Michael Medved has invited David on his show today to discuss ADF's Center for Academic Freedom's activities on the religious freedom front.

Find your station here.

Posted by Nancy French at 03:23 PM on July 02, 2009 | Permalink

I dare say that no one knows more about presidential politics than Michael Barone, and yesterday he wrote a characteristically insightful piece that looks back at 2008 to highlight the GOP's challenges in 2012.

He's one of the few commentators who accurately notes how close the Governor came to capturing the Republican nomination (just a 3% shift in some key states, and it's a whole different ballgame), but I think he's wrong about on thing. He writes:

Imagine for a minute another possible Romney 2008 strategy: run primarily as a fiscal conservative, skip Iowa and concentrate on New Hampshire, get that extra 3 percent between January 19 and Super Tuesday February 5, and then enter the next run of primaries—Maryland and Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio and Texas, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana—running even with McCain in delegates and far ahead of him in money. In those circumstances it is conceivable Romney might have won the nomination and have been in a position to cast himself as an expert on economics and finance—more expert certainly than Barack Obama—after the failure of Lehman Brothers and the financial crisis in mid-September.

But could Romney have won running primarily as a fiscal conservative that early in the process? Obviously, that's the Governor's unquestioned strength, but I think Michael is misreading the time. In the early primary season Republicans were focused on finding the "true conservative" and on the Iraq war. The narrative on the economy was the consistent refrain that the media wasn't giving the Bush administration enough credit for the (then) robust growth. Running as "the economy guy" would have catapulted him to the nomination if the market had crashed a few months earlier, but as of January/February 2008, few people knew (and the public had definitely not perceived) that the housing market Titanic had already hit the iceberg.

Also, from the beginning the Governor ran as what we called the "full spectrum conservative" (he always referred to three legs of the Republican stool: national security, fiscal responsibility, and family values). His opponents highlighted the social conservative aspect of his message because that presented the easiest target.

Obviously the Governor's strategy wasn't flawless, but it was better than he gets credit for. A previously unknown (Mormon) Massachusetts governor who is a recent pro-life convert comes within 3% of winning the Republican nomination? That's not bad on its own terms, and it looks even better when one realizes that Republican primary voters are not known for embracing candidates their first time through. (Just ask Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain). Heck, just ask any Republican in the modern primary era not named "George Bush."

Posted by David French at 01:15 PM on July 01, 2009 | Permalink

Posted by Nancy French at 10:34 PM on June 30, 2009 | Permalink

Charles, this is why you need an iPhone. We landed in Maui and I read about the so-called "disappearance" of Gov. Sanford on the way to the hotel. I actually read it aloud, to the kids, because the story had novelty and the weirdness factor -- I never supposed it'd turn out with an affair. (They didn't hear the follow-up.)

Anyway, I hope your vacation travels were easier than ours.

(Note to American Airlines: I loathe you. I hope to never voluntarily fly on your awful planes again. After sending our bags to Tokyo and making us sit on an un-airconditioned, 90 degree plane for three hours -- after a 9 hour red-eye -- I'm not sure I can forgive... yet again. Our total travel time home? 23 hours.)

Exciting news tomorrow! The official portrait of Gov. Romney will be unveiled in Boston. Richard Whitney is the artist, also known for his portrait of John Sununu. (Check out Sununu's portrait here -- the painting has an old-fashioned computer and telephone in it!)

Anyway, I can't wait to see the painting and I'll link to the photo when I see one.

Posted by Nancy French at 05:44 PM on June 29, 2009 | Permalink

Well, apparently last week was the one when all good little EFM-ers are supposed to decamp to the beach. Believe it or not, we Mitchells were not in Hawaii, but actually in Gov. Mark Sanford's own state, South Carolina. If you were looking for some front-line reporting...well, sorry.

Actually, it was a bit surreal being there. I read about the "Where's the governor?" stuff several days after it broke (at least in our family, news reaches the beach late). Then, the day of Gov. Sanford's press conference, we were actually slated to have dinner with a former aide of his who is a friend of ours. I frankly didn't think there'd be any real news. You can imagine my shock when around 3 p.m., as we were in the middle of our drive from the coast to the capital city, the DJ on the country radio station we were listening to said something about an affair. I honestly thought he was kidding, knowing Gov. Sanford not only to be a strong conservative but also a sincere Christian believer. In fact, it was so jarring that I decided not to write about it until I had made sense of it a bit more -- who wants to speak rashly of a brother who is in a crisis?

With all of that said, I do agree with David's comments on the wrongheadedness of the "Boy Scout" taunt against Gov. Romney. The situation in which the Sanford family finds itself is deeply sad, but that in which our culture finds itself -- where the attitude deployed against people like Gov. Romney is fashionable -- is probably even sadder, because it is more destructive, inasmuch as a culture affects an entire society, not just one family.

I also think we must laud Gov. Romney's recent comments regarding public officials. Here's what Politico had to say about the matter:

Discussing disgraced South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a fellow Republican, said governors and other national leaders are expected “to live by a higher standard because … the culture of the nation” can be hurt by their failings.

“Seeing this family become healed is our highest priority,” Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“At the same time, and not commenting particularly on Governor Sanford, … people in public life ought to be held to a higher standard. … I heard one … former governor say, ‘Well, everybody makes mistakes.’ Well, that’s true.

“But not all mistakes are the same. And not everybody is a governor or a senator or a president. And we expect [those] people to live by a higher standard, because what they do is going to be magnified, their families are going to be hurt more by what they do, the things they care about will be hurt, and the culture of the nation
and the people who follow them will be hurt.”

And further down in the story, I must say, is a real gem from Sen. Lindsey Graham, a fellow South Carolinian. Sen. Graham is Sen. John McCain's favorite Republican and, not coincidentally, not mine. But he was right on here:

Moderator David Gregory asked: “Is the Republican Party still a party of values?”

“Yeah — I think we’re a party of sinners,” Graham replied with a chuckle, “just like every other group in America. But we’re also a party that openly talks about good things. It is good for Mark and Jenny to get back together, if that’s possible, ’cause it’s good for families to have a mom and dad. And it’s OK to talk about those things.”

This was particularly striking to me because every week, our church publishes a statement in the bulletin beginning with the fact that we are "a church of sinners." And I know we have to be careful about the parallels we draw between a church and a political party, but I think they're still there. Our church cares about holiness, but acknowledges that we Christians will fall short and need help. The Republican Party cares (or at least should) about good moral values, but should acknowledge that some of its members will still fall short. In neither case does our falling short invalidate what we believe in. It just indicates that we are not perfect.

Kudos to both Gov. Romney and Sen. Graham for their comments. And pray for the Sanfords.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 04:54 AM on June 29, 2009 | Permalink

As I read the sad, infuriating, and disappointing news of yet another Republican leader who can't seem to keep his pants on, I remember with regret the odd way in which some Republican commentators and activists dismissed Governor Romney with vaguely denigrating words like "squeaky clean," "Boy Scout," or "nerdy." That's a rather silly way to describe a man who has lived a life of real integrity and raised a family that has consistently displayed the same kind of faithfulness. Perhaps now, as Republican after Republican immolates themselves on the pyre of their own selfishness and sin, the Governor can receive some long overdue respect for living his values.

Posted by David French at 02:55 AM on June 26, 2009 | Permalink

According to Politico:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s favorability rating has spiked since the 2008 presidential primary, according to a Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday.

The Republican’s favorability rating has climbed to 40 percent — a 10-point increase over the past 16 months. The Pew poll found that 28 percent of Americans view him unfavorably and another 32 percent don’t know.

Just days before Romney bowed out of the race last February, following the Super Tuesday primaries, 30 percent rated him favorably and 44 percent said they held an unfavorable opinion of him.

Still in Maui -- had a wonderful dinner with David last night at a shoreline restaurant!

Posted by Nancy French at 03:06 PM on June 25, 2009 | Permalink

Chris Cillizza just wrote,"Let the search for a new champion for fiscal conservatives begin!" in response to Gov. Sanford eliminating himself -- in a rather dramatic fashion -- from the 2012 Presidential race.

Well, Chris, I think we know just the guy.

On a more uplifting note, we are in Maui! This is the view of where we are staying.

After the kids' luggage took a scenic tour to Tokyo, it has arrived today! But not after we had to buy them new clothes here. Nevertheless, having a wonderful time and are about to go get sushi!

Posted by Nancy French at 01:51 AM on June 25, 2009 | Permalink

Michael Medved has invited David on his show today to discuss ADF's Center for Academic Freedom's activities on the religious freedom front.

Interestingly, David invariably has these media appearances and I'll ask, "What are you going to speak about?"

This means, obviously, "what specific case is the topic of the day?"

Always a smart aleck, he thinks this is an absurd question, since he always is speaking on religious freedom on college campuses. So when I ask what he's going to speak on, he makes it up.

Once, it was the benefits versus the detriments of free trade coffee. Another time it was whether Adam Lambert would beat Kris Allen. Today?

Before he left for his 6 a.m. flight, I drearily asked him, "What are you going to talk about?" And he said, "the auto bailout."

To find out the real answer, tune in. Find your station here.

Posted by Nancy French at 08:53 AM on June 18, 2009 | Permalink

Mike Potemra over on the Corner, thinks Gov. Romney will be our next nominee:

Four years from now, Mitt Romney will be president of the United States.

My reasoning is as follows. Point One: The Obama team, while still basking in honeymoon-level approval ratings today, has pointed itself in a direction that will result in disappointed hopes for the American people. They have drastically overpromised, and their policies—even if they are not outright disastrous—will end up inciting more passionate discontent than passionate support. Point Two: The Republicans always nominate for president the candidate who’s next in line, even if that person is deeply unpopular (e.g., the GOP base’s hatred for John McCain did not prevent him from being nominated; he was the guy who lost to Bush in 2000, ergo…). In 2008, the runner-up was Romney. Add to that frontrunner status the fact that Romney has credibility on economics and budgeting, and he’s the prohibitive favorite. Add Point One to Point Two, and the result is a Romney presidency.

A preemptive rejoinder, lest anyone dismiss this prediction as Romney propaganda: I supported McCain over Romney in 2008, and am nowhere near deciding whom to support in 2012.

Posted by Nancy French at 02:50 PM on June 15, 2009 | Permalink

Will there be an opening 2012 for the right Republican to regain ground some lost ground with the legions of urban professionals who have flocked to the Dems? I've long thought their professed hatred for Republicans was more cultural than anything else. If you ask even some of the more well-informed urban yuppies about Bush, they'll tick off a list of complaints that often bear little resemblance to reality and are frequently completely wrong (my favorite: "Bush cut social services to pay for his wars" -- when he actually paid for war and grew domestic spending faster than Clinton). Basically, they just don't like the guy. Or Newt. Or Sarah Palin. They feel revulsion where many heartland Republicans feel connection.

But what's this? The American Medical Association is daring to challenge The One? We should never, ever assume that trends are permanent and that real-world events can't change the facts on the ground. In 2001, real world events pushed millions of Americans (including Nancy Pelosi) into George Bush's camp when it came to the conduct of the war. It is only when the smoke cleared, the economy roared back, and the messy wars were fought mostly by people they didn't know (and never would meet) that the cultural divisions reasserted themselves with a vengeance.

But what if instead of military necessity, economic necessity causes urban professionals to re-order their political priorities? After all, there is a Republican leader who -- while conservative -- is certainly culturally conversant with the economic and professional elite. And he knows more than a little about health care as well.

The real world is a stern teacher, and is certainly more responsible for Ronald Reagan's rise than even Reagan's considerable political gifts. Stagflation and foreign shame does a lot to make a nation think about different approaches. Will massive government intervention in health care (not to mention car manufacturing) and ballooning deficits do the same a few years hence?

Posted by David French at 05:15 PM on June 11, 2009 | Permalink

Tagg Romney introduced a mini-essay contest today:

The best submission will receive an all-expense paid trip for 2 to join me in the Romney family seats at Fenway Park for a Red Sox game. And four runner-ups will receive a baseball personally autographed by my dad.

How do you qualify? Simply (1) visit www.FreeStrongAmerica.com/essay for complete details and to see a special video message from my dad, (2) contribute at least $50 to my dad's PAC, and (3) email your 250-words-or-less answer to the question "What does a free and strong America mean to you?" to Essay@FreeStrongAmerica.com. The five best submissions will be featured on FreeStrongAmerica.com, and the author of the best answer, as decided by us, will win the baseball trip.

The contest ends June 24th, so get writing. It's only 250 words. That's fewer words than are contained in this email. We're looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Tagg

Okay, guys -- game on. Which of our lovely readers will get to hang out with Tagg? What are you waiting for? Open up Word and get to typing!

Update: Nancy, we're Apple snobs, remember? Our readers should be opening up Pages, not Word.

NANCY ADDS:

Come on, David, you're the only snob. Hey, here is Gov. Romney's pitch:

Posted by Nancy French at 10:55 AM on June 10, 2009 | Permalink

In watching the Governor's excellent "Care of Liberty" speech before the Heritage Foundation, I'm reminded once again of an argument we made throughout the 06-08 campaign season: Mitt Romney is a full-spectrum conservative.

I know I'm whistling into the wind here, but I would like Republican primary voters in 2012 to concentrate on something other than the issue of the day when deciding their nominee. When Senator McCain and Governor Romney were battling in Florida before Super Tuesday, Iraq questions dominated. When Governor Huckabee pulled his upset in Iowa, social issues mattered most.

Then, months later, just as it became apparent even to the anti-war Left that the Iraq war had turned a corner, the stock market imploded, our homes suddenly were worth nine cents, and it became clear that General Motors had hit the iceberg. Does that mean that Governor Romney would have won the nomination had the economy tanked just a few months earlier? Would the electorate have wheeled away from focusing on who'd been pro-life longer or who'd supported the surge first and asked "Who can save my house and 401k?" One can never really know, but my own suspicion is that both McCain and Huckabee would have faded pretty quickly in the midst of a financial crisis.

As it was, we were left with essentially a single-issue candidate responding to a crisis that was way, way outside his wheelhouse. And what was John McCain's answer to this comprehensive economic crisis? Let's cancel a debate. No, wait, let's not. And by the way, drill, baby, drill!

It is simply a fact that at any given moment we cannot anticipate the issues that will dominate the news even four months from now. We can perhaps predict long term trends, but the dominant news story? Definitely not. That's why a wise electorate must "interview" a presidential candidate much like they would a prospective CEO of their own employer, where the question typically isn't "what are you going to do about this one single issue?" but rather "Does he have the knowledge, skills, and temperament for the job?"

I think Governor Romney wins that kind of race, and it wouldn't be close.

Posted by David French at 02:40 PM on June 08, 2009 | Permalink

Charles, had I been in DC, I would've made a point to see you. Just saying.

Also, this sunny Saturday morning, I wanted to point out the last line of The Fix's entry about Gov. Romney (to which you had linked):

Romney's first six months of the Obama Administration have been better handled than any other national Republican leader. Period.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:40 AM on June 06, 2009 | Permalink

No sign of David, but the Post's Chris Cillizza once again has Gov. Romney at the top of his ranking of Republican leaders.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 09:20 AM on June 06, 2009 | Permalink

... alas a day late to have seen Gov. Romney's speech. (Call him though -- maybe you can do lunch?)

Also, the Governor was on the Today show -- did you see it? Matt Lauer gives him some much deserved props! Enjoy below:

Posted by Nancy French at 03:05 PM on June 03, 2009 | Permalink

Well, I was going to give you all a summary of Gov. Romney's excellent talk here in Washington, but you know what? You should just watch it yourself. I can't say it any better than he did:

All I will add is that I am sorry you can't see Sen. Jim Talent's introduction, which really spoke to me (and I think would have done the same to his fellow Presbyterians, David and Nancy). I'm paraphrasing, but Sen. Talent noted how remarkable it is that those who have worked with Gov. Romney (or supported him, as in our case) tend to be extremely loyal. He pointed out how this might have something to do with how wonderful Mrs. Romney is, hence Gov. Romney's joke at the outset, but he also said (again, I'm paraphrasing) it has to do with the character of the man. If I may say, that is so right. That's not to say I disagree with any of his comments on foreign policy; I don't. And it's not to say I think he's perfect; he's not. But it's clear to me he is a very, very good man, and I won't apologize for saying that matters.

UPDATE: With thanks to reader Diane and the best channel on television, C-SPAN, you can view Sen. Talent's introduction here.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 07:04 PM on June 01, 2009 | Permalink

Your humble correspondent is presently perched at the Navy Memorial in Washington, D.C., about to take in Gov. Romney's speech "The Care of Liberty," under the auspices of the Heritage Foundation. Full report to come...

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:27 AM on June 01, 2009 | Permalink

Since David's been in Italy, I hadn't watched the season finale of 24... hoping we could watch it together one popcorn-filled night. However, I finally broke down and pressed "play" on my TiVo... All I can say is that it was more than disappointing.

Jack has a conversation with Agent Walker about how he tries to save people because, in a way, he hopes he can save himself . This introduces the idea of "self-salvation" to the 24 season that continues on to Jack's death bed. (Or is it? Kim -- surprise! -- decides to try the experimental adult stem cell surgery that could save his life.)

Jack is having pangs of conscience because he's done so many "bad" things in life. Whom does he call? The Muslim imam whom he'd previously accused of having terrorist sympathies. Does the imam come in and explain how the Quran emphatically explains there is a Day of Judgment on which God will decide the fate of each person according to their deeds? The Quran states:

But those who disbelieve say, “The Hour (i.e. the Day of Judgment) will not come to us.” Say, “Yes, by my Lord, it will surely come to you. [God is] the Knower of the unseen.” ... He may reward those who believe and do righteous deeds. Those will have forgiveness and noble provision. But those who strive against Our verses [seeking] to cause failure (i.e. to undermine their credibility) - for them will be a painful punishment of foul nature. (Quran, 34:3-5)

Nope. This wasn't mentioned. (Not that I regret that 24 didn't delve into Islam.)

Had Jack gone nuts and called a Christian pastor, priest, or reverend, he would've heard about the bad news of the gospel (that he is, in deed, guilty of grave sin against God) and then the good news (Jesus paid the price). But instead Jack calls in an imam... who doesn't even get a chance to explain his own theology. It's almost as if the show's producers wanted to allay their critic's fears -- see, we aren't just an extension of the FoxNews network. We're the first "carbon neutral" television series, after all. Haven't you noticed all our annoyingly ubiquitous public service ads? -- but didn't have the guts to finish the job.

Jack confesses his sins to him, and then... the imam offered the same advice Oprah Winfrey would've in a similar situation. He grabs Jack's hand, closes his eyes in what looks like a prayer. However, "prayer" indicates you are praying to someone. The imam, however, just makes a statement. "Let us forgive ourselves."

Ugh!

So now we know that 24:Redemption (the original 2 hour movie that started this whole mess) was referring to "self-redemption." The whole wonderful season was cut off at the knees with some watered down narcissistic relativism.

In honor of 24's awful finale, I think we should all say a prayer to ourselves and take a moment to learn a few songs that we can sing to ourselves if we ever feel down:

Final verdict? 24 should've stopped at 23 this season. Let's hope the producers get it right next time.

Posted by Nancy French at 01:57 AM on May 29, 2009 | Permalink

From CNN:

"There are some things she said that are troubling for those of us who believe that the job of a justice is to follow the law and the constitution, not to create law," said Romney during a forum with business leaders in Washington, DC. "But let's give her the chance to explain her views, to describe her record, and to be party to a full and complete and fair process. And let's do it in a very civil and respectful manner."

Posted by Nancy French at 11:42 PM on May 28, 2009 | Permalink

Last night, Politico posted a story with the headline "Right divided over court fight." Here's how it begins:

Conservative groups know they want to oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor — but exactly how that campaign will be conducted is a major unanswered question that is splitting the Republican right.

The early fissure among opponents to Sotomayor, the New York federal appeals judge nominated by President Barack Obama on Tuesday, is over whether to push for a filibuster.

“The Republicans have got to take a stand on this one,” said Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and a proponent of a filibuster. “If they don’t, they can kiss their chances of ever getting back into power away,” he added.

Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry, an anti-abortion rights activist, is urging members to block a Senate vote on Sotomayor.

“Do GOP leaders have the courage and integrity to filibuster an activist, pro-Roe[v. Wade] judge?” asked Terry, who argued that Democrats — including then-Sen. Obama — opened the door to such action after threatening to filibuster Justice Samuel Alito’s nomination in 2005.

In addition to pressuring Republicans, Terry is urging supporters to send e-mails to Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), both of whom oppose abortion rights.

Meanwhile, the Judicial Confirmation Network, an umbrella group representing more than 60 organizations, is trying to build a more traditional case against Sotomayor by culling through her prior statements and cases and questioning her qualifications.

“We’ve always said a filibuster is not appropriate for judicial nominees,” said Wendy Long, counsel to the network. “A filibuster is a legislative tool designed to extract compromises. A judicial nominee is a person. You can’t take the arm or leg of a nominee.

I mean no disrespect by this, but is it really proof of a "great divide" that Pat Robertson and Randall Terry are saying one thing and a coalition of sixty groups is saying another? It seems to me that the first two, the media's desire to cover them notwithstanding, are not considered great generals of the conservative movement (though Rev. Robertson was in his heyday), whereas Ms. Long's group is an acknowledged leader on this issue. Relatedly, is it really news that Messrs. Robertson and Terry are saying something relatively radical? Haven't we seen this movie before? How come it is always considered newsworthy?

I think one could fairly argue that Politico has its blinders on here.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:55 AM on May 27, 2009 | Permalink

Bill Kristol wants to know:

Will any Republican whose career lies mostly ahead of him -- or her -- step up to confront Obama on the foreign policy and national security front? Is any of them enough of a risk-taker to defy the conventional wisdom that if you’re a mere senator or congressman or governor or aspirer to office, you should focus on domestic issues, that it’s hard (and it is) to take on a president on foreign policy? Will any of them seek to join Cheney and Gingrich in the foreign policy fray?

I think we've gotten a little taste so far, with more to come, of Gov. Romney doing just that.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:42 PM on May 25, 2009 | Permalink

Vice President Biden caught a lot of flak for saying President Obama would be "tested" by our enemies abroad, but he was right. And this is no surprise if we look at history -- when America puts its tail between its legs, the bad guys try to see how much running room we will give them. It happened in the Carter era, and today's news makes clear it's happening today: Iran is flexing its naval muscles in an "unprecedented" way, and North Korea seems to have tested a pretty big nuke.

Amid such threats, it seems to me that we as Christians engaged in things public should do two things. First, we should pray for our president, that he will have wisdom to protect this country that has done so much to spread the Truth among the nations. This is more appropriate than ever on Memorial Day, as we all rest thanks to those who have gone to dangerous places and made huge sacrifices so that we might be safe. (Yes, I do mean David and Nancy; please join me in thanking them.) Second, although we owe President Obama respect, inasmuch as he has indicated pretty clearly so far that he will not execute the correct national-security policies, we should be looking for a leader who will do the right thing. You know who our choice is, and I'm looking forward to hearing his upcoming speech on the topic here in DC, hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:18 AM on May 25, 2009 | Permalink

Pete Hegseth writes beautifully on The Corner:

Memorial Day is about one thing: remembering the fallen on the battlefield and passing their collective story to the next generation. These stories, and the men who bear them, are the backbone of this American experiment and must never be forgotten. As John Stuart Mill once said, “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse.” The minute, excuse me—the second—we believe our freedoms "inevitable and/or immutable," we cease to live in history, and have soured the soldier's sacrifice. He died in the field, so we can enjoy this beautiful day (and weekend). Our freedoms—purchased on the battlefield—are indeed “worthy of war.”

And this day, with America still at war, it is also fitting that we remember the soldiers currently serving in harms way. Because, as any veteran can attest, just one moment, one explosion, or one bullet separates Veterans Day from Memorial Day. Soldiers currently in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting for our freedoms today, knowing it’s possible they may never see tomorrow. These troops—and their mission—deserve our support each day, and our prayers every night. May God watch over them—and their families; May He give them courage in the face of fear, and righteous-might in the face of evil.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:56 AM on May 25, 2009 | Permalink

Nancy, thanks for the props, but I fear you're biased. For interested readers, here's the Maggie Gallagher post that triggered my observations in yesterday's Corner. Maggie's main point directly bears on our experience here on EFM:

It's simple. Social conservatives have had bad models for political action. We've depended on two basic strategies, and neither of them work very well:

1. The Mass-Uprising Model. "The people will rise up and throw off their oppressors spontaneously." Well, it's nice when it happens, but it's hardly a plan, is it?

2. The Secular-Messiah Model: Join with others in the GOP to elect a godly man to office and then expect him to solve all your problems for you. This last model resulted in me fielding calls from reporters about whether or not I thought Bush was responsible for failing to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment — at a time when the poor man was 33 percent in the polls. Gay-rights groups don't behave like this. They understand it's their job to make it easy for politicians to do what they ask, not the other way around.

Since Mitt burst on the national scene in 2005/2006, we have been flooded with vitriol from social conservatives who have argued that he is somehow "responsible" for same-sex marriage because he didn't lead some kind of popular uprising amongst Massachusetts conservatives after the state supreme court's decision.

This critique embodies both of the flaws Maggie identifies above. According to Mitt's critics, we didn't need a "mere" man of integrity opposing an undemocratic action through lawful, democratic means, we apparently needed a Great Leader to lead a Popular Uprising.

However, we conservatives need leaders, not Leaders. We need movements, not Movements. We're the ones who are supposed to doubt the wisdom of the crowd and to understand the profound limits of men and governments (modesty is one the things I most like about Mitt.)

Great point, Maggie. May we take it to heart.

Posted by David French at 02:42 PM on May 22, 2009 | Permalink

He had a great post on The Corner today!

I want to echo Mark Steyn's endorsement of Maggie Gallagher's recent post on the "Trouble with Social Conservatives." It's brevity and brilliance remind me of an admonition commonly given to young pastors: "Remember, for a message to be immortal, it need not be eternal."

Not only is Maggie exactly right, but the depressing fact is that the culture of social conservatism makes it unlikely that we'll change anytime soon.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:42 PM on May 21, 2009 | Permalink

If I must say so myself, David's post on NRO was pretty good yesterday:

The unexamined clichés of the religious Left never fail to amuse. Whenever pro-lifers mobilize (such as in response to Obama's honorary degree and commencement speech at Notre Dame), two lame responses always follow. The first is the canard, "Pro-lifers stop caring about the baby as soon as its born." And the other is, "Yes, I'm pro-life, but I'm pro-life in the fullest possible sense . . . I care about everything that makes our lives good."

Yesterday's Inside Higher Ed contains a classic of the genre. Patricia McGuire, president of Trinity Washington University, writes about the "real scandal" at Notre Dame. Describing the protesters, she says: "They defend the rights of the unborn but have no charity toward the living."

Does she have a shred of evidence to support these claims? Does she know anything at all about the individual protesters? Some variation of this leftist talking point has been repeated so often that even pro-lifers internalize the critique, wringing their hands and exclaiming, "Yes, yes, we need to love the living more." But what about the evidence? Has it ever been the case that pro-life Christians care more about the unborn than the born?

Of course not. In fact, religious conservatives are among the most generous — if not the most generous — Americans when it comes to giving their money or their time. And are they giving all that money to pro-life causes? Hardly. I work at perhaps the largest pro-life religious conservative legal organization in the world, but our budget is less than 3 percent of that of one of the largest Christian relief organizations. It has never been the case that pro-life Christians only care for unborn children. To say otherwise is slander.

But McGuire is hardly done. She moves on to perhaps a classic statement of the religious Left's view of what it really means to be pro-life:

Catholicism is not a one-issue faith. The social justice teachings that are central to our Church’s moral construction demand that we act in defense of the sacred dignity of all human life, from conception through salvation. Ours is a faith that demands peace and decries unjust war even as we demand that the unborn child have a right to live — not mere life, but a life that can realize the full potential of the Creator’s divine plan as a matter of justice. Ours is a faith that is profoundly intolerant of racism and the exploitation of women, of poverty and the violence that economic injustice spawns. Ours is a faith that demands a more just sharing of the world’s resources, more pervasive global education to remediate the illiteracy that condemns children to repeat the cycles of poverty of prior generations. Ours is a faith that finds the use of torture for any reason an abhorrent offense against life. Ours is a faith that calls each member to take the option for the poor, to stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters on this planet, to exercise the responsibilities of our citizenship fully, to honor the rights and dignity of workers, to be moral stewards of God’s creation — all in the name of life. This is what it really means to be “pro-life.”

Ahh yes, you're against abortion, but it's just as important to fight illiteracy, oppose waterboarding, increase the minimum wage, recycle, and compost your garbage. This is precisely how the religious Left loses its moral voice; when everything is a life issue, the very act of abortion itself recedes into the background. There is no sense of priority, no understanding that perhaps you can't learn to read and choose paper over plastic if you're not alive.

In fact, in reading her entire piece, one realizes what she means by "real scandal." It is the existence of the conservative pro-life movement itself — those she dismisses as the "ostensibly Catholic mobs." I suppose faithful Catholics and their Protestant allies should just shut up . . . after all, at least more of those who live are driving Priuses.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:21 PM on May 21, 2009 | Permalink

Just a quick though about 2012 strategy (should the best candidate choose to run). I think he needs to emphasize "real success." Virtually any person that may run against him (Huckabee, Palin, Jindal, etc.) is a successful politician. By that, I mean that they have succeeded quite well in the profession of politics. They win races, they hold office, and they achieve political accomplishments (I don't knock that; if someone said, "David, you need to become governor of Tennessee," I'd barely know where to begin to make that happen), but for any of them it is hard to say that they succeeded outside of politics in a real and substantial way.

If the 2012 race breaks down the way I think it will -- with the country facing economic conditions substantially worse than they were throughout 2008 -- then there is going to have to be an emphasis on results. (And no, not the "reformer with results" nonsense that emphasizes political achievements.) The "results" that will matter will include jobs created and financial crises solved. Republicans will have to cut through the fog of Obama's considerable rhetorical skills to emphasize the facts on the ground -- and how they'll change for the better with one of our own at the helm.

To make that argument most effectively, you need a track record. And who's got a better track record on these points than Mitt Romney?

Posted by David French at 12:57 PM on May 20, 2009 | Permalink

From the Daily News:

Now comes the real blockbuster election - one that will hinge just as much on complex demographic, technological and geographic factors as last year's epic presidential battle.

We are talking, of course, about "American Idol," the season finale of which will begin Tuesday night and end Wednesday night with the crowning of a new Idol.

Theories abound over who has the inside edge - the neo-glam, San Diego-bred Adam Lambert, 27, or the younger, more down-home Kris Allen, 23, of Conway, Ark.

Veteran political consultants say the 2008 presidential election is a useful prism through which to view this high-profile faceoff.

"The profiles of Adam and Kris suggest that this is really a red state versus blue state showdown," suggested Chris Lehane, a California-based political consultant who worked on the presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Read more here.

David and Charles, call it! Who do you want to win, who do you think will win?

NANCY: I want Chris to win (although I go back and forth). I predict Chris will win.

DAVID: By "Chris" do you mean Kris? I go back and forth as well. Their styles are so different, it's like comparing apples and oranges. However, when you download their best performances on iTunes (yes I have), Kris's hold up better to repeat listenings. So . . . Kris it is (and should be).

I'd rather see Adam in concert, however.

CHARLES?: Aw, come on, guys! You know how clueless I am about this...

NANCY ADDS: Sorry, "Kris." He seems like a great guy, and I'd listen to his music -- but he isn't as exciting, for sure. It this a bad sign?

Posted by Nancy French at 09:21 AM on May 20, 2009 | Permalink

Less than you might think.

Charity Navigator's Ken Berger was on FOX Business Channel regarding Presidential and Vice Presidential family charitable giving. His report was fascinating.

Watch it here.

Mr. Berger later elaborated in the comments section of his blog:

...the Obama family gives less than any Presidents family we have looked at going back to President Bush Sr.

In addition, Obama family giving to churches this past year (although the family's overall giving was at a record level percentage of income for them) was a hundred dollars or so here and there. Whereas his giving to human service agencies and others averaged $5,000 each.

The Obama family has had income in the top 1% of wage earners in the US for many years. Yet, their giving up until Barack became a Senator, was less than 1%. That is way below average (3%). I leave it to you to decide whether or not that is acceptable.

I agree that giving is a personal decision and each family has to make their own choices based on their circumstances. In addition, giving involves both time and treasure. The tax return does not tell the story of volunteering.

...Having said that, Barack Obama is a public figure and is expected to be a role model for others. He has stated that giving should be based on benevolence. Yet in that regard, the Obama's fit the pattern of conservatives vs. liberals. That is, conservatives tend to give more money to charity.

CORRECTION: I originally referred to the Vice President in the title as "Cheney." (Must've been wishful thinking!) Actually Vice President Cheney has given millions -- the largest sum of American public officials.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:36 AM on May 19, 2009 | Permalink

Charles, a fascinating post below. If it weren't sad it would almost be amusing to see the lengths people will go to (a) win races; and (b) copy strategies from other contests. Let me get this reasoning . . . because a man became pro-life 14 years ago as a result of one of the pro-life movements primary strategies (having folks actually hear their child's heartbeat and see the child in an ultrasound), he's somehow suspect. That kind of thinking turns the conservative movement into a tribal identity . . . you're either born into it or not legitimate -- almost as if it's better to speak the "language of Zion" as a "mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language."

Ahh well, one of the great things about the real world and real life is that self-defeating strategies are ultimately . . . defeated. One day we shall look back on the conservative era of "holding out for a hero." and just shake our heads. Until then, however, we'll continue to reject good men, lose elections, and feel mighty good about ourselves while doing it.

P.S. I'm back from my three weeks of service in Italy . . . what a beautiful place. As I worked at the foot of the Alps, I kept thinking back to where I was this time last year and feeling quite blessed.

Posted by David French at 05:38 PM on May 18, 2009 | Permalink

Some readers may know that this year, there are gubernatorial elections in Virginia (where I live) and New Jersey (which I know a little about since I'm from Philadelphia). Here in Virginia, a governor can only serve on term, so our incumbent, Tim Kaine -- who doubles as chairman of the Democratic National Committee -- must retire. The main political theatre is on that side of the aisle, where two legislators, Brian Moran (the brother of my unbelievably bad congressman, Jim Moran) and Criegh Deeds (from southern Virginia) are facing off against Clinton fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. There is only one Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, and he seems quite good.

In Jersey, they have a different situation. The current governor, Jon Corzine, is seeking another term amid awful poll numbers. And there is a battle royale on the Republican side, where the establishment choice, prosecutor Chris Christie, is facing a stiff challenge from Steve Lonegan -- the ex-mayor of Bogota and former head of Americans for Prosperity's New Jersey chapter. I saw Mayor Lonegan speak when he was still with AFP, and he is really something else. You won't find this on his website, but he happens to be legally blind. Notwithstanding that, he is a successful entrepreneur who started his own business against all odds. He was also elected mayor three times in a liberal city.

With that said, I support Lonegan 100 percent. But I was struck by a passage in a Washington Post article published on the race this weekend:

Christie describes himself as "a Republican who is unabashedly a common-sense conservative."

"I'm talking about cutting taxes," he said. "I'm pro-life. I'm against gay marriage."

But some think Christie is not conservative enough, or is at best a recent convert. They note that he has said he once favored abortion rights but changed his position in late 1995 after hearing his daughter's heartbeat in the womb. Christie supports a ban on what opponents call partial-birth abortions and a 24-hour waiting period for juveniles seeking abortions.

Lonegan would ban all abortions.

Look, as I said, I'm for Lonegan. (And I think it's a bit silly for the Post to raise an abortion ban when the governor of New Jersey has no power to do such a thing.) But did you notice the criticism levied here -- apparently by some conservatives -- about Christie's stance on abortion? Some are apparently impugning him because hearing his then-unborn daughter's heartbeat turned him around on the issue.

I'm sorry, but that is the kind of experience the pro-life movement should dearly want all people -- not just politicians -- to have. Frankly, when some conservatives similarly accused Gov. Romney of being untrustworthy because of having come around to the pro-life position late in life, I hoped it was a one-time thing. I also thought it came largely from how recent his conversion was (a decade after Christie's) and was really a camouflage for other objections to him. But here we see it again. What a terrible and counterproductive development.

Does anybody know more about this?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 07:14 AM on May 17, 2009 | Permalink

I think we have this all wrong. Go to this website and click Episode 5. That's the candidate we need!

(Okay, I'm kidding, but this is the most hilarious ad campaign I have ever seen.)

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:43 PM on May 16, 2009 | Permalink

... of the 2012 GOP race, after taking job in the Obama administration.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:14 AM on May 16, 2009 | Permalink

Interesting...

A new Rasmussen poll finds that 63% of Republican voters feel that the GOP has a clear leader. But they don't agree on who it is.

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee, is viewed as the party's leader by 18% of Republican voters surveyed, followed by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele with 14%. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, was third with 10%.

Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts governor and 2008 White House candidate, pulled 8%, followed by radio host Rush Limbaugh with 6% and former Vice President Dick Cheney with 4%.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:07 AM on May 16, 2009 | Permalink

You know it's bad when you're Nancy Pelosi and Jon Stewart turns on you.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:43 PM on May 13, 2009 | Permalink

Via the Corner, this from the HuffPo:

Michael Steele has made perhaps the most peculiar case yet against President Obama's criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee. It involves the questioning that Miss California received about her stance on gay marriage, and ends with a "slippery slope this nation is putting itself on."

Making a guest-host appearance on Bill Bennett's radio show on Friday, the RNC Chairman waded into the always-touchy area between pop culture and politics. But the analogy he drew was more tortured than illuminating. Hoping to argue against selecting judges based on their empathy (a quality favored by Obama), Steele firmly placed himself in tabloid terrain.

"What was so outstanding about Miss California, let's do a little parallel... This is what an empathetic judge looks like," Steele said of celeb-blogger Perez Hilton. "The empathetic judge in this case, the judge of the beauty pageant, asked this woman a question and instead of taking her answer at face value, he was empathetic to a particular community and he thought her answer should be favorably disposed towards that particular community. And as a consequence she answered a different way. She answered honestly. She answered based on the facts of her situation, the facts of her upbringing, the facts of this country, which by and large sides with her."

"To even get off on this tangent of asking her a socially controversial question and then getting ticked off because you don't like her answer. Then what the heck did you ask the question for? Just because she is Miss California you presume she is going to have a left-of-center answer on gay marriage? Come on. This is the slippery slope this nation is putting itself on and I'm telling you folks to stop it. Don't go there."

For an RNC Chairman to reference the top cultural controversy of the day, let alone use Perez Hilton as leverage for a partisan attack, is certainly reflective of a new approach to messaging from the GOP.

I don't think much good came from Steele's guest-hosting for Bill Bennett. As Kathryn Lopez wrote:

I follow this just enough to know that Michael Steele really does need to decide if he is RNC head or talking head.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:35 AM on May 12, 2009 | Permalink

Nancy, two things:

1. I just want to say (as a red-blooded Romney fan) that I love Michael Steele and was so encouraged when he was elected chairman of the GOP. Which only makes me even sadder that the guy just can't seem to keep his foot out of his mouth these days. I, too, would struggle to be a partisan rather than a pundit...but come on, man. It's your job and you asked for it.

2. You asked about "economic flip-flops." I don't think there are any real ones in Gov. Romney's record (you know, like opposing tax cuts and then favoring them for political reasons) but some did criticize him, and still do in fact, for supposedly being inconsistent on issues like health care and the auto industry bailout. I think they're wrong, but the accusations are out there, and I suspect they're what Chairman Steele was referring to.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:19 PM on May 11, 2009 | Permalink

Speaking of the the GOP Chairman's inaccurate remarks at Gov. Romney, his people made a great point... The "base" had several chances to to show whom they supported: Gov. Romney won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll three years in a row and even won the Family Research Council's straw pre-election poll (even though most attendees of the latter were evangelical Christians. Trust me -- I was there and David spoke at the conference.) It's pretty clear Steele doesn't know what kind of party he's leading or where he's trying to take us.

With friends like these...

Posted by Nancy French at 09:48 PM on May 11, 2009 | Permalink

While guest-hosting Bill Bennett’s radio show last week, GOP Chairman Michael Steele received a caller who thought Romney could have beat Obama if certain factors had ended up right. (Hat tip to Think Progress)

Steele insisted, however, that Romney couldn’t have won because the GOP based “rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism”:

Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I'm there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you're saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn't, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.

Listen to the entire thing here:

Now, I've just listened to the above and I think Steele should realize two things:

1. He's no longer a pundit, but a chairman... a leader. Jay Cost (who insists he wasn't the "Jay" who called Steele) writes:

But first, let's be clear. On the merits, I think that Michael Steele has some valid points here. I discussed both issues at length when I was blogging on the Republican nomination campaign last year. However, none of these comments should be coming from the Chairman of the Republican National Committee. On the issue of flip-flopping - all signs point to Mitt Romney having an interest in a future presidential candidacy. He might very well succeed where he failed last cycle, becoming the 2012 Republican nominee. That would make these comments quite unfortunate. One could imagine the DNC working this into a general election campaign ad. The kicker is pretty obvious: "Mitt Romney's own boss doesn't think he's honest. Why should you?" Think Progress headlined its clip of Steele as this: "Steele Calls GOP Base Bigoted, Says They 'Rejected' Romney Because They Have 'Issues With Mormonism.'" Republicans should hope that the mainstream press does not run with Steele's comments, as it will only forward the "GOP is shrinking and narrow" meme, which he has actually helped along in the past.

2. When I grew up in Kentucky, we learned about our state flag's motto: United We Stand, Divided We Fall. Apparently, the origin for the idea of the power of unity can be traced all the way back to the one of the fables of Aesop, in which he shows sticks one by one are broken easily, but impossible to break when tied in a bundle. Then, there's this, with a little more authority than Aesop. The moral being, "unity gives strength." Steele, as Cost wrote, "has no business talking about a tension that exists within his party, unless the goal is to minimize it." Even more importantly, Steele's off-the-cuff comments seem to betray a lack of understanding of the "GOP base." The "base" didn't elect John McCain. The base, as you remember, was divided among three people: Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Mitt Romney. This left the minority of the liberal GOPers with an inordinate amount of power in the election process. (Not to mention the weird fact that some states have open primaries, allowing actual Democrats to vote on our candidates.)

Although I like Steele, he hasn't been very impressive so far in his role of the GOP chair. Let's hope he begins to understand the dynamics of the last election, the power of his rhetoric, and the character of the kind of folks he's trying to lead.

UPDATE: I just got this e-mail from David (not my David, who is still in Italy!)

He said Mitt was flip-flopping on economic issues!!?? That is truly bizarre.

"...because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you're talking about…."

I followed Mitt's campaign very carefully. I've racked my memory and come up with no possible thing that Steele could be thinking of. This guy is a joke. He needs to step down now.

I was just iChatting with my David, and we couldn't come up with any economic flip flops. Charles?

Posted by Nancy French at 09:26 AM on May 11, 2009 | Permalink

David's friend from law school just won the Amazing Race!

Posted by Nancy French at 10:38 PM on May 10, 2009 | Permalink

Seth Leibsohn and Kathryn Jean Lopez have a wonderful article about Miss California, her honest defiance of Perez Hilton's expectations of her views on gay "marriage," and the subsequent revelation that she posed topless for lingerie ads.

We both worried when Miss California showed up at a press conference for our friends at the National Organization for Marriage (NOM). It was hard to believe the gay-marriage proponents would let this brave young woman get away with her free exercise of free speech without some serious retribution. Already, as a NOM commercial on the Prejean incident was released, a story about her implants was leaked. And, of course, that was only the beginning of the character assassination to come.

Watch carefully. This is what happens when people take a position against gay marriage — a view that the majority of the population supports, according to a new CNN poll.

Read their ideas here.

This, however, is a very good point that no one is making and what I wanted to show you:

Bristol Palin, a young mother now, knows about choices that stay with you. This week, it was announced that she will be a teen-pregnancy prevention “ambassador.” She already is one, and she really doesn’t need this added responsibility. She’s working for the Candie’s Foundation, which has, as the first bullet point in its mission statement, the following: “Be Sexy: It Doesn’t Mean You Have to Have Sex.” This, of course, is not the right message. With hormones running wild, teens do not need to be encouraged to be sexy, with or without abstinence. This is not helpful — probably especially for young Bristol.

Bristol Palin does not need to be an advocate of anything. She’s a girl who has made mistakes that have been that much harder because she was hoisted into the public square as the consequences of those mistakes could not be hidden. She has enough adult responsibilities now. Among them should be taking care of her child, finishing high school, and staying away from the cameras where she says things like abstinence is “not realistic.” Let the girl live in peace and not be a poster girl for anything.

It’s a mean, naked public square, especially when your life is exposed — or you are, literally, as in the case of Carrie Prejean. Instead of casting Carrie and Bristol in the hot, grueling lights of public scrutiny, how about taking a step back and dialing back the sexy? How about bringing the adults to the forefront?

Posted by Nancy French at 10:11 AM on May 07, 2009 | Permalink

Nancy, I totally agree with your take on that AP piece. I had the same reaction when I read it. It's pretty clear to me that was not a Romney jab; it was a Romney not-so-funny joke. And speaking as a fellow geek who is prone to unfunnies -- give the man a break!

Incidentally, who couldn't be a fan of Gov. Palin after reading this piece in the Washington Examiner? Obviously I think there is a better choice out there, but I like Gov. Palin and find the recent storylines about her and Gov. Romney (also found in Politico) to be ridiculous.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:29 AM on May 06, 2009 | Permalink

David alerted me to this article in Newsweek, which he spotted before me... even though he's in Italy:

I hear loud and clear from people in my state, and from across the country, what they want to see in health care. They want it to cost less, have the highest quality and see that it extends to all Americans—even when they lose their job or when they're sick. Republicans agree. So do Democrats. Where we disagree is how to get the job done.

Our divide is fundamental: Republicans believe health care can be best guided by consumers, physicians and markets; Democrats believe government would do better. Some Democrats would have government buy health care for us; set the rates for doctors, hospitals and medicines; and decide what medical treatment we would be entitled to receive for each illness. If you liked the HMOs of the '80s, you'd love government-run health care.

Democrats have been winning. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Medicaid bill, he estimated it would cost $500 million. Today, it costs $500 billion. Politicians have expanded government coverage to more and more people. They propose that we adopt European-style, government-financed health care. But, in some respects, they've already gotten us there: the government now spends more per citizen on health care than do the governments of France, Germany, the United Kingdom or Sweden.
Click here to find out more!

But government can't match consumers and markets when it comes to lowering cost, improving quality and boosting productivity. Compare the U.S. Postal Service with UPS and Federal Express. Stack North Korea against South Korea.

The right answer for health care is to apply more market force, not less.

Click here to read how.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:40 PM on May 05, 2009 | Permalink

The Associated Press must be a sour place to work. This article cites Gov. Romney's quote as being controversial and a slam on Sarah Palin:

On CNN on Sunday, Romney was asked about Time magazine including only two high-profile Republicans - Palin and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh - on its list of "The World's Most Influential People."

"I think there are a lot more influential Republicans than that would suggest," Romney said.

"But was that the issue on the most beautiful people, or the most influential people?" he continued. "I'm not sure. If it's the most beautiful, I understand. We're not real cute."

Am I missing something here? I think any fair minded person would understand that Gov. Romney was suggesting that Palin and Limbaugh are a subset of the "influential members of the GOP," and added a little self-deprecation for fun. Give me a break!

Posted by Nancy French at 10:20 PM on May 05, 2009 | Permalink

So I was at Zion Presbyterian Church a couple of weeks ago, and our fifth graders stood before the church to recite their catechisms.

"What is the chief end of man?" the teacher asked.

The group collectively responded, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him for ever."

"What is God?" the teacher went on.

"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. "

Although I was duly impressed with their memorization, my mind wandered a bit. Then, the question, "Which is the second commandment?"

The kids responded, "The Second Commandment is, 'thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..."

Do you know what I was thinking during this? "No, no, no...! It's about protecting the right to keep and bear arms!"

Posted by Nancy French at 09:40 AM on May 01, 2009 | Permalink

David had some good thoughts on the recent brouhaha at Georgetown when President Obama asked them to cover the monogram of Christ's name during a speaking event. He sent a letter to the President of the university:

Georgetown’s Catholic and Jesuit identity makes it unique. As its mission statement notes, Georgetown was “founded on the principle that serious and sustained discourse among people of different faiths, cultures, and beliefs promotes . . . understanding.” And it “provides excellent . . . education in the Jesuit tradition for the glory of God.” Indeed, its founder, John Carroll, the Jesuit priest who became America’s first Catholic bishop, envisioned “a national University rooted in the Catholic faith and Jesuit tradition, committed to spiritual inquiry, engaged in the public sphere, and invigorated by religious and cultural pluralism.”

With this special identity comes special responsibility. As you noted in your inaugural address, Jesuit Father Erich Przywara once observed that Jesuit universities must “interpret the Church to the world and the world to the Church.” In saying this, he echoed Christ’s c