Christians for Self-Defeat

Townhall.com ^ | October 5, 2007 | Kathleen Parker

[Hydroshock]

I think he would pick about the same. My Father in Law lives in Mass and he calls Rino Romney an unprincipled liberal.

[L,TOWM]

cuz it’s trollin’...

[dmw]

You completely lost me with your mega-church comment. Please enlighten me.

[maine-iac7]

Evangelical Christians never had it so good, but they seem not to know it. Instead of supporting the candidate who most shares their values -- Mitt Romney

but, doncha know? Romney's a Mormon! Mormons aren't Christian! (It must be that the only reason the real name of the Mormon Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is to fool people. And just because Mormons profess to believe that Jesus is the Savior, the Christ...that doesn't make them Christian. Thus sayeth the evangelicals. Yessir. And that's an end to it because the evangelicals are speaking directly for God.)

[Servant of the Cross]

“Evangelical Christians … seem hell-bent for the proverbial cliff.”

How quickly we forget the results of November, 1992 (third party candidate Perot) and November, 2006 (not turning out to vote because we’re frustrated with Republicans - "that will teach them"). If we do this to ourselves again, we might as well vote for Hillary right now. A vote for Perot in 1992 was a vote for Bill Clinton. Staying home out of disgust in 2006 was a vote for Nancy Pelosi.

“Perfection is a tough standard and hardly anyone is just right.”

That’s correct and who should understand this any better than a Christian? Jesus Christ is the ideal that we all fall short of. It’s crazy to expect that the same outward religiosity we may have for ourselves should be publicly displayed by a politician before we'll support them, especially in the culture we live in. Requiring such could automatically result in Hillary, or Rudy for that matter.

“Christian leaders believe any presidential candidate has to commit to traditional moral values, including the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and other pro-family principles.”

Again correct. However, differing views on how to accomplish such goals (FMA versus an incremental approach) should not disqualify a candidate from being the right candidate at this time for Christians.

Minimally, that means anti-Roe v. Wade, no same-sex marriage, no government funding for destruction of human life at any stage and no pro-sex education.

I wouldn’t use the word “minimally” for any of these. These are the core values that will shape the foundation for all of a candidate’s social views.

I enjoy reading Kathleen Parker. I will take her own process but come to a different conclusion. We want to beat Hillary with a candidate who espouses the above principles. Unfortunately, to do that we first have to beat the Trojan Horse candidate in our own party, Mr. Giuliani. There is only one candidate who meets the Christian values test and the 'can he beat Rudy test'. That is one Fred Dalton Thompson.

[misterrob]

Actually, she would be far worse. Mitt is pro-family, he’s not an accomplis to rape and other sexual misdeeds, he makes his money without cheating, he doesn’t believe in high taxes and he’s not in bed with the Move On/America Sucks crowd.

I am also concerned about who the CEO of the US is going to appoint to positions that matter like SCOTUS, SECDEF, The Fed and the Treasury. What’s he going to do about immigration?

I’ll vote for anyone who is going to stand and win against the corrupt Clinton machine. If Romney is the one left standing then he’s it. I won’t pout, sulk or throw a tantrum because my candidate lost.

[gondramB]

>>cuz it’s trollin’...<<

Aha... I’m running late today - first cup of coffee and all that - troll meter not up to speed. :)

[dinoparty]

“whatever else ills society”

Like incivility? (cf. your post)

[maine-iac7]

Romney is a quintensential politician.

Basically I think he is lying.

'tis what they do.

S'far's I can see, Fred is the only one running who maintains his decades old stance on the issues - and believes in the structure and principles that the Founders established and that made this country great. The Foundation Stone of our country is FREEDOM, individual RIGHTS - including the right to bear arms, the right to speak freely, the Right to Life, States Rights (that posits that we people within our state have brains and are able to decide most things for ourselves = that going to Washington does not suddenly bestow omnipotent wisdom on one, thus rendering them the ones who shall govern our every breath.)

We are NOT a democracy, folks.

Everyone repeat after me: " We are a REPUBLIC!"

"And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands...."

[John Leland 1789]

I could just as well be that the Republican Party (in general) is the foot shooter, by not running truly traditional conservative candidates, or by not giving more party recognition and moral support to those in the race who are more traditionally conservative.

[Hydroshock]

I do not like all of Fred. I am supporting Ducan Hunter as of now. But I could support Fred, whick is more then I can say about Rudy McRomney.

[Scythian]

Guaranteeing another Clinton presidency...

WRONG, it's the milk toast republicans fault, none of the candidates are worth a hoot, there is not a real man amoung us will to stand up and say what needs said.

[Hydroshock]

I have been gettign the feeling that some in the party would like to force the socons to sit in the back of the bus and shut up.. But that is not our way.

[maine-iac7]

Is that why he’s been “lackluster” in his campaigning?

Let's not swallow the "lackluster" label.

Do we really prefer candidates that yell and gesture and pontificate and point as if that will make what they have to say more believable and that that's the only way they can make we the sheeple understand? Have we been hypnotized to that extent?

I prefer someone who simply talks to us like we were adults and can understand what they say without yelling and pointing at us.

It's the dictator personality that screams and points - think Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Clinton...

An honest person does not have to resort to such histrionics

[maine-iac7]

Romney’s an intelligent conservative who’s got the presence to pull in swing voters. That should be enough reason to vote for him.

Romney jumped the shark in Mass with the Socialist Health Plan he signed - and Hillary, Kerry and Kennedy jumped up and down about as being great - which should tell us something.

Want Hilliary's Socialist Health system? Vote Romney.

[John Leland 1789]

Yes, Duncan Hunter looks better and better. I always did like him.

This one of the men to whom RNC people at high levels should have been lending more moral support. I believe that elitists in the party are as much to blame as the liberal media for Mr. Hunter not getting more exposure on a national scale.

The RNC elitists are just playing social tag with the Democrats anymore.

[Clemenza]

I’d still take Romney over Rudy.

[AIM-54]

Why should any conservative support a politician who favors murder, homosexuality, and whatever else ills society?

Why?

Because the alternative can be much, much worse.

Perfection is unattainable in this world. The best one can do it work to move closer to it, not further from it.

[DManA]

CCs have something politicians want - votes. It’s up to the politicians to woo these votes. It’s called politics. If the politicians are incapable of doing retail politics how is that the voters fault?

[Servant of the Cross]

You are right about the RNC elitists. Again, we are our own worst enemies.

I really like Duncan Hunter, probably even more than Fred Thompson overall. The realist in me though says supporting Duncan gives the nomination to Rudy.