The Best Speech Ever! Posted by: Dale Franks
on Friday, December 07, 2007
I'm sure we're all comforted now that we know that Mitt Romney really loves the Baby Jesus, but isn't this from Hugh Hewitt a bit much?
Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech was simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst. On every level it was a masterpiece. The staging and Romney's delivery, the eclipse of all other candidates it caused, the domination of the news cycle just prior to the start of absentee voting in New Hampshire on Monday —for all these reasons and more it will be long discussed as a masterpiece of political maneuver.
Mitt Romney threw a long ball today and scored. There can be no objective argument against that conclusion. Why? Because Romney is running for the GOP nomination, and his remarks, both in delivery and substance, were lavishly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, and James Dobson, not to mention Mark Steyn, Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer -and these were just the seven people I heard on a long drive south to San Diego and then in a hotel room before leaving to post this and give a speech. I am sure when I get a chance to review the blogs more widely late tonight, there will be many others, though in fact every single one could denounce Romney and it wouldn't matter given the line-up of assessments just listed, to which I add mine from earlier today.
Here are seven of the most influential conservative commentators in the U.S., and their opinions on the Romney success are all aligned with mine. Thus, objectively, the speech cannot be judged as other than an extraordinary success for Romney.
Mr. Hewitt also notes:
Obviously, one cannot have an objective counter-argument to Mr. Hewitt's analysis. Which is, of course, completely objective. And I say that speaking objectively speaking, from, you know, and objective point of view. In the objectivist sense of the term, objective. I'm sure the fact that Mr. Hewitt has a book called A Mormon in the White House? has no bearing whatsoever on his objective analysis.
I liked Romney’s speech quite a bit, but Hugh is making out like it was the St. Crispin’s Day speech as delivered by Winston Churchill in the Sistine Chapel on the first Christmas with Nazi bombers overhead.
Iowahawk also weighs in with a "Guest Political Analysis" by "Hugh Hewitt":
Without question, The Speech is destined to enter the pantheon of the defining moments of our time; for in it, we lucky mortals were witness to what was inarguably the finest distillation of passion and and brains and square-jawed herculean glory of this or any other age; an achievement of such blinding white TelePromted perfection that, in 15 heart-pounding minutes, eclipsed every previous achievement of the human race, combined, and those who cannot admit this simple axiomatic truth are clearly soulless and/or deranged...
[E]very single pundit whose voice actually matters has joined me in being swept into the rapturous epiphany that any unbiased, objective review of Romney's unforgettable words will induce. I will give a more detailed objective review of The Speech in next month's issue of Mitt Beat magazine, along with an exclusive interview with Mitt where he reveals his favorite foods, secret heartbreaks, and what he looks for in a dream pundit. Plus a giant pull-out Mitt poster!
Mr. Hewitt is not, by the way, a paid spokesman for Mr. Romney. Which is a good thing, because it would raise questions about his objectivity as an analyst.
As for me, I caught the speech. It was OK, for what it was. I'd prefer it if our national political candidates didn't feel the overriding need to talk about their love for the Baby Jesus.
I thought the contrast between Mr. Romney's pitch for the religious vote, and that of another candidate was amusing.
Asked about his religious beliefs during an appearance before about 500 Republicans in South Carolina yesterday, Fred Thompson said he attends church when he visits his mother in Tennessee but does not belong to a church or attend regularly at his home in McLean, Va., just outside Washington. The actor and former senator, who was baptized in the Church of Christ, said he gained his values from "sitting around the kitchen table" and said he did not plan to speak about his religious beliefs on the stump. "I know that I'm right with God and the people I love," he said, according to Bloomberg News Service. It's "just the way I am not to talk about some of these things."
Not much of a churchman, apparently, is Our Fred. And not a lot of interest in telling us about his religion either.
I prefer that.
I'm far more interested in how a potential president feels about the Constitution, and how he perceives his duties under them. Whether he's constantly bathed in the soft, warm, sepia-toned light radiating from the Baby Jesus is a matter of complete indifference to me.
Don’t know why HH felt the need to put all his eggs in the Mitt basket, but if his cheerleading has done anything, it has turned me off from Romney much more than anything else.
I regularly turn HH off now in the car and search the dial for other talk radio, something I would never have done before b/c he is such a good talk radio host. But, I can’t friggin stand the sycophancy for Mitt. And it seems like a least an hour is dedicated to Romney now every single day.
Then again, I’ve been sour on him ever since the Miers’ debacle...never have I seen an intelligent man become so illogical, so stubborn, and so unwilling to admit error as HH during that episode. He also joined in with the worst elements who questioned the motives of those critical of the Miers’ nomination. Just a disgusting display overall, and I don’t think I’m overdoing the hyperbole all the much.
Too bad such a talented host has turned off so many with his cheerleading, in both cases.
I’d prefer it if our national political candidates didn’t feel the overriding need to talk about their love for the Baby Jesus.
I’d prefer it even more if our national political candidates didn’t have their operatives and affiliated 527s making someone’s religion such an issue that he felt the overriding need to make a major speech to set the issue straight in the first place...
I wish Romney had given the full speech, as he intended to give it, ending with "However, anyone who would put much stock in anything Joseph Smith said or wrote and buys that story about the gold tablets is obviously too dumb to be president, so I’m withdrawing from the race. " But his advsiers talked him out of it.