I am an American running for president, not a Mormon running for president, but I am also very proud of my faith. And I am not a cafeteria Mormon, choosing some parts to accept and reject—I am "true blue, through and through." My family and I are better people and far happier than we would have been without our faith. It is puzzling that when NEWSWEEK looks at me ("A Mormon's Journey: The Making of Mitt Romney," Oct. 8) what you mostly see is a Mormon. I would have thought that more important to my potential presidency would be my record as a governor, 25-year business leader, Olympic CEO, father, husband—and American.
As a Sunday morning talk show junkie, I shouldn’t be surprised. I thought the 2008 presidential election was more than a year away. But when I tuned in, believing that the shows would give the usual updates and opinions, I learned that the pundits have already called the race.
On Meet the Press, while feigning tough questions, Tim Russert actually set the stage with lead ins for John Edwards. It was just more of JE’s “Chicken Little” repartee, “The war in Iraq is much worse than it was in 2003 and 2004, and it’s continued. Our healthcare situation is dysfunctional. It does not work . . . Global warming is now, by anybody’s measure, a crisis . . . And we’re becoming a country made up of just a few rich people and everybody else. “ On what planet has this man been living? Exit Edwards.
Next, Tim invited David Broder, David Brody, Margaret Carlson, and Ted Koppel to a Hillary Giuliani lovefest: MR. BRODER: “Well, she’s in an interesting position, because if you believe the national polls, this election’s over.” MR. DAVID BRODY: “That’s right. And I was in California with Giuliani about a week, week and a half ago, and this is pretty much what he said to fundraisers, on the trail. I mean, he is talking about Hillary Clinton and nobody else.” MS. MARGARET CARLSON: “Well, she’s going right at the heart of what looks like her opponent at the moment, Rudy Giuliani. And Rudy and Senator Clinton are in a dance right now, because the stronger she gets, the stronger he gets. Because Republicans want to unite behind a tough person.” MR. TED KOPPEL: “She’s playing it safe, and, you know, so far ahead right now, . . . We’re—it’s much too early, but she, she is clearly the one to beat.”
Yeah, there was a few rather dismissive remarks about Republican “money” and two national polls, and Russert did mini hit pieces on Romney and Thompson, but the gist of the entire segment was that the Republican field cannot beat Giuliani for the nomination, and Giuliani cannot beat Hillary for president. It’s over, done.
One could turn to This Week with George Stephanopoulos, but it was pretty much the same thing. Never mind that Romney, while third in the national polls, leads in most of the early primary states and has strong support in such diverse places as FL, MI, NV and CA.
Even on Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace had House Speaker Pelosi stammering over the war in Iraq, the SCHIP legislation veto, and dismal approval ratings for Congress. But when it came to politics, it was all Hillary.
Finally, in the three-ring circus known as The Chris Matthews Show, the distinguished panel included Katty Kay, Clarence Page, Norah O'Donnell, and Howard Fineman. These four represent the BBC, Chicago Tribune, MSNBC and Newsweek respectively. Here is my unofficial tally for candidate names mentioned: Hillary Clinton, 32 times; Rudy Giuliani, 23 times; Barack Obama, 11 times; Fred Thompson, 11 times; John Edwards, 3 times; Mitt Romney, 2 times; McCain and Huckabee, 1 time each.
In the political barnyard of the 2008 presidential election, the liberal media have counted all the chickens - and I have yet to even see an egg.
Kenneth, if you are reading this, I will post your comments if you cut them down by half. You make good points, but they're too long for the comment section (at least for my taste).
This is exactly the public response Mitt needs to make on "The Mormon Question". Flesh it out a bit, but stay right on point. Mitt's not a Mormon Candidate. He's a candidate for President that happens to be Mormon. That's not just semantics. There is a huge difference.
I just got finished reading the Newsweek article about Mitt Romney. It is well…interesting, I guess. Most of the info in it I was familiar with already, although they had some additional interviews with former mission companions of Mitt’s. The second most notable thing about the article is the consistent harping against Mitt for not living up to his own principles (which certainly begs the question, ”How does Newsweek know what Mitt’s principles are?”). Apparently Newsweek forgets about the beam (or should I say “Koran in the Toilet”) in its own eye.
The most notable thing of the article is the writers’ obsession with finding a narrative in which to frame Romney’s life. Unfortunately, by the writers’ own apparent concession, they fail, even after disregarding significant portions of Romney’s life to find an answer. Newsweek seems befuddled by the contradictions, changes, and turns that form a person’s life. They also seem more than willing to attribute their own perceptions of Romney’s motivations to Romney himself:
"Romney had to be a savior in a very public setting, and he thrilled to the chance."
"He would not be Mitt the Mormon this time, but Mitt the turnaround specialist who could work his Salt Lake City magic to save Massachusetts from fiscal ruin."
"Romney finally had his chance to fulfill his father's wish for him, to govern with principle, and his own wish for himself, to be his state's white knight."
"Conversions of convenience were frowned upon in young Mitt's upbringing, but the adult Romney seemed untroubled."
"So what kind of president would Mitt Romney be? It often seems that Romney himself doesn't know. More disturbing, he is also unwilling to truly look to his own history for the answer."
These are the statements of lazy journalists, intent more on fictionalizing than on reporting, as if they were writing a draft to a movie script rather than doing a biographical sketch. If I was Newsweek writing an article about Newsweek, there would be sinister statements about its only wish to be the top news magazine, sacrificing principle and unwilling to look at its history on how to get there. Of course, such absurd projections from an outsider would seem overtly agenda-driven and self-serving. Yet somehow, they pass for journalism at Newsweek.
Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. I will now begin holding my breath as I wait for a correction to the story…..
Show/Hide 3 Comments | Post a Comment