NOTE: The following is a transcript of an advance preview of the ConBlog Nation Podcast which will be posted online later today. ~WS~
"THE SPEECH"
I've been asked what I thought about "The Speech" by some people.
Anytime an address by a politician is billed as "The Speech," it's a make-or-break moment for a candidacy. It's a speech that has to be knocked out of the park on the first pitch, or else a campaign is doomed to obscurity.
Yesterday, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney didn't just hit a home run. He hit a walk-off grand slam.
Now, in the interest of full disclosure, YES...I do support Mitt Romney and, when the New Hampshire Primary occurs on January 8, I will cast my vote for him. I believe he's the right person to lead this country after eight years of George W. Bush's "compassionate conservativism."
This speech delivered yesterday was a speech about faith in our country.
Since I'm disclosing things, let me also tell you that I was baptized as a Catholic as a child and, as an adult, I was a Jehovah's Witness for a brief time. (Hey...we all make mistakes in our youth and this was mine. I did it for a girl--enough said.) At this phase of my life, I'm an Agnostic and some days I'm even a borderline Atheist.
That's right...I'm a Conservative that doesn't necessarily believe in God.
That said, I thought that Governor Romney's "Faith in America" speech yesterday was absolutely perfect. It was perfect in substance, perfect in delivery and perfect in message. I found myself inspired and excited after the speech concluded. No, not because I wanted to run out and become part of some organized religion. I felt that way because I knew that Mitt understood the big picture on why and how this country was formed.
He said in his speech that "Freedom requires religion and religion requires freedom."
The founding fathers were smart enough to know that "freedom of religion" meant the freedom to not practice any religion without persecution or penalty and I think that Mitt Romney is intelligent enough to draw that same distinction.
This speech was called "Faith in America." Not "Atheism in America" or "Agnosticism in America." It was a speech about how faith has helped shape this country and how Governor Romney’s own faith would impact his Presidency but not run his Presidency. It wasn't geared toward the Atheists, Agnostics, Secularists or any other Liberals for that matter.
I’ve read a lot of commentary from Liberals and Conservatives alike on this speech and many of them have gotten it all wrong--and especially the Conservatives! Let me run through some of the criticisms that totally missed the mark:
1. "He only used the word 'Mormon' once."
Absolutely true--but this wasn't a speech on Mormonism. It was a speech about faith. The two are markedly different topics. Governor Romney is never going to deliver a speech about the beliefs and dogma of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Those expecting that this speech was going to contain the teachings of Mormonism were wrong from the very start.
What other candidate for his party's nomination has had to document what his religion teaches and why he believes it? That's right...no one has. It's not Mitt Romney's responsibility to teach voters about the teachings of his church. He's running for President of the United States, not President of the Quorum of the Twelve. His job in this race is to tell us what he believes about America and the Presidency--and he’s doing a better job of that than some of the others in this race.
He said that "no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."
That’s how he governed Massachusetts when he was elected there with 50% of the votes and that absolutely lends credence to how he'd govern as President.
2. "The speech was short on details."
I suppose that would have been true if the speech were titled "Faith in the Romney Family" and not "Faith in America" as it was actually named.
The speech actually told us about "Romney, the man" as opposed to "Romney, the politician."
In twenty minutes, Mitt said the following: he believes in Jesus, he believes Jesus is the son of God and the Savior of mankind, that the Mormons won't run the White House, that he respects people of all faiths, that anyone of piety can consider him a friend to them, that religion won’t supersede the Constitution.
Those saying that this speech lacked substance clearly weren’t listening or already had their mind made up before they ever heard it.
3. "This is only happening because Mike Huckabee is climbing in the polls and poses a threat to Romney."
Perhaps. That does happen in politics, you know. It's called strategy and...wow...what a concept that a politician might actually try to beat a rival!
In truth, this speech is happening now because Mitt Romney has been attacked for months and he felt this was the time was right to speak about it.
This speech wasn't directed at Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani or John McCain or even Fred Thompson. This speech was delivered to the American people--the ones that really matter in this race because they’re the ones who will actually make the decision.
It’s not about Iowa or South Carolina or even my native New Hampshire. It’s about telling the American people what he believes and what they can expect.
All kinds of people seem to have missed these points.
Yesterday, Mitt Romney walked into that room a candidate for his party's nomination and left it looking presidential. In addition to raising the stakes in this race, he also added to his resume a quality no one else in this race can boast: Mitt Romney showed he was a true statesman.
After eight years of "The Decider," isn't that what we want in a President of the United States? My answer is a resounding "YES!"
Governor Romney demonstrated yesterday that he could lead and he could be presidential. The question now is can some voting Americans set aside their religious bias long enough to pull the lever for him, or are they comfortable with hearing the following phrase for the next four or eight years:
"President Hillary Clinton."
William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com
