slime Machine and the MSM turn their guns on him. Both the Romney campaign and Republican primary voters ought to be thinking about these attacks and how to respond to them ahead of time.
Hugh continues: “Then we come to the Mormon problem, which may have been Jim’s real concern:”
Nice. Subtle. Suggest that I have a “Mormon problem,” that it’s my “real” concern, but I’m apparently incapable of coming out and saying so. Ignore the fact that my column berated the mainstream media and entertainment for their conveniently-timed unflattering portraits of the Mormon faith.
Hugh insists that the American people will reject Mormon-bashing as religious bigotry and sends people to his book for further explanation. I hope he’s right, but I hesitate before betting the White House on it. Look, don’t argue with me, argue with the Gallup organization:
Something about the Mormon religion apparently disturbs a significant portion of the American population. A quarter of Americans in a recent Gallup Poll said they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified presidential candidate who is a Mormon. A Washington Post/ABC News poll found that 29% of Americans said they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is a Mormon.
These negative attitudes appear to be based on more than just concerns about the Mormon religion in a presidential context. New Gallup polling shows that 46% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Mormon religion in general, slightly higher than the 42% who have a favorable opinion.
Ya think those numbers will improve after the big “Mormons slaughtered a wagon train on September 11” movie? Think Bill Paxton taking a fourth wife on “Big Love” will help the perception of Mormons? Or do you think that some of Hillary’s friends in the media and entertainment industry are putting together an ad-hoc movement to persuade Americans that Mormons are creepy and weird, and unfit for public office?
Nor should my column be interpreted as “announcing surrender” on any attacks. On the other hand, Republican candidates could help themselves out by recognizing the coming lines of attack and by avoiding actions and statements that reinforce them. “Macaca” was ludicrously overplayed, but by saying what he said, George Allen’s remark played into a preexisting media narrative that he was intolerant. The Bush campaign’s lack of forthrightness about the DUI back in 2000 played into the “irresponsible child of privilege” narrative. Dean’s scream confirmed any voter’s doubt about his temperament, and perhaps sanity, and fit into at least three critical narratives: short fuse/he’s nuts/he can’t win.
Forewarned is forearmed.