Examine these consecutive paragraphs in Romney’s speech:

“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.
“There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.”

Marc Ambinder, writing for The Atlantic.com, finds it odd that Romney makes a claim that a presidential candidate ought not to be the spokesman of his faith immediately after….making a specific statement about his faith. In a sense, the second paragraph is invalidated by the first. (I previously posted David Frum’s astute observation.)
I agree with Ross Douthat: “….for Romney to say that candidates shouldn’t have to answer theological questions just moments before declaring ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind’ seems like something of a contradiction.”

Romney’s depiction of Jesus Christ:

“There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance.”

David Frum’s spot-on reflection:

To be blunt, Romney is saying:
It is legitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the son of God?”
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?”
It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see such a difference. Once Romney answered any question about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. This speech for all its eloquence will not stanch the flow of such questions.

Read the whole thing.

First-place Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee announces a 9-Point Strategy for Immigration Enforcement and Border Security:
1. Build the Fence
2. Increase Border Patrol
3. Prevent Amnesty
4. Enforce the Law on Employers
5. Establish an Economic Border
6. Empower Local Authorities
7. Ensure Document Security
8. Discourage Dual Citizenship
9. Modernize the Process of Legal Immigration

Read the whole thing.

Prepared remarks have been made available. Apparently, the former President George H.W. Bush will introduce Gov. Romney at The George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, TX. A few excerpts:

“Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.
“There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’
“Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Further into the speech:

“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
“We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. 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. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.
“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

Read the whole thing. I hope to return and comment later.

David Frum contrasts the challenge Romney faces with Kennedy’s situation in 1960:

Nobody expected Kennedy to defend the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, or the idea of intercession by saints, or the use of images in Catholic places of worship. He spoke in Houston as a politician, explaining his understanding of the boundaries between religion and politics.
Romney faces a very different problem – and a very different set of questions. Nobody doubts that Mormons as a community and as individuals honor and respect the rules of the American constitutional system. But precisely because nobody does doubt it, Romney will get nowhere by explaining that Mormons do.
Romney rather faces much more purely religious questions – and any attempt to respond to them must draw him into a purely religious answer that will almost certainly do him more harm than good. Is Mormonism a Christian faith? Is it a plausible system of belief? What does it say about you that you accept as true something that most Americans regard as blatantly false?
These are the questions that lurk about the Romney candidacy. In my opinion, they are not appropriate questions to ask – and so they are not questions it is possible to answer. But if Romney does answer them, he is going to have to answer them all the way. Evasive tactics will buy him nothing. Yes, he can give a speech about how Mormons are good citizens. Or that stresses the commonalities between the Church of Latter Day Saints and the more established denominations. But those responses will not satisfy anybody for very long. He will have opened the door to the question: “Is it OK for somebody who believes what you believe to be president?” And he will not find that door so easy to shut.

Read the whole thing, which ends with some wise advise for Romney.

Daniel Larison explains the inherent difficulty:

The impossible balancing act is stressing the political irrelevance of the theological differences Mormonism really does have with Christianity while simultaneously claiming that this very same religion, whose distinctive substance is supposed to be irrelevant, informs and shapes his “values” that he will rely on to make judgements about policy. Another part of the balancing act (which is where it becomes really dangerous politically) is to declare that it is “un-American” to judge a candidate based on his religion without insulting the millions of voters who consider a candidate’s religion an important part of selecting their preferred candidate, while also paying homage to the “separation of church and state” without actually endorsing the idea that the separation of church and state has any constitutional basis (which a fairly large number of religious conservatives doesn’t accept). His speech will have to go something like this: “My faith, which is very important to me and has made me who I am, should not be important to you, but it is important that we have a person of faith leading this country, and that person happens to be me.”

Larison’s conclusion:

In the end, Romney has always been in an impossible position: a sizeable percentage of his own party will never vote for someone of his religion, and these are the same people he needed to win over to become the unchallenged social conservative consensus candidate, which is why Romney’s campaign has always been a fool’s errand as I’ve said from the beginning. My guess is that Romney gives the speech on Thursday and his campaign in Iowa begins to implode, as his shallow support there evaporates.

Read the whole thing.
(HT: JT)

Mike Huckabee is surging in the polls: He is in first place in Iowa (5 points ahead of Romney), virtually tied for second place in New Hampshire, and in second place nationwide (within just 3 points of Giuliani).
Of course, this has resulted in a spike of attack ads, on issues such as Huckabee’s tax policies as Governor of Arkansas (1996-2007). Joe Carter, Director of Research for the Huckabee Campaign, pens a rebuttal to these attacks (read Joe’s lengthy comment below the actual post) and points to a balanced piece in the NY Times (of all places).
Update: Dick Morris argues that Governor Mike Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.