Mitt Romney had his "JFK moment" in the presidential campaign yesterday with his speech, "Faith in America ," which was an effort to make himself palatable to the Evangelical voters who make up a substantial portion of the Republican base. Other than Hugh Hewitt - who's already a groveling Romney sycophant - the speech didn't seem to sway many, from Evangelicals to liberals.
First, there was dissatisfaction at Romney's insistence that religion is critical to freedom, which, naturally implied agnostics, pagans, atheists, and the like apparently can't handle freedom or contribute to the national dialog. This point of view was, ironically, best expressed by Peggy Noonan:
There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.
But of course, the speech wasn't aimed at the unwashed heathens. It was aimed at conservative Christians, and specifically at the ones in Iowa , where Mike Huckabee is suddenly picking up steam. So, how did it go there? Not so well, either:
Collin Hansen, editor-at-large at the evangelical monthly Christianity Today, explained, "I'm not sure it's going to work for evangelical voters. Pure and simple, there are very dramatic differences [between the Mormon faith and other Christian traditions]. People wonder, does he really believe that - and if so, can I really trust him?"
The Des Moines Register presented a report on the reaction of Iowa Evangelicals to Romney's speech, and it revealed a similar and general distrust of the Massachusetts Governor's Mormon faith.
But why was anyone surprised? The gist of Romney's speech was that his religion wouldn't influence his decisions as President, but that's the point: Evangelicals want religion to influence the President. That's why a candidate's faith is important, and that's why Huckabee is rising in the Iowa polls.
I still think Romney will win the nomination. He's the Republican Party's Big Business candidate in a party built around Big Business. (Is that why Clinton will win the Democratic nomination?) But I admit I'm a little disgusted that his faith is an issue to begin with -- to me the worst part about the speech was its necessity.
