The Speech, And Nothing But The Speech (UPDATED V)
It is being widely acknowledged that with the announcement of a speech on religion, Romney has effectively sucked all the air out of the political coverage room for the week. There is so much coverage and discussion that we are going to change our routine a bit to try and to keep our readers as up to date as possible.
You can find our initial reactions, within an hour or so of the announcement, here. Also, keep your eye closely and routinely on the blue box in the sidebar. We will be updating this as frequently as possible with links to the latest.
As I have read through all the coverage, I think that Byron York as summed up the initial coverage the best:
As for other campaigns, the announcement complicates the story of Huckabee’s rise – on the one hand, it diverts some attention from it, but on the other it creates speculation that it was Huckabee’s rise that forced Romney to give the speech.
It is the later half of that sentence that seems to be the biggest theme to the coverage this morning. The most blatant example of which belongs, unsurprisingly, to the Boston Globe:
Pressed, Romney to speak on his Mormonism
Now, for starters, the speech is on “religious liberty” – we don’t know on any level what he is going to say in specific about Mormonism. The speech has yet to be delivered, and already it is being spun! This is one of the primary reasons I have felt such a speech to be a mistake – Romney’s own message and words are likely to be drowned out in the cacophony of the punditry.
Elsewhere in the Globe piece:
Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, said the decision by Romney is in response to gains being made by Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor.
“There’s only one reason for it – Huckabee,” Wolfe said. “Huckabee is pulling ahead of him in Iowa, so that, I’m sure, forced his hand.”
As Romney loses ground to former Baptist minister and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in Iowa, a state where 40 percent of the Republican voters identify themselves as born-again Christians, Romney seems indeed ready to “do a JFK.”
Jack Tapper, the author of the ABC piece goes on forever about the Kennedy parallels. The rapidity with which a piece this long got up in the wake of the annoucement indicates something I have suspected all along. Many in the MSM have been sitting on material for Speech stories for months and trying to goad Romney into doing it just so they could pound their chests.
A reason to do this speech…
There is; however, at least one very legitimate reason to do this speech that I have found. It comes from this post at “Falwell Confidential” in the wake of Jerry Falwell’s son announcing what was reported as a Huckabee endorsement last week, but in this post appears to be otherwise.
Mr. Huckabee also said that Divine providence was responsible for his recent surge in the polls in Iowa, as he noted that he is the candidate with much less capital firepower than his rivals. Despite his fundraising shortfall, his message seems to be resonating with voters.
Now, please note – this is not a preacher saying what he thinks of Huckabee and his rise (something we have reported on prior), this is a citation of Huckabee himself! Huckabee is doing nothing short of claiming that he, personally, is God’s selected candidate. And people are worried about whether Romney will take orders from SLC?!?!?!?!
Reason has to be restored to the discussion of religion in presidential politics. Romney’s speech needs to address not so much his faith, but faith that would claim divine ordination to a secular office.
Taking the press to school on this would be a mistake, that’ll just make them angry and uglier. But Romney needs to take Mike Huckabee seriously to task. There simply is no place for such claims in a presidential campaign – NONE!
I was struck the other day talking to a Democrat who was telling me that George W. Bush is responsible for all this, that he was the “Evangelical candidate. ” Bush never uttered anything remotely like a claim of divine intervention on his behalf with regards to the campaign. He may have talked about God’s help with his personal struggles, but never did he claim Divine providence with regards to his election.
Historically, such claims have been the providence of those that have gained power by birthright and needed to have that power propped up by outside interference.
There should not have to be a speech, but if there must, I hope Romney can put this kind of stuff to bed, better yet kill it altogether.
Lowell adds: On my way to the office this morning I listened to Laura Ingraham’s show. Right off the top Laura got to The Speech. (She also spent lots of her first half hour on Huckabee, hitting him hard on immigration and his clear dodge to a Stephanopolous question Sunday on that subject.)
The most interesting part of the first segment was Laura’s interview with Jonathan Martin about The Speech. I think that interview is a precursor of many interviews we will hear all week. Here are some bits (most of them paraphrased, based on my notes):
Jonathan Martin: Romney has long wanted to give The Speech. He’s giving it because he’s losing in Iowa. Having Bush 41 introduce him, and having all his kids there will add an important message: “I’m like you, I have your values. [Ed.: Just as we said in our post yesterday about the speech announcement.]
Laura: Can Huck “raise the Mormon issue without raising it,” by having others raise it for him?
Martin: He won’t have to – many Evangelicals see Mormonism as a threat to their faith. Also Huck’s TV ad in Iowa effective raises the issue by using code (”Christian candidate”).
Laura: Romney’s more of a Christian, in his behavior and personal conduct, than a lot of professed Christians. Besides, I’ve never heard Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch have to explain their faith to anyone.
Martin: These folks (many evangelicals, chiefly Southern Baptists) are very concerned about Mormonism. It’s a fast-growing faith. Frankly they see it as a market threat to their churches. Southern Baptists see Mormonism as competing with them for members.
Laura: That doesn’t show much confidence in their own faith.
Martin: Yes, but whether it should be or not, Romney’s religion is an issue. In “polite company” people will say they do not support Romney because of his flip-flops, but they’ll privately admit the real reason is that they just don’t want to vote for a Mormon. [Ed.: In an interview with us that we haven't posted yet, Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost pretty much admitted, somewhat cheerfully, that this was going on.]
This is a historic week, folks. I am both fascinated and sad to watch it unfold. I still find it hard to believe we have an Evangelical duking it out with a Mormon in a key primary state, with the Evangelical playing the religion card and forcing national attention on the issue. What Huck’s really doing is much more than playing a card; he’s playing with fire.
UPDATE (about 9AM PST): According to the Examiner, Romney has started to do some interviews saying what he is going to say:
“I can tell you I’m not going to be talking so much about my faith as I am talking about the religious heritage of our country and the role in which it played in the founding of the nation and the role which I think religion should generally play today in our society,” Romney said in an interview with WBZ-AM.
And Governor, how about the role it should NOT play in our democracy as well.
Late morning update by Lowell:
Mark Tapscott thinks Romney should give the speech in a different location than the Bush library:
He’s wise to give the speech but doing it before an audience of anything but born-again evangelicals in the South is not. . . .
Kennedy went to Houston in 1960 and spoke to a group of Baptists preachers because it conveyed a message of firm but open-minded courage. It also put the Baptists on the spot to “prove” their tolerance by supporting Kennedy.
Doing the JFK speech as here suggested would project Romney as a genuine leader of people of faith. Unfortunately, the people Romney most needs to persuade won’t be at the Bush Library.
I disagree. In the era of YouTube and the blogosphere, the word will get out.
Tapscott also thinks Romney should address Mormons’ view of Jesus:
Romney cannot win the GOP presidential nomination, much less the general election next November, without strong support among the one-third of American voters who call themselves born-again evangelicals. Without the speech, he’s vulnerable to a damaging charge of Clintonesque evasion on Christianity’s most basic question — Who is Jesus? Explaining his answer to that critical question should be the primary focus of the Bush Library address.
I think that would be a disaster, but that’s a subject for another post.
Another update by Lowell:
I liked this bit from Richard Brookhiser in NRO:
The history of Mormonism in America is a story of social and political success, for Mormons and non-Mormons alike. From the grimmest beginnings—the lynching of Joseph Smith, the Mountain Meadows massacre—orthodox Mormons have been ordinary decent citizens for over a century, and other Americans have recognized as much. I hope Romney instructs the ignorant, and holds the bigots, right and left, to shame.
John updates (1:30PM PST): The risk/benefit analysis and the declarations of “bad idea” are beginning to roll in. Mike Allen and Jonathon Martin do some analysis at USAToday:
Mitt Romney decided to deliver a major speech about his religious faith after concluding attention to his Mormonism would only intensify in potentially unflattering ways in the crucial weeks ahead. But even some of his top aides see the speech as a wildly unpredictable gamble.
[...]
His challenge on Thursday morning will be to allay reservations of evangelicals, a huge bloc in the early-voting states of Iowa and South Carolina, while not making his own religion the defining issue in the wild race for the Republican presidential nomination.
Romney decided last week that he would have no regrets – that he must contest what he considers ignorant attacks on his religion, which have been both subtle and overt.
The overtones of his father’s fatal Vietnam-related utterances are somewhat ominous in that presentation. There is little doubt Romney has much at stake here, but Huckabee’s approach to this whole thing really has left him little other option. From KVNU Talk Radio in Logan Utah (commenting on Huckabee on Stephanopoulis Sunday):
Very poweful answer. No one can accuse Huckabee of explicitly stating that Mormons aren’t Christian, but at the same time he certainly leaves the distinction in place for those who may have it.
Huckabee has played this issue by subtly sending the signal that it is acceptable to give way to the rumor mongering, and whispering. That has maintained his plausible deniability while letting the “issue” run wild – if not effectively encouraging it. Ross Douthat is wondering; however, if Romney is not playing right into Huckabee’s hand by bringing the undercurrent to the surface:
But instead of making the conversation about issues where Huckabee is vulnerable and Romney isn’t, the Romney campaign has guaranteed that for the next two weeks at least and probably beyond, the media conversation will be about, well, Mormonism.
One thing is for certain, we will find out once and for all if this particular bit of bigotry and bias is alive and well in America or just the loud protests of a fevered few. Romney is, with this speech, shining a light on what has been thriving in darkness. It will either wither, or respond to the light with a burst of growth. Romney is betting on the former; he is betting on the inherent good will, intent, and understanding of the American people – He is betting the nation as a whole hates bias and bigotry. I hope he is right.
John Updates (4:45 PM PST): Romney is hinting at what will be in the speech. From ABCNews’ Political Radar:
ABC News’ Matt Stuart Reports: Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney distanced his much anticipated speech on his Mormon religion from President Kennedy’s now iconic 1960 speech while speaking in Manchester, N.H. Monday.
Asked by an audience member why he was giving the speech, Romney said, “Well, actually, and I’m glad you raised it because I think JFK really did give the definitive speech on politics and religion.”
Romney emphasized that this would not be “a repeat or an update” of Kennedy’s speech, that in fact Romney’s concern was that “faith has disappeared in many respects from the public square. I want to make sure we maintain our religious heritage in this country.”
Speaking with reporters after the event, Romney continued to emphasize how his speech would differ from JFK’s. “He gave the definitive speech on … discrimination and religion relating to a political campaign,” Romney said, “I am gonna be talking about the role of religion, faith in America and in a free society.”
Romney took the opportunity to jab at fellow Republican hopeful Gov. Mike Huckabee, saying “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.”
Mitt Romney said today he will not try to defend his Mormonism or teach any lessons about it during his planned speech on “Faith in America” on Thursday. He also insisted the speech is not directly connected to questions raised about his religion by evangelicals in early voting states Iowa and South Carolina.
“I don’t know that even at this stage that my faith is a significant factor in my race,” the Republican presidential candidate told reporters following a talk on the economy at the Chateau Restaurant in downtown Manchester.
“I just don’t think in the final analysis it will be the deciding factor.
“But I do believe on a separate topic that faith in America is an important topic and there’s a lot of different views about faith in America,” he said.
I do believe this is about the only way that Romney can go, but there is a risk of being too pedantic. Romney needs to be careful in such a speech to be one of us, reminding us of our shared heritage and not just lecture us on how it should be. Now, of course, there will be people that will take it that way regardless of what Romney does or how he does it – nothing to be done about them.
What is also interesting is that this speech at 9:30AM Central Time will dominate political discussion this week and especially Thursday, but it is not aimed at the general American audience. He is going to get maximal wonk impact and minimal general voter exposure. If this has to be done, he is doing it very, very well.
Technorati Tags: speech, The Speech, speech content, Mormonism, Texas, Romney, Jonathan Martin, Laura Ingraham, Mike Huckabee, Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, Joe Carter, Richard Brookhiser, Mark Tapscott
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, The Speech, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
ComMITTed to Romney! » Huckabee Cites “Divine Providence” for his Rise in Iowa —- Huckabee as “God’s Selected Candidate” on 03 Dec 2007 at 8:55 am #
[...] Read John’s take on this at Article VI Blog ——> God’s Selected Candidate [...]
coltakashi on 03 Dec 2007 at 1:51 pm #
Reverend Huckabee’s buying TV time to put out an ad bragging about what a strong and sincere Christian he is reminds me of what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount:
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:1-6)
Reverend Huckabee is declaring his faith to gain praise from voters, not to praise God. His ad is ironic because, while he says that his faith in Christ is the highest priority in his life, he has demonstrated by the simple act of shouting it out over the airwaves that he does not take seriously Christ’s condemnation of religious braggadocio. While claiming his faith comes first, he is actually putting his popularity among men before the principles taught by Christ. Are any Evangelical ministers stepping forward to point out that Reverend Huckabee’s actions are subordinating Christian faith to the service of his political ambitions?
Matthew Chapter 4 tells us that Jesus was standing on the pinnacle of the temple in Jerusalem, a point over 80 feet above the ground and visible from a large part of the city and to those walking into the temple complex, when Satan tempted him to pull a publicity stunt, and throw himself off so that the angels would catch him and prove to everyone that he is the Son of God. Christ condemned Satan, but Reverend Huckabee has taken Satan’s advice and has jumped off, expecting the Evangelical voters in Iowa will catch him.
dnlchisholm on 03 Dec 2007 at 4:48 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
coltakashi on 03 Dec 2007 at 5:34 pm #
With respect to the update on Mark Tapscott: This is another example of orating from ignorance.
Tapscott seems to have no clue how ignorant he is of Mormon beliefs about Christ. Specifically, other than the term “ex nihilo” (which is nowhere in the Bible and in fact contrary to the sense of the Hebrew text of Genesis), the synopsis that Tapscott gives in his column about the “Christian” view of Christ could have come out of a Mormon sermon or the Sunday School New Testament lesson manual I teach from. Mormons believe all that the Bible teaches about Christ.
What Tapscott describes as Romney’s “Jesus problem” is that mainstream Christians like Tapscott devote so little study to what Mormons actually teach each other that they swallow and regurgitate the distortions that are promulgated by professional book- and DVD-selling Mormon bashers.
Whatever sin the Mormons may have committed against blacks in the past (churches without any history of segregation may throw the first stone), there are sadly many Christians in 2007 AD who refuse to read the thousands of pages of first hand information at Mormon.org and lds.org because they prefer to hear and believe in the convenient lies about Mormons that help them feel superior to Mormons and justifies denying them civil rights, like the right to run for government office. How different, really, are the fears some Christians express about Mormons and the fears that used to be were expressed and promoted about blacks? Remember, the KKK lynched Mormons too. Apparently “their Jesus” is OK with that.
Reverend Huckabee is chumming the baraccudas when he encourages religious prejudice by promoting religious differences as a sufficient reason to discriminate against other candidates. He is saying explicitly that Romney has the burden of proof of convincing the willfully ignorant, like Huckabee, that Mormons are really believers in the Jesus of the Gospels. So Huckabee is preaching that prejudice based on ignorance is a proper principal of political action.
In doing all this, Huckabee is playing into the hands of the earnest secularists who believe that the only way to maintain civil peace in a pluralistic society of religious diversity is to suppress all religions equally, but especially Christianity, following the French model, which accommodates the special needs of no religious believer, and produces the wonderful Muslim riots in Paris.
This is Romney’s opening: Romney can, in his speech, make the case that America is an example to the world that a society of intense believers in different religions can get along with each other as neighbors and fellow citizens, NOT by suppressing the expression of their religious beliefs in public, but precisely by grounding their mutual tolerance in their own deep commitment to the principles of tolerance and love of neighbor that were preached by Christ!
Christ taught that God commands we love even those whose religion seems to us a fraud or forgery, e.g. the Samaritans, who disagreed with the Jews on where the temple should be and whether the prophets after Moses had written scripture. The commandments to love God and love our neighbors were taught by Moses, but Jesus showed that attempts to cut other people out of the circle of “neighbors” to whom we owed love were sinful disobedience to God’s commandments. The attitude of Huckabee and some other Christians is that, were they in the role of the man who fell among thieves, their reaction would be “I don’t care if you are the best qualified rescuer I’m liable to see this week, you’re still a d–n Samaritan, so get your filthy hands off me.” They wouldn’t elect Romney their ambulance driver, let alone their president.
Reverend Huckabee didn’t know the answer to what Jesus would do about capital punishment. Apparently he doesn’t know what Jesus said about tolerance for Samaritans, or their modern equivalent, the Mormons.
dmiller on 04 Dec 2007 at 12:22 am #
Mike Huckabee doesn’t have the intellectual horse-power that Mitt Romney has. He just captured a moment on the YT debates and wisely exploited it. This is the right decision by Mitt Romney. Credit goes to his son, Tagg, for encouraging it. Get this out there for everyone to chew on. They’ve been dying to hear from him on his faith for so long. Mitt can throw them some meat. My take on his strategy….He should emphasize that he is a man with a Morman faith. A man born into a Mormon faith. A man who grew to embrace his Mormon faith as an adult. A faith that is deeply rooted in Christianity. His Christian faith has defined his life and led him to a path of service especially important as he has personally been blessed with so much.
This is his opportunity to breakaway from the pack. To stand out and be bold. Not be safe. He showed a certain aggressiveness in that Jan Michelson interview. It is really worth watching. Mitt Romney needs to throw some punches now and wrestle in the mud a little bit. He has earned that right. Opponents are trying to take him off-course and he’s got to dig in and claim his real estate. It is what will define him and win more support. Fight back with honor and in a big way but get in that ring, get bloodied, get rumpled, be spontaneous. He needs to take it back. To show that he has the character depth and the leadership to take back his position. At some point a man or woman earns to right to close the deal and stand out. To not play it safe. This is Mitt’s time to do that. God Speed, Mitt Romney.