Mitt Romney: Freedom and Religion are Inextricably Linked

Recently, Mitt Romney gave another speech on faith and government at the Metropolitan Club in NYC, where he was accepting the Becket Fund's Canterbury Medal for defending religious freedom. He took this chance to answer some critics of his earlier speech who condemned him for ignoring the contributions of the a-religious - specifically atheists.

...Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive--over centuries--if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don’t believe so...

Nor can we overlook that people of faith have a unique appreciation for freedom. Because the practice of religion requires freedom, liberty is especially precious to people of faith. They are willing to sacrifice much to protect it.

“We and God have business with each other,” even the father of pragmatism William James once observed. “In opening ourselves to his influence, our deepest destiny is fulfilled.” When a people’s “deepest destiny” can only be realized in a land of liberty, you can expect that that land and its liberty will be preserved at any cost. As indeed it has!

It is an interesting argument and one that I suspect the Founders would have had no problem with - even those who were deists who believed in only a clockmaker God who wound up the universe and never much interacted with it again. But it still leaves open the question whether reason - unrestrained by a particular religious creed or belief in God - can sustain a government dedicated to Freedom. No such government has been founded and endured, although some would argue the secular European states are evidence that it could work. But, of course, the primary anti-religious governmental structure of the last 100 years - Communism - was certainly also anti-freedom in its practice by each and every example of its government.

What do Mod-Bloggers think? How linked are religious practice - belief in God, anyway - and freedom and liberty as in the American sense?

Romney to drop out today!

So says Time. Seems a bit premature to me, but then if he believes he can not win, why not give the party more time to heal and prepare for the November run?

Update: 1:15 PM Mitt Romney has dropped out of the race.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is an interesting strategy, and essentially sets up the key issue for the next campaign to be the War on Terror. Up until now, the Democrats were comfortable that their supporters were against the War in Iraq, so they have been running on Universal Health Care and other Economic issues. Now, they will have to return to the debate. And the American people have not made up their mind yet.

The one good thing to say: I think we can say with confidence that Mitt Romney did NOT lose because of his Mormon faith. In the end, nearly everyone I knew who decided not to vote for him had a real different with his political positions or his character.

Romney wins Maine Caucuses

The choice of many Mod-Bloggers appears to have won the Pine Tree State rather handily. Of course, not many Republicans bothered to campaign there, not because of allergies to Lobster or New England wit, but because they focussed on the lucrative Super Tuesday states. Still, this win may produce some momentum going into next week.

The only big news is that Ron Paul supporters had been pushing Maine as "the one state that Ron Paul will definitely win." Too bad for America's OB-GYN.

Why I'm Voting For Romney

Well, I've done a complete 180-degree turn. Originally, I was leaning strongly towards McCain, as I outlined here. I've now decided to vote for Romney. Here's why.

My thought process for voting for McCain went something like this: I read a debate in which I really liked his answers, an online quiz had McCain as one of my top picks, and I found someone else I knew who felt, like me, surprised that they were leaning towards McCain. I figured I wasn't completely crazy and McCain was the one left after I discounted the other candidates. I got to the point where I was liking the things McCain was saying, so I didn't give as much weight to the issues I disagree with him on.

1. I realize that his stance on embryonic stem cell is not something I can endorse if there is another candidate that I agree with. My two big issue this election is government spending / the economy and national security. I also have a requirement that the candidate hold beliefs that will help the pro-life movement and will keep us in Iraq to finish the job. Personally, I believe that embryonic stem cell research is a waste of money and killing embryos for research is the same as killing babies for research. By supporting McCain, I'd be going against my big issue and one of my requirements.

2. McCain's stance on the environment is that we shouldn't drill in ANWR. This will hurt both our national security (dependence on foreign oil) and our economy (having the government spend money on alternative energy). To be fair, Romney also supports spending government money on alternative energy, but he is in favor of drilling in ANWR.

3. McCain's endorsements by Schwarzenegger and Giuliani gives him the support he needs to be a moderate president and push his more moderate agenda as opposed to his conservative positions.

4. The one McCain supporter I personally know is now pretty sure that s/he won't be voting for McCain either.

5. There are some conservatives who, given the choice of McCain or any Democratic candidate would either vote third party or stay home. We need the conservatives to beat whatever Democrat gets the nomination, especially Obama.

6. McCain has basically two choices for VP: Huckabee or Lieberman. I was having trouble feeling completely settled in my choice for McCain. I would have trouble voting for a McCain / Lieberman ticket. Even more conservatives would stay home or vote third party. Huckabee, while liked by social conservatives, is frowned upon by fiscal conservatives. Voting for a McCain / Huckabee ticket would be setting up a future Huckabee presidency. Consequently, we still lose a good chunk of the conservative vote.

7. A vote for anybody other than Romney at this point, gives McCain the nomination. That leaves me with a choice of Romney or McCain.

8. I've mentioned before that I don't trust Romney. I still don't trust him. I think he will do what is politically expedient. The difference is that if he gets the nomination and is elected, it will be because of conservatives. To quote Clear and Present Danger(?), "He wants what every first-term president wants, a second term." Romney will know that he was put in the White House by conservatives and that to get a second term, he will need to keep the support of the conservatives. Otherwise, there will be a number of candidates waiting in the wings to go against him. After four years of "being a conservative", my guess is that he would want to keep his legacy and not go down as "the president that completely duped the Republican party in his second term." As I said, I still don't trust him, but I think his political expediency will be to our favor.

9. I finally took a look at Romney's positions (or looked at them after it had been a while.) Many of the positions I like by McCain are held by Romney. Romney also wants to bring decency back to America (a noble position, though I don't know how much the president can directly do about that). Given #7, it's a good chance that he'll follow these positions as closely as any other politician does.

I still think that McCain will do a decent job if elected president. If he gets the Republican nomination, I see myself voting for him in the general election, unless he starts leaning further left or picks Lieberman as his running mate. That being said, I will be voting for Romney given that I believe he will embrace the conservative platforms, even if only for political expediency.

Why I Should Vote For McCain

For about a month and a half now, I have been considering voting for McCain. Saying that sounds so completely foreign to me, that I have spent this time trying to both find reasons not to vote for McCain and reasons to vote for one of the other candidates. CRChair has both asked why he should vote for Huckabee and stated why he won't be voting for McCain. Here is my logic for why I should vote for McCain.

First, let's start with the field of candidates:

Rudy Giuliani - His decidedly pro-abortion stance and liberal views has knocked him out as a candidate in my mind.

Mitt Romney - I just don't trust him. He reminds me too much of Kerry. He'd probably do a great job if he would pick a side and stick to his guns, but I can't vote for him without knowing who he is.

Ron Paul - He has many online supporters and I'll probably be blasted for this, but he's crazy. When I hear his ideas, I think, "That would have been great information to have when we were making the wrong decision." Getting us back to the gold standard just won't work without a complete upheaval and revaluing of things. Personally, I don't want my house value to drop just so we can get back on a gold standard.

Alan Keyes - With less visibility than Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo, Keyes may be the only person who seriously thinks he's running... and even he may not think that. Besides, he's already lost to Obama once. Going up against Clinton would be even worse.

Fred Thompson - I like Fred Thompson. He's one of my top three picks. Unfortunately, he's rumored to be leaving the race. Even if he doesn't, he's not running like he wants to be president. Clinton would chew him up in the general election. I'd like to see him make a strong run or even be the VP on the ticket, but I don't see it as a winning ticket.

Mike Huckabee - He's a second of my top three picks. He's got support, especially among religious conservatives. Unfortunately, while he's socially conservative, he's fiscally liberal. Huckabee would be like having four or eight more years of GWB, but with less foreign policy experience than GWB currently has. I feel like I voted for the social conservative and got duped the first time GWB ran, so I'm hesitant to vote for the same thing again. I do like the idea of not having an income tax, but a national sales tax promotes saving, not spending. I don't know if our economy could handle less spending.

John McCain - That leaves John McCain. I hate to vote for someone because they're the last one left. After all, he could just be the last one I looked at and be worse than the other candidates.

First, I'll answer Matt's points.

Age: Yes, McCain is the oldest candidate, but then, so was Reagan when he ran. People are living longer and McCain will be younger than when Reagan left office. That being said, age isn't really that important. Health is. If McCain is healthy enough to be president for one term, then age shouldn't be a factor. After all, President Harrison died of pneumonia shortly after taking office. None of us are guaranteed life, that is why we have measures set up to take over the office if the president should fall sick or die.

Immigration: Yes, McCain has been soft on immigration, but he also realizes that we need to fix the problem of illegal immigration by securing our borders before we start kicking people out. Otherwise, we'll just have to kick them out again and again.

Fiscal Responsibility: This is actually one of the reasons I am voting for McCain. He is against pork spending and realizes that we need to be good stewards of our money. Yes, he did vote against the tax cuts, but that was because we needed to cut spending. Cutting spending means that someone is upset about not getting as much federal money. Tax cuts resonate well with constituents. McCain wanted to make sure that spending was cut rather than furthering the national debt and knew that without a tax cut, spending wouldn't be cut.

Pro-Life: Yet another reason that I am voting for McCain. The National Right To Life PAC has up a PDF with the candidates views here, but the do not appear to fully quote McCain. While McCain is OK with stem cell research on existing lines and in cases of in-vitro fertilization, he is not OK with creating new stem-cell lines. Would I like him to be against all stem cell research? Yes. Personally, I haven't seen evidence of neonatal stem cell research taking off. The advances seem to be in adult stem cell research. That being said, McCain does make the point "I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding." I have an easier time agreeing with babies that will be discarded. I, admittedly, have a hard time agreeing with purposefully destroying babies that are in a frozen state. I'd much rather see them used for couples that desperately want to have a baby, can't, but would be willing to carry another's baby from their in-vitro attempt. You can see McCain's voting record and his National Right To Life report card.

McCain-Feingold: I agree with McCain that political votes should not be bought. Having contribution limits is one way to do this. The other part of the bill, the part that limits free speech is the bigger issue in my mind. This part should be overturned by the courts.

The McCain Surprise: McCain is a maverick, but he's a maverick that sticks to his guns. If we realize what it is we're voting for, I don't think there will be too many surprises. He also has a lifetime conservative rating of 83% from The American Conservative Union. In comparison, Fred Thompson has an 86% rating.

Is McCain a perfect candidate? Absolutely not. As I stated above, McCain-Feingold, while good intentioned, should not have passed as it restricts free speech. I'd like to see McCain not only be anti-abortion, but also be anti-stem cell research. I don't agree with him on his views on the environment.

I do think that he will vote conservatively when it comes to abortion and I do think he will help rein in the federal budget, which will in turn help cut taxes and bring about a turn in the economy. I also think he can win. He won conservative South Carolina. Rasmussen Reports gives him an over 50% chance of becoming the Republican nominee. At the end of December, they had him beating Clinton 49% to 43% (Google cache).

What worries me about McCain? First and foremost, in the past McCain has not been known as being the friend of the conservative. Why am I leaning towards McCain? What am I missing? Second, I fear that he will choose Joseph Lieberman as his running mate. Lieberman is more liberal than McCain which would trouble me. Hopefully McCain will choose a more conservative running mate who has the heart of the evangelical voters... perhaps a McCain-Huckabee ticket? This would bring in the evangelical voters while giving Huckabee the foreign policy experience he would need to make a run for president following McCain.

Will I vote for McCain? As far as I can tell, I think I should. He appears to fit my views more than the other candidates and he has a chance to win. That being said, why should I vote for your candidate instead?

National Review Endorses My Man Mitt

The conservative magazine the National Review endorsed Mitt Romney today for the Republican nomination for president. They lay out a good argument that focuses on Romney's conservative credentials and ability to win in a general election.

Dennis Prager: Judge a man by his values, not his theology

Dennis Prager has posted today an interesting article confronting the issue of Mitt Romney's mormonism as an issue for Christians. He does a good job of laying out why some mainline or Evangelical Christians have a hard time voting for him - the first fair laying out of the argument I have seen - but argues that a man's theology means far less to his value as a public servant than his VALUES.

The reason is -- and I have come to this conclusion after a lifetime of interaction with people of almost all faiths and writing about and studying religion -- theology does not appear to have much impact on people's values. Liberal Christians and Jews share virtually no theological beliefs yet think alike about virtually every important social value. So, too, conservative Christians and conservative Jews share virtually no theological beliefs, yet they think alike about virtually every important social value.

Meanwhile liberal and conservative Protestants are in agreement on theological matters -- both believe in the Trinity, in the Messiahship of Jesus, on Jesus being the Son of God, on salvation through faith rather than through works, and more -- yet they differ about virtually every social value. Obviously, shared theology doesn't create shared moral or social values.

The article is worth a read for anyone who either is undecided about Mitt Romney, or who wants to understand those who are. I myself sometimes wonder about this, since mainline Christianity considers Mormonism to be a CULT on the order of ancient Gnosticism. Can one trust the judgement of a man who embraces these beliefs? I think Prager lays out the clearest argument for why one could vote for anyone whose beliefs differ from our own, but whose values we can respect.

Mitt Romney's Speech on Religious Freedom

For your convenience I am posting Mitt Romney's speech from Thursday here on Mod-Blog. I thought it was an excellent speech.

Let the mud slinging commence

The Log Cabin Republicans have decided that they don't like Mitt Romney. Why exactly is unclear other than he's for a marriage amendment, which would effectively end many in their organization's quest to get married. Nonetheless, they've decided that in order to get their point across - that Romney is a bad bad man and a flip flopper - they're going to start running a negative ad using his words from.... wait for it.... wait for it... 1994 as an indication of how bad a candidate he is.

I've stated before that I don't plan on voting for Mr. Romney, but I still think this is a bad move. I'd like to see the day when PACs aren't allowed to run advertisements on candidates because they generally end up being negative and destructive rather than helpful in any way - as this stunt shows along with anything MoveOn.org has done and the Swiftboaters from the last presidential election and numerous other examples. But on a completely different level, Romney has answered all these charges months ago. Why is it necessary to bring this up again? It just seems childish to me.

Romney Continues to Waver on Abortion

In reading this article at ABC News, two things stood out. One, ABC News is trying to put the screws to Romney. Two, Romney is trying to avoid losing any votes due to abortion views. In the article, Mitt Romney explains that he would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving the choice of abortion up to the states. Previously, he stated that he supported the Republican pro-life platform. He responded to this dichotomy by saying that ultimately he wants to see the abortion banned, but that a national ban is not achievable at this time. Instead, he would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade. Which way will Romney end up choosing if elected president?

To view news about abortion on Mitt Romney's site, click here.

What Is a Pro-Life Candidate?

I've been mulling over in my head the question, "What is a pro-life candidate?" On the one hand, this may seem like an easy question, but given the current choice of candidates and what they claim versus what they've done, the issue has been made much muddier. Take, for example, Mitt Romney. Romney has been on both sides of the issue and appears to be flip-flopping, much like John Kerry did on issues last election. Can someone who has flip-flopped be a pro-life candidate? Remember, Ronald Reagan at one point was pro-choice. What about Fred Thompson? His Senate vote makes him look pro-life, but his stance is that abortion is a state issue. Therefore, it makes sense that he would vote "pro-life" in Washington. Can a candidate that votes "pro-life", but leaves the decision up to the states be a pro-life candidate? What if that same candidate is pro-choice at the state level? (To be fair, I haven't found conclusive evidence of whether Fred Thompson is pro-life or pro-choice at the state level.)

On another matter (and perhaps this is a different post), why has no candidate come out as a strong pro-life candidate? It appears that all of the candidates are either vocally pro-choice or are pro-choice and paying lip service to the pro-life movement. (i.e. "I am personally pro-life, but we have to let a woman choose.")

Bad News for Romney: Affleck thinks he'll win

Ben Affleck may be a good actor (though I know that is also highly debated) but he has been the poison pill for many in politics. Last night he apparently had a lot to say about Mitt Romney on Real Time with Bill Maher.

Chatting about the upcoming presidential race on the season finale of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the Cambridge homey said he thinks the GOP will end up with Romney because the ex-gov looks good, has nice hair - and the Republicans really don’t have anyone else.
“He says he doesn’t like abortion and he’s all clean-cut and he looks like a Ken doll,” said Affleck who was doing a rather amusing imitation of our ex-gov during the Romney rant.

If there is anything we have learned over the last few cycles of American politics, it is that Ben Affleck is always wrong. So this may be VERY bad news for Mitt's candidacy. If Ben says you're in, chances are you are out. And with Fred Thompson allegedly planning a July 4th launch maybe the race is about to change significantly.