Christian conservative leaders decide: None of the above?
posted at 9:53 am on October 22, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The conclave has concluded and if the Wash Times is to be believed, even Mike Huckabee — an ordained minister — may not be “Christian enough.”
“There was no consensus on candidates, no agreement, period,” a participant confided after the meeting, held at the Washington Hilton one day after several of their groups participated in a “Values Voters” summit at that hotel.
Then, referring to Mr. Huckabee, he said, “He’s finished, I think. Bad things will be coming out about him,” referring to long-standing accusations surrounding Mr. Huckabee’s clemency for a rapist who later murdered someone in another state…
Mr. Thompson was the first choice of many top Christian conservatives before he announced formally, but his former boosters say he has lost support since because he lacks energy, passion and even knowledge about current events. Mr. Thompson underperformed in both his speech and the straw poll at the Values summit, garnering only 10 percent of the overall vote, including Internet ballots.
Reportedly Huck had the most support as a consensus choice who might obviate the need for a third-party candidate, which makes the objection to his clemency snafu curious. Do they know that his clemency policy was based explicitly on Christian principles? That’ll be a fun argument to watch, if and when it happens. It’ll also be fun to see how the rest of the party reacts if the religious right succeeds in anointing Huck the nominee even though he’s a second-tier candidate without their support. That would prove that they own the party, if ever proof was needed. Would the center go along with their choice in the interest of slaying the Hillary dragon? Or would they react to social cons’ threats to bolt if they don’t get a tailor-made nominee with some threats of their own? The latter, I hope, although with the possible exception of a few Fredheads (and Paulnuts, of course), I don’t sense such ardent support for any of the other candidates that would cause anyone to sit out if their guy isn’t the nominee.
Your quote of the day, from a WSJ piece on Giuliani’s uphill climb in deep red South Carolina:
Mr. Giuliani came through town earlier this month for a brief public meet-and-greet at a local coffee shop. Perhaps 100 people showed up. Inside, Mr. Jones ran into Doug Wavle, who represents Greenville on the state Republican executive committee. Mr. Wavle describes the county as “Bible-believing” and predicts peace won’t come to the Middle East until “the Lord Jesus Christ returns to Earth.” Mr. Giuliani, he says, doesn’t meet the strict moral standards he and his neighbors set. “I’m here just to be a good host,” Mr. Wavle told Mr. Jones. “This is not my candidate, and you know why.”
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: 1 2 Next »
Ugh. This is stupid.
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Exactly who meets their “Christian enough” standards, then? Do they know the Pope can’t run?
amerpundit on October 22, 2007 at 10:01 AM
And I’m pretty sure Jesus’ schedule just doesn’t have time for a Presidential run.
amerpundit on October 22, 2007 at 10:02 AM
They must really want President Cankles.
Ugh.
Darksean on October 22, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Where oh where.. are the Huckabee shills?
Didn’t I tell you that there had to be reasons why Huck didn’t have more popularity from the get go?
But watch the Huck shills weasel out of this one in an Arkansas minute….
Mcguyver on October 22, 2007 at 10:04 AM
So let me get this straight. They concluded that Huckabee may not be “Christian enough” because he showed compassion? Maybe his clemency was wrong, but criticizing someone for showing compassion? I can see not wanting him in the job, but they seem to wish him ill will because of his error. Sad.
High Desert Wanderer on October 22, 2007 at 10:04 AM
The not Christian enough thing is a defense for when this clemency crap splashes. And its not his real problem. Huck’s got a tax raising problem. He raised taxes on everything when he was gov.
sunny on October 22, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Why am I getting the creepy feeling that “Christian conservatives” (I hate using either word in a positive way about anyone who’d knowingly enable another Clinton presidency) are getting close to being useful idiots for Islamofascism? You’ve just got to know that al-Qaeda is smiling ear to ear, hearing about how these supposedly principled people are planning – so it seems to me – to split off from the GOP if need be, thus – knowingly – handing the war over to the appeaser/traitor party. Un f***ing believable….
Halley on October 22, 2007 at 10:11 AM
Yeah, I’m being sarcastic with the “Christian enough” thing. My point is simply that they seem unwilling to settle for any candidate who’s less than perfectly ideal. Huck is a minister and now they want to bounce him for one bad pardon? Good lord.
Allahpundit on October 22, 2007 at 10:12 AM
This “conclave” creeps me out. Check out their kooky website.
I think we’re in Stonecutters territory.
saint kansas on October 22, 2007 at 10:15 AM
Halley, very good point that I hadn’t considered. I certainly hope not.
Darksean on October 22, 2007 at 10:19 AM
I consider myself a christian conservative, and I know from experience how some of these activists work. For some, Jesus Christ Himself wouldn’t be “Christian enough” to run for office. These are people who get all bent out of shape if the candidate doesn’t have thier issues plastered at the top of every piece of campaign literature. I’ve really gotten disgusted with most of them.
jdawg on October 22, 2007 at 10:25 AM
I’m losing patience with these nuts. Alas, you reap what you sow, Republicans.
BJ* on October 22, 2007 at 10:28 AM
I’m guessing the Pope, being a Catholic, might not be Christian enough for them either.
If there was ever an election where the GOP needed to stick together this was it. I don’t get why the ‘value voters’ seem so intent on fracturing it and allowing the carnage of Clinton, instead of just deciding to rally around whoever gets the nomination. Giving the Democrats the White House and both houses of congress in a time of war will not make for a pleasant 4 years.
BadgerHawk on October 22, 2007 at 10:28 AM
So, if Reagan was running today, would the fact that he had a divorce prevent him from being “Christian enough?” I think we should remember all the famous quote, “Bad things happen when good people do nothing (or something to that effect).” Hillary will be President if this entire block of people sit out.
reppac122 on October 22, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Kind of missing that ‘render unto Ceasar” concept.eh wot?
Principles are great,don’t get me wrong, but the practicality of willingly handing over the WH to the Clinton Criminal Enterprise is just wrong anyway you slice it.
bbz123 on October 22, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Mike Huckabee lost my vote because of his position on illegal immigration.
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Oh. My. God.
(no pun intended)
Just wonderful. So THIS is the sort of person who’s going to make or break our attempts to maintain the White House.
The thought is enough to get me to take up the bottle, and it’s not even lunch time.
Vyce on October 22, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Don’t put too much faith in what the papers are printing about us Christian conservatives. It seems from the inside looking out that the news is applying our opinion of Fruity Rudy to all the candidates.
Sensei Ern on October 22, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Huckabee is a Roman Catholic.
PRCalDude on October 22, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Oh, come on! JC is totally unelectable. For starters, he has no anti-abortion record whatsoever, there was that unfortunate “give unto Caesar” remark which shows he is tax-happy, and let’s not forget his criminal record: back when Israel was under Italian administration, a local jury convicted him of a capital offense.
Plus, much as I hate to say this, I don’t think this country is ready for a Jewish president just yet.
factoid on October 22, 2007 at 10:37 AM
I get the feeling this is a case of reporters reporting on something they don’t really understand. The idea that someone isn’t “Christian enough” is as idiotic as Christians looking for the perfect candidate. The past mistakes of anyone are only as important as what the person learned from them.
As far as the Arlington Group goes, they’re not “kooky” or weird. They are however a prime example of the problems Christians face on many levels. Any time you throw in people with varying backgrounds, egos, and strong convictions you’ll get very heated disagreements. Add to the mix those strong convictions based on different scriptural perspectives and it can get ugly fast.
It’s nothing more than a primary within a primary. The bloviating from some about a third party candidate is a sad attempt to assert relevancy and maintain donor levels. In the end they’ll buckle down and do what it takes to keep Hillary out of office.
bj1126 on October 22, 2007 at 10:39 AM
No he is an ordained Southern Baptist minister.
bj1126 on October 22, 2007 at 10:40 AM
Let’s hope the Pope doesn’t find out that he is an ordained Southern Baptist minister.
factoid on October 22, 2007 at 10:41 AM
He’s a Baptist Minister.
amerpundit on October 22, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I think it’s time to force a fracture of the religious wing of the party. If you are a Christian, you are welcome into the Republican party. If if you are a weak-minded assclown who let’s ultra-commercial evangelists tell you who to vote for, you aren’t welcome.
It’s time for the candidates to all stand together and SAY that, and force the issue. These peoples’ self-important attitude is WAY out of control. Maybe a little public humiliation will keep them away.
DaveS on October 22, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Is he a baptist minister?
Darksean on October 22, 2007 at 10:49 AM
factoid on October 22, 2007 at 10:37 AM
For the win. Very clever.
DaveS on October 22, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Allah writes:
In tarring Huckabee with the same brush used against Giuliani, Allah merely reveals his own intense distrust of the Christian right. Fair enough. But Allah has acted irresponsibly and all he has accomplished is to have set off another round of pointless, destructive in-fighting. The damage is done. You can’t call your sarcastic words back. I am reminded of Carl Sandburg’s warning:
huckleberry on October 22, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Let’s assume that’s true.
I would argue that it is irrelevant. Because your reference to Guiliani as “Fruity Rudy”, pretty much tells me what I need to know and basically leaves me with the same impression.
Vyce on October 22, 2007 at 10:51 AM
The Bible does not state that the purpose of government is to provide “compassion” or “redemption” in the sense of granting pardons for convicted criminals.
The purpose of government is to enforce laws. That is what the Creator ordained, not me.
I respectfully disagree that it was “Christian principles”
that motivated Huckabee. This point is not intended to cast suspicion or a “cloud” over Huckabee’s motivations, etc.
I am only suggesting that the Bible itself states that the purpose of government is to enforce the laws, and that government should not be confused with one’s personal, subjective sense of “compassion,” or “redemption.” One should not confuse the Biblical distinction between the roles relegated to the individual and the role relegated to the government.
The individual should not usurp the purpose and function of government in the misleading name of “redemption”, and vice versa.
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Hmmm…
From reading the text… the only one who said anything about NOT Christian enough was allahpundit.
They can’t agree on a candidate… duh… look at these boards and you’ll see the same dang thing…
Tempest… teapot…
And as to the comment on peace in the middle east… IF you believe in the Bible, as Christians are supposed too, then he is correct in his belief.
Do you really see anything, short of Divine Intervention that will bring peace to the Mid East in our lifetimes?
Romeo13 on October 22, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Isn’t that what Giuliani wants?
Valiant on October 22, 2007 at 10:52 AM
Here we go again. The Republican party is not owed any votes. After the summer’s immigration fiasco, they are lucky to have my consideration.
I suspect I’ll vote for Rudy if he gets the nomination, but I’m not sure, and I don’t owe it to him.
I do know a couple of things. If the party decides it’s no longer pro-life, I will no longer be a member of the party, and there will be a real third-party in 2012. I think that makes Rudy a one-termer, at best.
thebriand on October 22, 2007 at 10:53 AM
The article explicitly says that he relied on his religious background. The criminals were punished — and then he showed mercy on them. What’s un-Christian about that?
Allahpundit on October 22, 2007 at 10:53 AM
This has nothing to do with bein “Christian Enough”.
This has to do with principle and the candidate who we believe best embraces our principles.
The Democrats are asking us to abandon our principles in order to suppor their principles and lust for power. And now the GOP is asking us to do basically the same thing.
GOP is treading a dangerous ground by banking on Hillary to scare everyone into voting Republican. GOP has done this successfully the last two elections, but it just might not work this time around.
Lawrence on October 22, 2007 at 10:54 AM
(whispering) I’ve heard that not only is he a J-E-W, but he stays up late hours drinking alcohol and eating with prostitutes and tax collectors. He’s even a poor business manager! He completely abandoned the profitable construction business his stepdad Joseph left him and now wanders around with twelve sweaty guys instead of taking care of his poor mother! And some people think this guy can run the country? Puh-leeze.
angryoldfatman on October 22, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Baptist minister?
I thought he was a Roman Catholic :P
That said it is terribly sad that they can’t come to terms on Huckabee of all people because he once issued clemency. They have no problem with his tax raising, his high spending, or his stances on illegal immigration, but when it comes to making one bad decision regarding clemency, all hell breaks loose!
I think they’re just becoming power-hungry honestly, and I’m saying this as a christian conservative. If they can’t agree on a Southern Baptist Pastor, and the reason isn’t theology, something’s wrong.
Keljeck on October 22, 2007 at 10:57 AM
To:
Did you cache the Arlington groups’ website?
….Because it is under construction now…
…I am really curious what they are changing!
Mcguyver on October 22, 2007 at 10:58 AM
From the story:
One major figure on the Christian Right who was considered a behind-the-scenes backer of former Tennessee Gov. Fred Thompson, said at yesterday’s closed-door session that he simply didn’t think any of the major Republican hopefuls could pass “the straight-face test” when it comes to commitment to Christian principles
Slublog on October 22, 2007 at 10:58 AM
angryoldfatman on October 22, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Yeah, that’s exactly the kind of thing they do and say. Trust me, I’ve worked with these people for a long time. In fact, it’s one of the reasone I quit being active in politics.
jdawg on October 22, 2007 at 10:59 AM
At this point, my deciding question will be “Who is going to screw us over the least?” That question is even going to be daunting based on my observations thus far.
flyawaybird on October 22, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Didn’t work too well when we lost the House and Senate after they tried to motivate us with the rising Marxist committee chairpersons.
Hillary won’t rustle the base as long as she keeps up her image in the new tone and doesn’t lose it. Even if she does, the MSM won’t show the drama.
Valiant on October 22, 2007 at 11:00 AM
Well, they will come around towards the end when they realize all people, even them, have failings which include extremes of pride, arrogance, self-centeredness and antisocialness because it is incumbant upon them to choose not the lesser of two evils but that which will do the most good in their eyes since just as silence is assent, to not decide is to decide.
Then again, maybe they won’t, but if that is their choice, then their choice — an all-or-nothing attitude where the all is, for the most part, never defined, compounded by an unwillingness to have done the work necessitated by their convictions these last 7 years — put them just outside the gate to Jonestown.
Dusty on October 22, 2007 at 11:00 AM
angryoldfatman on October 22, 2007 at 10:56 AM
Just to share a story with you – I once helped a fella get elected to the CA assembly back in ‘88. Good Christian man, lawyer, pro-life, etc. I actually had someone tell me they wouldn’t vote for him because he didn’t know the overall theme of the book of Galatians. I was incredulous. Sometimes, these folks will cut off thier nose to spite their face.
jdawg on October 22, 2007 at 11:02 AM
On the contrary, the Bible exalts just and compassionate rulers. Solomon was renowned for his wisdom, and wisdom was not merely making decisions based on the letter of the law. Even the Torah is full of loop holes which the Jews were more than happy to take advantage of.
If Huckabee felt compassionate toward this person and felt he didn’t deserve death, that was his perogative as head of state. It may have been a bad decision, but it was by no means an unchristian one. And it is within a clear understanding of how the Bible expects a just state to run in these times…
Keljeck on October 22, 2007 at 11:04 AM
One guys cherry picked comment… not even QUOTED, from a reporter whose slant is clearly against this group and movement.
I’m to the point that if it isn’t sourced… its probably bogus… tell us this guys name and accuratly quote him… not partialy quote him… then I’ll give it some credence.
Romeo13 on October 22, 2007 at 11:06 AM
Thanks for your comment. You asked a good question.
The “unChristian” thing is the common tendency for many folks with religious backgrounds to confuse (and later conflate) the individual/state distinction, or better known, as the “Two Kingdom” view.
The Bible teaches that the individual believer has roles and functions that are not assigned to governing authorities. The government, likewise, has roles and differing responsibilities that should never be confused with those of the individual believer.
The point is:
using the words “compassion” or “redemption” from the perspective of an individual believer, and then using that to usurp the God-ordained differing role of government (defined Biblically as “to enforce laws”–not to show mercy) is “not Christian at all.”
By the way, Allah:
We all know Bryan’s favorite NFL team.
Do you have a favorite?
Just curious.
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Thanks for clarifying that AP. I think a lot of people thought you were serious about that. Again it is an attempt to paint ‘evangelicals’ in a negative light. (I still don’t understand why Catholics aren’t ‘evangelicals’ too. . . but they don’t seem to be in the media).
So again, why can’t Rudy get support from those in his own Catholic faith? If he could get the Catholic vote, he wouldn’t need the ‘evangelical’ vote.
It isn’t about being Christian or not. It is about being conservative. None of them are. I bet the ‘Religious right’ would have supported Jindal. They’d probably like Hunter, but don’t think he can win. I don’t really think either Rudy or Mitt can beat Hillary.
ThackerAgency on October 22, 2007 at 11:12 AM
It looks to me like the source didn’t want to be named, just quoted. The Washington Times is actually a rather conservative paper that treats conservatives with respect, as it did in this story.
I would wager those who were present at this ’secret’ meeting are pleased as punch with this story – it allows them to take potshots at the GOP without getting their fingers all grubby.
Slublog on October 22, 2007 at 11:13 AM
The Washington Times is against the Republican base? That’s a new one on me.
Allahpundit on October 22, 2007 at 11:13 AM
For all the talk about “nuance” around here, it is interesting to me that it is hardly ever applied to Christian belief…what I mean is that AP, you seem to want to look at Christianity as entirely black and white, with no nuance or context. Nuance isn’t always a bad thing, it is often necessary.
Without knowing all of the details of Huck’s decision, one thing I would mention is that the other side of compassion and mercy in Christianity is justice, and also safety for the community – especially in regards to the role of government. There is very much that is “Christian” about those things as well.
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Good call.
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 11:17 AM
He’s pro-choice. Same reason why the Catholics didn’t back Kerry. The Catholic voting block considers abortion before it considers any other issue. Even though the Holy See is against the Iraq War, Abortion is higher on their list of priorities.
Not kidding you.
Keljeck on October 22, 2007 at 11:17 AM
I’m not trying to make Huckabee’s argument for him, all I’m saying is that there obviously is an argument to be made. Huck was convinced that clemency in some cases was the Christian — and just — thing to do. If you want to tell me that Christians can disagree on that sort of thing, fine, but it sure sounds like he was acting in good faith. In which case why should it stop a Christian group from supporting him?
Allahpundit on October 22, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Because their theology on the matter is different, or they don’t trust his judgment.
Keljeck on October 22, 2007 at 11:20 AM
It’s possible that the conclave’s problem with Huck isn’t his Christian credentials (which are admirable) but with his ability to get the nomination. Backing Huck and coming up short would leave the conclave with no leverage over the eventual nominee and make them appear impotent. It is smarter for them to wait and horse trade with either Fred or Mitt in their showdown with Rudy—after SuperDuper Tuesday it should be down to Rudy vs non-Rudy.
dedalus on October 22, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I don’t understand why the members of this particular group are so upset about Huckabee’s clemency, when many leaders of the religious right labored to save Karla Faye Tucker, who was guilty of multiple murders.
Slublog on October 22, 2007 at 11:21 AM
This is all a result of the selling out of the GOP leadership. If they had stuck to ANY of their principles, a compromise would have been hammered out with little problem.
Because selling out has become the standard procedure in the GOP elite circles, nobody trusts anybody, and we’re in the political equivalent of a Reservoir Dogs warehouse scenario. Between the losses in ‘06, the amnesty debacle, the reckless spending, and lack of progress in advancing conservative values across the board, everybody’s on edge and ready to pull the trigger, and Hillary’s getting ready to slip out of the warehouse with the diamonds.
.
That said, Allah, I have a minor complaint about your characterization of non-social cons as “The Center”, you can be plenty conservative and rightwing and NOT be a social con, I’m not a social con by any stretch, I am NOT in the center.
Bad Candy on October 22, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Keljeck,
You made some excellent points, here is my response.
We agree here about how the Bible commends just rulers.
My hesitation here is due to the fact that I personally have not studied for hours and hours the technical details
and history of these pardons. To be honest, I haven’t.
Maybe Huckabee has. I am more than willing to be charitable and assume that Governor Huckabee has indeed done his homework here.
That is why earlier I tried to stress that I was not attacking Huckabee’s character nor was I trying to cast a cloud of suspicion over him.
My earlier purpose was only to point out the Biblical distinctions or dichotomy between the differing roles and responsibilities that God has ordained separately for the governing authorities and the individual believer. In my experience, I see all too often well-meaning Christians confuse these Biblical distinctions.
Keljeck, I do thank you for making your comment. It has got me thinking.
Now if Huckabee could only change his views on illegal immigration…
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I agree – an argument could be made. I’m sure he was acting in good faith. And, I think it is ridiculous that it should stop a Christian group from supporting him (then again, I think we should support anyone who might beat Hillary and fight terrorism, so, I’m probably on the outs with that group too).
I guess I’m just saying that there is more to the “Christian” position than a literal reading of phrases like “turn the other cheek,” and “do unto others…” There are entire contexts that surround these situations.
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Excellent point.
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 11:29 AM
I agree. Someone who killed someone must suffer the consequences for their decision even though the family may forgive them. There are two seperate roles at play.
When Huckabee would let someone go, it’s not because he’s being a compassionate christian as in the case of the family who forgives, but if he decided that the justice system had failed. Clearly he was wrong.
But a lot of people do misunderstand the differences between individuals and governments, which is something I’m trying to grapple with myself right now.
Keljeck on October 22, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Yep.
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I am one of the millions of CCR’s (Christian Conservative Republicans) who isn’t excited about ANY of the candidates. If someone doesn’t shape up/show up real soon, we are going to have to come up with a plan B. Make that a plan Z. We don’t want to dis the Repub party but NONE of the candidates is acceptable to us. We won’t sit home if our favorite is not elected. We will grudgingly go to the polls and vote for whoever the nom is. We want someone like W, only tougher on criminal aliens and spending.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 22, 2007 at 11:32 AM
“We won’t sit home if our favorite is not elected.”
I meant nominated. Sorry.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 22, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Not to mention that the shedding of innocent blood is an abomination to God according to Proverbs 6:16-19.
For Huckabee to provide clemency to such a murderer is to be going against God’s will and therefore not worthy of the people’s trust to protect us against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Period.
End of conversation.
Anybody who doesn’t agree with me is a deranged
pacifistpale faced,appeasementass kissing, goat herding, gnome-brained, numb skulled loser.Mcguyver on October 22, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Thanks, jdawg, I agree wholeheartedly. :-)
angryoldfatman on October 22, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Good point.
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 11:36 AM
You believe in global warming don’t you?
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Well now…….is Hillary “christian enough” for you morons?
Hypocrites one and all!
Winebabe on October 22, 2007 at 11:40 AM
No.
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 11:41 AM
These sorts of “unnamed influential insiders anonymously reveal dissension in the ranks” stories should never be believed. The info is meaningless until someone has the jewels to own up to the comments. This piece is a total joke.
So… we are to believe Huck was the big favorite Saturday night, but on Sunday he was toast? And we’re also to believe GOP fortunes ride on what the 24 Sunday attendees concluded?
Absolute crap.
T J Green on October 22, 2007 at 11:46 AM
We are not staying home. We will be the anti-NY liberal voters in the voting booths. That liberal dream ticket of Hillary as Prez and Rudiani as Prez Jr. will drive us to vote third party. The elites want us to stay home. Sorry princess. We will vote.
saved on October 22, 2007 at 11:46 AM
If you guys want to know about what the Arlington Group is looking for in a Candidate go here: http://www.valuesvoter.org
bj1126 on October 22, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Hey, it’s all okay, winebabe, because even though they’re ensuring a Hillary victory in 08, thus instituting a presidency that REALLY will give them absolutely NOTHING on their social agenda, they’ll have voted for their principles. And isn’t that good enough, as the rest of us have to suffer through 4 to 8 years of Hillary? They’ll at least have a good feeling in their bellies.
Vyce on October 22, 2007 at 11:51 AM
That’s amusing. What has Dubya really given you social conservatives regarding your agenda? Abortion is still legal, and he couldn’t even get gay marriage banned (constitutionally) when Republicans had control over the whole government.
Vyce on October 22, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Mcguyver,
Ad hominem arguments are typical of the American Left.
Hot Air.com is a center-right website. Your use of ad hominem arguments will not persuade anyone here.
They make you look rather silly.
I noticed that you also quoted Scripture in your uncharitable, profane response. I do not know if you are a follower of Jesus Christ or not. I haven’t met ya. But may I please encourage you to read Colossians 3 and also Ephesians 4:17-32? Jesus Christ himself commands his followers to have the proper tone and attitude in our speech and conduct to others.
Remember, it was Jesus himself who emphasized that Christ-like love was the greatest philosophical argument for Christianity.
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 11:56 AM
And yet Rudy leads the polls with regular church goers. Maybe he is more popular than you presume.
tommylotto on October 22, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Even though the Holy See is against the Iraq War, Abortion is higher on their list of priorities.
Common misperception. Catholics don’t follow everything the Pope says. There is a certain set of circumstances where the Pope speaks for the Church and it is very rare. THAT we must listen to.
He may be against the Iraq war (and I would expect him to be) but the sin of abortion is Church teaching. Big difference.
Rightwingsparkle on October 22, 2007 at 12:22 PM
These are some quotes from above that I think make excellent points:
bj1126 on October 22, 2007 at 10:39 AM:
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Romeo13 on October 22, 2007 at 10:52 AM:
There was only ONE person mentioned discussing Huckabee and only ONE person in the article who was mentioned (and it was not a direct quote as Romeo13 pointed out) as saying this:
I did read in a blog post written by a prominent pro-life woman who attended the meeting that the third party concept was laid to rest. She said it was decided because of “many well thought out and researched reasons.”
INC on October 22, 2007 at 12:26 PM
It’s not about ‘popularity’. The thing is not ONE Catholic bishop has endorsed Rudy. As someone else posted they won’t vote for him BECAUSE he is pro-choice. He has to count on the ‘un-Christian’ (according to Catholic dogma) evangelicals to be OK with his stances. And if they don’t back him. . . well it’s the C-R-A-Z-Y heathen Christian Conservatives’ fault and has nothing to do with the Catholics feeling the same way and likely even more fervently.
Christian or not doesn’t really matter as much as conservative. If there isn’t a conservative candidate, the ‘R’ party has failed its purpose. Maybe it is time for a ‘conservative party’ in addition to the D and R party. That way the R party can truly claim the center.
ThackerAgency on October 22, 2007 at 12:30 PM
So Christ abolished the fact that God hates those who shed innocent blood?
Our nation, which is based on Judeo-christian principles, elects leaders to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic. For such a leader to provide clemency to a murderer is to disobey his sworn duty, and those who support such a leader are deranged followers.
The perpetrator of such murders of innocent victims may very well seek and receive forgiveness.
Christ said that only the Son of Man, meaning himself, can forgive sins.
So the murderer has to seek forgiveness from Christ, not a human leader.
A leader sworn to protect us has a responsibility to sustain the verdict of a murderer, not pander for votes with a political clemency stunt.
It’s obvious that you are a Christian-in-name-only, better-than-thou, pandering pacifist.
Mcguyver on October 22, 2007 at 12:36 PM
ThackerAgency is right to mention this. Conservative Catholics are very fervent in their pro-life activities.
INC on October 22, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Wow. Just…wow.
Slublog on October 22, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Ahem.
Slublog on October 22, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Conservative Catholics are very fervent in their pro-life activities.
Yes, we are.
Rightwingsparkle on October 22, 2007 at 12:54 PM
But, keep in mind, there are millions of Catholics who call themselves such and do not practice their faith. Those will probably vote for Rudy.
Rightwingsparkle on October 22, 2007 at 12:55 PM
If you are a Christian, and not a troll trying to make trouble, I would think you might want to apologize for that.
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Rightwingsparkle,
I just checked out your new web site. I have not been there in a long while. Nice updated, look.
You have restored credibility to Blogger web design.
:-)
ColtsFan on October 22, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Because it led to rape and murder? Religion can be used for many purposes, and can be interpreted a million different ways to be used for a billion different ends. Don’t we criticize moderate Muslims for not critizing militant Muslims? But I guess they shouldn’t criticize militant Muslims, right? Because they are acting on Muslim principles?
I agree with your overall argument, by the way AP, but they should not necessarily support his pardon decision either, just because they are Christians. Just my perspective.
RW Wacko on October 22, 2007 at 1:18 PM
That might have been worded just a little better, but I honestly don’t blame him. There are too many self-professed “Christians” today that are more concerned with political correctness and what the world will think of them than what God will think of them.
And if you get on their bad side, whoo boy.
Ryan Gandy on October 22, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Thanks ColtsFan!
Rightwingsparkle on October 22, 2007 at 1:41 PM
One cannot, be a Christian and pretend to play God by forgiving/providing clemency for sins (or, support those who play God).
Forgiving sins is entirely in God’s domain through Christ.
Mcguyver on October 22, 2007 at 1:50 PM
The Religious Right is just hedging their bet that the GOP will lose….
In order for the RRs to maintain their mythical control they’ve got to get out in front of the GOP loss and take responsibility. Otherwise, people will look at the demographics and see many who normally vote Republican soured on the Party due to incompetent handling of the war and social conservative overreach.
Alan on October 22, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Mcguyver on October 22, 2007 at 1:50 PM
How does that intersect with what you said to ColtsFan? Just curious.
and
Ryan Gandy on October 22, 2007 at 1:26 PM
You don’t blame Mcguyver for calling ColtsFan names? ColtsFan, who has done nothing but try to bring a balanced Biblical perspective to this conversation?
Seriously?
nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 2:13 PM
ColtsFan, tried to say there is a difference here between government and ones personal life, to wit:
He’s absolutely wrong in this case, because neither has the authority to forgive sins.
ColtsFan (and he mirrors a lot of so called pacifist Christians) attempts to sound superior with his analysis here and for such I have reserved, appropriately so, special names that I only use for pale-faced pacifists.
Also notice that I didn’t direct my first comment to ColtsFan here, at 11:34 AM, rather, I merely quoted you, nailinmyeye on October 22, 2007 at 11:15 AM and then ColtsFan interjected here, with the standard pacifist Christian rhetoric, to wit:
So at that point I didn’t care what else he said, because he clearly was in the camp of a pacifist.
Unless of course he was trying to say that I’m being “unchristian” by calling pacifists special names.
Which again, for the record as I have stated before, in so doing, I am treating – in this case the pacifists – as I would like to be treated, therefore fulfilling the Golden Rule.
Because, if I was being as stupid as the pacifists, I would want someone to do whatever it takes to try and knock some sense into me.
So, if ColtsFan is truly not a pacifist, then my name calling clearly was not meant for him.
Mcguyver on October 22, 2007 at 2:56 PM
If a democrat or a liberal had done that, whatever he did there, he/she/it would be pilloried on this board without mercy and probably deservedly so.
MB4 on October 22, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Compassion for whom? Not the general public that is for sure. Makes me think of his attitude toward illegals. Dukakis was toast when it came out that he gave a weekend pass to a murderer.
I think that Huckabee just likes to feed his own holy self-righteous ego and never mind at who’s expense.
MB4 on October 22, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Like they gave Dukakis a pass on a weekend pass?
MB4 on October 22, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »