GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
The speech Mitt Romney plans to give will be unprecedented, at least since the 1960 election. Matthew Miller gave some good insight into how he should approach the speech, and I think he made a good case. When I first read that he planned to give the speech, I thought it was great, that he was going to lay it all on the line. I still think that, in some way. If he pulls it off, he will have earned my respect.
However, he is walking on a very thin line that will be studied and critiqued, with some looking for any possible loophole they can find. Since Matthew provided more of an upside, here are some of the pitfalls and questions the speech will face:
The timing
Why now? If Romney had made this speech when he led comfortably in Iowa and New Hampshire, it wouldn’t of made quite the same impact, but it would’ve been an exclamation point on the strong leads that he had worked so hard to build. Now that he is running second to Huckabee, it gives the appearance of desperation or opportunism. I don’t think the Romney campaign is desperate yet, but by giving the speech now, he brings back the “Mitt Romney will say anything” to be elected tagline. It seems Huckabee has won over the evangelical vote, but it is easy to make the argument that it has as much to do with being pure on the abortion issue as it does with religion. This doesn’t solve Romney’s credibility problem, and could cause more harm than good.This Isn’t the 1960’s and “Governor Romney, you’re no Jack Kennedy”
Like I said in the comments section, Governor Romney is not, and never will be, the national icon that was JFK. As much as some on the right wish it were different, Kennedy was one of a kind. It was also a different era and a different set of circumstances. So much of religion in politics is viewed with skepticism today. Many people are much more hesitant to mix the two now then they were in 1960. We live in times where politicians are not so much respected, but rejected. Especially since Reagan left office, we have been trained to believe that we are always choosing the lesser of two evils. No speech is going to change that overnight, and it is likely to cause a backlash that he may not have the time to recover from before Iowa. For every campaign spokesman he sends out to speak on news networks, there will be those who give opposing views, and there is not time for voters to make up their minds.The aftermath
This speech will be scrutinized. If Romney follows the “I’m just like you” and “Mormonism has much in common with Christianity” lines, then he will cause his campaign more harm than good. By making “the speech,” Romney is making his religion a political issue. If it somehow sways support back in his direction, it would open the door for the evangelicals who Romney will never please to openly point out the differences between Mormons and Protestants. Cable news networks will bring in the theologians to break down the wording, and point out the differences. It also opens the door for the liberal commentators, like Olberman, to use it regularly. The debate over the religion could last months, and Romney’s hopes could come down to whether a network does a positive or negative story on the similarities between Christianity and Mormonism the night before the primaries.
In the end, I’m not going to vote for someone over their religion, so this speech is not aimed at me. Before, I was not paying close attention to the religion of Mitt Romney. There is nothing he could say that would make me more likely to vote for him because it never was part of my criteria for supporting a candidate.
The mistake made is that now I will be paying attention to his religion, and if he says the wrong thing, it could hurt him if he went to far. He can’t go into the differences in the religions because it will start the theological debate he really needs to avoid. He is making this an issue, and I’m not sure it is wise to do so.
Maybe I’m reading to much into this, but those who haven’t followed the race that closely could be in for a jolt.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:11 am
I think that Governor Romney’s decision to utilize the George H. W. Bush Library as the back drop for this all important historical speech is masterful. There are layers of symbology and subliminal meaning for this speech in its chosen context.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 am
I certainly agree with all of your points. I’d argued that I believe this is a good idea, though I perhaps should have been more clear. I think it’s a very risky move. That’s precisely why I think it’s a good idea. I’ve criticized Romney for a few months now for being too buttoned down, too cautious, and too calculating. The day I stopped supporting him I said, I thought he was going to die a slow death of a thousand cuts, if he didn’t loosen up; take some risks. Mitt’s father’s campaigned crashed in a fiery blaze of ill-advised spontaneity. In response, Mitt has honed his actions around thoroughly considered caution. And I think he’s finally starting to realize, as Huck uses trail-blazing, spontaneous populism to propel him to the front, that their are real and serious limits to thoroughly considered caution. Nixon can beat a Humphrey, but maybe not a JFK. As far as I’m concerned, this decision is Mitt’s search for a “third way”. His action is not spontaneous. He’s been considering this issue for over a year now. He’s looked at it, undoubtedly, from almost every angle. But, it’s also not the low-risk, low-reward sort of strategy he’s employed in the past. It’s a highly considered, and it’s high risk. Whether it pays off or not, I think this is perhaps a sign that he “gets it”, and that he saw the death of a thousand cuts off in the distance, and was determined to head it off.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:28 am
[...] Update: Tommy Oliver voices his concerns. [...]
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 am
Great points, Tommy.
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:47 am
Thanks.
The George H. W. Bush Library? You’re kidding…
I really don’t like that idea. We don’t need the words “philosophy” + “religion” + “George Bush” in the same sentences for the next year in a half. Why not just give it somewhere with no connection to any polarizing figures, or anyone that reminds us of the current president.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:10 am
I agree with you to a large extent, Tommy, except for one thing. As you said, the speech is aimed at evangelicals, not to you (or I, as we are voters who never particularly cared about his religious background). You also mention that this speech could remind voters of something they didn’t think about previously. However, one can’t be kind of prejudiced, they can’t sort of not like Mormons. I think those of us who couldn’t care less about his Mormonism will see the speech for what it is: a politically necessary explanation to the, shall we say, less than religiously tolerant voters within the party. If religion is important, the voters will listen and then make a decision based on their level of acceptance. If it’s not important, they’ll listen purely for political interest and move on, with the same thoughts of Romney as they had prior to the speech.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:28 am
Tommy, it’s hard to hear your opinion of Mitt Romney’s upcoming speech. We know that you’re man is Fred Thompson. You are just not objective here. Sorry, but that’s just how I see it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:34 am
I virtually disagree with every conclusion in this piece, but I will say this about the negatives. There is a risk here, and Romney needs to give an essentially perfect speech, but he’s smart and can probably deliver in that aspect. It will likely be parsed over and over again, so if it isn’t perfect, it could open the door to more crazy speculation about his religion by the Media. It could also open the door for more crazy anti-Mormons to get involved trying to bash him. I wouldn’t be surprised if some in the media, which has a notoriously short term memory, after questioning Romney for a year about his faith act like HE’S the one suddenly making it an issue. I also wouldn’t be surprised if religious bigots protest the speech. I also won’t be surprised if the same people at this site who have been saying for months that he HAS TO do a “Mormon Speechâ€?, now start criticizing him for it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:38 am
Wee-oo! Wee-oo! Grammar police! Repeat offender: Tommy Oliver!
“it wouldn’t of made quite the same impact…”
It wouldn’t HAVE made quite the same impact. Words are necessarily written out in the same way that they sound in dialect. It’s just inconvenient to say “wouldn’t have” out loud; it doesn’t flow. It’s not “wouldn’t of”!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:41 am
bjalder — Question — Is it anti-Mormon to point out things that I don’t like about Mormon theology?
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:19 am
Tommy, I disagree with your opinion completely. Your whole premise is off. Anybody who has followed Romney for more than 30 minutes knows that “his religion” won’t be a part of that speech any more than JFK’s Catholic religion was a part of his 1960 speech. JFK focused primarily on the possibility that religious intolerance could convict a candidate of what? Being a bad leader? The JFK speech was almost completely focused on the principles and values envisioned by our founding fathers, namely that this nation was founded, in part, upon the basic premise that there is no religious test whatsoever to be President (Article 6 of the constitution). Why you think that Romney would all of a sudden become an idiot and spell out religious differences is an interesting thought in itself.
I’ll bet most people in this forum, and certainly the general public, have never read JFK’s short speech in Houston in 1960. His speech was masterful and had nothing to do with differences between Protestants and Catholics. Tommy, why you or others think that Romney would somehow “get doctrinal” in his speech is amazing. Frankly, it seems obvious in the way you crafted this piece, you hope he does.
As to your comment about JFK and how Romney is “no JFK.” Though there are aspects of JFK’s leadership worth admiring certainly (as POTUS), JFK was really a nobody and had not really been a leader of anything (except a boat crew) at the time and had his father had not wielded so much influence for his boy, would never have been elected in one of the closest presidential elections in American history (funny things happened in Chicago and TX that made the tiny difference over Nixon). Clearly your reference to JFK, in this context, is based solely on your understanding after his death, with aid of hindsight of his presidency. In other words, if you took the JFK of 1959 (pre-nomination) and placed him side-by-side for comparison, there was no match at all to Romney. Adjusting for differences in age, JFK had no accomplishments even coming close to those of Romney. JFK was given everything he had from an extremely wealthy father and Romney is completely self-made. Romney’s background includes many years of amazing executive experience at all levels; JFK had never accomplished anything close to what Romney has, except to become President. And frankly, with a couple of exceptions among the 17 or so candidates today, none of the current crop even compares to Romney’s qualifications as an executive. It is precisely this huge advantage as to why everybody wants to make his religion the talk.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:24 am
If you would like to read the truly amazing speech given by Jack Kennedy in Sept 1960 in Houston, you can read it in 2 minutes here. In my humble opinion, few speeches by any politician compares to this one in its perfection:
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/JFK%27s%201960%20Speech%20as%20Catholic%20Victim
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:37 am
Vic,
One thing you are overlooking in your JFK recommendation is that the country has changed a lot in the past 47 years. In 1960, America-both culturally and politically- operated on a Protestant consensus, and it was enough for JFK to reassure people that he wasn’t going to take orders from the Vatican. These were the days before the culture war.
Now, of course, that consensus is lost, and we are in a culture war. This is religious vs. secular, traditional vs. radical, etc…. People want to know what side their politicians are on, and part of establishing one’s side is explaining the influence of one’s religion. In the context of the culture war, if he delivers JFK’s speech, then he is declaring himself a secular, and minimizing his faith. That won’t score many points with those to whom he is trying to appeal.
Finally, the comparisons to JFK WILL be made, and the MSM isn’t going to compare Romney to the JFK of 1959, but the JFK of myth and legend. And when voters compare the two in their minds, they will compare Romney to the JFK of Camelot. However Romney stacks up to the historical JFK of 1959 is irrelevent to what is about to happen.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:53 am
“Is it anti-Mormon to point out things that I don’t like about Mormon theology?”
Why would you feel the need?
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:55 am
If you have beliefs, talk about them.
December 3rd, 2007 at 2:57 am
I think the justifications to legitimately bad-mouth somebody else’s religious beliefs are few and far between if not non-existent.
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:16 am
An early Christmas present for those of you who still think Mitt’s a robot.
http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/12/01/santa-claus-endorses-governor-romney/
December 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 am
I could give two hoots about his religion, but the more he draws attention to it the more I’m bound to consider it a factor. My 2cents - this probably does ends up doing more harm then good amongst ‘tentative’ supporters.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:05 am
Knight #18. . .I’m curious, if his religion means nothing to you, why do you care if he discusses it? Romney has done more to NOT discuss his religious faith than most GOP candidates I can think of. It’s the right wing socons that brought about the need for him to explain his own faith.
I guess I can understand if you were concerned, as I am, about a candidate who harps on his faith at every moment (like Huck in recent weeks), but I wonder why Romney’s speech concerns you?
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 am
TLG asks: Is it anti-Mormon to point out things that I don’t like about Mormon theology?
Absolutely not, TLG. Unless, of course, you’re trying to tie it to a secular issue like, oh, a Presidential Election, where they have no bearing.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
“Absolutely not, TLG. Unless, of course, you’re trying to tie it to a secular issue like, oh, a Presidential Election, where they have no bearing.”
Uh, they certainly do if Romney declares that his faith influences everything that he does.
And if he’s going to make it a political issue by making a major speech about it.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:55 am
Boy, Vic Lundquist is way off base. First, Tommy presented what are objective and legitimate concerns about Romney’s speech. All of which are already being raised in the MSM. Indeed, on MSNBC this morning Christopher Hitchens went a lot further in declaring Romney needed to explain certain mormon doctrine and policy.
As for comparing JFK and Romney, I agree with MWS. But I must also take issue of the characterization of JFK as a nobody propped up by his father’s money. The most powerful part of JFK’s address, his tour of duty in the South Pacific and his brother’s death in the war in the fight for freedom, is completely his. Not his father’s. That is why Romney is no Kennedy. And Romney supporters would do well to avoid any attempt to compare or contrast the two, or to in any way denegrate JFK.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:51 am
either way, risky speech. if it doesn’t give more meat than he has already given the press will be mad.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:44 am
Vic, I think the “no JFK” bit is a reference to Lloyd Bentsen’s line to Dan Quayle in a VP debate of years past. If you want to see the JFK speech, coincidentally I have a clip of it in my own post about “the speech.”
Is Mitt supposed to be Ronald Reagan or JFK? I wish he’d make up his mind!
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
#24:
My only reference to JFK was in reference to the post. And to point out that the comparison made in the post was simply comparing a former President with a mere candidate. And Romney has never even intimated he would like to be like JFK. And the point of all these comments is that some people want to reduce Romney to a place where the debate is all about his religion, thereby marginalizing him so that nobody will focus on his extraordinary talent in radically changing organizations.
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
#24: BTW, I knew the reference to Quayle.