The Speech and Romney's real problem
Mitt Romney's problem is not a wave of anti-Mormonism.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 | Mitt Romney — Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I missed 2007 GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's address this morning, and I haven't read the transcripts. I've read some reviews, though, which have ranged from the bizarre to the more useful.
Now, for Romney's speech to have been a success, it had to convince people that he was telling the truth and that he was the natural standard bearer for all that's good about religion in our nation. In the latter sense, it was a response to Mike Huckabee.
I just called a bit of analysis "useful." Follow the link above; it was written by the AP's Ron Fournier, who might have been motivated simply to trash a Republican – I don't know – but hit right away on the nodus for Team Mitt:
Read On…
Mitt Romney's religion is only part of his problem. A bigger threat to his Republican presidential candidacy, advisers say, is a record of policy flip-flops and nagging doubts about his credibility.
And so Romney's highly anticipated address Thursday was as much about his character as his Mormonism. He used an intensely personal issue — his religion — to address voters' concerns about his authenticity and integrity, about the strength of his convictions.
No single speech is likely to fix such a big concern.
And that is Romney's problem.
"And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."
Convictions — there's that sentiment again. Romney understands that he can't begin to address the "comma problem" until he fixes his credibility crisis.
I do not know that it is possible for Mitt Romney to fix his "credibility crisis," as I do not find him credible. This is not to say that he is not a great man, that he would not make a good President; rather, how do I vote for someone I cannot trust?
He's trying to sell himself as a President of the United States, and by George (pun intended), he seems to be saying whatever he must to do so.
By all accounts, this was a nifty speech, but it remains to be seen if it accomplished a thing.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Romney's Kennedy Moment — Comments (50) »
The Speech and Romney's real problem 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In professional football, you can win a game just by committing fewer turnovers than your opponent. Romney might win the nomination because he could be perceived as having the least amount of baggage among the top 5 candidates.
I still think that Fred Thompson is more representative of standard, traditional 2007 Republicanism. But he got into the race too late. After today's speech, I think Romney loses Iowa to Huckabee and rebounds with a win in New Hampshire and eventually wins the nomination.
Romney showed he has more guts, more passion, more rock-ribbed American patriotism by giving that 'religion' speech than nearly all the other candidates combined - both Republican or Democratic.
The speech not only hit the nail on the head, it was a goose-bumps type stand-up-and-cheer speech.
If Romney goes on to win the Republican nomination, and the '08 election, this speech will have played a signifigent roll.
Let me get this straight - you didn't read or hear the speech and you wrote about it with some weighty conclusions. This kind of think is happening a lot here. I question if this is useful.
I made no conclusions based on the speech itself, and I claimed to make no such conclusions.
My conclusion was about the candidate and a problem he has, specific to him. This may be an errant perception on my part and that of others, but it is one nonetheless.
When we live by a culture that tears down ideas and the thoughts of others before applying any real deliberation and contemplation, we are then the purveyor of lies. It is not possible to honestly pass judgement without having the information upon which we are to pass judgement.
We also classify ourselves as one who adds information to the discourse only for our own selfish reasons, not to build greater understanding.
What you call a problem is actually not specific to him. To get into the general, he has to win the primary. I didn't need to remind you or anyone of that, it's basic politics.
So far, you seem to be operating at about a 3-to-1 schmucky/nonschmucky ratio on your posts.
This is unacceptable, so start behaving.
Moe
PS: Yes, I can enforce this.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Wouldn't it be better to actually read the text or watch the speech before writing up comments on it? No offense here but I mean if a newspaper asked me to write a review of a book for the paper it would most likely help if I read the book first.
... which might be an acceptable last-minute study aide for a book like David Copperfield (NOT).
Apologies for the campaign site, but the text is here (which even USA Today used as the reference). It's a good read.
One might wonder why this speech was necessary, if we are all adults.
The simple question is this: given any two candidates with like views that agree with you, do you favor the one who has faith, and practices it, or the one who does not? Pair them up anyway you like.
And if you are tempted to diminish someone else's faith, that it might gain you kingdoms or glory, simply say: "detrame satanas."
"I missed 2007 GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's address this morning, and I haven't read the transcripts. I've read some reviews, though"...
Your comments about Romney's speech lose all credibility with the first sentence and a half of your post... If you haven't read or watched the speech, you can't honestly comment about the effects it has on you or other voters who DID watch/listen to/read it...
It's not THAT long of a speech, give it a try before commenting please...
I read Mitt's speech, and I think that Mark's point holds. And really, you don't need to read 'the speech' to make the point that Romney was addressing the wrong problem: the perception that he changes his positions when it is politically beneficial to do so.
I did think it was a good speech, but I don't think it will ultimately help him.
My point was that no matter what Romney said, it would make a difference only if people believed him. This conclusion does not require a reading of Romney's speech.
I mentioned that I neither watched nor read the speech because... GUESS! Think, man: Why didn't I watch it? Why haven't I rad it.
What exactly is the big deal about him being a Mormon; last time I checked we had freedom of religion here and there should be no exceptions. Does that freedom pertain to everyone except Mitt Romney. What is it that people are supposedly afraid of? The man was governor of Massachusetts for four years and not once did his religion become an issue on anything before him. As a matter of fact, I can't recall a day where he was photographed going into or exiting a church with his bible. I think Mike Huckabee (an ordained minister no less) has used his 'religious fervor' a hell of a lot more blatantly than Mitt, and I don't see anyone going off the wall on him. And when exactly do the other candidates make their religious speech? Of course there's not going to be a speech about their religion, Huckabee is only concerned about the Mormons. Spare me please.
The the speech nominally addressing the fact that he's Mormon does nothing for me.
He's low on my list of primary voters until I hear a speech from him on why he was far-left (for a Republican) on key conservative (esp. social conservative) issues when he was running for Governor not too long ago, and now he is sincere about much stronger social conservative positions. When he gives the speech explaining what happened between then and now that plausibly changed his views, I will give him serious consideration. Until then, he seems like he's just saying whatever he thinks the voters want to hear (then liberal Mass. voters, now conservative R primary voters).
http://www.saintsalive.org/mormonism/israel_mormonism.htm
Mormon theology is itself an ancillary, though less tangible issue. Mormons
see themselves as Jews of the tribe of Ephraim, one of the tribes of Joseph,
whereas Jews are thought by them to be of the descendants of Judah. This
means that Mormons hold themselves as coequal in status to "other Jews,"
which is why to them all non-Mormons except Jews are "gentiles."
Mormon’s believe Native Americans are Jews. http://tinyurl.com/27b7sb
One of the 13 articles of faith #10 We believe in the literal gathering of
Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New
Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign
personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive
its paradisiacal glory.
Mormons view humans as ultimately spirits, who lived with God as spirits
before they were born on earth. God chose a specific time and place for each
spirit to come to earth to receive a physical body.
The Restoration of the Priesthood http://tinyurl.com/2fs6b4
Jesus Christ as Chief Editor of The Book of Mormon
http://www.cumorah.com/bookofmormon.html
LDS Church teaches that God the Father was once a man and was exalted to Godhood. God (and his heavenly Wife)
begat billions of spirit children, the firstborn of whom was Jesus. Lucifer was the leader of God’s rebellious spirit
children. Those spirits who did not rebel become human beings in order to begin process potentially leading to exaltation
to Godhood.
Death and Afterlife Joseph Smith also taught that Mormon families can live together forever in heaven
if they are "sealed" through special temple ceremonies. The rest of us are what?
And Romney wants to be President, Priesthood, and Godhood?
Take the hint.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Sucks to be you. Blam.
------------
The Red Sox Republican: Burkeanism, Baseball, and Sundries.
I'm just curious since it's been a whole day since Romney gave the speech if the blog poster has read or watched the speech yet?..or even plans on it.
Let me explain why, as that was the point of my note. What he says about religion is unimportant if he cannot convince folks that he is leveling with them.
You admit you don't find Romney credible and therefore there is probably exactly nothing he could say - about anything - that will change that in your mind. That's fine - my mind is made-up about Mitt and most of the other candidates as well so it would be beyond hypocritical of me to throw rocks at you for that.
But I think you're missing that someone like you was likely not the target audience for this address. What's the point in targeting someone like you, who cannot be converted, when there's a whole lot of people left who probably barely even recognize there's a campaign going on? And in that regard, the timing of this speech is probably a tad unfortunate as it might end-up down a memory hole before Iowa, but them's the breaks when we're deciding in December 2007 who's going to stand for election in November 2008.
I say it's your loss because, regardless of your preference in this matter, it really was a very, very good speech.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
It seems to me that Romney not only dealt with the Mormonism concern but his flip flop label as well.
Also the comments that he was only giving the speech to respond to Huckabee's surge,as if this is some how wrong, or petty, was also addressed.
If your opponent is gaining ground by using a particular weapon, it only makes sense to try to offset that weapon.
Huckabee showed himself to be either a coward, a bigot or both in his wimpy refusal to respond to the question about Mormonism being a cult.
Romney showed he has backbone by not cowering about his faith but said outright, take me and my faith or don't take me at all. That is hardly flip flopping.
Some Evangelicals are being downright silly in expecting a candidate to fulfill everyone of their demands.
They would prefer to vote for an atheist I suppose than a man or woman of faith, if that faith didn't match theirs in every detail
the issue will be who will overcome them in time.
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion