I don’t think it’s fair. No one ever asked Kennedy to defend arcane points of Catholic dogma. He gave “the speech,” and that was pretty much the end of it. And “the speech” was simply an assurance that Kennedy wouldn’t let the Pope run the country.
But, having said that, I’m not sure it would do Romney any good to give “the speech.” In the first place, Romney has pretty much given the substance of “the speech” several times. In the second place, “the speech” ended the issue with Kennedy because he was a Democrat and the MSM wanted it to end. Just the opposite is true with Romney. Nothing will change. Instead, people like this fellow will keep bringing up points of doctrine and asking Romney to defend them. Romney shouldn’t have to do that.
“the speech” ended the issue with Kennedy because he was a Democrat and the MSM wanted it to end. Just the opposite is true with Romney. Nothing will change. Instead, people like this fellow will keep bringing up points of doctrine and asking Romney to defend them. Romney shouldn’t have to do that.Very well said.
“No one ever asked Kennedy to defend arcane points of Catholic dogma. He gave “the speech,” and that was pretty much the end of it. And “the speech” was simply an assurance that Kennedy wouldn’t let the Pope run the country.”
As I check poster histories, I’m noting that most of the folks with contrarian views joined FR in 2004. I smell a Dim incursion.