Pat Buchanan was very moved. Chris Matthews "heard greatness this morning." Joe Scarborough said Romney "hit it out the park." But with his speech on faith this morning, Mitt clearly didn't make a believer out of Sally Quinn, doyenne of the DC establishment and wife of former WaPo editor Ben Bradlee.
SALLY QUINN: I have to say that I'm really stunned because I think it was an obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker. It's like, if you believe in God or Christ, if not, you're not.
View video here.
Which "separation of church and state" did Quinn have in mind? The one that's not in the Constitution? The First Amendment does of course contain an Establishment Clause, prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. But Romney could not have been more explicit in stating that he would not let Mormonism or any other religion dictate his decisions as president.
MITT ROMNEY: Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or any other church for that matter, will ever influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs. And it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution. And of course, I will not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's political religion, the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. 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 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.
With that statement, Romney entirely fulfilled the mandate of the Establishment Clause. As for non-believers, did Quinn not hear Romney's homage to Lincoln's description of America's "political religion" based on the constitution and not any religion?
As noted at the beginning, Romney did win some rave reviews.
PAT BUCHANAN: I don't know how he could have done it better. I mean, I was very moved.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I have to say if he wins the presidency, it started here . . . For the first time in this campaign, and it's been a long campaign, I heard greatness this morning.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: He hit this thing out of the park. It was a great morning for him.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mitt/Rush update
December 6, 2007 - 13:27 ET by Jack BauerRush is currently extoling Romney speech. First Repblican speech he has found "inspiring" in whole campaign from anyone..
Slams the few "conservative" critics as "poisonous" and not worthy. Expects that from liberals.
}}---> Jack
December 6, 2007 - 13:31 ET by Cool ArrowI watched the speech.
It was a great speech. I expected much less from him and was particularly impressed with his two mentions of Radical Islam. A bold reference from a man who will doubtless take much flak from wedge driving Liberals.
cool -- only heard the
December 6, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Jack Bauercool -- only heard the clips on Rush. From those it sounds like the guy's suddenly gotten some fire in his belly.
It suits him. As is ever -- people are thirsting for their concerns to be expanded and reflected by inspiring ideals. If he manages to crack that he has a big chance.
}}---> Dare I say it?
December 6, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Cool ArrowI was posting earlier I didn't have a warm fuzzy feeling before this speech.
And I'll admit a leaning toward Huckabee.
But in the "fire in the belly and honesty" department, Romney came across as Reaganesque.
I have to say that I'm
December 6, 2007 - 13:41 ET by motherbeltI have to say that I'm really stunned because I think it was an
obliteration of the idea of the separation of church and state. He eliminated anybody who was a doubter, an atheist, an agnostic, a seeker -Sally Quinn
I was "really stunned" to read her comments.
His speech was on his faith. Why on earth would he be talking about those who don't have any?
This is getting ridiculous. Does political correctness now requirer that anytime one mentions faith, one has to include agnostics and atheists, so as not to "eliminate" anybody? Should he also have mentioned Wiccans and Druids?
Sheesh.
As many will do on
December 6, 2007 - 13:36 ET by Airforce_5_OAs many will do on this site there is nothing Romney can do to satisfy them. I would like to say I thought the speech outstanding in that he made it clear as to how we as conservatives must unite to defeat those who would want the secular progressive agenda to dominate our society.
Many of faith here fear a candidate who will put into place judges who will not support their views. A candidate who will not hold Christian values or just plain old morality as a value.
Personal I think he did a great job at laying to rest any doubt that he would let his Church influence over him in decisions of Government. Done. Finished.
Great speech.
I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus. The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell.
he made it clear as to how
December 6, 2007 - 13:41 ET by Free Stinkerhe made it clear as to how we as conservatives must unite to defeat those who would want the secular progressive agenda to dominate our society.
And that is the heart of why the MSM continues to bring up these "issues" such as Romney being a Morman.
Again, I have many, many, issues with Mormansim, and I say that only so people realize I'm not a Romney supporter, I'm With Fred!
Everyone - especially my fellow evangelicals - don't let the MSM tell you what to think or how to vote. If they had their way, we would never once notice that Hillary is up for election.
I agree - Great Speech
December 6, 2007 - 13:37 ET by SouthJersey1953I didn't get to hear it, but read the transcript.
The best speech I've "heard" [read] in years.
No RINOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice
SouthJersey,
December 6, 2007 - 14:30 ET by AgnosticThank you for the link to the transcript.
This was a truly remarkable speech in several ways and I only wish I had the time to go into detail. Freedom of religion can not and must not be denied or curtailed in order to live in a free society. If Quinn believes she has been left out of that speech it is because she doesn't believe in that truth. He stated his beliefs and is willing to be judged on those beliefs and I can ask nothing more from a candidate to help me choose he to vote for so two points for Romney (three if you throw in the references to Islam).
You simply can not have a government deciding any issue for the governed that does not cause harm to the society or threaten the existance of the nation and consider yourself a completely free society. I'm sure people could come up with some extreme examples but in essence this to be true. Got to go!
Chrissie says...
December 6, 2007 - 13:44 ET by Clear thinker"I heard greatness this morning." Yikes, that's sure to kill Mitts chances.
I listened to the speech while posting this morning. Yes, it was a good speech, but I don't really think it did anything for Mitt. My reasoning is this... he was speaking for all people of faith, not just his.
What should be considered in this day of questioning faith of a candidates is... will a minister of a particular faith ever get elected as POTUS? I say, no way.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson
I wondered this when I was
December 6, 2007 - 13:51 ET by OldSailor88I wondered this when I was taking a tour of Monticello.
Do you ever think that if Thomas Jefferson were able to see how much his 1802 letter has been misconstrued, that he might have never sent it?
The separation of Church and State thing has been out of control for a long time. The main problem is the large group of ignorant people who think these words are in the Constitution.
OldS...I know exactly what
December 6, 2007 - 14:01 ET by bassndudeOldS...I know exactly what you mean. The words "seperation of church and state" are not in the Constitution. Never have been, but the enlightened MSM idiots are the ones that perpetuate the myth. Not to mention many of those in goverment who have never read the Constitution. And a large part of the population are willing to belive anything the MSM sayes. And just to lazy to go read for themselves.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
How dare Mitt exclude Satan
December 6, 2007 - 13:53 ET by Jack BauerHow dare Mitt exclude Satan Worshippers.
Clearly he is not inclusionary and is therefore anti-American. And he's certainly not going to hell.
When I saw that I could
December 6, 2007 - 14:06 ET by Airforce_5_OWhen I saw that I could only think of the part in "Patton" where is aid leans over to him while he was making his speech in England.
"The Russians. Don't forget the Russians."
I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus. The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell.
What irks me is that Sally
December 6, 2007 - 13:55 ET by ForeverOnTheRightWhat irks me is that Sally Quinn repeats the liberal lie about church and state separation. This type of separation she is alluding to did not exist until 1947 after a law suit brought Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to a church. It was unfortunately used to misinterpret what our constitution intended. This separation was supposed to be one way, it was meant to keep the government our of running a state church, not keep religion out of government. I’ll probably repeat this truth every time a liberal lies about this type of separation of church and state.
Shack
December 6, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Airforce_5_O"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."
Bam!!!!!!!
Seperate that Ms. Quinn
I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus. The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell.
Airforce, if you REALLY want
December 6, 2007 - 14:04 ET by ForeverOnTheRightAirforce, if you REALLY want to get a Muslim excited, buy a pot belly pig and name it Mohammad. OH would that cause a riot!
I just wanted to poke em
December 6, 2007 - 14:08 ET by Airforce_5_OI just wanted to poke em with a stick. I'm not looking for jihad.
I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus. The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell.
What irks me is that Sally
December 6, 2007 - 14:01 ET by ForeverOnTheRightWhat irks me is that Sally Quinn repeats the liberal lie about church and state separation. This type of separation she is alluding to did not exist until 1947 after a law suit brought Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter to a church. It was unfortunately used to misinterpret what our constitution intended. This separation was supposed to be one way, it was meant to keep the government our of running a state church, not keep religion out of government. I’ll probably repeat this truth every time a liberal lies about this type of separation of church and state. On top of this, liberals only apply this seperation to conservatives, and let a liberal preach from a church pulpit is o.k. buy them.
What does she know?
December 6, 2007 - 20:03 ET by Chris NormanOh, Sally Quinn is more knowledgeable about the proper finger food to be served at her cocktail parties...
What was Quinn listening to?
December 6, 2007 - 14:02 ET by mattmAll Romney did was basically reiterate the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the constitution.
There can be only one reason this issue is even a concern: there are people who seek to "obliterate" religion, specifically Christianity, and institute as a psuedo-national religion some form of secular areligionism, which they are continuing to propagate.
Ms. Quinn there never was a seperation of Church and State
December 6, 2007 - 14:21 ET by Lame CherryDear Sally Quinn,
I will continue to explain to liberals and ignorant others that there never was a seperation of Church and State, not in the Constitution, not in Federal Law and not in State laws.
In fact, the "wheels are turning" response in Thomas Jefferson stated it only reveals how ignorant people are in that letter he wrote addressed to the clergy. Thomas Jefferson was not speaking of any concern over religion in the US government. His CONCERN WAS IN GOVERNMENT DICTATING TO RELIGION.
I will repeat. Thomas Jefferson's letter to the clergy was dealing with the caveat that the US government should NEVER START dictating to Christian religions EVER. This is in mirror to the Bill of Rights which states the same thing.
Secularists are fools who think there is not a God. They are corrupt as you are corrupt and incapable of sound reasoning. Nature itself shouts out the order that there is a God, but only people like yourself afraid to face your fraility and terrified of a Spiritual Parent Who you think will punish you instead of Love you to perfection are the problem, for you Sally Quinn have seperated yourself from God and have thereby polluted the US Government from the moral leadership which George Washington said was mandatory.
God bless you Sally Quinn and may He fix you as you require it. In His Name I pray. Amen
LC
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
freedom of religion is not freedom from religion
December 6, 2007 - 15:11 ET by wizardjrLame Cherry's got it right. I too am tired of trying to explain to the deaf and demonstrate from our Founding Documents to the blind, that this nation WAS founded on a religiious base. We just declared that there was not one official religion, but that we supported all faiths.
However, religions have something that sends libs scurrying for the dark corners: rules of moral and ethical guidance. These people are the devil's minions. Perhaps more like Lenin's 'useful idiots' than actual demonic souls, I would say.
From the devil's minion,
December 7, 2007 - 06:19 ET by AgnosticAssuming you are a Christian, my understanding is that humans have free will and using that free will they can decide to be perfectly ethical and moral but not believe in God. This means they are going to hell but that is not for you to decide or to use as a point for attacking a persons character. I'm a proud that I defend your rights to your beliefs and that capitalism and the belief in our republic is strongly instilled in my values. You on the otherhand are seem only willing to defend those who agree with you regardless of their personal qualities - not very American. BTW, socialist (by whatever name) occur for many reasons and while most of their views I find unsupportable only the one's that use power to control the masses are truly evil and the rest, IMHO, are trying to create a better society without the necessary facts. We need both sides of the argument to keep moving forward as a society. The liberal, the more traditional use of the term liberal, thoughts of the founding fathers and the Republican Party brought us this great Republic, freedom, civil rights and improved understanding of economic functions. Conservatives keep us anchored in what is important in government and life but without liberal thought society would become stagnant and whither. Without conservatives a liberal society would lack direction, spread itself too thin and fall victim to corrupting influences from inside and outside the nation.
Have good day and a Merry Christmas!
Riddle Me This
December 6, 2007 - 14:41 ET by candanceWhy is it okay for:
Barack Obama to employ Christian musicians
Hillary Clinton to say she prays for discernment
John Edwards to use the Bible to defend socialist healthcare
Bill Richardson to say homosex is a choice
...but Republicans are bent on theocracy simply when they admit to being religious.
Funny candance. Great
December 6, 2007 - 15:11 ET by Jack BauerFunny candance. Great research and conclusion.
Rush Reporting Attacks on Conservative Blogs
December 6, 2007 - 17:17 ET by CaringwhiteguyLimbaugh has spent considerable time today discussing negative critiques about Romney's speech on conservative and evangelical websites. Apparently the loony left doesn't have a monopoly.
Sally Quinn
December 6, 2007 - 16:13 ET by pocomocoFrom her biography: Sally Quinn's great-great-great-grandfather was William Williams, who was a signer of The Declaration of Independence.
Obviously, Quinn has forgotten her roots, and hasn’t taken the time to read or understand the Constitution's 1st Amendment.
Oh, no! An aging bimbo
December 6, 2007 - 15:44 ET by fitzfongOh, no! An aging bimbo socialite only famous for being famous has a problem with Mitt Romney's speech! I guess we're all supposed to vote Democrat now, Sally? Stick to the one thing you're good at: organizing swanky parties and brow-beating the help.
THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF
December 6, 2007 - 16:19 ET by wiwfTHERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Get it through your heads once and for all!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Quinn: wrong, Romney: Flip-Flopper on Faith
December 6, 2007 - 16:52 ET by chuckoSure, Sally Quinn needs to get her eyes and ears checked, but you guys at Newsbusters should do a better job checking Romney's previous media appearances where he ABSOLUTELY said people want a person of "faith" to lead them.
On Fox News Sunday (2-26-06) he said: "Well, I think people in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their governor, as their senator, as their president. I don't think most people care what brand of faith they have. ... Those things, I think, get swept away as people get to know the individual,
understand their character, their vision, their values, and I think that's true regardless of a person's faith if they are a faithful person." http://www.foxnews.c...
On November 22, he said: "I don't think people know a lot about my faith. But what I learn as I go about the country is that people want a person of faith to lead the country, but they don't particularly care what brand of faith that is, so long as the values that person has are American values."
http://www.statesman...
Yeah, it was a good speech, but like other issues with Flip-Flop Mitt, are we supposed to believe what he says <i>now</i> or what he said <i>then</i>.
To be honest, if Mitt Romney
December 6, 2007 - 19:08 ET by fitzfongTo be honest, if Mitt Romney is a conservative, I couldn't care less where his conservatism comes from. If the orignins of a candidate's conservatism are down to a deep religious faith, that's great. If they're down to something else, that's fine, too. I just don't want some big government tax-and-spend type running the country. All this hair-splitting over the depth of a man's religious faith could ensure that we'll get stuck with some lib President pandering to his or her atheist base.
CNN's Mormon Graphic
December 6, 2007 - 18:36 ET by V the KDid anyone else notice the graphic CNN put up during Romney's speech, supposing to explain Mormonism? CNN could have put up a graphic that said "Mormons place
enormous value on family relationships" Or "Mormons abstain from
alcohol, tobacco, and coffee," or "Mormons fast once a month and donate
the savings from the meals skipped to the poor." But instead, they went
straight for polygamy and racial exclusion practices that the church no
longer practices.
...or that their favorite
December 6, 2007 - 18:48 ET by fitzfong...or that their favorite Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, is a Mormon.
As usual, CNN, NB members
December 7, 2007 - 05:58 ET by tracheostomyAs usual, CNN, NB members aplenty, and even Pat Buchanan completely missed the point. Someone, maybe possibly everyone is completely unwilling to step back for once and look at "the bigger picture."
While they no longer embrace polygamy, etc., the LDS still hold to their doctrine of one true church. When followed by a faithful, loyal, and unapologetic Mormon, this foundational belief completely invalidates every-other-faith, regardless of whether it wears a cross or not.
And Evangelicals are cowards for their failure to bring it to the table. Even Hannity still refuses to take my calls. =)
As a whole, we're just not being intellectually honest about this issue. If Romney is as committed to his faith as he says he is, then there is an unspoken message being hung around our necks that reads, "SUCKER" on it.
That unspoken and patently deceptive message is very clear if the fine print of the contract is also read with an ounce of courage; stating explicitly, "I will defend your right to freedom of religion without bias, even though me and mine are the only true followers of Jesus, and you are not."
Time to take the blinders off everyone. Please.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No. The point is that it
December 7, 2007 - 16:51 ET by fitzfongNo. The point is that it doesn't matter where his political ideology originates...as long as he stays true to the political ideology he claims to embrace.
No Fitz, it swings both
December 8, 2007 - 02:06 ET by tracheostomyNo Fitz, it swings both ways. Which is more sacred? His sacred duty to his country, or to his church?
If church as he claims, then he must be truly loyal to its foundational doctrines as well.
If country as he also appears to claim, then he must necessarily distance himself from the foundational beliefs of the Latter-Day-Saints in order to be as unbiased as he claims.
Ergo, he is a man of "faiths" and therefore not truly LDS, OR he is a man of the LDS faith and none other.
Everyone is most welcome to chew on this as they will, look for holes in the logic, etcetera, but I think it's pretty airtight.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
With all due respect, what
December 8, 2007 - 19:49 ET by fitzfongWith all due respect, what exactly is the fear here? For the life of me, I can't understand what objectionable things the anti-Romney Republicans think Romney is going to do if he gets into office.
As I said on another
December 7, 2007 - 11:46 ET by misterbee241As I said on another thread, if I was convinced Romney was truly a conservative his Mormonism would not get in the way of my voting for him. If it comes down to him and Hillary, I'll certainly vote for him.
There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745