While I don’t always agree 100% with Patrick J. Buchanan, I think he is spot on with this recent essay (currently being headlined by Drudge) where he decries our slide into socialism. If anyone in the Romney campaign is reading, Buchanan just outlined Our Favorite Candidate’s talking points for a landslide victory over the Obama/Pelosi/Reed “sharp left turn.”
…his remarks, both in delivery and substance, were lavishly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and James Dobson, not to mention Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -and these were just the seven people I heard on a long drive south to San Diego and then in a hotel room before leaving to post this…
…Romney’s success today has also clearly panicked Mike Huckabee who was on with Glenn Beck tonight warning that the “ruling class” in America is growing more distanced from the people –the sort of arch-populist class warfare nonsense which has never had a home in the GOP mainstream.
…The angry e-mails I am receiving from supporters of other candidates and especially from anti-American lefties underscores the reality that Romney had a great, great day….
“Gov. Romney’s speech was a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy. His delivery was passionate and his message was inspirational. Whether it will answer all the questions and concerns of Evangelical Christian voters is yet to be determined, but the governor is to be commended for articulating the importance of our religious heritage as it relates to today.
“Many in the media have been busily crafting the obituaries of ‘values voters’ in recent months. David Kirkpatrick of The New York Times, along with Tom Brokaw, Frank Rich and other liberal journalists, have been predicting a dramatic ‘Evangelical crackup’. They are dead wrong. Religion has already played a major role in this election cycle, and will continue to be evident through’08. The sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and the care and nurturing of children will be important issues to people of faith as they choose a new generation of leaders. You can take it to the bank.
“Again, Gov. Romney’s speech served as a reminder that religion has always played a significant role in electoral politics. Candidates who disregard the spiritual heritage of this great nation and its viability today will do so at their peril.”
All of you knew I was skeptical about “The Speech,” but it was downright amazing. I noticed a rabbi crying about mid-way through. And several states away, in my hometown of Paris, Tennessee, a Church of Christ friend of my dad’s was crying as she watched on television. The speech managed to simultaneously elevate the discussion and admonish us to become the America we really should be. I haven’t had a chance to read what the pundits have been saying, and frankly, I no longer care. He said his piece, and if the American voters don’t like it, then — in his words — “so be it.”
“…CNN Airport is blaring in my ear as I write and Wolf Blitzer is busy wondering if Romney actually got the job done since he mentioned “Mormon” only once… (what a great way of measuring success!)”…
…with this speech, with its masterful authorship and its presidential delivery has drawn a line in the sand for the religious right. It has said, if you do not vote for me on the basis of my faith, you are the one that risks sounding like a fanatic. You are the one that runs the risk of being considered on the fringe.
…I think he was pitch-perfect. I listened in to Richard Land being interviewed by a gaggle of reporters, and Land was very positive. He especially appreciated that Romney acknowledged theological differences, but emphasized common ground. Land really liked the speech, that was clear.
when I read Romney’s actual words, I was perhaps more impressed than I might have been by coming upon them cold.
They seemed to me to be strong, eloquent, and basically correct. The passage about Europe’s splendid but empty cathedrals hit home to me as it would to most tourists visiting Europe. Many of the large cathedrals are treated essentially as museums, the smaller churches as concert halls for chamber music. To be sure there has been some revival in the last year or two — Poles are rejuvenating the Catholic Church in Britain; West Indians are filling new vast Protestant churches. Some Christian activity is taking place in homes, small study circles, and outside the public view. But the mainstream Protestant churches and the Catholic Church very often cringe before a secularist establishment in those countries whose culture they essentially created. And one reason among several for this is that the churches had become used to relying on the secular power for their influence (and in Germany, money) and are disabled now that the secular power is hostile to them.
When I turned to the criticisms of Romney, including those in the Corner, they seemed forced and slightly odd. He hadn’t reached out to atheists and agnostics? Was there some irony here I hadn’t detected?
He hadn’t reached out to Episcopalians either — do you think either group will be really put out by this? When did conservatives think that a speech had to tick off every box in an anti-discrimination ledger? This was a speech on religious belief and politics and it mentioned what needed to be mentioned. (The idea of reaching out to Hitch is particularly daft. Hitch has made perfectly clear that he regards all religions as superstitious relics of mankind’s adolescence. Any religious person who reached out to him is likely to be told that he will be a welcome ally when he has abandoned his irrationality. Give Hitch an olive branch and he’s quite likely to beat you about the head with it.) Even the editors, God bless them, while generally praising Romney, have reservations about his his statement that “freedom requires religion.” No, he didn’t flesh it out with arguments and illustrations. He probably thought he didn’t need to since this is a point made by almost every conservative writer from Burke onwards. One example: Tom Bethell argued years ago that socialism (i.e., systematic unfreedom) is what fills the vacuum left by the decay of belief in God and country. You can work out why for yourself quite easily.
Etc., etc.,
So I am glad to see that the wider world — as reported in later posts — seems to have a higher and less jaundiced view of the Romney performance. Since I’ve only read the speech and not seen how it was delivered, I can’t really judge whether it has given his general presidential prospects a strong boost. But it should have disposed of the idea that Romney’s Mormonism is a bar to the office.
Let me jus say this. John O’Sullivan is awesome.
John O’Sullivan is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington and editor-at-large of National Review. He is currently writing a book on Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II.
“I happen to think that if it wasn’t the best speech of any of the candidates it was definitely in the top two or three.”
By why listen to any of them when you can watch it yourself! Google owns YouTube, but they don’t let you upload very long videos on YouTube… if you want to find long videos, you have to go to Google Video… Here is the Romney video from Google..
…I had said earlier that I was hoping for a bit of anger or indignation in this speech; the fact that he gets asked about his religion in just about every interview really does reflect an unfair and ugly obsession on the part of some. (I know it’s absolutely not his style, but if he said, “the next guy who asks me about my underwear will be invited to kiss what’s underneath” he’d get my vote immediately.)
I want fights also, but that i not what our country needs…
