I am really lamenting today that we do not have a passionate leader to forge ahead on the federal marriage amendment as a candidate. It is a sad irony that democracy could be so desecrated by the ivory tower that is the California Supreme Court. It is going to take a lot of effort to overcome the decision today that overturned the law that only a marraige between one man and one woman is valid or recognized in California. We need to get to work right away.

Hopefully, Mitt will come to help us out. He is the best advocate in this country on behalf of traditional marriage.

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. says in the Wall Street Journal that John McCain needs to be a little more like Mitt Romney. Why? McCain hasn’t looked at the data:

Mr. Romney was tagged as a wonk because he "immerses himself in data." But one thing immersion can do that casual "gut" proceedings can't is let you know when the data don't provide an answer, even if people are telling you it does.

I argued long ago that McCain’s gut decision-making was a net negative, even if it had put him on the right side of the surge debate.

McCain’s absolutist position on the surge, while admirable in his support of our troops, is almost the dictionary definition of ideologue. It’s not the facts that convinced McCain that the surge is working, but the idea itself. In McCain’s mind it would be working whether or not the facts showed it, because the idea is right in his mind. This is the same kind of stubbornness that has kept him supporting “comprehensive immigration” when the facts don’t support him. Similarly campaign finance reform has been an abject failure, but McCain still supports it because the idea is right, in spite of the facts. Likewise McCain has come to the correct conclusion on the surge, not lead by the facts, but lead only by the idea. McCain is right more out of luck than any sort of analytical process that lead him to the right conclusion. Such a blind adherence to ideas is unsupportable.

Apparently there is an area that I failed to mention. Jenkins says that Romney’s approach is crucial in the global warming debate:

It perhaps takes somebody steeped like Mr. Romney in real-world analytics to find a footing against the media tide. But the fact remains: The push toward warming that CO2 provides in theory is no reason to presume in confidence that CO2 is actually responsible for any observed warming in a system as complex and chaotic as our atmosphere.

In his climate speech on Monday, Mr. McCain exhibited (as the press usually does) a complete lack of consciousness of the fact that evidence of warming is not evidence of what causes warming. Yet policy must be a matter of costs and benefits, adjusted for the uncertainties involved. Which brings us to today's irony: He who finds a six-figure earmark an affront to humanity is prepared to wave through a trillion-dollar climate bill without, as far as anyone can tell, a single systematic thought about costs and benefits.

Mr. McCain argues that green energy mandates will leave us better off whether or not man-made global warming is real. This is an error that Mr. Romney wouldn't make – and one Al Gore makes all the time.

Labels: global warming, John McCain

Barbara Comstock and Cesar Conda have been named co-chairs of the Susan B. Anthony list. Conda works at Navigators, the baby of GOP Svengali Mike Murphy, while Comstock has her own shop. From the Politico's Shenanigans blog:

The [Susan B. Anthony] List is the GOP’s answer to longtime Dem grass-roots powerhouse EMILY’s List, which helps female Dems get elected. Importantly, SBA’s No. 1 goal is to end abortion in this country.

Labels: Barbara Comstock, Cesar Conda

I wish I could elaborate on the Governor's remarks at the Becket Fund ceremony honoring him with the Centerbury Medal, but they would add nothing to his remarkable words:

In the days that followed, my remarks drew a considerable amount of congratulatory comment…and some criticism as well. The criticism was a good thing, of course. It meant that my words were not like the proverbial tree falling in the forest — unheard and unheeded. It also gave me an opportunity to go back and re-think, and that presents an opportunity for more learning.

Several commentators, for instance, argued that I had failed to sufficiently acknowledge the contributions that had been made by atheists. At first, I brushed this off — after all this was a speech about faith in America, not non-faith in America. Besides, I had not enumerated the contributions of believers — why should non-believers get special treatment?

But upon reflection, I realized that while I could defend their absence from my address, I had missed an opportunity…an opportunity to clearly assert that non-believers have just as great a stake as believers in defending religious liberty.

If a society takes it upon itself to prescribe and proscribe certain streams of belief — to prohibit certain less-favored strains of conscience — it may be the non-believer who is among the first to be condemned. A coercive monopoly of belief threatens everyone, whether we are talking about those who search the philosophies of men or follow the words of God.
...

One critic dismissed this idea [that freedom requires religion] by pointing out that there are indeed countries in Europe which have become godless but nevertheless remain democratic. But that underscores my point. I was not speaking about Europe’s recent experiments in state secularism, I was speaking about America and the larger family of free nations; and I was not speaking about a moment of time, but rather about a span of history. Would America and the freedom she inaugurated here and across the world survive — over centuries — if we were to abandon our faith in God?

I don’t believe so.

This is hardly a novel view.

Please read the entire speech.

Ann Corkery, who directs philanthropy at Security National Servicing Corporation, introduced Governor Romney as he received the Canterbury Award from the Becket Fund.

As it turned out, the governor’s speech of December 6th last year was the high point of the entire primary season. It was one of those moments when a serious thought managed to break through the noise. What left an impression was not just the power of the words, but also the qualities of the man, and of the wife beside him.

One quality of note is surely their forbearance, at that moment and throughout the campaign. If you wonder exactly what it was like for Catholics, in other places and other times, Mitt and Ann could share some details from their own experience. At every turn, they had to explain their faith — to defend the good and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church. They were constantly called to account, even by people not usually interested in spiritual matters … and by others with creeds and churches of their own, but a lot less to show for it than Mitt and Ann Romney.

The reality is that when we meet people of their quality, the most relevant questions are the ones we ask ourselves — about our own beliefs … and whether we reflect nearly as well on our churches as they do on theirs. Yet somehow the governor always remained calm and patient. And this was not just a political instinct. It was the humility of the man, a trait that has somehow survived all his success. Listening to his remarks in College Station, Texas, it wasn’t hard to picture the young missionary who years before has gone door to door in Paris, explaining his beliefs and offering the hope of a better way.

Labels: religion

...from the recent Matt Lewis article at Politico talking up the Romney/Huckabee grudge match:

And if anyone doubts Huckabee’s penchant for self-promotion, the former governor also recently announced he was writing a book about his failed presidential campaign.

Seems to be common knowledge why Huckabee is in politics.

Labels: mike huckabee

...Check this out.

This year the Becket Fund is honored to bestow Governor and Mrs. Mitt Romney with its highest honor, the Canterbury Medal, for their role in expanding the free expression of religious faith in the public square. Each year the Becket Fund awards the Canterbury Medal to someone who has "resolutely refused to render unto Caesar that which is God's."

The governor's extraordinary speech on the role of religion in political life was an important contribution to religious liberty and the national political discourse during this election season. Both Governor and Mrs. Romney have demonstrated exemplary poise and dignity in the face of all manner of provocations aimed at their faith. For these reasons and more, The Becket Fund is delighted to present the Romneys with the Canterbury Medal at this year's dinner.

The award will be presented Thursday, May 8, 2008 at The Metropolitan Club (One East 60th Street, New York City) The reception is at 6:30pm, with dinner to follow. Black Tie. To purchase a table or tickets, contact Ashley Samelson at asamelson@becketfund.org.

Labels: religion

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

WASHINGTON - President Bush is set to saddle up with former presidential candidate Mitt Romney for a pair of fundraisers in Utah next month.
Bush and Romney are scheduled to rake in cash at private events on May 28 and 29, according to sources familiar with the fundraisers.
The trip will be Bush's fourth to the state in his eight years in office. He also made two trips here when he was campaigning for the 2000 election.
The president will be raising money for the Republican National

They aren't in an imbedible format (ahem, to any of you who can correct that problem).

Here is Governor Romney in New Hampshire on WMUR. Interestingly, especially in light of my post below, Romney talks a little about the FLDS situation.

Here is Governor Romney in Nevada on KRNV.

Opinion Journal's Best of the Web points out a particularly galling post by Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell:

I never thought I would say this, but I miss Mitt Romney.

After three full days of having to interpret, explain and apologize for Reverend Jeremiah Wright I am feeling a little religiously defensive. So I started fantasizing how different this would be going down if Mitt Romney were still challenging John McCain for the Republican nomination.

Instead of us Obama supporters sweating, Romney and his supporters would be fielding calls all day to explain Mormonism, polygamy and the relationship of Romney's faith to the cult compound in Texas. Does Mr. Romney believe that 14 year-old girls should marry? Does Mr. Romney plan to take additional wives in order to fulfill the moral requirements of his religion? If not why has Mr. Romney stayed affiliated and raised his children in a church with whom he so vehemently disagrees?

Yeah, Yeah, we know he gave some big speech about this issue earlier in the campaign, but how does he respond to what those women with the long skirts and weird hairdos said on the Today Show this morning? . . . Maybe a little black liberation theology would have looked tame next to the FLDS.

Best of the Web's James Taranto responds:

Harris-Lacewell claims that her own mother is a lapsed Mormon, which, if true, makes the professor's ignorance rather stunning. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did originally sanction polygamy, but you have to get up pretty early in the Mormon for that. As LDS Church Web site notes, the church banned polygamy in 1890, "and any member adopting this practice is subject to losing his or her membership in the Church."

The FLDS, to which Harris-Lacewell refers, is the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a group that split with the Mormons precisely because of the latter's rejection of polygamy. Were Romney the nominee, his foes might well try to suggest that his LDS membership somehow puts him in league with the FLDS. But they would be arguing in bad faith.

Since Harris-Lacewell brought up the comparison of Mormonism to "black liberation theology," it's worth noting that early Mormons suffered persecution at the hands of their neighbors in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and Illinois. They ultimately settled in Utah in 1847, and their abandonment of polygamy 43 years later was a price they paid for integration into American society.

It was just about as long ago--44 years this summer--that America took its most definitive step in ensuring equality for blacks, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Progress toward integration has been uneven since then, and the antagonistic attitude toward America of black leaders like Jeremiah Wright is arguably the greatest remaining hindrance.

Me: It is disgusting to see Romney's faith distorted, particularly to score political points. Harris-Lacewell's attempt at moral equivalence misses badly because of her loose association with the facts, as Taranto explained. Still, her slander of Mormonism reveals the lengths to which Obamaniacs will go to excuse the personal relationship Obama had with Wright. Harris-Lacewell excuses her own gross negligence because she comes from Mormon ancestors and a disaffected Mormon mother. It is sad that this kind of excuse carries water with a Princeton professor.

Labels: James Taranto

From the Campaign Spot:

"My favorite comment in a while, found over at the Volokh Conspiracy:

Those of you complaining may not be old enough to remember this, but there was a time when a person's associates thought to provide insights into that person's character. I remember a time when a man named Ken Lay became a campaign issue.

That was way back in the election of aught-four. Things were different then; many people argued that lack of active-duty military service should practically disqualify a candidate, if you can believe such a thing, and Geraldine Ferraro, Joe Lieberman, and Bill Clinton were all widely respected within the Democratic party.

We've come a long way since then. The idea that a candidate should be grilled for views of other people in his church hasn't been commonplace in the Democratic party for tens of thousands of minutes, since Mitt Romney suspended his campaign."