Maybe the economy is a political black hole, sucking every other issue into an impossibly dense void.
Maybe Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are just private, cautious men by nature.
For whatever reason, neither President Obama nor his Republican challenger is talking much about religion these days — neither about his own faith nor that of his opponent, or the social issues that motivate religious voters.
It is a striking departure from the faith-based overtures heard in this year's Republican primary and in some past presidential campaigns, and it serves to mask a central aspect of each man's life story, in which faith plays an important role. But analysts on both sides of the political spectrum say religion is perceived as a no-win subject by both campaigns, and it is not likely to play a prominent role in the 2012 election.
Not that a good knockdown, drag-out over religion wouldn't be fun. Because, 1. Obama is a religious opportunist. I don't believe for an instant that he truly believes in anything -- who, after all, could be above The One? If cozying up to Rev. Wright gets him a few votes in the black community and throwing Rev. Wright under the bus gets him a few votes in the white community, well, hell, is this a great country or what? That Muslim thing that he may have been overly influenced by when growing up? Oh, shut up, you racist! And, 2). I don't doubt Romney's professions of faith, but he belongs to one of the odder mainstream religions, if, indeed, Mormonism can be considered a mainstream religion. There, I've said it -- call me a bigot. To adhere to any specific domination is to believe in such a narrow spectrum of dogma that great chunks of common sense must give way to blind faith. But, Lord, there should be limits. Mormons don't just believe in Heaven. They believe there are different levels in the afterlife that you could end up in. You can't just be good boys and girls here on Earth -- you have to be very specifically measured good boys and girls. Just made for control freaks, eh?
Fun, but distracting. It still is the economy, stupid, and a few other things. We are capable -- aren't we? -- of judging presidents by what they do, not why they did it.