A well written article regarding what sounds like a well delivered speech by
Mitt Romney. Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
There seems to be a big distinction between being a Christian and being
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."
Furry. You have the right to vote for Obama. However, he is nothing to no
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
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.
@ 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!
@ McBillay and Furry1993It 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.
From all of us from the "abominable" churches and sects, we appreciate
Mr. Romney's support of traditional marriage.
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.
"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.
Who better? Obama.
mcbillay,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.
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.
Hutterite,What are some of Obama's values? Is he honest, or
truthful?? Give some examples.
IdahoStranger: Just who do you intend to support for President?
HotGlobe,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.
Yerffoegn,"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
"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."Cicero 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
@ Codger:Does it make any difference whether it is a Democrat or a
Republican President who takes away your freedom and liberties?
Eric Schulzke that was one great editorial! Thanks for the info. Of course
he was talking from his heart because he believes it!
"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
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.
HotGlobe,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'.
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