My Analysis of Romney's Speach

[_beastie]

I think it might be ok to gain political hay by putting child-molesters, rapists, and drug lords down.

As an aside, I suffer from hay-fever.

Obviously, it's ok to gain political hay by putting down atheists, as well. After all, in the groups these comments are fashioned to gain favor, atheists are pretty much viewed as evil people who helped caused 9/11 by provoking God to stop protecting us.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

And it came to pass that Romney rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole, saying, whosoever will maintain this title upon the land, let them come forth in the strength of the Lord, and enter into a covenant that they will maintain their rights, and their religion, that the Lord God may bless them.

And thus it came to pass, that by this stratagem he did take possession of the presidency without the shedding of blood.

[_Roger Morrison]

Interesting speech. Typically Nationalistic, and American, from which i've pasted several pieces below that piqued my interest:

Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation's turn. How we respond to today's challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

"America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Mitt seems to be oblivious to the Fascist nature of the Church to which he pledges his religious allegiance. So be it.

Is he also ignorant that the America he was left is less than than the America his predecessors were left? Mitt also tends to a pessimism that insidiously gnaws at the well-being of those who see threats at every corner: "Radical violent Islam..." "...China endeavors..." "...at home...government..." "...foreign oil..." "...the family..." Does such fear and anxiety justify the huge, financial drain to support the worlds most expensive Military Complex? What will be his approach to that debilitating economic cancer? How will his faith-lack in humanity balance with his faith in magical powers to solve America's problems?

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

"Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate's religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Sentimentalism that doesn't support Theism any more than it does Atheism. Both of which are simply philosophies that may little effect how one lives different from the other. Freedom out weighs Religion in the grand scheme, and in deed opens one to the discovery of all things.

Wonder from which date Mitt measures the, "...grand tradition of religious tolerance..."?

As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings.

Is he as moved by the number of house that people are losing? The numbers of young families struggling to provide children with life-essentials such as education and affection? The number of seniors working at minimum wages to survive? Might he think that those "houses of worship" should be paying taxes? Is he so deluded as to really believe "life's blessings" have any thing to do with "steeples"?

Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

Is this to suggest that "religious people" are the only people of conscience? Or that they always supported these one-time "radical movements"?

"Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

More sentimentalism. Would those same questions not be asked of any candidate? Does Mitt not know those "values" are basically humanist? Does he not know they are not "American values" any more than they are of the rest of most other countries? And, that "the obligation to serve one another" is more often lip 'service' than not in the pocket-books of many who are wooed by tax-cuts, generaaly speaking. That some nations do genuinely abide that principle, and top the "best place to live" pole?

No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America's sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century's terrible wars – no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America's resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

Once again Mitt displays his ignorance. He measures American sacrifices in 100s of 1,000s as more than any, "people in the history of the world for liberty..." Other nations count their losses in MILLIONS! Russia alone in close to 50,000,000!!

Mitt might be more articulate than GWB, but he doesn't seem any brighter! "Tested..." and didn't come to assistance until 3 years after the beginning of WWI, and nearly 3 years after the beginning of WWII. Does that take the USA to the top-of-the-class? "No fealty", really? American bases in Europe and Asia for decades. Pledges of obedience to US edicts... How high does Mitt suggest holding the banner of "Peace"?

We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

Is Mitt unaware that the "greater danger today" is not from the outside world? It is rather from within America itself. It is symptomed in fears, and anxieties that tend to drug abuse, lawlessness and social disparities rooted in economic tyranny, that in essence violates Christian principles religion corrupted to serve itself and its secret bed-fellow, state elite. Mitt might represent that better than most. He does look good. No 5 o'clock shadow... Roger's analysis

[_the road to hana]

Mitt might represent that better than most. He does look good. No 5 o'clock shadow... Roger's analysis

Bad haircut, though.

Regardless of what Mitt said yesterday, his immigration troubles are going to haunt him. Certain people listening to the speech might have been persuaded that he's a person of faith, but could still question how principled if he continues to be mired in controversy over workers in his home (landscapers and painters) hiring illegal immigrants.

[_Analytics]

Thanks for the link to the Hitchens editorial, TD. Here are a couple more comments that are related to how Hitchens wonders if Romney will turn off members of his church.

Romney said,

“When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.” Personally I’m glad he said this and I’m inclined to take him at his word. But it’s interesting that he is so generally liked by Mormons.

He made a promise before God, angels, and witnesses at the temple altar to consecrate himself, his time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has and would blessed him, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Did he consciously decide to compromise on his temple covenants? Did he forget he made them? Does he not take them seriously? Was he lying when he said the oath of office would be his highest promise to God?

___________

I’m imagining Elder Romney on a mission. He knocks on a door, and a man interrupts his pitch and declares, “look kid. My grandmother was Roman Catholic. My mother was Roman Catholic. I was born Roman Catholic. I’m gunna die Roman Catholic. I respect all religions, but I’m not going to change, so you better be on your way.”

Elder Romney replies, “I’m glad to hear that. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs.”

[_Some Schmo]

I’m imagining Elder Romney on a mission. He knocks on a door, and a man interrupts his pitch and declares, “look kid. My grandmother was Roman Catholic. My mother was Roman Catholic. I was born Roman Catholic. I’m gunna die Roman Catholic. I respect all religions, but I’m not going to change, so you better be on your way.”

Elder Romney replies, “I’m glad to hear that. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs.”

LMAO

Nice one.

[_moksha]

Did he consciously decide to compromise on his temple covenants? Did he forget he made them? Does he not take them seriously? Was he lying when he said the oath of office would be his highest promise to God?

"Politics are politics and we must do what is expedient"
- Moksha Machiavelli, Handling of the Mittster, Dubuque bound, 2007

[_asbestosman]

I think it might be ok to gain political hay by putting child-molesters, rapists, and drug lords down.

As an aside, I suffer from hay-fever.

Obviously, it's ok to gain political hay by putting down atheists, as well. After all, in the groups these comments are fashioned to gain favor, atheists are pretty much viewed as evil people who helped caused 9/11 by provoking God to stop protecting us.

Don't forget evolutionists and homosexuals--the twin enemies of fundamentalists and hence God--or so I'm told.

[_beastie]

Maybe atheists are going to be the devil this election cycle, instead of gays.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/r ... merica.php

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

[_Yong Xi]

Here is David Brooks' op-ed in the NY Times on Romney.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?hp