Not only have five great candidates from North Carolina been endorsed by Governor Romney, they will be receiving a total of $15,000 in contributions from his Free and Strong America PAC. “Rather than focusing on putting people back to work and enacting policies that will restore our economy, too many of our leaders are instead focused [...]

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

He'll be on at about 7:50.

With mid-term elections pushing presidential considerations into the ask-me-later department (according to potential presidential candidates), and twists and turns still to be taken on the thoroughfare to the White House 2012, this is still good to hear: From Dave Wedge (Boston Globe): Poll shows Romney has best shot at beating Obama Former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney has the [...]

What About Evangelicals?

Last cycle we talked a lot here about how hard it is to put your finger on who are evangelicals and what is evangelicalism.  It’s a theological viewpoint that has spread across multiple religious institutions.  It’s a culture of sorts.  It’s has been a bit of political movement.  Sometimes it’s even an ersatz form of denomination.  We looked last week at an article that wondered who spoke for Evangelicals.  This week sees a post on the diversity of view amongst Evangelicals on something as rudimentary as creationism and evolution.  Some see the Religious Right as strong as ever and some see Evangelicals growing elitist.  And of course, there is a great deal of internal religious debate between the political left and right.

There is fascinating empirical evidence that freedom and religion go hand-in-hand:  (HT: Instapundit)

Official Chinese surveys now show that nearly one in three Chinese describe themselves as religious, an astonishing figure for an officially atheist country, where religion was banned until three decades ago.

The last 30 years of economic reform have seen an explosion of religious belief. China’s government officially recognizes five religions: Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam and Daoism. The biggest boom of all has been in Christianity, which the government has struggled to control.

All of which brings me to an interesting, if very heady and academic, debate around Godblogging about how Christians should approach changing things:

As a result of this totalization of politics, the evangelical imagination about how to change the world has been sorely stunted. This was most evident in the recent health care debate, where the only question that was pursued by evangelicals of all ages was which statist solution we should implement to the problems that we face.

What’s more, rather than being motivated by a vision of the good and by care for the world, evangelical politics, left and right, has—according to Dr. Hunter—been fueled by ressentiment, or a strong sense of injury. So conservative evangelicals are held captive by stories of secular institutions who refuse to allow the Christian worldview into their discourse about the nature of the world, stories which are used well to raise funds, but which reinforce a culture of negation and hostility toward those with whom we differ.

As a descriptive account of evangelical political culture, this is hard to disagree with. Indeed, the purported leftward shift among my peers away from issues like gay marriage, abortion, and other traditional social conservative issues has been fueled in my estimation less by a serious and substantive disagreement over policy and philosophical issues, and more by the distaste we have at this sort of political world.

And yet.

There is a danger in describing the political culture of evangelicalism to relativize the political theories that motivate evangelical political action. In other words, because conservative and liberal evangelicals are both driven by anger and a sense of injury, which option we choose is irrelevant for solving the problem of a totalizing politics. Though I don’t think Dr. Hunter would agree with this, it’s not hard to interpret his book that way.

Very interesting points, but I want to put my two cents in on something that I see few addressing.  Religious political action is not nearly as effective as most would like it to be.  In presidential politics that we follow here, the best it seems to be able to do is spoil – it cannot act decisively.  Like a petulant child, tantrums can be thrown, but nothing positive seems to be accomplished.  Some of this is the result of acting out of a sense of injury and anger as described above, but much of it also stems from the relative lack of institutionalization that marks the current state of Evangelicalism.

The statistics on the mainline protestant denomination (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists…) are frightening – they are shrinking.  Recently, even Baptists, who are very loosely affiliated, are showing a bit of a decline.  What is growing are completely independent congregations – what I have come to call entrepreneurial churches – almost all of which are evangelical in outlook.  This is a problem for political action.  There is a debate about whether they are in competition with denominations.  I am not sure they are on a religious level as most functional denominational congregations are turning very evangelical in style and outlook.  As a resource, a new site – Patheos – is looking into the future of the denominations. (HT: Kruise Khronicle)  Some find the lack on institutionalization in the entrepreneurial, evangelical church problematic.

Which brings me back to political action.  These entrepreneurial, evangelical churches are often idiosyncratic and personality driven.  The typically result becasue an individual is identified as “a leader” and he hangs up a church shingle, as it were, and builds a church.  Often this leader identification happens in the context of another congregation, driven by another personality, and the new church forms out of a schism of some sort.  In other words, these are people that are not good at large movements, they are good at carving out niches’.  Put plainly, they make herding cats look easy.

Successful political action by Evangelicals, who are mostly entrepreneurial has occurred when they have joined an effort that is underway, like when they joined with Roman Catholics and Mormons in the Prop 8 fight.  They just cannot organize themselves sufficiently to take a lead role.  As a denominationalist myself, I hope this bodes well for the denominations.  At the moment we seem to continue to tear ourselves apart, but the need for organizational capability does give me hope.

What this observation says is that the approach to Evangelicals that was whispered by the Romney camp a few weeks ago (not so much “punt” as the media would have it, but come join us, we are not going to court you) makes a lot of sense.  A national candidate cannot court that many niches.  But they can unite behind parade that is moving in the same direction they are.  That is essentially what Reagan did in 1980.

There will be some petulance from those that expect to be courted and there will be some tantrums from the unenlightened Mormon-bashers, but all in all this cycle will look very different from the last if one gets past the vitriol and looks at the general trends.  Be sure and read past teh deadlines.  Which brings me to…

Pure Politics

Tim Pawlenty has been making a big splash in the last week or so.  The Fix, Politics Daily, and Dan Balz all saw fit to discuss it.  Pawlenty is very much where Romney was this time last cycle, minus the religious baggage.  However I think Romney’s now large name recognition and the fact that the religious baggage is out of steam means that Pawlenty will never get enough traction to go very far.  He’ll finish second unless Palin or Huckabee actually run, but I just don;t see him making an impact this cycle.

Sarah Palin is the top Republican Candidate is how Politico sees it.  Some think she is the ultimate running mate for Romney.  (Nice note on Huck’s role last cycle in that one too) Interesting idea, but I honestly think she has no desire for the second slot.  Some think Republicans are bigger misogynists than they are Mormon haters.  The later is an opinion that lends a great deal of credence to the survey CBS reports here:

If former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin decides to jump into the 2012 presidential race, liberals would be thrilled, an unofficial poll released today shows.

As we have said, the left-leaning media will do whatever they can to prevent a Romney candidacy.  He is the most serious of the bunch and is the hardest “target.”  (I’d love to know what JournoList has to say about Romney?)

Jeb Bush is not running. *Yawn* Only surprizing to silly people.

Romney looks like Ted Danson. *Double Yawn with a Smirk*  In other Romney news, the Boston Phoenix, which typically misses no opportunity to make Romney look bad, analyzes proposes changes to the primaries, reasonably, if only in the concluding paragraph.  (Ignore the headline.)  Chris Cilizza names Romney’s “inner circle.“  There have been intimations that last week’s Palin crack emanated from this circle – NONSENSE!

Finally, a local Utah columnist looks at last week’s impenetrable Anderson/Volokh post and concludes that Romney will still have to deal with his faith this cycle.  Yes he will, but it will play very differently than last time.  The charges will come almost exclusively from the left and they may, if played properly serve to unite the right against a common foe.

And on a final note…

…and speaking of Mormon stuff, I found this interesting.  Faith an immigration is going to get really interesting, and I think the current administration may try to use it to divide us like Huckabee used the Mormon question last cycle.  Beware.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

I got a nice note from a reader:

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

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

What's causing all the hoopla? This.

UPDATE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who could Gov. Pawlenty have been talking about?

Our guy!

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

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

Me too.

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

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

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

Keeton VNR from ADF Media Relations on Vimeo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My criticism of the New START treaty generated both praise and disparagement. Sen. Richard Lugar’s thoughtful critique of my position deserves further discussion.

1. New START does limit U.S. missile-defense options. First, New START’s preamble not only references missile defense, it accedes to Russia’s insistence that there is an interrelationship between strategic offensive weapons and missile defense. While the Bush administration steadfastly refused to accept this Russian position, the Obama administration bows to it. The statement of interrelationship in the preamble, in addition to the specific missile-defense measures in the body of the treaty, amount to a major concession to Russia… (read more)

Share on Facebook

Share This

Young George Romney, Mitt Romney’s father Governor Mitt Romney’s father, the late George Romney, has received a posthumous honor: Adrian College Announces George Romney Institute for Law and Public Policy ADRIAN, Mich. – Adrian College is pleased to announce the opening of the George Romney Institute for Law and Public Policy which will take place [...]

Mitt Romney's  Free and Strong America PAC has announced endorsements in Tennessee, Georgia, and North Carolina. In Tennessee, Mitt has endorsed Bill Haslam for Governor and has sent him a $2,500 primary election contribution.  Mitt...

I couldn't help but notice Craig's use of far-left hack, Ezra Klein's words to defend RomneyCare.  The author of this article systematically destroys the false claims of Klein and the other left wing apologists for Romney'...

H/T to Jerald, Ellie, and Hamaca I'll be the first to admit that I have been critical of Sarah Palin. Criticizing her for not doing her homework when it comes to issues. Criticizing her for not being ready for tough interviews other than a h...

Episode 1: Mitt’s Hope – In an Op-ed at the Washington post Mitt Romney urges the Senate to vote against ratification of the New START treaty signed by President Obama and President Medveved in April. The Op-ed is entitled Obama’s Worst Foreign-Policy Mistake. Episode 2: The Lugar Menace – Dick Lugar of the Galactic US Senate [...]

This post has been moved here.

Bigger taxes are coming! Bigger taxes are coming! Unless Americans usher a new Congress into office this fall, Obama’s redistribute-the-wealth-bankrupt-America agenda will likely smother our wheezing jobless economic recovery. The Bush tax cuts breathe their last at midnight on December 31, 2010: The Tax Tsunami On The Horizon Fiscal Policy: Many voters are looking forward to [...]

Yesterday, I made a post on Sarah's weaknesses, following the example of others who had done the same for their own candidates. That's one more post than I've made on other candidates' weaknesses, so I'm entitled...

    I came across this depressing map called "The Decline: The Geography of Recession". This map was last updated on July 15, 2010 with information from the U.S. Department of Labors Bureau of Labor statistics. It shows the deterioratin...

Weighing in on the race for Governor of the great state of Georgia, Governor Mitt Romney has endorsed former Secretary of State Karen Handel. Romney released a statement yesterday (7/21/10): A successful businesswoman and public servant, Karen Handel’s blend of executive, political, and business experience is just what Georgia needs at this critical time. The leadership skills [...]

…Is Spin Passing For News!

And yes, that is most definitely a “failure to communicate,” he said completing the famous and almost trite movie quotation.

Breaking from his vacation, as I am from mine, my friend Hugh Hewitt points out, in this week of way too much race-based news:

Did any of the JournoList participants rebuke Spencer Ackerman’s suggestion that Fred Barnes or Karl Rove be made a target of a manufactured “racist” charge?

Ackerman will be carrying the burden of that despicable suggestion for the rest of his “career” such as it is, but it may even be worse to have been a participant in the list and to have said nothing when such an assault was proposed.  Even if the “journalists” on the list hated Karl Rove as an extension of Bush and thus talked themselves into this repulsive group-think, many of them know for a fact that Fred is among the most decent and large-hearted of journalists.  To have said nothing when a colleague or far worse, a friend, was nominated for the worst sort of slander is an extraordinary personal failure.  Whether any of those who were party to it step forward to apologize will be interesting to watch.

[...]

When Andrew Breitbart posted the NAACP video, he did not know it had been edited. Journalists who commented on the story did not know of the editing either.

But everyone on JournoList knew that Ackerman was proposing a Big Lie in the service of a political agenda –Ackerman admitted that himself– so they all stood by and said nothing. The only defense that any of them have is that Ackerman was an insignificant loon or that they missed his post, even though it appeared in the middle of the biggest story of the time period.

Just this morning, over my hotel breakfast, FoxNews was discussing newly leaked JournoList postings from campaign ‘08 trying to paint the Palin VP nomination as “sexist.”

There are two terribly important lessons for this blog that can be taken away from this scandal and the USDA atrocities of the week.

The first is that the press, at least a significant portion of it, is all too willing to discuss the use of label/identity based spin to aid the Democratic side of the aisle.  It confirms something that people have known all along.  The lack of discrimination is born not in monitoring the use of identity labels, but in being blind to them.  When considered, whether in base discrimination, such as Jim Crow, or in the type of “reverse discrimination” we are seeing from the JournoList crowd they are political weapons, and they are poltical weapons that our common understanding, and in some cases our constitution place off limits.

Religion is one of those identity labels that our constitution places strictly off limits.  The reason for that is very straightforward – all it can do is serve to create conflict when what we need is the finding of common ground to move the nation forward.  The USDA events of the past week show that the opportunity for mischief with identity factors is just too great to use them AT ALL.

Which brings me to this very interesting piece by Kenneth Anderson on the Volokh Conspiracy (HT: a reader that sent it forward.)  Anderson argues that there are some things about religion that should be a part of the public discourse:

But of course, the problem is how to parse the difference between that which is acceptable for inquiry concerning someone who proposes to lead the polis and what is genuinely personal and irrelevant.  My one regret is that the nasty fireworks at the beginning of that long essay tend to obscure the quite serious argument about how to draw those lines that occupies the second half.  (It is not, by the way, a regret for having ridiculed the two principals — I think that it is important, actually, for people to understand the affective side of this and not pretend that it is purely mild cognition, and that was one way to do it.)  But this issue is going to resurface, certainly with Romney, and with others.  The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society.

But religion also has a cognitive content — including doctrines — that are and should be subject to reasoned discussion.  The believer who partakes of them as doctrines of faith might not do that, and might not be able to do that, almost by definition.  Yet it would also be a mistake to draw too sharp a line between things subject to human reason and things not of this world and so not subject to human reason; particularly law-based religions partake of both.  Mormonism, for that matter, incorporates this directly into its prophetic traditions  And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine.  Mormon doctrine regarding human reason is not, so far as I have been able to comprehend, “relativistic” in the sense used in contemporary ethical argument, even if it is more elastic some (including me) would accept.

But irrespective of whether believers are able to participate in the discussion of human reason and prophetic traditions, when adherents go out to offer leadership in the broader political community, then the unbelievers are perfectly warranted to ask that they be discussed in terms that are accessible to public discussion.

Yes, indeed, religion does have a cognitive element, but unless a candidate or elected official insists on making policy based on their religious conviction, why is it necessary to discuss?  All that is really necessary to discuss is the proposed policy, and the stated reasons for bringing it forward.  The attachment of a religious labels, as with race or gender, to either the proposer or the policy itself serves only to turn the reasoned discussion into the kind of vitriolic posturing that we have seen based on race in the last week.  We have seen some very bad decision making based on such labels and we are seeing the public manipulated based on similar labels – they simply do not aid our public discourse.  If reasoned discussion is the goal and the labels serve to override reason rather than aid it – why inject them into the conversation at all?

I am reminded of a Sunday school class I was in a couple of decades ago – it was being taught at the highest levels by a seminary professor of excellent repute.  We were discussing theories of the atonement and at one point a student rose and asserted that the professor’s view of the atonement was “too masculine.”  I objected in the most strenuous of terms and set forth the proposition that I am emphasizing here today.   The theory of the atonement is neither masculine nor feminine, it simply is truth.  Yes, men and women my arrive at that truth by different paths, but that matters not, what matters is that we arrive at the truth – together.  Inserting the labels serves only to make the truth relativistic.

When it comes to public policy, what matters is that we arrive at the best possible policy.  People will come to their policy choices by a variety of methods and thought processes.  By definition, there cannot be different policy for one group or another – that is the definition of discrimination.  Therefore, group identity entering the discussion serves no purpose other than to prevent arriving at a policy at all, or to arrive at a policy that, rather than providing maximum benefit for the most people, benefits mostly the group that can best claim victimization – again, the very definition of discrimination.

In a week of claim and counterclaim based on race, I am deeply saddened that in many ways our nation is no different than it was when I was a child spending summers with extended family in Jim Crow Mississippi.  But we have clung to our labels too hard.  We have to let go of them.

Lowell adds . . .

Professor Anderson’s Volokh post is remarkable on more than one level.  I do not think it will move the discussion much, because it is mostly impenetrable.  Consider these two statements:

The problem, at its most general, is that religion bears certain characteristics of immutable characteristics, like race or ethnicity — marks of identity that one could not change about oneself, but which — again, like skin color — are morally irrelevant, and so cannot, by themselves, be cause for either accepting or rejecting a person as a political leader in a liberal society. . . .

And despite being a thoroughly lapsed Mormon, and so not in the sense that I would presume instruct [sic] Mormons on the doctrines of their faith, but rather as a descriptive statement that I do not believe that the elders of the Church would regard it as an accurate statement of the faith, though of course I might well be corrected on that — I would say that Romney’s statement on this matter is not particularly an accurate reflection of Mormon doctrine.

Each one of those is a single sentence.  I teach young lawyers that if a sentence must be read more than once by an educated reader to be understood, the writer is in trouble; more than twice, and the sentence should be rewritten.

But enough about style.  Anderson’s post is a dogged argument that it is desirable – nay, necessary and proper - to make a candidate’s most private religious beliefs matters of public discussion and inquiry.  We have rejected that argument on this blog dozens of times, so I won’t rehash those posts.  I’ll simply refer our readers to John Mark Reynolds’ analysis, which John and I think is the perfect approach. Here’s a summary:

Freedom of religion does not mean I have to think every religion or irreligion is great! In fact it is demeaning to religion to behave this way. My Catholic friends know that I think the Pope is not the sole head of the Church and my Baptist friends know I think their view of the Eucharist inadequate. They honor me by strongly disagreeing with me. If I thought these ideas had public policies implications that would lead to bad social policy by the state, I would want to examine the views of any Catholic of Baptist politician.

That is not bigotry, just common sense.

So if we assume religious traditions are, at least in part, knowledge traditions, then being wrong about religion does matter. How wrong does one have to be before losing credibility in the public square?

Let me propose a few tests and suggest that Mormonism easily passes all of them.

First, the religious beliefs of the candidate should be held by a significant number of people and by a group willing to defend them (even if unsuccessfully) in a rational manner. . . .

Second, the group in question should not have religious claims that will naturally lead to horrific, or at least far out, public policy. . . .

Third, the group should have a long track record of generally playing by republican rules in areas where it is dominant. No group is perfect, but the Presidency is too powerful a prize to trust to a new group that might have secret authoritarian leanings.

If you want to know why Prof. Reynolds thinks Mormonism passes all three tests, read his post.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is running for president again in 2012. Getty photo

THE WASHINGTON POST

THE FIX  Political News and Analysis By Chris Cillizza

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has never really stopped running for president since that February day in 2008 when he ended his challenge to Sen. John McCain  (Ariz.).

While Romney took an extended hiatus to write his book — “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness” — he never really left the political game, staying in close touch with a small group of political advisers who have kept the presidential flame lit over the past two plus years.

That loyal group has helped Romney emerge as the frontrunner in the Invisible Primary — the behind-the-scenes battle before the battle for the nomination, a contest defined by fundraising, endorsements and general political sway. (The Romney team’s performance was near perfect until a background quote disparaging former Alaska Sen. Sarah Palin  caused a bit of stir nationally.)

What better way to kick off our 2012 inner circle lists — the men and women closest to the various Republicans (and Democrat) running for president — than with Romney. Look for future inner circles for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and, yes, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in this space in the coming weeks.

The Romney Inner Circle

*Matt Rhoades: Rhoades served as communications director for Romney’s 2008 bid and earned a reputation as a savvy strategist in and out of the press world. Rhoades was named director of Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC earlier this year — a move that won the governor praise among insiders — and is widely expected to be the campaign manager for the 2012 race.

* Beth Myers: Myers served as chief of staff during Romney’s time as governor and managed the 2008 race. Myers is regarded as the staffer with the closest personal relationship with Romney — a not-insignificant thing in a presidential campaign where scads of advisers seek to win the candidate’s ear.

* Eric Fehrnstrom: While Fehnstrom has dabbled in outside consulting — he helped guide Sen. Scott Brown (R) to victory in Massachusetts earlier this year — he is still focused heavily on forwarding Romney’s political interests. Fehnrstrom’s relationship with Romney cemented during the ’08 campaign when he served as traveling press secretary but the two also have history; Fehnstrom served as Romney’s deputy campaign manager in the 2002 governor’s race.

* Stuart Stevens/Russ Schriefer: Romney had many — too many, according to some — media consultants on board during the 2008 presidential campaign. (Check out our 2008 Romney inner circle post for a look at all of them.). Stevens and Schriefer, whose firm helped elect Gov. Chris Christie (N.J.) in 2009, are the only image men left standing and are a near-lock to produce Romney’s ads in the race to come.

* Spencer Zwick: Commonly referred to as the sixth Romney son (Romney has five boys), Zwick is tasked with raising the money for the PAC — and, by any measure, has done a bang-up job. Romney has collected nearly $6 million for Free and Strong America since the start of 2009 and had doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars to candidates across the country as well. In both money raised and donations made, Romney stands alone among 2012 candidates — thanks to Zwick.

* Peter Flaherty: Flaherty is Romney’s go-to guy in outreach to conservatives, the same critical role he played for the governor in the 2008 presidential race. Flaherty, like Myers and Fehnrstrom, goes way back with Romney; he served as Romney’s deputy chief of staff in the governor’s office.

* Bob White: White is a longtime Romney confidante – they worked together at Bain Capital — and remains a trusted voice for the governor.

Kevin Madden, Spokesman for Mitt Romney's 2008 Primary Campaign

* Kevin Madden: Madden, the telegenic spokesman for Romney in 2008, has moved on to the world of political consulting — he is partners with former Republican National Committee strategist Jim Dyke — but keeps a hand in Romney world. Madden is also a regular presence on cable television, a role he’s likely to reprise if/when he signs up for a second bid.

* Ben Ginsberg: Ginsberg (and his law firm Patton Boggs) remains on Romney’s PAC payroll — a sign that the governor values the advice of one of the top election lawyers in Washington (or anywhere.)

* Ron Kaufman: Kaufman, a principal at the Dutko Group, is the insider’s insider and serves as a behind-the-scenes advocate for Romney within the professional political class in Washington.

Jim Talent, former Missouri Congressman and Senator

* Jim Talent/Mike Leavitt: Talent, the former Missouri Senator, and Leavitt, the former Utah governor, know the life of an elected official and can relate to Romney in a way that few others in the inner circle can as a result.

Read more at the washingtonpost.com….

Mitt Romney is on record on numerous occasions as stating that he didn’t raise taxes to implement RomneyCare. The following quotes are from Fox News Sunday on March 7, 2010: “Let me tell you, there's a big difference between what we did...

Mitt Romney’s op-ed on the START treaty (7/6/10) urging law-makers to reject the lopsided agreement, rattled progressives. On the very next day Senator John Kerry (D-MA) railed that Romney failed the test in arguing against START. In the uproar, Obama tossed a life-line to tax-evader-ex-senator Tom Daschle to wrangle words on behalf of his New [...]

As I stated in an earlier article, Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America has published the complete list of all the candidates and causes that they have donated to so far this year.  I have sorted the list by state and by amount.  I...

Here is Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC complete list of all the candidates and causes they have donated to so far this year sorted by amount: Nikki Haley for Governor SC-Gov ...

Here is Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC complete list of all the candidates and causes they have donated to so far this year sorted by state: Martha Roby for Congress AL-02 ...

We are told that the imam in NYC who wants to build a Muslim cultural center just feet from Ground Zero wants to “bridge the great divide” between Muslims and the rest of America. He may well be serious about this. However, if we grant his good intentions, it becomes difficult to grant his sincerity in all of this given his reaction and the reaction of his supporters to the opposition that has, understandably arisen.

The automatic “our opposition are racist hatemongers” response was just about the worst possible response they could come up with. How can it be said that this cultural center is supposed to foster understanding between Islam and the rest of the country if it’s first official act is to call those to whom they are reaching out vicious and hateful names? In so doing, are they not undermining the very purpose they claim this center represents?

Now, some of this negative reaction, to be fair, is coming from the Left who is eager to reinforce the self-serving notion that ALL conservatives EVERYWHERE are racist, homophobic, sexist and so on and so on. It is their default mode. A Conservative says “Good morning” to a liberal, black reporter and this is spun into a racist assault on the first amendment rights and, in some cases, the very life of said reporter.

But, as we have seen in the last few years, this is, more or less, the default mode for many in the Muslim world as well. A cartoon of the Muslim Prophet was used as an excuse for mass rioting and violence around the world because such a cartoon is an “insult” to Muslims. Hundreds actually died as a result. Then there was controversy over a food snack logo that allegedly “looked like” the Arabic symbol for Mohamed. This too was deemed a great offense to Islam. Then there was the incident where a school teacher overseas allowed a Muslim school child to name a teddy bear, Mohamed. There not only demands that this teacher be fired but that she be dragged out into the street and killed for this insult.

So now, an imam, here in the US, wants to build an Islamic cultural center/mosque just feet from the site where Islamic extremists, who claimed to be doing so in the name of Islam, killed 3,000 innocent people. And it would seem that this man and his supporters cannot see how a reasonable person would be offended by this. Taking offense to such a project could only spring from racism and hate. And yet, apparently, killing people in response to cartoons and teddy bears is an understandable, reasoned response. So, if this is the mindset of those who wish to build this center to again “bridge the great divide” between Muslims and the rest of America, they are doomed to failure. And even if this Imam condemned the violence over cartoons and teddy bears, calling everyone who opposes you horrible names is not a good way to assure them that you are sincere in your attempt to reach out to them.

To Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and his supporters: If you are serious about building that bridge of understanding, try to understand those who are angered about your proposed center. Build the center elsewhere. Now is not the right time for such a place in the location you have chosen. It is far too soon. If you want to be given respect and tolerance in the US, try practicing it yourself.

I don’t know if the Golden Rule is known in Islam so I will offer it here: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In other words, if you want to be tolerated, tolerate others. If you want understanding, try to understand others. If you are truly interested in “building bridges” try building bridges to others first; otherwise you’re campaign is off to a really, really lousy start.

Ever organized, precise, and timely, Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has released impressive numbers for the second quarter 2010 : Free and Strong America PAC Second Quarter 2010 Financial Report Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC today filed its finance report with the Federal Election Commission and reported raising $1,504,989.71 in the second quarter [...]

1. The fact that Romneycare is very similar to Obamacare. Sorry my fellow Rombots, but we just need to admit it. We can talk all day about how one is a state system and one is a federal system (and there are legitimate arguments to be made there),...

Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PACjust announced their full and complete numbers for Q2.  These include the numbers from their Federal PAC and all their state PACs, as well.  Here they are: ...

Ex-Sen. Tom Dascle delivered a speech at the uber-leftie Center for American Progress recently where he accused Mitt Romney of advocating policies that would result in “nuclear anarchy.” Really? What would need to change for that to happen?

Last time I checked that’s what we already have. Iran’s program to “generate electricity” from it’s nuclear reactors continues unabated. Their development of long range missiles continues as well. If we are naive enough to believe that they only want to “generate electricity” with their nuclear program, then I guess the missiles must be to deliver the electricity to other countries that want to purchase their excess production.

Kim Jong Il has thumed his nose at the Clinton, Bush and now the Obama administrations and continues to rattle the nuclear sword when ever his dreary little criminal organization runs low on cash and the the world beats a path to his doorstep to bail him out.

So that’s why I am puzzled at Mr. Daschle’s agitation over “nuclear anarchy” developing as a result of some alleged change wrought by Mitt Romney’s foreign policy proposals.  Mr. Romney is just advising Obama not to give the store away and then get bupkis in exchange.  You know, like he usually does.

~~John Cronin~~

USATODAY.COM

The normally mild-mannered former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle blistered Republican presidential potential Mitt Romney and some of the GOP’s favorite talk-meisters this morning, reports our Gannett News Service colleague Chuck Raasch.

 Appearing at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank in Washington, Daschle targeted a Washington Post op-ed in which Romney urged the Senate to reject a proposed new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. America’s military leaders favor the update of the 19-year-old pact and with good reason, Daschle said.

Failing to renew the deal would trigger “nuclear anarchy,” Daschle argued, not only by renewing an arms race with Russia, the world’s only other nuclear superpower, but by encouraging rogue states such as North Korea, to join the fun.

Daschle was just getting started, according to Chuck’s report.

Ratification of the treaty requires 67 votes, which means President Obama will need some Republican support. Republican senators “can choose Mitt Romney or they can choose the entire U.S. military establishment,” Daschle said.

 The former senator went on to accuse some Republicans of caring more about scoring political points against the president than about the future of the country. He suggested that they are ignoring the responsibilities of their office to pander to the conservative chattering class.

“If Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh choose to make a living peddling partisan hate and anger and mangled conspiracy theories, there will always be people for them to sell a bill of goods,” Daschle said. “It is not healthy for our democracy.”

Daschle has been close to the White House. President Obama tapped him to be Health and Human Services secretary in his Cabinet, but Daschle withdrew his name after embarrassing disclosures about his failure to pay taxes on some of his compensation. Daschle has worked as a consultant for various corporations and causes since losing his Senate seat in 2004 to Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

Greetings from vacation!

Romney/Palin – The Left Will Not Let It Die…

Last week’s left created Romney/Palin psuedo-dust-up sure did catch the attention of the leftie punditry.  Steve Kornacki of Salon basically said that Romney was a misogynist.   There was a response from Allahpundit,  but Andrew Sullivan (yes I am about to say something nice about him) had the most salient observation:

If policies come up during debates, and she gives the same answers she gives on Fox now, and Mitt Romney pounces on her, the story will not be that the GOP’s frontrunner gave a pallid answer. The story will be that Mitt Romney pounced. What does this do to his image? What does Mike Huckabee have to say about it?

This entire episode from its ill-defined inception until now is designed, by a left leaning media, to cast the race first as Romney v Palin and secondly do whatever they can to divide Republicans.  And in some circles, it is working to some extent.

There are serious candidates – Romney, Pawlenty – probably serious candidates – Thune – wannabe serious candidates – Daniels – and then there are media serious candidates – Palin, Gingrich and Huckabee.  Look at those names.  The “media serious candidates” all carry serious baggage and they all represent only a portion of the Republican/conservative movement.  Of course the portions they represent are the portions the media and the left love to use to describe the entire movement and they are the most divisive portions.  They are also portions that cannot possibly win general elections – which is why the left likes those names so well.  If any of those people run, it will be for building their personal media cred.

Amongst the serious, Romney is clearly the frontrunner and he continues to straw poll well.

Now, what is amazing about all this  is that Romney’s religion has not come up.  By even mainstream denominational Christianity standards, Mormon complimentarian views about the genders might be considered a bit archaic if being kind and sexist if not.  When you have people at Kos writing stuff like this:

The greatest value in the book is Zaitchik’s patient exploration of the affect Beck’s conversion to Mormonism has exerted on his politics and beliefs, but also on his methods of message of delivery. Beck has managed something fairly difficult in the presentation of his schmaltz to the audiences he’s dog-whistling: he’s using the tried and true confessional style of his chosen religion to rope in evangelicals and even more secular (but teary-eyed) members of the hard right. This is no small feat, as Mitt Romney can testify; many on the right are not all at ease with Mormonism, and Beck’s bridging of its style with old-fashioned knee-jerk patriotism is part of his unique appeal.

You’d think they would feel compelled to make a big deal out the CJCLDS view on the role of women.  Of course, I doubt this conversation is over.

Angle/Reid…

Nothing, and I repeat nothing, could be better for America at this present electoral juncture than the defeat of Harry Reid in Nevada.  Therefore, it pains me to point out that his opponent, Sharon Angle, is seemingly going out of her way to assure him of victory.  GetReligion discusses a Las Vegas Sun story on Angle:

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle describes her motivation for seeking elected office as a religious calling.

Politics, including her bid to unseat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, is God’s purpose for her life — one he has long been preparing her for, she says.

“When God calls you, he also equips you and he doesn’t just say ‘Well, today you’re going to run against Harry Reid.’ There is a preparation,” she said during a recent interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network. “Moses had his preparatory time. Paul had his preparatory time. Even Jesus had his preparatory time, and so my preparation began on a school board.”

GR even has the video.  I am reminded of the numbskull in Idaho a few months back that convened all the Mormons in the area.  We chastised him and now, well….

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

But the press should be vilified for reporting this and not Reid’s Mormonism, particularly give the treatment Mormonism got last presidential cycle.   I guess its not really the religion, but the political views and party affiliation of the candidate that matter when it comes to religion as a political weapon.

General Religion Stuff…

Scary Graph

Good Question

But in closing, let us reprint a C.S. Lewis quote posted by Godblogger Justin Taylor yesterday:

I am a democrat [proponent of democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man.

I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government.

The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . .

The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

That dear friends are words worth deep consideration.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

“The White House hopeful doesn’t exactly shine when he’s up against a female opponent.“ Buzzing all over Twitter today is a bogus story that attempts to point out ‘Romney’s women problem’. The shameful piece hits the web in the midst of the anonymously fabricated Romney vs. Palin hubbub in an obvious attempt to create further [...]

Doctor Zero, from Hot Air, has now weighed in on the Romney-Palin scuffle.  I've come to grips with the fact that Romney probably had nothing to do with it.  However, he needs to have a team meeting to address this, and to...

H/T to our Aron and Luke at MRC Mitt Romney Declared the Front Runner on Hardball July 16, 2010: Chris Cillizza Managing Editor at Postpolitics.com and Jonathan Martin Senior Political Reporter at Politico both agree that Mitt Romney is the fro...

“I think by the traditional standards [Mitt Romney] is the front runner. As far as money, as far as organization and as far as doing it before,” commented Jonathan Martin from Politico. “He knows the mistakes he made last time.” Jonathan Martin offers further commentary on all of the 2012 GOP hopefuls in a piece [...]

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

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

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

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

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

[Editor's Note: I hope no one objects to a post on a New York site that at first glance seems to be better suited to a Missouri site, but as the article on Red State observes, Obamacare is a policy that effects the other 49 states as well as Missouri.

Our hope is that the success of the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act will inspire other states to join the fight against this ruinous legislation.]

~~John Cronin~~

On August 3, 2010, the Missouri electorate will vote on Proposition C, the Missouri Health Care Freedom Act (MHCFA). Have no doubt - this is the first shot fired against the power grab known as Obamacare. If successful, if we beat back this overreach of federal power in Missouri, other states will move forward. Should we fail - especially with low voter turnout, the media,the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats will gain a second wind. I can think of few things more disastrous leading into November than giving the Democrats hope.



Josie Wales, a lawyer from Missouri writing at Big Government, calls August 3 “the most important day in America“.” Missouri will be the first state to allow the public at large to voice its opinion on Obamacare. Most of us know that the majority of Americans view Obamacare with disgust; disgust at the process by which it was passed and disgust by the burden it will impose. We’ve been forced to speak through rallies and a diminished Republican party, until now. Now there is an opportunity for the average voter to act upon that disgust.

Why should you care? What does a Missouri proposition have to do with the other 49 states? MHCFA represents the first battle in the war against the bureaucratic, tax-happy nightmare that has saddled Americans over the last century. Just as the Supreme Court gun cases are changing the debate on the Second Amendment back to gun ownershig being a fundamental right, states signalling their refusal to go along with individual and employer mandates will alter the debate on the proper role of the federal government. At issue is a single idea - can the government compel you to purchase a product they design simply because you’re a US citizen?

MHCFA is a call to arms for all freedom loving Americans, but even in our state there is complacency. Polling looks good, so the Republican establishment is taking it easy. They’re crossing their fingers and hoping no last minute barrage of ads derails the proposition, as has been done every time the Left wants something. From direct mail to phone banks to television ads by outside groups, the Left will carpetbomb Missouri in the week before the vote, and conservatives will have no time to react.

So we need your help. Not with money. Not with volunteers. Though both would be nice, what we really need is the collective voice of conservative America.

Support MHCFA.


Supporting MHCFA is as simple as linking to the effort on the internets, posting an article about the effort on your blog, leaving a comment about the effort on a website, and mentioning the effort in any other social medium: Twitter, Facebook, church, work, bars, sporting events, airplanes, bank lines, family dinners….

We need national recognition. Recognition of the effort in Missouri will lend to its success. If we succeed by large margins in Missouri, you can be sure that success will follow in other states across this great nation.

Don’t get me wrong. We’re not sitting idle. Tea Party groups, conservative candidates, and conservative bloggers are out writing and knocking on doors and calling our connections to generate press. But we need the folks at Red State to help.

Please support the MHCFA in whatever method you choose, and visit the website:

http://www.mohealthfreedom.org/

If you’re writing about healthcare, link to something on Missouri. If you’re reading about Healthcare in Missouri, link to that story, and leave a comment. If you’re writing about The Healthcare Freedom Act, please send a note to Benjamin at rivercitytea@gmail.com and he will link back. If you’re writing about a healthcare lawsuit in your own state, send him a note and we’ll tie it back into the larger fight.

We need noise on the issue more than anything else. Anyone care to raise their voice?

http://www.redstate.com/jdurbin/2010/06/28/missouri-is-the-concord-bridge-for-obamacare-repeal/

Continuing his impressive endorsement roll-out for conservative candidates seeking election this fall, Mitt Romney gives ‘thumbs-up’ to Knoxville mayor Bill Haslam. Haslam is running for Governor of Tennessee. Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC has given nearly $350,000 to conservative candidates in the second quarter. His PAC has supported more than 150 Republicans and conservative causes [...]

Via Politico, via Jonathan Martin:

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest here. What do you Tennesseans think?

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

Kathryn Lopez tweets:

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

Twitter has been all aflutter with Palinites upset over the anonymous comments by ’supposed’ Romney staffers in a TIME.com news article. It’s been very painful to watch the “Romney” search on Twitter because of the many harmful and divisive things that are being said, particularly before a mid-term election. Granted the comments by the anonymous [...]

Via Twitter: "TIME says unnamed advisors disparaged @SarahPalinUSA. Anonymous numbskulls. She’s proven her smarts; they’ve disproven theirs." http://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/18694134487  

We noted Monday that as the mid-terms draw near, the discussion of 2012 is heating up.  Seems like there is another thing driving discussion and it’s silly, just because it is meaningless at this juncture.  PACs issued their financials on schedule this week and that set the world buzzing.  This is a very leftie analysis of the releases, but it is the only one I could find that touched on most of the majors – ignore the commentary, follow the links and look at the numbers for yourself.  I shouldn’t bother, but one shot is too rich not to take.  Consider:

“They’re not interested in necessarily winning the House and Senate back for Republicans. That’s not their No.1 objective,” said Daniel Smith, a University of Florida professor who directs the political campaigning program there. “They’re selectively placing their bets, using their PAC dollars on Republican candidates who can elevate their national profile and also procure free media in key battleground states in the run-up before the 2012 Republican primary.”

Well, the incumbent Democrat gets more free media than the rest of the world put together AND when it comes to not helping congressional candidate in his own party, this guy’s a champ!  Come on, this is politics as usual – why are we trying to cast it as a problem?  Robert Costa on The Corner did look at Palin, Romney and Pawlenty.

Palin Got The Most Attention…

I still don’t think she is running, but her fund raising is impressive (even though Romney out-raised them all) – which caused a lot of people to conclude she was.  Including this bit of analysis obviously designed not to be helpful but to make trouble:

Assuming that the race is then reduced to Palin and Romney, the next critical state primary is South Carolina. At that point, I don’t think the specifics really matter. The fact is that the Republican Party of 2012 is not going to nominate a Mormon as its standard bearer. And the more important fact is that the base of the Republican Party doesn’t just favor Sarah Palin, they love her. She is their standard bearer. And they will not — this time around — be denied.

Please note, the presumption is that Republicans are close-minded bigots.  That bit got someone at Right-O-Sphere pretty worked up, causing them to ask, “Should Mormons Abandon the Republican Party?“  OK – initial response, “For What?”  Yes, there are jerks in the party – but there are jerks everywhere, and in leaving the party all you do is let the jerks win.  Not to mention there is no other party that comes even close to representing your point of view, dear Mormon friend.

But also note this, the jerks are not a majority.  Romney keeps winning straw polls, and anecdotal polling shows Romney’s support is much broader than his faith.  In other words, as we predicted Monday, lefties/Dems are terrified of an Obama/Romney race and they are going to punch the religion ticket as many times as they can to try and change the odds.  Don’t take the bait – this time the jerks are behind the woodshed, and in the primary we can administer the spanking.  Here is why the left fears Romney:

Former supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign who do not approve of his job performance favor former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney over the rest of the GOP field, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey.

They fear Romney so much that one of their big guns (Mark Halperin) decided to stir the pot:

One adviser to Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, and, by traditional standards, the putative 2012 frontrunner, says of Palin, “She’s not a serious human being.” Another Romney intimate warns, “If she’s standing up there in a debate and the answers are more than 15 seconds long, she’s in trouble.”

So, we have two entirely unattributed quotations of “advisers.”  You know, if Romney reads this blog, and I think he has from time-to-time, I guess I am an adviser too.  And since I have met him I guess I am an “intimate” as well, so does what I say on this blog define the stance of the Romney camp?  Not hardly!

There is also the issue of context.  I am far from alone in thinking Palin is not running. It is really only in the fevered imaginations of the MSM that there is serious hope she will run.  It is quite possible that these sound bites came in the broader context of discussing the unlikelihood of her running and in that context are not nearly as pernicious as they sound quoted here.  As we, and many others, have said all along -  Palin is a marvelous voice for an important wing of our movement, but that does not necessarily translate to a presidential candidacy.

What we have here is is a case of Halperin trying to create a rift inside the Republican coalition – especially between the Tea Party and the rest of the party.  We don’t know who these people are, how close they really are to Romney, or anything else other than they conveniently said something that would create problems, conveniently in the hearing of Mark Halperin.  I’m not putting much stock in this.  Why Allahpundit thinks its worth this much analysis is beyond me.

UPDATE AFTER POSTING: Seems Romney Agrees with this analysis.  Today he tweeted:

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

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL POST:

The left is also very worked up about the WaPo Op-Ed that Romney wrote, which we noted a couple of weeks ago, on the proposed new START Treaty.  Look, foreign policy is not our thing here, so I will not even attempt to round up this discussion, but it has been broad and it has been vitriolic.  I will; however, link to this particular argument against the treaty – when I saw the publishers I laughed out loud.  ‘Nuff Said.

In Other News…

Gingrich is seriously thinking about running?  Read:  Gingrich’s “q” needs a jolt.  That does not mean he will not run, just means that if he does, it will be for reasons other than to win the nomination.  By the way, I am all for Christian forgiveness, but there is a streak of anger out there, still, at Gingrich’s personal behavior that runs pretty deep.  He needs to tread very carefully.

Clear bigotry:

A North Carolina pastor was relieved of his duties as an honorary chaplain of the state house of representatives after he closed a prayer by invoking the name of Jesus.

I’ve heard a lot of legislative prayers from religious leaders of many stripes.  If one goes, they all gotta go since they all invoke their deity.  I’ve heard Vishnu and Allah just to mention a couple.

Moderation disguising a pro-Obama rant.  The court is allowed to change its mind, you know.

©2010 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

Washington (CNN) – Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney raised $1.8 million during the second fundraising quarter of this year, far outpacing the other Republicans he may face in the next presidential race.

Romney has also devoted considerable money to building an extensive national political network, doling out more than $400,000 since January to various 2010 candidates through his Free and Strong America political action committee and its state-level affiliates.

All told, Romney has collected $3.4 million since the beginning of the year – more than double the roughly $1.3 million that each of his next closest rivals in the money chase, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, raised during the same period.

 With less than four months until the midterm elections, Romney has nearly $2.2 million left in the bank, giving him the financial muscle necessary to be a power player in Republican politics as November nears.

In the second quarter, Palin raised $865,000, according to a report filed with the Federal Election Commission. She spent $87,500 contributing to Republican candidates and has roughly $1 million on hand.

Pawlenty is not far behind: An aide to the Minnesota governor told CNN that the Minnesota governor took in $724,000 in the second quarter and has almost $940,000 in the bank. He contributed $84,000 to GOP candidates since April.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee maintained a steady if underwhelming fundraising pace, taking in about $258,000 between April and June.

Huckabee has raised just $531,000 since January but has been generous with his funds, handing out nearly $92,000 to midterm candidates – with a focus on Republicans in the key primary states of Iowa and South Carolina.

Quarterly financial reports were not yet available for the PACs of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, three other Republicans mulling a possible White House bid.

Read more at CNN.COM……

The fundraising numbers for the 2012 contender’s PACs are in and it looks like Mitt Romney still has a large lead in the invisible primary. Every so often I hear people say that Mitt doesn’t connect with the people, which I feel is a bogus claim. But that obviously can’t be true when [...]

According to a PPP poll (667 participants), Mitt Romney leads the pack of GOP 2012 contenders in two important areas. The new poll affirms claims that Mitt may be the strongest candidate for the GOP in a general election. This is what they found: 1 – Mitt Romney is the favorite among Obama supporters [...]

Latest web video from Rick Lazio...



Stand With Rick!! Help him defeat Andrew Cuomo!

Visit: www.Lazio.com to read about his plan
to build a better New York!

Sign up to volunteer for his campaign here
Follow Rick on Twitter and Facebook
Make a contribution to his campaign