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%.

"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.

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.

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!)

Dukakis: Romney would be a ‘disastrous’ president

Does anyone else find comfort in this non-endorsement?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!"