Who are you and what have you done with my mother-in-law?

Just kidding. I have the best mother-in-law in the world and she is quite enthusiastic about having "grandbabies," as she calls them.

No news on that front, though. I simply think one should call a spade a spade. And what Congress and the President are doing right now is, quite simply, spending my (unborn) kids' money -- and Austin and Camille's, Nancy. That, I find, sticks in one's mind a lot better than the vague concept of "running up a trillion-dollar deficit." A trillion is hard to wrap your mind around. But your kids getting stuck with a tab they didn't run up? A bit easier.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:17 AM on February 09, 2010 | Permalink

It's great to have you back. But I have to ask... in your post below, you worry that Congress has spent your kids' money.

Kids?

Do you have news you'd like to share? Honestly, it would explain your absence.

Also, for those of you who are snow-bound, movies are a great cure for cabin fever. SixSeeds has this week's DVD releases. When you are at the video store, they help you choose wisely.

I know those of you who can't see your car because it's covered in ice aren't happy about it. But I'm hoping against hope that Tennessee gets enough snow that my kids get out tomorrow.

We'll see.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:36 AM on February 09, 2010 | Permalink

...if this is terrifying or comforting: Florida Sen. George LeMieux -- who is, if you ask me, keeping Marco Rubio's seat warm -- says that if we simply cut the federal government's spending back to 2007 levels, we'd run a big surplus. Comforting because that seems an easy and non-radical fix; terrifying because think of how much of my kids' money Congress has spent in such a short time.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 07:21 AM on February 08, 2010 | Permalink

Greetings, EFM fans! You probably didn't notice, given that the Frenches are the real talent in these parts, but I've discovered to my chagrin that this is my first post of 2010. Whoops. Don't worry; I didn't sign up with the Huckabeeans over Christmas. But as we all know, there are many things in life beyond politics, and for a time, those crowded this humble blog out.

Now I'm back, just in time to see U.S. Senator Scott Brown (oh, how sweet the sound!) sworn in on Capitol Hill. May I say a few words about that?

First, as has been discussed here already, Gov. Romney played an integral, behind-the-scenes role in getting Sen. Brown into the race and raising money for him when no one outside of Wrentham knew his name. It seems to me he deserves credit not just for helping, but for keeping his mouth shut in the best interests of his team -- not something at which most politicians excel.

That, however, should not have been an immense surprise, at least to those of us who have followed Gov. Romney for years. Let me tell you something that did surprise me, then: the way the conservative grassroots embraced Sen. Brown.

Why? Because it stood in stark contrast to the kind of junk we saw in the 2008 presidential race, namely the never-ending search for a "conservative messiah." We've inveighed against this at length here, and I'll spare you a regurgitation of our brilliant arguments, because that's not the point. The point is: The grassroots embraced Sen. Brown because he was the man for the moment, not because they deluded themselves into thinking he was perfect.

And let it be said, he's not perfect. He's pro-abortion, for one thing. Yes, he's less pro-abortion than the mind-boggling Massachusetts left. But he is unequivocally in favor of Roe v. Wade. Also, while he has stalwartly stood against ObamaCare, he's made clear that he will not be a down-the-line fiscal conservative. ("I'm a Scott Brown Republican," he says.)

I supported him anyway, of course, and based on his fabulous money bomb, I wasn't the only one.

Why does this matter so much?

Because in the Massachusetts special election, national conservatives essentially had three options:

1. Support a good candidate who had a chance and was right on the two major issues where an extra Republican senator could make a difference (ObamaCare and terrorism), pretty good on many more (tax cuts come to mind), and bad on some that are presently out of reach (most notably abortion).

2. Try to find a perfect conservative candidate, in Massachusetts of all places.

3. Sit on our hands in the absence of such a candidate.

In the 2008 presidential race, many (most?) conservatives embraced an odd mind meld of options 2 and 3. The result? Republican nominee John McCain, President Barack Obama, and a government takeover (or near-miss, as with health care) of huge and important parts of our economy. Had we done so in the Massachusetts special, surely the result would have been Sen. Martha Coakley and the passage of ObamaCare, along with who knows what else. How gratifying that conservatives chose the wiser option. Can we do the same in 2012?

By the way, I don't mean by the rationale above that conservatives should accept all Republican candidates. There are some who are simply not worth supporting, and are even worth vocally opposing. One of these was my home-state Sen. Arlen Specter, who until recently called himself a Republican. Conservatives rightly opposed his renomination in 2004, when he was challenged by then-Rep. Pat Toomey, and I for one found Sen. Specter so objectionable -- and so, in fact, inferior to having a real Democrat in office, who would at least not do harm to the reputation of the party that is most often home to conservatives -- that I supported the Democrat in the general election. There are other examples, such as former senator Lincoln Chafee (who won his primary in Rhode Island but lost the general and is now an independent) and former Alaska governor Frank Murkowski, who was toppled in a primary by a little lady you may have heard of on account of his corrupt dealings.

But opposing liberal Republicans who are doing damage and could reasonably be replaced with a better candidate is a far cry from endlessly lusting after a perfect candidate (or, as he is usually called, "true conservative"). The truth is, there are no perfect candidates, because there are no perfect people. That, incidentally, is a lesson some conservatives in my native land seem to need to learn this year, especially after Massachusetts. Some have decided that Pat Toomey -- who was the conservative alternative in 2004, spent the next few years taking out liberal Republicans as head of the Club for Growth, and is now the odds-on favorite for the Republican nomination for Senate, is not a "true conservative," mainly because he said he would have voted to confirm Justice Sotomayor.

There in 2010 and nationally in 2012, conservatives need to do what we did in Massachusetts: back a sound candidate who is right for the moment and concede that he is not and never will be perfect. And you'll forgive me if I am getting more and more convinced that the right man for a moment with ten percent unemployment and rampant government overspending that threatens my kids' prosperity is the economic guru and turnaround artist who also happens to have a wonderful family life and the right values.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:54 AM on February 08, 2010 | Permalink

One of the great and unexpected blessings of our little Evangelicals for Mitt operation has been seeing how God's hand has been at work. And when I say that, I don't mean politics. God holds the nations in the palm of His hand, and as much as we may think (or may think we know) His will in any given political race or political controversy, we don't. Our perspective is not eternal, our "wisdom" is foolishness compared to God's, and we humans often have trouble seeing the nose on our face, much less truly understanding the complexities of our own culture. We do our best -- because that is our calling -- but we completely depend on God to make things right.

When I say that I've seen God's had at work in our efforts here at EFM, I'm actually talking about our relationships with our LDS readers. We stuck our necks out just a tiny bit to declare unequivocally not just our support for Mitt but also our respect for his faith, and the LDS community responded with what is best described as a tidal wave of love in response. This moved me before I left for Iraq, but it turns out that I'd only experienced half the story. The rest -- and the mysterious ways of our God -- follow.

When I landed in Iraq, I landed in a remote Forward Operating Base near the Iranian border. There we slightly less than 800 of us in our unit, and we were put in the middle of a hornet's nest. Al Qaeda controlled the countryside, and Thanksgiving morning, 2007, marked the beginning of a nearly year-long battle to drive them out. We lost many good men, including good friends. It was the hardest year of my life.

As you might imagine, there weren't many LDS Soldiers in our unit. In fact, there were exactly two active LDS members, plus one who describes himself as Mormon-Catholic-Agnostic (he grew up LDS).

How do I know this? Because two of them were my roommates, and one of them was my paralegal. What were the odds? I didn't choose my roommates, and I didn't choose my paralegal, but there they were -- assigned to me -- after I'd spent the better part of the last year working hand in hand with our dear LDS readers, getting to know a dear LDS family (the extended Romney family), and enduring the occasional slings and arrows from those who opposed our efforts. In fact, one of my roommates had even heard of Evangelicals for Mitt and read some of my posts.

It's strange, but the instant I learned they were LDS, I knew that we would be brothers -- and we were. I like to think that maybe when they learned who I was and what I'd been doing with EFM, they knew they had a friend. And I know they loved me and supported me in a way that's difficult to describe.

God's ways are mysterious, but they are good. And even if this EFM effort isn't politically successful, it has blessed my life.

One final note. When I was gone, my wife organized -- working thorugh SixSeeds, a Boston-based charity -- Operation Send-a-Box which supplied my entire unit (and everywhere else on our base) with a care package that contained clean sheets, towels, reading material, new DVDs, and other "necessities" to help make our remote base a bit more hospitable. When it was all said and done, 2,500 packages arrived. They came from across the country and even from abroad, but where did the largest shipments come from? Tennessee (where I live), Massachusetts (the home of SixSeeds), and . . . Utah.

So before the political wars heat up again, I wanted to pause for a moment and say thank you. Thank you for enriching our lives. And thank God for the blessing of these relationships.

And now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

Posted by David French at 12:50 AM on February 08, 2010 | Permalink

CNN reports

In an interview recorded Saturday and broadcast on "FOX News Sunday," Palin said she would run "if I believed that that is the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family."

"I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country," Palin said, later adding: "I won't close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future."

Posted by Nancy French at 11:38 PM on February 07, 2010 | Permalink

Posted by Nancy French at 12:50 AM on February 05, 2010 | Permalink

The best point? When Colbert says that gay marriage is not permissible according to "the guy who wrote the Bible."

Posted by Nancy French at 12:44 AM on February 05, 2010 | Permalink

Will Salt Lake City be overlooked as the host for the next GOP convention because of its "reputation?"

A Deseret News blogger asks the question.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:35 PM on February 01, 2010 | Permalink

Politico reports that the money being raised at the beginning of this election cycle is already off the charts:

Republicans eyeing the 2012 presidential nomination are off to a similar pace as that of the super-charged 2008 cycle, according to a comparison of last year's political action committee fundraising figures with those from the parallel year last cycle, 2005.

The $2.9 million Mitt Romney raised for his Free and Strong America PAC exceeds (even adjusted for inflation) the total of the top 2005 fundraiser, John McCain. Sarah Palin's 2009 total of $2.1 million is more than any '05 candidate other than McCain. And Tim Pawlenty's $1.3 million matches Hillary Clinton's 2005 sum.

The bottom line is that 2008 cycle had a deeper, bipartisan field, but the '12 frontrunners -- Romney, Palin, and Pawlenty -- are raising serious dough.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:28 PM on February 01, 2010 | Permalink

Via the Competent Conservative. I saw the following Fox News panel discussing 2012:

As the good folks at the Competent Conservative note, the good news is that Charles Krauthammer and Kristen Powers both say that Mitt Romney has the best chance to beat Obama in 2012. The bad news is that Kristen Powers believes that Mitt Romney will have a tough time getting out of the primaries "because of the evangelicals."

I'm not going to be some kind of Pollyanna and say that Kristen is completely wrong. As 2008 proved, the evangelical vote can block the Governor in key states (Iowa, South Carolina, etc.), but it's absolutely critical to understand that evangelical opposition to Governor Romney is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. It happened largely in 2008 because one candidate decided to play the religion card early and often to court his natural constituency. Even worse, that candidate seemed to have a special disdain for Mitt.

As I see the 2012 race breaking down, two candidates will have equally strong appeal for evangelicals: Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. With Governor Palin in the race, Huckabee won't be able to essentially corner the market on the evangelical constituency, and he has already proven that his appeal outside his base is quite limited. After all, he won only 8% of the non-evangelical vote in 2008.

At the same time, Mitt will continue to get a substantial minority of evangelical voters (he won 25% in 2008) and the lion's share of former McCain voters.

But of course, all of this is idle speculation (though enjoyable). After all, who knows what the political landscape will look like in two years? In the meantime, all we can do is try to convince Mitt that he's got grassroots support out there. So, if you live anywhere close to New Orleans, and you support Mitt, email Nancy.

Do it.

Posted by David French at 12:43 PM on January 30, 2010 | Permalink

This is a great interview that reveals Jay's dad and Scott's dad were friends. In fact, Jay's parents may have named their dog after Scott's dad Bruce! (Warning -- I just watched with my kids, so be warned that the infamous "Centerfold" shot is included.)

Posted by Nancy French at 11:02 AM on January 30, 2010 | Permalink

Very interesting interview with Gov. Romney

Posted by Nancy French at 12:54 AM on January 30, 2010 | Permalink

Politico discusses just how far ahead Gov. Romney is organizationally:

Mitt Romney's PAC just announced that he'd raised $2.9 million last year -- and also brags that he spent more than $120,000 helping Republican candidates.

That spending, as much as the raising, is a mark of how much farther along the organizational curve toward a presidential bid than are his likely rivals.

Read it all here.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:50 AM on January 30, 2010 | Permalink

We got an honest-to-goodness snow storm down here, a weather condition for which we were unprepared. Do you want to see what to do if you don't have boots? Put Wal-Mart bags over your shoes, use tape to "waterproof" them. (We only had the U.S. Postal service tape. Your tax money well spent.) We played for hours outside and our toes were toasty! But we did look ridiculous... or ready to mail.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:41 AM on January 30, 2010 | Permalink

It's all too easy to dismiss the state of the union address as partisan or "politics as usual." But parents should look at this as an ideal chance to talk to their kids about our nation's history and our political process. Watch it with them, turn off the pundits, grab some hot chocolate, and discuss!

Click here for some discussion questions and a fun quiz to test your kids' SOTU knowledge!

Posted by Nancy French at 03:38 PM on January 27, 2010 | Permalink

Not according to Palin:

"Well, I don't think it's anybody's turn ever. We've got to really, really work hard to build up that trust in the people for the people to elect you in a primary and general," she said, going on to call Romney "a great guy."

Posted by Nancy French at 12:32 PM on January 27, 2010 | Permalink

No, not the O'Reilly Factor. The World of Warcraft:

David French is a busy guy. Take a glance over his bio: A graduate of Harvard Law School and David Lipscomb University, French serves as senior counsel and director of the university litigation project for a large non-profit legal organization. He is also a captain in the United States Army Reserve and recently returned from a year-long deployment to Iraq with the 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment, where he earned a Bronze Star. The former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, he also taught at Cornell Law School and served as a partner in a large law firm. He is the author of four books and numerous op-eds. Regularly interviewed by both print and broadcast media, David has a guest on The O'Reilly Factor, ABC World News Tonight, The Fox Report with Shepard Smith, Special Report with Brit Hume, and Your World with Neil Cavuto, among others. He has been profiled in several magazines and appears regularly on dozens of radio programs, including National Public Radio. He is a married father of two.

There's one more thing that David French's bio doesn't mention: He's cleared the first wing of ICC-10 on two toons, ICC-25 on one and still found time to wipe for hours on Festergut. ("Good times.")

This is the story of how (and why) he does it all.

Read it all here!

Posted by Nancy French at 09:15 PM on January 26, 2010 | Permalink

Tedd Davis has a great article on ABC News this morning, getting the rundown of the possible 2012 candidates -- along with their pros and cons. Here is the #1 candidate:

Mitt Romney

Pro: Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is widely seen by political insiders as the frontrunner for the GOPs 2012 presidential nomination. His strengths include being seen as "the next guy up" in a party with a tradition of rewarding second-time candidates (think Nixon in 1968, Reagan in 1980, Bush I in 1988, Dole in 1996, McCain in 2008). Other assets include his personal wealth; his efficient staff; his fire-in-the-belly; his work on behalf of Republican candidates around the country; and his business background. Like many aspiring presidential candidates who have come before him, he has written a new book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness," which is set to be released March 2.

Con: Romney, who dropped his support for abortion rights as he got closer to his 2008 presidential run, faces lingering questions about his authenticity. There also remain certain evangelical Christians who are not sure if a Mormon qualifies as a Christian. Romney showed in 2008 that he can endure the rigors of a presidential campaign. His previous run, however, also makes him something less than a fresh face.

The entire article is a great way to familiarize yourself with the competition. But, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times about this kind of statement:

"There also remain certain evangelical Christians who are not sure if a Mormon qualifies as a Christian."

For those of you evangelicals who are struggling to discuss this issue of religion in a fair way, don't get fooled into thinking you have to delve into the various theological differences or similarities. (There are many of both!) Instead, it shouldn't matter that we theologically are aligned. After all, we aren't looking for our next Sunday-School-teacher-in-chief. Instead, we are looking for someone who shares our values, someone we trust morally... and politically!

Posted by Nancy French at 09:29 AM on January 25, 2010 | Permalink

David is in Washington speaking to a large pro-life gathering, so I took the kids to see "The Tooth Fairy," starring The Rock. If you recently saw the Alvin and the Chipmunks "Squeakquel" and feel you can never go back to a kids' movie again without your therapist or a flask, then treat yourself to this new and fun Tooth Fairy flick. Read our SixSeeds.tv review here.

So, I'm linking to SixSeeds.tv, which is a new e-zine David and I are doing when we don't want to talk politics. If you haven't gone there and signed up, do it! We have great articles about things that are good, fun, and family-oriented. If you missed:

David's admission that he's always hated The Force in Star Wars, and why he prefers Avatar;

Or, how video games can actually be good for you;

Or, how Transformers (literally) changed someone's life... and his name;

Or, my review of "It's Complicated" here, which explains why I had conflicted feelings about this hilarious movie;

Or, why I think The Biggest Loser is one of the best shows on TV;

Or how kids' picture books sometimes need to be put back on the shelves;

Or, what it's like to be a Jeopardy champion before Ken Jennings breaks all your records;

Or, the latest movie reviews. Did you know, for example, that The Book of Eli is about a guy trying to protect his Bible?

You would have if you read SixSeeds.tv. Just saying.

You can't read about politics all the time, now can you?

Posted by Nancy French at 12:36 AM on January 24, 2010 | Permalink

My name is Nancy and I drive a truck!

What kind of truck does Brown drive? A green 2005 GMC Canyon, one of only 609 in Massachusetts.

But the times, the are a-changin'. This article in the Boston Globe begins, "Sorry, Prius, you’ve been eclipsed by The Truck."

(And before I get any e-mails, my Nissan was made right here in my homestate of Tennessee. Cute kids not included.)

Posted by Nancy French at 12:16 AM on January 23, 2010 | Permalink

...that it was constitutionally prohibited for both a Presidential candidate and his running mate to be from the same state?

(I ask this,even though one of EFM's bloggers -- my husband -- is a constitutional lawyer. Consider it rhetorical.)

Many have said that since Brown won in such a glorious way in Massachusetts, the GOP should have a Romney/Brown ticket for 2012.

Amidst other problems -- such as Brown being pro-choice -- they would have a residency issue, since both are legal residents of Massachusetts.

Now ya know.

Hat tip: The Hill

Posted by Nancy French at 12:04 AM on January 23, 2010 | Permalink

First, before I say anything else, the credit for last night's victory goes primarily to Scott Brown and the people of Massachusetts. It was one of those rare marriages of man and moment. Well done, Senator Brown.

But as with any major political campaign, there's credit (or in the case of a loss, blame) to go around, and it was deeply heartening for me to see the role Governor Romney and his key advisors played in the race. While it's too early to make sweeping statements about the long-term effect of the Scott Brown win, this could be the moment when Mitt bonds with the conservative movement. If there was one weakness in Republican perception of Governor Romney in 2008 (aside, of course from Governor Huckabee's tribalistic populism) it was the perception that he wasn't really a movement candidate, that he was coming at the nomination from outside the core conservative community.

What about now? When his fingerprints and support are all over the most exciting movement victory since 1994?

I particularly love the way Mitt helped. It was textbook Mitt. He was for Scott Brown before being for Scott Brown was cool, setting him up with the absolute basics of a campaign: office space, fundraising, fundraising lists, and -- critically -- the right people to help run the campaign. The core members of Mitt's 2008 campaign team migrated over to Scott Brown and helped plan and execute one of the most astute, dynamic campaign strategies I've ever seen.

All of this was done without Mitt taking center stage, without him attempting to capture the limelight, or to divert attention away from the winning candidate. I love the venture capitalist analogy Nancy draws below . . . he did exactly what venture capitalists do. He invested early in the right person.

So now, when members of "the movement" ask me for evidence that Mitt is "one of us," I'll just say, "Scott Brown." Playing a vital role in the most important conservative insurgency in almost two decades is a nice new addition to Governor Romney's already-impressive political resume.

Posted by David French at 11:46 AM on January 20, 2010 | Permalink

Just got an e-mail from Bill Hagerty:

Today’s’ result showed that another miracle in Massachusetts was possible. Mitt won the governor’s seat there when, theoretically, no Republican could be elected. Mitt won because the State of Massachusetts was in need of a massive turnaround – deeply in debt and no light on the horizon. Scott Brown won the seat tonight with our nation in similar straits – desperately in need of a vote to stop the rapid encroachment of Washington on our day-to-day lives.

Scott achieved this victory with the help of Mitt’s campaign manager, Beth Myers, and Mitt’s communications brain trust, Eric Fehrnstrom. Mitt’s PAC provided Scott the seed money and even the office space to start his campaign -- and the return on investment has been extraordinary . . . Tune in tonight and you’ll see Mitt introduce the next Senator from Massachusetts.

This result marks an inflection point in US politics. The role that you played in helping Mitt obtain the clout to help effect this change on Washington cannot be understated. Tonight’s results demonstrate the long range effect of the investments you’ve made on Mitt’s behalf.

Thank you for what you have done . . . and stayed tuned.

UPDATE: I just turned on Fox News -- I saw the Governor get a handshake from the new Senator, but I couldn't see much of anything else. On a night like this, it's obvious that the former venture capitalist still knows how to pick 'em.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:39 PM on January 19, 2010 | Permalink

... according to Gov. Romney. Also, he talks about the extent to which he helped Scott Brown:

UPDATE: He WINS!

Posted by Nancy French at 08:57 PM on January 19, 2010 | Permalink

I don't know if Scott Brown will win tomorrow. I hope he will, but as a guy who lived in Massachusetts for three years, I know the power of the Democratic machine. Look what they did to Mitt in '94 when Ted Kennedy was in peril. Look at the ferocity of their attacks now (I mean, did John Kerry actually warn of a "dangerous atmosphere" around Scott Brown rallies? Really?)

But regardless of tomorrow's outcome, if you had asked any pundit in America this time last year if Ted Kennedy's seat (I'm sorry, the people's seat) would be in danger, they probably would have accused you of excessive drug use. Obama was about to be sworn in, and a new era in American politics was dawning. Conservatives were so . . . 2004.

But one year of grotesque overreaching later, and the world looks very different. And the Scott Brown campaign can help show us the way. No one is looking at him as some sort of conservative messiah. We're over messiahs now. In practice, he represents a near-perfect channeling of the tea party movement into political reality. It's a marriage of congenial, personable politician to strong conservative ideas.

When I think of the tea party movement, I think of ideas, not people. They're standing in the front of the Obama machine yelling, "Stop!" But it's not just a movement about "no;" it's a movement about a particular vision of modest government -- a government that stimulates the economy and the culture by maximizing liberty, not by command and control. It's a movement that's anti-elite not because we don't believe in expertise but because we believe this "elite" is out of control, pretentious, and wrong.

To those who think it's unlikely that a Mitt Romney-style Massachusetts politician could so well capture the spirit of the moment I think have misjudged the moment. We don't want political messiahs. We want good ideas, conservative ideas. Soaring rhetoric matters less than excellence, and even the most well-intentioned government bureaucracy is no substitute for the unleashed entrepreneurial spirit of the American economy.

Posted by David French at 05:58 PM on January 18, 2010 | Permalink

Okay, I must be a sucker, but I found this video (suggested by my friend Ted Jacobs at church) genuinely moving.

Ted, by the way, is the father-in-law of Vinny deMacedo, the Ranking Minority Member on the House Ways and Means Committee, who's been there with Scott Brown the whole way. (We had the pleasure of having a holiday meal with him a couple of years ago, and found his family wonderful. Vinny owns a gas station in South Plymouth and really believes in what makes America great.)

Posted by Nancy French at 03:20 PM on January 18, 2010 | Permalink

I had no idea how much Gov. Romney was helping Scott Brown behind-the-scenes until I read this article sent to me by faithful reader Rex, which explains how Scott Brown may have Mitt Romney to thank if he wins in Massachusetts:

Largely overlooked in assessing Brown’s prospects: the hidden hand of Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor headlined at a fundraiser for Brown last October. And Romney has helped Brown raise money outside the state as well. “I know Scott and how determined he is to win. I've campaigned for him, raised money on his behalf, and we're doing all we can to help him over the finish line,” Romney wrote supporters last Monday. Brown, 50, raised $1.3 million that day.

But lest anyone accuse Romney of being a Johnny-come-lately—stepping up only as Brown has vaulted from sacrificial lamb to serious threat—the 2008 presidential hopeful has lent crucial support behind the scenes from the start of Brown’s campaign. Ever since he entered the race to succeed the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Brown has been counseled by members of the Shawmut Group, a Boston-based consulting firm that acts as the Romney political brain trust in exile. Among the many Romney disciples running Brown’s campaign are Beth Myers, the campaign manager of Romney’s presidential run; Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney’s chief spokesman; Peter Flaherty, Romney’s “go-to-guy for conservatives”; and Rob Cole, Romney’s 2008 deputy chairman manager. Beth Lindstrom, another player in Romney World, is working as Brown’s campaign manager. Lindstrom’s ties to Romney go back years; she started working with him in the Massachusetts State House as director of consumer affairs.

You may also find this interesting, a clip in which Scott Brown defends RomneyCare:

Posted by Nancy French at 10:54 AM on January 18, 2010 | Permalink

... he said that he liked Huckabee just fine, but that he needed to stick to preaching and get away from politics.

"The pulpit is the last place I'd want to see Huckabee," I said, after he proved himself to be so gullible, vindictive, and disingenuous. (And let's face it -- plain bizarre at times.)

Well, the evidence of the former pastor's class just keeps pouring in:

A new book making headlines this week quotes several of Romney's rivals disparaging the ex-gov... none were worse than the criticism from ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R), who said he didn't "think Romney has a soul," according to "Game Change," the new look at the '08 campaign from journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann.

His constant "look-at-me-I'm-clever-and-important" tantrums just don't age well. While I don't think politics should be his occupation, I do think he was wise to step away from the pulpit.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:01 AM on January 17, 2010 | Permalink

In 2007, we spent a lot of time talking to conservative evangelicals about whether or not they should politically align themselves with Mormons. What those evangelicals should've been doing, however, is thanking members of the LDS church for being co-belligerents in the culture wars... sadly, in battles when far too many evangelicals took the path of least resistance.

Anyway, an article was sent by a reader and friend, which in part said:

Using data compiled from its 2009 surveys, the Gallup Poll has confirmed what some have long seen as an honor and others as a criticism — members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints comprise the most conservative of the major religious groups in the United States.

Of the Mormon adults surveyed last year, 59 percent identified themselves as conservative, 31 percent as moderate and only 8 percent as liberal. That's nearly a third more conservatives than the second-highest percentage — the 46 percent of self-identified Protestants and non-Catholic Christians who see themselves as conservatives.

Maybe 2012 will be the year that conservative evangelicals unite with their LDS friends to protect the values we all deeply believe in. Heck, maybe we can even start appreciating all the darts that members of the LDS church have absorbed for all of us.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:46 PM on January 14, 2010 | Permalink

Yes, yes. We've seen it. We've seen the report that Mitt is not coming to the Southern Republican Leadership conference this April. But what does this mean for our efforts?

Honestly, not much. Of course, we would have enjoyed hearing him speak, but in the scheme of things, a 30 minute speech just isn't that big of a deal. Our purpose is very simple: We are want to encourage him to run again in 2012 by showing him that he's got a few friends down south.

If anything, our efforts are more important. As the only visible presence for Governor Romney (so far as we know) at the conference, we'll need to be there in strength to avoid making the conference entirely about Sarah Palin's speech or Mike Huckabee's attempted comeback or some new, emerging "star." Republican activists need to hear about Mitt, and we're just the ones to tell his story.

Finally, we'll still have a very good time. Memphis in 2006 was tremendously enjoyable for all our EFM (then Tennesseans for Mitt) friends, and New Orleans is known to be a pretty decent place to visit. Imagine Beale Street on steroids, hgh, and jacked up on Mountain Dew.

Don't be deterred. E-mail Nancy and let's show the flag for Mitt in the Big Easy.

Posted by David French at 04:58 PM on January 13, 2010 | Permalink

Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel according to this NYT report:

Ms. Palin will not have her own regular program, one person familiar with the deal said, though she will host an occasional series that will run on the network from time to time. This person would not elaborate, but the network does have a precedent for such a series. Oliver L. North is the host of an occasionally running documentary series on the military called “War Stories.”

Many suspected that when Ms. Palin retired as the governor of Alaska last summer she was doing so to pursue some sort of career in television. The Fox News deal, however, would not seem to be all encompassing, and would appear to give her room for other pursuits, as well.

The deal could be formally announced as early as this afternoon. Robert Barnett, Ms. Palin’s attorney, did not respond to a call for comment.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:57 PM on January 11, 2010 | Permalink

National Journal had a poll of political insiders which asked who would be the strongest GOP candidate for 2012. Here are the results:

1. Mitt Romney 29 percent
2. John Thune 15 percent
3. Tim Pawlenty 13 percent
4. Mitch Daniels 11 percent
5. Newt Gingrich 6 percent
6. Haley Barbour 5 percent
6. Jeb Bush 5 percent
8. Mike Huckabee 3 percent
8. Bobby Jindal 3 percent
8. Sarah Palin 3 percent

Posted by Nancy French at 01:43 AM on January 11, 2010 | Permalink

Guys, we've spent three days in the hospital with our eleven year old daughter in what was probably a case of food poisoning. She's going to be fine, but in the meantime, we missed the Romneys appearance on Fox TV's "Fox and Friends." Here's an exchange:

CARLSON: Do you think that if you ran again for any political office that being a Mormon would be a political liability?

MITT ROMNEY: You know, I think it's a liability for some and an advantage for others. For some people they look and say, "I like having an individual who's a person of faith." For some people it may be a liability if they feel it's a faith that they're not familiar with. But I frankly think for most Americans they don't judge a candidate by what church they go to. They judge the candidate by the things they believe, their positions on issues, their capabilities, their skills.

I was going to say, "here's an interesting exchange," but I'm thinking that this line of questioning is so 2008. With the economy in the tank and the problems in Afghanistan, it just seems like people have other things to worry about than whether they theologically line up with their candidate of choice.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:32 AM on January 11, 2010 | Permalink

David, thanks for explaining our straw poll effort back in 2006. However, there was a small mistake. You wrote:

Mitt did place second largely on the strength of the support organized by EFM (to be clear, however, this site didn't exist at the time, and we hadn't even settled on a name for our little endeavor), but Governor Romney did not pay for his votes. We raised money for the conference effort ourselves, using our own money and raising the rest through our network of friends.

However, you fail to remember my long-neglected website, Tennesseans for Mitt. (My photo there makes me look like I'm 12 -- has it been that long?) That's what we had going into the 2006 SRLC -- I remember this because all of our tote bags had the website printed on the backs.

But we've been a long way since then. In fact, here's my latest entry, which apparently was taken from an old EFM post:

We EFMers are hoping to meet in a nice and sunny location to discuss and pray about where to go from here. Charles will probably argue why we should turn this into "Evangelicals for McCain," and I will try not to throw myself into oncoming traffic.

Please pray for us, that we would have direction, and forgive me for not jumping over to McCain very easily.

I'm just not ready.

Yes, it's been a long time. Anyway, I just didn't want anyone to forget about Tennesseans for Mitt -- I promise it'll be up and going soon. But the first thing I'm going to do is switch out that photo!

Posted by Nancy French at 01:20 AM on January 11, 2010 | Permalink

In 2006, our efforts at the Memphis Southern Republican Leadership Conference were completely under the radar, designed to surprise the political establishment. And we did.

In 2010, however, things are a bit different. Mitt Romney -- as one of the recognized Republican frontrunners for the nomination -- isn't going to sneak up on anyone. So we're taking a different approach and are broadcasting our efforts to encourage Mitt to run.

Already, some folks have noticed. I was particularly intrigued by this section of Marc Ambinder's piece on his Atlantic site:

The Hotline had the honor to conduct the 2006 straw poll. Fortunately for Bill Frist, the event was held in Memphis, TN. Unfortunately for Bill Frist, his team was scared to death that their guy wouldn't be able to win a heavily-covered event in his home state. He did -- by a small margin. Mitt Romney placed second, largely on the strength of organized support by groups like Evangelicals for Mitt. (Still to this day there is a debate about whether Romney somehow directly paid for his votes. I don't think he did, but some McCain folks will swear to it.) President Bush placed third -- John McCain attended the straw poll, only to suddenly announce that politics wasn't relevant during wartime and that volunteers should vote for Bush instead.

Mitt did place second largely on the strength of the support organized by EFM (to be clear, however, this site didn't exist at the time, and we hadn't even settled on a name for our little endeavor), but Governor Romney did not pay for his votes. We raised money for the conference effort ourselves, using our own money and raising the rest through our network of friends.

That's how we did things in 2006, and that's how we'll do things this year. Yes, we'll pay for a limited number of conference registrations. The funding for this is not coming from Mitt Romney or his PAC. Just like 2006, we'll raise our own funds using our own network of friends. I know it's hard to believe in this cynical age, but sometimes people do exercise their own independent initiative because they believe a (potential) candidate is right for America.

In the next day or so, I'll post an FAQ so that first-time readers can understand more fully who we are, what we did in the 2008 election cycle, and what we intend to do this time.

In the meantime, however, if you want to help us encourage Mitt to run, email Nancy, and let's get the ball rolling!

Posted by David French at 10:47 AM on January 07, 2010 | Permalink

This article says that Gov. Romney will decide whether to run in 2012 after the midterm elections in 2010.

Apparently, he mentioned this in a "Fox & Friends" interview airing Wednesday:

"Once that's done, the next item on the agenda is what's 2012 going to be."

Well, let's show him some love at the SRLC. E-mail me for your chance to vote for him in the straw poll!

Posted by Nancy French at 09:21 PM on January 05, 2010 | Permalink

Are any of you going to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference? It’s the unofficial kick-off of the 2012 Presidential election and a great deal of fun.

This year, it's in New Orleans in April.

E-mail me if you plan on going! We are willing to pay for a limited number of conference tickets for any Romney-supporters.

I don't know about you, but I find it exciting, now that it's 2010. The election doesn't see that far away!

So, let's meet in New Orleans, everyone -- we can finally all meet in person, hear Gov. Romney speak, and help him in the straw poll. E-mail me today, while the tickets are still available.

Posted by Nancy French at 04:03 PM on January 04, 2010 | Permalink

Dear Friends,

I just wanted to take a minute to express my appreciation of all our loyal readers at the end of what was a politically disappointing year. I have a feeling 2010 will be much more exciting.

We love you all, and happy new year!

Nancy

P.S. Are you guys making resolutions? Read why this Utah attorney believes you should... again and again.

Posted by Nancy French at 05:19 PM on December 31, 2009 | Permalink

A must-read Maureen Dowd column (did I just type those words) contains the following paragraph:

If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?

Exactly. But will any single person face the consequences for this failure? In a Romney administration, I'm think the answer is yes. I'm thinking heads would roll. Careers would end.

President Obama, the ball is in your court. Set the tone. Let the bureaucrats know that you have very high standards for those who signed up to protect the American people.

Posted by David French at 03:23 PM on December 30, 2009 | Permalink

So a known jihadist (he'd been turned in by his own father) sews explosives into his clothes and waltzes onto a Northwest flight bound for Detroit -- with no flight ban or even comprehensive search -- because he's on the "long list" of threats and not the "short list." This is so staggeringly stupid it makes my head hurt. I can't tell if this is the triumph of political correctness over the respect for human life, or if it is merely a bureaucracy behaving like a bureaucracy. Probably both.

Look, I know that no security system is perfect and millions upon millions of people fly every year, but for all the times I've had to basically disrobe to board a plane, I'd love to see the screeners catch a terrorist before he starts lighting his bomb at least -- I don't know -- once. As much as I appreciate Jasper Schuringa, I don't want to depend on unarmed Dutch film producers as our front-line defense.

When faced with the horrific consequences of political correctness at Fort Hood, and the near-disaster in Detroit, I'm reminded that not all political leaders place sensitivity over safety. Here's a blast from the past:

Governor Mitt Romney raised the prospect of wiretapping mosques and conducting surveillance of foreign students in Massachusetts, as he issued a broad call yesterday for the federal government to devote far more money and attention to domestic intelligence gathering.

In remarks that caused alarm among civil libertarians and advocates for immigrants rights, Romney said in a speech to the Heritage Foundation that the United States needs to radically rethink how it guards itself against terrorism.

''How many individuals are coming to our state and going to those institutions who have come from terrorist-sponsored states?" he said, referring to foreign students who attend universities in Massachusetts. ''Do we know where they are? Are we tracking them?"

''How about people who are in settings -- mosques, for instance -- that may be teaching doctrines of hate and terror," Romney continued. ''Are we monitoring that? Are we wiretapping? Are we following what's going on?"

Good questions, Governor. Then and now.

Posted by David French at 01:29 PM on December 28, 2009 | Permalink

I'm not much on New Year predictions -- especially given the ability of wholly unexpected events to drive the day's, week's, or even decade's agenda -- but in surveying the political landscape, I do have a few questions. Among them:

(1) Are Obama's economic policies more powerful than the business cycle? Look, we all know that our economy is not wholly (or even mostly) directed and controlled by Washington. It's the biggest economic engine in the world, driven by the choices not just of politicians but also of more than 300 million people. This monster has a cycle . . . it goes up and it goes down, and no one in the history of economics has ever figured a way out of that cycle. After a prolonged downturn, one would think we'd be ready to rise again.

But here's my question: Are Obama's policies so bad that they'll delay or blunt the economy's natural rise? If not, then he may be poised for a Reagain-like re-election triumph. Remember, during the recession of 1981-82, the Dems were writing Reagan's political obituary, but his policies not only facilitated growth, they stimulated it, and the economy roared to life. If Obama can't catch a similar wave, then he's Carter, the Sequel.

(2) How much longer before Mike Huckabee goes after Sarah Palin with both barrels? Right now Huckabee is reeling, but a politician doesn't go to the pages of the Washington Post to defend his horrific clemency record when he intends to go gently into that good night. I will give one prediction: Mike Huckabee will attempt a political comeback. But Sarah Palin will stand in his way. Her poll numbers are strengthening, she's an Evangelical Christian, and she has one huge advantage over Huckabee (and no, it's not her looks): She's actually conservative.

If there's one thing we learned about Mike Huckabee, it's that the (former) pastor has a thin skin and some sharp claws. In time he'll learn he can't beat Mitt Romney unless he first beats Sarah Palin. Good luck with that, Governor.

(3) Could Obama's path to victory come through war? Here is one of the great ironies of 2009: Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winning, peace movement candidate, is -- with the exception of his Gitmo policies -- turning into a tough warfighter (though with the requisite amount of public angst and dithering). The Iraq withdrawal is occurring according to Bush administration timelines, he's massively reinforcing Afghanistan, he's intensified cross-border strikes into Pakistan, and now he's taking the fight into Yemen (and giving the peace movement a fit). If a Republican president were doing this, there'd be rioting in the streets. But Obama's getting away with it, and I expect we'll start to see results on the ground in Afghanistan. It will take some time, but I think we'll see results.

And when we do . . . Obama will get the credit. And not the kind of grudging, half-hearted acknowledgments we saw when Bush's surge worked, but the kind of "shout to the mountaintops" credit the media gives Barack Obama whenever he demonstrates even the tiniest slivers of achievement. Could it be? Could it be that the media will create a presidential war hero?

Time will tell.

Posted by David French at 02:20 PM on December 26, 2009 | Permalink

I'm happy to say that he's enjoying Christmas here in Tennessee this year. But he did take a moment to reflect on his time in Iraq for National Review. It begins:

When I saw the commercial, I laughed out loud.

By now, you’ve probably seen it. A small group of Marines is out in the desert, obviously suffering in the sweltering heat. But then . . . a single snowflake falls. Then another. Then another. Smiling in wonder, the Marines hold their hands out in joy and relief. The heat has broken.

The commercial then flashes to a scene back home, where a child has just left a department-store Santa. “What did you ask for?” he’s asked. “Something for my Dad.” Heartwarming, right? Well, yes. Because of the intent. But I laughed out loud because of the reality.

“Why are you laughing?” My kids were puzzled by my reaction.

“Because I’ve seen a Christmas snow in the desert, and it’s not like that.”

Read the rest, which is also reprinted on SixSeeds.tv, here.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:30 PM on December 23, 2009 | Permalink

Here in Washington, we've got 20 inches of snow, and the government just announced that all federal agencies will be closed tomorrow. After reading the latest news on health care "reform," I'm just hoping that includes the U.S. Senate chamber. For more intelligent commentary on the matter, see Gov. Romney's new op-ed in USA Today.

UPDATE: Whoops! I misread; this op-ed is from July. Startling how on-point it still is, no? H/T Jayde Wyatt at Mitt Romney Central

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:18 PM on December 20, 2009 | Permalink

Rebecca Cusey says it might be the movie Al Gore would make, had he not been busy inventing the internet.

Click here for her review, to find out if the negatives outweigh the positives!

Posted by Nancy French at 12:08 PM on December 17, 2009 | Permalink

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

Posted by Nancy French at 10:31 PM on December 13, 2009 | Permalink

I just found Prof. John Stackhouse's blog. Don't know much about him, but this post sure rang true.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 09:41 PM on December 08, 2009 | Permalink

From this morning's Fix:

An astute Fixista flagged a fascinating interview that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gave to conservative talk radio host Lars Larson last Friday[ in which she appears to leave the door open to a third party bid for president in 2012. Asked by Larson whether she would consider running as a third party candidate, Palin said: "That depends on how things go in the next couple of years." Larson told the 2008 vice presidential nominee that answer "sounds like a yes" to which she responded: "If the Republican party gets back to that [conservative] base, I think our party is going to be stronger and there's not going to be a need for a third party, but I'll play that by ear in these coming months, coming years." Which, to the Fix's delicate ears, sounds like Palin leaving the door wide open. As we have written before, Palin is not -- and never will be -- a candidate of the Republican establishment. Given that, and the unpredictability she demonstrated in her stunning decision to resign as governor over the summer, no potential avenue to the presidency should be ruled out.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:17 AM on December 08, 2009 | Permalink

Since this speech?

I had the honor of being able to see this speech, in College State, Texas, live. Do you remember? I searched the site to see what we were saying about it back then, and saw this:

I'm here in College Station and just saw some calm and collected Romney folks in the lobby. Anyway, I realized TiVo isn't available twelve miles from Iran. If any of you can record the speech and burn it on a DVD, I bet David would love to see it. (I could e-mail you his shipping address.)

Anyway, I guess a lot of things have changed since then.

(P.S. Am posting this after a conversation I had with some lovely folks at church this morning -- conservative Christians who hadn't yet been able to reconcile the Mormon issue. Hope you guys stopped by to see the video of this great speech.)

Hat tip Nate Gunderson. Transcript here.

Posted by Nancy French at 04:31 PM on December 06, 2009 | Permalink

I've been traveling for a week and unable to weigh in on much of anything, but I'm back now, and I just can't get this terrible clemency issue off my mind. Here's why: I'm tired of gullible leadership. I'm tired of seeing leaders deceived by evil. Bill Clinton spent eight years wining and dining Yassir Arafat and pushing the Isrealis to make massive concessions as part of an effort to bring a lasting peace, but then we're left with the embassy bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the Second Intifada, and -- worst of all -- the 9/11 plot in progress.

As much as I love George Bush, his (and his defense secretary's) excessively rosy picture of a post-invasion Iraq led to an understrength invasion army, bad tactics, and an escalating insurgency.

As for Barack Obama . . . where to begin? It seems as if he may have actually believed his own rhetoric -- that a change in leadership would somehow cause countries to act not in their perceived national interest but instead out of love for the new American "change." So far the force of his personality has not led to any increased cooperation in Afghanistan, Iran is still working on the bomb, and jihadists are trying to kill us with the same zeal that they had under Clinton and Bush.

We need leaders who understand that evil is evil, that political leaders are not well-suited to change hearts, and their first responsibility is not to inspire the masses but to do their best to protect the public. And that's where Huckabee's ridiculous -- and now horrific --clemency legacy comes into play. His record gives every indication that he's hopelessly gullible in the face of evil. And he may even be a bit arrogant.

Look, I don't question Governor Huckabee's motives. I'm sure he thought he was giving people a second chance, but where does he get the belief that he is -- not once, not twice, but literally hundreds of times -- better at justice than prosecutors, judges, and juries?

I don't want a president that can be taken in by evil. I don't want a legislator, a mayor, or even a dogcatcher with that kind of record. I'm sorry, Governor, but gullible leaders get people killed.

Posted by David French at 08:52 PM on December 04, 2009 | Permalink

CNN describes the above as a defense of Huckabee's too-liberal clemency:

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney defended Mike Huckabee's clemency decision that allegedly led to the shooting death of four police officers in Washington state.

In actuality, I think he's actually being gracious and conscientious during this tragedy. Note that he said he believed Huckabee would've made a different decision had he known the result, that the former Arkansas Governor was a good man, and that our thoughts now should be with the families of the fallen police officers... not noting how this will all play politically. (Sorry, Gov, about the below post which speculates on who benefits politically.)

Gov. Romney also notes that - in his four years as governor - he did not pardon or commute a single sentence.

This doesn't excuse Huckabee -- or even come across as a defense. Once again, Gov. Romney demonstrates class and grace as he discusses his former opponent. expresses sorrow for all the people who are hurting because of the fact that Maurice Clemmons was given a freedom he didn't deserve.

And -- even though his public statements seem calculated to dodge responsibility -- one has to believe that includes Gov. Huckabee.

UPDATE: Ben Smith agrees with me, in his post "With Defenders Like These."

Posted by Nancy French at 10:34 AM on December 04, 2009 | Permalink

When word spread that Mike Huckabee had, as governor or Arkansas, signed a clemency order for now-infamous suspected cop killer Maurice Clemmons, political pundits, including Politics Daily's own Jill Lawrence, began writing off any future presidential aspirations he may have harbored...

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball Wednesday night, former McCain and Bush advisor Mark McKinnon put it best when he said of Huckabee, "His career in politics is done; stick a fork in him."

Does Sarah Palin gain from this tragic loss? Politics Daily thinks so.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:37 AM on December 04, 2009 | Permalink

In modern picture books, the children rule the roost.

Read my new article in the newest edition of SixSeeds.tv to learn what lessons are your kids taking from the shelf.

Click here!

Posted by Nancy French at 09:25 AM on December 04, 2009 | Permalink

Salon reports:

We've got good news and bad news for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Bad news first: Dick Morris says Romney's got no shot to capture the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

"Romney, I think, is virtually out of this race because he proposed healthcare reform in Massachusetts very similar to Obama's. It passed, and it's a disaster in Massachusetts now," Morris said in a recent interview. (Hat-tip to GOP 12.)

Fortunately for Romney, the good news is very good: Given Morris' recent history of prognostication, it's probably best to now consider Romney the front-runner for the nomination, if not a lock to win in the general.

Read more here. Notwithstanding his ridiculous assumption about Massachusetts health care, Morris writing off Gov. Romney is great news for Mitt fans.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:24 AM on December 03, 2009 | Permalink

Gov. Romney's got an article in USA Today on what to do about the economy. Check it out.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:59 AM on December 03, 2009 | Permalink

Over at First Things, Joe Carter -- who worked for the Huckabee campaign -- has posted some interesting thoughts on the clemency controversy. For me, the most notable part is where Carter says that the "experiences and intuitions that served [Huckabee] well as a minister of the gospel were not always applicable" when it came to governing.

Here Carter hits upon one of the main issues of recent presidential campaigns -- namely, that there's a difference between what you look for in a pastor and a president. You may be wondering why I say that's one of the main issues, since I'm sure you've never seen a Hannity feature on it. My answer: Because this is a distinction many (most?) politically engaged evangelicals do not fully grasp. And we miss it at our peril.

If you ask me, we spent the 2008 campaign fighting over at least a couple of things, way out of proportion to their actual importance. The first was theology -- because the simple truth is evangelicals get uncomfortable voting for a president they would not let teach their Sunday school. I say this because I get uncomfortable too, not because I'm better than the rest. But the truth is, the president won't be teaching your kids about the Trinity, the virgin birth, or heaven. He'll be making decisions that will impact whether your kids live in freedom, sure. And if you're fortunate, he'll be teaching your kids (mainly by example) about public service and having an intact family. But that's it.

The second has nothing to do with the present fracas, but I'll mention it anyway. And it's (get ready) policy positions. Yes, I said it. I don't think policy positions are as important as the 2008 campaign might have led you to believe. Why? Because there are lots of politicians who agree with me on anything, but they can't argue -- much less govern -- their way out of a paper bag. They are ideologues, but not leaders. They are people of conviction, but unable to produce in others a conversion.

What's my point? Basically that we evangelicals basically think, whether we admit it or not, that if we elect someone who agrees with us on everything (including theology), that's what matters most. Or, to really drill down on what's at issue here, that someone we'd choose to be our pastor would also make a good president.

I'm not saying that's why Carter supported Gov. Huckabee last time around. But I am saying that he's hit on something critical here. He seems largely to be talking about Huckabee's compassion, which is laudable, not to mention something I lack; I think there's a lot more there, regardless of this specific candidate or that specific virtue. The more comfortable I get with that, the more convinced I get (and as you can tell from the name of this website, I'm pretty convinced!) that I made the right choice for 2008, and now for 2012.

Why? Because Mitt Romney is not just a man whose governing I think would make it more likely that my kids will live in a peaceful, prosperous world (although he is that, in spades); he's also a man whose family I'd like my kids to watch. And you know what? I think he'll keep his mouth shut about the Trinity.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:27 PM on November 30, 2009 | Permalink

Mike Huckabee's unbelievable rate of clemencies while governor of Arkansas has long bothered me. Now it looks like one of his clemencies has had the worst possible outcome:

Maurice Clemmons, the 37-year-old Tacoma man being sought for questioning in the killing this morning of four Lakewood police officers, has a long criminal record punctuated by violence, erratic behavior and concerns about his mental health.

Nine years ago, then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Clemmons, commuting his lengthy prison sentence over the protests of prosecutors.

"This is the day I've been dreading for a long time," Larry Jegley, prosecuting attorney for Arkansas' Pulaski County said tonight when informed that Clemmons was being sought for questioning in connection with the killings.

Posted by David French at 12:13 AM on November 30, 2009 | Permalink

Regarding your question about trying terrorists in New York? I can't improve on this:

Posted by David French at 03:18 PM on November 29, 2009 | Permalink

David Frum argues that Romney has an "evangelical problem" (in part) because there are no Mormons among the original 150 signers of the Manhattan Declaration, which affirms the cultural, political, and legal importance of life, religious liberty, and the family to our nation. I'm one of the now (as of this morning) 189,000 signers of the Declaration, and I don't doubt that some of those signatories are Mormon (there are certainly no religious restrictions on signing), but to argue that Mitt has an "evangelical problem" because there are no Mormons amongst the original signers of a declaration that originated within the evangelical and Catholic communities is a bit of a stretch.

The reality is that Governor Romney does have an "evangelical problem," and that problem is named Mike Huckabee. Just as Jesse Jackson vacuumed up the vast majority of black voters in his runs for the presidency, so Mike Huckabee vacuums up the majority of evangelicals. In 2012, the "evangelical problem" might be named "Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin" as those two (quite different) politicians battle it out for a key Republican voting bloc.

But here's why I'm not overly concerned. First, because Mitt Romney respects evangelical voters and upholds and defends their values, evangelicals won't face what they faced in 2008 -- a nominee who had historically shown contempt for them and for their role in the party. Second, Mitt may not win the evangelical vote in the primaries, but he'll get a respectable share -- particularly of those who are as concerned about economic and national security issues as they are about life and marriage. Third, there's a vast swath of Republican voters who are not "evangelical" but for whom core values are vitally important (along with other issues). Romney is poised to win this group. They don't trust Huckabee's economic liberalism, nor do they feel that Palin has the necessary experience.

As for the Manhattan Declaration, it's an important document, but the presence or absence of Mormons amongst the original signatories is irrelevant for 2012.

Posted by David French at 01:13 PM on November 29, 2009 | Permalink

Should the former Vice President run in 2012?

He asks the question in Newsweek today.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:14 PM on November 28, 2009 | Permalink

Look no further! I'm the editor of SixSeeds.tv a new e-zine for people who can't get enough of David's political rhetoric and just really need to know whether this Iraq war vet enjoyed "New Moon."

Posted by Nancy French at 04:47 PM on November 25, 2009 | Permalink

No, I'm not talking about President Obama's term in office. Reader Rex sent a link to me today, the day before my birthday where people all over America will gather to celebrate me turning 35!

It is a chronicle of the Pilgrims' arrival at Plymouth, as recorded by Nathaniel Morton -- click here to read the actual words of someone who was there. It begins:

Here beginneth the chronicle of those memorable circumstances of the year 1620, as recorded by Nathaniel Morton, keeper of the records of Plymouth Colony, based on the account of William Bradford, sometime governor thereof:

So they left that goodly and pleasant city of Leyden, which had been their resting-place for above eleven years, but they knew that they were pilgrims and strangers here below, and looked not much on these things, but lifted up their eyes to Heaven, their dearest country, where God hath prepared for them a city (Heb. XI, 16), and therein quieted their spirits.

Read the rest here, in an essay that the Washington Post has run every year since 1961. Oh, and I hope you all enjoy the celebrations for my birthday tomorrow!

Posted by Nancy French at 04:39 PM on November 25, 2009 | Permalink

David, oh legal eagle...inquiring minds want to know: What's your take on the New York terrorist trials?

As for me, I'm with Dr. Krauthammer. (Although I did have to laugh at this comment by a buddy: "Krauthammer is not pro-gun, which means he cannot be trusted. He does, however, make more sense than, say, Oprah."

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:06 AM on November 21, 2009 | Permalink

David, thanks for re-posting your splendid words on Sarah Palin. Very well done.

Also smartly done, I think, is Bill Kristol's most recent editorial. He's got some advice for our side that I like (and that I think is probably rather similar to what a Romney run might look like):

Republicans need to point out that Obama's economic policies aren't working. But they need to resist appearing to relish bad news for the country on Obama's watch. When rising unemployment numbers come out, there is occasionally an unseemly sense of celebration in the emails that come from various GOP offices. More in sorrow than in joy, more in confirmation than in vindication--that should be the Republican mood as the news of Obama's failures, failures which damage the well-being of Americans and of America, rolls in. And as the failures become ever more evident, conservatives can urge that he correct them, that he see the error of his ways and move on to the right path.

In areas where policies are still being debated--in foreign policy in particular--conservatives need to keep urging Obama to do the right thing. We are disgusted with Obama's irresoluteness on Afghanistan. But we continue to urge that he side with the experienced military leaders he's been fortunate to inherit against the second-guessing of political hacks (and of failed ex-generals turned political hacks). We conservatives want American soldiers to win wars, American interests to prevail, and American principles to flourish. We want the bad guys to lose. We're happy to work with President Obama to defeat them--and we only wish he shared our clarity and urgency about accomplishing that task.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:03 AM on November 21, 2009 | Permalink

I wanted to link and paste something I wrote today about elite scorn for Governor Palin. While she certainly inspires vitriol of unique intensity and passion, I've found that religious conservatives in general inspire an enormous amount of vitriol from the cultural left. While Governor Romney isn't right now in the Left's crosshairs (thanks to Palin hysteria), he can be assured that if he wins the nomination, the knives will be out, and they will be sharp.

You would think, however, given the Governor's sterling record -- in the academy, in business, and in government -- that surely he won't face the same kind of sneering condescension that Governor Palin faces. Don't bet on it. Remember, Governor Romney isn't just a conservative, he's a man of faith as well -- and that's what the Left loathes.

Anyway, here's my NRO piece:

Truly Remarkable Academic Insights on Sarah Palin

It has often been said that today's rank-and-file conservative is "anti-elite." I've always been uncomfortable with that characterization because — in my experience — conservatives are quite respectful of certain kinds of elites, like elite soldiers, elite athletes, and talented musicians and other artists (provided those artists don't believe that their abilities also provide them with unique insight into, say, health-care policy or war strategy). The elite that conservatives tend to disdain is the contemporary intellectual (or academic) elite, not because intellectual excellence isn't obtainable or worth respecting but because we look at what what passes for academic thinking these days and, frankly, it's remarkably unimpressive.

Nowhere is this high-minded mediocrity on better display than in the near-universal disdain for Sarah Palin. And today's Inside Higher Ed provides a tremendous gift, a near-perfect example of condescending nothingness masquerading as insight. Called "Palintology," the column, by Scott McLemee, begins:

Important as it was, the campaign of Barack Obama was not the only history-making element of the 2008 presidential election. With Sarah Palin, we crossed another epochal divide. The boundary between reality television and American politics (already somewhat weakened by the continuous "American Idol" plebiscite) finally collapsed.

Her campaign's basic formula was familiar: members of an ordinary middle-class family turn into instantly recognizable national celebrities while competing for valuable prizes.

This is good stuff. Let's begin with a shot at reality TV and then deliver the ultimate insult: that Sarah Palin is like one of "those people," you know, a member of the "middle class" desperate for fame. How her emphasis on her humble roots is any different from John Edwards's "son of a millworker" schtick, or Joe Biden's emphasis (sometimes false) on his blue-collar ancestry, or even our own prep school- and Ivy League-educated president's emphasis on the challenges of his upbringing is left unexplained. I guess intelligent people should just know that Sarah Palin's emphasis on her "every(woman)" identity was somehow worthy of contempt.

But that's not all, of course. I love this part:

I’m not sure what Sarah Palin’s favorite work of postmodern theory might be (all of them, probably) but she seems to take her lead from Jean Baudrillard’s Seduction. Other political figures use the media as part of what JB calls “production.” That is, they generate signs and images meant to create an effect within politics. For the Baudrillardian “seducer,” by contrast, the power to create fascination is its own reward.

What is Joe Biden's favorite work of postmodern theory? Nancy Pelosi's? (I'm pretty sure that Barack Obama has a favorite postmodern theorist because he seems to be that kind of guy.) And as for the power to create fascination being "its own reward": What evidence is there that Sarah Palin enjoys this more than, say, virtually any other public figure? Politicians are notoriously addicted to crowds and the limelight. But I suppose other politicians are mostly motivated by a desire to serve the public, generating "signs and images" for "political" ends — but not Sarah Palin. She has to be more cynical, more self-regarding, right?

Watching Palin respond to questions about her book Going Rogue (or not respond to them, often enough) is, from this perspective, no laughing matter. She grows ever more comfortable talking about herself.

Forgive me, but I thought the book was an autobiography.

Is this too cynical? I fear it may not be cynical enough. For it assumes that Palin will eventually be integrated into her party’s apparatus and turned into a mouthpiece of old-school Republican electoral politics — a basic platform of tax cuts for the rich and unregulated handgun ownership for everybody else.

Yep, that is the "basic" Republican platform. Tax cuts and guns. I thought we were all about "guns and religion." Tax cuts replaced religion? I'll have to update my talking points. Of course Republicans have nothing at all to say about foreign policy, health care, abortion, marriage, banking regulation, energy policy, or any other relevant topic — it all goes back to the "basic platform." Lower taxes and Glocks.

At this point, the column takes a bit of a turn, lionizing the publishers of Going Rouge, a collection of critical essays about Sarah Palin. Why lionize them? Because — hold on to your hats — they don't have much a budget, so they're creatively using the Internet to publicize their book. That's a novel idea. Please, tell me more.

But one can only lionize marginal left-wing publishers for so long before returning to the bogey(woman) of the moment. I loved this bit:

But she is busy demonstrating a strong intuitive grasp of how mass media can be used — among other things, to change the subject.

An example is the item Palin posted on Facebook in early August: “The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.”

This was fantasy. But it was effective fantasy. To borrow again from Baudrillard, it seduced — abolishing reality and replacing it with a delirious facsimile.

I hate to "borrow again from Baudrillard," but this is a rich irony — coming from a writer who just reduced the entirety of Republican thought to "a basic platform of tax cuts for the rich and unregulated handgun ownership for everyone else." Who, exactly, is "abolishing reality and replacing it with a delirious facsimile"?

The column ends thus:

Well, consistency is, after all, the hobgoblin of tiny minds. Sarah Palin is playing the political game on a much grander scale — with rules she may be rewriting as she goes.

With a first printing of 1.5 million copies of her book, I don’t know that the intervention of an upstart press can pose much of a challenge. But OR Books deserves credit for trying. Someone has to speak up for reality from time to time. Otherwise it will just disappear.

Let's see . . . a politician rises from a small town, governs a small (by population) state, and then runs for high office in part by emphasizing their humble roots. Nope, that's never been done before.

I guess she really is "rewriting as she goes." Thanks, Mr. McLemee, for speaking up for reality.

Posted by David French at 04:21 PM on November 18, 2009 | Permalink

Every author knows the most difficult part of book writing is book promotion. That's why I was surprised to see that National Review has it's own blog dedicated to Sarah Palin's book and book tour! Also, when I called Books-a-Million this week to see if they had "The Lego Book," the customer answered with this script:

"Thank you for calling Books-a-Million. Would you like to pre-order your copy of Sarah Palin's book?"

Wow.

Posted by Nancy French at 03:51 PM on November 15, 2009 | Permalink

Nancy, thanks for your post. I found the picture particularly moving. It is a symbol of the searing significance of wartime service that an elderly man would -- many decades after the event -- put on the uniform he wore for (most likely) just a few months during war. I know for me that my time "down range" was 11 months out of almost 41 years of my life, yet those 11 months dominate my mind and heart and no doubt will for the rest of my life. As one of my fellow Sabre Squadron officers told me just after he left the Army: "I'm glad to be out, and I'm glad to get on with the rest of my life, but I can't shake the feeling that I've already done the most significant thing I'll ever do."

Posted by David French at 12:57 PM on November 11, 2009 | Permalink

It is simply remarkable how thin-skinned he seems to be. Reading the Politico article Nancy links below, I count swipes at Romney (of course, he's Huckabee's Great White Whale), Sarah Palin supporters, and a particularly vicious attack against the Club for Growth, where he calls them "repulsive" and essentially accuses them of corruption ("pay for play"). Then there's this nugget: "Huckabee reads everything written about him and asks his daughter to explain attacks on the obscurest blogs."

Governor Huckabee, don't read everything written about you. On the public figure scale, you're one of the most prominent politicians on the planet. Oceans of ink are going to be spilled about you, and much of that will come from sources who are either (i) deranged; (ii) haters; or (iii) both. You can find virtually anything on the internet. Don't pay attention to all of it, and only respond (or reflect upon) criticism from credible outlets and serious people. Thoughtful criticism is valuable, and I've learned from it in my personal and professional life. But vicious insults and schoolyard taunts? I can't think of a scenario where reading them is worth one second of time.

Second, you've got to develop a thicker skin. I know some Club for Growth folks, and I believe they oppose you because they've got different economic ideas and don't want to see your populism become the face of the Republican party. That's politics. They attack with some strong words. That's politics also. Also, there are differences between you and Sarah Palin. As others have noted she's more libertarian than you, and you don't seem to like libertarians. So there are actually principled reasons to prefer Sarah Palin -- it doesn't just come down to looks.

Finally, I don't want my president (or my Republican nominee) spending his days reading or worrying about personal attacks. They're going to come no matter what. Perhaps Politico's reporting is flawed, but the portrait painted in their profile is not of a man with a presidential temperament.

Posted by David French at 12:24 PM on November 11, 2009 | Permalink

In a time of war, it is especially important to honor those who have fought for our dear freedom. However, sometimes it's hard to find age appropriate activities to commemorate Veteran's Day with the kids.

Here are some easy suggestions to help you commemorate this day!

-- Teach your children the importance of the people who protect our country. Help them write letters to their principal suggesting an invitation to the local VFW or American Legion to send a veteran to speak at assembly.

-- Write a letter to a veteran thanking him or her for serving.

-- For older kids, get them to interview a veteran in the family and share what they learned at dinner. Or, better yet, older kids can participate in the Veterans History Project of the American Folklife Center. Their organization “collects, preserves, and makes accessible the personal accounts of American war veterans so that future generations may hear directly from veterans and better understand the realities of war.” Visit this site to find out how to participate. Basically, your child can interview a veteran in your family and submit it to the project to inspire future generations.

The Medal Of Honor Coloring Book is a free online site that our family has used to celebrate Veteran’s Day. If you use all of the coloring sheets, you’ll have an attractive history of some our our Country's greatest heroes, in all in the living colors that your kids provide themselves. We especially enjoyed coloring the Congressional Medal of Honor winners!

Lastly, it’s all too easy to forget we’re in a time of war now. Do something this week that supports a member of the armed forces who is currently serving – for example, a care package or letter of encouragement.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:05 AM on November 11, 2009 | Permalink

Nancy, put me down as woozy, too. And while it is not going to help you in your quest to refrain from being furious, you have to check out the PowerPoint presentation the terrorist (I refuse to call him a "suspect") gave at Walter Reed. According to the Washington Post, he was supposed to be talking about medicine. Kudos to the Post for putting this on the front page.

I amazed by our leaders' lack of leadership at this moment.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:04 PM on November 10, 2009 | Permalink

Gawker points out a different aspect of the same article -

Here is Huckabee being totally not bitter about Sarah Palin stealing his gimmick:

"Some of the people who had excoriated me and really been very dismissive of me for views that I had taken, and labeled me anything from a populist to an ignoramus - the same people have been very defensive [of] and laudatory to Sarah Palin," Huckabee noted, adding that he'd invited her to appear on his weekly Fox show but "could never get any contact."

"I'm glad she's getting the props - I know I'm not nearly as attractive," he said with a guileless grin.

Posted by Nancy French at 06:01 PM on November 09, 2009 | Permalink

Politico has a great article about Mike Huckabee:

A governor for 10 years and the winner of the Iowa caucuses in 2008, Huckabee should by all rights have a claim to be the early favorite for the Republican nomination. But former Gov. Mitt Romney, the candidate he bested in Iowa 2008 and for whom he does not attempt to contain his contempt, is riding high, credited by many Republicans as the best person to run against President Barack Obama in a down economy. And as Huckabee works his way through a 22-state tour for his new book, “A Simple Christmas,” he knows that he and the book will be almost entirely overshadowed by former Gov. Sarah Palin’s two-week barnstorming tour for her forthcoming memoir.

In this short interview, he manages to slam Gov. Romney, again -- the reporter remarks that Gov. Huckabee doesn't bother to hide his distaste for him. Nevertheless, it's a great read... and sadly a premonition of the acrimony to come.

Posted by Nancy French at 04:37 PM on November 09, 2009 | Permalink

Still reeling over what happened at Fort Hood. David was traveling to Texas as we received word that it happened, and I've studiously avoided any of the news interpretation of the massacre for fear that it would infuriate me. Mark Steyn, however, has a great article in NRO about it:

Thirteen dead and 31 wounded would be a bad day for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, and a great victory for the Taliban. When it happens in Texas, in the heart of the biggest military base in the nation, at a processing center for soldiers either returning from or deploying to combat overseas, it is not merely a “tragedy” (as too many people called it) but a glimpse of a potentially fatal flaw at the heart of what we have called, since 9/11, the “War on Terror.” Brave soldiers trained to hunt down and kill America’s enemy abroad were killed in the safety and security of home by, in essence, the same enemy — a man who believes in and supports everything the enemy does.

And he’s a U.S. Army major.

And his superior officers and other authorities knew about his beliefs but seemed to think it was just a bit of harmless multicultural diversity — as if believing that “the Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor” (i.e., his fellow American soldiers) and writing Internet paeans to the “noble” “heroism” of suicide bombers and, indeed, objectively supporting the other side in an active war is to be regarded as just some kind of alternative lifestyle that adds to the general vibrancy of the base.

Read it all here.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:53 AM on November 07, 2009 | Permalink

Posted by Nancy French at 09:50 PM on November 06, 2009 | Permalink

The latest:

Looking ahead to the 2012 presidential election, 71% of Republicans say they would seriously consider voting for Mike Huckabee. This gives Huckabee a slight edge over Mitt Romney (65%) and Sarah Palin (65%) in this early test of the strength of several potential Republican contenders. A majority of Republicans also say they would seriously consider voting for Newt Gingrich, but far fewer say they are currently ready to support the lesser-known Tim Pawlenty or Haley Barbour.

The Fix interprets T-Paw's bad week:

Minnesota Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty, after making a series of smart strategic moves over the past few months in advance of an expected run for president in 2012, has struggled on the national stage in the past week.

Read more.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:43 PM on November 05, 2009 | Permalink

Last night was a good night. Not only did solid conservative candidates win in Virginia and New Jersey but same-sex marriage suffered a devastating defeat in New England. Can we draw any lessons from these victories? A few:

1. Barack Obama did not kill conservatism. Perhaps the most encouraging thing about last night's wins was that neither Virginia (which has two Democratic senators and a Democratic governor) nor New Jersey (a thoroughly blue state) were won by RINOs. Republicans won by emphasizing their economic credentials and putting forth strong, well-rounded candidates. They didn't conform to the expectations (demands?) of the media but instead held close to the Republican ideal of fiscal and social conservatism. And they won.

2. Health care isn't dominating voters' minds. Even if the health care debate dominates the news coverage and causing raucous town halls across the country, more people care about the economy than care about health care. In other words, the topic de jour in Washington and in the conservative media is just not going to trump economic concerns -- most of the time.

3. Don't take too many lessons from these elections. Honestly, these elections will be forgotten in, oh, about six weeks. The news of the day will dominate, and if the economy starts to come around the media will go back to trumpeting Obama as if he was Moses parting the Red Sea. Republicans need to think about how they'll win races if the economy is growing rather than shrinking and the unemployment rate actually starts to go down. They can be assured of one thing: If we get 2% economic growth and 8% unemployment in the age of Obama, the media will treat that better than 4% economic growth and 6% unemployment in the age of Bush. Because, of course, Democratic economic policies are forever "rescuing us from the abyss" while Republican policies "leave too many behind."

So far, nothing has yet happened to shake my belief that our ideal candidate in 2012 is (1) well-rounded; with (2) real economic expertise. I wonder who fits that description?

Posted by David French at 11:44 AM on November 04, 2009 | Permalink

Check out this video of Gov. Romney and Gov.-to-be McDonnell.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:00 PM on October 30, 2009 | Permalink

Great post, Charles. There's one more thing I'd like to add regarding the great "Who Supports An Amendment That Can't Possibly Happen in the Next Presidency" debate of 2008: I think a lot of our guys at the grassroots aren't all that savvy beyond the pond they swim in.

Ever since a slice of the so-called "conservative elite" rejected Sarah Palin (often for reasons that I also thought were ridiculous, cultural, and condescending), I've heard never-ending diatribes from activists about "out of touch" beltway conservatives, who just "don't get it."

But . . . how "in touch" are our grassroots? I'd argue that they're definitely in touch with the grassroots base. But beyond that? Not so much.

Throughout the last presidential campaign season (until I left for Iraq), I met with grassroots conservative activists, corresponded with those activists, and (frequently) argued with them. While they knew what "their people" wanted, they were often shockingly wrong about "the people" or "America." Statements like, "America won't elect a socialist like Barack Obama" were often delivered with a kind of obvious, "two plus two equals four" authority. In fact, the grassroots activists seemed to have remarkably little familiarity with broader American opinions and cultural trends.

Why is that? Well, activists everywhere live in their own cocoons. There is no question that beltway types often lose touch with "Flyover Country." But, by the same token, the "grassroots" has little familiarity with folks beyond their own constituency.

This doesn't mean that the grassroots activist is unimportant. Far from it. Those are the guys who do the lion's share of the work in any political campaign, and if they're not with you, then you are most likely not going to win. You can't win without your grassroots.

But the folks on the ground also need to taste some humble pie. Just because you live in, say, Birmingham doesn't mean that you know what people in Cleveland think or even what's driving the non-activists who live in your own community. Understand that your perspective can be as skewed by your surroundings as the Beltway elitists' perspective is skewed by their perch. And sometimes the Beltway types actually have greater access to information regarding national trends.

Simply put, we need each other, no one is as savvy as they think, and arrogance from either side won't win back the White House.

Posted by David French at 11:48 AM on October 27, 2009 | Permalink

You may recall that early on in the 2008 race, then-candidate Jim Gilmore -- who used to be governor of Virginia, where I live -- said he was running against "Rudy McRomney." The idea behind that jibe, of course, was that there was really no difference between Mayor Giuliani, Sen. McCain, and Gov. Romney. That idea, obviously, did not end up carrying Gov. Gilmore through the primaries. But now, watching the current gubernatorial race here in the Old Dominion state (yes, we do it in "off" years) I wonder if we aren't seeing the rise of what might be called the "Bob McRomney" phenomenon.

Let me explain.

One never wants to count one's chickens before they are hatched, but the Republican candidate for governor here, Bob McDonnell, seems headed to a comfortable victory on Nov. 3. He is unquestionably a social conservative, but the race has not revolved around those issues. Rather, he has hit his opponent, a state senator from the Charlottesville area, largely for his penchant for spending other people's money in ways that inhibit job creation. He is a man of faith, but he tends not to remind you of it at every opportunity. He has a large and attractive family. Last but not least, he's got pretty good hair.

Is it just me, or does that sound a lot like the way a Romney-Obama race in 2012 should look? The president and his allies in Congress, after all, are spending my and my unborn kids' money like it's their own -- and we all know that is Gov. Romney's strongest territory. Add to that our current foreign policy fecklessness (as ably summarized by Mark Steyn today), an issue on which Gov. Romney seems to have found his voice, and you've got a double-whammy.

What about social issues? Great question. That is where the rubber really hits the road with this fanciful comparison.

Bob McDonnell's last job was as Virginia's attorney general; he resigned to run for governor. Before that, he represented the Virginia Beach area in our House of Delegates (the lower house of the General Assembly). During his time there, he developed a close relationship with Virginia social conservatives -- partially by attending Pat Robertson's Regent University. Meaning? They knew him, and he didn't need to prove himself a "true conservative" by joyriding around the state loudly promising to ban all abortions immediately.

The governor of a state doesn't have the power to do that, you're saying. Roe v. Wade is in the way. It's immaterial; why would conservative activists demand that kind of fealty? It's fanciful. Yes, I know. But do you remember what happened in the '08 presidential race?

Yes, that's right: We had a lengthy debate about who was and wasn't willing to support an immediate constitutional amendment banning abortion, as opposed to overturning Roe and returning the decision to the states. As if the latter isn't an enormous step forward, not to mention more than enough to keep the next pro-life president busy.

Why was that? Well, two reasons, if you ask me. The first is that too many conservative evangelicals want entirely too much out of politics, thinking that they can elect a messiah figure rather than a fellow sinner who (at best) will make incremental progress against the sin that is and always will be rampant in this world. And the second is that unlike the current situation here in Virginia with Mr. McDonnell, the national social conservative movement did not have a history with Gov. Romney and did not trust him. That was partially understandable (given that he did not become pro-life in a political sense until quite late in life) and also regrettable (given that he underscored his pro-life convictions with a controversial veto).

But what about 2012? If Gov. Romney runs, it seems to me there is at least a chance that he might have more of a McDonnell situation. In addition to his actions in office in Massachusetts, he's been through the national wringer. Even if you think his pro-life conversion was totally opportunistic (which I do not) it is absolutely fanciful to suggest he'd go back on it now, after all the scrutiny that's been placed on his views. So if the conservative base would let him, my guess is he'd much prefer to run a race a lot like the one I'm seeing here in Virginia -- one that certainly does not deny his social conservatism, or his religion for that matter, but also one that wears neither item on his sleeve as the most important thing you must absolutely know about him or else. Instead, he'd get to talk about his economic-turnaround expertise, and his desire to see the president of the United States make the case loudly for American values, rather than apologizing for our nation at every opportunity. His speeches would be about making the next half-century of our history great, not explaining the minutiae of the last five years of Mitt Romney's innermost thoughts.

I'd suggest to you that that would be a race likely to result in good things for conservatives, and for America. But do you remember the "if" I mentioned above? Yes: This is the kind of race I think Gov. Romney would like to run if the conservative base lets him.

If we decide the key criterion in a leader of our country is not whether we would let him preach in our church's pulpit.

If we agree that it's immaterial whether the president would prefer to ban abortion via state legislation, national constitutional amendment, prayer, or pixie dust, as long as he is pro-life.

I'm not saying we pick a liberal. But I am saying we get over what David has called the Conservative Messiah complex.

I fear this a very big "if" indeed. But I'm hopeful. Are you?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 01:07 PM on October 24, 2009 | Permalink

Bob Hope delivers the best, most accurate, and funniest line ever. From the movie "The Ghost Breakers".

Posted by Nancy French at 08:47 AM on October 21, 2009 | Permalink

David and Charles are having breakfast in Washington, DC without me... while I'm getting the kids ready for a history test.

Posted by Nancy French at 08:11 AM on October 20, 2009 | Permalink

In a San Diego speech, Gov. Romney called Iran "unalloyed evil," along with using other very forceful language, on the same day US, French, and Russian negotiators meet with Iranian officials to discuss the country's nuclear program:

"Stop thinking that a charm offensive will talk the Iranians out of their pursuit of nuclear weapons," said Romney. "It will not." Later in the address, he punctuated that sentiment by noting: "Once an outstretched hand is met with a clenched fist, it becomes a symbol of weakness and impotence."

Read more about it in The Fix.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:11 PM on October 19, 2009 | Permalink

Nancy, thanks for the gentle reminder to weigh in on Gov. Romney's endorsement of Pat Toomey. You're right, this is a terribly important race, and not just for those of us who are really Pennsylvanians.

For those who don't follow the ins and outs of politics in the Keystone State, here's the story. Toomey was elected to Congress in a swing district in the Allentown area in 1998. He promised to serve no more than three terms, and he kept his pledge. In fact, rather than running for reelection in 2004, he challenged Sen. Arlen Specter in the Republican primary, attracting huge support from conservative activists (including yours truly). All the party insiders, including then-President George W. Bush and then-Senator Rick Santorum, vocally supported Sen. Specter. President Bush and Sen. Santorum in particular did fundraiser after fundraiser, swearing that Sen. Specter was the man they needed in the Senate:

Their help was pivotal: In the end, Sen. Specter won the primary by less than a point. He then defeated then-Rep. Joe Hoeffel in the general election pretty handily.

All of this, of course, is particularly hilarious in retrospect. Sen. Specter stood by while Sen. Santorum was overwhelmingly defeated just two years later. And now -- after Sen. Specter left the Republican Party on account of his poor poll numbers -- President Obama can be found saying the exact same things his predecessor said five years ago about Sen. Specter's being a loyal member of the party and the ally he needs in the world's greatest deliberative body. And, best of all, Sen. Specter has another well-funded, formidable congressman from southeastern Pennsylvania challenging him in the Democratic primary: Joe Sestak, who is now within four percent in the polls.

But back to Pat Toomey. He's a true-blue conservative across the board, and he knows how to explain his views. Liberal Republicans have never liked him, because he tends to stand on principle. And when Sen. Specter left the party, blaming Toomey, liberals started casting about for an opponent to Toomey. They haven't come up with one, and the party is coming together behind him. Not only that, he's doing a great job. The polls are close, and he just raised $1.5 million. Sen. Specter is bragging that he raised more ($1.82 million), but consider that more than half of that came from a fundraiser with President Obama.

What's my point? Gov. Romney made an excellent choice. Pat Toomey not only has the right views; he's articulate and he knows how to run a campaign. He deserves the support of right-thinking folks across the country.

And one other thing, just because. Did you see the article in yesterday's Washington Post, not about campaign cash, but about Carey Cash? He seems to be an amazing individual, and it seems the President is hearing quite a bit of his preaching. Take a look.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:08 AM on October 15, 2009 | Permalink

But Gov. Romney has endorsed Pat Toomey.

Since Charles has already called me out for not really being a Pennsylvanian, I'll leave it to him to discuss why this is important.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:31 AM on October 15, 2009 | Permalink

While I was trying to figure out who this Charles person is, claiming to know us, I came across the Best Headline Ever:

Stolen Bras Recovered, But No Bust Made

(Followed closely by Obama's Peace Prize Starts a Fight.)

Posted by Nancy French at 10:23 AM on October 10, 2009 | Permalink

Hey, Frenches! I'm still here, I promise. And I'm even lame enough to blog on a Friday night.

I've been distracted this summer by too much work, a move, and (most recently) a perfectly delightful and email-free anniversary vacation in California. But I'm back now, and I missed y'all. Not only that, thanks to our move, the Mitchells are one step closer to being as cool as the Frenches: We each have a desk and a laptop from which we can engage in scintillating inter-couple dialogue like what occurred here earlier today.

David, a couple thoughts on President Obama's Nobel Prize. First, yes, it shows just how political those prizes have become. Second, it occurs to me we should perhaps be thankful for the choice. After all, better that a prize like this go to the President of the United States (even if we disagree with him on many things) than some tin-pot dictator with blood on his hands. That does, after all, happen quite often with international honors like this.

Nancy, I was surprised by Ramesh Ponnuru's article. Recall that he was quite a Romney skeptic in 2008; although National Review endorsed our guy, Ponnuru himself was a McCain guy. That makes the praise in his piece even more noteworthy. And this, it seems to me, hit on something critical:

Yet it is extremely difficult — more difficult than many people realize — to capture the Republican presidential nomination from the right in the modern era. The politics of religion largely account for this difficulty. The movement candidacy always runs a risk of being destroyed by an evangelical candidacy. No movement candidate can win without strong support from evangelical voters. But an evangelical candidate running on the basis of his religion can win a lot of votes from his coreligionists, and thus block the movement candidate’s progress, without being able to win the nomination himself. As Huckabee showed in the last race, the evangelical candidate need not be well-known or well-funded to play this role. Pat Robertson played it in 1988. (Pat Buchanan splintered the movement in a slightly different way in 1996.)

Romney’s problem was not that he is a Mormon. It was that he is not an evangelical. A strong plurality of evangelicals “would have backed Huckabee against anybody — Mormon, Buddhist, or Catholic,” says another former Romney adviser. “They were voting for one of their own.”...

The movement candidate labors under another burden: He is competing for votes with everyone else in the field. He has to fight the establishment candidate to his left and the evangelical candidate to his right, while neither of them fights the other. McCain and Huckabee were not, by and large, competing for the same voters. That’s one reason Romney was the man most uniformly hated by the other candidates, and why voters saw Romney as the most negative candidate.

I'm not sure if Ponnuru is exactly right on the history (I don't know enough to judge) but I do think he's on the right track with this "one of our own" business. How many times did we hear that attitude on display? The worst manifestation of it, to me, is that idea that God can only work through someone who prays to him (something we also heard in the 2000 cycle). I don't know about you, but I believe in a God who can do whatever he wants with whomever he wants -- including the pagan king who allowed the Israelites to return home from Babylon.

Oh, one other thing: I still can't believe David wasn't the first one to pull this off.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:12 PM on October 09, 2009 | Permalink

According to this parody, via the Corner:

Posted by Nancy French at 10:03 PM on October 09, 2009 | Permalink

How could you talk about Governor Romney on the day that our president won the Nobel Peace Prize? After all, this is a day to celebrate his many accomplishments for peace, like the time that he . . .

Hmmm.

Well.

Gave a speech?

Anyway, on an unrelated note, after the Chicago debacle a few days ago, one of our 2012 themes could be: "Romney: Because He's Better at the Olympics."

Posted by David French at 12:51 PM on October 09, 2009 | Permalink

This article by Ramesh has some great points.

In the early stages of the undeclared race for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney is the frontrunner. The former governor of Massachusetts has the best-developed national network of supporters of any of the potential candidates. He is the one doing the most party-building across the country; of his potential rivals, only Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty comes close. He is the one to whom other Republicans are most likely to turn for answers on economic policy, and on many issues he is the only one giving them. When the auto companies came to Washington only Romney had a plan (“Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check,” he wrote in the New York Times).

He knows more about a larger range of policy issues than most of the other Republican candidates. All the candidates can, presumably, say something plausible about Afghanistan; not many can give a credible answer to a question about the role mark-to-market accounting rules played in the financial crisis, as Romney recently did in an interview with me.

A Republican strategist with no ties to Romney recently heard him speak and came away impressed by how much better a speaker he has become. “His stump speech has gotten very, very good. It’s very honed.” In a recent Rasmussen poll, Romney narrowly beat Sarah Palin as the candidate Republican voters most favored. Even the narrowness of that win may work to his advantage. Romney is not so far out in front that he has to worry about meeting high expectations. Nor has he ever made himself the center of attention. Thus he has avoided much criticism and kept voters from getting bored with him. He has been detached and analytical rather than angry.

Romney still has his old-fashioned leading-man looks. He is seasoned. (Only once in the last 50 years have Republicans won with a nominee making his first run for president.) And his aides think they have learned from the mistakes they made in 2007 and 2008. Romney has had an excellent 2009.

Then again, George Allen had a pretty good 2005.

Read it all here.

Do you agree? Disagree?

I, for one, am so excited about the prospect of Gov. Romney running again. My political depression that settled on me the day he dropped out of the race is now finally lifting!

Posted by Nancy French at 11:27 AM on October 09, 2009 | Permalink

One of the more discouraging things about living in the conservative echo chamber is how often the conventional wisdom in intra-conservative spats is based on, well, falsehood and exaggeration. In 2007/2008, Mitt was the "flip-flopper" despite the fact that we could easily point to similar changes from other candidates -- and even to dramatic policy changes during the course of the campaign. So it's terrible when Mitt runs as a pro-choice candidate in 1994 but OK when Fred Thompson does it? It's bad for Mitt to change his mind on abortion before the campaign but OK for Mike Huckabee to do an immigration about-face?

And don't even get me started on John McCain and offshore drilling.

I fear that we're on the cusp of another one of those "everyone says it so it must have credibility" moments when it comes to health care. Here's the Wall Street Journal talking about the Governor's alleged "Massachusetts Baggage:"

But there's also one huge elephant in the room that Mr. Romney will have to clear if he decides to run in 2012: Massachusetts' universal health care legislation, which hasn't been popular with fellow GOPers. Indeed, it must pain Mr. Romney that so many Republican critiques of ObamaCare cite the cost overruns and other problems encountered by RomneyCare. As he geared up to run for president a few years ago, Mr. Romney notably switched his positions on abortion, gun rights, immigration and "don't ask, don't tell." He won't find it so easy to flip-flop on Romney care, and he apparently knows it. Mr. Romney is sticking to his guns by defending the Massachusetts plan. "I like what we did in Massachusetts. I think it works in Massachusetts," he says.

No doubt there is some GOP grumbling about his health care reforms. But is that grumbling informed? Are the alleged "cost overruns" and "other problems" real or imagined?

The nonpartisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation says things are going well:

Despite a public perception that the state’s landmark healthcare reform law has turned out to be unaffordable, a new analysis by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation finds that the cost to taxpayers of achieving near universal coverage has been relatively modest and well within initial projections of how much the state would have to spend to implement reform, in part because many of the newly insured have enrolled in employer-sponsored plans at no public expense.

It's time to get out ahead of the story now before "unaffordable Massachusetts healthcare" becomes the "flip-flopper" smear of the next election cycle.

Posted by David French at 03:26 PM on October 02, 2009 | Permalink

Will he be as formidable as this author thinks?

In the strongest sign yet that he is considering a White House bid, Gov. Tim Pawlenty unveiled a team of political heavy hitters Thursday that has the political world buzzing about the still little-known Minnesota Republican.

Pawlenty's new political action committee, named the Freedom First PAC, is studded with well-known names from the Bush and McCain campaigns, positioning him as a formidable potential challenger to presumptive 2012 Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Nancy French at 08:47 AM on October 02, 2009 | Permalink

David had some interesting observations today in The Corner. No, not about Afghanistan, Iraq, or Gov. Romney. About Battlestar Galactica!

Posted by Nancy French at 12:40 AM on October 02, 2009 | Permalink

A few months ago, I wrote an article for Townhall.com that basically argued that war rhetoric was meaningless. Once the decision was made to fight, the outcome of war was in the hands of the soldiers, not the politicians. Thus, we needn't fret too much about Obama's apology tours or his lukewarm public statements. He was not (yet) withdrawing precipitously from Iraq, and he had reinforced Afghanistan -- so the war was in the soldiers' hands, not his.

But what if our Commander-in-Chief chooses not to fight? Or to deprive the soldiers of the resources they need? We may be about to find out. Withdrawal is continuing in Iraq (as I believe it should -- so long as conditions hold). And now Afghanistan is at a pivotal point - as an outstanding general who has proven himself in this war is asking for reinforcements. Thus far, it doesn't look like he's going to get what he needs, and this could be catastrophic.

I completely understand that our military is under civilian control and that presidents don't merely rubber-stamp generals' requests (in fact, several generals were wrong early in the Iraq war, and that cost us dearly), but good presidents also recognize the capabilities of their generals. Lincoln knew enough to know that McClellan was a disaster and that Grant was the answer. If Obama rejects General McChyrstal's recommendations (which would not be made if General Petraeus didn't approve), then it could be like Lincoln turning his back on Sherman and Grant in the pivotal months of 1864.

Governor Romney has just gone on the record as supporting General McChrystal's requests. Given General McChrystal's track record, I strongly believe this is the best bet.

So, Mr. President, what will it be? Will your actions finally match your weak and naive rhetoric? Or will you back your man on the scene, the man you picked for the job? An untold number of lives ride on your decision.

Posted by David French at 12:24 PM on September 29, 2009 | Permalink

In the latest edition of Newsmax, Ronald Kessler writes about Gov. Romney's health care plan:

Contrary to media reports, Massachusetts’ new health insurance plan has managed to cover nearly all residents at minimal additional cost to the state and could be a model for national healthcare reform, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney tells Newsmax.

Romney, who devised the plan, cites the Massachusetts plan’s own figures and a report by the non-partisan Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which has concluded that the claim that the state’s healthcare reform created uncontrollable costs is a “myth.”

“Despite a public perception that the state’s landmark healthcare reform law has turned out to be unaffordable, a new analysis by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation finds that the cost to taxpayers of achieving near universal coverage has been relatively modest and well within initial projections of how much the state would have to spend to implement reform, in part because many of the newly insured have enrolled in employer-sponsored plans at no public expense,” the foundation’s report, issued in May, says.

Read the whole thing here.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:02 PM on September 24, 2009 | Permalink

Mike Huckabee won the 2009 Values Voter straw poll. What does this mean? Is it an ominous sign for Mitt (he finished second)? The short answers are "not much" and "no." The long answers follow.

First, as everyone who's followed EFM knows, we love a good straw poll. So I'm not one who's going to minimize results when my guy loses and shout from the mountaintops when my guy wins. That's spin, and I'll leave that to the folks who draw a paycheck. I wish Mitt was more popular with the "values voters." I really do. He should be more popular, and that's the reason this site exists.

Values voters are Mike Huckabee's core constituency. The numbers don't lie. Governor Huckabee dominated the evangelical vote in the primaries. His strength in the evangelical world can't be questioned. It just can't. For him, the challenge is reaching out beyond evangelicals . . . and because of that, the 2009 Values Voter Summit tells us nothing that we didn't already know. When it comes to evangelical voters, we've got work to do.

But Huckabee's got a harder job winning over non-evangelicals than Mitt Romney does in winning over the party's strongest social conservatives. Here, the numbers are stunning. In 2008, Mitt won 25% of the evangelical vote, while Huckabee won only 8% of non-evangelicals. And while the evangelical vote is big (40% of the total Republican primary electorate), 40% is still a minority.

The bottom line? With evangelicals, at this point Mitt seems to be roughly where he was in 2008 (and we're going to do what we can to help other evangelicals see the light.) But where is Huckabee with non-evangelicals? Time will tell, and the Values Voter straw poll does nothing to help us answer that question.

Posted by David French at 05:25 PM on September 21, 2009 | Permalink

Posted by Nancy French at 08:43 PM on September 19, 2009 | Permalink

Thank you all very much. Tony, I appreciate your very kind words. And my thanks to all of you for the warm welcome. It’s good to see so many friends and leaders of the conservative movement from across America.
A year ago, there were quite a few people who were ready to write off this movement. They were enthralled by Barack Obama’s promise of near-Biblical transformations. Their legs were tingling.
He spoke majestically, framed by Greek columns. Well, he can still spin a speech, but he can’t spin his record. I’ll bet you never dreamed you’d look back at Jimmy Carter as the good old days.

I’ve had the pleasure of attending the Values Voters summit every year since 2004. I know that what brings us together is our allegiance to important and enduring values: the security of our country … the defense of freedom in the world … the success of our free enterprise system … and the fundamental rights of every person, including the right to life itself – these causes unite us…and they inspire us for the work ahead.

We know that America has always endured a chorus of critics, —people who claim that every ill, every failure in the world is America's fault.
But it has never before had a President who was conducting that chorus.
He told an Arab TV station that America has dictated to other nations. No, Mr. President, America has freed other nations from dictators. He told the Europeans that America has been arrogant, dismissive and derisive. No, Mr. President, in defending liberty, America has been diligent, dedicated and decisive.

Sure, when an American president journeys abroad, it’s always nice to see him applauded and praised. But when the price for that adoration is one apology after another for alleged offenses by the United States of America, it’s not worth it. Frankly, I’d rather see a president greeted abroad by complete silence, as long as he is defending our country’s character and not playing to our country’s critics!

These are times that call for a strong America.

China is on track to become the largest economy in the world. Russia under Putin is edging back to its old totalitarian ways, killing journalists, harassing political enemies, and invading a sovereign neighbor. Jihadists murder and threaten innocent people in nations around the world, and plot to attack us here at home.
The regime in North Korea sacrifices its own people to serve its nuclear ambitions. The regime in Iran, too, is moving fast to develop a nuclear weapon. And all the while, our economy is reeling and our debts are mounting.

Let me say it again: these are times that call for a strong America.

We know the source of America’s strength.
It is the citizens of this country, and all that a free people can achieve.
Free, hard working, family oriented, risk taking, opportunity-seeking, patriotic American people have always been the source of our strength, and they always will be.

And here in Washington, the best policies are those that expand their freedoms, broaden their opportunities, allow them to keep more of what they earn, afford them better education, let them choose their own healthcare, and turn loose the free enterprise system to create more jobs.

What President Obama has done these last eight months, and what he is proposing for the next three years, would not strengthen America, it would weaken America. His so-called stimulus is a case in point. The President sold it as an immediate boost that would hold unemployment below eight percent, restore the economy and create jobs. Rather than bring back the economy, it brought back 30 years of failed liberal programs. And he rushed it through before anyone could even notice. But we did notice, and we’re not impressed!

The economy is still shrinking even as the government keeps growing. Unemployment blew past eight percent to nearly 10 percent – that’s millions and millions more Americans out of work.
Not one new job has been created. The numbers of Americans opposing the Obama agenda are growing. The voters will make that clear in the 2010 elections. Now that’s a “public option” I agree with.

The President’s spending and borrowing has also weakened the nation.
In the month of July alone, he added 330 billion dollars to the deficit. His plan is to add another trillion dollars in debt every year he is in office. He initially admitted that the cumulative deficit would swell by seven trillion dollars over the next ten years, but now he acknowledges that nine trillion is more like it.
He would double our national debt in just five years. These deficits, combined with our liabilities for entitlements, threaten to cause a global collapse of confidence in America and in the dollar, and to precipitate an even deeper financial crisis.

Putting such a spirit-crushing, back-breaking debt burden on our children is unworthy of our national character. That is why I believe that this spending and borrowing is not just economically irresponsible, it is morally wrong!

To strengthen the economy and to create jobs, the President must stop trying to borrow this country out of a debt problem. I know there are people who are now talking about another stimulus bill for the economy. That’s the wrong answer. The right answer is to fix the stimulus we have—throw out the liberal, big-government programs and substitute incentives that will stimulate the private sector and actually create jobs. Don’t repeat the stimulus, repair the stimulus!

Taking more money away from working Americans would make us a weaker nation. Candidate Obama promised not to raise taxes—“by one dime”—on people making less than 250 thousand dollars a year. The President’s cap and trade program demolished that promise. The Obama team had secretly calculated that his plan would cost the average American family $1,761 a year, the equivalent to a 15% income tax hike. It kills jobs. And because it will simply move greenhouse gas emitters from America to other nations like China, it won’t do a thing to affect climate change. Democrats keep talking about climate change.
I think they’re confusing global warming with all the heat they’ve been taking at town halls.

I think we can all agree that it is a good idea to reform healthcare. Healthier Americans will make a stronger nation. Insurance companies shouldn’t drop people when they get sick.
We need to help people with pre-existing conditions. I think insurance should be portable and affordable. Republicans have proposed several healthcare reform bills. And this Republican worked to reform healthcare in my own state. Not every feature of our plan is perfect, but the lesson it teaches is this:
We can get everyone insured, without breaking the bank and without a government option—there is no government insurance in my Massachusetts reform. The right answer for health care is not more government, it’s less government.

President Obama says he wants “public option government insurance,” to give people “greater choice.” But what he doesn’t tell you is that there are more than a thousand insurance companies.

He says he wants an option that doesn’t have the burden of corporate profits. But what he doesn’t tell you is that there are plenty of major insurance companies that are not-for-profit.

He says he’d be satisfied with co-ops. But what he doesn’t tell you is that there are already co-ops and no legislation is needed to form more of them.

What he won’t say is what he really wants: a public option that over time becomes the only option. And if he gets what he wants, we know exactly where it would inevitably lead: to an entitlement with massive liability, to more borrowing, to denial of care or rationing just as they experience in Europe, and to the creation of dozens of government bureaucracies reaching into every hospital, every doctor’s office and every home. He’s not going to get his way, thanks to millions of Americas who have stepped up in town halls and tea parties across the country.
The Democrats call them a mob, crazies, trash—
I call them patriots.

I for one was not unhappy that the President chose to address our schoolchildren. The Heritage Foundation, in a January letter to the President, reminded him that he is in a unique position to help our children keep from making a critical and life-altering mistake. And that is having children before they are married. Forty percent of all children are now born out-of-wedlock. Of course, there are wonderful single parents who do a heroic job raising children in difficult circumstances.
But for the nation as a whole, we raise a stronger generation when they are raised by a Mom and a Dad.

A strong America depends on a strong defense. Rivals are pursuing designs and purposes very different from our own. We must never cut corners in funding and equipping the military and the intelligence services that defend our country. More than 150,000 of our people in uniform are still deployed in theaters of war. Nothing on the agenda of the President or Congress must come before the needs of our troops and the absolute necessity of their victory.

In the face of Iran’s rush to become a nuclear power, the President’s decision this week to walk away from our commitment to missile defense in Europe is alarming and dangerous. They say that Iran isn’t as close to becoming a nuclear threat as they once thought.
How can they possibly know that? They say this is a token of goodwill for Russia to get them to support sanctions on Iran. But the first rule of negotiation is this: only give something away when you get something.

From Israel, to Honduras, to the Czech Republic and Poland, it’s time the President treated our friends better than he does our foes.

We need to urge
pro-defense members of Congress – Democrats and Republicans alike – to hold firm, and to make the case for a military that is second to none. Those pro-defense congressmen and senators might feel outnumbered right now. But they shouldn’t lose hope, because we’re going to send them some reinforcements in next year’s election.

We’ve now gone eight years and eight days without being hit again at home. And over on the Left, they want very hard for us to believe that this fact has nothing whatever to do with the intensive interrogation of terrorists. You could listen all day long to the outpourings of the far left and never hear that obvious connection.

The administration plays right along. And now they’re actually talking about prosecuting the very intelligence officers who protected us by asking questions and getting answers. These intelligence officers don’t deserve to be hounded and lectured by the Left wing – they deserve the respect and thanks of every American, starting with the commander in chief.

We’re at a critical time in our nation’s history. America must not lose faith in the values and virtues that made the American way of life possible.
We must not allow big government activists to exploit the financial crisis that they themselves unknowingly enabled – to substitute their ideology for the wisdom and good sense of the American people.

There’s something else that should concern us when the federal government expands at such a rate. When government is trying to take over health care, buying car companies, bailing out banks, and giving half the White House staff the title of czar – we have every good reason to be alarmed and to speak our mind!

The current economic crisis was the result of many failures. Important guardrails were allowed to collapse, leaving many Americans unprotected from the descent of the financial and job markets. The last thing we need now is a collapse of even more guardrails, leaving us unprotected from the overreach of government.

Let me make a prediction, for our cause, and for all those who speak for it with no apology, we're about to see a comeback.
Voters in New Jersey have just about had it with the high-taxers in charge of their state. And just across the Potomac River, the signs are good that we’re about to see a low-tax,
pro-growth, pro-life governor of Virginia.

Nothing is certain in politics, but we can be certain about this: our belief in the greatness of America and our dedication to keeping this nation strong are needed today as much as they have ever been needed in our past.

I don’t deny that America’s challenges are great, or that overcoming them will require the best that we have to give.
But I know as well that times of difficulty always bring out the essential character of our fellow citizens. When I was a boy, my dad used to say that the pursuit of the difficult makes you strong. Well, the pursuit of the difficult will make America strong. We welcome the challenge. It will call on us, once again, to draw on the incredible resilience, ingenuity, and faith of the free men and women of the United States.

We don’t get to choose the tests and trials ahead. But we’re entirely free, you and I, to choose how we will meet those tests. We will meet them as conservatives have done before. We will find strength in each other, and answer our opponents with good will and honest words.

And we will go forward – committed to our ideals, confident of victories to come, and certain that God does indeed bless America.

Thank you.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:16 PM on September 19, 2009 | Permalink

Posted by Nancy French at 12:43 PM on September 11, 2009 | Permalink

David Brody makes a fair point:

A Pro-Life activist from Michigan has been shot and killed. Initial reports say the man is James Pouillon who is known as the "abortion sign guy". Apparently he was well known in the community for holding up abortion signs with pictures of aborted babies. There have actually been two people killed and it looks like the murders are related. Will the President of the United States issue any sort of statement on this just like he did when abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered? The pro-life community waits to see what he does.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:52 AM on September 11, 2009 | Permalink