Romney's speech at Liberty University value-laden and heartfelt

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    May 17, 2012 3:24 a.m.

    To "A voice of Reason" -- No, "heartfelt" does not mean that Romney had some unspecified emotions about his speech. Wiktionary defines heartfelt as "Felt or believed deeply and sincerely," ergo, Schulzke reported that Romney believed what he was saying. That cannot be disproved, but even amongst politicians, Romney is legendary for his insincerity. As he has jumped from one position to another (he recently flipped from "severely conservative" to abruptly refraining from mentioning conservatism), the electorate wonders what Romney really believes, and Schulzke should not claim some special insight absent some valid source. If you want to operate in the world of "Reason," you should understand "the Earth we observe beneath our feet" is confirmed and altogether different from speculations about the feelings and/or calculations in Romney's head. In fact, there IS a standard for "the rest of the journalistic world" -- verification of reported facts. Granted, this standard is not "magical," and many journalists slip below it, but when they do, it is appropriate to point this out.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 16, 2012 11:12 a.m.


    We can not see the hypothetical Higgs Bozon, but have observed events that it could explain. We still investigate it nonetheless.

    Faith is no different. We observe evidence of things unseen every day. While we aren't omniscient and can't qualify everything, our faith/hope to learn more is still rational.

    Mitt Romney's emotions are subjective. While we can't yet and possibly may never observe such emotions, there is evidence they exist (Romney's claim). Schuzkle didn't even qualify which emotions, only that they existed.

    It is only among the most hypocritical and cynical of judgments that a person can claim that "we shouldn't believe or even qualify Romney's claim" while at the same time we are willing to accept our friends or spouses emotional statements. That is a self-serving double standard, which is beneath any standard of reason.

    There is no magical standard of journalism that has been broken hear that the rest of the journalistic world has not also committed. Schuzlke's statement no less disqualifies his journalistic integrity or honesty than you or I are qualified to state that the Earth we observe beneath our feet 'really does exist'.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    May 16, 2012 3:31 a.m.

    To "A voice of Reason"-- The problem is that Schulzke presented the description of what Romney felt as the OBJECTIVE truth, as if the news were what Romney was feeling. As you say, "Romney claimed how he felt," and perhaps Schulzke had the subjective experience of believing him, but that would not be "news," nor was this how the story was reported. The truthful (albeit unsurprising) news is that Romney CLAIMED to be speaking from the heart, but Schulzke wrote that Romney’s speech WAS heartfelt. This WOULD be important, stop-the-presses news, given widespread perceptions of Romney as insincere, but Schulzke had no supporting evidence and presented a mere personal opinion as objective truth. I expect that on reflection, Schulzke would agree that even when news is offered as a "news analysis," standards of professional journalism require that guesses should be distinguished from facts.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    May 14, 2012 3:21 p.m.

    "For those who graduate from high school, get a full-time job, and marry before they have their first child, the probability that they will be poor is 2 percent. But, if those things are absent, 76 percent will be poor. Culture matters."

    Our current president would replace that culture with something unproven in all cultures, and will leave families weakened and confused...

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    May 13, 2012 8:00 p.m.

    Eric Schulzke that was one great editorial! Thanks for the info.
    Of course he was talking from his heart because he believes it!

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    May 13, 2012 6:44 p.m.

    @ Codger:

    Does it make any difference whether it is a Democrat or a Republican President who takes away your freedom and liberties?

  • Ex Pat Salt Lake City, Ut
    May 13, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carried his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself."

    For those of you who are critical of Gov Romney, maybe you ought to look at all the things that obama has said about his history and then tell us what he has said is honest.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2012 10:58 a.m.


    "Furry. You have the right to vote for Obama. However, he is nothing to no one."

    Accept to his children, wife, and family.

    I'm a very conservative person. I favor Romney as a political candidate easily over Obama for various intelligent reasons. But claiming that "he is nothing to no one" oversteps a few lines. You could have meant it purely with a 'political eye' and I could appreciate that. I would call it accurate as clearly some people voted for the guy. But I could appreciate it. If you mean that historically Obama won't have 'REAL' significance, I can give you that too. He's America's first black president so technically it isn't all that accurate- but otherwise from a conservative political opinion, I could see what you mean. But in the end- if you truly meant "Obama as a human being" has no worth, then you would be sorely mistaken.

    Again to clarify, I'm not trying to qualify your statement and I mean you no disrespect- but it should be said that all of us are something to someone, and to God we are all of great worth.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2012 10:51 a.m.


    You're accused Eric Schulzke of being dishonest in claiming something subjective about Romney's feelings. However, Schulzke's claim is plausible while yours is far less reasonable.

    1) If there is any possibility of examining the beliefs or thoughts of another- the only person who even has the ability to adequately represent them-self... is them-self. If you watched Romney's address as I did, you would know that Romney claimed how he felt. While he could have been lying- he is the only human being on the planet qualified to claim it! And FYI, Schulzke's honesty is equally subjective.

    2) Schulzke could have simply referred to Romney's own claim- again, invalidating your criticism.

    3) Romney did not give commentary on changing political positions- making Schulzke's representation of Romney's own claims, own words, own speech, more accurate and honest than your own.

    4) You can't qualify the subjective because of the objective. A political position changed 100 times doesn't negate the possibility that each change could be completely heartfelt and honest. Subscribing to anything less is unwarranted judgement. Unlike your criticism, the quality of journalism here is untarnished.

  • codger Southwest Utah, UT
    May 13, 2012 10:38 a.m.

    IdahoStranger: Just who do you intend to support for President?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 13, 2012 10:24 a.m.


    What are some of Obama's values? Is he honest, or truthful?? Give some examples.

  • HotGlobe SAN RAFAEL, CA
    May 13, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    Romney gave a speech. To say it was "heartfelt" is dishonest. Romney's heart is a great mystery as he flips from position to position. To pretend to have some knowledge about what he is actually feeling is beneath the minimum standard of journalism.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2012 9:18 a.m.


    You don't think Obama caters his talks to his audience?

    Did you know that one of the first things you learn in any debate class, prior to understanding fallacies, prior to "If P, then Q", prior to all the ways we can examine and evaluate an argument- that one of the very first things everyone is taught is to "know your audience".

    If you were making an argument regarding abortion in Massachusetts and in Utah, it only stands to reason that the arguments given would be very different. A largely LDS and even more conservative state, vs a largely liberal state. Even though the state knows Romney fairly well as their former governor, the arguments would be different for good reason.

    I mean you no offense. It's just that most popular political criticisms have little to no logical merit whatsoever. There are real reasons to criticize someone, even Romney. While I mostly agree with Romney, even I disagree on what Romney has said on foreign policy and I'm not keen on how willing he is to justify business (Although I'm not at all anti-capitalist).

    Everything political deserves consideration. Popular criticisms rarely offer that.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 13, 2012 9:14 a.m.

    Who better? Obama.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    May 13, 2012 8:54 a.m.

    "He plays to whomever he is speaking to, doesn't he?"

    If he had gotten up and talked about Sodom and Gomorrah and Adam and Eve vs Adam and Steve I would agree. But he took the position of traditional marriage as being a tool to fight poverty. He is using a liberal argument to promote marriage to a conservative audience. Maybe this will make them think that that Biblical morality is as much about social justice as it is about chastity.

  • IDC Boise, ID
    May 13, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    Romney understands what makes America great. It is not about government, it is about individuals with the opportunity to acheive and succeed. Not all choices lead to a better life but we are free to make our own choices - that is what made America great and that is the hope for our future.

  • joeyjr Bakersfield, CA
    May 13, 2012 8:33 a.m.

    From all of us from the "abominable" churches and sects, we appreciate Mr. Romney's support of traditional marriage.

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    May 13, 2012 7:56 a.m.

    @ McBillay and Furry1993

    It doesn't matter what Romney says, even if it's truly from the heart. You have already passed your critical judgment on this good man.

    I too was a bit dubious in the beginning. I have since changed my mind. Mitt Romney is going to get my vote. I encourage everyone to give him a chance like we did with President Obama.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 13, 2012 7:39 a.m.

    @ mcbilly and furry. Mark Twain said, “I would rather see a sermon than hear one.” Mitt Romney walks his talk while Obama talks much differently than he walks and that’s the difference. Steven Covey said, “All people see the world not as it really is but as they really are”. If you look, its easy to see the vast differences in what each man values, the differences of priority and what each man esteems to be important! Character, gentlemen! It’s a beautiful thing in a leader and we haven’t had that kind of leadership since Ronald Reagan and we see the moral, cultural and economic decline in America as a result!

  • MAYHEM MIKE Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2012 7:12 a.m.

    Re Macbillay and Furry1993: Did you actually hear the talk? It certainly wasn't "pandering," but an intelligent, almost classic speech emphasizing the importance of one taking responsibility for one's own actions and relying on our Creator for affirmation of one's self-worth rather than the vagaries of life and worldly accomplishments or failures. Despite Mitt's theological differences with evangelicals, he and the staff at Liberty University affirmed that mutual respect can be enjoyed by those sharing common values, such as a love for hard work, freedom, and a loving, supportive family.

    It never ceases to amaze me that when any candidate tries to promote decent values or be conciliatory to voters, those with different political beliefs only look for the "negative," or try to ferret out some devious motive in his or her communication.

  • IdahoStranger NEWDALE, ID
    May 13, 2012 6:41 a.m.

    It sounds like Bro. Romney gave a good speech. Not surprising as I think he is a good man.

    However, I cannot support him for President because, in spite of his goodness, he makes some "unwise" political decisions.

    I wish that he would really study the Constitution and the principles behind it according to the thinking of the Founding Fathers. Supposedly he believes that it is "an inspired document."

    Quote by J. Reuben Clark Jr.:

    "This earth-wide conflict has taken the form of seizing without compensation from the man who has, and giving to the man who has not; of taking from the worker the fruits of his work, and giving to the idler who does not work. It has from its very nature become an economic, uncompensated leveling downward, not upwards of the whole mass. That this result may in one country be reached by confiscatory taxation, and in another by direct seizure, is a mere matter of method. The results is the same."

    Now consider that in light of his support for RomneyCare. He certainly has taken from the haves and given it to the have nots.

    Google Romney Obama the same.

  • Yerffoegn Maricopa, Az
    May 13, 2012 6:34 a.m.

    Furry. You have the right to vote for Obama. However, he is nothing to no one.

  • Gramajane OAKLEY, ID
    May 13, 2012 6:01 a.m.

    I agree with the author of the article as these things Romney spoke about with pointing out the most important role of the family are the life blood of the LDS. Even Jesus in the NT puts us in a family relationship with him, to "my God and your God, My Father and your Father as he said after his resurrection that He needed to first go report in to, as he also taught us to pray, to Our Father in Heaven. We are all spirit children of the most high God and as such should act with love to one another in service to our brothers and sisters. I appreciate Romney and his family for their service and sacrifice in running again for the presidency to try to save our nation from the abiss we seem on the edge of falling into, not only economically but socially and culturally as the left seeks to cut us off from those roots that are supported in the constitution and our Judeo Christian culture. Good job Mitt! "that'll do."

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    May 13, 2012 1:48 a.m.

    There seems to be a big distinction between being a Christian and being Christ-like.

  • tyndale1 Pullman, WA
    May 12, 2012 9:20 p.m.

    It's nice to see Mitt get to talk from his heart about things he is truly experienced in. Who better to lead the nation in respect for the family and for Christian virtues than a good ole Mormon boy. We wrote the book on family.

  • 3grandslams Iowa City, IA
    May 12, 2012 8:01 p.m.

    It should be obvious why Romney was so comfortable speaking with Christian ideas...BECAUSE HE'S A CHRISTIAN.

    Obama tried to deliver a speech like that and he couldn't even contextually quote scriptures correctly. It was a mess. Romney has understanding across the spectrum. He is incredibly intelligent and proven, far more than Obama ever was 4 years ago.

  • Furry1993 Clearfield, UT
    May 12, 2012 7:45 p.m.

    That was a "heartfelt" speech pandering to the far right. It proves that Mitt tries to be all things to all people. Why am I not surprised.

  • BYUfaninWashSt Everett, WA
    May 12, 2012 7:23 p.m.

    A well written article regarding what sounds like a well delivered speech by Mitt Romney. Thank you.