The Romney speech on Ustream
Update: So, what did you think? The punditocracy is going into overdrive parsing the speech and weighing the electoral consequences. For me, it’s simple. Any day a Republican can turn the tables on the “tolerance” squad and cast light on our great American tradition of religious liberty is a good day.
If you missed the broadcast, the full text of the speech is here.
***
Update 12/6 8:12am Eastern. Here are some advance excerpts from the speech…
“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam’s words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”
…
“When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.”
…
“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”
…
“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
***
The much-buzzed-about religion speech tomorrow by Mitt Romney will be carried on Ustream.
Blogger and Ustream advisor Patrick Ruffini has the scoop.
Viewers of Hot Air TV are quite familiar with Ustream. We have our own Ustream channel and have used it several times over the past few months to do live, streaming broadcasts. It’s very cool, interactive, easy-to-use technology. You can embed the livestream on your blog (which we’ll do both here and at Hot Air tomorrow). You’ll get the full speech, not just selective soundbites from the MSM. And no annoying commentary/tickers running underneath Romney.
Another plus: Unlike other Web 2.0 companies I’ve dealt with, Ustream is open and receptive to conservative users.
Be sure to tune in tomorrow. And check out more about Ustream–founded by two military veterans–here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Riehl World View
- Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
- Don Surber » Blog Archive » It’s not your religion, Mitt
- Romney’s Religion Speech - A Solid “A” to Read and a “B-” to Watch : The Sundries Shack
- Riehl World View
- Ace of Spades HQ
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Video - Why The Mitt Romney ‘Faith in America Speech’ was a Stroke of Brilliance
- The Cassandra Page
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » I Think It Was a Good Speech
- Romney on Faith « Shane Vander Hart
- 76a4f2f9b1404734d73c
- Michelle Malkin » Mitt Romney’s worst enemy
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Mitt Romney, Web 2.0
Stop The ACLU
» NY Times: Sarah Palin *GULP* Believes In God!Confederate Yankee
» Obama Slips, Admits He'd Favor A Gun BanDavid Frum
» An Exchange on ElitismStop The ACLU
» Why Hasn’t Obama Fired Howard Gutman?Stop The ACLU
» US News Writer Losing Mind And CivilityHot Air
» The Recycled Flags of the DNCCPower Line
» There's Something About SarahBetsys Page
» Republicans make use of the DNCC's "trash"
Ustream Istream we all Scream for Ustream.
All I see is a guy with a lawnmower… just kidding.
LOL AJ. 31 flavors of Ustream.
I’ll be here, for sure.
I wonder if he’ll alter his speech to include something about the Hit piece Hillary and Miss Rose did on Obamination. He could knock two Crows with one stone that way.
The insights of a former venture capitalist worth several hundred million dollars, I think, really resonated with middle America.
I already know what Mormans believe so I think I’ll spend my time getting ready for our trip to NYC on Sunday.
Have fun ya’ll
Seems to me Romney is a Godless man if he doesn’t have at least four wives.
Way off topic. If you’re following the Michael Savage/CAIR lawsuit, Megyn Kelly at FNC covered it yesterday in a VERY positive Savage way.
Check it out.
Megyn Kelly
Savage made a pretty lousy comment about the troops in Iraq on Monday.
meatpieandtatters,
I think most Americans prefer a candidate who’s been successful in the private sector over a lifelong politician.
Alphonse
Maybe you want to throw out ill-informed comments about Catholics, Jews and Muslims? Maybe go after the Hindu, Buddhists, and Lutherans while you are at it? Please dispense with the trite comments.
Regards,
Short segment on Fox and Friends this a.m. Hope you had a Caramel Thingy.
A conspiracy? Please….
Keller, Nothing more than an agent provocateur.
#15 opps wrong thread. sorry.
Aj - I think you need another coffee.
As for Mitt: There’s a part of me that sees him as a ’slick politician’ - he even looks the part. He actually, just on a surface glance, has an underlying similiarity to the politician character in “Sharkey’s Machine” with the slick hair and the charming smile….
However, there is another part of me that does respond to a lot of the things he says.
I, personally, am not bothered by his religious background & beliefs. He does not have 4 wives, lol, and the above portions of his speech are truly spot-on.
He was never my first choice - but to be honest - my first choice has slipped since campaigning has begun - and out of all the candidates out there, Mitt is becoming more and more likeable to me.
well duh jrl, lol, cows not even home yet here.
I would not be saying this if I didn’t honestly believe it…Romney’s speech is AWESOME!
Well, you know what they say, AJ - Great cheese come from happy cows - and happy cows come from California….
While ours are freezing their udders off this morning ( 2 degrees below zero this morning ) - yours are galavanting around L.A.
The teasers provided by Michelle I find interesting, but will not be able to listen to it at work. I might have to sneak over to the Base Finance Office Customer Service lobby to try to catch it if their TV is on the news.
WOW!!! GREAT SPEECH (EXCERPTS)!!!!
I haven’t picked a favorite candidate yet, since Condi isn’t running.
Where can I get a glass of the Romney kool-aid??
I find it amusing that of the GOP front runners, Mitt is the only one that has only had one wife.
I’m looking forward to the speech.
“I am Mormon, hear me roar”
Seems to me the only person making an issue out of Romney’s religion is Romney.
well, the flags recieved a nice ovation… waiting.
oppsie spellin watch out for wtrshd.
Ah,….but there IS a GOD, & He was involved in founding America,& all the atheist nitwits in the Universe can’t change that indomitable fact!
“Captain America
Look at the storm clouds gathering
It’s not the weather report
It’s the direction of prevailing winds!”
One face says:
While the other face says:
Guess that should please both sides! LOL.
standing O
Great speech!
I will watch after work. I’m really looking forward to a real speech about real issues, something that takes courage. From what I hear, it’s good. Can’t wait.
Really, really good speech.
Formerly disheartened by the choices I had to vote for in the upcoming primaries, I am ever so slowly leaning toward Romney. This speech was spot on. I don’t think it’s too late to have any effect, nor do I think it will hurt him.
OK, now they can write about someone Presidential. but they wont.
Know you all know this, re: 1st Amendment because we didn’t want a specific state church to crown the king; we wanted a president who swore to uphold the constitution, not the dictates of “The Church”. How we forget that the Pilgrims were religious Separatists who were trying to escape the dominance of the Church is State (and vice versa) and set up a new gig in the “New World”. So in a sense we should all be separatists of one degree or another, not religious abolitionists.
He has always been my second choice behind Tancredo (still wating for Thompson to actually do some campaigning), but this moved him up a few notches.
Very presidential.
I have a Romney bumper sticker in my to-do pile on my desk. I think I shall tape it to the inside of my car window, but I’m not quite to the point of removing the backing and affixing it to my bumper yet.
Very, very impressive speech.
What intrigues me about Romney is who he would appoint to run the gooberment. Would the executive agencies be run (more productively?) like a business and become more results oriented, really eliminating duplication, fraud, waste and abuse? Would he and his leaders seek to advance legislation to accomplish this? Or would he just be another status quo type?
Still waiting on someone to show me exactly where in the Constitution there is a separation of church and state. Don’t give me the 1st Amendment. That prevents the government from establishing a church/religion – read it. And the Ten Commandments, which “religion” does that belong to and why should it be removed from everything? Last time I checked, the Ten Commandments is in the Torah and the Bible (not sure about the Koran). That was not what the founding fathers intended. Read your history and dump the talking points. Romney nailed that point pretty clear. I liked the speech. It was waaaaay better than Shrillery’s speech about fixing the mortgage mess.
I had some reservations about Mitt (not because of religion) but I believe he truly has become more conservative as he has gotten older. The more I read about him and see him, the more I like him. Go Mitt, go!
It was a good speech. Don’t know if it will lift him in the polls. We’ll see.
If it were such an indomitable fact then surely someone over the last 5,000 years would have been able to actually, you know, prove it.
Believe what you want to believe, as long as it’s not motivating you to kill infidels it’s none of my business. But if you want your beliefs respected you might want to reconsider dismissing non-believers as nitwits.
As Churchill said, “If you are 20 and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are 40 and not a conservative, you have no brain.”
I can’t honestly say I ‘had a heart’ at 20, by this standard - I’ve always leaned conservatively…
But also, by this standard, I’ve definitely developed more of a brain as I’ve gotten older.
With ya jr!
That’s like asking “what is two plus two” and following up with “… and don’t tell me it’s four!”
The First Amendment is the basis for church/state seperation. Now, if you want to argue that some people take it way too far that’s fine. I’m an athiest, but I don’t think having “In God We Trust” on a dollar bill is the harbinger of theocracy. As with almost any amendment in the Bill of Rights such an absolutist position is silly.
But don’t try to say that advocating a church/government seperation is unreasonable or unsupported by the constitution. That’s taking it to the opposite extreme, and is equally silly.
More than his belief that he can become a god… more than his belief in countless gods (though he only worships one of them)… what bothers me is the gullibility of someone who knows the wacky history and theology of Mormonism and remains Mormon.
His being liberal is another issue.
Hey Mitt, Google “Kinderhook Incident”.
Romney’s speech was very strong. He definitely has the poise, communication ability, and intelligence to be an excellent President.
Please, talk about silly.
Basis? If we are going to use the “basis” argument - you could not call yourself an “atheist” as the only argument to there being no creator is:
1. Prove HE exists
2. A theory
Let’s leave GOD out of it and take that argument in another direction.
“Global warming is caused by man and the science is complete.” Goreacle
One its face, I have to prove otherwise or I have to believe it on the “basis” someone said this is fact.
The whole “basis” argument is a joke. Our founding Fathers worked awful hard working GOD into government to then turn around and then try and make sure HE was removed.
I thought that was going to be on tonight. Sometimes I don’t quite know what planet I am on. Anyway, it sounds good. It was a good speech, but did you think it would be anything but? This guy is a politician. The main characteristic of a politician is to say a lot without saying anything. This is no different.
The words are right, but that has never been the problem with Romney. What he says and does have been different over the years. I’m not saying that he’ll run his Presidency for the Mormon church. . . but I am saying that he’s been good with words all of his life.
Regardless of how Mormonism began - ( many religious roots can be pointed to by a non-member as ’suspect’ including Christianity - and I say that as a Christian ) - Mormons do not preach hate, they do not call for destruction, death and submission.
If a person’s religion does not incite fear, hate and evil towards others, or radical ‘conversion’ of others who hold differing views - what does it matter what he / she believes in?
The only question that should be relevant is “Will your faith interfere with the office of POTUS?” If the answer is an honest “no” - then move on.
I thought it was a good speech and made some excellent points that many need to be reminded of.
Whether or not I support Romney will have nothing to do with his being a Mormon, regardless of how I view the Mormon religion. It will depend on what Romney plans to do or not do if elected. I have some big reservations about Romney, the main one being if he means what he says or is he saying what he thinks needs to be said to be elected?
Why is it that the same people who claim that having a copy of the 10 commandments in a public building or a cross at the side of the road is an infringement on their ‘rights’ found somewhere in the constitution ( 1st Amendment ) - also claim that the right to ‘Privacy’ means that you can kill an unborn child?
Talk about cherry-picking intelligence…
Duke, being successful in life is NOT measured by how much money one has accumulated or business acumen. I’ve been very successful myself and know many very wealthy people and understand very clearly these are NOT the marks of leadership, integrity and righteousness. I do agree that we don’t need any more politicos in the process but, unfortunately, the media keeps foisting them upon us. Therefore, I choose NOT to buy into the plasticized multi-millionaire facsimile of the prototype republican candidate. Nope!
Keep in mind that he took the Salt Lake Olympics from a scandal infested mess into a money making success. Most Olympic games are money pits.
Hopefully he would take the executive branch from an incompetent money pit to a somewhat more efficient enterprise.
Granted, the government is a larger money pit, but the theory is the
same . . .either maintain the status quo (which every administration for the past 60 years has done) or make some changes to make the government run less like a beauracracy and more like a business.
I’m not aware of how he did in Massechusetts, but with the Olympics, he did a bang up job.
But I do know that none of the other candidates can point to that kind of turnaround success. Although Rudy did some pretty good cleanups in New York, he also tried to take everyones guns away from them.
powerlineblog has the full text of his speech. I thought it was very good.
Honestly, I do have issues with a person who belonged, durring his adult life, to a religious group that refused to ordain blacks until 1978 and that teaches that Indians are evil Jews cursed with dark skin (in the following passage, both peoples spoken of are the descendents of Jews who had sailed to pre-Columbian America):
But that isn’t what is keeping me from voting for Mitt. What’s keeping me from voting for Mitt is that, to me, he seems like the Republican incarnation of Slick Willie. He will say whatever he needs to say, whenever he needs to say it to get elected.
I thought it was a great speech. I am a Catholic who grew up in Utah (a Gentile, as they called us). So I have a lot of ill feelings toward the way our family was treated by SOME people. On the other hand, we lived smack dab in a neighborhood full of Mormon families who all included us in their gatherings, brought us meals during hard times and never once pushed the religion down our throats. I am impressed with Mitt the businessman and the Governor. I think he would make a good President regardless of his beliefs. Of all the issues this week, his illegal lawnmowing service is what bugs me more than his religion.
Well,speaking as a member of a fairly fundamentalist church myself (Church of Christ),I’m not in the least worried that Mitt might be secretly accountable to some elderly Ezra Taft Benson types in Salt Lake City if he is elected…what matters is not whether he thinks Moroni left Joseph Smith some golden plates…who really gives a big rat’s ass about that anyway?…but whether or not secular conservative Christians like myself can be comfortable with a Romney agenda….personally I’m rooting for my fellow C of C member,Fred Thompson….but I would have no ideological or theological problems at all with a Romney presidency….his faith is far more genuine than that of the ostentatious Clintons
DITTO!!!
If Romney were a Democrat, would all this hubbub be going on in the MSM?
You should read the radical left reaction to his speech on the NYT. If you can tolerate it. I saw about a dozen or so, and couldn’t take it anymore.
Fully agree.
David Frum nailed the huge tactical error that Romney made:
“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.”
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?”
When it’s all said and done, is this speech going to change the views of people who weren’t going to vote for him because he’s Mormon? I’m not sure any speech is going to change the views of that type of person.
I, too, am troubled by the minor blip of not following up a year ago to make sure his landscaper hired only legal workers in the future (details, details - but an important detail if illegal immigration is a major platform plank), but my bigger concern is with those that would behead us. My favorite 2 paragraphs:
Waiting for CAIR’s response, 1, 2, 3, …
Personally, he won’t get my primary vote because of Hillary Care light, not because of Joseph Smith.
Bingo. I think the punditocracy is doing exactly that and failing to see the forest for the trees. Partly, I think so many who are members of the punditocracy feel like they must say something about the speech while distinguishing themselves from other members of said punditocracy. And in the end, most of the non-punditocracy will ignore upwards of 90% of what is written/said about this speech.
If nothing else, I’m getting a great education on the Mormon faith on this thread; I hope the info is accurate.
True, and it’s about time at least one candidate said it. It seems that Romney has used his underdog status and consequent defensive posture about his faith to give it back in full force to the mainstream secularists. This is good. It will be embraced by his core demongraphic and consequently he will - or should - repeat it all the time. In havng a national forum, he’ll get a word out that needs to be said constantly, not three times a week for two minutes on O’Reilly, which is the only other place this is said on a venue with any large (semi) mainstream audience.
Yes, the mainstream is going out of thier minds over this speech that shows it’s a good speech. He should make hundreds more just like them.
This is true for many or most candidates. That’s the problem. While the speech is a great way to challenge the secularists, it doesn’t mean he’ll be as strong on that if he’s elected. It’s dissapointing but a generally proven pattern of the world. That’s why seeing what candidates have done as opposed to what they say is so important. I always defend Rudy on his tangible record - things you can point to - as the basic baromoter of the mettle of a candidate. I always say, what can you show us to support a candidate. Someone did in this thread:
No, you can’t point to it like Times Square, but like Rudy’s record on crime, there is statistical evidence to support it. This is what I’m talking about. And Romney goes up a notch for something proven and a strong speech. This might turn into a substantive election process after all.
Still haven’t heard much from him on Illegal Immigration either. We need a candidate with Romney’s looks and Religious conviction, Guilliani’s charm and management skill, Duncan Hunter’s Illegal Immigrant policy, and Thompson’s determination. Not sure WHO the fiscal conservative is in the bunch.
Too bad there’s no candidate out there like that.
I’ll call him the ‘True Missing Republican’ and pray he shows up one of these days.
Nobody seems to think that being a Mormon affects the way that Harry Reid performs his responsibilities as Senate Majority Leader. Cleary, Harry Reid doesn’t take secret directives from Salt Lake City, why would anyone worry about Mitt? The LDS Church is very, very officially non-partisan.
I’m not too inclined to be worked up over what Mitt said today. What he said did indeed sound rather “presidential” but I’m much more inclined to evaluate the man over what he has DONE over the past several years. As far as I can tell,k while he was gov of MA, he espoused (and signed into law) many rather liberal positions. He says “It’ll be different if I’m president” - well I don’t believe it. Leopards don’t change their spots, zebras don’t change their stripes. Talk is cheap, actions are hard.
Strict Darwinian evolutionists have been trying to find a scrap of evidence for his evolutionary counterpart for over one hundred years. Like the missing link, it’s probably true that he doesn’t exist. For the record, Rudy balance the NYC budget - the third largest economy in the US - lowered taxes AND wound up with a surplus while reducing crime, etc. For fiscal conservatives, that’s an excellent record.
I didn’t know that Reid was a Mormon. Is he? If so, I’m absolutely sickened by the MSM double standard, but I tend to have constant Maloxx moments with the MSM these days.
lol. So I guess we can only hope that Mitt is half the man Harry Reid is?
I haven’t heard anyone talking about being worried that Mitt will “take secret directives from Salt Lake City.” What I have heard is concern that he believes the things that the Book of Mormon and other Mormon texts (eg. The Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants) teach.
I think most people here want a candidtate who is influenced by his religious beliefs. We want someone who has a moral foundation. In fact, one of the main problems that I have with Mitt is that he seems to have lost that foundation when it was convenient to get elected and keep him governor, and now has regained it when it is convenient to get him elected president. In fact, now he makes speaches about it.
Jimmy Akin has a good, short analysis on Romney’s speech:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/12/not-impressed.html
Watching Mitt just now I was reminded by the scene in the movie “the American President” when Michael J. Fox’s character tells the President that “people will crawl through the desert to get to a mirage, and then when they’re there, they’ll drink the sand because they’re thirsty.” Michael Douglas, playing a pretty convincing President then replies, “They don’t drink the sand because they’re thirst; they drink it because they don’t know the difference.”
Mitts’ performance has us all “drinking the sand” because in this “sound bite age” we are denied the chance to see our candidates give long presentations. We live in perpetual fear that one comment or another will be taken out of text and used as ammunition by the other camp. There are people on this board who, before today, wouldn’t have trusted a word out of Mitt’s mouth, who now think he’s not too bad. That, my friends, is called “drinking the sand”.
So now we rejoice because one candidate has the cojones to stand up and say basically, if our Founding Fathers could believe as they chose, and still estabilish this great nation, then I should be able to do the same. With that, he manages to poke his thumb in the eyes of his anti-Mormon attackers. This makes all of us, who have had to endure 7+ years of Bush-Babble and “Compassionate Conservative Reasoning” want to throw our hats in the air and cheer for Mitt…
At this level, I expect a candidate to be a competent public speaker. Mitt’s performance is just “okay” for me, but heads and tails above what I’ve seen the others do so far (Oh Fred, why can’t you speak as well as you write?). But… can Mitt lead? Does he have a plan? Will he fight to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws currently on the books? Or, once in office, will he serve like a meek RINO, coasting on the status quo and cowering before liberal attacks?
Our country cannot survive a liberal in the Oval Office right now, and we certainly can’t afford another weak Republican. One good speech doesn’t prove Mitt to me.
We NEED a Theodore Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan; someone who can command, and not just speak.
I’ve supported Mitt from the get-go but afraid he didn’t have a chance at the nomination, much less the ability to beat Hillary. Today, however, it seems he may have crested the hill. I sure hope so. He has my support.
corona said:
#61 corona, you already know why Romney has to draw the line somewhere on the questions he will answer during his campaign. If he answers your trivia question, there will be a million more to follow. He would never be able to talk about what he plans to do as President. There are plenty of sources you can turn to for answers to Mormon trivia without the need to distract Romney from his campaign. However, as a Mormon who is not running for office, I can try to answer your question from the Bible.
Mormons believe that we were all spirit children of God before we came to earth, which can be inferred from:
Heb. 12:9 - Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
The idea that Lucifer was our brother in the spirit world and a brother to Christ (who Mormons believe was the first and eldest spirit child of God) can be inferred from:
Isa. 14:12 - How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
The Bible says Lucifer was in heaven and was a “son of the morning” (one of the eldest.) It doesn’t say he was a “creation of the morning”, it says “son”. So, if he was not a child of God, whose child was he?
The important thing here is that he used his free will to rebel against God and was cast out of heaven with his followers. Additional Mormon scripture adds another aspect to Lucifer’s fall from heaven:
Moses 4:3 - “…Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him…”
This is why Mormons do not believe it is appropriate to compel anyone to believe. Conversion by persuasion is fine, but conversion by the sword is never right. One should always be free to choose one’s own beliefs as long as those beliefs do not take away someone else’s right to choose.
Guess again.
Frum said that.
NBF, thanks for the link to Akin’s website; Jimmy is great and his post on this was interesting.
Papa Louie, I respect your faith though I disagree with your theology intensely, as I’m sure I would with Romney’s. However I support Mitt because I believe his qualities as CEO and especially as a guy who demands to hear both sides of an issue fully, with debate, before making big decisions, and as someone who can get along with “the other side”, is critical. As I could with McCain, I can visualize Romney working productively with both conservatives and liberals.
Frank Pastore, a local evangelical talk-show host/Christian apologist, had an Akin-style rundown on his show this afternoon about the speech, focusing scrutiny on what Mitt said that, from a theological perspective, is troublesome or downright misleading. I cannot find the audio, but notes are here. Frank’s point is that he will vote for Mitt if he is the nominee, but that Romney should be honest and not try to make Mormonism seem like it’s Christianity.