"but we are not a theocracy and what she expressed sure makes it sound like that's what she wants."
I don't see how. She knows we are not a theocracy and she advocated for candidates who are Christian. If she were Jewish or Catholic, would merely supporting more candidates of her same background mean she wants a theocracy? Secular Humanists (liberals) advocate electing others like them all the time. But, people of faith should not be elected because there is a danger of establishing a theocracy?!?
The argument is specious. It's the "straw man" argument, i.e., accuse her of wanting to do something she never said, then rail against that.
I know liberals would love us not to elect people of faith, but most POF respect the constitution and want to follow it more closely and the constitution clearly does not want an establishment religion. But it does not prevent people of faith from running for office.
I don't see how. She knows we are not a theocracy and she advocated for candidates who are Christian. If she were Jewish or Catholic, would merely supporting more candidates of her same background mean she wants a theocracy?
There is a big difference between saying "I support electing more Christian candidates" and saying that ONLY Christians are worthy to be elected, because otherwise the non-Christians will legislate sin. If you can't tell the difference, it's why you probably aren't a politician (and the care needed in phrasing is why I never want to be a politician, either.)
But, people of faith should not be elected because there is a danger of establishing a theocracy?!?