Romney's Speech

Who would not want to have the whole truth instead of just a piece? Of course in this view, Jews are now two testaments behind with a lot of catching up to do.

I have a hunch that this speech marks the end of Romney's race, although this will only be revealed in hindsight. I think it is a mistake for several reasons. Some people will see it as an attempt to legitmize inexplicable dogma. Others will be offended by the implication that he is a man of faith and other candidates are not. This is the aura that Joe Lieberman projected. As a political move, it's not a winner, as the LDS are I believe about four percent of the population. Kennedy's speech was given at a time when Catholics were about a third of the nation, by contrast. Finally, there is also the contradiction between claims of ethics and the reality of the way some church members live their lives. I'm impressed by their family solidarity and general wholesomeness. I'm less impressed by their missionary zealotry. I ran into this buzz-saw about two decades ago when some LDS kids took me to court on behalf of a tenant I was evicting for non-payment of rent. There is also the strange phenomena that the LDS state of Utah is a hot-bed of scams. I don't know if there is an relationship between rip-offs and the LDS faith, but the facts are the facts.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20070107/ai_n17107556

I might also mention that my respect for Romney has eroded since the YouTube debate, especially beause of his spat with Julie Anne over immigration and his inability to forumulate a clear position as regards to waterboarding, placing his moral compass in the hands of his advisors and lawyers.

You might appreciate Gail Collins's response to the Romney speech.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/08/opinion/08collins.html?hp

Shed a tear for the poor elephant. It has fallen on hard times.

The difference between Kennedy and Romney's speeches is that Kennedy was saying that faith must be separate from American politics whereas Romney seemed to be saying that faith is integral to American politics-- too bad to those who lack that faith or any faith. While they are both motivated to win votes, Kennedy's motivation also appears to be diffuse anti-Catholic nativism whereas Romney's motivation seems to be to identify with a specific Christian brand. Who do you suppose has a better understanding of the Establishment Clause?

I think the elephant is in its last throes.

Here is some more reader reaction and commentary.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/romney_spokesman_wont_say_whether_athiests_have_a_proper_place_in_america.php