The Speech

He did it.

The man I met in Salt Lake City as I covered the 2002 Olympics walked up to the podium in College Station and delivered "The Speech."

The reviews are pouring in and they are overwhelmingly positive.

Bloggers to columnists to talk show hosts are praising The Speech as Mitt's finest moment. Some political columnists are even going so far as to call it the most powerful speech of the 2008 Presidential Race, so far.

President Reagan's finest speechwriter approved saying, "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."

I was impressed.

Mitt did not deliver the speech I wrote for him. He couldn't. Who, in their right mind, would try to turn the attention of a Starbucks Nation to why he doesn't drink coffee?

Mitt's double-down gamble beat the house not so much because of what he said, but because of how he said it. The plastic candidate showed he may actually have a real heart as he appeared firm, unmovable, and emotional. It's about time. He must do that more if he stands a chance of victory.

Romney reminded us of how much we've missed a leader who can deliver speeches with multi-syllable words. He appeared at times to be a man of grand vision and optimism. Americans are longing for a President who spends more time speaking of the promise of the future rather than the fatalistic threats of today. We know the dangers are real and our way of life is threatened. That requires strength. But that can exist without constant reminders to the world that we can, at any moment, obliterate any or all of them.

Romney's finest moments yesterday came when he delivered these lines:

"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.'"

"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."

The man who has waffled too often finally appeared as a man of conviction.

And yet, of all the reactions the major media of this country could have to these lines, the Washington Post chose to focus on this line in their main editorial this morning:

"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. "

The Post found that misguided. The weighty question on their mind is whether Romney offended the atheists.

The Post said, "where Mr. Romney most fell short, though, was in his failure to recognize that America is composed of citizens not only of different faiths but of no faith at all and that the genius of America is to treat them all with equal dignity."

And what The Post failed to recognize is the anger most Americans feel towards the media is based on this type of misguided pandering. Yes, the Godless deserve dignity and liberty. But, the God-fearing deserve a great deal more defending by the seemingly soulless media.

Romney provided that defense yesterday and is thus reaping the benefits today from those who kneel on knees and bow heads.

It is difficult to see how logical thinkers like David Brooks of the New York Times fail to appreciate the volume of attention to the unbelieving and criticism of those of faith. Brooks obviously battled an internal struggle as he penned his column for today. He sought to praise Romney but found himself concerned the agnostic might be offended.

Yes, there are a few on pews who wrongly seek to silence the unbelieving. What the media doesn't seem to comprehend is they embolden this minority as they increasingly seek to paint religion as a preoccupation of the eccentric.

Comments

[L. Jaskoski]

So he's Morman (yawn). So what?

[dave taylor]

I am glad that a candid is willing to say what they believe, not what they think I want to hear. It is important to be sensitive to others feelings and beliefs, but we can do so without loosing ours.

[Larry]

"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."

and that is the scariest part. I would be equally as scared if an evangelical christian uttered those words as well. because a lot of these (fundamentalist) people are all about forcing their ways of life on others-- because they know they're right--

[Brian Steckman]

As a lifelong “mainstream” Christian, I would have no issue at all with a Mormon president if they are the best qualified leader. But, I am far from making a decision who is the best qualified leader at this point.

As far as Romney is concerned, I am not at all convinced about how sincere he is. Sure, yesterday’s speech may have solidified his spiritual sincerity, but when I hear him state that "I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion” I get a tad concerned. Knowing what I know about a Mormon’s sense of community (including things like Mormons prefer to hire other Mormons), how can someone as sincere in his faith as him be trusted to have a balanced administration?

To allay my concerns, can someone please ask him what is the percentage of Mormons that are currently on his paid staff? If that number is low, I might start becoming a believer.

[Bob L]

Is anyone else tired of the PC movement? The great thing about being in America is we are free to be of whatever religion, political leaning, gender leaning, and so on. Why are so many people stuck on the possibility that what they say might offend someone? If you're not offending anyone you lack conviction. No matter what issue it is there are always at least 2 sides to everything. Tell the ACLU to take a hike and get rid of the lawyers who are so happy to sue over someone getting their "feelings" hurt.