Earlier this week I made reference to a rumor going around about Mitt Romney. Several readers--including a few men who I respect greatly--gently chastised me for making the remark. As my friend Steve Camp wrote in a comment, "You dishonor the FRC and the body of Christ by joining in on this type of negative pandering.
My initial reaction upon hearing such criticism was to become defensive and offer rationalizations for my action. I wanted to justify my behavior by pointing to my pure motives and good intentions. I wanted to say that they were wrong and I was innocent.
But they are right; I am guilty of behaving shamefully. I owe an apology not only to Mitt Romney but to all of the readers of this blog. I am truly sorry that I stooped so low as to spread such gossip.
My disgrace is compounded by the fact that I had to be chided by my friends rather than being pricked by my own conscience. And instead of immediately admitting my wrongdoing I tried to ignore it. I certainly deserve the damage this will do to my reputation and hope that it is anomalous action and not reflective of my true character.
Thank you for your humility. I'm just as guilty, while I didn't post on it, I mentioned to my wife as well as e-mailed a friend about it in an effort to get more information. I should know better as well.
You're a bigger man than me, Joe.
Perhaps this is the step in the right direction of being more charitable towards one another throughout the rest of this primary season? Seems like we all get a little emotional and worked up over our candidates and lose our heads. And I mean all of us.
God bless you, Joe.
Okay.
You tumbled ahead of your conscience and your friends picked you up. Friends are good at that.
Nice apology.
Self-insight usually trots beside sincerity.
Why did you do it?
Good job, Joe.
Joe,
Coming from well to your political and theological left let me say that I was surprised when you said it, and thought it was out of character. I regard you as a person of integrity, which is why yours is one of the conservative blogs I read consistently.
But your apology is an outstanding demonstration of how to repent and apologize. I don't want to tempt you to pride, but I hope others in political life observe your completely real apology and follow your example when they stumble, as we all do in an enthusiastic contest.
Blessings!
Good job, Joe.
It's hard to work so diligently for a cause and keep your values intact - after reading this, I don't think you're in danger of losing your bearings.
Good job! You have apologized and repented in a very public way. I'm sure God has forgiven you, and I hope you forgive yourself. Thank you for providing a humble example. We all fall short, and you did the right thing and swallowed your pride. God bless you!
Well done, Joe. We can't always be perfect.
Keep up the good fight.
Thanks for being a stand-up guy. We all have a lot of sanctification in front of us.
I remember reading your comment about a rumor in your previous post about Romney and thought nothing of it.
With your apology, it's making me rethink things.
So let me understand this properly so that I may not fall into error either. If person A says that there is a rumor without saying what the rumor is, then s/he is sinning as well as person B who started the rumor.
But suppose the hypothetical rumor is true. Like the Watergate rumor. Suppose there's a Deep Throat who's passing on information. So then everyone is telling me that not only is Deep Throat sinning, but that everyone who also passes on what Deep Throat has revealed is also sinning and should apologize. Is that right?
3 Questions:
(1) Does the truth or falsity of the "rumor" have any bearing on casting moral judgment upon the rumor-spreader?
(2) Are there instances where "rumoring" is not a sin? Or is there a categorical absolute that all "rumoring" is a sin?
(3) Define and nuance the term "rumor".
truth unites... etc, etc:
The truth or falsity of the rumor has no bearing. The point is that the spreader of the rumor has no real knowledge of the facts. They are repeating what it not verifiable. That is why it is a rumor. Facts are not determined by crapshoot.
Way to own it, brother. Thanks for setting a great example.
Well Done
I too was a little disturbed by your comment, and I'm delighted to read your quick apology. As many others have said before me, well done.
Praise God for friends and the conviction of the Holy Spirit (they often work hand in hand). I hope my friends will be bold to point out my blindspots as well, I'm sure I have many.
Thanks for sharing God's work in your life.
In the heat of competition, everybody goes too far sometimes. Your error and apology will actually raise the level of discourse, I believe.
"As my friend Steve Camp wrote in a comment, "You dishonor the FRC and the body of Christ by joining in on this type of negative pandering."
Ya' think?
Do you think this will mean that the rest of the evangelicals in Iowa who intentionally spread lies in order to make Mitt look bad and Huckabee look good will also now apologize? No, I didn’t think so either. Beware of false prophets. Thank you nonetheless, Joe, for doing the honorable thing.
Actually, nevermind. I apologize for doubting the sincerity of your message.
Nice try! Too late!
Typical of people associated with the Huckster, throw the garbage and lies out and then make a pious apology after the damage is done. Hmmmmmmmmmmm sounds Clintonian.
Dave, being an evangelical in Iowa I am curious what lies are you referring to?
Joe:
None of us is perfect, and we all do stupid, graceless, and sinful things - that's why we need grace. Luckily, we have a God who has even enough for the likes of us.
Unfortunately, when in the public eye, transgressions get more press. Oh wait - that's not a bad think, it's a good one. Damn intertubes!
Having said that, it's good that you have friends who are there to give you the spiritual kick in the hiney we all need from time to time, and that you have the good sense to listen to them. You're no different than anyone else in that you're as much a sinful bugger as the rest of us.
But thanks for being a stand-up guy and owning up to it in the same public forum you used to transgress.
I didn't zero in on the gossip element but I did register that your focus on Romney was "uncharacteristic." I didn't think about it too long but I do remember thinking...wow, Joe doesn't act like that most of the time. Your follow up here helped me to understand the "wow" part that gave me that very brief pause.
Don't know if this is the case for you but don't let being embarrassed overshadow what your friends are saying, you are a very humble man. I knew that the very first time I met you. You have integrity and I would rather read a blogger that is human *and* transparent than one who tries to make a living at justifying their gossip rooted rants.
Well, unfortunately your rumor came right before the caucus and your apology came after . . . I'm not being cynical, merely pointing out that the timing was just as unfortunate as the content and it makes our candidate look bad. He's had enough negativity this week.
But you did the right thing by owning up to it.
Jeff Blogworthy, et al,
Here's an illuminating lesson that Joe learned and posted in a previous entry:
(To clarify my last point, let me say that I had only one expectation from my fellow conservatives: that they apply the same standard to every candidate. I had no problem with a conservative pundit bashing Governor Huckabee for raising the sales tax by a penny in Arkansas…as long as they also bashed Governor Romney for raising "fees" in Massachusetts. I had no problem with their complaints that Governor Huckabee wanted to establish diplomatic relations with Iran…as long as they hammered Mayor Giuliani for the same sin. Very few even made an attempt to be consistent in their criticism. That was what I found so disappointing.)
--------
Let's be fair now. Let there be no rumors about Mike Huckabee from the other candidates and their staffs either. If they do, you should demand an apology and receive an apology from them as well. You should be equally sanctimonious and judgmental upon all.
Also, let's recall the Bush National Guard *RUMOR* that was reported by Dan Rather and CBS news. That was clearly wrong, was it not? I don't recall Dan Rather ever apologizing? Did you demand that all those associated with this particular rumor apologize? If not, why not?
Why be so selective in your condemnation towards Huckabee and his campaign staff?
Huckabee Supporter is on to something here. It has been a hallmark of the Huck campaign to say something and then, when called on it, come back and say, "Who, me?" and act all innocent.
Joe's following along on that--put a suspicion in people's minds and then come back, after the caucus, and say, "Whoa, I overstepped there."
The whole thing about Huck that makes me very uncomfortable is his pattern of "Clintonesque" behavior (that, and his association with the foul-mouthed Ed Rollins).
--He "innocently" raises a question about Mormons believing that Satan and Jesus are brothers--so what--it is irrelevant to a Presidential campaign.
--He makes a Christmas commercial where a Cross jumps out at you--and then denies they ever saw it--who is playing whom for being stupid?
--someone associated with Huck makes disparaging remarks about Rush Limbaugh--and then Huck is surprised that Rush responds, and claims he doesn't know how to contact Rush. What a load!
--Huck makes a negative commercial about Mitt, and then has a presser to say he's not going to run it, and then shows it to the press, guaranteeing it makes the news cycle and gets out there free of charge--brilliant, but don't be disingenuous about it.
--Huck has his Willie Horton with the Dumond case, and don't you just think Carville and company are salivating to make hay off that unforgivable error? (that, and Huck giving more pardons and commutations than the previous three governors of Arkansas---and that includes Mr. Clinton)?
For all that you say about Mitt, we know that he has changed positions. Huck won't admit to changing positions. Reagan changed, too. He signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the country when he was governor. He raised taxes when he was governor, and again with TEFRA in 1986. But we all knew this.
Huck is the Republican Jimmy Carter, and he is playing identity politics just as Carter did, and it seems that evangelicals are falling for it.
But this is one evangelical who isn't. We also should recall that "golden age" of the 1990s when the executive and legislative leadership of the USA was entirely made up of members of evangelical churches (Clinton (SBC), Gore (SBC), Gingrich, Armey (PCA), Lott). Those were glory days of evangelicalism, weren't they?
Fred Thompson may be a bad campaigner, but at least he isn't willing to sell his soul to be President of the United States, as Huck apparently is.
Iowa has about as undemocratic a process with the caucus, as any place in the world. Let people go into a voting booth, and then we shall see if they go all out for Huck. Maybe they will, but I don't see it.
@ Shane
There were multiple MSM stories that documented how when groups of evangelical church-goers went to their pastors with concerns, they were lied to in order to shore up support for Huckabee. One pastor said that the comutations of sentences wasn't during the Huckabee governorship, but was under Clinton and another former governor. The pastors in the article repeatedly lied to their congregants about both Huckabee and Mitt's positions. I'll post a link as soon as I get one.
Joe,
What "rumor" did you spread? What you wrote was that IF the rumor that has been spreading through the blogosphere is true it could spell the end of the Romney campaign.
You didn't repeat the rumor. You merely noted that it exists. I'm not getting why that in and of itself is so sinister.
While I understand your apology, I believe you (and your friends) might be overreacting a bit to your original post.
Nonetheless, thanks for the reminder of what a sinner I AM, and what a great, gracious God we serve.
Yup, you made an uncharacteristic mistake. You admitted it. You repented of it. You have done as Christ directed us all to do. Just as He extends grace and forgives, we do, too.
And pray that we will be as humble when we make mistakes, as we all do.
The Lord gives grace to the humble, Joe. May his people do nothing less! I am grateful for your example.
I have to disagree that this was a lack of integrity or a faux pas on your part. Romney is widely considered to be staffed with dishonest and deceitful people. I believe even you made that point about his campaign. Let's just say that there is no such thing as an alpha sheep in a pack of wolves, Joe. A man does not surround himself with wolves without being one of them himself!
That said, if there was anything you did that was wrong, it was being coy. If you felt that you had good enough reason to mention it in the first place, you should have matter-of-factly stated what the political elite is discussing about his potential scandals.
Most people will dismiss as "quaint", your apology for merely mentioning the existence of unverified information about Romney. Delivering the goods will ease the pain.
MikeT wrote;
Romney is widely considered to be staffed with dishonest and deceitful people.
Who are these dishonest and deceitful people working for Mitt Romney? Failing that, who are all these folks (You said widely considered) that are accusing him of staffing dishonest and deceitful people?
Count Joe in the list of people who think that. That should get you started.
Now if you can just get Steve Camp to follow his own advice. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Hmm... I might be totally wrong/naive here, but was I the only person who gave Joe the benefit of the doubt that he knew something true, but could not say exactly what for good reasons, for example, to protect further investigations?
In other words, I didn't assume it was a rumor just because I couldn't get the facts when I wanted. I would have condemned it as rumor-mongering/gossip if the truth did not come out when Joe said it would (~Jan 8). But I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until then that he had good reason for withholding the facts, and I'm not sure why other folks did not give that benefit and instead demanded to know the facts RIGHT NOW, other than simply because they don't trust Joe.
I'm not even trying to defend Joe right now; I'm wondering why people needed to know the facts RIGHT NOW.
Thanks for helping me understand what you were thinking.
That said, Joe, if you were wrong, I'm glad you apologized. You may take a hit in your reputation, but you will have gained something better.
Thank you Joe.
I'm giggling with "Giggling".
Didn't necessarily think an apology was in order, but if others feel better about it, then great.
Gave grace to Joe. Gave grace to Huckabee. Just want an even playing field for ALL candidates.
I think some/many are trying to tilt the field against Huckabee which I think is really dirty politics. Whatever yardstick you apply to Huck, apply the same to your own candidate.
Matthew 7. Speck. Log. Eye.
This is why you are my favorite blogger. Well done, Joe.
That took guts, Joe. Good on ya!
Bubba Boy(#36):
He did apologize. Read it at JT's blog under "The Discipline of Discernment" thread:
To All
I want to publicly ask forgiveness for my initial comment concerning Tim and his book. My words could have been seasoned with more grace and chosen more carefully.
The main question here raised is worth discussing from a biblical worldview and should be considered with sobriety of heart and mind: What qualifies one to speak for God and His Word?
I pray that many here dedicated to biblical ministry will continue to provide helpful and biblical responses to this question as I hope to do in the coming days as well.
To those who sought to use excessive vitriol against me for sport, I hold no ought against you. You wouldn't have been provoked to do so if my initial words were thought through more carefully.
HIs unworthy servant in His unfailing love,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
He also posted this at Challies and it was taken down by Tim...very disappointing.
I'll sure be glad when the nominating contest is over and McCain is the Republican candidate. If I never have to read another quotation of scripture about a secular political contest, I'll be happy.
Joe
What a powerful example to us all--to me--to live in this kind of grace and humility. Your words are so timely in my life today as well - I deeply thank you for them and am honored you call me friend.
We need godly men in politics leading faithfully today. You are one of those voices that is vital for the evangelical landscape.
I appreciate you brother,
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
Joe, I'm new to this blog and your post containing the rumor re Romney was the first post I read. As a Huckabee supporter, I was initially excited by the dirty tidbit. I'm ashamed of myself.
I must be a Christian first, before anything else. Your apology served to convict me, as well. Thank you for your humility.
I will certainly read your blog going forward! Take care, and God bless.
For what little it's probably worth, I've read Joe's blog for a good three years now, and have never seen him be dishonest and evasive. He may be obtuse about some things, mainly about libertarianism, but I'd never credit that behavior to dishonesty. For what it's worth, I think Joe's earned the credibility as a writer that if he says there was a rumor that might be worth taking at face value, we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt, not Romney.
Joe promised a Romney "scandal" by Jan. 8 not a rumor. I appreciate the apology and recognize that the consequences are longer lived than even Joe perhaps realizes. For example, Joe's blog was linked to by many others, and many have, as a result, been searching and waiting and salivating for scandalous Romney information.
Your apology doesn't belong online...it belongs to the people of Iowa. You deceived them and only want to wait until now to divulge yours lies to make yourself feel better. You would have been a better man if you had done it before. You sir, are the dirty staff member.
metals. We trust, with perfect security, that the freedom of uses of buying and selling at home, is surely much greater than that of those who want silver