That “Mormon Speech.” Will Romney give it? You know the one. It’s the one Bob Novak said weeks ago existed and is ready to go.

Tonight, Mitt Romney will address “values voters,” a group of Christian evangelical political activists, a lot of whom are skeptical about Romney because of both his religion and his positions. And he just might have been given the perfect incentive to give his speech tonight thanks to Dr. Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, TX.

From the Dallas Morning News:

“Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise,” Dr. Jeffress said in a sermon Sept. 30. “Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and savior, he is not a Christian. Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult.”

Some in the large crowd began to applaud as Dr. Jeffress continued with his remarks.

“What really distresses me is some of my ministerial friends and even leaders in our convention are saying, ‘Oh, well, he talks about Jesus, we talk about Jesus. What’s the big deal?’ ” he said. “It is a big deal if anybody names another way to be saved except through Jesus Christ.”

Here’s the interesting thing about this story. The sermon was given on September 30th. It only got picked up October 18th by the media. Why?

Perhaps it is because today, October 19th, Mitt Romney is going to speak at the FRC event.

And the danger here is simple. A prominent Southern Baptist minister of a larger church has just gone on record from the pulpit saying “Mormonism is a cult.” Some who have not spoken out on the issue just might start. And then the flood gates could open.

Of course, the timing for this story comes right when Rudy makes a very ballsy gambit comparing Romney to Hillary. So now he’s got two things people will be looking at.

It might be time for Romney to pull out the big guns and give his speech.

Comes now Jim Geraghty with a potentially salient point:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 66% of Republicans believe that Giuliani at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. Thats down from 72% a month ago.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republican voters now say that Fred Thompson is at least somewhat likely to win in nominated. Thats up from 57% last month.

McCain’s at 57 percent, Romney’s at 47 percent. I wonder if the talk of the pro-lifers bolting to a third party made some Republicans fear that Rudy wouldn’t keep the GOP base and win over the pro-choice soccer moms.

As I have argued before, I suspect that a major part of Giuliani’s appeal is his potential ability to win the general election - more specifically, to defeat Hillary, so this is not the sort of news camp Rudy wants to hear. Of course, on the whole, I’m pretty skeptical of these sorts of poll questions and their applicability to the real voting world, so it could mean absolutely nothing. But it does seem as though at least some folks are contemplating the idea that, in Rudy’s case, a grab at the middle might indeed cost some of the right.

Of course, the accuracy of this and other polls depends largely on there being a third party candidate who has decent name ID and isn’t crazy. Looking over the field of possibles, this one probably spells the most trouble for the GOP if Rudy is nominated, especially given his regional strength in the South, an area in which Rudy is expected to underperform Bush, but which he still needs to hold to defeat Clinton. I’m still skeptical that Nunn will run, but if he announces before Iowa, it will be interesting to see whether his announcement changes the dynamic for the GOP field.

(Again, these are my impressions typing live, while Mitt is speaking)

Mitt Romney gets a big reception tonight here at the Washington Briefing. Jay Sekulow introduces him. Jay gets a big reception.

Jay’s introduction revolves around Mitt Romney’s marriage fight in Massachusetts.

Mitt comes in to a grand anthem. The room goes nuts — a bigger reception than any of the other candidates. He begins pitch perfect.

“I’m pro-family on every level, from personal to political,” he says. He says his “driving ambition” is to have his kids and grandkids grow up in a national that his strong and prosperous.

He’s got this Mr. Rogers thing going on right now talking about family. Think Mr. Rogers as President. You can’t help but like him, but you can’t help but think it’s a bit too canned or polished the message and pitch are just perfect.

He praises single parents like his sister Jane, but says “two parents are the ideal setting.” He wants to teach kids that before they have babies they should get married. “It really is time to make out of wedlock birth out of fashion again.” And you know what? You believe him. He seems just so sincere. And the message resonates. Then he gets “hats off to Bill Cosby for telling it like it is.”

He moves on to talk about inner-city families where young boys have no father figures. “And then there are the broad national tragedies built on this implication. . . . The nation cannot thrive” he says, talking about so many kids without dads.

Ann Romney, he says, has worked all her life to teach kids how to make good choices and if she’s first lady, that’ll continue to be her mission, he says. “I’ll convene a White House summit” to look at family issues. “I’ll realign government incentives to encourage marriage, not discourage it.”

This guy sounds like he’s already the nominee. It’s like the other candidates were here to sell themselves and Romney has taken the difference approach — presume he’s already been sold to them and show them what they’ve gotten. It’s not a bad approach for him. It works.

This is the most professional candidate speech so far. He pauses at the intended applause lines. He gets the applause. He laughs at the punch lines and everyone else does too.

Oh, and he wants to reinstate the family impact statement. They like that. I don’t know what the heck it is.

Now he’s on marriage and the crowd goes nuts when he promises a constitutional amendment to protect marriage as that between a man and woman. “Every child deserves a mother and a father,” he says. BTW, tonight I saw a gay couple with adopted Asian kids for the first time. It was rather interesting.

He says he was a pro-life governor and there are several people in the crowd who make a guffaw sound. He keeps going. Interestingly though, in a very long list of things relating to life he will oppose, he says he will oppose “embryonic cloning,” but he does not say a word about embryonic stem cell research. It’s extremely noticeable because of the long list of things he listed.

“I’m going to fight the modern plague,” he says. “Internet pornography.” It’s a big transition from abortion. “Computer pornography gives a whole new meaning to the term home invasion,” he says. Then he says he’d require every computer sold in America to have an easy to use pornography filter. He says people who prey on kids online will be “one strike and your out,” and when they get out they’ll have to wear “ankle bracelets for life.”

He wants “every family to have healthcare.” This is where he stumbles. He says he’ll do it without Hillary Care or new taxes. The audience reacts and he stops. No one does anything. He continues.

Now he says we need a federal tax credit for parents who home school their kids. The folks here love that.

“The anti-religion of secularism in this country has got to come to an end. We are a nation under God and We. Do. Place. Our. Trust. In. Him,” he says. The crowd roars. “By the way, did you know I’m a Mormon? I’ve heard a few people think they can’t support a Mormon, but that’s just because they’ve seen Harry Reid.” The crowd doesn’t really laugh well. It’s fractured.

“We’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton,” he says and brings the crowd to a roar again. He then gets impassioned about this nation remaining strong. He says we begin by strengthening the family.

He goes on to say we know where to begin, we know what to do, and “I can wait for us to do it together.” The crowd gives him a big standing ovation. The music is again a triumphant anthem.

And he’s gone.

The funny thing listening to this really Presidential speech — and it was in tone, substance, and delivery — is that you almost wanted him to be less polished. As much as Fred is unpolished and you want him more polished, you want the opposite of Romney

Life in the political spotlight isn’t getting any easier for Nancy Pelosi:

The two meetings House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended before a vote on a resolution labeling the massacre of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey a genocide foreshadowed the biggest political misstep of her speakership.

In the hours before a House panel approved the resolution Oct. 10, Pelosi was told in a tense meeting with Turkey’s ambassador that the vote would endanger his country’s alliance with the U.S. She had a warmer session with an Armenian cleric and representatives of Armenian-Americans, who have a large presence in her home state of California. In both, she made clear she intended to bring the resolution to a full House vote.

Since then, Pelosi, 67, has been in retreat. Her vow to bring the measure to a vote outraged Turkey, which recalled its ambassador and threatened to cut off the use of its military bases to resupply U.S. troops in Iraq. On Oct. 17, Pelosi said it “remains to be seen” whether the vote would occur after more than a dozen lawmakers pulled their names from the measure and some Democrats asked her to drop it.

“It’s a good resolution but a horrible time to be considering it on the House floor,” said Representative Mike Ross of Arkansas, one of the Democrats who withdrew his support.

“She dug in her heels to find that she didn’t have her members with her,” said Representative Ray LaHood, an Illinois Republican. “If you get too far out in front of them, it can be embarrassing.”

Tell us about it. And it isn’t as if others haven’t noticed the confusion emanating from the Speaker’s office:

There are three relevant questions concerning the Armenian genocide.

(a) Did it happen?

(b) Should the U.S. House of Representatives be expressing itself on this now?

(c) Was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s determination to bring this to a vote, knowing that it risked provoking Turkey into withdrawing crucial assistance to American soldiers in Iraq, a conscious (columnist Thomas Sowell) or unconscious (blogger Mickey Kaus) attempt to sabotage the U.S. war effort?

The answers are:

(a) Yes, unequivocally.

(b) No, unequivocally.

(c) God only knows.

It would be wrong to think this, but Republicans could perhaps be forgiven for believing that they no longer need to fight that hard against the Speaker’s initiatives. She seems to do a perfectly fine job in sabotaging them by herself.

Discussed here. Straw man builders, take note. There should probably be a quiz on this stuff at some point.

Oh, I almost forgot. Key passage:

The left is very clever. Defenders of the status quo have created a straw man, and they find quotes from politicians and others with little knowledge to create the impression that advocates of lower tax rates believe in the fiscal version of a perpetual-motion machine. This tactic is then used to prop up the existing system of revenue estimating, which is based on assumptions that would earn an F if put forth by a student in an undergraduate public finance course.

For Sunday, October 21, 2007

Meet the Press (NBC): Tim Russert interviews comedian Stephen Colbert about his Presidential candidacy in South Carolina. It’s a joke, but so is Al Franken, the individual. And Colbert is funnier.

Then Russert has one of those “political roundtables,” with Doris Kearns Goodwin , Kate O’Beirne, Judy Woodruff & Sally Bedell Smith, Not that it means anything existentially, but of those four, I could pick only Kate out of a lineup. Not that I’d ever be asked to do this.

FOX News Sunday (FNS): Host Chris Wallace talks to John McCain and Mike Huckabee about Sunday’s FOX debate in Florida.

This Week (ABC): Host George Stephanopoulos talks to Joe Biden about Joe Biden, “on the trail” with Joe Biden.

Face the Nation (CBS): Host Bob Schieffer talks to Mitt Romney.

Late Edition (CNN): Host Wolf Blitzer talks to Jane Harman and Pete Hoekstra; Lebanese Parliamentarian Walid Jumblatt, an anti-Syrian; World Bank President Robert Zoellick; and his usual cast of thousands.
—–

One wonders if Russert would Colbert if, knowing what he knows now “no wmd, no al qaeda, no aluminum tubing” would he have supported the invasion of Iraq. And one is not surprised that Blitzer is staying “international.”

For the legitimate Presidential election, the hosts seem to be keeping it safe: McCain, Huckabee, Joe Biden, and Romney although each of those four is something of a long shot for ther Party’s Presidential nomination and might slip and say something stupid in an effort to shake things up. (Biden, the lone Dem being interviewed, will say something stupid regardless.)

Mark Levin is making some great points getting the crowd rallied here at the Washington Briefing.

He says he is not willing to go third party and hand the White House back to the Clintons, like we did in 1992. The crowd goes wild (more on Giuliani shortly).

Then he says if we aren’t happy with our candidates, it is our fault. Again, the crowd goes nuts.

People are really clicking with this and the general consensus in the crowd is that third party = Clinton White House.

I, unfortunately, had to miss Rudy Giuliani’s speech this morning. But the buzz here at the Washington Briefing is generally very positive.

NZ Bear, luckily, was there and provides very good coverage of it.

he hit abortion head on, going through what he would do to reduce the number of abortions:

“First, I will veto any reduction in the impact of the Hyde amendment. “

“I will support any reasonable suggestion that promises to reduce the number of abortions. I support parental notifications and i will continue to and i support and will continue to support the ban on partial birth abortion.”

“I will reduce the red tape that makes adoption so difficult… I’ll make the… adoption tax credit permanent.”

Here’s the deal. I’ve been out roaming the hall talking to people and there is a consensus among the people here that Giuliani did what he had to do to stop a hemorrage in the general, but he did not pull them to him in the primary.

That’s probably what he needed to do. These are folks who are deeply, deeply skeptical of Rudy. They know he is not one of them. But they also know, as he showed them today, that he’d at least be passable, if not palatable, in the general.

[UPDATE:] Jim has some more. Also, I talked to some people I really, really respect and the three of them all said the same thing stuck with them. Giuliani talked about abortion rates versus adoption rates and kept stumbling over which was rising and which was falling. It was a minor stumble in his speech, but these three, who are thought leaders in this movement, all noticed it and it stuck with them.

Pay attention to Nathan Bradfield’s blogging on Giuliani. He’s been here live blogging it and is really in tune with the crowd here.

Mike Huckabee is coming. The Arkansas folks in the crowd go nuts. They won’t stop cheering.

It’s abundantly apparent from the corridors to the reception he gets when he comes in that Huckabee is among his own, more so than Romney or Fred.

He starts with an Al Gore joke. Then he talks about baby boomers now entering the system and what’s going to happen when the hippies realize they can now get free drugs.

“I come as one not who comes to you, but as one who comes from you. You are my roots,” he says as he sinks in to his speech. He points out that he started out as a Baptist minister. He tells a joke about a lady asking if he was one of those Baptists who was so narrow minded he thought only the Baptists would go to heaven. He says, “Lady, I’m more narrow minded than that. I don’t think even all the Baptists are going to heaven.”

Now he transcends into “non-negotiable values.” Freedom. Family. Faith.

He says we cannot “negotiate, accommodate, or placate Islamic terrorists. We must eliminate.” The crowd likes that. “We cannot have the naive idea that if we leave them alone they will leave us alone. That will get us killed,” he says as the crowd roars.

Then he goes into immigration and the broken border. He says he thanks God that we live in a place where people want to break into than break out of, but how terrible it is that it is more difficult for us to get on an airplane in our hometown than it is for an illegal to get over the border. Biggest Applause of Any Speech Yet That I’ve Seen.

He says he doesn’t blame those who want to come here. He blames the government that has sat around doing nothing for over 20 years. Again, the crowd goes nuts.

He moves to energy and how bad it is that we are so dependent on energy from others. People in the crowd verbally agree with him. Then he bashes China and the crowd goes wild. Romney should be nervous. So should Fred.

“Our freedom is threatened by a tax system that is out of control.” “As we say in the south, not even duct tape and WD-40 can fix it.” He goes into Fair Tax. He points out how it would stop the IRS from muzzling ministers in the pulpits from speaking out. The crowd goes wild again.

He brings up the Law of the Sea Treaty. The people clap. He says any judge that thinks he can legislate from the bench “ought to be impeached.” My ears are ringing the crowd is so loud.

Thompson and Romney should be worried. We have reached the crowd favorite.

Now he goes into marriage. The crowd goes wild and these, by the way, are not his people. His small group is up front, but the rest of the crowd is not his, but they are now.

“Why are we importing so many to do our work? Because we’ve aborted over a million Americans.” He calls it a holocaust. The crowd gets loud, but not as loud as at other points.

“We don’t need to move God to meet the cultural norms. We need to move the cultural norms to meet God.” Massive applause. Standing ovation.

Now he’s moved on to how faith is threatened in this country. He says there was once a time when some things were negotiable, but the sanctity of life and marriage and our freedom was not and never should be negotiable. “Let us never sacrifice our principles for anybody’s politics,” he says. The crowd likes that line.

“You know the prophets of old spoke the truth boldly,” he says. “They spoke the truth to power. All of you in this room have the power to go back to your states and counties and be true to your faith and convictions.”

Now he transitions into sermon. He talks about Jesus (I don’t remember Romney talking about the J man). He talks about believing in a God who could light a fire on wood soaked in water. He talks about Jesus raising Lazarus. “I don’t ever want anyone to let us replace expediency as new values for our long held values.” Someone shouts “Come on Mike!” He crowd starts yelling. They stand. They clap. They cheer. They whistle.

“I do not spell G-O-D, G-O-P. Our party may be important. But our principles are more important.” He says we cannot compromise our core beliefs. He says “Ladies and Gentlemen, it is time for those of us who call ourselves value voters to pledge our lifes, our fortunes, our sacred honor to that which is right, and true, and eternal.”

And then he’s gone.