Mitt Romney’s speech today, in which he attempted to “address concerns” that apparently come from a significant portion of Republican voters about his Mormon beliefs, is going to be dissected, bissected and generally revisited ad nauseum by those vapid pundits who populate cable news.
While I won’t comment directly on it (I’ll let John Nichols do so), the speech is worth noting:
The former Massachusetts governor — the first major Mormon candidate for president — has seen his support slip recently in the early battleground state of Iowa amid misgivings by some Christians, particularly evangelicals, about his religion.
So in a 20-minute address billed as his definitive response to the issue, Romney said he was seeking to be a leader for Americans of all faiths, not just his own.
“If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no religion, no one group, no one cause,” Romney said, eliciting applause from the audience at the George Bush Presidential Library here on the campus of Texas A&M University.
“There are some for whom those commitments are not enough,” he added. “They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say it is more of 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.”
Romney even struck a note of defiance, suggesting at one point that he understood his Mormon faith could cost him some votes. But he predicted that Americans would ultimately respect him for sticking to his beliefs, noting that the United States had a proud tradition of religious tolerance that began with the founding fathers.
“Some believe that such a confession will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it,” he said. “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.”
What strikes me about this, however, is not the potential political implications. What strikes me is that, in the year 2007, we still view some religions as suspect. The speech, in many ways, should not have been necessary.
That Romney and the political establishment seemed to think it was says a lot more about that segment of Republican voting base — and the pundit class — than it does about Romney. His religion just shouldn’t matter.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 