Romney tells the faithful what they want to hear

All eyes were on Mitt Romney at yesterday’s Values Voter Summit (a.k.a. PanderFest 2007), with the former Massachusetts governor anxious to win over the religious right. How’d he do? It’s a challenge for a Mormon candidate to overcome evangelical skepticism, but Romney told the faithful — by one count, there were nearly 3,000 attendees at the event — exactly what they wanted to hear.

“Parenthood is the ultimate career for which all other careers exist.”

“The American family is under stress. Is under attack. Ann and I are going to use the bully pulpit to teach Americans that before they have babies, they should get married.”

“As president, I will realign government incentives to encourage marriage.”

“A federal amendment is the only way we can protect marriage from liberal, unelected judges.”

“I will oppose tax payer funding of abortion, oppose partial birth abortion … ban cloning … and raise awareness about embryonic adoption, or snow flake babies.”

“It will be one strike and you’re ours” for pedophiles on the internet — “long prisons sentences, and if you get out, it means an ankle bracelet for the rest of your life.”

“I will ensure that every family has health care — without new taxes, without Hilarycare, without socialized medicine.”

Romney quoted C.S. Lewis, and avoided foreign policy. He spoke of defending “America’s religious heritage,” while brushing off concerns about Mormonism with a joke about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. In short, Romney promised the crowd everything, which is exactly what they demand.

The underlying motivations here are pretty obvious. Romney wants the foot-soldiers the religious right offers, recognizes the significance of social conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina, and figures that support from the Dobson crowd will make this a two-man race between Romney and Giuliani.

Theocons seem to have been slowly coalescing around Romney of late, and at a minimum, he didn’t hurt his chances yesterday.

Oh, and what about Fred Thompson? I spoke to several people who were on hand for the event yesterday, and everyone agreed that they were amazed at how awful he is on the stump.

[Thompson] spoke with his chin often buried in his chest, his voice largely monotone, and he cleared his throat or coughed repeatedly, prompting some to wonder if he might be ill.

“He didn’t look good,” said Ronald Sell, 63, a musician from New York City.

Mr. Sell said he initially had high hopes for Mr. Thompson but left disappointed and wondering why as an actor, Mr. Thompson did not “at least have his lines memorized.”

“If he was the candidate, we’d be in trouble,” Mr. Sell said.

As the NYT’s Gail Collins put it, “Thompson’s tendency to look down and read his remarks provided the audience with some of the most prolonged views of the top of a bald politician’s head in recent history. When you feel compelled to use an index card for lines like, ‘We must have good laws. We must do our best to stop bad laws,’ you have been spending too much of your life filming 30-second bits of dialogue.”

“I will ensure that every family has health care — without new taxes, without Hilarycare, without socialized medicine.”

And just HOW does he intend to do that??? That has got to be the classic pander of all time… promise something good, avoid saying how you’ll accomplish it, and hit THREE hot button buzzwords at the same time. Truly amazing.

The depths of this man’s shallowness are breathaking.

  • ‘We must have good laws. We must do our best to stop bad laws.’

    Huh? Perhaps Thompson was misquoted. Maybe he said:

    ‘We must have good dogs. We must do our best to stop bad dogs.’

    Makes about as much sense either way.

  • As a former mormon, I can unequivocally say that the religion has had a goal of mainstream acceptance for decades. What better way to get that than to have a mormon president? IMHO, any self-professed, devout mormon is suspect. The heirarchy of the mormon church has much greater control over its members than the pope has over his catholics.

    Needless to say, I don’t like Romney at all. He’s a smarmy, self-serving egoist. I like his church even less.

    I didn’t mean for this to be a diatribe, but somehow it is. Oh, well. Que sera, sera.

  • Romney is dangerous.

    He strapped a dog to the top of his car and drove for 12 hours, never attending to the dog until he was alerted to its distress by dog diarrhea streaming down the car windows.

    And how do we know Romney doesn’t have six secret wives? What’s that crazy look in his eye all about?

    Damn it! Somebody dig something up about him!! He plans on pulling female votes from Clinton! Stop him!!

  • If “Too-Slick” Mitt Romney overtakes Rudy Giuliani, Middle Americans will be predisposed to vote Democratic; if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, social conservatives will sit home or go third party. Nonetheless, Giuliani would be a tougher opponent for the Democrats in my opinion.

  • Well, I don’t object on principle to quoting C. S. Lewis (I’ve done it myself on occasion) but I do think a president ought to have a foreign policy of some sort (perhaps Mitt means simply to continue Bush’s foreign policy of threatening everyone and blowing things up — that always wins friends).

  • Defining “Mitt the Ripper:”

    “Parenthood is the ultimate career for which all other careers exist.”

    If someone who’s not married wants to keep their job, they’ll get married and produce vast legions of indoctrinated cannon fodder for the Reskunklican “Forever War.” If you get divorced, you’ll have a set period to find a new spouse and start procreating again; same thing if your spouse dies. No exceptions whatsoever. Once you’re too old to make babies—and all your children are grown and gone from the nest—it’s the Soylent Green proccessing chamber for you….

    “The American family is under stress. Is under attack. Ann and I are going to use the bully pulpit to teach Americans that before they have babies, they should get married.”

    Look for domestic reeducation facilities. Russians refer to them as “gulags.” Germany once referred to them as concentration camps. They had a realkly big one in the Poland area—called it “Auschwitz.”

    “As president, I will realign government incentives to encourage marriage.”

    Once you’re old enough to get married, either you do—or we’ll lay a great big tax on you. We won’t call it a tax, though—we’ll call it a “marriage incentive.”

    “A federal amendment is the only way we can protect marriage from liberal, unelected judges.”

    Once enough of the people have been reeducated, we’ll pass the Lederal Litmus Test Act.

    “I will oppose tax payer funding of abortion, oppose partial birth abortion … ban cloning … and raise awareness about embryonic adoption, or snow flake babies.”

    I will employ Taliban-esque governing policies.

    “It will be one strike and you’re ours” for pedophiles on the internet — “long prisons sentences, and if you get out, it means an ankle bracelet for the rest of your life.”

    Unless you’re a Republican, of course.

    “I will ensure that every family has health care — without new taxes, without Hilarycare, without socialized medicine.”

    Look for the national Insurance Police to appear at your door late in the evening. They will wear floppy hats, leather trenchcoats, and ask for your papers. If you do not have the right amount of insurance protection for your family, you will be taken to the nearest reeducation facility.

    Domestic extraordinary rendition good. Constitution bad. 2+2=5. Drink the koolaid.

    Oh—and before I forget to stoke the agitative fires beneath the Thombo psychophantic faithful—UnAware Fred is beyond Unaware. I must now refer to him as UberUnAware Fred. He somehow thinks that he’s on radio. He spends more time looking at the damned microphone than he does his audience.

    Also—it is said that when (B) a man cannot look you in the eye when he is talking to you, he is (C) a batshit-lying fiend. UnAware Fred ( referred to as A) constantly demonstrates (B) the inability to look his audience in the eye. If B=C, and A=B, then what do we say about A and C? Can you say A=C, boys and girls?

    Good. I knew you could….

  • Liberals love to leave comments on conservative blogs. I’m an ex-mormon, dog loving, Massachussets conservative and I can say Mitt Romney would make a brilliant president. He is perhaps the most itelligent candidate that we have had for years. He loves dogs despite what is said and when he took his dog on a trip it was perfectly safe in their animal carrier, protected from rain and weather just the same as it might have been in the back of a truck or inside the vehicle. As an ex-mormon, I can tell you just as well that they allow each person perfect freedom to express their political or religious views. A member can even disagree with the church on any doctrinal issue without regard of criticism as long as they don’t open teach against the church, then they are in trouble.

    Mitt Romney is an easy choice for me. He would do an awesome job.

  • Here, Steve, let me fix this for you:

    “It will be one strike and you’re ours” for pedophiles on the internet — “long prisons sentences, and if you get out, it means an ankle bracelet for the rest of your life.”

    Unless you’re a Republican, of course. Or a Catholic priest.

    Fixed.

    Scott R, you might be right (about Mitt being a great president, not about being the smartest candidate – he isn’t anywhere near Obama, who was Harvard Law Review, or Clinton, who was once in American Lawyer’s Top 100 Lawyers in the US). Mitt might do a great job if he ran the country like the person he was in Massachusetts where you came to like him: bipartisan, moderate on social issues, progressive on health care, pragmatic. But that isn’t the Mitt that is running for President. Mitt 2.0 is highly partisan, attacks Dems who espouse the same health care plan he sponsored as Governor, panders shamelessly, and has done a 180 to hardcore fundie positions on social issues, and is the opposite of pragmatic, denying reason and rationality for silly right-wing buzzwords. The New Mitt would not be anywhere near as effective as the Old Mitt, and would be a patently lousy President.

  • Scott R said:

    A member can even disagree with the church on any doctrinal issue without regard of criticism as long as they don’t open[ly] teach against the church, then they are in trouble.

    You prove my point with your statement.

    Even though I was a “good mormon” in my adolescence, I thought my younger sister should have had an abortion when she got pregnant as a junion in high school. In retrospect, I’m glad she didn’t, because I love the nephew I have as a result. But I would still have the same feeling today, if the situation repeated itself. If I had made those feelings generally known at the time (when I was a “good mormon”), I would probably have been excommunicated. As it happened, when I came out as a gay man, I asked to be excommunicated because I didn’t want to be associated with any organization that thought I was evil simply because of who I am. To this day, I have not been. The church does like to inflate its numbers, after all.

    If you openly display opposition to the church’s positions, you can expect several visits from the home teachers and a special meeting with your local bishopric.

  • “As president, I will realign government incentives to encourage marriage.”

    Marriage isn’t an inherently good thing, as Romney implies here. For various reasons, some couples (emphasizing the word “some”) should not get married.

  • Mitt’s church, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has been often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers in the past . . Some accused the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . .

    http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity’s theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. Mitt’s church believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, who prayed to his Father in Heaven in the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Jesus portrayed in the creeds of the 4th Century.

    The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian (New Testament) theology more closely than other Christian denominations. . Perhaps the reason Evangelical preachers promoted this mis-representation was to protect their flock (and their livlihood). It is encouraging to note that Evangelical preachers appear now to have a moral and competent president as a priority..

  • Mitt’s church believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, who prayed to his Father in Heaven in the Garden of Gethsemane

    Did you ever wonder how that whole scene came to be written about, since all Jesus’ guys were sleeping at the time? How did anybody know what happened then to write about it later? Likewise with Jesus’ time in the wilderness when Satan came to tempt him. Etc. ad absurdum. It’s like Ronald Reagan’s old story about the bomber pilot and what he said before he crashed. Just as believable.

  • Pingback: Atheist Revolution
  • Comments are closed.