Mitt Romney Is No Jack Kennedy

The Nation: GOP Candidate's Speech On Faith Fails In Comparison To JFK's Historic Address

(The Nation)  This column was written by John Nichols.

---

There was irony in the fact that George Herbert Walker Bush introduced former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's much-anticipated speech on religion and politics.

Almost four decades ago, the elder Bush's long, slow trudge to the White House was interrupted by his defeat in a U.S. Senate race by a straighter-talking Texan named Lloyd Bentsen.

Bentsen is not well remembered for what he said in that 1970 campaign. But he added a memorable line to the American political lexicon 18 years later when, in another campaign against Bush, he debated his fellow Texan's vice presidential running-mate.

Indiana Senator Dan Quayle's attempt to compare himself with another youthful contender for national office, John Kennedy, brought a stinging rebuke from Bentsen: "Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy."

A demoralized Quayle whined, "That was really uncalled for, Senator."

But Bentsen stood his ground. "You are the one that was making the comparison, Senator - and I'm the one who knew him well," he told Quayle. "And frankly I think you are so far apart in the objectives you choose for your country that I did not think the comparison was well-taken."

After listening to Romney's passable address at the George Bush Library Thursday, and to the overwrought comparison's of the governor's speech with Kennedy's historic September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, it was impossible not to wish that Bentsen were still alive to answer the Republican presidential candidate.

Because, as his speech Thursday confirmed, Mitt Romney does not share Jack Kennedy's courage or the former president's view of the Constitution.

Kennedy told the ministers in Houston, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

Romney tried to say something like that, but he didn't dare speak so bluntly. Too concerned about offending evangelical conservative voters - who don't believe that separation of church and state is absolute and are abandoning his campaign for the cynical crusade of wily Southern Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee - the former governor could only muster a self-serving pledge not to offend those who do not share his Mormon faith. "If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest," Romney squeaked.

Instead of promising the "absolute" separation that Kennedy pledged, Romney attacked those who would follow the lead of the 35th president and, for that matter, of the third president, Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the purpose of the Constitutional reference to freedom of religion had been to build "a wall of separation between Church and State."

Romney told his friendly audience at the presidential library in College Station, Texas, that, "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."

Where Kennedy spoke frankly and in great detail about his Catholicism and about Catholics in politics, Romney eschewed a deep discussion of Mormonism or of his family's historic leadership role in the Church of Latter-day Saints.

Kennedy delivered the "profile-in-courage" speech of a statesman back in 1960, and he did so in state where prejudices against Catholicism were barely cloaked. But his comments were addressed as much to Catholics as to Baptists. "I do not speak for my church on public matters - and the church does not speak for me," he declared. "Whatever issue may come before me as President - on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject - I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise."

In stark contrast, Romney gave a political speech that will do little to reassure evangelicals who distrust Mormons or Americans who want their presidents to act in the national interest rather than in response to their religious impulses. "I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it," Romney said. "My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs."

To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen: "Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy."

[muleymadness]

I am glad that you bring up multiple marriages. If memory serves me right, JFK had adulterous relationships, which is like plural marriage but for someone who is too big of an idiot to be committed to the women he sleeps with. He is only using her body for what he wants and leaving.

Also Mitt Romney has only had one wife and to my knowledge he has never had an adulterous relationship. JFK was a good President, but if you want to compare them morally compare them correctly. Mitt has been loyal to his one and only wife while JFK got all the pleasures of having multiple marriages without the responsibility and commitment of marriage.

It sounds to me that JFK was worshiping his prick.

[dlounsbury1]

Unlike 95% of the negative posters, I actually watched the speech on CSpan. I felt like Romney raised the standard for religious tolerance and tolerance for those who don''t believe when he said, "Tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if we were only tolerant of people we agreed with." Romney didn''t say secularists can''t contribute to America, just that they don''t contribute to his faith.

[sdrosea]

To guysdigdirt, you seem to be experienced posting online. Yet has no one ever told you that typing in all capital letters is the cyber equivalent of shouting?

Aside from the etiquette, text in all caps is harder to read.

[quatrops]

My goodness, we seem to have touched a nerve with guysdigdirt (whose signature name seems appropriate for his pejorative opinions about sexuality and his unusual interest in underwear).

I suppose I could take offense at being misquoted, and at the improper placement of the attribution, but I feel certain most readers will understand who wrote what.

To answer your query, I served in the US Army, in Europe, 1954-1956 (active duty, not Bush duty), which is considerably longer than Romney, his sons, Bush, Cheney, or (by inference) guysdigirt.

Why is it that military service is regarded as relatively unimportant only by those who have never served? I imagine Romney was too busy making money to give up 2 or 3 years of his life to serve, and I challange anyone to cite for me the alternative civic volunteer service Romney performed requiring an equivalent commitment of time.

[rowdytexan2]

Mr. Romney and all of his purported goodness and light does nothing for me since he still supports the lying, cheating and stealing of his republican co-horts.

It''s that simple.

[muleymadness]

I wrote this comment in another forum, but feel it is pertinent.

I fear that some of the comments here are similar to hate crimes. Making fun of the undergarments he chooses to wear according to his religious belief is like making fun of a Catholic Priest for wearing robes, a Jew for wearing a Kippah, or a person for wearing a Cross. These are all worn as a sign of a persons devotion to God. They are all acceptable, yet they are not made fun of or degraded to the extent that the "Mormon Garments" are.

For myself, I would appreciate this religious intolerance to stop and have a Presidential race separate from religious intolerance and hate.

[guysdigdirt]

Quatrops

I WILL ASK YOU TWO QUESTIONS AND WILL NEVER SEE YOUR ANSWERS. YOU NEED TO ANSWER THEM FOR YOURSELF. I WILL NEVER SEE YOUR ANSWERS AS I FIND CONVERSING WITH YOU LIKE WRESTING IN THE MUD WITH A PIG. YOU BOTH GET DIRTY BUT THE PIG LIKES IT.

1- ARE YOU GOING TO JUDGE A MAN BY WHAT KIND OF UNDERWEAR HE WEARS?

2- WHY NOT JUDGE HIM BY HIS ACTS IN THE PAST?

[guysdigdirt]

One oath that JFK definately kept was to protect and defend the US when he was sworn in to the military. Neither Romney nor his sons put themselves in a position to TAKE that oath

ARE YOU FINDING FAULT WITH HIM ON THAT NOTE? DID YOU SERVE? THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY, BEING IN THE SERVICE IS ONLY ONE OF THEM.
Posted by Quatrops

[guysdigdirt]

You seem fixated on JFK''''s adultery. How do you feel about the adultery of Reagan, FDR, or Jefferson? NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE COMPARED TO ROMNEY IN THE ABOVE ARTICLE, SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT? I THINK IT A BAD THING WHEN ANYONE FAILS TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON A COMMITMENT TO THEIR SPOUSE. IF THEY HOLD THEIR SPOUSE SO UNIMPORTANT, WHAT IS TO SAY THEY WILL THINK THEIR COMMITMENT TO THEIR COUNTRY WORTH KEEPING? HAVING SAID THAT EVERYONE MAKES MISTAKES, HOW THEY REACT TO THE MISTAKE MATTERS.
Posted by Quatrops

[guysdigdirt]

guysdigdirt ask a Morman why the reference to underwear would be humerous, or minimally, an inside joke. he wouldn''''t be able to express his homophobia.

RESORTING TO INSULTS IS A SURE SIGN THAT YOU LACK THE ABILITY TO FORM A SOLID INTELLIGENT POINT TO BACK UP YOUR OPINION. I WOULD VENTURE TO BET THAT I KNOW MORE ABOUT MORMONS (NOT MORMANS) THAN YOU EVER WILL. FURTHER MORE I KNOW OF NO REASON TO EVER SHOW AS MUCH INTEREST IN ANOTHER PERSONS UNDERWEAR AS YOU HAVE, SHORT OF PERVERSION. YOU CAN THROW YOUR "HOMOPHOBIC" ACCUSATIONS ALL YOU WANT, IT IS JUST A COVER UP FOR YOUR INADEQUACIES.

When I was IN 2nd grade, I was taught that in a phrase such as "in the company of OTHER women" as you used it, the "other" would refer to the subject noun, in this case, Romney.

ONCE AGAIN PROVING YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO POINTING OUT A SMALL ISSUE TO COVER FOR YOU INABILITY TO FIND LEGIT SUBSTANTIAION FOR YOUR OPINION. (JUST FOR YOU I SPELLED SOME WORDS WRONG SO YOU COULD HAVE ANOTHER FAULT TO FOCUS ON.)
posted by Quatrops

[quatrops]

I suggest guysdigdirt ask any Morman why the reference to underwear would be humerous, or minimally, an inside joke. But then he wouldn''t be able to express his homophobia.

When I was IN 2nd grade, or thereabouts, I was taught that in a phrase such as "in the company of OTHER women" as you used it, the "other" would refer to the subject noun, in this case, Romney. The sentence could have been written by someone who, sarcasticly, was trying to put Romney down by suggesting he was too feminine. But if you like it that way, go for it. I thought you''d like to know how silly it sounds.

You seem fixated on JFK''s alleged adultery. How do you feel about the alleged adultery of Reagan, FDR, or Jefferson? One oath that JFK definately kept was to protect and defend the US when he was sworn in to the military. Neither Romney nor his sons put themselves in a position to TAKE that oath

[guysdigdirt]

Guysdigdirt @ 2:16 is the latest example. "Romney keeps his clothes on in the company of other women."

Slow down and tell us what that was SUPPOSED to mean. While you''''re at it, explain why someone who mentions underwear is a "*** pervert".
Posted by Quatrops

If you were to read the entire post including the copied comment from another person''s post you would find that I was refering to the fact that Romney is not like JFK in that he is not a womanizer, unfaithful to his wife, his vows or his commitments.

As far as someone commenting on underwear, there is not harm or perversion in that. But when you fixate on what underwear another man is wearing, it is not a normal or healthy fixation.

I hope that was elementary enough for you to understand. If not ask your 2nd grade teacher to explain it to you.

[quatrops]

Some commenters seem SO anxious to get in their "two cents worth" (and that''s often a correct dollar value) in multiple posts that they engage in "stream-of-consciousness" keyboarding and don''t read over what they have entered before hitting "publish".

Guysdigdirt @ 2:16 is the latest example. "Romney keeps his clothes on in the company of other women."

Slow down and tell us what that was SUPPOSED to mean. While you''re at it, explain why someone who mentions underwear is a "*** pervert".

[cfin5]

Mitt Romney''s speech on religions involvement in our nations birth was historically correct. It did in fact trump anything I ever read that JFK said. The point I''m trying to make is,......can Americans "AFFORD" to gamble on a good speech writer whose voting record is "close" unto his speech?.......Or should Americans trust Ron Paul''s "voting record" which mirrors perfectly the things that Mitt Romney said in his speech. Mitt is a CFR member [an un-sovereign globalist] and never heard him say boo about it either. Ron Is not a CFR member, nor will he ever be with his understanding of our Constitution. So think well people, and remember the soothing campaign speeches and promises made every election cycle by politicians whose voting record walk "doesn''t" match their campaign "tongue"........If you love our Constitution, why not vote for the one whose voting record "loves" it the most?......Ron Paul, proven student of the Constitution in 2008! GO USA!!!

[guysdigdirt]

Mitt is not JFK. Romney keeps his clothes on in the conpany of other women. He is honest, ethical and moral and as much as I respected what JFK spoke about, Romney will follow up his words with actions as he always has.

[guysdigdirt]

logicanada,
Make something of yourself and your country and then ridicule the US. You are all just posers and wannabes. If you could trade places with Romney you would do it in a heart beat and you know it, silly canadian.

[guysdigdirt]

this slimeball (yuck) will say & do anything to get elected.
Posted by erpcat

It is said that we all look at the world thru the glasses of our own self. Just because you are so full of guile and dishonesty does not mean everyone else is also.

Do not look at his religion, or any other canidates, look at what they have done in their careers, judge them by their works.

[guysdigdirt]

He is no Kennedy, rather he''''s more like Hugh Hefner, since it was the mormoons that help build Las Vegas.
Bye Mitt, now go wash those sacred underwear.
Posted by rushlimpdrug

Rush, you seem to be a g a y pervert with so much attention to other peoples underwear. The Mormons built Vegas? You are a crack pot as well as a pervert.

[guysdigdirt]

I was a mormon and demanded out as it is lies. I have to tell them mormons to get lost. I have seen their dark evil side, Lass/
Posted by MichelleM99

Michelle, All due respect but your posts in the past have made you seem likeyou cheese is not all the way on your cracker. Enlighten us and tell us how it is they are not a good people, what is their dark side I know a lot of Mormons, they seem to be good upstanding people who are honest, fair and moral. I have not seen their dark side and based on what i have seen from them and what I have seen from you here, I will choose to believe them.

[logicanada]

your electoral process belongs on Jerry Springer.
What a bunch of trailer trash commentary.