You may want to sit down. K-Lo believes McCain is considering Huckabee as Vice President:

I'm certain this is the case, that he's getting a second look, and, if McCain picks him, there will be a clear, renewed declaration of independence among many conservatives from the Republican party, especially inasmuch as it is the McCain/Huckabee party. If Mike Huckabee is veep, don't expect him to be president four years down the line. A McCain/Huckabee administration would be a real eye-opener for the Right. Even moreso, I think, than four years of Barack Obama.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:35 AM on August 26, 2008 | Permalink

Jonathan Adler has an interesting comment on the issue of Huckabee as Vice President.

Not that I'm representative of any big constituency or anything (libertarian-leaning law profs in swing states?), but if McCain were to select Huckabee as his running mate he would lose my vote for sure. I'm luke-warm on McCain to begin with, but I care enough about judges, trade, judges, spending, and judges that I'm still likely to pull the lever for him come November. But not if he were to tap the Huckster.

I concur with Adler's distaste for Huckabee, especially since he's out there spreading lies and attacking Gov. Romney to this day.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:16 AM on August 26, 2008 | Permalink

Wow -- I thought she did a wonderful job tonight. What do y'all think?

I kept thinking what a good job Ann Romney's would've done at the RNC...

Posted by Nancy French at 11:20 PM on August 25, 2008 | Permalink

Via the Campaign Spot:

JAY LENO: Barack Obama named Joe Biden as his running mate. What is your relationship with him? All of asudden, it seems — because you guys used to be friends. Of all of a sudden, it's gotten so nasty in the last day or two. What —

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: My, how he's changed.

(Laughter.)

Joe, we hardly — I guess it's part of politics. I've always been good friends with Joe. He has a lovely wife, Jill. And Cindy and I and Joe and Jill have been friends. And I guess we'll — it's only 72 days, I think. Who's counting?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You'll win!

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

JAY LENO: Wasn't he the one that suggested you run as Vice President with John Kerry?

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Yes. And said that I could run on either party and be great for America. I will keep reminding him of that.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:46 PM on August 25, 2008 | Permalink

Dan Gilgoff has an interesting interview with Ralph Reed here.

Posted by Nancy French at 06:55 PM on August 21, 2008 | Permalink

This here is funny, I don't care who ya are.

Posted by Nancy French at 06:40 PM on August 21, 2008 | Permalink

Well, after much speculation, trial balloons, and downright guessing, the time is actually approaching when we'll know who the Vice Presidential candidates will actually be.

Apparently, Obama will announce his choice tomorrow and McCain will announce his on August 29th -- his birthday.

Perhaps between now and then, we should add the VP selection to our prayer requests. I should go on record to say that McCain could do worse than this guy, although I prefer this one.

UPDATE: Thanks, Bradford for the correction on the date. The above is correct now!

Posted by Nancy French at 11:41 AM on August 19, 2008 | Permalink

I didn't see the event tonight at Saddleback church, sadly, because I forgot to DVR it. However, Rich over at NRO thought that both candidates did a great job:

But the starkest contrast came as soon as McCain started his half of the forum. Asked the three people he would listen to as president, McCain said right off the bat Gen. Petraeus (Obama had led with his wife and grandmother). It was an immediate signal that this is a man who is concerned first and foremost with matters of war and peace—just as you expect from someone who wants to be president of the United States. Asked when he had bucked his party at risk to his self-interest, McCain rolled off his greatest hits, and went all the back to differing with Reagan on Lebanon (a reminder of how long he has been immersed in national-security issues). It made Obama's answer about promoting an ethics law with McCain seem incredibly weak in comparison. Then, McCain's answer about the toughest decision he had ever made—refusing early release in Vietnam—was riveting and moving.

In the first fifteen minutes, McCain had established a moral seriousness stemming from his conduct in Vietnam as a POW and his long-time as a national leader that Obama can't match. Throughout the rest of the night, he brought up Iraq, al Qaeda, and the Georgia crisis, when Obama was more inward-looking. McCain sounded like a potential commander-in-chief, Obama more like a potential friend. This is not to say, again, that Obama was not impressive. But the skills he showed tonight—the thoughtfulness and verbal dexterity—were those of a very talented memoirist, which, of course, he is.

As for the social issues, tonight should throw a damper on the notion that Obama is going to make major inroads among evangelicals voters. Why would they vote for his social liberalism couched in exquisite equivocations, when they can vote for someone who agrees with them on most everything like John McCain?

Read it all here.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:29 AM on August 17, 2008 | Permalink

Well, it's been quite some time since I spoke about Mike Huckabee in this space, but he's bound and determined to speak for all evangelicals by saying we don't want McCain to select Gov. Romney for the Veep slot.

Of course, Mike Huckabee has reason for holding this position -- namely because he's trying out for the job himself. But most evangelicals I know regret the turn of events that brought us to McCain as the GOP nominee. They look at Romney with renewed and repentant eyes. (They look at Huckabee as the IQ test they failed.)

"If only," they say, "we knew then what we know now."

Well, let's hope Sen. McCain can give us another chance.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:11 AM on August 17, 2008 | Permalink

From the SixSeeds blog! Hop over there and leave us a comment or two.

Because we're trying to raise kids who know the value of money, my husband and I pay our children “commission” to make their beds, wash their plates, and sort the spoons from the forks. Every Saturday night, we gather at the kitchen table for "payday" and drop coins earned from daily chores into different jars labeled "Give," "Save," and "Spend." The first ten percent goes into the Give jar, which is emptied onto the collection plate at church on Sunday mornings. The Save jar is placed back on the windowsill for the day they can afford the items they’ve picked out to buy. (My daughter wants a friend for her American Girl doll, and my son wants to buy a $75 ride in a NASCAR on the Nashville Motor Speedway.) But the glorious Spend jar is filled with most of what they’ve earned over the past several weeks as they try to figure out how to spend money wisely.

It’s not easy.

All of their little lives, I’ve bought them things they didn’t need spontaneously at the store. When their birthdays arrive, I always have to think hard to figure out something they actually want or need.

Well, the times, they are a’changing. Now that they have their own money, they must buy their own items. (Other than the necessities.) On the airplane the other day, the Delta stewardess had free snacks and snacks you could buy. I wasn’t sitting with my daughter, but I heard her ask the stewardess the price of the M&Ms.

“$3?” she asked. I could tell she was shocked. It takes a lot of sock sorting to get that kind of cash. She settled for the free snack, and never mentioned it to me.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:07 AM on August 17, 2008 | Permalink

Hello, EFM fans. I know many of you think we've dropped off the face of the earth, and you'd be very wrong. Charles and I are working on a very cool new project that we simply aren't ready to unveil yet.

However, if you are absolutely having blog-withdrawals, I've started working for the cool organization that brought us Operation Send-a-Box, called SixSeeds. We're really just a group of parents trying to raise good kids in an ever-increasingly materialistic and challenging world. Please read my first entry and also the entries of my friends Jean and Curtis on the homepage. It'd be very encouraging to hear from you -- to see if you share the same struggles. My first post begins:

“May I help you?” the congenial salesperson greeted us. I took a deep breath, imbibing the Macintosh vibe, checking out the crisp white décor, and the latest in hip technology. “Honestly, I’m just happy to be here.”

Although I own an iBook, an iPhone, an iMac, and a titanium MacBook Pro, I instantly scanned the merchandise before making an appointment at the “genius bar” to fix my 8GB iPhone. The “genius bar” is literally a bar, but no drinks. The bartenders are dubbed geniuses because they’re supposed to fix whatever technological problem you have.

I happened to be there with Jean Kingston – and we were on our way to discuss this blog – this very blog – which purports to raise kids who are not slaves to consumerism.

I played it cool. After all, I am the one who was supposed to have a handle on these things.

But, after I consulted with a “genius” about my poorly performing iPhone, he said I might just need a new phone.

Jean hit me in the side. “A new one?!”

Jean laughed at being helped by someone called “genius.” Once she walked into the store with a litany of problems, and the guy looked at her with much concern and regret.

“I’m sorry ma’am. I’m not a genius,” he said. “I wish I were, but I’m not.”

Please keep reading here -- it's new so we don't even have our blog name up there yet. Doesn't it feel good to be the first to know about something cool?

Thanks, Guys.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:30 AM on August 11, 2008 | Permalink

Today, celebrating the Fourth of July here:

Diyala Province, Iraq — Modern technology is an amazing thing. Shortly after my arrival at Forward Operating Base Caldwell in eastern Diyala Province, my fellow staff officers and I were able to purchase a satellite dish from a departing unit, manhandle it up to the roof of our building, point it in the general direction of a commercial satellite, and — voila! — we’re surfing the net. In our precious spare time, we chat with our families, download the occasional song from iTunes, and even play an online game or two. As for me, well, I read the news.

Perhaps my perspective is overly colored by my current circumstances, but I can’t recall a time when there was more outrage over — and reverence for — mere words. Mini-scandals seem to erupt daily over this or that “offensive” comment. Words seem to mean everything — even when defining patriotism. Whether it’s declaring dissent the “highest form” of patriotism, defining true patriotism as “speaking out” on issues, or even debating the meaning and definition of patriotism based largely on political positions and public pronouncements, it seems that words and symbols have captured the field.

That’s not to say that words and symbols don’t matter. Of course they do. I have dedicated my civilian career to defending religious liberty and freedom of speech, our first freedoms. But words matter largely because they tend to persuade people to take (or not take) certain actions. Words are important, but it is in the actions we take that we see the true character and heart of an individual.

I have now been mobilized with the 2d Squadron, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment (LTC Paul T. Calvert, commanding) for more than eight months (251.5 days for those keeping score at home, and my wife and kids quite literally are), and I do not recall a single discussion or debate about patriotism. And it’s not like we don’t talk . . . a lot. We’ve had late night debates and even screaming arguments over politics, religion, the war, economics, and the best Will Ferrell comedy (it’s “Talladega Nights,” by the way, and if you disagree with me, please realize that I’m armed).

But we never really talk about patriotism. There’s no need for words, really. Over here, it’s the deeds that matter.

Read the rest here.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:48 AM on July 04, 2008 | Permalink

A good "friend" to have, Mr. President. Somebody tell Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:09 PM on July 03, 2008 | Permalink

Conversely, Chris Cillizza explains today why Mitt Romney will not be the nominee:

1. McCain can't stand Romney, in spite of the warm fuzzies they've expressed for each other since the primary ended.

2. He's a ... wait for it... you'll never guess this ... a Mormon.

3. He might overshadow McCain on the ticket.

4. Inaccurate and unfair accusations against Bain Capital might arise.

5. He might have an eye to 2012 and might not want to do what needs to be done in 2008 to win.

Well, I think yesterday's article was much more convincing, but there ya have it. The article is found here.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:21 AM on July 03, 2008 | Permalink

Don't you think, pertaining to your glass half-empty lament, that this VP pick is one of the most important and influential thing McCain could do to get started at least on the right foot?

I, for one, am not getting on his bandwagon until I know who's number two.

(And please, concerned readers, don't write me e-mails about how awful the alternative is -- I'm still not there... hands over ears... Lalalalalalalala... not listening.... can't hear you.)

CHARLES responds: Yes, Nancy, I certainly think Sen. McCain's choice of a running-mate is terribly important and a good way to win over recalcitrant voters. But I still hope he picks a good person who is not named Mitt Romney.

First, as I mentioned, I have little confidence that whoever is elected in November will be part of a tremendous record of success. I feel much as if we are in 1976 -- our choices being a not-so-hot Republican and an utterly irresponsible Democrat. In either case, I would rather that Gov. Romney stay away from being tarred with the next administration's failures (much as Pres. Reagan stayed away after his primary challenge to Pres. Ford, after which there was similar vice-presidential talk).

Second, quite frankly, I am less than convinced that Sen. McCain's choice of Gov. Romney will in fact reassure the conservative base as is rumored. If the conservative base really loves Gov. Romney so much, how come he isn't the nominee? There's this idea in the media these days that he's the base's guy, and I don't question that that's true with a certain part of the base -- but I don't think he's widely popular or totally trusted. That's why he had the problems he did in the primary. I think they will arise again if he is selected as the vice-presidential nominee -- and it's also not clear to me that serving as Sen. McCain's #2 will ease his troubles with certain elements of the base, either. If anything, being associated with what are sure to be a number of leftist policy proposals of a McCain administration will bog him down further.

How's that glass for ya?

Posted by Nancy French at 11:36 PM on July 01, 2008 | Permalink

I think so, friends...I think so.

(You'll forgive me -- I am a partisan of Wawa.)

NANCY adds: Charles, Wawa! I love it. I used to walk to the Philly Wawa near our house every night when David was working late at our place on 9th and Chestnut to get ice cream. They sell an ice cream I've not seen anywhere else, at least not in the South. It was chocolate ice cream with chocolate chunks, with a thick layer of Dove dark chocolate on the top of it! So around eleven o'clock, I'd traipse down the hall, get into the elevator, and walk through the large cavernous lobby past Ed -- the doorman at the Benjamin Franklin House. (Seriously, check out that lobby!)

Every night, he'd say, "You taking an ice cream run?"

"Yep."

So he'd take his break, grab his cigarettes, and walk me the two or three blocks to the Wawa so I wouldn't be the next statistic on the news the next day. There were a few pretty high profile murders around our building during the years we were there. One right in front of our entrance.

A few months after we moved, I got word he hadn't come into work for a few successive days. When they finally went to check on him, they discovered he'd passed away in his apartment.

All this to say, every time I hear of a Wawa, I think of chocolate ice cream and cigarettes and the wonderful go-the-extra yard doorman and friend we had in Ed Collins.

UPDATE: Here's a photo of Mr. Ed with Camille. Every day when we walked home from school the kids ran to him and gave him a bear hug, this enormous man with tattooed hands.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 07:32 PM on July 01, 2008 | Permalink

At the exact moment I touched the door knob a large crack split the air and my stomach dropped to the patio. I'd taken the dog out for a before-bed ball throwing until it'd gotten too dark for either of us to find the ball. Just as I was wondering if the kids had, indeed, brushed their teeth, the loud bang stopped me cold.

The dog jumped and I bolted into the door, where no one stood. Austin ran into the room, and asked "What's wrong?"

"Did you hear that?"

"What?"

"Nothing."

"Whaaat?"

"Nothing."

He eyed me suspiciously. We'd been reading books every night before bed, and it left us all a little jittery. Is that really a bird, or part of the raven king's army trying to take over the neighborhood? Does that loud bang have an explanation, or do I need to look for our ammunition?

Of course, late June and early July in Tennessee is a wondrous place, especially on a cool summer night like this one. Large, striped firework tents pop up on every street corner, advertising things like "red neck rockets" and "screaming eagles."

You can't drive down the road at night without the night sky being lit up on both sides of the street, so perhaps I shouldn't have been shocked at tonight's blast for two houses down. Maybe three. The yards are so big that when the kids heard the successive loud noises they ran out of their bedrooms and out the door. Austin forgot his pants.

Yet another good thing about rural Tennessee -- no street lights.

The kids laid on their backs on the warm cement, looking at the stars with intermittent fireworks that would've been the highlight of the county productions when I was a kid. Enormous blasts, echoing through the night air. I could imagine which neighbors were annoyed and which were sitting out in the dark on their porches anxiously awaiting the next one. The kids listened to each others' stomach gurgle between the fireworks. They covered the dog's ears. They found the big dipper.

You couldn't quite see the neighbors, but -- if you listened -- you could hear whoops and hollers of approval wafting down the road.

When I forced them back to bed, Austin said, "If anyone ever comes to stay at our house because they're going somewhere that's too far to get to in a day and they need to spend the night...?"

"Yes?"

"I want to wear pants to bed."

Posted by Nancy French at 10:56 PM on June 30, 2008 | Permalink

Ugh.

NANCY asks: Charles, could you be more specific? I half-expected to click on that link and see a photo of Huckabee or something. Is that a "frustrated" ugh or a "I can't stand to draw this out anymore" ugh?

CHARLES replies: Frustrated, dear sister. Frankly, I don't want Gov. Romney anywhere near the train wreck that the next four years seems sure to be -- no matter who wins. There's your daily dose of optimism!

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:00 PM on June 30, 2008 | Permalink

Is that what Christian men are doing with abortion? Tony Woodlief asks a pretty serious question related to an abortionist who is a big supporter of Kansas governor and vice-presidential possibility Kathleen Sebelius.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 10:38 PM on June 29, 2008 | Permalink

This story, it seems to me, illuminates the main issue facing young evangelicals. It's about recent developments in the Anglican Communion, which is beset by a conflict over whether Scripture means what it says. Most media accounts present it as being about homosexuality -- Drudge's headline for the story is "Anglican clergy creates anti-gay alliance..." -- but that isn't so. While the ordination of a gay bishop in the Episcopal Church was definitely a spark plug, there are more issues at stake -- whether Jesus is the only way to heaven comes to mind.

Of course, not all young evangelicals in the US are tied up with the Anglican Communion, so why is this so important? Look to the end:

There was no immediate response Sunday from the archbishop of Canterbury, the Episcopal Church in the United States or the Anglican Church of Canada. Some liberal American bloggers sought to play down the conservatives' actions, dismissing them as an attempt to hijack the Communion when, in their view, there are much more important issues for the church to confront, like poverty, AIDS and global warming.

Those three words -- "much more important" -- speak volumes.

What I mean is this: Nobody denies that these issues are important. Very important, in fact. And they are especially so to young evangelicals, as volumes of poll data show.

But are they the most important? Are they more important than tossing the Bible out the window as an authoritative document -- what we see in the church context here? Are they more important than the slaughter of millions of innocent babies, or the sexual sins whose ubiquitousness has played a huge role in the persistence of poverty in a number of populations -- the issues we see at play in the larger culture?

That is the dividing line. Are they not important, important, or the most important? Too often, conservatives are seen as thinking they're not important -- and the left errs in thinking they are the only thing that matters, God's law being just a distraction.

If conservative evangelicals are not going to lose the next generation -- which looks askance at us in unparalleled numbers -- we can't ignore issues like poverty, AIDS, and global warming. But we can't address them by forgetting about everything else. What's more, we can't make a cogent cultural case on family issues if we don't talk about poverty and AIDS -- because there's no better way to fight them than strong families.

We can't fall into the trap of being uncaring -- or even seeming uncaring, if we truly are not -- about these issues. But we also can't give heed to the lie that the topics conservative evangelicals have been talking about for three decades don't really matter -- as the quote above would suggest. And if we're really going to win, we'll marry the two "sets" of issues, because they really ought to be mutually reinforcing.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:55 PM on June 29, 2008 | Permalink

This weekend in the Washington Post, Peter Wehner, an evangelical and former aide to President Bush, criticizes James Dobson's recent statements regarding Sen. Obama. Here's what he says about Obama's discussion of Leviticus and so forth:

[A]s I understand him, Obama was pointing out why the words of Scripture do not provide a ready policy blueprint for modern American society. Indeed, many of us have grappled with how to arrive at a theologically informed and fair-minded reading of the Bible that takes its moral principles seriously without simplistically applying to our time the cultural norms of previous eras. The chief defect of Obama's speech was that he didn't provide more insight into how to navigate these theological waters.

It seems to me that Wehner is giving the Senator entirely too much credit here. While it surely requires a great deal of thoughtfulness to apply biblical principles to today's problems, that doesn't forgive Obama for his flippant comments about shellfish -- which defy even the most cursory application of Christian principles. Surely a man who has been attending a Christian church for decades knows of Jesus' words regarding Old Testament laws like these. In fact, forget that -- an Ivy League graduate could Google the matter before giving a major address.

Wehner goes on to say this:

The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson's "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution" and "lowest common denominator of morality" comments was this: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Dobson paraphrased this as "unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in." But that's not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason -- which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn't mean one's faith shouldn't inform the question of abortion -- or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln's argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren't sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That's why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.

I don't necessarily disagree with this -- at least as I read Wehner, he's saying a biblical appeal could be one (and likely not the majority) appeal made in the context of a wider-ranging argument. That's what Pres. Lincoln did.

But I do think Wehner's piece is too harsh toward Dobson -- who in turn was too harsh in tone toward Obama. I gather I disagree with Obama's speech just as much as Dobson does, but name-calling along the lines of "fruitcake" is not going to make us any converts in the culture -- and I just don't think it speaks well of the Savior we serve.

Further, I must say that we, as Dr. Dobson's brothers and sisters in Christ, should be wary about being eager to jump up and slam him whenever we have the chance. The man has done a lot for the American family, even if some of his recent political pronouncements have not been the best. I'm not saying Wehner indulges in this overeagerness, but I will confess that I am vulnerable to it -- and it's clear to me from inspecting the world in which we live that there are lots of people, some of them conservative evangelicals, who very inappropriately get their jollies from thumping him.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 04:03 PM on June 29, 2008 | Permalink

Couple of interesting ones on this stuff about Sen. Obama, Dr. Dobson, and arguing about moral values. Here's Judy:

Mitt argued that traditional marriage is the ideal situation to rear a child. I heard Obama argue (I believe before the Illinois Senate) that it was necessary to allow an aborted infant, born alive, to die because saving the infant would turn abotion law on its head. Admitting that the aborted infant was a "person" with Constitutional rights would raise all kinds of legal issues re abortion. Sure, we should be prepared to argue our case, but some universal moral truths defy argument. Leaving a helpless infant to die is one of them even--if saving it would jeapardize a "woman's right to privacy."

I can barely type this without tearing up. Maybe it's because my 35-year-old son just had his first child yesterday. You know, my 35-year old son that was born in 1973.

I recall putting him to bed when he was about 8. His six-year-old brother was lying in the bed next to him. The 8-year-old asked me what abortion was. When I tried to explain it, I noticed the 6-year-old was lying on his back with tears rolling down his cheeks. "Why would someone kill their baby that Heavenly Father sent them?" he asked.

There are some things even a 6-year-old knows without a hearing a convincing argument. I'm sure the RNC or some 527 has the tape of Obama making these arguments. Very revealing of the man who would be our leader.

And John:

At some point in time it DOES come down to "Thus saith the Lord." I find it very entertaining to listen to some evangelicals trying to explain, for example, why marriage should be between a man and a woman. They talk about x thousands of years of history, and how it's better for the children based on this or that study, etc., but the bottom line, which they sometimes seem embarrassed or unwilling to venture, is simply because our Creator told us to arrange it like that.

At that point, the other team's argument becomes with God, and not with us. Who cares what we puny men and women believe, if God has already spoken to a particular issue clearly and plainly in His Word.

So I differ with Mr. Obama when he says that he cannot validate a policy against abortion by referencing Scripture, but must find other avenues to explain it to his diverse constituents. For moral issues where God has spoken, "Thus saith the Lord' is not just another argument, it is the best, and sometimes, the only argument!

Apologies to you both for posting so belatedly.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 03:59 PM on June 29, 2008 | Permalink

For those of you who watched Pixar’s amazing movie this weekend, did you notice the similarities to the film Idiocracy? Both are really good, but Idiocracy is not for kids.

It’s about a soldier of merely average intelligence who gets thrown into the future and suddenly becomes the smartest man alive. It’s a cautionary tale of what will happen if we continue on our current track of mindless consumerism, selfishness, and soft educational demands. To get a flavor of what this director fears a Doctor might be like in the future, watch this (language warning):

Anyway, you can see why you might not want to see this at church. However, Wall-E and Idiocracy might be good to see successively for discussion purposes. Anyone in Columbia, Tennessee up for it?

Update:
Oh yeah... when you watch Wall-E, try to note the Biblical allusions. Camille and I had an interesting conversation about Noah afterwards. Very interesting.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:30 PM on June 28, 2008 | Permalink

That's the very appropriate SAT word Heather Wilhelm over at RealClearPolitics uses to describe this vote by Senator Obama, described by William McGurn:

Mr. Obama is for using tax dollars to fund abortions, and against restrictions on partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, he voted against legislation protecting a child who was born alive despite an abortion.

It seems to me that Senator Obama's appeals to religious believers -- especially young evangelicals -- are premised on the idea that there are other issues that are important to us beyond abortion and marriage. That's true, and one reason young evangelicals are not as solidly in the Republican camp as our elders is that most GOP politicians miss this point.

But there's a huge difference between believing that there's more to public policy than two issues and believing that abortion is not a relevant issue. And given Senator Obama's extremist stand on the abortion issue, I don't see how anyone to whom a pro-life stance is even remotely important could support him. He's simply not even close to the center. You can't simply write him off on abortion, as if it's a wash that other issues can even out. His position is radical, and it is deeply offensive to God's law -- and I would even say, to common sense. I mean, killing children who are born alive?

It's worth noting, by the way, that while there is a clear generational divide on marriage issues -- and young evangelicals do want to hear something sensible about poverty, the environment, and other topics -- data have suggested that young evangelicals are just as pro-life as the Dobson generation.

None of this would bode terribly well for this adamantly pro-abortion candidate's outreach to us. But then again, at least he's trying -- which counts a lot for most people. (That's why there's hope for dunderheaded husbands like me!) Is his competitor? Well...

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:06 AM on June 25, 2008 | Permalink

Brad writes in with some interesting points:

Thanks for posting that quote! I think Obama made some really good points, I just don't think he meant them in the way I'd like to interpret them---and that is a bit concerning. His attempt to parse bible verses is a little manipulative--citing radical ideas in Leviticus, etc--but I like his discussion about reason.

If religious people are going to argue for moral truths, we have to learn to talk like liberals. Obama calls for reason and effective argument, even in the face of universal truth. Just because we know something is true doesn't mean that we are good at selling that idea to people who don't share same foundation principles.

This is one place where Mitt Romney excelled in Massachusetts. When everybody was discussing the moral implications of Gay Marriage, he started defending marriage using liberal language--namely citing the rights of children (thankfully not the Treaty on the Rights of the Child... which is a big waste of ink). He defended marriage as an institution reserved for one man and one woman because that is the ideal atmosphere for raising a child. And, there are thousands of pages of scholarly research suggesting that marriage truly does benefit children (while single parenthood or same-sex couples are equally less-effective in child rearing).

Mitt expressed his moral foundation in logical terms... and it drove liberals nuts. I wish California had such an intelligent Governor right about now.

Pluralism is one of the things that makes this country great. I love learning truths from Muslims, Buddhists and even sometimes from atheists or agnostics. That doesn't threaten my own faith. If anything, it should make us rethink how we argue universal truth in the face of those who do not believe and who will recoil at religious-sounding rhetoric.

Personally, I am not threatened by Obama's remarks. I am more threatened by his unstated goal. He seems to think that pluralism argues for a banishment of Christian thought from public discourse---that he is using Sharpton to marginalize Dobson and Leviticus to marginalize Christ. I would rather see a president embrace true diversity and take the time to listen to all of the above.

So, I don't see any problem basing my policy decision on what I know to be universal truth. I also have no problem arguing universal truth using whatever logic I have at my disposal--as long as the end result. After all, that may be one of the purposes of Christ's parable of the unjust judge (Luke 18:2-6).

Thanks again for the quote!

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:42 AM on June 25, 2008 | Permalink

Nancy, Fred Barnes is calling Bob Corker, your first-term U.S. Senator a "serious player on Capitol Hill, someone who draws attention for his ideas on policy, especially on the biggest policy issue of the day, energy." Whaddya think?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 04:25 AM on June 25, 2008 | Permalink

David has a new article on National Review Online with what seems like a Battlestar Galactica-inspired title:

There is a Plan, and It is Working

Diyala Province, Iraq — The news from here — even when accurately reported — so often obscures more than it reveals. By now we all know what a counterinsurgency is not: It is not a conflict that can be measured in ground taken, armies defeated, and generals surrendering. You can’t watch progress on a map, and the great moments are few and far between.

Instead, Americans at home are left with discrete reports of individual events and with endless reports about numbers, some of them depressing, some of them encouraging, but all of them isolated from context or narrative. 51 civilians killed in Baghdad market bombing. Eleven militants killed in raid on safe house. American casualties rise. American casualties fall. While trends do exist, those trends represent perhaps the driest, least compelling way of describing what is increasingly undeniable reality: we have a plan, and it is working.

In my corner of Iraq — eastern Diyala Province — my unit, 2d Squadron (“Sabre”), 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment doesn’t merely react to events — acting as a glorified whack-a-mole hammer desperately seeking to hit elusive insurgents as they pop up here, there, and everywhere — instead, led by LTC Paul T. Calvert, we act according to a cohesive, coherent pattern. We go into areas not merely to kill or capture insurgents but to actually replace insurgents with functioning Iraqi Security Forces and functioning Iraqi civilian governments. (We are fortunate to share our “battle space” with Iraqi officials and units who are courageous, aggressive, and making a real difference for their citizens.)

At the same time, we present the population with a constant, clear alternative: the legitimate Iraqi government and its coalition allies provide security, economic opportunity, and the chance at peace. Al-Qaeda offers nothing but death, poverty, and despair.

Read the rest here!

Posted by Nancy French at 11:33 AM on June 24, 2008 | Permalink

Dr. James Dobson is upset about these 2006 remarks by Senator Obama:

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

What do you think?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:54 AM on June 24, 2008 | Permalink

Nancy, very sorry to hear that you were totally flapped and caffeineless here in DC without me. By last count, over the last week and a half, we Mitchells have been in approximately half a dozen different cities -- Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Denver, Colorado; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Pawleys Island, South Carolina; and Cary, North Carolina -- none of them named Washington, unfortunately. I guess it's only fitting that while you were here looking for us, we were getting a tour of West Virginia, southern Virginia, and the Carolinas.

In case you were wondering -- or just in case I need to link this entry to a politician somehow -- during the course of one drive we did tool around on the Robert C. Byrd Appalachian Highway System and under one of what I am sure are many different structures named the Robert C. Byrd Bridge.

I must confess -- during the last couple of weeks, which comprised both business trips and a family vacation -- I did not at all miss reading about the presidential race in which we find ourselves. As I've mentioned before, I did vote for Senator McCain in the primary, after Governor Romney suspended his campaign...but I honestly have not decided whether I will vote for him in the fall. All I decided was that I would rather see him as the nominee than any of the remaining competitors.

Am I the only one who just isn't very excited about this?

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 08:52 PM on June 22, 2008 | Permalink

Okay, since Charles is apparently determined to ignore me and leave me without coffee for days, I skipped out of Washington DC and am now in God's country -- Dollywood. You can guarantee there's no anti-war demonstrations going on in Pigeon Forge, Tennessee. Haven't seen any Atheist protests either. (Plus, the menu at the pancake house had Scripture on it.)

In the meantime, you might enjoy Gov. Romney's remarks when he received the Becket Fund For Religious Liberty Award. Wow, he looks handsome in a tux.

And Part Two:

Thanks to Lance for the links.

Posted by Nancy French at 10:44 AM on June 20, 2008 | Permalink

I'm just sitting here in my hotel room, caffeine-less, looking out onto Dupont Circle.

But since Charles did stand me up, I got to meet my other friend here in DC for "coffee" which -- I learned -- is code for "ice cream."

Posted by Nancy French at 09:58 AM on June 17, 2008 | Permalink

My spontaneous business trip to Washington, DC has already been quite eventful. First of all, I got to Baltimore and reluctantly took the bus to the Amtrak station, unhappy at the ordeal of taking a bus to get to the train to get to the cab to get to the hotel. But on the way, I got hustled by a cabbie who needed some money because he had a bill due tomorrow. He took four of us via cab from Baltimore to DC for $20 a piece, and we were here in thirty minutes. (There were no $6 MARC trains today.)

So, I settled into my hotel on Dupont Circle and went for a stroll, where I found out that America is apparently no longer for the fundamentalists.

Then, strangely, the guy beside me at dinner looked just like Jack Nicholson. I mean JUST like the guy. People kept coming up to him and asking for his autograph, but he'd politely explain, time after time, that he was Jack Nicholson's body double in movies.

Of course, I tried to take a photo of him to pretend I sat next to Jack Nicholson... but it was hard to get a photo of him while pretending to check my e-mail. It came out blurry, which is really the only way you would've thought it was Jack Nicholson. I'll post here for your enjoyment.

I'm sure there is more excitement here in DC that awaits. Stay tuned.

So, Charles, I'm in your neck of the woods this week -- wanna grab coffee?

Posted by Nancy French at 10:36 PM on June 15, 2008 | Permalink

From a campaign stop in Massachusetts:

During his introduction, Romney was more sharp, saying Obama "is not ready for the leadership of our country at such a critical time."

The former governor also led a chorus of mutual praise between the two rivals, who clashed sharply during the Michigan primary — which Romney won — and in a rematch in Florida — which provided a decisive win for McCain.

Romney, a potential running mate, described his recent weekend visit to McCain's Sedona, Ariz., ranch along with Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. He said the senator was a master griller who also identified 57 different types of birds on the ranch.

"This is a wonderful man who I've come to know on a personal basis, and I commend him to you as a wonderful father and friend. He's also what America needs right now," Romney said.

McCain also labeled Romney "a wonderful family man" and said of his wife, "We have all grown to love Ann Romney."

The senator added: "We ran a tough campaign. We ran an honorable campaign. And I am honored, deeply honored, by his friendship and support."

On Thursday, McCain was returning to New Hampshire, where he bested Romney in the nation's first presidential primary, for a townhall meeting in Nashua.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:57 AM on June 13, 2008 | Permalink

Nancy, I must confess -- I barely know who Hannah Montana is, but Charissa heard about that little incident on the set. We were glad to learn from the story that it was minor -- and we're even happier to hear straight from you that it wasn't a problem.

As ignorant of pop culture as I am, though, I do know who Rosie O'Donnell is -- and a statement she just made ties perfectly into a point that's really worth making about marriage. Ms. O'Donnell was telling a reporter that she isn't going to take advantage of California's newly-legalized gay marriage until such unions are recognized across the country. Here was her reasoning:

The same way it was illegal for black and white people to marry at one point and people couldn't conceive of that ever being different, I do think that two consenting, law-abiding adults who want to share their life together should be allowed to do that.

That's probably convincing logic to most young people today. We're inclined toward a live-and-let-live mindset, and we sure don't want to be discriminatory. And as I've already mentioned, this line of reasoning was pretty compelling to me, personally, for some time.

However, it totally misses the point.

If you actually take a moment and parse Ms. O'Donnell's words, you'll realize something: Two consenting, law-abiding adults who want to share their life together are allowed to do that. Nobody is stopping her and Ms. Carpenter from living together, sharing a bed, calling each other honey, pooling their shopping lists, or doing whatever else they want to do.

No, those things aren't what she's after. She's after the moniker of "marriage." That's why this debate is over gay marriage, not gay cohabitation or gay partnership. But even there, this protestation still misses the point.

Why? Because Ms. O'Donnell is perfectly free to get married. If she can find a minister willing to call two females a married couple -- which, come on, she lives in California -- she and Ms. Carpenter can have a ceremony, a white dress, some rings, and the whole deal. They can show their commitment to each other and the entire world. They can live happily ever after.

Think about it. This debate is not over "legalizing" gay marriage. It's already legal for two gay people to get married and consider themselves life partners. You just have to find a minister, and in today's world, that's not hard to do.

Now, I know what you're thinking: In most states, if two gay people did what I just described, the state wouldn't recognize it as a marriage. You're right. That's the entire point.

This debate isn't about who can show their commitment to whom. Anybody can do that and nobody can stop you. It's not even about who can marry whom. All you need for that is a receptive minister. It's about getting certain unions accepted by others -- through the state -- as "marriage."

I'm as much a fan as anybody of our American mindset of "Live and let live." But if you evaluate this debate according to what it actually means, it's not about letting gay people live their lives, even if we may disagree with how they're doing it. It's about whether we will bestow upon same-sex unions benefits from the state that, throughout history, have been confined to relationships between one man and one woman.

Basically, we are living and letting them live. But they want us to stop everything and give distinct, state-based benefits to the way they choose to live. They want us to recognize it, not just as an intimate relationship others have chosen, but as marriage, something God invented before the state ever existed.

Of course, none of this is to say that whether this sizable change would be right or wrong. I'll leave a discussion of that to another day. All I'm trying to point out is that the marriage debate isn't really about what many gay-marriage proponents say it is -- or what most young people believe it is. And just in case you're wondering, I certainly didn't figure this out by myself. As usual, David French schooled me.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 05:44 AM on June 06, 2008 | Permalink

Charles, it's good to hear from you again.

We had fun at the Hannah Montana concert and in no way were connected with this.

Anyway, Mark Krikorian posted this on NRO today:

The same day that a federal judge delayed portions of Oklahoma's tough immigration law, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina signed his state's new immigration law, described by the ACLU as "one of the toughest, if not the toughest" measure of its kind. Well, so much for a McCain/Sanford ticket.

Posted by Nancy French at 09:08 PM on June 05, 2008 | Permalink

Now the New York Times is reporting that the Alliance Defense Fund (ever heard of 'em?) is suing New York governor David Paterson -- on behalf of several state legislators -- for his recent move regarding gay marriage. I guess that might make today a good day to look at why what's going on there, and in California, is a big deal.

I must confess -- when I was first converted to Christianity, I didn't understand why so many of my new brothers and sisters were so hepped up about stopping gay marriage. I was in college and had imbibed pretty deeply from the culture there of -- depending how you want to put it -- either libertarianism or libertinism. I knew I was certainly not interested in ever being a part of a gay marriage, but I didn't see what business it was of the state's if someone else did. (You might call this the Rudy Giuliani position.) And I am positive I wasn't alone in that. Polls show that most young (I mean in total years, not necessarily years in the faith) evangelicals today are much less opposed to gay marriage than their forebears. This is distinct from issues like abortion, where we are largely on the same page as our elders.

To be honest, I am still uncomfortable with the tone many conservative evangelicals take while discussing gay marriage. Often, we do not sound like people speaking the truth in love. Rather, we sound like people who have forgotten that we are sinners too -- and have never met anyone who disagrees with us. That is, we proclaim opposition to gay marriage as if it is singularly evil and ridiculous -- as if we are on the side of the angels, and anyone who doesn't see that is crazy. In point of fact, I think we are on the side of the Bible's teaching, which I guess means the angels are with us, too. And there may have been a point at which this approach worked, namely when we had much more of a cultural consensus against gay marriage. Perhaps fifty years ago people thought "gay marriage" was an oxymoron.

But if those days ever existed, they are certainly gone now. The Bible's teaching about sexual mores in general is, I think it's clear, less accepted than ever. We can't just go around proclaiming it as if it's self evident. It isn't to most people, anymore. Even though the law is written on our hearts (Rom. 2:15), we seem to be doing a better job than ever at closing our eyes to it. We don't like the idea that we're not supposed to have sex outside of marriage. We don't like the idea that we are not permitted to look at certain Internet sites, magazines, TV shows, and so forth. And we sure don't like the idea that some people are enjoined in the Bible not to express their sexual preference in physical activity at all. This strikes us as outmoded, even as exclusionary.

What's more, evangelicals just aren't credible on this point. Studies show that we really stink at living out our values -- we're much better, it seems, at voting for gay-marriage prohibitions than adhering to our so-called convictions in our own lives. In the church, divorce is just as rampant as it is in the culture at large. Pornography is also a huge problem. And I would add -- while I don't have a study to back it up -- that so is something that's also extremely important and may be the source of these other problems, namely disrespect for the institution of marriage. While we go around telling people how important it is -- and voting to confine it to one man and one woman -- so often we do not treasure it. We refer to our spouses in derogatory terms. We treat our marriages like obligations, not like blessings that are meant to mirror the unity of God in the Trinity. And you know what? The God who knows all our thoughts cares about this. I believe it offends him deeply.

That went on much longer than I intended, so I'll stop about here for today. I hope this diatribe has made clear that I've been through a bit of an odyssey on this issue -- and that I'm definitely aware that we evangelicals are certainly not without sin on the marriage issue. In the next post I'll try to lay out a bit more of how, even with this desolate backdrop, I've come to stand beside folks like David French in the cultural dispute over what marriage is and what it ought to look like in the law.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:44 AM on June 05, 2008 | Permalink

I'm sure you've heard someone say numerous times now that this is a "historic" time. Well, as much as we all have to be allergic to cliches, it's true, and it's worth reflecting upon. A nation that was founded upon the idea that "All men were created equal" but denied that great truth for nearly a century, now has a black man as the presidential nominee of one of the two major political parties.

Whether you agree with him or not -- and I for one think Senator Obama's policies, if enacted, would be disastrous -- it is historic, and it is grounds to be proud of the progress America has made.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:57 AM on June 04, 2008 | Permalink

From the mailbag:

Nancy: Tell David that he'll receive no "Guy Card" penalty for appearing as an extra in the Hannah Montana movie. This free pass is granted only because his day job invovles defending the nation and arranging for terrorists to go on to their eternal reward - wherever that may be. And, remind him that civilian government guys like me are damn proud of him! All the best to you and yours. Jon

I see that Jon runs "Blogs for Mitt" and happily note that he has resisted the pressure to change it to Blogs for McCain.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to sleep. This Hannah Montana filming is supposed to last 8 hours!

Posted by Nancy French at 01:14 AM on June 04, 2008 | Permalink

Did you know that Brooks Brothers did not sell black suits for 150 years because Abraham Lincoln wore a black Brooks frock coat when he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth? My friend Travis mentioned that to me the other day, a fact which I confirmed with the salesperson at Brooks Brothers recently when David was buying a navy jacket. (The kids pretended to be mannequins.)

Which brings me to what we've been doing for the past few days. We were at Brooks Brothers, because David's home for his leave! We're in the middle of his 18 day break, and are having a great time. Since he arrived, we've been to New Hampshire, Boston, Vermont, and Camille has had surgery. All in all, a busy time.

It's hard not to fast forward with the countdown, but we're trying to enjoy every day.

This week? We are going to be extras in the new Hannah Montana movie -- all four of us. I bet David is the only guy on leave from Iraq who'll be doing that.

Posted by Nancy French at 12:33 PM on June 03, 2008 | Permalink

I might bet on Gov. Romney. According to this New York Post article, I wouldn't be alone:

Intrade, which correctly picked the winner of every state in the 2004 general election, evaluates the veepstakes chances of 30 prominent political figures - 16 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

The site details who they think the Democrat Veep will be (Hillary) but what about the Republican?

On the GOP side, there are three leaders, Romney at 19.2 percent, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty at 15.6 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 14.1 percent, according to Intrade.

I can't honestly say I expect McCain will choose Gov. Romney, because he has a tradition of sticking it to the social-cons any chance he can get. Plus, on the Corner today, someone floated the idea of McCain/Hillary Clinton ticket. So, who knows?

Posted by Nancy French at 12:27 PM on June 03, 2008 | Permalink

No, I don't have any dirt on how Nancy and Charissa are treating David and me. I've just been reading a little bit about recent events in California. Two items in particular.

First, a poll showed that 54 percent of Californians were in favor of a state constitutional amendment to overturn the recent court decision legalizing "gay marriage." While I suppose some folks' reaction would be that that's a really low number -- and other quoted in the article said it will go down even lower -- I'm really surprised it's that high. Bear in mind that's not the number simply saying "Gay marriage is not okay." That's the number who specifically want to see the state constitution amended in order to get rid of it, now that it's been legalized -- a much more concrete action. Especially in a state like California, I never thought more than a majority would support that.

Second, today's New York Times says David Paterson, the new governor of New York, has ordered state agencies to honor same-sex marriages from out of state. It's important to note that California is the biggest, and New York the third-largest, state in the Union. These decisions will affect almost 56 million people. Even though they're only two states out of 50, that's 18 percent of the nation's population. Adding in Massachusetts, where a court legalized gay marriage some years ago -- but other states were not affected, due to actions taken by Governor Romney -- we're up to 62 million people. These are significant moves indeed.

I suspect some readers -- especially, quite frankly, young evangelicals like myself -- will have a few objections to what I just wrote. Those would be (1) Californians must be crazy to want to pass such an amendment, (2) California and New York's moves will affect a few homosexuals, not 56 million people, and (3) what's the big deal? Over the next few days, I'll try to answer some of these questions. As I've looked at this issue more and more, I've struggled with them myself.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:42 AM on May 29, 2008 | Permalink

Thomas Sowell:

Whoever said that overnight is a lifetime in politics knew what he was talking about. Just 6 months ago, the big question was how Hillary and Giuliani would do against each other in this year's presidential elections.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 06:24 AM on May 20, 2008 | Permalink

This is what a liberal governor's response to a state supreme court's "gay marriage" ruling looks like. This was not, despite how much energy some conservatives expended trying to make you believe otherwise.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 09:42 AM on May 17, 2008 | Permalink

Michael Farris says Robert Novak's reporting was wrong. Thanks to a reader in Tennessee for the tip.

Posted by Charles Mitchell at 07:53 AM on May 16, 2008 | Permalink

Rush's lament, via K-Lo:

You think I ought to be happy that there's conservatism out there. I'm not happy my own party wants to get rid of it. I'm mad that my own party wants to cast conservatism aside. I know there's plenty of conservatism out there. That's the source of the frustration. But conservatism by itself cannot move things. It needs a political party. In our political structure, it is parties that get things done. The Republican Party was the home of conservatism, and it still is. But the people that run the Republican Party right now are trying to get rid of it. And it's a death wish. It is an absolute death wish. And I'll tell you, if they happen to win, if the Republicans happen to win in November — 'cause, look, as I said earlier, we're not going to vote for socialist Obama. He's a full-blown ignoramus, embarrassingly uninformed about crucial things. We're not going to vote for this guy. We're not going to vote for Hillary. We wouldn't vote for Algore. For some of us the question is, are we going to vote at all? But it's entirely possible, this newly constituted Republican Party which stands for nothing but liberalism lite might end up winning because a lot of the country might look at this socialist bunch the Democrats are offering and say pooey, and want no part of it, and then where are we?

Mark Levin's advice? Via Kathryn Jean Lopez again:

My advice to conservatives: Cut your ties from the Republican party. Cut your ties to the McCain campaign. Run on principle.. it's all you have... If you follow these other Republicans, you will go down.

I still don't know what to do. I really hope McCain chooses well.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:49 PM on May 14, 2008 | Permalink

From NRO: "Governor Mitt and Mrs. Ann Romney received the Canterbury Medal from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Ann Corkery, who directs philanthropy at Security National Servicing Corporation, introduced the Romneys, reflecting on their contributions to religious liberty in America."

She began:

Many other friends are here, and I especially want to recognize the movie producer Steve McEveety. Steve runs what you might call the Hollywood office of the Becket Fund. He is the producer of many films including the Oscar-winning film Braveheart. Another movie title to Steve’s credit caused a slightly awkward moment this evening, when he had to correct our guest of honor on a point of fact. It turns out that on the campaign trail, Mitt had long insisted he was the inspiration for What Women Want.

Read the rest of the speech here.

Congratulations, Governor and Mrs. Romney!

Posted by Nancy French at 11:17 PM on May 14, 2008 | Permalink

I meant to post this earlier, but Kathryn Lopez made a case for McCain picking Gov. Romney as Vice President:

For Mitt Romney, the suspension of his campaign at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference two days after Super Tuesday marked the beginning of a new and promising campaign. As he ended his quest for the Republican presidential nomination, he staked for himself a position as leader for the conservative future. It's a good position to be in for a potential 2012 run for the presidency. And it's a position that makes him an attractive option for John McCain's No. 2 in 2008.

In his withdrawal speech, Romney announced that "conservative principles are needed now more than ever" -- hitting the economy, the culture, and the war. One Romney adviser referred to the speech and the pullout as "a down-payment on a conservative future."

Romney's biggest value to McCain, though, comes from his experience in business. John McCain has no such experience and famously said during the New Hampshire primary that "the issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should." (He added that he owns former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan's book.) That quote will come back to haunt McCain once general-election time finally arrives.

Mitt Romney's greatest asset for McCain -- who has been in Congress for almost a quarter of a century -- is, therefore, his executive experience, most of it in the business world, most notably as vice president of Bain & Company, Inc. from 1978 to 1984, and as founder of Bain Capital, venture-capital savior of the likes of Staples, Domino's Pizza, and Sports Authority. Romney famously turned around the corrupt and broke ($379 million in debt) Salt Lake City Olympics and cleaned up a Massachusetts budget running $3 billion in the red without raising taxes. At a time when the country may be in a wartime recession, Romney emanates a confident competence (and he would do it, as veep nominee, alongside a GOP presidential nominee with a mixed tax-cutting record). Choosing Romney, then, could be as practical as politics gets. When in the voting booth, partisan preferences may pale in comparison to the attraction of a guarantee of competence in the executive.

McCain, if he chooses Romney, may be wise to give Vice President Romney more than economics in his assignment portfolio. As two-time Cabinet secretary William J. Bennett recently put it on his radio show, "McCain would do the war. Romney would do domestic." Social conservatives might hold up McCain's speech this week on the judiciary and say, great blueprint, Senator. But we don't trust you, Senator. (In fact, former Department of Justice official Mark R. Levin, another talk-show host, said just that in the wake of the judges speech: "I don't trust this guy.") Take that basically sound blueprint and give us someone we trust. Romney, who fought judicial activism on marriage in Massachusetts -- and made the issue a key part of his campaign for president -- has some credentials there.

The governor makes electoral-map sense, too. First of all, now we can agree the Mormon factor is a plus. Utah's a lock, he won the caucus there with 90 percent of the vote. But Utah's not the battleground: Michigan is. And Romney's favorite-son status there makes it a likely delivery for McCain with Romney on the ticket. (Romney's economics talk went over well there, too, you might recall.) Romney's already been to Michigan on McCain's behalf and no doubt will return. Would the Michigan effect spread to Ohio? McCain seems already to have an appreciation for Romney's electoral assets: Romney recently spoke to the Nevada state Republican convention; Romney won the Nevada caucus with 51 percent of the vote to McCain's 13 percent.

Since endorsing McCain, Romney has hit the media trail for McCain, too -- including talking to radio and TV giant Sean Hannity -- at the McCain communications shop's request.

And speaking of numbers, Romney proved to be the Republican dream of a fundraiser and money source: He ran with some $47 million of his own during primary season. On the calendar this week, Romney has a meeting set up in Houston with McCain and Romney 2008's finance chairs and co-chairs to encourage those who are holding back to give to the senator's cash-starved campaign.

Read the rest here.

Here's the bottom line:

Vetted outsider Mitt Romney adds to Washington-insider McCain. He's a running mate with pluses, which, most importantly, includes being a plausible president -- 294 delegates' worth of primary voters thought so, anyway. His resume speaks for itself. McCain could do worse than pick Mitt Romney -- and he's got to know that, if he wants to win in November.

Posted by Nancy French at 11:13 PM on May 14, 2008 | Permalink