Governor, you are no Jack Kennedy Print E-mail
By Eric Sapp
Dec. 07, 07 10:36

 

Romney began his discussion of how religious views will play in his candidacy by citing Kennedy's famous speech.  I can't help but paraphrase Bentsen here, "Governor, you are no Jack Kennedy."  And I don't think this speech will accomplish the same thing either. 

 

Don't get me wrong, it was a good speech (you can read the transcript here) and well-delivered.  I have no doubt that much of the mainstream media will be speaking highly about it because it appealed to their sensibilities and was quite reasonable.  Democrats will also likely see much merit in the speech, and rightly so.  It was a speech many a Democrat could have delivered and would have been very effective in a general election...but therein lies the problem.  This isn't the general election, and the reason Romney was forced to give this speech was not because moderates and progressive-leaning voters couldn't stomach his Mormonism. 

 

He was forced to make "a personal decision" to do what he had repeatedly said he would not and deliver the speech because he's having a serious problem with evangelicals and other religious conservatives, especially in Iowa. 

 

But unlike Kennedy a half-century ago, Romney isn't facing the concern that a single Pope will rule Washington (I doubt 1 in 10 Americans could even tell you how the hierarchy of the LDS is set up), so his assurances that authorities in his church (or any other) will not exert influence on presidential decisions doesn't really matter.  Let's be straight up.  The concern with Mormonism--especially from the Republican base who will decide the primaries--is that its members are part of a cult.  It's not a concern about Mormon influence on policies because the Mormons are pretty much in lock-step on the issues with the religious right.  The concern is with someone who doesn't believe in the "right Jesus" but still claims to be Christian and within the theological tradition of the Church. 

 

That problem will still exist after this speech because he did very little to counter all the anti-Mormon stereotypes...and I'm not sure how he could have done so.  Another problem is that he gave his detractors several new things to start hitting him on.  His assurances "that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions" is either a flat out lie or something that will be quite disquieting to all the religious right leaders he is courting who definitely expect some access to the Oval Office if their guy becomes president...I mean, come on.  Whether a religious group or not, you don't spend tens of millions of dollars helping someone get elected and then accept the fact that you will have no influence over his decisions once he's in office... 

 

Second, his opponents are going to have a field day with the line: "Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."  Everyone knows Romney's been changing his positions on a bunch of key issues (and beliefs) as politics dictated.  Maybe there was a true conversion every time.  I don't know.  But I do know that voters, especially on the right, have their doubts.  To play the martyr now about how he understands the importance of holding to his convictions no matter the political consequence is all well and good, but there are going to be a lot of folks who point to his flip-flopping on abortion, taxes, gays, etc as the political winds changed...and that undermines the admirable "**** the world, I'm sticking to my beliefs" argument he made yesterday.

 

Overall, this discussion is somewhat of an academic exercise for faithful democrats.  Romney is still a very bad choice for president, and we won't be voting in his primary.  But I'll close with this.  While I don't think this speech will help him a whole lot in his primary, I'm glad he gave it.  As I said at the beginning, it was a speech a Democrat could have given.  His supporters (even those on the right) will fight desperately to defend and validate it.  And that moves this American discourse on faith in the public square in a positive direction. 


LIST OF COMMENTS

1/2. The Republican's Dilemna
Written by George  | Dec. 10, 07 12:14

All kinds of cliches come to mind. "Dance With The One That Brung You", What Comes Around Goes Around", etc.

 

Here's the problem. The Republican who polls the strongest against potential Democratic candidates is Rudy. But Rudy is not a true believer because of his past positions on abortion, homosexuality (all of the really important issues). So some Republicans, like Pat Robertson say, "Well, so what - he's the only one that can win." Others like Richard Land and James Dobson say that they will sit this one out. So, along comes a guy who has invested millions of his personal fortune in Iowa, and he certainly seems like a viable alternative to Rudy because he has adjusted his positions to be congruent with the Religious Right. There's only one problem. he needs to appeal to voters from churches who believe that Mormonism is a cult. (It was Lesson Number 5 in my Sunday School Quarterly.) Now Mike who has invested only a pittance is on the verge of stealing Iowa from Mitt. Seems like there's something patently unfair about that.

 

So Mitt gives his JFK speech one month before the caucuses hoping to pull this one out of the fire. Iowans have concluded that they don't have to choose between a flaming liberal and someone who they believe is a cultist. Could this be the beginning of the transition to a Third Party?


2/2. it's all academic
Written by mouse  | Dec. 15, 07 17:46

 When all is said and done, i would be very surprised if Senator Clinton was not the next Preident of the United States. In my humble opinion, the only way the Republicans stand a chance in the election, is to do the one thing they will not do. And that is to give the office of VP to Ron Paul.

  The reason I say this is because, i really don't think any democrat would do well in a debate against Paul. He can speak left wing, and fuse it with conservatism. He is a peace canidate, and he probably is the most knowledgable canidate on the topic of economics. This would be a nightmare for the Democrats.

  The rest of the canidates have to many negatives. Rudy is a scandal waiting to happen, and he doesn't represent the core Republican positions on abortion and Gay rights. Romney is a mormon, and the RR will hold it against him, as well as his tendancy to flip flop on abortion. Huckabee will be radicalized as a former Baptist Minister, as well as his stance on immigration, and his record of clemency.

  Aside from that, liberals have taken the moral high ground, and people are shifting away from conservatism.

  Ultimately the election will depend on independants, and the Democrats have the upper hand. So the real point of the republican primary is for the GOP to decide what is really important to them.

  Over-all, I did enjoy Romney's speech. It was a reflection of my own views on religion. I have several friends and family that are Mormons, and I think they are quality, and upright people. The only problem is that I'm a liberal, and most of my family belongs to the Religous Right. While they are tolerant, it is really only skin deep. Years of indocrination prevent a true acceptance.


Last Updated ( Dec. 07, 07 11:42 )
 
< Prev   Next >