One rival campaign just noted that Romney has the week to himself with the announcement of the speech. That is just one of the many upsides. Yes, expectations are high, but consider:
- Romney & Co. know what needs to be addressed
- They’ve had a year to prepare for the speech (if not longer)
- All cameras will be his for one night and the press will be his for the rest of the week
- This gives people an excuse to move their vote to Romney and save face
- If he does well, the momentum could prove the turning point in this campaign
In the end, however, this is no mean feat. The good folks at Article 6 blog articulate the issues that Romney has to juggle:
- Ignorance of Mormonism, and resulting distrust or suspicion of Romney by people who generally lack malice;
- Distrust of Mormonism by others with serious theological differences who believe such differences actually have something to do with choosing a presidential candidate;
- The belief (held by many who are also in category no. 2) that Mormonism is a serious menace to society and to the eternal salvation of mankind, and that electing a Mormon president would only serve to legitimize that menace;
- Outright bigotry by those who really hate Mormonism, either from religious conservatives who see the faith as an all-too-successful competitors for parishioners, or left-wing bigots like Jacob Weisberg who dispute any belief in the miraculous;
- Last, but perhaps most important in this context, politicians and their consultants (Huckabee for now, certainly Clinton in the general election, if Romney is nominated), who see an opening here and are exploiting it. This category is the most disgusting of them all.
In short, its a smart move for the Romney camp to grab attention in the campaign and wait until the 12th hour to address one of the big but peripheral issues in the race. I’ll have more on this later.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:10 am
Justin,
Those of us who support other candidates wish Governor Romney well in his speech. While I think this issue highlights the risk associated with nominating Romney, all conservatives hope he gives a masterful speech in the case that he does manage to win the nomination.
I was thinking about this issue just last Monday evening when PBS aired a broadcast on Mormonism. Such programs are going to become more, not less, prevalent.
I just don’t know how he does it successfully as the discussion threads of the last 12 hours demonstrate.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:36 am
#5 in your list of things to juggle implies that Huckabee is exploiting Romney’s Mormonism, as a reality, not a hypothetical.
He is not.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
MWS,
The folks at Article VI are not implying that. They are stating it outright.
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:44 am
Irish,
Okay, so how is Huckabee exploiting Romney’s Mormonism?
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
They give their opinions at http://www.article6blog.com
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:53 am
The “Christain Leader” ad is enough for me to believe that Huckabee is hoping to exploit this situation for his own gain. And explotation is not a “Christian” trait.
Also, this is sad; that in America in the 21 Century one has to even give a speech of this magnitude. Are there some many backward minded members of the “Christian Right” (which I am a member) that will easily cast along someone based on a ill-concieved preception of a religion?
Didn’t we just celebrate Thanksgiving, a time when we rejoice in the fact that there were those who came to this country to ESCAPE religious perscution?
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:58 am
Everyone should read this interesting George Will article about Huckabee and religion in the 2008 race.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/341631_willonline02.html
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:04 am
I agree with Irish. Huckabee is very careful, which is a testament to his political skills, but I think it’s impossible to miss the subtle religious feelers he’s thrown out there. When your chief opponent is a Mormon, and your chief ad flashes the words CHRISTIAN LEADER, in big letters, it doesn’t take much of an imagination to see what you’re doing.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
That precisely what Huckabee intended and it is rather disgusting for a presidential candidate who, if elected, would have to take an oath to uphold the constitution. To steal George Will’s line, Huckabee is imposing a religious test.
One must therefore question Romney’s wisdom in taking the test. I agree it will generate a lot of free airtime, but will it be positive coverage? I also would venture that another candidate will assume the high ground and declare the test and the speech unamerican and inappropriate.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:10 am
Before I got into blogging and started REALLY paying attention to politics, I defended the religious right and deemed them to be a necessary force for right in this country, additionally I thought all of the religious bigotry towards Mormonism were isolated events and not a big issue among “Christianity” (that’s what I get for growing up out West in California). Now as I have been blogging and reading blogs over the last 6 months, my view has completely changed. I am growing more and more disappointed in the religious right and increasingly view them as bigots (not towards just Mormons, but towards anything different from them). I long for the time that the GOP can break free of the grip of the RR. I recognize that the conclusions that I am arriving at are not indicative of a large percentage of the religious right constituency, however I do believe they are largely indicative of the beliefs of the so-called “leaders” of the religious right. I have been staunchly Republican as long as I can remember, but I am slowly losing my favor it. I hope that things can change soon enough so that I can avoid dropping my affiliation with the party and simply being an independent.
On that note, it is also becoming apparent that Mormons may not be welcome in the GOP and certainly not with the Dems. Do I need start looking for a third party? I hope not.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:15 am
Isn’t Harry Reid a mormon too? Isn’t he the Dem leader in the senate? Interesting lack of reporting of that little gem.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 am
Mitt’s Ham-Handed Campaign
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
As an evangelical supporter of Mitt Romney I’m concerned about “the speech.” He’s super smart so I know he knows what he’s doing but I’d like to offer this advice. It will be counterproductive if he delves into the details of Mormon theology or in any way insinuates that Mormonism is like Christianity. Now if his speech is about how we have “shared values”, theological tenants should not be a test for office, and that a religious minority like Mormonism getting one of their own in the White House is special thing, that would be ok. Hopefully, this will not be seen as an act of desperation because he could still lose Iowa and not be out of the contest, but it sure would help.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 am
I’d agree with that Cost article. I said in a front-page post earlier this year, that beyond the technical aspects of organizing and planning (at which he’s excelled), Romney has run a disastrous campaign. For many of the reasons Cost sights.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
Jeff,
You have simply been asleep for the last year + if you think that Harry Reid’s faith hasn’t been reported. He’s probably the 3rd most widely known LDS politician in America (after Mitt and Orrin Hatch).
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:35 am
very risky. it better be good. it all comes down to how the media will treat it. will they leavei t alone? will it tick evengelicals off? Will it convince more evangelicals that this guy has what huck has but much more? big speech. big risks, potentially big pay off. leave it to romney not to hesitate and take on big challenges. he usually pulls it off. this is a big moment for the campaign.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 am
I predict Romney wins the nomination. pure speculation. but mark my words. giuliani is a a downward spiral and open border, higher taxes, and ethically challgend huckabee is just not a formidable enough opponent to stop him.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
I find it curious that every one gets their feathers so ruffled if a mormon has the audacity to profess belief in Christ or, heaven forbid, characterizes his belief as ‘christian’. What drive’s this ‘fear’ from the hard religious right? Does anyone really think that a reason minded person will confuse baptists for mormons or catholics, or whatever? And if the answer is to save a mormon from hell, telling them that they’re going to hell might not be the best tact to take.
This would all be funny if it wasn’t such a sad exposition of the rampant mis-information and religious distortions.
The last I checked, it was the mormons who were the only religion to have had a government sanctioned extermination order issued against them. Essentially a shoot on sight, no questions asked state-wide executive order. Seems that it is the mormons, not the hard religious right that has more claim to the hyper-sensitivity issue here. Just my two cents.
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:38 am
14 — Wee-oo! Wee-oo! Cites. Not sights. This is strike two for you today. One more offense and you get the smackdown. Sight refers to vision.
And as for that Cost article, I read it last night and felt wonderful inside. He articulated Romney’s problems very well, and the comparison to Edwards was icing on the cake.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:03 am
Gosh, why would a Baptist minister identify himself as a “Christian Leader?”
There MOST be something sinister in that!!!
What next, the Pope can’t identify himself as a Catholic, lest he offend someone?
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Colin #12 – exactly. That article exposes this Ken Doll but good.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 am
Politico’s Jonathan Martin stated on Ingraham’s show that EV view mormonism as a ‘market threat’ and hence some of the concern about Romney. Hmmm…
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:10 am
MWS,
Sure he can. I liked the ad, and have no problem with Huckabee using the term. It has nothing to do with the appropriateness of the term. But, it’s purpose was terribly transparent, given the nature of his opponent.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
Quoth Justin: Last, but perhaps most important in this context, politicians and their consultants (Huckabee for now, certainly Clinton in the general election, if Romney is nominated), who see an opening here and are exploiting it. This category is the most disgusting of them all.
There’s something quite breathtaking in the idea that — no matter what Mitt may say in a few days’ time — he shall not be criticized by his political rivals for any of it.
It’s rare to see a campaign claiming an entitlement to the kids’ gloves treatment for their preferred candidate. Why not just come right out and say it’s blasphemous to criticize a saint?
Yes, that truly is breathtaking.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:42 am
What kind of bullshit spin is that, MarkG? The disgusting part is that this is/will be an issue at all. No one should get “hands off” treatment for their political views or positions. As had been said countless times, previously, unless it directly effects his/her political positions, religion doesn’t fall in that category.
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:58 am
Matthew,
So basically since his opponent happens to be Mormon, a Baptist minister is not allowed to discuss his faith or call himself a “Christian leader”? And we must furthermore presume that a Baptist minister would NOT discuss his faith or identify himself as a “Christian leader” were he not running against a guy who happens to be Mormon?
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 am
Matthew,
Huckabee is speaking to his obvious, natural base, which happens to be very important tin the Iowa caucus. Who’s he supposed to appeal to, pro-marijuana transvestites?
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:07 am
In the Rasmussen tracking poll out for Monday Huckabee is at 17% again. He is within 3% of Giuliani.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:10 am
dubious: “giuliani is a a downward spiral and open border, higher taxes”
Higher taxes? WHAT THE HELL? That’s like saying McCain is on a downward spiral due to his opposition to the successful surge.
It’s one thing to be an unfair hack, it’s another thing to lie about the obvious. What possible good can that do you?
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:12 am
MWS, I think a candidate like Huck would *normally* use the term “religious leader,” but specifically chose “Christian leader” due to Mitt.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:13 am
econ grad stud, every year, people vote in primaries who didn’t the last time. Rasmussen screens as if they don’t exist.
Rasmussen is closer to the truth than, say, Fox. But the truth is closer to the RCP average.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:16 am
A thought on the speech: Even if Romney can walk the incredible tightrope that seems necessary in not having horrible fallout from this speech… given that Huckabee is his main opponent where it counts right now, given that Huckabee is brilliant in coming up with the perfect one-liner that’s both funny and highly effective at decimating his opponent, and given that religion is his #1 area of experience in this regard… isn’t the biggest negative is that Mitt is setting up Huck for the biggest soft pitch ever, the one that will end the Romney campaign?
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:17 am
Irish, I can predict with nearly 99% likelihood that I will criticize Mitt for delivering the speech in an entirely uninspiring way. I have yet to hear him say anything memorable, much less deliver it with the inspiring tones of someone who wants to claim leadership. I have noticed this particularly each time he begins with his barely concealed invidious comparisons of everyone else in the GOP race.
Another four years of a President who communicates poorly is a dismal prospect.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
#33 – “I can predict with nearly 99% likelihood that I will criticize Mitt for delivering the speech in an entirely uninspiring way. ”
ROFL – That was funny. I will predict with 100% accuracy that a skeptic, such as yourself, who hated Romney, such as yourself, would criticize Romney if God Himself said to vote Romney in 08.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:43 am
a skeptic, such as yourself, who hated Romney, such as yourself
You see, that’s a misunderstanding. I think Mitt makes for a great family guy, an excellent corporate exec, top-flight senior manager of business. I’d even hazard a guess that he’d make an exceptional scholar, educator, mentor, and friend.
But he’s also a very mediocre political leader. There’s no spark. No exhortative oratory force that exudes confidence on the public stage. He’s not the type of leader to provide an inspiring vision. Sorry, but that’s just the way I see it.
If he wins the nomination, he’ll enter the history books as the person who ushered in the Clintonian revolution in American politics.
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Is is trie that Huckabee has been under attack fromthe Arkansas eithic commission for acpeting hundreds of thousands of dollars in free gifts, many of them from speacial interest groups?
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
What a ham (Romney).
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Metro,
“I think a candidate like Huck would *normally* use the term “religious leader,†but specifically chose “Christian leader†due to Mitt.”
That’s speculation, and the reason I doubt that is that many evangelicals don’t even like the term “religious” for reasons specific to evangelical theology. A more generic term like “religious” would also be considered too noncommittal for a committed Christian.
December 3rd, 2007 at 6:49 pm
After Mitt delivers the much-anticipated “Faith in America” speech on Thursday, there will be a ton of buzz online and offline for Mitt. The day after this event, Mitt’s supporters are hosting an event that you can check out at http://www.December7thforMitt.com