Sethbag wrote:Another question I wanted to pose, but forgot to in my OP, is that if you agree that this is happening, do you think it's OK? That is, Romney's religiously-motivated aversion to beer may be used against him politically. Is that kosher with you?
I do think that Obama's campaign is intentionally (albeit subtly) using beer in the way suggested in the OP. It is a way to remind voters that Romney is different than them. It is a way to invoke in the mind of the reader Romney's Mormon religion without the Obama campaign uttering the words, which might create some political blowback.
And yes, I do think it is OK. A candidate's religion has been made a campaign issue in elections past. To wit, 2008 and Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama's past pastor. I think the influences on the thought processes of one running for public office is fair game. It is not an impingement on the exercise of free religion for a voter to base his or her vote on liking or not liking a candidate's religious beliefs.
If Romney came out against the law of gravity. Would that approach of Romney's thinking towards science affect your voting decision? Sure. Would it be a legitimate factor in your voting decision? Sure.
Granted, religion is different. It is one's fanciful ideas for the hereafter, rather than logical inferences drawn from observable facts. However, one's religious views do affect when he or she might 'flip the switch' and engage the country in a war, or how his justice department might enforce laws that go towards civil liberties.
I think it is craftsman-like for a political campaign to keep reminding the electorate of the opponent's Achilles heel in a way that reduces the chance for it back firing on that campaign and its candidate.
My hat's off to the Obama campaign for so cleverly using beer in this way.
