Redstate

spoil sport carts them off in a straight jacket.

SteveLA, now where would you be today if you had been deprived of my wisdom years ago? huh

maybe LA?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

But it's still full daylight here on the Left Coast, so according to my folk kin from the hills of Tenn, it's not someone trying to put the "evil eye" on you as warned by hearing a rooster call at night.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

me the creeps!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

He said that in June. It doesn't sound like a conspiracy theory to me.

Come on Sturgisboy,

Throw in some snide comments about them kooky religious folks, maybe some offhand remark that lets us know how you really feel.

You were at a troll rating of 10, but I'm moving you up to an 9 on the troll rating with that one.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

More reasonable version of the meeting.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/09/018620.php

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

and I'm not at all convinced the Christian Right will boycott our top candidates en masse. Some may peel off in the primary (to whom? Huckabee?) but not in numbers sufficient to destroy our nominating a candidate who can beat Hillary!.

As for me, I am sympathetic to but not of the Christian Right. The GWOT, judges and taxes are my top issues. And if we give in on the GWOT (aka the Breck Girl's bumpersticker), all else is moot. I am against abortion but it won't matter when women are under Islamic law here. (Don't say it can't happen; already all over the country municipalities and universities are giving in.)

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

Running a third party candidate against Giuliani is perfectly sensible, and some Christian conservatives will do that if he's the nominee. Many others won't, of course.

I don't see how this is any different from the people saying they'll refuse to vote for Ron Paul or McCain if he's the nominee. If you believe America is better off if a certain candidate isn't elected, you naturally don't vote for him.

Whitefox

So prepare the circular firing squad, social conservatives are not getting their way and will bolt from the party? That's your story?

From a seat on the bus, to driving the bus, to off the bus, darn that's what I call rapid evolution, and no amount of creation theory will cover that one...LOL.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Those of us who are more fiscal conservatives held our noses several times and voted for the two Bushes who said all the right things about social values but turned out to be not very conservative. But now, if they don't get their way, the socons want to take their ball and go home. Is that the traditional value of loyalty I am hearing?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

see our values trashed 10 fold by the Party of Death. Its just crazy talk. I really have compassion for my fellow redstaters that are so ignorant of Christian evangelicals that left the dem party for Reagan. They aren't going back. Beleive me, I was a Christian democrat from 1980-2000. I know them. I joined them in 2000. Not going back. We loathe the dem party more than we love the GOP. We will not assist their trek for power.

We want 2nd grade to be about fingerpainting.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

But reading is better. I'm more concerned that the MA teacher had to read "King and King" aloud to her students than the fact that it was about gay marriage.

For pete's sake, it's 29 pages and has pictures, and these kids don't have the attention span to sit down and indoctrinate themselves?

www.mikehuckabee.com

can only hold together if all parties are getting something they want from it. Otherwise, it naturally dissolves.

I remember Bush the elder as a nose-holding vote myself, but if he wasn't as fiscal-con or social-con as either of us might have wished, he was better than the alternative. Giuliani isn't; indeed, his victory would set social cons back more than Hillary's.

Party loyalty? You've got to be kidding when it comes to Giuliani. I remember him endorsing Cuomo over Pataki for NY Governor. But even if he was loyal to the party, I see parties only as a means to the end of good government. Now that's a traditional value.

I remember Bush the elder as a nose-holding vote myself, but if he wasn't as fiscal-con or social-con as either of us might have wished

You mean Clarence Thomas doesn't count as "something?" It would would have been a big win for pro-life voters if they sat 1998 out and got another Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the court in his place, eh?

Giuliani isn't; indeed, his victory would set social cons back more than Hillary's.

I don't see how. There's zero chance that Hillary will make good SCOTUS appointments. There's a significantly greater than zero chance that Rudy would make good SCOTUS appointments. What more do you need to know?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Sure Clarence Thomas was "something". Everybody got something out of Bush the elder. Read what I said again; I'm using him as an example of a compromise candidate. Factions may not have been thrilled, but he was still worth their support.

Giuliani isn't that good. Electing him guarantees a social liberal for 8 years instead of 4. (Whether he wins or loses in 2012, a social conservative won't win. A primary challenge against a sitting President is merely a bad joke.) A sitting president is also the party leader, like it or not. Nominating him is essentially a public surrender of social conservatism. The small chance that Giuliani will change his spots and appoint a true federalist isn't worth all this.

Romney and McCain are fine as compromise candidates. No way I'm voting for either in the primary (unless it's down to them or Giuliani). But at least they're somewhat conservative.

The small chance that Giuliani will change his spots and appoint a true federalist isn't worth all this.

I'd put the per SCOTUS appointment odds at about 1/3 chance he appoints somebody really bad (Ginsberg/Souter), 1/3 chance he appoints somebody mediocre (O'Conner), 1/3 chance he appoints somebody good (Scalia/Alito/Thomas). I'd rank him slightly worse than Romney and slightly better than McCain on SCOTUS. Probably significantly worse than Thompson. All head and shoulders above any Democrat, where you have a 100% chance of a Ginsberg. I don't think they've failed in their quest to appoint hard left judges yet.

So for me, it's a no-brainer to vote for Rudy if he is the nominee, just on SCOTUS appointments alone.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I think it'd be more like 1/3 Souter, 1/3 O'Connor, 1/3 Kennedy. As GC has so aptly put it: He might appoint a strict constructionist by accident.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I think that's worth something. If nothing else, he's not going to want more lefties on the bench messing throwing up more barriers to law enforcement. It just so happens that those same people who invent things like Mirana warnings are the same ones who invent things like a right to abortion.

In any case, even if the odds did end up being as bad as you figure, that's still a lot better than Hillary or Obama. The Democrats aren't going to appoint anyone who doesn't swear an oath to NARAL, People for the American Way, and the ACLU.

I'm not gonna vote for the guy in the primary on this issue and several others, but I'd certainly vote for him in the general. As much as I hate to say it, I'd even have to vote for McCain in the general. There's too much at stake.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

based on a question from an MSM "reporter" whereas Mitt seems to have a penchant for this. First Gen Pace and now Rush.

And let me be clear. Yes, the guy that has defended Mitt for over a year.

Rush Limbaugh is more important than any candidate.

I'm mad at Mitt.

But Neil, despite the fact that Mitt has basically slapped a member of family in the face

I will vote for the GOP nominee period, so vile is the dem party!!!

and hey, GC is a dittohead from way back, ven when i was dem.

I love Rush.

I'm ok

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I enjoy listening to him speak whenever I get the chance.

And yeah, Mitt's 'change' is starting to bug me, but not in the way a lot of people are bugged about him. He's starting to remind me of Newt. It's as though he wants to attack our sacred cows just to show he can do it.

Now, I'll still be able to vote for him if the time comes. He's still my second choice in fact though I more and more expect him to flame out on Super Tuesday.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I still think he has the best chance of walking away with the nomination at this moment. It'll be a few months before we can get a good idea of just how well Fred is doing. Rudy is another threat but I think the pro-choice and anti-gun stuff will be too much for him to overcome when primary time rolls around.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Anyone even remotely like O'Connor would actually be worse than Ginsburg or Souter. Her desire to find compromises and to devise tests and "practical" solutions is incompatible with the job of a justice in matters of judicial review. It serves only to make something unconstitutional (or extra-constitutional) more workable, lending credibility to a lawmaking function of the judiciary. At least many of the leftist judges have nutty opinions that lend themselves better to future reversal.

For that reason, I would prefer a Hillary nominee over an O'Connor-style justice. However, I would hope (and expect) that there are not many people like O'Connor from which a President can choose.

My prediction is that the chances equal the composition of the entire group of persons from which he can choose. As with most other nominees, we're not likely to know much about the nominee at the time of his or her appointment. The same could probably be said of any of the top candidates. I doubt it would be someone who had much attention during Bush's tenure, and I doubt it would be someone most people know or expect.

than two that hardly ever get one right, but I'm not really into ranking which kind of dirt is dirtiest.

What I want to suggest is that with Rudy, we probably would know quite a bit about his picks because he would be very likley to choose one from the Bork inspired all stars in the appeals courts that the inside the beltway conservatives championed when Bush put Miers up.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

but a year or so ago, somebody here posted an analysis of the voting patterns *in congress* of critters considered "socons" and "fiscons" -- and found that:

(1) the socons almost invariably supported fiscon policies, as well as the standard socon positions

(2) the fiscons almost invariably voted against socon policies.

So, which side is actually loyal to the coalition, and which side has a history of using it only for their pet issues, and playing "what coalition?" games on every other issue?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

There are many here on RS that have been saying this would happen for months now. It was inevitable that Giuliani's social liberal credentials started to get publicized outside the political wonk circles that those here hang out in. GWB almost lost in 2000 because social/Christian conservatives would not vote for him due to his questionable record for social conservative issues. Karl Rove crafted a strategy that assured that this did not happen again in 2004.

Mock it all you want, but it's reality. There's a really easy way to fix it - nominate someone who unites the party rather than telling the social conservatives to get stuffed.

conservatives will treat your nominee of choice the same way, meanwhile the Dems rejoice.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

About ensuring Hillary or Obama are the next President. That's exactly what a third party candidate would do. I'm not sure Rudy would make decent SCOTUS appointments, but I have no doubt what kind of appointments Hillary or Obama would make.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Not a smart move on Dobson's part. As a believer, I see bigger problems that loom for this country than worrying about what James Dobson and his group want to make happen. They are nobel points but somethings can be bigger. It's like everyone wants peace and no war...well guess what - sometime it takes wars to keep the peace.

I don't think the radical Islmans would give Dr. Dobson the time of day unless it was his time to get to meet the swordman. Something's have higher priorities. Don't get me wrong God plays a big role in our lives but sometimes we mortals have to step up to the plate and act and this is one of those times.

Any GOP candidate would be better than letting Hill get the WH. Cooler heads need to prevail and take a look at the bigger picture. Their not seeing the forest for the trees.

I think Don Imus says that "Jeeeeeeeeews". More and e sound than an O sound, but he's a cow boy don't you know.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

a bad name. I know his family has a farm or something but
Sheeesh!

yep

Without putting words in Dr. Dobson's mouth, I would say that the perspective he and the others are taking is thus:

- A Christian answers to a higher authority; higher than party and higher than pragmatism
- A Christian who knowingly votes for a Candidate who has an unequivocal pro-abortion position is committing a sin, even if it is to win a difficult election. The scripture that comes to mind is from Matthew "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?"
- The world and all in it is in God's hands and ultimately under his complete control. It is better to vote according to one's conscience and leave the results in God's hands than to vote against conscience. This becomes an issue of faith, faith that in doing what is right, rather than what seems effective, we are being obedient.

Such a position is also pragmatic in its own way. The GOP is/has been the party of life. If Giuliani wins the nomination and then the election, this will signal the beginning of the end of the GOP's support for the culture of life.

It will signal that Abortion is no longer a deciding factor in Republican politics and you will see a multitude of GOP pols moving towards the middle on this - folks who are there in their hearts but who do not dare cross the electorate.

Whether we hold off the terror attacks for many more years or forever, this nation cannot stand if it gives its final blessing to the murder of the unborn. Nominating Rudy, especially if he wins the election, will move Abortion off the table. A Rudy defeat, either in the primary or the general election will keep it on there.

The United States can and will survive another Clinton or an Obama Presidency. We cannot survive the abandonment of the culture of life.

-able for a Christian to take that position. I don't, but I do see the merits of that position. I also do think that the election of a pro-choice GOP president will greatly harm the pro-life movement maybe more than Hillary given that the GOP would no longer be the pro-life party if its leader is president. But, more lives would be put at risk by a weak on defense liberal with Hillary, so I don't think its so simple.

Moreover, God uses non-Christians in the Bible to acheive his purposes.

Also, with respect to Dobson et al, I want to make clear that I have no problem with what he is doing. My problem is with the characterization of what he is doing and of Christians as his sheep by the media and some anti-so-cons here.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Moreover, God uses non-Christians in the Bible to achieve his purposes.

Yep. God frequently used the pagans to punish Israel as a result of their disobedience.

Not sure that's what you meant with Rudy, but that's the first thing that came to mind.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

This isn't a matter of pragamatism. This is a matter of taking his own (presumed) statements and carrying them to their logical conclusion.

If stopping Rudy Giuliani is so important that he'll start a third party candidacy of some sort, then he needs to start NOW. Don't just sit back waiting for someone to kiss his ring, and then throw up his hands when nobody does.

He needs to make himself a useful leader, and not just a media hogging one.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

You know, I listen to his radio show nearly every day.

Occasionally they will address national and state issues, but the vast bulk of programming (like 99%) is aimed at families and how they can be more effective husbands, fathers, mothers, wives and Christians.

The only notable exception is when they recently spent an entire week addressing Islamic Fascism (well worth the time to listen, if you're so inclined). I can't recall his name making it on to anyone's approval list here at RS, but it should have.

My sense is that Dr. Dobson does not particularly care for this exposure, nor wish to endorse anyone. I would guess that he does not see his role as one of endorsing, but of cautioning. For him to speak out means that he sees the rush to Rudy as particularly dangerous for America in the long run.

He knows this is an important election for the future of this country and I'm sure would prefer to work within the bounds of the GOP. Almost everyone agrees that a third party candidate on the right will toss the election to the Liberals. Dobson and the others at this strategy meeting are not fools - they know this too.

A message is being sent to the GOP leadership that they had best not take Christian support for granted.

5

One doesn't have to be afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to oppose George Bush. Do distinguish those who honestly (mistakenly or not) believe their opposition to Bush on whatever point is for the good of America, versus those with full blown BDS, a reliable diagnostic benchmark is that you have BDS if you believe fighting Bush is more important that fighting al Qaeda and their ilk.

The same distinction applies between sane opponents of Giuliani versus thow with Giuliani Derangement Syndrome: those who believe fighting Giuliani is more important than fighting al Qaeda are certified GDS victims.

Whether we hold off the terror attacks for many more years or forever, this nation cannot stand if it gives its final blessing to the murder of the unborn. Nominating Rudy, especially if he wins the election, will move Abortion off the table. A Rudy defeat, either in the primary or the general election will keep it on there.

The United States can and will survive another Clinton or an Obama Presidency. We cannot survive the abandonment of the culture of life.

Giulini Derangement Syndrome loud and clear.

By the way, if you honestly believe that America can survive Clinton but can't survive Giuliani, then if they become the nominees, don't you have a patriotic duty to do your best to elect Clinton, instead of wasting your time on some third party candidate? Or is doing the best to ensure the survival of your country less important to you than:

It is better to vote according to one's conscience and leave the results in God's hands than to vote against conscience. This becomes an issue of faith, faith that in doing what is right, rather than what seems effective, we are being obedient.

Our war with Islamic extremists is in this world, not the next. Same with our votes. Most of us cast votes based on our best judgment of what the consequences will be, and consider it presumptuous to task God with the job of cleaning up our mess from electing a disastrous President.

People who are so enamored with Giuliani as The Leader, that they're willing to work toward his nomination despite the fact that his policy views are extremely divisive within our party, on issues that have won us election after election after election, might have an affliction, too.

If the war is everything, then now is the time to unify, nad not take steps you *know* are divisive.

Back a unifier of Republicans for 2008.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

For instance Thompson Derangement Syndrome would be thinking defeating Thompson is more important than defeating al Qaeda because you don't like his pro-life position.

I never suggested that more than a fringe minority of those opposing Giuliani for the nomination suffered Giuliani Derangement Syndrome. I only refer to those who think it's OK to punish America with Clinton as Commander in Chief as a way to get back at the Republicans for nominating Giuliani. And that does not refer to those who honestly, if however foolishly, believe Clinton would be a better Commander in Chief.

If the war is everything, then now is the time to unify, nad not take steps you *know* are divisive.

Nominating Giuliani would be no more divisive than not nominating Ron Paul. Of course a bunch of people will be throwing a loud snit, but not enough to be significant in electoral calculations.

Most Thompson, Romney, etc. supporters are just as grown up as most Giuliani supporters. They know that you win some and lose some in nomination contests, and come general election time will use their vote to try to elect the candidate they believe will be best as President, rather than throwing it away on a joke candidate.

to everyone. Heck, if I were voting solely on the war issue, I would have voted Democrat in 2006, thanks to the then-ridiculous Iraq policy.

The interest isn't in punishing America for Giuliani's nomination. It's a simple reflection of which is really worse in the long term. Abortion kills far more Americans than AQ ever did. As a society, we're more likely to lose traditional marriage than embrace dhimmitude, or whatever it's called.

Neil already pointed out that this is avoidable. There are plenty of tough-on-AQ candidates that social-cons will vote for. If Giuliani means that much to you because he's supposedly more electable - don't forget to factor the third party in your calculations.

If Giuliani means that much to you because he's supposedly more electable - don't forget to factor the third party in your calculations.

I already did, and the third party factor is too trivial to matter.

Lots of people will huff and puff, just as loudly as the Ronbots assuring us our party is doomed in 2008 if we don't placate them. And a lot will vote for third party candidate where they know it doesn't matter, in states already safe for the Democratic or Republican candidate. Hey even I indulged myself that way a couple of times, but only because I knew the race wasn't close in my state.

In states where there's a real contest, the number of people still trashing their votes on joke candidates will be too trivial to bother with.

It will signal that Abortion is no longer a deciding factor in Republican politics and you will see a multitude of GOP pols moving towards the middle on this - folks who are there in their hearts but who do not dare cross the electorate.

Actually, I'm sorry to say I think that a lot of Republicans are trying not to cross the electorate despite the fact that it is NOT in their hearts. I firmly believe that to be the case. The end result, however, is the same. Those Republicans will no longer support a position they were never serious about in the first place.

The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/christan-conservatives-con...

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

it doesn't get any more authoritarian that that! MUST be true!

sturgisboy

Ah quoting the NY times is not exactly a real good way to make your point on a Conservative Web site. Maybe over with your friends at KOS ville, but here, not a real good selling point.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

When it comes to bad news, denial would make you disregard Ronald Reagan himself as a source.

NY Times, biased and all, is not known for originating complex conspiracy theories.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Doesn't mean Redstate should be dismissed because of that person.

Remember Ben Domenech?

Getting closer and closer to the Kos Klown ranking on the troll rating with that comment.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

bye bye!

Really, any conspiracy theorist worth his salt knows he must have a shadowy, diabolical figure to shoulder a propagation of lunacy. Now, if the story would have mentioned a secret meeting that included the Pope, Pat Robertson and Santa Claus it might have amounted to something.

Either way, the inclusion of Santa would have been more logical than the Domenech ad hominem to excuse your gullibility.

You chose to ignore the ad-hominem attack of the person who suggested that because Jason Blair lied, the NY Times is not a good source for this story. I set out to prove that attacking one person is not a valid argument, and used the Ben Domenech case.

But your narrow-minded self blamed me, and not the one who committed the fallacy.

With all due respect to Domenech, he is little in comparison to the littany of examples to mistrust the NYT. I don't know Domenech. But as one who frequently makes regrettable mistakes, I am encouraged that he admitted his and has moved on.

That being said, such has nothing to do with the paranoia contained in your post. Further, your argument of 'well he did it first!' regarding the ad hominem is, well, ironic considering super-secret Christian meetings, 'a house divided', and all.

James

You are responding to a troll rated entry that started out as only a 10 "Gorilla in the Mist", and has now fully revealed itself as a grade 3 KoS Klown.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I know. Its only that the utter stupidity of the post drew me out of my regular lurkerness(sp?).

Apropos would be 'Christians in the Mist'. I never knew such power; we should have secret decoder rings or something.

James

A gill, more like a small worm, sticking out of the back of the neck gives it away.

A Star Trek reference if you ever heard one, and the ending *****splat***** was just too cool.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Small worms bring to mind tequilla. See 'regrettable mistakes' above.

does not originate complex conspiracy theories, not what you suggested above

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

And don't forget, that if you conclude that because of Blair, the NY Times cannot be credible, then you must conclude that Redstate is a plagiarist website.

follow leaders. The NYT can be credible and occasionally are (usually in the last few paragraphs of a story aftert he bush blame stuff).

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

... e.g. in the NYT you can learn that everybody knew in 2002 that Saddam's Iraq wasn't developing WMD, but the Cheney administration made it all up. Their plot was so clever that they even tricked opponents of Iraq's liberation, like France and Russia, into believing Iraq had a WMD program.

sb

So what are you suggesting?

There is a religious right cabal that is going to not vote for the Republican canidate for President if they don't toe the line?

OK fine, I don't think anyone here on RS would argue with you that the three leading candidates for President on the R side of the ditch make the leaders of the Evangelical movement uneasy. It's a given.

After the primaries, what's the worst that will happen, Dr. D and his fellow leaders of the Evangelical movement will not get excited about the nominee and sit on their hands. That could happen, and then the Republican running for President could still win, then where will those leaders be?

That's the calculus, those are the choices leaders of any group make.

Do you have any other point to make?

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Adam and I, at least, have been going back and forth on this for quite some time. Which factions betray, which are being betrayed, etc. etc. etc.

The fact that a moby posted it doesn't mean the actual news isn't worth discussing.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Your statement assumes a person isn't a real Christian if they don't follow the lead of James Dobson or the others at the meeting.

Thanks for enlightening me. Until you clarified what a "Christian" is, I didn't realize Christians were a minority group in America.

Those for whom Rudy Giuliani's social liberalism is anathema and contrary to their whole reason for being in politics.

back in the 1980's I belonged to a real full gospel evangelical, mega church. I remember that Pat Robertson announced his candidacy and nearly all the church members went crazy.

They were holding rallies, raising money, and speaking that it was inevitable, because he was God's anointed servant to save America!.

I tried to point out that he had no chance of winning the nomination much less the general. but they would have none of it. It was God's will

Of course we didn't even know then that Mr. Robertson was just a congenial and somewhat crazy old fellow who said foolish things in public.

My point is that when people become obsessive about religious things they often think emotionally rather with their heads.

God tells us to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, not the other way around.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

in the 80s. They are veteran repubs now.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

when people become obsessive about religious things they often think emotionally rather with their heads.

I think it would be easy to generalize your point to pretty much everything, such as:

-A stock purchase
-A football team
-A relationship and (drum roll, please)
-Winning an election

Folks are so focused on winning the Presidency that they seem to be losing the ability to think about the cost.

Elections matter. Electing Rudy will have a cost. We may stave off a US terror attack for a while if he's in office, but in the end we will have paid a price in other areas that we can ill afford to pay, IMO.

both candidates are equally qualified (or unqualified). Rudy's got plenty of issues for a conservative Christian like myself, but he wins my vote hands-down over Hillary.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

the People had fashioned thru self government was changed when courts opened pandora's box by usurping our right to self government. Yes, the Church must preach values. They did, and in 1971, most states did not allow abortion on demand. Neither Jesus or Paul suggested that Christian citizens of the City of God were not also to be citizens of their nation on earth.

I don't agree with Dobson et al, but their very action affirms what you desire. They care more about the life issue than winning.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I fully support Christians and all groups exercising their right to vote and engage in political efforts.

My point is that Dobson and these other Christian leaders started off in other ministries and became political. In doing so they are mixing their message and confusing people with what is Christian and what is political.

Jesus was pretty clear that his objectives would not be achieved through political means. To mix the gospel message with partisan or issue politics is to confuse the gospel with social and cultural goals.

Societal laws are to maintain order and if rightly constructed will reflect certain moral values. However, Paul clearly taught that the law could not produce righteousness. So the righteousness that Christianity wants comes from God and subsequently makes a better society by the actions of those believers.

Laws can also provide guidance to non-believers, but only in a limited way. So I disagree with the Puritans in that their vision of a Christian society doesn't work in our pluralistic society. Locke maintained that religion was a matter of conscience and so it should remain.

If we want to encode morality in our secular laws we need to use some version of the natural law approach and win the agreement of the general culture through the persuasive power and clarity of the arguments.

For the Christian Right to grasp the levers of political power in the name of Christianity brings partisanship to the cause of the gospel. The gospel, however, is for all people of all political persuasions because it is about God not politics.

We need to separate the cause of Christ from partisanship. Not every conservative cause is Christian, not every Christian value is conservative.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

You're right I need to clarify. I fully support everyone's right to participate in politics.

My concern with Dobson comes from his shift from a ministry to families to a political kingmaker wannabe.

He was most effective when Focus on the Family was teaching people how to have better families. He raised political issues when they had what he considered a negative impact on the family. This ranged from tax issues to the growing influence of the gay rights movement. He gave good reasons for his opinions based on both Christian teachings and generally accepted family values.

Somewhere along the way he became more and more identified with the Republican party and certain candidates. Now he is nationally identified as a Republican who is even giving his thumbs up or down on the leading candidates and if he doesn't like them he will try to recruit someone he does like.
I support his right to become politically active on this level.

My problem with it is that I don't think he can do both effectively. It used to be that a young couple wanting good information on marriage and family and children could look to Dobson and respect his teaching. Now because he has become so identified politically some young couples will not avail themselves of his teaching because they don't agree with his partisan politics. So the opportunity to teach them good family values is lost to Dobson. And the culture loses when all families are not strengthened.

On the other hand many conservatives resent the perceived attempt of Dobson and the Christian Right to take over the Republican Party and make their social issues the dominant discourse of every election. So then Dobson is less effective than he could be in the political arena because he brings in his religion in a way that has a narrow appeal rather than a carefully thought out political strategy - intimidation vs. consensus building.

Because he has a Christian ministry he needs to be particularly careful to not confuse Christianity with partisanship. I don't think he has succeeded in this. My personal preference would be for him to return to ministering to families. I don't think he is doing Republicans any favors right now.

and the kingmaker point. I don't know. I think that he just cares so much about the life and values issues. I see your point about partisanship, but I am the wrong person to talk to. I was inside the Dem party for 20 years before my conservative epiphany in 2000. I know how decadent the dem party is. I truly consider it to be an instrument of the Devil and that Christians in the party are its useful idiots and need to to leave the party.

But you make good points and I recognize I could be wrong in my mission to kill the vampire!

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Your point on the Democratic party is exactly why I am so disappointed that Dobson would say he would not vote rather than vote for Giuliani. We know that no matter how bad Giuliani might be he will not be as bad as Hillary and the Democratic coattails she would carry.

I do not vote to enact Christian values into law, and I DESPISE the notion that pro-life position has a religious origin to it. If I had no belief in God whatsoever, I would hold that this is THE most important issue. I actually find it bizarre that the issue has its origins in the Bible.

Since I first heard the word and its definition (I guess I was around 9), I never made any religious connection. I was just shocked and horrified that it was legal. I wasn't thinking in terms of beliefs or behavior or morals. I couldn't understand why the same position is not universal. That too shocked me. I saw and still see ZERO validity in the anti-life position. I cannot say the same of ANY other issue - not a single one. I still do not believe that reasonable people, especially if informed on basic fetal development, can disagree.

You are articulating a natural law argument for life. I fully agree. My point is that religious and non-religious can agree on such issues on the basis of such natural law thinking.

This is the basis of the "inalienable rights" phrase of the Declaration. Whether the moral vision is rooted in religious teaching or not it is clear and natural to all men and therefore can be commonly agreed to.

I think this is a stronger basis for agreement in a pluralistic society.

You're mixing Law and Gospel improperly.

The "cause of the gospel" in the strict sense is the Great Comission. This indeed has nothing to do with the state, and state coercion can only be unhelpful.

The Law has a theological use, in that it shows the need for the Gospel. But it also has another use: to restrain people from public evil and promote the public good. That's why governments are appointed in the first place. (Re: Romans 13) It has nothing to do with righteousness before God, and everything to do with keeping us safe from each other.

The question then is what laws are good for that. There's room for many opinions here. But when it comes to abortion, it's hard to argue that nonchalance is performing that protective function. Likewise, traditional marriage is very profitable arrangement for society, and tearing it down isn't a public good.

Nothing wrong with living in a pluralistic society and making arguments that appeal to unbelievers as well. But those gifted with knowledge ought to use it.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

If it wasn't clear it was because I was trying to keep my comment to a reasonable length.

One point though is that when Paul referred to the law in Galatians he was referring to the law of Moses which was both God's law and the civil law.

My point was to include both to show that the gospel is the only means to attain righteousness before God. In Galatians Paul emphasizes that only faith in Christ can make us right with God. Even the law of Moses cannot do that.

In the culture war I just want to remember that even if we win some things and enact laws that protect, and reflect Christian moral values it will not make people right with God nor will it make us a moral culture. My point is that the Gospel teaches that only changed hearts will effectively change a culture.

Having said that I fully support the idea that laws should reflect the values and morals of society. The strong resistance comes from that fact that the cultural values for so many have shifted away from Christian morality. So let's change the society with the gospel and get lasting change in our culture.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I don't want the laws to reflect the values and morals of society. That's only a good thing if you respect human righteousness. If we had that, we wouldn't have much need of secular law in the first place. It's because people hate that we need laws deterring hate from carrying out murder.

I don't expect a moral culture in your sense. The world as a whole is not going to accept the Gospel, and even those that have sometimes fall to temptation. There's going to be lots of people who need their wickedness restrained.

The key point of the culture wars is to maintain a government that does restrain evil. I don't expect a special Christian culture to form, nor is it necessary. The Church is quite capable of preaching Christ. The government's business is to enforce a modicum of decent behavior, whether people feel like it or not.

I would respectfully ask you to reconsider given that three (likely) Guiliani Supreme Court nominations are far more likely to result in a reversal of Roe / Casey. If you vote Independent then you are voting to let Hillary nominate those justices.

Oz

www.first-cut-politics.blospot.com

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

They need to look beyond their noses. Hill is loving this.