« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The Romney Campaign’s Tin Ear

The Romney campaign continues to leave many evangelical voters feeling a bit out of sorts. It seems more and more the Romney campaign calculus is that the campaign will get the evangelical vote without much effort.

As Ben Domenech wrote in his excellent Transom last week:

Now evangelicals shift from roughly half the pie in the primary to a quarter of it in the general (they were 24% of voters in 2008). They are making their peace with Romney, but the potential danger, as I’ve noted before, is that their lackluster feelings for him will result in lower evangelical turnout than needed to win. In order for Romney to win, he needs evangelicals to come out for him at the same levels they did for McCain or better. In 2004, George W. Bush won evangelicals over Kerry 79-21, while McCain won them over Obama 73-26 in 2008. http://vlt.tc/8a0 While similar numbers will probably hold for Romney in 2012, he cannot afford any significant drop off in those numbers. Obama gained among White Protestants by a significant margin over Kerry, cutting it to a 45-54 win for McCain where Bush had won them by 19 points. (It’s also notable that McCain and Bush 2000 both underperformed their internal poll data among evangelicals prior to the election – Karl Rove made a repeated point of that defect, and was determined it would not be true in 2004.)

As an evangelical, let me explain something to those of you who may not be able to relate, don’t understand, or just don’t like it. Evangelicals view themselves as strangers in a strange land. To quote one of my favorite books of the New Testament, “People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.” Hebrews 11:14-16 (NIV).

For a good subset of evangelicals, they are not committed to the Republican or the Democrat. According to the most recent Barna Survey, evangelicals prioritize their issues first and second on the debt and taxes, but then abortion and gay marriage are up there in the top five, which deviates greatly from the general populace. They remain skeptical of Mitt Romney and, as they are just passing through on their way to eternity, a number of them may sit out.

Just as troubling and extremely likely, they’ll vote for Romney, but they won’t give money, knock on doors, get their friends engaged, or show any other enthusiasm.

For those of you who view Romney as better than Obama, evangelicals view them both as sinners in a lost world, which they fully expect to go to hell in a hand basket before the second coming.

In other words, Mitt Romney cannot afford to take them for granted. While he will get close to three quarters of those evangelicals who do turn out to vote, he must ensure they do turn out. And that brings me to his tin ear.

For a demographic that makes up one quarter of the general election, these voters do not trust MItt Romney, do not think he appreciates them or can relate to them, and thinks he takes them for granted.

Today, Chuck Colson died. Mr. Colson and I have both been involved with the same evangelical groups, including that group that threw its support to Santorum. Due to his health, I don’t think he really participated that much publicly or in meetings, but his spirit was there. He was mentioned several times by his friends who met in Texas. I was in that room. Those who threw their support behind Rick Santorum were his friends, compatriots, and kindred spirits. Chuck Colson was a most consequential figure in evangelical circles and within the Republican Party.

Consider if you will Mike Pence’s statement on Chuck Colson. Rep. Pence is running for Governor of Indiana. Today, he released this statement:

“In the passing of Chuck Colson, the earthly life of a consequential American has come to an end and I mark this day with a sense of personal loss. He rose to the heights of political power and fell to the depths of disgrace, but in his fall, he found redemption in the gospel of Jesus Christ. Having been given a second chance, Chuck Colson devoted his life to carrying the Christian message of second chances to those in prison, and he saw countless lives changed by his compassion and example.

“His voice of moral clarity was an inspiration to millions of Americans and made him an invaluable counselor to leaders in government and business. I will always count it a privilege to have been able to call him my dear friend and mentor. His dedication to moral integrity, serving his fellow man and his steadfast faith have always and will always be an inspiration to me and my family. Karen and I offer our deepest condolences to Patty, the whole Colson family and to all who mourn the loss of Chuck Colson.”

Consider Speaker John Boehner’s statement:

“Chuck Colson lived an extraordinary life. He was a man who experienced tremendous lows yet went on to spark a movement of ideas and people focused on spiritual transformation. His calling was to minister to prisoners and their families through Prison Fellowship, an organization emphasizing spiritual renewal that is active in more than 100 countries across the globe. Chuck was a patriot who loved America. He was a Marine. He was a mentor. He was also a best-selling author, a broadcaster, and a leader – one who inspired a generation of Christian believers to defend the faith while showing true compassion for people forgotten by society. In the eyes of the world, he was a person who had it all and then lost it all. But in God’s eyes, Chuck’s path in life was just preparation for His higher purposes. Through the full picture of the life Chuck Colson led, Americans saw that a broken man can accept the gift of redemption and embrace a new life devoted to the service and redemption of others. This will be his legacy. We, his countrymen, join the Colson family in mourning their loss, and in celebrating the gift that was his extraordinary life.”

Now consider Mitt Romney’s

“Chuck Colson embodied and made possible an immeasurable amount of good in the lives of the people, families and communities he served in bringing a message of faith and hope. Ann and I are praying for Patty, the Colson family and all the people he touched throughout the world who will miss him.”

As several people noted on twitter, that might be the only statement released today that didn’t mention God, Christ, or Christianity. But that’s the minor issue. The major issue is two sentences. It may seem a trivial thing, but for a group already presuming they’ll be taken for granted and not really valued, it is a real problem.

This evening an email exchange between a number of evangelicals on this very topic left a lot of them more certain than ever that Mitt Romney just expects their vote. He may get it, but not their passion or energy. That is the real problem for him. People used to witnesses won’t be for him.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    That’s very similar to wrote last week, and got called a Kos troll for it.

    …..Conservatives who believe that presidential elections are won by rallying the base should withold their support for Mitt Romney at this time. If we capitulate seven months out, he will take us for granted even more than he already has. In other words, he will ?Etch? and ?Sketch? himself into a carbon copy of Obama in the hopes of winning Independents and right-leaning Democrats. If the past is any indication, this will result in millions of conservatives refusing to pull the lever for Romney in November. The unfortunate outcome will be four more disastrous years of Obama.

    Make him earn your vote.

    http://www.redstate.com/rightwingnut2/2012/04/13/conservatives-make-romney-earn-your-vote/#comments

  • zachv

    As teh gay, I am acutely aware of how Romney’s has taken one of the hardest and most anti-gay positions with respect to gay marriage (a constitutional amendment ban). He’s done similar with abortion both soliciting the NRL’s endorsement and calling for overturning Roe v. Wade.

    On top of that, Romney’s a Mormon and given the conflicts and disdain that I think the average evangelical would have to someone who, EG, rejects the Trinity, talking up God is probably going to raise all sorts of trouble.

    I mean, what exactly is the suggestion? Romney starts bloviating on non-economy issues, he’s handing Obama the get out of jail free card and not taking the President to task.

  • Neal Kahn

    And I tremble in fear in front of Erick on his front page like he is the Mighty Oz.
    But….

    We never had Romney as our first choice and now he is going to be the nominee.
    I have never seen him run on issues of religion very strongly before.
    I do not doubt that he has strong religious convictions but he seems to keep that out of his campaigns.

    Is religion what we are campaigning on in this election?
    Or is the priority is it to first remove Obama?

    There are only two choices in November.
    Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

    People have to decide if 60 or 70 percent of what they agree with is enough to vote for Mitt.
    The other choice is 40 or 50 percent or even less.

    Anything is better than Obama and to quite honest…I can support Romney.
    I realize he panders but if he panders correctly than I’m all in.
    The other choice is Obama.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    If you have a group that is a quarter of the general electorate and they are willing to go vote for him, but not willing to bring along fence sitting friends or do volunteer activities for him, it’s a problem.

  • aesthete

    are extant along a whole range of right-of-center groups.

    Social conservatives don’t trust him.

    Fiscal conservatives don’t care for his record.

    Libertarians don’t like him at all.

    Independents are wary of a plastic-looking financial rich kid.

    In fact, the only people promoting him are the same Republican party flunkies who stuck with the Bush administration at its nadir, spinning all the while. I have to wonder, what voting groups does Romney bring in that Bush didn’t?

    Romney’s saving grace has not been an inspired campaign, or a vision that is markedly different from the incumbent’s — it’s that, when it comes right down to it, he’s not Obama. That’s good enough for many voters, despite many policy similarities between the two. Mind you, it’s possible to win elections purely based on voter dissatisfaction with the incumbent — but when the challenger is running on nothing, it’s also possible to paint them as anything, or to make the election about anything. Kerry didn’t lose because Bush was so popular — he lost because he tried to be all things to all people, and ended up repelling most. Romney needs to come up with a consistent theme with some substance behind it, and this substance must be different from that of the incumbent, if he wants to excite conservatives for the election.

  • brojohn2

    around those of us who love and profess the Lord. I remember Chuck Colson, unfortunately I never met him, but I do remember. He came to Christ in his darkest moment, and realized that he had been forgiven for his sins, but also that he had to make a public confession. He did, it cost him a few years of freedom, yet he was already free.
    My wife and I have done prison ministry, she became a counselor in a women’s prison, I have served on teams as a pastor. It has been a blessing to me, but when you see hardened men crying and being baptized, it is a wonderful picture of the work of the Holy Spirit in their souls.
    Romney, does not understand all of that, and I supported Perry, then Newt until he imploded finally Santorum, but Romney is our guy. Like or not, we are first and formost looking to rid ourselves of the Evil that is the Obama administration. If we would work against evil, then at least let us at least support Mitt Romney, he is not the lesser of two evils. We may disagree with his religious beliefs, but he does not hide behind communists, and haters. Let us get ourselves out of our shells, because it is my personal belief that God is about to bring judgment upon our nation, I don’t want it to be by the hand of Obama.
    The choice is yours brothers and sisters, let Obama have 4 more years or get off your butts and get working to remove this evil from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  • westcoastpatriette

    for speaking so eloquently for us. And by us I mean those of us who truly love and live for the Lord. I have pretty much stayed mum about Romney as the inevitable gets closer and closer and I am still not ready to put into words what I feel toward him. It is an emptiness mixed with bitterness and I am really struggling with supporting him in any way.

    So, what you have written speaks to at least some of it. I really appreciate when you write pieces that touch on the faith that so many of us share with you as it makes me feel better about struggling with “getting with the program” in order to defeat Obama.

  • mikeymike143

    demint or santorum would excite and energize that evangelical base. of course, if romney picks some establishment RINO he will be making a big mistake.

  • Neal Kahn

    Are they going to sit home and sulk and take their chances that others will tow the line or will they get up , get out and get the vote out?

    I am not voting for Romney as much as I am voting to remove Barack Obama.
    If people think things suck now then just imagine another four years of Obama when he has nobody to fear.
    For me that is enough.
    That reason alone will open my checkbook and get me off the couch.

  • checkmate2012

    First, I am truely sorry the loss of your friend Erick.

    I understand the point of EE’s post as don’t take for granted this important voting block of evangelicals, and agree that Romney shouldn’t take ANY voting block for granted. But I thought we’d been down this road with JFK as a Catholic, a group that gets bashed more than any other faith group, including from Obama and his healthcare bill. Why isn’t that a threat to people of ALL faiths? Religious freedom is what’s at stake in this election for everyone.

    So I find it weird that MSM makes an issue of Romney being a Mormon when Harry Reid is a Mormon and many other leaders but they don’t mention that in the news. This post seems to inadvertently question Romney’s faith or better yet, that non-Mormons won’t find their way to the polls to vote for him because of his religion.

    Obama said he’s a Christian, but of what denomination? Is he Baptist, Catholic, Methodist? Did anyone ask and does anyone know or is it that know one cares? I don’t recall anyone ever asking him and they just take his word that he’s a Christian. I take offense to the hipocrisy.

    All voter blocks are important. So how is any nominee to garner the votes of a majority of Americans given the diversity of our country, by cow toeing to the tenets of one block without alienating another?

    That my friend is why religion shouldn’t be front and center of a presidential election.

  • clintonformccain

    all this whining sure does get tiresome after a while.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    …that will help bring Hispanics in to the tent. McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008. Mitt has yet to demonstrate the ability to connect with them.. He needs close to 40% of the Hispanic vote to have a good shot at winning……..unless the economy falls of a cliff again between now and the election.

    For that reason alone, I support Marco Rubio for the VP nomination.

  • clintonformccain

    NT

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    and the Log Cabin Republicans…and even those on the Left for appointing openly gay Richard Grennell to be his spokesman for foreign affairs. It’s one thing to hire gay staff members. I’m sure it happens every day and I don’t have a problem with it if the job is not related to social issues. . But to hire someone who has been an advocate for gay causes, even doing so while a member of the Bush administration and continuing upon his exit from the administration, is another thing altogether.

    That Andrew Sullivan and Jimmy LaSalvia are cheering Romney’s progressive move is troubling. Is Romney tone deaf or is he intentionally distancing himself from Evangelicals? Are we seeing Etch-a-Sketch in action this week? For all the talk of the tough primary moving Romney to the right, I have serious doubts that this has been the case. He seems to be twisting back to the left like a whirling dervish.

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    It will be interesting to hear what Romney says to the Liberty University graduating class. Apparently many of them are not happy that a Mormon has been chosen as the speaker, even if he is the presumptive Republican nominee. Want to take bets on whether he will even bring up the topic or religion? I’m saying “no”, and thereby missing a golden opportunity to speak directly to the concerns of evangelical Christians.At least he probably won’t get booed like Obama was at Fenway Park in his videotaped message celebrating Fenway’s 100th birthday.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Jeb Bush, and – oh my goodness – Rob Portman. Crazy talk.

  • powertothepeople

    is not as enthralled with Santorum as some here think. He would make a bunch of them happy, but most would remain dissatisfied.

  • powertothepeople

    after this term. I mean he could change is mind and we in SC hope he does, but so far his last word on the matter was that he was done after this term. So combine that with his clear message he has no desire to be in the white house, no way he accepts or is even offered a VP position.

  • powertothepeople

    in this country does the same thing. This has to be an election about Obama, not Romney. We either end his BS rule or get ready to endure 4 more years that will be much worse.

  • westcoastpatriette

    during Obama’s 2008 campaign. Many tried to expose Obama’s “religion” and just what his pastor Jeremiah Wright believed in but most of what was uncovered was too untraditional and politically dangerous to allow the public to know. But, to the best of my knowledge, the pastor who Obama sat under for twenty years believed in black liberation theology — something more akin to a racist version of communism. The racism being that the founders of that sect of Christianity hated white people with a passion. Don’t you remember as some of this began to surface, Obama threw Wright under the bus and left the church when the video was found with Wright damning America after 9-11? So, yes, Obama’s version of Christianity was a huge issue with many but the MSM buried the story to keep people from knowing the dark side of Obama’s past, beliefs and faith.

  • checkmate2012

    I agree that we need Latino voters in our camp and that the economy is going to fall off the cliff, again. Putting that aside, I just saw a poll from 4/17 for the state of FLA only with Obama/Biden v. Romney/Rubio, and Obama wins 52 to 37. Polls change I know but it’s not a good sign.

    Interesting tho’, I had a late night exhange w/someone on RS recently and he/she made a great point: Romney & Republican’s should focus on legal Hispanic voters and not illegals. I know it sounds simple but the message could be that Hispanics, Blacks, Whites, etc. are in the same boat and draw their vote in that way instead of talking about immigration reform. We all know BO broke his promise on that issue too. Also his parents did a lot of missionary work in Mexico & he should talk about that.

  • Neal Kahn

    This election is about O-B-A-M-A first and foremost.

    Everything else is like worrying about your CD collection when your house is on fire.

    First put the fire out.

  • kipling

    Romney has not been consistent on any issue – fiscal or social. He is only consistent in saying what he thinks will get him elected.

    My guess is that faced with Romney or Santorum, they chose the guy they felt was at least consistent in one area.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    If anyone can get more of them to the polls, it’s Rubio.

    As for the pollsters. don’t buy in to the spin. PPP has partnered with Project New America to conduct polling of Hispanic voters. They just came out with a poll that concludes that Romney doesn’t gain their support with a Hispanic VP candidate.

    http://www.projectnewamerica.com/PNA3StateHispanicPollMemo%284-19%29.pdf

    One needs to look no further than PNA’s website to see what’s going on here. Here’s a list of the lefties running the show. By the way DAVID AXELROD”S SON is their Communications Director.

    http://projectnewwest.com/about.htm

  • checkmate2012

    And the throw him under the bus and then all was fine again as he declared himself to be a Christian. Still he has never annnounced his demomination after that whole debacle. And if anyone did bring up his religious background, they were silenced.

    But you make my point, that even knowing that, unfortunately voters didn’t hold it against him for his radical views. And I wouldn’t except that it was a hatred of this country among other things.

    So having what I consider a God loving, faithful person (even tho’ it isn’t my religion) doesn’t mean I’m going not vote for him or any other candidate based on faith, as long as they will govern with their love for this country by upholding the Constitution. And Romney will do that so far as I can tell.

  • kipling

    He has mouthed the expected positions but he will continue to move left on these issues. Look for an olive branch to the abortion supporters next.

  • checkmate2012

    FoxNewsLatino did a poll a few months ago, and again Rubio didn’t help. I read the actual poll ?s and answers, at least 50-100?s so it was lenghty and it was very revealing and something we’ve seen in other minority voter polls.

    They don’t think Obama is doing a good job, aren’t better off, but will still vote for him in 2012. Conundrum indeed!

    BTW, Rubio is a rock star & hope we vote in Cruz in TX!

  • snowshooze

    And it is a thought that has been rolling around in my mind.
    Will the Evangelicals even stoop to muddy their hands by casting any ballot in this case?
    I respect to their faith, which is the lesser of the evils?
    Voting for the lessor evil, or not voting?
    If one votes for the lesser evil… one has voted for evil.
    Now this question I might bring up to my Pastor, who probably thinks I am borderline vermin anyway…
    And thus far has remained apolitical as far as I can tell, but I am curious what his response might be.
    I have no idea.

  • clintonformccain

    Romney might as well move to the center and go after independents.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    The conversation we had about this last week on that diary that I posted. The same poll showed Romney only getting 17% of the vote against Obama. I don’t buy in to these polls at this stage in the game. I’m confident that Rubio can make the sale. They don’t need to win the Hispanic vote. They just need to get close to the 40% that Bush got in 2004. McCain’s 31% will not cut it.

  • kipling

    First rule of elections chum.

  • kipling

    A hostage strategy is not a campaign strategy.

  • westcoastpatriette

    thanks to the cover-up from the press. It was never public knowledge and Obama would never tell people “Oh, I am a black liberation Christian” as he is sneaky and did not want people to know how radical he is. So, you are making Erick’s point in not understanding how many Christians evaluate candidates. What works for you does not work for a huge portion of the base of the party that is able to see through phoney Christians and find it very troubling when they are unable to reconcile things that they perceive about a candidate from their perspective.

    Don’t expect you to agree. Just making a point that seems to elude you.

  • snowshooze

    And has never done more than accept the conservatives, also taking them for granted.
    Pretty much what I have been ranting for months.

  • http://www.rightspeak.net/search/label/-Right%20Wingnut rightwingnut2

    …..ASSUMING Romney wins FL, NC, OH, and VA. If he loses any of those four, it’s over.

    http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=jsy

    Romney either needs to flip NM, NV, CO, IA, or NH to win. The first 3 have very large Hispanic populations. I honestly don’t know how he can pull this off without bringing NEW Hispanic voters to the polls. Can you see Mitt pulling this off by himself? I can’t.

  • powertothepeople

    I am not a Romney fan nor a Santorum hater. I am not debating the social conservatism of Santorum nor claiming that Romney is or is not a conservative socially or fiscally. I am simply responding to the comment that Evangelicals will flock to Romney because they are enthralled with Santorum. That is simply not true and it was an obvious fact during the primaries.

    Reading comprehension my friend, reading comprehension.

  • checkmate2012

    Just googled it and many posts said what you did and many said it was a fake video. The nerve of him to give a taped message on the big board makes me sick. What’s the truth, did he give a msg and get booed or did he not even give a msg?

  • http://www.thepoliticalclass.com The Political Class

    It’s crap like this that has made my visits here less and less frequent.

    I admire what Erick has achieved, and his passion for the country and for conservative principles.

    That said, I don’t see how this kind of post is in any way congruent with that.

    I have a deep and abiding respect for people of faith, but sometimes I feel that my chosen faith (or lack thereof) does not get the same respect from certain of the faithful, Erick being one.

    Like it or not, and however fervent you feel about your faith, this IS a secular nation. Certainly influenced by Judeo-Christian values and history, but secular nonetheless. This constant need to filter seemingly everything political through a lens of religiosity is of dubious value at best, counterproductive quite often, and outright harmful to the cause at worst.

    To judge Romney based on your personal expectations about someone or something that has no bearing in his qualifications for the presidency or what he might do should he attain that position is quite petulant and childish.

    Perhaps Romney doesn’t like the guy, and perhaps for reasons that have nothing to do with your all important evangelical issues. Perhaps he didn’t want to go on and on about Nixon’s hatchet man and convicted felon, and have the media having him explain throughout nest week why. This may come as a newsflash, Erick, but the media is both left wing and dishonest, and will use the most ridiculous and tiny things to hurt any Republican.

    I don’t know why Romney’s statement does not rise to your lofty expectations of what that ought to be. I don know that in the larger scheme of things it is quite irrelevant, just as you are making yourself.

    I have listened to Erick slam Romney for a very long time, and there are certainly some of those criticisms I agree with. It gets to a point, however, where it becomes pointless and counterproductive.

    I don’t level such charges lightly, however I have gotten to a point where I can no longer avoid the conclusion that some of Erick’s disdain for Romney is driven by anti-Mormon bigotry.

    It’s because of garbage like this that this is my last visit to the formerly great RedState.com..

  • checkmate2012

    general to win. I think the polls are fairly worthless to until after Tampa so I hope he doesn’t pick a VP until then. I think we’ll get more southern black voters tho’ as the BO glow has worn off.

    We need the “are you better off now than 4 years ago msg” in some meaningful way. I think we’ll get FL, NH & CO but OH is trickier & probably not NM. I’m guessing at this point and don’t have it mapped out like you yet- lol.

  • snowshooze

    Not ideas, values,or anything else.
    Pure market share. If he figures he can count on any one segment, he will count them as done and move to collect more elsewhere.
    He thinks the Conservatives have no choice and are certainly motivated to unseat Obama.
    He thinks the Evangelicals fear Obama and so they are also motivated to unseat Obama.
    ( The Evangelicals know Satin is coming anyway, so this is actually a moot point )
    So he is off to GoProud, the Log Cabin Republicans, Freedom of choice… pile up everyone he can.
    Insufferable Panderer from day one.
    Seems pretty obvious to me.

  • snowshooze

    nt.

  • kipling

    What I said was in support of your point. I agree that many of the evangelicals were not enthralled with Santorum. My comments offered a suggestion of why they might have chosen him over Romney.

    Stop trying to be too smart and have a conversation.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Yawn, again.

  • checkmate2012

    votes to win and I do understand your point. Many Christians don’t trust Romney b/c they think he’s not a “true” Christian. But if you look at my last sentence of my original response to this diary-

    So how is any nominee to garner the votes of a majority of Americans given the diversity of our country, by cow toeing to the tenets of one block without alienating another?

    then I think its hipocritical for Christians to not vote for Romney because he’s Mormon if he doesn’t tow their line. But obviously a majority of voters voted for Obama, whether they knew or didn’t know his religious background and now some of those same voters are going to base their vote on Romney’s religion?

    That doesn’t make sense to me (as a Catholic).

  • garfieldjl

    Like me, Erick can’t stand Romney because he’s as slimy as dishonest used cars salesman for starters.

    Erick and I can’t stand Romney because of Romney’s behavior, this accusing people of being anti-mormon bigots, is like Obama’s people calling people racist.

  • snowshooze

    With 6 kids, used to drive truck, after picking fruit… put herself through College with an MBA and then joined the service…
    Gosh… maybe that would do it.

  • acat

    Apparently, they’re hoping Romney sticks to politics instead of wandering into theological differences….

    Mew

  • clintonformccain

    Fair and balanced: A whole bunch of Democrat talking heads and a conservative who despises the Republican nominee. EE is officially the David Brooks of CNN.

  • JX12

    ,,,Mitt is the only game in town, now. He is – for all intents and purposes – the nominee, and it’s either him or Obama. Who’s it going to be?

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    That’s the cold, stark reality of it. We have a convictionless candidate who is playing bookie Karl Rove’s betting board.

  • demsaresatanic

    “only just begun to move left.” Wait until the nomination is secured.

  • snowshooze

    And maybe let some of the other States vote… if that is ok.
    Yeah… every time Willard opens his mouth, there is a risk he might say what he really means.
    And that could change everything.

  • zachv

    “Romney hasn’t SAID or DONE anything yet, but I know he’s moving leftwards!!”

  • zachv

    From your link:

    “it it was his hope that New York would have marriage equality soon and that he would one day be able to marry his partner, Matt Lashey. The couple has been together 10 years.”

    Letting other people’s happiness get in the way of your opinions.

    Oh, the horror.

  • texastaxpayer

    ;)

  • AceInTX

    What he said was…Romney out to get off his backside and EARN our votes.

    I was brow beaten mercilessly in 2008 about how much McCain was better than Obama…and how I should shut up and get in line…I was pounded endlessly about how I was a purist…blah…blah…blah…

    Well…this is my committment to all of you…I will vote for Mitt Romney in Nov….but don’t ask me to knock on doors for him…don’t ask me to phone bank for him…don’t ask me to bastartdize my credibility for him…and don’t expect me to sing his paraises until he’s willing to prove to me he’s worthy of any of it…

    I Owe him NOTHING….as I said…I’l vote for him over Obama….but if he wants me to work for him…he needs to earn it!!!

  • snowshooze

    Really an outstanding lady.
    Probably wouldn’t have anything to do with Mitt though.

  • califgal

    Assuming you are correct in your assessment of evangelicals (and I have no reason to think you are wrong), evangelicals have the power to see to it that Romney loses and that Obama wins.

    However, there is another reality, equally bleak: They do not have the power to see to it that he wins.

    Should Romney publicly fight for, make a big deal of the issues you say evangelicals hold dear, he stands no chance of even getting out of the starting gates. Obama will build a huge lead and never have to look back.

    And why is this so? Because evangelicals are not popular throughout the country…because they are perceived as self-righteous…because they are perceived as rigid…. because in many parts of the country the word “evangelical” is associated with a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific method (even though use of that method has saved their lives and the lives of those they love), because in many parts of the country evangelicals are thought to “speak in tongues” and prefer quoting Old Testament scripture rather than New Testament scripture, because on television people have seen the likes of evagelicals like the Swaggerts and the Robertsons and the Falwells and followed the scandals that attend to some of them, and because those scandals reveal hypocrisies that remind people of Elmer Gantry and tent revivals.

    A fair assessment of “evangelicals”? No,of course not, but whoever said that things are fair?

    I speak of perception, not of absolute truth.

    Nonetheless, reality counts. Whose fault is it that evangelicals are perceived in this manner? The unwashed masses? Yes. Evangelicals themselves? Yes. It’s always a two-way street.

    I’ve no answers. Sadly, you must understand that while we are indeed a center, perhaps a center- right country, evangelicals are, in many states that are crucial to electoral politics now and going forward, much maligned, misunderstood, and , depending on how much they ask of the GOP candidate this election cycle, either feathers that can help build stronger wings…or an albatross hung around the candidate’s neck.

    The only way that can change is for evangelicals to grow in numbers and to do so not simply in geographic pockets, but all over the country.

    I take no delight in saying any of this. It’s simply where we are in history.

  • AceInTX

    then I think its hipocritical for Christians to not vote for Romney because he?s Mormon if he doesn?t tow their line.

    I’ll vote for him…Mormon or not….and i’ll enthusiastically campaign for him…IF HE EARNS IT!!! Whether he’s a Mormon or a Catholic or whatever has nothing to do with it and it has NOTHING to do with what Erick wrote…

    He needs to earn our support and not take us for granted….where he attends church has nothing to do with it!!

    GOD I despise this whole Meme….after 6 years of this crap….I’m SICK of it!!!!

  • AceInTX

    who cares if you find it tiresome?

  • zachv

    I think there’s a couple problems with her.

    (1) She’s an incredibly young (35) woman with little experience. She’s run a city, but that’s a rather big jump from city to the entire nation.

    (2) Erick posted this: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/04/19/another-reason-to-support-carl-wimmer/

  • AceInTX

    Hmmm???

  • zachv

    *an outstanding lady

    *a couple of problems

    *a rather large jump

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    every bit as much as you or anyone else here. You know very well that many of us here are socially conservative which includes our support for traditional marriage. We’ve explained our reasons why time and again. If Romney moves toward supporting gay marriage, it’s going to be a problem.

    By the way, I never got an email from you with the link you mentioned.

  • AceInTX

  • snowshooze

    That is the definition of the GOP?

  • zachv

    I know Melody. /sigh.

    Alrighty. I sent the email to rightmom(at)gmail.com . I must have erred. But, this was the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

  • AceInTX

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    is a Mormon. It’s the fact that he continues to ignore the fact that a good number of us are Christian, evangelical, Bible-clinging conservatives. It’d be like he gave a speech to the NRA and never mentioned guns. I don’t know if he’s taking our votes for granted, if he thinks he’s entitled to our votes, if he really just doesn’t get it, if he thinks he can win without us (good luck with that), or what, but he needs to figure that out, fast, and fix it.

    What he doesn’t seem to understand is that if he is willing to do what it takes to earns our respect and support, he can’t buy a more loyal contingency. The problem is he can’t buy our vote, and he doesn’t seem to want to earn it. And it’s not even like we’re asking for all that much. Just a little R E S P E C T.

  • snowshooze

    Because this Romney campaign is the market share campaign.
    She fills all the holes. She is everything he isn’t and more man than him as well.
    And she wouldn’t ever be President, unless Willard Pandered himself to death.
    Just a figurehead position to attract more voters.
    I watched an interview of her, and she is positively charming.
    ( Another sink hole for Mitt)
    So, if Mitt really wants to do some serious pandering…
    He ought to start sucking up to Mia in hopes she might have 5 seconds for him.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    That’s an email account that I’ve been using less and less, and I just forgot that’s the one I gave to you.

    I’ll check it and let you know if it’s not there. Otherwise, I’ll try to find some time to watch it. Just know that I’m coordinating an American Majority project with my local tea party over the next couple of weeks, so I’m going to be pretty busy. It may take me a while.

  • califgal

    Yes, there are actually a lot of very religious people who are uncomfortable talking publicly about their faith in God, their personal relationship with God.They were taught that only those with poor manners talked religion, that it was impolite and forward to speak fo their very personal faith. As evangelicals are those who speak the Word loudly and proudly, there is an uncomfortable divide there, often one of style. Faith itself may be what they hold in common.

    Most Catholics are not open, not talkative about their personal faith.
    Many Protestants too, from Episcopalians to the more staid Lutherans and Methodists, etc.

    In short, many Christians and many very religious peoples of other faiths feel it in poor taste to speak the way evangelicals feel called to do.

    I look to how someone lives his or her personal life to get a measure of a person’s character, not to his words about what he believes about his God.

  • zachv

    Good luck with the project. I’m a big fan of American Majority — they’ve been invaluable in helping support Gov. Walker. That’s fantastic you work with them!

  • demsaresatanic

    what he said and did.

  • WillWong

    I have shared 2 articles on my FB about Chuck’s departure and more than 2 sentences and I am not even running for any office!

    Just pathetic!

  • checkmate2012

    every comment. I don’t care who you vote for or why. I NEVER said Erick said anthing about being Mormon as accused.

    I questioned why it mattered what religion someone is in order to vote for them which clearly was the point of Erick’s post.

    Examples of my viewpoint, creepy to you or not, are based on these statements:

    ” For a good subset of evangelicals, they are not committed to the Republican or the Democrat.”

    “According to the most recent Barna Survey……..They remain skeptical of Mitt Romney and, as they are just passing through on their way to eternity, a number of them may sit out.

    “For those of you who view Romney as better than Obama, evangelicals view them both as sinners in a lost world, which they fully expect to go to hell in a hand basket before the second coming.”

    So my question was:”So how is any nominee to garner the votes of a majority of Americans given the diversity of our country, by cow toeing to the tenets of one block without alienating another?”

    And NO ONE has answered yet how he can earn over the evangelical votes including you- ?”IF HE EARNS IT!!! “

  • basokla

    Don’t leave because “bump on a log” loves the newly found limelight of CNN. Other posters on this site have their head on straight.

    Erick is a typical “take my ball and go home” guy. I call him Joe Scarborough Jr.

  • bricklavin

    There are many valid criticisms of Romney, I fail to see how his statement on Colson is is one of them because it omitted explicit references to Christianity or Jesus Christ. The closest Romney can possibly come on this is to say what he said, that he and Ann are praying for Colson’s family at this time. He goes out of his way to laud Colson’s conversion to “Christianity,” the “gospel of Jesus Christ” and Colson’s “Christian ministry” to others and he gets called out as a panderer presuming to speak on behalf of Christians, which he clearly is not by the definition of Christianity set forth by evangelical Christians. So you set up an impossible situation on topics like this where he is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Honestly, you shouldn’t want him to speak as if he were one of you because you have made it abundantly clear that he isn’t one of you. And he never, ever will be one of you in your eyes, no matter how closely his mores and values align with yours. So stop expecting him to act like the evangelical Christian that he isn’t. Honestly, nitpicking like this is just dizzyingly exasperating and pointless.

  • beccaleigh

    The first state to legalize “gay marriage” was Massachusetts and even though he will say that is was the court’s decision, he fails to mention that he put justices on the court that were radical leftist gay agenda advocates. He has a 2006 press release talking of turning Boston into a “Rainbow City” and his position earlier in this campaign was to basically support “gay marriage” as long as it was called something different and expressed support for gay couples adopting (something that has ultimately led to the closure of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts (under Romney) Illinois and DC.

    To be quite honest, I have no idea what his position on abortion is because he’s said different things in this campaign alone!! Don’t forget that he refused to grant a waiver to the Catholic institutions just as Obama did and the Catholic vote is crucial.

    www.massresistance.org

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/a-mitt-romney-abortion-timeline

    I was raised Catholic but attend Evangelical services quite often and the Catholic Church has done a lot of work behind the scenes to encourage voter registration and the Pope even reminded us that we need to keep our faith and values in mind when going to the voting booth. Any other candidate would be better in this area. People like to dismiss the social issues but that’s only because they don’t understand that the social and economic issues go hand-in-hand. A country that loses it’s moral compass will see all other aspects of society go downhill quickly and I honestly am torn about what to do because abortion is an extremely important and personal issue for me and I feel like I have to talk to my priest and ask how much of my soul can I sell and it still be acceptable.

  • beccaleigh

    After having his surrogates ensure that there were no conservatives on the ballot, Mitt decided that Virginia was a state that he had covered and didn’t care enough to even run an ad about himself….
    \
    Now I find non-political types telling me that they just flat out don’t like him . Hampton Roads is a large area and we’re pretty used to campaign ads with elections every year!!

    What really worried me was a liberal friend of mine just told me that she can’t vote for rom,ney, then she apologized and said she’d be voting Obama again. Those are the voters we need to be winning over and I don’t know if it’s just around here or if that is just an example of a bigger problem. She had her heart set on Newt

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Strictly speaking your choice is clear, one one hand you have a Mormon, pro-life, and a capitalist, on the other hand you have a Black liberation theologist (who lies about it), pro-abortion, and a Marxist.

    So you are actually just being selfish in asking for any special consideration. You should be forced to support him if you truly believe in your positions.

    But just to allay your fears, I think Mr. Romney does respect evangelicals.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Republicans will get next to zero black votes.

    Hispanic voters on the other hand can vary as much as possibly 40% going to republicans and NO we do not have to pander to them to get that amount. Nor are Hispanic voters all in favor of open borders.

    An increasingly large sector of immigrants are Asian. Some of these vote democrat because they ended up settling in high democrat areas like NY and California. But they are natural republicans in the sense that they often combine personal conservatism with a high affinity to capitalism. There should be increasing outreach to them.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Obama is going into an election with only one major legislative success, Obamacare, and it is horribly unpopular. He did not fulfill any of his other campaign promises and is widely considered, even by his supporters as a bit of an out of touch academic.

    Remember that he won a very close election against the worse possible lackluster Republican with a horrible financial meltdown happening. How can he duplicate that with all the Hope and change mystique worn off?

    I predict a huge win for Romney barring anything unforeseen like a complete reversal in the economy (highly unlikely) or some sort of October surprise.

  • beccaleigh

    to score some points with these voters even considering his record and that was with the HHS mandate and Obama trying to take away our freedom of religion. Instead the left started the “war on womnen”as a distacion.

    The war on religious freedom is being fought by HHS using women?s rights as the straw man ? pure propaganda. In this case, HHS is using rule making to further their agenda.’

    Is it too much to ask that he not playing to the scheme’s of the left? The GOP is more concerned withe the nonsense of the DOGGIE WARS!!!

  • Bill S

    And I suspect I’ll be helping you do it at some point.

  • Viet71

    It’s not simply to get rid of Obama. It’s that Obama cannot be trusted on any level. He may not be a psychopath, but he sure has the badges of one — charm, ability to deceive, lack of moral compass, intelligence, utter dishonesty.

    Romney, for all of his perceived or real flaws, is a much better human being and certainly is better qualified by education and experience to be president.

  • renl57

    …to earn your support?

    Do you have any positive suggestions?

    I doubt that any VP pick will help, because the VP has no real power anyway.

    I doubt that any speeches will help, since you don’t trust what Romney has said up to this point.

    It has to be a two-way street here. I’m sure Romney wants to solidify the GOP base behind him. But I don’t know what he can say or do that would change the minds of folks like you.

  • ardendulou

    Our TEA Party group, who are actively walking for Kristi Risk in IN-8 and Richard Mourdock will most likely not lift a finger for Romney. People forget that the majority of McCain’s conservative support came from Palin being on the ticket. I am still not sure if I will vote for Romney since I know Indiana will not go for Obama.

  • http://www.QBQ.com qbqjohn

    Christians, yes – none of this matters in the salvation sense. It’s all temporal. But then again, everything is temporal: Our work, our play, our stuff. But we still go to work. We still play. We still buy and own stuff! Right?!?

    In 2012 – for me – it’s ABO: Anybody But Obambi.

    Let’s not cut off those noses to spite our faces. Mature thinking says, “Suck it up and rally for the only man who can now get rid of of this guy.” I won’t sit back for another 4 years and watch BO’s grinning face of deception on TV anymore. Even my wife, not all that political, changes the channel EVERY time he appears. Enough!

  • renl57

    I would like to understand which evangelicals Romney can win over by SOME appeal–VP pick or promise of Cabinet posts or Supreme Court appointments or something. Versus which evangelicals just can’t stomach Romney, either because he’s a Mormon or because he’s been a flip-flopper or because he allegedly doesn’t “get” the concerns of evangelicals. He’ll never win them over so why should he waste his time and resources trying.

    This is a two-way street. Instead of constantly demanding “Romney must EARN our votes!”, why don’t you name your price and we’ll see if Romney can pay it?

  • texastaxpayer

    *mimicking Dr. Evil*

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I will go a lot further. For years now I have heard these people whine and complain that their single issue (or at most two or three issues) isn’t getting the attention it deserves.

    Well, now it is put up or shut up time. Romney is pro-life, even if you think he is insincere, he has to stick with that now.

    Obama is the living embodiment of the entire death crazed left wing culture. There is certainly no possibility that you can morally not do everything in your power to oppose him.

  • beccaleigh

    and my mind is made up about Romney. I cannot vote for him or Obama. I’m not going to apologize for refusing to turn my back on issues that are central to my faith and if you want to blame anyone, blame the Romney voters that, in some cases, showed utter disdain for social conservatives. My concerns have been belittled and dismissed throughout this entire primary process. I would have voted for anyone other than Romney and the following will provide plenty of information as to why economic and social conservatives should never get behind this guy.

    http://www.romneyexposed.com/category/the-open-letter/

    This is what my Catholic faith tells us

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

    Right now, I feel as if this country is saying that Catholics are not welcome since either choice we have would result in us either being forced to disobey our faith or stop practicing it altogether. When all is said and done, I answer to God, not to any country or man-made laws.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    down to the last three sentences.

    You are right that It is extreme nitpicking to expect Romney to have to gush about the passing of a man he had no real relationship with. No matter how good a man he was.

    You are wrong to accuse him of Anti-Mormon sentiment, that crap is getting as old as accusing someone who disagrees with Obama of being racist.

    And the goodby cruel world ending just makes you appear petulant.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    I met the man before, and worked with his ministry for a while, but I see no reason for any politician to make a big deal about his passing. He was a good Christian, but hadn’t really been a political figure in decades.

  • sberger

    “For those of you who view Romney as better than Obama, evangelicals view them both as sinners in a lost world, which they fully expect to go to hell in a hand basket before the second coming.”

    Can someone explain this to me? Why is Romney a “sinner”? Who cares if the world is a “lost world”? What does this theology stuff have to do with Romney??

    Also, you can whine and wring your hands at Romney all you want and wish that he would change. But he probably won’t. Your time would be better spent yelling at these evangelicals and convincing them that Romney is WORLDS better than Obama and that America simply cannot afford another 4 years of The One.

  • clintonformccain

    the tea party/evangelicals and focus his campaign on independents. Seriously, if a tea party/evengelical group can’t see the difference between Romney and Obama, that group has positioned itself to be irrelevant to Republican politics.

  • clintonformccain

    I’m looking for a blog where there is enthusiasm for the Republican effort to unseat Barack Obama and win control of the US Senate in November. I orginally thought that RedState would be that kind of place, but I will confess that it is has been largely disappointing on that score. I believe that I’m probably not alone and that many Republican supporters have simply stopped commenting in face of relentless Romney bashing.

  • clintonformccain

    winning the messaging battle against Obama and starting to gain some traction in the polls. You would never know that from reading Red State.You’d think that there isn’t a Republican in the land who will lift a finger in November. It’s a really odd, really negative perspective.

  • Ender

    which is apparently what Eric wants him to do. Because it would be just that – pandering. Why do we want to emulate the Democrat behavior by asking our candidate to pander to this or that subgroup?

    I would be happy if Romney was able to articulate his vision of the country and why he would be better than Obama. That should be enough for many of those who despise what Obama has done and is doing.

    I am also pretty sure that Romney is going to heaven, just like you Eric. :)

    - a sinner

  • clintonformccain

    …because it is looking like 2012 may be the year where they lose their 20 year grip on the Republican Party?

    After supporting two candidates in a row (Huckabee and Santorum) with zero chance in a national race, it seems that the leaders of the evangelical movement (the ones who kept “meeting in Texas” this time around) may have made themselves irrelevant in terms of political clout. I’m not sure that Romney feels the need to pander to the evangelicals this time around as he did in 2008, perhaps costing himself the nomination against McCain.

  • acat

    First, despite a large amount of wishful thinking, “evangelicals” ain’t a voting bloc. (I counted the Obama 2008 bumper stickers in church parking lots once…) I’ll just go ahead and use the term “Values Voters” to mean “the subset of evangelicals whose votes are determined by the candidates’ position on certain social issues”. This includes but is not limited to social conservatives.

    Pointing out things he and the Values Voters agree upon? How is that a “pander”?

    Pointing out the problems with another four years of Obama? Also, not a “pander”.

    It’ll be interesting to see if Romney goes over better at Liberty University than McCain did, eh?

    Mew

  • zachv

    Mia Love pulled a major upset on Saturday, winning the Republican Party nomination in Utah?s 4th District, advancing to face U.S. Rep. Jim Matheson in November.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsoutofcontext/53962059-64/love-jim-matheson-republican.html.csp

  • 10ab

    Ironically we now have Romney as our nominee thanks to the extreme right wing of the party! It was inevitable. Santorum, Bachman and Cain never had a chance to win a general…Perry once he left Texas was out of his realm and Gingrich simply isn’t liked. Jon Huntsman was too intellectual and wouldn’t pander on principal so he was dismissed by the right wing. Simply put…extreme evangelicals want to elect a Pastor in Chief …the majority of Americans do not….so here we are.

  • texasref

    I see you are very anti-Ron Paul in your footnote. What would you make of a Senator Paul VP selection? A step in the right direction or the wrong one? And why?

  • raginpatriot

    Read my lips: the problem with Romney is that we patriots / conservatives have been in this play before, and are sick of the part.

    The GOP establishment (the Ruling Class as explained here http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/16/americas-ruling-class-and-the ) puts up a guy who pretends to be conservative, and then becomes a progressive enabler once in office.

    We had this with both Bushes, and would have had it with Dole and McCain if they’d one. Fact is, the GOP hasn’t had a conservative nominee since 1984.

    As we face an existential threat in Obama, replacing him with someone who’ll be another progressive enabler / place keeper until the next Democrat “great leap forward” is hardly something we are to be expected to go to the mat for. Been there, done that.

    As progressivism is essentially the utopian-oriented American version of fascism, the choice we now face is somewhat analogous to an electoral choice between Hitler and Mussolini … like Romney, Mussolini would be the “lesser of two evils” by far, but hardly presents a palatable choice.

    I’m sick of being played by the GOP. Yes I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils on election day, but otherwise am standing-down. It’s up to the GOP Ruling Class to work to elect Romney, he’s their chosen one.

  • acat

    Blaming “The GOP” or “The Establishment” or “RINOs” is simply seeking to avoid blaming ourselves.

    If we really want a conservative candidate, we need to work together.

    Mew

  • elayman

    If he isn’t swept into office with a mandate on issues like debt, entitlement reform and taxes isn’t a skillful enough politician to force the hard choices down memories of Obama are not going to be enough for most conservatives. Certainly possible that if Romney gets elected he might not be conservative enough to turn the country around and we will only end up buying time until 2016 — but it sure as hell isn’t going to happen when conservative evangelicals with Catholics go on their merry way throwing in in his face at every opportunity.

  • Ender

    And to express any more than Romney did in his statement, for a person that he didn’t know, would be pandering. It would be pretending that Romney cares about this person on a similar level as his friends. To say more than he did would probably be attacked as fake. It’s a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I prefer the damned for not expressing fake sentiments.

    I think Romney and the GOP should be more focused on attracting the non-evangelical voters personally. That’s who is for grabs. Anything he would say to the “values voters” would keep being thrown in his face as fake. I hope he just keeps focusing on economy, jobs, energy, and constitution.

  • clintonformccain

    The major issue is two sentences. It may seem a trivial thing, but for a group already presuming they?ll be taken for granted and not really valued, it is a real problem.

    I don’t know, Eric. Of all the real problems facing our great nation today (and the list is certainly long), I don’t think that the length of Mitt Romney’s statement of condolence on the death of an 80 year old former member of the Nixon administration would make the list.

    This seems to be grasping at straws to find something else negative to write about Mitt Romney.

  • fightnright

    in the early stages of its democratization, where during those highly publicized ‘purple finger’ elections, many Americans disparaged the effort to hold such contests in the Middle East because so many voters would only vote for their own religious leader-candidates; those of their own sects, because they held *precisely* the voter’s own spiritual ethics, values, and belief systems.

    At the time, I heard and read of many Americans voicing their despair with such rigid religious dynamics driving politics, as they concluded that in such nations it would be impossible to have a viable democratic system.

    In the US, it seems to me that what we should be voting for in presidential contests are not specifically those of our own faith or sect, but for those who will better protect the integrity, privacy, and free exercise of ALL of our faiths.

    If Obama wins a second term, he will almost certainly replace at least one conservative Supreme Court Justice with a left-wing Justice who believes that the Constitution is outmoded, and allow or push through laws forcing, for example, Christian ministers to perform gay marriages, or forcing Christian health personnel to provide birth control/abortion to their patients and employees, or assist in abortions (even late term or post-birth “abortions”), etc., or lose their jobs at best, and possibly go to jail. That will be the beginning of the end of religious freedom in America, and the greater fear for me.

  • fightnright

    …this was meant to be a freestanding post. (Sorry friend checkmate!)

    =/

  • fightnright

    in the early stages of its democratization, where during those highly publicized ?purple finger? elections, many Americans disparaged the effort to hold such contests in the Middle East because so many voters would only vote for their own religious leader-candidates; those of their own sects, because they held *precisely* the voter?s own spiritual ethics, values, and belief systems.

    At the time, I heard and read of many Americans voicing their despair with such rigid religious dynamics driving politics, as they concluded that in such nations it would be impossible to have a viable democratic system.

    In the US, it seems to me that what we should be voting for in presidential contests are not specifically those of our own faith or sect, but for those who will better protect the integrity, privacy, and free exercise of ALL of our faiths.

    If Obama wins a second term, he will almost certainly replace at least one conservative Supreme Court Justice with a left-wing Justice who believes that the Constitution is outmoded, and allow or push through laws forcing, for example, Christian ministers to perform gay marriages, or forcing Christian health personnel to provide birth control/abortion to their patients and employees, or assist in abortions (even late term or post-birth ?abortions?), etc., or lose their jobs at best, and possibly go to jail. That will be the beginning of the end of religious freedom in America, and the greater fear for me.

  • synergist777

    Erick, you wrote that many evangelicals “remain skeptical of Mitt Romney and, as they are just passing through on their way to eternity, a number of them may sit out.” I know you are not including yourself in that group, but, as you point out, I (and, I assume, some others here) have trouble understanding that position.

    Do the ones you are referring to really believe that refusing to vote for a person who doesn’t believe in everything that they do, who is running against one who hates Jesus and Christianity, is going to help them get into heaven? I guess, when asked, “Why did you fail to vote, and thereby helped someone who hated and persecuted Christians to get into full power?”, they could reply, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” But it didn’t work the first time, and I doubt it would work this time.

  • 6eorge Jetson

  • AceInTX

    by a milk toast candidate who doesn’t have a single issue he won’;t sell us out on and a bumbling Senate leadership who won’t fight and who capitulates on every issue under the sun…have you ever stopped to think we’re just as desperate to defeat Obama but we don’t think caving on every issue and playing a me too moderate is the way to defeat him?

    We’ve got issues and we’re giving them voice…if you don’t like it…don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Do the ones you are referring to really believe that refusing to vote for a person who doesn?t believe in everything that they do, who is running against one who hates Jesus and Christianity, is going to help them get into heaven?

    We’re talking about a group of people who think they don’ belong in Heaven and wouldn’t be there but by the grace of God. What they do or do not do does not, in their mind, have any chance of helping them get in Heaven.

    A sizable number of them are just more focused on Christ than politics. They don’t see the battle between Obama and Romney as more than a temporal fight when they are focused on eternal matters.

    To be sure, this is the minority of evangelicals. But when Obama can expect virtually 90% of a huge black turn out, Romney needs every vote he can get.

  • clintonformccain

    I’ve only been reading the whining about Romney here for about the last four months non-stop. Ya’ll are gonna give yourselves heart attacks with all the negativity.

    And I must say that I get a chuckle out of seeing Fred Thompson’s photo! As if he were “the answer”.

    Don’t blame Mitt Romney for candidates like Thompson, Huckabee, Perry, and Santorum. The poor conservative candidate pool in recent cycles is what you should be demoralized about.

  • AceInTX

    What he’s saying is…there is one quarter of the Republican Party who is demoralized and unmotivated and that the Romney campaign would do well to stop taking them for granted and start working to motivate them…

    any you…true to your namesake’s form decide to take that opportunity to bash Erick and that one quarter of the Republican base who are sick of having our candidate piss down out legs…tell us it’s raining…and to suck it up and just get over it if we don’t like it.

    Your of an ilk in the Republican Party that has driven us to the failed campaigns of Ford, Dole, and McCain because you hold social conservatives in contempt and slap us around while making fun of us for complaining about being slapped!

    I’ll reiterate…if you find Erick, Red State, and the rest of us so unsufferable…then by all means…shove off

  • AceInTX

    you seam to be under the delusion that anyone here gives a hoot in Hell what you like and don’t like or that anyone here would miss your condescending rants when you’re gone…

    so…make you points…bach them up with facts…and stop whining because you don’t like what’s being said…or leave….we’re not stopping you

  • clintonformccain

    Romney needs every vote he can get.

    Indeed. Romney does need every vote he can get. That’s why it’s so disappointing that a leading conservative pundit such as yourself has used every available platform to trash Mitt Romney at every available opportunity. It’s just been relentless.

    It might be one thing if some larger than life heroically conservative candidate had been the alternative, but all this over the alternatives that couldn’t even muster up enough campaign to get on major state ballots?

    I’m not sure I understand the point now. It seems like it’s just festering negativity.

  • snowshooze

    Sarah Palin wasn’t much ahead of her when she went on the ticket. Being a Mayor of a town of around 10,000 for a while, much smaller than Mia’s town, and then into a Governorship that was going poorly indeed. She was taxing the daylights out of Oil, and spending like there was no tomorrow.
    But if a VP was anything to talk about, Mitt couldn’t do any better.
    So far as sales go.

  • acat

    Embarking on a quest to purify is almost always counter-productive, in the long term.

    Mew

  • checkmate2012

    the same thing, that religious freedom for all faiths is clearly at stake as I said in my post and in the title: Since we do we vote on someone’s religion?

    After reading replies to my post and all the others, I still don’t see an answer to my central question :

    So how is any nominee to garner the votes of a majority of Americans given the diversity of our country, by cow toeing to the tenets of one block without alienating another?

    I give up,

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    You’re absolutely right, I, Gingrich, Santorum, evangelicals, Rick Perry, other candidates in the race, etc. have all been blistering against Mitt Romney. I maintain he is a terrible nominee who proved he has problems winning if he cannot massively outspend his opponents.

    But I’m voting for him now.

    That does not mean I will shy away from taking note of objective facts on which I believe the campaign must improve to win.

  • acat

    Woman, check.
    Governor, check.
    Blue State, check.
    Hispanic appeal, check.
    Pro-life, check.
    Anti-illegal-immigration, check.
    Narrative, check.

    Seems like a better fit for Romney.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    what Erick is saying has nothing to do with the fact that Romney is a Mormon and everything to do with the fact that Romney is taking 25% of the base for granted.

    As for your ripost…I’ll point out…no where in the quotes you site is the word Mormon used or implied…it’s not about Romney and his religion it’s about the contempt Romney and the elites in this party holds OUR religion and the condescending idiocy we’ve gotten from them just proves the point all the more.

    The anti Mormon Meme has been pounded by people like you for going on 7 years now and it’s getting extremely tiresome….it’s the excuse du jor for Romney sycophants to deflect every legitimate criticism and escape responsibility for the lack of enthusiasm many if not most share in a Romney candidacy…

    then there’s this gem:

    So how is any nominee to garner the votes of a majority of Americans given the diversity of our country, by cow toeing to the tenets of one block without alienating another??

    Maybe our problem is…that Romney is so bent on compromising every principle to avoid alienating every other block in this country including a lot of Democrat blocks…but seems unconcerned about alienating the 25% of the base that does the work necessary to defeat Omaba and his minions?

  • snowshooze

    Because he doesn’t have a drop of it.
    Being Romney’s Veep would be like wandering around with dog poop all over your shoes. I am self employed and barely making it, I wouldn’t consider giving up to veep for him.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Caligirl said:

    “Because evangelicals are not popular throughout the country?because they are perceived as self-righteous?because they are perceived as rigid?. because in many parts of the country the word ?evangelical? is associated with a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific method (even though use of that method has saved their lives and the lives of those they love), because in many parts of the country evangelicals are thought to ?speak in tongues? and prefer quoting Old Testament scripture rather than New Testament scripture,”

    Apparently, you agree.

    Rants loaded with straw men and half truths are the domain of the left. Refusal to accept the scientific method, really? You forgot the flat earth and the flying spaghetti monster. I think perhaps you should get out more and make some friends who are evangelicals rather than stereotyping them and lumping them all together.

    Believe it or not, in many areas “throughout the country” evangelicals have not been cowed into silence and banned from the public square like they have been in certain other areas of the country. Where I live (30 miles south of Cleveland), The students and faculty pray on the first day of school, they teach a class on the Bible as Literature, and the guidance counselor plays Christian music in his office. A local pastor is invited to give the graduation speech every year (oddly enough, there are no metal detectors and only a few kids even have locks on their lockers). Servers at restaurants know to stand by with your drink refills if your family is saying grace before eating. It’s considered normal behavior. The city hall in a nearby town currently has a banner up advertising the upcoming National Day of Prayer event. When meeting someone new, it’s common to be asked where you attend church (and to continue with, “I know someone who goes there!).

    I suspect that much of the “Bible Belt” is like this as well. You see, the judgmental fuss-budgets on the Left and Right coasts are not representative of the entire country. We already know that Romney is not going to win those states.

    Erick’s point is that there are vasts swaths of the country filled with evangelicals who will make a difference in this election, for better or worse. Romney is taking them for granted, instead of recognizing the valuable asset they could be to his campaign.

  • acat

    quite the lucrative career. Who knows, she may yet – given another cycle or two and older kids – turn it into a run for something. Senator from Arizona has a nice ring to it. Had she played things a little better, she could have been “the presumptive” in 2012.

    Don’t look for a big name. Look for someone who has a solid record and no other avenue to *be* a big name.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    I’d vote for ANY Mormon who holds to his moral beliefs because the Mormon church in most instances confirms to most of the moral codes taught in Judaism and Christianity…what I’m objecting to is checkmate, and so many Romneybots incessant playing of the Mormon victim card to deflect from any legitimate debate when it comes to Romney….

    Romneybots Playing the Mormon card to explain away, brush off and legitimize any and all criticism is as bad as Obama playing the race card every time he is criticized….

    in fact…I’d say it’s worse…and all the more infuriating…because it’s a Republican…and his Republican Minions playing it on other Republicans….

  • snowshooze

    So… I will just keep mine, or send more off if I think it will help get someone better.

  • AceInTX

    So how is any nominee to garner the votes of a majority of Americans given the diversity of our country, by cow toeing to the tenets of one block without alienating another?

    By taking positions on issues….articulating your position…and persuading the electorate on the rightness of your cause….not by pandering incessantly and throwing your base under the bus to cow tow to people who would rather see you dead than breathing.

    My objection is in always boiling down every argument or objection to something Romney is doing…or not doing…to it simply being due to the criticizer of Romney being an uneducated religious bigot.

  • califgal

    Now, that’s an odd voter. No sane, thinking individual who “had her heart set on Newt” would be voting for Obama.

    I don’t buy that story at all.

  • AceInTX

    EARNING it us up to him…

    he can EARN my support….but he has to EARN it

    ignoring me and beating me about the head about OWING him my vote isn’t EARNING it.

    The Onus is on HIM

  • snowshooze

    Their job is to survive the President.
    Of course, if Romney IS the Candidate, he may flipflop himself to death one day…
    So I expect Romney to go with the Bona-fide GOP Next-in-line moderate squish…
    But were he smart, he’d pull a Palin, and those idiots would be eating out of his hand. McCain didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell before Sarah, and he still managed to blow it with that wild thing behind him. There should be a trophy for that.
    I don’t think he will do it.

  • AceInTX

    I’m simply pointing out that if Clinton for McCain doesn’t like what’s being offered on the site….he doesn’t have to participate…or read the site….nothing more

  • clintonformccain

    …if you just said you weren’t going to vote for Romney, but stopped the relentless stream of attacks on the Republican nominee. With your visibiity, you are undermining the Republican chances in November by constantly festering the anger against the nominee from within his own party.

    You are certainly free to do that. I’m not questioning that. I’m just pointing out, as you say, an objective fact about your editorial stance. The last thing we need is the designated “conservative pundit” on CNN trashing the Republican nominee week after week after week.

    I mean, this week, because his statement of condolence wasn’t enough? Really?

  • snowshooze

    I don’t believe anything the man says, nor does he have a single conviction, other than taking his rightful place at the throne.
    He may get my vote. After I find myself absolutely cornered with no means of escape.
    Who knows… maybe he’ll be struck by lightning, dog bit or refuse to kiss a baby somewhere.

  • clintonformccain

    where people are enthusiastically engaged in the effort to send Barry’s butt back to Chicago in Novemer. That is not the sense I get from Red State and I’m looking for alternatives so I can leave you guys to wallow in the attacks on the Republican nominee. If I wanted that, I’d read DailyKOS.

    Got any suggestions? I’m serious.

  • AceInTX

    so?make you points?back them up with facts?and stop whining because you don?t like what?s being said?or leave?.we?re not stopping you

    So…he can stop whining about what’s being said….counter what’s being said with facts and/or reason….or he can leave….

    OR

    He can keep whining because he doesn’t like what’s and wrap it up in belligerent sarcasm about other peoples whining….but we all know he’s whining don’t we?

  • garfieldjl

    The problem for Romney is that he is almost as bad as Obama, despite people denying that fact. It turns into a question of who do you think is more damaging to the country, when you look at the individuals themselves, Obama is obviously more damaging. However, if you look at what happens as a result (i.e. the larger picture) it starts to become rather muddy, rather quickly.

    Depending on what Romney does if he is elected, he could actually be more destructive than Obama, there is a valid case, which is why I was on the fence for as long as I was.

    You dismiss that individual as irrational at your own peril, it should be a warning sign to Romney supporters that they are in danger of handing Obama 4 more years, if Team Romney and his supporters don’t clean up their own act.

    I currently have the belief that Romney won’t be as destructive as Obama, but I still believe Romney will be rather destructive to this country, if he intends to govern like he did in Massachusetts. I’m guessing the individual you’re ripping believes that Romney will be more destructive than Obama, and I can see the case as to why someone would rationally believe that.

  • califgal

    groups–some good, some bad.

    I was talking about perceptions. I was hoping those of you who might be evangelicals would take a long, hard look at why the rest of the country, most of which is filled with hard-working and decent people, are so distrusting of what high profile evangelicals have come to symbolize to other voters.

    I no sooner spoke of how they are perceived as self-righteous and intolerant than a poster named snowshooz made my point for me. Anyone who can easily call a man like Romney “evil” is emblematic of why 3/4th of the country can’t indentify with evangelicals.

    I realize that most evangelicals, including Erik, wouldn’t call Romney “evil” but you are fighting perception since televangelism and televangelists are the public face of evangelicals.

    The average voter is going to sit back and say, whether he’s a lib or a conservative or a moderate, “Anyone who calls a guy who doesn’t drink, smoke, do drugs, who has been a faithful husband, a devoted father, a great provider, who gives away millions, obeys laws, pays his taxes, etc.” a guy who is “evil” is not someone I trust nor respect.”

    That’s the way it is.

    The other 3/4 of the population is not indifferent to that kind of talk.

    So, that’s my point: Houston, we do indeed have a problem. One-fourth of the population (I don’t know exactly what percentage of actual voters that translates into) are unexcited by the nominee, but 3/4ths of the population (again, don’t know exactly what percentage of voters that number translates into) are repelled by the message of the public face of evangelism.

    Numbers are a problem.

  • califgal

    can he do to earn your support.

    You replied, “He has to earn it…the onus is on him.”

    That’s really no answer at all. You’re afraid to state the obvious–that what you want him to do is to publicly embrace the social positions that evangelicals say are important to them.

    You want him to rail against gay marriage (yes, “rail” for simply saying he is opposed to same-sex marriage would not be enough for you); you probably want him to state the gays choose to be gay and are evil; you want him to say he will fight to make abortion under all circumstances illegal (of course, we have a problem there with SCOTUS and with POTUS’ power to change the laws regarding
    abortion); you want him to never let any citizen forget that the US is a Christian nation.

    And, if he did any or all of these things, you’d call him a panderer.

    And, he would lose 2/3rds of the voters, off the top.

  • califgal

    of not doing so. I’d have to agree with you clintonformccain.

    “I believe that I?m probably not alone and that many Republican supporters have simply stopped commenting in face of relentless Romney bashing.”

    That’s what I’m thinking.

  • califgal

    Grennell is very good at his job? Jeeeez.

  • Ann_W

    I haven’t heard the answer to that, after reading the entire thread. Erik, I hope you can add that answer to the criticism, that would make it constructive criticism.

    This whole conversation reminds me of a conversation we had here w/ a self proclaimed black conservative last year. He made a comment about Republicans always doing things to offend black voters. I very sincerely asked him what issues could R’s reach out to black voters on, and suggested school choice because I think that could possibly benefit the black community much more than white voters. He brushed the suggestion off saying that there wasn’t really anything because they weren’t sincere– or something similar, it’s been a long time. I went away from that conversation sad, because there didn’t seem to be a solution. What is the solution here? Honestly if Romney started talking about Jesus Christ all the time he would be slammed for pandering insincerely, or, as I’ve heard many times on this site, that it is not the same Jesus Christ. What is the answer?

  • septembergurl

    First of all, it’s an oversimplification that Romney lost the evangelical vote in the primaries to Santorum (and to gingrich in Ga and SC).

    It’s equally the case (and even more strikingly so) that Romney lost the rural vote overwhelmingly, while winning the suburbs and such Republican vote as there is in the cities.

    Of course there is overlap between these two categories of voters — evangelicals and the rural/agricultural vote — but it’s far from a 100% correlation. The rural vote, historically democrap, has been trending Republican. But it’s equally the case that the evangelical vote is not monolithic, containing many blacks (who voted overwhelmingly for Obama an will do so again in 2012) and many whites who are historically Democrap — don’t forget Carter and his ilk.

    Not so long ago, the rural vote would never have gone to a Catholic like Santorum or Gingrich — let alone a Mormon. In this election it would have gone to Perry (who understood the rural vote, as did GWB, from winning statewide office in Texas), or Bachmann, or Ron Paul in the northern states.

    But I actually think that winning the rural vote is going to be even harder for Mitt than winning the evangelical vote. If there was ever an urban/suburban candidate, it’s Romney, pure Wall street vs Main street. He can wear jeans and stand on hay bales till the cows come home (so to speak) but he has real trouble with rural voters.

    And that’s a problem, because to offset the advantage Obama still has in the cities, Romney will have to win both the suburban and the rural vote (as Bush did). This is where the VP choice and the strategery comes in.

    The other point I have to make is about religion in politics generally. I think it’s notable, and strange, that in this election we find ourselves with two candidates, neither of whom belongs to a mainstream Christian church.

    Mormonism and Liberation theology are the religions of Romney and Obama respectively. Both these men lead exemplary Christian lives regarding their commitments to their families (as some politicians and others in positions of power conspicuously don’t). Neither will discuss theology voluntarily. Both these sects have known persecution. Romney was born into a prominent Mormon family and has never undergone a crisis of faith. Obama was raised as a pagan in households whose faith, insofar as they had one, was Marxism.. and converted as an adult.

    In the ordinary course of events, Obama would have moved on to a mainstream Black church, Baptists or Methodist, as he began to rise politically. Maybe Unitarian or Congregationalist if he wanted to emphasize deeds over faith. His very quick rise, and the fact that his wife was also raised in a secular, non-religious family, meant he was still in the Rev Wrong’s congregation when he was nominated. Meanwhile, Romney would by now be a high-church Episcopalian (the default religion for upwardly mobile Americans in decades past, as it was for my German and Scots ancestors when they shed their Lutheran and Presbyterian faiths).

    This is a long way of saying that neither Romney nor Obama benefits by a close look at their religion. I doubt either campaign or candidate will focus on it.

    I think the rural vote is up for grabs this election. Outreach to evangelicals is not the way Romney is going to win it.

  • AceInTX

    There is a solution here…Romney and his campaign could stop taking 25% of the base for granted and work on motivate them to mobilize in November…or he can go his own way…and lose in November….

    For those of us who want to “kick Barry’s butt back to Chicago”, and who believe the current approach from the Romney campaign is a problem, should we just stick our heads in the sand and act like there isn’t a problem?

    And why would we do that???

    Because you find our pointing it out to be tiring???

  • fightnright

    I’m a non-evangelical who shares the concept of ‘just passing through’ this temporal/material world, and whose whole life and work choices have revolved around my spiritual beliefs.

    Yet I highly value the importance of my earthly political legacy. So I’d just add one thought; that I hope that such believers consider that many of them may have children, grandchildren, and still later descendants who may never be permitted to know Christ as He is, or develop any relationship with God, if they forfeit their votes in this life time. If far leftists have their way, generations to come will only hear of ‘religion’ and ‘Christ’ as backwards fables and fairy tales for the feeble minded in their state issued textbooks, as they are from preschool days inculcated with ‘correct ideas’.

    If anyone of faith is at all concerned about their children knowing and following their traditions, the power of the state brainwashing our youth will make any parent/child battle over religious beliefs look like a polite disagreement over tea.

  • Martin Knight

    Big difference.

    Hiring John Weaver tends to do that to candidates.

  • AceInTX

    No…I’d like to see him stop pandering to the baser elements of this country to get their votes….I’d like to see him take a position…any position and stick with it….well….any position that doesn’t remind everyone of Romney care.

    He could do much to motivate evangelicals…but telling us to sit at the back of the bus and keep out mouths shut will get him exactly what it got McCain and Dole….a historical mention as an also ran.

  • AceInTX

    That would do a lot to fire up evangelical….just acknowledging the moral reprehensibility of forcing religious people and institutions to participate in an industry that they believe to be an mortal sin would be a great start….

    call attention to it….quote Jefferson and the inscription on his monument “I pledge upon the alter of ALMIGHTY GOD eternal hostility toward all forms of tyranny over the mind of man”

    If he’d just pick a simple issue that has majority support among the electorate…he could light a fire under the base and propel himself to 1600 Pennsylvania avenue….

    or he can follow the example of McCain, Dole and Ford before him and ignore us….and ride the best advice his genius advisers can give him straight to a landslide defeat.

    These same clowns lead the Dole and McCain campaigns and he’d do well to learn from their mistakes and do just the opposite of what they tell him

  • clintonformccain

    For him to get the evangelical support, he’s got to push social issues to the forefront (as Santorum did) and take himself off message (“it’s the economy, stupid”) against Obama.

    Santorum harmed the Republican party by doing that., unnecessarily. Rather than commit suicide for the general election, Romney has apparently decided to go it without the hard core evangelicals.

  • acat

    The last thing Illinois needs is another loudmouth entitlement-mindset idiot politician.

    Mew

  • checkmate2012

    the contraceptive mandate on day one, and referenced pretty much all of your concerns in your post above (not in general I know already).

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/02/president-obama-versus-religious-liberty/238111

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romney-pledges-to-eliminate-hhs-mandate-on-day-one-of-presidency/

  • acat

    Why should Romney do something that has failed to win?

    Also, the comparison to McCain and Dole is dubious.

    Dole ran a pure anti-Clinton campaign, he never painted himself as anything other than “not Bubba”. No vision-casting at all.

    McCain, on the other paw, ran as the maverick alternative to Hillary, although he was also weak on the vision side. He offered more than Dole, but not enough.

    Further, neither McCain nor Dole made very effective use of “proxies” to hit the Dem. The last solid proxy hitter was W; the whole Swift Boat Vets issue scuttled Kerry very effectively. Romney *seems* to get this, so I’m looking for proxy hits at Obama to be very loud and repetitive.

    I doubt you’ll be satisfied by Romney if you want him to be Santorum or Perry … but that’s not really the question. Primary’s over. Is Romney better than Obama?

    Mew

  • acat

    Look, I’ve been clear that I’m on the outside, but at some point someone has to say there’s something wrong with how “Evangelicals”* are going about this.

    Mew

    * Yes, those are “air quotes”, because Evangelicals aren’t a voting bloc.

  • 10ab

    A Franklim Graham/Sarah Palin ticket might appease the Romney haters.
    The IRONY is that these rabid evangelicals are constantly talking about “loss of religious freedom” yet want ALL GOP candidates to fall in line with “their” kind of religion and loudly scorn our own brothers and sisters for not being “the right kind” of Christian. This must stop and if it does not…welcome to President Obama for four more years!

  • avagreen

    But, of course, I don’t consider myself an “evangelical”, either. Merely a Christian.

    Creating a religious group to influence politics or speak for an entire religious group isn’t the purpose of the NT church. Saving souls is.

  • AceInTX

    It’s why they dropped the War on Women shtick so fast.

    And I reiterate…were Romney to push the religious liberty aspect of this issue and claim solidarity with evangelicals, the Catholic Church including the Council of Bishops and the Pope as well as…wait for it….the Mormon Church….he could unite us all in common cause with him…and go a long way toward attracting Hispanic voters to our party…

    but no…people like you would rather the 80% of the American population who believed in GOD to shove off so you can pander to the independents and ignorant middle who refuse to engage on issues while declaring themselves superior to us because the are above partisan politics.

    sounds like a winning strategy to me,..

    and I note your repeated refusal to engage me in my repeated siting of the history of Republican candidates who followed you preferred strategy

  • AceInTX

    how about speaking about it…how about making it one of the central themes and issues of the campaign….the Dems went all in on the contraception mandate and ended up running from it like scalded dogs when they realized it was a losing issue for them…so why do we….when we find an issue that cuts against the Democrats…let them run from an issue we are beating them on…and agree to a cease fire whe we have our foot on their throats?

  • acat

    Is demanding that Romney do his best Santorum impression serious, or just you working through the stages of grief at having to support another suckweasel GOP POTUS nom?

    Mew

  • acat

    Religious freedom is – but clearly Romney supports that!

    Romney’s drawn the distinction between himself and Obama. Your demands that he stay on the attack on this issue when there are *much* better ones (deficit, health care, jobs, immigration, social security, national security) is a bit insane.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    Yeah Santorum lost….but it wasn’t necessarily because of the contraception issue….

    my point is….Romney could find an issue he shares common cause with evangelicals with…that has broad sway with the voters…and he could build a message around that issue….and get us fired up…

    but to say…we have to shut up because your issues are not what our campaign is about as if Romney and his team are too uncoordinated to walk and chew gum at the same time by having a broad based campaign that combines issues from all three legs of the stool…is about as stupid, incompetent and pathetic as anything I can think of

  • checkmate2012

    When you have the Dems runnning scared, keep them running!

  • AceInTX

    Dole ran a pure anti-Clinton campaign, he never painted himself as anything other than ?not Bubba?. No vision-casting at all.

    McCain, on the other paw, ran as the maverick alternative to Hillary, although he was also weak on the vision side. He offered more than Dole, but not enough.

    Please do tell…what is Romney running on besides being “Not Barry”

    Sorry if I’m underwhelmed by your argument cat

  • AceInTX

    in fact…Perry’s main base were evangelicals and the last to leave him were evangelicals

  • acat

    “Evangelicals” left Perry high and dry.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    Creating a religious group to influence politics or speak for an entire religious group isn?t the purpose of the NT church. Saving souls is.

  • 10ab

    He insisted on speaking about ISSUES….

  • Flagstaff

    to 5% or less.

    But I agree with that thought process. I believe that Erick is informing us that there is a large group of potential supporters who don’t think like that.

    What isn’t clear to me is just what exactly, other than pick a particular VP, Romney can do about it.

    Maybe the VP thing IS what to do.

  • clintonformccain

    Asked point blank whether it was just religious liberty issue or whether he was personally opposed to contraception, he couldn’t help himself and launched into a rant about the ills inflicted on the world as a result of contraception.

    It’s the economy stupid! Pulling stunts like that, for no reason at all, plays directly into the Dems’ attempts to paint Republicans as neanderthals.

    Romney is not dumb enough to fall into that trap. He’s going to stay on message: jobs, the economy, the national debt, and Obama’s failed leadership on the above.

    If that means he’s got to go thru November with Erik Erickson trashiig him in a blog post three times a week like clockwork, so be it.

  • Flagstaff

    evil. No more than any normal person is. You’re promoting a false premise.

    If you can prove your statement, do so. Otherwise, withdraw it.

    Or were you merely suggesting that might be the thought process of somebody else?

  • raginpatriot

    >>Blaming ?The GOP? or ?The Establishment? or ?RINOs? is simply seeking to avoid blaming ourselves. – acat

    Acat, there’s some truth to your statement. But let us not forget that establishment / Ruling Class GOP money is what bankrolled Romney’s ability to run negative ads against his primary opponents, in multiples of what the conservative candidate (combined) had to spend … not to mention gaming some primary processes in Romney’s favor (e.g., Florida).

  • Kyle-MI

    I agree with bricklavin. It was exactly the same thing I was thinking after reading this diary. Anything that Romney would have said explicitly about God, Christ, or Christianity would have been written off because he is a Mormon. I am surprised that some evangelical didn’t rip him to shreds because he said he and his wife were praying for the Colson family.

    The problem is that Mormonism isn’t Christianity so why is anyone expecting a heavy Christian faith laden pronouncement from Romney on anything. Romney is not an evangelical, so why is anyone expecting him to behave as such?

    Hold him to account on the issues important to evangelicals, and especially to his philosophy for nominating judges. And if you think an evangelical president can do no wrong, just remember the Harriet Miers fiasco from W. Whether they are evangelical or not, we need to keep close watch on the judicial nominations.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Caligirl said, “The average voter is going to sit back and say, whether he?s a lib or a conservative or a moderate, ?Anyone who calls a guy who doesn?t drink, smoke, do drugs, who has been a faithful husband, a devoted father, a great provider, who gives away millions, obeys laws, pays his taxes, etc.? a guy who is ?evil? is not someone I trust nor respect.?

    So, rather than be associated with people who are skeptical of a candidate who has flip-flopped on every important issue to conservatives, they will associate themselves with the race-baiting party of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz – the party that is plunging our country into the debt-crushing abyss via Obamacare and unlimited entitlements…the party that specializes in wealth redistribution and the politics of envy.

    There’s not much we can do to help people like that. Asking evangelicals to “tone it down” is not the answer for such ignorance.

  • califgal

    the students would take issue with?

    Has he lived a life that looks like the life they wish for themselves? A man of faith in a community of faith? Fell in love, married, studied hard, got degrees, stay married and in love with the same woman, raised several children, children who are great citizens who contribute to the community rather than take from the community, have several grandchildren…and accomplish all this by his own initiative, with money earned themselves, not by mooching off the state or other taxpayers or even off his well-to-do self-made father.

    I mean, you can not like Romney’s political stances, fine, but why would his being a Mormon be a problem to them if the values by which he has lived his life match what they say are their values?

    You won’t find Mormons or Mormon children in our jails, our prisons, in the juvenile justice system. You won’t find Mormons living off you and your hard work through the welfare system.

    If you are right, it doesn’t say much for Liberty University and what they teach their students. I hope you’re wrong.

  • acat

    I don’t think Romney is running the McCain playbook.

    Moe Lane has been highlighting articles (in the RedHot list) that point out the Romney campaign addressing issues … the current one is An Instapundit bit about a longer story on Romney taking on Fisker.

    This isn’t McCain reheated. I may be optimistic, but it looks like Romney’s team have learned, from McCain’s experience, what not to do.

    That said, like you, I don’t care who the veep is. I have said it before, I want to see Romney appoint some solid conservatives to the cabinet. Bolton to either U.N. or State. Gingrich to HHS with orders to cut cut cut. Daniels to OMB.

    Mew

  • acat

    Iowa turned, yet again, into a Values Voters panderfest and demolition derby.

    Romney didn’t break 30% support until after – had there been 3 conservatives on the ballot instead of a dozen longshots, it would have ended very differently.

    Mew

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula
  • acat

    Moe’s been posting under RedHot recently?

    This one, for instance…

    I don’t see where Dole or McCain took shots at Bubba or Obama this way.

    Keep an

    Mew

  • clintonformccain

    I’m looking for a Republican blog actively focused on the news and strategy for Republican wins in November. Thanks for the suggestion, though!

    BTW, I’m not a particular fan of John McCain. I voted for him in 2008 because he was the alternative to Barack Obama (and I do think that McCain met my Commander in Chief gravitas threshold test).

    I chose my user name here in the interest of full disclosure. I didn’t want to mislead anyone. In retrospect, I should have just lied and chosen “Lifelong Republican” or something. Would have saved me a lot of grief.

  • califgal

    More than half of the country does not look upon evangelical Christianity favorably. I wish it weren’t so since I want Mitt Romney or any other GOP nominee to kick Obama’s rear end, but it is what it is, and guess what–it transcends politics.

    Making snide remarks about my being from California is childish, as if somehow that accounts for my statements, as if it somehow assures you that I haven’t a wider experience of the country. Or does your faith tell you to dislike those who were born on either coast? Can you quote me scripture on that? Can someone born in California not have an abiding love for the Constitution? Is that forbidden?

    My suggestion is that evangelicals who want to be more politically persuasive, no matter the nominee, ask themselves what they can do to more accurately and positively portray themselves and their concerns to the American people.

    You have one other option: you can sit back and be smug in your belief it must be the utter depravity of the rest of America for their negative reaction to the group that calls itself “evangelicals.”

    You can tell yourselves that Rick Santorum would have needed you; Newt would have pandered and indulged you–for a time; Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann would be one with you; Herman Cain would have laughed with you. However, that’s where it all would end, for none of them would be President.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    …you’re absolutely right.

    My opinion, however, is that if he “courts” that 25% of the electorate, he alienates a larger number of voters in the middle territory.

    What’s he to do?

  • clintonformccain

    The more the anti-Romney flames are fanned at this point, the more Republican dead enders will tell pollsters they aren’t voting for Romney. Those poll numbers (and the stories interviewing members of the “disgrunted base”) drive the news cycle media in a way that is not helpful to the Republican campaign.

    Truth be told, I don’t think it really matters at this point. The campaign has pivoted to the general election and the vast majority of Republicans are getting engaged and energized. Romney had a very good week with Obama on the ropes in several skirmishes. Frankly, the Romney camp did a good job planting counters to Obama’s punches (Ann Romney/War on Women, dog eating, polygamy, etc.) and the candidate was very discplined staying on message (economy and Obama’s failed leadership) while surrogates and operatives shoveled the dirt.

    Those who continue months of relentless sniping simply make themselves irrelevant to the process as time marches on. Kinda like the Delaware county chair who jumped from the Romney bandwagon onto Gingrich’s “bandwagon” on Friday. Great timing there, fella.

    The losers at this point are the holdouts: Santorum, Palin, Perry, Erickson, etc. I don’t see the upside for missing the train, unless they plan to attack the nominee from now ’til whenever.

  • califgal

    for Romney’s loss of support among women in the polls, a group he was doing great with earlier, is Santorum’s foray into the contraception morass.

    It tarred every GOP left in the race. You have to understand the average voter doesn’t pay that much attention to politics, just headlines, which were things like “GOP fighting against women’s health concerns.”

  • califgal

    the last election cycle when Fred was rumored to be getting in the race…and rumored…and rumored…and rumored. LOL. When finally he dived in, oi vey. Only then did I start seeing articles on the back pages with whispers about Fred’s love of the life of leisure.

    I didn’t know. Found out.

  • snowshooze

    But I would put my money on the Good ol’ Boy’s club, partner.
    He certainly isn’t out there swearing to uphold anything.
    Possibly if he drafted an appointment list for my review, prior to the Nomination… I might find some value in it. Ha.
    No, I wouldn’t expect him to lay out his team to anyone.
    Nobody would.
    But I cannot much speculate on anything but what he has proven by his actions.
    Which I do not think well of.
    But the onslaught of those throwing themselves in harm’s way for him is remarkable.

  • califgal

    but I’d not accuse anyone here of it.

    Most people don’t know a Mormon unless they live out West.

  • snowshooze

    Heck, he can always change that later.

  • califgal

    Yep. Well said.

  • acat

    Given a choice between crashing the train fast or crashing the train slow, I’ll take slow .. it’s usually more survivable.

    Mew

  • zachv

    Someone that he’ll be able to spin off duties upon and basically act like a CEO’s VP would.

  • califgal

    I’d ask you to consider the economic future of your children.

  • snowshooze

    Ha.

  • acat
  • acat

    i.e. a CEO has a cabinet… the veep is not even first among equals.

    Mew

  • zachv

    … of the legs.

    C-level > Executive VP > Senior VP > VP > Director …

  • powertothepeople

    or have a constructive conversation as you seem to want.

    This will be paraphrased of course:

    First Guy/Gal states that Romney should choose Santorum as VP because evangelicals will fall in step behind him.

    I state, Wrong, evangelicals will not because they are not that impressed with Santorum. It will simply be a referendum on Obama and Santorum will not add anything to that.

    You state, That Romney was not consistent, Santorum was on social issues, so they chose (and I must point out the use of the past pretense of choose which showed you meant and were referring to the primaries) Santorum because he was consistent on one area where Romney only does what he thinks will get him elected.

    Now, not saying you point is wrong on Romney, Santorum, or many Christian voters, but again, what does it have to do with the conversation or with what I stated? In what world would what you wrote be in support of what I wrote or even in support of what the other person wrote.

    Hence, the whole reading comprehension thing. Not being smart, simply responding to a comment from you that had nothing to do with the topic or with my response. Simple as that.

  • acat

    (Cheshire grin)

  • snowshooze

    Plus another 200 grand in uncounted unfunded mandates and entitlements… that gravy train left a long time back.
    Obama will certainly make the crash come quicker.
    Romney will try to manage his way through it and all the time play CMA. He will deal and flipfloppander along as this is his proven M.O.
    So, still no Romney sale here.
    But you could try.
    You though… wouldn’t try to sell Romney to anyone.
    No, I will not line up until the firing squad show up. And then I will start complaining.

  • powertothepeople

    How about some studies to back up that absurd comment? Any links to show that? Or are you just another of the “do not know their head from their ass” people who has some agenda against Christians?

    A vast majority of this country identify themselves as Christian, so I have a hard time buying into the nonsense you spewed that the same people look down on other Christians.

    And sorry lady, outside of some low IQ folks, most do not associate TV crroks who call themselves preachers as being the face of Christianity. You should really stop spending so much time in websites ran by atheists who despise anyone with belief in God.

  • powertothepeople

    nt

  • checkmate2012

    the one answer I got that Romney could do after being insulted and called a creep for my comment. So I pointed that Romney did just that on 2/3, with links to articles. We then respectfully agreed that he did it then, that it was a winning argument against BO & the left and Romney should keep repeating the issue against religious freedom as a way to earn the evangelical vote.

  • greyeagle

    made the prediction about Rubio. Obama is scared to death that Rubio will be the VP nominee. He was the youngest ever Florida Speaker of the House.

  • Flagstaff

    When the accusation, “He didn’t do A,” is shown to be wrong, the response isn’t, “Hmm, guess I was wrong about that,” it’s “Hmm, guess I was wrong about that, but he doesn’t do A often enough or loud enough.”

    For some issues, that could be legitimate criticism. Regarding the HHS mandate, it’s true that it needs to be mentioned whenever the litany of things Obama has done wrong is reviewed. I wouldn’t put it front and center, simply because the SCUM then generally uses it to derail all the other issues by twisting it into the contraceptive/war-on-women meme. We must overcome that meme, but it isn’t productive to talk about nothing else. And it may be a winning issue with evangelicals, but we don’t want an interview to deteriorate into a discussion of contraception and women’s rights, because that isn’t a winning issue with women in general, the way the SCUM spins it.

    The other problem is of course the SCUM itself, in general. Our men could say the right things all the time, but if only the Washington Examiner carries the words, a lot fewer people will read them than if the NYT and WAPO do, just because of their wire service connections.

    I wish the Attorneys General had included that HHS order in their arguments against the whole law, as a reason why the coverage mandate can’t be considered severable. The administration will obviously use every executive rule-making trick in the book to work its mischief; the Court should be considering that factor. In fact, that was something Romney, et al, could have been doing publicly before the oral arguments. I have to admit that I didn’t think about it until just now, so I don’t know how hard I should come down on anybody else who didn’t do it. (Actually, I did write about it, but not in terms of the candidates speaking out on the subject.)

  • kipling

    You stated: “The evangelical base is not as enthralled with Santorum as some here think. He would make a bunch of them happy, but most would remain dissatisfied.”

    There are two demonstrative reasons some might think that the evangelical base would be enthralled with Santorum.

    1. Santorum ran as the evangelical / social conservative candidate and became the non-Romney alternative frontrunner.

    2. The evangelical / social conservative leadership meeting that endorsed Santorum in Texas.

    My comment was to show, that given a Romney v. Santorum matchup, social conservatives would choose Santorum because of his consistency on social issues – an area like many others where Romney has been less than consistent. It does not demonstrate great enthusiasm for Santorum but a simple recognition that he beats Romney.

    Your point was that the evangelical base is not enthralled with Santorum. The question is then why 1 and 2 above. I give the answer.

  • snowshooze

    Something like that.. it was kinda funny. Very good for Mitt.

  • avagreen

    nt

  • JSobieski

    is a fact in need of an explanation.

    My analysis is that the voters in question either are so far from being fiscal conservatives that they couldn’t see why Perry was superior, or they didn’t care.

    Either way, Iowa caucus voters seem to exercise poor judgment.

  • JSobieski

    At least in terms of picking a presidential nominee. When I pick a person, I try to evaluate who others in the party will react. That was one reason why I didn’t support Rudy in 2008–there were other options that other groups would find more desirable.

    Unfortunately, the self-identified evangelical voting base (folks who consider being an evangelical to have a signficant impact on who they support) doesn’t appear to do any of that, or to be particularly discerning on issues they don’t care about.

    http://blog.chron.com/rickperry/2011/12/iowa-evangelical-supports-santorum-over-perry-because-of-prayer-video/

  • califgal

    Evangelicals comprise about 21-23% of the population.

    I’m going to leave it to you to look up the GSSurvey results and do your deduction from that; then you can proceed to other polls that show perceptions about evangelicals or as they are sometimes referred to fundamentalists.

    Do your homework for yourself. I’d think you’d already know this.

  • califgal

    Yes, Romney did have a good week.

    Just a bit ago, I passed by the room with a tv on only to catch a commercial for the NBC Jimmy Fallon show, which is pushing big a “special” this week (I think tomorrow night) for an Obama appearance on the show, with an audience of college students. Of course, the preview showed Barry walking out to rock star applause and screams.

    I guess this begins the rolling out of Barry’s student loan forgiveness –it’s Goodies for Voters Week and he’ll be speaking at colleges this week as well.

    This will be tough for Romney and the GOP. I know several people, in their twenties and thirties, with huge student loan debt. I do not agree with any forgiveness of their debt. They took it on and they signed the papers and it’s not fair to those who’ve paid off their debt, but I already can see how hard it will be for tens of thousands of young voters (and their parents, of course) to not vote for a man who will, in essense, be giving them money by forgiving some of their debt.

    There are several great explanations for why this is a bad thing, but none of those “explanations” will be as alluring to that voting block as what Obama will offer.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    You obviously don’t know the people I know. And greatly underestimate people’s discomfort with Mitt.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    You’re the second one here in a week to refer to the 2008 election as “very close.” Is this some new weird meme?

  • snowshooze

    I wouldn’t go party jumping over Romney, but I would stand on the edge and dare him to go any further left.

  • snowshooze

    Or it started out that way.
    The other stuff in turn, on other threads.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    I never realized under conservative philosophy anyone ever was forced to support someone, period. This at least explains how Romney got to be the nominee.

    I still like the quaint concept of candidates asking for support, rather than being arrogant and saying they’re going to get it sooner or later, so why not sooner.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    Two Gingrich fanatics here immediately come to mind. They’re opposite extremes right now. One is trying to get elected and going along to get along with everyone still standing. The other is in full anti-establishment freak-out.

    Neither really seems healthy.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    2/3 of the national electorate now supports gay marriage? Wow, that was fast.

  • acat

    a verse, I’ll note, that points *both* ways.

    Voting is a civil responsibility, not just a civil right … and as with any responsibility, it should be taken seriously and given the best possible effort.

    Can you honestly say Santorum was the “best possible” ?

    Mew

  • acat

    You’re lumping together the “strongly support” and the “don’t think it’s any of the government’s {expletive} business”.

    Mew

  • powertothepeople

    “homework” for someone when it is them who make the outlandish claims. See, to be taken as relevant or true, when a person such as yourself makes a claim that over half of the country, over 150 million people, have a negative view on evangelicals, it is up to you to show your proof. Anyone can make claims, but they must back it up with links or there is no validity to what they say.

    So once again, you claimed that over 150 million people dislike or have a negative view on evangelicals in a country where over 60 percent of the country claim to be christian or believe in God.

    But I did a little homework just because your statement was so absurd and funny what I found. I have to assume from my findings that either you purposely misrepresented what you knew the study showed or have never actually read the study. Let me break down just one of the findings:

    Those who defined themselves as NON christian gave these numbers:

    Only 44 percent have a positive view of Christian clergy. Just 32 percent have a positive view of born-again Christians. And a mere 22 percent have a positive view of evangelicals.

    Now lets assume that this poll represents the less than 40% of this country who do not believe in God or believe in a faith other than Christianity, your numbers still do not add up. Take into consideration the children in these families who would be defined as unbelievers by the parents but would not yet have a valid and personal world view other than what they parrot from their parents, your numbers are even more wrong. Of the remaining adults who would be the only valid opinions minus the studies 22 % that do have a favorable view, your percent of the population that would remain with a negative view of evangelicals would drop to around 15 to 20% tops and that is being quite generous. Then you have to take into consideration those who are against anything of faith just because they hate God and anyone who believes in him. This fact makes the numbers even less impressive and makes your claim laughable.

    You should really drop the God hate, stop visiting the “we hate faith” atheist sites and actually use the brain you have. Would make you a bit more credible.

  • conservativemusician

    And, frankly, I could care less if he tried because he’s going to be the nominee. Therefore, he’s got this evangelical’s vote. I have no other choice because I am not going to be stupid and immature as so many on our side were in 2008 by either sitting home or voting for a third party candidate. That’s what Obama wants, so I’m not going to oblige.

    I don’t like Romney. I don’t trust him. He’s not conservative. But he’s going to get the evangelical vote and he knew all along that evangelicals would have to get on board in the end because voting for the alternative will be the death of this country. It was a well-played and calculated strategy by Romney devised after he lost in 2008 that is paying off because he made the fewest mistakes and had the most money and favors owed to him going in. Politics as usual – the way it has always been done.

    I believe that Romney will be the next President because I believe there will be enormous energy in voting against Obama, but I hold out little hope that much is going to change in the next four years. If he can get the economy going again and maybe replace one or more of the socialist hacks on the Supreme Court, then he will be a success in my eyes. However, I have no illusions that he is going to be anything other that what he is (a Massachusetts RINO squish) and that he will have to be pulled daily toward the conservative position.

    I also have no illusions that he will be empathetic toward Christians who have voted against him in droves in the primaries. He doesn’t really need to and I’m not going to get all that upset about that if he can turn things around.

    November can’t get here fast enough. Let’s just get on with it already and stop pining for what might have been.

  • AceInTX

    so what’s your point acat

    Look, I know if you had your way Evangelicals would be seen and not heard…nay…would not even be seen lest they embarrass you….but we have just as much right to speak, vote, lobby, and influence the public debate as any other group in this country…we live under the same Constitution that you do and we are protected by it and the Bill of Rights the same as every other group in this country.

    and for the life of me I can’t understand why you and others on this site and in this party can’t understand the futility, stupidity, and lack of common sense that it takes to write of 25% of you base…to denigrate them, ignore them, demoralize them and walk all over them when it it going to take all of us pulling together to defeat Obama, the press and their minions….

    Reagan won in two successive landslides by addressing the concerns of all three legs of the conservative stool…GW Bush won in 2004 by addressing the concerns of all three legs of the conservative stool….

    In contrast…Ford, GHW Bush, Dole and McCain decided the economy was the central issue of their campaigns and evangelicals were to to get to the back of the bus, sit down and shut up….and look where it got them!

    To top it off…while GW Bush didn’t send evangelicals to the back of the bus in 2000…he did downplay social issue concerns….look at the milk toast convention that year…every single milk toast Rockefeller Republican of note was keynoted as speakers at that convention.

    He helped himself by whispering behind his hands to Evangelicals that he was one of us…but nothing more….to what end?

    He won…by 500 or so votes in Florida.

    Belittle us if you want…ignore us all you want…facts are facts….and it is a fact….with the exception of the squeaker in 2000 that the Republican Party has never won a Presidential election with a demoralized Evangelical Base…and they aren’t likely to this time either!

  • AceInTX

    I still had my fingers crossed but by Iowa Perry had already choked half a dozen times and he wasn’t in it at all.

  • AceInTX

    Besides…We’re a representative Republic….”We The People” are responsible for the leadership we have and by extension for what our leaders do in representing us…

    It’s a cop out to say Christ’s Church is not supposed to be involved in debates of public policy when the members of the “Body of Christ” are directly responsible for electing out leadership.

  • AceInTX

    My analysis is that the voters in question either are so far from being fiscal conservatives that they couldn?t see why Perry was superior, or they didn?t care.

    I’m an evangelical and I was one of the more vocal advocates for a Perry Candidacy before he got in…and I stuck with him even after it was obvious he was off his game.

    I’m from Texas…and the Perry I saw in debate was not the Perry I was used to seeing…he was off his game for sure…he’s never been a good debater….and I don’t know if it weas the debate format, the intimidation of being on the national stage…or if the talk of pain killers is true….but he had a problem and Evangelicals can’t be blamed for not backing him any more than the rest of the Party who never got into low double digits in the primaries he participated in.

    I’m a Perry fan and I will be on the Perry express if he runs in 2016 or 2020….

    so forgive me if I don’t get your point

  • AceInTX

    Look at the group here from the more extreme libertarian wing who won’t tolerate social issues to be discussed in any way…the proof is all around you.

  • AceInTX

    .

  • JSobieski

    Santorum crushed Perry in Iowa. Perry’s percentage of the vote in Iowa was shockingly small.

    We saw past his debate performances. Apparently most Iowans couldn’t, didn’t want to, etc.

  • AceInTX

    It’s whether the Republican Party can win by demoralizing one of the legs of the stool….I contend it never has….I’ve laid out my case…and I’ve mentioned some things Romney and his campaign can do to motivate Evangelicals that has broad support in polling

    What say you?

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    but in the popular vote it was basically 53 to 46 so not exactly a blow out.

    Also, that counts California which always goes big for the Dems, but California usually plays little roll in the elections since the outcome is usually over before California polls close.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    IIRC, the Lord Christ rebuked his disciples on more than one occasion when they wanted their mission to include the setting of public policy: calls for close air support against unrepentant Samaritans, suggestions for cabinet seating arrangements and curiosity about little things like the actual date of Inauguration Day were not well received. And notice that Paul’s actual assertion of right–so that his mission would not be impeded–was made on purely civil grounds rather than any appeal to the dawning societal impact of the Way.

  • AceInTX

    It is a fact that Perry had flamed out by the time voting began in Iowa….

    I agree with you here:

    We saw past his debate performances. Apparently most Iowans couldn?t, didn?t want to, etc.

    But your a long way from proving your case:

    My analysis is that the voters in question either are so far from being fiscal conservatives that they couldn?t see why Perry was superior, or they didn?t care.

    If you’re trying to apply that to Evangelicals across the board…you’ve got a long tough hill to climb…being an Evangelical…and using my circle of influence within my Church and the larger Evangelical circles I frequent, I would say the opposite is true….by and large the Evangelical Church on any give Sunday Morning is the largest gathering of fiscally minded conservatives per capita than any other gathering on the planet.

  • JSobieski

    I get lumped in that group all the time, which is absolute bunk.

    I don’t know anyone here at redstate who refuses to tolerate any discussion of social issues.

    Frankly, most attempts at discussing the federal/state dichotomy of social issues seems to end with the labeling one side a “libertine”.

    In any case, I specifically avoided Rudy in 2008 because I knew he would be hard for many to stomach.

  • JSobieski

    Huckabee 2008. Santorum 2012.

    You are correct however that I have not cited evidence linking those voters to the evangelical community.

    My gripe is not so much with evangelical voters (whom I do agree with after all), so much as it is the voters of Iowa (who are in fact dominated by evangelicals).

    The voters of Iowa should be put on political probation.

  • AceInTX

    read through this thread and you’ll see them raining on the parade any time social issues are even mentioned in passing.

    I know you to be reasonable not one of those I describe here

  • AceInTX

    I think there are some poll twisting games being played with that one

  • avagreen

    Not as a group working as a whole, making a political stand.

    Individual Christians can do as they choose, but it’s a slippery slope when a “group” of Christians are formed to speak for “all” Christians, or to get involved in politics as a “group” speaking for “all” Christians. This is how bodies are set up to begin “governing” over Christians, telling them how/what to think. AND, further, if one goes against what that body has said, one is denigrated, attacked, etc. Like I said…….”slippery slope”.

    What do you mean by “members of the ?Body of Christ? are directly responsible for electing out (our?) leadership.”??

    Are you talking of electing religious leaders such as elders of each congregation? If so, this is a part of the running of the church. Not the country. Slippery slope. Apples & oranges.

    Pay attention to what CincoSolas_del_Bronx says on the issue.

    The only references to governmental duties I can find in the bible are r/t
    1. paying of taxes (“render unto Caesar’s what is Caesars”)
    \2. and to submit to all governing authority, because all authority has been established by God.
    In fact Christ refused to comment on the politics of the day despite being questioned on this repeatedly.

    That’s it.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    You’re using the 2 most common evangelical uses of “the Church” interchangeably, with less than helpful results. In the sense of “members of the Body of Christ” you are of course right–each member has, under our system, both a civil responsibility to vote and a civil right to debate policy. The error of conflation arises when you imply that “Christ’s Church” should attempt to speak on political matters as a unified body, with the authoritative voice entrusted her to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ–for which there is neither civil nor scriptural warrant.

    Rewind to last September. Pastor A declares, with full Scriptural authority backed by a vision, Perry to be God’s choice. Elder B declares, with full Scriptural authority backed by a Barna poll, Santorum to be God’s choice. Bishop C declares, with full Scriptural authority backed by a burning in the bosom, Gingrich to be God’s choice.

    Now it’s April. Perry and Santorum have been laid in the dust, Gingrich is preparing to eat the same. Pastor A and Elder B and Bishop C tell me, with full Scriptural authority, that “God, without any merit of my own, out of pure grace, grants me the benefits of the perfect expiation of Christ, imputing to me his righteousness and holiness as if I had never committed a single sin or had ever been sinful, having fulfilled myself all the obedience which Christ has carried out for me, if only I accept such favor with a trusting heart.”

    What grounds do I have for believing them now?

  • AceInTX

    and yes…that was a keystroke error

    ?Body of Christ? are directly responsible for electing out (our?) leadership.???

    It should read

    ?Body of Christ? are directly responsible for electing our leadership.?

    Maybe it’s escaped your notice…and whomever this CincoSolas_del_Bronx is…that we live in a Representative Republic…Our leadership represent the will of the governed…so if they sin….you sinned in voting for them to be simplistic about it…

    I crack up every time someone brings up this as a reason to lay down and let the government do whatever it wants to do:

    and to submit to all governing authority, because all authority has been established by God.

    Had the founders, (most of whom were Seminarians) had lived up to that admonition and used it they way you and Cinco Whoever He Is, America would still be a Colony of the British Empire.

    And what of the Christians who risked life and limb in Nazi Occupied Europe rescuing Jews from the ovens? Should they have submitted to the German authority appointed over them?

    Should we just lay down in the face of Obama and the excesses his regime has foisted on us? After all…He has been appointed to govern over us hasn’t he?

  • ihateliberals

    I hve a Liberal friend in south Carolina that was going to vote for Newt and now that Romeny is the nominee he either won’t vote at all or will once again vote for Obama. He strangely enough is an evangelical and will vote for Romney. this is gong to be a BIG problem of r Romney and he doesn’t seem to care.

  • acat

    I’m interested in evangelicals growing a clue about what conservatism means.

    You and others on this site keep going on about how you’re being oppressed, and yet you and others refuse to take responsibility for the actions of your fellow travelers.

    Elections Have Consequences, Ace … and Iowa has produced {excrement} results – based on “evangelicals” refusing to support Perry this time around, and their insistence on supporting Huckabee in 2008.

    You want to be listened to and taken seriously? Start by extending the same courtesy. Put away the straw cat, put away the victim card, and start explaining to your fellow travelers that they need to quit {copulating} around and vote more strategically and less emotionally.

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    I would categorically oppose what you suggest were the Southern Baptist Convention to decide it were going to endorse a certain candidate…though I would support a Pastor’s right to give his opinion from behind the pulpit as the shepherd of his congregation for or against a certain candidate…(This is a sore point for me because of the recent precedent of the IRS to censor pastoral speech and proclamation though use of the tax code)

    But that is a different animal altogether when it comes to whether groups like the Christian Coalition for instance should be allowed.

    Finally, we are straying far afield of the point of Ericks post and what I am arguing for…and that is for the Romney campaign to stop ignoring the Evangelical base, to work on mending fenses and motivating the base to turn out and work for him…or he will lose and consign us to four more years of the ONE!

  • acat

    until Santorum bought an evangelical endorsement.

    After that, it was over.

    Mew

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    I’m assuming–because time is short and my memory is unreliable–that you self-identify as an Evangelical. I do as well.

    I have occasionally encountered your position:

    Our leadership represent the will of the governed?so if they sin?.you sinned in voting for them to be simplistic about it?

    If you truly believe that as you have stated it, you must live in either absolute terror or denial through every election cycle, and it would certainly account for much of your overreach in your responses here.

    You will be hard-pressed, however, to find any kind of substantial support for your position in any evangelical exegesis from the Apostles through the magisterial Reformers to the present. What you will find is that all members of a representative republic are indeed variously subject to consequences of sins of leadership, but to equate that with the guilt of sin is beyond ludicrous.

    Tell me, since the Lord Christ and his disciples supported, with their taxes, both a civil and religious government which ended up conspiring to persecute all of them and succeeded in killing some of them. and further, since the Lord Christ was entrusted with all authority to remove wickedness from the earth but refused to exercise it, allowing those leaders to remain in power–did they sin by their submission to that authority?

  • ihateliberals

    If Mitt turns one iota away from conservatism he will lose. What he doesn?t realize is that he has to have the Tea Party, Other conservatives including Democrats and the independent vote if he is to have a prayer. If the conservatives feel that they have noting to vote for they will not come out to vote because they don?t vote against things not even the worst President this country has ever had because they wil feel that Romney won?t make it better anyway. You can say all you want about people voting against Obama but I know human nature and they will not come out just to vote against him for someone else they don?t trust.

    I read a post earlier in this article about people always claim to stay home but don’t. Well I am here to tell you this is not your typical election. I have not missed voting since my first time to vote against LBJ the when he ran in 1964. This time it is going to be hard for me to muster enough energy to vote for Mitt because I don’t have any faith in him to even try to turn things around. I am a Mormon but I am not letting that clud my judgment about Romney. Romney is a left-eing Republican and his ideas are 99% Liberal not conservative. His Dad George was exactly the same and the people found out in time and gave the nomination to Nixon back in 1968. George had a double digit lead over Nixon and LBJ in the general until people found out he was a liberal. He was forced out of the primaries. Mitt has a huge problem if he doesn’t keep a conservative campaign. Most Evangelicals are conservatives. I don’t care what anyone says people in general do not vote against thngs they like to vote for things. Romney will not get enough people that are voting against Obama. he has to get every single vote he can from people voting for something. If Romney doesn’t give people something to vote for they will sty home or vote for Obama. Romney doesn’t know it yet or hasn’t acknowledged it yet that he is the Architect of Obamacare. Obama will rub that in his face big time. Romney will have a very hard time convincing people that he will repeal it. People like me. I don’t trust Romney to be anything other than what he is and that is a left-wing Republican from Mass. he has no conservative values to amount to anything. He has a long way to go to convince me to get out and vote. If it rains on election day or is too cold i won’t be there unless he does a hell of a selling job to convince me. There are millions just like me and Romney needs everyone of us. So far “No Deal”.

  • AceInTX

    I have an advocate before the Father who has already paid the penalty for the sins I’ve committed…including voting for Abortion loving, euthanasia supporting, libertine scumbags that insist on thrusting their perversions on all of us.

    So…are you telling me…based on your diatribe…that if you knew what Hitler was and what he would do in office…had you voted in the elections of 1924 for Him over Von Hindenberg….that you wouldn’t be guilty of violating GOD’s law by willfully supporting an individual who was responsible for the mass murder of 6 million Jews and another 6 Million Catholics, gypsies and other “Undesirables”?

    I don’t much care about any “evangelical exegesis from the Apostles through the magisterial Reformers to the present” when confronted with the obvious answer that such a vote would be an offense to GOD ALMIGHTY and would be a sin worthy of our LORD’s sacrifice and atonement.

    Common sense and the prompting of the Holy Spirit is enough for me in this.

  • Flagstaff

    No question about it.

  • califgal

    of course, aren’t arguments at all.

    I’d agree with you that at a majority of Americans identify themselves as believers in a Supreme Being, and at least a plurality of them, perhaps a majority of them, identify themselves as Christians.

    However, we know that a huge number of Americans who identify this way do not attend a church, have not done so in years, and , by evagelical standards, have a very secular world view–I mean we know this, don’t we, since evangelicals have told them this.

    If you think that only athiests are those who look upon evangelical groups negatively, that explains a lot. You are living in denial.

    One other thing–I have no idea what an athiest website looks like, never having been to one nor feeling the need to do so.

    Just more of your jump-to-conclusions pronouncements about people, your self-righteous pap. Judging from yourcomments, you’ve a proclivity not to want to analyze but to attack personally.

    In fact, you mirror the very behavior of those televangelists. It’s no wonder you have a hard time understanding.

  • califgal

    You know, you should apply for work at the Democratic National Committee. Debbie Wasserman Schultz could use you…or maybe find the Chicago bunch and demonstrate for Axelrod your ability to come up with inflammatory slogans.

    Last comment: flake off, flake.

  • avagreen

    too many to answer here. Why not start a diary?

    Then, read up on what the NT says to slaves. Nowhere does it teach Christians to overthrow this system.
    Ephesians 6:5-9: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”

    Colossians 4:1: “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”
    1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;”.

  • avagreen

    Group think is not my bag, nor is it found in the NT.

  • rightlane1111

    Yesterday I wrote: “What we should be looking at is this: Will Our President live up to our Constitution. This should be the glue that holds all of us together, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist and any other religion. The Constitution is our answer and that is where we need to hold Romney?s feet to the fire.”

    I cleaned this up a little. Can’t we come together with the Constitution. I happen to agree with you Kitty concerning what happened in Iowa. I was not happy about the outcome.

    I’ve read Garfield’s posts. I know that he likes Conservative ideas…so don’t we all…but please…posters who are reading this….we have to get into reality. Romney is going to be the candidate. He was not my choice…but he is going to be our candidate. All this arguing just gives Obama fodder for his campaign. Let’s stop giving him the ammo.

    Yes…I believe in free speech…however, when that speech shoots me in the foot…it’s time to shut my mouth.

    Because our Founding Fathers believed in the Constitution and were God fearing men…let’s all come together on the Constitution instead of “separating” ourselves by categories…..that is what Obama does. The Constitution has God in it and never will we let it be gone. We can all agree on that.

    Garfield…I voted for your candidate in my primary because of who Perry endorsed. What I wanted didn’t happen…BUT WHAT I DON’T WANT IS OBAMA…and if we stay home or keep this in-fighting we are helping Chairman Obama WIN.

  • AceInTX

    I don?t much care about any ?evangelical exegesis from the Apostles through the magisterial Reformers to the present?, (As you present it), when confronted with the obvious answer that such a vote would be an offense to GOD ALMIGHTY and would be a sin worthy of HIS eternal wrath necessitating our LORD?s sacrifice and atonement.

    I’m sure I could find a scripture or two to back up the point….but as I say…My common sense and the promptings of the HOLY SPIRIT are enough in this regard

  • http://www.BillBowenAuthor.com RightinSanFrancisco

    As a conservative who is respectful of evangelicals, this sounds like a complaint that has been waiting for an excuse to unleash it. Take a deep breath. Mormons consider themselves to be Christians; Christ was not a gatekeeper. By all standards of personal integrity, Romney is a great person.

    www.RightinSanFrancisco.com

  • AceInTX

    Slavery would still be alive and well in the USA….Hitler would still be sending Jews to the Gas Chamber and you’d be sitting in the congregation patting yourself on the back for your holiness for turning a scripture Paul wrote to apply as a principle into an absolute command

  • AceInTX

    If Paul’s admonishment to submit to government authority were absolute…pray tell…why did all those so called Christians in the first century spend so much time in the catacombs of Rome, or in the arenas all over the empire being eaten by lions…or serving as human torches in Nero’s Rome?

  • avagreen

    He actually was taught by the Christ.

    Read what the NT has to say about slaves.

  • avagreen

    Acts 9:13?19

  • Flagstaff

    I?ve mentioned some things Romney and his campaign can do to motivate Evangelicals that has broad support in polling

    I looked through your profile list of recent comments, but can’t find much of anything like that.

    Romney could find an issue he shares common cause with evangelicals with?that has broad sway with the voters?and he could build a message around that issue?.and get us fired up?

    I do think there is one particular issue that Romney could share with evangelicals. It’s only that he has to deal with the SCUM that miht keep him away from it, or perhaps that although he is religious, he isn’t immersed in it, as some evangelicals are. That issue is the one you have mentioned yourself (I think), “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion],” as proscribed by the First Amendment.

    He doesn’t have to mention contraception, or the Catholic Church, or any other church, specifically. But the LDS church, of which he is a member, has experienced its share of persecution from local governments and other people. Surely that gives him a hook to talk about government intrusion into religious freedom without being dragged into a discussion of Mormonism. The HHS ruling can be used as an example of the excesses of the Obama administration.

    Beyond that, turn about is fair play. I listed in a single post several issues that evangelicals should be in complete accord with Romney and absolutely against Obama. Included:

    If evangelicals think they?re being ignored, are they not in the work force? Do they not want a better government for their kids and themselves to live with? Will they not have to pay for the enormous debt that Obama is running up and that Romney, more than any other candidate, has the ability to reverse? Will they not suffer from shortages of physicians and medical facilities that will surely result from ObamaDon?tCare?

    IMHO, Romney does need to adjust his course a bit, but not radically. He needs to start emphasizing that the changes he will make will get government off the backs of everybody, allowing everybody to choose their own courses to run their own lives. That will include rich and poor, heathens and evangelicals, Republicans and Democrats. How do you argue against that?

    Can’t evangelicals find some common cause with Romney on any of those issues?

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    Last I checked, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed about 30 years before the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

    Oh, I beg your pardon, I see that Mr. Godwin has arrived. Later, perhaps.

  • Bill S

    Don’t just come in here spewing statistics without evidence to back it up. “Everyone knows that” is insufficient.

  • vastrightwingconspiracy

    …given the context.

    That being said, it’s not an answer.

    Why is it prudent for Romney alienate the majority to pander to a group who won’t “trust” him regardless of what he does, yet, will most likely vote for him anyway because he’s better than that other guy?

  • aesthete

    which is useful in working out such issues.

    Suffice it to say, here are my bullet point answers for your specific examples:

    1) There’s much debate over the morality of the American Revolution, but I would posit that by the time that the colonies “rebelled”, they were already de facto governing authorities over their territory, and that the British were interlopers in a perfectly legitimate governing system where they had no right to be.

    2) There is a difference between civil disobedience, and wholesale rejection of an authority. Peter and John disobeyed the Roman and local mandates regarding proselytizing, but they also accepted the punishments for same without complaint.

    3) Going back to spheres of authority, if a government does not have authority over a person’s body and freedoms (and if rights over such things and autonomy are derived from God, then they must not), then they are an illegitimate authority insofar as they attempt to subvert God’s order and lines of authority.

    In reality, there is very little in the Bible regarding political activity. IMO, the problem with voting for Hitler knowing knowing his political platform would be a heart issue of potential anti-Semitism, not inherent guilt Think about it this way: there were many soldiers fighting for the Third Reich who voted against Hitler, or who did not otherwise support him. Many of the the high-ranking ones (especially in the Army) were involved in coups — but what of the rank-and-file? Do you think that they bear the moral culpability for the Third Reich’s actions and agenda of domestic terror? Because their actions empowered the Third Reich much more so than a simple vote. What of American soldiers in the US serving under Obama, or under FDR? Did they become responsible for the Japanese Internment, or for Obama’s domestic policies? This idea of complete moral responsibility for large bodies where one has little input is quite facile, and would seem to lead to a complete divestment from any sort of large institution. Indeed, your argument more compellingly leads to principled non-voting rather than the accruing of political power.

  • kipling

    Excuse my intrusion.

    Would you agree Cinco Solos that submission to earthly authority has limits? Jesus and the disciples rejected the authority of the government when it conflicted with the authority of God. They paid taxes to Caesar but they did not pay homage to him as a god. Jesus defied the secular and religious authorities by continuing to preach. The disciples followed suit in Acts.

    Christ did not remove evil because we live in a period of grace when all those called by Him are gathered into the kingdom. One day He will return and exercise the authority that is His.

  • acat

    You left yourself wide open on this one.

    Read. Learn. Edumacate yourself.

    Mew

  • JSobieski

    I think the matter of social issues is really a question of prioritization and proper level of government, which is why virtually everybody finds a reason to dislike what I say about them.

    My proposition is that in a properly limited federal government, it should be far far harder to distinguish a libertarian from a conservative.

  • WillWong

    By allocating just two sentence to his passing just shows how little he cares for the feelings of conservatives.

    He is not even a good actor for he could certainly act like he cared by showing more but the truth is he doesn’t give a hoot to conservatives. He reckon we are gonna vote for him no matter what! Of course, I appreciate that he wouldn’t stoop so low as to act and for that I respect him. But vote for him?

  • AceInTX

    so there is a difference in my view…

    But I would go farther…I believe a sin is a sin no matter the circumstances or the reason for the sin….I know the apparent contradiction of that…which you will no doubt cease upon but that’s where Paul’s admonition that “Where sin abounds, GRACE abounds all the more.”

    In my not so humble opinion…I believe it’s the very heart of the Christian message…GOD’s standard is unchanging and unachievable for us in our own power…this the need for an atoning sacrifice for our since through JESUS CHRIST and the guiding light of the HOLY SPIRIT in our lives…

    I didn’t mean to get into a theological discussion here but am enjoying the exchange…..I will just fall back to this….read the Sermon on the Mount….Read GOD’s standard of perfection as presented by YESHUA, JESUS the Christ….and tell me ANYONE alive can live up to that standard….

    The answer is not only NO…it is emphatically and unquestionably NO…

    So, I have no doubt there were real Christians who voted for Hitler…I have no doubt there were Christians who fought for Hitler who were Christians….and as such, I have no doubt some will be in Heaven when I get there…but that mean the did not sin in voting for…or fighting for Hitler….ESPECIALLY if they knew what the NAZI regime were doing in the death camps.

    On the flip side…I would say those who attempted Coups and otherwise fought the NAZIs from within the Reich were not sinning…nor were they in violation of Pauls admonition to submit themselves to the governing authorities appointed over them.

  • AceInTX

    I do believe that I believe Paul over you.

    and I’ll point out regarding:

    Read what the NT has to say about slaves.

    When I was born in America, I wasn’t born a slave….I was born a child of the Creator and am endowed by him with certain rights…among them being…Life….Liberty…and the Pursuit of Happiness…

    I was NOT bound to submit myself to whatever evil my REPRESENTATIVES might do in MY name…

  • acat

    Cheshire grin

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2012/04/23/why-we-suffer-charles-colson-a-democrat-senator-and-being-born-again/

  • AceInTX

    That I’m not a free individual with rights and liberties granted to me by ALMIGHTY GOD because they chose to put the slavery question off while the fought a common enemy for their liberty and right to live as free and independent men?

    Or perhaps you mean to infer the Copperheads, the Abolitionists and people who comprised the underground Railroad were wrong for standing up to the established order of the day and submitted themselves to the government authority of the day…

    Oh…I missed the Godwin crack…I could and did pull out all kinds of historical references to make my point and did not restrict myself to commenting on the NAZIs so I fail to see the point of bringing Godwin’s law into this…

    I can bring up other instances from History where Christians stood up and defied the authorities appointed over them…and you can answer whether they were right to do so…perhaps you’d like to discuss Cromwell…the Roundheads and their beheading of King Charles I in 1649 who hung his hat…and neck on the Divine right of Kings to rule over his subject…seems he quoted the same passage of Scripture being thrown about so casually here.

    Or maybe we could look to 1215 and the creation of The Magna Carta or the Charter of Liberties from 1100…or another erra of History where Christians of Conscience stood up to defy the authorities appoint over them?

    I don’t know…maybe we could discuss such Godless heathens as Martin Luther, or the martyrdom of John Wickliffe, William Tyndale or countless other Martyrs who refused to take Paul’s admonition to submit to the authorities appointed over them as an absolute commend?

    Pick the subject…I’m willing to discuss it/…but my position is the same…

  • AceInTX

    That should reas

    So, I have no doubt there were real Christians who voted for Hitler?I have no doubt there were Christians who fought for Hitler who were Christians?.and as such, I have no doubt some will be in Heaven when I get there?but that DOES NOT mean THEY did not sin in voting for?or fighting for Hitler?.ESPECIALLY if they knew what the NAZI regime were doing in the death camps.

  • powertothepeople

    you got caught in stupid land unable to back up your nonsense so now call me the flake. I wish one of your morons could describe the pretty colors you live in.

    Any other BS figures to post without evidence?

    And yes God Hate. It is obvious from the childish trash you have incessantly posted on this site you despise Christians and the master they serve. It is easily seen by all, even you!

    But Please, when you come back to respond, try an original slam, not the whole “you should apply…..Democratic National comittee……………Debbie Schultz.” Even a dumbass such as yourself can do better than the tired cliches.

  • powertothepeople

    same tired BS from a dumbass. Still waiting for the link……………

  • aesthete

    that has many backers in the Christian world. It’s not one that I subscribe to.

    Consider: Jesus Christ was the embodiment of perfection on Earth — he committed no sin. Yet he encouraged and helped Peter to pay his taxes for a tyrannical empire. This indicates to me that supporting a large institution composed of many parties and interests is not en se a sin or an evil, even if that institution is on the whole corrupt or evil. Given that taxation and soldiery are much more intimately tied to operation and continuation of government than a statistically insignificant vote for a given candidate, do you think that there is a qualitative difference such that it makes voting a sin where soldiery and funding of an evil government would not be?

    Once again I ask: were American soldiers in WWII sinning by fighting for a cause that locked up its own citizens, divested them of their property, and herded them in camps?

    And if you accept that virtually every election is a vote for a “lesser of two evils” (and by God’s standards that would include Reagan v Carter, Adams v Jefferson, and every other national election), then principled non-voting seems to be the best of all possible choices.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Or do you think that every speech he made and every remark he uttered is on television 24/7 ? I think you are having an overreaction because you WANT to be angry, because you WANT to distrust Romney, Because you WANT him to fulfill your worse fantasies.

  • avagreen

    Your personal thoughts…….zilch.

    I can state mine. Doesn’t change what the NT says, either.

    At any rate…….this has gone on too long. And, It’s off-subject to this article..

    But…….one thought: At times you are an unkind person in your responses. Consider the effect of salt and leavening there………….

  • WillWong

    I don’t care what Romney had ever said about Colson but what he said on the day Colson died, that was his last opportunity to sum up everything he ever felt about that guy and that was just 2 sentences!

    You can say whatever you want to support your guy but just don’t force words into my mouth and never try to judge my motivation!

  • powertothepeople

    he felt anything about the guy?

    I love the man because he was a warrior in my faith, but even though I know a few names of some big shots within the Mormon faith, I do not know them, do not listen to them, do not read what they have to say, and do not believe the way they believe. If they died and I was told to say something about them, I could only address what I know about them which is very little, and anything else I state would be pandering or even a lie.

    The whole idea that every major politician needs to say something about every big name regardless of their association is absurd. I listen to these folks make some eulogy about a person and I know it is nothing more than political pandering. I would rather leave the eulogies to those who knew the man personally and who actually loved and respected them.

    For once, I am in the Romney corner. I doubt he knew the man and anything he would have said would have been mere political score point lines. Time to dwell on the real shortcoming of our politicians, not the doctored ones.

  • WillWong

    Romney is not a conservative and knows nuts about conservative leaders. Every true conservative in the last 30 years who is worth his salt knows about Chuck Colson.
    Kudos to him (Romney) for not pandering like you said!

  • AceInTX

    I will point out…in Jesus case…Romans and their vassal states did not elect representatives to govern them by popular will by and large.

    In the cases you site otherwise…as I say, I don’t see an easy answer nor will I try to make a flippant case…. Who knows where GOD draws his line…but I think…in instances where a voter….who goes into a booth…and pulls the lever for a man or woman who is clearing going to act in ways contrary to the Will of God, and who will govern in a way that offends GOD….then is guilty of sinning since that person is willfully ignoring GOD’s stated law and Judgement…

    It’s the willful disobedience that is sin…not so much the act which might be taken in ignorance.

  • AceInTX

    I draw a distinction between simply being a citizen caught up in events under sinful leadership…and the willful voting for…and supporting said sinfulness with ones vote.

    this is why…in some cases…I and I am not advocating anything when I say this…but it’s what drives the thinking of some evangelicals who would sit out and not vote and see Obama elected in which case…said evangelical is avoiding making an affirmative endorsement of the sins committed by a candidate he voted for.

    I understand the flip side of that….which is to say…by not voting…one is endorsing the worse evil in re-electing Obama….which is where I currently stand….what I stated in the paragraph above is driving some evangelicals to not vote….2008 being a case in point

    This is what I think Erick is alluding to…and what Romney deeds to address if he is to win over evangelicals…and win this election.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    If that were the case, Proposition 8 wouldn’t be tied up in the courts because it would’ve gone down in flames initially.

  • mikeymike143

    rand is going to be a 1 term senator anyway. he wont make it through the republican primary this time.

    i still think a true patriot like jim demint would take the VP slot if asked. that is the choice that would unify all conservatives. i am a republican and will of course vote for romney in the general. but a romney/demint ticket means that conservatives like me will devote time, money and resources to the presidential campaign instead of my current plan of devoting them to a couple of congressional races in my area.

    romney knows he has the moderate/establishment wing of the republican party locked up. so why would he pick someone like christie or daniels who is completely unacceptable to conservatives???? i just have a feeling mitt ”swings for the fences” and picks a right wing VP like demint to excite the conservative base. if he does, the enthusiastic conservative base that showed up in the 2010 elections… will show up the same way for him in november.

  • acat

    The anti-gay-marriage folks, obviously … but also a group concerned with reigning in judicial activism.

    It’s interesting to note that Prop. 8 passed by 52.24% … so clearly if the size of the latter group is more than 2.24% of the total ….

    Gay marriage is slowly moving from a winning issue to a losing one for the GOP, and more specifically for “Values Voters”. If Values Voters were smart, they’d get in front of this trend and start pushing to take back the word “marriage” from the government.

    All civil marriages become “domestic partnerships”, any two non-related adults may form a “domestic partnership” for tax or inheritance purposes.

    Further, anyone who wants a “church marriage” must – contractually – agree to some additional framework around pre- and post- marital counseling (i.e. monthly check-ins with older marrieds in the same church) mandatory counseling prior to divorce, etc. Properly implemented, that’d halve divorce rates inside the church and turn marriage into a word that matters again.

    Of course, Values Voters couldn’t figure out that Huckabee and Santorum were bad bets, so I won’t be holding my breath.

    Mew

  • checkmate2012

    get the answer as to what R could do to appease his view and when I put facts on the table, it was good but not enough. C’est la vie.

  • Filibuster Keaton

    If Values Voters were smart, they wouldn’t stand up for their less fashionable convictions. Got it.

  • powertothepeople

    have to do with a leader of the christian faith.

    Hands down, your response had to be the dumbest I have ever seen. Or are you trying to say that only Christians are conservative. There are plenty of people, even conservative Christian, who do not know Chuck, have never listened to Chuck, have not read Chuck, and while they know the name Chuck Colson, they know nothing about him personally except what they have heard. I am sure Romney knows about Chuck and even knows his story, but unless he reads or listens to Christian preachers, there is no personal connection.

    Knowing of a guy and knowing a guy are two very separate things. And unless Romney knew Chuck personally or believed in his teachings, no reason he would know the guy, conservative or not.

    As I stated before, plenty of things to take Romney to the woodshed for, this issue is absurd and not worth a minute of any persons time except those straining for an issue to be upset about.

  • demsaresatanic

    prefer going to Republican cocktail parties so they don’t have to rub elbows with the Democrat base.

  • darrellmaurina

    I’m not disagreeing with your point that many people are uncomfortable discussing religious subjects. There was a day that in “polite society,” religion and politics were off-limits for discussion.

    As an evangelical, I’d seriously question the faith of someone whose professed religious beliefs have been neutered in that way. At the very least, they’re sinning by refusing to profess a faith they claim to possess, and quite likely are Christians in name alone.

    However, I don’t see what this has to do with Mitt Romney. He’s a Mormon. Like virtually all other active Mormon men, he did his time as a Mormon missionary in France, served a term as a “bishop” (an unpaid lay pastor) in his church, and continues to be quite active in his Mormon beliefs.

    My problem with Mitt Romney isn’t that he’s somehow uncomfortable discussing religion, but rather that he has a long history of flip-flopping on key issues such as abortion and homosexuality. I’ll leave it to his Mormon leaders to decide whether he’s a “good Mormon” or not; as far as I’m concerned he’s a member of a cult group, but I’m willing to vote for a non-Christian who is a conservative.

    Unfortunately, Romney’s conservative credentials are highly questionable, and he’s a very bad choice as a Republican nominee for president. We’re probably going to have to deal with him unless Newt Gingrich can gain traction in the next few primaries, and I freely grant that he’s better than Barack Obama, but that doesn’t mean I have to like having a Republican nominee who is considerably more liberal than most of America outside Massachusetts and other centers of left-wing liberalism.

    I understand that third-party candidacies are doomed from the beginning and if Romney is the nominee we have no realistic choice since Obama is so much worse. Perhaps all we can do is hope that the Republican Party comes to its senses in the next few weeks, and if it doesn’t, that Republicans will learn from our mistakes and put up a better candidate four years from now.

  • acat

  • WillWong

    Hands Down! Power to the Dumb!!!!!! Enuff said!

  • WillWong

    Name calling is wrong. We can agree to disagree but calling someone dump is really dump! Once again, my apology. I wish I can delete this post!

  • darrellmaurina

    The problem is it is **NOT** the economy that is the root of our problems.

    That’s Bill Clinton’s agenda.

    Sodom and Gomorrah were well-watered cities on the plain. They were doing well economically too.

    There are things more important that economics, and moral collapse will eventually destroy the economy too, since capitalism is founded on moral principles such as honesty and valuing hard work.

  • darrellmaurina

    Why do you believe Huckabee and Santorum had no chance in national elections?

    Huckabee had a demonstrated decade-long history of winning Democratic votes in Arkansas. While I agree anybody would have had a hard time winning against the throw-the-incumbent-out mentality in 2008, many of Huckabee’s populist views for which he was attacked in the Republican primary would have been assets in the general election.

    Same for Santorum on that, plus he would have had appeal in certain key states to the old “Reagan Democrat” coalition of blue-collar Catholic union workers.

    You may have believed there were better candidates in 2008 or 2012. Fine. But I don’t think it’s true that Santorum or Huckabee had no chance in the general election — and the fact is that Dole and McCain both lost for doing the same sort of thing you seem to want to see Republicans doing now.

    I expect Democrats to motivate their base voters. It worked with Barack Obama. Why can’t we do the same thing?

  • acat

    because he would have been Willie Horton’d, is tax-and-spend nature made him unacceptable to FiCons. There are tough-on-crime and fiscal-conservative Dems … just ask Santorum about Casey Jr.

    Speaking of Santorum, your assertion that he “would have brought back the Reagan Democrats” misses the fact that most of the actual Reagan Democrats are now in the GOP.

    The current crop didn’t break for Santorum strongly enough to give him wins in the rust belt, clearly didn’t go for him strongly enough in his home State.

    Worse, given the problems the “skirt” (public sector, non-labor) unions are causing to State and Muni budgets, and Santorum’s apparent inability to mimic Scott Walker and split the “hard-hats” (private sector labor) … Santorum ran badly afoul of the fiscal conservatives.

    This all ignores, by the way, Santorum’s inexplicable decision to raise a middle finger at the libertarian-leaning conservatives.

    In short, you’ve completely misunderstood what “the base” or “conservatism” consist of. Get educated, son.

    Mew

  • darrellmaurina

    septembergurl wrote on Sunday, April 22nd at 3:48PM EDT: “In the ordinary course of events, Obama would have moved on to a mainstream Black church, Baptists or Methodist, as he began to rise politically. Maybe Unitarian or Congregationalist if he wanted to emphasize deeds over faith. His very quick rise, and the fact that his wife was also raised in a secular, non-religious family, meant he was still in the Rev Wrong?s congregation when he was nominated.”

    I understand your point, but in this case Barack Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ, a congregation in the merged denomination of which the major merging group were the Congregationalists, along with the much smaller German denomination known as the Evangelical and Reformed Church.

    Obama actually did follow your “deeds over faith” model.

    As bad as Rev. Wright’s sermons were, from a theological perspective, they’re probably not much worse heresy that the stuff being preached for a hundred years in the most left-wing of the politically active liberal churches, and maybe even a hundred and seventy years ago if we want to include the earlier forms of liberalism. Read some of the things preached by the liberation theologians or the most radical of the Unitarians during the Civil War, for example — the abolitionists were obviously right to oppose slavery, but their theology was just as man-centered as Rev. Wright, and the liberation theologians didn’t even have the benefit of being right in their attacks on capitalism.

  • darrellmaurina

    Other than the “get educated, son” comment, I can respect your views. None of us know for sure what would have happened with Huckabee or Santorum as the Republican nominee and you make some good points.

    As for your last comment, I’ve been lurking for quite a while but not posting. You don’t know me, I don’t know you, but being the son of a Republican politician whose campaigning goes back to Romney’s father’s gubernatorial campaigns in Michigan, I might know a little more about politics than you give me credit for. That might include the role of blue-collar union voters in Michigan back in the 1980s and how that role has become less important due to exporting of jobs overseas.

    I have reasons for opposing Romney. They center on his flipflops on abortion and his views on homosexual marriage, but go far beyond those two issues.

    I’m very, very, very unhappy with the way the Republican primary has gone this year. We are close to getting virtually the worst possible nominee, and unless something totally unexpected happens in today’s primaries and Gingrich shocks everyone, we’re probably going to have to figure out how to deal with Romney as the Republican nominee. My guess is he’ll lose in November, and lose badly, and if that happens, we can blame only ourselves as Republicans for nominating him.

  • acat

    …with an economy this bad. Ever.”

    You’re right, I don’t know you. That doesn’t mean I can’t expect a little more smarts, especially from someone who self-describes as a long-time lurker and a politico’s son.

    I do agree, by the way, Romney is not a good candidate. He wasn’t my first, second, third, or fourth choice. I didn’t vote for him, but to say he’s the worst of a field that contained Buddy Roemer and Ron Paul is … hyperbolic.

    As for blame .. I blame every conservative candidate who started running – not announced, not formed a committee, but *started running* after the 2010 election.

    Conservatives are slower to change our minds than liberals. Had Palin actually run instead of teasing .. or had she gone all-in behind one candidate .. it would have been a different story because she *was running*.

    Know who else was running? Romney.

    And here we are… and I don’t know about you, but I’m going to support Wafflin’ Willard because the alternative’s worse.

    Mew

  • garfieldjl

    Not sure, but I would expect the economy to have been this bad during the Great Depression, and Franklin D. Roosevelt got re-elected. I’m not sure when they started to keep track of unemployment records of the top of my head, but I suspect the economy was this bad in the 1930s.

    When Reagan took on Carter, we had an extremely good nominee, now granted Obama is worse than Carter, but Romney isn’t even remotely at the level of Reagan either.

    We shouldn’t get overconfident.

  • acat

    Hindsight is 20/20 – there were a *LOT* of GOPers who said he couldn’t win, chief among them John B. Anderson. Go look it up. I view it differently because I lived it and remember wondering if Reagan really was as extreme or out of touch as the talking heads claimed.

    Second, FDR was re-elected, in part, because Alf Landon and Wendell Willkie were not any kind of Conservative, and in part because there was no way a non-Conservative could peel off any of the members of the “New Deal Coalition”.

    More on point regarding FDR, we were a *much* more agrarian nation during the Great Depression. Women working outside the home was abnormal. There were far more farmers and big farm families than there were urbanites, there were no real suburbs. (the car was relatively new, and a luxury) Families and churches and other civic organizations expected to take care of their own. Comparing unemployment under FDR to Carter is .. very tricky.

    Obama has no such coalition, neither did Carter, and while Romney is certainly not Reagan, he doesn’t *need* to be. He just needs to be better than Obama, he needs a plan that can be relatively easily understood, and he needs to be somewhat inspiring.

    I’m not happy with the GOP’s choice of candidates, garfield, I think I’ve been clear about that. I’m also not going to sit around waiting for the hammer to fall. If we’re going to have 4 more years of Obama, it will be over my strident vocal objections.

    Mew

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Huck and Santorum would have the very highest mountains to climb to win election in the general. Not impossible, but real damn close.

    Their negatives were high even among republicans and astronomical among swing voters.

    and yes, their populism cost them a lot of support as well it should.

  • demsaresatanic

    For example, Alf Landon, 1936.

  • demsaresatanic

    differences in 1936, but that does not favor your argument. To the extent that America was more rural and more women were married and at home those factors favor Republicans, we do well with rural America and married homemakers.

    Counting on a bad economy is very thin reed indeed, class-warfare worked extremely well for FDR, as Alf Landon demonstrated nicely. If this election is to be won, it will be won on emotional issues, not rational ones.

  • acat

    didn’t really start until the 1950s… giving the lie to your assertion that married stay-at-homes would favor the GOP. Also, Alf Landon didn’t have a problem with most of the “New Deal” … so there was no “stark contrast”. It’s tricky to compare the two eras, wondering what would have happened if FDR had faced off against Reagan…

    Further, I do not accept that the economy is a “thin reed” .. people vote their pocketbooks quite reliably. The coalition FDR put together cannot be repeated, due to demographic changes. Further, Obama has not managed to retain let alone extend the coalition he had in 2008.

    Romney is absolutely a thin reed, and I really wish we’d picked a better one, but … if this is what we have to work with, so be it.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    Stark or not, any suggestion that FDR was not perceived as the more pro-New Deal candidate is nonsense. Obviously people vote their pocketbooks; the democrat message is based upon greed and envy and democrat welfare drones and teacher union hacks also have pocketbooks. Once you concede that people vote their pocketbooks, then look at the 36 landslide, it is clear enough that the electorate considers redistribution as a good enough pocketbook issue. Human nature has not changed in the intervening years.

  • acat

    QED, eh?

    The people didn’t think Alf was going to do any differently… so didn’t see him as the better candidate.

    Stark contrasts and bold colors matter.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    redistribution is an excellent pocketbook issue amply demonstrated by the 36 FDR landslide. You can nuance the level of contrast all you like, the electorate understood who was the more redistributionist candidate and the electorate believed that redistribution was good for their pocketbook.

  • checkmate2012

    and this is sincere. Hope you can join the bandwagon now but I don’t expect you’ll hop aboard any time soon or will give up ’till Tampa….just think you’re good fight is over and I think Newt will declare a truce soon :(

  • acat

    We The People were presented with “redistribution” or “redistribution” as choices….and chose “redistribution”.

    I do not accept your assertion, simply because there was no difference on the pocketbook side, so the election turned on other issues.

    Let’s try it this way:

    “Do you want your hamburger from Burger King or McDonalds?”

    “I want fried chicken”.

    “Well, you’re getting a hamburger. Burger King or McDonalds?”

    *sigh* “McDonalds. Their fries are better.”

    See it now? Removing the pocketbook issues by running a no-contrast candidate – something the GOP did *twice* against FDR – meant it wasn’t pocketbook issues that turned 1936 or 1940.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    You continue to try to nuance the contrast between the candidates, which would be significant in a reasonably close election but not in a landslide of 36 proportions. Of course Landon was a poor campaigner, but you are kidding yourself if you believe that the electorate was unable to draw a significant distinction between the policies of FDR and Landon, they were, and they chose the big government socialism of FDR, like it or not. For an example of what I am talking about, try a publication from the period in question, Nov ’35;

    “The Republicans, whose attack is already well under way, have indicated that their battle will be waged along two broad fronts. They will indict the New Deal first on the ground of extravagant expenditures, which they warn will result either in oppressive taxes or in a much-dreaded inflation; and, second, as a deliberate attempt to undermine the democratic foundations of American government.”

    Republicans were not exactly soft-pedaling their opposition to the New-Deal, as you try to claim. If you have evidence to back up your odd conclusion, fine, I’m still waiting to see it from you.

  • demsaresatanic

    http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1935111200

  • acat
  • demsaresatanic

    Landon was not conservative is, as I previously stated, trivial, as is your observation that Landon was not a very strong opponent of the New Deal. Those nuances pale in comparison to the actual election results of 1936.

  • acat

    Your assertion is, if I can boil it down, that Ronald Reagan would have lost to FDR.

    I arrive at this conclusion because you’ve repeatedly dismissed my points that Alf Landon wasn’t a conservative, liked FDR’s policies – although he thought they were too inefficient – and wanted to reform not repeal them…

    Do you think anyone could have beaten FDR? If not, I pity the “weak sauce” conservatism you appear to have embraced.

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    How many times do I have to say that your points are accurate but trivial. How do you explain the House results;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_1936
    or the Senate;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1936
    All those Republicans who lost their seats must have just turned into bad candidates also, or maybe the electorate really hated the New Deal but just thought that little donkey logo was cute.

    And keep dreaming about Reagan running, such hypos are simply silly. I will take you seriously if you can find even one serious political historian who rejects the proposition that the 1936 Democrat landslide was a demonstration of genuine approval of New Deal socialism. You will find no such help.

  • acat

    Then we’ll also need to look at the 1934,1938, and 1942 election cycles.

    FDR, in 1936, had “coattails”, and the GOP had a lousy candidate.

    The Dems also picked up Senate seats In 1934, confirming your hypothesis that the country liked the cut of FDR’s jib, and wanted him to continue his socialist policies.

    By 1938, however, the Dems lost ground in the Senate. While the Dems retained control, they lost several rust belt States. This trend continued in 1940 and 1942. This tends to argue that it wasn’t the little donkey or party affiliation that drove voters, but a disagreement with the current management.

    We’ll never know, of course, what would have happened if Alf Landon or Wendell Willkie or even Thomas Dewey had been vocally more conservative – Dewey being the best of a bad lot… but that’s my point!

    We The People were not offered a choice between Socialism and Conservatism. we were offered Socialism and Socialism …

    Mew

  • demsaresatanic

    We were debating 1936, and as I said before;

    “I will take you seriously if you can find even one serious political historian who rejects the proposition that the 1936 Democrat landslide was a demonstration of genuine approval of New Deal socialism. You will find no such help.”

    Your turning to other years demonstrates my point.