Deseret News | Mitt's 'JFK speech' called 'wild gamble'

Reader comments
Mitt's 'JFK speech' called 'wild gamble'

Page:
1
2
Next >

doubtful | 3:25 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I don't see this speech as a watershed in Romney's candidacy. The same percentages will be for and against after this speech.

While wanting to support his candidacy, I have not found him to be a compelling or convincing speaker or writer. If he wants to move off his current base of support, he needs to hit a home run.

rvalens2 | 3:41 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

It's going to take one heckuva speech to convince other christian denominations that Romney is their man. If he gets this one "wrong" his presidential bid is over. The bickering that went on between Romney and Giuliani in the last debate didn't help either.

Daniel B. | 5:40 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I think that Romney deserves to be acknoweledged as a man with many leadership qualities more than a man of mormon faith. But if this talk will help eliminate misconceptions and make it clear where he stands I welcome it.

Comments continue below

james stowe | 6:06 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

In a perfect world Religion and Politics
should be seperate issues not to co-mingle.
However, this is not a perfect world.

I agree that one's faith should not matter!!but in this case it matters very much.

Mitt is LDS, I rememer the days when the LDS were against the ERA amendment and gambling. These issues were discussed in every church meeting.
I believe these and other matters are of personal choice. I deeply believe Mitt will make decisions based on his faith and not what is best or what the majority of the great USA pop. wants.

I loved the Headline "Mitt's speach wild gamble".

Gamble? I loved it.

Rich | 6:10 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mike Huckabee gave his baptist speech in recent advertising and routinely mixes politics and religion at Sunday worship services when invited as a guest speaker which is frequent.

Michael R. Loveridge, J.D. | 6:52 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I think the quote from the news article really says it all. . ."In some ways, the questions are really unfair. They're not asking a number of other candidates whether their religion is going to hurt them. . . Romney's people might want to be asking when Huckabee is going to be giving the Baptist speech."

Sam Hofer | 6:58 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

There are no other candidates, and certainly no other party, is there?
Anyway, Mitt's 'coming out' party should be an interesting exercise in obfuscation. It's wrong to call it a 'jfk' speech, however. He, along with his fellow candiates, is not anywhere near the inspirational speaker that kennedy was.

rp | 7:03 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Regardless of the outcome of this election, I think Romney would always regret not giving the speech. I hope this speech will detail the need to keep religion out of politics. Separation of church and state. No candidate should play up or down their own religion or the religion of another candidate, and this is what is happening in the race now.

Won't Matter | 7:30 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I'm a Romney supporter in Iowa. I still think it's sad that 50-some percent of people won't vote for Romney because he is Mormon. I do not think the speech will matter one way or the other. I'm troubled that Americans can't seem to get over the "Mormon thing" and can't look at what he will bring to the country, regardless of religious persuasion. I'm confident he would lead the country in a positive way. I'm also confident that America is too infatuated with values that don't matter.

The Presidency is over-rated due to the quagmire that congress is in and the internal fighting that is partisan to the core. Until the country can unite behind good men and women who are elected to be our leaders, it won't work. The money it takes and the power it breeds is simply too overwhelming for people to see clearly anymore. I wish Mitt Romney the best but simply do not see him being elected based on blind biases that run too strong. Sad but true.

Alan | 7:56 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt Romney is not a gambler. His speech will be relevant, clear, and a sound introduction to his faith and its affect on his work and decisions. His critics won't be pleased with anything he says, and they will slam it before he finishes it.

This fuss about Mormonism will likely resolve itself as the Salt Lake Olympics (led by Romney) did. Recall the whining that it was going to be the "Mormon Olympics." Cynics complained in advance of the absence of alcohol, Mormon missionaries attacking people on every corner, obsessive control from "the Church" and a puritanical, anti-party atmosphere.

Instead, visitors were astounded at the organization, and surprised with the most friendly greeting from the friendliest, most dedicated volunteer workers ever. Naysayers ate their words when Salt Lake hosted the most successful Olympics ever, which brings us to the real reason people oppose Mitt and Mormonism: Success.

People feel threatened by Mitt Romney's record of accomplishment, and the growth of Mormonism, so they resort to whisper campaigns to incite fear and suspicion rather than civil discussion of issues and beliefs.

Romney's speech will not vaporize criticism, but it will put common sense back into the discussion.

Dave | 8:00 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt needs to be forthright regarding his beliefs and his position on the issues. Sometimes he comes across as being evasive in his answers to political questions. People see this and are turned off. Not everyone will agree with some of his positions, but he will gain respect for takng a stand and not trying to have it both ways and please everyone. This comes across as insincere waffling. Don't be wishy washy, Mitt, take a stand and stick to it. We will respect you for your willingness to do so.

Screen Age | 8:07 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Romney is doing better than I ever thought he would, but this speech may end up being better for the LDS church than for Mitt Romney.

People who are anti-Mormon (and therefore anti-Romney) will not likely change their deep seated bigotry after one speech.

For the LDS church, though, where else could it get such widely covered, high profile publicity putting the record straight about some of the things its enemies harp on the most?

Ultimately, Huckabee has evangelical Christians in his back pocket, and they won't be leaving him unless and until it is apparent that Huckabee won't survive the primaries, at which point these people will consider Romney as a more conservative alternative to Rudy.

Big stumble | 8:16 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

This can't be good. During the YouTube debate, Mitt stumbled all over himself, trying to answer the "Bible question".

But it'll be good theater. I'm making popcorn.

Dan Lindsey | 8:30 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Those who require a religious test for President of the United States do not honor the constitution of the United states that says in Article 6 section 3, ..."no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." So those in other religions or the LDS faith, as true americans, should honor that and hold it sacred.

willie | 8:39 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt, when you are in a deep hole, the best thing to do is quit digging. Digging faster won't get you out any better.

the gambler | 8:55 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Humor:
Romney should then be interviewed and reprimanded by his bishop for gambling, not to mention ï¿½wildlyï¿½!

Oh and by the way, the word is ï¿½tenetsï¿½ - not ï¿½tenantsï¿½ (ï¿½...specific theological tenants or doctrines....ï¿½). Thanks.

Mike | 9:13 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I don't think it is much of a "Gamble". I don't think it will much matter what he says. Mitt Romney is a "Mormon" and there is nothing he can say that will change the hypocracy and bigotry so clearly evident in the evangelical mindset. The hard truth is that most evangelicals do not like or respect mormons or mormonism not withstanding the fact that most Mormons are also social conservatives.

Personlly, I think it is a waste of time. I think that he made a fundamental political mistake in trying to align himself with evangelicals. Guiliani is doing well without doing so. He should instead emphasize the principal of the Seperation of Church and State, a consititutional principal that I believe evangelicals are increasingly coming to despise.

keystone it! | 9:13 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

what is the keystone to the mormon faith-

the book of mormon- romney must stress the divinity of this book or he is hiding what he proclaimed as a bishop and stake president-

what seperates mormons and mainline christians is this book! if mitt truly beleives the book of mormon to be the most pure and undefiled scripture oon the earth today- he should let all know in his speech that this is why others question mormomism-
it is tangible evidence of the roots of the mormon faith! i hope romney addresses the real issues of mormonism- if he truly beleives- he will!
we will see thursday?

JM | 9:44 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Romney would be served to explain that he is a Christian. He would also be served to show that he has some compassion for the lower and middle economic class of citizens and doesn't just represent big business. Huckabee does this well and appears to be more people friendly. Thus the surge in Iowa.

observer | 9:59 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Darned if he does, darned if he doesn't. Months of articles calling for a speech. I was waiting for an article like this when he finally decided to acquiesce. Funny, shows up a day or two after the announcement. Good stirring of the pot. Darned if he does, darned if he doesn't.

Alwayzwrite | 10:07 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt is making a MAJOR mistake by giving this upcoming speech. He will immediately invigorate an isolated and already polarized population of anti-LDS religionists. This in turn will give the pastors and ministers all the fodder they will need for their sermons over the next several weeks leading up to the early primary states. He will not be kindly remembered for what he will say, no, he will be remembered mostly for the things he won't say due to conflicts with boldness and politics. Let's face it, he is no Huckabee when it comes to the spoken word...and I'm LDS.

Milo Peck | 10:10 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

When I was in construction building office buildings, I never concerned myself with the question of whether others accepted my faith or not, nor did I concern myself with the faith of others. What I did concern myself with were the questions of competency and integrity. In the construction trades we have a saying: "There are those who talk the talk, and then there are those who walk the walk." What voters have to decide is simple, which candidate "walks the walk" when it comes to competency and integrity in leadership and what candidates simply "talk the talk." Being faithful to marriage covenants, serving one's country (without pay!), speaking no guile, offering hope for peace, and opportunities to prosper, having high standards while making allowance for the lack of such qualities in others, these are the qualities I look for. I think that Mitt has all of these, but only he can "walk the walk." Talk is cheap!

Mark B | 10:20 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I may never sign up for Mitt, but as far as a "Gamble" is concerned, isn't running for president and spending millions of dollars already a pretty big gamble? If you want to stand out from the field, isn't this one way to do it? After all, we want the president to be someone who doesn't duck a big decision, and will tell the truth, and he knew this whole thing would be a hurdle right from the start.

TSE | 10:24 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Just state that the Book of Mormon takes precedence over the bible, all other religions are wrong and that mormons can involve in polygamy in heaven..

Simple truthts that will surely clear up the confusion for the Christian public.

Tom | 10:34 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Every LDS person seems to know exactly how Mitt lives his life. Stating things like he has never cheated on his wife, or he is a 'good' person with a steady moral compass, etc... Fact is, you will never know the answers to that or other elements of his personal life. You are making broad assumptions about him because he is LDS, and voting for him accordingly. How is that any different than not voting for him because he is LDS?

Knowa | 10:49 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Alwayzwrite is right! I prophecy (predict, for you agnostics) that Mitt will never mention the following in his talk:
1. The Book of Mormon
2. Joseph Smith
3. The atonement
4. Restoration
5. Latter-day prophets and apostles
It would take a man, I believe more bold and unwavering than Mitt Romney to demonstrate that he is not ashamed of the gospel he professes to be true. Saul of Tarsus a.k.a. Paul and the rest of us will be watching. We are about to hear one of the most wishy washy protestant political messages on record, and the voters will turn away disappointed and unimpressed. Mitt's true colors and convictions will be truly manifest Thursday evening, and I suggest his comments will side with Cesar.

KH | 10:55 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

It's obsurd and a shame if any candidate's discussing his religious beliefs is considered a "Wild Gamble".

The same people who currently are or in the future will be against Romney because of their religious biggotry against Mormons will be against him whether he clarifies this subject or if he hides it.

I think the earlier he talks about it the better. It keeps coming up, so why not talk about it, get everything out in the open, and if it turns some people off, I think learning that early is better than getting some early interest and then loosing it later when the people who make their political decisions based on religion figure out that his faith is a problem for them.

What I'm saying is... If it's going to be a problem it's going to be a problem. Romney can try to educate people and calm their fears, but in the end, Romney can't control this, only the voters can overcome their individual prejudices. Getting correct information out there is all Romney can do. He can't control what individual people do with that information, but I still think more information is better than less.

Mormons Against Romney | 10:56 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt Romneyï¿½s ï¿½faith speechï¿½ DOES NOT represent the interests of Mormons, the Mormon Church, Mormonism, or Mormon Doctrine. His words represent his campaign. He is not a public affairs specialist for the Church, nor is he the new ambassador.

I find demeaning, discourteous, and insulting the suggestion that Mitt Romneyï¿½s political speech somehow defines or has the potential to define what The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is or who Latter-day Saints are.

Mitt Romney DOES NOT represent Mormonism. He represents himself ï¿½ thatï¿½s it. He is an INDIVIDUAL member of the Church. Mitt Romneyï¿½s ï¿½faithï¿½, if ï¿½faithï¿½ it can be called, has never been an issue in the GOP Primary. No Evangelical, Pentecostal, Fundamentalist, or Southern grit-eating Christian cares what religion Mitt Romney is.

Mitt Romney does not represent the Church, and I donï¿½t believe, given his liberal record in his liberal state, he represents the interests of the Republican Party.

Mitt Romney raised the capital gains tax.

Mitt Romney legislated gun control.

Mitt Romney legalized gay civil unions.

George Romney was a liberal.

Lenore Romney was a liberal.

The Romney family are a pack of LIBERALS ï¿½ with or without a CTR Ring.

Tai | 11:09 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Why is Mitt Romney giving a speech that no other Mormon politician ever gave. Mormons have ran for office and have been elected to office for the last 177 years.

Somehow, Mitt Romney is special that he needs define his faith?

Republicans WILL NOT give Mitt Romney the GOP ticket - not because he is a Mormon, but because he is a liberal. "Mormonism" is simply Romney's excuse as to why he cannot get elected. Such an excuse has no merit.

As one individual Mormon, I cannot vote for Mitt Romney in good conscience. His liberal record to me is insulting. Mitt Romney is a liberal.

major differences | 11:14 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

John F. Kennedy:
"Ask not what your country can do for you --
ask what YOU can do for your country."

Mitt Romney:
"But Mormons ARE Christians! Really, they are!"

(to put these two names together in the same phrase, sort of makes me ill)

Wake Up! | 11:28 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Since when did Mitt Romney become a spokesman for the fiath.

I really don't think much of Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch, but at least they never used their faith as a campaign prop.

I remember when Gore and Lieberman ran against Bush in 2000, and all we heard about was how Hadasa Lieberman's father was a Holocaust survivor. I think that's great, but it has nothing to do with the issue or issues at hand. The more Gore and Lieberman talked about Joe Lieberman's faith, the more repulsed I became with the candidates (not that I would vote for Gore anyways).

The point is, is that Mitt Romney's religion is not the determining factor in the votes he does not receive. His politics is.

Mitt Romney is a liberal candidate. I will not vote for a liberal.

This isn't the general election. This is the GOP Primary. Mitt Romney is not wanted in the GOP - pure and simple.

Good Point Tom | 11:31 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Remember, Provo sent Bill Orton to congress, three consecutive terms. Provo has a liberal voting record.

peculiar, plastic, & deluded | 11:44 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Right on "Tom!"

Am I the only one who has grown weary from:
"But he's LDS! He must be a great man?"

Some day the dictionary will read:
deluded - See (The State of Utah)

Anonymous | 11:45 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

No Sam Hofer, it is not a great difference between JFKs inspiration and Romney's ability to inspire. The difference is a change in the times when the population is a lot less capable of inspiration, a lot more synical and doubtful, a sad reality. Wake up to hope and stop looking for meaning in materialism! Live bigger and better than the non-contributing cynic.

I am somewhat liberal | 11:45 a.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I am somewhat liberal, but mostly conservative so Mitt's stand on many issues is right in line with how I feel. Specifically, I sympathize with his view on abortion because even though I would never ever condone murder, I still think it's important for a woman to be able to choose (But for heaven's sake, choose to preserve the life of the baby!).

Mitt raised the capital gains tax in his state. That, too, is something I sympathize with. Hedge fund managers pay a tax rate 15% on their income, while the rest of us pay 35%. There needs to be an extra measure of fairness figured into that discrepancy.

Lastly, I approve of social programs that work and that help LEGAL citizens of our country who sincerely need the aid.

But I'll either vote for Romney or McCain.

Anonymous | 12:08 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt Romney a liberal?
If so, there is still hope left for Mormons.
We are all liberal by nature. Minds have just been contaminated with divisive thinking.

Judy | 12:25 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt Romney has been wasting his time. No one is going to elect him President as long as the media keeps asking questions about his religion the media is the one that keeps driving this. The big media think the election is all about rateings they don,t give a flip about this country.The talking heads think it's a game. it's fun to them to go work every day see what mayhem they can stir up.

Vote for Huckabee | 12:31 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

"I don't think it's relevant to the presidency. I really don't," he said. "You know, I get all these questions about somebody else's religion. I only want to address the ones about my own, and I think some of those get a little bit almost unfortunately laborious because, you know, we ought to be talking about education and health care and energy independence and all these other things."

- Mike Huckabee

Funny, how Mitt declares the opposite...

The orginal meaning | 12:35 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt Romney a liberal?

I knew there was something about the guy I was beginning to like.

But MY definition of liberal is the original live-and-let-live ideology.

Not the wacky Limbaugh neocon's.

Anonymous | 12:52 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Orrin Hatch doesn't *have* to use his religion as a prop. He lives in Utah.

big mistake | 1:10 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt Romney is making a huge mistake. He couldn't even articulate the Bible question, I can only imagine what he will do with Mormonism. Huckabee eloquently answers questions in a way that he says how he feels and what he stands for, Mitt wishywashes aroud, losing trust. He does not have to explain to me his religion, quite frankly I don't care. What are you going to do about illegal immigation, social security and the war? Why can't we focus on political issues. Religion is such waste of my time.

Separation of church and state | 1:12 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

How well does anyone think G.W. separates his faith and civic duties? Someone mentioned that Mitt would make decisions based on his faith. Presidents have been doing that for 200+ years. I agree with the idea that Mitt should have hammered home the idea that LDS people perceive themsleves as Christians. This speach is the equivalent of an LDS missionary knocking on millions of doors at once. Hopefully he'll have something useful to say.

Magna | 1:19 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I support Mitt and feel that it is very unfair for him to be constantly attack because of his believes. If we are going to do that then we should bring up the Catholics, Baptist, Jewish & any other denomination. We are not voting for the religion we are voting for someone that we feel can do the job with solid and strong bases.

Best of Luck to Mitt!

slmg | 1:33 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Being anti-Romney does not make someone anti Mormon. Being born into the LDS faith and having ancestors that were members from the begining of the church does not mean that I should vote for Mitt Romney just because I am a Mormon. I would vote for just about anyone in either party before I would vote for Romney. Just look at his record, he has flipped on almost every issue depending what office he is running for, be it Governor,Senator and now President. Personaly I wish he would quit answering questions put to him about the church, he stuffs it up everytime and in the process does the church no good.

Anonymous | 2:22 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

No politician does anything they don't have to.
Romney's discussing his religion only means he's running scared.

Jon B. Holbrook | 2:35 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

The problem isn't with Mitt Romney or his membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is the anti-Mormon bias in the Republican Party. Of course, I hope and pray that that Mitt Romney hits the ball out of the park with his "Faith in America" speech. I believe that any honest person who believes in the US Constitution, who has any doubts about Mitt Romney's faith will be answered and Mitt will be judged on his merits. Unfortunately, you cannot convince a true bigot about the error of his ways. Only the Republican Party can address the "Mormon Problem" within its own ranks. That problem has to be addressed by the time of its Iowa caucus. If Mitt Romney is thrown under the bus by anti-Mormon bigotry, the Mormons will not support the Republican Party as in times past. This could easily result in a Democratic sweep in November, 2008. Ani-Mormon bigotry should be more feared than Hillary Clinton. Thank-you

Wayne Perry | 2:37 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I am afraid that Willard Mitt Romney has a problem. The problem is the republican party hard core base of southern babptists. Southern Baptists are nice enough and I have no problem with them, or with LDS for that matter. But the southern baptists are calvinists, I think we all know that, and they base their religious validity on the king james bible. As true as is, no imperfections and mistranslation. It is the basis of their existance as originally protestors against the pope. They can not very well admit someone else saying the obvious, that the bible had mistranslations and distortions over the centuries. Should they do so, they have to admit that they may well be wrong in their religious validity. All those ministers should then get a real job. This is very hard thing for them to do, and they will not thank anyone for bringing this up. But they are big republican party block voters, and that is the problem.

Unless the caucus gets moved to Utah, Romney will be in the ackward position of asking that sentiment be put ahead of self interest.

james stowe | 2:43 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

reply to Anonymous

Hey, check the records Hatch takes money from alcohol and tobacco companies. What a LDS! At least as I know Mitt does not. He is such a good LDS.

Anonymous | 2:55 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

I guess we will all have to wait and see if Mormon Mitt Romney has the right stuff.

james stowe | 3:09 p.m. Dec. 4, 2007

Mitt to Gamble? He is sure to lose? That's how my my bet is laid.

Page:
1
2
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.