...
The republican party is thinking about electing a guy who calls the Club for Growth, the Club for Greed...
What can we do to save our party
Who is John Galt?
Dec 7, 2007
Fred Criticizes Huckabee on Iran
In Columbus, OH Fred had a few words to say about Mike Huckabee's lack of knowledge about Iran and the National Intelligence Estimate:
"Not only is Iran the major long-term threat to our country, the nuclear program is the most important part of the Iran consideration. For a presidential candidate not to know that and not to keep up with that is very surprising," said Thompson.
"These are the kinds of things I've been talking about all of my life. Now, if the American people have other priorities, if they want someone who smiles a lot more than I do, or someone who is a better quipster than I am, who has no experience in these areas, that's for the American people to decide."
UPDATE: Yesterday on MSNBC Huckabee found an excuse as to why he didn't know about the NIE:
HUCKABEE: Well, I don't blame my staff. It is a situation where a report was released at 10:00 in the morning, the president hadn't seen it in four years and I'm supposed to see it four hours later.
Think Progress notes the following:
1) The NIE was released the previous day, not that morning. The NIE was released to the public in the early afternoon on Monday, December 3rd. The dinner where Huckabee was asked about the NIE took place on the evening of Tuesday, Decemeber 4th.
2) Huckabee had more than "four hours." According to the timeline above, Huckabee could have learned about the NIE anytime overnight or during the course of the next day if he had picked up a newspaper. Hotline notes, on the same day Huckabee said he hadn't heard of it, the Iran NIE "not only dominated the Democrats' debate here in town but also prompted a presidential press conference in response."
3) Bush couldn't have seen the report "four years" ago. The NIE was initially completed only a year ago, thus Bush couldn't have had "four years" to see the report. While the intelligence community did eventually learn that Iran shut down its nuclear program four years ago, that knowledge didn't come to the intelligence community until this past summer.
Mike Huckabee should be a little more thoughtful before looking for a clever quip.
Huckabee Released One Felon Every Five Days
Mitt Fans,
Slick Willy--who occasionally posts at NY for Mitt--put together a wonderful story:
It drives home the point that Huck released a felon about every five days! Below are a few key paragraphs:
Earlier this week I posted a story about Gov. Huckabee influencing the parole board to release convicted rapist Wayne DuMond from prison and DuMond's subsequent two rapes/murders. In addition to making me sad, the story convinced me that Huckabee's judgment is a big problem.
These numbers are staggering. To put them into context, on average, Huckabee was prematurely releasing 70 felons a year. Or, one felon every five days.
Do you really believe he knew their cases and history as well as the jury that put them behind bars? Do you really believe he studied the data well enough to truly be informed about each of these decisions? Impossible. Where was his respect for the legal/criminal process the founders created?
But then again, how could he be expected to do all that homework? Between fighting for the rights of illegal aliens, raising the taxes and out-spending the liberals where would he find time to read tedious pleas from victims of the felons he was forgiving?
Slick Willy did a fine job. This is a weak spot for Huck that we need to magnify.
Neal
Larry Kudlow and Mike Huckabee
LK: Regarding Governor Huckabee, Governor Huckabee is a very interesting guy who is not running as the kind of traditional, free-trade, cut taxes, limit government, supply side conservative. He is not. And we walked through a whole bunch of things on trade and China and taxes, and also, he just blurted out CEO pay, which he violently disagrees with. And in fact, he said he would…he doesn't want to regulate it, but he said at one point he would regulate CEO pay as a last resort.
HH: Oh.
LK: I thought that was very important. He's very biased against China trade. He's skeptical. He says the middle class is in trouble. He didn't acknowledge the prosperity. I really asked him about today's excellent jobs report, and the general prosperity we're enjoying. He didn't want to go there.
HH: You know, Larry, last night I watched Glen Beck as I was preparing to give a speech. I'm told it was a replay of a Huckabee interview. But what I heard last night, he was talking about the ruling class in America.
LK: Yeah.
HH: You know that's populism, Huey Long yahooism.
LK: Yeah.
HH: That's not the Republican Party.
LK: Nope. It's interesting to me, because I mean, I said are you a pessimist, I say you sound pessimistic on the campaign trail. And he said I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. And I think he's the only candidate, Hugh, who is acknowledging these middle class anxieties, almost reaching out to them. He doesn't have a solution except to curb trade. But he's really playing to that, in that sense, just like the Democrats are. And the thing is, you have to look at this in a serious vane, because he's doing so well in the polls. I mean, it would seem that the more his message gets out, the better he's doing. And I find that quite troubling, but I think that's the reality. I'm going to look at the tape of my interview tonight, because as you know, it's awfully hard when you're on the spot, I've got producers in my ear…
HH: Right.
LK: And I want to look at the whole thing. I didn't dwell on his sales tax hikes and all that in Arkansas, because he's already answered those charges, and he's been beaten up. I was interested in what his future policy was, and it's very vague. The reality is his future policy is very vague.
Reflections On "Faith In America"
Yesterday, Governor Mitt Romney delivered his "Faith in America" address at The George Bush Presidential Library. Today, the newspapers and columnists are reflecting upon Governor Romney's words. Please find below some key columns:
Kathleen Parker: "One Nation Under Mitt" (Townhall, 12/7/07):
"He held up a mirror and, for the first time in a long while, Americans did not have to avert their gaze. They could see themselves reflected and be both proud and humbled by their country's unique beauty."
"Voters may not know any more about Mormonism than they did before Mitt Romney's faith speech on Thursday, but they surely know more about what it means to be an American.
"Romney's much-anticipated address from the George H.W. Bush library at Texas A&M reminded Americans of some fundamental truths that often get lost in the guerrilla warfare of presidential politics."
...
"If Kennedy's speech was an important landmark in American political history, Romney's was surpassing. With heartfelt humility and poetic eloquence, he tracked the nation's struggle with and for freedom.
"He held up a mirror and, for the first time in a long while, Americans did not have to avert their gaze. They could see themselves reflected and be both proud and humbled by their country's unique beauty.
"That may be the most valuable result of Romney's speech. He raised the bar by focusing on broad principles of religious freedom, rather than on the small details of doctrinal differences. In the process, he elevated everyone – even those not-so-deserving."
To read the full op-ed, please click here .
Kathleen Parker: "One Nation Under Mitt" (Townhall, 12/7/07):
"He held up a mirror and, for the first time in a long while, Americans did not have to avert their gaze. They could see themselves reflected and be both proud and humbled by their country's unique beauty." "Voters may not know any more about Mormonism than they did before Mitt Romney's faith speech on Thursday, but they surely know more about what it means to be an American.
"Romney's much-anticipated address from the George H.W. Bush library at Texas A&M reminded Americans of some fundamental truths that often get lost in the guerrilla warfare of presidential politics."
...
"If Kennedy's speech was an important landmark in American political history, Romney's was surpassing. With heartfelt humility and poetic eloquence, he tracked the nation's struggle with and for freedom.
"He held up a mirror and, for the first time in a long while, Americans did not have to avert their gaze. They could see themselves reflected and be both proud and humbled by their country's unique beauty.
"That may be the most valuable result of Romney's speech. He raised the bar by focusing on broad principles of religious freedom, rather than on the small details of doctrinal differences. In the process, he elevated everyone – even those not-so-deserving."
To read the full op-ed, please click here .
Patrick J. Buchanan: "Mitt's Hour Of Power" (Townhall, 12/7/07): 
"And it is hard to see how Romney does not benefit hugely from what was a quintessentially 'American' address."
"If Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, it will be due in large measure to his splendid and moving defense of his faith and beliefs delivered today at the George Bush Presidential Library."
...
"This was a tour de force, and it was delivered before perhaps the largest audience Romney will have for any speech before the January caucuses and primaries. It will be the subject of editorials and columns in coming weeks. And it is hard to see how Romney does not benefit hugely from what was a quintessentially 'American' address."
...
"The issues of religious tolerance, what it means to be a Christian in politics, and of secularism versus traditionalism are all now out on the table, and will likely be the social-moral issues on which the race turns between now and January.
"To this writer, Romney is on unassailable grounds. Nor is he hurt by the fact that his wife and five children testify eloquently that he is a man of principles who lives by them."
To read the full op-ed, please click here .
Rich Lowry Op-Ed: "Mitt The Patriot" (The New York Post , 12/7/07): 
"He partially wrote and then delivered a speech that was a deeply felt love poem to America, a defense and celebration of its religious vibrancy and world-shaping commitment to liberty."
"In College Station, he delivered his speech with a transparent sincerity and, at times, passion. He even misted up."
...
"In the conclusion of his speech, Romney talked of the difficulty of settling on a prayer at the First Continental Congress in 1774 because of all the different faiths represented there: 'Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.' Amen."
To read the full op-ed, please click here .
Michael Medved: "Romney's Home Run" (Townhall, 12/7/07):
"This is, frankly, precisely the sort of clarity and courage
Americans expect of a presidential candidate."
"The key to that notable and perhaps historic success involved the candidate's eloquent ability to insist on the proper distinction between religious values (which nearly all Americans share), and specific doctrines and traditions (on which we differ dramatically).
"The former Massachusetts governor drew this distinction with the most memorable rhetoric of the Presidential campaign so far. 
"He satisfied his first goal – arguing that his Mormon faith shouldn't disqualify him – and he did so while affirming his personal loyalty and devotion. While acknowledging that there are some who 'would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion or disavow one or another of its precepts,' he stoutly and emphatically refused to bend. 'That I will not do,' he declared. 'I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.'
"This is, frankly, precisely the sort of clarity and courage Americans expect of a presidential candidate."
...
"There?s still more than three weeks before the Iowa Caucuses and I still feel potent admiration and affection for Romney rivals Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani.
"But in Mitt?s remarks today, he not only looked and sounded like a President – he actually looked and sounded like a great one. All Americans should feel encouraged and grateful."
To read the full op-ed, please click here .
Dallas Morning News Editorial: "Reminders Of Tolerance" (12/7/07):
"In so doing, a passionate Mr. Romney delivered one of the clearest articulations of our civic religion by any presidential candidate in recent memory."
"Rather, the candidate took a more prudent path, focusing on the basic moral tradition that religious believers share. He persuasively contended that on important moral and political questions, his faith convictions are well within the mainstream of American history. In so doing, a passionate Mr. Romney delivered one of the clearest articulations of our civic religion by any presidential candidate in recent memory.
"The candidate properly assured his audience that, as president, he would recognize limits on his church's authority. Going on offense, he connected America's greatness with its religious tolerance and pointedly observed that 'religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.'
"Mr. Romney contrasted the American genius for accommodating religion in public life with Europe's history – state religion, followed by sterile secularism – and the Islamic world, where a totalist creed often persecutes dissenters. Only in America, he argued, are faith and reason held to be compatible within their respective spheres, thus keeping religion vibrant and relevant to democratic life. And this, he contended, is possible because in America, we honor God while respecting religious difference.
"The message was clear: Religious faith and religious tolerance define America's pluralist democracy and make it great. To dishonor that is to be less of a patriot."
To read the full editorial, please click here .
Michael Gerson: "Answering Critics – And Kennedy" ( The Washington Post, 12/7/07):
"Kennedy's speech remains a landmark of American rhetoric.
But Romney's deserves to be read beside it."
"Before his remarks, Romney tipped his hat to Kennedy's Houston address as 'the definitive speech.' But Romney, speaking at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University, declared his independence from the Kennedy model. Kennedy's speech began by playing down 'religious issues' as a distraction from the 'real issues' of 'war and hunger and ignorance and despair.' Romney declared this perspective – 'that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us' -- to be 'at odds with the nation's founders.'"
...
"Romney's speech, however, was an achievement. It had the boldness to argue with Kennedy on key issues and the intellectual seriousness to win some of those arguments. Kennedy's speech remains a landmark of American rhetoric. But Romney's deserves to be read beside it."
To read the full op-ed, please click here .
How Mitt Romney came to give The Speech--and how he did
 |  |
Mormon in America
How Mitt Romney came to give The Speech--and how he did.
Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
How Mitt Romney came to give The Speech--and how he did.
Friday, December 7, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST
Did Mitt Romney have to give a speech on religion? Yes. When you're in a race so close you could lose due to one issue, your Mormonism, you must address the issue of your Mormonism. The only question was timing: now, in the primaries, or later, as the nominee? But could he get to the general without The Speech? Apparently he judged not. (Mr. Romney's campaign must have some interesting internal polling about Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere.)
But Mr. Romney had other needs, too. His candidacy needed a high-minded kick start. It needed an Act II. He's been around for a year, he's made his first impression, he needed to make it new again. He seized the opportunity to connect his candidacy to something larger and transcendent: the history of religious freedom in America. He made a virtue of necessity.
He had nothing to prove to me regarding his faith or his church, which apparently makes me your basic Catholic. Catholics are not his problem. His problem, a Romney aide told me, had more to do with a particular fundamentalist strain within evangelical Protestantism. Bill Buckley once said he'd rather be governed by the first thousand names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard faculty. I'd rather be governed by Donny and Marie than the Washington establishment. Mormons have been, in American history, hardworking, family-loving citizens whose civic impulses have tended toward the constructive. Good enough for me. He's running for president, not pastor. In any case his faith is one thing about Mr. Romney I haven't questioned.
It is true that some in his campaign thought a speech risky, but others saw it as an opportunity, and a first draft was ready last March. In certain ways Mr. Romney had felt a tugging resistance: I've been in public life--served as governor, run the Olympics, run a business. I have to do a speech saying my faith won't distort my leadership?
In May he decided to do it, but timing was everything. His campaign wanted to do it when he was on the ascendancy, not defensively but from a position of strength. In October they decided to do the speech around Thanksgiving. Mr. Romney gathered together all the material and began to work in earnest. Then they decided it would get lost in the holiday clutter. They decided to go after Thanksgiving, but before Dec. 15. The rise of Mike Huckabee, according to this telling, didn't force this decision but complicated it.
The campaign fixed on Dec. 6, at the College Station, Texas, library of George H.W. Bush, with the former president introducing him, which would lend a certain imprimatur (and mute those who say his son's White House is pulling for Rudy Giuliani).
It is called his JFK speech, but in many ways JFK had it easier than Mr. Romney does now. The Catholic Church was the single biggest Christian denomination in America, representing 30% of the population (Mormons: 2%, six million). Americans who had never met a Catholic in 1920 had by 1960 fought side by side with them in World War II and sat with them in college under the GI bill. JFK had always signaled that he held his faith lightly, not with furrow-browed earnestness. He had one great question to answer: Would he let the Vatican control him? As if. And although some would vote against him because he was Catholic, some would vote for him for the same reason, and they lived in the cities and suburbs of the industrial states.
Very, very well. He made himself some history. The words he said will likely have a real and positive impact on his fortunes. The speech's main and immediate achievement is that foes of his faith will now have to defend their thinking, in public. But what can they say to counter his high-minded arguments? "Mormons have cooties"?
Romney reintroduced himself to a distracted country--Who is that handsome man saying those nice things?--while defending principles we all, actually, hold close, and hold high.
His text was warmly cool. It covered a lot of ground briskly, in less than 25 minutes. His approach was calm, logical, with an emphasis on clarity. It wasn't blowhardy, and it wasn't fancy. The only groaner was, "We do not insist on a single strain of religion--rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith." It is a great tragedy that there is no replacement for that signal phrase of the 1980s, "Gag me with a spoon."
Beyond that, the speech was marked by the simplicity that accompanies intellectual confidence.
At the start, Mr. Romney was nervous and rushed, his voice less full than usual. He settled down during the second applause, halfway though the text--"No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths." From that moment he was himself.
Bracingly: "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it." Whatever our faith, the things we value--equality, obligation, commitment to liberty--unite us. In a passage his advisers debated over until the night before the speech, Mr. Romney declared: "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind." He made the call. Why? I asked the aide. "Because it's what he thinks."
At the end, he told a story he had inserted just before Thanksgiving. During the dark days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, someone suggested the delegates pray. But there were objections: They all held different faiths. "Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed." At this point in Mr. Romney's speech, the roused audience stood and applauded, and the candidate looked moved.
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
My feeling is we've bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.
Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "John Paul the Great: Remembering a Spiritual Father" (Penguin, 2005), which you can order from the OpinionJournal bookstore. Her column appears Fridays on OpinionJournal.com.
VP: Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee?
  (CBS) COLUMBUS, OHIO -- At a news conference that just wrapped up, Fred Thompson was asked what he thought of Mike Huckabee drawing a blank when asked about recent reports about the National Intelligence Estimate re: Iran. "Not only is Iran the major long-term threat to our country, the nuclear program is the most important part of the Iran consideration. For a presidential candidate not to know that and not to keep up with that is very suprising," said Thompson. "These are the kinds of things I've been talking about all of my life. Now, if the American people have other priorities, if they want someone who smiles a lot more than I do, or someone who is a better quipster than I am, who has no experience in these areas, that's for the American people to decide." Thompson is now en route to Davenport, Iowa. Read More Posts In Fred Thompson Kequin22 says: "...When asked by Don Imus about serious Foriegn policy questions he gave a joke instead of a serious answer... |
2Now that the speech has been given, I want to get back to some of the other issues...
Today, Romney for President launched its newest television ad, "Not Politically Correct." The ad highlights Governor Romney's record of fighting for conservative principles in the bluest of blue states. When it was not politically correct, Governor Romney stood up for life, required English in the classroom and fought for marriage as between a man and a woman. Governor Romney believes that we can strengthen America by bringing pro-family, conservative change to Washington.
The ad will be airing as part of the campaign's rotation in Iowa. Script and viewing links are below.
Script For "Not Politically Correct" (TV:30):
ANNOUNCER: "When it wasn't politically correct, he stood up for life in Massachusetts.
"When it wasn't politically correct, he fought for English in the classroom.
"When it wasn't politically correct, he said marriage should be between a man and a woman."
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "You strengthen the American people by strengthening the American family.
"Marriage must come before children, because every child deserves a mother and a father."
ANNOUNCER: "A stronger America."
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."
To watch "Not Politically Correct," please see: http://tv.mittromney.com/?showid=718211
AD FACTS: Script For "Not Politically Correct" (TV:30):
ANNOUNCER: "When it wasn't politically correct, he stood up for life in Massachusetts."
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription. (Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, "Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill," The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
- Governor Romney Promoted Abstinence Education In The Classroom. (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Announces Award Of Abstinence Education Contract," Press Release, 4/20/06)
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Changed The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation. (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
- Governor Romney Supports Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement. (John McElhenny, "O'Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election," The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
- Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo-Destructive Research In Massachusetts. (Theo Emery, "Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill," The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
- In May 2007, Governor Romney Was Awarded The 2007 Mullins Award For Outstanding Political Leadership By Massachusetts Citizens For Life. "Mitt Romney was a great Governor, who served with honor and distinction. But most importantly, he was a pro-life Governor. He vetoed a number of pro-abortion pieces of legislation and made many pro-life appointments. He was always there for us. He's a busy man these days and we are extra fortunate that he and his wife Ann could be with us. Governor, you have been an inspirational leader in many ways. And if I may say so, Mitt, you're looking very presidential. Ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming our friend, Governor Mitt Romney, to the podium as our 2007 Mullins Award Winner for Outstanding Political Leadership." (Kevin Jourdain, Remarks, Agawam, MA, 5/10/07)
ANNOUNCER: "When it wasn't politically correct, he fought for English in the classroom."
- Governor Romney Fought Efforts To Weaken Massachusetts' English Immersion Law. "But yesterday, Romney press secretary Shawn Feddeman said the governor will fight all attempts to slow the implementation of English immersion, known on the ballot as Question 2. ? 'He will veto anything that weakens or delays English immersion,' Feddeman said." (Anand Vaishnav, "Romney Firm On English Timetable," The Boston Globe, 1/24/03)
- In 2003, Governor Romney Line-Item Vetoed A Provision That Would Have Created "A Major Loophole" In Massachusetts' English Immersion Law. "Specific vetoes include language that would have: ? Changed the English immersion ballot initiative to permit 'two-way' bilingual programs, creating a major loophole in the new law." (Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, "Romney Signs No New Tax Budget In Time For New Fiscal Year," Press Release, 6/30/03)
ANNOUNCER: "When it wasn't politically correct, he said marriage should be between a man and a woman." GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "You strengthen the American people by strengthening the American family. Marriage must come before children, because every child deserves a mother and a father." ANNOUNCER: "A stronger America." GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."
- On The Same Day That The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Legalized Same-Sex Marriage, Governor Romney Called For A State Constitutional Amendment Defining Marriage As Between A Man And A Woman. "I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear." (Office Of The Governor, "Statement By Governor Mitt Romney On SJC Decision On Same Sex Marriage," Press Release, 11/18/03)
- Eventually, 170,000 People Signed A Petition For A Constitutional Amendment, Including Governor Romney. "Backers of a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Massachusetts have shattered a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question. ? The petition drew the signatures of Governor Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann; former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, now the president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; and former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn." (Raphael Lewis, "Petition Vs. Gay Marriage Advances," The Boston Globe, 12/22/05)
- When The Legislature Would Not Vote On The Amendment, Governor Romney Filed Suit To Force A Vote. "Governor Mitt Romney and a group of Massachusetts residents asked the state's highest court yesterday to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, accusing legislative leaders of violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal." (Jonathan Saltzman, "Marriage Vote Suit Delivered To SJC," The Boston Globe, 11/25/06)
- Massachusetts Family Institute Kris Mineau: "From the onset of the infamous Goodridge court decision in 2003, Governor Romney has opposed same-sex marriage and, I believe, correctly sought to overturn it through a constitutional amendment." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "An Early Massachusetts Primary," National Review, 1/10/07)
- National Review's John Miller: "Whatever the outcome, there's no denying that Romney has pulled every lever within his reach to defend traditional marriage." (John J. Miller, "Matinee Mitt," National Review, 6/20/05)
- Governor Romney Is The Only Major Republican Candidate Supporting The Federal Marriage Amendment. MSNBC's JOE SCARBOROUGH: "Any other major Republican candidates support the marriage amendment?" GOVERNOR ROMNEY: "You know, I don't think that Rudy or Fred or John McCain support the marriage amendment and I think they're in error on that one." (MSNBC's "Morning Joe," www.youtube.com, 9/14/07)
- In June 2004, Governor Romney Testified To Congress In Support Of The Federal Marriage Amendment. "Society can ill afford erosion of charitable institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some may retreat from the concept of amendment. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration." (Governor Mitt Romney, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Testimony, 6/22/04)
- Governor Romney Wrote To All 100 U.S. Senators Urging Passage Of The Federal Marriage Amendment. "Next week, you will vote on a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution protecting the institution of marriage. As Governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote 'yes.'" (Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To U.S. Senators, 6/2/06)
To watch "Not Politically Correct," please see: http://tv.mittromney.com/?showid=718211
WSJ
The following article from the wall street journal says this:
"Mr. Romney has converted to conservative social positions on abortion, and so on."
You know what? I'm tired of the lazy journalist who uses the "and so on". That is all they ever say, because besides abortion, you have to make the argument that we live in a black and white world, and their are no shades of grey, in order to say that Romney "changed" on these other issues. If you are not the most extreme person in the world, you are going to make some arguments about were your beliefs have limits. Freedom of speech is good until you are screaming at the top of your lungs at 2:00 in the morning in the middle of your neighbor's lawn. Romney's flip-flop accusers who are politically motivated use this type of logic to say; "on this date you said a pro statement and on this date you made a con statement" but they take these quotes out of context in such a way that they deny the truth that Romney has NOT changed. For example, the gun issue. Go here to learn more about it but people take a quote from Romney out of context when he, speaking of the assault weapon's ban, said he "did not line up with the NRA" on that issue. Idiots, then use spurious logic, to then claim that Romney really meant that he did not "line up with the NRA" on any issues, even though he got a B (his first ever) from the NRA while governor...
I have got to go to work... I'm going to be late again and there is an inch of new snow, but here is some more from the otherwise pretty good article...
December 7, 2007; Page A16
In anticipation of Mitt Romney's big speech yesterday on the "religion question," some seemed to expect him to address the meaning and purpose of human existence. He didn't, and the speech was all the more politically admirable and instructive as a result.
![[Mitt Romney]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/HC-GK369_Romney_20071004184247.jpg)
Instead of directly pushing back against skepticism of his Mormon beliefs, the Republican Presidential hopeful spoke to the more limited -- though still loaded -- topic of faith and politics in America. There were considerable risks in doing so. He had to allay qualms about his spiritual convictions without also turning off the primary voters who consider religion an important element in selecting their candidate. Another danger was that "the Mormon issue" could dominate the 28 days until the Iowa caucuses.
......The Kennedy precedent isn't useful because JFK essentially argued that religion shouldn't matter in politics. He endorsed "an America where the separation of church and state is absolute," and in many ways that speech anticipated all that would follow.The core of the Democratic Party shifted over time toward secular absolutism -- where any public engagement with religion is tantamount to its public establishment, and maybe even the repeal of the Enlightenment. The Supreme Court also took an active role in making the policy preferences of the secular left the law of the land, beginning in 1963 with its prohibition of prayer in public school.
Mr. Romney, then, was addressing traditionally minded voters who have valid reasons for feeling excluded from the cultural, if not democratic, mainstream. He did well to recognize the contributions that faith and religious institutions make to the American civic landscape. And as he noted, the American system is tolerant enough to accommodate the varieties of religious experience.
...He noted that "a common creed of moral convictions" brings him to the same policy conclusions as evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics. The political church , in other words, is broad enough to include Mormons, even if their doctrines aren't simpatico....How unfortunate it would be if he were rejected on the basis of such irreducible doctrinal differences. The Mormons seem the very embodiment of "family values," and you couldn't invent a religious culture that lived more consistently with Biblical messages. Broadly speaking, most Mormons have, and come from, big families; they're regular churchgoers and give to charity; they don't drink, smoke, gamble or engage in premarital sex. On the scale of American problems, the Mormons don't even register.
It's particularly ironic that some religious voters are trafficking in anti-Mormon bias, because the secular left has spent years trying to portray these same religious voters as a threat to the American system. Evangelicals have spent decades being ridiculed by the coastal elites -- for the born-again lifestyle, creationism, opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, the "Left Behind" novels. Recall the ridiculous "theocracy" panic after the 2004 election.
Now some of those same believers are trying to do the same to the Mormons. We doubt Mr. Romney persuaded those voters, but he probably had more success with, say, Republican Catholics who recall their pre-JFK ostracism from Presidential politics....
Dec 6, 2007
The Romney Religion Speech
College Station, TX – Speaking at The George Bush Presidential Library, Governor Romney addressed the American people about his views on religious liberty, our country grand tradition of religious tolerance and how faith would inform his Presidency.
Governor Romney's "Faith In America" Address (As Prepared For Delivery):
"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.
"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.
"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"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.
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
"Let me assure you 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.
"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. 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.
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. 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.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. 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?
"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'
"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. 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.
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
"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.
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'
"God bless the United States of America."
Governor Romney's "Faith In America" Address (As Prepared For Delivery):
"Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind introduction.
"It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.
"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.
"Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America's greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams' words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"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.
"Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.
"Let me assure you 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.
"As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
"As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.
"There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.
"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. 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.
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. 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.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. 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?
"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.
"We believe that every single human being is a child of God – we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are 'thrown into the world all equal and alike.'
"The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.
"Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. 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.
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord's words: 'For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me...'
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.
"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.
"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.
"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.
"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.
"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.
"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.
"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'
"God bless the United States of America."
Mitt Romney's Religion Speech
Speaking at The George Bush Presidential Library at 10:30am EST, Governor Romney will address the American people about his views on religious liberty, our country's grand tradition of religious tolerance and how faith would inform his Presidency. The speech will be live streamed on www.mittromney.com. Excerpts from Governor Romney's address follow:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Faith_In_America_Excerpts
Excerpts Of Governor Romney's Remarks (As Prepared For Delivery):
"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adam's words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'
"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."
…
"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."
…
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
…
"It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. 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.
"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.
"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"
…
"These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements."
…
"My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self -same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency."
...
"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.
"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion - rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith."
Dec 5, 2007
Victim’s mother will do “whatever it takes" to stop Huckabee
A Missouri mother says she will do "whatever it takes" to stop former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee from becoming president, because he freed the man who went on to rape and murder her daughter, Carol Sue Shields. Full story here
This was only one clemency in a long list of clemencies, this online petition documents some of the more offensive clemencies.
The signers of the petition also gave their views on Huckabee’s clemency policy, pleaded for him to change his policy, and shared some of the grief caused by his policy in comments made with their online signatures. Those signatures and comments can be viewed here
This was only one clemency in a long list of clemencies, this online petition documents some of the more offensive clemencies.
The signers of the petition also gave their views on Huckabee’s clemency policy, pleaded for him to change his policy, and shared some of the grief caused by his policy in comments made with their online signatures. Those signatures and comments can be viewed here
Huckabee Won't Give Views on "Mormons"
Huckabee sidestepped a question about whether or not The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, or “Mormons” is a Christian faith saying, "I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president,"
Yet a Southern Baptist President (Jimmy Carter) has already don just that, not only did he confirm that “Mormons” are Christians", but he chastised the Southern Baptist Convention for trying to characterizes them as non-Christians. “Too many leaders now, I think, in the Southern Baptist Convention and in other conventions, are trying to act as the Pharisees did who were condemned by Christ, in trying to define who can and who cannot be considered an acceptable person in the eyes of God," he said. "In other words, they're making judgments on behalf of God. I think that's wrong."
It’s sad when a Republican Candidate can’t convey the same religious tolerance as Democrat President did 10 years before.
Yet a Southern Baptist President (Jimmy Carter) has already don just that, not only did he confirm that “Mormons” are Christians", but he chastised the Southern Baptist Convention for trying to characterizes them as non-Christians. “Too many leaders now, I think, in the Southern Baptist Convention and in other conventions, are trying to act as the Pharisees did who were condemned by Christ, in trying to define who can and who cannot be considered an acceptable person in the eyes of God," he said. "In other words, they're making judgments on behalf of God. I think that's wrong."
It’s sad when a Republican Candidate can’t convey the same religious tolerance as Democrat President did 10 years before.
Faith-based voting film in works
 | |
| Faith-based voting film in works | |
| An ecumenical, bipartisan team is heading into 10 early-voting states with a documentary about faith and politics that is loaded with provocative interviews in an effort to force viewers to confront biases they're never realized. | |
| TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company |  |
NIE?
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 12:07 AM
Politico's Jonathan Martin reports on a very disturbing conversation with Mike Huckabee:
Huckabee not aware of NIE report on Iran
My colleague David Paul Kuhn attended an on-the-record dinner with Mike Huckabee and a group of reporters tonight in Des Moines.
The transcript speaks for itself:Kuhn: I don't know to what extent you have been briefed or been able to take a look at the NIE report that came out yesterday ...
Huckabee: I'm sorry?
Kuhn: The NIE report, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran. Have you been briefed or been able to take a look at it —
Huckabee: No.
Kuhn: Have you heard of the finding?
Huckabee: No.
Read the whole thing.
This is a pretty astonishing admission of cluelessness on the part of Governor Huckabee. And it places the Romney gardener story in its proper context.
My concern about the Huckabee pop is that it is hard to imagine the former Arkansas governor winning the November vote. I can see election night with a sea of blue states with the deep South voting Huck. The MSM knows this and is relentlessly boosting Huck in order to fell Romney. The Globe's obsession with the leaves on Romney's lawn underscores how agenda journalists of the left view this race: Take out Romney, bleed Rudy, nominate Huckabee, elect Hillary.
Dec 4, 2007
Un-Mormon and Unchristian
Tuesday, December 4, 2007; Page A21
What could be called "The Huckabee Moment" occurred Sunday morning when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the former Arkansas governor, suddenly and ominously the front-runner in Iowa's GOP contest, whether Mitt Romney is a Christian. Mike Huckabee knew precisely what was being asked of him, and he also knew, because he is a preacher, what the right -- not the clever, mind you -- answer should be. But Huckabee merely smiled that wonderful smile of his and punted. This, with apologies to George W. Bush, is the soft demagoguery of low expectations.
Until just recently, the expectations have indeed been low for Huckabee. He is more famous for losing more than 100 pounds than for any towering political accomplishment. But he is an ordained Baptist minister, and Romney is a Mormon -- a member of a church that some conservative Christians consider heretical. Huckabee has presented himself as the un-Mormon.
Pardon me for saying so, but that is the chief difference between the two. On about all the social issues you can name -- abortion, stem cells, gun control -- Huckabee and Romney are in sync. So their religious differences are not about morality. They are about belief -- religious belief, precisely the issue that is not supposed to matter in this country. Huckabee, though, clearly thinks it ought to.
The reason I started with Stephanopoulos is that he provided the perfect opportunity for Huckabee to make some ringing statement in support of religious tolerance. He might have made some reference to the ugly anti-Catholic campaigns run against Al Smith (1928) and John F. Kennedy (1960) and how they had both been spearheaded by prominent members of the Protestant clergy, Methodist Bishop Adna Leonard in the former's case, the renowned Norman Vincent Peale in the latter's. (Peale later went on to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom from Ronald Reagan.) In other words, Huckabee might have preached. Instead, he said Romney had to answer for himself the question of whether he's a Christian. As for the TV commercial Huckabee is running in Iowa that opens by proclaiming him a "Christian leader," he said this is just because that's what he is -- not, mind, you, the former governor of a nearby state or even a weight-loss guru. But as he well knew, it is not his surprisingly moderate record as governor of Arkansas that so attracts Iowa's conservative Christian voters, it's his obdurate and narrow-minded religious beliefs.
Romney has scheduled a speech for Thursday -- at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Tex., of all places -- to confront the religious issue. This is what JFK did back in 1960, but Kennedy had it easy. All he had to do was shoot down the canard about Vatican control, while Romney has to deal with reality: Mormonism is a significant departure from conventional Christianity. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible itself, is scripture to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- downright heresy to some conservative Christians. This is not a gap that can be easily closed.
It is absurd that Romney feels compelled to deliver a speech defending his beliefs and that Huckabee does not have to explain how, in this day and age, he does not believe in evolution. But it is singularly appropriate that Romney's speech be delivered at the Bush library. For it is the 41st president's underachieving son who put such emphasis on religious belief -- and has shown us all, with his appalling record, that faith is no substitute for thought. A mind honed on the whetstone of doubt might have kept us out of Iraq.
The Republican presidential field has some feeble minds and some dangerous ones as well, but none has done as much damage as Huckabee has. Religion does not belong in the political arena. It does not lend itself to compromise. It is about belief, not reason, and is ordinarily immutable. Romney is a shifty fellow, but he will always be a Mormon, and it will never make a difference. Should he become president, he will still light the national Christmas tree and pardon the Thanksgiving turkey and host the Easter egg roll on the White House lawn.
Inevitably, Romney's speech will be compared to JFK's. But when it comes to being beholden to a religious doctrine, it is Huckabee and not Romney who has some explaining to do. What's more, Huckabee is the one who is capitalizing on religious intolerance. He says he's a Christian leader, but the evidence proves otherwise. He's really a shameless follower.
Related
If Mitt Romney must explain why his religion is not a threat to our cherished American way of life, so must Mike Hukabee.
Huck's Daft Tax Plan
|  |
- Dec 04, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney On Hanukkah
- Jan 20, 2007; Governor Mitt Romney's Visit to Israel
- 01-23-07; Excerpts from Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference
- Sep 21, 2007 Governor Mitt Romney On Yom Kippur
Quotes
2006
In the recent conflict along the Israel-Lebanon border, Khatami described the terrorist group Hezbollah as a "shining sun that illuminates and warms the hearts of all Muslims and supporters of freedom in the world."
Jan 20, 2007 Governor Mitt Romney's Visit to Israel
Also See
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Israel
Governor Mitt Romney On Hanukkah
Tuesday, Dec 04, 2007
Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement regarding Hanukkah:
"Ann and I would like to wish the Jewish community a Happy Hanukkah. The festival of lights is a holiday that represents hope. The story of the Maccabees reminds us all of the value of faith and the promise that tomorrow brings. It is an amazing story of courage; a true tale of fighting for freedom.
"The United States and the American people embody these very values – hope and freedom. It is important that we stop to recognize this meaningful holiday – a celebration of both human bravery and a miracle. Have a Happy Hanukkah."
Governor Mitt Romney's Visit to Israel
Saturday, Jan 20, 2007
Boston, MA - On the evening of Saturday, January 20, Governor Mitt Romney will travel to Israel on a trip sponsored by the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). On Tuesday, January 23, Governor Romney will deliver public remarks at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference. Governor Romney will return to the United States on Thursday, January 25.
Public Event:
Governor Romney delivers remarks at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference.
Tuesday, January 23
3:15 p.m. (Local Time)
Herzliya, Israel
Since its inception, the Herzliya Conference has become a leading and world-renowned summit of Israeli and international leaders for the discussion of Israel's national security. Participants at the Conference include: government officials, Knesset members and ministers, defense officials, business leaders, senior academics, media, representatives of leading Jewish organizations, and dignitaries from abroad.
Private Meetings During The Governor's Trip Will Include:
- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
- Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres
- Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni
- Mr. Meir Dagan, Director of the Mossad
- Avi Dichter, Minister of Public Security
- Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak
- Natan Sharansky
- Former Prime Minister and former Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
- Dr. Salam Fayyad, former Palestinian Finance Minister
Private Visits Include:
- Helicopter tour of Israel's Northern and Southern borders and Security Fence
- Tour of surveillance and security measures at Ben-Gurion Airport
- Tour of Yad Vashem
- Tour of the Old City
Excerpts from Governor Mitt Romney's Remarks at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference
Tuesday, Jan 23, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390
Herzliya, Israel - Today, Governor Mitt Romney will make remarks at the Seventh Annual Herzliya Conference on the nature of threat posed by Iran and the actions necessary to address this threat.
To see Governor Romney's speech live beginning at 8:20 a.m. EST, please click here:
http://web11.mediazone.co.il/media/idc/LIVE/20070121/?logo=6&lang=eng
Governor Romney's Five Step Plan Of Action To Prevent A Nuclear Iran:
" First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe to the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today ...
"We must also be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically - an issue I have been looking into. In my meetings this week in Israel, I have become aware of the potential of U.S. pension funds to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I have contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and Governors of other states to begin this process by meeting today with senior Israeli leaders in Boston.
" Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran's Government. Ahmadinejad should not be provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as he travels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lecture at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would have important symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran.
"Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide under the Genocide Convention. The United States should lead this effort.
"The full title of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Remember that word: Prevention.
"Article III of that treaty establishes that 'public incitement to commit genocide' is a punishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty, including the U.S. and most European countries, shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care about international humanitarian law.
"Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, and human rights advocate and former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler have spoken out on this issue.
"In addition, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and is joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, they must be on to something.
" Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do much more than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq's nascent government, They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict - stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah ... thawing relations with Israel ... and telling the Palestinians they must drop terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.
" Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a source of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.
" Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world. I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is an unquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States as well as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and other allies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we can help."
Other Key Excerpts Of Governor Romney's Remarks As Prepared For Delivery:
"And on Iraq, I would just like to make another point. Some Congressional leaders in the United States today are arguing that the President is not authorized to allow our forces to pursue Iranian elements inside Iraq - which are attacking our own troops. That would be folly."
Mitt Romney Herzliya Conference Speech
January 23, 2007
Thank you Ron Lauder for that introduction. And thank you for what you do – and to you Uzi Arad as well – to make this important conference happen. It's good to be at the Herzliya Conference this afternoon. It's been a busy day. I saw the sunrise in Jerusalem. And along with friends, I traveled to the Gaza border, from there wechoppered up to the Lebanese border. And now here.I am glad to be in Israel again. It has been about 10 years since my last visit and I am struck by how much has changed. The economy is booming. As someone who spent most of my career in business, I have great respect for the ingenuity and resilience of Israel's workers and entrepreneurs.
But the changes are not only economic and they are not only positive.
And it is not just Israel that has changed in the past decade, but the world around us. Unfortunately, many have not fully caught up with the new strategic paradigm we face.In that old world, the Arab-Israeli conflict was thought of as just another intractable regionalconflict. One that drags on…that should be resolved…but is not part of a global threat to theworld order.9/11 changed that perspective. Or it should have. Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton Commission, resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict will not magically mollify the jihadists. No, what we should have realized since 9/11 is that what the world regarded as an Israeli-Arab conflict over borders represented something much larger. It was the oldest, most active front of the radical Islamist jihad against the entire West. It therefore was not really aboutborders. It was about the refusal of many parts of the Muslim world to accept Israel's right toexist – within any borders.
This distinction came into vivid focus this summer. The war in Lebanon had little to do with thePalestinians. And it had nothing to do with a two-state solution. It demonstrated that Israel isnow facing a jihadist front that from Tehran through Damascus to Southern Lebanon andGaza.As Tony Blair astutely put it, Hizbullah was not fighting "for the coming into being of a Palestinian state...but for the going out of being of an Israeli state."
Yet we have still not fully absorbed the magnitude of the change. As far as our enemies areconcerned, there is just one conflict. And in this single conflict, the goal of destroying Israel issimply a way station toward the real goal of subjugating the entire West.Jihadism -- violent radical Islamic fundamentalism -- has emerged as this century's nightmare. It follows the same dark path as last century's horrors: fascism and Soviet-styled communism.In my country, the attack by Al Queda has led some to believe that we are threatened by aband of fanatics in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They imagine that if we couldonly get Bin Laden and his cohorts, all this unpleasantness could be over.But Jihadism is much, much more.
Jihadists are among Shia and Sunni, promoted by Hamasand Hizbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, financed by knowing and unknowing Muslimgovernments, and preached to hundreds of millions in many nations. Their goal is theoverthrow of moderate Muslim states and their replacement by a caliphate. Their strategy isthe collapse of the economy, the government, and the military of America and our friends.To their eyes, our destruction is not delusional, but possible.In my country, the focus has been on Iraq, which is understandable. We have some 140,000 men and women there, with more on the way. And we are suffering casualties. Indeed, the past few days have been especially painful for the United States. Thousands of American families continue to make the greatest sacrifice for security in Iraq. And for whatever the mistakes made and the challenges before us, we must remain committed to making everyeffort for success there.And on Iraq, I would just like to make another point. Some Congressional leaders in theUnited States today are arguing that the President is not authorized to allow our forces topursue Iranian elements inside Iraq – which are attacking our own troops. That would be folly.
But today, I wish to focus on the regime that has become the heart of the Jihadist threat - Iran. I believe that Iran's leaders and ambitions represent the greatest threat to the world sincethe fall of the Soviet Union, and before that, Nazi Germany.
Ahmadinejad has gone well beyond the boundary of outrage…beginning with his calculateddesecration of history. Indeed, when he denies the Holocaust, he could care less about history– his point is about the present and the future. His purpose is not to deny the Holocaust, but todeny Israel. He is testing the waters. He wants to know who will object. And how they willregister their objection.The Iranian regime threatens not only Israel, but also every other nation in the region, andultimately the world. And that threat would take on an entirely new dimension if Iran were allowed to become a nuclear power. And just think of the signal a nuclear Iran would send toother rogue regimes with nuclear ambitions – this could be a tipping point in the developmentand proliferation of nuclear regimes. How should the civilized world approach this challenge?
Our first goal should be to dispense with three major schools of wishful thinking:The first school concedes that Iran must not be allowed to go nuclear. But that's where thecertitude ends. Beyond that recognition, there is only the hope that Iran's weakeningeconomy and political rivalries will yield a change in the government's leadership. We are all hopeful, but this is not a strategy. The second assumes that it is possible to live with a nuclear Iran. This thinking is based onthe theory that Iran, once granted the privilege of joining the nuclear club, will be aresponsible actor.
Neither their words nor their record justify this conclusion. The third school believes that the logic of deterrence, which served us through the Cold War,will apply to Iran. But for all of the Soviets' deep flaws, they were never suicidal. A Sovietcommitment to national survival was never in question. This assumption simply cannot bemade about an irrational regime that celebrates martyrdom.Each of these three represents a rationale for inaction, rather than a strategy for success.Each would in all likelihood yield the same result – an Iran that is nuclear armed, threateningthe world, or worse. They should be rejected. And they should be replaced with anunderstanding of two fundamental realities:
1) Iran must stopped;
2) Iran can be stopped.
It is inconceivable to me that some think otherwise. Their view must be based ondisbelief…disbelief that Iran's regime means what it says.Few believed that Hitler meant when he called for the destruction of the Jewish people in Mein Kampf. Few believed what Osama bin Laden said.
The 9/11 Commission found numerous failures – failures of intelligence, of coordination, andof analysis. But they found that the most critical failure was what they called a "failure ofimagination." Americans simply could not believe that people would crash airplanes full ofinnocent people into buildings full of innocent people.
Since that happened, can we really dismiss horrific threats as mere rhetoric? A nuclear Iran is unacceptable because, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out inhis confirmation hearings, we have no way of guaranteeing that Iran will not use a nuclearweapon. Many people do understand that Iran must be stopped, but they do not believe it is possible. They see the modest sanctions that the UN took three years to produce. They see Russia refusing to end its cooperation with Iran's nuclear program. They conclude that the UNSecurity Council will never produce sanctions tough enough – and soon enough - to stop Iran.
What is less appreciated is what the US and Europe can do. Yes, we should continue toencourage China and Russia to work with us on the UN Security Council. And from mymeetings in Israel over the past few days, and in China two months ago, I have reason to bemore optimistic about the role China could play.But we must not sit idle while we wait for cooperation: The US and Europe can do much toexploit the Iranian regime's vulnerabilities.
In considering our strategy, we must remember that the government and the clerics arenot the sole center of power. The people of Iran also represent a major source of power. Byand large, they have not been radicalized by their government and clerics. They feareconomic stagnation and political repression. Most are not seeking a military confrontationwith the West. Indeed, most want greater engagement with the West - there's a reason, for example, that there are more than 75,000 bloggers active in Iran today. A successfulstrategy should consider and encompass the people of Iran, as well as their leaders. In my view, our strategy to stop Iran should include the following five dimensions:
First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severeto the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from theinternational community today.The Bush Administration deserves credit for the efforts it has made on the economic trackthus far. The Administration's campaign to deny Iran access to the international bankingsystem is crucial. The United States and Europe must ensure that Iran is unable to obtaincredit. And we must ensure that Iranian purchases in foreign currencies become difficult or impossible.
We must also be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically – an issue I havebeen looking into. In my meetings this week in Israel, I have become aware of the potential ofUS pension funds to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I have contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and Governors of other states to begin this process by meetingtoday with senior Israeli leaders in Boston.
Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran's Government. Ahmadinejad should notbe provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as hetravels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lectureat Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would haveimportant symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran.Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement togenocide under the Genocide Convention. The United States should lead this effort.
The full title of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention andPunishment of the Crime of Genocide. Remember that word: Prevention.Article III of that treaty establishes that "public incitement to commit genocide" is apunishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty, including the U.S. and most Europeancountries, shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care aboutinternational humanitarian law.Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, and human rights advocate and former Canadian JusticeMinister Irwin Cotler have spoken out on this issue.In addition, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and is joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, they must be on to something.
Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do muchmore than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq's nascentgovernment, They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperatureof the Arab-Israeli conflict -- stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas andHizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must dropterrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.
Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can alsobe a source of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear materialthat falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from thecivilized world.
Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world.I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is anunquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States aswell as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and otherallies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking,the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In thefinal analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we canhelp.
We should remember that in the two other global confrontations with totalitarianism in thepast century, it was not always obvious that the West would prevail. Indeed, in these conflicts, the balance of power was not always in the West's favor. Those were wars we could have lost, but did not.
In the current conflict, the balance of forces is not nearly as dangerously close as it wasduring moments of World War II and the Cold War. There is no comparison between the economic, diplomatic, and military resources of the West and the handful of weak terrorist states that threaten us. In the previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far fromguaranteed. In the current conflict, there is only one way to lose, and that is if we as acivilization decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, our values, and our way of life.
It is time for the world to plainly speak three truths:
One, Iran must be stopped.
Two, Iran can be stopped.
And three, Iran will be stopped.
Thank you.
Posted by Scott at 09:14 AM
Governor Mitt Romney On Yom Kippur
Friday, Sep 21, 2007
Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement regarding Yom Kippur:
"On this the holiest day of the Jewish year, Ann and I wish all members of the Jewish faith a prayerful Yom Kippur. Across the country and the world, friends and family will gather to reflect and seek reconciliation with God. On this day, all Americans join together in the hope of peace and prosperity for the year ahead."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
This is my greatest fear. As someone who is both a social conservative AND an economic conservative, I've always suspected that the South American model of social conservative/economic populist could possibly catch fire in the United States and have the same detrimental economic consequences as they have experienced in South America.
If elected, Mike Huckabee would be that fear realized.
Like many of the wannabe conservatives... by jforFRED
Huckabee is putting on a show, fooling people into thinking he is someone he is not. He is receiving a free media ride right now because he is a good talker. Without funny one-liners at the last debate, he was a non-issue. It would be nice to see him respond to a question with something other than a sermon or a joke. I've been critical of Romney's flip-flopping (he did give a good speech today) and of Guiliani's reference to 9-11 or New York on every issue (I still admire his leadership.)
Though a strong Fred Thompson supporter, I'll take Mitt or Rudy any day right now over Huck. Are voters really fooled into thinking that this guy is anything other than a comedian with a theology degree? Early in this campaign, despite my obvious support for Thompson, I was able to find something positive about all the other top tier candidates. I've yet to find anything about Huck. (other than the party line of taking him over Clinton any day.) If voters are concerned that America will have trouble voting for a Mormon for president who is doing his best to prove he will not govern as a Mormon, what will America do with a candidate who seems to be nothing without his Bible?
Separation of church and state still should mean something.
www.fred08.com
The first (and last) Fred08 link on my site!
Gopher holes by David Ribeirao
Mike Huckabee reminds me of the gopher that lived in my backyard for a few months. For quite a while there was only one hole with the dirt piled around. Every once and a while the cute little gopher would poke it's head out and we didn't really mind having him around. Then it actually became kind of fun to see him poke his head out of the hole, it made us smile. Then I woke up one morning and there was another pile of dirt, the next day another, and so on until there was dirt all over the place.
Long story short - we finally poisoned the gopher and got rid of the dirt.