ARE IOWA REPUBLICANS FOR SALE? ROMNEY THINKS SO.

Yesterday I mentioned in passing-- with a substantiating link-- that there is a growing perception among Republican activists that Flip Flop Mitt is trying to buy the (worthless) Republican presidential nomination. How, you wonder, will Republican activists respond to millions of dollars in Mormon money being spread around to buy the nomination? Well, being Republicans first and foremost, the Republican activists are on line, with their hands out for a piece.

Today's Washington Post looks at the Mormon strategy for winning power with a story called Romney's Cash Beckons Iowans to Straw Poll by Michael Shear and Alec MacGillis. The Mormons are spending millions of dollars, at least $5 million-- to win the symbolic poll. Tommy Thompson, who has hinted he will pull out of the race if he doesn't do well tomorrow isn't trying to match the Mormon millions. He spent $297. McCain and Giuliani aren't even taking part at all.

It was not supposed to play out this way. Romney's vast investment in the straw poll was designed to outmuscle former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (Ariz. ) in the GOP's first real contest of the election, and to give Romney a needed early boost as he works to build national recognition. But his preparation may have been too impressive for his own good. Watching Romney spend so much, Giuliani and McCain dropped out of the straw poll in June. Romney plunged ahead anyway, setting up a mismatch of almost Gulliverian proportions

The Giuliani campaign is trying to hype the Mormon expectations so high that no matter what happens Romney will look like he's failed. They claim he will win by an 8 to 1 margin. That isn't likely "but Romney's money gives him a huge advantage in a contest that is less about persuading undecided voters and more about bringing warm bodies to Ames. Officials with other campaigns have complained privately that some local party activists have said they would like to support their candidate but felt compelled to back Romney because of the stipends he was offering."

There is no doubt that the Mormons will stop at nothing to win the White House. They are deploying their vast wealth to take in the easiest marks in the land, Republican activists who have been trained for years to let others do their thinking for them. An Iowa blog, Iowa Values Not for Sale, blasted Romney for trying to buy Iowa votes. "Some of these consultants are friends of ours. It's hard to blame them for accepting the money," the author wrote. "However just because he is paying our friends does not mean that our votes are for sale." Take a look at the video they've put together to warn Iowans about Romney's ruthless campaign (unless you hate Pink Floyd):




MORMONS AREN'T ALL BAD

My bet is that many Mormons-- most Mormons-- are pretty much just like everyone else. But since I only like dogs and hate people...

Like so many "believers," of whatever religionist organziation, Mormons are the willing victims of their church hierarchy. Kena Hura! But Mitt Romney is giving Mormons a bad name. In today's Washington Post Richard Cohen shows (again) how a religionist bigot-- in this case Romney, but it's true for many, if not most, national Republican figures-- uses his fake and opportunistic religionist delusions to demonize his political opponents and as a divisive wedge to spread hatred and mistrust.

Contrast JFK, or for that matter Giuliani, with Mitt Romney, the likely GOP presidential nominee and possibly the next president of the United States. In a recent interview with Jan Mickelson on Des Moines' WHO Radio, Romney tried being JFKish, insisting (during commercial breaks that, of course, made it onto YouTube) that he was "not running as a Mormon." He said that several times, but his protestations, while laudable, sounded a bit hollow. That's because at other times, Romney has cited the Bible to explain why he holds this or that position. He not only has emphasized his Christian bona fides-- "the Bible for me is the word of God"-- but he has cited the Bible to explain why he opposes gay marriage. Marriage, the Bible says, is for procreation.

For a lawmaker, gay marriage is and ought to be a policy matter: good policy or bad policy, fair to gays or unfair to gays. Once this or any other issue becomes a matter of religious conviction, it's removed from the arena of public debate. George Bush has done this sort of thing time and time again-- sometimes explicitly, as in his cockamamie belief in the efficacy of premarital celibacy, and sometimes implicitly, as in his dogmatic faith in a happy outcome in Iraq, one that requires a rejection of evidence and a reliance instead on magical thinking. In him we see the sometimes sorry consequence of religious conviction: a cheery but unassailable smugness.

Romney took a badgering from Mickelson, who established himself (on the spot) as something of an expert on the Mormon faith. I thought Romney handled himself well, but no presidential candidate ought to have to explain his religious beliefs since, in many cases, they are inconsistent and change over time. But if Romney wants to keep his Mormonism out of political bounds-- as it should be-- he ought to extend the boundaries to religion in general. He cannot have it both ways-- as he has with abortion, gun control and, even, gay rights. He's a hedger who, it is clear, could use some pastoral clarity. Rudy can show him the way.