Contrary to advice from David Brody, Romney seems not keen at all about describing with any specificity -even any generality- his faith. This I think is perfectly appropriate under most circumstances but neatly highlights the dilemma he faces. If : 1)he says his faith informs who he is and all he does and 2) his faith is not one most are familiar with (and some are downright uncomfortable with) can he simultaneously say ” but I’m not going to tell you anything about my faith”? Well sure he can say it, but with such an approach whose minds will he put at ease? Likely, people who already think religion shouldn’t be a factor or people who have satisfied themselves that Mormonism is not a “cult” were fine with him before and will be fine afterwards. I share James’ head scratching about what Romney can/should say that will not be off putting or pablum. UPDATE: Given four days to mull this over the press has begun to discuss, even if Romney won’t, the ways in which Mormonism “diverges from conventional Christianity” and the differences between Romney’s and JFK’s situation ( “Kennedy could take for granted that Americans understood Catholicism, whereas few understand Mormonism. And Roman Catholics make up a large portion of the population.”) Perhaps a Sunday announcement for a Tuesday speech would have cut short some of this.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?