Deja Vu?

When Rudy Giuliani decided to skip the traditionally important contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina in favor of a strategy focusing on big states like Florida, New York, and California, nobody knew whether he was making a brilliant move or the biggest mistake of his life. After Giuliani's candidacy imploded in Florida due to a lack of momentum, it became clear that it was the latter.

Using 20/20 hindsight, we can see the obvious reason for Giuliani's strategic failure. Simply stated, winning is a good thing. When voters across the country see someone losing pathetically in state after state, he gets branded as a loser, even if he wasn't really trying to win those states in the first place. And no one wants to vote for a loser.

Apparently, Hillary Clinton didn't get the memo.

After mediocre results on not-so-super Tuesday, and decisive defeats in places as varied as Washington state and Washington DC, it's getting harder and harder for Hillary to poise herself as the inevitable nominee. But she's still trying to do just that.

As each loss rolls in, the Clinton campaign haughtily dismisses them:

The state was too black.
Too white.
Too red.
Too blue.
That state? She was planning on losing that one.

But regardless of how she spins the latest round of losses, Hillary can't sweep them under the rug. They're still losses. They still hurt. And slowly but surely, they're undermining her frontrunner status.

Did I say undermining? Allow me to correct myself: they have undermined her frontrunner status.

Obama now leads Hillary by around 100 pledged delegates -- delegates selected democratically through primaries and caucuses. Hillary still retains her lead among super delegates, high-ranking members of the Democratic party who can change sides whenever they want to, but even when these delegates are added to Hillary's column, Obama has a 22 delegate lead.

More importantly, Obama has momentum on his side. Following his majestic sweep of the Chesapeake bay primary contests yesterday, Obama can claim a grand total of 8 wins in a row. When Hawaii and Wisconsin vote next Tuesday, that number is expected to rise to ten. Needless to say, Hillary has plenty to worry about.

In fact, Hillary only has one path to victory open to her: landslides in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, three delegate-rich states she currently leads in.

But in a presidential race where double-digit leads have evaporated overnight, betting an entire campaign on a few big states is a risky strategy.

Just ask Rudy Giuliani.

Et Tu, Coulter?

The story of John McCain's life has always been full of drama, but now that McCain seems to be the clear frontrunner in the race for the Republican nomination, some people are determined to turn it into a Shakespearean tragedy. Namely, Julius Caesar. Frightened by the thought of an ambitious, moderate Senator like John McCain seizing the leadership of the American Empire, a veritable who's who of the conservative movement has gathered to plunge their verbal daggers into McCain's political chest.

The first stab came from Rush Limbaugh, who proclaimed that a McCain nomination would spell the end of the Republican party as we know it. Ann Coulter, refusing to be outdone, proclaimed that she would campaign for Hillary if McCain became the Republican nominee. Talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingrahm have openly endorsed Mitt Romney, a step that blogger/talk show host Hugh Hewitt had already taken months ago.

All of them cite the same reason for their fervent opposition: John McCain is a Kennedy-hugging liberal.

There's nothing wrong with opposing a candidate you disagree with, but the recent flurry of anti-McCain vitriol has a disingenuous ring to it. For eight years, the same conservative commentators who are currently heaping contempt on John McCain have continuously defended a man with strikingly similar positions: George W. Bush.

The notorious McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law? Bush signed it.

The even-more-notorious McCain-Kennedy immigration reform law? Bush supported it.

On the issue of taxes, it's true that McCain sided with the Democrats against Bush's tax cut packages in 2001 and 2003 -- but it's also true that McCain has a strong history of battling pork barrel spending, while President Bush has passed hundreds of pork-laden bills without the slightest threat of a veto. That's not to mention the fact that John McCain now supports making the Bush tax cuts permanent. It may be a flip-flop, but Mitt Romney, McCain's only viable opponent at this point, has more than a few of those in his recent past.

And yes, John McCain vehemently opposes torture -- something he personally endured in Vietnam. But if conservatives have become so out of touch with basic decency that support for torture is considered a positive thing, call me a liberal.

The reality of the situation is that when you look at the respective political records of President Bush and Presidential candidate McCain, they both have roughly the same number of liberal and conservative positions. If conservatives want to raise a ruckus about a moderate Republican getting a shot at the White House, they ought to apply the same standards to the moderate Republican who already occupies the place.

Today, Republicans in 24 states will decide for themselves who they want to represent their party on election day. If Mitt Romney goes down in flames, a score of vocal conservative commentators will have two courses of action to choose from: they can swallow their pride and support a Republican they detest in order to stop the Democratic nominee, or they can keep beating up on John McCain and pave the way for President Hillary or Obama. Something tells me that there'll be more than a few talk show hosts eating crow on February 6th.

Unfortunately, if Romney does pull off a miraculous victory, we'll all have to suffer through hours of talk radio gloating on the subject. No matter who wins, America always seems to lose.

McComeback.

John McCain is old, and no matter how much he tries, he can't hide it. His signature "straight-talk" is often punctuated with faltering pauses and misspoken words. He seems to blink too much, uses stiff-looking hand gestures, and has a nasty habit of repeating himself. When you add it all together, you get a man who isn't exactly the most dynamic politician this side of Howard Dean.

And no one can deny that McCain is a polarizing figure in Republican politics. He co-authored a campaign finance reform bill that activists from both sides of the political spectrum view as a threat to the first amendment. He supported a doomed immigration reform bill that became synonymous with amnesty on conservative talk shows across the country. He supports embryonic stem-cell research, and has called fundamentalist preachers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance", gestures that have alienated many Evangelical Christians. Given this track record, it's obvious that while journalists and independents often swoon for McCain, he certainly doesn't invite a whole lot of conservative Republican lovin'.

It's no wonder that just a few months ago, McCain's campaign was losing money and staff members like a sinking ship, and dozens of commentators -- including myself -- lined up to proclaim his candidacy officially dead.

Then the New Hampshire primary came along, and McCain emerged victorious. This wasn't entirely surprising, since he won the state by a handy margin eight years ago, and still has a devoted independent following in the state. But nevertheless, the win jolted his campaign back to life.

Four days ago in South Carolina, McCain added another notch to his rusty sword. Unlike his previous victory, McCain's South Carolina success wasn't what media-types would call inevitable. In 2000, South Carolina's powerful evangelical voting bloc derailed McCain's seemingly-unstoppable momentum, setting events in motion that would lead to the nomination of George W. Bush later that year. This time around, it seems that the fickle voters of South Carolina decided to propel McCain to front-runner status. McCain now has the lead in multiple national polls; narrow leads to be sure, but leads nonetheless.

But why McCain? Don't most Republicans hate the guy?

Yes, a lot of them do. But in a field full of candidates with murky pasts and offensive positions, McCain may be seen as the lesser of five evils.

Think of McCain as the anti-Romney. Mitt Romney looks presidential, occasionally sounds presidential, tows the party line perfectly on everything from gun control to immigration, and unlike twice-married McCain, Mitt Romney has a squeaky-clean family that looks like it could have popped right out of Norman Rockwell's imagination. In short, he should be the ideal Republican candidate. Except for one little thing: a couple years ago, he was a completely different man. He was pro-abortion, pro-gay boy scout leaders, and pro a bunch of other things that conservatives tend to despise. His better-homes-and-gardens wife? A planned parenthood donor. His perfection is an awkward plastic mask that thousands can see right through.

McCain, on the other hand, is unapologetically unorthodox. On the campaign trail, he can be found speaking about global warming and what the government can do to halt it. He still refuses to back down from his stance on illegal immigration in the face of constant attacks from his opponents in general, and Mitt Romney in particular. Waiting for McCain to renounce his support for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act? Keep waiting. One thing's for certain: John McCain's a fighter, and he isn't choosy when it comes to who he picks his fights with. And maybe -- just maybe -- people prefer a fighter with real flaws to a perfect phony.

In politics, sincerity, real or perceived, goes a long way. At the end of the day, every voter will have some beef with every candidate on certain issues. This is definitely the case in the current Republican primary race, where the key players are a thrice-married liberal mayor, an ex-liberal Mormon, a socially-conservative, but economically liberal baptist preacher, and an iconoclastic Senator. When you don't agree with anyone on everything, trust becomes the key factor. A lot of Republicans may have problems with some of the things McCain stands for, but they may appreciate the simple fact that he appears to actually stand for something.

As a bonus, John McCain's independent streak helps him rake in more independent votes than any other Republican candidate. Where conservatives see flawed positions, moderates see positions that look a lot like the one's they'd take. And for McCain, the apparently stabilizing situation in Iraq is helping turn his unflinching support for the "surge" from a liability to an asset among rank-and-file Americans. Electability has always been a major concern when it comes to picking a man (or woman) to run for president, so if McCain maintains his stellar record of winning independent votes, you can bet that more than a few GOP politicos will be giving McCain a second look.

The race is still fluid. In the past few months, dead candidates have come to life, and former front-runners have been left in the dust. Between now and the Republican convention in September, just about anything could happen. But with the February 5th "Super Tuesday" primaries edging closer, the window of opportunity for a candidate to emerge as a clear front-runner is rapidly closing. If McCain can win Florida next Tuesday -- a formidable task, he just might get the momentum he needs to clinch the nomination. If not, who knows?

---

As a side note, I'd like to remind everyone that Rudy Giuliani is still running. Remember him? The bald guy with the lisp? After abandoning his original strategy of "winning through victory", his campaign has decided to shift tactics to the ever-so-stealthy "winning through total defeat". So far, everything seems to be going according to plan.

Crying All The Way To The White-House.

Just one short week ago, every media outlet was repeating the same story: Hillary had no chance in New Hampshire, and no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton, the once inevitable candidate, had finally fallen. In Iowa, New Hampshire and all across the nation, people were looking for a candidate who could shake things up in Washington, and another Clinton wasn't who they had in mind.

The polls agreed. It seemed that every passing hour brought yet another poll showing Barack Obama widening his lead over his sinking opponent. It was obvious that he had the nomination clinched.

And then, the people of New Hampshire went to the polls, and the reigning conventional wisdom hit the ground like an over-ripe honeydew melon.

What happened?

If you believe the hype, Hillary managed to snag gold in New Hampshire because she displayed startlingly realistic, Oprah-style emotions in front of a live audience. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, get yourself a pack of maximum strength tylenol, pour yourself a glass of the strong alcoholic and/or caffeinated beverage of your choice, and fix your eyes on the video below. (Note: the question Hillary is responding to is "how do you do it?")




If you gag at the sight of Hillary Clinton coming to the brink of tears as she talks about how passionate she is about America, I'm right there with you. In fact, when I first saw the video, I was so sold on the idea that it would damage the Clinton campaign that I planned on including it in a future post about Obama's New Hampshire victory. But that victory never emerged, and that video is now being touted as the secret to Clinton's stunning success.

According to the popular theory, Hillary's emotional monologue allowed her to connect with female voters, who happen to make up about 50% of the American electorate. And when John Edwards cast himself as the oppressive white patriarch by ever-so-subtly suggesting that a true leader should be tough, her good fortune only increased. The enraged women of New Hampshire supposedly turned out in droves to defend a sister in need, providing her with the razor thin victory she so desperately needed.

If that analysis is correct -- and if Hillary gets the nomination -- things could take a turn for the weird in the general election. Before New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton deliberately ran a gender neutral campaign, which, as I previously noted, made her into an unappealing candidate. But she had a reason for doing this. By running as a bland, emotionless women, she obviously thought that she would alienate fewer people than she would if she went totally aggressive (stereotypical masculine behavior) or totally soft (stereotypical feminine behavior). When she was finally dethroned in Iowa, she knew she had to change her strategy, and change it fast. So, she took a chance and decided to play the gender card, hoping to nab key female voters even at the risk of losing male voters -- who were already abandoning her. Apparently, it worked. If this strategy continues on into November, the presidential election could turn into the battle of the sexes played out on the national stage. Is that really what the Democratic party wants? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

But there is another theory that may have a bit of truth to it, and it's one that suggests a brighter future for the Republicans than many suspect. The theory is rooted in the following simple facts: in New Hampshire, independents can choose to vote in either the Republican or the Democratic primaries -- and New Hampshire is a swing state, where independents are the majority. On the Republican side of the equation, McCain has always attracted large numbers of independents who adore his "maverick" positions. Barack Obama, who has consistently lagged behind HIllary among party-members, also depends heavily on independent support. On Tuesday, McCain was predictably carried to victory by his independent base. Obama, on the other hand, was not. Could it be that McCain stole Obama's victory by drawing away independents who would've normally voted in the Democratic primary? It's certainly a possibility, and if it's even partially true, Democrats should be afraid. Very, very, afraid. That is, if the Republicans nominate McCain. The millions of independents scattered across the country are the people who ultimately decide elections, and if an independent magnet like McCain goes up against a polarizing candidate like Clinton, the Republicans might actually have a shot at securing the white-house for four more years.

On an even brighter note, by the time McCain dies in office, our constitution will be amended to extend the right to run for president to our foreign-born citizens. Then we can all sit back and enjoy the bi-partisan bliss of the Schwarzenegger administration, a veritable golden-age in which we'll see Mexico annexed, Mars colonized, and seal-clubbing made into a government-approved recreational activity. Don't be environmental girlie men!

Just Remember: No Matter Who Wins In the End, Huckabee Will Still Be A Funny Word.

Like the highly convoluted plot of Pirates of the Caribbean 3, the Iowa caucus is something that makes less sense the more you think about it. Why are candidates from both parties forced to spend months pandering to the citizens of a rural state that only enters into the national consciousness every four years? From an objective viewpoint, this seems like an incredibly flawed arrangement: Iowa certainly isn't a cross-section of the American people as a whole, and the disproportionate influence wielded by farmers in the area ensures that candidates from both parties commit to the maintenance and expansion of farm subsidies that were created to pull the country out of the great depression. But for all these flaws, there remains a simple, logical reason for the prominence of the Iowa caucuses in the presidential election process: dude, it's the Iowa caucus.

Sure, It may be unfair that a handful of politically active people in Iowa get to shape the course of presidential elections, while the residents of neighboring states like Nebraska languish in the darkness of their ridiculously late primaries, but that's just the way things are. The political powers-that-be know better than to mess with a system that's been zealously defended by stubborn Iowans for over three decades; rumor has it that the last RNC chairman to challenge Iowa's first-in-the-nation status was found floating face-down in the missouri river, his lifeless body riddled with mysteriously corn-cob-like markings. So, in the spirit of the election season, it's time to turn off your brain, and turn on the speculation about the winners of this dubious contest.

On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee proved that the so-called Hucka-boom isn't about to fizzle out just yet. Even after sustaining heavy fire from Romney's well-funded attack machine, and apparently turning the other cheek, the Huckster managed to clobber his opponent with a nine-point victory. But despite this hard-earned success, many doubt that Huckabee's considerable powers of persuasion will carry him all the way to the Republican nomination, let alone the white-house. The logical side of my brain agrees with that assessment; but then again, the logical side of my brain once proclaimed that Huckabee would inevitably fade away as soon as Fred Thompson entered the race, a prediction that has been proven dead wrong in recent months. Even though poll-obsessed political junkies like myself wish that presidential races could be predicted using simple equations, politics is ultimately about people. And if there's anything you can be sure about in the topsy-turvy world of presidential politics, it's this: a lot of people like Mike.

But not everyone likes Mike. Influential conservative voices as varied as The National Review, The Club For Growth, and the all-knowing Maha Rushi have accused Huckabee of being a pseudo-conservative when it comes to little things like taxes, spending, and the need to shrink government; issues that have been the bedrock of the conservative movement since the days of Barry Goldwater. Unfortunately, the facts appear to back up these accusations. While Huckabee's commitment to key social issues like abortion and gay marriage is unquestionable, his record as governor of Arkansas seems to display a lack of commitment to the vital conservative principle of little government. There's nothing wrong with having a big heart, but sadly, people with big hearts tend to advocate a similarly sized government. Governor Huckabee was no exception.

The modern Republican party has always been a sometimes-awkward amalgamation of social and fiscal conservatives, but if Mike Huckabee manages to capitalize on his victory in Iowa and march all the way to the nomination, the unity of the Republican party could be at stake. For the past eight years, libertarian leaning Republicans have had to put up with a Republican president who preaches consistent conservatism but refuses to restrain federal growth in any meaningful way. Judging by his record, Huckabee would bring more of the same. But even at his most "compassionate", Bush's rhetoric has never approached the almost anti-business tone of Huckabee's heartland populism. To many old-guard conservatives, a Huckabee nomination could be perceived as the final insult from a party that's taken them for granted for far too long. Is a schism inevitable if Huckabee gets nominated? Maybe not. Is it possible? Definitely. If both major party candidates lean towards further government expansion, there just might be an opening for a third-party conservative candidate to enter the race and siphon votes away from the Republican nominee. The third party candidate wouldn't win -- or even come close -- but he might damage the Republicans enough to force the party to shift a little more to the right.

Nonetheless, the strength of Huckabee's natural charisma should not be underestimated. He may look a lot like Bush on certain issues, but he's also one of the smoothest-talking politicians in recent history, a label you probably won't find in a single account of Bush's political career. The man can talk -- and better yet, he can appear sincere at will. If anyone can verbally soothe disgruntled party-members into an obedient stupor, Mike Huckabee can.

Or can he? A painstaking New York Times account of his term as governor came to a different conclusion:

He is also remembered in the state for a style of governing that tended to freeze out anyone of any party who disagreed with his plans. He did not, for example, seek Mr. Clinton’s conciliatory middle, or try to court skeptical state lawmakers. Though he was considered as persuasive a speechmaker as he had been a pastor, Mr. Huckabee largely kept his own counsel — in politics, ethics and a singular clemency policy that continues to haunt him.

“Huckabee didn’t build bridges,” said State Senator Jim Argue Jr., a Democrat and leader in the schools overhaul effort. “If you didn’t agree with him, he attacked you.” Jake Files, a former Republican state representative, recalled that the governor would call lawmakers into his office and state his plans. “Kind of like getting called to the principal’s office,” Mr. Files said. “If you don’t line up with him, Katie bar the door.”

Still, Huckabee doesn't have the nomination clinched just yet. In New Hampshire, a state with far fewer evangelical voters, McCain is widely regarded as a major threat to Huckabee's momentum. And all this speculation about the early primary and caucus results ignores the heavyweight lurking in the corner: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani never planned to win Iowa and New Hampshire. Ultimately, the man who gets the nomination will be the man who has the most delegates at the convention-- and coincidentally, Iowa and New Hampshire don't have a whole lot of those. Giuliani knows this, and is choosing to focus his strategy on the delegate-rich states of California, Florida, and New York. Those are the races that really matter on the road to Minneapolis, and they could easily upset what the media is currently painting as a Romney vs. Huckabee race. As always, it ain't over til' it's over.

As for the Democrats, I think I'll wait and see what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday before I do a write up of Obama. Mainly because I'm lazy -- not quite as lazy as the Thompson campaign, but still.

2007 Christmas Spectacular!

Cruel and Unusual?


If there's one thing the Christmas season could do with a little bit less of, it's those ridiculous Santa hats that people wear. Let's be honest: they're just not funny. At best, they're incredibly tacky, and slightly creepy. But are they cruel?

Apparently, if the wearer is a Beluga whale, the answer is yes. Not satisfied with protesting actual acts of animal cruelty, a few animal advocates have trained their sights on a particularly egregious threat to the dignity of animals everywhere: a japanese aquarium that places tiny Santa hats on the heads of its performing Belugas:

It's a scene that brings laughter and cheers from visitors to a Japanese aquarium - two white beluga whales wearing Santa hats. But environmentalists are saddened by the sight of what they say is the final humiliation for the whale in a country that hunts them down with harpoons.
...
While the white belugas are entertaining the crowds, their humpback cousins are facing a brutal end in cold storage at the hands of Japanese whalers in Antarctica.
...
Wildlife officials say the display of the white belugas wearing Santa hats is both sad and ironic against the background of the Antarctic hunts, due to start in the region after Christmas. "While whales are being used for entertainment in Japan, the Japanese fleet is subjecting whales to a cruel death in the Southern Ocean," said Mr Darren Kindleysides, a Sydney-based campaigner for the International Fund for Wildlife. "Sadly, the aquarium owners seem to be showing as little respect for whales as their Government."

I haven't extensively studied the thought-patterns of small arctic whales, so there's always a chance that the whale-huggers could be right. Perhaps Beluga whales are incredibly self-conscious creatures who die a little every time their wicked task-masters force them to don festive holiday headgear.

But, in the spirit of full disclosure, I have to admit that -- despite my disdain for Santa hats in general -- those lil' Santa hat wearing Belugas are probably the most adorable things I've seen all year. How can something that looks so right be so wrong?

A Very Merry (Huckabee) Christmas

On a slightly less adorable note, newly-minted Republican frontrunner Mike Huckabee wants you to have a merry Christmas, and he's got a heart-warming video to prove it:




Is that suspiciously cross-like windowpane in the background a coded message to evangelical voters? Probably not. But Ron Paul seems to think it's a harbinger of fascism:





The friendly Fox News guy is right: Mike Huckabee isn't a fascist. He's just a nice politician trying to spread Christmas cheer across key battleground states. Maybe Ron Paul's just ticked off by the fact that his Scrooge-esque mountains of cash have hardly put a dent in his opponents' poll-numbers, while Huckabee's managed to take the lead in Iowa (and the nation) with a paltry sum that could hardly purchase a decent Christmas goose. I guess elections just bring out the humbug in everyone.

Aren't They Into That Polygamy Thing?

There's something you have to know about Mitt Romney. It's something scandalous, earthshaking, and it just might freak you out of your pants. You see, unlike the devout men who've sought the nation's highest office in the past, Mitt Romney refuses to adhere to an orthodox flavor of Christianity.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon.

Please, feel free to snap out of that state of shock anytime you like. Really.

Not surprised? Then you're not alone. Even your distant, generally non-political relatives you sometimes see during important holidays have probably heard something about Mitt Romney's unusual "faith tradition", and what it means for his candidacy. All this discussion is certainly warranted, considering the fact that there are polls showing that over 50% of the important evangelical voting bloc won't even consider voting for a Mormon candidate -- even if he lines up with them on the issues. Unfortunately, one particularly important voice has been missing from the discussion: Mitt Romney's.

While it would be unfair to say that he's completely avoided the issue, Mitt has displayed a tendency to skirt around the so-called "religious question", refusing to confront it head-on. Up until now, just about all the statements Mitt's made about Mormonism have come as responses to often hostile questions from potential voters, which pop up frequently at "Ask Mitt Anything" events across the country. His typical formula for answering such questions looks something like this:

(A) Emphasize the importance of religious tolerance
(B) Assert that Mormonism is the same thing as Christianity
(C) Avoid any follow up questions.

This is hardly satisfactory. Whether he likes it or not, the questions surrounding Mitt Romney's religion matter to thousands of key voters he'll need to win over in the months to come. By refusing to talk in detail about his faith, and the role it plays in his personal life and public service, Mitt has insulted the intelligence of voters across the country, and made himself look like a weasel.

So, when the news broke last week that Mitt would be giving a speech specifically addressing the religious question, there was enough speculation to fill the Great Salt Lake Basin. Would he try to explain the oft-confusing doctrines of the LDS church? Would he reassure everyone that polygamy would remain illegal under a Romney administration? Would he plagiarize Kennedy's "Running as an American, not as a Catholic" speech? Would he merely repeat the same things he's been saying for the past year, but with more words?

On Thursday, we finally got all the answers, and there weren't a whole lot of surprises in the bunch. The speech was essentially a juggling act put on to win over evangelical voters, with Mitt Romney trying to advance two seemingly contradictory main points: that his Mormonism does not define his candidacy or dictate his policies, but that "faith" is an integral part of American life, and should be allowed to shape activities in the public sphere. For anyone who was expecting a lengthy discourse on the location of the planet Kolob, the speech was a massive dissapointment:

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.
...
There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it's more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.
...
Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world. There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.
...
We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America -- the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'
...
The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be -- You can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion -- rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

Obviously, there were a few noticeable flaws in Romney's logic -- like all the talk about the validity of all faiths, while consistently referring to a singular Almighty, which almost certainly offended all the Hindu Republicans out there. But overall, Romney's message came out loud and clear: "Yes, I'm a Mormon, but it's totally cool. I'm not controlled by a bunch of nuts in Salt Lake City. I share your values, and I like Jesus. I also like religious freedom, and keeping God in the pledge of allegience. Please vote for me instead of Huckabee. Please."

Will this message impact the presidential race? Probably not. Most of what was said in the speech had already been said during previous events. Evangelicals who view Mitt Romney as an evil cult member with awesome hair will be unswayed by high-minded rhetoric about the importance of religious freedom. It might even hurt Mitt Romney, by drawing attention to one of his weakest points so close to the Primary season.

What do I think of it all? To be perfectly honest, I think Mitt Romney has so many problems besides his religion, that the "religious question" ain't worth a sack of potatoes at this point. Even if Mitt Romney had enough born-again cred to put Huckabee to shame, he still wouldn't be the right man for the job, for reasons previously alluded to on this blog. Enough said.