Open thread: Gov. Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech
posted at 8:38 am on December 6, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
At 10:30 am today, Gov. Mitt Romney will deliver his “Faith in America” speech. Because it is being carried live on Ustream, we’ll carry the speech here. Keep an eye on this post.
Update: Here is the Ustream channel recorded speech.
If the embedded recording doesn’t work, you can go here to watch it.
Here are a few excerpts from the speech.
“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 Adam’s 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.”
…
“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 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.”
Update (AP): Excellent point by Geraghty: “Chances are, you have an idea in your head of what you think Romney should say. And my guess is, he’s not going to say it. A lot of people are going to walk away saying, ‘Why did he say X when he should have talked about Y?’”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
He’s my guy… and I am a cafeteria catholic ;-)
Jared_MA on December 6, 2007 at 8:48 AM
Seriously though, if he ended the speech with “Word to your mother”, he’d have the race won instantly.
Jared_MA on December 6, 2007 at 8:49 AM
B.S. alert from a pro-abortion Republican in a religion that excluded blacks from the priesthood until 1978. The issue of race is deeply embedded in The Book of Mormon.
Valiant on December 6, 2007 at 8:51 AM
HAH!!!!
You can’t blame Mitt for the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood. He was born into Mormonism and may have been against that policy, who knows? All religions have their “issues” in the past (and sometimes present); doesn’t mean you can blame every last person in the flock.
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 8:56 AM
I should note that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Would you thus say the issue of race is deeply embedded in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, and thus we should disestablish America because the founders and their political and actual descendants excluded blacks from public office?
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 8:57 AM
You’d think he’d give the Muslims a shout out, after the whole Cabinet fiasco. Oh, well.
Big S on December 6, 2007 at 9:01 AM
Seriously, though, I like how Mitt is getting criticized for refusing to explain the particulars of the Book of Mormon, like the Garden of Eden thing. Do we really want each of the candidates to have to explain the most ridiculous aspects of each of their religions. Heck, let’s get Keith E and Joey Liebs out there, too, to explain the silly parts of their religions.
I think we can draw the line at Scientology, though. Thetans, aliens, bombs in volcanos to release alien spirits, etc. That would be cool to see a candidate explain away that crap!
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 9:01 AM
I was alive in 1978- this is not ancient history.
Valiant on December 6, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Holding someone’s religion against them, especially when they were born into it, is pretty damn stupid. I would bet a better idea would be to hold someone’s own rational thought against them, not their associates.
Jared_MA on December 6, 2007 at 9:08 AM
Did Mitt Romney write the Book of Mormon? No.
Hell, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only happened 43 years ago. There are loads of companies who, up to that point and still for years after did not promote blacks to stations of much power or influence.
Although I suppose to you, 1964 is “ancient history” whereas 1978 is “modern.”
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 9:10 AM
.
On behalf of the many atheist commenters at Hot Air:
Yes.
saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 9:17 AM
I thought Mitt Romney was running for President, not the Mormon religion… when will I ever figure this out?
Jared_MA on December 6, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Now are those statements after the “all men are created equal” or before?
What one man does, is different then what is written. A man dies, but the constitution (written word) lived and lives on.
Funny, you think Jefferson was the constitution.
I guess you would think illegitimate children are in the constitution because of Franklin.
right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 9:20 AM
When the founders wrote “all men are created equal” the actual policy was “all (white land-owning men) are created equal.”
Your second comment is insulting and unworthy of response, but then again you’ve never had any problem being an insulting, irrelevant, tiresome fool when it suits you.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 9:23 AM
Mormonism itself is not anti-black, but some of its leaders were and established chruch doctrine that prevented blacks from attaining the priesthood. There is nothing anti-black in the Book of Mormon that I am aware of.
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 9:26 AM
As long as he separates running the country from his religion, no problem. A religious leader can’t be a leader of a country. As long as his allegiance is to the country is first and foremost, then great.
The problem is…he is a flip flopper. He needs to be seasoned, for one to believe him.
Look at the Big Dig, he protected his Mormon bretherern (Bechtel) to a fault. He did not put the interest of the state before his loyalty to Bechtel, that is obvious.
Mitt has to prove himself with action, not words. Abortion, gun control, taxes, being a conservative, the war, all of these he has changed his mind in the past couple of years. What good are his words? If he can’t back them with action.
right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 9:28 AM
I’m absolutely not joking about what I am writing right now…I will definitely be voting for Romney in the primaries after seeing what was in this speech. I liked him before, but am in awe of him now. It’s extremely unfortunate that there are so many bigots out there deriding the specifics of his faith. I even see that there are a few of you posting comments here. For shame! Read the speech at his website. I hope it will cause you to think twich before posting such bigoted nonsense again.
davenp35 on December 6, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Which may start people talking about the doctrines of the LDS, which is why I think this is a mistake.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 9:31 AM
davenp35 on December 6, 2007 at 9:29 AM
It is very dangerous to be in awe of any candidate.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 9:32 AM
First Mitt says; “..that oath becomes my highest promise to God.”
Then Mitt says; “I will serve, …, no one interest.”
Which is it Mr. Romney? Is it that your highest promise to God is to serve no one interest?
As president, what’s wrong with serving your country under the auspices of your moral and ethical scruples?
Lawrence on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Five minutes after the speech….someone pulls out the ‘dog-on-car’ story. MSNBC has the dog exhumed to search for signs of foul play and evidence of it’s citizenship.
All this kinda crud is because the media doesn’t like the answers to policy questions. The answers make them look stupid.
Mitt….hit a home run today. Put all the inquisitors in the ‘L’ column.
Limerick on December 6, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Read:
2 Nephi 5:21-23 and
In 2 Nephi 30:6, the the Book of Mormon as originally translated (or written; opinions differ) by Joseph Smith said that if Lamanites accepted the true gospel,
“…their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people.”
After 1981, the term “white and delightsome” was changed to read “pure” — an unusual action for a book considered to be inspired by God in its original version. 5
3 Nephi 2:15 reads:
“And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.”
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 9:35 AM
I’ve been for Mitt ever since I saw him on CSPAN giving a speech to S.C. Republicans in January 2005.
I’m glad he’s giving this speech but I also think it’s a shame that he has to give this history/civics lesson to the American people, but no surprise since many have not learned these basics in government schools.
So now maybe we can get past this religion issue and focus on the real issues, heh, like his landscapers.
Perhaps, but not likely, this will head off the ubiquitous undergarment question at future debates.
Brat on December 6, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Can anyone translate this nonsensical comment for me? I have difficulty following r2b’s “logic”.
Good. Then we know you were also alive in 1999. What is the significance of that date?
Better late than never!
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Sorry you were offended, but your Jefferson statement fell into the same cat. as Franklin.
All men are created equal…all men. Sorry you can’t read that.
Later, in the North that meant all men, in the South that meant some men, in the end the North won. Remember? The reason it won is because here it is again “all men are created equal”.
It was Madison who wrote: “”The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. ”
He was the stumbling block, not Jefferson. Jefferson understood his weakness, but as a good leader he put the interests of the country before his interests…to form a more perfect union.
Don’t get so snotty, when you’re the one who stepped in it.
right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 9:37 AM
I find it most curious that there is all this discussion about whether or not a Mormon is fit to be President because of his faith at the same time we have:
Senator Orrin Hatch on some of the Senate’s most important committees including Judiciary and Intelligence.
Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader.
Senator Gordon Smith and 15 Congressmen are also LDS members.
Michael Barone is a Mormon.
Yet……. Somehow and despite the fact that Romney ran one of the country’s most liberal states successfully, he is being characterized as unfit for office based on his affiliation with a particular denomination that many Christians consider a cult. Why isn’t some of this same scrutiny and bigotry applied to Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch? They are in the second-tier of political power elites and nobody has ever suggested they are unfit for office because of being Mormon! Same goes, for that matter, to the Jewish politicians including Joe Lieberman or that Muslim from Minn. that just got elected to Congress.
The American public is not going to elect (or not elect) a candidate based solely on that individual’s faith. Baptists and Mormons are far more closely aligned when it comes to family values than anything put forth by the seemingly Godless Hillary Clinton or the UCC Secular Humanist Obama. I think that will ultimately become apparent once the field has been narrowed through the primary process.
highhopes on December 6, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Rewriting history is the purview of liberals. What actually happened was I made a comment in jest about america being considered racist (and therefore worthy of scorn) because some of the founders owned slaves and these same founders wrote the Declaration and the Constitution. Anyone taking even a glance at my comment could tell I was asking a rhetorical question, except for certain people who shall remain nameless which repeatedly prove themselves to have a visceral hatred for the Mormon faith.
You were the one who brought in illegitimate children, not me.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 9:48 AM
I don’t think there is anyone who is saying that a Mormon shouldn’t be president because of his faith. At least I’m not. IMHO, it is an issue with some Evangelicals because they don’t want the free publicity going to the Mormon church that would result from such an event. It seems Mitt is worried enough about it to make this speech. I think the speech is a bad idea because it will cause people to look more deeply into Mormonism and they will then find, as I have been posting, that it is completely different from Christianity. People tend to vote for people they identify with and most Republicans are Christians. I could be wrong, we will know in the next few weeks as the polls come in.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Read also this:
“he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” (2 Nephi 26:33).
Joseph Smith also was for blacks attaining the priesthood and worshipping in Nauvoo Temple. He called for the ending of slavery as early as 1840, education and equal right for blacks in 1843. His adopted brother was black and Smith appointed him to be a Seventy Apostle.
The roots of Mormonism are not founded in racism. Is the later leaders, jumpstarted by Brigham Young, who started the racist crap.
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 9:52 AM
I am trying to figure out what Mitt’s GOAL is, and what it ought to be, with this speech.
Kennedy had a simple goal in his speech; ensure anti-Catholics that he would not take his marching orders as President from the Pope.
What is Mitt’s goal? The need for the speech at all seems to grow out of Evangelical Christian opposition to the Mormon religion itself, and Mitt’s adherence to it. In fact the opposition DOES reach into the heart of what Mormonism believes and what its precepts are.. the very thing that Mitt evidently will NOT talk about.
So if his goal is to convince Evangelicals and other skeptical Christians that a Mormon would be OK in theWhite House, does he accompish his mission by simply reiterating freedom of religion in America and that one ought not to question another’s religion?
I mean will that SATISFY the Opponents of Mitt/Mormonism right now? Will they say: OK, I still believe Mormonism is a dopey CULT but Mitt says the American way is to ignore religious stuff like that and so I will.
If that is the thrust of Mitts speech, it will find a nice place in future civics readers, but may not help Mitt win the nomination.
We’ll see….
Always Right on December 6, 2007 at 9:53 AM
OOOOh, a visceral hatred for the Mormon faith…how visceral of you.
The illegitimate children (Franklin) was an example of your foolish Jefferson analogy…guess that one got by you. See I used an analogy to disprove your analogy, guess that was to advanced. But that’s okay, BuyDanish didn’t understand the analogy either. I will try to use smaller words, and type slower, maybe you guys will understand it.
Here it is, both Franklin and Jefferson signed and were
major contributorsboth wrote things to the constitution. They both had weakness in their lives (Franklin illigit children, Jefferson slaves) so I…never mind you won’t get it.right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Modern leaders changed the Book of Mormon to eliminate racism in the 1980s. It doesn’t matter, Mormonism is an evolving faith, has been since its conception. I don’t think that is an issue.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Please be complete, the priesthood he advocated fell short of the priesthood for whites.
Be honest, now tell us what priesthood was available for blacks and which for whites? Be honest now. This is a test for Mormon honesty.
right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 10:04 AM
*yawn*
Ochlan on December 6, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Ok, his dad marched with the man. This has plus points politically, but mentioning this without mentioning the conflict with your own church’s beliefs (at the time), the faith on which you say in this speech your life is centered… it feels like name-dropping. It feels like you’re playing a card.
If Romney runs against her majesty, he’s toast.
If he runs against Obama, he’s burnt toast.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 10:11 AM
If every person who said they marched with King was there, no one was home.
right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 10:15 AM
I’m not so sure the divide with evangelical Christians isn’t engineered by the media. Will it influence some votes, absolutely!
But is this a legitimate concern or is it Romney’s faith really being used as a wedge by the media to separate Romney (and Huckabee) from potential voters who distrust evangelicals or those with “issues” about candidates expressing any sort of faith? I think so.
To a certain degree Rudy is being forced on the GOP by a bunch of malcontents who distrust the Christian Conservative Movement. Unlike elections past, they see this election as thier opportunity to seize the GOP back from all the Jesus Freaks. I, for one, am not willing to settle for Rudy. Furthermore the “Jesus Freaks” have been the backbone of this party since the 1980s. All this bashing of Romney and Huckabee over their faith is nothing short of a coup de etat by the so-called moderates in the party that have given us people like Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter. I want a real discussion about the real issues and not all this distraction and divisiveness as (perhaps well-meaning) partisans seek to influence the nomination process by casting aspersions on candidates by making insinuations about their faith.
Why is it that the Rudy supporters fear a legitimate debate with the other contenders?
highhopes on December 6, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Hello? Are you there? Please answer…even if it is painful, you must face the facts. You are representing the faith with your post.
right2bright on December 6, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Valiant mentions 1978. I wonder if he was alive in 1965:
CC: right2bright
Maybe Valiant was even around in 1962?:
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 10:17 AM
r2b,
It is not the length of words that are the issue; it is how poorly you use words.
I still don’t understand your “point”. BKennedy asked a rhetorical question and you are babbling about Franklin’s illegitimate children. What does this have to do with Romney exactly?
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Needs more
cowbellflags.saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Yes, I was alive in 1962. What would be relevant here is if George or Mitt stood up to the racism in their church at that time (they didn’t). This would be excusable if, as most Americans, they didn’t really believe their religion.
Valiant on December 6, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I ain’t Mormon. I ain’t anything. I think all religions have their kooky aspects and their own shameful histories in general, to be honest. Got the above from a friend/coworker of time. Was pretty well sourced, but not claiming it’s w/o “nuance” and all.
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 10:36 AM
not coworker of “time”, of mine, sorry
RW Wacko on December 6, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Has he used the word “Mormon” yet?
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Whoops.
Just did.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:40 AM
I do believe that Romney’s speech is on par with JFK’s.
If nothing else, and even if Romney fails to get the nomination, this speech should provide excellent modern quotes on religion and liberty for decades.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Is this considered news or free advertising?
Connie on December 6, 2007 at 10:49 AM
Knowing Romney: Both. And lots of it.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 10:50 AM
That is demonstrably FALSE. George Romney publicly defied the LDS church on this issue.
What are you talking about?
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Mitt smacks the jihadis. HA!
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Is what considered news or free advertising?
Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM
This is news. I’m not a Mormon, but this is simply one of the best explanations of the role of faith in American politics I’ve heard in a long time.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Killer speech. Mitt is a great liberal American irrespective of his religion.
Valiant on December 6, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Fixed.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 10:56 AM
He’s not getting my primary vote, but that was a pretty good speech.
sunny on December 6, 2007 at 10:57 AM
It’s a news event, and the Romney camp was smart enough to make it accessible to any blog or website that knows how to copy/paste a few lines of code.
Fwiw, I thought it was a very solid speech well delivered.
Bryan on December 6, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Very well done!
Ex-tex on December 6, 2007 at 10:58 AM
I was skeptical before, but I thought that was an Excellent speech.
Well done, Mitt.
Always Right on December 6, 2007 at 10:59 AM
This was a horrible line that betrays a lack of understanding about the Constitution- it’s essentially the same type of argument that the “separation of church and state” extremists (I’m referring to the ones who get worked up about Christmas trees and “In God We Trust”) use.
The prohibition on a religious test in the Constitution was intended to bar government discrimination on candidates based on religion- not by voters themselves.
Hollowpoint on December 6, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Do you really mean to suggest, Connie, that if Fred Thompson livestreamed a speech and we carried it that you’d be complaining it was a free ad?
I gave Fred some de facto free advertising in the “Serious” post last night. Do I dare check the comments there to see if you objected?
The hypocrisy of some of you people is staggering.
Allahpundit on December 6, 2007 at 10:59 AM
But it still made me wish I could vote for George H. W. Bush instead.
saint kansas on December 6, 2007 at 11:00 AM
I hope this prompts other candidates to stream speeches. Other than the rough audio quality (which probably wasn’t Ustream’s problem, but originated at the source), this was an excellent way to democratize the media and enhance a candidate’s ability to get past the MSM.
Bryan on December 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I think you guys are being fair to all the candidates.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM
My comment wasn’t directed at you or Hot Air. I just got in and turned FOX on and Romney was on. My question was valid. I’ve never said anything about Romney’s faith, unlike others.
Connie on December 6, 2007 at 11:04 AM
You guys should send notes to the candidates.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I think he was making a “spirit of the law” argument there – saying the founders sett a principle that we would do well to follow.
That’s how I heard it, anyway.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Great speech. He sure looks and sounds presidential, unlike Gomer Pyle.
stenwin77 on December 6, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I missed the speech. Saw this on Drudge:
Excerpts from Romney religion speech
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Great speech and excellent comments from Ralph Reed.
That’s how I heard it too.
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM
I believe Mitt is sincere in his accounting of his faith. Unfortunately that’s about the ONLY thing I think he’s sincere about.
edgehead on December 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Romney notes ‘common creed’
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:08 AM
This speech should play out very well.
Weight of Glory on December 6, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Um, I didn’t need a histor6y lesson. I knew all that stuff already!
Warner Todd Huston on December 6, 2007 at 11:10 AM
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MittRomney/2007/12/06/faith_in_america
Transcript available on Townhall.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Mr. Romney also said that “it is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions.“
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Some of us do not, but I think Romney did something interesting here – he’s tied his faith to the greater religious tradition in America and is asking for the same respect for his faith that is enjoyed by other faiths. In a sense, this speech wasn’t aimed at evangelicals, but at the basic American sense of fair play.
It was very well done.
Slublog on December 6, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Like I said. Even if this somehow backfires on Romney horribly and his campaign tanks, this speech will be one for the history books as a reinforcement of the principles America stands for.
Worst case scenario is Mitt reaffirms the proud traditions of America in a modern-day speech to a modern audience.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 11:17 AM
I was just posting the headline of an article and linking to it.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Perhaps, but after seeing the “spirit of the law” stretched to such extremes in the courts, this sort of thing gets me nervous.
I didn’t actually watch it, but I’ve no doubt that he delivered his scripted speech very well; he usually does. I’m just not sure that this will go far in assuring voters who are wary of him because of his Mormon beliefs.
Hollowpoint on December 6, 2007 at 11:19 AM
I don’t think it will “backfire” at all. He probably just gained a few thousand supporters.
Connie on December 6, 2007 at 11:22 AM
Can anyone get the recorded speech to play?
BacaDog on December 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM
For those of you who are really interested in some of the issues dealing with my Church, here is a website that has some very good and scholarly articles:
You can find in depth discussions on a wide variety of topics.
Troy Rasmussen on December 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM
You know what? The more I think about what he said, the more I wish those words were on the tips of the tongues of politicians of the evangelical and catholic stripe. This was a great speech.
Weight of Glory on December 6, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Awesome. Totally awesome.
I think this is his first “Ronald Reagan” moment.
Brat on December 6, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Thanks for the clarification. I thought that headline was a bit misleading, and would hate to see it used as an opening for long-winded screeds about Mormons and the Nicene Creed, such as we have seen at other threads.
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Richard Land is on Laura’s show right now, and he was very impressed.
Weight of Glory on December 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Bryan,
I can’t get the stream to play the whole speech. It cuts out about 10min in
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Well played, Mitt. It’s Romney vs. Thompson to me.
MT on December 6, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I don’t think Romney’s speech will backfire, but I don’t think it will change very many minds either. He still said nothing to address concerns about church doctrine and history.
packsoldier on December 6, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Misleading headlines will be the MO for the MSM today as they scramble to nitpick Mitt’s every word.
Brat on December 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Must we continually reanimate Ronald Reagan?
The Race Card on December 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Just saying. That’s seems to be the outcry of conservatives I seen in this blog and others.
Brat on December 6, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Let Ustream know. I have the correct code embedded, so whatever the problem is, it’s on their end.
Bryan on December 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I find the fact that, doubtless, many many Mormons died fighting in the wars, fighting to make the world safe for democracy, much more important and relevant than these people you mention.
Also, many of us are simply arguing for or against his electability and not fitness for office– also his conservative cred.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Mitt Romney, you are no Ronald Reagan.
packsoldier on December 6, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Transcript of the entire speech is here.
My thoughts:
Excellent speech. IMHO, he meant what he said.
From what I read and what little I heard, the speech seems very much like JFK’s speech than anything Ronald Reagan ever said. A lot of JFK’s speech was a chastizement of those who questioned his loyalty and Romney’s speech is very much the same. We will see how it plays out. It worked very well for JFK. Initial reaction is positive.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:45 AM
OK
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Probably because no one really gives a damn about the specifics of religious doctrine. I for instance think protestants who don’t believe in The Trinity or transubstantiation are missing out on the true power and marvel of God’s greatness. They seem to have the notion that I worship Mary and don’t take every part of the Bible literally. Islamic extremists believe we should all be executed as infidels.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Very nice to suggest that I’m somehow unpatriotic or out-of-touch when I mention LDS members in the public arena and not all those Mormons hwo died fighting in wars. The names I mentioned is relevant to the points I was making and your cheap debating trick doesn’t change that fact. Let’s make a deal here- don’t question my patriotism and I won’t question your motives in return.
Beyond that, I don’t think the debate over who gets the GOP nomination should be about “electablilty.” That’s how the “rats” selected John Kerry in 2004. I know it is hard for some to believe but the primary process is about selecting the candidate that BEST FITS the position of the electorate. You can push for RUDY all you want but he isn’t going to energize the base unless he convinces the grassroots that he has their best interests at heart.
highhopes on December 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »