[John and I are otherwise engaged these next few days, so just for fun we are re-publishing a post that went up on December 10, just after Romney's "Faith In America" Speech (see it here) at the Bush Library in College Station, Texas. Read it and tell me: Was I wrong? Did things turn out the way I thought they would? That you thought they would? Comment away. Comment moderation is turned off. Let's get a comment thread going.]
Romney’s “Faith in America” Speech: Changing The Discussion Forever
John and I were on Hugh Hewitt’s show Friday for a few minutes and Hugh asked us if we thought The Speech put The Question to bed. We didn’t have time to answer fully.
On reflection, I think what has happened is that Romney has irrevocably and forever changed the discussion about The Question. (K-Lo seems to agree.)
As John notes below, Romney has drawn a line in the sand, and everyone watching this race — candidates, commentators, or voters– will need to decide which side they are on.
Why? Because Romney has taken the high ground on the issue of religion. From this point on, the following statements from his “Faith in America” speech will guide the discussion:
(more…)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by:
Lowell Brown at 10:46 am, February 5th 2008 &mdash
1 Comment »
Because of James Dobson’s history on this issue (saying on Laura Ingraham’s show that he doubts Evangelicals will support Romney) this statement, also on Laura’s show, seems significant (audio here):
“I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
“But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I’m affiliated. They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”
Dr. Dobson did love Romney’s speech on “Faith in America,” but has never endorsed anyone in the race. Well, at least we know which candidate he will not vote for.
(HT: The Campaign Spot.)
UPDATE: A reader e-mails us and reports that Dr. Dobson was on Dennis Prager’s show this morning: “Dobson said, even tho he has doctrinal differences with Mormons, he would definitely vote for Mitt in the general were he the nominee.”
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by:
Lowell Brown at 05:08 pm, December 16th 2007 &mdash
2 Comments »
Romney, Russert and Religion
Today’s Meet The Press Interview is now part of the public record, and predictably, Tim Russert dove into religion first. (Here’s the video clip of that portion of the interview, and here’s the transcript.)
One issue that got more attention than I think it has previously in the campaign was the former policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) that denied the Church’s lay priesthood to African-American men. The exchange:
(more…)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by:
John Schroeder at 07:44 am, December 15th 2007 &mdash
3 Comments »
Charles Krauthammer wrote a column yesterday that said everybody was dipping too deeply into the well of religiousity this election cycle.
This campaign is knee-deep in religion, and it’s only going to get worse. I’d thought that the limits of professed public piety had already been achieved during the Republican CNN/YouTube debate when some squirrelly looking guy held up a Bible and asked, “Do you believe every word of this book?” — and not one candidate dared reply: None of your damn business.
Instead, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee bent a knee and tried appeasement with various interpretations of scriptural literalism. The right answer, the only answer, is that the very question is offensive. The Constitution prohibits any religious test for office. And while that proscribes only government action, the law is also meant to be a teacher.
Krauthammer saves special mention for Romney. This is because The Speech was far and away the most reasonable utterance by a candidate in the subject to date, but the point Krauthammer makes refers to my biggest and only serious “wince point” in the whole Speech:
(more…)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by:
Lowell Brown at 12:06 am, December 10th 2007 &mdash
4 Comments »
John and I were on Hugh Hewitt’s show Friday for a few minutes and Hugh asked us if we thought The Speech put The Question to bed. We didn’t have time to answer fully.
On reflection, I think what has happened is that Romney has irrevocably and forever changed the discussion about The Question. (K-Lo seems to agree.)
As John notes below, Romney has drawn a line in the sand, and everyone watching this race — candidates, commentators, or voters– will need to decide which side they are on.
Why? Because Romney has taken the high ground on the issue of religion. From this point on, the following statements from his “Faith in America” speech will guide the discussion:
(more…)
Sphere: Related Content
Posted by:
John Schroeder at 08:49 am, December 8th 2007 &mdash
1 Comment »
OK, for regular readers, this week should have demonstrated the REAL reason we have argued against a speech – trying to do this blog’s task this week has been overwhelming. (Please remember Lowell and I, and those that help us – Sonja, Dale, Asher – have “day jobs” that pay actual bills.) [Lowell: Well, we used to, at least. 
] Anyway, things seemed to have slowed down for the weekend. Maybe things can return to “normal” by Monday. The blue box will contain the latest through the weekend. There are a few pieces of note this Saturday morning.
Some things are not helpful . . .
The Los Angeles Times does a piece on Evangelical reaction:
But will it help Romney, a Mormon, win over the key voting bloc of conservative Christians?
The broad consensus: probably not.
“I’m not sure it’s going to work for evangelical voters,” said Collin Hansen, editor-at-large at the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. “Pure and simple, there are very dramatic differences” between the Mormon faith and other Christian traditions. “People wonder, does he really believe that — and if so, can I really trust him?”
What Romney’s speech did is draw a line in the sand. He spoke about the great American traditions of religious freedom and tolerance. He pointed out, simply, that if as a religious person you wish to participate in the great American discussion, you’d better be on the right side of the line.
(more…)
Sphere: Related Content
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
