The Romney Speech

Are you going to apologize Joe? What about the Conyers and Feingold responses?

"the First Amendment sanction against the "Establishment" of religion doesn't mean a strict "separation of church and state," a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution"

At least we know who your source is for this piece: Tom Delay.

As always, whatever "reporting" he includes exists only for the purpose of evangelizing us with his "radical middle" ideology.

Joe: you're worse than a Trotskyite, do you know that?

Ok relax people.

I thought the speech was pretty run of the mill, a speech that could be expected from a guy like Romney.

It sought to quell the concerns of those who are concerned about his faith playing a major role in his decisions, while affirming to the religious right his convictions about his faith in God and how he's a good Christian who believes in the etc etc.

Probably won't change much, might help him chip away at Huckabee a bit. Well timed with the recent Huckabee coverage over his time as Governor and might bring some of the evangelist votes over.

Probably got more attention than it deserved. Relatively safe speech.

I agree, Joe, about those statements, especially that first one.

I still think Romney's a joke

"Well, I suppose it wasn't a bad speech in political terms, although I doubt it will change the minds of those who believe Mormonism is a cult."

Why would a speech change the fact that Mormonism matches the definition of a cult? If you look up cult in a dictionary Mormonism is one of the first examples it will give you.

Romney's tactic is to avoid any discussion of the details of his faith, claim he worships the same God as the Christians, and shares a common Ethics, and will rule as a Liberal, not influenced by his faith.

I can see why he doesn't want to discuss the details of his faith because that would reveal that he does not worship the same God as the Christians. In fact, I believe they worship multiple Gods, all of whom were previously human. That is quite different from a single God, who is three people in one, and who has always existed.

As for his comments on Liberty I think the philosophers who did the original work on the concept would beg to differ, unless of course one argues that natural law is derived from God.

gosh, Joe, how come you have time to listen to some crap Romney speech, but can't find time to post the criticism of your column by the members of Congress that you trashed -- and respond to the fact that they pretty much showed that you were a lying gasbag who takes dictation from a Republican who is so insane he thinks the CIA is infiltrated by al Qaeda?

Isn't it about time that you identified the members of the House Intelligence Committee that were supposedly negotiating this "bipartisan" agreement on FISA? Because THE DEMOCRATS ON THE COMMITTEE ARE CALLING YOU A LIAR....

Shorter Romney-There is no religious test...as long as you are religous.

Shorter Romney: Faith is teh awesome as long as it's totally fuzzy, vague and meanlingless. Did he just declare himself a Unitarian?

Joe adds definitions to the Newspeak Dictionary every day. The NIE was delayed for a year, The White House contradicts Bush's assertions that he didn't know about it earlier, and Bush insists Iran is a danger, danger, danger. Pat Robertson is calling for hearings about the lies. Yet for Joe, this defines "an amazing moment of candor" (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/06/klein-candor/).

Another hard day at the minitrue. Have another victory gin.

Both statements are ridiculous. As is the idea that freedom is somehow a "gift from God."

Your statements saying Bush didn't try to suppress the NIE on Iran are also nonsense, Joe. He held it up for a year. Why do you guys feel so compelled to kiss Bush's keister? Will they demote you if you don't suck up?
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978

Americns have forgotten their history!

The excesses of the Church of England were fresh in the minds of our founding fathers when they established the separation of church and state as the norm.

Now, 230 years later, those memories are dim and those excesses have been forgotten. The current crop of evangelists have accrued money and power by exploiting the holes Republicans have punched through the church/state barrier.

The potential is VERY high:
Even Franklin Graham has shown himself to be a bigot, and let's not speak of Robertson, Falwell, and others who have even at times, impacted our foreign policy with their exhibition of hatred and bigotry.

Many Americans seem to think that their religious organization wouldn't do such things, but obviously, it's possible.

Freedom does NOT require religion. Freedom DOES require responsibility.

I'm not particularly religious, but I can say that if we equate the two, the day won't be long before we start hanging atheists in the streets...

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

- some old dude named "Tom" or "Jeff" or something...

Deep Read: 'Radar' on Joe Klein

It's open season on Joe Klein, the Time pundit who botched the facts in a column about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, then performed a shuck-and-jive rather than just admit his mistake.

Radar's John Cook sees the episode as a perfect synecdoche for Klein's tenure in the commentariat. "Klein's body of work amounts to little more than a festival of projection and poorly disguised vanity," he ventures.

"There is no better conceivable foil than he for the blogocentric criticism that the political journalism establishment is populated by preening, clueless, lazy, and pompous regurgitators of conventional wisdom."

The various defenses Klein has penned in response to the FISA episode, says Cook, "are precious goldmines of self-aggrandizing pretense that must be savored at length to appreciate their rich subtleties and overtones." Zeroing in on Klein's beg-off that "I have neither the time nor the legal background to figure out who's right," Cook calls it "one of the finest specimens of sheer journalistic hubris ever issued from one of the genre's most accomplished practitioners.... I don't have time find out if what I write is true, people! I'm too busy claiming that other things are true. And even if I did have time, I'm not qualified to say whether the things I write are true anyway!"

For the record, I used to work for Radar and still occasionally contribute, so feel free to accuse me of logrolling. Also for the record, the whole FISA debacle aside, I generally find Klein's commentary far more worthwhile than that of his Time stablemate, Mark Halperin. But a well-written takedown is always a pleasure.

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2007/12/05/deep-read-radar-on-joe-klein

nice (ahem) performance on MSGOP, this morning, Joe. Not one hard question about your dissembling, aren't you glad? And of course, you would NEVER consider correcting the error of your ways, on air, would you?

As lame and unpersuasive as Willard Romney was this morning, this blog has about as much substance as the new and improved Time, featuring lies, deceit, ill-researched articles, and a refusal by the ragazine's editors to correct/admit to, investigate/apologize for the mistakes of its employees. I guess Time is aiming for a whole new daffy-nition of what an editor is supposed to do.

Joe, you are creating a whole new standard for journalism. Friedman has his infamous Friedman units. You create your own Kleinisms.

Joke Lyin wrote, "And as for liberty being a gift from God--why didn't God give it to everyone? He didn't like the Chinese? "

See Joke Lyin,
See Joke Lyin catch syllogistic fallacy,
See Joke Lyin not resign from TIME,
See TIME confirmed as
T - Totally
I - Incompetent
M - Media
E - Enterprise

Leave Joke Lyin, Leave.

I can see why George W. Bush calls you Mr. Faith Based.

Thx for the good info.

You're the first journalist I've seen state clearly that the "separation of church" state language comes from sources other than the US constitution.

The Supreme Court refers to this concept as well as some of the original 13 states incl. Virginia.

Key institutions but not the Constitution.

I don't think that saying "Liberty is a gift from God" is any different than the Declaration of Independence stating that "all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." That liberty is intrinsic to people. A government (like the Chinese) may stand in the way and prevent people from exercising that liberty. Yes, the habits and exercise of democracy require hard work. But basic human rights of liberty are not granted by a government's goodwill.

Wait, joke line was able to see the speech? I thought he didn't have the time or training to understand this kind of thing?

Or did Hoekstra just tell you what to write?

"Freedom requires religion" is perhaps the most offensive formulation I've seem from any Presidential candidate this cycle. It is an automatic disqualifier in my book.

Yep, Romney accomplished what he wanted to with this speech. He convinced the evangelicals that he is downfor their theocratic plan. Free Republic is pretty excited bout the line "common creed of moral convictions."

Code for advancing the evangelical's agenda.

Seriously, Mitt scares me. I see him as a demogogue of the highest order, willing to say or do anything to get the presidency. Historically, he who panders the most gets the presidencey.

He picked the right party for it, that's for sure.

Those who hate Mormons will be unmoved, but I see an uptick in the enthusiasm about this guy from the crazy Right-Wing base.

I very much hope is that Huckabee wins in Iowa, screwing up Mitt's three-state strategy and catapaulting the much more vulnerable Rudy to the nomination.

"In this area, as in most, the moderate path between the secular and religious extremes is best."

No, Joe, the way of the weasel is not best in government funding of church programs. There is no way to establish equitable allocation of resources, and there is an endless problem of deciding who is proselytizing.

There is a reason the Founders did not recognize church activity as an adjunct to the United States Government. Once you commingle the institutions you have a hell of a mess on your hands.

This kind of feckless, slap-dash commentary is characteristic of Chutzpah Joe. Who on Earth would trust your judgement on ANY MATTER, Joe?

Just go away.

The point of the article is not anything to do with Romney, or religion, or liberty, or anything truly meaningful.
The point of the article is that Joe Klein's prescription for solving America's problems again turns out to be: Joe Klein's "radical middle" ideology.

Whatever the problem, whatever the facts, whoever the people involved, "the moderate path", i.e. Joe's perpetually nonsensical (but strictly bipartisan) bromide "is best".
That's his point. It's always his point.

It's as if he truly, in his heart of hearts expects the entire world to wake up one day and proclaim:
"All hail Joe 'Prometheus' Klein, giver of 'the moderate path'!"

Joe: I can't decide which is more offensive--your irrational "middle road" ideology or your gargantuan hubris.
Your writing is now bereft of even its usual solitary value: humor at your expense.

Kim doth wrote: "You're the first journalist I've seen state clearly that the "separation of church" state language comes from sources other than the US constitution."

1) It's Constitution...with a capital c.

2) "Separation of powers" isn't in the Constitution either.

3) SoCaS is more pithy than, "Congress shall...make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor preventing the free exercise thereof." I thought you wingers were all about pithy phrases.

Describing "liberty" as the work of government is simply preposterous. Liberty is achieved by representative government, held responsible by the people, who achieve liberty by that oversight, and by their power of choice, exercised responsibly. It is NOT the work of government. No serious student of democracy would consider freedom a product of government without the principle of accountability to the electorate, and oversight by said electorate. This is as ridiculous as suggesting that society governs our morals.

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. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.-Romney

Is it just me or is this completely nonsensical? Because I don't like the government/politicians preaching to me, it means that I want to start a new reiligion. WTF?

If only we would respect the Constitutional mandate for complete separation of church and state america would be a much better place. Secularism is rationalism and what modern man is all about as opposed to belief systems that seek to subjugate.

If we want theocracy we should elect romney. If we want an america where all can live in freedom we must elect Hillary!

In this area, as in most, the moderate path between the secular and religious extremes is best.-Joe Klein

Dude, the secular path IS the moderate path between religious extremes.

"I do, however, have a substantive problem with statements"

yes, Joe. We call it pathological lying. or did you mean to say that you had a substance problem, and got just a touch confused?

Joe,

Some questions on your most excellent contribution to the national debate:

1) You realize, of course, that religious charities that run hospitals, schools, shelters, counseling services have received federal aid for decades.

2) At Ben and Sally's brunch on Sundays, how many of the help are undocumented?

3) How's Al Hunt doing these days? I understand that Robert Novak is coming out with an article that says Barack Obama has proof that Vincent Foster and Hilary Clinton castrated Wayne Dumond and then framed him for a subsequent murder and rape. Do you ever ask Al Hunt about his paper's editorial page?

4) And, of course, what's Pete Hoekstra's take on all this?

Just to move the crucial debate along. A contribution from the Daily Kos, on our favorite hero:

Joe, Schmo
Blowhard Time pundit sings a song of himself
By John Cook

IT AIN'T SO, JOE When Joe Klein signed up with Time magazine as a political columnist in 2003, he turned to this quote from Teddy Roosevelt for the name of his weekly dispatch, which he dubbed "In the Arena": "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. ... The credit belongs to the man in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood ... and who, at worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."
Klein has written that he intended the reference as a sort of self-effacing rebuke, a constant reminder that he is but a humble critic who chronicles the doings of deeds. But to believe that interpretation, one must ignore the fact that Klein's body of work amounts to little more than a festival of projection and poorly disguised vanity. This is the man, after all, who, unsatisfied with writing about Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign as a mere critic, rather famously refashioned himself into a central player in that campaign in his 1996 novel, Primary Colors. If Joe Klein is contemplating a man in an arena, his face marred by dust and sweat and blood, daring greatly, you can rest assured that the man he is contemplating is Joe Klein.

If Joe Klein is contemplating a man in an arena, his face marred by dust and sweat and blood, daring greatly, you can rest assured that the man he is contemplating is Joe Klein
And, oh, how our hero has dared in the arena of late! For the past three weeks, Klein has been the subject of withering attacks from left-wing bloggers after he wrote, falsely, in his November 21 column that the Democratic proposal for amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would "give the terrorists the same legal protections as Americans." The debate is arcane and ludicrously complicated, and it has generated literally tens of thousands of words online and in print, mostly condemning Klein, and most of them from Salon's Glenn Greenwald (who, God love him, has approached his subject with the tenacity and righteousness of an obsessive-compulsive IRS auditor). But suffice it to say that (a) Klein made a stupid error, and (b) his preposterously arrogant and ham-fisted attempts to walk himself back from that error have almost rendered reasonable Greenwald's claim that the episode illustrates "everything that is rancid and corrupt with our political media."

ROMAN A KLEIN Primary ColorsThe FISA dispute is but the latest skirmish in an ongoing campaign that has been marring Klein's brow with dust and blood and sweat since January, when Time launched its political blog, Swampland. Klein is one of its regular contributors, and there is no better conceivable foil than he for the blogocentric criticism that the political journalism establishment is populated by preening, clueless, lazy, and pompous regurgitators of conventional wisdom. Swampland's commenters have joined the battle with glee; the first comment to one of Klein's first posts on Swampland read simply: "Just because I hate to see the lefties get all the credit, let the record show that at least one moderate Republican finds you despicable." More than 3,000 comments followed that post alone, and the vicious mockery has continued, virtually unabated, all year.
Klein's reactions on Swampland to his FISA critics are precious goldmines of self-aggrandizing pretense that must be savored at length to appreciate their rich subtleties and overtones. His first response acknowledged—in an insufferably cloying way—that although partisan murk clouded the issue, he "may" have made a mistake, before going on to claim that if he indeed had made a mistake, "we are talking about relatively obscure and unimportant technical details." In other words, Klein sat down to write a column about obscure and unimportant technical details.

Klein's next weigh-in on the blog, two days later, was headlined "FISA: More Than You Want to Know," as though his responsibility to assess the veracity or lack thereof of the claims he made in his columns involved some kind of burdensome slog through legislative thickets beyond the comprehension of mere mortals. Why are you making me do this? This is hard! His post artfully shifted the issue from whether the bill says what he said it says to whether his Republican sources or Democratic sources were correct in their interpretations (who knows? This law stuff is complicated) before actually committing to pixels the following words, which will live on as one of the finest specimens of sheer journalistic hubris ever issued from one of the genre's most accomplished practitioners: "I have neither the time nor legal background to figure out who's right." I don't have time find out if what I write is true, people! I'm too busy claiming that other things are true. And even if I did have time, I'm not qualified to say whether the things I write are true anyway!

Joe wants to be important. As important to us as he is in his own mind. Joe has informed us that he has 38 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. translation, "Bow down and kiss my feet, bloggers, for I am so superior, I don't need research, hard work, confirmed sources, actually reading what other people have written instead of just guessing. I am so good, that my guesses are better than all of you put together! I AM JOE KLEIN!"

One serious look at Wellstone's words and ideas would put lie to Joe's presumptuous statements. While someone like Hillary might accept the words of a Klein-booster like Di Lullo, the idea that Al Gore would swallow such @@@@ is simply bizarre. As for Barack Obama, I suspect that Joe Klein knows about as much about Barack's positions as he knows about legislation he never read, or about as much as someone with his lack of journalistic integrity and honesty could grasp.

Mr Klein, this is the origin of the phrase 'separation of church and state' http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html from the Library of Congress. If you aren't up to following the link, it's a letter by Thomas Jefferson (yes, that one) explaining the Constitution in a letter.

Let me suggest that Thomas Jefferson's explanation of the Constitution is far more valid than John DiIulio's, yours, mine, or James Dobson's.

Whoever is feeding you the right wing talking points is really making you look silly. BTW, it took about three minutes to find the Library of Congress link.

Easy Way to Cut Large Video Files into Small Clips with Video Cuttervideo cutterFLV Video Cutter3GP Video Cutter Ultra Video Cutter is a powerful video cutting tool. The main function of Ultra Video Cutter is to cut large video files into new video files, and also to join or merge multiple video clips into a large one. AVI Video CutterMP4 Video CutterDVD Video CutterDAT Video CutterVideo Editor
The program supports so many video formats including AVI, Divx, XviD, MPEG, WMV, ASF, RM, MOV, 3GP, MP4 formatsVideo MergerVideo JoinerVideo Splitter