Governor, you’re no Jack Kennedy

Guest Post by Morbo

On Thursday, the Carpetbagger had a short item on Robert Novak’s recent column about Mitt Romney. Novak argues that Romney is getting clobbered over the Mormon issue on the campaign trail and urges him to address it in a major speech. Wrote Novak:

Although disagreement remains within the Romney camp, the consensus is that he must address the Mormon question with a speech deploring bias. According to campaign sources, a speech has been written, though much of it could still be changed. It hasn’t been determined when he will deliver a speech that could determine the 2008 political outcome.

This hypothetical Romney speech has been compared to a famous address John F. Kennedy delivered before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on Sept. 12, 1960. In this speech, Kennedy confronted questions about how his Catholic faith might affect his presidency and skillfully demolished the claims of his critics, who argued that Kennedy would let the Vatican run U.S. policy.

Kennedy’s talk was a plea for tolerance, but it was much more. Kennedy assured the Protestant ministers that they could trust him because, if elected, he would strongly support the separation of church and state. This pledge was the key to the speech’s success; it must not be overlooked. Kennedy said:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote, where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

“I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

Can you imagine Romney giving a speech like this with a straight face?

The guy has spent the past six months sucking up to the Religious Right and assuring them that, if elected, he will pursue their theocratic agenda with vigor. He’s vowed to impose someone’s religious agenda — so why not a Mormon one?

Romney’s sudden conversion to right-wingery has won over some Religious Right types. TV preacher Pat Robertson’s top attorney, Jay Sekulow, is a big Romney fan, and on Romney’s website you can see others who have climbed aboard the Romney “National Faith and Values Steering Committee.” But many on the Religious Right remain extremely wary of Romney’s Mormonism.

This puts Romney in a tough spot. If he even dared to use the phrase “separation of church and state” in a favorable manner in any speech, his little Religious Right buddies would go absolutely insane. They hate that phrase because the separation principle, properly implemented, prevents them from running everyone else’s lives.

So where does that leave Romney? He can give a whiney speech moaning that people are being mean to him over his religion and begging them to stop because it’s just not nice. This is unlikely to persuade the hard-core fundamentalist faction that believes his religion is a cult.

The man is boxed in, but I have no sympathy because he chose to crawl into the damn box. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Great post, Morbo.

It has been a long time since I read these words from Kennedy’s famous speech. Corrupt religion meddling in politics has certainly changed the landscape, hasn’t it?

The Protestants who feared Kennedy’s Catholicism, primarily evangelicals and fundamentalists of that time, have become the very thing that they said they feared.

From today’s vantage point, Kennedy’s words sound Jeffersonian – and almost as distant.

  • ***Can you imagine Romney giving a speech like this with a straight face?***

    It isn’t that Romney could or could not give such a speech with a straight face; rather, it is that we have allowed the formation of a political theology that would declare holy war on anyone bold enough to make that speech today. Jack Kennedy had to deal with one Lee Harvey Oswald; a presidential candidate making such claims today might have to deal with not only the assasin, but the religious leaders, talking heads, and fellow politicians who would encourage, through word and deed, the assasin to act.

  • Can I imagine Mittens giving such a speech with a straight face, you ask?

    Can I imagine a man who was for things before he was against them giving such a speech with a straight face?

    Can I imagine a cretin who claimed to be a mighty hunter before it emerged that hunting = taking pot shots at rabbits, once when he was a teen and once a few years ago, giving such a speech with a straight face?

    Can I imagine a shameless hack who equated his son’s work to get him in the White House with the work of other peoples’ children who are serving in Iraq giving such a speech with a straight face, you ask?

    Yes I can. And not only that, his accent would be very pronounced when he gave the speech.

  • The man is boxed in, but I have no sympathy because he chose to crawl into the damn box.

    My nomination for observation of the week.

  • Thinking “outside the box,” his path out is apparent – just stop with the Mormon shtick and become a Baptist.

    As I recall my “Big Love,” he has already had the adult dunking, so no problemo there.

  • fun site:

    “How Do I Join the Church?
    If you would like to have LDS missionaries visit you in your home, please call (U.S.) 1-800-453-3860 and ask for the Missionary Department. An easier and cheaper way to join is to do nothing. After you die, we’ll baptize you posthumously.”

    i’m really pulling for mutt now.

  • The need for Romeny to give a speech about his religion is because of the Religious Right not in spite of it. The religious right does not believe Mormons are Christians and therefore won’t vote for Romney strictly because of that; even though they share the same values as Romney.

    The conclusion that Romney can’t deliver a Kennedy speech with a straight face shows there is confusion about the issue. Romney’s speech is to a different audience for a different reason from Kennedy’s speech. Romeny’s speech will need to be centered on his values, his Christian beliefs and tolerance.

  • Romney would only have to clearly state that he recognizes the religious right as a political group supporting issues important to them, but not as a religious group…that religion has no place in government but their issues certainly belong.
    It’s all bullshit anyway…Romney will say anything to win the election. Sorry Mitt, but you will never be president, nor any of the other GOP yahoos. The republicans have to make a showing of it…their main mission is just to not make it too embarrassing for themselves. Romney is the King of phoney-baloneyism and will end up being the nominee because somebody has to do it.

  • Mitt Romney has rightly fallen victim to what can be called the Republicans’ “God Trap.” That is, running as “men of faith” to lead what many of its own members call “God’s Own Party,” Romney is being called on it.

    In 2006, the former Massachusetts governor told Fox News, “People in this country want a person of faith to lead them as their president.” On Tuesday, WHO radio host Jan Mickelson took him up on it, and questioned Romney (video here) about his Mormon faith. An agitated Romney complained he was not “running as a Mormon” and that Mickelson was “trying to tell me I’m not a faithful Mormon.”

    Romney, of course, brought this on himself. In a February 2007 interview in South Carolina, Romney acknowledged Americans’ natural curiosity about his faith. In May, Romney gave a graduation address at Pat Robertson’s Regent University, despite the latter’s past description of Mormonism as a “cult.” And just two weeks ago, Romney signaled he would likely follow in the footsteps of John F. Kennedy and deliver a major speech describing his Mormon faith and how it would inform his presidency:

    “I have thought about that. I haven’t made a final decision, but it’s probably more likely than not. It’s probably too early for something like that. At some point it’s more likely than not, but we’ll see how things develop.”

    In the interim, Romney’s refusal to answer questions he raised by his “person of faith” claim has left the field open to others. For example, the New Republic in its January 15th and 29th issues examined the impact of Mormon doctrine, including its tenet that the Second Coming of Christ will occur in the United States, upon a Romney presidency. Over at the National Review, Kathryn Jean Lopez tried to make Romney’s case for him. Meanwhile, the New York Times reported in June that as Romney tries to evade inquiries about his little-known faith, Mormons across the nation increasingly find themselves under the microscope.

    For more details, see:
    “Romney, Giuliani and the Republicans’ God Trap.”

  • Can you imagine Romney giving a speech like this with a straight face?

    If he did, he should definitely deliver his speech down in Texas as Kennedy did, where the state Republican party pledged in 2002, as part of it’s official platform, “to do everything within its power to dispel the myth of separation of church and state.”

  • Giving Kennedy’s speech should be REQUIRED by all of the current candidates in all parties. Anyone that cannot give this speech and mean it, cannot uphold the oath of office.

    Don’t get me wrong, I respect religion, but the Founding Fathers made it clear that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of our government.

  • where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference

    Yaaaayy!!!!! I’m voting for Kennedy.

    Maybe he’ll dismantle the unconstitutional “Faith-Based Initiative” that Shrub iimplemented to buy off his fundamentalist cronies.

  • The last time someone said to a candidate “You’re no Jack Kennedy” they were booed out of the debate by an otherwise quiet audience and subsequently lost their bid for the whitehouse (albeit the VP spot) – Remember Dan Quayle?

    I suppose I wouldn’t want Mitt to be a Jack anyway; Jack was just a polygamist who didn’t get married to any of the rest of them (ie: Norma Jean AKA Marylin Monroe)

  • I’d like someone to publicly ask Romney if he truly believes that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel named Moroni.

  • The problem with the evangelical right is that they simply don’t understand the hypocrisy of their stance with regard to Romney and Mormonism. They cry about the liberal left not recognizing the validity of their religious concerns; they claim that people should not refuse to vote for Brownback because he is a Baptist, but to those who don’t accept orthodox, literal Christianity, Baptist beliefs are just as fanciful as Mormon beliefs. JW in #17 is a great example of this phenomenon – those who would ask Romney about the angels he believes appeared to Joseph Smith but would never think to ask the same thing to every other Christian candidate (Republican and Democrat) about the angels recorded as having visited Mary and others in the Bible.

    If evangelicals (and anyone else, for that matter) refuse to vote for Romney because of the strange aspects of his religion, then they are establishing a precedent to vote against any person of any religious faith. It would be incredibly ironic if “believers” were excluded from the Presidency because of the actions and example and litmus test of those screaming the most vocally for religious values to play a role in the choice of the President. It would serve them right.

  • just a reply to Steve @ 2:

    Well no, JFK didn’t have to deal with Lee Harvey Oswald since he had little to do with the events that fateful day.

    A little perhaps. ‘hey Lee, you wanna be a lookout for when we catch the plotters?’ Some double or triple game we’ll never understand. But no more.

  • Comments are closed.