Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Values'

| Subcribe via RSS

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

Values Voters Summit

August 28th, 2009 | 3 Comments | Posted in Mitt Romney, Values

I just got an email giving me the heads up on the attendees of this year’s Values Voters Summit.

The meeting will be held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. September 18-20 and a partial list of confirmed speakers include:

Mitt Romney

Eric Cantor

Roy Blunt

Bill O’Reilly

Bill Bennett

Phyllis Schlafly

Very good company to keep. I know we will all be looking forward to hearing excerpts of the speeches given at this year’s meeting.

~~John Cronin~~

Share on Facebook

Tags: , ,

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

The 900-Pound Gorilla — RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY

Flag Waving

Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).

Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.

What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.

In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.

Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?

[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]

In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?

White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?

Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?

Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?

As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.

My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?

My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?

So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?

I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.

~ Vic

[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.

.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Stephanie Davis
Stephanie Davis

Considering Mitt? Roe v. Wade and the Real Romney

For fellow conservatives considering Mitt for the first time, it’s important to understand Mitt’s staunch support of the pro-life platform.  The media has tried to downplay and negate Mitt’s position on this.  They’ve managed to stick a big old post-it note on Mitt’s forehead labelled “Flip Flopper” in permanent ink.  They’ve asserted that he lacks conviction.  They’re wrong.  As Governor, Mitt consistently stuck to conservative principles.  On abortion, marriage, health care, economy and other important issues, Mitt consistenly made conservative decisions.  For a great summary on Mitt’s real record, see Ann Marie’s post back in November 2007.

On Monday, the 35th anniversay of Roe v. Wade, Mitt once again committed to overturning this decision:

After 35 years of Roe v. Wade, we are again reminded why this decision should be overturned,” Romney said in a statement provided to LifeNews.com.

“We recognize the worth and dignity of every person, a fact that is ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose,” Romney added. “Unelected judges should not be the final arbiters on these important decisions which define who we are as a people.”

Recently, Romney told Nevada voters that he wanted the high court to overturn the infamous decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

“I am pro-life, and I would welcome a time when the people of America concluded that abortion was wrong, but that’s not where America is, and that’s why I believe that the next right step for America is for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” he said then.

“That would return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to set their own laws related to abortion,” he said.

“Today, as Americans from across this country participate in the annual March for Life, my thoughts are with all those whose dedication and compassionate concern have done so much to educate and assist others in creating a genuine culture of life,” he said.

The last phrase is a very telling remark.  As he does with so many issues, Mitt is able to look at the broader implications and ramifications of following a certain path.  When he discusses his decision to become politically pro-life, Mitt often states that as Governor he realized that the effects of Roe v. Wade weren’t just limited to abortion.  They extended to issues like embryonic stem cell research and teenage pregnancy, and to the very basic fabric of our culture.  The question, “Are we a culture of life, or of death,” has strong ramifications for our children, their education, their government, their health, their society and their future.  Mitt understood (and has helped me understand) that the issue of abortion isn’t solely about choice or murder or rights - it’s about the kind of culture, society and country we are creating (or destroying) for the next generation.

If you are unsure about Mitt’s conviction on this or other social issues such as marriage, please DO NOT believe the picture the media has painted.  Please take a few minutes to visit Mitt’s site where he discusses his belief in “promoting a culture of life,” or visit the Encyclopedia Mittanica, where you can scroll down and find Mitt’s answers to just about any question, all neatly alphabetized according to issue. 

Warning:  if you take a few minutes to do this - to objectively look at Mitt’s platform and record, you WILL find he is a true Reagan conservative, and you WILL most likely want to join, sign up, contribute, campaign for, blog and in all other ways become a Mitt supporter!  Let us know when you do - we’d love to hear your story!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Free Movie Premiere — “ARTICLE VI” (Faith — Politics — America) — Hugh Hewitt, Executive Producer

Flag Waving

Hugh Hewitt is the Executive Producer of a new documentary, the trailer of which you may have seen a few weeks ago. The first time I saw the trailer was December 6th. Well, it is finally premiering nationwide (see other locations by clicking CONTINUE READING at the bottom of this post)

Want to attend the premiere? For free? This post is intended promote the film in the Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside metropolitan areas. See details and RSVP information below the poster of the film.

The date of the California premiere is Monday, January 14, 2008 — Newport Beach, CA

Check-in Begins at 6:00 p.m. — Show Time is 7:00 p.m.

— See trailer and RSVP details below —

Hugh Hewitt will be at this showing next Monday. I plan to attend with my wife (she knows I like a cheap date!). This afternoon (1/10), I was told the theater hold about 500 people and they have received 200 RSVPs.

Article VI Poster

Southern California Premiere:

Regency Lido Theatre
3459 Via Lido
Newport Beach, CA 92651

RSVP Required by telephone (M-F, 8-5): 949-296-1520 or via email: rsvpoc@outsideeyes.com

Information: Click here —–> ABOUT THE MOVIE

Watch the Trailer: Click here ——-> TRAILER

This one time viewing in California, next Monday, is free of charge (in fact, all premiere locations are free).

OTHER PREMIERE LOCATIONS: The film is also being shown in these cities on various dates: New York, Atlanta, Washington, DC, Shreveport, and Salt Lake City. For more information for these cities, click CONTINUE READING just below.

~ Vic

More »

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Governor Romney First in Many Important Categories in New Hampshire

Flag Waving

Following are results of a CNN exit poll conducted in New Hampshire Tuesday among 1,520 voters. Though these results reflect the fact that the majority of voters chose McCain and Romney, there are some very interesting differences, especially where Romney ended ahead of the winner, McCain:

Republican Voters (”Vote by party ID” — excludes independents) chose:

MR — 35%
JM — 34%
MH — 13%
RG — 10%
.
.
All voters chose their candidate as the “Strongest Leader” — This measures the strength of the voters’ choice (in other words, which candidate got the most votes in this category by comparison to the others?):

MR — 86%
MH — 84%
JM — 81%
RG — 55%
.
.
Voters of New Hampshire that strongly oppose civil unions:

MR — 37%
JM — 32%
MH — 11%
RG — 6%
.
.
Very worried about Terrorism:

MR — 39%
JM — 33%
MH — 12%
RG — 10%
.
.
Voters that think the new President should be more conservative than President Bush:

MR — 35%
JM — 31%
MH — 13%
RP — 10%
.
.
The following result was stunning to me. John McCain, the military man came in third! Even McCain supporters are less sold on McCain by comparison to the other voters. And Giuliani 4th at 58%? What about his “9/11″ credentials?
All voters chose their candidate as the “Best Commander in Chief” — This measures the strength of the voters’ choice (in other words, which candidate got the most votes in this category by comparison to the others?):

MR — 94%
MH — 89%
JM — 78%
RG — 58%
.
.
Conservative Voters chose:

MR — 38%
JM — 30%
MH — 12%
RG — 8%
.
.

Check the gap here between Governors Romney and Huckabee:

Very Conservative Voters chose:

MR — 43%
MH — 19%
JM — 18%
RP — 7%
.
.
Voters that think this candidate shares their values:

MR — 38%
MH — 22%
JM — 16%
RP — 12%

See link in the opening paragraph for many more results. These are but few of many very interesting numbers. Governor Romney was the strongest candidate in many of the voters’ minds.

~ Vic


SMALL DOLLARS COUNT BIG — Please Contribute Here to Governor Romney’s Campaign

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

TRUTH: Governor Romney HAS ALWAYS been a Strong Supporter of Traditional Marriage and Strong Opponent of Gay Marriage

Flag Waving

Those who follow this blog know that I hold in high esteem the journalism of The Wall Street Journal. In fact, I believe it is the finest newspaper in America. But after reading two articles yesterday in the Op/Ed pages, I just about concluded that it belongs with the MSM!

I am disgusted with the media’s continued repeating of false information! Are they just lazy? What happened to honest, diligent research?

In these two articles in the Journal, they repeat as fact that Governor Romney somehow supported gay marriage. THAT IS TOTALLY, COMPLETELY, AND CATEGORICALLY FALSE! It is not some partial truth — it is altogether false! I am sick of their overall lazy writing.

Here are the two articles and cited excerpts (see truth at bottom of this post):

McCain’s Promise — It is cruel to compare the senator to most of his Republican competitors — Monday, January 7, 2008

Who can forget Mitt Romney listening in seeming amazement, a few weeks ago, as Tim Russert pressed him to explain certain extraordinary (if politically convenient) turnabout stands he’d taken on gay marriage . . .

POTOMAC WATCH — The New New Mitt — New Hampshire voters know Romney’s record better than most — That could spell trouble — BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL — Monday, January 7, 2008

They include people like Bonnie (who preferred not to use her last name), an accountant who turned out in frigid temperatures to support Rudy Giuliani at an event in Salem, N.H., and who demonstrated a critical knowledge of Mr. Romney’s record: “[He] allowed gay marriages in Mass[achusetts].”

FACTS SUMMARY: Fact #1: The State of Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution permits gay marriage. That ruling came when Governor Romney was governor. Governor Romney was against the Court making new law and has been against gay marriage his entire career.  Governor Romney did not sign this into law; the Court did!   Fact #2: Had Governor Romney not taken action, gay couples living outside Massachusetts could have traveled to Massachusetts to get married and their marriage contract would by law have to be accepted as legally valid in the other states. Governor Romney took action, with huge opposition and political capital, to enact laws to prevent Massachusetts becoming the “Las Vegas” of gay marriage. He succeeded!

Now, read this awesome post by David French, a lawyer and outstanding researcher (co-founder with his wife, Nancy French, of Evangelicals for Mitt) — [David was recently deployed to Iraq, 12 miles from Iran]. This post was written by David almost exactly one year ago. Click here and be sure to click through the links he provides:

TRUTH — David French — January 11, 2007

~ Vic


Governor Romney Needs YOUR Help to Win a National Campaign — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Iowans & Reporters Played for Fools by Huckabee

flag waving

“Mike Huckabee is the candidate that just keeps on giving!” [quote from Jeff Fuller just now after speaking with him]

Does Mr. Huckabee think we are all complete, utter idiots?

[Please forgive me for using the nickname "Duckabee" --- I depart from the normal decorum in this one instance as I believe the label best suits Huckabee as he continues to dodge truth --- I simply could not resist.]

KUDOS to Rusty, Ann Marie, and Mike for getting the Huckabee low-road story up so fast. Is this amazing, or what? Seriously, I think Huckabee woke up this morning and said to his wife,

“I think I want to become the first presidential candidate in the history of the Iowa caucuses to become a certifiable laughing stock of the media and the good folks of Iowa. What do you think darling? What is the best way for me to do that today?”

There are so many words that came to my mind after seeing all the reports today on this. I chose the title of this post from a line in Rusty’s post. Here are the words that came to my mind after watching all of these reports on Duckabee:


— CUNNING — INDECISIVE — MANIPULATIVE — CRAFTY — DISENGENUOUS — UNSOPHISTICATED — BACK-WATER — DISHONEST — CORRUPT — DECEITFUL — FRAUDULENT — DOUBLE-DEALING — UNPRINCIPLED — UNSCRUPULOUS — GUILE — TWO-FACED — DESPERATE
(I could list the other 25 but want to keep this short)

huckabee-photo2.jpg

Why the word “dishonest”? Simply because Duckabee absolutely knew that the State of Massachusetts, by law, does not allow capital punishment. Even if the guy feigns ignorance on this, he is inept at the very least. Governor Romney campaigned to add the death penalty in Mass.

The best moment of this day with Duck? When he said he made the (”high road”) decision to not run the ad but that he wanted to show it to the reporters so they supposedly would know he made the ad. He made that statement with a complete straight face as if he were serious. Then the entire audience burst out in complete spontaneous laughter and Duckabee stood there with a complete serious face. I totally expected him to burst into laughter himself. That was hilarious!

Carl Cameron, in one clip I saw, said this could end up as a genius move by Duck. If the people of Iowa don’t mind being played the fools by his camp, then maybe. There is a chance that Huckabee has attained “martyr” status in the minds of some in Iowa. If so, then there will be a sympathy following, but still I cannot imagine thinking people backing a person who touts his “Christian values” while his behavior is completely dishonest at best.

No, I think this will sink Huck’s life-raft. Iowans are not fools. Reporters of the MSM are not fools and I think they will turn on Huck. Until about two weeks ago, Huck has gotten a pass from the MSM. His presumptuous, manipulative, and cunning behavior to play all the reporters for fools will backfire. They will shred him in the next few days. Mark my words. It is over for Huckabee. He will get the martyr-sympathy vote, but that is it (credit to Jeff Fuller for this insight). Iowans are too smart to vote for this guy. I think we will see the media eat Huckabee alive over the next three plus days.

I wish I could be a fly on the wall in one of the Republican caucus meeting halls to hear the discussions among voters. Oh, how sweet it would be.

Here is how I would like the results to show three nights from now, in Iowa, on Thursday night:

— Romney: 44%
— Hunter: 18%
— Thompson: 9%
— Keyes: 8%
— Giuliani: 5%
— Paul: 5%
— McCain: 5%
— Tancredo: 4% (yes, he will still get votes)
— Duckabee: 2%

I gave Duckabee 4%, not because I think there are really dumb Iowans, but because I think 4% of the Republican voters of Iowa who liked Duckabee a month ago, will not have gotten the news from today.

IOWANS: Please remember that both Giuliani and McCain abandoned the Ames Straw Poll in August effectively telling you a) your straw poll does not matter, and b) we [McCain/Giuliani] don’t want you to have any of our campaign money for your economy.

~ Vic

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Why I am supporting Mitt Romney for President

As we approach the primary voting season, there are more and more new folks finding their way to our humble blog. The information I found on this blog was extremely helpful to me as I assessed the various candidates in search of “the One.” As such, I thought it would be fitting for me to share why I am a staunch supporter of Governor Mitt Romney in his run for the White House.

In a nutshell, Mitt Romney is the only “full-spectrum” Conservative who can rally the support of all three wings of the Reagan coalition, namely, Social, Economic, and Foreign Policy Conservatives.

For a full treatment of Mitt Romney’s positions, I would refer you to his comprehensive policy book “Vision for a Strong America.” Let me summarize here, however, the highlights across the major issues:

Foreign Policy
o War against Islamic Fascism: We are engaged in a multi-front war which will require using all of our military, economic, and diplomatic might to win; we must defeat the terrorists and those who aid and abet them as well as help the Muslim people enter the 21st century (click here and here)
o Iraq and Afghanistan: The surge is working and we must do what it takes to help Iraq and Afghanistan become stable democratic allies in the war on Islamic Fascism and support our troops (click here and here)
o Iran: Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear state; diplomacy and economic sanctions are critical, but may not be enough; the military option must remain on the table (click here)
o Military: Need to increase defense spending to a minimum of 4% of GDP to make sure our armed forces have the equipment they need in the field and the support the need back home; the best ally of peace is a strong America (click here and here)

Economic Policy
o Taxes: We need to keep the Bush tax cuts permanent, eliminate the Death Tax, and cut taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest to zero for the Middle Class (click here, and here)
o Spending: We need to restrain Federal spending and close the deficit; will veto any budget where non-defense discretionary spending growth exceeds inflation minus 1%; Need to give the President a line-item veto; Strong track record of financial management from Massachusetts where he closed a $3B deficit and turned it into a $1B surplus without raising taxes; carry out a comprehensive review of government spending to increase efficiency and effectiveness (click here and here)
o Entitlements reform: Maintain benefits for current Seniors, but institute fundamental reforms combining slowing the rate of increase for benefits based on income, extending the retirement age, individual retirement accounts, and no tax increases (click here)
o Healthcare: Mitt Romney is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who implemented a universal health care plan; He covered all of the citizens of Massachusetts using market-based insurance without raising taxes; Governor Romney advocates a Federalist state-by-state approach to make health insurance more affordable for everyone (click here)
o Globalization: Continue to trade around the world but make sure we negotiate level playing fields in foreign markets and upgrade American competitiveness through investments in education and innovation (click here and here)

Culture and Values
o Illegal immigration: Control the border first and turn of the “magnets” that attract illegal immigrants by implementing an employment verification system, no special path for illegal immigrants to become citizens (i.e. no amnesty), no sanctuary cities, increased enforcement by local police agencies (click here, here, and here)
o Traditional marriage: In favor of amending the constitution to keep marriage defined as between a man and a woman; fought the Massachusetts Supreme Court to prevent the state from becoming a destination for same-sex couples looking for marriage licenses (click here and here and here)
o Life: Much has been made of Governor Romney’s switch from being Pro-Abortion to Pro-Life; This is a critical issue for me; I have heard many times why he made this change, and I believe him; I believe that Mitt Romney will fight for the rights of the unborn and be a great leader in supporting Life (click here, here, and here)

The choice of a nominee and President, however, is not strictly a “right-brained” decision based on policy statements and positions. There needs to be something inspirational about a candidate whether it’s the way that they speak to a crowd, interact one on one, or something about their personal story that sets them apart.

Experiencing Mitt through articles and videos really helped seal the deal for me. Below, I have listed some of what I would consider the best of the best articles and videos that helped me come to the decision to support Mitt actively. I’m sure I’m missing some great material, but there is a lot down below. I would encourage you to click through as much of this as you can, and if you have a favorite that wasn’t listed, please leave a link in the comments!

Key videos, speeches, appearances, and articles:
Articles
o Romney to the Rescue (Newsmax) – Great overview of Mitt Romney
o National Review’s endorsement of Mitt Romney
o The House that Mitt Built (Private Equity International) – Behind the scenes view of how Mitt ran Bain Capital and his leadership style
o The Making of Mitt Romney (Boston Globe) – Reasonably balanced biography of each of the major phases of Mitt’s life starting from his youth through today
o Consultant in Chief (Wall Street Journal) – Interview of Mitt where he talks about how he would fix the Federal Government
o For Romney & Company, Campaign is all Business (NY Times) – How Mitt runs his campaign and what it would mean for his Presidency
o Evangelicals for Mitt statement of support
o Mark DeMoss on why Evangelicals should support Mitt
o Ann Romney Opens Up (People Magazine) – Great interview with Ann; she would be a fantastic First Lady!

Speeches
o “Faith in America” – Seminal address on the role of religious faith and liberty in our nation
o Address to the Value Voters Summit – Seminal address on culture and value issues
o Iowa Straw Poll victory speech
o Highlights from the Republican debates (click 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th)
o Speech at CPAC 2007 – One of Mitt’s first major addresses to the leading grassroots gathering of Conservatives; one of his best speeches in my opinion
o Presidential Campaign Announcement – Mitt announcing that he’s running and why he’s running

Campaign videos
o Biographical overview video of Mitt Romney (click part I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII)
o “Path to Victory” webcast – Mitt and Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay) discussing the 2007 campaign and discussing the plan for 2008
o Retrospective of Governor Romney’s campaign in 2007
o Online “Ask Mitt Anything” – For those of us who don’t live in an early primary state, Mitt held an online town hall meeting which provides a really good overview of his key positions
o Christmas 2006 – Behind the scenes look at the Romney family and how they made the decision together that Mitt should run for President; cynics have criticized this video as contrived, but I love the fact that he has held his family together while achieving such exceptional success; you can’t fake this stuff

Media appearances
o Mitt on Jim Cramer of CNBC’s Mad Money – Great interview by Jim Cramer where he calls Mitt the “Best businessman in America”
o Mitt on ABC News talking about Ann – Great interview of Mitt where he discusses what he loves so much about Ann
o Mitt on Meet the Press – Tim Russert throws everything he’s got plus the kitchen sink at Mitt who proceeds to address each point in a clear, classy, and compelling way

My favorite TV spots
o “Searched” – Compelling true story of how Mitt Romney shut down Bain Capital and moved all the employees to NYC to search for and find the daughter of one of his partners
o “Choice: Judgment” – Striking contrast ad highlighting Mike Huckabee’s 1,033 pardons and clemencies (more than 2x his three predecessors) vs. zero from Mitt Romney
o “Choice: The Record” – Ad contrasting Mitt’s record on illegal immigration vs. Mike Huckabee’s record of supporting tax payer funded scholarships and in-state tuition for illegal immigrants
o “Not Politically Correct” – Mitt’s record supporting life, English immersion education, and traditional marriage
o “Experience Matters” – Ad highlighting the lack of real world, executive experience on the part of Hillary Clinton (and equally applicable to the other Democrats)
o “Ready for Action” – Summary of Governor Romney’s stump speech in 60 seconds; user-generated ad based on a contest that was run back in September
o “Our Home” – Some precious footage of Mitt playing with his children and grandchildren; focuses on the importance of strengthening our families
o “Leadership” and “Energy” – I just love the images of Mitt jogging through the backwoods and the focus on his track record in business; I think he’s the only politician I’ve seen jogging where it looked like he was actually in shape…not just a photo op
o “Ocean” – Ad lamenting the degradation of our culture and Mitt’s thoughts on how he would like to address it; as a parent this one really resonated with me
o “Tested, Proven” – One of his early ads highlighting his track record in Massachusetts
o “I Like Vetoes” – Ad highlights his track record of vetoing excessive spending; no doubt in my mind that he’ll control spending after seeing this ad and other times when he has addressed this topic

Finally, it is one thing to support Mitt with your vote, but I’d like to ask you to consider supporting Mitt in a more active way. Like many of you, I had always followed politics, but never became active in politics (other than voting) until this year in support of Governor Romney.

This year is different. First, this is arguably the most consequential election in over twenty years. The challenges and issues that will be faced by our next President will have far reaching ramifications for our children and grandchildren.

Additionally, we face a set of candidates on the Republican side who represent vastly different positions and perspectives, some of whom threaten to tear asunder the Reagan coalition that has served us so well. Whether it is the socially liberal and sanctuary city defending Rudy Giuliani, the divisive, theocratic, soft on crime and illegal immigration, and fiscally populist Mike Huckabee, or the McCain Feingold, “Gang of 14”, and pro-Amnesty John McCain, there are clear differences in the way that each of these individuals would take the Republican Party.

If you’ve found this persuasive, please do whatever you can to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy. If you’re from Iowa, please caucus for Mitt (get more information here). Winning Iowa is job one between now and January 3.

If you are not from Iowa, please stay informed by checking in here at Elect Romney in 2008 every day. Make a donation to help Mitt win the media air war. Put on a bumper sticker or put up a yard sign (get them here). And most importantly, talk with your friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors about why you’re supporting Mitt Romney! Personal testimonials from trusted individuals are by far the most effective ways to gain more supporters for Mitt!

If you still have questions or remain unconvinced, leave a comment and we’ll do our best to answer your question. Or better yet, if you are also a Mitt supporter, leave a comment telling us why! Thank you for reading!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

An Opportunity to View Recent American History

flag waving

Since December 6th, I have asked many people if they have seen Governor Romney’s now famous and historic speech in Texas. This is completely unscientific, but of those I know who follow Governor Romney, about 40% have not read or seen the speech, 40% have read it, and only 20% have actually seen/heard the entire speech. Though the speech in written form is outstanding, hearing it and seeing it along with body language and voice inflection, is truly amazing.

Having been present, I saw many people of different faiths in tears at the end of Governor Romney’s speech. These were anxious to give interviews to the news agencies of the world to convey what they felt just minutes earlier.

That day, Chris Matthews, among many other pundits declared it the finest political speech in years; some said it was the finest in decades. If you have not seen this speech yet, I urge you to take the 21 minutes to experience it yourself. Click here to watch it:

December 6, 2007 — FAITH IN AMERICA — George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, College Station, Texas

~ Vic

GMR at FIA

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Mitt Romney: A Natural Ally of Social Conservatives

December 13th, 2007 | Comments Off | Posted in Family Values, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, National Review, Values

flag waving

Following is a great quote by the editors of National Review. Though we posted this two days ago, the following excerpt bears repeating.

Mitt Romney is National Review’s Choice for President of the United States

Not a bad opinion from the likes of Buckley and Lowry!

We believe that Romney is a natural ally of social conservatives. He speaks often about the toll of fatherlessness in this country. He may not have thought deeply about the political dimensions of social issues until, as governor, he was confronted with the cutting edge of social liberalism. No other Republican governor had to deal with both human cloning and court-imposed same-sex marriage. He was on the right side of both issues, and those battles seem to have made him see the stakes of a broad range of public-policy issues more clearly. He will work to put abortion on a path to extinction. Whatever the process by which he got to where he is on marriage, judges, and life, we’re glad he is now on our side — and we trust him to stay there.

~ Vic

Help Governor Romney get his message out — PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW, HERE

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Kevin Anderson
Kevin Anderson

“The Speech”, a Spiritual Moment

I was privileged and humbled to be in the Presidential Library’s assembly room with my good friend Vic. We were joined by Ann Marie and Rebecca who also writes on this blog. Like others we had anxiously awaited the coming of ‘the speech’.

The media were all in place and the audience was seated. Many in the room were discussing loudly amongst each other, others whispered excitedly. Some like me I imagine were even contemplating silently about what we were about to experience.

At 9:20 am a sudden unprompted hush came over the assembly and the room became silent. Secret service detail entered from the side door nearest the stage and took their positions. They stood straight -faced and erect… and they waited.

At 9:25am Mrs. Barbara Bush entered the room with the elegance and class that defines the image of a First Lady. In an instant, the silence was shattered as the crowd raised to their feet and gave her a thunderous applause of respect and admiration. She smiled to the group like only a grandmother could, and was seated.

At 9:30 am the door opened again. Emerging into the room with all the dignity and humility of his former office as the 41st President of the United States, President George Herbert Walker Bush was greeted to another eruption of applause from the audience as he escorted Governor Mitt Romney, his wife Ann, and his family into the room and up onto the stand.

The former President took to the podium and welcomed those in attendance and gave a warm and heartfelt introduction to Governor Mitt Romney. He related his friendship with the Romney family and his appreciation for others. But this was not to be his moment, so he turned the microphone over to the Governor.

GMR Speaking on Faith in America - 12-6-07

By this writing most of you have probably heard the speech with its many commentaries and political dissections so I won’t go into that with this blog. But I want to share some personal observations, feelings and emotion unlike any that I have felt before.

This was more than an incredible speech. For me and so many others, it was a spiritual moment. If you had been in the room with us you would have felt an overwhelming spirit that encased and validated the very essence of Faith in America . It was bigger than Romney and bigger than any one or any combination of religions represented in that room. I sensed that I was witnessing divinely inspired history in the making that transcended any campaign or personal agenda. The spirit was overwhelming. Many commented on what they felt and the fact that we had all been touched by something greater than each of us.

As I bathed in this incredible feeling, my mind played images of other defining moments in our nation’s history including a time when the founding fathers met secretly to decide the fate and future our nation. I silently thought about other critical decision making moments in history that faced past great Presidents. It has been recorded by them that during those crucial times they felt they had been moved by something greater than them, something spiritual, helping to direct their cause. Not for them personally, but for the good of the nation and its people. As Romney gave his now historical speech, I think I felt that same feeling. Others did too.

This was one of those spiritual moments that was good for the nation.

Brody - Sheldon Interview - 12-6-07

I spoke with the Reverend Lou Sheldon afterwards in the lobby. Reverend Sheldon is head of the Traditional Values Coalition which claims to be the largest non-denominational grassroots church lobby in America. I asked him how he personally felt about the speech. He summed it up the way many felt. He told me “This is what we call in the Evangelical world ‘a God thing’. I felt it, I cried, Romney cried, who didn’t? It was a defining moment in American history. The content was so profound“.

David Nierbenberg Interview - 12-6-07

Jewish leader and businessman, David Nierenberg who was dressed in his religious shawl and yarmulke to show respect and reverence for the occasion confessed to me that he too was touched and wept. He also told me, “It’s not how you worship or what you wear. I’ve come here dressed like this to signify that fact.”

Dr. Richard Land, head of the 20 million member Southern Baptist Convention said, “America needed this more than Romney did.” He continued, “This is a ringing reminder of what we really need to believe.”

During the speech was a man sitting in front of me who I watched with interest. His initial countenance seemed to reflect one of distrust. When the room erupted with applause during the first half of the speech, he remained motionless. His face showed some discomfort. During the last half of the speech he began to change little by little … giving a short applause with a half smile and sometimes an occasional nod of approval which he didn’t seem to want to display too openly. However, near the end he began to seem quite involved. He elbowed the woman next to him with a big grin and he applauded approvingly. His countenance had changed completely and he told the woman next to him, “now that was really good.” I don’t know anything about this man or the people sitting next to him. I don’t know if he came with an agenda, or was leery of the speech; he may have even been an ardent supporter of Romney who was just taking awhile to warm up. But nonetheless, I watched as his countenance changed and he was touched by the deeper message of the speech. Richard Land w-Throng - 12-6-07

Just as Dr Richard Land implied by his comments, this speech was much bigger than Romney. It was bigger than any single religion or agenda in the room. All who listened seemed touched and inspired. I was. And I felt humbled and grateful to be there.

We all gathered into the lobby after the speech. Someone said it felt “electrified”. At the very least it was energized with activity and discussion about the speech. Beyond those that I mentioned above, here are a few other comments that I heard:

“It was very Presidential”, David Brody of CBN

“He has more than passed the test”, (overheard)

“He has hit this one out of the park” (overheard)

“Magnificent, it was a landmark speech”, Robert Millet

“He maximized it. It was an eloquent defense for a pluralistic religious society and was a wise thing for him (Romney) to do”… “He made some points”…. “This speech will give him (Romney) a 2nd or 3rd hearing by Evangelicals and social conservatives” … “Some things he said will be reassuring to Evangelicals.” Richard Land

“Just like Kennedy, he (Romney) did not use one sentence in defending Mormonism. You can open yourself up about your theological beliefs, but that belongs in the seminary, at church and the water cooler, but not in a Presidential debate” … “Judge me on how my faith impacts how I govern.” Richard Land

“I am not an endorser of candidates, never have, never will. But I am a supporter of religious freedom” … “It was an appropriate speech.” Richard Land

Glenn Beck Seated - 12-6-07

Vic Lundquist and I spoke with Glenn Beck who commented, “God is bigger than any one faith.”

Flag Mural - 12-6-07

All of these comments and many others that I heard that day harmonized with Governor Romney’s speech wherein he stated, “…we welcome a symphony of faiths.” Many were represented in that room.

I was not only inspired as I heard a Presidential quality speech that day, but humbled and moved to feel something greater than all of us who were there. For a moment we all seemed as one. I believe it was because of the unifying spirit of faith that prevailed. This is what America needs.

Thank you to all of those who allowed me the opportunity to witness this historical event. I only wish all of you who are reading this blog could have been in that room with the rest of us who were there. Whether Romney wins the nomination or not his inspired speech has left an indelible mark on my soul as one of life’s great spiritual experiences.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

Rush Limbaugh “non-endorses” Mitt after the speech!!

Add Rush Limbaugh to the list of “non-endorsements” Mitt is getting (see prior post on “non-endorsements from Sean Hannity and Richard Land)

This is somewhat long, but you must read the whole thing! (Note toward the end when he starts caveating about how he doesn’t endorse in the primary…with “non-endorsements” like these, who needs endorsements?!)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: I want to start with Mitt Romney today, Mitt Romney’s speech. Frankly, I thought what we saw today, folks, was a Republican candidate for president giving an inspiring speech. It was an inspiring speech about American values, including religion. Mitt Romney did this because he has been relentlessly attacked as something less than a true American. I watched this. I had seen some excerpts from the speech published before he made it. I thought he was inspiring, folks. I think he set exactly the right tone and I am stunned by some of the criticism I am seeing of this speech, particularly on some conservative websites. “He didn’t include atheists; he didn’t include agnostics; he didn’t say and reach out to Hindus.” I don’t understand it. Of all things to take from this speech that Romney gave today, that he didn’t reach out to atheists and didn’t reach out to agnostics, is beyond me. I thought he showed today his ability to confront, to articulate, to persuade, and to lead.

He also demonstrated he is more than willing to take a huge risk. Everybody, from his advisors on down, said: “Don’t do this speech until after you’ve won a primary someplace, or until you’ve won the nomination. Don’t do this speech now. Too much can go wrong with it.” Bob Novak had a column today, said, “I don’t know what’s going to happen here; what can he say?” Well, he said a lot of things. It’s amazing how the Drive-By Media is going gaga over empty suits like Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Neither of those candidates can hold a candle to any of ours: Romney, Rudy, Fred Thompson, Huckabee, none of them can. They’re empty suits compared to our side, and for our side to sit here and start talking, “He didn’t address atheists”? Let’s start with the audio sound bites, and let’s go to the precedent for this. This is September 12th, 1960, in Houston at the Rice Hotel, presidential candidate JFK addressing the Greater Houston Ministerial Association about being a Catholic. We put together here just a little montage.

JOHN F. KENNEDY: But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

RUSH: Now let’s go to the Drive-Bys and their analysis prior to the speech being given, a montage today from CNN, ABC and PMSNBC.

HARRIS: Mitt Romney speaks out on religion, but don’t expect him to explain his Mormon beliefs.

BRZEZINSKI: Romney isn’t expected to focus on specific teachings.

BERMAN: If people are looking for him to explain the specific doctrines of his faith, the Mormon religion, they will be disappointed.

BASH: Do not expect him to talk about how he prays. He does not intend to sort of uncloak the mysteries of Mormonism.

RUSH: You can tell what this is all about. These people are hoping like hell that they can destroy him because of his Mormonism and scare people and set it up in advance that he’s not going to be honest, that he’s not going to be forthcoming and he’s got something to hide. It didn’t come off that way at all. We’ve got some sound bite excerpts, and let’s just get started. Here is the first.

ROMNEY: 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. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I’m 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.

RUSH: There was big applause. We cut the applause in the interests of time here, but there was a lot of it, and there were many applause lines, and a couple of them went on for an extended period of time. Here’s another excerpt.

ROMNEY: 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’re right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. There is one fundamental question about which I’m often asked: “What do I believe about Jesus Christ?” I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the savior of mankind.

RUSH: You can see he’s not reaching out to the atheists here, is he? Not reaching out to the agnostics, not reaching out to the Hindus. I’m still stunned that I read that kind of criticism on some conservative websites today. Here’s another excerpt.

ROMNEY: It’s 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. 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’s as if they’re 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.

RUSH: I tell you, this stuff was, to me, it was inspiring listening to this. You’re listening here to a Republican candidate for president give an inspiring speech about American values in which he’s including religion because he’s been relentlessly attacked. Frankly, this is the kind of thing missing from the campaign. Where are we as a country? Where are we going? What kind of people are we? What binds us together? It isn’t health care. It’s not Social Security. It’s not all those little policy-wonk things. It’s who we are as a people and our acknowledgement, our Founders’ acknowledgement that we are all created by God, and it’s that creation from which we have our liberty and our freedom and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn’t come from any other human being. Those values are not imposed upon us. It can only be taken away by men, but they are granted to us by virtue of our creation. This is a perfect place for this kind of values speech to be made in a presidential campaign. One more sound bite.

ROMNEY: 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, and Baptists and Congregationalists and 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.

RUSH: And the applause there went on and on and on. Romney also made it a point to say, in regards to prayer, that he will need the prayers of all Americans as president of the United States. There was nothing exclusionary; there was nothing threatening. I’m telling you, as far as I’m concerned, I think he was inspiring. I think he set exactly the right tone in this speech. But back to the people criticizing him and what he said. They really ought to look at themselves in the mirror, because what they really seem to be saying when they say he didn’t reach out to the agnostics and the atheists and the Hindus, what I think they really seem to be saying is, if you don’t share my religion, not my beliefs, but my religion, then you’re not qualified to be president. What they’re saying is, you can never say enough, you can never say the right thing because you’re not of my religion, and therefore you’re not qualified to be president. Atheism is a religion, whether they want to believe it or not. Agnosticism is too. If you want to say that he didn’t reach out to them or the Hindus then he’s not qualified because he didn’t acknowledge them, what kind of analysis is that?

This is poison, this kind of analysis, coming from conservatives on reputable websites. When I saw it, I was distressed by it. I expect it from liberals; I expect that kind of reaction. He didn’t address the atheists and the agnostics? He didn’t really explain his religion? He really didn’t explain why he should be nominated and so forth? All of this that people are saying reveals partisan thinking, the thinking of those who support another candidate, not seriously thinking about the nature of the process here and what Romney was trying to do with the speech. They’re looking at this strictly within the confines of a political speech, and I think it went beyond those bounds. The critics — I guess it’s quite natural — they put their own agenda into this speech. He didn’t talk about taxes, they’re saying, he didn’t talk about electability. This wasn’t a speech about taxes. This wasn’t a speech about electability. It wasn’t a speech about policy. It was a speech about American values, what binds us together as a people and as a nation and what will continue to bind us together in the future as a nation.

I have to tell you, I don’t endorse candidates in primaries, and this is not an endorsement. I’ve said this repeatedly. But Romney, throughout all of this — you try running around having your religion attacked and threatened and lied about every day, folks, and not get bitter, and Mitt Romney has not been bitter. He has not gotten angry. He easily could have. He’s kept a positive outlook and approach, despite being demeaned and doubted in ways that no other candidate has had to deal with.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Don’t doubt me. Now, just a couple final thoughts here on the Romney speech and the atmosphere surrounding it. As I mentioned, I don’t endorse candidates in primaries, but Romney certainly should have our attention in a good way. Whether he’s the nominee or not, he hasn’t been bitter; he hasn’t reacted in an angry way — and I’ll tell you, he has every reason to have done so. He’s been demeaned. He has been doubted in ways that no other candidate has had to deal with, and those who continue — even after this speech — to try to pick him apart with attacks on his character, which are really just disguised as supposedly thoughtful inquiries, should be ashamed of themselves. But I’ll tell you, I don’t think one candidate should be singled out this way, frankly, and this is another thing about this that is very, very irritating to me. If religion is important in this election — and I guess it is, because the Drive-Bys and the Democrats have made it important, and they make religion important in every election. I’ll tell you, you evangelicals? Don’t have short memories here. You are just as hated by the Drive-Bys as Mitt Romney is. You are just as despised by the Democratic Party as Mitt Romney is, and you know it. You have been the focus of full-frontal assaults on your religion for as many years as I can remember being in public life like this.

All the way back to the eighties, during the Reagan years, you know how you were portrayed. You’re stupid. You’re hayseed hicks. You have CNN with questions in a debate and some guy in a basement like the Unabomber holding up the Bible and asking, “Do you believe every word in this book?” Like, “You idiot! You can’t possibly.” You know how you’ve been insulted. You have gun racks in the back of your pickup truck. You get to church on Saturday night, and have a barbecue in the parking lot in order to be the first in the pew you want on Sunday. You go to NASCAR races. You’re missing a couple of front teeth. You chew tobacco, and you are stupid. That’s what they think of evangelicals and the so-called Christian right, and they’re dumping on Mitt Romney the same way. You have to understand why. They fear the morality of religion. They fear the moral guideposts. They fear that people of faith, whatever the faith is, believe in things larger than themselves. Liberals, some Democrats think the end-all is with them and with humanity, and that there is nothing larger (other than right now the environment), and anybody who knows there is something larger than themselves in this life, anybody who knows that there are questions human beings are capable of asking, but we will never be capable of answering while on this Earth, scares liberals to death, and they can’t control people like that, and they fear what they consider to be the judgmentalism of people like that. And they fear the standards, both moral and ethical, that people of faith — I don’t care what faith we’re talking about — conduct their lives with as best they can.

So it’s not just Romney that they are targeting. It’s people of faith who are public about it everywhere, and they’re doing their best to discredit anybody with faith of any kind. Do you note that the Democrats are never, ever, asked about this? If religion is important in this election, in that we want to know how someone’s faith may impact their governing, then I think all the candidates need to give a speech of this kind. All the candidates need to be asked questions like this. All the candidates need to spell out where they are coming from — Rudy, McCain, Thompson, Huckabee — not just the Republicans, either. Democrats as well. The Democrats mix the pulpit with politics all the time. They go into church and raise money for campaigns, in violation of laws, and nobody calls them on it because of where those churches are. They mix it all the time, and nobody ever calls them on it, and nobody ever tells them, “Aren’t you being a little hypocritical here? You’re out there constantly ripping evangelical Christians and the Christian right, and there you are in a church making speeches,” and in Mrs. Clinton’s case, using a Southern black dialect to talk to the flock that’s inside the church? Where do the Democrats draw the lines on religion and governing? What do they believe? How do their religions influence their views? You know, Harry Reid is a Mormon. I wonder how Harry Reid feels about his brother Mormon being attacked like this, and having to defend himself, and how come Harry Reid doesn’t have to defend his Mormonism in context of how he governs?

“Well, Rush, he’s not running for president.”

I don’t care. He’s in public life. He’s got a pretty powerful job. He’s the Senate majority leader. How come he doesn’t have to explain his belief in Mormonism? How come Orrin Hatch doesn’t have to? Understand what this is, folks: This is an effort to destroy the character and integrity of a good man, a decent man, on the basis of religion. It’s not the America I grew up in.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, one more thing about Romney, I don’t want you to forget this. This was articulate, it was clear, and it was somewhat courageous. Everybody was telling him not to do this. He showed leadership doing this today. He exemplified characteristics of somebody who is not afraid to lead. I hope you get a chance at some point to watch the whole speech or to at least read it, maybe watch it. It will be, I’m sure, replayed on a number of cable outlets.
END TRANSCRIPT

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Blodgett
Ann Marie Blodgett

A Historic Day not only for Mitt Romney, but for our country as a whole.

It’s not everyday that you hear a politician talk about MORE faith in Government. That happened today when Governor Mitt Romney gave the speech of his life at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station Texas. As I’ve been thinking ever since hearing the speech this morning it comes right back to religious liberty and being a faithful people and country. Prior to his delivery of the speech those of us with Press Credentials were given an advance copy of it, and I knew from the moment I finished it that it was going to be an incredible day for the Governor. I don’t think he could have done even one ounce better than he did today.

This part is one that I think is absolutely awesome:

“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…

There were other awesome parts, but I’d be quoting the entire speech if I went into them more. I just really was moved by the one I just mentioned because it’s rare in politics that you hear scripture quoted like that. Also, I hold special fondness for the father Romney. Since his history is so warmly remembered in Michigan, it’s so awesome how he mentioned him marching with Martin Luther King.

I’ve already quoted Richard Land earlier, but his statement bears repeating, “America needed this more than Governor Romney”.

Others from Lou Sheldon, “Defining moment in American History”, “A speech that will be studied for time”.

I’m so glad that Governor Romney used his conviction to express the importance of religion in our life. It’s so refreshing to hear. Thank you Governor, we hear you loud and clear, and we thank you!

I’m very tired, this has been one heck of a whirlwind for me…I’ll add more later. Also, Victor took many awesome pictures today I’ll make sure to get them up as soon as I have them, he’s mailing them to me on a flash drive. Please be patient. :) Side Note: Vic, Kevin, Rebecca and I met up with Nancy French and Charles Mitchell from Evangelicals for Mitt, it was a very nice visit.

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Vic Lundquist
Vic Lundquist

Ah, THE IRONY: Science, Religion, Abortion, & “FrankenFoods” — Logic of The Liberal Elite

You know how we often hear the term “the liberal elite” which connotes some ivory tower intellectual superiority? It might only be I who thinks such a term is rather an oxymoron. This great article on discoveries in stem cell research reminds me of the same liberal forces of the last two decades that have argued that ending life in the womb is “a right” while at the same time suing drunk drivers that cause accidents resulting in the death of a fetus.

This entire Wall Street Journal Op/Ed piece is outstanding and is a must-read for any conservative. Link —–> Trading Places — Will the secular left soon attack the religious right for being pro-science? — BY JOSEPH BOTTUM

Or, maybe, the argument is just beginning, for this news turns on its head everything in what the nation’s newspapers have delivered to us as a story of blinkered pro-lifers vs. courageous scientists.

The people who turn out actually to have believed in the power of science are the pro-lifers–the ones who said that a moral roadblock is not, in point of fact, an outrageous hindrance, for scientists will always find another, less-objectionable way to achieve their goals. President Bush’s refusal of federal funding for new embryonic stem cell lines didn’t halt major stem-cell advances, any more than the prohibition against life-threatening research on human subjects, such as the infamous Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, stopped the advance of medical treatments.

For those who attacked the pro-lifers in the name of science, however, things look a little different. As Maureen L. Condic explained to First Thigns readers this year in her careful survey, “What We Know About Embryonic Stem Cells,” the promises of medical breakthroughs were massively overblown by the media.

But there were reasons for all the hype. I have long suspected that science, in the context of the editorial page of the New York Times, was simply a stalking-horse for something else. In fact, for two something-elses: a chance to discredit America’s religious believers, and an opportunity to put yet another hedge around the legalization of abortion. After all, if our very health depends on the death of embryos, and we live in a culture that routinely destroys early human life in the laboratory, no grounds could exist for objecting to abortion.

With these purposes now severed by the Japanese de-differentiation technique, which way will it break?

The answer is, quite possibly, toward a rejection of science by the mainstream press. Since the 1960s, abortion has skewed American politics in strange and unnatural ways, and the cloning debates are no exception. Recently John Tierney of the New York Times had a long article called “Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion.” It’s a little unfortunately timed, given the news from England about Mr. Wilmut’s change of heart, but the theme is that American Christians and European post-Christians are unlike the Chinese, Koreans and other Easterners with no history of opposition to science.

The whole idea seems more than a little peculiar, when one reflects on the birthplaces of modern science. And yet, Mr. Tierney sees something that is, from his perspective, genuinely hard to explain: The left in America and Europe supports destructive embryonic research, while it increasingly rejects genetically modified “Frankenfoods.”

Shake loose from the narrative of antiscience fundamentalists and pro-science liberals, however, and a different story starts to be visible. Abortion skewed the political discussion of all this, pinning the left to a defense of science it doesn’t actually hold. The more natural line is agitation against Frankenfoods and all genetic modification, particularly given the environmentalism to which the campaign against global warming is tying the left.

Narratives about positions on public policy are like enormous steamships: It takes a long time to turn them around. But if the news of stem-cell breakthroughs prove accurate, we may well see over the next few years a gradual reversal in news stories and editorials. Watch for it, now that abortion is out of the equation: much less hype about all the miracle cures that stem cells will bring us, more suspicion about the cancers and genetic pollution that may result, and just about the same amount of bashing of religious believers–this time for their ignorant support of science.

Oh, the wonder of the fluid logic of the elite liberal mind!

~ Vic

Please Help Mitt Get His Message Out —->MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

“The liar’s punishment is not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe anyone else.”

George Bernard Shaw, Anglo-Irish dramatist and wit (1856-1950)

More »

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Ann Marie Blodgett
Ann Marie Blodgett

Romney touts “family impact statement” for every new policy or government program.

This narrative from—–> The Caucus The New York Times Politics Blog chronicles a reporter’s perspective on families and the Romney campaign.

The part that really stood out for me in the piece is the quote in the title of this message, the following is the exact statement:

Romney and Family
Members of the Romney family gathered for a photograph.
(Photo: Elise Amendola/Associated Press)

As a way of building up families, Mr. Romney talked over the weekend about reviving a policy under President Reagan that mandated a “family impact statement” be drafted for every new policy or government program. I wondered what one of those might look like for a presidential campaign.

Check out the —–> entire entry, I found it very insightful about the behind the scenes of Romney’s campaign. I’m so happy that he cares so much about his family that he’s taken each and every one of them along for the ride.

Share on Facebook


[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]