Evangelical leaders leaning towards Fred

posted at 10:37 am on July 16, 2007 by Allahpundit

What do you know. I guess he’s Christian enough after all.

The success of the effort is by no means ensured; in March, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson told U.S. News that he doubted Thompson was really a Christian. But Dobson and Thompson have since talked, with Dobson rumored to be reassessing Thompson. And prominent social conservative Paul Weyrich, who met recently with Thompson and evangelical activists, said the former senator “was in agreement with us on almost everything.”

For Thompson, the timing couldn’t be better. McCain’s campaign is reeling from staff departures and cutbacks, and Giuliani faces fierce opposition from Christian right leaders. So Thompson’s team is betting that the GOP primaries will turn into what one adviser calls a “Thompson-Romney duel,” since Romney is the one top-tier Republican lobbying hard for evangelical support. “If he gets strong support from evangelicals, Thompson could reshape the race,” says the Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life’s John Green…

Thompson still faces stumbling blocks among rank-and-file evangelicals, including his own reputation as an infrequent churchgoer. But “Thompson’s very good on the defense of normal marriage and free expression of religion,” says one time presidential candidate Gary Bauer. “Frankly, he might have an easier time…if he’s not easily labeled as ‘religious right.’”…

Last week, the Los Angeles Times alleged that Thompson had even lobbied for an abortion-rights group. But Thompson’s Christian outreach team quickly E-mailed a detailed denial to conservative leaders. Within hours, evangelical activists were chatting with reporters, quoting straight from Thompson’s talking points. The story’s damage wasn’t undone, exactly. But the response may have been a signal that evangelicals are ready to join the Thompson team.

I doubt whether a Thompson-Romney duel will be much of a duel. I mentioned Mitt to a born-again Christian friend not long ago as someone possibly worth supporting and she sniffed that he belonged to a “cult.” Not all Christians agree, of course, but given a choice between two candidates with similar takes on most issues it’s natural that they’ll lean towards the guy who “looks” most like them. On the other hand, Fred’s already copped to having chased (and been chased by) plenty of skirts in his bachelor days. How many’s going to be too many for Dobson and company? I’m sure Mitt’s oppo researchers are busy working to find out.

The media’s already busy sifting through his Senate papers, although, per Patterico, it looks the cast of characters in the next LA Times hit piece overlaps somewhat with the cast from the last one, which won’t help their credibility any.

Here’s Mitt’s new ad, by the way. Replace the voiceover and the shot of him at the very end with a couple walking hand in hand and it could be a spot for an erectile dysfunction pill. Exit question: Given the media’s sudden, not at all partisan interest in candidates and their history with lobbyists, how much traction do you suppose this article‘s going to get?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

It is easy to pick out the Hitchens’ groupies from the earlier posts.
We all have our beliefs and of course we are going to vote for someone who will be respectful of those beliefs and what better way to insure that but to vote for someone who actually shares those beliefs. But even if Mr. Thompson is not a strong Christian just being respectful of our faith and voting positively on the issues that are important to us is enough for me.
As far as his past, you are missing a very important aspect of Christianity and that is forgiveness. If Mr. Thompson is currently in a strong marriage and his “wild” bachelor days are behind him, those days won’t even be an issue. It is what he is now that matters, and what his stands are on the issues now that matters.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM

I’m saying that the New differs from the Old vastly.

Why does that make the OT observations without merit? After all which testament did Paul quote extensively from in his writings, like for example in Hebrews?

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM

It is what he is now that matters, and what his stands are on the issues now that matters.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM

If true (I largely agree) then we should extend that courtesy to all candidates.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:03 PM

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM

I’m not saying they’re without merit but I’ll bite. Here’s a different spin. If you have a daughter, sister, neice, female cousin, etc., would you want them in a polygamous relationship? Would you call that conservative and then try to foist it off as Biblical? I know I wouldn’t.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 2:08 PM

I do. But there has to be a reason to believe that those stands are honest and not just to win. The reason the LA times article doesn’t mean anything is because Mr. Thompson’s voting record appears later and it shows him to be pro-life. If Mr. Romney was once pro choice and he changed his position I have no problem with that if there is a record that reveals that change. I am glad when I hear that someone has changed from pro choice to pro life. I am more than willing to give that person the benefit of the doubt. It is a good thing. Let the records of these candidates speak for themselves and if they have had a change of heart than it is up to them to convince us.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Oh yeah. Polygamy is super-conservative all right.
/

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Oh, Goddammit, why do I even bother?

They haven’t practiced polygamy in what, over a hunderd years (with the exception of a few tiny splinter groups, rejected by the LDS bigwigs and nearly all Mormons)?

Bad Candy on July 16, 2007 at 2:15 PM

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Yes, integrity vs. political expedience.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Heh. I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t want it for myself either. But even in the NT a situation requiring it can be inferred: relating to the continuation of a line – when Jesus was asked about this, he said nothing about the taking to wife, but instead to the nature of the here-after.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:19 PM

But Jesus was talking about the custom of a brother marrying his brother’s widow in order to continue his brother’s line. But in each case the spouse that came before was dead. He said in heaven there would be no marriage.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:23 PM

I’m not changing my position at all. I probably misinterpreted the comment. I believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God was sent to die for our sins. I believe that salvation is reached only through Him. That being said, regardless of religion, that faith will save all who have it. I would never vote for a Satanist. I won’t vote for a Mormon, not because of religion but because this country was founded on Christian principles and it would do a lot of people good to remember that.

ophelia on July 16, 2007 at 1:57 PM

I don’t know. If I had to pick based on religion, I’d pick a sincere Mormon who believes exactly what you’ve just said (as many seem to) over someone who pretends to be a Christian just to get votes.

By the way, I’m not at all insinuating that Fred Thompson is doing that. I have no information on the man’s faith.

You just agreed that anyone who believes the above is a Christian. Don’t change that now just because people who believe that might be Mormon.

Deuteronomy 21:15-17
What Testament is that in again? Old. Read my previous posts. I’m saying that the New differs from the Old vastly.

Of course it does, and I wasn’t arguing otherwise. However, some are arguing about what Mormonism was like at its inception. The Old Testament is what Christianity was like at its inception. For argument’s sake, you can’t cherry pick which religions started off roughly.

Why does that make the OT observations without merit? After all which testament did Paul quote extensively from in his writings, like for example in Hebrews?

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:01 PM

So true. In fact, the early Christians had no other religious texts than the Old Testament. Jesus Himself relied heavily on the Old Testament.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 2:26 PM

Husband H1 with wife W1
Husband (brother of H1) H2 with wife W2

H1 dies, with no children. H2 adds W1 to continue his brother’s line, now H2 has two wifes, W2+W1.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:28 PM

“Dark-Star on July 16, 2007 at 1:41 PM”

Well, you’ll be pleased to know that God acting through his one true living prophet, then then president of the Mormon church, made blacks equal in the Mormon church in 1978.

Prior to that they were, in God’s wisdom, banned from the temple and having sex with a black man was one of the sins that salvation through Christ (naturally the Mormon Christ who is the brother of Satan) could not erase by itself.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 2:28 PM

H1 dies, with no children. H2 adds W1 to continue his brother’s line, now H2 has two wifes, W2+W1.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Right, but they were only asking whose wife W1 would be in heaven, H1 or H2. Jesus only addressed that question, not the question of whether or not H2 should have married W1 in the first place.

By His silence on the subject you could assume He accepted it as a practice, but I can’t recall any time He specifically addressed it.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Look, whether I’m right or wrong in interpreting Mormon or other doctrine or whether that even has any meaning because maybe religions are all equally wrong (or right if the Bahi’i's are on the right track), the fact remains, America was founded by people escaping religious persecution and wanting a place to worship freely.

This applies to Mormons and is one of the reasons it was able to flourish.

DEBATING religion, as much as politics, is quintessentially American. Whatever point you take on the merits, the act of caring about religious views is natural.

Yes, a not-particularly-religious Republican may find this trait annoying, but such is life.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 2:36 PM

Liked the video. However, many of these cultural issues have been debated in the courts for decades. The best way to effect change in the cultural arena is to appoint conservative judges.

Exit question: I think I’d like them to sweep as much as possible under the rug during the primaries, and take those shots during the general. It’s great that the research is being done, but we should hold off using it until the general election. The Rats (+MSM) are trying to influence the Republican primaries and you see what the reaction is: “consider the source.”

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

jaime on July 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM

The Sadducees were trying to trick Jesus. They did not believe in life after death and the question was meant to trap him. That is the point of the exchange. They wanted Jesus to admit there was no afterlife. But he turned it around and said that the woman would be no one’s wife because there is no marriage relationship in heaven.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Agreed. I’m just saying it could be so inferred.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Right or wrong,I don’t think any practicing Catholics in this country nor alot of protestants would vote a Morman into the Whitehouse due to the differences in their beliefs.While I personally would’nt have a problem with it I know many people would.

DCJeff on July 16, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM

Sure, that’s one to look it. But in trying to trick him, one would think they would start from a point of agreement to try to show an inconsistency in doctrine.

If there is not agreement on the foundational statement, then no inconsistency (their desire) could be shown.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:45 PM

The reason the LA times article doesn’t mean anything is because Mr. Thompson’s voting record appears later and it shows him to be pro-life. If Mr. Romney was once pro choice and he changed his position I have no problem with that if there is a record that reveals that change.
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:10 PM

In the case of Romney and Giuliani, there is no such record.

When it comes to getting Supreme Court justices appointed, mere preference isn’t worth squat. You have to be a pit bull. At least Giuliani has muttered recently that he might not mind too awful much if a conservative judge makes it past the confirmation process. But is there any reason to believe that’s going to overcome the rabid Inquisition we know the Democrats will bring?

Changing your tune for the sake of a Republican Primary is OK, it shows that at least you’re not a fanatically dedicated pro-abortionist. So I think it’s safe to assume that of all Republican candidates. What matters is picking absolutely nothing except strictly federalist and constructionist Supreme Court justices.

And what the heck do the records of Romney and Giuliani tell us about their position on that? Two things: jack and squat.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 2:47 PM

W

hile I personally would’nt have a problem with it I know many people would.

DCJeff on July 16, 2007 at 2:41 PM

Do you think that is why he polls low nationally? Or do you attribute that to his strategy of (almost exclusive) focus in the early primary states?

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM

I find Mitt Romney to be a poor communicator.

I think he’s an able man. I find both his campaign speeches and his commercials uninspiring.

He comes across as a boring milquetoast Ned Flanders. Fred comes across as someone able to give and take a punch.

Mitt Romney looks like he could take 15, but wouldn’t want to give 1.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:48 PM

Good question…I don’t know.But I’ve been surprised by some other-wise tolerant associates that have said they would’nt vote for him because of his religion.

DCJeff on July 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Agreed. I’m just saying it could be so inferred.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 2:39 PM

True.

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Mitt Romney looks like he could take 15, but wouldn’t want to give 1.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM

So it’s settled then. Fred and Mitt need to box to see who’ll become the social con of the race. Winner take all!

Esthier on July 16, 2007 at 2:54 PM

I totally agree on the judges. The war on terror is very important but I don’t trust Rudy on the judge issue. He is basically liberal and even though he may keep his promise on nominating a strict federalist, when the Democrats give him a hard time I think he will cave and nominate a more liberal one. That way he can say I kept my promise but it didn’t work. I just don’t trust him. I’m not so sure about Mr. Romney. Religious freedom is important to him also and it wouldn’t help to put a liberal in so I’m sure he would go for the conservative judge. I just think that Mr. Thompson will be stronger willed about it than the other two. So far I trust him the most especially since he helped with John Roberts.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:55 PM

…The Rats (+MSM) are trying to influence the Republican primaries and you see what the reaction is: “consider the source.”

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

jaime on July 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM

How in the heck is that “hijacking?” As far as I’m concerned, it’s one of the very few posts in this thread that actually IS on point.

We’ve had the liberal media telling us who our “front runners” are for more than a year before the first primary.

I NEVER cared what the Hell they thought, and if anything I’m going past the point of apathy into an overt hostility toward the Democrat media’s ever-so-very “helpful” suggestions on who Republicans should nominate.

And, frankly, that’s even starting to apply to the self-proclaimed “conservatives” who are happily parroting the liberal media’s propaganda.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 2:58 PM

The war on terror is very important but I don’t trust Rudy on the judge issue. He is basically liberal and even though he may keep his promise on nominating a strict federalist, when the Democrats give him a hard time I think he will cave and nominate a more liberal one.
Rose on July 16, 2007 at 2:55 PM

Do you know how combative Rudy is? The NY liberals think he is insane, because Rudy thinks and SAYS they’re insane. If you want to see nuclear confrontations with a liberal congress and a liberal media, vote for Rudy and wait for the fireworks. Rudy has made a carreer out of stick a hot poker in the eye of the opposition. What makes you think laid-back non-comittal Fred would be tougher standing up to political opposition, that sexy raspy voice?

tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Because I think Mr. Thompson comes more from a place of agreement on the types of judges we need as opposed to just keeping a campaign promise. Rudy doesn’t care if a judge is liberal, so I don’t see how his heart would be in a fight to appoint a conservative one. That’s all. It just concerns me.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 3:21 PM

DCJeff on July 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

It’s a curious thing. I mean even in AP’s post: a ‘born-again’ Christian says to her friend the athiest (which AP occasionally reminds us polls the lowest in favorable ratings) that Mitt is too weird for her. Just seems ironic to me…Makes me wonder if some that isn’t a catch-all – the face of various assorted dislikes. I’m curious about it.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 3:39 PM

I find Mitt Romney to be a poor communicator.

I think he’s an able man. I find both his campaign speeches and his commercials uninspiring. [...]

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM

I think he has done well in the debates, but this ad is very weak. Sounds like an ad to encourage people to read Peggy Noonan.

Spirit of 1776 on July 16, 2007 at 3:41 PM

If you want to see nuclear confrontations with a liberal congress and a liberal media, vote for Rudy and wait for the fireworks. Rudy has made a carreer out of stick a hot poker in the eye of the opposition. What makes you think laid-back non-comittal Fred would be tougher standing up to political opposition, that sexy raspy voice?

We’re looking for the most CONSERVATIVE candidate. If you’re looking for the most ZEALOUS, I have bad news for you: Adolph Hitler is dead, and Hillary Clinton is unlikely to change parties at this late date.

Any candidate who tries to out-frenzy Hillary is going to lose. What we need is the exact opposite. Not someone to tell the voters which side of the isle is the most berzerk – but to show them which side ISN’T.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 3:44 PM

How in the heck is that “hijacking?” As far as I’m concerned, it’s one of the very few posts in this thread that actually IS on point.

I was being so sarcastic I didn’t think I needed a tag. Never assume…

And, frankly, that’s even starting to apply to the self-proclaimed “conservatives” who are happily parroting the liberal media’s propaganda.

It seems to me, logis, that many of Fred!’s critics on this site might be campaign hacks for one of the RINO candidates. They never really tell us how Rudy or Mitt would appoint better judges, better secure the border, better battle terrorism, better overturn abortion rights, better lower taxes, etc…, they just complain in an unconvincing way about Fred!’s character.

It’s like they think they’re arguing with liberals, forgetting that conservatives want to hear the facts about an alternative position. They can’t change opinion by taking shots at Fred!. They’re going to have to show why Mitt or Rudy are so great. I’m still waiting.

jaime on July 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

The Fredmania at hotair is positive. Fred Thompson is the only viable candidate besides Guiliani that is a good fit for President. My vote goes with Fred Thompson and every conservative on this blog should be jumping on the bandwagon. He is the REAL deal. He is a no bullshit straight talker.

msipes on July 16, 2007 at 4:02 PM

Here‘s a very good article about Thompson allegedly (but consistent with the newspaper records of the time) supporting Roe vs. Wade in 1993 and 1994 despite saying he’s “always” been against it.

What do you think?

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 4:12 PM

It’s like they think they’re arguing with liberals, forgetting that conservatives want to hear the facts about an alternative position. They can’t change opinion by taking shots at Fred!.

jaime on July 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

The rabid anti-Frederalists scream like stuck pigs whenever someone calls them “Moby’s”, but I sure as Hell can’t see ANY difference between the things they’re saying and the crap the craziest moonbats are spouting.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 4:26 PM

It seems to me, logis, that many of Fred!’s critics on this site might be campaign hacks for one of the RINO candidates. They never really tell us how Rudy or Mitt would appoint better judges, better secure the border, better battle terrorism, better overturn abortion rights, better lower taxes, etc…, they just complain in an unconvincing way about Fred!’s character.

It’s like they think they’re arguing with liberals, forgetting that conservatives want to hear the facts about an alternative position. They can’t change opinion by taking shots at Fred!. They’re going to have to show why Mitt or Rudy are so great. I’m still waiting.

jaime on July 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Yep,and they’re not doing a very good job at it!

DCJeff on July 16, 2007 at 4:29 PM

http://www.tpmcafe.com/

What do you think?

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Well, that’s an extreme example. But yeah, that’s the sort of psychotic moonbat ranting I’m talking about.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM

No, logis, for goodness sakes, I don’t like much less know the author.

But I have heard of the Washington Post and the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

Is this story true?

Fred was engaged in an active campaign at the time. He wouldn’t have let statements from influential newspapers stating he supported Roe vs. Wade stand uncorrected if he didn’t.

Is there any record he attempted to correct this?

Fred recently told Sean Hannity he had always opposed Roe vs. Wade. Was he lying? Did he forget? Did both newspapers get the story wrong?

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM

It’s like they think they’re arguing with liberals, forgetting that conservatives want to hear the facts about an alternative position. They can’t change opinion by taking shots at Fred!. They’re going to have to show why Mitt or Rudy are so great. I’m still waiting.

jaime on July 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

I think the exact opposite is the case. Arguing with the Fredheads at hotair is like beating your heat against the wall. Those not taken in by Fredhead hystaria will point out that he was a mole for Nixon, knuckeled under to Demoncratic pressure while investigating Clinton’s illegal campaign financing, lobbied for abortion rights in 91, was pro-Roe v. Wade in 1993, thought all abortions within the first trimester should be legal in 1994, was a main mover and shaker in that other abortion McCain/Fiengold, and was your basic RINO until he starts angling for the religious right votes. Now, miraculously, he has always been pro-life with sterling conservative credentials — AND NOTHING ANYONE SAYS WILL CONVINCE YOU OTHERWISE.

tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 4:50 PM

But I have heard of the Washington Post and the Memphis Commercial Appeal.

Is this story true?

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM

I know for a fact that the first title is actually the name of a newspaper. As for the second, I’m not going to bother looking it up.

But of course it’s insane to imagine that THESE PEOPLE are really doing their best to help us find the best possible conservative candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Once again, I’m not saying the moonbats are “wrong”; there is no need. All I’m doing is pointing out that you don’t differ from them in any way.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Fred recently told Sean Hannity he had always opposed Roe vs. Wade. Was he lying? Did he forget? Did both newspapers get the story wrong?

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 4:35 PM

You can be pro-choice and think Roe v. Wade is wrong. In fact, most pro-choice Republicans think Rose v. Wade was wrongly decided. Just because you think that the Constitution does not afford a right to an abortion, does not necessarily mean you think abortion is bad. Fred knows that, but also knows that most people will not understand the difference.

Notice how Fred avoids the question.
Q: Were you pro-choice?
A: I always though Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

So, F’in what? Rudy thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided too, and he admits that he is pro-choice.

Fred was playing on the ignorance of the Fredheads and they are gobbling it up.

tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM

BKennedy on July 16, 2007 at 1:29 PM

On top of all those excellent qualifications, Governor’s are in charge of their National Guard. I have no idea what Mitts! experience with the guard is, but he was and fred? never was.

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Come back when Allah puts up a thread on Mormonism and I’ll shred your one sided misrepresentations about the LDS church. We can start with the Nicene Creed and, oh yeah, and we can end there too.

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Believe me, no one ever mistakes me for being a “RINO”, yet I support Mitt; or Rudy; or Fred!; or Newt. Anyone but McCain.

It is too early to tell who the best candidate is at this point – and that does not make me a Moonbat liberal.

I do think that most of the criticism of Mitt is fairly ludicrous (other than his commericals being boring – that is legitimate commmentary).

For all those who live in fear of Mormons- the FACT is that Polygamists are excommunicated from the LDS Church, so you can put that little red herring to rest.

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Dark-Star on July 16, 2007 at 1:41 PM

And where do you get the standards that say the LDS church’s teaching are “loony”?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM

If you’re going to be a Christian, be a Christian.
Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:56 PM

And who decides who is a Christian? You?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:25 PM

. If Mr. Thompson is currently in a strong marriage and his “wild” bachelor days are behind him, those days won’t even be an issue. It is what he is now that matters, and what his stands are on the issues now that matters.

Rose on July 16, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Are you granting him absolution? And if fred? is still bragging about those days, what does that say about him?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Fred Thompson is the only viable candidate besides Guiliani that is a good fit for President.
msipes on July 16, 2007 at 4:02 PM

fred? is not a candidate. Therefore he is not viable.

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:36 PM

It seems to me, logis, that many of Fred!’s critics on this site might be campaign hacks for one of the RINO candidates.
jaime on July 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

Oh pray tell, why does vetting one candidate at a time mean a person is a shill for a different campaign?

THIS outta be GREAT!

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:39 PM

So, F’in what? Rudy thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided too, and he admits that he is pro-choice.
tommylotto on July 16, 2007 at 5:00 PM

Is that his latest position? I sure didn’t get that impression when he addressed it in the first debate, giving a noncommittal “It would be OK” when asked if Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Despite his recent addition of solid advisors, I just don’t trust him to follow through given his record.

Hollowpoint on July 16, 2007 at 5:59 PM

Hollowpoint,

Perhaps you can explain for us how any of the candidates can do anything to overturn Roe V. Wade – other than by appointing conservative judges who MIGHT overturn it – which would just send it back in the States.

Roe V. Wade was terrible law, no matter what side of the abortion issue one is on. I have no doubt that Rudy, Fred, Mitt and Newt would appoint conservative judges.

Then what?

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Then what?

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 6:12 PM

fred? doesn’t have the stones to fight for the Justice that will change the direction of the court for the next 20 years. The dems will put up a fierce opposition and fred?, like every other issue he has a record on, will cave under the pressure.

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 6:17 PM

csdeven,

I am unaware about anything about Fred that makes your 6:17 true, so you’ll have to provide something concrete to back up that assertion.

Anyway, who cares if “the Dems put up fierce opposition”? Are you talking about getting judicial appointments approved or picketing the Supreme Court?

If you’re referring to appointments and you are correct that they won’t get past the Senate, then we have even less to talk about on the abortion issue, other than to try to convince people that it’s immoral and they shouldn’t do it.

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 6:23 PM

Just to clarify one thing – the States are already free to prohibit Partial Birth Abortion which does not fall under the purview of Roe – and I am completely in favor of as many States as possible ending this barbaric practice.

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM

I am unaware about anything about Fred that makes your 6:17 true, so you’ll have to provide something concrete to back up that assertion.

Anyway, who cares if “the Dems put up fierce opposition”? Are you talking about getting judicial appointments approved or picketing the Supreme Court?

If you’re referring to appointments and you are correct that they won’t get past the Senate, then we have even less to talk about on the abortion issue, other than to try to convince people that it’s immoral and they shouldn’t do it.

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 6:23 PM

fred? acquiesced during the Clinton impeachment, the Chinese connection to Clinton, and sided with moderates and fought against conservatives on McCain/Feingold.

I haven’t read much about fred? showing real balls on anything conservative. even his pro-life votes in the senate were non-descript. I am still trying to find out how many pro-life votes fred? had the opportunity to vote on, yet did not.

Does anyone have any suggestions to see just how many opportunities fred? had to vote pro-life verses his actual votes?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Just to clarify one thing – the States are already free to prohibit Partial Birth Abortion which does not fall under the purview of Roe – and I am completely in favor of as many States as possible ending this barbaric practice.

Buy Danish on July 16, 2007 at 6:49 PM

I believe Alabama just did so.

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Dark-Star on July 16, 2007 at 1:41 PM

And where do you get the standards that say the LDS church’s teaching are “loony”?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:21 PM

If you’re going to be a Christian, be a Christian. Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 1:56 PM

And who decides who is a Christian? You?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 5:25 PM

csdeven:

Well, to start with, I believe, and I may be mistaken, and please correct me if I’m wrong because it isn’t that important to my point, DarkStar may be African-American.

Since we’re talking about the LDS church only recognizing blacks as equal in 1978 and prior to this, actually physically banning them from Mormon temples, and prior to that, having sex with “negroes” one of the (several in this case) sins that can’t be forgiven based only on Christ’s sacrifice, and in fact requiring additional actions by temple-worthy, and therefore non-black, church members, it’s my opinion — not hard and settled fact — that this is “loony”.

There are other things I find loony like the belief we men can become Gods, if but only we live in a certain way, have a wife of wives (preferably 10 or more according to the founder of the church, who married 33 women), and then make a successful presentation to the council of Gods for consideration to became a God myself.

But in both those cases, this is merely my opinion. You may support all those policies, past and present. In which case, I’d describe you as being loony.

I like most Mormons I know. As I said, I’ve been a Mormon. However, it is my belief, and in a free country we have a right to express our religious beliefs, that Mormon teachings are seriously misguided. And on this front, I have only scratched the surface.

The more objectionable ones are, literally, mysteries to many members of the church because they are only revealed in secret freemason-inspired ceremonies at the higher levels of temple worship.

But hey, just because I don’t know the secret handshake required to get into the third level of heaven, doesn’t mean I can’t have an opinion.

As far as who decides whether ophelia is being a Christian, God if there is one. As far as who gets to offer an opinion about whether her views or actions are in line with Christianity, I do. Anyone does. It’s a free country, after all.

I believe Alabama just did so.

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 7:02 PM

And, once again, you are imprecise and inaccurate. It was Louisiana.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 7:37 PM

Christoph has been completely on the nose regarding the history and practices of the LDS. In their most current conformation, they are a moderate but errant facsimile of a Christian denomination.

From Webester’s Online:

Since the 1960s, in English-speaking countries, especially in North America, most English speakers have adopted the term cult in a pejorative sense to denote groups, many of them with religious themes, that exploit their members psychologically and financially using group-based persuasion techniques (sometimes called “mind control”). Unlike legitimate religious movements, cults are characterized by high levels of dependency, exploitation, and compliance with demands of leadership that are unrelated to religion.

Among the laity and lower levels of the LDS, this is currently not considered true, as members are not under any undue burden or threat in precisely how they believe. Approaching the inner circles of the “temple”, however, moves distinctly into this category.

At the same time, the Bible is quite clear that God has no beginning and no ending, that Jesus is a co-equal member of the Godhead, and is in fact the Creator of the universe we experience. These Biblical principles are contradicted by LDS doctrine, and that alone sets them outside of traditional Christianity by any measure.

Does believing the above make it impossible for me to consider a Romney presidency? No. His positions relative to Constitutional issues do, and likewise Rudy.

To tuck this in as on-topic, nobody running for office needs the approval of any religious “leader”. I personally recognize two religious leaders: The triune God, and the pastor of my local congregation. No others are recognized nor approved by the Bible. Dobson is a good man, but he has no place to say who is an acceptable candidate or not, if he is speaking from a position of “church authority”. Still, I’d be more likely to give value to his opinion than, say, Martin Sheen’s.

Freelancer on July 16, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Christoph, you posted as I was still typing. Please forgive the overlap in our thoughts, thought it doesn’t seem we disagree.

Freelancer on July 16, 2007 at 7:51 PM

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 7:37 PM

I’m still waiting for the standard you use to judge Mormons as loony. Do you have a book, or a teaching that is in fact the truth that you would like to present in order to prove “loony”?
Why are handshakes loony?
Why is a third heaven loony?
Why is man becoming as his creator loony?

So, you come to this board to pass judgment on who is and is not a Christian. OK, Where do you get the information that you use to decide who is a real Christian?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:32 PM

I’m still trying to figure out what God does with his Jesus skin suit when he wants to be the bodiless God. Does he hang it in the holy closet?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Since we’re talking about the LDS church only recognizing blacks as equal in 1978 and prior to this, actually physically banning them from Mormon temples, and prior to that, having sex with “negroes” one of the (several in this case) sins that can’t be forgiven based only on Christ’s sacrifice, and in fact requiring additional actions by temple-worthy, and therefore non-black, church members, it’s my opinion — not hard and settled fact — that this is “loony”.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Well, since you are admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about….

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 10:44 PM

JackStraw on July 16, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Well, since you are admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about….

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 10:44 PM

That wasn’t for you Jack. I still had your info on my clip board.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Well, since you are admitting that you don’t know what you are talking about…..

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 10:46 PM

csdeven, you are such a troll.

I throw that label out reluctantly, but it so obviously applies to you.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:47 PM

I know for a fact that the first title is actually the name of a newspaper. As for the second, I’m not going to bother looking it up.

But of course it’s insane to imagine that THESE PEOPLE are really doing their best to help us find the best possible conservative candidate to defeat Hillary Clinton.

Once again, I’m not saying the moonbats are “wrong”; there is no need. All I’m doing is pointing out that you don’t differ from them in any way.

logis on July 16, 2007 at 4:51 PM

Brilliant, logis. Regardless of the truth, this is what I believe. Well put.

I don’t know if it’s true, but I’m curious. You, on the other hand, aren’t. This speaks poorly of your intellect.

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:50 PM

I’m still trying to figure out what God does with his Jesus skin suit when he wants to be the bodiless God. Does he hang it in the holy closet?
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

CS, that was offensive on many levels. Most of us here have not attacked the LDS church on any level. We would appreciate the same courtesy when referring to the Holy Trinity.

Tennman on July 16, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Hey, I thought this was a Fred thread? Let’s wait for the Flip Romney thread for explanations about the difference between Christianity and Mormonism.

Mojave Mark on July 17, 2007 at 1:11 AM

I’m still trying to figure out what God does with his Jesus skin suit when he wants to be the bodiless God. Does he hang it in the holy closet?
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

So the moonbat turns out to be rabidly anti-Christian?

Well, knock me over with a feather.

logis on July 17, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:47 PM

So, you can’t cite the basis of your standards that allows you to decide whose religion is “loony” and whose is not? And then you’d rather call me names?

hahaha Excuse me for dismissing your opinions as uninformed then.

hahaha

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:49 AM

CS, that was offensive on many levels. Most of us here have not attacked the LDS church on any level. We would appreciate the same courtesy when referring to the Holy Trinity.

Tennman on July 16, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Sorry, but if a person is going to hold another persons faith up to a standard of truth, then I expect that person to establish that proof as fact before I accept his judgment.

And that wasn’t an insult. If God and Jesus are one in the same, and Jesus has a body, and God has no body, where does God put Jesus’ skin when he is in the God role?

My suggestion is that you ask those who decided what parts of the teachings of Christ were omitted from the Nicene Creed. Maybe the answer is in there? Or, stop assuming that so-called “Christians” are the arbiters of all things Christian and let God judge us all. And if you REALLY feel that your religion shouldn’t be attacked, then I expect the next time ANYONE attacks anyone else’s religion, you will be the first to defend them.

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:57 AM

So the moonbat turns out to be rabidly anti-Christian?

Well, knock me over with a feather.

logis on July 17, 2007 at 2:13 AM

That is not the way to be invited back to the adult table.

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 8:00 AM

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:57 AM

There’s a huge difference attacking one’s belief system and belittling the Creator of the Universe. If you want to discuss the Trinity on an intellectual level, I’m sure we’ll have the opportunity in another thread, as AP likes to challenge Christianity. Not that there’s anything wrong with that! If I can’t explain my faith, I’m not much of a follower of it.

The Nicene Creed is not a core tenet of Biblical faith. It’s an attempt to explain the core tenets of Christianity by reducing to a few words understanding of God’s Word to man.

My beliefs and my understanding of the Bible come from the Bible, from “every word that uttereth out of the mouth of the Lord.”

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 8:42 AM

So, you can’t cite the basis of your standards that allows you to decide whose religion is “loony” and whose is not? And then you’d rather call me names?

hahaha Excuse me for dismissing your opinions as uninformed then.

hahaha

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 7:49 AM

A secular liberalist arguing about theology is like… Well, actually, I guess that’s it. There isn’t ANYTHING that compares with that kind of idiocy.

Seriously though. You’ll note that these people will constantly cut down whatever YOU happen to believe. But will one of them ever have the balls to even say, let alone try to defend, anything that HE believes?

Does anybody else see a trend here? Sure he “supports” Mitt Romney, or Rudy Giuliani or somebody; sure he’s devoutly – even beligerently – Mormon, or whatever…

But it’s always ad hoc, isn’t it?

logis on July 17, 2007 at 10:36 AM

I’m still trying to figure out what God does with his Jesus skin suit when he wants to be the bodiless God. Does he hang it in the holy closet?

csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 8:35 PM

csdeven,

If anyone doesn’t deserve to be at the “adult table” that would be you. That^^comment is in unbelievably poor taste, and if you want Romney to win I suggest you edit your comments before you print them as you are not doing him any favors with this sort of crude and disrespectful commentary.

You couldn’t do a better job if you were trying to sabotage his campaign.

Buy Danish on July 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 8:42 AM

Well, I’m not surprised you’d rather use a straw man argument than deal with the fact.

What does God do with Christs body when he is in the form of the bodiless God?

You can’t answer it so you attack me.

Nice.

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Buy Danish on July 17, 2007 at 10:38 AM

Like I have any influence on anyones campaign. Thanks for trying but I don’t buy it.

Spare the group your sensitivities. You can’t answer the question so you attack the way the question is worded. You are attempting to frame the issue in the way it most suits you instead of dealing with the concept. What does God do with Christs body when he is being the bodiless God?

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 12:21 PM

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 12:15 PM

This is now in archives, so I don’t know if it will post or not.

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three-in-one God. God the father is what he is. He is not described as a bodiless spirit except when he wanted to be. He appeared in the form of an angel when he wrestled with Jacob. He appeared as a still, small voice. He appeared in person in Job. He appeared as a pillar of fire to the Isrealites.

Jesus was fully man and fully God. He said “I and my Father are one.” That means one in mind and spirit. Jesus also said to his disciples, “I will send you a comforter,” speaking of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit also appeared as a tongue of fire to the disciples at Pentecost.

God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all of one mind and purpose, but they are three separate coequal beings defined as the Holy Trinity. One God (Of one mind) but three totally different entities.

Your assumption that God has to put on the body of Jesus is incorrect. Jesus has his own body. God the Father has whatever aspect he wishes to be. Indescribable because we have not the ability. He said to Moses, “I am.” All-encompassing answer.

Further, in the Bible, blasphemy is describe as the unforgivable sin, if the Holy Spirit is blasphemed — not God the Father; not Jesus Christ, his Son, but the Holy Spirit.

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 1:08 PM

Well, shut my mouth! That’s close enough to what I believe to not even be worth mentioning.

Forgive me for judging you so harshly.

Peace and cheers!

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Peace and cheers!

csdeven on July 17, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Peace to you as well. In Christ, forgiveness is not an option; it’s a way of living and commanded of us. Apology gratefully accepted.

Tennman on July 17, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Comment pages: 1 2