Wednesday, December 12, 2007


I’ve written here, as recently as yesterday, that with Mitt Romney, the worrisome thing is that his “faith” might be more than just conveniently feigned, not that he’s a Mormon. My rationale: that the only difference between Mormonism and the religions voters feel comfortable with is that the snake oil salesmen who concocted it were born several millennia too late -- because snake oil takes that long to properly age. Well, if the You Tube video that everyone now seems to have seen got Mormon “theology” right, perhaps I was too hasty. Still, I stand by my claim. At this point, I could gloat that the “faith tradition” that I reject isn’t very demanding with respect to weird beliefs. We Chosen folks can pretty much think as we please – so long as we believe that God, if He exists, is our real estate agent. Judaism is as casual in the belief department as it is obsessively compulsive in regulating daily life. But since only Blues Brothers look alikes care about that these days, all but the willfully unassimilated get off easy. On the other hand, Catholics could give the Mormons a run for the money, at least if their saints and angels count. But that doesn’t render Catholics, like JFK or even John Kerry, unfit to govern. As they wear their beliefs lightly, worldly Catholics can just ignore the more egregious nonsense. The same goes for Romney or rather would go if he doesn’t really believe it all. That could well be the case: if his record shows anything, it’s that he’s “flexible.” Not to worry, however -- there are more than enough other reasons to find his candidacy risible. The even more risible Mike Huckabee, if he somehow manages to stay on top in the polls, will publicize them in due course.

There’s also my claim from yesterday that, while John Edwards beats Obama on just about every “issue,” Obama will do, if he can be the one to rid the country and world of those meddlesome Clintons. I also said that while Oprah is just a running joke on “Married With Children,” if she can turn the tide against Hillary, then more power to her. But after reading this piece by Bill Dixon, I’m persuaded that I was too kind to Obama and Oprah. Still, I stand by my point – if they’re what it takes, then so be it. [I was wondering whether, if Hillary is the nominee, it might not be a good idea to start a branch of “Socialists for Huckabee.” The Clintons are that bad! Just look at the record – their sanctions, their illegal wars, their assault on “welfare as we know it,” and, worst of all, their success in co-opting their natural enemies – like the tiresome Maya Angelou whom they’ve now dragged out to counter Oprah, since Babs Streisand evidently ain’t enuf.]

It bears mention that, according to The New York Times (December 12), with their back(s) against the wall in Iowa, the Clintons have decided to go after Obama big time, even if it indirectly strengthens John Edwards. This is great news. Let them knock each other down, so that the better man is left standing.

No comments: