Well, they've been playing the victim card for over 130 years.
Posted on 12/03/2007 6:53:46 AM PST by jdm
Mitt Romney has decided to give “the speech” — an address he prepared earlier this year to explain his Mormon faith and why it presents no threat to the Republic. He will deliver this oration at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library on Thursday, hoping to dispel the remaining vestiges of doubt over his qualifications for the presidency. Entitled “Faith in America”, the speech will bring the Mormon question directly into the mainstream of political commentary:
Romney has said for months that he saw no need to make an issue out of his religion, despite surveys that have suggested that some voters, especially in the South, are less likely to vote for him because of it. In a Washington Post poll earlier this year, his faith was regarded as a bigger stumbling block than the race of Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) or the gender of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).What made Romney decide to do this now? The timing could hardly be stranger. The Iowa caucuses are less than five weeks away, with the bulk of the primaries coming in two months. After a very long year of campaigning on issues and insisting that the Mormon question has nothing to do with presidential politics, it seems like a bad time to open the door to legitimatizing theological debate in the stead of policy debate.
But yesterday, Romney’s campaign announced that he will give a speech about his faith Thursday at the George H. W. Bush presidential library in Texas. In a statement, spokesman Kevin Madden said that Romney will deliver a speech titled “Faith in America.”
“This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected,” according to the statement. “Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”
The only conclusion one can draw is that the Romney team sees the issue as a drag on the candidate. Perhaps they worry that anti-Mormonism is behind the shift in opinion in Iowa. Likely caucus-goers have suddenly and dramatically shifted to Baptist minister Mike Huckabee, possibly as an indication of the discomfort some have with the Mormon religion. Team Romney may also have concluded that simply wishing away the potential discomfort doesn’t make it disappear, and hope that Mitt himself can issue a strong statement on religious liberty that will diminish the impact of anti-Mormonism.
Personally, I see this as a mistake. Reasoning with bigotry doesn’t usually have much effect, because bigotry isn’t founded on reason but fear. If “Faith in America” amounts to an apologetic on the LDS religion, it won’t get a meaningful enough response to make it worth the effort, and if it glides over the Book of Mormon towards a general declaration that religious faith has no bearing on the presidency, it will be nothing more than what Romney and his campaign have said all year long. Those who see Mormonism as a danger will not change their minds because a Mormon explains why it isn’t, or at least not enough to matter.
Perhaps “Faith in America” will have a different meaning in Romney’s speech. If he talks about how many of us from different backgrounds, faiths, and geographies all come together in this place because we have faith in the American ideal, then that would be a worthy speech. In the end, religion matters much less than that faith when it comes to public service, and matters much less than qualifications such as honesty, leadership, intelligence, and policy.
If so, though, this speech should have come much earlier in the campaign. Right now, it looks like Romney’s more worried about the polling than in defending religious liberty. That never looks good, and especially not within a few weeks of the first test of the primary season.
But now he's got an entire speech on it?
Huckaphobia?.........
LOL!
Both come across as flip flopper and frauds.
The core principles of Mitt Romney on display.
Rudy, Romney and Huckleberry are all cut from the same Liberal Cloth.
Might as well sit out the election of any of these 3 is the Republican standard bearer.
Dang! Beat me to it!
[Reasoning with bigotry doesn’t usually have much effect, because bigotry isn’t founded on reason but fear.]
Now, what if you have a whole history of well founded reasons as well?
Huckaphobia?.........
Versus Huckaphilia
Hucka Hucka Burnin Love!
It ain’t the religon, it’s Hillaromney the man that’s a threat to America.
“This speech is an opportunity for Governor Romney to share his views on religious liberty, the grand tradition religious tolerance has played in the progress of our nation and how the governor’s own faith would inform his Presidency if he were elected,” according to the statement. “Governor Romney understands that faith is an important issue to many Americans, and he personally feels this moment is the right moment for him to share his views with the nation.”
And yet Mitty thinks it is okay for him to judge the suitability of someone on this cabinet based upon a belief in Islam. Remarkable the flippy-iness of his Mitty-ness.
In Mitt’s vernacular.....”I can judge others upon their beliefs but if you judge me, you are a hater and bigot.”
I believe that skillful direct questioning of some of his beliefs could reveal a HUGE weakness. Although he is attempting to head this off, it still doesn’t prevent questions about aspects of his faith that the general public might find distasteful.
Unlike many “sophisticated” conservatives, I do think a person’s religious convictions are an important part of a person’s character, and voters should consider it. On the other hand,voters should also consider how authentic those convictions are, too. I’d rather vote for an authentic Morman than a pragmatist posing as a Christian.
It’s a look at me, look at me, moment! Anything for attention, and the old vote for me are you are a bigot.
*****************
I don't think this is reassuring to those who have a concern about Romney's Mormonism.
Well, they've been playing the victim card for over 130 years.
The problem is his proven lack of judgement.
"The man who lost his fiancee to Daniel T. Tavares Jr. believes the violent convict may be the serial killer
who took the lives of nine drug-involved prostitutes from the New Bedford area in the 1980s.
“He kept talking about them and saying, ‘I know that one.’ One was found buried in the yard,”
said Norman Sirois, who was engaged to marry Ann M. Tavares, 46, when she was stabbed
to death by her son on July 10, 1991. Sirois, 63, made his remarks yesterday after reading
accounts of how Tavares led state police to the remains of Gayle A. Botelho, 32, in 2000.
Botelho’s skeletal remains were unearthed on the grounds of 314 June St. in Fall River,
where Sirois said he rented an apartment with Ann Tavares, her killer son and his friend, Richard Pires, in the 1980s.
Botelho was last seen in October 1988 leaving her apartment, which was across the street.
In the past, investigators have said Botelho’s death was not linked to the prostitutes’ murders.
Sirois said the night Botelho went missing he came home from a party to find Daniel Tavares
staring out a window at a police cruiser outside the Prospect Street apartment where she lived.
“He says, ‘They’re looking for Gayle.’ I said, ‘Did you talk to the police?’ He said, ‘No.’ I never brought it up again.
How did he know they were looking for Gayle if he didn’t talk to the police?” asked Sirois,
who added that he did not know Botelho.
Gregg Miliote, a spokesman for the Bristol district attorney, C. Samuel Sutter Jr., yesterday
declined to comment on Sirois’ comments.
“We are actively investigating all unsolved homicides from 1991 to 2006,” Miliote said. Paul F. Walsh Jr.,
who served as Bristol district attorney from 1991-2006, could not be reached for comment.
“I can’t prove it. It’s just so funny that everything stopped after he went to prison,” said Sirois,
who lived with Tavares for several years while he dated his mother. Sirois described
Tavares as a man who “lied through his teeth and” was always unemployed.
But regarding the Botelho case, “It’s my word against his,” he said."
He’s making a mistake by highlighting his religion, especially after saying it shouldn’t be an issue. I’m not trying to diss Mormonism in and of itself, and while most religions have observances that outsiders might consider a little weird, a full airing of Mormon views will reveal that they differ substantially from those of mainstream Christianity. That is not going to help Romney in Middle America.
LOL!!!!!
(BTW, not just true of him but his judgmental defenders who dislike supposed "judgmental" people.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.