I mean, it’s not like he cross-dressed and allowed Donald Trump to grope him or anything.

embarrassing public display of Mitt affection

Hewitt did write “10 Reasons Polygamy Should Be Legalized So I Can Marry Our Next President, Mitt Romney,” didn’t he? So it’s not much more embarassing than that.

What I have a problem with is the fact that while Gov of Mass he was a borderline liberal. And now he proclaims that he never was and yet diss’s Rudy for being one.

Being from Maine I’ll never support a Massachusetts politician.

I can’t honestly say anyone has me enthralled. Not that it matters to me one way or the other. I’m an independent. I have to vote for whomever you guys decide is going to be the GOP candidate. Or toss my vote to the Libertarians out of sheer obstenancy. They usually run nutjobs but at least the nuts have the right idea. Small government. Don’t mess with my civil rights. That’s what’s important to me.

If I wanted to live in a socialist country I’d move to Denmark… anyone else see that story about the Demark ‘brain drain’ and the people getting angry that their young people are leaving rather than pay the 63% income tax? Holy Cow and I thought Maine was bad… well.. we are bad.. worst in the Nation… but still better than 63%!!!!!

For those uncomfortable with Romney’s obsessiveness over his own religion (which kind of reminds me of Lieberman carrying on about his religion in 2000), please go to the Catholic http://www.faithmouse.com. Scroll down and you will find an amusing cartoon regarding it.

BTW, Catholics are generally cool on Mormonism and for good reason.

My sense of his speech is that Romney did not address any of the hard questions. For that, check out a recent Christopher Hitchen’s piece, either on Slate or his own website. In brief, Romney settled for stirring platitudes. Fine, but substitute “ROSE” (“Religion of Submission, Everywhere”) for just plain old “religion” in his speech and see how agreeable it is then.

Finally, I once spent a good amount of time studying Mormonism, going twice through the huge collection of original documents titled “Mormonism: Shadow or Reality,” a book which I think can be ordered from Amazon. This stuff is grim and ugly, and unless you can handle history in the raw — most prefer it pre-processed — I would approach it cautiously. My own conclusion was, and I have found no reason to revise it, that had the South won the Civil War, Mormonism would have unleashed to become a home-grown American Islam (which was Brigham’s original intent — to be fair, that would at least have spared us having to import them). It was a nasty cult that acquired political power and thus became a religion. My gratitude to Tom Wolfe for that insight.

My advise to Romney would have been to drop the business. Seriously people, if one can accept Mormonism, one can easily accept Mohammed flying to a Medinah on a winged horse.

Pal2Pal said:
Oh puhleeze. If Allah’s boy hit one out of the park, he’d be dancing with exuberance too. Hewitt is a Romney supporter, has been from the git go, and he was relieved and very happy to see Romney deliver a speech on a delicate subject and do it so darn well. We all know where Allah and many of his commenters stand on Romney, but making fun of Romney or those who are enthusiastic in their support in combination with some of the blatant bigotry espoused at HA, just makes Allah look petty. It is offensive

Yup, Pal – just because HH can be a dolt in going overboard that shouldn’t be carried over to Romney. Don’t agree with “offensive”, but “petty” seems to work.

If ol’ Fred decided to do something that lived up to the anointing his supporters have placed on his head, there would be cartwheels.

Yup again. Thompson has been a bit of a disappointment and somewhat underwhelming, at least so far. Too bad – maybe he’ll come to life yet.

But I think your larger point that anyone would cheer their candidate on is a good and obvious one to make.

Hilarious! Well worth the read.

As if the Harriet Miers debacle didn’t haunt Hewitt enough… He’s doing it again.

In My Objective Opinion

Iowahawk Guest Political Analysis
By Hugh Hewitt

In the annals of American history there are but a handful of defining, epochal speeches.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.

Roosevelt’s stirring Inaugural reassurance that “all we have to fear is fear Itself.”

Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream.”

Cleveland Indians Manager Eric Wedge’s “Nice Game guys” locker room remarks following the Tribe’s unforgettable 3-1 triumph over the Yankees in the 2007 American League Division Series.

And now: Mitt Romney’s magnificent, soaring, Olympian speech yesterday at the Bush Library.

Without question, The Speech is destined to enter the pantheon of the defining moments of our time; for in it, we lucky mortals were witness to what was inarguably the finest distillation of passion and and brains and square-jawed herculean glory of this or any other age; an achievement of such blinding white TelePromted perfection that, in 15 heart-pounding minutes, eclipsed every previous achievement of the human race, combined, and those who cannot admit this simple axiomatic truth are clearly soulless and/or deranged.

Forgive them Mitt, for they know not what they do.

That’s the opening, and there is lots more, like this little bit:

Then came the TelePrompter windup, and the Elite Lefty pitcher kicked up his leg and let go with a murderous 98 mph religious bias fastball that would have sent his lesser teammates — like Yogi Giuliani, or Babe Thompson, or Daffy McCain, or Shoeless Mike Huckabee — diving for the dirt.

But not Romney.

He coiled, like some sort of beautiful electric cobra panther, and swung around with a magnificent sweep of oratorical perfection that met the bias with a mighty CRACK, sending it backbackbackback…

this too……

There you have it: every single pundit whose voice actually matters has joined me in being swept into the rapturous epiphany that any unbiased, objective review of Romney’s unforgettable words will induce. I will give a more detailed objective review of The Speech in next month’s issue of Mitt Beat magazine, along with an exclusive interview with Mitt where he reveals his favorite foods, secret heartbreaks, and what he looks for in a dream pundit. Plus a giant pull-out Mitt poster!

Yes, there are a reportedly a few outliers in the shadowy cesspools of fringe “conservative” websites who were not with this group of enthusiasts. Whether they are cynical jaded panderers, or beltway media elite double agents, or simply insane, is a question I will leave to the historians who will be studying The Speech for generations to come. But now that the reactions are in and counted, there is simply no rational basis for considering the Romney speech other than the greatest triumph of spoken thought ever uttered, one whose influence will resound through the firmament and across the cosmos for all eternity. Even if it does not regain him the lead in the Iowa caucuses.

That is friggin hilarious.

***
At one point in the speech, Romney 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.

Romney needs a lesson in constitutional law. This is flatly false.

Or let me rephrase: Romney either needs a lesson in constitutional law or he is deliberately misusing what the Constitution says in an effort to pull a fast one on voters. Your choice.

The prohibition on a religious test for office that the Constitution contains is a prohibition on a particular creed being a legal requirement for office. In other words, it prevents Congress from passing a law that says, “To hold this federal office, you are legally required to be an Episcopalian” or “you are legally required not be a Catholic.”

It has absolutely nothing to do with what decisions voters choose to make based on a candidate’s religion. To cite an extreme example for purposes of illustrating a principle, if I don’t want a Satanist in office, I don’t have to vote for one. And if I as a voter have questions about a candidate’s religion, I am perfectly entitled–without violating the intent of the founders–to withhold my vote from a candidate until I have those questions answered to my satisfaction.
***

SOURCE

If ol’ Fred decided to do something that lived up to the anointing his supporters have placed on his head, there would be cartwheels.