Comments on: Who Is On The Attack Here? http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:15:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8362 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:04:19 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8362 The theology degree aspect of all this is funny. It may be that Huckabee knows more than he's letting on, and the question was phrased in a way that could conceivably lead people to draw the wrong conclusions (i.e., that it must imply some positive view of the devil or something of the sort, which is not the case), but it still seems to me that the question was pretty harmless even if Huckabee intended to stir the pot. The theology degree aspect of all this is funny. It may be that Huckabee knows more than he’s letting on, and the question was phrased in a way that could conceivably lead people to draw the wrong conclusions (i.e., that it must imply some positive view of the devil or something of the sort, which is not the case), but it still seems to me that the question was pretty harmless even if Huckabee intended to stir the pot.

]]> by: J Mann http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8358 Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:02:04 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8358 Oh sure, Romney's outrage and that of his supporters is political. My guess is that the NRO crowd has convinced themselves to the point where they're at least internally sincere, but as I said, if you have to guess whether Huckabee's a relative innocent who's not ready for prime time or a sinister manipulator, I would guess the first thing. With that said, the exchange on NRO about whether "the only guy with a theology degree" should need to ask questions of random reporters to learn things about Mormonism is pretty funny. Oh sure, Romney’s outrage and that of his supporters is political.

My guess is that the NRO crowd has convinced themselves to the point where they’re at least internally sincere, but as I said, if you have to guess whether Huckabee’s a relative innocent who’s not ready for prime time or a sinister manipulator, I would guess the first thing.

With that said, the exchange on NRO about whether “the only guy with a theology degree” should need to ask questions of random reporters to learn things about Mormonism is pretty funny.

]]> by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8350 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:24:02 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8350 That's the thing--Huckabee has repeatedly said that he thinks these doctrinal questions are irrelevant. Romney supporters and journalists read into things that he says or doesn't say whatever sinister, underhanded "coded" messages they think he must be trying to send, and then they treat their rather tendentious reading of his remarks as God's own truth, if you will. His new ads don't use the "Christian leader" line, which seems to show that he responded to the criticism that it was too much or was seen as an attack on Romney's religion. As for the article, there was really no way, short of active collaboration with the author, that Huckabee could be sure that such a remark would even make it into the final edition of the article, and again it was the author who pressed Huckabee on this question. He didn't volunteer this out of the blue. The displays of outrage and offense from Romneyites persuade me that they aren't interested in understanding what happened in that interview or what Huckabee meant. They are looking for anything they can find to take down Huckabee now that their candidate is losing, and it's just becoming embarrassing to watch. The revealing thing about all this for me is that a true statement about something Mormons believe is regarded by Romney's supporters as a pernicious assault. They have based their support for him on the idea that these things don't or shouldn't matter to people, but they do matter, at least to some folks. Instead of acknowledging real difference and facing whatever consequences there may be, the Romneyites want to try to evade substance and treat any hint of curiosity or discussion as an insult. This makes them and their candidate seem much worse and even more evasive. The funny thing is that Romney is probably running off even those voters who wouldn't care about his religion by being so evasive and defensive. That’s the thing–Huckabee has repeatedly said that he thinks these doctrinal questions are irrelevant. Romney supporters and journalists read into things that he says or doesn’t say whatever sinister, underhanded “coded” messages they think he must be trying to send, and then they treat their rather tendentious reading of his remarks as God’s own truth, if you will. His new ads don’t use the “Christian leader” line, which seems to show that he responded to the criticism that it was too much or was seen as an attack on Romney’s religion. As for the article, there was really no way, short of active collaboration with the author, that Huckabee could be sure that such a remark would even make it into the final edition of the article, and again it was the author who pressed Huckabee on this question. He didn’t volunteer this out of the blue.

The displays of outrage and offense from Romneyites persuade me that they aren’t interested in understanding what happened in that interview or what Huckabee meant. They are looking for anything they can find to take down Huckabee now that their candidate is losing, and it’s just becoming embarrassing to watch. The revealing thing about all this for me is that a true statement about something Mormons believe is regarded by Romney’s supporters as a pernicious assault. They have based their support for him on the idea that these things don’t or shouldn’t matter to people, but they do matter, at least to some folks. Instead of acknowledging real difference and facing whatever consequences there may be, the Romneyites want to try to evade substance and treat any hint of curiosity or discussion as an insult. This makes them and their candidate seem much worse and even more evasive. The funny thing is that Romney is probably running off even those voters who wouldn’t care about his religion by being so evasive and defensive.

]]> by: J Mann http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8345 Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:16:49 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/12/12/who-is-on-the-attack-here/#comment-8345 I am torn on whether Huckabee's remarks were innocent. Yes, in everyday conversation, you and I might ask our friends "Don't the Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers" or "Do you think Romney wears funny underwear?" However, Huckabee isn't having everyday conversations with his friends. He is, as you point out from time to time, running for President of the United States, and in this specific case, he was having a conversation with a New York Times reporter. At some point, if Huckabee really wants to argue that voters should consider Romney's doctrinal beliefs in their voting process, he should come out and say it, not make a coy argument that he just didn't know much about Mormonism and hoped that the reporter could help him out. On the other hand, this is Huckabee we're talking about, so if I had to guess whether the question was caused by incompetance or malice, I would bet on incompetance. (If someone smarter and more disciplined, like, say, Hillary, had asked the question, I might go the other way). I am torn on whether Huckabee’s remarks were innocent. Yes, in everyday conversation, you and I might ask our friends “Don’t the Mormons believe Jesus and the Devil are brothers” or “Do you think Romney wears funny underwear?”

However, Huckabee isn’t having everyday conversations with his friends. He is, as you point out from time to time, running for President of the United States, and in this specific case, he was having a conversation with a New York Times reporter.

At some point, if Huckabee really wants to argue that voters should consider Romney’s doctrinal beliefs in their voting process, he should come out and say it, not make a coy argument that he just didn’t know much about Mormonism and hoped that the reporter could help him out.

On the other hand, this is Huckabee we’re talking about, so if I had to guess whether the question was caused by incompetance or malice, I would bet on incompetance. (If someone smarter and more disciplined, like, say, Hillary, had asked the question, I might go the other way).

]]>