Thursday, December 06, 2007
|
|
"A Common Creed Of Moral Convictions"
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
11:27 AM
|
Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece. The staging and Romney's delivery, the eclipse of all other candidates it caused, the domination of the news cycle just prior to the start of absentee voting in New Hampshire on Monday --for all these reasons and more it will be long discussed as a masterpiece of political maneuver.
Far more important than all of that, however, was the content of the address, which was a brilliant explication of the American political theory of faith and freedom. Romney used the moment to defend not just himself but the American tradition of faith in the public square, of vigorous and valued religious plurality, and, crucially, why that tradition has allowed America's role in the world to be so unqualifiedly good. The unexpected but brilliant connection of our tradition of religious liberty with our ability to move in the world to save it again and again from evil and to rebuild it without demands for territory or treasure lifted the speech very far above the ordinary campaign speech, and in so doing lifted the Romney candidacy. Americans watching the speech were listening to a great communicator talk with pride and obvious skill and passion about America and its long history of freedom. This is a much loved and too infrequent thing: An American leader talking with unashamed love and reverence for the country and its shining tradition of tolerance and fierce attachment to liberty.
Did Romany convert anti-Mormon fanatics or secular absolutists? Of course not, but they are very few, though the latter are extremely overrepresented in elite media newsrooms, as I argued on CNN International just after the speech, when the anchors immediately wanted to turn to whether the LDS segregation of priesthood until 1978 would hurt Romney.
But the speech will shame many of them into if not silence, at least a more guarded displat of hostility to faith, while reminding millions of people of faith about the glories of religious tolerance. Rescuing the campaign of 2008 from the theological inquisition it had sometimes become will be one of the legacies of the speech, as all candidates and many commentators will now simply be able to say: "I agree with Romney and reject the imposition of theological litmus tests on presidential candidates."
Rarely does American politics have such clear, positive breakthroughs --though political history is littered with the remains of many campaigns that blew up in a single day. But this was one such day. Romney's GOP opponents are shaking their heads, and at Team Clinton, they are very worried indeed, imagining a closing night acceptance speech in Minnesota that does again what Romney did today: Appeal to our better angels and our common history to urge America to persevere in difficult times, true to the ideals which launched it, and which allowed it to survive civil war and foreign attack.
They are worried about the return of a Reagan-like communicator to the GOP ticket, and they are right to be alarmed.
UPDATE: Here is the text of the speech for your convenience:
"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of
you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way
in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows
the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War,
being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine.
It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril,
Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to
defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank
you, Mr. President.
"Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat
Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your
children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the
greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to
today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine
what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.
"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam
seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our
economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government
overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best
to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which
I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty.
I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my
Presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be
seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us.
If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our
nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator.
And further, they discovered the essential connection between the
survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In
John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our
constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom
opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound
beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or
perish alone.
"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some
wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's
religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer
them today.
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that
he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for
president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not
define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected
because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other
church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential
decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church
affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law
and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular
teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the
Constitution - and of course, I would not do so as President. I will
put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and
the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political
religion' - the commitment to defend the rule of law and the
Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of
office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate
to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no
one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common
cause of the people of the United States.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would
prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that
it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or
another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon
faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers
- I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy.
If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American
people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain
the world.
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What
do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son
of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may
not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own
unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but
rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow
principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we
agree.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and
explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the
very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No
candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes
President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents
closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are
features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the
Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the
Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the
confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the
Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer
of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and
cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their
steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's
blessings.
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist
between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral
convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's
usually a sound rule to focus on the latter - on the great moral
principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the
cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no
movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the
convictions of religious people.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good
reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state
interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the
notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well
beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain
any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair
with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on
establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism.
They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they
did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square.
We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders - in ceremony and
word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching
of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and
menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would
not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon
which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs
of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the
God who gave us liberty.'
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most
important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political
office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of
human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast
commitment to liberty?
"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great
moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which
Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God - we are all
part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and
inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary
political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are
'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'
"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one
another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of
God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day,
here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or
nationality.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence
of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as
much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons
and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve
freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world.
America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars - no land from
Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's
resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It
has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never
falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived
in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God
and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I
saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to
people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national
volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an
hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I
was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and
my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we
have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are
the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common
foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty.
Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took
to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion.
But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others.
Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from
Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and
two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were
unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an
appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In
this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had
left.
"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a
revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about
the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is
endowed by his Creator.
"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional
order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of
policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church,
and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our
tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent
cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty.
Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now
stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too
'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment
of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And
though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches
themselves seem to be withering away.
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by
conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians,
Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do
their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds
and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than
theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups
could inflict if given the chance.
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our
religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized
nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be
destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where
reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty,
joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain
of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in
prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for
hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single
strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in
Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British
troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an
impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray.
But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious
sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and
Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of
piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by
the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.'
And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with
freedom's holy light.'
"God bless the United States of America."
|
|
|
Not an "out of the park" hit as Hugh is saying, but not bad. The man can talk game though, got to give him that! |
|
bettors reaction on InTrade was negative.
MR took a big hit - MR down 5 and MH up 3.5 in Iowa.
I still believe it is very problematic for MH to win Iowa, MR simply has too much money and organization plus he will say and do almost anything.
MH has enormous baggage too and the media is pounding him.
we will see how the bettors evolve as the reactions come int but first blush bad for MR.
at least the gardeners are off the media watch for Mitt
No
|
|
The speech: Mitt sounded competent but a bit strained and defensive at times too. Overall if I was forced to give it a grade, I’d call it a B, maybe a B-. It was good...speech wise.
But Team Romney just delivered a completely irrelevant speech. His issues with voters have nothing to do with his religion and everything to do with his character. “The Speech” should have been about his waffling and the American voter's continued concern over his inability to come off as anything but a Wall Street elitist that will say and do anything to become elected. His speech should have been about his failure to keep illegal immigrants off his lawn, what he learned from his mistakes both past and present and as to why he changed his position on so many issues just before running for governor of MA and then back again as President. We needed this kind of speech, but didn't get it.
So yes, Romney put to bed a strawman that no one cared about while the real issues of his character and candor still loom large.
To prove my point take a look at the new Rasmussen poll (out today!) for SC which is by far has the heaviest concentration of evangelicals of any of the early states.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/electio n_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/electio n_2008_south_carolina_republican_primary
Huckabee is up 7 points (7 points!!) over Romney yet, most significantly, BOTH ARE PULLING IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF EVANGELICALS. So again, Romney's faith is not the issue, his character and candor are the issue.
|
|
I expected a great speech. I was surprised, though, at Romney's depth of understanding concerning America's founding principles. He referred again and again to equality, the foremost of our principles and the one that Abraham Lincoln called the "father of all moral principle amongst us." From that principle, all other good American principles radiate. These include liberty and, central to the speech, religious liberty.
What a relief to find a candidate who can draw upon America's deep well of timeless principles of liberty, one who can also articulate them. Dedication to these principles by past American presidents, those who truly understood them and believed them, have made them and those they have led in wartime invincible. Given Romney's understanding of economic and business issues, I think he has emerged now as the GOP's best hope. |
|
|
I liked the references to the founders, I thought he delivered it well. It was a very good speech. |
|
Romney's speech may not produce many glowing report's like Hugh's, but the content is right on. Romney does not connect over streaming web video like Reagan does on TV, but Romney does not have to be like Reagan to win.
The more real Americans without agendas see and hear Romney, the more will like and agree with him. Romney comes across as smart, principled, and Presidential. On the Democratic side, no candidate comes close to Romney. They may be smart, but comparisons on character, policy positions, experience, and likability favor Romney. If Romney wins the Republican nomination, I believe he will be our next President.
Rudy is a formidable, likable candidate, so it remains to be seen whether Romney or Rudy will prevail. Huckabee will not win. |
|
Mormonism's tenets versus Christian tenets and whether they're compatible.
Worthless piffle.
Slick, though.
Billy C from Hope would've been proud. |
|
I have not heard a speech of this caliber since Reagan. He delievered a perfect speech in an almost no win situation. I hope the anti-mormon's community thirst for blood will be abated by a larger number of people who don't just blindly vote evangelical. As a christian myself I will vote for Romney not because of his faith but because of the content of his character and his record. His real record not the one spinned by Huckabee anti-mormon campaign.
BMessenger
In regards to your "7 point lead". You need to take a stat class. They polled 600 republicans....that is clearly not representive. Also thier was a standard of error of 2 with a swing of +-4%. That means its an 8% swing either way. Huckabee is a good social conservative but terrible CONSERVATIVE example: immigration, taxes, education, crime...ect... VOTE ROMNEY |
|
Not just a good head of hair, he is clearly for real. No fraud or faker could write or give that speech.
...and not that any of the other candidates are, but that is the kind of speech that not only contains the bigots it changes minds.
Extraordinary. |
|
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
The most inspiring speech from a Republican since Ronald Reagan. You Romney-hating fundamentalist drive-bys are delusional.
|
|
When Kennedy gave his speech he was the nominee...When Romney gave the speech he is what..third, sometimes fourth nationally?
pfffft |
|
It's official, Rush Limbaugh is lauding both Romney and Romney's speech -- during the first half hour of his show.
This, alone, makes the decision by Romney on giving the speech an out of the park home run.
By the way, what Romney is saying to Huckabee is, "you want to talk religion, I can do that too, and better than you..."
The FACT of the speech, which happened to be more than good enough, is what is important.
|
|
The speech may not hurt Huckabiuliani much, but it sure won't help their team efforts in the early states.
It may be overshadowed by news stories on kinfolk of a murder victim blaming Huckabee for the Missouri killing. |
|
I was particularly blown away by this particular segment of the speech.
http://www.elfyourself.com/?id=1194211841
I encourage you all to see it. |
|
He is falling like a rock in Iowa having laready spent $7mil v less than $1 mil for Huck...
He is in big trouble.........
|
|
who gives a rats a**? Seriously. We're electing a President, not a Pastor. Why does Mitt have to explain this?
Did Kennedy explain the catholic faith when he gave his speech? No. He said, in essence, I'll represent the interest of all the citizens of the country that elects me.
The people that keep clamoring for an explanation of the tenents of faith must have a different agenda in mind.
It was a masterful speech. He didn't distance himself from his religion in the least. And he showed respect to other religions and their adherents.
If anyone has a problem with that, I think they have an ax to grind. |
|
|
And, the first half hour of the Rush show should be featured in the Romney campaign. |
|
but his is endorsing what Romney said.
It would be nice to hear other candidates (esp. Huck) use religion as an inclusive, not a divisive, issue. He probably would if he'd stop getting advice from Dick Morris. |
|
"Mona Charen calls it the "best political speech of the year," citing particularly the part about empty cathedrals in Europe. I liked it, but wondered that there was no mention whatsoever of those with no faith at all. They're not a huge voting block, but many of them are patriotic Americans who respect their religious neighbors (not you, Michael Newdow). It would have been nice to hear that they make up part of the symphony as well," - Mary Katherine Ham, Townhall.com.
Thanks for sticking up to the folks who like to sleep in on Sunday Mary Katherine!
|
|
I am an agnostic.
I am a Thompson supporter.
And I am as ready to vote for Mitt.
Mitt Romney has made a wonderful speech, the first one I have heard that reminds me of Ronald Reagan. On radio it is stunning speech, and I think he is the best choice for the GOP...and a choice that can win.
Unless the media quashes its impact with criticism, it is obvious he is an inspired, conservative, and decent man that contrasts so sharply with the shrewlike and power dazed hillary that this country would be sick to vote for her for this kind of GOP nomination.
Stunning...a great speech. |
|
"In regards to your "7 point lead". You need to take a stat class. They polled 600 republicans....that is clearly not representive. Also thier was a standard of error of 2 with a swing of +-4%. That means its an 8% swing either way."
Thomas, I've worked in within the polling industry for 13 years and know a little something about establishing a 95% confidence level of sample sizes. Clearly, you don't understand the research or science that goes into such polling or you would know that a) 600 Republican voters is more than enough to produce a reliable sample of SC Republican voters and b) Huckabee's 7% lead is for all practical purposes outside the margin of error because it is unreasonable to assume that +/-4% can be swung between just two candidates when there are 6+ candidates being polled. You would need to weight it across all candidates, not just the two you wish to arbitrarily choose. In other words, you need to make this comparison between Huck and the other 5+ candidates, not just Huck and Mitt - and thus your conclusions are bunk.
Most significant is that Huckabee has jumped 13 points since the last poll was taken while Mitt has lost 3. Huckabee's surge cannot be denied no matter how many NH polls Hugh (and you?) wish to tout as evidence that Huckabee isn't surging/is finished surging/has peaked/etc. |
|
No surprise in your review of Romney's speech. I have to tell you though, the best line of all was delivered by you not Romney:
"Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. "
Your arrogance and bias are absolutely stunning. |
|
|
Hold your horses, man. As much as I would love that endorsement, remember he spoke highly of Thompson in the debate the other day as well. Let us wait and see. |
|
|
Yes, strictly speaking, Rush says he's not making an endorsement -- but if what he's saying about Romney, especially about Romney's "guts" and "leadership", at the beginning of the second half hour of his show is not an endorsement, I don't know what more of an endorsement could have been made. |
|
Bill Bennett just made the point on CNN that Romney didn't quite live up to his promise to "offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected."
Actually I think Mitt was smart to stay away from LDS doctrine (because to me it does not matter so why should he explain himself). JFK did not talk about Christ being present physically in the Eucharist, nor should he have. |
|
"Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree."
Beautiful sentiments. But ones which are hard to square with the actions of a man who spent 2½ years of his life and ten collective years of his sons' lives criticizing the Faith of others. Am I to assume that while on his mission, Romney never once talked about the so-called "Great Apostasy?" That he was and is uncritical of other faiths (except for sniping at their "empty cathedrals"?) |
|
footballfan5 writes: Still didn't address . . .
Mormonism's tenets versus Christian tenets and whether they're compatible.
Drex Davis writes: Mormonism vs. Christian Tenants
who gives a rats a**? ... Did Kennedy explain the catholic faith when he gave his speech? No. He said, in essence, I'll represent the interest of all the citizens of the country that elects me.
****
Everybody knew in 1960 what Catholicism was and the concern JFK had to address was that he'd be subject to the Vatican, or impose his beliefs on the country, which he did very well.
I'm not at all sure that Romney's speech will satisfy those who believe we should only elect a born again Christian to the White House and those who think that believing in the Angel Moroni giving golden tablets to Joseph Smith is on the order of Tom Cruise and Scientology.
Hugh's gushing about the speech aside, it remains to be seen what portion of the conservative Christian Republican base will now vote for him on the basis of this speech. You can call them bigots or whatever, but they still vote and their votes elected George Bush. |
|
Having watched the entirety of the speech, my thoughts:
1. This was a politically motivated and expedient speech. Mitt was not motivated by conviction to give this speech. Rather, it was triggered by his precipitous drop in the polls. Bottom line: he has exploited his faith when it serves him most. To attack those that dare to raise his faith and then to speak about his faith to regain his political traction.
2. Unlike Kennedy's speech, Romney barely mentioned his Mormonism. If I heard correctly, it was only mentioned once as compared to Kennedy mentioning being a Catholic 20 times. This had nothing to do with faith. Rather, this was a political stunt to allow Romney to parrot a bunch of talking points that might resonate with evangelicals and reverse his slippage in the polls.
3. Mitt's faith has little to do with his current political misfortunes. His inability to come across as a principled person, willing to stand on conviction as opposed to what is most politically expedient, has caused him to drop in the eyes of the electorate. While it might help Hugh to sell some books, it was not Huck's faith vs. Romney's that propelled Huckabee into the lead, it was the fact that Huckabee comes across as more credible, serious and principled. Huckabee does not pander and is willing to answer questions directly--even if his position is not going to resonate (i.e. scholarships to children of illegals).
This was nothing more than a staged political stunt to attempt to revive the candidacy of a triangulating politician who has hit the point of diminishing returns with his financial investment into the race. I guess it was God's will that the Nebraska shooting of yesterday is dominating today's news cycle. |
|
Hugh says, "Mitt Romney's 'Faith in America' speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst."
Those many who considered the speech less than "simply magnificent" are legion. So here's who we can "no longer trust":
- Bill Bennett
- Jim Geraghty, National Review
- Byron York, National Review
- Jonah Goldberg, National Review
- Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review
- Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
- Paul Mirengoff, PowerLine
- Charles Johnson, Little Green Footballs
- Et al. (this list continues to grow...)
We are allowed to trust:
- Mona Charen
- Hugh Hewitt
Mitt gave a good speech, but let's not get hyperbolic on the praise. It provided zero new information and made me no more or less likely to support Romney.
The only true measure of its greatness is if it moves the polls. And we won't know that for several days.
And Hugh, please, drop the "enemies list" mentality... we're all in this together. You're just making those of us supporting other candidates less likely to support Gov. Romney.
|
|
Hewitt is GUSHING over Romney's speech??
What.
A.
Sur-prise.
I would NEVER expect Romney's propaganda minister/SS Hitman to speak in such glowing terms of his master's...er...CANDIDATE's speech.
I wonder if he wept... |
|
Rush, in follow up phone calls is now going even further in praising Romney.
Whether or not you think the speach is "much ado about nothing" -- RUSH LIMBAUGH CERTAINLY THINKS ITS A BIG DEAL -- and for that alone, it IS a big deal! |
|
Rescuing the campaign of 2008 from the theological inquisition it had sometimes become will be one of the legacies of the speech, as all candidates and many commentators will now simply be able to say: "I agree with Romney and reject the imposition of theological litmus tests on presidential candidates."
Unless, of course, they're atheists. |
|
|
words mean things. speeches convey beliefs and values. |
|
"I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith," - Mitt Romney, at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum today.
"We need to have a person of faith lead the country," - Mitt Romney, February 17, 2007. Video here. A Mormon complaint about Romney's alliance with the Christianist right here.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/1 2/romney-flip-flo.html |
|
I didn't hear him say it, so you may be right. It is a high compliment coming from Rush Limbaugh for sure. I am just prone to exercise a little more restraint.
Ted, I am a Romney man all the way. I want it to be true, but I am not ready to take it to the bank...yet. |
|
Still negative bettor reaction to MR speech.
Now RG is up more on MR on IEM and InTrade still down for MR. Still at 30+ for MH over MR in Iowa.
Next time to look is 24 hours.
MR people are flogging the speech on web so this is not indicative at anything.
what was very positive for MR is Rush comments. very positive |
|
the speech and it is a big deal and it is helping Romney, but Rush said he's not endorsing anyone.
I do believe he's STRONGLY endorsing Romney's speech and character. And it does help Romney immensely.
It will be tough for Huck to keep trying to use religion as a divisive issue. I think that will be the main outcome. He's just going to look "holier-than-though" by doing so (like when he said "Mayor, I can help you with that" when Giuliani was asked a question about the Bible in the YouTube debate). Huckabee really needs to stop consulting with Dick Morris. |
|
Rush endorsed Romney's speech. Nothing wrong with that. I liked it too.
But that in no way translates to me ever supporting him in a primary. EVER. |
|
Rush is NOT endorsing MR.
He liked the speech and nothing more.
Your grasping dude. |
|
This puts everything in perspective. Check out this exchange with Dan Bartlett, former Director of Communications for the White House:
Question: Yeah, or what if [conservative blogger] Hugh Hewitt called?
Bartlett: That's when you start going, "Hmm . . ." Because they do reach people who are influential.
Well, they reach the president's base.
That's what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It's a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we've cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on."
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-01-01/talks-1.php
Hugh the regurgitator. And you have the audacity to claim that anyone who does not share your breathless interpretation of Romney's speech is not a serious analyst. According to Dan Bartlett, you are nothing more than an addict whose addiction is fed by a dealer of propoganda. Priceless. |
|
Jonah Goldberg said, and I paraphrase:
If you turn off the sound on a Romney speech it seems like he's saying 'what can I do to put you in this car today.'
I like Mitt and would heartily support him against any Dem, but sometimes he's too slick by half. Just saying. |
|
|
What kind of crack are you smoking? For the most part he gushed on it being a good speech, but let us not forget that a couple of days ago after the debate he said there was only one conservative up there...and it wasn't Mitt :) |
|
Hugh has repeatedly acted as an agent of Romney while playing a game of not "officially" endorsing anyone. Hugh often criticizes the MSM for their lack of honesty with their readers. However, is Hugh not doing the same when he fails to come out and endorse Romney?
Hugh has been an agent of Romney, calling people bigots for having concerns about Mormonism. I am sorry Hugh, to criticize another religion is not a bigoted action. If you are a Christian, it is an obligation to point out the lies that are sold by the doctrines of false religions. It is clear that Mormonism is not Christianity and is not biblical. If you will not acknowledge that, you are compromising spiritual truth for political gain. HOWEVER, the fact that a candidate is a Mormon should NOT disqualify them from office. My issue is that Hugh puts out bigot-label hitjobs on those who criticize the Mormon faith.
Lastly, the drooling praise for Romney's speech encapsulates Hugh's actions for some time. He even tells us that we should not trust anyone who disagrees with him. I am sorry Hugh, you are acting like your desperate. Huckabee has you and your fellow Romney supporters scared. It shows. |
|
It has certainly been decades since America has heard a speech of this calibur from a politician. This is historic.
Other campaigns have been using religion to divide the race - and Mitt comes in as the uniting leader. He was by far more presidential than any '08 candidate we have seen yet.
Those attacking Mitt's speech clearly have an agenda and are trying to marginalize the impact of Mitt's phenominal performance.
WELL DONE MITT!!!! WELL DONE!!!!! |
|
|
I watched the speech, so I thought the comment about reading vs. watching was interesting. I was underwhelmed. Granted, I didn't like Romney before, but the part about Americans not wanting a person whose principles are driven by political considerations was pretty brazen; no one is more questionably "fluid" in his convictions in this primary (on the Repub side!) than Mitt. It was well written, and I thought pretty smart - rally the Repubs against the godless secularists! Hey, it worked for Coulter. The setting was good, too. |
|
this is why MR is happy to be talking about the "speech".
But Saenz told FOX25 in Boston that Romney did not demand that the company not employ illegal immigrants.
"They never asked me. I present my bid for the price and they say to me, '(Come) back,' that's it," Saenz said, speculating that the presidential race drove the high-profile termination after 11 years of service.
|
|
|
with my precious savior is the most important part of my life. Whether i consider Mormonism a cult or a religion is to me , not important, as to whether i believe Mr. Romney is qualified to be President. So for me, the speech was unnecessary. I did not see him give it, but having just read it, i feel that it will help him. As an earlier poster suggested, Mr. Romneys' greater problem is one of authenticity. Is he pro-life or is he pro-abortion? Is he pro border or is he pro amnesty? Is he truly conservative? If he is the nominee, he will most certainly have my vote. His Mormonism does not preclude that but his changing positions makes him a less attractive candidate. What i cannot understand is why Duncan Hunter can't get traction? To me he is the best conservative candidate. |
|
Win, lose, or draw, Mitt Romney gave a speech today that will go down as one of the best political speeches in history.
Michelle Malkin said it best:
"Any day a Republican can turn the tables on the “tolerance” squad and cast light on our great American tradition of religious liberty is a good day."
The more I read about Mitt, the more I like. As to the issues- all of the politicans running have flip flopped on issues. None have been imune from wavering or fence sitting. He who is without sin cast the first stone. |
|
|
I have not heretofore been a Romney guy nor hater. But this speech is making me consider him seriously. It's a solidly impressive speech. There's a difference between Theology and Values. I do not share Romney's theology, but I do share is values—both in morality and in politics and that's what matters. |
|
The Republican team is shaping up. Good candidates all around.
Hillary is cracking up and revealing glaring weaknesses with high negatives in the polls.
The Democrats are weak at the top. Very, very weak. |
|
GOOD speech, I liked the part about American Exceptionalism. Mitt also showed more emotion than he usually does, and I thought he feels truly blessed to live in this country.
Will this put him back up in Iowa? We shall seen soon enough. |
|
Hugh's breathless endorsement of the speech was a forgone conclusion. Shy of announcing he was leaving his wife for a Muslim iman who entered the US illegally, Mitt was guaranteed to get a breathless, laudatory, hyberbolic review from Hugh. And so he did...
Posters here often point out, "Why do people care what Hugh thinks?" or "Why he isn't allowed to have an opinion?" My answer is, of course Hugh should have an opinion. The issue I have is with Hugh's incredibly off-putting demagoguery and condescension that accompanies his opinion.
Hugh starts off "Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent..."
FIne, your opinion.
"... and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst."
Huh? What does that mean? And why mix antagonism into your praise?
Hugh's denial of the obvious, (such as Huckabee's popular appeal), mixed with his aggressive attacks of people with a different view, have done Romney no favors. If one of Mitt's supporters here has a direct line to Hugh, you might point that out.
|
|
It was a good speech, but really people, some of you sound like you had to light up a smoke and relax in some sort of wonderful afterglow.
Hugh was his usual swooning self over his mancrush heartthrob.
"On every level it was a masterpiece"
Not that Lincoln's "Four Score" or FDR's "Day of Infamy" words could even measure up.
Why I wouldn't be surprised if they don't find someplace in the Declaration of Independence to squeeze this marvel of the ages into.
|
|
I have to say I was very impressed by the speech. Up to this time I've been dubious about Mitt. I'm not so concerned about his flip-flopping (I think he's at heart a conservative who went left not the other way around), but more about his presentation, his slickness, etc. Today I heard a passion that didn't sound scripted or plastic.
And talking about American greatness from first principals is a fast way to my heart. One of the reasons I've inclined toward Thompson is that he is (was) the only candidate who consistently brings up those principals as his governing vision. And he does it very well, although his style isn't living up to his substance. I still don't know who I'm going to vote for, and may not until I go into the booth next February 5. But I think I'm feeling a lot more comfortable with Romney now.
BTW, why is anyone surprised to hear hyperbole coming from Hugh Hewitt? I love the guy, but he's not much into nuance. |
|
but his negative actions speak louder, much louder, than his well-executed words and matching voice inflections. He can make eye contact and pause as well as any actor I've ever seen. His sense of timing in his speech delivery is amazing. He is good as a communicator, but I no longer trust him (and, by extension, her)as a world leader.
Romney, on the other hand, is "cool" under the camera lights, almost cold to those who prefer a P>more emotive style. The good news is that Romney's words (delivered without a compelling speaking style) are accurate and honest. Bill may move me for the moment as he is a gifted speaker, but I have learned not to trust him and don't want him as Second Mate in the White House.
When I read and reread Mitt's speeches and comments, I can parse his intellect and deep understanding of the subjects. Bill captures my emotions but then I feel a sense of betrayal, knowing he is skilled as a politician to convey empathy (I feel your pain, etc.) Maybe Romney doesn't say the folksy things in the down-home way Bill can, but his life and his business record tell me he is a man of preparation, intellect, and integrity.
Same idea as "Whom do you want to be your physician, the popular campus guy or the fellow who soared through his classes and residency?" I'll take Mitt over Ms. Clinton with the implied reinstatement of Bill.
When Mitt is lined up against Hillary in the final leg of this race, there will be a sharp contrast in every column of personal and experiential preparedness. Mitt will have the check marks and she will have the question marks and Bill will be the man behind the curtain.
P.S. Ann Romney will be a wonderful First Lady!
Inside the curtained voting booth, Mitt will win in 2008 because he will match our individual electoral lists.
|
|
|
Immediately following the speech, I turned to my co-worker, who is not only a pro-Ron-Paul-libertarian, but is also athiest and Anti-Romney. You can imagine the interesting conversations we have had! In response to the speech, he said, "Very well done. I must say, I agree with what he said." I was surprised because he least favors Romney of all republican candidates, but not shocked because the speech was magnificant and true, regardless of whether or not you agree with Mitt on healthcare, abortion, or the war on terror. |
|
LOL!!
I thought the same thing...except I was going to suggest a shower!
|
|
"Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent...... and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst."
There is no if's, and's, or but's - that was a GREAT SPEECH!!!
I agree with Hugh's statement 100%. Allow me to make a parallel example:
No matter how much I can't stand Hillary Clinton, no matter how much I have an political agenda against her, I would have to applaud her if she were to give a speech as magnificent as the one Romney just gave. If my agenda against Hillary is so strong that nothing she could possibly say or do (ie: a speech of this magnitude) gets any applause or positive acknowledgement from me - then I am lacking objectivity and shouldn't be trusted as an analyst.
Hugh - your opinion is once again dead on!!! |
|
Hugh,
You are out of control with your Mitt bias. I know you admit you are biased...but you are getting absurd to the point I can't read and listen to you right now. For Pete's sake, you sound ready to lump this speech in with the Gettysburg Address. You basically campaign for this man everyday in your writings and your show. It is you who I am begining not to trust. Please come back to us Hugh. I am completely baffled and undecided about the current Republican field, but your constant, unrestrained push for Mitt is really turning me off to him. |
|
"In short it would have been a great speech had he already won the nomination. But there wasn't a whole lot in there about why he should get the nomination in the first place. It still might succeed of course, simply by showing Romney in such a favorable light. But I still think he needs to sell evangelicals willing to overlook his Mormonism (but are still concerned by it) why they should vote for him over the much easier pick of Huckabee. And for that he needs to talk about electability, taxes etc. He didn't mention those things today, and he won't have another venue like that again before the voting starts. "
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODljMGI1NTA1ODg2Zj BjMGE5NDFmMWRkNDJmNzMxZmM=
|
|
|
Sorry Hugh, I don't buy it. I'm afraid that this kind of polished address will only seal the deal in turning a non-issue into a genuine debate. Not unlike John Kerry at the DNC in '04 turning his Vietnam war record into the primary issue for the general election. Silly politicians from Massachusettes. |
|
I agree with you about Rudy.
Mitt wrote the speech himself. Half of his own campaign staff was opposed to him giving it. That says a lot about him.
I agree with you about "sounding presidential" being a lot less important that behaving presidential. But that's why so many of us support Mitt. Look at the guys life. The chance to put a remarkable man like this at the head of our government is a great opportunity to help fix what's broken in government.
That he sounds presidential is important to those people to whom it is important. People select a president for different reasons. To some, that's important.
I want to hear about his belief system, and this put me in his head. I was already sold on his Executive abilities (and sold on his policies). But his speech gave me chills, and I've never thought he was a particularly good speaker. I've always thought he was articulate and eloquent. But he hit a new level with me . . . an ability to stir my emotions. |
|
Romney will get Iowa, with NH under his belt, that leaves SC. The primary will hinge on SC and FL, we will see. RG can only win if he can pull out FL, and I am not sure after the wins Romney gets he will.
Not because of this speech though, his organization will pull that together. Huck doesn't seem capable of running at this level, the NIE failure was a big one! One more like that and he is out.
That being said, I think Fred will be the VP of either of them. A Mitt/Fred team may well dominate, I don't think we have seen a ticket in a while that could match that.
|
|
If you take into consideration Hugh's Romney-Gush Factor, he does highlight all that worked well in Mitt's speech. The setting was almost second-to-none, he looked his normal almost-too-perfect self (one wonders what a Romney vs. Edwards election would be like).
More important, this speech will age well. There are a number of good snippets for the Romney website, and plenty of material to point to when pesky reporters keep asking about his faith. They'll be made to look foolish beating what Mitt hopes soon will be a dead horse.
Finally, importantly, Mitt's speech works even better in the general election. Right now its the evangelicals who are in a fit. But if Huckabee is the nominee (I don't think he will, but lets pretend) in the general he'd be seen as too religious. Mitt had to walk the fine line, and he did it well both in text and on camera.
It is unfortunate that he slightly flubs one of his best lines - he was either a bit nervous or had not practiced the line enough. Seen on its own, it has the feel of being less-than-polished. Odd for someone who is portrayed as too shiny. Still, I think the speech nets positive for Mitt and while I don't see anything more than a dead rabbit bounce from it, it should change the focus back to other issues. If that happens (after the requisite 24-48 hour speech coverage followup) then the speech should be judged a success. |
|
|
When he wrote his review of Mitt's speech last night, it was inconceivable to him that anyone would beg to differ from his assessment. Hugh is certainly entitled to his opinion, and I do not have a problem with him supporting Romney -- I am leaning toward Romney myself. I do have a problem, however, with his over-the-top shilling and spinning and his contemptuous treatment of those who disagree with him. If I were to respond to Hugh's ad hominen attack on his dissenters with one of my own, I would have to say, "Hugh, don't be an ignoranus -- someone who is both ignorant and a butthole." |
|
|
attention on Romney's speech (besides Romney and Hugh!)? Hucakabee..the more the media and the boggers talk about Romney's speech or the Iran/NIE orthe mall thing, the less they are focused on Huckster and Wayne Dumod and the whole sordid saga. |
|
Simply "Presidential"
To take on all adversaries with confidence is to lead. Every ad hoc poll said don't do it. So, he just hit a home run that the hollow moralled libs can only search for an asterix to apply.
However, the latter doesn't matter since they must rely on old line media to interpret it for them!
|
|
As a Romney fence-sitter, I think I just got a glimpse of the true Mitt I believed was being hidden by his handlers. I liked what I saw. This speech may not have been completely written by him, but it was delivered by a fellow that believes this country still is "the last, best hope of mankind." Faith is what got it to that point through all the struggles and heartaches and is the only thing that will keep there. God HAS favored this nation with multiple blessings. If we say we don't need Him anymore, He'll say, "Fine, you're on your own." Lot's of examples of that throughout recent history. That Romney understands that came through loud and clear.
"Freedom and religion endure together, or
perish alone." Damn right!
|
|
I'm what you'd call an "evangelical social conservative" in the political world. I just can't believe what this guy is saying. I hope it's from his heart and sincere, but I just can't risk my vote for President on that hope.
That's why I'm voting for Mike Huckabee. He speaks my language. I'm sorry, this guy knows some of the words, but he sounds like someone else is putting them together for him.
[url]www.mikehuckabee.com[/url] |
|
The most incredible thing about this speech is that Mitt drafted it himself. The man is flat out a genius. It's the best political speech I've heard in years. The part about imposing a state religion in Europe leading to today's empty cathedrals was just incredibly insightful.
I loved how he talked about "Theocratic Tyrany" of modern radical Islam today - very timely.
The part about Samuel Adams and the congressional congress got me a little choked up to be honest.
I think it will be a sad day if the republican party passes up a brilliant mind such as Romney's for the religiously devisive, populist panderings of Mike Huckabee.
|
|
IMO - his "great speeches" and his inaugurals were overly long, plodding pieces of nothing.
Politicians need to learn from Lincoln - look at his greatest speeches - they could fit on a 5x8 index card.
If you think Clinton is a great speaker you are delusional - perhaps I am looking at him like the emperor with not clothes - the crowed is cheering and all I see is disease and warts.
Rush loved the speech, Laura Ingraham seemed to love it (I only heard her talk about it briefly). Rush even loved the idea he had the courage and audacity to make the speech against the conventional wisdom of the pundits - I agree- that says a lot about his convictions and optimistic view of the USA.
Like Rush says, our big 4 are head a shoulders above Obama and Clinton - it is not even close |
|
I have never teared up on a speech before...until today.
I actually felt silly and a bit guilty for judging this guy.
The paragraphs that got me was:
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in
Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British
troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an
impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray.
But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious
sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and
Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of
piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by
the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
Seriously, that is powerful stuff - it says so much about what should make our country great. People of diverse belief systems working towards changing the world for better together.
|
|
|
Good points . Mitt did give a good historical-heritage speech as well as one which he hopes will undo bias against his campaign. It is sad that he had to give that speech. Liberals will sneer but then, they never are asked about faith, heritage, or ideals from God because they have none in which they are proud. And the MSM will never ask them since 86% of them never go to any church either. Hugh is over-anxious to support him. But,at least most Pubs know that all our 5 guys have a heritage and a faith in some version of which to be proud. They all want family values, even Rudy , yes, even him. Values to conservatives of every wing are important to them and can feel good that Mitt at least gave this speech unafraid as Mitt himself said in the speech. I can support at least 4 of the 5, McCain, I still have trouble with, but even John is better than any Dem. I will bet all 5 could give a historical,values, religious speech that no Dem running could. Maybe Mitt is slick but at least he is honest which I cannot say about any of the Dem candidates. |
|
|
Would see the need to put blanks in the word God! I am surprised when they don't do it for the word country, but since they don't see a country with sovereign rights, I guess they don't need to. |
|
I respect your opinion. Obviously, I disagree.
Look at his governorship?
Bipartisanship? Yes.
Excessive spending? No. (in fact the huge deficit turned to a huge surplus)
Excessive debt? No. No debt, in fact.
Depleted Military? Not relevant to a governor, but one of the first things he said when he announced his agenda was to strengthen the military grow the military by at least 100,000 troops (I think the number is right . . .I can't remember the exact one)
Industrial policy? His state didn't deal with it as much . . . but his dad ran one of the big auto-manufacturers. In Michigan he spoke to the need to make our industry more competitive and spoke directly about the auto industry.
Weak dollar and strategy? Get rid of the deficit, as he's proposed (and that he did on a state level).
Uneven public education system? Not sure about this.
Excessive government intrusion in private matters? Depends on what you mean about excessive. Biggest one for me is Taxes. He's signed the pledge to not raise taxes. Starve the government's social programs (which feed on taxes), you starve it's ability to intrude. He shrunk gov't services while governor. (that's what liberals hated about him, the screamed, "yes, he cut spending but he did it by cutting social programs.")
Immigration problems? not a big issue in his state, but he said he *wants* legal immigration, he just wants it orderly so we know who these folks are.
Uneven health care delivery system - not sure I know enough to address this, but this was HUGELY on his radar as governor.
Entitlements? He slashed them as governer. He said he wants to cut gov't waste and can't wait to get there.
So I'm not sure why it's a challenge.
|
|
|
If Mitt's the nominee, he's got my vote, that's for sure. |
|
Hugh, the sooner you realize that everyone inside and outside the blogosphere knows that you are so totally in the tank for Romney the better off you will be.
Save your breath pimping Romney and trash talking the other candidates. No one takes your Romney worship all that seriously. At least no one with half a brain.
It's one thing to endorse a candidate. It's another to feign objective journalism. |
|
Hugh Hewitt has demonstrated that he is drunk on the Romney Kool Aid and is totally disconnected from reality. Romney's "speech" was a desperate as it was bereft of any substance. Romney is merely a holograph for the phony placebo conservative movement in America that despises evanlelical Christians. Sell out "coservative" lawyer/pundits like Hewitt, Sekulow, Benett, Bopp, Perkins,Hannity, and now Limbaugh are totally disconected from reality and heart and soul of the conservative movement. Mitt's speech marks the end of his "campaign." Now those who blindly supported him by supressing the truth about the fraud that is Mitt Romney will have to explain their deceit. People like Kool Aid Guzzling Hugh Hewitt whose time on the air is numbered. He has put all his eggs in the Mitt Romney "Basket." Hugh, if you are going to sleep with dogs, you're gonna get flees. Mitt's speech was a pathetic attempt to divert Americans from his RECORD which clearly shows that he illegally gave Massachusetts same sex marriage and left massachusetts with a socialist healthcare plan that included abortion on demand with a $50 copay after his purported "pro life epiphany." He is a fraud and an empty suit just like the Romniacs who blindly follow their Messiah.
Hugh, How much does it profit a man to gain the entire earth, but lose his soul? |
|
Romney said all the right things, though not everything he said is correct.
F'rinstance, he said that all of us are "children of God."
That is not true.
Is he saying that a child of the Devil is a child of God, too?? Jesus differentiated.
If what Romney said were true,
there would be no reason for God to require that we be born again;
there would be no reason for God to separate the goats from the sheep;
there would be no reason for Jesus to say that the gate to Heaven is strait, not broad, and that few will find it;
there would be no reason for Jesus to say that He is the ONLY Way to the Father.
God does not treat the obedient as He does the disobedient. Were He to treat both alike, there could be no justice. Though He loves all, His love does not preclude and stay His justice.
Romney also said that the settlers came here to establish "religious freedom." A diversity of "religious" views.
They did not.
They said that they came here to advance Christianity, to keep the "king" from enforcing an imposing the will of the Church of England on those who refused to give the Church of England what the Church of England thought was proper respect. It is the Church of England, backed by the king's power, that DENIED the access to God by the people, except through the Church.
So, they came here, Word in hand, to cause Christianity -- not an every-which-way diversity of "religious" views -- to flourish where it couldn't flourish under the Church of England and the king. In other words, they came here, where the King of kings would lord, where, they thought, everyone would embrace Christianity.
|
|
39 religion/religious
17 free/freedom
16 faith
16 american/americans
15 god
15 america
12 liberty
11 president
10 nation
10 church
09 people
08 believe
06 world
06 state
06 faiths
06 constitution
05 moral
05 generation
05 beliefs
05 affairs
04 separate
04 right
04 public
04 prayer
04 office
04 life
04 land
04 human
04 government
04 founders
04 convictions
04 commitment
04 cause
04 candidate
|
|
Well, it's not like anyone could have expected Hugh Hewitt to write an article:
"Romney falls short on religion speech"
I didn't hear the whole thing, it sounded good, probably not earthshaking in its impact although in politics the abornmal is the routine.
But, Mr. Action, the point I wanted to make is that I believe you seem to have gotten a sip of the special Kool Aid yourself. |
|
|
Get a clue. Oh what a riposte. Brob, in the Christmas season of grace, salvation, and forgiveness I pray that you will look into that same heritage, culture, values that the Judeo-Christians have provided over the last 5000 years. Mitt was just reminding liberals that religion is more than politics, ideology, socialism, pacifism and all the other fads and delusions that Liberals use to replace the above traditions and heritage and also Truth. His speech was to America about values and freedom. And the old chestnut about Conserv sins over sex , drugs and rocknroll is just nonsense. You better not be judging conservs over those failings when you add up all of the Left's peculiar inquities and the famous people on the Left side of the aisle, Hollywood, and the elites who so willingly judge Christianity and conservatives by projecting their own evil on their political enemies. Don't go there brob old buddy and just relax. Your guys and gals on the Left are supposed to trounce all those EVIL REPUBLICANS! Get a clue! |
|
How about important words like "the" and "is".
I'd bet good money Romney used those a whole bunch. The cat is out of the bag. |
|
It's not a "liberal" thing. People spell it as G-d out of respect to Judaic tradition.
Forgive a gentile if I get the details wrong, but according to Jewish law, if the Lord's name is written in full in any language, then one must dispose of the paper/material/digital display in a careful manner (i.e., you can't tear up the paper, burn it, etc.). To avoid a possible desecration of His name, G-d is written with a dash as a form of reverence. |
|
Talk is cheap. Romney appointed Democrats and Independents, including prominent homosexual activists as judges. As a GOP volunteer in another one-party state (Maryland) like Massachusetts, Romney's lack of support for the GOP speaks volumes to me. I would never take a chance on him as President, even though what he says sounds good and I admire his large family.
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found. Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005 |
|
....the modern Conservative misunderstands the Constitutional separation of church and state.
Compare Romney with JFK:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood."
Paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen: Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy.
|
|
3 hours+ the "sppech" the InTrade and IEM show increaed negatives for MR.
Bationally - he is now 21.7 behind RG - went from 18 pre speech to 21.7 post speech
Iowa - MH ahead by 35
NH, Mich - MR dropping - where the secular nature may not have received the speech as well.
SC - slight increase for MR and slight drop for RG.
remember this not people with just opinions but people investing their bucks. |
|
3 hours+ the "sppech" the InTrade and IEM show increaed negatives for MR.
Bationally - he is now 21.7 behind RG - went from 18 pre speech to 21.7 post speech
Iowa - MH ahead by 35
NH, Mich - MR dropping - where the secular nature may not have received the speech as well.
SC - slight increase for MR and slight drop for RG.
remember this not people with just opinions but people investing their bucks. |
|
The speech doesn't change the fact that Romney is a member of the LDS church. There are certain elements of Christianity that will not vote for a Mormon. Period. This speech will not change their minds.
For me, all that matters about his faith is that we share certain core beliefs. As others have said, we're talking about a potential President, not a national pastor.
My problem with Romney, centers around the fact that he was a Republican governor of the most left-of-center state in the Union.how does that happen? By following the Kerry model:
MR was pro-life before he was pro-choice before he was pro-life;
MR was pro-2nd Amendment before he was pro-gun control before he was pro-2nd Amendment;
MR was anti-homosexual before he was pro-homosexual before he was anti-homosexual;
etc, etc, etc.
You get the picture.
Maybe it's something in the water on the east coast? |
|
»»It's not a "liberal" thing. People spell it as G-d out of respect to Judaic tradition.««
Yeah, the Word of God talks about the traditions of the world and of men. Jesus got mighty upset about that.
|
|
Though I'll be supporting one of the "second-tier" candidates, and I don't trust Romney as far as I could throw him (probably four feet), but I'm willing to admit that the speech I read was pretty good.
I'm troubled by his speaking of liberty while his supporters deride tax reform and Ron Paul. Libery is freedom from government. Don't preach it unless your willing to practice it.
An aside, picking or disqualifying a candidate based on the way he or she looks is sophomoric. Mitt's a nice looking guy, so what? Disqualifying him because of it is just as stupid as voting for Hillary because she's a woman. There are many relevant reasons not to vote for another Rockefeller Republican (many are the same reasons not to vote for Hillary). The "Plastic Candidate" schtick is embarrassing to whomever writes it. |
|
|
Liberty redeems equality, without which equality is tyranny. Consequently liberty is a superior value. |
|
speaker? He never received more than 50% of the vote - and even his supporters thought his speeches overly long.
The only reason that gasbag became president is because a bunch of us were sick of Bush 41 and his taxes and liberal ways - shame on us for voting for Perot and in effect electing Clinton - he received 43% of the vote - most of Perot's 19% would have gone for Bush. The end result was not bad, as I doubt the Republicans could have taken the House in 1994 without the animosity the WJC and his Dem cronies created.
Perot was a factor in 1996, but not as much - he still would have put Ohio, Florida and some other key states in play for Dole had he not run.
His speeches, like his book were long, drawn out and snoozers - all the great speeches were short - Bill Clinton doesn't do short |
|
|
Yes but did Jack believe that funds must be withheld from charities that are run by this or that denomination, merely because they believe this or that way, rather than on the basis of demonstrated effect. Reverse bigotry is no virtue. |
|
|
You're right and "Mike" is wrong. Clinton (Bubba) is a good and convincing speaker. I actually believed him when he wagged his finger in my face and said he "didn't have sex with that woman." Imagine my chagrin when I discovered he lied about something so stupid. I have to thank him however, in teaching me that "character does matter." |
|
I heartily second the remarks above of laborlawyer, who notes correctly, "how completely the modern Conservative misunderstands the Constitutional separation of church and state." Attachment to this grotesque misunderstanding of the intentions of our Nation's founders will in my opinion marginalize the GOP over the coming decades, as the American electorate becomes even more pluralistic as the number of Muslims, Jews, Hindus and other religious adherents who call America home increases. Selling the cult of Christianity to other who already have their cult beliefs will be difficult, at best.
For Romney to state with apparent earnestness that, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom" betrays an intellectual deficit that is a mark of the Incurious Republicans. (OK, I admit that maybe Romney was just doing some political pandering to the truly incurious among us--the overly religious and the rank and file Republicans).
America is and always has been a liberal democratic republic dedicated to the pursuit of individual liberty, NOT a monarchical theocracy, and the pursuit of individual liberty is not the province of (monotheistic) religion.
|
|
Mr. Plumber,
Plastic is not a reason I wouldn't vote for him. That's not the point. For me the point is can plastic sell to the great unwashed apolitical masses next November. Going up against Hillary, who is plastic itself, it would be nice to have genuine. Unfortunately plastic Hill has the drive-by media on her side, so it will be an easier sell. I saw and heard today more genuine from Romney than I have in the past. The content was spectacular as well.
Don't kid yourself, this is all a humongous sales job, and I'm hoping our guy, whoever he is, is very good at it. (If you saw Mad Men it was very interesting to see how this ad agency was trying to sell Nixon vs. Kennedy.) So the plastic concern isn't embarrassing at all, nor is it a shallow concern. We've all heard you sell the sizzle not the bacon. I think Romney finally had some sizzle today. |
|
|
I completely respect Mitt Romney's faith and values but when you're in single digits nationally, this far along, these are the kinds of things you do. The man's problem is not his faith, it's his craven political pandering, flip-flopping, whatever you wish to call it, on about a thousand different issues. This guy is almost as bad as Hillary. He would be skewered in the general election but he won't even make it. Mitt Romney will make some company a fantastic C.E.O. but as a candidate - flush. |
|
you said about intrade, "remember this not people with just opinions but people investing their bucks."
that's the first time i've heard gambling described as investing! |
|
"Sorta like sex scandals on the right: they would not get so much play if the cons weren't so g.d. hypocritical about boinking and bone smoking."
Not sure what a "bone" is (I think I do, please pardon my un-hipness), but you're wrong about conservatives and sex. The fetching Mrs. Guano (not her real name) and I enjoy it - intensely. I have no doubt Mormons do as well judging from the size of an average Mormon family regardless of whatever doctrinal creed drives that level of procreation. It's when sex becomes a political agenda that the long knives come out for those promoting what amounts to perversion - which I assume "bone smoking" is. Or for those hypocrites who say one thing and do the other (ala Larry Craig). That's simply because any soulless animal can do those things. We demand more respect for each other as soulful, sentient beings made in the image of God. |
|
So he has a good speechwriting team. So he can deliver a speech well. So what? What in the speech is there to persuade voters to vote for him?
All he did, essentially, was put forth the claim that he won't make attempts to establish a national church of Mormon America. Big whoop. He still won't retract his support of the Assault Weapons Ban, so I won't vote for him. |
|
"Freedom and religion endure together, or
perish alone."
So it is and because of the truth of those words they will remain a central moment in American discourse for generations to come. |
|
1992 43%
1996 49%
Back to school Brob!
Proven wrong again |
|
|
|
I think you need a cigarette and a towel. ha
BAC |
|
»»he did twice what George Jr. only did once: get more votes than his opponant!««
Irrelevant.
George Bush got the majority of Electoral College votes and the majority of the states in both cases.
|
|
|
I find nothing dirty about sex, but you've convinced me you have. |
|
|
The speech was pretty good. He seemed a little nervous and why not,he had quite a bit riding.This took a lot of guts to tackle this and not run or hide from calling attention to his religion. I think there's isn't as much bigotry in the country as the media has made it out to be and I think one reason Mitt went ahead and gave the speech because he's tired of being hounded about it. This was very positive for him at a time more stuff comes out about Huck.Of course the cynics and nay sayers are going nuts but who cares,Romney reached a broader swath of Americans today and greatly raised his profile.Romney is the last guy the liberals want to be President because he destroys their narrative about the GOP being war mongers. crooks,perverts,etc.They hate how clean cut he is. They won't let him get off easy,they'll complimnet his speech,regroup and find another way to attack him. |
|
So you couldn't win what you said, so you change it. NICE.
__________________________________________
Let's face reality: Clinton won in two landslides,
_____________________________________
Your words dummie! |
|
Tell me you didn't enter into the cyclops with BrobERTA!!!
Won't you (we) ever learn??? |
|
It troubles me when Hugh gushes over Romney. It makes me think it's just because Hugh likes Romney so much, rather than Hugh just being objective.
Over at Powerline is an example of an objective analysis of Romney's speech. Powerline acknowledges that Romney gave a good speech without the screaming, over-the-top superlatives that Hugh lavishes upon Romney.
|
|
|
The problem is, under the American constitutional system, freedom FROM religion is also a cherished right. JFK knew this; like most modern conservatives, Romney does not. |
|
|
...all of the "yeah, but"s there are on this thread. I'll have to admit, I am having a great time today. A great speech--even better the second time. |
|
George W did not have a landslide - but in both of his elections he received more of a percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in his corresponding election:
WJC 1992 - 43% Bush 2000 - 47.9%
WJC 1996 - 49% Bush 2004 - 50.7
You cannot say landslide when more people vote against you than for you.
His speeches would still be boring even if he did win by a landslide.
I stand by my statement - the "vast majority" of Americans do not consider him a great speaker. Never did, never will. Triangulator in Chief, perhaps, great speaker, not so much.
Mitt's speech may go down in history as a defining moment - time will tell. In reading the text, it is much better than anything Clinton ever uttered, and if it is true that he penned it himself, I am even more impressed.
Romney has received the accolades of the people who count for the Republican Primaries - Rush, Dobson etc. This will have an impact on the early primaries.
MSM is pushing Huckabee, but his taxes, stance on illegals and his handling of criminals will sink him fast - big bounce on the horizon for Romney
|
|
»»cons are not content with having the freedom to practice their own religion, but want to use the power of government to force it on others. ««
Oh, really??
|
|
Yep, Romney accomplished what he wanted to with this speech. He convinced the evangelicals that he is downfor their theocratic plan. Free Republic is pretty excited bout the line "common creed of moral convictions."
Code for advancing the evangelical's agenda.
Seriously, Mitt scares me. I see him as a demogogue of the highest order, willing to say or do anything to get the presidency. Historically, he who panders the most gets the presidencey.
He picked the right party for it, that's for sure.
Those who hate Mormons will be unmoved, but I see an uptick in the enthusiasm about this guy from the crazy Right-Wing base.
I very much hope is that Huckabee wins in Iowa, screwing up Mitt's three-state strategy and catapaulting the much more vulnerable Rudy to the nomination.
|
|
»»Cons want to ban abortion...««
We want to protect the Right of a person to live.
»»... and reintroduce prayer in schools. ««
We want to State to stop interfering with the Right of a person, on public property, to enjoy the benefits of the First Amendment -- that is, to worship.
|
|
»»Why the insistence that the state get involved in the contents of a womans uterus?««
The Nazis never called what they did "killing." They called it "cleansing."
So, here you are calling the child inside its mother "contents." Interesting.
If there is a person inside the mother, the Constitution protects that person. After all, the Constitution protects persons.
If there is a person inside the mother, that person enjoys the Right to Due Process.
Roe versus Wade says that, had the issue of "personhood" been before the Supreme Court, and the mere suggestion of "personhood" established, that the Court would have had to rule the other way.
The State of Texas merely did not argue "personhood." Had the State argued "personhood," the ruling would have been the other way. It was a mistake. Incompetence.
All we have to do now is to get Congress, and/or state legislatures, to define "personhood" as beginning at conception and VOILÀ! After all, the Legislative is the defining branch of government, and it has the Right to define terms in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, several states are doing this now.
»» Why the desire to have government officials lead prayer? ««
No one government officials leading prayer. Who told you that? The Devil?
»»Why not let the woman, who bears all the risks of giving birth, decide?««
If what she carries is a person, she is not allowed to decide to kill that person.
»» Why do cons insist on the government butting in ««
You mean, like, those claiming to be homosexual trying to get the State to come down on their side?? We see. |
|
»»why do cons insist on everyone paying for their religious speech?««
Nobody insists that every one pay for religious speech. Speech, in this country, is Free. That includes religious speech.
»» Like that nut judge in 'Bama . . . why should the non-believers or even people who just believe differently have their tax dollars confiscated to fund his nonsense?««
You'll have to ask the majority of voters. |
|
I think we agree. I won't go so far as to say that he was encouraged to run because he's a pretty face. Sales job though? Definately.
There isn't a single top-tier candidate who isn't out-n-out lying to conservatives in hopes of getting the nomination. They are all Rockefeller liberals (or as Hugh calls them: center-right) who'll say anything to get us unwashed rubes to vote for them.
I heard Hannity the other day saying that it doesn't matter where the candidates were on issues ten years ago, what matters is where they are now. After I got done laughing, I promptly vomited. Hannity has turned into even more of a joke than Hugh. Anyway, if the GOP voters are foolish enough to nominate Fred, Huck, Mitt, or Rudy, and the nominee in turn wins the general election, rest assured that he won because the alternative was so distasteful, NOT because he's the best person for the job.
Me personally? I see no virtue in being a centrist. When good compromises with bad, bad wins. When right compromises with left, left wins. It sickens me to hear Rockefeller Republicans speak of liberty when it is they who are so willing to use it as a tool for compromise. |
|
Word to the wise....don't enter the bog that is BrobERTA, Lefty hateful who gets worked up till you think you're talking to Lucifer, himself. You wouldn't beleive what he said about 9/11 a few months back. Neocon and I just couldn't believe what came out of that pit.He hates all GOP people but especially the Southern Christians.It they ever reinstitute the lion's dens, he'll be there feeding us to em' with a big grin on his face. Just save your pearls, brother. there's no hope apart from a Damascus road for that one.
http://www.persecution.org
In prayer for those who already suffer. |
|
|
Re: entering the cyclops with BrobERTA. Just having a spot of fun with ole Brob, or at his expense rather. Either way it's a hoot!! |
|
The speech Mitt Romney delivered today will (and should) go down in history as one of the most succinct overviews of the American spirit written in decades. If not ever written.
Be ye political operatives for Hillary, far-right tent revivalists or Rudy apologists who want to confound Mitt's message by taking phrases out of context ---- admit it --- no candidate for POTUS in recent history could have delivered this speech with the authority, clarity or sincerity which Mitt demonstrated.
Godspeed, Mitt Romney.
|
|
"Did Romany convert anti-Mormon fanatics or secular absolutists? Of course not, but they are very few"
Fifty-six percent of white evangelical Christians - a major portion of likely participants in the early GOP presidential contests in Iowa and South Carolina - expressed reservations about a Mormon candidate.
|
|
because they spent like democrats and went liberal on immigration.
The 2006 election has been misread - if it were a referendum on the war, Liebermann would have lost. The House was taken because the Dittoheads and Focus on the Family types stayed home - they will not stay home in 2008 unless there is a liberal Republican running - Rudy will have to convince Cons that he will pick Roberts/Alito type judges.
Dems will be in trouble if the Republicans pick a true conservative candidate - on the right side of immigration, taxes and national defense - I would paint California Red if the right candidate campaigns hard here on stopping illegal immigration |
|
I've met self-described liberal Democrats here in Colorado who are totally beside themselves over what illegal immigration is turning Colorado into.
Massive population growth has created a brown cloud that extends from Colorado Springs to Ft. Collins. It wasn't that way before George W. Bush took office. |
|
|
Too bad she's pro-abortion, like Mitt, eh, Hugh? |
|
We Americans are hungry to reconnect to our history, hence, the popularity of Oliver North's, "War Stories." Regardless of the ostensible political reason for the speech, everything Romney demonstrated cast him in a light that is distinguished deeply from the other candidates, in particular, Mrs. Clinton. Can anyone reading this post IMAGINE her delivering such an address on any topic? If a crisis were to befall the nation and the President had to go before 300 million eyes, can we imagine President Romney in that ultimate moment? Answer, yes.
Now, in that same moment, we all know that Mrs. Clinton would be a disaster, and, in fact, would likely to be preempted by her husband. But, moreover, and more importantly, Mitt Romney has enabled us to see what a President is and can be.
Were he to address each of our contemporary challenges with new speeches of equal quality rooted in history and the theory of America he could turn into the President before our very eyes. I suggest he craft an address that deals with the origins of the conflict with an ancient foe first faced by President Jefferson: the Islamist Barbary Pirates. A nice touch would be to cite the fact that the Vatican thanked us! We need to feel our history in our bones as fellow countrymen in order to face the future with confidence and to face it as AMERICANS, not as taxpayers in some UN Utopia run by the Clintons. This is what Reagan gifted our nation, and Mitt Romney, if he just lets it roll, can do the same at this station on the way. |
|
I am so relieved at Mitt's statement:
>"We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way..."<
Even though he is addressing and trying to reassure the whole country, this little coded phrase slipped in the middle of his speech, tells the Mormon faithful that he and his wife won't abandon LDS teachings. Mitt’s affirmation that he is still on the road to perfection is a powerful signal to the Latter Day Saints that he will make his beliefs central to his administration. See "Be Ye Therefore Perfect..." http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6057 - Speech by Spencer W. Kimball)
Fellow Mormons know the history, to have always aspired to have a brother in the White House, and it’s now within reach. And with new "friends" in the evangelicals helping to make it so.
Mitt is ready to fulfill Joseph Smith's 1843 "White Horse Prophecy" prediction that one day American citizens would be denied their most basic rights and the U.S. Constitution would "hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber. A terrible revolution will take place in the land of America, such as has never been seen before; for the land will be left without a Supreme Government, and every specie of wickedness will be practiced rampantly in the land."
Brother Joseph said it would be up to the Mormon faithful, symbolized by the white horse (taken from John's Book of Revelation), to ride in and save the republic from collapsing. "I love the Constitution; it was made by the inspiration of God, and it will be preserved and saved by the efforts of the White Horse."
Indeed, Joseph and his brothers and sisters in the Celestial Kingdom must surely be smiling knowing that Mitt is the chosen one to save our nation at this precise time in history! |
|
|
When a baby dreams is it human regardless of location, and if Brob doesn't dream? |
|
Not freedom in leu of nothing, but freedom to: have conscience and assembly as one sees fit--that's the whole of it.
Otherwise "from" means nothing at all. |
|
There is no doubt that Romney delivered an excellent speech on faith and freedom. It is likely to go down as the "Symphony of Faiths" speech.
I even admit that he presented Presidentially and it was not a leap to envision him in a historically significant state of the union speech.
The flip side now is that I'm hearing even more whispers of what he really believes as a Mormon. Apparently, he opened a door that many more want to enter into and find answers to their questions of Romney's faith. I might even qualify it as a fear of the unfamiliar, but among evangelicals, Mormonism is still a 90-minute Sunday school lesson on religious oddity in America. So my assessment is that while Romney scored a home run with his magnificent speech on faith in America, to many evangelicals, he may have well scored on a field foreign to mainstream Christianity. Questions still remain. |
|
Hugh, Hugh, Hugh.
Mitt Romney is more fake than Al Gore. Now that's saying something!
He is like a robot.
And his religion is complete and total nonsense. How can you buy into this garbage!!!1
Maybe Dan Bartlett had it right about you.......... ..... |
|
For an intelligent evangelical response to the speech, check out:
http://www.redletterbelievers.blogspot.com |
|
|
at 7:39pm is worthy of note. Trust me. Jousting with that seditionist turd is like spraying him with Miracle Grow. A bootomless narcissist's appetite for attention--ANY kind of attention. |
|
|
I will explain it to you in a way that is very logical .. in another location .. http://www.debate.com |
|
Really people .. think of this .. he running for election to govern the state of Massachusetts .. to be their representative to lead their state .. doesn't it make sense .. and isn't it proper that he would say that he would represent them ..?
He said he would not make any laws to limit the lawful "women's right to choose" for instance .. this is what the vast majority of Mass. voters wanted right ..? He is telling them he will represent their wishes .. and to govern well ..
But beyond the decisions for new laws that were limited by Roe v. Wade .. Mitt did rule to further the protection of conceived life within the strictures of the Supreme Court decisions .. and for this he actually won the praise of ProLife Massachusetts organizations ..
the same with gun control .. he was representing the desires of the voters and elected legislature of Massachusetts ..
He was performing the service of an elected governor .. not a willful dictator .. |
|
The dictatorship of the mob is better? 50+1 gives all laws legitimacy?
Government officials are bound by contract. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are the only guides that should be consulted when advocating a new law.
Adherence to the contract may not be popular, but it is right. Don't like it? Amend the Constitution.
|
|
|
but the court is the judge of whether the law is constitutional ... not you .. not me .. and not the governor .. |
|
|
|