[ZGuy]

Lots of pro-Romney speech threads here, so here's one not so favorable. Hugh Hewitt's blog review was also very favorable to Mitt, but Hugh's writings were described as "bizarre" over at Red State.

I found it humorous that Hugh, who is the biggest cheerleader for Romney out there, had as his guest host yesterday, Mark Stein who interviewed John Podhoritz (?) and they both agreed that Romney giving that speech was a terrible move that made him look like an amateur and was the worst thing he could have done politically.

[sageb1]

Mitt Romney, the Mormon (What’s That?!)

By Father Jonathan Morris

[pissant]

It was a good speech, but will not help him.

[sageb1]

I agree it was not a wise move. Today’s columnists have decided to explain all the things Romney left out.

[Count of Monte Logan]

As a Mormon (who opposes Romney on his liberal record), I again see this assumption about main-stream christianity.

The jews reguarded all the prophets and even Christ himself as apostates and rejected and killed them. Christians were considered part of a cult early on.

I guess I will take your frivolous words and your minister’s interpretation of the bible as the gospel. Prayer and personal testimony on my part should be abandoned.

[STARWISE]

I thought he did a great job .. stated his position
clearly and gave historical information on which
America needed reminding about religion and politics.

[Hoodlum91]

Regardless of how Romney’s speech went, this is reflecting VERY poorly on evangelicals.

[greyfoxx39]

Here's John Podhoretz' take:

Mitt Romney’s Boilerplate Mistake

John Podhoretz - 12.06.2007 - 13:08

So Mitt Romney, facing the rise of Mike Huckabee’s Christian-centric campaign in Iowa and judging that the Huckabee surge is related to discomfort with Romney’s Mormonism, gave his much-anticipated speech on faith this morning. It’s perfectly fine Republican boilerplate — faith must inform our views but it does not guide them, the public square should not be naked, our Founders believed in religion and yet even they had to deal with intolerance toward minority faiths, Martin Luther King was really very good, etc. etc. Many commentators on the Right are praising the speech, but I fear they’re grading on a curve; strictly as a matter of rhetoric, it tended toward the bland. The only genuinely novel aspect of it was the addition of the Mormon trail to a brief account of the history of religious intolerance in America (”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…”).

The key passage is this:

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….

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.

That’s entirely fine. But there’s something oddly pointless about this protestation. Who is the audience for this speech, aside from people like me who make their living in part watching them and reading their texts and writing about them? No one thought Romney would say that Mormon elders would play a leading role in his White House counseling him on policy. Anyone inclined to believe such a thing won’t be convinced by Romney’s protestations in any case.

Romney has always had an uphill battle in this election, although you’re not supposed to say it, as it will occasion someone else delivering you a long speech about religious tolerance. As far as minority religions go, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is one of the minority-est. There are, by at least one count, three times as many Jews in the United States. The number of Americans who openly profess to be Christian is around 74 percent; the number of those raised Christian is 84 percent. Americans are without a doubt the most tolerant people on earth, but religion is very important to them, and someone whose fellow believers number 1/55th of the population of the United States is someone who is going to have trouble closing the deal with voters.

For those who don’t know Romney is a Mormon, well, they sure will now. For the next two or three days, it’s all anybody will know about him. Chances are it is the word that people will most associate with him from here on out. I don’t think that’s a good direction for a campaign that finds itself in the fight of its life in Iowa against the most explicitly Christian candidate in the field. (The only response so far comparable to mine is David Frum’s, though his typically trenchant criticism has more to do with the underlying meaning of the speech.)

»Back to Contentions

 

Link

[trisham]

It was a good speech, but if it was intended to influence Evangelicals, I doubt it was successful.

[Dustbunny]

We did not think Romney bombed. He gave and excellent speech.

We still prefer Duncan Hunter as a first choice!

[greyfoxx39]

Here is David Frum:

Thursday, December 06, 2007

That Dog Won't Hunt

Sorry to dissent from my colleagues on the Corner, but once the murmurs over the oratory subside, people are going to realize: that speech did not work. Here's why:

"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."

To be blunt, Romney is saying:

It is legitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the son of God?"

But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?"

It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference. Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. This speech for all its eloquence will not stanch the flow of such questions.

Bad move - and one with very unfair results to a candidate who all must acknowledge is a man who has proven that his mind actually operates in a highly empirical, data-driven, and uncredulous way.

Had he focused instead on simply arguing that presidents need only prove themselves loyal to American values, he would have been on safe ground. Instead, he over-reached, super-adding to his civic appeal an additional appeal to voters who demand faith in Jesus as a requirement in a president. That is an argument that will not work - and a game Mitt Romney cannot win.

12/06 12:21 PM

 

[Badeye]

Its always interesting to compare initial reactions to a given political speech, after time has passed.

The media and political commentators of the day mocked Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address unmercifully. As we all know today, its known as one of the greatest speeches ever given to millions, more than a century later.

The same was said of Reagans ‘Tear Down This Wall’ speech, more or less. Today we all know it was one of those moments that changed the world we grew up in (if you were alive for Duck and Cover training in grade school, you know what I mean here).

I suspect Romney’s speech will survive the test of time, not on par with my two examples, but the response to it is on par with both from what I’m reading today, in some quarters.

I don’t think the detractors comments will survive that same test, any more than those denigrating Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address or Reagans ‘Wall’ speech have.

Just my opinion, it was a good speech, well delivered from the heart. We’ll see if it was a turning point less than a year from now.

[Star Traveler]

The article said — “To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.”

Well, it’s very clear that one can say, without a doubt, that the Mormon teachings and doctrines are clearly not traditional, historic and/or basic, fundamental (meaning “of the fundamentals”) Christianity.

In other words, Mormon teaching and doctrine *is not* Christian teaching and doctrine.

All one has to find out, about a “particular person” in regards to this particular issue is whether they adhere to Mormon teaching or doctrine — or rather — Christian teaching and doctrine (which is in opposition to Mormon teaching and doctrine).

Thus, while it does sound uncomplimentary, in a way, to say someone is “not Christian” — it’s definitely not uncomplimentary to say that Mormon doctrine and teaching is *not* Christian teaching and doctrine. And that’s how these things should be framed — because it is so abundantly clear from much Christian research and looking at much of the Mormon teaching and materials, that this is so.

What is so puzzling is why the Mormons try so hard at pretending to adhere to Christian doctrine and teaching and then go to trash it in their own teachings and undo it all by what they consider their authoritative works. Why don’t the Mormons simply distinguish themselves clearly — to the public — as *radically different* in their theology from Christian theology. That would be the much more honest position.

And when one doesn’t take the “honest position” (in regards to one’s own theology) one must ask why one is being so dishonest in this matter.

Regards,
Star Traveler

P.S. — I don’t have a problem with someone choosing Mormon theology for themselves, if that’s what they want, because the true Creator God of the universe allows every person the choice of whether they believe in the Messiah of Israel and His salvation and provided according to the Scriptures (and as outlined in Christian theology). Just be honest and say that you don’t accept the God of Christian theology and accept a different god of a different theology. It’s a free country here. Everyone can choose their own religion (even if it doesn’t get you “votes”... :-) ... ). Oh..., wait a minute..., that may be the source of the problem... ah yes... “getting votes...”

[Jacquerie]

Mitt gives a great speech about America and gets hammered.

Meanwhile, where are the queries to B. Hussein Obama about his Islamic background and beliefs? Where are the polls asking Evangelicals of their views regarding Islam?

Oh, that’s right, daily colonoscopies are for the GOP only.

[Leisler]

"..Mark Stein who interviewed John Podhoritz (?) and they both agreed that Romney givin..."

If you are into speaking and writing as exposition, it was a bad speech on many levels. If you are into emotional, political speech as theater, it was a good product/production.

[Star Traveler]

The article says — “The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney’s candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, “Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon.” None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don’t want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot?”

And that’s why Romney is *not electable* (can’t win). He won’t get the support of committed Christians and/or Evangelicals (as a “group”). I know I won’t be voting for Romney is he ever gets the “nod”. I’m just hoping he doesn’t get the nomination, so I won’t have that kind of situation to deal with.

Regards,
Star Traveler

[JRochelle]

I think it was a good speech.

But it was a sign of desperation on Romney’s part. He is chalking up his losing to Huckabee to bigotry. Thats bull.

Huck hasn’t taken much of Romney’s support away.

[Inspectorette]

And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.

This is pure B.S. I don't know how old this writer is, but I am old enough to remember JFK's candidacy. In 1960, when JFK was running, the general public did not know of his behavior with women, etc. One of his closest friends and advisors was the late Cardinal Cushing of Boston, one of he most powerful clerics in America at that time.

[Williams]

This article is absurd. It basically follows the format “True Romney said he likes apple pie and loves his mother, and all politicians have said that, but ....” And then we can hear reason being tortured as the bizarre criticism unfolds. Ridiculous.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Huck -> Gee whiz, Huck Finn
Mitt -> Large wallet, Richy Rich

Huck -> Can talk about his faith all he wants
Mitt -> Can’t talk about his faith without alienating
those whose support he needs. He avoids it.

Huck -> Quick on his feet, comes across as authenic
in that he believes his words
Mitt -> Corporate speak, measured words, wanting to
say just the right thing. Any day, there will be rumors
out of the camp that some want to “let Mitt be Mitt”.

Huck -> Always pro-life
Mitt -> Newcomer to the party

disclaimer: I’m not for either...

[papagall]

The best essay on the 'great speech' I've read so far (and I've been reading since the man closed his presentation).

"To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality." This fine point is purposely blurred on Internet forums by the Romney campaign army. Mitt Romney, from 'most' perspectives, is a moral man, exemplary in fact on many issues of personal living. But if his religion is pretending to be restored Christianity, that is vastly more antithetical to the gospel of Grace since Mormonism is founded upon earning exaltation (which is Mormon code for 'allowed into God's presence', corresponding to the Christian concept of Salvation); to the extent one merits salvation, it is not Grace of God offered only in Christ Jesus. Grace (from the Greek woird translated) is unmerited favor, and Peace is cessation of againstness. These are the essence of Christianity and neither fits with the Mormon conceptualization of Joseph Smith/Brigham Young theology.

As to tolerance, I tolerate fools and criminals every day as I wend my way through life, by not exposing the fools and ignoring minor criminality. But big crime, like thievery of a store or bank, or pummeling a person unjustly, well, I carry my eight round clip and one in the pipe to respond if needed in .45 specifics.

I'm growing more intolerant every day, come to think of it. I don't need to tolerate bigoted bigotry (reverse bigotry) as a means to hide a feckless northeastern liberal's history so he can slip in as the republican nominee. I will factor his religious affiliation into my calculations as I damn well please regardless of his whine for tolerance of his cult.