Being Dick: Morris Writes Hit Piece on Mitt, Plays Mormon Card...
Does Not Disclose Close Ties to Huckabee...
All the while, Huck praises Morris, acknowledges they talk (about Rudy?).
Hmmmmmm......
http://www.mittreport.com/
Posted on 12/04/2007 10:39:49 AM PST by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney's address Thursday on his Mormon faith could be the most politically risky speech on religion by a presidential candidate since John F. Kennedy defended his Catholic faith in 1960.
Romney will be addressing two audiences — the evangelical Christians who've helped fuel his rival Mike Huckabee's recent surge in Iowa and an American public that knows little about Romney or his faith, but views the latter skeptically.
If Romney can reassure each audience, the lead he'd held almost all year in first-to-vote Iowa could return, and a victory in its Jan. 3 caucuses could be the springboard he needs to win the Republican presidential nomination.
But calling heightened attention to his Mormonism on Thursday also could backfire, because polls show that many Americans are suspicious and mistrustful of Mormonism.
It seems clear that "the suspicious have found a candidate," said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University.
That would be Huckabee.
Huckabee, a Baptist minister and former governor of Arkansas, has opened up a 5-percentage-point lead in Iowa over the former Massachusetts governor, according to a survey released Sunday by the Des Moines Register. Error margin: plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
A good part of Huckabee's momentum comes from the state's large conservative Christian community, polls show. Steve Sheffler, the president of the Iowa Christian Alliance, estimates that about 40 percent of the state's GOP caucus-goers consider themselves evangelical Christians, while an equal number see themselves as social conservatives. The Register poll found that Huckabee led Romney by 16 points among those who consider themselves born-again Christians.
"It seems very likely that the sudden decision to finally do the speech is in response to the latest polling," said David Redlawsk, the director of the University of Iowa Hawkeye poll.
Romney will speak Thursday morning at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.
"Governor Romney believed this was the right moment, the right time to address an issue that is important to him and millions of other Americans," said spokesman Kevin Madden. "It was a personal decision related to the issue of faith and his desire to share his views with the nation he's running to lead."
Analysts suggested that Romney also is looking ahead. If he gets the GOP nomination, chances are he'll have to explain his religion to an even wider audience, much as Kennedy did in September 1960, when skeptics questioned whether he was more loyal to his Catholic faith than to the U. S. Constitution.
Kennedy was under fire from many quarters that summer — including from many Democratic leaders — who wanted him to make an emphatic statement that he firmly understood that church and state were separate.
So he addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association and said at the outset: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote..."
Romney faces a similar challenge and needs to address two distinct concerns, experts said.
First, he has to demystify Mormonism.
"To some it seems cult-like, un-Christian," said Bruce Schulman, a professor of history at Boston University. Mormonism, practiced by an estimated 5.2 million Americans, concerns some Christians because Mormons see the Book of Mormon on a par with the New and Old Testaments.
In addition, some theologians find that Mormonism, a proselytizing religion, tends to compete with certain evangelical Christian denominations.
So what Romney must do is "explain, particularly to evangelical Christians, how Mormonism is Christian," said Merle Black, an expert on Southern politics at Emory University in Atlanta.
Second, Romney has to show that although Mormonism is a hierarchical religion, like Catholicism, he won't be taking orders from any church authority.
"He has to make it clear that there is a separation between church and state," Schulman said.
When Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, ran as the Democratic candidate for vice president seven years ago, his religion was widely discussed, but he never saw the need to make a major address about the subject.
He would explain patiently why he didn't work on Saturdays or major religious holidays, and some thought he helped himself with conservative voters by citing the Old Testament often and practicing his faith, even during the heat of a presidential campaign.
For months Romney's advisers have been debating whether a Kennedy-type speech was needed. Romney has discussed the politics of his faith at length, at one point telling reporters last year that people previously had said: "Mitt Romney can't be elected governor of Massachusetts, the most — well, one of the most Catholic states in America." Romney won the governorship in 2002 with a 5-percentage-point victory.
Now, "the idea that they decided to give the speech suggests the Romney people think they have a problem," Black said.
Today, historians generally credit Kennedy's speech with defusing the "Catholic issue" 47 years ago. Schulman noted that "it was important to a lot of party leaders."
Most important, the speech gave Kennedy a renewed confidence; it was as though a burden had been lifted.
"No measure is available of how many millions saw the film (of the speech) played and replayed," wrote Theodore H. White in "The Making of the President 1960," "still less is there a measure available of the effect."
Except, said White, for this: "The candidate, always happiest as a man when confronting crisis with action, felt better."
I don't have a clue what that last phrase means. Maybe it's misworded or poorly constructed or maybe I'm just dumb.
Kennedy basically said that he would pay no attention to Catholic teachings if he became president, and he certainly kept his word. He was the forerunner of all those CINOs who infest politics today.
If Romney pledges not to obey the elders of his church or follow his religion, it will not be reassuring. You could say the same about Harry Reid, who I suppose may be called a MINO, a Mormon in Name Only.
Nothing risky about dissembling and misdirection, the American public is so accustomed to it by now, it will likely go unchallenged in media.
Like Hillary is Bill's WINO.
IMHO, this is a purely political move and is simply lowering himself to that level of political nonsense where in reality there should be no "religious" test whatsoever. The test should be people of good consiceince looking at his life, and his record, and deciding on his virtue and honre based upon that.
OTOH. I do see Romney’s lack of conservative conviction to be the critical issue. He’s not a genuine conservative by any means. And his recent conversions on several key issues isn’t convincing. More political expediency than political epiphany.
Mrs. Clinton is a drunk?
Exactly!
This has nothing to do with Romney trying to address those who “fear” a Mormon President. This has everything to do with Mitt playing the “religious bigot” card to cover the fact that he’s starting to tank as people — specifically, the Iowa voters he thought he’d already bought and paid for — find out he’s no conservative.
Exactly. The person who has continually raised the Mormon issue, five times a day, is Mitt himself. He is playing the victim card, instructing all “right-thinking” people that they must vote for him in order to prove they are not bigots.
That’s also why he organized that anti-mormon push-poll, which curiously telephoned several of his own campaign workers.
People don’t dislike Mitt because he’s Mormon. They dislike him because he’s untrustworthy.
I think the only way this speech could have a positive outcome is if Romney makes it not about “his religion problem” but a celebration of the great American tradition of religious freedom that has allowed him to run for office. Beyond that he should only tell people his deep allegiance to the founding principles of this country and plead for people to accept (despite past mistakes) his sincerity and commitment to the platform he is running on.
Period. I don’t see why he even has to mention Mormonism.
Reveal the details of Mormonism? Man, if he cracks open the lid on that baby, he’s in for a rough go. No one can explain the thousands of controversial issues of that cult. It’s a swamp of anti-Christian dogma, misdirection, words with different definitions, secrets, vaulted documents, masonic rituals, etc. He would be nothing less than a masochist to get into that, and it would scare both the religious left and right out of his camp. Leave it be Mitt, please.
She may be but that's not what I meant by W.I.N.O. (Wife In Name Only) That would mean that slick willy is a H.I.N.O.
The media religious ‘persecution’ of this guy is mind blowing. He’s handled it with total dignity. It just makes me want to vote for him even more.
I think it’s going to backfire. And I mean bigtime. He’ll be drawing a spotlight to something that alot of people have ignored, that is his mormonism. No one cares, until it looks like we have to care. and him talking about it makes it that much more suspicious. “Methinks he doth protest too much”.
Plus it seems to be a slap to voters. Basically talking down to those that want to go after Huckabee, like “NO, I’m christian too, pick me, pick me!!!”
but Mitt doesn’t have the record to stand upon. This is just another addition to the laundry list of times he does things for political expediency.
this is a GRAND chance for Fred thompson to come out, because I DO think this will end Mitt’s viability for presidency, and I DO think that Huck won’t be able to withstand the assaults coming toward him. Those votes for Huck will slip and I don’t think they’ll go back to Rudy or Mitt.
If you are at least 18 years old and a citizen, go for it. I will vote for a conservative candidate, whether he is "persecuted" or not.
Imagine what Hillary and the dems could do with this:
_______________________
Huckabee told [Liberty] university leaders during a visit here last year that “if this candidacy really took off it would have to be a God thing.”
It seems God has done His thing.
. . .
“He’s one of us,” Falwell said. “A lot of the other candidates try to talk like evangelicals, but he’s actually one of us. He believes like we do on all the issues.
. . .
And, while the research continues to show Huckabee climbing in the polls, he said the “God thing” will continue to amaze those on the outside.
In a brief question-and-answer period after his talk, one student asked Huckabee what he can attribute the surge in success to. Huckabee replied: “There’s only one explanation for it and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that felt that … two fish and five loaves could feed a crowd of 5,000 people. … There literally are thousands of people across this country who are praying that little would become much and it has.”
http://www.liberty.edu/libertyjournal/index.cfm?PID=15758&ArtID=42
___________________
Is Huck actually saying that not only is his successful rise God’s will, but it’s akin to one of Jesus’ most noted miracles?
Oh my. You can see Dick Morrris' fingerprints all over this, can't you? This is strategery launched by Dick Morris for a Rudy/Huckabee ticket. Will this help Rudy become more palatable to so-cons because Huckabee can tell them that this is all part of God’s plan after all?
Let’s just hope that the voters of Iowa are not so dumb and they'll see that a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Rudy. Electing the two of them together would sabotage all hope of a resurgence of conservatism in Washington for the foreseeable future.
My prediction is that Romney will say basically the same thing as Kennedy: My faith means nothing to me, so vote for me.
I agree, this will open a pandora’s box that Mitt will not be able to close.
It will probably force many leaders in mainstream Christian churches to explain the differences between Mormonism and Christianity and further alienate larger numbers of conservative Christians.
Also, it smacks of Mitt playing the victim, which never plays well with conservatives.
Kennedy didn’t say that, and I don’t think Romney will say that.
So, I take it the misdirection his strategy emplys is not working on you?... You ignored the noise he wants to raise regarding his cultish beliefs and you focused upon his Northeastern liberal record. Well! At least you’re only one ... the speech Thursday will suck in so many more you will be but a blip to the Mitt Machine of manipulation.
Thanks for the ping.
It is a very awkwardly constructed sentence, but I think he’s trying to say Mitt feels better when he’s grabbing the bull by the horns and confronting the situation.
I think such a speech by Mitt would be a mistake. It’s not his religion which concerns me, it’s whether he’s really changed his positions. Better he should give a speech on that subject.
Being Dick: Morris Writes Hit Piece on Mitt, Plays Mormon Card...
Does Not Disclose Close Ties to Huckabee...
All the while, Huck praises Morris, acknowledges they talk (about Rudy?).
Hmmmmmm......
http://www.mittreport.com/
The decision to give this speech is so fraught with hazards, some of which might be insurmountable, I doubt Romney would have made this decision unless his campaign has determined he’s almost definitely going to lose Iowa to Huckabee, and possibly some of the other primary states as a result of that loss. I think his campaign has proven itself too smart to do this unless they absolutely believe Romney’s going to lose it all if he doesn’t do it, and maybe even if he does. But they must feel they have to take that risk or watch everything they’ve worked for inevitably come to naught and be left wondering if making this speech could’ve stemmed the Huckabee tide.
Huckabee couldn’t have achieved this surge without the blessing and assistance of the MSM. With his fiscal liberalism, his record, and his very public opinion on illegal aliens, his viability as “the” conservative candidate could only be a MSM creation. The MSM is in Hillary’s pocket (ewwww!), few would argue otherwise. I have almost no doubt that the MSM/Hillary want a Giuliani versus Hillary election because they view Giuliani as the easiest candidate to defeat, thus assuring 4-8 years of another Clinton White House married to a DIM-controlled Congress, with at least 3-5 Supreme Court appointments likely. (Geeze, if that scenario doesn’t scare the crap out of conservatives and Republicans, I don’t know what does!)
Right now I think there’s a tacit backroom handshake between Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton and the MSM; all of whom are cooperating to advance Huckabee’s candidacy at the expense of Romney’s. Clinton views Romney as her most difficult opponent in the general election, and the biggest threat to the MSM/Clinton’s desire to have Giuliani as the GOP nominee. Huckabee is hoping that winning early primary states might actually make him a viable GOP nominee, even if he’s tilting at windmills. Giuliani is hoping that a Huckabee victory in those primary states that Giuliani ceded long ago will derail Romney, leaving Giuliani with an easy target (Huckabee) after the fact.
The optimal outcome of this speech, as far as the MSM, Clinton, Giuliani and Huckabee are all concerned, is to irreparably damage Romney’s campaign. With all those forces in a cooperative alignment to spin public perception hard towards the negative no matter what Romney says in this speech, I have a hard time seeing how this can have a positive outcome for Romney. As a supporter of Romney’s candidacy, it hurts to say that. On the other hand, if he can craft a strategy that actually defeats the opposition allied against him, it would present powerful evidence of his qualifications for the office of CIC, at least to those with eyes to see.
I’ve heard both Laura Ingraham and Glenn Beck say they’re going to attend the speech in Houston. It’ll be interesting to hear what they have to say afterwards, but I’m guessing they’ll be nearly the only non-hostile media in attendance.
It’s a very accurate paraphrase.
I disagree. That's the last thing he should do.
He needs to aknowledge that Mormonism has fundamental theological differences with mainstream Christianity. To do otherwise would simply make conservative Christians to distrust him even more.
At the same time, he should note that none of these differences is relevant to public policy, and that on public policy questions, Mormons see eye to eye with evangelicals.
Yes, and I think that's what he's going to do.
That's why I think he needs to knowledge there's a fundamental difference, without getting into the details, and then say that the differences don't matter when it comes to the office of the presidency.
My hunch is that most people will buy that.
What do you think?
Exactly....Republicans have reduced themselves to the slime tactics of Democrats by going after religion....a sad day. The only good I see in all of this is that people who have not tuned into Romney just might discover him.
I believe that's going to be his main point.
"... where in reality there should be no "religious" test whatsoever."
Your straw is full of mold ... no one, I repeat for the slow witted Mittiacs, NO ONE has proposed a religious test be written into law. BUT every American voter has the full right to decide personally to not support someone based upon the religious peculiarities of the candidates religious espousals. You Mittiacs are starting to look really foolish trying to float that crap at FR. Stick to the dumbed-down public for that floater.
Another bigot hate post! You would do much better with a little bit of civility.
Point out the ‘hate’ in that post, son.
Well, even if he and I share the same faith, I do not suppport Mitt. I am concerned about his too recent leanings conservatively, irrespective of his religion.
Having said that, I do know he has led a good life with his wife and kids, and that he has been true to them. I also know that his faith espouses a strong and abiding faith in Jesus Christ.
Just the same, as with all persuasons, people can feel those things in their heart and still make the wrong decisions. Mitt, by his own admission, did, for years, with respect to key conservative principles which I believe speak to the bedrock, foundational principles and institutions upon which this Republ;ic were and are founded. Now, he indicates he has seen the error of those ways.
I will grant him the possibility of doing so, and sincerely hope that he has, as I would hope anyone did who was a Baptst (the faith in which I was raised), a Methodist, Catholic, Church of Christ, Jew, etc.
Before I will trust that change to the level of the Presidency however, I prefer to see a lot more water under the bridge testing those new-found principles to make sure they are strong, and truly rooted in a heart and soul committed to them.
Therefore, I support Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson both over Mitt and will cast my vote accordingly. I would support Mitt over Rudy however...or certainly over Hillary.
Jeff, I pinged you because the Mittiac posted a quote from your post. Would you like to point out what was ‘hate’ in the post I made to the Mittiac? [I’m adding a ping to the Mittiac because I referred to him. You know the system, Jeff.]
“Would you like to point out what was ‘hate’ in the post I made to the Mittiac?”
I believe I can point out an example of “hate” for you:
“I repeat for the slow witted Mittiacs”
But perhaps the more appropriate word for that comment is “contempt.”
If it was not your intent to label me with that name, it was not clear in your post.
My point is, I am supporting Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, in that order. If it came down to Mitt vs. Rudy, or Mitt vs. Hillary, I would support him. But I clearly prefer someone with a longer, tried and true commitment to conservative principles.
Well done ... contempt is precisely what I have for Mittiacs who play word games at FR thinking they are hiding their deception from readers. ut you ought to know, that as a fellow writer, I have nothing but admiration for Jeff, and I have his excellent books. [Can we take it that you agree, there was no ‘hate speech’ in the post? Bwahahaha, Maroon.]
That's the political response. Do you want the religious response, too? Or are you prone to take fellow Mormonism APologists' characterizations without reading what I've been posting for several weeks now?
I will give him the opportunity to change, if change is what it is. But, as I said, the presidency is too critical to trust it to.
Just the same, if it were him against Rudy, or him against Hillary, I would support him against either of those two (or any of the other Demos).
I am hoping the conservatives come together early and give us an opportunity to have a tried and true conservative against the Demos. That is what I am supporting and pushing for.
Thanks for working with me to clarify. I believe we are close on our reasoning and what we support in this election...even if sometimes we aren;t in rhetoric.
I thought W was for Woman :)
MHGinTN why are you omitting the contempt you have for the LDS to your read post to Jeff you would think that Mormon faith is acceptable in your book MHGinTN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?id=31634;more=51207695
Resty, bitterness will consume you if you’re not careful. Do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion?
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.