The Reaction Keeps Rolling
I am fairly sure that no speech ever given by a candidate before a single primary vote has even been cast has ever received anywhere near this amount of coverage and commentary. It’s extraordinary. As has been true all week, the blue box at right is a “ticker” of sorts for you to follow most of what is worth reading and in this space we look at stuff we deem worthy of quote or comment.
In general the “good speech” commentary is outweighing the “bad speech” commentary significantly; however, the vast majority of the positive commentary is of the “Yes, but…” variety. Some of that is just the nature of commentary in general, “AMENS” do not appear as serious thought.
Amongst some of the more strident negatives are John Podhoretz:
That’s entirely fine. But there’s something oddly pointless about this protestation. Who is the audience for this speech, aside from people like me who make their living in part watching them and reading their texts and writing about them?
and Lee Harris:
The Reuters headline said: “Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House.” Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It’s a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
Both pieces are both proof that there is no pleasing anybody. Harris seems to be arguing, still, that Romney should not have given the speech. That just seems silly after the fact. Podhoretz thinks all the speech did was serve to more strongly associate the term Mormon with the name Romney. Podhoretz is an almost purely political analysis and that is where it falls short of great analysis.
One of the key take-ways from The Speech:
“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.
The key to Mitt Romney is that he does not want to be president because he wants to be president, he wants to be president because he wants to serve his nation. As such, he is committed to certain ideal above his election. This speech was, above all a demonstration of leadership – not politics, but leadership.
My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.
Michael Gerson notes how very smart Romney is:
This is a sophisticated view of pluralism and tolerance — that religion and freedom are not at odds, because freedom should be one of the deepest commitments of true faith.
Patrick Buchanan is laudatory.
Finally, K-Lo has some interesting Hannity video.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Issues, News Media Bias, Political Strategy, The Speech | Comment on this post » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post