The Genius Within Romney's Speech

Actually, Hugh Hewitt picks up on it. Not having been able to watch it live, I didn't hear portions of it until the campaign made a high quality clip available.

Far more important than all of that, however, was the content of the address, which was a brilliant explication of the American political theory of faith and freedom.  Romney used the moment to defend not just himself but the American tradition of faith in the public square, of vigorous and valued religious plurality, and, crucially, why that tradition has allowed America's role in the world to be so unqualifiedly good.

The genius within Romney's speech isn't necessarily his, though the notion that he appreciates the genius of our Founding Fathers and can state it so eloquently is critical. Like it, or not, America is a nation founded not only on the concept of religious freedom and the freedom to be without religion, should one choose. We are also a nation founded upon religious principles, one whose founders effort-ed to elevate those principles above and beyond the realm of organized religion, where history revealed to them how dangerous and deadly that can be. The Founders sought to incorporate the principles of religion, or at least the concept of a God who uniquely bestows freedom unto every individual equally, into a democratic political framework that would preserve them, presumably, for them, as mostly every right-thinking American would value such a thing.

Because of the over-reaching efforts of some secularists to remove any concept of God from the public square, America is at risk, for the first time in her history, of losing touch with the bedrock concept of freedom as a gift from one's own God, and not an indulgence of one's government.

The appreciation of that concept is not only key in our history, it is critical to our future, if America is going to continue to be the "shining city on the hill" Reagan invoked so eloquently in his farewell address.

And that's about all I have to say tonight. Except for one thing. The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the "shining city upon a hill." The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free.

I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.

And how stands the city on this winter night? More prosperous, more secure, and happier than it was eight years ago. But more than that; after 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.

The genius it took to found, and it will take to remain, this shining city is expressed in these excerpts below from Romney's speech. And America could do far worse than having a president who understands and can express it. In fact, some would argue that to be without such a president at this critical juncture, the America most of us know and love might not even truly survive in any recognizable form.

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right.  There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

Comments

[seekeronos]

At a quick glance, the speech does make points I'd be inclined to agree with. Freedom of religion and worship, non-establishment of any state churches, the good sort of thing that one might have imagined any of the majority of the Founding Fathers standing on.

But the flip side of it is that this is a speech that has been honed and polished to a fine, bright and highly glossy finish. If nothing else, Mitt is a fine self-marketer, and if anything propels him into the Nomination, it will be his management and marketing skills much more than anything he really has to offer us in terms of consistent, rock-solid conservative principles.

Sadly, we Americans eat this sort of well-played marketing up much like they do fast food. It looks good, and seems convenient, but in the end, it is not terribly good for a body.

In the end, Mitt - the question I have for you is:

Do you really expect me to trust you after the way you flip-flopped on abortion and gay marriages? Or how about taking away my guns, or raising my taxes so that I have no chance of ever going into business for myself, unless I am independently wealthy to start with?

How shall I trust you, if you polish your words and fit them uniquely to each crowd you must sway to get your votes?

Don't judge from pretty words or pretty appearances, America. Your future may depend upon it.

[justifiablyso]

seekeronos, get a life already. You wouldn't recognize a statesman if your life depended on it. Do you even know who Samuel Adams is? Go back to bed, naysayer.

[justifiablyso]

seekeronos, get a life already. You wouldn't recognize a statesman if your life depended on it. Do you even know who Samuel Adams is? Go back to bed, naysayer.

[Kyle Holzer]

I enjoyed the speech very much. Profound and to the point. Mitt is a religious man with the same morale values that made this country strong. It always cracks me up to see mudslingers that sound like a broken record on the flip flop issues. They are slinging dirt from most likely sandy sandy foundations themselves. He is the real thing. Not perfect. But he is right on all the most important issues.

[Sara]

I thought the speech was terrific.

[Matthew Malaikal]

This emotional yet brilliant speech lends credence to the fact that Mitt stands head and shoulders above all the other pols in intellectual firepower in this crowded field. Not even Hillary or Huck could come close! This is why this erudite and magnificent man must be elected: He is THE man who can easily grasp and analyze complex issues and distill them with aplomb. Take a hike Dick Morris!

[Rachel McKinney]

We work and work to change minds with regard to Abortion so when Mit Romney looked again at his pro-choice beliefs as he studied the "cloning" battle (while he was governor) and realized what a slippery slope pro-choice was - that it can slide very quickly into cloning, he changed his mind to pro-life. So I guess the flip-floppers mean that no-one can change their mind. Belief is set in stone! I myself a number of years ago changed from pro-choice to pro-life (after examining my conscience) so I guess I am a flip-flopper, too.

I'm so proud to be an American today after hearing this speech. As with Samuel Adams, I want to hear the prayers from those "who are pious and of good character so long as they are patriots."

[Anonomous]

Althoug I might disagree on doctrine, I totally agree with what I heard today. I am looking at Romney in a different light than I have before.

[Sara]

I went from pro-choice, to choice choosing life when my daughter was a teenager and together we viewed a video on how abortions are performed and at how late in the pregnancy some are performed. I had an instant change of view about the whole process. It would be good for many to remember that those of us who came of age in the sixties and early seventies did not have abortion available as an option, so the back room horror stories had resonance. And then, as women in the seventies, it was considered a betrayal to be against abortion. It was a different world, a different mindset. It took many years for technology to catch up and provide us with those stunning pictures of new life in the womb. Many of us had epiphanies at that point and completely rethought the subject. I would think less of someone who did not rethink the entire issue. And none of envisioned the handful of botched abortion victims would turn into over 40 million aborted lives. None of us envisioned how abortion would become a quick substitution for birth control. None of us envisioned that married women would start having abortions because they had had their 2 children and didn't want to start over with babysitters or the inconvenience of another child.

I am more surprised that a practicing Mormon ever held anything but a pro-life view. Mormons do not sanction aborting babies, especially since they believe that the spirit of every new life was known to God before conception and God wouldn't give you that child unless it was meant to be in an eternal sense. And as a final disclaimer, after rethinking the issue I came out with no abortion except to save the life of a mother and for very limited case by case cases of incest.

[Jeff]

Sara, I appreciated your sketch of the history of abortion in recent times. However, I must differ. The pro-life crowd of the 70's warned that precisely what would likely come to pass should abortion become legal. It simply is the slippery slope argument. Abortion had long been used as a means of birth control in communist nations, even in 1973. The lefties wanted the U.S. to follow suit in ways that they admired the lefties in other nations. The right predicted that abortion would become common place for the average woman. It did. Did you know that in the USSR, the average woman had more than five abortions. I've even heard estimates that it was as high as ten abortions per woman. I might know something about this since I have been to the former USSR more than thirty times. I actually talked with a lot of people about this very issue.

It is good to look clear-eyed into the past and face reality. We were warned that legalizing abortion would lead to millions of abortions. We were warned that in pregnancy there is a live human being, that he/she had physical senses (hence they recoil at pain when the abortion doctor kills them), that he/she had a heartbeat. Heck, doctors knew all that stuff in 1970. We just got better imaging technology to see inside the womb. Let us look back and face reality. We knew, we clearly knew.

[templar knight]

Dan, you're not going to get many people in the South excited about Mitt Romney, and frankly, Republicans HAVE to win the South in order to elect a President. I don't like the guy myself, and don't know anyone in my circle of friends who would support the guy other than as the alternative to Hillary. That's not very inspiring. Scary, but not inspiring.

[ctrlds]

The speech was wonderful. I was truly inspired. My prayer for this country is that the voters elect such a fine man to be president. I have full confidence that Mitt Romney would keep his word on all that he has promised in regard to his stands on the issues. If he is elected, America will have a president that will do the job and do it with integrity.

[Ajay]

After listening to this beautiful, moving, eloquent speech delivered by Gov. Romney, I am reminded once again of why I came to this country so many years ago. I moved here so that I could achieve my dreams, live in a land that respects all human beings, regardless of race, complexion, faith or any other artificial barriers. I moved here because of everything I had heard about "Amercian exceptionalism"...and I witnessed it first-hand today.

This is a great, great country, and I sincerely believe that Gov. Romney is the man who can guide us to greatness in the years to come...

[seekeronos]

"--- seekeronos, get a life already. You wouldn't recognize a statesman if your life depended on it. Do you even know who Samuel Adams is? Go back to bed, naysayer. ---"

I do know who Sam Adams is. And to borrow from another politician in a POTUS race not too long ago... he is no Sam Adams.

Granted, he is a good statesman in that he is an excellent marketer, and a businessman. A large part of what statesmen do is to sell people on ideas - much like businessmen work to sell you the idea that you need the particular service or product they offer.

However, I cannot fathom why he, as a lifetime member of the (hoo-boy!) Mormon church... how he could endorse and support abortions, stem cell research (in a time when the only viable stem cells could be harvested from fetal cell tissue) and his support for gay marriage - CLEARLY against both generally accepted Christian and Mormon doctrines, and much more so the Bible.

This reflects on Mitt as an opportunistic flip-flopper. He may have had a genuine change of heart, and he may indeed have repented... but it comes very late in the game, and surprisingly announced in conjunction with his decision to seek the GOP nomination.

Where was this examination of heart and commitment to family, life, and his faith a few years ago? How many babies were offered up to the altar of Progressive Liberalism (the Democrat stronghold of Massachusetts) and how many times was the divine institution of Holy Matrimony thrown down into the dirt to mock the Lord our God, as men married men and women married women?

What I like, but also dislike about Mitt is exactly his supremely polished and machined delivery of his speeches, his calculated responses... and when things go off the script, he chokes.

That's my opinion - I simply do not find myself trusting Mitt. And all I say is - see for yourselves.

Which politician will get the job done -

- the cross-dressing DA-turned-mayor who sees no problem with taking our guns away, killing our babies, and desecrating our Judeo-Christian values as good as or better than any Liberal Democrat?

- the preacher with a social(ist) gospel, and a an eye for adding to the size of the government and spending, and can't make up his mind on what to do about illegal immigration?

- a double-minded governor as discussed above (Mitt)

- a patriotic American who is weak on immigration?

Or do we trust a man who is a consistent conservative, and has plans to reduce the size of the federal government, ensure that our troops have the tools and funds they need to get the job done so that many of them can come home, and a will to keep illegal aliens out of our land?

Such a man and an American I am praying for, that God will anoint him with wisdom and understanding, and that God will work to convince those who are godly and belong to Him to support the right candidate.

[Kevin Sullivan]

Hugh Hewitt needs to calm down.

[Allen Blevins]

Seekeronos

By your logic, the apostle Paul is not to be trusted, since he flip flopped on Christ. Do not confuse sincere conversion with flip flopping. Regan flip flopped on abortion, so that makes him bad as well?? Personally, some of the strongest people in great causes are ones who came over from the dark side so to speak. I had a Methodist minister who was a recovering alcoholic. His passion against alcohol is one of the main reasons I have never had even a beer or even been tempted to do so.
In the book of Ezra, God worked through King Cyrus who was outside of the faith to work great miracles. I look for God to work through people.
I will never vote for a Mormon for president any more than I would vote for a Baptist or a Pentecostal. I want a candidate with moral values, fiscal conservatism and willingness to fight the good fight when needed.
Newt was my first choice and I hope he is someones VP. If religion were the criteria, Jimmy Carter wins over Regan hands down (does that read as stupid as it sounds?). Right now the best man I see to vote for is Romney.
I am a Southerner(Virginia) and am as excited about Mitt as I was Regan in 76.I wish I had worked harder against Jerry Ford, my bad.

Shakespeare said it well "Politics makes strange bedfellows". Beware the media affair with Huckabee. They want an all New York contest with New York values (like a Yankees-Mets series) and will use Mike to try to stop Romney to insure Guliani. The MSM may well pull it off and laugh at the conservatives all the way to the polls.

[sparkyva]

seekernos said: "Or do we trust a man who is a consistent conservative, and has plans to reduce the size of the federal government, ensure that our troops have the tools and funds they need to get the job done so that many of them can come home, and a will to keep illegal aliens out of our land?"

You forgot to add "who also has zero chance of winning the nomination." Aside from that, you really believe a congressman of any stripe is capable of reducing the government? That's generally not what they do (one of many reasons why congressmen rarely win the Presidency).

Sorry, after today it is apparent that Gov. Romney is the real deal. I think the nomination is his to lose.

[bart2007]

In referring to Samuel Adams's invocation of prayer at the first Continental Congress, Governor Mitt Romney belies his argument that religious belief positively unites the country. He stated that in Philadelphia "someone suggested members pray." That "someone" was a fellow Massachusetts delegate and a plant by Adams in an episode one biographer called the most cynical political act of his career. He in fact staged the entire episode in order to achieve his lonely political objective (a preparation of the colonies for war) against the peacemaking Loyalist inclinations of the Episcopalians among the founders. After Adams moved for an Episcopal minister (who was asked in advance by Adams) to give a service, he had his cousin John Adams second the motion. Thus, three Massachusetts delegates manipulated the congress members to their own advantage by a shameless appeal to their piety.

Romney may have succeeded in defusing the focus on himself as a religious outlier much as Adams defused the focus on the Boston delegates as a militant mob. However, I hope the Governor did not choose to cite this episode out of context with the same self-serving motives as his predecessor in office, namely, Massachusetts Governor Samuel Adams.

[seekeronos]

"--- You forgot to add "who also has zero chance of winning the nomination." Aside from that, you really believe a congressman of any stripe is capable of reducing the government? That's generally not what they do (one of many reasons why congressmen rarely win the Presidency). ---"

Indeed, one could almost feel bad for Congressman Ron Paul. As for Fred, don't count him out just yet. :)

[seekeronos]

Concerning Huckananny - I would not be surprised (and I think I've might have posted something here to this effect) that Giuliani and Huck are in loose cahoots. One wins, the other gets tagged for VP. Although, there is no guarantee that Rudy will keep his promise (he might want to reward some NYC buddies) and he probably would not be content playing second fiddle to Huck as VP.

Vain speculations aside...

I think that the next month is gonna get nine kinds of ugly very fast as the top three (Huck, Rudy, and Mitt) rend each other to shreds, with Rudy and Huck particularly working to undermine Mitt more so than one another.

And if Fred doesn't make it (Duncan Hunter was my first choice, but he tanked early on)... then I'll cast my reluctant vote for Huck. His policy stinks, and he has his priorities a bit missorted - although I can understand his social gospel to the degree that it can reach souls for Christ.

I might even be able to convince myself to give Huck the benefit of the doubt for coddling illegals with in-state tuitions as a state governor's mandate does not explicitly extend toward issues of national immigration.

I don't see myself voting for either Rudy or Mitt in a general election... Rudy is just plain evil, and Mitt I just can't trust... so I may very well go for the spoiler vote for the most conservative third party guy that has less of a chance than Ron Paul. I couldn't cast a protest vote for Hillary in good conscience.

Or I could be wrong, and y'all Mitt-heads (this thread seems to have brought y'all out of the woodwork) will be celebrating his win over Iowa, and likely, NH (looking at the polls). But Iowa and NH do not always a nomination across the nation make.

One thing is for certain: this race isn't set in granite by any means.

[docweasel]

It was all good except for the fact that the Mormon cult teaches hate and intolerance, racism, sexism, hatred for other religions, slander against Jews and Catholics that makes the most rabid Muslim Imam look rational and tolerant, and the fact that Mormonism's main tenets go against everything we hold dear in American life.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, wouldn't you say you enjoyed the play?

I say again, it will be a DISASTER for the Republicans if Romney is nominated. Millions will leave the party. We will lose the race. There will be a third party Christian challenger (no, Mormons are NOT Christians) and the Republicans may take a generation to recover, if they ever do. I do not think its overstating to say that if Romney is nominated, it will kill the party, because the Religious Right will leave it, moderates will shun it, those left will not uphold any of the things that make the party what it is.

Every person who cares about decency, fairness, tolerance and liberalism in the classic, Western sense of the word, as in rights of men and women and tolerance and acceptance of the righteousness of all religious people should condemn Romney and reject him. He and his ilk preach hate and slander against anyone who is not a lock-step cultist Mormon.

Its a disgusting example of how low the Republicans have sunk that he has made it as far as he has. Anyone the people of Massachusetts feel is worthy to be governor of that state cannot be a good Republican President. His glib, slick and slimy dishonesty fooled them, but then, they vote for Teddy Kennedy regularly.

I don't think most of the country is so easily fooled by hucksterism.

[sburtonhome]

I too am a Pro-Life convert. While my original inclinations for a woman's right to choose was more based off of educational indoctrination(aka High School/College), I am disturbed when my fellow pro-lifers call me and other converts such as Mr. Romney "Flip-Floppers". Can we not change our mind? Does our pro-life movement no longer accept new members to the "clic." Or is it simply an opportunity to tear down another to build up your own presidential candidate?

[L Ron Hubbard]

From the moment that Willard took his personality test I knew that Willard was bound for greatness. A great speech. He is a credit to thetans everywhere.

[john mccready]

BORING!!! Mitties speech was long winded and UNinspiring!! There's nothing this robot could say that would get any sane person to vote for a moron, i mean mormon!

[Matthew Malaikal]

Mr. Mccready and docweasel: Shame on both of you for spreading malicious lies about Mormons. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. You sound like a pair of ex-communicated members or nihilist libs inciting internecine GOP warfare!

[JediMormon]

Tut, tut, docweasel. You are living up to your name. As a lifetime Mormon, I can tell you that your assertions about what Mormons "teach" are completely erroneous. Might I suggest that you visit www.lds.org? Or perhaps www.mormon.org? Both are official web sites of the Mormon church. Getting information from the other side could only improve the accuracy of your comments, which appear to need alot of help. Instead of trusting what someone else says about what the Mormons believe and teach, why not go straight to the source? Just a suggestion.

[Marie LeVeau]

I only heard a small portion but his remarks regarding how his religion would not interfere with his duties as president was reassuring for those who questioned that. And he seemed sincere about the performance of the duties of president for the benefit of ALL American citizens. Now what i'd like to see is the media asking about Mr. Obama's church, because i'm not sure that he would be the president of the US rather than the president of a particular portion of the country.

[seekeronos]

sburtonhome wrote:

"---
I too am a Pro-Life convert. While my original inclinations for a woman's right to choose was more based off of educational indoctrination(aka High School/College), I am disturbed when my fellow pro-lifers call me and other converts such as Mr. Romney "Flip-Floppers". Can we not change our mind? Does our pro-life movement no longer accept new members to the "clic." Or is it simply an opportunity to tear down another to build up your own presidential candidate?
---"

Repentance - changing your mind to bring it into compliance with God's word is always a GOOD thing.

However, I see the *timing* of how Mitt suddenly "repented" of his baby-murdering ways to be a bit suspect, as I see no evidence that he has acted to reverse the effects of the pro-choice legislation he helped to get enacted.

Yes, I am being cynical here, because as a "god"-fearing Mormon, (ignoring for a moment that Luciferic god he serves) is the sanctity innocent life - especially that of an unborn baby. A practicing Mormon's focus is to father as many children as possible to help him become a god in his own right.

Therefore, it *should* be antithetical to him - born and raised in his father's Mormon faith (per his speech) to have even embraced abortion.

That all said, I won't stand in the way if his repentance is genuine... but something tells me that it is not... rather, that he is saying it to sucker as many people into voting for him as possible, especially with a genuine Christian competing with him.

I may very well be wrong, but until he publicly confesses his salvation by the Blood of Jesus alone, I'll take what he says with a healthy dose of salt.

[Marie LeVeau]

When have we required a presidential candidate to confess his salvation by the Blood of Jesus? not even JFK. And if this happens, will Obama and Hillary be required to confess the same? and what would it matter to the secular humanist press?

[Allen Blevins]

sburtonhome

I thought your post was spot on about those who aren't allowed the privilege to join the pro-life club. Huckabee stated on Glenn Beck that he only wants someone who has been steadfast on the issue. Using Mike's logic, we must cast into doubt the writings of Paul since he was once on the other side of the fence. Did not Christ offer the laborers who contracted at different hours the same pay regardless of the hour of contract?

This being said, there are many many statements about his faith that are mutilated due to getting information from a friend of a friend or email or even those extreme people who feel they must tear down Mormons even at the cause of truth. Those border on the line of Dan Rather who insisted the question he raised was more important than whether the letter was factual.
Mormons do not believe that they must father as many children as possible to become a god. They do have some unusual tenets of faith I will agree, but even I must in good conscience point out when an untruth is commingled with truth and logic.

What I have found refreshing about this guy is that he has openly stated "I was wrong about abortion." I like people who will admit they have been wrong, or do not have all the answers. Heck, I have been wrong a time or two myself (enough times I have lost count). I have listened to his conversion story on realizing the slippery slope abortion had placed us on and did an about face. I find him to be genuine and believable. I see a light in his eyes that I see in truly good people everywhere.

Again, thanks for your post. I look forward to more.

[gdzierzon]

seekeronos... everything you have said so far seems to me to fight in favor of Mitt Romney, rather than to argue against him. You make it sound as if it is a bad thing to have an accomplished businessman as president of this country. I think you don't truly understand what a flip-flop is. Just look at candidates of past years who change their position on topics at every other speech they give based on their audience. Yes, he changed his position on abortion, for which I am glad as it represents my belief. If anything, his change demonstrates that he is true to everything he stated in his speech. As governor of Massachusetts he had to make decisions which most closely resembled his constituents beliefs, even though they may have conflicted with his personal morals.

Gov. Romney is obviously guided by deep moral convictions. But being elected to an office does not give anyone the right to force those beliefs onto their constituency. He has shown that he will not do that. When you vote for someone to represent you, do you want them to represent your interests, or theirs? I don't think that the issue at hand is whether Mitt personally believes abortion is good or bad, as a Mormon his beliefs on that matter are quite clear. Statements have been made that he has finally seen the light or that he has repented. I don't think that either of those statements are accurate. He's seen the light all along personally, but that doesn't mean his constituency in Massachusetts has. It was not his responsibility as governor to give moral education, nor will it be as president. His responsibility was and will be to lead, and make decisions which will move our country forward.

Concerning being an eloquent speaker and marketer. I don't see how that is a bad thing. I agree with almost everything president Bush has don in his terms in office, but it sure would not have hurt to have had him be more eloquent in his speech. Of course he is going to refine his addresses to pack a punch and sound good. Would you expect any different from any president? That is part of the job. We need someone who can not only lead and make sound decisions, but can also be a great public image for the United States.

[gdzierzon]

docweasel...

----
It was all good except for the fact that the Mormon cult teaches hate and intolerance, racism, sexism, hatred for other religions, slander against Jews and Catholics that makes the most rabid Muslim Imam look rational and tolerant, and the fact that Mormonism's main tenets go against everything we hold dear in American life.

...no, Mormons are NOT Christians.
----

WOW, pretty strong words there. I'd be interested to hear where you get your information. I'm not sure if you actually believe what you wrote or if you are just trying to touch a nerve. In either case if you would like to back up those statements, I'd be very interested to hear where you got your information.

www.are-mormons-christian.com

[Josey2006]

It's starting to look like Romney is irrelevant. Ah well.