Biden and Romney

Politically, I think Biden has a lot of upside but is risky in that he is prone to gaffes. He's a perfect complement to Obama, politically: old, white, hawkish, macho, and combative. Between Obama and Biden, we have the duo least likely to fall victim to the effete, elitist charge the Republicans have used to great effect in the past 50 years. (Obama is an intellectual and has a slim build, but still radiates masculinity in a way unheard of by Gore, Kerry, Mondale, Carter, Dukakis, etc.) He'll be a great attack dog and he would be an able president should the unthinkable happen. He'll help with Pennsylvania, with old people, and possibly the Catholic vote. (Most Catholics in America are pro-choice and have traditionally been Democrats, but there has been some slippage in recent elections.) Finally, the gaffes he's made regarding race might be diminished in importance because of Obama's race.

If TIME is right about Romney being the pick, I think it's also a great choice politically, maybe even better than Obama's. He's a great complement to McCain: he's young and virile-looking, a right-wing Christian, and appears controlled and unflappable. The only risk is if the Christian right or the (already diminished) secular right doesn't come out to vote because he's a Mormon, but they'll likely be more scared of having a secret Muslim/black Christian radical than of a Mormon. It's more about having a "one of us" feeling than about labels. McCain is not "one of them" and they know it, but Romney is. One other potential downside is that Romney will make it harder for McCain to distance himself from the Republican establishment.

Links: Politics Edition

• Mitt Romney Defends Himself Against Allegations Of Tolerance. (video)
• Andrew Sullivan argues that the Clintons aren't exactly LBJ when it comes to sticking up for civil rights.
• Via Mark at Pseudo-Polymath, Mike Huckabee believes that we should amend the Constitution "so it's in God’s standards."
• Steve Sailer, who's been hatin' on Obama since before most people had heard of him, finally points out something legitimately troubling: the magazine of the senior pastor at Obama's church recently gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Farrakan, all-around crazy and antisemite, racist, and homophobe. Obama responded to the controversy with a statement: "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

Mitt Romney and Atheists

One of the few positive things I've said about Bush is that he consistently includes "people of no faith" when he's speaking about religious diversity in America. I honestly appreciate that.

From his speech on Mormonism the other day, it appears that Mitt Romney would not do the same if he were elected.

Washington Post Editorial:

No Freedom Without Religion?
There's a gap in Mitt Romney's admirable call for tolerance.

Friday, December 7, 2007; Page A38

RELIGIOUS liberty is, as Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney declared yesterday, "fundamental to America's greatness." With religious division inciting violence across the globe, he is right to celebrate America's tradition of religious tolerance. He's right, too, that no one should vote against him, or for him, because he is a Mormon. We only wish his empathy for religious minorities such as his own extended a bit further, to those who do not believe in God.

It is regrettable that 47 years after John F. Kennedy felt the need to promise voters that his Catholic faith would not dictate his conduct as president, Mr. Romney felt compelled to offer similar assurances that "no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions." It's regrettable, too, that the skepticism and even hostility some voters feel toward Mormonism has been played upon by the man who has emerged as his chief rival in Iowa, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is running commercials that proclaim him to be a "Christian leader." That is why Mr. Romney felt the need to detail his creed: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind." If, as Mr. Romney correctly says, the country's founders took care not to impose a religious test for any public office, a candidate's belief, or not, in the divinity of Christ ought to be irrelevant.

Where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity. "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom," Mr. Romney said. But societies can be both secular and free. The magnificent cathedrals of Europe may be empty, as Mr. Romney said, but the democracies of Europe are thriving.

"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government," Mr. Romney said. But not all Americans acknowledge that, and those who do not may be no less committed to the liberty that is the American ideal.

And shame on Huckabee, for his "Christian leader" campaign.

Update: Ezra Klein sums it up brilliantly:

In a speech Romney was forced to give because he feared unfair discrimination, Romney did not stand against intolerance. Instead, he simply asked that it not be directed against him, a man of faith. You can be intolerant, but do it to them, over there. They're even more different.

It's like when black activists oppose gay rights -- all the more infuriating because they of all people should know better.