... acccording to a new poll:

Only 17 percent of the 805 Alaska Republicans surveyed by Public Policy Polling said they would back Palin in a 2012 GOP primary, the same percentage who voiced support for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Gov. Romney came out on top at 20%.

Posted by Nancy French at 04:23 PM on September 01, 2010 | Permalink

No, not that McCain. I'm talking about John's daughter Meghan, who has written a campaign memoir in which she admits that she stole Romney campaign signs. Here are other astute political insights, as she considered what she deemed to be the inevitable: a McCain/Romney ticket.

"We wondered whether the Five Brothers, the nickname for the Romney sons, could handle the constant drinking and swearing that went on in our campaign – the press corps included," she goes on. "Not to mention all the tawdry stories about crazy-sex you never read about."

Despite deep enmity between the two camps during the primaries, Romney quickly endorsed McCain's candidacy after his own withdrawal and worked hard on the Arizona senator's behalf, earning a place on the eventual nominee's short list for the vice-presidential nomination.

"It was hard to adjust to nice thoughts about Romney," McCain writes, "or to stop laughing at him."

Honestly, I was really disappointed that Gov. Romney wasn't the VP nominee... until I realized that it was probably all a long shot against President Obama.

In 2012, however, it's a totally different story, and I'm glad Gov. Romney doesn't have all the baggage of being linked so closely with McCain to deal with.

Posted by Nancy French at 02:13 PM on August 31, 2010 | Permalink

From a reader:

Thanks for posting the information about Bishop Sannar. I am contributor 299 on Connor Boyack’s site. For those who have concerns about the legitimacy of this fundraiser, they can learn about it here.

Posted by Nancy French at 02:06 PM on August 31, 2010 | Permalink

.. but, it's a hard time to be LDS in California:

A man shot and killed a Mormon bishop at a chapel in California and then was later shot dead by police Sunday afternoon, according to multiple reports.

The shooting took place around 12:30 p.m. at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel on Tulare Avenue in Visalia, Calif., according to Visalia Police Capt. Rick Haskill.

Police and church officials identified the slain bishop as Clay Sannar, 40, of the Visalia 2nd Ward. Visalia Stake spokesman Ralph Jordan said Sannar was conducting interviews after the three-hour block of morning meetings when a man asked to see him.

Visalia police identified the man who they say shot and killed Sannar on Monday morning. He is identified as 47-year-old Kenneth James Ward of Modesto, Calif.

The motive is still under investigation as of Monday morning.

Ward waited calmly outside the bishop's office while the interviews took place but then shot Sannar when he entered, Jordan said. According to Haskill, Sannar was shot several times.

A bishop in the same stake, who was not a designated spokesman and was not present but spoke to witnesses, told the Deseret News the shooter came to the church earlier and was "visibly angry about something," then came back after sacrament meeting and entered Sannar's office.

There's an online donation drive to get $10,000 per child who was left fatherless -- he had six sons, ranging from 14 years of age to just three months. (Though we know that ultimately they still have their heavenly Father who is still caring and loving them and will never be left "fatherless.")

Click here for more information on the situation, and here for the charitable drive. (Note: I don't know Connor Boyack, a Latter-day Saint living in Lehi, UT. But he claims that all funds will be sent directly to Sister Sannar (Clay’s wife). For any questions, you may contact him at any time at cboyack@gmail.com or 801.376.2647. For those who question the legitimacy of this fundraiser or his integrity, he says he's certainly happy to provide references!)

Posted by Nancy French at 09:14 AM on August 31, 2010 | Permalink

Probably not, but I found this amusing nonetheless.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:44 PM on August 29, 2010 | Permalink

.... and apparently, even after coming off the high of his successful rally in DC, Beck doesn't want it to be.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:39 PM on August 29, 2010 | Permalink

... about Gov. Romney because of this headline:

Dukakis: Romney would be a ‘disastrous’ president

Does anyone else find comfort in this non-endorsement?

Posted by Nancy French at 05:44 PM on August 23, 2010 | Permalink

Be careful what you post on your Facebook page! I wrote a brief status update (they can't be much longer than a twitter post) this morning about the Ground Zero Mosque. Here it is in full:

Why do people say Ground Zero Mosque issue is "complicated?" It's simple: while Muslims may have a legal right to build there (I say "may" because I'm not familiar with NYC zoning), it is astounding that they would try, and I'm going to exercise MY constitutional rights to protest. Memo to Mosque builders: practice tolerance before you demand it.

Because I've got a diverse group of FB friends (I love 'em all . . . they keep me on my toes), I got some immediate and thoughtful negative feedback. So I responded, at length. My main point? You cannot evaluate the proposed mosque without understanding key historical facts:

I appreciate all the comments. First, I understand the desire amongst the Mosque's defenders to minimize the significance of the location, but we're talking about a building actually damaged in the 9/11 attacks, that is 600 feet away from the WTC site. It was CHOSEN for its proximity to Ground Zero, so to diminish its proximity now actually flies in the face of the intent of the founders of the Cordoba House.

Second, the initial proposed name of the place is significant. Cordoba was a Spanish city conquered by Islam during its first great Jihad, which swept much of Christian civilization out of the Middle East, and pushed Christians back into what is now modern France. Muslims claim that the conquered city of Cordoba became a model of interfaith cooperation. Christians disagreed, mounting a centuries long campaign to retake Spain, which didn't fully succeed until the late 15th Century. This Christian "Reconquista" still angers many Muslims, including Osama bin Laden himself, who cited the Reconquista in his famous post 9/11 victory speech as one of the motivating factors for the 9/11 attacks.

Third, Islam has a long history of building "victory mosques." From Damascus to Vienna to Syria to Afghanistan, victorious Muslim armies erected Mosques to symbolize their triumph. Perhaps the worst example of this is the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople). The greatest church in Orthodox Christianity, it was converted to a mosque following the Ottoman Muslim conquest of the city. Its priceless icons were covered with plaster and allowed to degrade. It was used as a mosque for hundreds of years until the secularizing Kemalist Turks converted it to a museum. It has not been returned to the Orthodox Church despite the fact that the church maintains a presence in Istanbul.

Fourth, the construction of this mosque is not universally popular in the Muslim world. Hamas certainly supports it (unsurprisingly), but others have even called it a "Zionist conspiracy" (don't you love how some Muslims always find a way to blame the Jews?) because it brings Islam into disrepute. Many Muslims recognize that it is disrespectful to place a massive Muslim center 600 feet away from the site of the largest mass murder in American history -- a mass murder committed in the name of Allah. They take the imminently sensible view that a large Muslim community center can and should be built in Manhattan, but not there . . . and not with that name.

Fifth, the Imam who is proposing the center is . . . a bit controversial himself. He refuses to condemn Hamas (a designated terrorist organization with a genocidal purpose), blames America in part for the 9/11 attacks (said our policies were "accessories to the crime") and notes that "Osama bin Laden is made in the USA." No one serious is alleging that he's a terrorist, but he's certainly not the bridge-builder he claims to be.

Sixth, the Imam is concealing the sources of funding for the Mosque. This is a quite important factor . . . especially since he won't rule out Saudi or Iranian funding. The Saudi dollars typically come with strings attached, strings that include perpetuation of Wahabbist Islam, the violent form of Sunni Islam that animates the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda, and the Taliban. Iranian funding would come from the state that is the single largest sponsor of terrorism in the world.

Seventh, comparing a massive mosque -- especially given the history outlined above -- to pizza places or bank branches is a bit off-point. On 9/11 we weren't attacked by 19 pizza chefs. If we were, and then someone wanted to build a $100 million dollar ode to pizzas in a building damaged by the attacks, then people would be similarly offended.

Finally, I appreciate good intentions regarding loving our fellow man. In fact, many of my facebook friends have risked their lives defending Muslims in Iraq. I've spent more than a few days outside the wire myself (though I can't compare to the real heros in 2/3 ACR). I can't think of many things more empirically loving than risking your life to defend another human being. I have friends who died defending others. We were fighting al Qaeda and the Sadr Militia, not "Muslims." It is not too much for us to ask for Muslims to respect the place where their co-religionists killed 2,750 of our fellow citizens and not build a $100 million Mosque 600 feet away . . . especially not one named after a city they conquered through Jihad.

There are plenty of places to worship in Manhattan, and that building has even been previously used for Islamic prayer, but there is a world of difference between a pre-existing modest house of prayer and a massive Islamic center built by a man who flirts with Islamic radicalism, courts Saudi and Iranian money, and proposes to name it after one of Islam's greatest conquests.

I'd love to hear some EFM reader feedback. Oh, and I should point out that a certain former Massachusetts Governor has issued his own statement. (Hat tip to our friends at Mitt Romney Central.) Governor Romney is a bit more succinct than I am, and he comes to the same conclusion.

Posted by David French at 10:00 PM on August 20, 2010 | Permalink

From a reader:

Does EFM have any comments on the presidential aspirations and supposed fundraising clout of Mr. Barbour?

Let me stipulate the following:

1. I think the world of Gov. Barbour both as a governor and as a strategist.
2. I love bourbon.
3. I believe lobbyists are a necessary and important part of our form of government.

That said, anybody who seriously believes a bourbon-swilling ex-lobbyist will be elected president anytime soon is on something a lot stronger than bourbon.

Gov. Barbour himself is way too smart to believe that.

But he's sticking his toe in the water because his real goal is to be a kingmaker, and he knows he will have more power if he flirts with trying to become the king. He's right. He will accomplish that goal. And that will be a good thing for conservatives.

It could even be a good thing for Gov. Romney if Gov. Barbour actually runs, because he would be enough of a force in the Deep South (if nowhere else) that our guy could safely write that region, where he will never run the table, off.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:23 AM on August 20, 2010 | Permalink

It's looking like it:

Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, moved one tiny step closer to declaring himself a 2012 candidate on Wednesday, saying he feels as if he is "being pulled along" into the race.

"I sort of feel in some respects I'm being pulled along in this," Santorum told the Des Moines Register on Wednesday. "I'm still seriously going through this process. And at this point I'm very encouraged by everything that's happening."

Posted by Nancy French at 04:52 PM on August 19, 2010 | Permalink

It begins:

IT’S NOT happening the way President Obama had planned. Unemployment blew past his 8 percent ceiling and hasn’t looked back. Private sector investment in new jobs and capital has languished. Even the head of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, has resigned.

Read it all here.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:07 PM on August 18, 2010 | Permalink

From a reader, Virginia:

I'd just like to weigh in on the ranger vs. hobbit controversy with a link to a wonderful article by Clayton Christensen of Harvard business school. If you haven't already read it, I think you would appreciate what he has to say.

Posted by Nancy French at 07:56 PM on August 17, 2010 | Permalink

Listen, homes. Don't paint me as part of "blowback." All I did was kid with you, say you made me think, and throw up another article that might be considered. One of the things I've learned from you is that you know more than I do, which makes me hesitant to disagree with you. That's why so far, I've stopped at kidding with you.

That said, it does seem to me as I read all of this that there's a big difference between telling young lawyers to work like rabid dogs and telling families to be intentional about their choices. Is the fearless Mr. French backing off?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:10 PM on August 16, 2010 | Permalink

Regarding those two things I've not yet mastered and probably never will, here's a moving e-mail from reader David, not to be confused with agitator/blogger David:

I read with interest your comments on David French’s article on work/life balance. Thank you for the pointer to his article on Six Seeds and the invitation to “Discuss!” When I was still in school, attended a speech that delivered pretty much the same message as the one delivered by David to the group of law students. I was told not to be “that guy” who said, “I have to go home because my family is important to me.” The speaker said, “Always remember, the person you’re speaking to most likely loves his family as much as you do.” I’ve tried to keep that advice in mind as I’ve struggled to balance my professional and community obligations with my commitments to my family.

My beautiful bride and I have been blessed with three children. Our youngest is a junior in college. Her older brother hopes to start his graduate studies in January. So, we’re a bit farther along life’s journey that you and I hope you’ll allow me to offer some advice based on our experience. First, David’s right (isn’t he usually?): there are some things more important than being at home at 5:30 each evening. David put this into the context of a warrior being away from home to protect home and country. I’ll put it the question in more mundane terms. Is it possible for a man to be a good husband and father while working in a profession that takes him out of the home? I believe so. My father was an airline pilot. For much of my youth, he was home an average of 10 days a month. The rest of the month he was overseas doing the work that made it possible for us to live in our home. Despite his absence, he was an excellent father and had a positive influence on our lives and the development of character of his children.

Based, in part, on his struggles to be a good father while meeting the demands of his profession, my dad counseled me to become a professional. He said his inability to control his work schedule prevented him from serving as my Scoutmaster or being as involved with my activities as much as he’d have liked. I don’t believe he understood the pressures involved in a professional’s life. A doctor is always on call. And, while my wife keeps reminding me there’s no such thing as a tax emergency, my ability to control my schedule isn’t nearly as great as my dad thought it might be. I’ve had to cancel more than one vacation over the years to meet an unexpected client need. I even conducted a conference call while waiting in line for the Matterhorn with my son at Disneyland.

Despite these pressures and the need to work, on average, more than 50 hours a week, I think I’ve been a good father to our children. Like my father before me, I’ve made my role as father a priority. In our home, we have prayer as a family at 7:00am (even when I cannot participate because I’ve already left for work). We also pray together before going to bed each evening. Our children learned to read by participating in our family early-morning scripture study where we each take turns reading (I read on verse, the person to my right reads the next, the person on the right reads the next, etc.). Those early-morning scripture readings may have only taken ten to fifteen minutes, but they left no doubt in the minds of our children the importance their parents place on the Bible (and, yes, the other scriptures we Mormons enjoy). We set aside an evening each week which we would spend together as a family. In the early years, those evenings involved a gospel based lesson that was prepared by my wife and delivered by one of our children (with the assistance of Mom or Dad). I made sure I took the time to regularly interview my children – typically on a Sunday afternoon – to see how “life” was going for them. And, when possible, I’ve tried to work side-by-side with them doing chores around the house.

Through all of this, the loudest lecture my children have ever heard from me is the way I’ve lived my life. They’ve never hear me cuss (no one at work has heard that, either). They’ve seen my wife and me engage in small acts of service for our friends and neighbors. We’ve involved them in several conspiracies to serve others without being caught. (For a few months when we lived in Texas, we were the “Church Phantom” – delivering goodies anonymously to those of our faith in the area.) Our children have seen their parents spend countless hours preparing Sunday School lessons, preparing meals for the sick, or otherwise trying to do what good Christians (if you’ll forgive my appropriation of the title) are supposed to be doing. In short, we live as we teach.

If you’ll do likewise – set aside time for your family to teach them and then live what you teach – I’m sure you’ll be a great father, even if your professional obligations take you out of the home more than you’d like.

My main thought: I'd be willing to bet that the statement "Always remember, the person you're speaking to most likely loves his family as much as you do" is much less reliably true outside the Mormon community (of which reader David is obviously a part). Including in the communities of those who are going to send me grumpy e-mails for saying what I just said.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:04 PM on August 16, 2010 | Permalink

First to Nancy: Your post about the Iowa poll is utterly and completely unsurprising. Huckabee won Iowa before, and unless he travels to Des Moines, watches Eat, Pray, Love, and publicly converts to Buddhism immediately afterwards, he's going to be the favorite again. I'm more interested in the polls that continue to show Mitt leading nationally. But even then, I'm not all that interested . . . we've got a long way to go.

Next, to Charles: My SixSeeds piece did generate a lot of blowback, but that happens anytime you venture into the world of parenting choices and say anything other than "Don't choose work over kids!" I say that's a false dichotomy, and the real issue is one of family calling and family purpose. Anyway, here's my response to some of the commenters over at SixSeeds:

A few things. First, as I said at least a couple times in the post, the Shire is a good place, and we need more "Shires" in this world. So if you choose the Shire, then that's a good choice.

Second, my call is for families to be intentional about their choices and to make their choices for the best of reasons. It's simply a fact that the Shire absolutely depends on a cultural/military/economic defense -- it has to have it. It's simply a fact that the people who mount that defense, who create the companies, who preserve our fundamental liberties, and who maintain our physical security cannot confine that work to a slower-paced lifestyle. It's not possible.

So that means some families have to bite the bullet. My call is to be unified in that choice, to teach your kids its significance and meaning, and to pursue it in an intentional manner where you pull your family in as a participant, not as observers.

For us, that meant my kids were involved in Operation Send-a-Box that provided my unit in Iraq with literally thousands of care packages, Camille and Austin went with us to Ethiopia to adopt Naomi, Camille and Austin come with us when we organize political conferences and often when we do speeches. They see with their own eyes what we do, and they are growing up to appreciate its importance.

Look, there's no formula that guarantees family success. And we're still at the relative beginning of our family journey, but one thing I do know . . . there is an awful lot of empty and simplistic moralizing in our culture and from the pulpit regarding work/life balance -- moralizing that forgets that the very structures that enable a balanced lifestyle didn't just spring from the earth fully formed and don't sustain themselves without an immense amount of effort.

Oh, and if you think that is controversial, just wait until my forthcoming essay on why the modern evangelical church basically wants men to be "women with goatees!"

Posted by David French at 03:31 PM on August 16, 2010 | Permalink

Well, I wondered how he would do it. And today, I noticed, buried in a critique of David's SixSeeds article is his announcement to all of our EFM friends that his lovely wife is pregnant:

"...so I can do less overnight travel when we have a family. (That's slated for February, by the way.)"

There ya have it. His family is "slated for February!"

Congratulations, Mitchell family!

Posted by Nancy French at 09:26 AM on August 16, 2010 | Permalink

This headline just might:

Mike Huckabee, Iowa Frontrunner

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee leads the 2012 field in a survey of Iowa caucus-goers conducted for the Iowa Republican website by GOP pollster Jan van Lohuizen.

Huckabee takes 22 percent to 18 percent for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. In a slight surprise, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) received 14 percent to take third while former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin placed fourth with 11 percent.

Chris Cillizza interprets this new poll as basically a name-recognition poll. Huckabee and Gov. Romney finished first and second there last time, and nothing much has changed.

Except.

Sarah Palin at fourth? There's not one resident of Iowa over the age of five who doesn't know her name.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:22 AM on August 16, 2010 | Permalink

I'm still chewing over David's latest SixSeeds piece, particularly given that when I worked for him he told me I should go home at 5:00 and that my wife and I recently decided to move to Pennsylvania in part so I can do less overnight travel when we have a family. (That's slated for February, by the way.) Let me add to the mix, though, a commentary that came across my desk the other day from John Piper's organization, Desiring God. The money paragraph, in my judgment:

Do not think that you can simply take your family to church for a couple hours a week and then forsake the means of sanctification in the home. Just as pastors who forsake the public means of grace destroy their flock, so do fathers destroy their children who neglect spiritual disciplines in the home. It might actually be worse because it teaches them hypocrisy—that the Christian faith consists of maintaining moral duties in public while neglecting personal holiness. It would be better for you to be a pagan than for Christ's gospel to be so profaned.

I don't even have (born) kids yet, and I'm already guilty of "neglect[ing] spiritual disciplines in the home." Leaving at 5 (something I've not done since I worked for David) doesn't make that happen automatically, but leaving at 7, 8, or 9 sure makes it tougher, no?

Frenches? Readers? Discuss!

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 04:50 PM on August 14, 2010 | Permalink

Our guy!

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 04:10 PM on August 14, 2010 | Permalink

Dear Friends,

Hope you are all having a great weekend. I was cleaning out my inbox, and came across this Esquire piece which interviewed Newton Leroy Gingrich's ex-wife. (Yes, I just noticed that was his name. Williard Mitt who?) It begins:

She was married to Newt Gingrich for eighteen years, all through his spectacular rise and fall, and here she is in a pair of blue jeans and a paisley shirt, with warm eyes and a big laugh and the kind of chain-smoking habit where the cigarettes burn right down to the filter — but she's quitting, she swears, any day now.

Read the rest here. I've not read it yet, for lack of time, but I wanted you guys to be up-to-date on all the political goings-on.

Secondly, thanks so much for all the notes lately! The man who wrote me the note critical of the Salon article also wrote and did not intend to come across so harshly. All is well!

Lastly, my new edition of SixSeeds.tv is up! Here are some highlights:

My Niece, Dora the Explorer (yes, you read that right... by Dora's real life uncle) -- Leave a comment and you might possibly win a Dora DVD for your young Dora fans!

Box Office Battle of the Sexes: Eat, Pray, Love versus The Expendables. Which wins?

Your Family: Hobbits or Rangers? Okay, this one is by your favorite EFM writer David French (okay, your second favorite?) and is a tad controversial. Leave us a comment, there are a number of hostile ones stacking up!

The Mentor Leader debuts! This is Tony Dungy's newest book -- my friend Nathan Whitaker is his co-author... Have you gotten your copy?

Advice from you guys... Have any of you bought Tempur Pedic mattresses? Are they worth the cost?

Okay, that's all I got today. David's doing his Army service this weekend, Naomi is asleep, and Austin just taught me to Sudoku. So, busy lives.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:47 PM on August 14, 2010 | Permalink

I've touched a nerve:

That was an incredibly poorly researched article in Salon. The LDS Church has been running similar ads since the 1970’s. There a lot of reasons the Church runs the ads – it makes it easier for missionaries to get in the door, it helps members remain emotionally connected to the Church, it reduces opposition to the construction of Church buildings in local neighborhoods, etc. Unless you and the good folks at Salon will admit the possibility that the Church is lead by a real prophet, I doubt any of you will subscribe to the notion that the purpose of an ad campaign started in the 1970’s is to help Mitt Romney’s presidential bid in 2012.

You don't have to believe the church is led by a prophet to dislike the condescension in the Salon article, guys -- the last part was a tad bitter:

There is a history of Americans persecuting Mormons, and they're a bit touchy about getting run out of everywhere they were until they ended up settling beside a giant dead salt lake, so working on their brand is understandable. But (in addition to incredibly expensive mission work) this could also be damage control for the messy press they got for bankrolling the anti-gay marriage campaign in Florida.

They may be spending millions imposing their morality on us, but look, guys, one of them rides a motorcycle!

The reason I linked to this article is that it didn't claim that the LDS church was doing to to help Gov. Romney, like many others did. In fact, it showed that there are many reasons why a church would want to reach out. Does the writer dislike Mormonism? Yes. Does he dislike me as a Presbyterian opposed to gay "marriage?" For sure.

We're in this together, friends.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:49 AM on August 12, 2010 | Permalink

OK Nancy, you shamed me. I need to resume posting (life has been very busy lately), and what better way to start than by discussing the Prop 8 case. Or, more precisely, let me point you to my NRO post where I describe how Judge Walker essentially acted as a judicial theologian, declaring as a "finding of fact" that Christianity was "harmful" to gays and lesbians.

I don't think I need to explain how dangerous and extreme such a "finding" is.

By the way, if this case doesn't re-emphasize the importance of wise judicial nominations, I don't know what will. Judge Walker was nominated by a Republican, George H. W. Bush. But then so was Justice Blackmun (author of Roe, nominated by Nixon), Justice Souter (George H. W. Bush nominee), Justice O'Connor (Reagan), Justice Kennedy (Reagan), and any number of other Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who've gone on to write opinions that sometimes depart dramatically from any conceivable originalist constitutional philosophy.

Judicial nominations are not an exact science, but George W. Bush did well. And for that we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

Posted by David French at 02:35 PM on August 11, 2010 | Permalink

Salon asks, "Residents of nine mid-sized cities are meeting the cutest and coolest Latter-day Saints -- but why?"

Posted by Nancy French at 12:50 PM on August 11, 2010 | Permalink

Politico just caught wind of the mailing by Gov. Barbour we reported previously.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:24 AM on August 11, 2010 | Permalink

Watch this and tell me I don't have the best husband ever! Here's his speech from today, where he did such a good job:

And yes, I am flattering David so he will blog about the travesty that happened in California while he's been gone. But good job!

Posted by Nancy French at 12:06 AM on August 06, 2010 | Permalink

... and you can watch it here, at the National Conservative Student Conference LIVE Stream of speakers!

He'll be speaking on "Defending Student Rights Across the Country."

Posted by Nancy French at 01:43 PM on August 05, 2010 | Permalink

We all remember, I'm sure, the mania that gripped the conservative base during the 2008 primary season, when everyone seemed to be searching for the perfect candidate. We are of the mind here that there isn't one, but that among the host of imperfect candidates, Gov. Romney is the best. Some of the loudest cries of denunciation we and our guy received, interestingly enough, came from the supporters of Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. To hear some of these folks talk, the dude never met a tax he didn't cut, an unborn baby he didn't rescue, or a soldier he didn't hug, and if you suggested otherwise, you were a LIAR. Sen. Brownback, of course, was not elected president, but he did just win the GOP nomination for governor of his home state, and he will most assuredly be inaugurated in January, given the political landscape there.

How interesting, in light of all this, to see that in his final months in D.C., Sen. Brownback has come out in favor of telling you what kind of energy you can buy. In so doing, he seems to have rescued a Big Government mandate Sen. Harry Reid has pushed, but was about to drop for lack of support. This is awful news for anyone not connected with Kansas' wind-power industry. The guys at the Competitive Enterprise Institute have the sordid details on NRO.

Suffice it to say it's now clear that anybody who told you Sen. Brownback (for all his virtues, which are numerous) was some kind of conservative messiah was really just blowing a lot of hot air. He's a politician, just like our guy, and he's shown it here. Perhaps those who tried to convince us otherwise could have used all that hot air to turn a Kansas windmill instead?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 07:19 AM on August 04, 2010 | Permalink

Okay, so now I'm getting e-mails saying that my post about Huntsman was right on, and that the reader who defended him was off.

My favorite was the one that called Huntsman a "Latter Day Ain't."

Anyway, let's call this issue officially off topic. I hope that Huntsman is a faithful follower of Christ and that he is working out his salvation with fear and trembling.

Nevertheless, my original post still has the same valid point -- I appreciate Gov. Romney's unwillingness to distance himself from his beliefs, no matter the political cost.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:15 PM on August 02, 2010 | Permalink

A kind reader wrote in, to tell me, among other things, that I might have inadvertently misrepresented Huntsman's faith:

I enjoyed your post comparing Hunstman and Romney. I agree, however I think the Huntsman quote may be taken a bit out of context. He is a good, religious man.

She's right to point out that I have no idea what is in Huntsman's heart, and that I leave his soul to the Judge who will judge us all. I admit my assessment may be clouded by the fact that I still am a tad irritated with him, ever since he endorsed McCain.

This is why I'll never be in politics, guys! I take it more personally than perhaps I should.

On an unrelated note, I just watched Young Victoria with Camille and it is a great movie. I do recommend it.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:40 AM on August 02, 2010 | Permalink

Charles, nice editing on Haley Barbour's postcard, though I never know your address so would've liked to seen it.

So, I'm having a nice cup of coffee while my entire family sleeps (except Naomi!) and I'm not at all bitter about the fact that I always have to get up while they get their beauty sleep. Not at all. It's hardly worth mentioning.

Anyway, can I just say this? Jon Huntsman Jr. (U.S. ambassador to China and a former Utah governor, for those who don't live in Utah) has been on my bad list since this ridiculous decision back during the last campaign cycle. Long time readers know I was a tad annoyed that he endorsed McCain, while his dad endorsed Gov. Romney... splitting the difference, I guess.

That being said, I found this article interesting about how "Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman Jr. mull Mormon dilemma."

Writer Lisa Riley Roche described Huntsman as having "soft Mormon credentials," in comparison to his dad:

In a recent Fortune magazine interview that appeared on CNNMoney.com, his Mormon credentials were described as "soft," unlike his more devout family. His father, Jon Huntsman Sr., is an Area Seventy in the LDS Church.

The former governor noted in the interview that his children attend Catholic schools, and his adopted daughters come from different religious cultures, one Buddhist, the other Hindu.

"I can't say I am overly religious," Huntsman is quoted as saying in the interview, which refers to his consideration of a 2012 run. "I get satisfaction from many different types of religions and philosophies."

Evangelicals, is this approach satisfactory to you? Or would you rather have someone who doesn't hold his faith so loosely?

Also, Roche brings up the "Romney re-invents himself" meme, which is so 2008. The writer says that Gov. Romney is handling his faith differently than he did during the last campaign cycle, because of this quote:

"There are just some people for whom it will not be settled," Romney recently told the Boston Globe. "That's just the nature of who we are as a people. A lot of people have differing views."

Of course, ever since the Boston Globe printed that quote, everyone is saying he's going a new direction as he talks about his faith. Roche even quoted people that say -- unoriginally -- that his faith is not the issue, rather his "reinvention" of himself is.

But is this admission that some people aren't settled about his faith really that big of a "switch?"

I had the pleasure of hearing his "Faith in America" speech in College Station, Texas, which was an explanation of where he was coming from... a plea for people to consider faith in the right light.

Far from belittling his religious convictions (like Huntsman), he explained that he refused to provide that distance that Huntsman is trying to provide:

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers — I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Evangelicals, think about this for a minute. How many times will the world ask us to change or distance ourselves from our faith? It happens more than you think.

How would you respond if your faith was challenged? Rather, how would you hope you would respond? Like Huntsman? Or like Gov. Romney?

Another thought. He's already addressed this issue. The media is going to try to goad him into conversations about his faith all the time, knowing he takes it seriously.

Saying that some people don't get it, and never will isn't some sort of new thing. Don't evangelicals also believe that truth is spiritually discerned, and not a credit to the believer for "figuring it out." For example, 1 Corinthians 2:14:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In other words, Gov. Romney's modest statement that people don't agree on matters of faith is hardly a new reinvention, but rather an obvious statement of fact evangelicals have known all along. (Whether or not you agree on which path to take spiritually!)

Casting this statement as a "flip flop" is tired political analysis, spiritually tone-deaf, encourages politicians to not to take their religions seriously, and just plain lazy.

Posted by Nancy French at 08:59 AM on August 01, 2010 | Permalink

No, not that Haley. This one. He's sending out an "I'm not thinking about 2012 but I'm thinking about 2012" postcard. Came in the mail today. Here is side 1 and side 2.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:19 PM on July 31, 2010 | Permalink

Here's a link in case you missed it this morning.

Posted by Nancy French at 08:33 PM on July 28, 2010 | Permalink

He'll be on at about 7:50.

Posted by Nancy French at 08:31 PM on July 28, 2010 | Permalink

... about his class warfare Charles pointed out yesterday:

On Monday, Pawlenty met with reporters at the Christian Science Monitor in Washington, where he cast himself as a Republican who could shake the impression that the GOP is a party of “country-club elitists.” Pawlenty also said that it helps to have a “messenger who has at least walked in [voters’] shoes.”

“I’m not a class-warfare guy,” Santorum tells National Review Online in reaction to Pawlenty’s remarks. “That’s the Democrats’ gig. They like to divide and play the class card. We don’t have classes in America — I don’t even like the term ‘middle class.’ People are lower income or middle income, and the dynamism of this country is that you can rise, and sometimes fall, but you are not stuck in classes. We should not get into that kind of rhetoric, or showing some sort of prejudice.”

Posted by Nancy French at 12:51 AM on July 28, 2010 | Permalink

Fox News: Lawsuit Claims College Ordered Student to Alter Religious Views on Homosexuality, Or Be Dismissed

ABC News: Georgia Grad Student Sues University Over Gay Sensitivity Training

Posted by Nancy French at 11:27 PM on July 27, 2010 | Permalink

I got a nice note from a reader:

I just saw the article on Foxnews.com and I saw David's name as the attorney. I said to myself, where have I seen that name before? It finally came to me, Evangelicals for Mitt. Ya'll are awesome. Tell David thank you for standing up for what is right.

I actually didn't realize how much David was pasted over the news this week. Have you guys seen him? Tomorrow, catch him on CNN live at 9:30 Central, and later on the Michael Medved Show.

What's causing all the hoopla? This.

UPDATE:

David should be on CNN between 9:20 and 9:30 Central.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:07 PM on July 27, 2010 | Permalink

Nancy, I must not be a Republican either, because the boots I've got in the closet are camouflage and at this point, I can't afford a yard, let alone an animal to keep in it.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:24 AM on July 27, 2010 | Permalink

Charles, thanks for pointing this quote out. Here's the context:

"What do people think when they think about Republicans? What's the stereotype?" he asked. "We're all CEOs or sons or daughters of CEOs. We play polo on the weekends. We never got our fingernails dirty. We drink Chablis and eat brie. Uh, that's not my story, and it's not the story for the Tea Party, and it's not the story for most Republicans."

I'm about as Republican you can be, and I've never played polo, been to a match, or even known one person who's ever played polo. Charles, you are young and hip. Do you have boots in the closet and a horse in the backyard?

(Neither do I drink Chablis or eat brie that I know of. Unless I'm at one of those parties with the cheese trays and you need something to munch on while chatting.) But the polo thing seems a little bit like a stretch, no?

Posted by Nancy French at 11:59 PM on July 26, 2010 | Permalink

Who could Gov. Pawlenty have been talking about?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 09:15 PM on July 26, 2010 | Permalink

Our guy!

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 09:13 PM on July 26, 2010 | Permalink

Some of you follow David's cases with shock and awe, but here is an absolute doozy. An Illinois professor was fired for teaching about Catholic beliefs in a class on ... wait for it... Catholicism.

So here is the press release, but here is a video David made to explain it a tad more:

Posted by Nancy French at 06:13 PM on July 26, 2010 | Permalink

Me too.

Sarah Palin to Take Kate Gosselin and Kids Camping on 'Kate Plus Eight'

Posted by Nancy French at 12:30 AM on July 23, 2010 | Permalink

People who've read this blog for a while -- we started in 2006! -- know that one of our constant themes is that people of faith and values need to stick together, whether we agree about certain doctrines.

This recent case, about a grad student at Augusta State University who was told she had to change her Biblical beliefs to graduate, perfectly demonstrates the point.

Keeton VNR from ADF Media Relations on Vimeo.

The Alliance Defense Fund's Center for Academic Freedom is representing this student, and I -- for one -- am thankful for people like David who are standing between the universities and the rest of America and trying to bring sense to these situations.

When it comes to politics, the same principle applies. People of values need to stick together without being separated by bickering, accusations, and doctrinal differences. It's a tough world out there.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:26 PM on July 22, 2010 | Permalink

I haven't followed every detail of the Georgia gubernatorial race, but Gov. Romney has endorsed former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel, whom Gov. Palin has also endorsed, in the pending runoff. She's going against former Congressman Nathan Deal, endorsed by Speaker Gingrich.

It's odd to me to see Georgia Right to Life going hard against a candidate, according to Politico, largely because she isn't against abortion in the case of rape or incest. That doesn't seem to me to be the urgent life issue of our day.

I raise this because I wonder if this will not feed into the misguided "Romney isn't really pro-life" meme. If it does, that strikes me as quite silly. If being for outlawing abortion even in the case of rape or incest is the standard for whether or not someone qualifies as being pro-life, we might as well give up the fight for life.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:41 PM on July 21, 2010 | Permalink

John sent this spoof on the Old Spice commercials, made by BYU.

Posted by Nancy French at 06:07 PM on July 21, 2010 | Permalink

For the record, I tweet, and I love Gov. Palin (even though she's not my choice for 2012). Notwithstanding all of that, it is unfortunate that an increasing amount of our national discourse takes place in 140-character-or-less blurbs typed with one's thumbs, and this, from Alexandra Petri of the Washington Post, is funny:

Refudiate: (verb) a word Sarah Palin just coined on Twitter.

Meaning: something "peaceful muslims" should "pls" do.

Use in a sentence: "Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate."

Country of Origin: Unclear, but you can see Russia.

Explanation: "'Refudiate,' 'misunderestimate,' 'wee-wee'd up.' English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!"

Note: As someone who has never, personally, been "wee-wee’d" up but thinks it sounds like a painful process that would be difficult to reverse, I’m overwhelmed by Palin's boldness. Churchill said of Ramsay MacDonald that "He has, more than any other man, the gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought." But why even bother with the words? Sarah Palin has broken down the last boundary, and now the sky is her limit. Soon, her speeches will just be things like: "For too long, Americans have wandered in a gormless wabe, mimsy and absturpated. Can’t the U.S. government corribulate this reticulousity?" Well, can we? I'm not sure.

Sure, Shakespeare did this, but he was -- how to put this? -- Shakespeare. He wasn't trying to encourage people to take action on the political scene. He was writing plays, and his words usually came with context -- something "refudiate" lacks. I still am not entirely sure what it means, and if someone told me to "pls refudiate" anything, my circuits would be overrun, and I would have to lie down somewhere. Besides, just because Shakespeare did something doesn't make it all right. He also wrote "A Midsummer Night's Dream," and that includes fairies and men with donkey heads -- two things I doubt Palin would endorse.

Maybe she'll prove me wrong and "refudiate" will catch on. But if she runs in 2012, I hope we’re horpswangling enough to grountify her. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 07:29 PM on July 19, 2010 | Permalink

From Slate, who reports on Gov. Romney's latest tweet:

"TIME says unnamed advisors disparaged @SarahPalinUSA. Anonymous numbskulls.She's proven her smarts; they've disproven theirs."

I am torn. How can a person who uses the word "numbskull" be so much cooler than I am? Because he's doing it in a tweet.

Let's hope the "anonymous staffers" can keep it together for a while, so we can at least get to 2011 without killing each other.

UPDATE: I just realized this may have been the first time that the word "numbskull" has been tweeted.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:01 AM on July 17, 2010 | Permalink

Via Politico, via Jonathan Martin:

With roughly 18 months to go until the Iowa caucuses, here’s what the latest fundraising numbers and recent activity of potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates tell us: Mitt Romney is the traditional front-runner, Sarah Palin is a not-so-traditional force, and Tim Pawlenty is the early bird. As for Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, they want to stay in the conversation.

There’s one other sign worth noting: It appears that many GOP mouths and wallets are staying shut until Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels reveal their intentions.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:00 PM on July 16, 2010 | Permalink

Wow. In what seemed like a surprising endorsement, Gov. Romney has endorsed Bill Haslam in Tennessee's race for Governor.

In a release, Romney states, “Bill Haslam’s experience as a successful businessman and mayor make him uniquely qualified to lead Tennessee through these challenging economic times. A committed conservative, he will make the hard decisions necessary to balance the budget, get the economy back on the right track, and help put people back to work,” said Romney.

Romney’s PAC is also sending Haslam’s campaign a $2,500 primary election contribution.

Read the rest here. What do you Tennesseans think?

Posted by Nancy French at 12:54 PM on July 16, 2010 | Permalink

I know many of you have very passionate feelings about LeBron Smith's decision to leave Cleveland. But I doubt you've called yourself "LawBron."

Posted by Nancy French at 12:53 PM on July 16, 2010 | Permalink

Kathryn Lopez tweets:

laura ingraham says mitt romney showed up at her boston obama diaries booksigning "looking all fonzerelli," in jeans, with messed up hair.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:50 PM on July 16, 2010 | Permalink

This might be moderately interesting for you guys in East Tennessee:

At last night’s final debate of the gubernatorial primary, Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam got an earful from his Republican rivals and the lone Democratic candidate. Today, there's another organization trying to take him down as well.

This morning, the Des Moines, Iowa-based “American Future Fund” has bought television time and begun airing a commercial on TV stations across the state. The ad accuses Haslam and his family company Pilot Oil of price-gouging on gasoline sales in the wake of Hurricane Ike in 2008.

The weird thing is that NPR and Iowa Independent have claimed the people behind the "American Future Fund" were formerly employed by the 2008 Romney presidential campaign. But Eric Fehrnstrom says it ain't so.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:30 AM on July 14, 2010 | Permalink

As I sit here at the breakfast table, I thought I'd finally had a breakthrough with Naomi over food. Almost everything is new to her, and she has rebelled again (of all things) bacon and sausage and eggs. Basically anything that gives protein before lunch. Anyway, I thought I'd won because she asked for more sausage, but as I took up her dishes, I saw several sausages hidden in her milk.

Oh well... Anyway, this was interesting to me... and good news for Republicans who support the guy who's economically so strong. Chris Cillizza reports:

Six in ten Americans say they are likely to look around for someone new in the fall election according to the latest Washington Post/ABC national poll, an ominous sign for incumbents with the 2010 midterms less than four months off.

Sixty percent of all adults -- and 62 percent of registered voters -- said they preferred to look around at their options while 25 percent of adults and 26 percent of registered voters said they planned to cast a vote to re-elect their incumbent.

While the numbers don't represent significant change from the Post/ABC June poll -- 29 percent re-elect/60 percent look around -- they do signal a sustained disinterest among the public to simply default to their incumbent.

Compare where the electorate stands on the question to how they felt in the immediate run-up to the 1994 election -- the first midterm of Bill Clinton's presidency that saw Republicans regain control of the House for the first time in four decades. In a late October Post/ABC poll that year, 37 percent of registered voters said they planned to vote to re-elect their incumbent while 56 percent said they were looking around.

Other data points in the latest Post/ABC survey make clear the volatility within the electorate -- thanks is large part to worry and unhappiness about the economy.

Just one in ten described the state of the economy as either "excellent" or "good" while just one in four adults said that they believed the economy was getting better.

Those numbers -- combined with an erosion of confidence in President Barack Obama [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071205453.html] -- should rightly worry Democrats who are seeking to preserve their House and Senate majorities this fall.

While voter unrest doesn't fall more heavily on either party in the Post/ABC poll, Democrats control a significantly larger chunk of seats in both chambers so the more voters express a willingness to try something new, the more it hurts Democrats.

Try something new? You hear that, Naomi?

Posted by Nancy French at 10:56 AM on July 13, 2010 | Permalink

Mark's e-mail below puzzled me. Sarah Palin? Cocaine? I was totally confused. After googling, I realized he was not kidding. Mike Huckabee, as the host of a television program, jokingly said Sarah Palin was doing drugs.

I was a little shocked to see the segment, which he admitted would end up on YouTube. Does he really act like a man who is seeking the highest office in the land?

Posted by Nancy French at 11:27 AM on July 11, 2010 | Permalink

Mark B. Lowe from RightoSphere takes me to task a bit on my previous Huckabee post:

Nancy,

I think you missed the point.  Huckabee actually never said anything against Mormons per sé.  He did, however, absolutely, positively, without a shadow of a doubt exploit the bigotry of others against them.  He did that in many sundry ways, not just that "innocent" question.

You also missed the other bit he did in that paragraph.  "My conflicts with Romney had NOTHING to do with his religion or mine. It had to do with his inconsistency on issues ranging from guns, abortion, taxes, health care, same sex marriage, mandates of the government, etc."

Three things from that:

(1) Huckabee never specifies exactly where or how Mitt is inconsistent in "guns, abortion, taxes, health care, same sex marriage, mandates of the government, etc."  He only states them as unimpeachable fact.

(2) Huckabee is STILL fighting 2008.  Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney have moved on.  In fact, all of the 2008 GOP contenders have moved on.  The sole exception is Mike Huckabee.

(3) Compare the following synopsis of recent comments by the three main GOP 2012 hopefuls about each other:

Sarah Palin: "Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee are good guys worthy of our respect."
Mitt Romney: "Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are good guys worthy of our respect."
Mike Huckabee: "Sarah Palin snorts coke, and Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper."

Who's the odd-man out?  Who, supposedly, is the "Christian"?

Nancy, I have, I really have tried to put 2008 behind me, to let things go, to forgive and forget what Mike Huckabee did two years ago.  We all make mistakes.  I have tried to find reasons to believe that Mike is attempting to improve himself.  Yet he keeps being a weasel.  This latest bit is just one example of it.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:15 AM on July 11, 2010 | Permalink

David Frum wrote a slightly critical piece on Gov. Huckabee earlier, to which Mike himself penned a response. Frum stated that the Arkansas governor was not politically discerning when it came to policy, that his religious appeal wasn't large enough, and that he was socially out of touch with modern America. Huckabee wrote back, and said, in part, this:

"I have not been critical of Mormons nor of Mitt Romney’s religion."

Which is interesting, considering just this one fact -- and there are others. Remember when the ordained Southern Baptist minister asked that New York Times Sunday Magazine, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

Are we supposed to believe he was just being spiritually inquisitive, and figured the reporter might know more about it than he did? Even though he described himself as being "the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology?" (Though he doesn't have that degree, after all. Oops!)

Anyway, frequently, people who are not impressed by Gov. Huckabee's economic record (or his laxity when it comes to letting convicted criminals out of jail), will say to me, "He just needs to go back to the pulpit."

However, this is the last place we need people who play so loose with the truth.

Posted by Nancy French at 03:09 PM on July 09, 2010 | Permalink

David and Charles, it's good to have you back! So, Charles is vacationing in South Carolina? Does he also swing through Iowa? Maybe he's running for President?

Thanks, David for your thoughts on the whole idea that the Governor is going to give up on social conservatives. I just don't buy that he is.

Also, in case you are interested in taking the kiddos to the movies this week, read Rebecca Cusey's review of Despicable Me. Do you have young children? Leave a comment here for a chance to win a free 40 Year anniversary edition Classic Sesame Street DVD set! (There are only two comments, so your chance of winning is pretty high.) And, have you ever thought of owning chickens as a family project? (Yes, you!)

Hope you all have a great weekend!

Posted by Nancy French at 02:53 PM on July 09, 2010 | Permalink

Yes, I know I've been a delinquent poster, but I have a good excuse: The Supreme Court of the United States ruined my week. But while I'm still busy picking up the pieces of free association on campus, I had to weigh in on what seems like an emerging meme: Mitt Romney will "surrender" evangelicals in 2012.

Such talk is wholly and completely premature. As much as we all like to speculate about political strategies in campaigns that won't start for more than a year, it's pointless. We just won't know what the world will look like in late 2011 and early 2012, when the Republican primary will be most intensely contested.

I do think, however, we can predict the circumstances under which the Governor's religion will (or will not) be an important factor in the race. In fact, we can map it out with near mathematical precision: The focus on the Governor's religion will be directly related to Republican confidence in victory over Obama and inversely related to the unemployment rate.

In other words, the greater the Republican confidence in victory, the greater the likelihood that a fellow Republican -- in a no-holds-barred quest for electoral victory -- will try to destroy Mitt through any means possible, including playing the religious card. We'll call this "pulling a Huckabee." Why was the Clinton/Obama primary so intense? Perhaps because the Dems knew that the general election was theirs to lose, so the primary became the real contest. Preserving party unity is less important when you believe the general election will be a cakewalk.

At the same time, the worse the economic situation (as embodied by the unemployment rate), the greater the Governor's chances of countering a religious attack as a diversion. Unquestionably, the public views his economic expertise as his greatest strength, and as the economy worsens (or remains in tough shape), the greater the demand for his expertise.

Fundamentally, I believe that if the economy remains bad, that will be the single greatest factor in the upcoming election (unless there's a dramatic development in the war, a natural disaster, or an unforeseen scandal), and that fact alone will allow the Governor to deflect most of the religion questions.

Posted by David French at 12:39 PM on July 09, 2010 | Permalink

Given President Obama's glaring domestic policy missteps, it is understandable that the public has largely been blinded to his foreign policy failings. In fact, these may have been even more damaging to America's future. He fought to reinstate Honduras's pro-Chávez president while stalling Colombia's favored-trade status. He castigated Israel at the United Nations but was silent about Hamas having launched 7,000 rockets from the Gaza Strip. His policy of "engagement" with rogue nations has been met with North Korean nuclear tests, missile launches and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel, while Iran has accelerated its nuclear program, funded terrorists and armed Hezbollah with long-range missiles. He acceded to Russia's No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.

Read it all here.

Posted by Nancy French at 02:19 PM on July 06, 2010 | Permalink

Nancy, I believe the last time I blogged was when I was on vacation. I thought I'd get points for that, but alas, no. ;-)

Seriously, very sorry to hear about all the sickness and missed trips in the French home. We've had some sickness here, but not as much, and certainly no messed-up escapes to Chicago. (Did start a new job last week, though.)

As I was running around last week, I saw this story in the Boston Globe on Gov. Romney's religion in Jonathan Martin's Twitter feed. It begins:

Mitt Romney and his strategists expected his Mormon faith to fade as an issue for fundamentalist Christians during his first presidential campaign. This time around, should he choose to run again, they have doubts.

The idea during the 2008 campaign was that exposure to the candidate himself — a likable, teetotaling family man — would help convince people that there was nothing to fear in his beliefs. But even as the national Republican establishment warms to Romney as never before, the former candidate and his closest aides now believe a group of voters will always be off-limits because of his religion.

“There are some people for whom it will not be settled,’’ Romney said in a recent interview. “That’s just the nature of who we are as a people: A lot of people have differing views.’’

That acknowledgment is just one part of a growing consensus within Romney’s circle that his 2008 campaign’s almost obsessive focus on winning over social conservatives was not only unsuited to his strengths as a candidate, but strategically misguided.

“You’re not really going to alter your main message to accommodate this tiny group,’’ said Carl Forti, who served as the campaign’s national political director. “You’re going to acknowledge that there’s this small group of people and move on.’’

I don't know anything about the reporter here, but this reads to me like an account by someone who doesn't really understand evangelicals. My take, at least, is that while there is a small group of evangelicals who will never consider voting for a Mormon, it doesn't follow from this that "winning over social conservatives" should not be a priority. The former group (those who will never come around) are a small subset of evangelicalism; the latter is a large group that includes most evangelicals but is by no means limited to them. So even if there are some evangelicals who will never get the distinction between voting for a pastor and a president, Gov. Romney must still emphasize that part of his persona (there's more, obviously, but it's a key part) that centers upon being a family man and looks at what those values mean in public life.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:22 PM on July 05, 2010 | Permalink

From the Boston Herald:

Former Gov. Mitt Romney is having an off-the-record barbecue at his Lake Winnipesaukee home this week, inviting press for burgers and dogs at a relaxing two-hour summertime shindig. The push to schmooze is yet another indication of Romney’s intentions for a 2012 race.

Other, unrelated notes:

1. Since we returned from Africa, my dog has been at the vet 5 times and was just hospitalized. That means that our family trip to Chicago has been canceled and all of us are pretty much depressed today about our family pet.

2. Does anyone remember when David and Charles blogged at EFM? Me either.

Posted by Nancy French at 04:59 PM on July 05, 2010 | Permalink

So, I know there are a lot of you who are big Twi-Hards. (I must admit, that I went to see Eclipse with five of my girlfriends... and David!) But how do you fee about the relationship between Bella and Edward? It's chaste, but sheesh -- is this healthy?

(Leave a comment there, but no plot spoilers -- I haven't read the last book!)

Posted by Nancy French at 10:58 AM on July 02, 2010 | Permalink

From a helpful reader, Alan, a synopsis of the study I mentioned below here.

Thanks -- but EFMers need to read it too. I still say Charles is the guy.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:03 AM on July 02, 2010 | Permalink

So, when I see a headline like that, I have to click on it. The Atlantic has this teaser:

ROMNEY'S RELIGION: Did evangelicals vote against Mitt Romney in Iowa because he was a Mormon? Political journalists say yes; our evidence is mostly impressionistic. In the peer-reviewed Journal of Media and Religion, two Brigham Young University scholars found that 50 percent of religion coverage in the 2008 campaign focused on Romney and Mormonism, while 30 percent of Romney's coverage itself was about his membership in the Mormon Church. The full study costs $30 and is titled "Mitt Romney's Religion: A Five Factor Model for Analysis of Media Representation of Mormon Identity."

I'll totally shell out the $30 for this one... but I'm a little behind on a few other projects. (Like editing our next book... potty training Naomi, etc.) Charles? I'll buy!

Posted by Nancy French at 12:17 AM on July 02, 2010 | Permalink

NRO kindly asked for my reading recommendations for the summer! Here's my first (of three) picks:

That’s No Angry Mob, That’s My Mom, by Michael Graham: I was a latecomer to the tea-party movement. By the time it had gotten rolling, I’d expended all my energy trying to get a Republican elected president; when my parents started hanging tea bags from their rear-view mirrors, I was politically depressed. That’s why, when I was asked by a tea party in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, to speak to their group, I wished I’d had Michael Graham’s new book. It chronicles the beginnings of the movement and describes the motives and manners its members. (In Graham’s inimitable style, too: He describes tea partiers as “folks who looks less like bomb throwers and more like the early-bird special crowd at a Denny’s in Branson.”) When I finally took the tea-party plunge, I realized Graham’s description of the law-abiding, country-loving people was exactly right on: I was in Missouri, but I could’ve closed my eyes and felt like I was in Boston circa 1773.

One particularly notable chapter is called “It’s the People’s Seat: The Scott Brown Story.” Writing from Boston, Graham had a front-row seat to witness that revolution. You might enjoy this book if, like me, you’re a little late to the movement and want to understand it more fully. Or maybe you just want to be amused by Graham, who in a previous life was a stand-up comic and a GOP political consultant — a very entertaining combination.

Need more books to put on your iPad or Kindle (or, what is that old fashioned thing called... a book shelf?) Click here.

Posted by Nancy French at 02:06 PM on July 01, 2010 | Permalink

Still reeling from the day's Supreme Court disappointment, so let's have some fun.

If you have an iPhone or an iPad and a family? My 11 year old daughter Camille tells you why families-on-the-go definitely need this app called WeetWoo! (You'll thank me.)

Posted by Nancy French at 12:48 AM on June 29, 2010 | Permalink

From David's Speak Up blog. (Yes, we blog more than any other family you know.)

So the Supreme Court “affirmed and remanded” the Ninth Circuit. What does that mean? It turns out that it doesn’t mean as much as you think.

As I read through the Supreme Court’s opinion, I’m struck by the profound narrowness of its holding. Put simply, the Supreme Court upheld Hastings Law School’s policy that every student organization must be open to any student on campus. This policy is known as Hastings “all-comers” policy, and as of the date of the oral argument in the case, we could not locate any other public university in the country with a similar policy. In fact, in the more than 10 years that I’ve been arguing and litigating this issue on campus, I’ve never seen another policy like it.

Typically, universities have nondiscrimination policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of, among other things, “religion” and “sexual orientation.” These kinds of provisions have been used to kick dozens of Christian student groups of campus and they rarely survive a court challenge. In this case, Hastings sought to avoid scrutiny of its nondiscrimination policy by changing it to an all-comers policy, and that all-comers policy was the policy before the Court.

It’s also critical to note that while Hastings succeeded in defending its all-comers policy, it has not yet won this case. Why? Because the court remanded the case to determine if the university applied its all-comers policy in a discriminatory manner. In other words, while the policy may be constitutional, it has to be applied to all groups on campus and not just against CLS. There is strong evidence that the university has, in fact, exempted other, favored, groups from their own policy, with the radical left advocacy group La Raza permitted to discriminate on the basis of ideology and race.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:06 PM on June 28, 2010 | Permalink

Some of you may not have understood the ramifications of the Supreme Court's CLS v. Martinez case, as I noted below. Here's what David wrote on NRO. (Full disclosure: Most of you know David worked hard on this case, because he's a senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund and the director of its Center for Academic Freedom. ADF was co-counsel for the Christian Legal Society).

The good: The Court’s ruling is remarkably narrow. One of the strange quirks of this case is that there were actually two university policies at issue at different times in the case. Initially, the Christian Legal Society was de-recognized because it allegedly violated the school’s nondiscrimination policy, which prohibited — among other things — discrimination on the basis of “religion” and “sexual orientation” (CLS required leaders and voting members to agree with the group’s statement of faith and refrain from extramarital sexual activity). During the course of the litigation, the university stated that its policy actually required student groups to accept “all comers.” In other words, student groups could not exclude students from membership or leadership for any reason. This kind of policy is exceedingly rare: At the time of the oral argument, we were aware of no other university with an “all comers” policy.

Despite what you might read in the mainstream media, the court did not rule that the “classic” nondiscrimination policy (which is in force in hundreds of universities) trumped the student group’s right to freedom of association. That issue was left unresolved. Instead, the Court ruled that the all-comers policy (which is in force virtually nowhere) was constitutional — but only if it had been applied equally to all groups on campus.

So CLS has not yet lost its case. Despite an unfavorable ruling on the all-comers policy, it can still prevail on remand if it proves that the university did not apply the policy to all student groups but instead specifically targeted CLS. We have powerful evidence that the university has, in fact, targeted CLS.

The bad: Despite the narrowness of the ruling, it’s still a bad opinion. By emphasizing the value of dissent within groups, the Court ignores the fundamental reality of an all-comers policy: Distinct student organizations exist at the whim of the majority. If “all comers” can join, then the majority can override the speech of any student group. Thus the true marketplace of ideas exists by the permission (or, more likely, apathy) of the majority. The potential for minority or disfavored groups at schools with an all-comers policy to self-censor to avoid controversy — and potential hostile takeovers — is high. As those who follow the twists and turns of free speech on campus know, attempted takeovers are hardly unheard of; just ask the Young Americans for Freedom at Central Michigan University.

The ugly: In many ways, this case is the bad fruit of a much earlier bad decision, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth. In Southworth, the Court ruled that it was constitutionally acceptable for a university to force students to pay a student-activity fee to fund student expression (even if they were forced to fund speech they disagreed with) so long as the fees were dispensed in a “viewpoint neutral” manner. Justice Ginsburg explicitly noted that under the all-comers policy, “No Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject her as a member.”

This forced-funding regime is unique to student organizations on our nation’s campuses. In virtually no other context are citizens directly forced to fund expression they may abhor. Such a requirement exerts a powerful distorting effect on university jurisprudence, has spawned significant additional litigation, and directly influenced the outcome of the Martinez case. At the same time, this distortion could very well confine the impact of this case to the vanishingly small slice of universities with policies similar to Hastings’s.

There’s no doubt that the decision is disappointing to those who cherish free speech and free association, but it is far more limited than it could have been. The conflict between free association and nondiscrimination endures, and it wouldn’t surprise me if we’ll eventually be back before the Supreme Court on that core issue.

Posted by Nancy French at 04:39 PM on June 28, 2010 | Permalink

1. This headline:

Will Huckabee be the Republican Nominee?

This WashPo article by the never-resting Chris Cillizza suggests that Huckabee is on the Presidential prowl:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) leaned heavily toward the 2012 presidential race over the weekend, telling Fox News Channel's Chris Wallace that he "does better against [President] Obama than any other Republican."

Huckabee's appearance -- in which he also cited a "strong sentiment out there" for him to run -- was followed by a blog post on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan in which the governor sought to remind people of the stakes in elections; "When I hear a statement like 'Republicans and Democrats are all the same,' I cringe and think of moments in our nation's history just like this one," he wrote.

Huckabee has also used his HUCK PAC to endorse and donate to candidates of his choosing -- although his fundraising capacity to date doesn't rival that of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- both of whom are widely expected to run for president in 2012.

Of late then, Huckabee is giving every public indication that he is ramping up a run for president.

In private, however, there is little evidence that Huckabee is doing the sorts of things -- broadening his political network, hiring on a team of experienced campaign operatives, and, most importantly, focusing heavily on fundraising -- that would convince the D.C. chattering class that he has learned the right lessons from the 2008 campaign.

"While he is making noises in the national press, I am not seeing any of the organizational moves that would tell me he is making a serious run," said Alex Vogel, a Republican lobbyist closely monitoring the 2012 field. "The people inside the Beltway won't get moved by statements in the press -- they will look for real action."

Hogan Gidley, who runs HUCK PAC, insisted that the fact that Huckabee does not have the same approach to politics as some of his potential 2012 rivals is a strength, not a weakness.

"The Governor's success comes from his expansive, nationwide network of committed volunteers who believe in true conservatism," said Gidley. "Much to the chagrin of many Washington D.C. insiders, Gov. Huckabee's success has come without all the help from the establishment or high paid political consultants."

Gidley added that Huckabee has organized volunteer teams in each of the 50 states "awaiting the slightest hint of a presidential run" and that HUCK PAC has nearly doubled its 2009 donor base in just the first six months of 2010.

"Money is an important component to elections -- no doubt -- but if The Beatles and the 2008 presidential cycle have taught us anything, it's that money can't buy you love," said Gidley, channeling his always-quotable boss.

Gidley's points are worth noting -- and his hiring is evidence that Huckabee is playing the game a bit more seriously. (Gidley is a former executive director of the South Carolina Republican party and replaced Sarah Huckabee, the governor's daughter, who is now running Arkansas Rep. John Boozman's Senate campaign.)

And yet, there still seems to be a sense within Huckabee's world that simply re-running the 2008 campaign is a winning blueprint.

In that race, Huckabee managed to win the Iowa caucuses while being drastically outspent by Romney in a campaign that depended heavily on his base among social conservatives, strong volunteer support and his obvious personal appeal as an outsider (of sorts) to the political process.

It's important to remember, however, that Iowa was the only early state that Huckabee carried. He took just 11 percent in New Hampshire to finish a distant third and while he bounced back to finish second in South Carolina, he placed fourth in Florida's primary. By then Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had wrapped up the nomination although Huckabee stayed in the race and won a handful of (mostly Southern) states.

There's considerable reason to believe that simply re-creating his 2008 strategy in Iowa might not be a recipe for success for Huckabee, however.

Read why his "aw-shucks, we Christians ought to stick together schtick" might not work in 2012 here. (I think Cillizza overestimates the power of Huck's personality. Maybe New Yorker columnist haven't been inoculated to his charm, but the folks here in Tennessee who wasted their votes on him might be ready for someone new.)

2. This headline:

Christian Group's Rights Not Violated by Hastings Law School, Court Says

A divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a public law school in San Francisco didn’t violate the rights of a Christian student group by denying it recognition because it limits participation by nonbelievers and gays.

The justices, voting 5-4, today upheld Hastings College of Law’s “all-comers” policy, which requires unrestricted membership for campus student groups. The policy doesn’t infringe First Amendment rights, the court said.

That policy is a “reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

The case divided the court along ideological lines, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the liberal wing of Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The Christian Legal Society chapter requires voting members and officers to sign a statement of agreement with the group’s religious views. The group also excludes those who engage in homosexual activity, saying such conduct is inconsistent with its principles.

Recognized student organizations get priority access to meeting space on the Hastings campus and the right to place announcements in the law school newsletter and on bulletin boards. Approved student organizations can also apply for funds to pay for activities and travel. The Christian Legal Society is the only group that has been denied recognition.

‘Handy Weapon’

In dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the majority “arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Hastings says its all-comers policy encourages tolerance and cooperation among students of different backgrounds and viewpoints. The law school argued that the Christian Legal Society could retain its membership policies -- and still have access to unused classroom space and other facilities -- as a non-recognized group.

Posted by Nancy French at 04:06 PM on June 28, 2010 | Permalink

According to Politico:

Nikki Haley may have been the big winner in South Carolina Tuesday, but she isn’t the only Republican whose star is rising in an early state that is key to winning the GOP presidential nomination.

Both Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, were also winners in the 2012 sweepstakes. They got behind Haley at critical junctures in her campaign for governor while the rest of the potential GOP presidential field either endorsed another candidate or stayed out of the fray completely.

As a critical early primary state and a conservative bellwether, South Carolina is a good place for GOP presidential hopefuls to have friends in high places—especially friends who owe you one.

Read more here.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:39 AM on June 23, 2010 | Permalink

So this isn't as big of a deal as the Scott Brown miracle, but how gratifying to hear Haley's speech (h/t The Corner):

Nikki Haley gave a quick victory speech tonight. She called her primary win “a story of determination,” and, notably, “about a movement,” about the “idea of government being open and accountable to the people.” Some “barriers were broken,” she said, and there is “some truth to that,” but her campaign, she concluded, wasn’t about breaking barriers, but about “clear, conservative ideas.” She thanked Mitt Romney first, the “first national figure to come into this state,” and then Sarah Palin, who “showed the entire country what it means to use the power of your voice… who gave us that boost when we needed it.”

Posted by Nancy French at 07:48 AM on June 23, 2010 | Permalink

From the WashPo's Chris Cillizza:

South Carolina state Rep. Nikki Haley's easy victory in the state's gubernatorial runoff Tuesday is sure to establish her as the newest rising star in the GOP ranks and a coveted 2012 endorser.

Not only does Haley look different than the stereotypical Republican -- she is an Indian-American woman -- but she is also the favorite to be the next governor of a state that will play a very large role in selecting the 2012 presidential nominee.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a near-certain candidate for that office, was quick to praise Haley, who he had endorsed earlier this year and who has endorsed his 2008 presidential campaign as well. "Against the longest of odds, Nikki Haley took on the political establishment and won," said Romney.

Posted by Nancy French at 07:43 AM on June 23, 2010 | Permalink

This is very good news for our guy!

From a close friend:

He has a great spread – 49-32, and if you split the “no opinions” – his absolute positives are 60ish.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:47 PM on June 22, 2010 | Permalink

From a reader:

What a great thing you and David are doing with little Naomi. Naomi means “pleasant” in Hebrew which I’m sure she is. It’s a little known fact, however, that the land of Moab (lying southeast from the Dead Sea), where the original Ruth and Naomi came from was originally named by the ancients after Moab, Utah (what foresight!) which also lies in a southeast direction from a great salt lake. It’s a great place to visit if you ever get the chance. There is a popular bumper sticker out here that simply says, “London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Moab.”

Oh my...

CHARLES adds: Oh, yes! The Frenches have to go to Moab. That's the home of Arches National Park, one of the most beautiful places on earth -- not to mention a few microbreweries. The Mitchells recommend the creatively named Moab Brewery, as well as ditching the hotels in town in favor of the Best Western in nearby Green River. We stayed there in 2008 with some of the friendliest bikers you've never met.

Posted by Nancy French at 08:09 AM on June 22, 2010 | Permalink

Posted by Nancy French at 09:38 AM on June 21, 2010 | Permalink

The Washington Post on the Palmetto State:

"Haley can't seem to make up her mind about her faith," said Phillip Bowers, chairman of the Pickens County GOP, in an e-mail to local Republicans this week. Reached by telephone Friday, Bowers said: "It finally got to the point where I ought to let the party know about the inconsistencies in the story."

Pastor Ray Popham of Oasis Church International in Aiken told CNN: "I think she needs to be straight up with people, if she is both. If she believes that you can be both, then she should say that up front."

And Tony Beam, an interim pastor at Mount Creek Baptist Church in Greenville, asked listeners on his radio program recently: "Is Nikki Haley being honest about her faith?

Others have been less diplomatic. State Sen. "Jakie" Knotts, who became infamous earlier this month for referring to Haley as a "raghead," asked this question in a local television interview: "Have you ever asked her if she believes in Jesus Christ as her lord and savior and that he died on the cross for her sins? Have you ever asked her that?"

Asked to respond to such comments at her appearance with Romney Friday, Haley demurred, saying she is focused on the issues.

"I think that the people of the state of South Carolina rose above it, and that says a lot about the people of this state. And I don't think we need to give it any more thought."...

"I think the 49-and-a-half-percent figure that Nikki Haley garnered is a pretty clear indication that the people of South Carolina want to focus on the key issues," said Romney, appearing with Haley at the College of Charleston Friday, just a few feet from a marble plaque celebrating the education of the "sons and daughters" of Africa. Romney continued: "The distractions are not distractions anymore."

If true, that could be good news for Romney should he run for president again; his own Mormon faith was described as a liability in South Carolina in 2008. The state's prominence in presidential primary politics -- it is among the four "early" states on the calendar in 2012--means the results here can have lasting effects. Romney placed fourth in South Carolina in 2008, behind John McCain, Mike Huckabee and Fred Thompson.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:02 PM on June 20, 2010 | Permalink

I'll let you know if some politician comes along at church this morning and tells me I'm not a Christian.

Meanwhile, and more importantly, Naomi French is in Tennessee for the first time. She is beautiful and so is the image of the Gospel seen in her adoption. If you aren't friends with David and Nancy on Facebook, well, you can't see the pictures.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:53 AM on June 20, 2010 | Permalink

In South Carolina, Gov. Romney puts his money where his mouth is.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:15 PM on June 18, 2010 | Permalink

Paging South Carolina: You're electing a presidentgovernor, not a pastor.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:19 PM on June 15, 2010 | Permalink

Sounds about right.

Hat tip: David Weigel

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:14 PM on June 15, 2010 | Permalink

Gov. Romney's childhood home in Detroit was just demolished.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 11:19 AM on June 12, 2010 | Permalink

Ramesh Ponnuru:

Yesterday I commented on Gov. Mitch Daniels's suggestion that the next president should call a "truce" on social issues while he attends to the pressing problems of the national debt and the economy. Let me add one more point: The condition of the country seemed more parlous in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many people worried that the country was ungovernable. (The fact that we hadn't had a full two-term presidency in 20 years contributed to this sense.) We seemed to be slipping behind the Soviets both in territory and even morale. We were bewildered about stagflation and going through a deeper recession than the one we have now.

Under the circumstances, it made perfect sense for Ronald Reagan not to make the social issues his top priority. But he neither softened his positions on them nor declared a truce. He did what he could on those issues while concentrating on the reinvigoration of the country, the resumption of growth, and the defeat of the Soviets. Certainly there were social conservatives who wanted him to do more. But nobody thought that Reagan had elevated inaction on these issues to the level of principle or promise. And whatever else one thinks of the Reagan presidency, it is hard to argue that his efforts on the social issues got in the way of his economic and foreign-policy agenda.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 09:08 PM on June 11, 2010 | Permalink

Politico:

If Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney decide to run for president in 2012, they'll have some powerful friends in the early states that are key to winning the GOP nomination.

Mike Huckabee? Not so much.

All of it is part of the presidential election fallout from Tuesday’s primaries in Iowa and South Carolina, two states so pivotal in the GOP nomination process that even their off-year state elections are carefully examined for their relevance to the next presidential race.

Both Palin and Romney backed the first-place finishers in the high-profile governors races in the two states—former GOP Gov. Terry Branstad in Iowa and state Rep. Nikki Haley in South Carolina—endorsements that are likely to pay dividends in the event either Republican runs for president in 2012.

Huckabee, on the other hand, bet on the wrong horses—he used his political action committee to invest heavily in the losing campaigns of businessman Bob Vander Plaats in Iowa and Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer in South Carolina, two candidates who finished some distance behind on Tuesday.

As we've noted here, Gov. Romney endorsed Rep. Haley long before it was cool.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:49 AM on June 11, 2010 | Permalink

Jim Antle over at the Spectator is no Romneyite, but he's got this one right:

I think Ronald Reagan showed you could devote the bulk of your political capital to immediate needs -- winning the Cold War and whipping stagflation -- without totally surrendering on other aspects of your agenda. Reagan wasn't a culture warrior but the country still knew where he stood on social issues. I think that would be a better model for Mitch Daniels to contemplate than unconditional surrender.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 04:50 AM on June 10, 2010 | Permalink

What I've got to say absolutely pales in comparison to the Frenches' Africa news, which is so exciting. But here goes anyway.

There's been a lot of chatter in D.C. this year about Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. He's denied repeatedly that he's running for president, but not so much anymore, and when he appeared at the Heritage Foundation yesterday, I understand there were pre-printed copies on hand of Andrew Ferguson's new (and excellent) Weekly Standard cover story on him. So you do the math.

The chatter about Gov. Daniels is, in my view, richly deserved. As Ferguson's story illustrates, he's been an exceptional governor on fiscal issues, and there's maybe one other sitting governor (Rick Perry in Texas) of whom that could be said. Not only that, he signed a school-choice bill, which is fantastic.

He also, however, made an interesting and even troubling comment to Ferguson about social issues. Here's the relevant portion of the article:

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state. He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which he’s attended for 50 years. In 1998, with a few other couples from Tabernacle and a nearby -Baptist congregation, he and his wife founded a “Christ--centered” school, The Oaks Academy, in a downtown neighborhood the local cops called “Dodge City.” It’s flourishing now with 315 mostly poor kids who pursue a classical education: Latin from third grade on, logic in middle school, rhetoric in eighth grade, an emphasis throughout on the treasures of Western Civilization. “It’s the most important thing I’ve ever been involved in,” he told me. His social-conservative credentials are solid.

But about that truce .  .  .

“He might be one guy who could get away with it,” said Curt Smith, head of the Indiana Family Institute, who’s known Daniels since the 1980s. “He has a deep faith, he’s totally pro-life, and he walks the talk. And in an acute situation, like the one we’re in now with the debt, he might get away with a truce for a year or two. But to be successful in office he’s going to have to show those folks he shares their vision.”

In 2008, Smith supported an amendment to the state constitution to codify marriage between a man and a woman. He asked for the governor’s support.

“I wish he’d been more vocal about it, but that’s not his way,” Smith said. “What he told me, and told the public, was ‘As a citizen I will go into the voting booth and vote for it eagerly. As governor, I don’t have a role in this. The legislature and the people amend the constitution.’   ”

Standard reporter John McCormack followed up on that with Gov. Daniels:

This morning, at the Heritage Foundation, I asked Daniels if that meant the next president shouldn't push issues like stopping taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare or reinstating the Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Daniels replied that we face a "genuine national emergency" regarding the budget and that "maybe these things could be set aside for a while. But this doesn't mean anybody abandons their position at all. Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic."

To clarify whether Daniels simply wants to de-emphasize these issues or actually not act on them, I asked if, as presdient, he would issue an executive order to reinstate Reagan's "Mexico City Policy" his first week in office. (Obama revoked the policy during his first week in office.) Daniels replied, "I don't know."

Daniels said he didn't want to do anything to "impede" attempts to solve our fiscal problems. But it's not clear that maintaining Obama's policies on these issues for some period of time--which is what one assumes a truce means--would buy a Republican president any goodwill on fiscal issues. A Gallup poll found that only 35 percent of voters approved of Obama's reversal of the Mexico City policy. And a Washington Post poll found that only 35 percent of voters think those purchasing health care with government assistance should be able to buy plans that cover abortions.

Over at the American Spectator, Joseph Lawler added:

Failing to reinstate the Mexico City policy would not be a truce. It would be an unconditional surrender. In recent history a party change in the presidency has meant the automatic reversal of the previous administration's policy on the Mexico City rule; an incoming Republican would simply be maintaining the status quo by reinstating it.

Look, I like Gov. Daniels. A lot. More after reading about his taste for diners, in fact. But if you've watched any of our cultural battles in recent years, you will know this: Even if our side calls a truce, the other side won't. And, as Lawler points out, they've taken a lot of ground from us lately. So calling a unilateral "truce" would really constitute a surrender, if a temporary one.

Of course, if Gov. Daniels were the only option, I'd support him enthusiastically. But he isn't. There's another governor in the race who (while I don't think he's huge on plate-sized pork tenderloin, based on his figure) not only balanced the budget in a left-wing state with a rabidly hostile legislature, but also stood up on marriage and life issues and doesn't entertain the idea of surrendering after reaching the White House. Why? Because he knows that these issues are just as important to "sav[ing] the republic" (to borrow Gov. Daniels' phrase) as cutting government spending, if not more so. That's our governor, of course, Gov. Romney. He's the full package. And that's why we support him.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:34 AM on June 09, 2010 | Permalink

That she's a cutie.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:45 PM on June 08, 2010 | Permalink

On the very day that I flew into Iraq -- into a war that I feared would take my life -- God was preparing the next phase of our family's journey. In a village in Africa, my second daughter and youngest child was born. I did not know at that time she was destined to be ours, but I did not need to know.

This week, Nancy, Camille, Austin, and I fly to Adis Ababba, Ethiopia, to finalize the adoption of little Konjit. We will name her Naomi Konjit French, to join her sister Camille Ruth French -- so that our Ruth will help bring our Naomi from a land of want to a land of plenty, where our people will be her people, and our God will be her God.

Please be patient in our blogging absence. Please pray for us that our journey will be safe, that Naomi will know that she is loved, and that we will have the grace and wisdom to be the parents she deserves.

David and Nancy French

Posted by David French at 10:27 PM on June 08, 2010 | Permalink

So, I met some very nice Christian folks in 2007 who were Fred Thompson supporters.

Because they were kind, decent, caring people, I had one conversation after another with them about Gov. Romney and why they should support him. (Many of you remember I was a little zealous about his candidacy last time... and you only saw me through the computer screen. In person I may have been unbearable.) But being a Romney supporter in Tennessee was like being a Thompson supporter in Utah. I was a little lonely back before the field was narrowed down.

No matter how many times we talked, however, this couple was resolute. There was nothing I could do or say that would get them to support Gov. Romney. When it became obvious that Fred Thompson was not running for President -- instead he was strolling for President -- I had my chance.

The next time I saw them at the school basketball practice, I gently brought the subject up again. Okay, maybe I taunted them. "Ready for Romney now?"

Not a chance. Now they were Huckabee supporters. You read that correctly.

At that point, I was a little undone. Huckabee support was a dealbreaker for me emotionally. I just couldn't see how anyone could choose Gov. Huckabee over Gov. Romney, especially after the moderate charm of his Southern accent gave way to the stubborn facts of his fiscal and legal record.

"What if Huckabee drops out," I asked hypothetically.

"We'll support McCain," they said.

That's when I knew this line of conversation was over.

We barely talked for years.

Last week, I saw them and we exchanged pleasantries.

"Is Romney gonna run?" they asked.

People ask me this, as if I have any inside scoop. I always say the same thing.

"I really hope so." Then, I braced myself for whatever political conversation was going to come next.

I was surprised when they both responded. "We do too."

I tried not to let my face show shock.

"We were wrong last time," they said. "We just didn't think it through. But we are Romney supporters now."

I couldn't get to the point to ask them what changed their minds, but they went on to talk about the economy. But this was my "Aha!" moment... standing there with these people after years of political tension.

Maybe this is happening all over America?

I guess we'll see... but I found it immensely gratifying!

Posted by Nancy French at 12:37 AM on June 08, 2010 | Permalink

According to Chris Cillizza, there's another case of someone exaggerating their military record:

In the wake of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's struggles to explain past misstatements about his military record, Illinois Rep. -- and Senate candidate -- Mark Kirk is now on the defensive about a discrepancy in his résumé regarding an honor he claimed to have received.

At issue is Kirk's past claim that he had been named the U.S. Navy's Intelligence Officer of the Year -- an award that he actually did not receive...

The odd thing is that Kirk had a great military record, which is now marred by the exaggeration.

(Some of you may have missed David's column about why people lie about their military records... I guess he has another example to add to the list.)

Posted by Nancy French at 04:21 PM on June 02, 2010 | Permalink

I didn't realize Gov. Romney had a Facebook page until tonight, and seeing this just cracked me up:

(On a side note, I'm on a perpetual quest to have more friends than David, so friend me!)

Posted by Nancy French at 02:38 AM on June 01, 2010 | Permalink

I was about as excited about McCain 2008 than you were -- actually, less so, I bet. But this is exactly how you want the previous nominee talking, if you actually want to be president, rather than simply to fail loudly:

“Nobody did more for me between the time I won the nomination and Election Day than Mitt Romney,” McCain says. “He did everything the campaign asked, from giving speeches everywhere to media. Cindy and I have developed a friendship with him and Ann since the campaign. They’ve stayed at our place in northern Arizona for a weekend and he stops by to see me whenever he’s in Washington. It’s a very good relationship.”

Is Romney using his political winter effectively? “Yes, very much so,” McCain says. “He’s doing the right things with his abilities — not too much, not too little, and traveling around to the early primary states. And, as I know, you always have a certain advantage the second time around, even if you support the surge.”

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:07 AM on May 29, 2010 | Permalink

Above you'll see some of the "Piggy Pyramids" we built all across the hotel and convention center.

Posted by Nancy French at 03:04 PM on May 28, 2010 | Permalink

We had our "Taste of Louisiana" in the same area that Sean Hannity broadcast.

Posted by Nancy French at 03:02 PM on May 28, 2010 | Permalink

I just now got to looking at the wonderful photos Anna Quinn took of New Orleans. Here are a few.

You know that we chose "piggy banks" to represent what's on everyone's minds -- the economy! However, there are moral issues that cannot be overlooked as well.

Posted by Nancy French at 02:59 PM on May 28, 2010 | Permalink

From Spencer, at the Competent Conservative:

I believe this is the best performance I have ever seen Mitt Romney give. Wow! It is quite long, but well worth watching. If all those people who attended could spare an hour, so can we:) Listen to how Mitt answers the question about running in 2012. While still eluding that he is running, this is the closest he has come to indicating that he is indeed running.

To watch Gov. Romney speak at the Reagan Library, please click here.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:01 PM on May 28, 2010 | Permalink

I've written before about South Carolina state representative Nikki Haley, whose gubernatorial campaign Gov. Romney endorsed. You may know that this week, a blogger accused Rep. Haley of an affair (with said blogger) and she called it a lie. So did Gov. Palin, who endorsed her very recently. Gov. Romney is also standing by her, according to CBS News.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:08 PM on May 25, 2010 | Permalink

Nancy, my favorite part of The Fix post you link below is this: "And, he avoids sounding off on every issue under the sun."

As an incurable blogger married to an incurable blogger this is probably our point of greatest personal departure from Mitt. I'd love to sit down with him one day and ask, "How do you not talk; because that's one thing I've never figured out." I tend to speak now and apologize later rather than just keep my mouth shut (And don't talk to me about various biblical verses that directly apply to such a practice. I'm working on it!) But then again, I'm not a future president.

Mitt's course of action, however, strikes me as exactly what a future president should do. You don't have to wade into the weeds on every issue. In fact, it was Obama's pre-campaign verbosity about -- well, just about everything -- that deprives him of so much credibility today. Withdraw from Iraq in 18 months? Close Gitmo? End rendition? Is there an aspect of the Bush administration that he didn't eviscerate?

But then he gained power and had to ask himself tough questions like, "If we don't put those guys in Gitmo, then where do they go?" And he had tough choices to make like, "Who should actually interrogate the recently captued military leader of the Taliban? Us or the Pakistanis?" Faced with reality, the campaign rhetoric and the endless moralizing, start to sound hollow. He now relies almost entirely on a complicit press to escape accountability for his rank hypocrisy.

For now, Governor Romney is choosing the best path. The campaign will come soon enough.

Posted by David French at 01:37 PM on May 25, 2010 | Permalink

Here are his top three:

3. Haley Barbour: There's little question that Barbour's RGA is seen as the bully -- in a good way -- on the political block this year. Due to the tens of millions the committee has on hand, the RGA is already playing active roles in a number of contested races. That involvement in Massachusetts drew some controversy -- quickly squashed -- about ads attacking state Treasurer Tim Cahill who is running as an Independent in that race. (Previous ranking: 1)

2. Mitt Romney: Romney continues to play a different sort of game than the other candidates expected to run for president in 2012. He methodically rolls out endorsements -- state by state -- in advance of the 2010 election, a strategy that allows him to use his financial might to build chits. He continues to tour the country in support of "No Apologies" -- his campaign platform book. And, he avoids sounding off on every issue under the sun. It's the strategy of a frontrunner, which, today, Romney is. (Previous ranking: 2)

1. Sarah Palin: Yes, she's number one again. No Republican has moved up as much on the Line as the former Alaska governor. And, even now, in conversations with Republican operatives, some suggest she should hold this top spot while others insist she should be down at number nine or ten. We think the former option is the right one at the moment as Palin has shown a practical side -- her endorsement of former HP executive Carly Fiorina in the California Senate race -- and it's clear that her support can make a difference in primaries and other nomination fights. (See Tom Emmer in Minnesota and Nikki Haley in South Carolina.) (Previous ranking: 3)

Posted by Nancy French at 01:11 PM on May 24, 2010 | Permalink

Thinking about taking your kids to see the new Shrek movie?

Here's why I decided not to.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:17 PM on May 24, 2010 | Permalink