Mitt’s out. So is my prediction.

 

On New Years Eve, I made my four year prediction for the presidential elections. I had done alright for the past five elections. But now I won’t even make the playoffs. I predicted Mitt and Hillary.

 

To be honest, I think the Hillary pick is in jeopardy, too: more on that in a later post.

 

So, where did I goof?

 

First, I failed to see the widespread mistrust of Mormons. The Wall Street Journal today had a poll that showed nearly half of the voters polled wouldn’t trust a Mormon to be president. Voting for a black or a woman was far more appealing.

 

My failure: I live in Las Vegas with a large community of Mormons. It’s not uncommon to have Mormons as friends here. I’m Catholic and yet I’ve been to numerous functions at LDS Churches. I’ve witnessed the kindness of LDS Church members to those less fortunate. And I’ve admired their efforts to “take care” of their own.

 

Am I saying every Mormon is perfect? No, they have their scoundrels, too. In fact, Utah has more scams than most states, according to the Utah Secretary of State’s office. The reason appears to be Mormons easily being taking advantage of by other unscrupulous Mormons who use the LDS card.

 

Ironically, a Mormon businessman once told me he hates doing business with his “own” because they figure they can get a much better deal or “something for nothing”. That doesn’t sound Mormon to me; it sounds more like human nature. The Scots, the Irish, and the Jews have all been accused of working any angle for deal.

 

The problem for the Mormons and Mitt Romney is that Mormons are not prevalent in other regions of the country. I simply forgot what homogenous life is like in New England – other than Massachusetts — and The South. At various times working and living in both regions, I heard the term “the land of steady habits” many times. And like voters in all regions, they vote on emotion – not facts.

 

And since that’s the case, Mitt and the Mormon hierarchy need to understand what the perceptions of their faith are. They’re too secretive. What’s behind that clean, perfect veneer. Mitt’s hair, like mine, won’t move in a hurricane-like wind. Mormon women are beautiful, but, as I heard someone say in Las Vegas, they’re “Stepford beautiful.”

 

A woman friend was the bride’s maid in a Mormon wedding for her best friend. But because she wasn’t Mormon she had to stand outside in her expensive dress while the ceremony took place in the temple. I’m OK with whatever the LDS Church does, but if they want to become more mainstream, they need to open up.

 

Despite my Catholic upbringing, I have a more egalitarian (others would say pessimistic) view of organized religion. I think all religions have elements of kookiness. In Catholicism, we drink the blood of Jesus. Think about the effect that could have on a kid, yet many of us don’t since it’s just cheap altar wine. However, those expressions of faith symbolize bigger themes, like the rewards of a good life in the here-after that are the basis for keeping order in society.

 

Do I think a Mormon can become president? At some point, yes we might see an LDS President. But it will take time. The Mormon Church and Mitt Romney have some work to do to get their message out – or changed.

 

In fact, I think he needs to drop the Mormon message or make others realize it’s not a special religion – except to those who espouse it.

 

Clearly, Romney failed with his Mormon speech – the one that was supposed to elevate him to JFK status. As I mentioned in a previous post, David Brooks, the New York Times’ conservative columnist, said Romney failed to use religion to unify people; instead, he created a division between those of faith and those who don’t. Unlike the three remaining candidates, he showed little effort to reach across divisions. But he has those qualities. How else would he have become Governor of Catholic Massachusetts?

 

But there’s more to Romney’s defeats and more to my lack of perception than his religion.

The second reason is the GOP doesn’t go for upstarts. They are truly the corporate party. In the GOP, you climb the latter of experience slowly. Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bob Dole: they all had to run for President or pay their dues in the party before they could get the nomination.

 

Romney realizes that. He bowed out yesterday and vowed to work for the party. What better way to get to know a good Mormon: have him work with you.

 

Third, even most Republicans are fed up with George Bush. And clearly, Romney ran like he was George W. Bush. He was in favor of the war without much questioning its significance. He also favored permanent tax cuts while never mentioning spending cuts or any clue to fiscal responsibility.

 

Which leads to point number four: Romney ran a lousy campaign. Like Al Gore did in 2000, Romney was never himself. He tried to be Ronald Reagan or some composite of what the factions of the GOP like. In the end, he had a split personality and a fractured candidacy.

If he ran like he did as Governor of Massachusetts, he might have pissed off the far right-wingers, but pleased enough of the business Republicans. It worked for McCain. And like John Kerry did in 2004, Romney failed to explain the nuances of his stands. That’s no easy task. It’s nearly impossible for a candidate from Massachusetts to win the presidency. You try to appeal to national, conservative voter after dealing with a far more liberal constituency in a state that my good friend and Bay State native Jake The Weasel calls The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.

 

Fifth, good business sense doesn’t mean good political sense. Romney is clearly a good business manager. Technically, he’s what we need in the White House – a tactician that can unemotionally look at the economy and create a sound plan. But Romney was seen as one of the guys on Wall Street; and right now those guys don’t look so bright or ethical in light of the financial debacle from the mortgage industry.

 

Clearly, I misread America and thought they would be looking for a manager after eight years of a myopic ideologue. I guess we want a more flexible ideologue – if you look at the three remaining contenders.

 

Sixth, Mitt’s wealth turned folks off. He made some brilliant moves in 2007 when he skirted federal fundraising laws and raised millions through state organizations he formed. Then he spent, as he says, some of his kids’ inheritance to keep the campaign running. Yet, most people don’t think that loss of money put a dent into the family portfolio to cause any family angst.

 

  Next, what is going wrong with my Hillary pick.

 

Posted February 8, 2008

 

---