Today's New York Times has a curious op-ed by Kenneth Woodward entitled "Mitt Romney is No Jack Kennedy." The title is misleading, for the piece isn't so much about Romney not being as "good" a human being or politician as Kennedy (Lloyd Bentsen's swipe at ol' Danny Boy Quayle), as much as it's about their respective religious and media environments. In short, Woodward argues that Kennedy faced a much more united and visible attack on his Catholicism-- led by such notables as Norman Vincent Peale and L. Nelson Bell (editor of Christianity Today) -- while Romney, though definitely hobbled politically by his Mormonism, is not encountering the same concerted criticism. The interesting twist Woodward provides is asserting that Romney is worse off because of this.

Using each candidate's religion-specific speeches – Kennedy's famous 1960 address in Houston to a group of Protestant ministers and Romney's meeting with Republicans in Dallas tomorrow – as test cases, Woodward writes:

Mr. Romney, in contrast [to Kennedy], faces no organized religious opposition he can allude to, no anti-Mormon campaign he can shame — as Kennedy adroitly did — for blatant religious bigotry

and:

Kennedy engaged a live audience of doubters and bearded lions in their own den. It was high noon drama. Mr. Romney will speak in protected Republican surroundings, unable to engage a pair of adversarial eyes or read a single hostile face.

I might ask how much Kennedy’s speech accomplished. Perhaps he was able to convince some Protestant elites of his respect for the separation of church and state, but did his command performance swing a significant number of Protestant voters into his camp?

I also wonder if Romney’s Mormonism is as much of a drag on his campaign as Kennedy’s Catholicism was on his? Woodward offers that many Americans will “accept Romney’s assertion that Mormons are [unorthodox] Christians.” And given that Christian conservatives have come to overwhelmingly support Republican Party candidates, it seems reasonable to think that they would not vote for a Democrat just because Mitt is Mormon.

But it’s that “unable” in Woodward’s last sentence which has me truly puzzled. Does Woodward actually believe that Romney (or any other contemporary politician) would welcome the opportunity to appear before a united front of religious (or political) critics and attempt to persuade them that he is to be trusted regardless of his religious beliefs? In this day and age of staged-managed electioneering I have my doubts.