Okay. I know this is late, but it remains interesting. Here is the speech Romney gave last Thursday. In my judgment the speech was a success. Mitt had two constituencies to please: those who fear a devoutly religious leader would threaten the separation of Church and State (especially when his particular religion is unfamiliar to them) and those who question Romney’s Christian credentials. Both messages he delivered were compelling. I have no doubt Romney could sell a pair of binoculars to a blind man. He ought to take his speech writers out for a drink…Mitt, of course, will have a Roy Rogers, hold the cola. Grantedt the two ideas he presents almost directly oppose one another, but this is political campaigning we are talking about, not political philosophy. We can all agree the timing of this speech was more of a political ploy in response to Huckabee’s recent success. The question is: Is Romney’s speech in vain? Given that Mitt outspent Huckabee 20 to 1 in
It’s also fascinating to compare Romney’s speech to JFK’s speech. Kennedy’s was far less contradictory and comes across us much more of a necessary response to religious prejudice and skeptics. Also, notice that if you replace “communism” with “terrorism”, Kennedy’s speech could be given today—we’re still debating the exact same themes!
Also, check out this
2 comments:
Contradictions indeed. Take a look at Mitt's web page, particularly where he discusses the issues, like education. It is difficult for me to understand the position Mitt takes on any issue. For example, speaking on education, does he support parent's choice and local choice, or does he support national standards and testing? If national testing is in place, which teachers would not "teach to the test"? How does that promote parent/local choice in education?
http://www.mittromney.com/Issues/education
I agree with jd b, and it's not necessarily constructive to say so, but it's not unusual for platforms to be so non-committal (and generic) prior to the primaries.
Post a Comment