Redstate

By Charles Bird Posted in 2008 — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Robert Novak prides himself on wearing two journalist hats. He's a columnist and he dabbles in original reporting, displaying both attributes when he outed Valerie Plame almost five years ago. Given all those years on Crossfire, we also know that Novak does not back down from controversy, and sometimes he'll gin it up. Lastly, we know that Bob Novak is a big-time Ron Paul supporter, and there are indications that elements of the Ron Paul campaign are seeking to undermine the McCain campaign at the Republican convention.

So with all that in mind, it looks to me like Novak is once again trying to stir the controversy pot, suggesting that John McCain has a problem with Christian evangelicals. The Washington Post editors are equally to blame by titling Novak's piece, "McCain's Christian Problem." This is nonsense. Christians are fine with McCain. The problem is on the edges of the political spectrum, as it would be for any candidate trying to win a general election. Robert Novak is talking about the evangelical fringe. In his own words:

That fits what has largely been a fringe position among evangelicals: that the pain of an Obama presidency is in keeping with the Bible's prophecy.

This is the lamentable "you win by losing" argument, which goes by the illogic that the nation would be better off if a President Obama were in place because locusts and toads would descend upon a sinful nation and deliver punishment. Seeing the error of our sin-laden ways, we would then veer back to the Right and True Path by defeating Obama in 2012 and delivering a Real Conservative into the White House. To me, such thinking isn't terribly different from Jeremiah "Chickens Coming Home to Roost" Wright, only it comes from the other side of the political aisle. Novak's primary sources are an unnamed Christian "activist" and Michael Farris:

According to this activist, at the heart of the let-Obama-win movement is longtime Virginia conservative leader Michael Farris -- the nation's leading home-school advocate, who is now chancellor of Patrick Henry College (in Purcellville, Va.) for home-schooled students. Best known politically as the losing Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993, Farris is regarded as one of the hardest-edged Christian politicians. He is reported in evangelical circles to promote the biblical justification for an Obama plague-like presidency.

In conversations with me, Huckabee and Farris both denied saying that an Obama presidency should be inflicted on the country. Huckabee was enthusiastic in his support for McCain, noting how well they had gotten along during their primary competition.

A vigorous supporter of Huckabee for president, he has not endorsed McCain and may never do so (though he quickly adds that he never would vote for Obama or Hillary Clinton). "I am concerned about what judges [McCain] may name," Farris told me, "and the test will be who he selects for vice president."

Concerned about judges? Has Farris ever looked at Obama's positions on judges? The differences between the two candidates could hardly be more stark. Obama's take is here:

He cited Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter as examples of the kinds of justices he would appoint to the high court, noting that Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush. (Obama, as a constitutional law professor, undoubtedly knows that Souter was a bit of a tabula rasa when chosen and has been a huge disappointment to conservatives ever since, but he didn't mention that.)

In short, Obama would appoint either liberals or mystery dates. Left unspoken is that the Democratic Party has a litmus test on abortion, specifically, that if you're anti-abortion, don't expect Democratic support. John McCain, on the other hand, was specific that he would appoint judges in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, two judges whom Barack Obama voted nay at confirmation time. From McCain's May 6th speech:

This parliamentary truce was brief, but it lasted long enough to allow the confirmation of Justices Roberts, Alito, and many other judges. And it showed that serious differences can be handled in a serious way, without allowing Senate business to unravel in a chaos of partisan anger.

Here, too, Senators Obama and Clinton have very different ideas from my own. They are both lawyers themselves, and don't seem to mind at all when fundamental questions of social policy are preemptively decided by judges instead of by the people and their elected representatives. Nor have they raised objections to the unfair treatment of judicial nominees.

For both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, it turned out that not even John Roberts was quite good enough for them. Senator Obama in particular likes to talk up his background as a lecturer on law, and also as someone who can work across the aisle to get things done. But when Judge Roberts was nominated, it seemed to bring out more the lecturer in Senator Obama than it did the guy who can get things done. He went right along with the partisan crowd, and was among the 22 senators to vote against this highly qualified nominee. And just where did John Roberts fall short, by the Senator's measure? Well, a justice of the court, as Senator Obama explained it -- and I quote -- should share "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."

These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism -- come to think of it, they sound like an activist judge wrote them. And whatever they mean exactly, somehow Senator Obama's standards proved too lofty a standard for a nominee who was brilliant, fair-minded, and learned in the law, a nominee of clear rectitude who had proved more than the equal of any lawyer on the Judiciary Committee, and who today is respected by all as the Chief Justice of the United States. Somehow, by Senator Obama's standard, even Judge Roberts didn't measure up. And neither did Justice Samuel Alito. Apparently, nobody quite fits the bill except for an elite group of activist judges, lawyers, and law professors who think they know wisdom when they see it -- and they see it only in each other.

I have my own standards of judicial ability, experience, philosophy, and temperament. And Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito meet those standards in every respect. They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me.

On the basis of judges alone, it it truly baffling to me that any evangelical who calls himself or herself conservative would actually want a pro-abortion politician like Obama in the highest office in the land. Same goes double for Novak. In this two-party system, a non-vote for McCain is a vote for Obama. That is the reality.