Read all about it at Patheos.

I listened to Gov. Romney’s commencement address at Liberty University yesterday, and I have to admit:  I was prepared for the worst.  Yes, I am both an evangelical and a Romney fan, but I also live in reality.  And if you live there, it’s tough to deny that we evangelicals can be tough to please–and that the Romney campaign doesn’t have a track record of cracking our code consistently.  Having confessed that, let me say that I agree with Santorum fan Tony Perkins and others (probably a first this cycle!) that Gov. Romney hit a grand slam home run.  The main reason is that he made clear that there is a difference between theology and values.  He didn’t imply that his theology is the same as ours as evangelicals; in fact, he explicitly said otherwise.  That’s important.  Also important is that he made crystal clear that his values are the same as ours, and that those are what should unite people of different faiths in endeavors like politics (not to mention works of mercy and other things).  That has been EFM’s core argument since 2006.

One other important thing about Gov. Romney’s speech was the way he addressed the issue of gay marriage.  As you know, that’s been a hot one this week.  One of the things I have long appreciated about Gov. Romney is that when he does address this issue, he doesn’t do so the way too many evangelicals in politics do–with fiery, us-vs.-them rhetoric.  He doesn’t shy away from his belief, which comes from his values, but he states it reasonably and even respectfully.  You could also see this in the media appearances he did this week.  As we’ve seen, his demeanor is actually a turnoff to some evangelicals, but I happen to appreciate it very much.  It was helpful in Massachusetts during the bitter fight that began nearly ten years ago, but it’s even more so now, as the battle over marriage has become even more polarizing and emotional (particularly in my generation–you should see the two sides in my Facebook feed).

One other thing about Gov. Romney’s values and demeanor:  I was traveling this week but wanted to pass along a subtly titled piece called “Mitt Romney, Conservative Cultural Icon,” from The American Spectator.  It’s especially notable that the author is Peter Ferrara, who was part of the Gingrich campaign.  I love this portion:

Obamunistas are saying that Obama is cool, and Romney is not. But cool to whom? Cool is in the eye of the beholder.

I have to admit that if you are an aging hippie who never grew up, still think that the counterculture of the 1960s was the highwater mark of American civilization, reject America’s capitalist economic system as inherently unfair and uncool in the grubby pursuit of profit, see America’s historic world-leading prosperity as crass materialism causing global poverty, and regard America’s world dominating superpower military as the tool of global imperialism, you would see Obama as very cool for bringing your values into the White House. Ditto that if you are a mental infant throwback stuck in the last century who thinks global socialism and Che T-shirts are cool.

But social and cultural conservatives would have just the opposite view. For them, Romney is the personal embodiment of their values. His personal life is right out of Ozzie and Harriett, Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best. The practical relevance of his Mormonism is that he is personally devoted to these values at his core. The offbeat theology of Mormonism is not at issue because he is not a Mormon theologian.

Moreover, his professional life involves the core of entrepreneurial capitalism. It has been all about the finance of struggling smaller and mid-size companies so they can grow into successful larger, national companies, creating boomlets of real jobs in the real world. Romney’s whole business life has been about the capital in capitalism, which means he knows first hand how the system works, and how to fix it. This is why he should personally appeal to the Tea Party as well as to social conservatives.

To the Left, therefore, Romney represents the personification of everything they hate (the precise word for today’s Left). A straight-laced Mormon who personally deeply believes and lives out traditional family values who is also personally a successful businessman, himself a card carrying member of the top 1%, from Wall Street to boot.

That frankly makes this election even more high stakes. For Romney is personally carrying the flag for cultural conservatism like no other candidate could. If he wins, he completely shatters left-wing mythology and demonology regarding social conservatism, the top 1%, and Wall Street. This is why social conservatives and Tea Party conservatives should now come together and enthusiastically support Romney.

As I noted at the beginning of this post, my friends know me as someone who thinks “old fashioned” is a compliment, so I admittedly have an unusual view of the world.  But I agree with Mr. Ferrara that conservatives–and, I would add, particularly conservative evangelicals–can and should rally to the defense of a man whose life manifests what you might call our version of “cool.”  That aspect of him, particularly his understanding of the preeminence of God and family, was on display yesterday at Liberty.

The conventional wisdom about Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential short list, according to a handful of Romney insiders, may be wrong. Instead of picking a straitlaced Midwestern senator such as Ohio’s Rob Portman, or an outspoken northeastern Republican governor such as Chris Christie, there is a chance Romney will tap an evangelical from the South.

And the name on the lips of Romney friends and supporters isn’t a rising southern senator or a current Dixie governor. He has been out of office for five years, resides on a beach in the Florida panhandle, and hosts a television show.

In other words, Mike Huckabee, the bass-guitar-playing former governor.

Yes, according to several sources close to the Romney campaign, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the vice-presidential search, the 56-year-old Arkansan may be included in the veep mix. 

To many Republicans, a ticket with a Mormon bishop and a Baptist preacher isn’t far-fetched. “In a way, it’s almost a dream ticket,” says Ed Rollins, the chairman of Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. “He’s substantive and knows domestic policy, and his personality wouldn’t overshadow Romney’s.”

Read it all here.

The family and its foundational role in America’s economic success, a central point of our campaign, was discussed at length. I was impressed with the Governor’s deep understanding of this connection and his commitment to economic policies that preserve and strengthen families. He clearly understands that having pro-family initiatives are not only the morally and economically right thing to do, but that the family is the basic building block of our society and must be preserved.

More:

The primary campaign certainly made it clear that Governor Romney and I have some differences. But there are many significant areas in which we agree: the need for lower taxes, smaller government, and a reduction in out-of-control spending. We certainly agree that abortion is wrong and marriage should be between one man and one woman. I am also comfortable with Governor Romney on foreign policy matters, and we share the belief that we can never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. And while I had concerns about Governor Romney making a case as a candidate about fighting against Obamacare, I have no doubt if elected he will work with a Republican Congress to repeal it and replace it with a bottom up, patient, not government, driven system.

Above all else, we both agree that President Obama must be defeated. The task will not be easy. It will require all hands on deck if our nominee is to be victorious. Governor Romney will be that nominee and he has my endorsement and support to win this the most critical election of our lifetime.

Item 2: Conservative evangelical headline charges, “Romney goes full Etch-A-Sketch twice on gay agenda.”

Item 3: Longtime Romney skeptic blasts conservative writers who leaked from off-the-record meeting.

Some loving advice for the conservative echo chamber, from a longtime pal:  When your opponents see someone as a big ally of yours, yet you continue to kick sand in his face, and then a frequent critic of that would-be ally in your own camp tells you (on a different but related front) that you’re being childish, it might be time to check yourself.

It is one thing to reject real Republicans In Name Only.  That’s why I’ve never voted for the preeminent RINO, who comes from my state, former Sen. Arlen Specter.  It’s another to become a “clanging cymbal,” and I fear that’s where we’re headed.

For the best perspective on Gov. Romney’s record on social issues, from the leaders on those issues in his own state, see here.

Gingrich creditors nervous: Businesses and staffers owed money by former House speaker Newt Gingrich are worried that the soon-to-be-former presidential candidate isn’t good for the money.

Many were frustrated to see Gingrich continue to campaign (and spend) aggressively after his defeat was all but certain.

“They keep telling us, ‘We’ve got you covered, you will be paid.’ But I have my doubts. I really do,” sign company owner Vic Buttermore told ABC News.

Help may come soon; former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee have offered to help retire Gingrich’s debt.

And he’s not running again: Gingrich told USA Today, “I do not think in 2020 I’ll be a plausible candidate.”

The Washington Post:  The evangelical case for Mitt Romney — and against Robert Jeffress

USA Today:  Why Romney can — and should — win the evangelical vote.

CNN (this one is the most vitriolic column I’ve ever written, but I was incredulous at Gringrich’s appeal to evangelicals): Why evangelicals should dump Gingrich.

National Review Online (I’ve written quite a bit for NRO, but this piece came at a critical time): Mitt Romney defended rights of conscience in Massachusetts.

Patheos: Mitt Romney’s health care advantage?

Patheos (again): A letter to evangelicals who don’t support Mitt because of his Mormonism.

Patheos (yet again):  A Mormon president: are souls at stake?

Patheos (yes, yet again):  The case for Mitt Romney.

The Daily Caller: Evangelicals can (and should) support Mitt Romney.

and . . .

My favorite piece from the EFM archives:  Mormons: an appreciation.

In the weeks and months that follow, one or more of your friends will ask about Mitt, and I’m betting that the answer can be found in one of the columns above.  Read (or re-read) and enjoy!