As Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was preparing to deliver his speech about his Mormon faith, it was almost always mentioned in the same breath as John F. Kennedy’s 1960 speech about his Catholic faith.

Now, having seen both speeches, the comparisons can end.

Kennedy emphasized the importance of separating religious and governmental affairs. Romney stressed the need to embed religious beliefs in public affairs.

Romney’s speech was a very clear appeal to evangelical Christians. It was sprinkled with phrases and hints assuring them that he’ll support their causes — including appointing judges with strong faith beliefs.

Certainly, the context for both speeches is similar. Kennedy was, as he said, the object of a smear campaign in “these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries.” The accusation was, of course, that Kennedy would, as president, be taking orders from the Pope.

On September 12, 1960, less than two months before Election Day, Kennedy spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He made it clear that church leaders and church doctrine would not direct his actions as president.

He even took several key Catholic issues head on, saying that on birth control, divorce and gambling “I will make my decision in accordance with … what my conscience tells me to be in 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.”

Kennedy spoke not a word about his own religious beliefs, saying that “what kind of church I believe in … should be important only to me.”

As Kennedy did, Romney gave assurance “that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”

But beyond that, there’s little in common.

Romney says that some “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.”

But unlike Kennedy, Romney took pains to state: “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.” The decision to address that one facet of his beliefs is a way of trying to reassure the born-again Christians who are deeply suspicious of his faith beliefs, and who make up a key component of the conservative GOP base.

In fact, much of Romney’s speech is devoted to promoting the role of religion on public life, including declaring that freedom cannot exist without religion. “Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.”

While affirming the separation of church and state, he adds: “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.”

Likewise, Romney seemed to suggest that religion will be a factor in his judicial appointments. “Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.”

He adds this assurance: “And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me.”

To read Romney’s speech, you can find it on his campaign website here. And here’s a video of the speech.

To read the text of JFK’s speech and to listen to a recording of it, here’s a link to the JFK Presidential Library site.

What was your reaction to Romney’s speech? And how do you think it compares with Kennedy’s?

The GOP debate this week produced lots of fireworks, so here’s a look at follow-up stories and websites that try to sort out the facts behind the charges.

At PolitiFact.com, the Truth-O-Meter and the Attack File concludes:
Rudy Giuliani’s claim that Mitt Romney failed to take action against sanctuary cities: Mostly true.
Mitt Romney’s claim that Giuliani welcomed illegal immigrants: True.
Mike Huckabee’s explanation about school benefits for children of illegal immigants: Barely true.
Mitt Romney (aka Bill Buckner) muffed an easy grounder: He got a key Red Sox stat wrong.
Mitt Romney’s stat on out-of-wedlock African-American births: True.
Ron Paul’s claim on receiving campaign donations from military members: True.
John McCain’s claim on saving taxpayers $2 billion: True.

Here’s an AP story that examines whether New York was a sanctuary city under Guiliani. It makes a compelling case that NYC followed the same policies toward illegal immigrants as do cities that proudly proclaim themselves as sanctuary cities. In NYC, the policy was put in place long before Giuliani became mayor, but he vigorously protected the policy.

Giuliani took a swipe at Romney, saying he had a “sanctuary mansion” because illegal immigrants worked at the former governor’s home in Massachusetts. Here’s the original Boston Globe story, which was published nearly a year ago.

This first AP story and this second AP story explore whether Rudy Giuliani hid the costs of police protection for him while he had extramarital trysts with his now-wife, Judity Nathan.

Here’s the original Politico.com report, and here’s Politico’s next-day follow-up.

Here’s Guiliani explaining away the charge, on CBS news. (Be warned: 30-second ad precedes the report.)

Who do you think was “more truthful” and who was “less truthful” in the debate?

Just a few months ago, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee shared the anonymity of the handful of other back-of-the-pack Republican presidential candidates. In recent weeks, he’s registered a stunning climb in the polls.

Mike Huckabee

And after Wednesday night’s You Tube/CNN debate, he’s bound to get another huge boost — perhaps enough to propel him to victory in Iowa.

He had what appears, at least in the immediate aftermath, to have been a breakthrough performance. He was articulate, funny, homespun and perhaps more than any other candidate he exuded a confidence and sense of comfort in who he is and what he believes. (John McCain and Fred Thompson came close behind.)

Perhaps Huckabee struggled a bit to explain his support for scholarships for children of illegal aliens. But after that he scored on virtually every question. He was direct and unapologetic and registered high on the likeability scale.

Mitt Romney may have fared the worst. He’s already suspect among many Republicans for his evolution on key issues. And his performance could not have helped any in allaying those concerns. He stumbled, stammered and didn’t seem to know what he believed on some key issues, and at times his first instinct seemed to be to duck and weave.

Some other observations:

I’ll take the citizen-submitted video format and Anderson Cooper over Wolf Blitzer and Tim Russert any day.

Even so, while the questions were generally good, this batch of videos wasn’t as creative or surprising as the batch used in the Democratic debate.

I was surprised they didn’t use Minnesota’s Billiam the Snowman, given that this debate almost didn’t happen because of opposition to Billiam.

I was disappointed that they didn’t use a Red State Update video question, as they did in the Democratic debate. Those guys are hilarious. To see their work, go to their website here.

But this video, I thought, did stand out.

So what did you think of the debate? Do you think Huckabee will get the biggest bounce? And what did you think of Thompson submitting an attack ad for his own video? What else caught your attention?

Mark your 2008 calendars for Sept. 26, Oct. 7 and Oct. 15.

Those are the dates the Commission on Presidential Debates has selected for next year’s presidential debates. Among the new rules: the candidates will engage in direct exchanges with each other.

Here are the details:

First presidential debate:
Friday, September 26
University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS
Debate focus: Domestic issues

Second presidential debate:
Tuesday, October 7
Belmont University, Nashville, TN
Debate focus: Town hall style, with issues raised by members of the audience and via the Internet.

Third presidential debate:
Wednesday, October 15
Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Debate focus: Foreign issues

In addition the vice presidential debate will be:
Thursday, October 2
Washington University in St. Louis, MO

All debates will be 90 minutes long, beginning at 8 p.m. (Central), and each will have a single moderator.

The first and third presidential debates and the veep debate “will be divided into 8 ten-minute issue segments; the moderator will introduce each segment with an issue on which each candidate will comment, after which the moderator will facilitate further discussion of the issue, including direct exchange between the candidates, for the balance of that segment,” the commission said.

You can read the commission’s full announcement here.

If you can’t be in Iowa, here’s the next best thing — a number of videos that give you a flavor of the campaign as it starts the homestretch run to the Jan. 3 caucuses.

This Obama campaign video shows what activists actually do — in this case, preparing for the Harkin Steak Fry, where Obama was speaking. There’s drums, cheerleaders — and everyone is “fired up, ready to go.”

In debates, John Edwards talks about the fundamentally corrupt system in Washington. That’s the subject of this speech, but it’s delivered with the kind of passion that’s hard to convey during a debate, when you’re standing behind a podium and Wolf Blizter is shouting at you: “Yes or no.”

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign had some egg on its face recently, when it was disclosed that a campaign staffer planted a question — during a Clinton appearance — with an all-too-willing college student. I can’t embed the video here, but here are a couple of links to CNN videos. First, here’s the question and Clinton’s answer. And here’s an interview with the Grinnell College student who explains how it all happened.

This video of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee isn’t quite as lively and exciting as the Obama video. But just because his supporters aren’t marching and shouting, it doesn’t mean they’re any less enthusiastic and committed to their candidate. It’s people like Bob Anderson who are behind the recent Huckabee surge in Iowa.

Here’s Rudy Giuliani (”the only Republican with an office east of Des Moines”) speaking at the University of Iowa.

Rep. Tom Tancredo last week started running a hard-edged new ad about immigration and terrorism. As he explains at the start, “I’m Tom Tancredo, and I approved this message because someone needs to say it.”

And, for old time’s sake, here’s The Scream — Howard Dean’s overly enthusiastic speech to supporters after his third-place finish in Iowa in 2004.

In less than two months, voters will begin weeding out the presidential candidates, starting with the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 and New Hampshire’s still-to-be-scheduled primary.

So here’s a round-up of the latest news from those two key states, starting with Iowa.

This past weekend was a big one for Democrats, with 9,000 activists attending the party’s annual fundraising event — the Jefferson Jackson Dinner — in Des Moines. At the dinner, John Edwards delivered some of the sharpest rhetoric of the night, according to this AP story.

Here’s the Des Moines Register’s account, along with excerpts of the speeches given by the six candidates who attended the dinner.

Mike Huckabee has made big gains in Iowa

The most recent polls show Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton with a very narrow lead over Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards. The University of Iowa’s Hawkeye Poll surveyed likely caucus-goers Oct. 17-24, and it found that Clinton had 29 percent support, while Obama had 27 percent and Edwards had 20 percent. That put all of them within the poll’s margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.5 percent. A Zogby poll taken Nov. 6 had Clinton at 28, Obama at 25, and Edwards at 21. In both polls, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was a long way back, in single digits.

On the Republican side, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney holds a comfortable lead, but former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is showing signs of surging. The Hawkeye Poll had Romney at 36 percent, and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Huckabee both at about 13 percent, followed by former Sen. Fred Thompson at 11 percent. Zogby found similar results: Romeny at 31, Huckabee at 15, Giuliani at 11 and Thompson at 10.

On Friday, the New York Times had a front-page story that explored this surge by Huckabee. The story said that “there is a new sense of possiblity in the Huckabee campaign. It has been fueled in large part by evangelicals, including a politically active home-schooling population, dissatisfied with his better-financed competitors.”

On the Democratic side, Sen. Joe Biden may be trailing in the polls, but he can boast of having earned the first Iowa newspaper endorsement. Here’s the Storm Lake Times editorial from Oct. 20.

In New Hampshire, Romney again holds a significant lead, according to a Boston Globe poll taken Nov. 2-7. It had Romney at 32, Giuliani at 20, Sen. John McCain at 17, and Huckabee at 5. A Marist Poll taken at about the same time found similar numbers.

Clearly, the Huckabee surge hasn’t spread to New Hampshire, but if he beats expectations in Iowa, that could translate into an immediate boost in New Hampshire.

In the Democratic race, Clinton enjoys a larger lead over Obama than she does in Iowa. The Globe had Clinton at 35 and Obama at 21, with Edwards at 15 and Richardson at 10. The Marist Poll had it Clinton 38, Obama 26, Edwards 14 and Richardson at 6.

Meanwhile, it’s still uncertain when New Hampshire voters will go to the polls. Officials there are waiting to see if Michigan’s attempt to jump up in the schedule to Jan. 15 succeeds. If it does, then New Hampshire almost certainly would go before Michigan, possibly holding its primary in December.

With Veterans Day approaching, the intersection of politics and Iraq veterans is cropping up.

This week a chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War was denied permission to march in a Veterans Day Parade in Long Beach, Calif., on the grounds that they don’t reflect the spirit of the parade. Here the organization’s take on the dispute. Here’s a story from the Long Beach Press Telegram.

Ashwin Madia

And yesterday, I received two press releases that sounded the alarm about politicians playing politics with Iraq veterans — and which themselves sounded awfully political.

Vets for Freedom lashed out at Congress for failing to pass legislation boosting health care and other benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan war vets. The group is established as a non-partisan organization, but like many other 527-registered groups, its political affiliation is thinly veiled. The left-leaning SourceWatch describes the Vets for Freedom ties to the GOP here.

Closer to home, the Constitution Party of Minnesota issued a release complaining that the two major parties merely use veterans “as political pawns.” It then went on to use the upcoming Veterans Day to announce it was launching a three month campaign to honor veterans, followed by an “election-season kick-off event to be held in February.”

Another interesting factoid to note: although the Iraq war is a burning issue in the presidential campaign, none of the front-running presidential candidates have served in the military, with the notable exception of Sen. John McCain.

In August, Sen. Barack Obama picked up an endorsement from the only Iraq veteran serving in Congress, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.).

Steve Sarvi

In Minnesota, two Iraq veterans are running for Congress. Marine Corps veteran Ashwin Madia of Plymouth is running as a Democrat for retiring Rep. Jim Ramstad’s Third District seat. Madia, who was a captain in the Marine Corps., served as a judge advocate in Baghdad.

In the Second District, Steve Sarvi is running as a Democrat against Rep. John Kline, himself a retired Marine. Sarvi, a former mayor of Watertown, served in Iraq for 16 months with the Minnesota National Guard.

Addendum: Moments after I posted this item, I checked my e-mail and found yet another example of cashing in on Veterans Day for political gain. The e-mail was from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and it gave failing grades to Republican Sen. Norm Coleman for his votes on veterans’ health care.

Mitt and Ann Romney

In a new TV ad that will start running today in Iowa, Ann Romney says: “Mitt says his greatest success is being able to say ‘I have been a good father, and a good husband.’ ”

That message will be heard loud and clear by those attending the Values Voters conference in Washington today. And Rudy Giuliani will take note, too.

Romney and Giuliani, in fact all of the GOP presidential candidates, are scheduled to speak to this gathering of Christian conservatives, sponsored by groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family.

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, was among a number of conservative leaders who recently talked openly of splitting from the Republican Party and backing a third-party candidate if Giuliani wins the GOP nomination. Giuliani’s support of abortion rights and gay rights, as well as his un-Romney-like personal life, is causing great unease among many conservatives.

The timing of Romney’s ad, which features his wife and a blur of active, happy Romney kids and grandkids, seemingly more than there are enrolled in SCHIP, is no coincidence. You can see the ad, titled “Our Home,” here.

In his speech tonight, Romney is expected to stress family themes, the Boston Globe reports in this story.

Here are a number of other recent stories and analyses about what’s at stake at the gathering.

The New York Times says in its Caucus blog that Romney and Fred Thompson have the most riding on the conference, because many conservatives have doubts about them, too.

Rudy Giuliani in Minneapolis

The American Prospect’s Adele M. Stan gives Giuliani this much: “the guy’s got moxie.” She also looks back at last years Values Voters Summit.

The Tory Anarchist (Daniel McCarthy, a contributing editor to The American Conservative) says in this posting that the religious right really hasn’t gone after Giuliani in the way they did, for example, in 1995 when they quashed Collin Powell. The reason: “they know they can’t stop him.”

If there is a third-party run, it won’t be John McCain leading the way. He pledged on Thursday to back the nominee. Here’s the AP story on Politically Connected.

Given that this key Republican constituency has deep concerns about Giuliani, can he win the GOP nomination?

Is he the GOP’s strongest candidate, or does a Giuliani nomination ensure a fracture within the party and guarantee a Democratic victory?

Or is there a third-party coalition — and a candidate to lead it — that could win?

Al Franken

Even before today’s official deadline for federal candidates to report their fundraising numbers, one thing is abundantly clear: the left is raking in big money.

That’s true nationally and it’s the case in Minnesota, too.

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken is enjoying being on the receiving end of this leftist largess.

Meanwhile, Sen. Norm Coleman and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, both Republicans, are on the receiving end of the spending by leftist groups. They’re both the targets of new television or radio ads critizing them over Iraq (Coleman) and the children’s health insurance battle (Bachmann).

The advantage the left is enjoying is highlighted at OpenSecrets.org, which tracks political money. The OpenSecrets overview is here. From the presidential race to Senate and House races to issue-oriented groups, the left comes out on top.

Norm Coleman

Consider:

Democratic presidential candidates raised an average of $2.2 million to the Republicans’ $1.2 million.

The top two Democrats – Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama — raised a combined $122 million. The top Republicans — Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani — raised $80 million.

Nine out of 10 of the top overall donors have given more than half their money in 2007 to Democrats.

However you slice it, the Democrats end up with the biggest piece of the pie.

And that money is flowing into Minnesota in a big way. OpenSecrets ranks the Minnesota Senate race as the second most expensive in the nation. The Texas Senate race ranked first with $18.5 million raised by the candidates combined, and Minnesota followed close behind with $16.2 million. A distant third was Massachusetts with $8.2 million.

In the most recent quarter, Franken, the Democratic challenger, achieved the rare feat of outraising the incumbent, Coleman. Here’s the Star Tribune story about Franken and Coleman’s fundraising, and here’s our story about money raised by Mike Ciresi.
The radio ad aimed at Coleman is the work of Keeping America’s Promise, which is Sen. John Kerry’s political action committee. Coleman is one of six Republican senators targeted. You can find out more about Kerry’s effort here. And here is Coleman’s campaign website and here is the page we’ve created about him here on Politically Connected.

Michele Bachmann

While Coleman is being hit by a well-known figure, Bachmann is in the sights of a group that isn’t a household name, but it is one of the biggest left-leaning money groups — the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), with 1.9 million members. The SEIU is part of the coalition paying for the TV ads pressing Bachmann to vote later this week to override President Bush’s veto of the children’s health insurance program.

The SEIU’s advocacy arm (a 527 organization), has raised more money than any other 527 group this election cycle, with $6.7 million, according to OpenSecrets. The closest right wing 527 group: GOPAC with $3.7 million. Here’s SEIU’s website and here’s Bachmann’s campaign website and here’s GOPAC’s site.

OpenSecrets cites the fact that Democrats control Congress as a key reason for their fundraising advantage.

Do you think that explains what’s happening? And why do you think the Minnesota Senate race is drawing so much money?

In our Minnesota Poll story today — it’s here — reporter Bob von Sternberg notes that the rise in independents is being detected nationwide.

Barack Obama

The New York Times recently pointed to the same trend nationally, and explored what impact it could have in the New Hampshire primary. Like Minnesota, New Hampshire has an open primary, allowing voters to decide as they walk into the polls which party primary they want to vote in. The Times story, here, concluded that it could hurt Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain, and benefit Barack Obama.

What impact could independents who lean toward one of the parties have if they decide to attend Minnesota’s Republican and DFL precinct caucuses on Feb. 5? One way to answer that question is to compare the presidential candidate support among only those Minnesota Poll respondents who declared a clear party affiliation, with the support levels when the “leaners” are included.

The conclusion: There’s no discernable difference.

No candidate in either party had more than a 2-point swing in their level of support when comparing party-regulars-only and party-regulars-and-leaners.

On the Republican side, Rudy Giuliani’s lead over John McCain was 28 percent to 24 percent among Republicans, and was 27 percent to 22 percent among Republicans and leaners.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Rodham Clinton’s advantage over Barack Obama shrinks by only one point, from a 49-23 percent gap among Democrats to a 47-22 percent gap among Democrats and leaners.

In other words, the leaners toward each party are small enough in number and they break close enough along the lines of the party regulars that, at least at this point, they don’t seem to affect the overall results for candidate preference.

Do you agree with the thrust of the New York Times story? And what role do you think independents will play in Minnesota and other states as the presidential race unfolds?