Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination
posted at 9:44 pm on September 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
They held a “private” meeting on Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the issue, according to Salon and WND. And as with all “private” political endeavors in which “private citizen” James Dobson is involved, the details ended up in the papers as a threat to party leaders not to defy the religious base. Think of it as the evangelical equivalent of Tom Friedman’s dopey “9/11 is over” column in the Times this weekend: social cons weren’t going to subordinate their domestic priorities to the war on terror forever, and so, ironically, with Mr. 9/11 himself possibly heading up the ticket, they’re ready to declare 9/11 “over” for them too by shattering the coalition of hawks.
Shrewd move. The GOP’s already looking at near-certain defeat so evangelicals can walk away without worrying overly much about costing Republicans the election. Plus, the fact that they’re willing to make good on their threat will put the, ahem, fear of God into the rest of the party ahead of 2012 and restore some of the emphasis on “values” that’s been lost in the jumble of terrorism and Iraq. In fact, if I were Dobson, I’d almost hope Giuliani wins the nomination just so I can play my trump. That sort of power play will inevitably and irretrievably alienate a few centrist conservatives like me but the GOP can afford to shed us. They can’t afford to shed Christians. That’ll mean leftist rule for awhile but eventually the MoveOn crowd will overplay its hand and alienate some centrist Democrats and things will even out. Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long.
Exit question: Who’ll be the “Christian nominee”? Forget Newt; he’s too much of a party man to play Nader to Rudy’s Gore. The WND article mentions someone named Foster Friess, but it’d be stupid to nominate a no-name like that who can’t attract any votes that aren’t being handed to him by Dobson et al. How about Alan Keyes?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »
Hey! I must have some “juice”. This just in on FOX News:
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Thats what it should read……
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 2:28 PM
I prefer jelly donuts- thanks!
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Sorry, I was at a Baptist Church this morning burying my Christian friend (26 years old). I’m certain that the Catholic priests would love to tell me that though he loved and acepted Christ and brought others to Christ – he’s condemned to hell.
After all, it is a shame that the head of all the churches don’t go to mosques to pray while condemning other fellow Christians like the Pope did. You know, that Baptist Churches don’t consider Cathoics to be Christians unless they were submerged during baptism.
I know so many ‘ex-Catholics’ because of the foul teachings of the organized church, but I don’t know many ‘ex-Christians’. If Catholics weren’t so busy condemning people to hell, they might realize how amazingly awesome and loving Christ was to his Creation.
Christ was Created by God. People created Catholicism. Pray to whomever you want under direction of whomever you want, but the Bible and Christ alone will do just fine for me without any Catholic Church.
Wow, it’s amazing how you say ‘I don’t feel superior’ right after posting that you are superior.
Sorry for my rant. The ’superiority complex’ of the Catholic dogma baffles me.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Undoubtedly. I look at it as a “Don’t let the door hit you…” situation. It will have to happen eventually.
Heck, maybe if they have the ‘nads to do it, the far left will do it, too. Four parties! Then we’ll finally start getting somewhere.
MikeZero on October 1, 2007 at 2:37 PM
No, they will just marginalize themselves to the point of having no impact on national politics and next to no impact on local politics. Four parties would be a terrible situation, we cant get anything important done now with two, four would…. but then again…congress would be so tied up in knots that they might not even be able to raise taxes any more…Hmmmm, have to think about that one for a while……
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 2:42 PM
While I can empathize with your statements, you are just “killing the messenger” here. I didn’t write the rules, nor am I going to challenge them or their historical accuracy. I have simply repeated what is taught to us as Catholics.
Jesus sent St. Peter to start the Church. That church is the Catholic Church.
As they see in the Creed:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
I don’t pretend to know all the answers, but I have to follow something.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Sorry, went to lunch. Didn’t mean to leave you hanging. I have been defending social cons on this thread today, but haven’t intended to be neglecting the small government side of conservatism. You may be right about Dobson’s big gov ideology. I can’t and won’t speak to that. I’m right there with you on the fiscal conservatism and personal freedom, but I think the one thing that keeps me from calling myself a libertarian is that they would, ideally, not allow the government to make laws regarding abortion. I cannot reconcile that with my own values.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Did you know that there are protestant denominations that recite the exact same apostles creed? Did you know that it is not actually found in the scriptures? Did you notice that the word “catholic” is not capitalized, as in, it is not the name of the church, but rather a description? Did you know that the word “catholic” refers to the body as in the body of believers?
If this is your proof that the Catholic church is the only real church, then you have a very shaky position.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:10 PM
Let me point out something you missed in your little screed there buddy boy. Neither Jesus, Paul or any other Apostles quoted those words. Those are the words of men. What you quote is the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. Something not endorsed by Jesus Christ or any of the Apostles.
Failing that specific test while it expresses for the most part an accurate depiction of Christian faith the First Council of Constantinople (381) inclusion of “In one holy catholic and apostolic Church” takes the Apostles creed out of the hands of God and places it in the hands of men.
Which is not anywhere I want the tenants of my faith resting. It took 300 years for men to corrupt what Jesus Christ brought them from God. I personally will stick with the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, you can keep your Catholic church. But don’t you dare suggest that you have to be a member of an organization created by men to be a true Christian.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 3:11 PM
doriangrey,
I don’t propose anything. I simply state what is our history. If you choose not to follow St. Peter, so be it. If your faith leads you to follow a different religion, so be it. I’m not the one judging you.
Also, I take my chances with the olderst organized religion flowing back to Jesus Christ. While there is corruption in all aspects of humanity, it doesn’t change the message. Men can be corrupt, but God isn’t.
samelrylander,
I’m aware of everything you said. I’m also aware of what I’m taught in my faith.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 3:15 PM
One other thing, I’m not your buddy or your boy.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Vincenzo: Where are “the Laws” written down? I must have missed that in my Catholic upbringing. We spent way too much time learning about various popes in history, the liturgy, etc. (things devised by man) and hardly any on the Old or New Testaments (things directly from God).
You can quote the Lord’s Prayer, and you can add the extra stuff stuck on at the end by some Catholic men centuries later, but you can’t say that extra peace was God-inspired. As for some of the stuff that man created after Jesus (meatless Friday’s, indulgences, the whole concept of sainthood, golden chalices and huge marble cathedrals), I don’t see any of that in His words. How many Catholic teachings have changed over the years? We went from married and crooked popes to marriage-less priests. Nuns were mentioned where in the Bible? And where did the Bible direct them to change from penguin outfits to civilian clothes? The Catholic church hasn’t looked like Jesus and John wanted it for thousands of years, but you have the arrogance to condemn those who’s religion is closer in spirit to the Bible. You sound like a superiority spouting liberal.
No one has all the answers, but some of us can believe without having a uniform playbook to work from.
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 3:18 PM
The one thing that keeps me from calling myself a true libertarian is that I spent some time as one, and many of them were nuts. So I’m basically a conservative with some heavy libertarian leanings.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Nevermind. It’s no use. Go on believing the rest of us are apostates.
Meanwhile, all you cultmembers…
Crap! I can’t let you get away with spewing that tripe! To say that because someone disagrees with you then they are simply not following St. Peter is stupid. Where did Peter say that we all have to be Catholics?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 3:15 PM
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Scratch that. What I just said I mean. I have a better question for you.
If you were wrong, would you even want to know?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:27 PM
We’re arguing with an idiot.
Nothing we say will change Vincenzo’s mind. With his total and unclenching loyalty to whatever he is “taught,” he’d have made a great Nazi.
There’s a special place for ideaologues. well, two actually. One is the 12th century. The other one is described in the teachings he refers to.
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 3:21 PM
I have a lot of friends who are *cough* truthers *cough* and they call themselves libertarians. I think that guy who runs prisonplanet, whateverhisnameis, calls himself one too.
I just can’t make that leap.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Alex Jones…that’s his name.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:30 PM
I hope one day I can hear a good explanation of when conservatism stops and libertarianism begins. What I’ve heard lately makes liberatrianism look like anarchism.
But now time is short, and my employer has made demands on my time.
Have a nice day, all.
Mustafa Hemmroid on October 1, 2007 at 3:32 PM
As a conservative Christian I am voting for Thompson. If he doesn’t win the nomination, then I’ll just have to pray about what to do next and then do what I feel I’m being led to do.
Vaporman87 on October 1, 2007 at 3:35 PM
Ack!
I hate to get into the middle of this but I can’t let this go by:
Sorry, I was at a Baptist Church this morning burying my Christian friend (26 years old). I’m certain that the Catholic priests would love to tell me that though he loved and acepted Christ and brought others to Christ – he’s condemned to hell.
What in the sam hill are you talking about?? That is simply untrue. Completely untrue. It is so opposite of what the Church teaches.
Mustafa,
I am sorry that you lost faith in the Church, but there are almost 50,000 priests in the U.S. Almost all are holy and wonderful men devoted to God. It is a shame that you let the few who let Satan in deprive you of your faith. But it is your decision and it doesn’t mean that you aren’t faithful to God, I understand that.
Vincenzo,
Talking down to people isn’t the best way to convince people of your devotion to your faith. Find another way.
It is ridiculous to argue religion here. I will defend my faith when someone denigrates or lies about it, but I will never tell another person that there faith isn’t valid. Only God knows our hearts. I’ll leave that to him.
Now, stop being ugly to each other and let’s find a way to nominate someone other than Rudy.
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 3:38 PM
Hurrah!
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I’m not convinced of that. I’m also not completely convinced that Hillary will be the nominee on the Left. We’re still a long way away from election time.
Your math doesn’t line up with what I was talking about. My 60/40 and 70/30 numbers refer to Christians in general. To do so, I would start with 100% of all Christians, not 76% of the population of the country.
But your math has helped prove my point a bit. Since 70% of all Christians equals over half the population of the country, then it’s fairly unlikely that a full 70% of Christians vote Republican. If that were the case, Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t be the speaker.
And yes, I do understand that definitions are subjective.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 3:48 PM
1) You did in fact propose that anyone not a member of the Catholic church wasn’t a true Christian.
2) The Catholic churches traditions have nothing to do with the Apostle Peter. He was not there when they were created and he did not sanction any of them.
3) As for following my own religion, what utter and complete B.S. I don’t have a religion I have a relationship. I follow the teaching of JESUS CHRIST as he taught them, not the traditions of men as they were codified hundreds of years after Jesus Christs crucification and ascension.
4) You go right ahead and take your chances with the oldest religion since Christ, just remember Jesus Christ had no use for RELIGION what so ever…Jesus Christ was interested in personal one on one relationships with his creation.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 3:53 PM
As much as it pains me to publicly agree with RWS, she’s right. Stop with the unwinnable religious debate, and let’s find a way to nominate Fred.
Why Thompson Will Win
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 3:55 PM
doriangrey,
There is no doubt that our relationship with Christ is the most important and critical aspect of the Christian life. But do not forget that Christ said to Peter, “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.”
I think if by religion, you mean “Church,” then Christ most certainly had use for it.
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Read that article this morning. It was okay, but underplayed the strengths of the not-Fred candidates against the Democrats and spent too much time tearing others down to build Fred up.
Also, this sentence made me chuckle:
Shorter Mulhern: “Our decision is your fault!”
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 3:59 PM
As much as it pains me to publicly agree with RWS, she’s right. Stop with the unwinnable religious debate, and let’s find a way to nominate Fred.
And WHY does it pain you to agree with me???
You are such a curmudgeon….;-)
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yes indeed. I have known a good many Catholics in my life including a couple of Priests who were indeed godly men I to this day look up to and respect. It is not my intention to besmirch the reputation of the Catholic church as I do believe that in spite of the folly of men the Holy Spirit does still live there and is still working effectively through the Catholic church.
If i have given the wrong impression regarding my feelings about the Catholic church to anyone I do apologize, Vincenzo’s arrogant and condescending attitude apparently ruffled my feathers in the wrong direction.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Nominate Fred, or get Huckabee some exposure.
I really think that if Rudy gets the nomination that it is the equivalent of God saying, “I’m done with you now. Your country has no hope.”
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:01 PM
That’s the way we curmdgeons roll. :p
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Latin America that threatens to erase what America was in a couple of decades.
PRCalDude on October 1, 2007 at 12:26 PM
Yes exactamente Gringo!
With a Presidente Rudolpho leading the way a couple of decades is just about right Gringo. That should do it. Then I will become your Magnifico Presidente for life.
Once we get our amnesty from Presidente Rudolpho, we will all come to your country. We will all have at least 10 kids and in a generation we will overwhelm and deport most of you Gringos. Some of you, if you learn Spanish real well, we might let you stay to pick our lettuce or mow our lawns or take care of OUR children in what used to be your houses.
Those who don’t learn Spanish will be deported to Alaska. That is until Al Gore’s global warming heats things up and we want Alaska too, then we will deport you all to New Orleans. It will probably all be under water by then anyway. I hope you Gringos can swim pretty good, he, he, he. My bad!!!
So give it up and LEARN SPANISH! You should probably all buy Mexican flags too and fly them in your front yard and on your pickup trucks. If you already have an American flag there it is alright if you keep it, just as long as you fly it upside down and below our great Mexican flag.
Now repeat after me – I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of Mucho Grande Mexico, and to the Republic for which it use to stand, one nation under me, with everything for us, and nothing for you.
And remember Gringos,
APRENDER EL ESPANOL!!!
Sinceramente, Vincente
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 4:05 PM
See…Family.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:05 PM
I’m aware that the above gospel quote is interpreted at least two ways, with the Catholics contending that it records the creation of the church with Peter as first pope.
My question would be, did Christ intend to create a church as part of his life on earth? If so, then I could see the Catholic point of view; if not, then are the Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches today authoritative or more like resource centers for individuals to study the life and teachings of Christ and draw their own conclusions.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Vincenzo’s arrogant and condescending attitude apparently ruffled my feathers in the wrong direction.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Well, I am with you there.
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Actually thats not what he said, what he said was, And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;. He was referring to Peter’s faith, and it was faith that he would build his church on.
And no I was not referring to Church when I said religion. There is a profound difference between a church build on the foundation of faith in Jesus Christ and religion.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:07 PM
So if by some set disasterous set of circumstances Ron Paul got the nomination and lost to Hillary, is it also the fault of those who didn’t vote for him or is it the fault of those who ignored his flaws and voted for him in the primaries anyways?
What if it was Brownback? Or Tancredo? Or any of the other unelectable candidates?
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 4:09 PM
You mean like, did Christ’s plan get messed up when he was crucified and he really intended to run the church here himself?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:12 PM
As I said I have no beef with the Catholic church (nothing major anyways…:) ), I get just as upset at my evangelical protestant brethren when they act like this. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god. Were it not for Jesus Christ none of us would have a pot to piss in.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
I doubt it, some how perhaps based upon my belief that Jesus Christ was god wearing a human suit nothing could have messed up his plans…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:16 PM
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 4:09 PM
You should know by now that you will never make a point with slublog using hypotheticals…He will just glaze right past it by saying something about how it doesn’t apply because it isn’t that way. He’ll never answer your question.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:17 PM
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:16 PM
No, I’m with you there. I was trying to get clarification from what
said.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:19 PM
Of course I won’t. Hypotheticals are meaningless. Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance of being the nominee, Rudy Giuliani does.
I prefer reality.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Folks,
I didn’t write the rules of the Catholic church. I just repeated them in my comments. I fear you are taking a lashing at me becuase I said there is only one accepted Christian faith. Now, that is what I’ve been taught, and what I’ve accepted.
I am not here to judge anyone else, and I thought I made that pretty clear. I don’t just Muslims, Jews, Baptists, maybe Scientologists sometimes… It’s what my religion teaches me.
You really shouldn’t get mad at me for it. Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict asserted that there is only one true church. Sure, you can criticize them and tell me Benedict was a nazi, or whatever. Well, they run my church, and I tend to agree with them, but I won’t judge anyone else on it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19692094/
And if I sound condescending in my previous posts, its probably becuase of the subject matter, not my disposition.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Liberals don’t like to answer hypotheticals either. Most people don’t when they are wrong.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM
How can you be wrong or right? It’s a frigging hypothetical question, not grounded in any sort of reality.
You might as well ask me what I think about the possibility of Xenu the Intergalactic Ruler winning the nomination, because it’s just as likely. Worthless, stupid exercise in proving yourself right through fantasy.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Indeed and remarkably on point……
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM
That’s true, they did say that. So now it should be obvious to everyone with a brain that there is no way they could be the vicar of Christ.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:26 PM
That’s not true. Hypotheticals are grounded in the reality of your value system. The reason you don’t answer is because you are either wrong and won’t admit it, or you have no value system.
Besides that, the entire thread is based on a hypothetical. To quote the thread headline: “Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination”
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Well?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I left for a couple of hours and just came back. I skimmed over the discussion since then, and I feel I should clarify a couple of things about the way I think.
I am a social conservative and a Christian. However, what I want from my federal government concerning social values and religion is for the government to get out of my way and let me and my community conduct ourselves as we see fit. I do not want the federal government monkeying around in trying to legislate that kind of thing–just leads to loads of trouble in the long run. What I DO want from my federal government and my elected representatives is to make it safe for me to pursue happiness in my own way (i.e. military protection) and give me as much economic freedom as possible so I can pursue my own prosperity in pretty much any way I see fit. In other words, my priorities for the federal government are to maintain a strong military and defend my freedom, followed by ensuring that I keep as much of my paycheck as possible while encouraging and enabling free enterprise in our society and beyond. Therefore, it is far far far more important to me to elect someone who is NOT going to socialize medicine, create infinite new entitlements, break our national economy, and make the United States military weaker. The social stuff takes a backseat at the federal level, and that’s as it should be. The social stuff is far more appropriately addressed at the state and local level. I can’t believe that so many conservatives want to put that kind of social control into the federal government’s hands anyway.
Rudy is militarily and fiscally very conservative, and that’s what matters most at the federal level. He’s also a federalist, like Fred, and would be willing to kick a lot of social issues back to the states where they belong. That makes Rudy an acceptable conservative candidate to me. And given his statistically better chance at beating Hillary (better than any of the top-tier Republican candidates), it makes him my guy–for better or for worse. I’m not thrilled about it, but I’m a political pragmatist.
I’m sorry if I insulted anyone for sticking up for their principles. I understand. I’m just frustrated and feeling quite dejected about this whole race and what the next 4+ years will bring. I’m quite frankly scared.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 4:34 PM
The hypothetical in question is so ludicrous in concept as to be fantasy. It has nothing to do with my “value system” and would prove a poor measurement of it were I to waste brain cells attempting to answer it.
Judging from the recent comments of social con leaders, the idea of a third-party run seems less like a hypothetical than a prediction of future events.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM
You’re both saying the same thing. The word “Peter” means “the rock.”
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 4:38 PM
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:17 PM
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:21 PM
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:31 PM
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:33 PM
See…It’s supposed to work like tennis. I hit the ball, you hit the ball. I hit the ball, you hit the ball. I can’t keep hitting it out into a field. It’s no fun that way.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Ahem.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Except that his name wasn’t actually Peter, it was Simon, he was called Peter as a reflection of his faith in Christ and it was that faith that the church was founded on not Peter the man.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Oh…there you are. Great. Incedentally, liberals and snaky politicians step all around questions without answering them too. Anyone objective person reading this can see right through you the way you can see through Hillary when she refuses to answer questions at the democrap debate the other night.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Sorry, all that copy and pasting took time.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:46 PM
So sorry to make you wait, but work does call from time to time. I’m jumping between this thread and a report I’m working on.
As for the rest of your comment…comparing me to Hillary is an affront to my honor. Super Soakers at dawn.
Seriously, though – ask me a question about actual, you know, politics or my beliefs, and I’ll be happy to answer it. Ask me a hypothetical, and I’ll ignore it.
Leave the fantasy to the D&D geeks.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Given that the answer would’ve undermined your argument, I didn’t expect you to give one.
OK, reality- Rudy’s support seems to come from those who believe that in a hypothetical Rudy vs Hillary matchup (see what I did there?), Rudy is most likely to win because he is assumed to have greater appeal to moderates and independents even if he has lower appeal with conservatives.
They would have us believe that taking a “moderate” stance to increase the likelyhood of moderates voting for Rudy is completely valid. In contrast the mere suggestion that conservatives (social cons or otherwise) are less likely to vote for him are met with cries of “Traitors! If you don’t vote for him, you’re supporting Hillary!”.
Almost never do Rudy’s backers acknowledge the indisputable fact that a candidate who isn’t appealing to conservatives is less likely to earn their vote; instead they blame those who won’t vote for a candidate they don’t support because the other candidate they don’t support is somewhat worse.
No one is owed a vote, and as John Kerry discovered a “lesser of two evils” strategy isn’t a winning one.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM
You might as well ask me what I think about the possibility of Xenu the Intergalactic Ruler winning the nomination, because it’s just as likely. Worthless, stupid exercise in proving yourself right through fantasy.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:24 PM
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 4:55 PM
The cucifixion was a problem, but with the resurrection he had the opportunity to run it himself for a long time, presumably to get the Gospels in order and develop the core dogma. Obviously, that didn’t happen.
The contention of the Catholics is that Christ did intend to found a church and did that by appointing Peter as the rock upon which he would build his church. Through that church the believers are able to receive the sacraments from God through an anointed priest.
I’ve read somewhat about the corruption of the Catholic Church and think there were good reasons for the Protestant Reformation. To accept it though, it would seem that Christ’s mission was more narrowly scoped (though still praise-worthy) than the Catholics believe and that we are left a little more on our own to sift through historical documents and make sense of what Christ taught.
To be more succinct and more on the Rudy/Dobson topic (since this isn’t a religion site). For someone like James Dobson to claim a special insight into the word of God, he may be right but he is also presupposing that God allowed it to get off to a bumpy start for 1500 years after he was incarnated as Christ.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:47 PM
OK, what do you value more, winning at any cost, or doing the right thing?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Oops.
The question had nothing to do with the likelyhood of RP, Xenu or anyone else winning. Only whether a candidate’s supporters should considert he consequences of their candidate winning the nomination.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I think you are misunderstanding the argument. The argument is hypothetical only in the sense that Rudy in this argument is the GOP nominee. The actual argument is, that voting for anyone other than the GOP nominee is in effect voting for the democrat nominee.
This particular thread (hypothetical) happens to cast Rudy as the GOP nominee.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 4:59 PM
Well, glad to see that you’re honest about your reasons for engaging in that little fantasy above. Again, though, since the premise of the question was so ridiculous, it would have made no difference how I answered – it’s all made-up, right?
I think you make some fair points. I don’t think people who refuse to vote for Rudy are traitors, but I do think they are, by the omission of their vote, helping Hillary if they are members of the Republican party who are not voting for the Republican nominee. Does this mean I think they are compelled to vote for Rudy? Absolutely not – following the dictates of one’s conscience/value system/principles is important.
However, in doing so, it would be nice to see them acknowledge that by casting no vote, or casting a so-called “protest vote,” they are putting someone in office who does not respect their value system and is in fact completely opposed to it.
I think there are two candidates who can beat Hillary in the general election – Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Although I have disagreements with both, I will vote for either of them because both of them agree with me more than I agree with Hillary.
Of the two, Thompson will likely be the nominee. That’s my prediction for you – he gives social conservatives some of what they want, and would appeal to moderates.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 4:59 PM
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I’m interested. What is your background? How did you come by what you know of Christianity/Christian History?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:00 PM
Heh heh a Hobson’s choice since a Pyhrric victory is in fact not a victory at all.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM
In politics, winning is the right thing. Losing on principles is still losing. With a moderate GOP candidate, conservatives will get some of what they want. With a liberal socialist, they’ll get nothing.
Honestly, I would answer in more detail, but I need to finish something up before I leave the office today. Back later.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 5:01 PM
You’re talking a little over my head here. Sorry to say.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I know slublog’s gone, but for the benefit of everyone else, I think Jesus just cried a little.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:10 PM
All of you non-Christians do your thing and leave us Christians alone! We shall do ours! Conservatives have ignored us for the last 20 years and have paid lip-service to our issues. I, for one, will no longer support a liberal Republican and Rudy is another LIBERAL and you guys are buying it again! The Republican National Committee is in full swing selling this guy as the next Ronald Reagan…as I predicted a year ago…and you idiots are buying…again…and then if he’s elected you will whine about how he’s not a “conservative”…LOL! Well…grow up! He is a pro abortion, anti-gun, nanny state liberal, anti-smoking, big-government, I know better than you “little people” republican and I’m not going to vote for him EVER!!! Dobson is correct! Idiots! Some of you will buy anything the Republicans throw at you! You are fools!
sabbott on October 1, 2007 at 5:18 PM
samuelrylander-
I think he laughed.
profitsbeard on October 1, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Technically, a Pyhrric victory is still a victory, but one bought at too high a cost. Phyrrus of Eprius kept defeating the Romans, but his casualties were so high that he speculated that if he won another such victory he would be totally undone!
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Of course that’s why I asked the question.
The point is that suggesting that conservatives (including myself) aren’t likely to vote if Rudy is the nominee is met with derision towards those who won’t vote for someone they don’t support instead of confronting that reality and what the consequences would be, for better or worse.
In a high turnout election, only about half of eligible voters actually vote. Some out of disinterest, some out of laziness… and some because neither candidate appeals to them. Of the 50% who didn’t vote in 2004, were all of them supporting Kerry by not voting for Bush, or vise versa?
Yes, not voting for the candidate of the political party you favor makes it less likely that candidate will win, and that’s the point- nominate someone who enough of those forming an otherwise active voting block are less likely to pull the lever for has risks, and no amount of complaining about that reality changes it.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Ha ha ha look who is talking……
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 5:22 PM
And again…if you are not a Christian…don’t tell us about Christianity! You know not of what you speak! You twist our faith and what we believe in, into something that I would never follow! Your lack of faith is no proof that mine is not genuine! Your hatred of it only supports it! Christ warned us that you would feel this way!
Unless you wish to truly understand what we believe, go away! You make yourselves look like intellectual nothings…which indeed you are! You stand on sinking sand and you know it…but refuse to admit it!
sabbott on October 1, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Fred Thompson was asked to comment on this thread, but his pappy always told him never to discuss politics or religion, and particularly not politics and religion.
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 5:24 PM
dorangreay…yikes…that was your retort? I shall now leave this idiotic website to children stuck on their mothers pc’s in the back bedroom of the trailer house…
sabbott on October 1, 2007 at 5:25 PM
profitsbeard on October 1, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Wait a minute. I have a direct line, I’ll call and ask.
Nope, I was right. He was definately crying.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Or divide the party because a fraction of the party doesnt like who the majority of the party nominated. A house divided cannot stand…United we stand divided we fall…If we do not hang together then we will surely hang separately.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 5:28 PM
sabbott on October 1, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Whoa.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:29 PM
I’m aware. Jesus named him Peter. That doesn’t dispute my point.
You said:
In response to:
When you consider that “Peter” literally means “the rock”, you’ve both written exactly the same thing.
One writes, “Thou art Peter (which means ‘the rock’)” and the other “you are the rock.” They’re both saying exactly the same thing.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
sabbott, a lot of us here arguing in favor of Rudy are Christians and understand quite well “of what we speak.” There’s a lot of high-horse riding going on today, so you’re not alone. But you might want to tone down the pomposity just a tad. I don’t think Christians are being ignored. Quite the opposite–a Christian leader or two makes the mildest of threats about maybe-possibly mounting a third-party candidate, and there’s panic in the party ranks.
aero on October 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Here’s what you don’t seem to understand. Even voting ‘against Hillary’ by voting ‘for Rudy’ is still basically “putting someone in office who does not respect their value system and is in fact completely opposed to it.”
I disagree with your assessment that only Guiliani and Thompson can win. Of all the candidates, sadly McCain looks like the best bet to me. Though I disagree with him on MOST things, he’s centrist and would appeal to moderate Democrats, he’s tough on terror (his stance with the President on the war), and he’s pro life.
His history of voting makes him CONSERVATIVE though I disagree with his calling the US ‘torturers’ with his anti torture bill, monopolized campaigns with the campaign finance reform, trivialized the senate with his air passenger bill of rights, and basically gave away the country with his infamous amnesty bill.
But Rudy is worse on all these issues. At least I believe McCain has CHARACTER. I’d rather see McCain win the nomination out of all these clowns. He’d have the best chance of winning the Presidency in the General, though I can’t imagine Hillary would be difficult for a CONSERVATIVE to beat.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 5:30 PM
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 5:31 PM
As you are so fond of saying…There. Fixed it for ya.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:37 PM
In WWII the Japanese state was one and the same as their fanatical state religion. We had to nuke them to pry the two apart. The Middle East is going down the same road, and we are going to have in insist that Islam as a political movement be relegated to the dustbin of history. It’s not going to be easy or bloodless. If history has taught us anything it is this: Religion and the state do not mix well. As anyone reading this thread can attest, Religion can turn policy differences into a mortal sin. People who disagree with you are sinners, infidels, etc. I’m sure someone who has posted on this thread actually thinks that I will go to Hell if I vote for Rudy. That is just wrong on so many levels.
Just like we had to nuke Japan to get Shintoism out of politics, maybe we need to nuke the GOP to get the evangelicals out of politics!!!
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM
In the brief interval between work and dinner with the family…
Please, continue to lecture me on what I don’t understand. It makes your point so much easier to take, really.
The argument that Rudy and Hillary are just alike is commonly made, but not particularly convincing.
How, exactly, have I grieved Jesus with that comment?
Agreed – the GOP will take a chance with Rudy. Will the number of moderates he attracts be enough to offset the number of conservatives who might sit out?
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Nominate someone who has divisive views compared to the values of most of the members of the party, and you’re going to get party division. That’s just reality, and the discussions by some obscure religious organization that is the subject of this thread would be the tip of the iceburg were Rudy to be nominated.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 5:42 PM
????
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 5:43 PM
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
wow, that’s a crazy statement. It’s not like the Catholics ever issue statements condemning a vote for a pro choice candidate to hell. I don’t hear evangelicals condemning anyone to hell for their political beliefs.
Evangelicals are not in politics as much as politicians turn to them to get the evangelical vote. Dobson has his own views, but evangelicals don’t look to one person to make their decisions for them. I agree with his opinion that Rudy is a poor choice for a candidate if you are looking for a conservative candidate.
At this point, I’m backing McCain as next in line CONSERVATIVE.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 5:44 PM
And that my friend is the $64,000.00 question…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Far too early to say, and there are also risks with a conservative candidate alienating independents. As a conservative (more constitutional/fiscal than social) I’d rather take a chance a conservative that could rally the party instead of taking a chance on a moderate that might divide it.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 5:47 PM
If RWS is standing behind you with a gun to your head, please give us a signal so we can send help.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 5:50 PM
I didn’t say that they were ‘just alike’. Hillary actually has more experience and is a better campaigner. I said that they both have HUGE negatives in terms of what my beliefs of how our country should be is.
A vote for Rudy for many people is just as bad as a vote for Hillary (including me) – EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT JUST ALIKE POLITICALLY. McCain has as many positives and fewer negatives as Rudy.
ThackerAgency on October 1, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Jesus Greiver. That should be your new handle.
Seriously though, I was exaggerating to make a point that was probably too much of an extrapolation. Jesus died while refusing to capitulate to the political system of the time, standing on principle. Many would say he lost because he died. Those same people would probably argue that he didn’t rise again, but hey, we’ll take this for what we can get out of it. The bottom line is that winning in the worldly sense wasn’t the most important thing to Jesus, and it shouldn’t be to us.
I got to go meet with a client. I’ve really enjoyed this discussion.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 Next »