Reid Wilson tells the tale of two former presidential candidates. He juxtaposes the specter of what Romney has done for McCain since ending his presidential bid versus what Huckabee has done since ending his bid.

First Romney:

Romney has been the most active, appearing for McCain this week at a Lancaster, Pennsylvania Republican dinner, shepherding McCain around Utah for a major fundraiser and promising to hit the stump in the future. Romney has also said he will raise $15 million for McCain, as the Associated Press’ Glen Johnson reports.

Compare that to Huckabee:

Huckabee, too, is staying active. He signed a contract with a Hollywood talent agency this week, and next week he will launch a new venture with a major speech, to which his website is counting down (four days, five hours, forty-one minutes and twenty five seconds from the time this post was written).

Is there a starker contrast between two people? Romney has dedicated his time towards a greater cause. Huckabee has used the occassion for self-promotion. Ideally the countdown on Huckabee’s website would be the dwindling of his minutes of fame.

In this world we need fewer self-promoters and more people willing to work for a cause other than self. Thank you for the example Gov. Romney.

Here’s a few stories to read today:

Weyrich Backs Away from “No Mitt” Ads: “I don’t know what the story is with Weyrich but all this vacillating isn’t doing him any favors.”

Religious Right flip-flops: “The Religious Right is still desperately trying to catch John McCain’s attention, and they’re still running into the same problem that left them with a candidate so distasteful to them in the first place. They can’t seem to pull it together and make up their minds.”

Romney in 2012?: “Mitt Romney still has friends — at least on Facebook.”

Maybe this is reverse psychology?

That’s the only excuse I can think of in defense of the GINGPAC decision to blast the idea of a McCain-Romney ticket. Unfortunately I don’t think these guys had reverse psychology in mind when they drafted this ad that, according to the website, will appear wherever McCain campaigns, starting in Prescott, AZ this weekend.

I could go on in an almost endless rant about why these guys have it wrong about Romney. However, the illogic and misinformation are patent from reading the ad. Citing questionable sources and making bare (and false) allegations does not lend credibility to their claims. Indeed, one could find numerous reliable and prominent sources that completely negate the claims they make.

Probably the saddest part of this was seeing Paul Weyrich’s name attached to the ad. Et tu Paul?

Michael Kinsley at the Washington Post, while doing a mostly unserious look at the advantage of being a male in the Presidential race because it takes less time to get ready in the morning, says one thing that shouldn’t be forgotten:

A year ago the big dinner-table question was whether it is a bigger disadvantage in running for president to be an African-American or a woman. It seemed for a while as if neither one was a particular disadvantage. In fact, the prize for biggest burden of prejudice to be lugging around the primaries went to Mitt Romney for being a Mormon.

E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post starts off his column by asking the wrong question:

Let’s ask the hard question about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Is he as far outside the African American mainstream as many of us would like to think?

Dionne answers his question:

I cite King not to justify Wright’s damnation of America or his lunatic and pernicious theories but to suggest that Obama’s pastor and his church are not as far outside the African American mainstream as many would suggest.

I don’t doubt that Dionne is correct in his assessment that Wright is not far out of the mainstream of African-American thought. Many black leaders and pastors have essentially shrugged their shoulders at Wright’s statements. Those calling Wright’s statements fanatical are the usual names: Sowell, Steele, Blackwell, etc.

It is not Dionne’s assessment of the African-American mainstream that I question, but why that is relevant. If Obama was seeking to replace Sharpton or Jackson as leader of the African-American community, there would be little reason to object to Wright’s statements or Obama’s association with Wright. Certainly Sharpton and Jackson regularly espouse similar views.

Yet, Obama is not seeking to be leader of the black community. Obama is seeking to be the elected leader of ALL Americans. Thus, it is insufficient to be in the mainstream of African-Americans if that falls outside the American mainstream. It is insufficient for Obama to be in the mainstream of ANY sub-group of Americans if that is not within the larger mainstream of all Americans. Dionne’s sleight of hand tries to legitimize Wright’s anti-Americanism by placing it in the mainstream of the black community. However, that skirts the issue of whether Wright’s statements fall within the American mainstream. Dionne’s failure to ask the correct question betrays its answer, which undoubtedly is no.

I agree with Justin…to a point. Obama’s speech was a rhetorical gem. It flowed naturally from one topic to the next and made a compelling case for his solutions. I was just left with one question after listening:

So what?

If the problem that Obama was confronting, and the need for the speech, had been general racism or discrimination, this would have been a masterful discourse. However, in my view, the problem was not generalized racism, but Obama’s particular association with an extremist. It was the statements by one of Obama’s closest confidants for the last 20 years that are particularly at odds with the premise for Obama’s campaign. Thus, in addressing race rather than his voluntary association, Obama addressed an issue tangential to the reason for the controversy.

The big problem with his speech is that he either gave generalized denunciations to Wright’s statements and then made the moral equivalence argument in several ways: equating non-family members to family members, saying all religious leaders make controversial statements, implying that all controversies are equal, etc. These excuses for his continuing association with Wright, in spite of the problems it has caused, makes me question his judgment more fully.

Don’t get me wrong, Obama’s campaign was smart in pivoting from Obama’s particular associations to racism generally. The news, at least that I’ve seen, has been gushing over his speech about race and have generally forgotten why he needed to give the speech at all. Wright is glossed over and forgotten as the stations will likely do a week’s worth of stories about race in America.

I find it interesting that Barack Obama’s continuing difficulties because of Jeremiah Wright are being framed in the context of two things it is definitely not about: race and religion.

This controversy is not about race. If anyone made the claim, and I have yet to hear it, that Obama is being criticized because of his race they are wrong. It is not the color of Obama’s or Wright’s skin that is the subject of controversy. No rational person would equate Wright’s anti-Americanism with the color of his skin, unless we are to believe that skin color determines nationalistic attitudes (which is patently absurd). It is Wright’s inflamatory statements themselves that have engendered controversy and not his skin color. Perhaps Wright would say the two are inseperable, but, again, skin color does not determine the content of character. Thus, those who frame the controversy in the context of race are not navigating the facts, but are pushing a headline that is detached from the story.

Likewise, the controversy is not about religion. Wright’s comments are not theological, but are political. It is not the tenets of Obama’s faith that are in question. No one is asking about his belief in God or his belief in the divinity of Christ or any other doctrinal question. No one has suggested that Obama should be disqualified because of his beliefs in spiritual matters. This is distinct from Mitt Romney’s experience where it was doctrinal differences over such things as the nature of God or post-mortal life that were the subject of controversy. Wright’s statements cannot be resolved by resort to religious sources. The slight convergence with religion that this controversy has is because of Wright’s title and the location of the remarks. Wright is a pastor and the remarks were given in a Church. Those facts alone do not make the controversy about religion. The controversy is about religion only insomuch as Obama proclaims religious belief in the statements that Wright made, something that Obama seems unlikely to do.

The transcribed interview is here. I’m still looking for the full video.

Update: Here’s the full video

Reuturs is reporting that McCain has officially begun the process of seraching for a running mate. He declined to comment on Romney as a running mate:

Speaking to reporters on his campaign plane, the expected Republican nominee said he had seen news reports that a defeated rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, had expressed interest in the job, but he offered no comment one way or the other on whether Romney would be a candidate.

Any thoughts?

All I can find is this short clip. We’ll post the whole thing when we find it.