1

The religious right's readiness to nominate and elect a candidate who does not have our traditional moral agenda as part of his core values is the result of a faulty vision of the evangelical political platform. In the past 20 or so years that platform has been broadened to include supply side economics, hawkish attitudes towards war and peace issues and other issues for which there is not unanimity among evangelicals as to the biblical basis. As a result we are faced with a situation in which we do not appear to have a winning candidate who shares our core values. We are also faced with a situation where people not in our camp see Evangelical and Republican as synonymous. Fortunately many evangelicals have begun to recognize the weakness of being so closely identified with one political party.

I believe this election cycle presents an opportunity for a candidate of either party or a third party who is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and has an economic, domestic and international policy that is rooted in Biblical justice. I have been looking for such a candidate for a long time and I know many other evangelical who are expressing the same desire. For me personally, abortion and the erosion of the traditional family has been a "national peril" that has enabled me to overlook the "justice test". I am now wondering, as are many other evangelical if I was wrong. It is sad to see evangelical leaders so willing to compromise on the moral issues in order to keep the White House in the R column.

2

Conservatives need to take a deep look at the candidates, and at their values. I think we need to take in consideration what exactly a president does. We shouldn't look merely at the social values that are important to us. We should look at what a President does, both directly and indirectly, and consider which candidate supports our values in those areas. What effect does a President have on gay-rights issues? What effect does a President have on the abortion issue? Are some of the issues we hold important a legitimate litmus test for a President? These issues are important, but are they important in a President?
That being said, I think Rudy is a dangerous person, for the simple fact that most people know little about him. I hope to see a more qualified (ideologically) candidate step to the forefront.

3

I've been really surprised by the bloggers who support Rudy that are normally conservative Republican's. You'd think that a blogger would be better informed that most others on his stances on issues. Either they think he is the only one who can win and so they support him because they care more about winning, or they really do not know his positions.

Either way, I do not intend to vote for Rudy. So far the only candidate who stands for all the things I stand for in politics is Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, his religion is giving me vapors.

I just can't square how someone so intelligent, such a good man and good father and well educated could also be a Mormon. Obviously he's not the only one but it boggles my mind.

So I keep wondering to myself, can I vote for him for President and if I do, is that an endorsement of his faith?

4

Well, Hugh Hewitt's blog is strong on Romney, but Romney has one huge problem with the GOP's Christian base: He's Mormon.

Hewitt did an interview of Romney (at Christianity Today, I think); Romney came through as a social conservative with a head on his shoulders, but all the online comments under the article were Denunciations of Mormonism's False Doctrines, heavily seasoned with "It Is Written" Chapter-and-Verse Bible references.

Do they think that Christ will return and Rapture them before they have to bend the knee and burn the pinch of incense before the Image of the consequences of their attitudes and actions?

5

Let's not accept the idea that the current top 3 Repubs are all we have to choose from. True conservatives can turn this around.

"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
....
It ain't over until WE decide it is!"

I'd take Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Newt Gingrich (even with his 2 divorces and cheating on his wife) before any of the top 3 right now.

Message to fellow pro-lifers: If we allow a pro-choice nominee, our influence in presidential politics is over. Let's get with it. Send some money to a pro-life candidate.

6

It seems that another admirable conservative columnist, who has most always been a promoter of reasonable thought and intelligent ideas is also sharing this particular defeatist posture, which he seems to think is a good thing.
Cal Thomas writes about it here:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/03/13/the_maturing_of_the_right

7

What about Ron Paul? He is conservative in the truest sense of the word, though he doesn't favor the large government involvement that appears vogue in most circles and is against the war.

Brad

8

Just one-third look first to candidates’ stances on issues; even fewer focus foremost on leadership traits, experience or intelligence. A philandering jerk like Rudy isn't exactly a model of integrity.

Never stopped the right from feeling good about Gingrich.

Anyway, Professor Brainbridge cited this interesting observation by David Frum

Conservatives may not like it Giuliani's specific positions. But [no] matter what liberal positions he endorses, he just feels right-wing. It's like that old witticism that Johnny Carson was funnier than his material. Curiously, just the opposite is true of John McCain. McCain has this amazing conservative voting record - and yet conservatives intuit that somehow, he does not really mean it.

Interestingly, I think the same applies to liberals. Many liberals like McCain better than Rudy because there's 'just something' they can't put their fingers on.

What is often unsaid is that Rudy's record in NY requires a bit more examination. It isn't quite that he did anything wrong per sea, it's sort of how he did things. He approached management with a very authoritarian streak. He forced out police commissioners who implemented successful policies not on substance but because the media gave them more attention than he got. He seemed to engage in bizaar vendettas, such as a 'war' on hot dog vendors. I remember listening to a radio show he would do every Friday where he took calls. A caller disagreed with the city's ban on owning ferrets as pets. He lashed out at the caller, declaring anyone who woul want to own such an animal as a pet 'sick'.

A bit more disturbing, I remember there was a lot of angst over police shootings and whether blacks were getting shot too often 'by mistake'. An incident happened where a black undercover officer was shot by a white uniformed officer by mistake. Before any investigation was done, Rudy had the officer visit the injured officer in the hospital and did a press conference in front of the hospital declaring that the injured officer had forgiven the other cop and declared the whole thing an accident and the officer was not at fault. Later the injured officer came forward and said that he had no idea what Rudy was doing and he was out of it during the visit he didn't and couldn't excuse anyone. Going to such extremes, to me, seemed to border on obstruction of justice.

To me Rudy's real 'character issues' are not his marriage but his arrogance. His track record of treating people without respect, being pushy and refusing to admit his mistakes. I wonder, though, if this might be the type of character taht appeals to many conservatives. The guy who 'gets things done' and 'goes right to the point' and takes charge.

9

Hey Joe, ever heard of this guy?

Head of a Southern Baptist seminary or something.

Doesn't what he propose sound a lot like Eugenics?

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=891

10

I don't see that social conservatives have gotten much for their efforts. The Country Club GOP tolerates them as cannon fodder/voting cattle, but except for judicial appointments (never quite enough to overturn Roe, of course, and a few symbolic acts, hasn't been particularly effective in promotic the s.c. agenda.

Meanwhile so many evangelicals ignore the replacement of worship by spectacle and holiness by the celebrity culture in so many of their own churches.

11

Patrick,
You might not have had time to read all of what Mohler said. His points 6 & 7 clearly reject the idea of aborting a baby even if you could know ahead of time that the baby would be gay. What he quoted from Radar magazine from Gray in italics was simply Gray making his own conjecture about what conservatives might think. Gray got his conjecture wrong (although some conservatives might make such a stupid mistake). Mohler makes the correct Christian and conservative judgement about such possibilities. All human life is made in the image of God and therefore has great dignity, no exceptions.

Perhaps you were thinking of his reflections on the theoretical possibility of a hormonal treatment for a baby in the womb who was identified with chromosomal testing to be likely to be gay. I wouldn't consider that in the realm of eugenics though. I always thought of eugenics as preventing "bad genes" from being perpetuated in the population either by means of forced sterilization/contraception, killing the unborn through abortion, or killing the children and even adults. The theoretical "treatment" discussed wouldn't be attempting to limit who can have kids or who is born. It would be more like corrective laser eye surgery.

As a conservative Christian, if one of my children someday tells me they have a homosexual orientation, I won't love them any less. I may even "feel" more compassionately towards them for the burden that they will have. I wouldn't condone homosexual acts, though. I believe it's much more that way for God - who is love. I believe He loves gays and lesbians and is close to them. However, I don't believe his will is for them to engage in homosexual acts.
Likewise, if hypothetically we could be told with 90 - 100% accuracy that our unborn child will one day struggle with homosexuality, it wouldn't cause 1 fraction of a second of consideration of an abortion. Anyone suggesting that we should abort in that situation would cause my fatherly defender of my family instincts to kick in and desire the birth of that child all the more. I'd likely punch the guy out who would suggest such a thing.

12

Perhaps you were thinking of his reflections on the theoretical possibility of a hormonal treatment for a baby in the womb who was identified with chromosomal testing to be likely to be gay. I wouldn't consider that in the realm of eugenics though. I always thought of eugenics as preventing "bad genes" from being perpetuated in the population either by means of forced sterilization/contraception, killing the unborn through abortion, or killing the children and even adults. The theoretical "treatment" discussed wouldn't be attempting to limit who can have kids or who is born. It would be more like corrective laser eye surgery.

Indeed until about twenty years ago you would have been right about eugenics. Stopping 'bad genes' could only be done through breeding control (i.e. sterilization, 'match-making' etc), forced abortion or killing of born children or adults.

However we are moving towards a point where we can start to shape the development of life directly through genetic engineering or altering its starting conditions rather than the indirect (and much more time consuming) method of selective breeding. How would you feel, for example, about a family of engineers having doctors alter the brain development of their unborn child so he is more likely to be apt at mathematics rather than art? Or, for that matter, altering the brain to make it more or less friendly towards mysticism or religion?

In the 20th Century we largely got a pass on the ethical question of eugenics because it didn't really work anyway. If you wanted the population to be physically fit and free of disease it was a lot less expensive to simply institute incentives to exercise, good public hygene, and investment in medical research than it was to try to 'breed' a human that would be naturally fit and disease free. I suspect in the 21st Century we are going to be confronted with eugenics that actually works and doesn't require the unpleasent prospect of killing or sterilizing people.

13

All I want is a guy who can;

1. Sock it to the Jihadists

2. Sock it to Democrats and Traitors, but I repeat myself.

If Rudi can do that, let him do it.

If Romney can, ditto.

Ditto for all prospective candidates.

If a freaking Democrat recovers the spirit of Roosevelt or Truman or JFK, I'd support him/her/it.

14

carisoprodol pill , [url=http://urlcut.com/carisoprodolpill]carisoprodol pill[/url]

15

drug test tramadol , [url=http://urlcut.com/drugtesttramadol]drug test tramadol[/url]