Open thread: Gov. Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech
posted at 8:38 am on December 6, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
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: « Previous 1 2
The Speech and Evangelicals
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Come to think of it, not many pro-Mitt people are trying to describe how he would parry any thrusts from the Democrats if he were the Republican nominee.
What would he say if, for example, Obama says, “It’s nice that your dad marched with Dr. King, but you both worshipped at a church that, basically, had no use for any leadership contribution from me.”
This is the primaries. It’s time to speak up now or forever hold your peace.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM
What Team Romney Wasn’t Counting On [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Romney may have not gotten into the details of the LDS Church, but CNN handled some while he was talking:
Video
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 11:54 AM
It WAS an excellent speech!
I think we need to get beyond “style over substance” though. He looks GREAT! He sounds good. That hair! Those sideburns… bestill my heart!
He’s a Rockefeller Republican in an Armani suit! The conservative movement will be put on hold another 4-8 years with him, Rudy, McCain, or even Huck, it seems.
edgehead on December 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Oh, so that’s been your point all along? Sure dude.
Barack Obama belongs to an afro-centric church exclusively for blacks, so he is on rather shaky ground in that regard.
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Byran, thanks for linking this here so we could watch it.
Spirit of 1776 on December 6, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Valiant,
I am not Mormon but I looked at the silly quotes pulled out of context from your link. Have you ever heard of symbolic mysticism?
I will grant you that the reforms to the Mormon Church came late, however they came. Glad to see you enjoy living in the past.
Your argument is what, that since you found quotes that talk about “white” being good and “black” being bad…the Mormon faith is racist, and that logically that means Mormons are racist so naturally Romney is racist.
Nice logic.
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM
highhopes on December 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Umm… calm down. Is a reminder that in many ways, we stand on the shoulders of giants out of place? Don’t be so sensitive.
I just don’t find those names you provided cogent to the debate on Romney.
I thought what I said was complimentary to and grateful for Mormons’ contribution.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Sorry, this is going to be a hit and run since my lunch hour at work is coming to an end….
Also, I should note that I am not able to view the speech and don’t have the time right now to read the transcript. I did read a majority of the comments and I am surprised that this was not brought up: Islam.
I notice that the focus is on Chrisitianity and Mormonism and giving the generic message these two separate religions have a lot in common and that we should not judge politicians based on their religions. We should respect their religions, as they provide a good moral basis for leadership.
While that generic statement may be nice, if this type of speech were given by, say, Muslim Keith Ellison, would people be praising this in the same way? If Keith Ellison were to give this speech in defense of Islam and saying it compared well to Christianity and then said some of the same generic things of respecting faith, etc, would people still be calling this a “Reagan moment”?
I am not comparing Mormonism to Islam. I am, however, calling into question the generic statement that all religions should be respected and a politician’s faith is not that large of an issue.
Just stop for a moment and do an exercise in analysis were this speech given by a Muslim running for President and working to get America to accept Islam.
I bring this up only because I feel that this focus on religion and getting people to accept that it plays no part in choosing a political candidate, completely opens the door for Muslims to do the same thing when running for office. And those who say that we shouldn’t analyze the specifics of the religious doctrine, open the door for Muslims to use the same reasoning to not analyze Islam and just stick to the “Islam is a religion of Peace” just like Christianity line.
Just something to think about.
Again, please do not misunderstand. I am not comparing Mormonism to Islam. I am focusing on the message that religion is not really all that important when considering a politician for office and the doctrines of a religion should not be brought up to a candidate. I don’t agree with that at all. Personally, I would have no problem with a lapsed, “moderate” Muslim in office, but I have a big problem with a Nation of Islam, radical Muslim such as Keith Ellison being in office. So, in that case, the opinion of the candidate on the specifics of his religion are very important.
Just some things that crossed my mind while pondering this issue of Mitt giving this speech. I will be watching the video and reading the transcript after work.
Michael in MI on December 6, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Michael in M.I.,
From what I can gather his speech more or less outlined the importance of the link that exists between religion and freedom and vice versa. Also that the religion itself isn’t the issue but how a man/womans character is guided by their faith.
All a big deal about nothing…this was more of a values speech.
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Already done. Zombie Reagan will lead us, just as soon as we can figure out a way for him to look a little less… moldy.
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Damn sure. Show me otherwise.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Great speech. Did he have tears in his eyes at the end? Considering Mitt has such a “plastic/robotic” style, such a display of emotion is very powerful. I enjoyed listening to this speech. There is a lot there to like.
Zetterson on December 6, 2007 at 12:14 PM
Frozen Tex,
You and your nonconformity. You are just angry because for a white guy, he’s clean cut, articulate…
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
You’ll pardon me if I got the impression that you are focused far more on the LDS church’s “policies and beliefs”, more than his electability.
Meanwhile, I still await your demand that Huckabee apologize for Southern Baptists.
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM
“Freedom requires religion?”
I can’t think of a more disgusting thing to say.
Enrique on December 6, 2007 at 12:22 PM
silverfox,
don’t punish Mitt for the misgivings of those before him. The damage done happens when someone takes your demagogic argument to its absolute logical end across the board.
No religion or faith has a clean historic record, no nation has a clean historic record…you understand right?
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:24 PM
How so Enrique?
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Huh?
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM
ADD moment
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:26 PM
That’s what the founding fathers said.
But I think you run into the problem saying all religion is the same. I don’t think this country would be well served with a Muslim president right now.
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Michael in MI: He did bring up Jihadi’s, though, and something about theocratic tyranny. He mentioned Radical Islamists by name (something CAIR is probably screeching about) as the greatest threat we face.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM
He’s not so clean cut at the moment… he’s up and walking and talking, it’s just that he’s been in the ground a little while… we’ll have that fixed soon, though, never fear.
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 12:30 PM
And it would not be wise to have a devout Scientologist as a president either
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Valiant, I know little of Mormonism. I do know that Romney was 25 yo when this provision (for lack of a better word) was stricken from the Church rules.
So, could you give me some background on the impetus for this change? To what extent did internal forces and external forces effect it?
Dusty on December 6, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Merry Christmas!
Romney, a good person, excellently delivered a great speech.
Earlier this morning on http://www.redstate.com, it was mentioned that following Romney’s speech, the official Mormon Church will release their own PR plug on FAITH. One need not be sceptical re: Mormons exercizing a lot of faith.
To sway public opinion MOST favorably, however, the Mormon Church could retract their fervent proselytizing door-to-door measures; “Vote for Mitt, and we’ll never send our salespeople to your door again.” Given their massive communications business enterprises, and given their relish to refabricate their image of what they think they are, it could happen since door-to-door solicitors have actually become a public nuisance or danger. For such a wealthy organization that admonishes avoiding the appearance of evil, door to door solicitation should be obsolete already.
dream on dot org
maverick muse on December 6, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Or wiccan, or pagan, or atheist, for that matter. Muslim’s the worst though. In islam, there is no separation whatsoever between religion and politics/policy.
RushBaby on December 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Wrong impression. I’m talking about one policy. And I’m saying that policy is fair game in an election:
“Policies and beliefs” is in this analogy:
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 12:34 PM
nice
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
maverick muse on December 6, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Yep, they did. Here it is:
Church Reemphasizes Political Neutrality
SALT LAKE CITY 6 December 2007 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today re-emphasized its long-standing position of party political neutrality in response to a large number of calls from the news media over the past few days.
The statement of political neutrality has been posted on the Church’s Newsroom web site for the past year and has been widely disseminated to journalists.
Full Story
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Awesome silverfox,
George Washington Owned Slaves…let us dissolve our republic! It is fair game.
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Look,
I haven’t looked into the Southern Baptist angle like you wanted, but they aren’t centrally commanded as strongly as LDS, are they? So the policy you spoke of isn’t as politically damaging.
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Silverfox,
They fixed it in 1978
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:39 PM
In terms of body count, not all religions are the same. But say “freedom requires religion” out loud, and then think of Saudi Arabia.
I just reread the excerpts of this speech, and I’m actually astounded at the level of sickness on display. Particularly in the part where he essentially promises to stamp out the “religion” of secularism.
We live in a secular republic. Could someone please inform Mitt of that? As a Mormon whose beliefs don’t conform to the majority of Americans, I would think he would be an admirer of America’s secularism. But apparently those Mormon beliefs aren’t very important to him since he’s willing to trade them in for some coded phrases about “secularism” now that Huckabee’s on his behind.
As much as Bush gets dumped on for being a religious extremist, I don’t recall Bush ever saying anything as extreme or appalling as this Mitt speech. Mitt’s position apparently is that he’s going to stamp out secularism. This speech is nothing more than an appeal to the most base, unintellectual elements of the GOP base. How depressing…
Enrique on December 6, 2007 at 12:40 PM
Reaction to the Speech [Byron York]
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.” Bennett said that most of the speech could have been delivered by any Republican candidate and some Democrats, which means that it did not specifically address the Mormon issue in much detail.
read the rest
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I must have missed that part. He said some people are taking separation of church and state too far and making secularism their preferred “religion” to be promoted at the expense of all other faiths.
Mitt made it quite clear he knows America is a secular Republic, but not secular for its own sake but in order to provide unity for all people of faith. Take your atheist victim complex elsewhere.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Rush on the Speech [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
For those who thought Rush sounded like he was endorsing Thompson the other day, he has praise to go around. He said on his show a few ago that Romney’s was “An inspiring speech about American values, including religion….I think he set exactly the right tone…. He showed leadership.”
Rush again emphasized that he is not doing primary endorsements.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2NlMzYzMzI0OWFhZThhMDA4Y2JiNWEyZDhhYjM1MzQ=
bnelson44 on December 6, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Enrique,
You seem to be looking through a liberal lens about the religion thing…not that you are one. Most libs I know base everything they know on the assumption that nothing has ever happened before them and that things can begin now that they are here
Look at the context, breadth and depth of our republic’s founding and ask yourself how closely religion and freedom depended upon one another at that point and at all points throughout OUR nations’ history.
Then ask yourself out loud how much Islam had to do with our nations founding (Aside from the Marines handing the Barbary Pirates their asses..Semper Fi)
You are mixing your present views with something that stretches back into the creation of our country…not comparable.
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:47 PM
and it is the same argument libs use when they attack our country’s past by placing present libtard “values” on our founders actions.
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Silverfox,
I gave you a link that gave the entire history of the Southern Baptist Convention, slavery, and racism. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist Minister. Why no demands that he apologize?
Why is Obama not asked to answer for his church’s racial segregation?
Why is Romney the only candidate who is expected to answer for every twist and turn in a church’s positions, particularly in light of the fact that his family were in the vanguard of the civil rights movement?
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Exactly. It took them until 1978 to fix something that most had already fixed for decades already.
Why can’t Romney say, “Y’ know, I hated it in the 60s when I was a missionary in France, and I knew we had this awful discriminatory policy. My friends and I were so happy the day it was rescinded.”
I’m just looking for a knife blade of daylight between him and the church (of that time), like the Romney who disregarded the ban on alcohol when he was a missionary and enjoyed some cocoa vin in France.
Why can’t he just say that?
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM
When a candidate talks about morals, religion, freedom and the Constitution, right away I feel better.
I believe Mitt is sincere about these things.
Speakup on December 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM
he was a missionary and enjoyed some cocoa vin in France.
Why can’t he just say that?
silverfox on December 6, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Maybe because it is very likely that no one on the planet has ever had cocoa vin.
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I’ll bet my fiance would love some chocolate wine.
Frozen Tex on December 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM
David Frum nails the huge mistake Romney made:
“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?”
corona on December 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
John McCain stumbled recently when he said that the Constitution had established the United States as a Christian nation, which it most decidedly did not.
_
In fact the wondrous thing about the Founding of the nation is how consciously and how carefully the Founders went about securing liberty of conscience.
_
Washington said that the government of the United States was “to give to bigotry no sanction … and to persecution no assistance.”
_
Jefferson said that his Virginia act for religious liberty was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.”
_
And Madison said, “The religion of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.
- Jon Meacham
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 1:22 PM
I didn’t hear him say that at all, Enrique.
He said the state should not interfere with religion and that religion should not interfere with the state. He was also making the larger point that the founders never envisioned the visceral attack on all forms of religious expression in the public forum and the modern secularist’s desire to eliminate any display of religion from the public square.
His statement, “Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree” says to me the exact opposite of your comment. It expounds tolerance, not supression.
Besides, how exactly would one “stamp out” secularism? Make it a crime to stay home on Sunday?
BacaDog on December 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM
This entire nation needs to recognize that Christian morals are essential to the freedoms we enjoy.
The loss of those Christian morals is why we enjoy fewer freedoms now than ever before.
Some people who say morals are innate are only correct so far as the seed of morals already exists in society.
Were this not true, Sharia would carry no threat to freedom as people who are innately moral would act as they should at all times regardless.
Speakup on December 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM
You can’t say America is a secular republic, and at the same time say “freedom requires religion.”
Mitt is CLEARLY NOT appealing to anyone who wants to provide unity for all people of faith and/or non-faith. When he says “I believe Jesus is the son of God,” he’s appealing to Christian chauvinism, just like Huckabee with his “Christian leader” campaign spot.
Both Huckabee and Romney are saying loud and clear that the most important qualification for the highest office in the land is belief that Jesus is the son of God. That is every bit as sick as if a Muslim were to say that the central qualification for leadership is adherence to Islamic faith.
Take your Christian superiority complex elsewhere. ;)
Enrique on December 6, 2007 at 1:25 PM
No they’re not. Cite me one example where Mitt or Huck explicitly said that a man who does not believe Jesus is the son of God is unqualified to be President.
You’re interpreting Mitt’s personal beliefs which he so plainly described in his speech to be some mandate from God to slay the unbelievers.
That’s really stretching a point, to say the least.
BacaDog on December 6, 2007 at 1:31 PM
LOL, fair enough. Would like to see how he lives, more important than what he says…
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Take it up with John Adams then. It’s his quote. Also take it up with the idiot what put “endowed by our Creator” in the Declaration. Sorry Enrique, America was founded by people who believe God and by implication Judeo-Christian morality is essential for a healthy republic.
You’re like those Islamist nutters who criticized the pope for quoting a Byzantine emperor.
Sorry Enrique, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own history. Argue all you want over whether the founders were Christians or Deists or whatever, fact is they all for the most part supported the notion there is a God and his morality is absolute and just.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 1:34 PM
“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.”
I take that as being anti-secular. He’s playing to the O’Reilly crowd. You don’t take the above quote as meaning “I oppose secularism?” Forgive me is my tone is a little dramatic, maybe “stamp out” wasn’t an ideal choice of words.
And forgive me if I don’t take Mitt at his word that he’ll respect people of all faiths when he’s making a speech that explicitly says his belief in Jesus qualifies him to be President.
Enrique on December 6, 2007 at 1:35 PM
America was founded by slave-owners. By implication, slavery is essential for a healthy republic.
Oh SNAP! :)
Enrique on December 6, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Truly excellent speech and this man is qualified to become President.
jeanie on December 6, 2007 at 1:37 PM
Erique,
I knew you’d go to slavery….that is why I posted what I did about an hour ago…you’ve essentially done with the founders what you did with Mitt and I hope you see how ridiculous your original argument about religion and freedom is.
ColdBore76 on December 6, 2007 at 1:41 PM
EPIC FAIL.
The founders never explicitly signed a document saying slavery was neccesary, as they did vis-a-vis a Creator endowing inalienable rights. Every signature on the Declaration shows tacit approval for that notion.
Nice try, Enrique.
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
No. I take it to mean he disagrees with secularists who wish to abolish any show of religion in the public square, not that he wishes to abolish secularists.
BacaDog on December 6, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Alexis de Tocqueville – 1831
Defense Guy on December 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM
coq au vin
There. I just had to settle that. It was bugging me. And, as a Mormon and a chef, I have no problem with it . . . when cooked properly. I just don’t take a swig off the bottle like a lot of other cooks do.
thomashton on December 6, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Enrique: If your argument is now that belief in God is as reprehensible as owning slaves…. then yeah, I’d say that fighting your version of secularism is something that should happen. After all, they outlawed slavery–I could totally see you arguing that we should outlaw religion too.
Vanceone on December 6, 2007 at 1:49 PM
“The Speech” was inspiring and uplifting. It needed to be said and was beautifully delivered. The speaker though, did not write it and delivered it solely for the purpose of political expediancy. Everything Mitt says and does is done for the purpose of political expediancy (recent ex. throwing Larry Craig under the bus).
Beware the neo-compassionate conservative!
edgehead on December 6, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Speak to that Enrique.
Don’t either you or Vanceone let anyone else define you beliefs.
MB4 on December 6, 2007 at 1:58 PM
The speech was well-written – I’ll give the praise to his speechwriter(s). I still won’t vote for Romney. I’m honest when I say I’m slightly creeped out by Mormons. I served with several in the Navy, and the ones that were devout always had a cultish vibe to them. I am human enough to admit that there are superficial things that influence my political opinions of people, and in Mitt’s case, it’s his religion. I don’t like Huckabee either, partially because he defines himself so prominently by his religion. I don’t think I’m the only one that feels that way (although maybe I’m the only one naive enough to admit it).
Of course, I have other reasons for not wanting to vote for either one of them… oh well.
the goddess anna on December 6, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I don’t.
Historically Mitt’s been a poll-driven flip-flopper given to saying whatever his advisers think will attract the greatest number of votes in any given circumstance. It takes less than five minutes to Google up example after example of the man’s allegedly-core principles “evolving” from his senatorial race against Ted Kennedy in 1992 to his stint as Massachusetts governor to his presidential campaign today.
I think he and his advisers realize that the Mormon thing is the mayonnaise on the enormous crap sandwich that is Mitt Romney, and so now he’s trying to inoculate his campaign against the issue by, essentially, trying to convince the electorate that criticism of Mitt relative to his Mormonism is tantamount to imposition of a religious test for the presidency, contrary to some basic American ethic. I see nothing to convince me it’s not entirely self-serving.
Centerfire on December 6, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Of course his speech was self-serving. So was JFK’s in 1960.
Like JFK, Mitt’s religion is a barrier to the Presidency. To get there, clarification is needed. Mitt spoke to that today, and IMHO did a pretty good job.
A means to an end. Otherwise, why stir the pot?
BacaDog on December 6, 2007 at 3:19 PM
The guy I was responding to said that he thought Romney was sincere on issues of morals, religion, freedom, and the Constitution. I don’t; I think he’s a self-serving weasel who’ll say anything to get elected, and I think the speech was just another example of that.
Centerfire on December 6, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Headline: “Romney turns water into wine.”
Centerfire spin: “Romney is just buying people off with booze.”
BKennedy on December 6, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Headline: “Romney gives speech on religion.”
BKennedy: *guzzles koolaid*
Centerfire on December 6, 2007 at 3:37 PM
You know, ordinarily when charges are made that someone will “say anything to get elected” that means that they have uttered something that is insincerely held or subject to the whims of polls or popular opinion.
What exactly did Mitt Romney say in his speech that he might disavow at some point?
Yeah, well you’ll have to put the Maha Rushie in that kool aid category.
Buy Danish on December 6, 2007 at 4:03 PM
The chocolate flavor would have to be infused after the wine was finished or the cocoa oil wouldn’t do anything to happify the little yeastie beasties running around like tiny pac men gobbling up the sugars and pooping alcohol.
Speakup on December 6, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Sounds like a good T shirt. Stand back everybody while I swallow some yeast poop.
Speakup on December 6, 2007 at 5:34 PM
I’m sorry, but it’s so sad he even has to do this speech at all. I thought it was excellent and went beyond expectations. As an agnostic, it didn’t scare me at all.
SouthernGent on December 6, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Hillary: I’m just a girl don’t pick on me!
Obama: It is time this racist country elected a black man
Huckabee: I’m the christian candidate
Guiliani: the secular economic concervative
Romney: Personal background should not divides us
winner ding! ding! ding! Romney
I dare say you are not conservative, you belong in the Democrat party if dont agree
Resolute on December 6, 2007 at 7:02 PM
It’s not a question of what he might disavow. It’s a question of what he actually believes. And for all that I’m convinced that the essential difference between Mitt and a bag of crap is the bag, he’s not stupid enough to actually believe kumbayah nonsense like, for instance:
“Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.”
Fundamentalist Islam, anyone? Scientology? Flying Spaghetti Monsterism? That someone describes their zany beliefs as a religion doesn’t magically delegitimize criticism of that person or their beliefs.
Centerfire on December 6, 2007 at 10:01 PM
Great speech.
I especially liked that he didn’t shy away from using the words “Islamic” and “jihad” together. And the line about the jihadists killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. The Sudanese, as we know, are slaughtering fellow Muslims en masse in Darfur. And Muslims are killed practically every time a terror attack happens.
It was wonderful to see someone join Newt Gingrich and Bill O’ Reilly in addressing the secular campaign to remove all religion from the public square, in the name of “separation of church and state”.
Time will tell if it has staying power among the pantheon of classic speeches, but so far, so good.
There’s one way I know for sure it succeeded.
My local liberal newspaper wrote in the headline “Mitt fails to solve Morman problem”.
That’s all needed to hear to know it was a home run.
Hawkins1701 on December 6, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Only the Bible can do that.
Mojave Mark on December 7, 2007 at 2:00 AM
Believe whatever religion you like, but our country as a whole cannot endure policy driven by religious doctrine. If we are to tolerate and/or embrace all faiths, then any president who takes his/her cues from the Book of Mormon is no different from a president who takes his/her cues from the Koran, Bible, Torah, or any other text. I have no problems whatsoever with a devout president, but as a person of my own beliefs, I resent a national leader who rules my nation by a different set. In this regard, I would oppose a president with similar beliefs to my own who makes policy according to those beliefs. Presidents who bring their religious beliefs into the Oval Office only lend an air of schizophrenia to our nation’s character.
The comingling of government with religion does credit to neither.
thejackal on December 7, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Good, then you should be happy with Mitt Romney.
Sheesh.
Buy Danish on December 7, 2007 at 2:01 PM
I just listened to Romney’s speech. Very solid.
Yeah, I could vote for this guy. Good job, Mitt!
Thank you to Bryan and Hot Air for making this available and keeping it up on your front page.
CliffHanger on December 7, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Well I’m glad everybody is starting to see the light on
Mitt Romney,and he certainly is not what the Lib media
is trying to portray,for that matter,it really doesn’t
matter even if a Republican nominee has a faith,because
the media will assign him or her one anyway.
The Liberal Democrats,and the Lib drive-by media have
no fear when it comes to islamofachists,but boy O boy,
their scared to death of a Republican who has faith!
canopfor on December 7, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2