A Couple of Quick Romney Takes
And I’m out of this ridiculous “what do you believe and when did you believe it” trainwreck …
To be blunt, Romney is saying:
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the son of God?”
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?”
It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference. Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. This speech for all its eloquence will not stanch the flow of such questions.
Bad move - and one with very unfair results to a candidate who all must acknowledge is a man who has proven that his mind actually operates in a highly empirical, data-driven, and uncredulous way.
Had he focused instead on simply arguing that presidents need only prove themselves loyal to American values, he would have been on safe ground. Instead, he over-reached, super-adding to his civic appeal an additional appeal to voters who demand faith in Jesus as a requirement in a president. That is an argument that will not work - and a game Mitt Romney cannot win.
Don’t hold back, David. (Disclosure: fondly regarded and respected cousin-in-law. I’m not sure theologically he’s on solid ground with the Jesus=Lucifer family tree. Their relationship may be more like mine and David’s … which is to say, somewhat more removed. Hey, if we’re going to play Jesus and Lucifer, I call Lucifer!)
Podhoretz: In short, who cares. Romney’s big JFK moment was uninspiring boilerplate. Being a member of a marginal 19th-century cult was always going to be a drawback.
My take, this guy has not governed according to religious dictates, or pushed a religious agenda, any more than Bush has … aside from the widely accepted faith-based initiative that sought to engage some of the most responsibly socially active people in our communities in a non-religious capacity. He’s pushed a socially conservative agenda, though not always with much consistency.
My concern that the Church of Latter Day Saints would take over the United States, or in any significant way influence its government, not high. Pretty much zero. If Romney was deeply engaged with a religion large segments of which are actively at war with the United States, religion would be higher on my list of concerns. And if Christian fundamentalists who claim they’re on a mission from God want to play the religion card, we’re well into the pot-kettle zone.
As a resident of Massachusetts, I’m a little more concerned about the naked ambition coupled with inattention to the job at hand, and a tendency to shift positions apparently for political expediency. You’re going to find some of that in all pols. Here’s more at today’s Boston Herald: 15 Minutes of Shame. Romney sandwiched Tavares judge Kathe Tuttman into a quick day of Massachusetts business amid a heavy national campaigning schedule in April, 2006.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:36 am on Friday, December 7, 2007
3 Responses to “A Couple of Quick Romney Takes”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:33 am
…concerned about the naked ambition coupled with inattention to the job at hand, and a tendency to shift positions apparently for political expediency.
Second that.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
When will a candidate have the intestinal fortitude to tell these presumptuous questioners “my religion is none of your damn business”?…
December 8th, 2007 at 2:30 am
One of the significant things about this speech is that he took a big risk with something that could easily have backfired on him, and not only did he not blow it, he probably won over some new admirers. That’s impressive.