« Guest Voice: The Grand Delusion
Bob Schieffer’s Commentary On Pat Robertson, God And Rudy Giuliani »
McCain’s Mom Swipes At Romney’s Mormon Background
Senator John McCain’s mother is 95 and quickly apologized so she’ll probably be spared a media and blogosphere pile-on — but this would create huge trouble for a candidate and their relative otherwise:
John McCain’s 95-year-old mother, in a swipe at her son’s rival Mitt Romney, said Friday that Mormons were to blame for the scandal that rocked the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics.
During an appearance on MSNBC, Roberta McCain laid out why her son, John, deserves to win the Republican presidential nomination. But in evaluating McCain’s primary rivals, she criticized Romney’s Mormon faith and his time in Salt Lake City.
“As far as the Salt Lake City thing, he’s a Mormon and the Mormons of Salt Lake City had caused that scandal. And to clean that up, again, it’s not a subject,” Roberta McCain said.
John McCain quickly stepped in: “The views of my mothers are not necessarily the views of mine.”
“Well, that’s my view and you asked me,” Roberta answered.
The issue of religion correctly remains one of the uglier factors in the 2008 race. Two days ago I sat in a hotel room in Billings, Montana, talking to an entertainer who was a Mormon and we agreed that there is indeed a chunk of bigotry out there in politics that has hampered Romney’s chances. His stands….the actual issues…his reported flip-flops….those are separate areas. But there is a segment of the Republican Party and most likely in the United States electorate at large that remains as resistant to him as some Americans were when Catholic JFK ran for President in 1960.
Mrs. McCain’s comment is a particularly ticklish one. The Romney camp can’t ignore it, yet they are dealing with a 95-year-old woman who later apologized. So what happened next?
The Salt Lake Organizing Committee had enticed International Olympics officials with lavish gifts and accusations of bribery mired the Games in scandal while resignations sullied the region’s reputation.
Utah officials tapped Romney to lead the effort and as president and CEO of the organizing committee he pared the budget, boosted revenues and worked to repair the committee’s reputation.
A Romney campaign spokesman said the McCains made a mistake.
“I would disagree with any candidate or any campaign surrogate that chooses to disparage someone based on the faith that they hold, and instead implore other candidates and their campaigns to make a case to voters based on the important issues facing the nation,” said Kevin Madden.
That’s as fair, controlled and classy a statement as any political camp has made this year — not seizing on the statement to trying and demonize the other side.
And, indeed, Mrs. McCain quickly had regrets:
Roberta McCain immediately apologized to her son.
“I didn’t mean to say it,” she said as they stepped away from the cameras.
So this can’t be described as a calculated effort by McCain to get the issue out there.
Meanwhile, John McCain — who as his chances to actually become President dissipate seems to be running a better, wittier and more solid campaign — hit just the right note, too:
“Mormons are great people and the fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon should play no role whatsoever in people’s decision,” McCain said.
“What she meant was the Olympics were screwed up by the people in Salt Lake when Romney came in and fixed the problems there. But I know my 95-year-old mother is certainly in favor of Mormons.”
Still, the “issue” lingers out there and it’s just one more thing that Romney as a political realist (and professional) needs to be on his guard to confront. But a few nice, top placings in the primaries, and strong debate showings, and partisan political pragmatism (and needs) will trump lingering doubts.
Even so, every time the religioius “issue” is raised by a politico or a politico’s family member — even if it is later retracted — the issue has been thrown out there. The irony is that in 2000 McCain was slimed by the Bush camp that used bigotry to try and chase votes away from him.
If the rotten red meat is thrown out there it can be later removed but the stink remains…and some can still smell it.
And some like the smell.
6 Responses to “McCain’s Mom Swipes At Romney’s Mormon Background”
[...] post by Joe Gandelman This was written by . Posted on Sunday, November 11, 2007, at 11:26 am. Filed under [...]
Sure there is an “issue” of Romney being a Mormon, but what your 95 year old mother has to say about anything should have ZERO influence on people’s opinion of you. She’s 95 fer cryin out loud! Even if she had made a blatantly racist statement, I’d still give it a pass. How many people have elderly parents with bigoted views of one sort or another? That doesn’t make them bad people, changing your views gets harder with age, and it CERTAINLY doesn’t make their children bad!
As far as the opinions of family members, I would only accept as valid to my opinion of a candidate the opinions of their children, and then only if they were relatively young and the views extreme. If I find out that your 10 year old son calls black people n—rs that would make me highly suspicious of you, since young kids learn that stuff at home. Otherwise…no go.
Well said Lynx…I’m a Mormon and I’m certainly not sweating what McCain’s said or feels. I know the intent of your statement was good, but to say that “Even if she had made a blatantly racist statement”, it makes me feel like you don’t consider what she said to be bigotry. Simply insert the word “Black” where she said “Mormon” and tell me if it isn’t already the same.
When family members of any age voice conroverstial views, it can be an embarrassment. McCain handled it the way it should be handled, by stating that he disagreed with his mother.
His mother is not running for office, and her views are very much a sidelinne issue. McCanin is all grown up and speaks for himself.
I object, however, to the idea, expressed by Lynx, that old folks can’t be taken seriously because they’re, you know, old. Mrs. McCain showed no signs of being a doddering old fool. I’m sure she’ll be voting,, and her opinion matters just like that of anyone else.
Reading the many blogs written by college age sharp tacks, I see a great many pronouncements based on belief rather than fact. What’s they’re excuse, that they’re too young?
McCain has his views, which are important because he’s running for office. We can agree or disagree with him.
His mother has her opinions, which are much less imprtant, because she is not running for office. We can agree or disagree with her.
The two people are related by blood, but each is separately responsible for what he/she says and does.
BTW, there is tendency to ignore or denounce the emotional reactions of politicians’ family members to political battles. I say, lets’s let them be just humans once in a while and show their natural partiality
You’re absolutely right of course, and I apologize. There is no better and worse bigotry. I’m atheist and object to the double standard that makes it OK to badmouth atheism. This is obviously no different.
Doma, I don’t think the opinions of old people need to be all summarily dismissed just because they are old (barring senility), but I do think that a certain leeway is in order when they express opinions that are clearly no longer socially acceptable. like expressions of racism/sexism/homophobia. The fact the woman is 95 doesn’t make her bigotry right, but I would object more if she were 50 years younger. People do become set in their ways, and though that shouldn’t give them the right to do/say anything, I think a minimum of further patience is appropriate.
Lynx-
I feel foolish to quibble about details, but some of those details seem important enough to me to go ahead, anyway.
If you give one person a pass on bigotry because of age, then you can give another a pass because of lack of education or information or bad influences.
On the other hand, I would distinguish between types of bigoty for all ages and backgrounds.
If someone says he believes that Mormons are a dangerous cult, we can disagree and debate, wtihout banning that person from appearing in public. Free speech implies free thought.
This is really not much different than tolerating those with different political convictions: to be tolerant means ot be tolerant even of those who are dead wrong,
It’s entirely different, however, if another says Mormons are a cult and they should be penalized for being Mormorns in some way. That kind of proposition should be confronted, no matter who the author of it is. The difference is one between a passive thought and an umacce[table action, proposed or realized.
Mrs. McCain didn’t propose burnign down Mormon churches, so she is not all that alarming. We should say she has bigoted views on the subject, which is true regardless of her reasons, and let it go.