The Candidates
Featured Archives
Governor Romney’s “Faith In America” Address (As Prepared For Delivery):
“Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
“It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.
“Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.
“America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.
“Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
“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 Adams’ 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.
“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.
“Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. 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 for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
“Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
“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. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
“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.
“I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.
“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. 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. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’
“Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?
“They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
“We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’
“The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.
“These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…’
“My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
“Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
“It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.
“We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.
“I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
“Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom… killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
“The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.
“Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
“Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
“And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God … they founded this great nation.
“In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’
“God bless the United States of America.”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Mitt gave a nice speech.
Now here goes all the talk over the Golden plates and Joseph Smith and all that.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Very pleased. Some good sound bytes. Good job weaving history.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I’m just going to observe the hypocrisy in Romney’s speech.
“There should be no religious test for president.”
Reconcile that with his statement a few months ago that “America needs a person of faith as president.”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:03 am
I think that speech was better than Kennedy’s. Unbelievable.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:05 am
religion and faith are different things Nusrat.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:05 am
How so?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:06 am
#1 Rick…
Yah know for some of us… the golden plates rank right up there with turning water to wine and splitting a sea
But even as an agnostic, I appreciate the role religion played in the establishment of this country and its foundation in our laws and constitution. I don’t agree with the enforced secularism that has been going on the last decade. And I think being an outsider gives me an objective view as to worrying less about what religion a person believes and more about who that person is.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:07 am
“There should be no religious test for president.†= no one should be judged for the presidency based on their religious views
“America needs a person of faith as president.†= we need someone who believes in God (in whatever name) as president — this is a religious view.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:08 am
Great speech, he really hit it out of the park.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:09 am
religion/faith..
I have faith in the goodness of people and faith in the net positive of our justice system and laws. I have faith in the strength of our country and its roll in the world.
I don’t ascribe to any religion.
They are different things Nusrat
December 6th, 2007 at 11:09 am
The Speech [Kate O'Beirne]
I predict it will get rave reviews. Mitt Romney, who sure looked presidential, explained effectively that he is a man of faith who is committed to America’s values. He was sure-footed and polished as usual but appeared today to be fighting back strong emotions when he talked about American exceptionalism.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/
December 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Romney’s statement about Jesus Christ was the equivalent of saying that he believes “most of” the Bible.
No one ever said that Mormons don’t believe in Jesus Christ. Our problem is that they also believe Jesus had multiple wives, lives on some weird planet, and is the brother of Satan.
I’m not bashing his religion — but if he was hoping to calm fears that statement didn’t do the trick.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Romney’s Speech [Mona Charen]
That was perhaps the best political speech of the year. It was well-crafted and delivered with conviction and — this is unusual for Romney — considerable emotion. I thought his contrast of the empty cathedrals of Europe with the violent jihadis was particularly adroit. He managed to make this a speech about patriotism as much as about religion. Brilliant.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Also, an interesting segment of Romney’s speech was when he said that Americans are tired of leaders who won’t hold an inconvenient positions. The problem is that for the last 11 months of this campaign Romney has been that “convenient” leader. Romney’s problem is that even taking a “inconvenient” position comes at a convenient time.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Will anyone notice that the jihadis are motivated by…. RELIGION?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am
People are saying it was a good speech. And it was a good speech. The question is was it the speech Romney needed to make? Did it accomplish what it needed to accomplish? Time will tell, but as an evangelical I didn’t feel that any of my concerns about Romney were addressed.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:13 am
12 – that is a lie. You have no backing except what was repeated to you. Its possible that some Mormon leader lent their opinion on that subject… but it has never been taught as official doctrine. You have been misled
December 6th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I think that all this will do is that more people now will ask about Romney’s faith more and more. And this will be bad for him IMO…People will start to realize more about the Mormon religion and realize it really is a cult. Christians are not going to like the idea that the Book of Mormon is an add on to the Bible. They will not like the fact that they believe Jesus had multiple wives. I thought Romney should have never given this speech, and you people will find out why in a few days, it will be his last major speech in politics.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I think the last part of his speech was excellent.
The first part of it was awful, but I think his delivery really distracted me. Geraughty didn’t like it, but who can tell how reactions will be.
Overall, I thought it was good. I think he was facing some unrealistic expectations. When he slowed down, he impressed me, but the first half was terrible. He really won points with me for the Sam Adams reference. That was an excellent observation by Romney.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:16 am
This speech was an appeal to men of good will, and among men of good will it was a rallying speech. It appealed to the better angels of the American people’s nature and the nobler sentiments that unite them in a common cause. If you didn’t like this speech, vote for someone else, because this speech was the epitome of who Mitt is and what motivates him to seek the office.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Dave,
Well i guess alot of people will be voting for somone else then, and i think Huckabee’s lead in Iowa will only grow bigger after this..
December 6th, 2007 at 11:19 am
This whole speech thing is preposterous. Nothing Romney says (unless it’s “I am not a Mormon anymore”) will have zero effect on how the voters see him and his religion. It’s just a pathetic copy of JFK.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
December 6th, 2007 at 11:19 am
AMAZING SPEECH. i watched in msnbc and they were all gushign about how moving and wonderufl it was. even chris mathews was blown away. pat buchannon said it could not have been any better.
it won’t change the bigots minds of course, but i think it will impress a lot of those who it will be their first introduction of him.
very presidential and he pulle dit off. as he said, if it takes him so be it. he is not willing to run away from the issue.
awsome speech.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:20 am
If the Republican nominee is Huck or Mitt, the electorate will view the nominee as someone who emerged out of a tussle as to who was the most religious leader.
That means either is doomed in the general election.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
Justin,
If we’re going to jump to reactions, Bill Bennett didn’t think he lived up to his promise. Geraughty wasn’t sold. Everyone’s an expert.
What matters? To me, I thought it was good, but I’m just one person. I’m sure some loved it, and some didn’t. Don’t try and spin something like this right now. Let it play out. I actually think he probably helped himself with some voters, but like I said, let’s wait and see.
I think he helped himself, but I wouldn’t know because he didn’t need to appeal to me about his religion. That has no basis on how I vote.
Patience is a virtue.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
18 – thanks for doing your part to help “educate” the unenlightened. What strikes a hole in your logic is your professed concern about Christians learning about mormons and then yourself volunteering complete misrepresentations of the mormon beliefs.
Why the fear if the belief set is soooo rediculious? Seems that you’d want to argue the opposite
December 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
huck’s strategy may really backfire on him running as the true christian, making an issue of romney’s mormon faith. makes him look really bad. a number of the pundits were speaking about it today. cglad someone is finally catching on to that point.
good luck getting elected running as the ‘christian leader’ in the general.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:21 am
John Galt, Ayn Rand would be turning in her grave. I should post some quotes from John Galt on the topic of religion.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:22 am
shut up metro
December 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
#29, feeling intellectually guilty, I see.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Wow new Rasmussen numbers – Huck now leads SC with Romney booming to second. The rest drop back. This speech will help in crucial South Carolina.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_republican_primary
December 6th, 2007 at 11:23 am
i disagrewe with metro in 24. Huck is runnign that campaign. mitt is saying that is wrong. did you listen to the speech?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:24 am
It looks like “the speech” brought out some of the anti/losers.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Chris Lizza, these polls are demonstrating what us Rudy folks have been saying for months:
Early state voters don’t decide until the very end. Anything is possible.
The reality of this is just starting to sink in for you Rombots.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am
John Galt, that’s not how it would be framed in the minds of the electorate if either won the nomination.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Ed Morrissey was fairly positive on the speech, though he doesn’t think it’ll convince those who thus far have said they won’t for Mormons.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Does anyone have an mp3 of the audio for this speech? I have a feeling this speech will be defining the rest of the campaign trail. Wonderfully done by Romney. He may have gained some converts to his cause because this was very well done.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Chris,
Thompson is in second too. Wow, on huck’s part
December 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
But Metro – it’s breaking Mitt’s way, not Rudy’s. It’s gonna be us vs. the Huckster.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Chris Lizza, over half of early state voters don’t decide until the last week. You’re repeating the same mistake all over again.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:30 am
That Rasmussen SC poll is very interesting. A stunning 80% of South Carolina voters think Immigration, the economy, national security, or Iraq are the most important issues in the election. Huckabee is the absolute worst candidate in the field on every one of those issues. It’s not even close. I just can’t believe that his numbers aren’t going to go plunging into the sea in the next few weeks.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Reality check people. The speech was not intended to convince all evangelicals that Mitt is acceptable. Some evengelicals just won’t vote for a Mormon period. However, for those that are not so obstinate, his speech may have helped. Either way, I can’t see how that speech would have hurt him.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Metro – you may well be right, but I think they’re starting that break now. I’d rather be 1-2 throughout pre-Feb. 5 than take that oh-fer that’s lining up for Giuliani.
That big vanity fair story is gonna hurt too – may not be very fair, I’ll grant. The media seems to be turning on your guy. But the momentum has shifted, don’t tyou think?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
MM – totally agree. To me the biggest numbers of import were Mitt up, Rudy down.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Levin, Goldberg, and Lopez liked it quite a bit as well, though there are disagreements about the extent to which he’s helped himself.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am
From ABC NEWS!
Romney’s campaign has claimed for months that if he was going to give a speech, he likely wouldn’t do so until after the primaries should he gain the nomination.
While the campaign vehemently denies there is any connection, the most significant change in the Republican field in the last two weeks is certainly the rise of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa, where a recent ABC News poll showed Huckabee tied for first with Romney.
Is this another flip-flop?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:36 am
From Rasmussen:
“In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Mike Huckabee retains a three-point edge with support from 21% of Likely Republican Primary Voters nationwide while Rudy Giuliani is the top choice for 18%. Mitt Romney earns 12% while Fred Thompson and John McCain each attract 11% (see recent daily numbers). Five candidates are within ten points of the lead and all five could conceivably become the party’s eventual nominee. Ron Paul is the only other candidate with measurable support and he currently attracts 8% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide.
New data released today shows that Huckabee is the new leader in South Carolina’s Presidential Primary. Thompson and Romney are close behind. Huckabee has also moved in front of Hillary Clinton in the state of Arkansas.”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am
HUCKABOOM!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Trainer Walsh, put the Kool-Aid down and step away from the pitcher.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Is this something Romney should have explained in his speech?
“It’s also been reported that Romney’s top fundraising zip code is 84604 — Provo, Utah, the home of the most notable Mormon school, Brigham Young University…” Also from ABC News just now.
He gets all of his financial support from the Mormon community… he is bought and paid for by the LDS community, isn’t he?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:39 am
ABC News is flatly wrong. Romney never gave any timeline for a possible speech, and to suggest he did is a blatant lie. There was speculation, among those not associated with the campaign, that he intended to wait until the general election, but that’s not akin to Romney claiming this.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Huck is going to bust when Iowans hear from people like Ashley Stevens.
“I know you remember that I am Wayne Dumond’s victim…. you SHOULD have listened to me, and two women would still be alive in Missouri! “
December 6th, 2007 at 11:39 am
The speech was a winner. Why? Because it did not ruin his campaign. He took a big big risk by doing this. He is still alive to campaign for another day. Additionally, He probably earned a little support. 1-2% of the electorate moving to Mitt in Iowa, is significant. He doesn’t need to convice all of the evangelicals, but just enough to win Iowa. I think this speech will do it.
By the way, CNN with Bennett and Martin overall seemed positive about it. Not everything was positive from them, but all in all they seemed impressed.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:39 am
I am not sure the speech will help him much.
It didnt really address / answer the concerns of those who have a problem with his relgion.
It sharply alienated those who are not religious.
It seemed to me to be somewhat incoherent – trying to play both sides of the church-state separation issue at the same time without achieving clarity – just making assertions that he hoped those on either side might find acceptable. Very Mitt-like in that.
Everything he does in his campaign seems very calculated to push the right buttons of the constituency that he needs to win over at any point in time. That of course is what leads to the hilarious comparisons of what he says to the people of MA when he wants to be their senator or governor vs. what he says to the GOP base when he wants to be their presidential candidate.
This speech too seems to have sentences and phrases designed to push specific buttons. One thing is clear however. A President Romney could never be my president – he simply fais to envision such a thing. It is one thing to see a member of the opposite party winning an election, it is quite another to imagine a president who doesnt concieve of you as part of the American narrative.
Romney seems to be calculating that the “faith-based” constituency can get him the Rovian 50%+1. A very divisive speech, laying the groudwork for a very divisive presidency.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:39 am
trainer walsh, how petty is that comment. stop wasting our time.
huck is out of control. how can people think terrorism and immigration are the most important issue and then say they support huck. hilarious. voters are so ignorant. no worries, there is probably time to bring him back down to earth.
either way, this race has got to the most interesting a race has been in a long time.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:40 am
The speech did not help him.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Again, Trainer Walsh, put the Kool-Aid down and step away from the pitcher.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:41 am
**Warning, biased opinion ahead**
Mitt did exactly what he needed to do, that was to explain precisely that he shouldn’t have to answer for his beliefs in this arena. Anybody who was hoping for a doctrinal exposition on Mormon doctrine was misinformed as to the purpose and intent of his speech. I thought the speech was fantastic, but my vote is already in the bag for him. I hope that those who feel they still need to know more about Mormon doctrine to allay their fears about what Mitt will do once in the White House are smart enough to go to http://www.mormon.org instead of http://www.joesmithwasthedevilincarnate.com.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:43 am
As an evangelical Christian, I agree with the spirit of the speech, but I was put off by some of his comments which ensinuated some form of ecuminism. I thought that those portions of the speech were misleading. Specifically about his views of Jesus.
I did not write this to start an argument. I just thought that you might like to hear an evangelical insider viewpoint.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Matt,
Re: #41: Dittos. Or, in light of current events, Amen. Huckabee just might be the antiChrist.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:47 am
I thought the speech was great. He did an excellent job as he settled into the speech. The first part he was speaking a little fast, but I can imagine his nerves were a little on edge at the beginning of the speech. I think that those people that were for Romney going into the speech, and now even more for Romney, those that were on the fence, either jumped one way or the other, and those that were against Romney going into the speech, I am sure have not changed, and are even more against him now. In my opinion, the speech was extremely well written, and delivered exceptionally well. Those people that start tearing apart Mormon theology, and say that they want to know the doctrines of the church, I think we have successfully reached the point where we can tell you to contact your local LDS Missionaries, and 2 of our young men/women will come and ge glad to explain to you and your family our beliefs. But to go after Romney for that explanation after this speech, shows a flailing effort to tear down a great man. Well done Governor Romney. In my family that speech will go down as one of the best I have heard. And that is coming from Jared, and American not Jared a Mormon.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:48 am
And here’s another evangelical’s point of view:
“From Charles via Verizon Wireless: “Grand slam home-run.” I concur. As I just told Charles on the phone, I think the Governor did an excellent job weaving America in between the religion-choking secularism of Europe and the conversion-by-the-sword tactics of radical Islam. He seemed to say: We are the place–we must be the place–where people are free to worship, and where worship matters. And if it isn’t that way here, then where will it be? If you watched the speech, you may have noticed that Gov. Romney seemed to get a little emotional at the end. I couldn’t tell via the Internet feed, so I asked Charles. He seems to think the Governor did, and that in doing so he “unburdened” himself a bit. To paraphrase Charles, Romney seemed to say this is who I am and I’m willing to let you, the voter, take it or leave it. Bravo.”
December 6th, 2007 at 11:49 am
# 3 you make the best point early… Romney’s flip-flops!!! He stated, “There should be no religious test for president.†However, Romney said Monday that, “I think that a candidate or a president that tried to make his religion a defining a feature of his campaign or of his term in office would tend to divide the nation rather than bring us together.”
Nice Jab Romney! This really shows your true colors.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:50 am
John Galt,
Are you a Mormon? Just asking because you sound so arrogant like your candidate.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:51 am
If you mean “ecumenism†in the narrow sense of more cooperation among different Christina groups, then that’s a good thing. If you mean it in the sense of their being a single Christian Church, then you missed the whole point of his speech.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:53 am
For those that say the speech did not help him, I quote Chris Matthews of all people, “For the first time in this campaign, and it has been a long one, I have seen greatness!” Hmmm . . the speech didn’t help him?? Pat Buchanan, “There were times during the speech where I was moved”. Hmmm, still didn’t help him?? Joe Scarborough, “HE HIT THIS ONE OUT OF THE PARK.” Hmmm, . . . speech didn’t help him?? Let’s face facts here. To those of you on this site who try and claim this speech didn’t help him, let’s consider a few things. NO MATTER WHAT HE DID OR SAID, you would still say he came out on the losing end. Your views regarding him are slanted, and the man can do no right in your eyes. BUT, the MSM is going to run with the following headline, “ROMNEY DELIVERS EXCEPTIONAL SPEECH ON FAITH IN AMERICA.” And every campaign out there wishes they had that opportunity in that venue at this point in the election. Fact is Mitt Romney was given the opportunity, and he NAILED IT!!!
December 6th, 2007 at 11:54 am
#65, I understand the point of the speech. I’m just telling you what the effect was on me.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:55 am
#66, Yes, I have my slant, just as you obviously do.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:57 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nnSe238oUM
Romney Contradicts Himself Here on Mormonism… Opportunistic Flip-Flopper.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:57 am
MR (#40), and here you are, ignoring who those undecided voters will look at first. Fact #1: They will not look at every candidate. They simply do not have the time. Most of them will look at two, and perhaps 3, candidates – period. Fact #2: They will look first at who did well in earlier priamries. At this point, it looks like Iowa will be between Huckabee and Mitt, and NH – it will be between Mitt and McCain or Rudy. If Rudy ends up not doing well in those two states, those undecided voters will be less likely to look at his platform, especially if there may be 3 candidates by then for them to consider — Huckabee, Romney and McCain.
Yes, Rudy could end up second in NH, and then he will be considered. I think NH is increasingly become his firewall state. This is where I wish we have more polls from Michigan and Nevada.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:58 am
“In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.”
This was my favorite part – especially “our nation’s symphony of faith” — very nice.
Some of you Romney Hater’s would criticize Jesus when he gave the Sermon on the Mount and pick his speech to pieces. I just ignore your comments.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:59 am
AP should report how Romney is just seeking a sympathy vote. He push polls for it, he begs for it today… people just don’t like him for so many reasons… I am calling it now – Romney will be done before South Carolina.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
#64,
Never seen you post on this site, but if there is anyone who reeks of ignorance, . . . er . . . I mean arrogance . . That would be you.
FOLKS REMEMBER . . his speech was titled FAITH IN AMERICA. What did you expect him to do, come out and say that faith played no role in America?? Of course he is going to talk about religion/faith and how it has shaped, and continues to shape our country. To those that say he didn’t convince an agnostic/athiest to believe in God, I would say, that was not the intention of the speech. At least we can agree, that if the speech did not help him (your opinions) it did not hurt him then either. His speech was well done, and I think, as Joe Scarborough said, “To try and attack him on his religion, well as we southern Evangelicals say, that dog won’t hunt anymore.”
December 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Symphony of faith… how about sympathy? That’s the effect he was going for!
December 6th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
#71 – I agree that the “Symphony of Faith” was one of his greatest lines in the speech. Very well said.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
#72,
Did I slip and say ignorance, well this post proves it. Go away and send your bashing elsewhere. Are you a Hillary Clinton plant?? Are you that General from the YouTube debate?? Come on, you can tell us. Your drivel has been played out here already. Good riddance.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Michael,
Interesting you said the speech would not help him but that you agreed with the spirit of it. What would you rather that Romney have said in his speech? And I’m curious why you said you didn’t like what he said about Jesus? Can Mormons say anything about Jesus that you would like? I can imagine his comments about his beliefs on Jesus fitting very well into a wide variety of religious meetings both evangelical and Mormon. His speech was essentially a reconciliation speech saying that, sure, we may have differences in belief, but he was building on common ground with other Christians and stressing religious tolerance. I thought it was an awesome speech.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
He named it Faith in America for a reason. He could never have titled it Mormonism in America…
He’s a push polling, flip-flopping, opportunistic, pathological liar.
I have faith in America that the people of this great country will see Romney for the “USED CARS SALESMAN” that he is.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I just love how everybody is criticizing how Romney ‘delivered’ the speech. If you want Kenneth Branaugh or Tom Hanks as president, then start supporting them (oh, that’s right some of you do support Fred Thompson–forgot). Actors are paid to look sincere when they really aren’t. I am just glad the every-day American is a little more humble than many of the posters here. They realize that “normal” people don’t get a dozen takes to make the delivery just right. People think that to be good ‘objective’ critics they have to always find some flaw to snipe at. They can never simply sit back and give credit for a good job. They sit back as the subject of their criticizms expose the most sensitive parts of their being. Within their cloistered existence they risk nothing, but enjoy the position of feigned superiority over their imperfect subject.
I think it is adequate to recall the words of T. Roosevelt who said:
I challenge those weak and timid men who sit in their soft chairs annonymously sniping at Romney (you know who you are) to someday do half of what Romney has done for his family and America–perhaps then you will have half the perspective that would qualify you to suggest better word-usage or delivery.
About the speech: Romney did better than I could have hoped. I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be in his place; giving a speech in which he was ostensibly speaking as a Latter-day Saint as well as a candidate for President. He is a good man who desires the best for his country. He is a man of integrity who sticks by his beliefs, (and who may have stumbled as a result of trying to balance neighborly kindness with his own moral convictions). The charges of phoneyness are themselves duplicitous and eminate from minds saturated in cognitive dissonance. They are hypocritical in that they judge a man by ones opposition to his religion, candidacy or accomplishments as a father and buisnessman instead of judging the man based on his merit.
In less than a month we will see what the outcome of this race will be. I am confident the American people will look past the pettyness of all the detractors from every candidate and find the essential goodness in each candidate and judge by those standards which they would judge themselves (instead of the hypocritical method of judging that many here exhibit). This speech will go a long way in helping the Evangelicals better define themselves (it’s not the Mormon’s who need to define or explain themselves in the public sphere–that has been clear with respect to public policy for many decades now), by helping Evangelicals decide what place their own church should be take as part of governemnt, if at all.
One final thought, the differences that Mormons have with Christians (imagined or otherwise) have no place in American Government or Public Policy. The Church is very clear on manifold public policy issues–all of which are almost always in accord with Catholics, and Southern Baptists. The differences are no more important in the public square than the different skin colors or gender of the candidates. That is why Romney was right to exclude that from his speech. To suggest otherwise is frankly unamerican and puts one’s religion before the common-interest of the American people–a doctrine more characteristic of Islamic Jihadist than Evangelicals.
I hope Evangelicals live up to their heritage of religious tolerance and elightened self-interest for the common-good of America.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
As an Evangelical who got his degrees from a Southern Baptist Seminary and undergrad student I am proud to stand with Gov. Romney and thought his speech was excellent. Once again – we are NOT voting for a theologian in chief; we are voting for a political position and there should be NO religious test! I don’t agree with Romney’s religion but I don’t care about the religion of my President; I care about his/her views on the issues. It is not my President’s responsibility to evangelize for my religion – that is the job of the church and members of the church. I did not see ecumenism in this speech, but rather a call for respect of religions, which is a founding principle of this great nation.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Trainer Walsh – You are a pathatic human being. I pity you.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
The airwaves here in Southern California are jumping with excitement about the speech. You had rabbis saying that the speech was deeply moving, you had catholic bishops stating that they had just witnessed history, you had atheists saying that they felt they were looking at the next president. It appears to be a speech that really reached across the broad spectrum of voters and resonated with people in all groups. The talk shows here are just full of people going nuts over the speech.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Trainer #78, did you even read the speech? It’s not called Mormonism in America because it wasn’t about Mormonism at all. In fact, he barely touched on Mormonism. It really was a speech about what he believed was faiths proper role, how faith has played an important part in history, how the founding fathers had religious faith and appealed to the Almighty.
We don’t appreciate mindless perjoratives on this site.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
#68 – I do, and have never held myself out as something other than a Romney supporter. What I won’t do is attack another candidate as a person. I think, as I have said many times, each of them are great men. I disagree with some of them on some points of policy, but I don’t attack their religions, their families, them as good men. That has been lost on Mitt Romney. Those of you that attack him, attack the man, and his religion, not his stance on the issues (for the most part) Those that attack the man, and his religion (Trianer Walsh seems to be the latest incarnation) I have no tolerance for, and will come out swinging in defense of a good man. When you care to outline those issues where you disagree with him, then we can have a good discussion, but when your “slant” is attacking the man and his religious beliefs, you prove your ignorance.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Tano (#54),
Well, there are actually two branches of people who have problems with Mitt’s Mormonism. The first one is those who think Mormonism is evil, bad, or idiotic. We saw a few of comments like that here in this post already. Mitt has not addressing them nor will he ever.
The second group is those who are not sure they can trust a person of LDS Church, that is, they do not know how he feels about the religious freedom and the Constitution. They may be hestiate to vote for him because of all of things people from first group have claimed Mormonism to be (i.e., voting for him is a validation of Mormonism religion or that his becoming President will result in everyone being forced to join). Mitt has addressed the concerns of this second group very well. He made it very clear that he will not let the church leaders tell him what to do, and that he will not deny the goodness it has provided to him. He recognized very clearly that our country is great because of its “symphony of religions”. True, he did not address the atheists. But to be frank, he is right in that the atheists do have the freedom to not practicing any religion because the religious men and women recognize that there are inalienated rights, that it has been given to ALL from God.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
#80 – Thank you for an unbiased viewpoint on how out country should be run.
“It is not my President’s responsibility to evangelize for my religion – that is the job of the church and members of the church. I did not see ecumenism in this speech, but rather a call for respect of religions, which is a founding principle of this great nation.”
Extremely well said.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
RUSH is raving about the speach now
December 6th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
This ‘trainer walsh’ is insufferable. An Anti-american, unpatriotic, dirt-bag.
I am deeply embarresed that his name resembles mine so much.
Why don’t you stop using annonymous suicide attacks “Trainer WalSh.” You are starting to look just like you cowardly islamic jihadist counterparts. Your views would certainly be more welcomed on al jazeera than here.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
#82 – I agree, and am listening to the same here in southern CA. I think that is what the MSM is going to run with for the next 2 weeks. And I think that this did a lot of good for Romney with regards to that 2nd group that you referred to SGS. (I completely agree with your assessment btw)
December 6th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Thanks Jared #86
December 6th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
The speech was wonderful. He described a country in which we can benefit from a symphony of differing religious views, with many also sharing a common faith in God and heartfelt brotherhood. It’s clear that some aren’t committed to that end, but I certainly am. I look forward to President Mitt Romney.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Trainer Walsh,
I bet we could look through your comments and find a flip flop.
December 6th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
#64 Trainer Walsh:
“Just asking because you sound so arrogant like your candidate.” If being arrogant points to being Mormon, then that must be your religion.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
Just read the text of the speech. What amazes me…and to me, this shows the substance of the man…ROMNEY WROTE MOST this speech. That is an incredible insight into who Romney really is. I was listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning who LOVED the speech, said it was an example of true LEADERSHIP.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Awesome speech! Vary impressive! Content and delivery were perfect!
December 6th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
It sounds to me that instead of being a handicap, his Mormonism has become an asset,
because without it, he would not have been able to give this speech. Kind of ironic,
isn’t it?
December 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
gws,
Thompson writes all of his speeches. So? I’m not knocking Romney, it was a fine speech, but calm down.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Right on cue, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued an official statement reaffirming political neutrality.
The last paragraph pretty much shows that the Church accepts Mitt Romney’s decision that his Chruch isn’t going to tell him what to do as President.
That is a long-standing policy held by the LDS Church. In politics, Mormon’s are treated by the Mormon church just like any other political official, except that they reserve the right call the politician as a nursury teacher.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
The much vaunted speech did nothing for me. In terms of content, it was mostly homogenized, hardly inspiring language.
His delivery began in an above mid-range tone for him, and then he kept going to higher tones for emphasis. His rate of speech was fine, but his words are clipped, making them sound a bit harsh and hurried. The intonation and clipped speech pattern made him sound rushed and excited out of nervousness. Mitt rarely modulates his volume, either. What results is a continuous staccato at a high pitch without any crescendos or decrescendos to underline certain points. Added onto this was the repeated lip licking sound he produced before most paragraphs.
He used his voice to emphasize words and phrases so often that no particular phrase seemed to stand out against the rest. He could lengthen long vowels from time to time to make certain words and phrases stand out.
The audience must have comprised ardent supporters, and they seemed exceptionally eager. It was odd how Mitt seemed to wait for total silence after a thunderous audience response rather than attempting to interrupt the applause to assert that he was in control of the crowd.
It was one of Romney’s better speeches, but evocative, inspiring speech-making is decidedly not one of his natural talents.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
MarkG: Read my comment #79.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
“The much vaunted speech did nothing for me. In terms of content, it was mostly homogenized, hardly inspiring language.”
I didn’t get to see the speech, but I read the words and it was truly a touching, remarkable speech. I don’t know how you couldn’t be moved by it. Unless you’re an atheist, if that speech didn’t inspire you as an American, I can’t see much of anything else in this world that would.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
THE SPEECH displayed true leadership and true principles. This speech is historic. I have long felt that America is falling into the trap of the state-sponsored religion of secularism. THE SPEECH will be a turning point in the fight to protect religious liberty. After a sickening round of petty stories about Rudy’s marital missteps, Huckabee’s did-or-did-not-pardon-a-murderer fiaso, and the undying scrutiny of the funny accents of Romney’s former gardeners, THE SPEECH renews my optimism in the future of America. It is a refreshing and sober declaration of the world we live in the principles that makes America great.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
[...] Moment of Obfuscation: “Teh Speech” I recommend against reading “the speech” if you plan to operate a moving vehicle. It will cause involuntary drowsiness. To [...]
December 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I attended a public school where homosexuality indoctrination was required but mention of the G word (God) was forbidden. State-sponsored secularism has hijacked much of the government and public education. As a result, I will not allow my children to attend public schools. We are home schooling them until we can afford private school. Romney’s speech gives me hope that I may some day be able to consider public schools again. Sadly, for many on the left, “Religious Liberty” equals “No Religion in Public” while for some on the right “Religious Liberty” equals “Liberty for only TRUE religions”. The fact that Romney clearly articulates that “Religious Liberty” really means “Religious Liberty”, coupled with the fact that so many people support Romney, renews my faith in the American people.