How super was Tuesday?

For some it wasn't such a super day--losses at the polls, decisions about whether to continue spending volumes of money, losing sleep, eating a lot of bad food at fund-raisers and to court voters at dinners and luncheons and BBQs, wondering why it is worth all the angst and the toll on friends and family, but then a picture of the White House pops into the brain and the desire to be a resident there, rent-free for at least four years takes over.

What also apparently has taken over the media and a sizable portion of the voters and general citizenry is prejudice, and not a subtle, hard-to-detect kind of prejudice, but one that has stepped out into the spotlight, proud and loud, declaring that a man who is well-qualified to be a president of these United States, a man who has led an exemplary life, who is devoted to his family, to his country, to good causes, who is successful as a political figure in an important and influential state, who, as a businessman, has founded businesses that are Harvard textbook successful, and who has turned companies and the Olympics around when everyone else was pulling out hairs and pointing fingers of blame, cannot be considered because of his religion. This man is studied and methodical and thoughtful. He is not without flaws or political quirks--what politician is, but he has been a front-runner throughout the campaign, declared his candidacy early on unlike several candidates who, like the marathon wannabe who waits at the final leg of the run to join the pack, waited until the waters and been tested and found "safe", and who is currently in second place as the Republican Party's presidential nominee. But to hear the media consultants both Republican and Democratic last night, Mitt Romney wasn't even being considered for VP. He was being summarily dismissed. Instead Mike Huckabee's name was touted as a definite best choice for that position. Based on what? Huckabee's winning record? His government or business triumphs? His decision to play the religion card when he had nothing else of merit with which he could criticize Romney and wanted to join other candidates and the media in the last licks campaign against Mr. Romney? Although I am not a Republican, if I were, I don't think I would be thrilled at the prospect of having any candidate in office who had such obvious prejudice against an individual because of his religion.

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of this country's philosophy of how we conduct business--or at least it is touted as such when convenient for those who need their religious beliefs or non-beliefs honored. The wave of prejudice against Mitt Romney and, in essence, all members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been overwhelming, public and tolerated and even accepted as humorous and clever. It is none of those. It is homely. It should have no place in our conventions or our country. But, because Mr. Romney's church doesn't believe in getting into a fist fight over this issue, the media and political pundits have taken that stance as a signal for a free-for-all attack both personal and general against the church and its members. And Mitt Romney, who should be included on the short list for VP, isn't even in the realm of possibilities. All this because he has chosen to exercise a constitutional right--freedom of religion. For this choice, he will probably lose any opportunity to become the VP in 2008 and possibly a presidential candidate at any future time. But the loss isn't just Mr. Romney's. It is the whole country's. They may never know what it is to have a solid citizen, a loving and caring husband and father, a successful businessman, a thoughtful leader, and a deeply religious man, who practices what he preaches, as the leader of this nation.

Our nation has come so far in the past 232 years, is so powerful, possesses so many resources and has great influence throughout the world, and yet it is diminished by this treatment of one of its citizens. There should be an outcry among the population over this blatant prejudice regardless of whether ordinary men and women agree with Mitt Romney's political platform, want him as president or not. The treatment of Romney and his church should be labeled outrageous by anyone who considers liberty and freedom of conscience essential to a democratic nation, and, if we elect any candidate who supports, engenders, or rallies prejudicial thinking at this or any level, then everyone is at risk of being a target.

I believe that the media, the candidates who have postured against Mr. Romney's religion, and others who have jumped on the anti-Mormon bandwagon, have done so because they felt free to do so, because they felt no one would oppose them, or at least no one of any importance, because they felt that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were a minor sector of the American population, because they thought that no one would stand up for the church members or call those fomenting this religious prejudice to act responsibly, that they had a ticket to ride and no one would stop the train. And they were right. That is what is so wrong about this situation and why it should be a grave concern to all of us. And grave is the appropriate term to use, because prejudice in any form is deadly, and it appears that our country has developed serious symptoms of this condition over the past few decades that will slowly destroy the body politic.