Rightank

James Taranto has a great piece on the potential presidential run of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He outlines his business-styled approach to governing as well as the Romney’s successes in a very liberal state. Imagine how much conservative work would get done if the Senate were 80% Democrat.

Taranto like Cromartie points to Romney’s faith as a potential run-stopper, however, Taranto is not as pessimistic as to Romney’s chances of overcoming the religious obstacle:

A crucial question will be whether Mr. Romney’s religion is a handicap. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indigenous to America, but many Americans view it with suspicion. In a 1999 Gallup poll, 17% of those surveyed said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, far more than said the same of a Jew (6%) or a Catholic (4%).

In 1994 Sen. Kennedy made an issue of the LDS Church’s tardy embrace of racial equality (it did not allow the ordination of blacks until 1978). “I don’t think that’s the reason I lost to Ted Kennedy,” says Mr. Romney, and he’s surely right. . . .

The trouble is that much of today’s anti-Mormon sentiment is found on the religious right, a constituency that looms much larger in the GOP now than it did in 1968, or than it ever has in Massachusetts. Ask a conservative Christian what he thinks of Mormonism, and there’s a good chance he’ll call it a “cult” or say Mormons “aren’t Christian.” . . . .

How would he overcome anti-Mormon prejudice if he seeks the presidency? He doesn’t answer directly, but cites his experience in Massachusetts: “As people got to know me . . . they accepted me for who I am, and religious doctrines didn’t make much difference to them.”

In the end, there’s probably not much Mr. Romney can do about the “Mormon problem” other than put his faith in the American tradition of religious pluralism. “I think our nation needs people of faith in public service,” he says. “My policies in the public sector are not a mirror image of any church’s doctrines. But of course the respect I have for American values flows from the faith that I have.” If Mr. Romney runs for president, it may test the proposition that the religious right is an issues-based movement as opposed to a sectarian one.

Taranto’s last sentence lays out the rub: Are Christian conservatives supporting Republican candidiates because of their faith (Bush is an Evangelical Christian) or because they see eye-to-eye on important social issues (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage, cloning)?

It would a travesty if Evangelical Christians or Catholics withheld their electoral and political support from Romney because of his Christian faith. There is too much socially at stake for our Nation, particularly the fate of traditional marriage, to chance the nomination of a Republican candidate less conservative (socially and fiscally) than Romney.

This choice by conservative, non-Mormon Christians might make the difference between having a president of faith or having a faithless Democratic president sitting in the Oval Office on January 2009.

1. The Republicans will still control the House and Senate after the 2006 elections; Bill Frist will resign as Majority Leader after the election results.

2. Harry Reid will scream like Howard Dean.

3. The Boston Celtics will make the Playoffs and survive the 1st Round.

4. The Washington Supreme Court will follow after the Massachusetts Supreme Court and mandate same-sex marriage while at the same time declaring their
decision is not activist.

5. Judge Samuel Alito will be confirmed the next member of the Supreme Court.

6. President Bush’s Guest Worker Program will fail; more border control measures will pass.

7. By year’s end, Mitt Romney will become the top contender for the Republican Party presidential nomination; John McCain will falter.

8. Both Lincoln Chafee and Rick Santorium will lose their Senate races; Santorium will lose in the general election while Chafee will lose in the Republican primary.

9. Another Supreme Court Justice will retire.

10. Ken Blackwell will be elected Governor of Ohio.

11. Israel will bomb and destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilites.

12. John Bolton will become the 2nd most hated politican by the liberal media worldwide; John Bolton will block Bill Clinton from succeeding Kofi Annan at the U.N.

Recently, the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (”AU”) released their official position regarding the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. Not suprisingly, AU has decided to oppose Alito:

Americans United opposes the nomination of Judge Alito . . . because of the substantial risk that he would abandon the sensitive approach to church-state issues that has been the defining feature of Justice O’Connor’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence, and that he would . . . revamp[] Establishment Clause law in ways that would weaken or dismantle the constitutional wall separating church and state.

AU is worried about the downfall of the anti-originalist and court-doctored meaning of the Establishment Clause that Justice Hugo Black inserted almost sixty years ago in Everson. The “sensitive approach” that Justice O’Connor applied is code for “separationist approach”–which is AU’s overarching objection to Alito’s jurisprudence.

According to AU, Alito’s decisional history regarding the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses is troubling because he would allow students to pray at a graduation ceremony if a majority of the students approved (ACLU of New Jersey v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education) or during a class presentation (Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey, Inc. v. Stafford Township School District). AU fear Alito not because he would allow for a Christianization of America (isn’t America already Christian?), but, because of his willingness to protect the rights of religious majorities in the public square. Moreover, he treats religious speech as protected by the Constititution instead of forbidden, rejecting the constitutional ostracism that pervades the liberal elite and is prominent in Justice O’Connor’s religious jurisprudence.

An originalist understanding of the Religion Clauses espoused by Alito, particularly of the Establishment Clause, would remove the muddiness of Justice O’Connor’s endorsement test and restore the religious freedom that the Founding Fathers intended to bestow upon the American people. Contrary to O’Connor and AU, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion not equality of religious expression. The Framers didn’t intend to elevate the hurt feelings of Atheists or those whose religious doctrine fails to attract more than 200 adherents to a constitutional plateau that precludes majoritarian religious practice in the public arena.

It is time for the constitutional myth of separation of church and state to end. Confirming Justice Alito would be a good starting point.

A six-month extension to the Patriot Act was granted late last night by voice vote, which allowed the Democrats and skittish Republicans (e.g., Sununu) to support the Patriot Act unrecorded while behind-the-scenes undermining it.

President Bush emphasized the Patriot Act’s importance last week in his radio address:

One of the first actions we took to protect America after our nation was attacked was to ask Congress to pass the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act tore down the legal and bureaucratic wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence authorities from sharing vital information about terrorist threats. And the Patriot Act allowed federal investigators to pursue terrorists with tools they already used against other criminals. Congress passed this law with a large, bipartisan majority, including a vote of 98-1 in the United States Senate.

Since then, America’s law enforcement personnel have used this critical law to prosecute terrorist operatives and supporters, and to break up terrorist cells in New York, Oregon, Virginia, California, Texas and Ohio. The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do: it has protected American liberty and saved American lives.

The bottom line is the Patriot Act works and is working to stop and prevent terrorist attacks. Those who oppose the Patriot Act gawk about “civil liberties” but fail to mention that the liberties they desire to protect are of those Americans and illegal aliens residing within our borders who have a fancy for communicating with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I haven’t heard opponents groveling about the lives of terrorist-hating Americans who have been unfairly abused by the government’s use of the Patriot Act. Rather, it’s been chest pump-and-huff fest aimed at embarrassing the President that gives Al Qaeda, not America, the advantage.

Yesterday, NRO posted an interesting Q&A with Michael Cromartie assessing the impact of Gov. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism on his presidential ambitions. As a Latter-day Saint or Mormon, I found a couple of Cromartie’s responses a little frustrating:

KJL: Do evangelicals specifically think of Mormonism as a cult? Is there something legit there?

Michael Cromartie: Most evangelicals do perceive Mormonism to be a cult and are deeply troubled by its theology. But this does not mean they would not vote for someone like Governor Romney. They admire his record and they agree with his conservatism on moral, social, and cultural issues. Given a choice between Hillary Clinton versus Governor Romney for President, evangelicals know how to bracket aside their theological differences with the governor and would support him because of his positions on the social issues.

. . .

KJL: Do you hear positive or negative or lukewarm things about Romney when you get into ‘08 conversations?

Cromartie: I hear positive comments about Governor Romney as a person of integrity, and as a successful economic, political, and social conservative in a very blue state. I hear very lukewarm comments about the governor when it comes to his religious tradition. Evangelicals admire the governor but find Mormonism to be a strange and baffling abberation of the historic Christian faith.

Throughout the Q&A, while Cromartie refrains from tossing Romney’s 2008 chances out with the bathwater (and for good reason), he reinforces the false idea that Mormonism is a cult. Likely, Cromartie is among those Evangelicals who are “deeply troubled by the theology” of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and find its orthodoxy “strange and baffling.” It’s easy to call something strange, baffling, or troubling without expanding on why Evangelical perspectives on Mormonism exude such temperamental distress. Mere theological disagreement between Christian religions does not mean that one is a cult and one is not.

Gov. Romney has an excellent shot at winning the Republican nomination precisely because he has an excellent record as a Governor. Romney cut taxes and fought against the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s imposition of same-sex marriage by fiat. He is a legitimate social conservative. His membership in a church over 12 million strong should not militate against his ability to become the next Commander-in-Chief.

President Bush finally addressed two key criticisms of the War on Terror last night and gave our terrorist enemies (and the cabal of liberal elites who support them) some food for thought.

W. hit two key points: terrorist causation and American defeatism.

First, he directly confronted the accusation of many a liberal that the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts are leading to an upsurge in terrorism and anti-Americanism which, if not our waging of war, would not exist:

Since the removal of Saddam, this war, like other wars in our history, has been difficult. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols, fighting Saddam loyalists and foreign terrorists, has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation — and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we’re solving.

That is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror. If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone.

This is not the threat I see. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political aims — a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent is crushed. Terrorist operatives conduct their campaign of murder with a set of declared and specific goals — to de-moralize free nations, to drive us out of the Middle East, to spread an empire of fear across that region, and to wage a perpetual war against America and our friends. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield — and they seek to attack us wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat.

Exactly. The terrorist thugs of Al Qaeda and other fanatical diasporas would be hellbent to kill us even if (and I would add especially if) we left them alone. 9/11, the ‘93 World Trade Center bombing, the U.S.S. Cole, all testify that the terrorists intend to attack us unless we forsake our freedom and democratic way of life. We have no choice. You cannot pacify a terrorist mindset.

Bush also attacked the defeatism of the Democratic party and their anti-war allies and outlined the consequences of leaving Iraq before the country is sufficiently stabilized and democratized:

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor, and I will not allow it.

Reckless and dishonorable are two adjectives that aptly describe Harry Reid and the Democrats (excluding Joe Lieberman) who want to pull out and who denigrate the effort of our solidiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush’s speech was a welcome sound–a triumphant declaration that we are winning and that Iraq and the American people are worth the fight.

I just finished reading Bat Ye’or’s magnificent book, Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. Her book explains in great detail how the European elites opened up their borders to allow a huge immigrant population of Muslims to satisfy their own global intentions. These European Elites (e.g., prime ministers and ambassadors) decided to roll the dice. They gambled that if could convince the Arab leaders to exchange European investment and infrastructure capablilities for oil and a steady pool of immigrants, the Europeans would create a Euro-Arab hegemon that would rival the United States. Unfortunately, their gamble didn’t pay off. Rather, they’ve played right into the Arabs hands and have created a Eurabia where the Arabs–not the Europeans–are the power brokers.

One of the great nuggets within Eurabia is the vocabulary of Islamic conquest (e.g., dhimmitude, and jihad, dar al-harb) that is learned. With that understanding, it’s easier to see how Osama bin Laden and his minnions carved out their radicalism.

The Islamification of Europe is not only a threat to indigenous Europeans but threatens to pull away Britain to an anti-American posture and quell the Eastern Europeans from friendly and supportive relations with the United States. Ye’or’s book should be required State Department reading. I highly recommend it.

Bryon York of National Review posted this spread of Cindy Sheehan that is in the current issue of the fabulous liberal rag, Vanity Fair. Her belligerant tarnishment of what her son did in fighting and perishing for American freedoms is absolutely disgusting. She’s spitting on his grave.

Do liberals really think they succeed by enraging those who support the troops? How much money did you get, Cindy, for despoiling your son’s grave?

Right now, the Iraqis are voting in a historic parliamentary election despite the risks of losing their lives. Do you know what instills such bravery? Freedom. Democracy. Liberty. These spiritual emblems of the American spirit that our troops have born and brought to the sands of the Iraq and Afghanistan. America and what she stands for is worth fighting and defending–whatever the cost. This photograph absolutely enrages me as it should anyone who swears fealty to the “Home of the Brave.”

Yesterday in Hernandez v. Robles, The New York Supreme Court (in New York, the Court of Appeals is the highest court) reversed the decision by a Manhattan lower court judge holding that forcing same-sex marriage is the province of legislative authority and not the priviledge of judges who like to rule by fiat. Upholding the legislative perogative in defining marriage, the Court emphasized:

The legislative policy rationale is that society and government have a strong interest in fostering heterosexual marriage as the social institution that best forges a linkage between sex, procreation and child rearing. It systematically regulates heterosexual behavior, brings order to the resulting procreation and ensures a stable family structure for the rearing, education and socialization of children. Marriage promotes sharing of resources between men, women and the children that they procreate; provides a basis for the legal and factual assumption that a man is the father of his wife’s child via the legal presumption of paternity plus the marital expectations of monogamy and fidelity; and creates and develops a relationship between parents and child based on real, everyday ties. It is based on the presumption that the optimal situation for child rearing is having both biological parents present in a committed, socially esteemed relationship. . . .The law assumes that a marriage will produce children and affords benefits based on that assumption. It sets up heterosexual marriage as the cultural, social and legal ideal in an effort to discourage unmarried childbearing and to encourage sufficient marital childbearing to sustain the population and society; the entire society, even those who do not marry, depend on a healthy marriage culture for this latter, critical, but presently undervalued, benefit. Marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support, but about the well-being of children and society, and such preference constitutes a rational policy decision. Thus, society and government have reasonable, important interests in encouraging heterosexual couples to accept the recognition and regulation of marriage. [citations omitted]

Particularly, the court has it right when it says that “marriage laws are not primarily about adult needs for official recognition and support, but about the well-being of children and society. . . .” Same-sex marriage advocates want to change the legislative policy determinations and make the American public believe that marriage is about upholding the love interest that unites two persons rather than the well-being of (1) children and (2) society. Moreover, children cannot be produced from same-sex relations. Procreative impossibility aside, government does not protect marriage in order to appease and gratify the solipsistic desires of both the man and the woman. Yet, this falsity of legislative purpose is what the ACLU and their allies want the American people to believe.

The battle to protect marriage will continue to rage. The relentless barrage against tradition and the heritage of American morality will continue unabated unless we have a constitutional amendment that protects marriage. Unfortunately, it isn’t at the top of the Bush Adminstration’s “Things We Need to Do to Save Our Nation” list.

Ann Althouse some thoughts about the Court’s “ringing defense of legislative power to define marriage.”

Yesterday, the Wisconsin State Senate approved (reg. req’d) a bill that would create a constitutional amendment protecting marriage. The vote was strictly partisan–19 Republicans for and 14 Democrats against. If approved by the Wisconsin Assembly (House), the marriage amendment would be voted upon in a referendum in 2006. Here’s the text of the amendment (Senate Joint Resolution 53):

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.

The marriage amendment not only protects the definiton of marriage but also prevents any “marriage-lite” institutions from popping up. It will be interesting to see what the people of Wisconsin choose to say about marriage.