If Romney wins nomination he will deflect questions concerning his Mormon faith by claiming attack on any faith in a god is an attack on faith in general and that such an attack is liberal in nature - and this will work, already is - see his response in debate that he shouldn't have to defend his faith. Mormonism is patently absurd even by the forgiving standards of most religions but Americans are not so much concerned with orthodoxy of a particular creed as they are with the ease of an outward show of faith in a supreme whatever [as long as it relates, even if only anecdotally, to the rabble of the Rood, awash in the tears of their Christ] . It will not surprise me to see Romney try to defend all his blemishes behind the white light of faith - you can also see that coming: "... it's not so much that I flip flopped on abortion that bothers liberals, it's that I'm now pro-life and they are the party of death..." etc etc.
This tactic will work - still, I'd like someone to mount a rational challenge of it - for once you'd like to see these people exposed as the dirtbags they are - it's one of the ironies of TV: exposure is much greater but access much more limited: you never hear a counter argument laid out logically in an attempt to uncover the flaws in a line of rhetoric or reasoning - just a few questions asked and then move on. Quite absurd - it's as if all had agreed that the truth doesn't really matter, as if the dissembling dance around the subject is more important than the subject itself, as if the dance had become the subject - all has a very fin de siecle feel to it. Public discourse devolves increasingly into an anodyne game of checkers - chess is for losers!
