A fatuous campaign season
Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]T
he 2008 presidential campaign has officially gone bizarre, and we're still eight months away from anyone casting the first vote in the New Hampshire primary election. Then again, maybe we're noticing the peculiarity of the race because most of the latest weirdness had to do with Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who was also the savior of the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Games.
The initial head-scratcher was at the first GOP debate at the Reagan Presidential Library -- three of the assembled Republican candidates said they don't believe in evolution. Certainly there are books and still more books to be written about the intersection of the subjects of science and religion and politics. But what made us go "Huh?" was: Is this a legitimate question -- regardless of the answer -- on which to judge a candidate's qualification to run the U.S. government? It strikes us as a silly thing to be asking. Indeed, nobody's been asking the Democratic candidates that question.
A few days later, the Rev. Al Sharpton -- who most recently had been in the news as the self-appointed judge and jury of radio shock jock Don Imus, reviled and ultimately fired for his racially objectionable comments about the female Rutgers University basketball team -- appeared to slam Romney and an entire religion. In a debate with atheist author and columnist Christopher Hitchens, Sharpton said, "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that; that's a temporary situation."
Romney called it a "bigoted" thing to say. Sharpton first said his comment had been taken out of context, that Mormons obviously believe in God, just not the same way he does. Then, to the New York Daily News, Sharpton questioned Romney's membership in a church that had until 1978 banned blacks from its priesthood: "If you have a church built on racial discrimination, then I do not believe you are a true believer in God."
Of course, that anyone takes seriously what Sharpton has to say is troubling enough. He is a man with a long history of running his mouth on the subjects of race and religion. Mormons are by no means the only targets of his tongue; Jews have more often been victimized by his comments. In the end, it doesn't seem to have been missed by many that Sharpton's comments paint a deliciously ironic picture coming so soon after his sanctimony regarding Imus' on-air bigotry.
All that said, we were left stunned after Sunday's episode of "60 Minutes," the formerly revered news magazine that at one time sat atop the TV-journalism mountain as the best of its breed. One of the people who got it there was Mike Wallace, the master of the gotcha! interview style. He has always been famous for asking the toughest, most-probing questions. But his interview with Romney on Sunday's show, while informative, briefly sank to a new low: when Wallace asked Romney if he and his wife had engaged in premarital sex.
It was completely inappropriate. Momentarily, Wallace looked the fool. But Romney, in full political slithering mode, actually answered the question with a not-so-subtle non-answer answer: "No, I'm sorry. We don't get into those things. The answer is no."
It was much worse than Bill Clinton being asked about whether he wore boxers or briefs. This was a question about the sexual relationship between a man and a woman who have been married for decades.
So, we're left with questions: Are Americans as a whole so clueless, and hostile, about Mormondom that guys like Sharpton can assume he won't pay a price for backhanding the LDS Church? If Wallace is asking such personal questions about the sex lives of candidates, and at debates the candidates are being asked to endorse or reject the theory of evolution, how seedy, low and utterly inane will the questions and answers get before January's New Hampshire primary?
But, most importantly, are the meaningful questions even being asked? How would these candidates deal with the war in Iraq? In Afghanistan? What are their proposals for reform of Social Security and Medicare? Do they favor or reject President Bush's domestic surveillance program? How would they address illegal immigration? And will they articulate what this nation's energy policy ought to be in the face of $3-plus-per-gallon gasoline?
So far, Wallace is asking about premarital sex on "60 Minutes." If we don't demand discussion of important issues, we might just deserve what we get come November 2008.
Add Your Comment
