« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Thanksgiving Family Forum.

It’s a non-debate GOP debate that starts up at 5PM EST; it’ll feature neither Romney nor Huntsman, and will focus on social issues. I will be kind and not speculate on any possible relationship between those two data points.

I suspect that it will auto-start, so the livestream is after the fold.

Watch live streaming video from thanksgivingfamilyforum at livestream.com

COMMENTS

  • gracie

    I have tried clicking on the arrow and the link and nothing works. it looks like it has already started…heard it for a minute.

    Paula…you have worked overtime to help us see this…thanks to you and Moe…not if it would only work!

  • juumanistra

    Impressive, really, given that he’s fronting jurisdiction-stripping as a way of doing an end-run around Roe v. Wade and its progeny. That’s not exactly an obvious strategy and implies at least some knowledge of how the judiciary functions.

    Just to be clear: Stripping the Article III courts of their ability to hear abortion cases cannot get rid of Roe. It can only prevent the courts from further intervening, one way or the other. And even then, the courts are free to meddle if they’re sufficiently riled, as the doctrine of jurisdiction-stripping is only constitutional if there is an alternative avenue of achieving relief if constitutionally protected rights are infringed upon. (Which, barring a constitutional amendment or further decision from the Supreme Court, we’re stuck with re: abortion.)

  • romansdaughter

    It just comes in once and a while but is sporadic.

  • bzip

    It has been a very good debate forum so far. Everyone sounds good, but I am biased so I think Perry has done an outstanding job thus far.

    I am enjoying this type of debate.

  • cheetah2

    After the break, he was the only one who waited for Congresswoman Bachmann to be seated before he sat down. He was complemented on that and said it was what his mama taught him.

  • changeforrickperry

    I’m hearing:

    1) Perry is confessing Christ unashamedly
    2) He comforted Herman Cain when Cain broke down talking about his cancer (burning coals, anyone?)
    3) He waited for Bachmann to sit down first
    4) He got big applause on his “Uproot and Overhaul”
    5) He has been very funny
    6) He won a straw poll in Kansas with 55% of the vote

    Amazing the info you can get from Twitter!
    ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • carolina

    sounds like very good news.

  • sunshinek67

    +++

  • windwaker24

    I can’t see any of this. I just hear sound.

  • changeforrickperry

    Something new and fresh after all the Ron Paul wins, eh?

    “Shh, shh, shh! You hear that? It’s the winds of change.”–Monsters, Inc.
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • gracie

    Mine is coming in now…You?

    You might want to go to the radio stations Paula left: http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/TFL_TFF_radio_stations-v2.pdf

    Hope it works for you!

  • kamiller42

    Can you really say every war since WWII was “immoral?” Does the process of entering a war define the morality of going to war? No. Ron Paul, -1.

  • romansdaughter

    I actually went to this site Freedom’s Lighthouse and watched it all clearly there. But thanks for tip.

  • jonnymadison

    If you believe in the Just War Theory of Christianity to determine the morality of war, it’s tough to make a moral case for any war since WW2.

  • bzip

    It was a really good debate. A nice format, which they were like this.

    I think Perry did very well, came off very strong and knowledgeable. He spoke both policy wise and personal wise about his faith and his upbringing. There was a lot of information and by all candidates.

    I also think all the candidates did very well, (well Ron Paul maybe not so much). It is hard putting a strict winner and loser to this forum but I think the tops were:

    Perry and Newt
    Then Cain, Bachmann and Rick Sant. with Ron Paul at the bottom.

    Just my take.

  • johndouglas

    Wow – wonderful stories about their faith and real life issues. Brought me to tears when Rick Santorum shared about his own weakness to love and all he went through. Also when Rick Perry shared he was lost – quoting Blaise Pascal about only Jesus fills the void that we have.

    Santorum was authentic. Bachman did good also. Newt and Cain real emotions rare these days.

    Since justices decided to side with Atheist Ohare in the 60′s our education system has brought about what we have now in society. They took the Bible and prayer out of public schools. Santorum and Bachman led as examples of working to change our culture and do something. It is all of our’s responsibility said Santorum.

  • bzip

    That is wonderful. Good for Perry. I am so happy to hear that. Hopefully this is just the start of Perry’s victories :-) .

  • nativetexan41

    I got to watch most of it with a few glitches. Perry was not ashamed to say he accepted Jesus into his life. I did not hear Bachmann say that she had accepted Christ, she went into a campaign speech in my opinion. She says she has been in the lead on everything….??? Santorum was good. Cain was cautious and mention his wife several times. Paul well what can I say?? Sorry to the Newt supporters, but he was boring and tried to sound so intellectual, I hope he is not our nominee.
    Go Perry!!

  • kamiller42

    It is highly debatable if wars since WWII pass or don’t pass Just War muster.

  • Common_Cents

    Good to know they are real people, with various challenges in their past they have dealt with.

    Wow, just contrast this to any gathering of Dems and all you hear is blaming, victim mentality, avoidance of personal responsibility, and largely Godlessness. Pathetic.

  • Carol Tarasewicz

    They should stop the othe gotcha debates and do more of these forums. Most of them came off as good.
    I think Perry did the best for himself.
    I did not know about Kansan straw poll win, I am glad that Perry won.
    Where was Mitt?
    This is first time I have seen Santorum without being an attack dog, he was pretty good. I know he has special needs child but did not know details.

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

    Newt slapped him around and gave him a history lesson on Augustine.

  • wbf

    Perry was the only governor present. Executive experience in government for 10 years with a conservative record makes me like Perry best.

    I appreciated what each person brought to the forum. Each person has his strengths and are obviously talented.

    It was wonderful to see the church packed out with people concerned about the issues brought by the forum…questions of faith and family.

  • westcoastpatriette

    listening to a more personal account of their lives, as well as a serious discussion regarding matters that are of great importance to social conservatives.

    I can see why Romney declined to participate since he would probably have felt uncomfortable discussing his religion knowing it would stir up controversy about Mormonism one more time.

    While I enjoyed the forum, it did not change my mind about any of them. I already feel like I know all I need to know about them and my mind is already made up. Probably at least partly because of coming to RedState where we have already given them all a thorough vetting.

  • circlegranch

    It was a chance to get to know hearts and some personal stuff. So much more informative than the gibberish that other debates produce. I’d sure to love to wake up tomorrow and hear that after they were finished, the whole lot of them made a pact that they will not do anymore of the Stuck on Stupid debates. They will continue to discuss and share at roundtables but they will no longer subject themselves (and US) to the non-productive, useless debates. I think they enjoyed themselves immensely from all appearances. Everybody was relaxed, civil, thoughtful and had just as much chance to get their points across as they needed. Everybody seemed to part friends, knowing that any one of them could well be the person going up against The Socialist and that in the end, each will be there for that person. It’s about saving America, not advancing one’s personal fortunes. Very odd that the others didn’t want in on this. Maybe they ARE in it for themselves? Maybe they are not comfortable professing their faith?

    You sure can tell the difference between a faith-based forum and one that’s organized by the secular media. The latter is laced with bitter and snide digs, unfair questions and tone from the moderators (hoping and praying to whatever they pray to that the candidate will flub). Everything is designed so the debate ends with a winner and a loser. The debates this primary have created such division and bias and rancor. I just can’t picture anybody watching tonight coming away with those anxious feelings. Personally, I feel more relaxed, not just because I think my candidate did very well but just because this is how people should interact with each other.

    Again, I have to say I think Rick Perry did a remarkable job. I’m going to also say that I believed every single person was sincere. I didn’t care much for Bachmann trying to cram her campaign talking points into everything but I think that’s who she is and I appreciate her candor. I do not agree with her that abortion will be the biggest issue of the election. I didn’t agree often w/Ron Paul but I developed an appreciation for the man behind the campaign. I think Newt was humble and handled the personal questions quite well but I think he kinda overdid it with the historical insertions giving exact dates and such. It’s very impressive and he’s incredibly interesting to listen to but he is overduing it with the “I’m the smartest guy in the room” thing. Still, he, too, seemed sincere and humbled.

    I hope somebody hear can clarify something for me because I would get some freezes on the computer at times, but when they were talking about ObamaCare and as they were moving on, Frank Luntz said something about how it would have been interesting to hear what Romney would have to say about it and I THINK I heard Cain say, “Mitt who?” Did anybody else hear that or was I in the midst of one of my own brain freezes? Just curious.

    I’ll shut down for the night here but wanted to offer this final thought about this event today: Imagine, if you will, the incredible contrast there would be if our candidate, whomever it ends up being, sits in the exact same kind of forum with Barack Hussein Obama. First of all, I highly doubt if Obama would agree to do that same type of discussion, sitting in Christian church and being asked very pointed questions about his faith, his faults, etc. But if he did, can you get a visual on that? Priceless.

    Oh, THIS is my last comment—congrats to Gov. Perry for winning the KS straw poll. He desperately needs just such good news and I dare venture to say I believe its the first of many. Something had to break the damn so the living waters to his campaign will flow. God bless the Sunflower State and thank you, all.

  • eabjr

    As someone who hasn’t made my mind up yet, I must say all the candidates were most excellent and refreshing—and that includes Ron Paul who does not deserve the vitriol dumped on him by so many even in redstate.
    They are all real people and have “been thru it”…. all true leaders have wounds; they keep on and are the better for it. I would choose any of these candidates over Obama…the epitome of the non-real, manufactured image the immoral left puts forth—all so they can seem moral as they hide their arrogance as “philosopher kings” who know best over matters of life and death…

  • cheetah2

    It was in her very first comment I believe. She and Perry were the only ones who did claim Jesus as savior. It was an important thing to be able to do with this evangelical Christian audience. I was of course thankful to hear this stated boldly by Perry for the first time. He never does shy away from talking about his faith, but I never before heard him actually define his faith.

    I thought Newt’s goal was to establish himself as the brain of the group. He sounded like a history professor. Not really appropriate, I thought.

    Gingrich’s regret definitely ought to have been his 2 failed marriages. He should have went there I thought. It would have helped him.

  • circlegranch

    the source. It’s something to get out there on Drudge, Newsmax, The Blaze, etc. Thanks!

  • jonnymadison

    There is a guy you probably don’t take seriously if he is preaching to you about morality!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …may be of-interest, based on having only acquired the audio.

    First, I can’t find the Kansas straw-poll data on the Internet; please advise.

    Second, I am “multiple choice” and Jewish, so some of you may find my reaction to reflect that of the non-Evangelical crowd.

    Third, pivotal was the absence of Romney/Huntsman; if nothing else, they all acquitted themselves so well that a certain unanimity could emerge: NO ONE who ABSENTED himself should earn ANY support.

    Fourth Luntz was sharp, start to finish; it elevates my assessment of his assessments throughout [although I still think he's been too hard on Perry on FNC, details deferred].

    Fifth, I think Luntz slapped-down Perry ever-so-slightly when he acquired a fast-take on a part-time Congress [after Luntz had done him the favor of acquiring an audience reaction to his proposal for Federal judge term-limits]; the positive reaction was followed by a reactive offer: “You be pollster for a day if I can be governor for a day.” [This could be interpretable as "don't step on my turf, particularly after I had just done you a favor."] This was the only overstep, as I heard it, and the exuberance of the 2+ hour experience was otherwise shared genuinely by all.

    Sixth, there was much to learn, some of which I knew and had reinforced [particularly related to the subject-matter jurisdiction limit discussion]; attacking the 9th District was predictable and came-off smoothly.

    Seventh, the most fascinating insight available emerged from Santorum, when he discussed how he had duped himself regarding Trisomy-18; this is an object-lesson for us all ["I didn't want to love her because then her loss wouldn't be so bad."]. Cynics would advise him to apply this self-awareness to a potential over-commitment to campaigning, but I prefer to view it at face-value; he is a FAR GREATER MAN for having shared that deep-emotion.

    Eighth, this compares/contrasts with Cain’s predictable reaction to the cancer-diagnosis; it was real, assuredly, but it would have been preferable had he deviated ever-so-slightly from his personal-narrative. As a medical oncologist, I may be perceived as a bit calloused in this regard, but it may have been more moving/revealing had he discussed how his personal struggles been affected–for example–by his self-perception of having been away from child-rearing for excessive time-stretches.

    Ninth, although The Newt was the predictable orator, Michele consistently strung-together words, built words into sentences, invoked sentences to yield paragraphs…seamlessly. She demonstrated, perhaps more than the others, that she had pondered these forces throughout her life…AND that she had weighed them when dealing with policies [such as ObamaCare].

    Tenth, the differences among the candidates [including Paul, thankfully] were negligible [and I don't conclude this because of any subliminal effort to avoid leaving Perry in the dust]. In the aggregate, I listened to a set of high-level potential-evangelists perform a high-wire act of self-revelation and consumer-education.

    Without attempting to appear emphemistic, I would conclude that “a good time was had by all!”

  • lorig77

    Thank you Moe and RS for featuring this and pointing me to livestream.com, you can watch it there if you missed it. Search for Thanksgiving Family Forum and it comes up. For some reason not yet working on Citizenlink.com. Watching it now!

  • quill67

    Can’t they get together and create their own debates? This was so much better than the 30 second nonsense we have been seeing. Newt has been right in complaining about them. Perry should join with Newt and demand an end to these 30 second GOTCHA debates. He looked so much better. And actually, Rick Santorum also came across much better.

    If they insist on this format as a group, WHAT A MESSAGE THAT WOULD SEND TO THE NATION:

    WE, THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT, ARE DONE WITH 30 SECOND SOLUTIONS. We ARE DONE WITH PHONY GIMMICKS AND BICKERING. IT IS TIME TO HAVE AN REAL DEBATE ABOUT THE FUTURE of OUR GREAT NATION.

    ALL FUTURE DEBATES WILL ALLOW TIME FOR THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION OR WE WILL NOT PARTICIPATE.

  • lorig77

    For some reason not coming up yet at Citizenlink. Go to livestream and search for Thanksgiving Family Forum and it comes up. I’m watching it now and look forward to reading all of the comments here. Thank you Moe and RS for featuring this!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …a thought comes to mind.

    Remember how we have always found it wise to avoid taking ourselves too seriously?

    I shared your sentiments, and I still adore Perry [notwithstanding any perceived emphasis on Christianity that pervaded the experience].

    But I greatly appreciated learning more about them, for the following reason:

    The key-conclusion that can be generated–on some level–is that they all had the capacity/bravery BOTH to “show up” and to “show candor”in this setting.

    AND THIS makes it just a bit easier to accept any of them,, should Perry not be the nominee, because they all demonstrated inner-ethics that would contrast dramatically with whatever BHO might ever reveal. Note how all of them were comfortable interweaving religious philosophy with political advocacy…all within the realm of constitutional limited-government. Granted, each had his/her “take” [Perry on federalism, for example], but the aggregate effect was one big love-fest.

    So, WCP, perhaps I react because I wasn’t trying to subject my political beliefs to scrutiny in this forum; in many respects, the “Grading System” best employed was “pass/fail”!

    And they all “passed” with shining colors!

    [Now, about that the thoroughness of the ongoing RedState vetting, we really must resume our efforts to focus on The Newt....]

  • aesthete

    “Purpose-Driven Debate”, and was interviewed by him. He also got lots of questions about his faith.

  • windwaker24

    nt

  • superpatriot

    It’s great that Perry won the Kansas Straw poll.
    Anyone have a link to it??

    I’ve been thinking. Perry, after Newt and Cain are out of the race, will totally sweep the south.

    All he has to do is win one the early ones(Iowa, S. Carolina, Florida) and he will be the GOP nominee!

    Keep having faith everyone…

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

    He asked some fascinating questions and designed the forum in a way that would show the candidates at their best rather than rooting out their weaknesses.

    At times, it was pretty sappy, like that scene in Jerry Maguire where the talk show host gets the football player to cry, but I’m not gonna lie, I enjoyed seeing the human side of the candidates. If you’re a person who is antagonistic toward outward expressions of faith, don’t bother watching the re-run, it will only annoy you. And it will give a ton of unfortunate sound bites to the progs.

    The forum brought out some nuances between the candidates. Cain showed again that he is out of his league. When asked if a state had the right to go against the federal government (and given the example of slavery), Cain didn’t have a coherent answer. Surely he’s thought about this question, hasn’t he? This is Politics 101 and he should have been ready for it.

    Bachmann and Santorum were in their element. They moved fluidly through each and every topic, each having well-formed opinions on the family values and faith topics. Santorum was at a slight disadvantage because he was a Catholic in an evangelical-leaning crowd, but I don’t think it hurt him at all. He hit all the right notes.

    Perry did very well – not stellar, but he didn’t make any mistakes and was authentic, likable, and knowledgeable. My only complaint is that he seemed to fade about 3/4 of the way through the forum – as if he lost focus. It was only for about 10 minutes and then he was back, but he missed a couple opportunities to stand out from the crowd.

    Newt wasn’t as comfortable in this form as he has been in the debates. He was professorial and didn’t come across as authentic.

    Ron Paul, as usual, was off the GOP reservation. When asked to share a difficult experience that he’s learned from, he cited a sports injury that hurt his running speed on the high school track team.

    This was like the Saddleback forum in 2008 without the awkwardness of Obama.

    The snub by Romney certainly sent a message to IA values voters: Romney has no courage.

  • changeforrickperry

    Okay, y’all. I saw the thing about the straw poll on Twitter in a tweet by @KansansForPerry. After doing a little more digging I found out that the straw poll was done at the KFTR Convention in Wichita, Kansas. KFTR stands for “Kansas Federation of Teenage Republicans.”

    Soooo….this might not be as significant as we’d hoped, maybe it is. The eternal optimists can look at it as, “OK, hey, the younger generation really likes Perry!” But this would explain why it wasn’t really coming up on Google or anything like that. So sorry for the late clarification/research!
    ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …based on two key components of what transpired.

    FIRST, it was recognized that Paul [whom we mostly detest due to his foreign policy neo-isolationism] had only received 89 seconds during the CBS-debate last week [during the first-hour, noting that the follow-up half-hour was difficult to absorb without interruptions via the Internet...via either access-site].

    The effect of this fact is that the presumed intent to be “fair” has been dashed statistically; unless they all were to be stop-watched and equalized starting an hour into the event, the time-limits were a subterfuge.

    SECOND, Luntz having invited the OWS-crasher to speak for an extended-period showed wisdom-incarnate. This reflects the attractiveness of spontaneity and candor…from the moderator-level. They still struck and maintained their theme, and they enjoyed the fringe-benefit of total rapture [sorry about the choice of words] from the listener [in the church and overhearing on the Internet].

    The effect of this fact is to heap praise on this conversational approach [rather than merely to reinforce The Newt's clever positioning as the anti-MSM/LSM/ELM crowd-pleasing monitor].

    We can still elicit comparisons/contrasts via this style and, indeed, they will predictably become less potentially-petty as a result.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I think maybe I need a little break from the intensity for a while.

    I have always been one to make a final assessment after much consideration and, once I make a decision, I rarely change my mind.

    I guess I also like to entertain myself with the notion that people will each make their own decisions in their own ways. Too bad we can’t make everyone agree with us but, such is politics.

  • Scope

    evangelicals move any closer to one candidate over the other with this event? Isn’t that what this was supposed to portray for them?

    Iowa- Ethanol rules.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    http://www.livestream.com/thanksgivingfamilyforum/video?clipId=pla_8dadc257-ce85-4ebd-b517-d23cc7fee1a1

  • onemovoter

    I could feel some of the answers were “best efforts” to sound and convey connected stories which is ok. I’ve been there myself when in front of people interviewing me for a job and asking to relate something personal to work.

    Perry always felt at ease though with every answer he gave. Of course my recent research that I’ll be posting soon only goes to reinforce this premise.

    I wish I had read more Redstate back in 2008, I would have know much more about all of the candidates than just bits of it here and there.

  • jonnymadison

    That’s why you cannot find it.

    LOL, just kidding. I live in Nebraska, so I can make that joke.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …except I missed the momentary Perry -lapse; will watch the video-feed.

    I didn’t mind Paul’s vignette, because you may note that he had prefaced it by observing how influential adolescent experiences prove to be, throughout life. He demonstrated having personalized a key threshold in life, regardless of its provocation [recalling what we learned from Clint Eastwood in "Magnum Force"]: “A man has to know his limitations.”

    Can we all imagine how Romney would have demonstrated what we all saw Cain exude during that Milwaukee editorial-board interview?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but it does carry impact!

  • onemovoter

    If it was done with teenagers and Ron Paul didn’t win, then I’m in total shock.

    One key to take away from the straw poll though is that usually teenagers will reflect what their parents have been saying recently.

    It’s a very good sign that things are not so dire looking for Perry under the surface. News org. have in the past done polls of kids on who they would vote for to get a sense of where the Presidential election was going.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and that’s one of the reasons I like him. He is comfortable with who he is and when all is said and done, he is who he is and doesn’t really feel a need to change or try real hard to impress.

    I am almost finished with his book, “Fed Up!” and reading it reinforces my growing trust for him and respect for his accomplishments. I wish others didn’t judge him so superficially, as I see a man of great character and someone who would be–as pttx333 assures us–a president that we could trust in many ways.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …i’m going to provide another “take” while watching it; remember how those who listened to RMN/JFK thought the former won, but those who watched their debate saw RMN’s sweat and concluded JFK won?

    For example, the reaction to the intro of Steven King [whom I once met in DC] was significantly greater than that of the other politicos.

    Also, what was missing in the beginning was a rendition of “God Bless America.”

    The video was great, mesmerizing even. That we got the entire “America the Beautiful” was…beautiful!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but what it did accomplish was politically important; Mitt won’t get 4% of the vote.

  • Scope

    when Warren asked him when life begins, that it was above his “pay grade” to answer that question. Obama has voted in favor of partial birth abortions. So what’s your point? What does Obama have to do with the event tonight?

  • Menlo

    Keep the courts out by having the other two branches ignore the them; they should have long ago lost any credibility and ceased to be taken seriously or respected. It might kill any prospects of getting elected, but Ron Paul doesn’t have one anyway.

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

    It was more that Perry just took a break for a bit. There were a couple times when Luntz said, “Who would like to answer that?” One time he even said, “Governor?” and Perry just sat there (as did the rest of the candidates). I don’t remember what the question was, but he should have jumped at the opportunity to talk. Maybe he didn’t have an answer or didn’t have a strong opinion. Whatever the reason, it wasn’t a gaffe, but it could have been better.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    The second video constituted a political crash-course, amplified by the orientation-speech thereafter.

    It may not be politically desirable to explore this level of rhetoric but, as a “multiple choice” and “civil union” Conservative-Republican, I had no problem with the ambient-spirituality being conveyed within this venue.

    My comment about the damage Mitt did to his campaign, BTW, extends beyond Iowa. Also, that Luntz portrayed this as the culmination of a lifetime career, THIS was a premonition of what was to be achieved.

    Everyone was forthright, and the non-Evangelical reaction would best be perceived as “tolerant” of these postures [rather than worrying they could be portrayed as excessively-polarizing by BHO].

    That the intro exceeded a half-hour, this was understandable…because the total video is almost three hours in length.

  • TSquared

    I’m groping for one word that describes what I just saw. Stunned? Perhaps. And not in good ways in some respects.

    I never seen a Presidential debate or forum quite like this. Perhaps they occur and are more common than I’m aware of.

    Maybe it was a problem with my expectation. It was after all a Family Forum. There’s no surprise that social issues would be the overriding subject/theme for such a forum. But this?

    Don’t get me wrong – there are some positive things that could be gained from this event I guess. Will all the land now know that Republicans do indeed have hearts? Perhaps it served to highlight that these candidates do really passionately believe in some of their causes – and that there is some real life experiences that form the basis for their passions (vs, cynical political calculations). Beyond that I don’t know what I was supposed to gain here. Maybe somebody could clue me in?

    I can’t get a few things out of me head. Was that Frank Luntz or Oprah Winfrey? Dr. Phil? Billy Graham? Another thought that crossed my mind – was this a contest to determine who could conjure up the best tear jerker?

    Maybe I’m warped…

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m for alternative debate formats. I found the Gingrinch/Cain pseudo Douglas-Lincoln to be pretty useful. There was another held in South Carolina a while back that was also pretty good. I’m just not sure that I’ll be interested in future debates overly steeped in emotionalism instead of rational, logical, discussions of issues and solutions.

  • changeforrickperry

    I hadn’t thought about the fact that “usually teenagers will reflect what their parents have been saying.” And yes, isn’t it different and refreshing to see that Ron Paul didn’t win this one? FINALLY!

    Well, I’m just glad nobody’s mad at me for posting about it earlier this afternoon. Glad to see that we can get some much-needed encouragement from it after all.
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • onemovoter

    I watched the entire thing and never did see this lapse. There were a few quick answers that Perry gave that I knew were talking points of his campaign, but other candidates did the same.

    I do have one beef with Bachmann in this Forum. She said “I will…” so many times during her answers that I lost what the point she was making. Reagan was the known as the “Great Communicator” because he always used “we” to include everyone that listened to him speak.

    Rick Santorum needs to get off the “I’ve done this and that” and say what should be done.

    Otherwise I mostly agree with Paula.

  • cheetah2

    http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2011/11/video-watch-the-full-iowa-thanksgiving-family-forum/

  • changeforrickperry

    I just love it. What’s neat is that it’s highly entertaining AND informative at the same time. The past couple of times I’ve visited my grandparents, I’ve brought it along–just in case I get challenged.

    Perry is a passionate, concise writer–a good example for me as I embark on a writing career myself. I’m hoping to get “On My Honor” for Christmas…I don’t know any Boy Scouts personally :) but I understand the book is partly autobiographical, which is my main reason for wanting to read it. On the other hand, I know OF so many Boy Scouts/Eagle Scouts in history, I’d like to know a little more about the organization.
    ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • cheetah2

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    It’s important to know about what makes them tick, what they value, getting a glimpse perhaps of what in their heart. Fora like these are most beneficial.

    Or to put it simply, in assessing who I support as President, character counts. Along with trustworthiness. And ability to persuade and recruit support for: “issues and solutions”.

    Or do you prefer electing Rorschach candidates like Obama?

  • westcoastpatriette

    is talking about was when the woman in the audience asked them how they felt about “the common good” (which I thought was a wasted question). A couple people answered, and Luntz asked if anyone else wanted to answer and Perry did not speak up. It did not bother me as I saw the question as useless and bland.

  • TSquared

    “Perhaps it served to highlight that these candidates do really passionately believe in some of their causes ? and that there is some real life experiences that form the basis for their passions (vs, cynical political calculations).”

    Perhaps that’s why Romney took a pass?

  • TSquared

    “We’re electing real, live people, not policy robots”

    Was that really in question?

    Ok, ok… There is Mitt…

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Question #1 was related to the oath-of-office ending with “so help me God.”

    Paul was precise, but Cain was better; he noted both the pledge and the request for God’s help. Bachmann was wise when citing Washington’s innovation when adding this phrase, tying it into current-angst. Perry emphasized the second-half of Cain’s observation, noting the inability to function in the absence of spiritual support.

    Question #2 was related to lost-values.

    Santorum emphasized individual rights come from God, contrasting with Islam [when laws are automatically both religious and political]; he claimed the latter must “comport” with the former. He then portrayed his victory in 1992 as a miracle, although he claimed “God has to hit me over the head a bit harder than most others.” He was asked to cut-to-the-chase regarding what he had learned, and fixated on the positives…but never had sufficient time to address the negatives.

    Gingrich would reinstill the importance of noting rights come from the Creator. “Secular” is from “Seculare” [century, in Latin] and reminds people of the need to measure actions by God’s greater plan. This was intended to counter secularity, temporal natures of some politicians.

    Question #3 was related to hostility to family values.

    Santorum cited his book “It takes a Family” and noted how leftists have taken control over the culture [including education]. He tried to fight this in the private sector [to help parents, using a tech-company, to stop filth from emerging from TV]. Need to reshape Hollywood is obligation for everyone; must confront challenge.

    Paul noted the goal of government isn’t to mold people; it’s intended to preserve liberty [a recurrent theme in all his comments]..

    Cain noted gap between those with/without faith, and also noted that those with faith have a range thereof. He lamented that those with faith have been too passive. He wants to fight-back, expressing faith without worrying about political correctness.

    Question #4 was related to the fact that those who are faith-based are happy, etc.

    Gingrich noted that the question answered itself; the secular-types are unhappy. He noted other authors have found comparable conclusions. [He was kidding-around with Luntz very effectively regarding who is supposed to tell the jokes around here.] He then noted the need to fight libertine when emphasizing liberty, attacking Pelosi for advocating education without values. He cited Himelfarb’s three-revolutions book in support thereof.

    Perry noted “Pastors and Pews” events on 8/6/2011 ["The Response"] whereby people are encouraged to pray for America, and would want pastors to discuss values from the pulpit. He wants OUR values/virtues of Judeo-Christian America. He wants them to emphasize this over discussion of overt politics [people are smart enough to draw own conclusions]…a point that was later-on disputed. He emphasized the importance of American Exceptionalism in the process of extolling individual morals.

    Paul also differentiated liberty/libertine. He tied it to economics, noting the danger of a nanny-state. Fears loss of liberty.

    Bachmann notes greatest amount of censorship in America being manifest on pulpits. [This is reminiscent of Glenn Beck's Black-Robed Regiment.] He feels Blackstone is being trumped by LBJ, advocating first-amendment rights everywhere [without irs-implications].

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/danielschultz/3237/glenn_beck%E2%80%99s_black-robed_regiment/

    Cain noted that people can go to another church if they don’t like what a pastor might say. He sees people intimidated on the conservative-side [noting the IRS fear] preferentially.

  • nativetexan41

    Common good question, he gave a good answer to a question that sounded more like a Democrat asking the question.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …First, Mitt is “HISTORY” throughout the Evangelical [and, then, by extension, the TPM] world, and not just in Iowa.

    …Second, the Cain/Gingrich love-fest was a joke, except to the degree to which it emphasized the need to disband the circular-firing-squad.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but I don’t mind the self-referential stuff [from Bachmann, and even from Santorum]. They were speaking from a personalized perspective, and it hardly matters if their political postures slipped-into the conversation. Ultimately, they were showing how political and ethical viewpoints mesh and are then manifest. GOOD for THEM!

  • TSquared

    First, I agree that it was a love-fest. However, the format was good and would’ve been more beneficial had the two candidates actually debated each other.

    Still it had value. There where valuable insights that manifested themselves – if one paid attention. Many came not from the words the candidates actually spoke. One example: Cain having to take a pass on a couple of questions, which exposed a potential lack of depth and seriousness. There were other “tells” throughout…

  • gracie

    they should all indeed band together and refuse to follow the stupid format!

    We all know there are way too many debates and that they are ruining the opportunity to do retail politics! ALL the candidates need to get out and meet the people; all would benefit from the conversatioal format that allows them to talk.

    Does anybody read here from the campaigns? These guys should say no and if Romney and Huntsman won’t play, let them debate each other!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    [3] is down-below, sorry.

    I’m now @ 1:03, and it may be recalled that there was a break after the first hour of the event [which would probably be anticipated to be @ 1:05, or so].

    Will not annotate times; just want to capture concepts.

    *

    Question #4 probed the world-view [freedom, responsibility, morality].

    Paul emphasizes freedom when he speaks with youth. You have no right to seek a nanny-state; you must face consequences.

    Bachmann has biblical world-view; God created people and government [citing Isaiah] and wrote the Owner’s Manual.

    Cain said “freedom without responsibility is immoral” citing “unallienable rights” and doesn’t want people to infringe upon the freedom of others [seguing to "the unborn"].

    Perry noted the narrow-view of the Constitution by the Founding Fathers [and Framers], seguing into the 10th Amendment [and then education/health] and concluding with the fact that, morally, these issues are best handled @ state-level [and then re-cited the zero-based budgeting Foreign Policy point...emphasizing how Israel would pass the test...and concluded the horror of sending Billions to a China that aborts 35K babies daily]. He had started [and ended, less overtly] with his view of the General Welfare clause [Article I, Section 8].

    {Comment: This was a bit more policy-laden than the other comments, but I think he was mopping-up based on points made in the debate of a week ago.}

    Santorum decries “no-fault freedom” of Leftists [discussed in his book] and quoted The Newt’s corruption of the concept of liberty. It is what people ought to do, not what they might want to do. Law should comport with this moral vision, for it is a “teacher” [repeating this point from earlier discussion that compared USA with Islam]. He concluded there are absolute right/wrong [and truth].

    Gingrich quoted Jefferson’s observation that people can’t be ignorant and free, and then John Smith’s admonition to aristocrats that they work for food. He then attacked the OWS [@ 1:09] culminating in a crowd-pleasing patter: “Go get a job after you take a bath.”

    Cain then said The Newt had just illustrated what he [Cain] had previously said [got a good laugh].

    Question #5 relates to Lincoln’s quote that States don’t have right to do wrong, alluding to nullification.

    Cain said yes, if they’re wrong. {Luntz queried “who decides?”} The Constitution is the determinant. This was set high, purposefully, and had a difficult time rectifying the 3/5-rule with his portrayal thereof. He then ended-up agreeing with the need for the Feds to have protected the Civil Rights movement.

    Paul said States, when wrong, are corrected by D.C.; the Constitution is a restriction on D.C. [not states or individuals]. He culminated in a desire to destroy the Education Department.

    Perry added “The Energy Department too” and [when queried by Luntz about any ideas regarding a third department he'd like to cut] segued into thanking The Newt for his having written the intro to “Fed Up!” He recognized that the Constitution allows for Amendments [which can encompass social issues]. He cited Human Rights Amendment as an example of what can be adopted [albeit with difficulty, purposefully] and the states must comply. A POTUS could help campaign for virtuous efforts in this regard.

    Cain cited the Individual Mandate as an example of what states could block.

    {Luntz noted inability of Romney to reply to this assertion.}

    Bachmann noted problem that ObamaCare trumps states.

    Santorum concurred, segueing into attack on Gay Marriage [which he would aggressively oppose]. “America is an ideal, a set of morals and principles….The states can’t violate them.” Said he was only candidate who came to Iowa to oppose Justices [SCOTUS?]

    {This last assertion appeared a bit out-of-place,in isolation, but the listener could surmise the thrust of his self-portrayal of social-activism.”

  • Kyle-MI

    Doesn’t seem too tough to make a moral case for the Korean War, at least in hind sight. You can probably make the same arguments about Vietnam. And that is not even considering that both North Korea and Vietnam heavily oppressed Christianity. Of course, it is not just the oppression of Christianity that weighs heavily on the moral justice of these wars. You can and should make the broader moral case about freedom of religion, not to mention other human rights that these governments have stomped on.

  • Kyle-MI

    preaching about history. The truth is the truth no matter how flawed the messenger.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    {Luntz relinquished questioning role @ 1:19.}

    {all laughter was WITH the participants}

    Question #6 related to abortion, surmising that Roe/Wade could be overturned [a premise that appears highly unlikely}.

    Cain would ban abortion-related legislation, and would push for this opportunity.

    Gingrich asserted this would be obviated by exploring whether Congress could define personhood [@ conception] c/w the 14th Amendment [and that this would not be reviewable by the courts].

    Paul doesn’t want D.C.-level enforcement of these issues; he wants it all done on state-level; otherwise, supports this approach. Fears effects of national-mistakes, on multiple levels. Tradition is state-level actions. He asserted RvW could be repealed by removing jurisdiction over abortion [as he has proposed a decade ago, during a period of R-dominance], as he had proposed.

    Bachmann concurred need for such protection, regardless of mechanism; she supports Human Life Amendment, and decried ObajaCare as the “playground” of the left, in a whole new universe; it must be repealed ASAP to avoid taxpayer-subsidized abortion. WE have LOST all of these battles; this is THE issue. Can’t get it wrong.

    Question #7 related to faith-based adoption agencies, which are being undermined because they will only place children in families headed by husband/wife.

    Perry said, in Texas, gay couple can’t adopt; until Federal Defense of Marriage Amendment is adopted.

    Santorum said 32 times the people supported traditional marriage on state level; this is the battleground, no matter how difficult. Again tried to differentiate himself from others [lamely] as sole-warrior in this regard.

    [Everyone agreed with empowerment of adoption agencies in this regard.]

    Gingrich noted evolution in America against ability to legislate RETURN to morality. He would immediately issue three Executive Orders in this regard, as had been accomplished by Bush-’43. Destruction of marriage endangers America.

    Luntz then polled the audience regarding the term-limits of the judiciary [and Perry inserted his regarding Congress].

    Question #8 related to whether the judiciary should be reformed, and how.

    Bachmann liked restrictions on subject jurisdiction…and then segued into the need for energy independence by restricting lawsuits against each new site where off-shore drilling is proposed.

    Gingrich cited prior writings, citing Lincoln’s concerns with SCOTUS empowerment. Would abolish courts [such as that which had precluded any type of "prayer"-lingo in schools].

    Santorum would abolish the entire 9th in California. Would again differentiate himself from others; worked to ban 3rd Trimester Abortions.

    {This became tiresome, despite justification; he could tout his accomplishments without claiming exclusivity.}

  • aesthete

    Perry and Cain seemed to have solid points; Gingrich is always sharp. Santorum, from your description, sounds like he’s running up the same alleys as he did when Senator: freedom for me but not thee, big-government philosophy with little breathing room for the states. Not my bag, but hey.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …that Cain showed ignorance of basic insurance-policy structures.

    This reinforced his celebrated ignorance of Foreign Policy and, it is hoped, will hasten the self-marginalization process.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and have sparked conversations simply by carting it around.

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

    I can think of no war we have fought since WWII that we were not on the clearly moral side and mostly within all just war parameters. I’ll go after you in justifying same after you try and meet the burden of proof on you to prove otherwise. BTW, what city are you now occupying? Cindy Sheehan’s?

  • SoFiMil

    Life begins at conception. But Obama wasn’t even able to say that at minimum “human rights” begin at birth. So it’s no surprise he sees nothing wrong with infanticide.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    After the break, the proceedings restarted @ 1:44. Perry noted that his Mama taught him to wait to sit until ladies [such as Bachmann] had alit.

    Question #10 related to personal challenge that affected private/public life.

    Cain joined church @ age-10, finding that faith grew over life. Major event was diagnosis of Stage IV Colon cancer; concluding WE could do this [fight the cancer, with his wife]; Rick gave him back-slap when he began to lose it.

    Perry said he graduated in top 10 of his class of 13; 4H was his life, and his scoutmaster influenced his life [got him to be an Aggie; had many community roles]. Gave life to Jesus in 1954, then returned after military service @ age-27.

    Paul noted he’d been raised in PA during Depression and learned work-ethic. As Lutheran, was exposed to Billy Graham; pivotal event was becoming physician…and delivering 1000′s of babies. Then segued into fascination with economics [sorta forgetting origin of query]; he closed with thankfulness for ability to participate in public life [although prouder about being a doctor].

    Bachmann noted that his father left for 6 years after divorce; everything was sold. She and brothers got jobs [along with siblings]; taught her basic values. This manifest itself as desire to help foster kids, then got involved when noting problems with education, then got more involved in politics. {She defined them as “enervating” instead of “energizing” values.}

    Santorum then related the vignette discussed earlier; watching him deliver this tale was perhaps the most moving portion of the event [@ 1:58]. Perry and Bachmann were rapt in attention, as were the others. He noted need for home-oxygen and this was honored “after mama-bear stood up.” [audience applauded] And he then confessed his trials/tribulations, public/private.

    WATCH @ 2-HOURS – *** It almost makes me want to support him!

    [Newborn had been discharged on Hospice.]

    He segued into supporting need to support special-needs…honoring Bachmann’s prior attacks on ObamaCare.

    Gingrich then related story of resection of multiple benign brain tumors, all the time having an ommaya shunt; he wanted this accomplished ASAP so he could play football…and how he was an assistant director of one of his movies. He ended with another attack on ObamaCare.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Question #11 related to personal failures.

    Gingrich said he was born in Harrisburg, started as Lutheran, learned good/bad and heaven/hell. Felt increasingly hollow, the more he had accomplished. Noted that he had symptoms of alcoholism, and read books related to AA. Noted that step #2 [accepting Higher Being] was crucial [and was told that the entire system---except this one crucial component--could be adequately funded by government]. Learned human limitations as a result

    Paul considers himself to be his own worst critic. {Lame.} Can’t ID any one incident, segueing into overall attitude of being gratified with life and family. He then discussed problem [discussed earlier] of effect of athletic limitations encountered as teenager. {Less lame, hearing it again.}

    Cain discussed having had series of little-failures…including not having spent sufficient time with children as they grew-up. {teared again, realistically}

    Perry said, “If you want to see God laugh, tell Him your plan!” [He then was introduced to Organic Chemistry...and became a pilot; he then praised his wife.]

    Question #12 [from someone other than Luntz] related to Federal Marriage Amendment.

    Paul supports DOMA, but that’s it; focus is on states. Wants these issues ideally dealt with via Church. {This seems illegal.} Segued into Biblical Judges [not kings, prior to entreaty of people to Samuel requesting government and rules] and loss of family control. Reductio-ad-absurdum was to surmise the UN might assume such responsibility.

    Santorum again cited need to fight on state-level and drive for federal uniformity; suggested same could occur with marriage. Again cited his work as having provoked the ONLY congressional vote on this issue. Family is bedrock and, if not protected, will yield fall of America.

    Bachmann concurred with need to prioritize this issue [noting her efforts as state legislator, despite death-threats]; Minnesota will have plebecite in 2012, but notes inevitability of SCOTUS having final authority in this interpretive task. Decried this, feeling that Congress should have primary control.

    Cain would try to overturn any SCOTUS decision overturning DOMA.

    {@2:28 is when Luntz invited Perry to comment, but then Gingrich started talking.}

    Gingrich then repeated his assertion that Congress could act.

    Question #13 [from a mother in the audience] related to pursuit of a “common good.”

    Gingrich said Founding Fathers would have defined structure, and then people could then legislate in this area.

    Perry cited Article I, Section 8 as being narrowly-defined. Public Safety is vital, but then noted failure of Feds regarding drugs entering from Mexico. THIS is what should be focus. Also sees this on an economic level [citing flat-tax, deregulation] to achieve common-good [and cited defense, as well].

    Cain noted need for law-enforcement [as cited by Perry] and level playing-field [equal opportunity] and fairness/respect [Civil Rights, etc.].

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Question #13 [from the audience] related to education [and inclusion of values].

    Santorum noted benefits of home-schooling, as an example of need to work with parents [as "unit of care"] to ensure kids get best chance to exceed; he would customize the system, switching from supporting institution as opposed to kids.

    Bachmann noted, as a mother, the need to ensure kids don’t become wards-of-the-state. They should be fulfilled, and moms are worried about what is poured into their heads is family-related. Emphasized need for school choice.

    Question #14 related to the moral justification for war.

    Paul noted early Church struggled with this; St. Augustine formulated “just war” which are basis for Constitution. ALL since WW-II are immoral and unconstitiutional {including Korea?}; USA has been mischievous. Decried effects on soldiers [lost friends, now suicides occurring]; noted cost, too.

    Bachmann wept with families after telling them of deaths of children. Duty must be to define clearly an American vital interest [plan and exit-strategy]; must use both special-forces but, ultimately, must enter with overwhelming force. Cited Washington’s warning against foreign entanglements.

    Cain cited “unalienable rights” as operational tool…and would add defense of freedom/liberty to include property, etc. Echoed Bachmann’s criteria, noting he wouldn’t do this until/unless he’d send his own son/daughter.

    Perry noted prior military service and current command over National Guard; must define American interest prior to intervening [and must also use overwhelming force]. Don’t allow Congressman determine rules-of-engagement [micro-management by civilians in air-conditioned rooms in D.C. would be wrong, compared with need to depend upon troops/commanders on the ground.

    Santorum notes America is young country; what is a long-war to US isn't comparable to view in Middle East. He recalled Crusades and ability to ignore problem ended until OIL emerged. ["Let's drill-down to IRAN!" ... pun intended?] Segued into attack on Iran’s actions, and need to respond accordingly. “We have moral obligation to partner to Israel to ensure its survival.” Cited 4-prong approach, but ended with strong assertions regarding need to stop radical-Islam.

    Gingrich noted “just war” defined in Christianity. Augustin is buried in Italy after Christians lost North Africa. Echoed, ultimately, aforementioned points; forthrightness was applicable specifically to Iran.

    *

    After the debate, Paul ran to audience, as the others shook-hands with each other.

  • gekster

    all in a diary and post it tomorow.
    More people will see it, and it will make more sense as a whole, not in part.
    Just a suggestion.

  • nathanalbright

    rskaloroff and I are two among the (who knows how many) people who have not been able to get diaries because of the ongoing issues with the RedState dashboard. So we do the best with what we dan do in diary responses.

  • tricianc

    Although I know it was set up to be no gotchas, it allowed some truths to be hidden:

    Such as Newt’s and Cain’s abortion views. I know Cain has been through it already on his flip flops but I feel it was still important to bring up, as well as Newt’s views. Cain’s and Newt’s are the same: Pro-life with exceptions.

    Newt has actually voted YES to FUND Planned Parenthood. Not to mention, Herman Cain has a close alliance to many organizations who believe in abortion and/or fund Planned Parenthood. One such one is ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council which writes many of the bills for state legislatures). Richard Mellon Scaife has funded ALEC to the tune of more than 7 million dollars. Scaife also recently had a full page ad in the WSJ stating why it was so important for taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood and what they do for American women. ALEC writes nearly all of the bills for state legislatures.

    Also, since NOM (National Organization for Marriage) helped host the event yet there was no mention or question on why both Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain refused to sign the Marriage Pledge. When he refused, they criticized them for not signing it yet no mention tonight. I feel voters have the right to know why.

    Gun rights is another issue I have with Newt and Cain. Newt voted to restrict our rights and Mr. Cain on several occasions said that gun legislation is a states rights issue.

    Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann are the only ones with records on defunding Planned Parenthood. Rick Perry actually pased a law to not allow any taxpayer money to go to Planned Parenthood. “He most recently demonstrated his commitment to protecting the lives of the unborn in his Uproot and Overhaul Washington plan, in which he pledged to eliminate the federal funding of organizations that fund abortions, such as Planned Parenthood.”

    Perry, Bachmann and Santorum were the only ones on stage tonight who signed the marriage pledge.

    Rick Perry has the record to prove his words. “He signed the Defense of Marriage Act in Texas in 2003, and supported enshrining this law in the Texas Constitution, a measure approved by voters in 2005, which defines marriage in Texas as a union between one man and one woman. He has also pledged to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that legally defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

    As much as we like our own particular candidate, I prefer the one I can trust. The one who has the actual record to back it up, not just words that we have to hope they mean it and will fight for it. I want the doer, not the talker. And I’m sorry but with as many times as Cain has changed his positions, many times in the same interview, or has to come out later and clarify, I can’t trust him. If you have the core you don’t need to flip-flop, think about it or clarify your position later.

    Remember too, ?A false friend is more dangerous than an open enemy.?

  • lucasblack

    Finally had a chance to watch the whole thing. I was pleased with the format, though I’m not a big fan of the touchy-feely Dr. Phil stuff. I liked Gingrich the best, but I’m a Newtron, so I’m hardly unbiased. I thought Perry scored a point with his waiting for the lady to sit down bit. Question for any etiquette experts out there – given Ron Paul’s age, should he have been expected to wait as well or was it appropriate that he sat?
    I’m totally over Rick Santorum’s Cotton Mather act, but I know he’s just playing for a future career in speaking and he’s got all those kids to support, so I give him a pass. I would have to say Cain was the weakest; at times he seemed shallow with the facts, though obviously he was genuine when talking about emotional stuff. I think poor Ron Paul got screwed by that camera angle – there should have been one that caught his face instead of having him in profile most of the time – that wasn’t all that flattering.
    I would have been curious to see Mitt Romney there – I am one that does consider Mormons to be Christians and they are a sect that seems to believe even more than others in being involved in politics – his answers would have been very interesting and I was sorry he didn’t show. Huntsman apparently wasn’t invited, but I don’t care about him – though I wouldn’t have minded seeing Gary Johnson.
    I don’t know how much affect this will have on the race. Might hurt Mitt Romney a bit because he didn’t show up. Might make some evangelicals who had problems with Newt’s personal life a bit more comfortable with him. Perry’s smooth performance might settle a few nerves.
    At the end of the day, I suspect the most played clip will be Newt’s beat down of OWS, and that will only help him in the primary. No game changers at the event, though.

  • windwaker24

    What?! I knew about the individual mandate, but he also doesn’t support the 2nd amendment?! This is the GOP’s current frontrunner? This is the “anti-Romney”?! Sounds more like Romney’s twin. If he’s the nominee, we’re in trouble…

  • lizzie

    http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/11/19/thanksgiving-family-forum-complete-video/

    Dr. Sklaroff – I am secular and jewish – but I keep a Yiddish saying where i can read it dozens of times each day. “Mensch tracht. Gott lacht.” or Man plans. G-d laughs. (I may be secular but was taught the foundations)
    When Perry used the Texan translation (at 2:20:30 in the embed URL above) , my WOW reaction was ‘First time I have ever heard any candidate for the presidency use a “dog whistle” for the Yiddish vote by using the Texan version of the Yiddish version’

    and then I researched the source, which is Psalm 33:10.

    at the end, also interesting how Bob Vander Platts bounded onto the stage to grab Perry.

    [and, for the real headline] After Romney bowed out of Saturday’s forum, “Family Leader” founder Bob Vander Platts denounced the decision on Fox News saying, “Mitt Romney has dissed the base in Iowa and this dis will not stay in Iowa. This might prove that he is not smart enough to be president.”

    Actually, there WERE significant differences between the candidates, most of them in style, which is usually as important as substance.

  • Benta_Nordstrom

    I thought all the candidates did really well. I am still backing Rick Perry!

  • aesthete

    he found it dubious that Obama would consider attending, much less attend, a debate such as this one. I pointed out an equivalent event purely for informational purposes; Obama quite aggressive tried picking up the religious vote in ’08 and played up his connections to Wright’s church until it became an issue.

  • lizzie

    especially in comment threads on this Thanksgiving Forum.

    I try to be open-minded about Dr. Paul because I am a social Libertarian (no – not libertine), but really weird what his supporters do in cyberspace, especially to damage Rick Perry. Yesterday, I was doing a quick news.google (you never know when the end of the world may hit), and nothing on Perry.

    So, I entered his name in the search field, which forced me to google.com, where my entry, Rick Perry, mysteriously changed to ‘Rick Perry drunk’.

    Did anyone ever identifywho made that mashed-edit of Perry’s Oct 28 NH Cornerstone speech?

    And, the mystery protester in the Carhartt shirt, who accepted Luntz’s offer to speak , was, I assume, a Ron Paul supporter since he talked about the Federal Reserve. and, not in a good way. Sounded like Henry Ford Sr, on the Fed, who was awarded a medal by Hitler for Ford, Sr.’s publishing-rants in the 1920′s, at his Dearborn Independent..

    One can criticize the Fed, but not when it leads to conspiracy theories based on a book that was found guilty of libel in several countries, as was Ford, Sr.

  • lizzie

    I confess.

    Perry had me when I saw how he spends his day off – target shooting with a sniper rifle to get five bullets-in-one-hole. It’s on his Youtube channel.

    What?
    Biathlon is my favorite winter Olympics sport.

  • jonnymadison

    2 years ago when he went on tour with al sharpton stumping for obama’s race to the top education program?

    Don’t get me wrong, newt is as smooth of a talker as they come, it’s easy to get seduced by that, but that doesn’t make what he is saying the truth.

  • jonnymadison

    How is moral to take money from a person in kansas to fight a war against someone in Vietnam? Was there aggression toward, or eminent threat posed to the person in kansas by the people in Vietnam?

  • jonnymadison

    but, can you clarify what you mean? what slur?

  • kamiller42

    I just listened to his answer again. If you break it down, it is terrible. He said every war since WWII was unwinnable. Really? He claims war is the cause for the breakup of families. I guess he is right in away. War is breaking up the family, the culture war. It’s not the war of guns and bullets. As Mike said, I see his answer as a slur on America. According to Ron and his answer, America has entered into wars with ill intentions and no just cause since WWII. And of course, he’s for WWII because we know how bad in was in Europe. He’s playing Monday morning quarterback because most of the horrors of the Nazis were discovered after the war ended. But hey Ron, it’s a safe war to bet on, so go for it.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …the “atmospherics” last night were not focused on probing specific policies.

  • sunshinek67

    A vote for this guy is irresponsible, and his ardent supporters sound just as nutty and brainwashed as he does. He is a terrible terrible candidate for the GOP, right there next to Mitt Romney.

  • sunshinek67

    nutty fringe group~

  • haumea

    He might not be nutty in the conventional sense – some people think he has Asperger’s or autism spectrum disorder. Those kind of folks can be pretty naive about social matters, and anyone who thinks we can be friends with Iranian mullahs could certainly be in that category.

  • circlegranch

    I mentioned that recently at a neighborhood forum of folks wanting to debate the candidates and was called dishonest. The person said, “Someone with Newt’s intellect would NEVER waste his time on anything Perry wrote!” There is so much about Perry that remains undiscovered by the non-curious Republican.

    I think Perry actually has some difficulty in expressing his accomplishments. He has timidity about it and after last night, I think its sourced in his knowledge that he is a vessel through which if any good works comes, they come from God and he’s not particularly comfortable taking credit. For example, there was discussion about defunding Planned Parenthood last night which would have been an opportune time for him to note that he signed legislation to defund it in Texas but didn’t. For all the complaints about him talking about Texas, none of the others can fall back on anything other than prior experience either. When a person goes to a job interview and experience comes up, they have nothing other than prior experience to discuss. Plus, Perry’s experience is relevant, real-time and applicable. Mr. Romney cannot say that, neither Mr. Cain, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Santorum. Mrs. Bachmann underlined my opinion of her that she is a champion in Congress and she is greatly needed there.

    This forum was on a totally different realm being held in a church and by the types of questions imposed. I think the weight of not showing up was far more significant than anything said. Citizen Link and Focus on the Family have a huge influence on Christian voters across the nation. To deny the opportunity to go and express one’s humanity, personal failings and fears and not use the opportunity to profess their faith will ultimately be a big downfall, in my opinion.

  • circlegranch

    thanks!

  • circlegranch

    Luntz had noted it was too bad Romney wasn’t there to offer his input on ObamaCare and I think (and another Commenter upthread) believe Cain muttered, “Mitt who?” Hope Ms. Coulter was at a cocktail party and didn’t hear that!

  • circlegranch

    For the 5 candidates that participated in last night’s extremely revealing forum which was the most helpful to voters in determining their candidate, I urge (as I wrote here last night) that all should make a pact and refuse to do any more of the Stuck on Stupid media debates. All are formulated by big media sources not in the least interested in getting factual, relevant information out to viewers, but instead, are designed to generate money and increase viewership. The debates up until last night remind us of Reagan’s assessment of politics being the 2nd oldest profession. They are a disgrace and candidates are so tense and wired to try and fire off a 30 second round that will elevate themselves and take the next guy out that we walk away completely frustrated and irritated. Nothing is gained. The people standing at podiums at these other debates are facsimille’s of their true selves. They have been coached and groomed with sample questions. They’re told how to answer, how to use body language and facial expressions. For those that prefer to present a plastic appearance and never let their true selves be revealed, the media debates are designed for them and they do shine very well in that format.

    Last night was geniune. It could have easily been held in your church basement or mine or in our living rooms. It was probably what Newt had in mind when he tried the Lincoln-Douglas style debate w/ Cain but this elevated that notion to a whole new level. If one person backs out of future debates, as Perry hinted at doing, they will be attacked. That’s why ALL of them should come together and declare war on the fool’s errand these media debates actually are. They can get just as much policy discussed and past records revealed in a format such as last night’s as they can in others. We all agree that we want civility; that’s not possible with a media hack performing a programming mandate asking the questions. They want adversity, conflict and personal attacks. I got the overwhelming sense that the folks last night are in this for America’s sake and not their own. Obviously, the East Coast Liberal Elitist Republican sector of the primary has other inclinations.

  • bzip

    I found some interesting information while trying to track down this Kansas Straw Poll win for Perry:
    1)http://twitter.com/#!/kansansforperry
    “Congrats to Rick Perry for winning the Straw Poll at the KFTR Convention in Wichita, KS with 55% of the vote!! @TeamRickPerry”

    Then that tweet site leads you to their facebook page:
    Kansans for Perry:
    1)http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kansans-4-Rick-Perry/142172029203795
    “Kansans 4 Rick Perry Congrats to Rick Perry for winning the Straw Poll at the KFTR Convention in Wichita, KS with 55% of the vote!! @TeamRickPerry”

    That facebook page then links to a very nice web site for Perry and his supporters:
    http://americans-4-perry.com/
    a very useful site.

    Now the KFTR web site:
    Kansas Federation of Teenage Republicans
    http://www.kftr.org/index.html

    All very interesting information but I am not sure I have answered any questions by this :-) .

  • circlegranch

    both Newt and Romney have some ‘splain’ to do about their past policy positions on the right to bear arms

  • cheetah2

    Though other testified to some kind of salvation experience, Rick Perry was the only one who expressed heartfelt joy at being a Christian.

    Though others talked about their families, Rick Perry was the only one who expressed heartfelt joy at having the wife God gave him over 30 years ago.

    He also was the only one who expressed a heart felt and humble dependence on God to help him do the work God gives him to do.

    I have the distinct impression that these things are far more important in his life than being the president.

    Those things cement my commitment to him as a candidate and as one of the people I admire the most in all the world.

  • avagreen

    ^^

  • westcoastpatriette

    a scripture comes to mind that says, “Let another man’s lips praise you and not your own.” Rather than a failure to take advantage of tooting his own horn, I think it is a well-received sign of humility that he doesn’t feel a need to brag about himself constantly. Just my take.

    Sometimes it is tiresome to listen to them all brag about how great they are

  • romansdaughter

    I agree with you !00%. I like Mike Pence too!

  • wbf

    Two good articles about Perry …the second one may have first appeared in a Nevada paper and then the Seattle paper picked it up, I don’t know, but it a very good article.

    http://www.damndirtyrino.com/2011/11/18/if-you-doubt-rick-perry-2/

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700198741/Role-of-underdog-seems-to-suit-Texas-governor.html

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …rather than to discuss differences among the candidates…
    for two key-reasons;

    1. I wanted to validate the perceptions gained solely from listening, and
    2. I wanted to segregate facts from opinions.

    The formal-quote to which you allude…
    “The LORD bringeth the counsel of the nations to nought; He maketh the thoughts of the peoples to be of no effect.”
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt2633.htm
    …is indeed comparable to what Rick said.

    A “lay” version of this quote is : “May proposes, God disposes.” My version is “Seek and ye shall not achieve; don’t seek, and you may achieve it”; this illustrates why one must be true to one’s self, regardless of the consequences.

    [And this is what I see in Perry.]

    Lizzie, I’m Jewish but “wandering” among the movements thereof; you probably have shared the problem of alignment with the lefties who dominate the Reconstructionist/Reform/Humanist components, eh?

    Regardless, it is of-interest to note that you couple your comment about religion [and promptly invoking it] with writing that you are “secular”; how you view these descriptions in-concert and/or in-opposition would be worth exploring.

    In any case, if there was conflict among the six GOP-POTUS participants, it was minimized; I preferred to view them as meshing…for “distinctions with a difference” to be parsed in another forum.

    Generally, the fact that they generally eschewed talking-points rendered this event to be a success, to be celebrated by the GOP-faithful.

    And, as mentioned elsewhere…
    http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/19/gop-candidates-bear-souls-at-emotional-forum-in-iowa/
    …the BIG LOSER was no-show Romney.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    “Man proposes….”

  • cheetah2

    :)
    I have a Bible verse going through my head this morning.

    “Not by power, not by might but by my Spirit saith the Lord.” Zechariah 4:6

    Lat night Perry showed he to me that he is God’s man for this job. I don’t know if that means he will win, but it makes me want to do all I can to help.

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

    clearly liberating Koreans from Communist Tyranny and trying to do so in Vietnam placed the US on the moral side of good and given that we permanently liberated half of Korea and won the Cold War meets another tenet of Just War theory. I would say that the way LBJ fought the war in Vietnam was immoral. We liberated Grenada to keep Communism in check and maintain the Monroe Doctrine. We liberated Kuwait and Iraq to protect oil supplies and end a terror sponsoring state. We retaliated against the perpetrators of 911 in Afghanistan and stopped genocide in Libya, Bosnia and Kosovo.

  • lovethemiddle

    A fairly well-executed discussion on the topics that matter to this audience.

    There were too many softballs, for my personal taste, but it certainly isn’t a dealbreaker. Remember: There can be only one. And the only way to find that person is to dig deep. If they’re not ready to answer the “gotcha” questions then I’m not ready to vote for them.

    Certainly a decent job on the organization of the debate and, admittedly, a nice alternative to the whining that usually accompanies these debates.

  • romansdaughter

    I just read that same verse in my devotions…how awesome! Yep, I am with Rick Perry all the way. Our country needs a leader that will do what he says and his dependence is on God. Thanks for sharing that!

  • devereaux

    Rick Perry damaged Rick Perry. He’s just not ready for prime time

  • sunshinek67

    against each other. Dems are ecstatic in jubilee. Doesn’t make sense why it’s set up the way it is.

  • acat

    to throw out attacks without substance like that.

    Ron Paul would answer the phone at 3:00am, but would assume that “red menace” means the spiders from mars….

    See?

    Mew

  • texasroots

    Rick Perry, is the name above all names and ready to be our next president.. Go, Perry, go!

  • devereaux

    Invest in one. Because I really don’t think you know what isolationism means.

  • jonnymadison

    You said “You claim my country chose to kill people for immoral reasons” but I made no claim on intentions. They had good intentions, but be careful where roads paved with good intentions lead…

    “Fighting Communism”, “Liberating Nations”, its the same philosophy Woodrow Wilson used to “make the world safe for democracy”. And all these philosphies are liberal in nature. It’s very redistributive. You are taking money from people in the united states and shipping it around the world to drop bombs on people who neither committed an aggressive act toward, or posed a threat too the citizens that are forced to pay for it (generally speaking, obviously the perpetrators of 9/11 had to be brought to justice). How is it moral to take bread off the table of a struggling family in kansas to play some geopolitical game in southeast asia?

    I don’t believe the constitution grants the authority to be policemen of the world, and I don’t feel like it is a slur to call them out when they assume that roll. Not everything the government does is right, it’s a patriots duty to stand up to the government when they are wrong. Is it a slur for me to speak out against our government when they sell guns to mexican drug cartels?

  • romansdaughter

    Mitt who? I am curious why would he say that? Was that suppose to be a joke or something? That has my curiosity up big time.

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

    the paraphrase. But I do see that now you have switched to a more pacifist, Ron Paul-like position re tax funds, policeman and other bait and switch arguments on unrelated moral issues like fast and furious.

    It is not a slur to accurately call out Obama and Holder.

    But I see where you are coming from, which is not the serious analysis of Christian just war doctrine. You are a pacifist. I disagree with pacifism.

  • 1bunny

    reports on Gov Perry at the debate/forum. I find it encouraging they focused on Perry at the forum.

    http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/National_News/GOV_PERRY_SHARES_STAUNCH_COMMITMENT_TO_CONSERVATIVE_VALUES_AT_THANKSGIVING_FAMILY_FORUM/53103

  • redmymind

    I can’t agree more . . .

    As a Catholic, I naturally have a lot more in common as far as specific points of doctrine with Rick Santorum, BUT PERRY’S MY MAN.

    Sen. Santorum did a fine job of advancing arguments as to why this nation needs to return to its socially conservative roots. Yet, what I was looking for as I watched the forum was:

    1. Who had the hope-giving positive message for America;

    2. Who had the presence of a mature executive and leader;

    3. Who seemed the most confident BUT YET HUMBLE; and

    4.Who would I rather have at my side going into battle.

    The fourth point is rather figurative, but I trust you both get my drift. Governor Perry scored points with me precisely because he didn’t try to “score points” by going on the familiar . . . “I was the only one to do this and that” binge, as tempting as that might be when thousands are watching.

    As smart as some of his points sounded, that’s the one thing that put me off of Sen. Santorum–a good man, no doubt, but one who keeps reflecting inner insecurity by trying to prove himself.

    Whilst the others entangled themselves cracking out the finer points of normative ethics, Governor Perry was the only one with a simple but powerful message who didn’t make me feel as though I was sitting in on a lecture in philosophy.

    You could have all the nerdy aeronautical engineers putting their heads together in a heavy discussion, but only the experienced Captain actually flies the plane and makes the life-or-death decision to bring his passengers to safety, . . . so to speak. That Capain is Governor Perry!

    Nuff with my analogies! Haven’t had my 5th cuppa coffee yet!

    To put it simply, Governor Perry was solution-focused and radiant/uplifting in his demeanor; the others seemed somehow pessimistic!

    Kudos to Governor Perry for being open without being self-absorbed and self-focused. He did not offer a “sob” story, but anyone who knows him knows that there are plenty he could have told. Instead, he chose to humble himself before God, to be thankful, and to send us a powerful, hope-giving message!

    He wasn’t defensive, he wasn’t petty, he did not tout himself. He was genuine and radiating with true confidence, manly humility, faith in Our Lord, and a love for our great country!!!

    Gotta run off to Church now! Till next!!!

  • txpat

    Is going on Fox at noon central time.

  • romansdaughter

    I agree with you 100% too…that’s what I see in Gov Perry too. Hey, I used to do a Bible study with two friends from the Catholic Church. That’s no problem to me.

  • gracie

    Or am I naive? Anyone here with connections? Perfectly stated cgranch so how do we reach them? It has to be the majority of them to make it work.

    Erick may be on a much deserved vacation; his twitter pic from two days ago showed the beach. :) Could Moe, Aaron or someone consider writing a front page article suggesting that they refuse debates after Tuesday that are not forum formats?

  • 1bunny

    on Anita’s appearance on Fox today. I just barely caught it. Set the dvr for Perry on Fox at 5pm CT Monday. He has been doing well on his Fox appearances lately so looking forward to Monday.

  • tricianc

    GOV. PERRY SHARES STAUNCH COMMITMENT TO CONSERVATIVE VALUES AT THANKSGIVING FAMILY FORUM

    http://tinyurl.com/78bygxl

    Thanks, 1bunny. This is an awesome article on Governor Perry, his faith, his beliefs, his accomplishments and his record. He truly does walk the walk.

  • romansdaughter

    there were 6 candidates, not 5. I agree with you on the debates. But can anything be done about it??

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Go crawl back in bed with Alex Jones and Ron Paul. The three of you make a delight menage-a-trois.

  • westcoastpatriette

    There is a way to strike the right balance when presenting yourself as the right choice for office, and Perry gets it just right.

    I quoted this scripture on another thread that I think Perry abides by when he interacts with others in the debates: “Let another man’s lips praise you and not your own.” This translates into the right amount of confidence void of too much arrogance. (Too many of the others {and I won’t name names} sound self-righteous in their presentation and it turns me off right out of the gate).

  • jonnymadison

    You are using the Just war theory to say that one side in a civil war (vietman for example) is just in there use of arms. Then, since one side is justified in dfence, and since you believe that the US should police the world, you conclude that we are justified in getting involved.

    I look at the just war theory to determine OUR involvement in the conflict.

    Just Cause The reason for going to war must be just, and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

    Since our military is formed for the defense of our citizens, and since US citizens life arent in imminent danger, or is intervention needed to protect US citizen life, then we are not justified in using force, per the guidelines in just war theory for the use of our military.

    If you believe we should be policemen of the world, I have no doubt you will always be able to dragons to slay. I fear the obvious consequence of that: perpetual war.

  • jonnymadison

    You are using the Just war theory to say that one side in a civil war (vietman for example) is just in there use of arms. Then, since one side is justified in dfence, and since you believe that the US should police the world, you conclude that we are justified in getting involved.

    I look at the just war theory to determine OUR involvement in the conflict.

    Just Cause The reason for going to war must be just, and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.

    Since our military is formed for the defense of our citizens, and since US citizens life arent in imminent danger, or is intervention needed to protect US citizen life, then we are not justified in using force, per the guidelines in just war theory for the use of our military.

    If you believe we should be policemen of the world, I have no doubt you will always be able to find dragons to slay. I fear the obvious consequence of that: perpetual war.

  • jonnymadison

    We are trying to have a civil discussion on a serious issue, and you bring this to the table?

    Am I wrong? Can we have discussions, or does this forum go no deeper than name calling?

  • usa1776usa

    of Family Leadership Forum. If I were scoring, I’d say Perry was the most Presidential with best policy approaches. Gingrich did what Gingrich does which is prove he is the most read and articulate candidate. I like Newt but knowing something about everything does not equal being the best leader. It’s his past decisions, especially in light of his vast knowledge, that concern me. Common sense plays just as big a role as ‘book learnin’ in my opinion. Like the rest of the field but they simply are not as prepared for the job as Perry.

    I could care less about a couple of bad debate performances. Our current leader won every debate in 08 and now we have 14 million people out of work (actually more like 25 mil if we include those who have stopped looking), we’re 15 trillion in debt, the world is becoming a more dangerous place. Liberal media places emphasis on the debates because they have an agenda. I pray the conservatives in this nation realize that and truly evaluate each candidate’s record, policies, and ideas.

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

    I am all for killing the bad guys when they need killing. I just think that we did a whole lot of unnecessary crap during the cold war, fueled at least in part by a deliberate overestimation of the capabilities of the Soviets.

    And now we are doing exactly the same things regarding both radical Islam and China.

    It is not that I do not think there is some threat. It is that the so called threats to the United States are very exaggerated. And some of the people who are behind that exaggeration are those who profit from a huge military build up.

    Second. Even where there are legitimate threats it is not AT ALL clear that foreign adventurism, or putting troops all over the world is either helpful or perhaps it is even harmful to our security.

    We need a real, long, and intelligent debate on just what needs to be our real commitments going forward. We have a lot of money invested in dozens of so called “allies” who could either not help us at all in a crises, or would not do so. That is not the definition of an ally, that is a parasite.

  • changeforrickperry

    that our family uses as a prayer for Perry:

    “Therefore, thus says the Lord, ‘If you return, I will restore you, and you shall stand before me. If you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall be as my mouth. They shall turn to you, but you shall not turn to them. And I will make you to this people a fortified wall of bronze; they will fight against you, but they shall not prevail over you, for I am with you, to save and deliver you, declares the Lord.” (Jeremiah 15:19-20)
    ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • redmymind

    Speaking of Bible study, . . . that’s something I’ve been promisin’ the good Lord I’d commit to . . . oops!

    Have a blessed Sunday!!! . . . . Hmmm . . . late afternoon?????

  • Kyle-MI

    So morals are only about defending yourself?
    What about the people persecuted because of their faith?
    What about the “re-education” camps?

  • redmymind

    and good AFTERNOON to you, since we’re in the same time zone!

    That Scripture passage you quoted is perfect! As far as the impression you got from the forum, ditto that back!

    Perry’s my man, but in fairness I thank them all for making the effort to show up at the forum. I really enjoyed watching the intelligent, “humanizing” exchange and hearing the story of each one.

    Dr. Frank Luntz is quite a guy! I have a singular distaste for “gotcha” journalism and he proved once and for all that a forum or a debate can be conducted in a tasteful, intelligent manner that leaves folks feeling far better informed and hopeful.

    Sadly, the one who’ll face Obama in 2012 will have to expect the savage wolves to be unleashed in full force.

    I’m still hopeful, nevertheless. God bless!

  • westcoastpatriette

    but, if you don’t mind saying, where in California do you live?

  • sunshinek67

    From Townhall.com today:

    “Ann Coulter Could Not Be More Wrong:

    Romney’s 25% poll ceiling is bad for a primary race, but his lack of appeal to Evangelicals, Hispanics, Blacks, pro-life, pro-gun, and pro-family constituencies is horrible for the GOP in the general election.

    Most importantly if Romney is the nominee, Obama will be re-elected.

    This doesn’t make Coulter’s criticism of Gingrich’s dealings with Freddie Mac unimportant, but his association with the agency is no worse than Mitt Romney seeing to it that while most health care procedures now get rationed in Massachusetts, $50 state-subsidized abortions flow freely from Romneycare.”

    Now, who are these folks that come into these redstate rooms and tout Romney’s conservative credentials? Governor Perry would never pass a bill that gives $$ to abortions, let alone a boondoggle like Romneycare

  • devereaux

    Speaks for itself. The money had dried up according to the Houston Chronicle.

  • snowshooze

    Is there any possible better preparation than running a State?
    I do not believe so. It is far more difficult than being a Senator or a Representative, or a Businessman as one has to work with all interests to accomplish anything. There isn’t anyone up there that has held a tougher job for so long.
    And just out of curiosity… who are you going to support? Any idea at this point? And do you have any particular reasons for doing so?

  • Kyle-MI

    I would get that checked if I were you.

    I don’t base truth on who it comes from. I base my judgement of truth on comparison with other sources. For example, what did Augustine actually say about just war theory? Did Newt get Augustine wrong or are you discounting what Newt said just because you disagree with him?

    If you want to discredit Newt’s statement you will have to do more than just attack some of his past decisions. The statement should stand on its own whether it is from Newt or not. If it is wrong, you have an obligation of pointing out just where.

  • redmymind

    and it’s raining pretty darn hard today! Hee, hee, hee!

  • jonnymadison

    I am not saying that you cannot support any good cause you wish. I am saying you shouldn’t be able to steal money from someone else to do it.

    If a man is working as hard as he can and can only produce enough to feed his family, why should you be able to take bread from his family to fight (insert noble cause)?

    What if the man is able to produce more than he needs, but wants to use the extra to help out hungry people closer to home, what authorizes you to take his extra produce for (insert your prefered noble cause).

    It’s this government redistributive mentality that I disagree with.

  • changeforrickperry

    is a liberal rag, according to every Texan I’ve met on RS, and isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. The fact of the matter is that only one known fundraiser defected from the Perry campaign; as far as anyone knows (anyone!!!) the money is still coming. Especially with Perry’s numerous and fantastic appearances over the past few weeks.

    One thing I’ve learned: don’t believe everything you read.

  • jonnymadison

    I didn’t even hear newt’s statements, and I probably won’t go waste the time to seek them out. To me it’s like seeking out obama’s statements to see if I can find some truth in it. Sorry, but that isn’t a high priority for me.

  • Scope

    of Ron Paul.

  • aesthete

    No text

  • sunshinek67

    ***

  • sunshinek67

    For housetraining a puppy~

  • cheetah2

    So many are praying. That is a great verse.

  • http://slcliberty.blogivists.com randy streu

    in the fervent hope that you’re kidding.

  • avagreen

    ……..but apparentlty, he/she doesn’t care to listen. Also, noted that Houston’s outcry (ferocious) was what killed the bill Perry tried to institute to outlaw Sanctuary cities.

    But, folks like him don’t like the facts, just the lies.

    The libs (and trial lawyers) in Texas hate Perry as much as any lib in the U.S.A. hates him.

    GOOD ON HIM FOR STIRRING UP SO MUCH HATRED. BY THEIR ENEMIES YOU WILL KNOW THEM.

  • avagreen

    nt

  • tngal

    This involves a U.S. District Court Judge…. Xavier Rodriguez. This comes via Daily Caller:
    ____________

    “A former Texas Supreme Court justice whose appointment by Gov. Rick Perry led to accusations of racial pandering was part of a Federal District Court decision Thursday to issue a new voting district map for Texas that will likely overturn the map proposed by the Texas Legislature and is designed to create ethnic voting districts for Latinos.”
    ____________

    This is what non -Perry people mean by crony-ism. Do you uderstand what this means in terms of losing republican let alone conservative representation??? If not the Caller goes on to explain:
    ____________

    “The Houston Chronicle reports that the new state House and Senate district lines could cost Republicans six seats in the Texas Legislature in 2012, and Fox News reports that the GOP does not believe it will hold its 101-49 supermajority in the Texas House if the map was formally adopted.”
    _____________________

    Suffice to say GOP not happy.

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/20/rick-perry-backed-judge-proposes-latino-districts-infuriates-gop/

    (Did I mention go Cain!!! Another straw poll win today, Missouri..and 800th committeeman p/u in Iowa!)

  • circlegranch

    that we’re tired of business as usual debates and so much more could be accomplished if what happened last night happened more often. It’s sad that so many people missed the live feed broadcast last night. I heard some reporting on it today at Fox and of course, since they didn’t watch, they got it wrong.

    IF CAMPAIGN PERSONNEL ARE FOLLOWING OUR COMMENTS, PLEASE TELL YOUR CANDIDATE WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE. WE REPRESENT THE BULK OF YOUR SUPPORTERS. I WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT NO MATTER WHICH CAMPAIGN, I THINK SUPPORTERS FELT THEIR CANDIDATE AND VIEWERS GOT A BETTER SHAKE ALL AROUND.

  • Scope

    for our loved ptts333. Please ignore the responses to you from the site libertarian. He may noy support the kook Ron Paul, but Gov. Gary Johnson would be just fine for him. Don’t get discouraged at all. We have your back.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    or with the brain dead fools who support him.

    He is the poster boy for hypocricy in Congress, he’s been there for 20+ years and accomplished nothing but sending earmarked pork back to his district. He’s not been able to forge a bond to accomplish anything with even one Congressman.

    In addition, he routinely refuses to support the Republican Presidential nominee and he’s making waves about a third party run this time.

    His knowledge about finance is second in lunacy only to his foreign policy views.

    Hopefully after this cycle we’ll never hear from the old fool again, and that goes double for idiots who carry his water.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Nice, steady and gentle. I live in Riverside County–a bit inland from you.

    I wish RedState would have one of their conferences out here so we could meet more westcoasters. That would be fun, huh?

  • circlegranch

    I liked the joy; the positive recognition that he is what he is because of his Lord and his family. He did’t try to generate pity or evoke sadness from the audience but rather a sense that he feels so fortunate for what he has.

  • Scope

    Don’t even go there with your idiotic religious arguments against texasroots. Don’t even go there.

  • texasroots

    Thanks. I hope pttx333 arrived safely in Chicago.

  • romansdaughter

    It is great verses. Thanks!

  • paulnashtn

    video available here

    http://freedomslighthouse.net/2011/11/19/complete-video-of-the-thanksgiving-family-forum-gop-presidential-debate-in-iowa-with-frank-luntz-video-111911/

  • Kyle-MI

    By your same logic weren’t they taking bread from his family to fight a noble cause in WWII?

    War is not redistribution. Was it redistribution in WWII to stop the extermination of the Jews? Was it redistribution in the Korean War to prevent the communist from taking freedom and human rights away from the South Koreans? Was it redistribution to try to prevent the same in Vietnam? Does Just War Theory only concern itself with taxation to fund unpopular (but otherwise morally justified) wars?

    I remind you that it was you who said, “If you believe in the Just War Theory of Christianity to determine the morality of war, it?s tough to make a moral case for any war since WW2.” So far the only thing you have suggested to back up that statement is the immorality of taxation. Is that even a part of Just War Theory?

  • Scope

    to get there in one day? I have no idea how long her trip would be. I do know that Rover will be babied along the way, as it should be. She said that her friend rented a large SUV so Rover would be comfortable. That’s some ladies after my own heart. LOL.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …and He rose from the dead close to 2,000 years ago.

    Thus texasroots’ encomium above to Rick Perry was a bridge too far if meant seriously, hence the responses. At least that’s how I’m interpreting things.

  • changeforrickperry

    I’m going to miss pttx333 for the next week or so. She sure is a good friend to us, isn’t she?
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • devereaux

    It’s just not the Chronicle.

    http://tinyurl.com/7e4o6sd

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …which seems to be a prerequisite for RedState Gatherings, judging by the past two years at least.

    If us sparsely numbered Left Coast RedStaters want to meet, we’ll have to organize our own affair, I suspect.

  • changeforrickperry

    and I agree with you, civil truth. Turning Rick Perry into a Messiah is not only blasphemous, it makes us guilty of the same thing the Obama worshipers did in 2008. No sense in that at all, and I have no doubt that Perry would say the same thing.
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • changeforrickperry

    and I agree with you, civil truth. Turning Rick Perry into a Messiah is not only blasphemous, it makes us guilty of the same thing the Obama worshipers did in 2008. No sense in that at all, and I have no doubt that Perry would agree with civil truth as well.
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • unitedwestand

    If the candidates got flooded with requests on their facebook page that they refuse the current debate style, they would see it. And you can be sure their people are reading this blog anyway.

  • changeforrickperry

    You know how that National Journal article mentioned Perry’s supposed “drying up” of fundraising? Well, their source was…(*drum roll please*)…The SAN FRANCISCO Chronicle.

    Wowee, they’re so much more trustworthy than The Houston Chronicle.

    EPIC FAIL. Talk to me again when we’ve got some real hard numbers. And by the way, just because Perry’s folks aren’t bragging about how much money they’ve raised, DOESN’T mean their fundraising has dried up. I’ve heard that argument already. But they didn’t make a peep last time, either, and then announced they’d raised $17 million.
    ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • lizzie

    because I am lost in RedState Reply mode.
    RSklaroff: “Lizzie, I?m Jewish but ?wandering? among the movements thereof; you probably have shared the problem of alignment with the lefties who dominate the Reconstructionist/Reform/Humanist components, eh?

    Regardless, it is of-interest to note that you couple your comment about religion [and promptly invoking it] with writing that you are ?secular?; how you view these descriptions in-concert and/or in-opposition would be worth exploring.”

    I stopped “wandering” in 2002 after a Seder with the Humanists of Greenwich Village, which admittedly was far preferable to a Seder in 1984 with born-again Modern Orthodox who belonged to Lincoln Square (some story! – no food until four hours into the excessive ritual) . My Reform exit was 1992. I recently tried an alleged Conservative synagogue that, due to location, has to bridge with the lefties.

    My real struggle has been to have actual faith in G-d once I realized that love of the rituals and history was not enough. In 2005, I was finishing a re-training myself Master’s degree to teach social studies, not realizing NYC would never hire another 50+ Jewish teacher. My last two history courses were “The History of Anti-semitism” and “Political Islam”. A combination that made me, once again, flirt with the idea of Buddhism or tree-worshipping sect of Shintoism.

    My professor of the anti-semitism course was very gentle in suggesting how to find faith. But, it did not stick.

    All forms of Christianity are completely alien to me. I am a Jew. BUT, I respect people who have faith, and find the intolerance of the Left toward people of faith deeply troubling, more troubling than proselytizing from the Evangelicals.

    I could not watch the intro to this Thanksgiving Forum. I do not understand why the Evangelicals and Catholics fail to realize that their obsession with defining life at conception IS imposing a religious belief into the laws of man.

    I have always viewed abortion as a matter of public health and safety because thousands of years of human history can not be ignored. Women will always choose to abort, or, worse, infanticide. Make it safe, legal, and rare, but it should NOT be the issue that divides America. (And look what happened to Mitch Daniels when he suggested that).

    My real exposure to the ‘lefties’ was in 2008, when I entered Obama’s campaign website to see what he was all about. The arrogant il-liberal intolerance and Israel-bashing was a trauma. I learned he was lying about Israel, had zero interest inthe economy or fiscal conservatism (the Blue-Dogs were cyber-bullied as were anyone over 50 or a non-believer in the opalestinian victimhood narrative.

    I wanted to make Aliyah, but am trapped in the real estate nightmare – unable to sell.

    I have a feeling I would fit in with Avigdor Liberman’s Ysrael Beitenu as a Secular Nationalist. Assuming they do not scream as the normal tone of voice.

    Dr. Sklaroff: Are you glad you asked ?

    I started supporting Gov. Perry because of his genuine support for Israel, grounded in his appreciation of the history, the technology, the fierce fighting spirit.

    When I saw/heard his 12 minute intro at the Response, and he quoted from the Bible, that was when I responded to his character, grounded in faith with a light touch. I remembered the Bible is a great work of historical literature.

    Anyway, today I was trying to figure out how Perry knew to pat Mr. Cain’s back, rub his neck, and then squeeze his shoulder yesterday. A very deliberate sequence.
    And whether the intended effect was actually achieved, given Mr. Cain’s public aversion to Rick Perry. I have no idea if that is a Baptist v Methodist thing, or if Cain has a rooted aversion to any Southern white man :)

    I grew up in segregated Florida, starting school in 1958. The grocery store had two water fountains. One labelled White, the other labelled Colored. I always was disappointed when the water was not Colored blue or green or lavendar…such is the real memory of children.

    RedState is so difficult to follow. Will try to check if you read this tomorrow night.

  • Scope

    or that is what they are supposed to be anyway, love to smack aroung the Young Republicans who post statements that have nothing to do with what you are implying. If you honestly believe that texasroots had any intention of putting Perry above God, then you are an…………….
    Of course some here don give a dang about the young, and maybe not the most articulate amongst us, as worthy of smack downs, by sone who call themselves “adults.” You all should be ashamed of yourselves for rediculing a young Republican, rather than taking the time to make a cogent case against that person’s young views. Shame on you civil truth, aesthete and the other guy above for bringing your so grown up adult arguments against a young Republican. And we wonder why we lose so many elections? Get over yourselves already. If you believe that you should be smacking a young republican, have at it you big bullies. Educate if you must, don’t redicule the young that are on our side. You all make me sick to my guts.

  • Scope

    but have you thought for a minute that texasroots may have been referring to one name of presidential candidates above all else may be what they meant. Please don’t get caught up in the word games that some here would love to play. I have no question in my mind that texasroots meant one presidential candidates name above the rest of the field. Don’t allow yourself to get caught up in the word games. That is what some do. Especially if they are not sold on the candidate you may support. It’s a mind game.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    I was trying to calm matters, not add fuel. You should know me better after all these years.

    But if I unwittingly stumbled into a free-fire zone here armed with a mouse, I’ll withdraw quickly before I get any more lead poisoning. I’ve nothing more to add besides.

  • changeforrickperry

    I didn’t ridicule texasroots in my above comment. I was merely warning against starting the Messiah-hype. There’s no sense in it. Yes, you can say that Perry stands tall above the other candidates, that he is far superior to any of them (including the Giant Ken Doll and The Newt) but I don’t believe we should be attributing Messianic attributes to him. Perry himself would abhor such a thing.

    I’m sure texasroots was being sarcastic; nevertheless, I don’t think that sort of humor is helpful to The Cause. If anything, it might turn off people who are reading these comments who are trying to make a logical decision on who to support. Didn’t even know texasroots was young…so am I, and I’m not trying to be “an adult.” Just a young woman with a mission, Scope–to glorify my Lord and help Governor Perry on his way to the White House. ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • changeforrickperry

    I just wish texasroots would SAY that. As a newbie I’m still learning the ropes, and I thank you very much for being understanding and trying to explain that to me–pttx333 told me you did the same for her, and I really appreciate it.

    I’m concerned, though, that lurkers who may get most of their news from RS (like I did for months) might be as alarmed as I was just now. I still stand by my comment below (which I wrote before I saw yours above) in which I warned against the Messiah-hype. Maybe we should all be careful to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR in what we say. No telling how things might be misconstrued.
    ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • redmymind

    An RS conference out here would be great! I’m sure we’d have a respectable turnout!

    I think the farthest I’ve been inland is Big Bear. My work mostly takes me in the “other” direction . . . the Palmdale/Lancaster area. I can pretty much navigate the 14 blindfolded.

    Good to know there are pockets of conservatism out here too!!!

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …as opposed to sublunary utilitarian calculations concerning “electability” and so on that are merely chimera.

  • redmymind

    Korean barbeque is a must for our “future” RS gathering . . . “underground” . . . hee, hee, hee!!!

  • Scope

    would be from texasroots then wouldn’t it. I guess texasroots needs to explain what they meant. I surely don’t want to speak for anyone’s heart or mind, they must do that for themselves.

    Texasroots, did you put Rick Perry above God? Please answer, because this is starting to get a little funny to me.

    Change, who amongst the Perry supporters here is uplifting Perry to a messiah level? I really would like an answer to that. Is it me, is it pttx, is it bzip, is it anyone else here that has lifted Perry to a messiah level? I really am very curious what your take is on that.

  • gracie

    Thanks so much for that verse change! and just amazing how appropriate.

  • redmymind

    forgot to click the “reply” button to address my reply to you. The “Rain sure is a novelty . . . ” comment was intended for you. Great point about the RS conference out here!

  • westcoastpatriette

    Experience of a lifetime. Lived there for six years. Really interesting people.

    Anyway, enjoy the rain on this lovely Sunday evening.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    But I would like Korean barbeque…

  • snowshooze

    Life at conception is merely a fact.
    I find it extremely difficult to portray the reality of what is happening before your very eyes as any sort of philosophical view.
    I am only pointing out the painfully obvious crater in the statement..it is so bad it is funny. ” Conception is a matter of fact, however life is defined by religious beliefs ”
    From that perspective, it is simple to see where it is not a sin to kill the infidel..( They really aren’t people..) or further…
    Hey.. Murder is murder. Of all the people in the world who might come up with this… a Jew. Gads.

  • changeforrickperry

    I’m simply warning AGAINST it. Look, there are people who voted for Obama because he was charismatic, he had a nice smile, he has cute kids, he was something different, blah blah blah. I’m sure that there are plenty of dumb Republicans who may read this blog who have similar superficial motives. They may idolize Perry and think he can do no wrong. I don’t think you or pttx333 or bzip or any of you do that–you recognize that he is a mere mortal who makes mistakes just like the rest of us–and I think that’s what makes you superior to some supporters of Other Candidates.

    My point is that we need to be very careful about how we talk about these things, because there are people who can take things totally out of context, and we don’t want to accidentally encourage that. I realize, too, that you can’t convey certain emotions over the Internet; maybe we should make better use of emoticons or /sarcasm tags. After all, that’s how you and I had our first little spat, wasn’t it?

    We want people to make thoughtful, intellectual decisions. Emotional attachment to a candidate must be secondary. See my comment to you above, Scope, and I think hopefully you’ll see my intentions.
    ____________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • redmymind

    you’ve actually managed to put into fewer words the precise point I’ve been trying to make using up about a page or so! Three cheers!!!

  • snowshooze

    nt

  • texasroots

    standing out from among the names of the presidential candidates. I know there is only one messiah, and I would never place any human being above Christ. .

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …just an unfortunately phrasing that ate up a lot of electrons.

    Now we can return to matters of real import, like picking the best nominee who can drive Obama out of office.

  • changeforrickperry

    I’ve appreciated the good, enriching conversation, not to mention all the laughs!
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • changeforrickperry

    Makes a lot of sense now: “The name that is above every other candidate’s name.” Thanks for the clarification, which is really quite funny now!

    I like how civil truth described this little snag: “Just an unfortunate phrasing that ate up a lot of electrons.” Very cleverly put, civil truth! Now let’s do this thing and get Perry in the White House ASAP.
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • texasroots

    sorry for the “unfortunate phrasing”.

  • redmymind

    I was just thinkin’ ahead as far as pot luck items to bring in if we ever hosted our very own (informal) RS get-together out here.

    Food is never too far from my mind. Don’t know whether you’ve tried it, but Korean barbeque, I think, is an all-time favorite. . . I’m not just saying that because I’m Korean!

    Here’s the recipe:

    1. Short-ribs or any tender marble meat
    2. Finely chopped onions
    3. Dark soy sauce
    4. Sesame oil
    5. Brown sugar
    6. A little chopped garlic (for those who want it)

    I don’t know the precise measuring quantities. I’m more of a “it looks okay to me” kinda cook. Anyway, marinate overnight and place on a hot grille, to go with a hot bed of steamed white rice and some kimchee (Korean napalm relish) . . . oh, and a can of coke!

    This is heresy to my relatives back in the old country, but I touch it off with some good ole fashion Kansas City barbeque sauce to give it a little extra sweetness and tanginess! . . . Try it if you haven’t, civil truth, . . . or just wait for our RS get-together sometime in the future!

  • texasroots

    away from computer 8-10 days. Leaving Houston today driving to Chicago. Rover is blessed. I can tell a lot about a person’s heart in the way he/she treats a dog/cat.

  • changeforrickperry

    I’m just glad it’s cleared up. We just need to be careful, because you never know who might be reading! I should know, since I lurked here for months. Thank you again for the clarification–it really sets my mind at ease. And now so long, farewell, goodnight! I’ll see my friends at RS in the morning!
    ______________________________________________________________
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal; it is the courage to continue that counts.”–Winston Churchill

    www.changeforrickperry.org

  • texasroots

    I enjoy reading what she writes, makes me laugh. I am signing off, buenas noches.

  • Menlo

    The beginning of human life is clearly defined by basic biology.

  • redmymind

    Echoed from all the way out here in Los Angeles by the honorary Texan she made honorary!!!!! I too am blessed with her friendship and feel very honored!

  • goformitt

    Most of your critiques of Ron Paul could be leveled with equal validity towards some of the current GOP candidates. Cain’s understanding of many things, Bachmans lack of understanding of most everything, etc.

    And after all, the current GOP congress has also accomplished nothing.

    And a poster boy for hypocricy? What about all the “tea-party” members who have been rumbling about a revenue compromise?

    I don’t support Paul, and have no intention of voting for him. But I hear more positive comments about him than any other candidate these days (in Iowa). He is no less a valid candidate than the others.

  • center77

    but how does somebody write a diary for Red State. Plus, Perry’s Iowa campaign has sent me the sign up for the Iowa strike force, which is really neat, and I was wondering if anybody else is going to the state to help?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    He’s rabidly antisemitic. And certainly with regard to hypocrisy he’s not alone, and in the current group of candidates, only Mitt Romney could possibly come close, and he does.

  • redmymind

    Never done one myself. Admire your enthusiasm for our guy! Godspeed!!!

  • cajunchosid770

    I there maybe i can help you. I am Jewish and a supporter of Perry.
    Maybe Lizzie and you and I can talk. I am a chabad chasid.

  • cajunchosid770

    Lizzie,

    maybe I can help. I am also Jewish. I am a chabad chasid and have more of an understanding of where Jews who are religious are coming from.

    try me

  • jakeofalltrades

    Since I read that 75% of fertilized eggs never implant and so never really make it – and that’s God’s own design. Which is why I am OK with the morning after pill, but nothing else.

    There really is some room to disagree about the point at which personhood should be recognized, though a functioning nervous system should certainly be the latest date that could be reasonably considered.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and should be invoked more regularly.

  • nathanalbright

    ….but that has been broken for months apparently. I’m still waiting on my own e-mail to support to go through the rounds and for my own diary to be approved.

  • Menlo

    No one said “personhood,” which is neither a biological nor a religious term but a legal one and not a very meaningful one at that. In any case, no legal definition or policy should be based on supernatural faith.

  • monty2

    which on of those nitwits we’re supposed to be supporting?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …with appreciation for your candor.

    Just returned from annual ZOA dinner @ Grand Hyatt in NYC;; chatted with Michele Bachmann 3x and acquired e-mail address of her aide [while dropping $180]. Doesn’t dilute faith in Rick [gave $100 last-quarter] but expressed appreciation for learning her direct reactions to a number of pointed-queries about last night’s event. Her speech was great, and Pamela Geller [publicly/privately] continues to boost her.

    That’s my intro for reacting to your multiple-point version of “Wandering Jewishness”; the RedState reader is invited to peek into how we react to the irrational/resolute “liberality” of our co-religionists.

    Rather than elaborating [and losing the "audience"], let’s just say that the diagnosis for what drives Jews to remain hitched with the D’s remains the “choice” issue…as is reflected in your distaste for the unabashedly pro-life undertone of the pre-”Thanksgiving” event.

    I am “multiple-choice” and invoke both the medical-model and Exodus 21:22-25….moderated by the Talmudic emphasis on preserving potential-life. And, yes, I cringe politically when the social issues are emphasized, but only because defeating BHO will entail maintaining focus on jobs/jobs/jobs; this would also necessitate down-shifting on Foreign Policy [regardless of the disasters promulgated by BHO]. Perhaps it is because the specific manifestations of my view of abortion is closely aligned both operationally and constitutionally with that of the pro-lifers, that I’ve maintained a rather consistent stance since graduating med-school in ’74.

    This is also why I like Perry over Romney, despite having taken a survey within the past month that shows 70% and 90% policy overlap [respectively]; Perry isn’t a flip-flopper, and he has articulated a comprehensive set of sound principles [and applied them in Texas] in “Fed Up!”

    It’s enough for me that Evangelicals are Zionists [a point emphasized repeatedly tonight], and it’s great that leaders such as Glenn Beck can simultaneously warn of worldwide riots [before they transpired] and promote individualism [and religiosity] as a method for maintaining American Exceptionalism..

    Your observation about the arm-rub by rick contrasts with the only other time two debaters touched, namely, when mitt restrained rick to deflect the counter-attack on his having hired illegals. If nothing else reflects all that is good about rick, it is this comparison between compassion and aloofness.

    Guzzzardi started a blog-site, months ago, promoting rick…
    http://www.saveardmorecoalition.org/node/5848/rick-perry-hes-guy
    …and I have contributed a lot, particularly on page 4.

    One key-section relates to what transpired @ the UN [and I also assessed the illegals-issue by citing primary data from the Boston Globe]. This process had the effect of solidifying our respect for rick, which you have seen manifest regularly on RedState. Except for my “DeMint” gambit [which apparently didn't register], this has been a comfortable nitch from which to generate input, and this website has consistently provided challenges thereto.

    These observations are shared for generalized critique, recognizing that each point is subject to amplification. I never adhered to Buddhism, and I do not have a problem with the occasional agnostic comment. Otherwise, I base my attitudes on Ethical Monotheism, and this casts a sufficiently wide “net” politically to encompass the thrust of the Red State discussion-points.

  • 1bunny

    check out the diary ‘Rick Perry In The Arena’, the writer is going to Iowa too for the strike force.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …citing the Torah and, specifically, the recognition that the fetus is “potential life” that must be preserved…albeit not @ the expense of the mother [if she so desires].

    I have always been personally pro-life, a perspective shared memorably with Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua’s driver in 1990; I wrote a resolution for the PA Medical Society that year that was signed-off by BOTH the Planned Parenthood Medical Director and the President of the Catholic Physician’s Guild [but it was tabled by the House of Delegates to preclude "excess debate"].

    So I have a track-record that recognizes societal heterogeneity and the need to manifest a libertarian [but not libertine] approach to such hot-button issues. I suspect that lizzie shares this perspective, even if she hasn’t had to act upon it [medically and/or politically]. It is flexible, albeit rooted in religious philosophy. And not being 100% pro-life doesn’t enervate my enthusiasm for Perry one iota.

  • lizzie

    and their belief systems are different about life.
    which is why this should NOT be the issue that has divided America since 1973.

    Anyway, thank you RSklaroff for your other response.

    I am signing off, hopefully for awhile because I was just researching Ron Paul’s obsession with the Federal Reserve, and Henry Ford, Sr same obsession, because of what the unidentified “protestor” in the Carhartt shirt said before Frank Luntz started the Forum, and then saw this Tweet at the DesMoinesRegister website:

    “una47s RT @RonPaulsVoice: We need to stop allowing secretive banking cartels to endlessly enslave us through monetary policy trickery #RonPaul #IAGOP #IACaucus #Iowa” ”

    so I just stumbled into the onlinePaulistian world of rage against the Zionist secret banking cartel.

    When I took that grad course on The History of Antisemitism, my final paper was on the Lie that never Dies – how Henry Ford Sr’s legacy was making the Protocols of the Elders of Zion so respectable that Hitler gave Ford Sr a special Iron Cross.

    And it lives on in the (fringe?) of Paulistas.

    There are many reasons why so many American Jewish voters stick with the Democratic Party. Women’s reproductive rights is maybe #5.

    The saddest part is that Jews can never trust either Party.

    So, if there are any Paulistas reading this, just contemplete that if Jews really did run the country and banks, we sure would NOT have 15TRillion in debt.
    I blame the GOP obsessions with supply-side, “Starve the Beast”, Laffer curves. Most of the annual deficit is because of absence of jobs = more tax receipts, but the Bush43 tax cuts were irresponsible and the GOP should stop being held hostage by Grover Norquist.

    I no longer want to live in this America.
    Too many litmus tests, not enough sanity.

    and, my name is not Lizzie – just was into Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice when I originally registered with Red State when I thought it was center-right.

    One thing Newt gets right – no one knows history anymore.

  • onemovoter

    A president had to appoint him to the federal court and get US senate approval. How does the state of Texas come into this as crony-ism? You also need to read up on the definition of cronyism and when to apply it. The original story mentions pandering which isn’t cronyism.

    Yes the Texas Republicans are pissed off. They attempted to stack the redistricting to gain even more on all levels. If they are not able to appeal this decision in time for the 2012 elections, they will have to use what ever the court comes up with until after the election. They will then be able to redistrict again in time for the 2014 elections.

    This is because a court drawn map is temporary and can be updated through the legislature.

    Oh btw Perry won a straw poll in Kansas with 55% Friday. I live in Missouri and haven’t heard of any straw polls here. Did a google search and didn’t come up with any news on it either. Must of been a secret straw poll. Cain is doing better in Iowa. He only needs about 940 more committeeman to cover the rest of the Iowa precincts.

  • nathanalbright

    n/t

  • iidvbii

    Wouldn’t say the republican congress has accomplished nothing. They have accomplished the major job we sent them there to do. Stop Obama, notice his signature legislation signing days are over right? He has to have press conferences bragging about getting cheaper coffee and not giving away the mugs these days… LOL

  • nathanalbright

    …we are a Judeo-Christian civilization based off of biblical ethics, and that includes the protection of unborn life. Lest you forget, the prophet Amos proclaimed God’s judgment on the Ammonites for aborting Isrealite fetuses as part of acts of war (Amos 1:13-15) and the Mosaiac law provides for the death penalty for the negligent manslaughter, much less the intentional homicide, of the unborn (see Exodus 21:22-25). This is where Evangelicals and conservative Jews and Christians come from in general concerning the right to life.

  • don12345

    “I will be kind and not speculate on any possible relationship between those two data points.”

    You will be kind? Come on. We all know the religious bigotry in Iowa is second to none. One Iowan megachurch wants to hijack the political process so that people like Obama are elected on the Left.

  • circlegranch

    where Perry’s popularity is really picking up steam. Perry supporters (and detractors–you might learn something) there’s a great read this morning at www.bostonherald.com “Role of Underdog Seems to Suit Rick Perry”.

  • circlegranch

    don’t forget American Spectator, American Thinker, Smart Girl Politics, Hot Air. Granted, your submission has to pass editorial review but its worth a try and at the least, just write comments to other articles. There’s an awful blog post this morning at American Thinker written by a guy named Synder that says anyone that believes the President was referring to the American worker as being lazy recently is lying. That would be a good place to begin. You can also write to editors of newspapers in IA and SC to get your message out. That was discussed at length here last week.

    Grassroots efforts are hard, exhaustive work. Thanks for whatever you’re doing.

  • nathanalbright

    ….on my own personal blog (which yesterday got over 45,000 views since I started it last November 18th, woot :B). I haven’t even heard of some of those other sites, but writing to editors is definitely a good idea.

  • tngal

    You live in Missouri…Do you attend tea parties? THis is from the Fulton Sun.
    __________

    “Herman Cain was the winner of a statewide presidential straw poll announced Saturday of all Missouri Tea Party members.

    “With 995 total votes counted statewide, Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich were virtually tied for second at 28 percent of the vote each.

    “Poll totals were: Herman Cain, 320 (32 percent); Ron Paul, 282 (28 percent); Newt Gingrich, 276 (28 percent); Mitt Romney, 32 (3 percent); Michele Bachmann, 31 (3 percent); Rick Perry, 30 (3 percent); Rick Santorum, 13 (1 percent); Others, 2 percent.”

    “James Holland, a Callaway County Patriot Tea Party leader, said he was not surprised by the results or by the fact that Romney, a consistent front runner in many nationwide presidential polls, had only 3 percent of the vote in the statewide poll of Tea Party members.

    http://www.fultonsun.com/news/2011/nov/20/cain-wins-state-poll-tea-party-members/

    ___________
    There is more to the story. You should read the whole thing. Here’s a link..

    Now as to your issue with the dems …and Texas and redistricting. Now as to cronyism…oh wait that pres was fom texas, too. If you’d read the story at the caller,you would have seen this.
    ___

    “Rodriguez, once a casual Democrat, was plucked from obscurity by Gov. Perry to ascend to the Texas Supreme Court in 2001. Conservatives worked to successfully defeat him in a 2002 primary that the Weekly Standard reported was ?all about race.? To compensate for his defeat, Rodriguez was appointed to the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas by THEN-PERRY ALLY President George W. Bush.” (emphasis mine)

    ________

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/20/rick-perry-backed-judge-proposes-latino-districts-infuriates-gop/#ixzz1eLJQaXjC

  • jakeofalltrades

    until after the primaries/election to see who still wants a diary, A lot of people ask for the privilege every election cycle and then disappear in between.

    But that’s just my guess.

  • jakeofalltrades

    n/t

  • devereaux

    A former Texas Supreme Court justice whose appointment by Gov. Rick Perry led to accusations of racial pandering was part of a Federal District Court decision Thursday to issue a new voting district map for Texas that will likely overturn the map proposed by the Texas Legislature and is designed to create ethnic voting districts for Latinos.

    U.S. District Court Judge Xavier Rodriguez joined with another Latino justice from the three-justice federal panel ? Clinton-appointee Judge Orlando Garcia ? to issue the racially-drawn map, which has not yet been given final approval. Lawyers for the Democrats and Republicans were given the opportunity to comment on the map Friday, and the parties now await the court?s final decision

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/20/rick-perry-backed-judge-proposes-latino-districts-infuriates-gop/#ixzz1eLmrD05s

    http://tinyurl.com/7yzrdeg

  • tngal

    the caller story was put up last night. I linked to it here at rs, noting it was a case of cronyism, which it was because the full story explains how perry tried to get him on the state sup court and rodriguez was defeated, then perry ally george w plopped him into the district judgeship position.

    Its like people don’t bother to read the full story anymore.

    More than the cronyism part, it just shows again how Perry tried to win favor with one group. If I was with texas gop, I’d be mad too.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because in both citations the crime isn’t equivalent to murder; that differentiation explicitly emerges via the Exodus penalty.

  • tjms

    some of your facts you put above are wrong. You state that Perry tried to get him on the TX supreme court, he served on the TX supreme court 2001-2002. Then he was nominated to the federal court by Hutchinson, Cornyn and Pres. Bush. Was confirmed 5/2005 by unanimous vote by senate.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …but disagree that Jewish fealty to the D’s is not driven by abortion-issue.

    Granted, we need to contend with inertia that started with FDR and was accelerated by JFK, but it’s do-able if an ounce of Zionism can be ID’ed in the target-population. Having spoken with senior-citizen D’s [notably in 2004] and having listened to Podhoretz lecture on the topic and having interacted on multiple levels with Main Line Jewesses [and their families] and having chatted candidly with D-politicos, I can assure you that this social-issue–over the years–remains a driving-force. Regretful it assuredly is, but undeniable.

    Don’t worry about the Paulistas; they’ll always have their 10%-GOP-tithe….

  • jonnymadison

    We were attacked in WWII. Our military is for defending our country. And yes, it was redistributive (ever hear the saying ‘war is the health of the state’?). People had to make huge sacrifices during the war. Our founders advised that we never enter a war that would last longer than 2 years because the economic toll on the citizens would be to great. Our economic situation now has a lot to do with the Trillions we have been spending in military adenturism. Obviously there are other contributing factors as well, but war is a big one.

    We didn’t enter WWII to stop the extermination of the Jews. If genocide was our concern, why did we team up with a leader (Stalin) that committed worse genocide than Hitler? Ending the extermination was a benifit of the war, but not the reason we went.

    In order for a war to be just there must be just cause:
    ‘Just Cause – The reason for going to war must be just, and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life.’

    Since our military is formed for the defense of our citizens, and since US citizens life arent in imminent danger, or is intervention needed to protect US citizen life, then we are not justified in using military force, per the guidelines in just war theory.

  • nathanalbright

    ….when I explicitly say that the Exodus reference is to a negligent manslaughter, clearly not murder, which is what abortion is. My point is that the bar for protecting the life of the unborn is drawn in the Bible far below the level of abortion, making the criminal nature of the much graver sin of abortion (which is far closer to the universally biblically condemned crime of child sacrifice to the Molech of convenience) all the more striking.

  • cheetah2

    http://www.redstate.com/tennessean/2011/11/20/rick-perry-in-the-arena/

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …by citing the source.

    Exodus 21:22-25
    New International Version (NIV)
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A22-25&version=NIV
    22 ?If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[a] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman?s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    Numerous efforts to soften my interpretation are available on-line…
    http://www.errantskeptics.org/Exodus2122.htm
    http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5700http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/articles/the-misuse-of-exodus-2122-25-by-pro-choice-advocates
    http://realchoice.blogspot.com/2009/02/todays-scripture-exodus-2122-25.html
    …but none of these efforts undermines the fundamental conclusion therein.

    The penalty when trauma leads to pregnancy-loss is monetary; the penalty when trauma leads to maternal death is death.

    None of these essays invokes the Talmudic explanations [crowning, etc.] of when a potential-life transits into life [including the built-in contradictions].

    But it is not possible to explain-away this Biblical distinction.

  • tngal

    Tell the dc…they don’t mention hutch or corn in there. And the thing about bush…

    ____________
    Rodriguez, once a casual Democrat, was plucked from obscurity by Gov. Perry to ascend to the Texas Supreme Court in 2001. Conservatives worked to successfully defeat him in a 2002 primary that the Weekly Standard reported was ?all about race.? To compensate for his defeat, Rodriguez was appointed to the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas by then-Perry ally President George W. Bush. (RELATED: Conservative ire with Perry runs deep, reflects racial politics)
    __________

    The way the dc wrote the story, with” plucked by obscurity” by Perry and then “to compensate for his defeat” he was appointed by bush.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/20/rick-perry-backed-judge-proposes-latino-districts-infuriates-gop/#ixzz1eM5zx3Gr
    __________________________________

    This, is from the governemnt website “Federal Justice Center. It lists bios of all judges…. (jsut go to the R’s and scroll down for bios)

    “Judge, U. S. District Court, Western District of Texas
    Nominated by George W. Bush on May 1, 2003, to a seat vacated by Edward C. Prado; Confirmed by the Senate on July 31, 2003, and received commission on August 1, 2003. ”

    http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj

    __________________

    Again, nominated by Bush. (perry’s ally) Did he get senate approval? yes . Who pushed him up the rungs to begin with..first perry then bush.

    So my facts are from the daily caller and the fed gov. Hey if there’s a problem with the story, tell the daily caller.

  • nathanalbright

    …doesn’t only appear to be for the woman, but for the infant as well, so long as you presume that “give birth prematurely” means just that and not “has a miscarriage.” In general there was a penalty for civil fines for acts of assault (for example, calling someone a moron) or battery, but serious injury to either the unborn or the mother would trigger the lex talionis. Rather than looking at the parent-child distinction as the source of the fine-lex talionis transition, it’s far more natural given the context of biblical law to look at it as the assault/battery with “no serious harm” versus the “serious harm to any living being–including an unborn child” as the source of the distinction. And that is what makes pro-choice advocates apoplectic.

  • tjms

    n/t

  • Menlo

    “Life” has a biological definition, and it is not “potential” in that case.

    Of course a society cannot prosecute abortion the same as murder. It’s never been done and could not be done. However, it is in most cases a perversion of medical and bioethics (and that is putting it mildly) and on those grounds does seriously need to be restricted by law. Religious views should not be relevant to the law one way or the other.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …if for no other reason than, noting the absence of Neonatal Intensive Care Units in the Sinai, the “miscarriage” would presumably yield ["serious injury"] fetal-death.

  • tngal

    meaning anyone can change it. (judgepedia.org) Whereas my link for the Federal Justice Center…

    http://www.fjc.gov/public/home.nsf/hisj

    is a website of the federal government. (fjc.gov)

    BTW you’ll notice in your wikapedia story, their first reference is to the federal judicial center dot gov website, which is where I got my info from. Their only other reference source “the Robing Room” is a private site.

    Look, again, —-complain to dc if you don’t like the way its written. They wrote the original story. Their’s is the one running around the net. And if you don’t like the dates or something complain to whomever runs the fed government websites.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    It’s tribalism based on an visceral reaction based an obsolete historical division of the two parties that fails to recognize the extreme shift to secular Marxism that the Democratic Party has taken (combined with its embrace of cronyism) still holding to the nostalgia of the 20th century liberalism. Plus the view that the Republican Party is the home of anti-Semites and WASPs. Until a new leadership can wrest control from the ADL etc. folks there isn’t going to be any tectonic shift happening. Even the end of Israel wouldn’t budge these folks from supporting the Democrats who faciliatate it. But underneath, the glacier is melting.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …after one scratches the surface, even if “tribalism” is a unifying force.

    Much as I’m annoyed @ Ann Coulter, citing “Godless” as an example of how this “ritual” is tied to the “religion” of secular/progressivism…correlates with the above paradigm. Hope-springs-eternal that some internal “switch” can be ID’ed and flipped, yielding some enhancement of basic enlightenment potential.

    As Jews have gained economically, the $-component of the WASP-history has abated…and there’s plenty of room for the anti-Semitic label to be affixed to leaders of the D’s. The glacier is melting on all surfaces.

    Illustrating how out-of-touch the ADL [for example] has been, it was noted during one of the speeches last night that Foxman has devoted ~3% of his press-releases to the Islamic etiology of anti-Semitism. Jewish institutions are reflexly D-oriented, unfortunately, except for the ZOA [and few others, such as JINSA].

    In any case, if abortion isn’t THE etiology, it remains a MAJOR etiology [when tethered to related policies]. Even when people are told that the D’s are extreme while the R’s are flexible [3rd trimester, public funding, parental notification/consent, etc.], most remain intransigent.

  • Menlo

    That doesn’t make any sense.

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

    and the War on Terror. And I would say that our experience in Iraq has tempered my view going forward.

  • westcoastpatriette

    but I see little difference between Jews and non-Jews who stay tethered to the Democratic Party in terms of the reasons for doing so. And it is the same reason why there is a growing divide between the two main parties.

    The Democrat Party continues its slide toward total secularism and as a result, places greater import on bigger government as their “savior” from all of life’s problems. The Republican Party, ideally, has no problem acknowledging God and approaches government with the conservative view that each individual is responsible for their own life and liberty and view government as secondary with respect to God and honoring his precepts.

    Since most Jews are secular, the Republican Party seems threatening to them when it takes conservative positions on so-called “social” issues as the Jews perceive it as “imposing religion” on them. And I see no reconciliation on the horizon between the two parties as the opposing sides are simply incompatible.

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

    Most Jews are secular.
    Most liberals have made liberalism/secularism their religion.

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

    Numbers 35:9-15, 22-29 requires perpetrators of accidental homicides flee to cities of refuge.

    But for accidentally killing a baby in the womb, the death penalty as per Exodus 21:22-25.

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

    nt

  • Menlo

    In the US, Jewish people are more likely than atheists to support abortion. However, I seem to recall reading somewhere that there was a greater share of pro-life Jews in Israel. I think it is more of a cultural than a religious thing.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Or at least your focusing on the wrong observation. Jews tethering isn’t because they are secular and the D’s are the “secular party” – their attachment to the Democratic Party comes out their sense of Jewish identity and upbringing.

    Basically we’re dealing with operant conditioning, which means the battle is between the reinforcers (emotional manipulations over “social issues” and historical triggers) versus the extinguishers (facts and actions). Very grueling given the community pressures and class biases.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    As noted below, operant conditioning is what tethers. Plus class biases, as you well know given the community you grew up in.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Secularization is the vehicle through which Jews taking care of their own* was expanded and neutered such that it is now the secular state (i.e. government) that is charged with taking care of everyone. Add revisionist history and the Democratic Party become the agent.

    *An idea common to many immigrant ethnic/religious groups e.g. Catholics, Lutherans, Italians, Irish, etc. Many of these groups also followed in the Democratic camp, but assimilation has weakened their group identify and opened them to new political affiliations. Jews had the Holocaust and now resurgent anti-Semitism and continuing subscribing to Republican bogeymen legends that keep them locked in the same re-entry circuits.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …because the death of a fetus could yield only a $-penalty [if the woman lives].

  • westcoastpatriette

    especially with respect to how the Holocaust and anti-Semitism are used to manipulate the emotional response of Jews and their political views.

    It is probably impossible to prioritize the greater causes and effects of staying tethered to the Dems, but for me, it is clear–when I listen to their reactions to conservative positions on social issues–that their ongoing ambivalence and dissatisfaction with Judaism andor any religion for that matter, makes them more vulnerable to staying stuck to the Democratic Party.

    This ambivalence and discomfort discussing “religious matters” is evident in both lizzie and the Doc’s comments on this thread.

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

    23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    See especially LIFE for LIFE. This is PLAIN.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …citing the Hammurabi Code reference, first.

    “if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life”…mandates that the “VARIABLE” here is what occurs to the woman after she has been pushed/traumatized.

    the CONSTANT is the fetal-loss.

    THEREFORE, if the fetal-loss [which is invariably "fatal"] were to be factored-in with regard to this initial sentence, the penalty ALWAYS would be DEATH.

    Because the fetal-loss–in the second instance–does not automatically yield DEATH to the pusher, that means that this component is not perceived as having constituted DEATH of a human being.

    GET IT?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …particularly when recognizing the potency of social-pressure, in many realms.

    In another posting, I spoke of a hospitalist whom I met a week ago; she said she was ostracised during her training-period in Family Practice for having quoted Sarah Palin favorably.

    But, when “reason” supervenes, this issue invariably arises.

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

    Prager is an observant Jew. Medved, another observant Jew agrees with Prager.

    I am their student.

    Both cite stats concerning the large percentage of Jews that are ethnic/heritage Jews and not religious per se.

    But yes, many religious Jews are also Dems. I would point out however than many Christians that attend liberal Churches are also Dems that have turned their religion into a conduit for their true religion of modern liberalism.

    The Dem Party associates with Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Clearly most Jews in the Dem Party care more about shared liberal issues than they do with affinity for Jewish issues.

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

    If the woman has a premature birth but neither she nor the fetus is harmed, the negligent batterers are still fined reckless endangerment

    But if there is harm to either the woman or the fetus, then the punishment of the defendants depends upon the severity of the harm. And if either or both are killed, then the death penalty obtains.

    That is the clear meaning of the subject passage re-printed below and it shouldn’t take a legal education to understand the plain meaning of same. Professor Mike Gamecock DeVine, J.D. gives Dr ‘roff an “F”…smile

    Exodus 22 ?If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman?s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    I have been responding only to the Biblical reference. Didn’t see Hammurabi reference.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    YES, it is true that both instances were initiated by the woman being pushed.

    BUT, it is also true that both instances involve fetal-death.

    *

    “If the woman has a premature birth but neither she nor the fetus is harmed, the negligent batterers are still fined reckless endangerment” makes no sense as a supposition; by-definition, the “premature birth” harms the fetus.

    ” if there is harm to either the woman or the fetus, then the punishment of the defendants depends upon the severity of the harm” is also faulty for, again, the fetus is invariably harmed.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    YOUR point presupposes that the fetus doesn’t invariably die; referencing my wry observation that there were no NICU’s available to the Hebrews, I consider this to be an absurd possibility.

    But, knowing the exigencies of Biblical Exegesis, I suppose it’s possible. Nevertheless, your hypothetical doesn’t appear to reflect reality.

    The Hammurabi Reference was to “eye for eye,” etc.

    ” The Code consists of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (lex talionis)[1] ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

    {I must confess, this was fun!”}

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

    MEANS NO FETAL DEATH!

    The constants are battery to a pregnant woman that causes the baby to come out.

    In the first instance the baby lives. There is still a fine.

    The second instant is injury or death with proportional punishment up to and including capital punishment.

    Doc, maybe you shouldn’t be writing Rx’s today.

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

    to your parents.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/culturebox/2000/08/what_do_orthodox_jews_think_about_abortion_and_why.html

    Note intro…and then the “beefy” ‘graph:

    “Readers of this column may have heard the Jewish joke about the rabbi who is asked to settle a dispute. After listening to one side’s argument, the rabbi declares, “You’re right!” After listening the other side’s argument, the rabbi nods and says, “You’re right, too.” His wife, who is listening, declares, exasperated, “Rabbi, this is absurd! They can’t both be right!” The rabbi sighs and replies sadly, “You’re also right!” ”

    *

    “Naturally, depending on where you’re disposed to end up on the abortion question, you’ll start with a different biblical text. If you’re basically willing to tolerate the practice, you’ll cite a passage in Exodus (Ex. 21:22) in which two men fight and one of them accidentally hits a pregnant woman in the belly, causing her to miscarry. If she is not harmed in any other way, the Bible says, then the man who struck her has to pay her husband damages. From this one can deduce that feticide isn’t murder, because the penalty for murder is death. Rather, removing a fetus is said to be like amputating a limb–which a woman is still not allowed to do for mere economic or cosmetic reasons, since that would be self-mutilation, which is forbidden.

    “If you sternly oppose abortion, you’ll point to Genesis 9:6. This verse is more of a stretch, but by Talmudic standards, it works. It reads: “He who sheds the blood of man through man [that is, through a human court of law], shall his blood be shed.” In Biblical Hebrew, “through” can also be “in,” so one Roman-era rabbi who was probably disgusted by his country’s occupiers’ practice of experimenting on fetuses re-interpreted the phrase as saying, “He who sheds the blood of man in man [that is, kills a fetus], shall his blood be shed.” That made abortion a capital crime, but for reasons too complicated to get into here, one whose penalty can only be imposed by God, not man. (Since the rabbis all but abolished the death penalty by making it impossible to enact, saying a crime was capital didn’t have much effect anyway.)

    “The one thing everybody agrees about, whether abortion resembles murder or not, is that in the case of a threat to the mother’s life, Jewish law requires you to save her rather than the fetus. (Catholics save the fetus, on the grounds that the mother bas been baptized and will go to heaven, whereas the fetus has not and is condemned to limbo, if not to hell. Jews don’t worry as much about the afterlife.)….”

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Fascinating to watch two legal hair-splitter minds collide, neither of whom likes to back down. :)

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Genesis seems too vague–compared with Exodus–although it must be honored.

    Also, curiously, the Catholic reference is akin to a Talmudic one, in that the reason devout Jews eschew abortions is that there would be one fewer human being alive who could praise the Lord…which is a key Mitzvah.

    In any case, this tutorial provided a useful reworking of how to interpret this Parasha, and just know that I’m not writing any Rx’s for the rest of the day!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …I essentially called a truce.

    BTW, reading the rest of the article from Slate, there is a key-omission that carries import.

    The predecessor-occupant of Barney Frank’s seat was [anti-war] Father Robert Drinan. He tried to pull a Cuomo, but was rebuked by the Pope; because he had an official position in the Archdiocese, he was forced to choose one-or-the-other position. That’s how we got Fannie/Freddie!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts’s_4th_congressional_district

    BTW, as “civil truth” knows, I love engaging in such candid discourse, and I argue aggressively…without taking myself too seriously. Indeed, following full disclosure, I am wont to amend accordingly. In any case, this exchange has proven memorable.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    punishment in this life, there’s no doubt that God will deal with those who shed innocent blood. Who is more innocent among us than an unborn baby?

    Proverbs 6: 16-17: there are six things which the LORD hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood. For the record, I agree with Mike. The foregoing verse supports the argument that God views life in the womb as sacred.

    However, more relevant to the topic is whether or not the word “miscarriage” is a correct transalation in Exodus 21. Consider this from the Christian Courier here

    We must observe, though, that some translations have given credence to this erroneous viewpoint by rendering the word ?depart? as miscarriage. The Revised Standard Version reads: ?When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage . . .? (cf. NASB). The liberal commentary, The Interpreter?s Bible (Abingdon, 1952), as well as other commentaries, also accommodate this view.

    However, there is absolutely no evidence that a dead fetus is under consideration in this passage. The fact is, the Hebrew language has a term (shachol) that denotes an abortion, or miscarriage (see 2 Kgs. 2:21; Hos. 9:14), yet that word is not employed in this context. This passage deals with a premature birth, not an aborted fetus.

    The Hebrew word rendered ?depart? is yasa, basically meaning ?to go (come) out.? Though the word has a wide variety of uses in the Old Testament, it is frequently employed of an ordinary birth. God told Jeremiah, ” . . .before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you . . .” (Jer. 1:5). In Exodus 21:22 the verb is used ?of untimely birth? (Brown, Driver, & Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, p. 423), or of ?premature birth? (cf. NIV; NKJV).

    Noted Hebrew scholar Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. has observed that it is a ?gross error,? either by translation or by means of commentary, to argue that a miscarriage is suggested in this passage (Toward Old Testament Ethics, Zondervan, 1983, p. 170).

    In an excellent article which discusses this passage at length, Jack W. Cottrell, a professor of theology at the Cincinnati Bible Seminary, declared: ?There is absolutely no linguistic justification for translating verse 22 to refer to a miscarriage? (Christianity Today, March 16, 1973, p. 8).

    A second factor to be given consideration in this text is the use of the
    word ?fruit.? The term derives from the Hebrew yeled, which is a ?child.? In this instance the word is plural, ?children,? which likely is calculated to cover multiple births, or perhaps both sexes. In Genesis 21:8, Moses wrote regarding Isaac: ?And the child grew, and was weaned . . .? Is there any question but that Isaac was an actual person at this time? Dr. Kaiser thus notes: ?The use of the term ?child? makes it clear that a human being is in view here? (op. cit).

    What, then, is the passage teaching? Simply this. If two fighting men injure a pregnant woman, causing her to give premature birth, yet no harm
    follows ? to either mother or child ? a fine will be levied as a penalty for such carelessness. However, if any harm followed, to mother or babe, justice was to be meted out commensurate with degree of damage. Both the mother and unborn child had equal protection under the law.

    More here regarding the physician Luke’s use of the Greek word brephos – a term that is used in the Greek New Testament to denote either a pre-born or post-born child. Luke used the same word to describe the babe John who leapt in Elizabeth’s womb (Lk 1:4) as he did to describe the babe Jesus lying in the manger (Lk 2:12).

  • westcoastpatriette

    regarding the ongoing debate between GC and Dr.S. I agree completely with your view and was aware of the different translations of the wording with respect to “miscarriage” or “premature birth.” A miscarriage would imply death of the baby while a premature birth does not. Therefore, I believe Dr. S. interpretation is wrong. (Sorry, doc.)

    I considered joining the discussion to point out what you have shown here but was too tired to do the research.

    Good job.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    take credit for the research. Thankfully, I knew just where to go. The Christian Courier is a favorite site for just these questions.

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

    smile

  • nathanalbright

    I read that passage as plainly as you do.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    Just had dinner with Guzzardi and a VERY prominent individual in the loco-regional Jewish community; he is on the pulse of many $-resources for the D’s, and he reported pervasive dismay with BHO. We are strategizing accordingly, with import affecting loco/regional/statewide/national forces [via networking].

    Each individual can provide a contribution, selflessly, for those in the TPM are comfortable “getting our hands dirty.” What emerged was a convergence of perceptions and knowledge…acquired independently…regarding those who are basing their decision-making on personal agendae. It is this type of self-discipline that must be aggressively exerted by everyone ASAP…for we all have potential individual contributions to share.], that must be vulnerable to being besmirched by those who are apt to create circular firing-squads.

    Assuredly, this mood isn’t localized to Suburban-Philly; it permeated Restoration Weekend [hosted by David Horowitz] and the ZOA-Dinner attendees last night. Therefore, be of good courage, and consider this note to be an Rx for a non-pharmacological anti-depressant. There is tremendous focus on what must be done, for the future of America…even for those who don’t appreciate [in both "senses" of this word] our history of Exceptionalism..

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …and, in this case, that entails the direct translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the version published by the Jewish Publication Society based on the Masoretic Text [1991, pp. 125-126.].

    First, the intro states, “Unfortunately, the Hebrew text is replete with difficulties….”

    Second, the word “miscarriage” is employed, with the footnote reading, literally, “her children emerge.”

    Third, the word “damage” is viewed as referring to the potential death of the mother, per Rabbinic tradition; the reference [#55] is “MdRY Mishpatim 8, pp. 275-276; so Targums.” These abbreviations relate to “Mekhilta de-R. Ishmael. Per the below-citation, this in-turn reflects the fact that “most of the anonymous maxims in the work were derived from the same source, so that it also was known as the ‘Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael.’ ” And the Targum refers to the Arameic translation of the Torah.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mekhilta#Mekhilta_of_R._Ishmael
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Targum

    Fourth, citing Numbers 35:31, it is noted that “the killing of a human being cannot be compensated for by the payment of money.”

    *

    Therefore, it would seem that the model I articulated and referenced is c/w this viewpoint, which is [I would attest] the mainstream interpretation of the Torah in the Jewish world [all movements], all academics].

    This is abbreviative, but point #3 is particularly telling; the “damage” relates to the MOTHER [and not to the fetus].

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

    agrees with you re “come out”. Plus, the rest of the paragraph makes that obvious with the dichotomy of sentences.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …215=459-4877.

  • nathanalbright

    …I don’t think the Hebrew seems that difficult. Literally, “her children emerge” is a clear statement that the children are alive in the womb, and the use of the word miscarriage seems political. The only difficulty of the Hebrew is that it disagrees with the bogus worldview of those who want to sanction the murder of the innocent unborn. And, later on, you agree (perhaps unintentionally) with Mike and I when we say that it was the bumping of the woman that induces premature labor that is paid for by the fine and not the death of the unborn, which would be subject to lex talionis because, as you correctly cite, the killing of a human being (including the unborn) cannot be compensated by mere money. It’s not that complicated, doctor.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …if I merely “reported” what was in the book.

    My interpretation is that “children” was one of the words that prompted the pronouncement that this interpretive task was “replete with difficulties.”

    The word “miscarriage” is concluded NOT to be political if, indeed, the “damages” are limited to the MOTHER [as had been determined elsewhere].

    Finally, I concur that the $-penalty was levied [in the former instance, v. 22] when the effects were nonlethal.

    I see your viewpoint; do you see mine?

  • nathanalbright

    but I don’t really see anything meritorious about it.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I won’t belabor the points (no pun intended) that have already been made, nor will I quote other articles I’ve read, but will provide additional evidence by pointing you to another of my favorite, well-researched, footnoted, resources: apologetics press.

    One analysis of Exodus 21 is here.

    If you search Exodus 21 on the site, there are a host of other hits. Note that the site is maintained by a staff of ministers, scientists, teachers, doctors, and there’s even a former atheist or two.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …if the only entity in the mother-fetus dyad that sustains “damages” after the trauma is the “mother” … this means that the “constant” in the two instances was the “fetus” …

    and

    …if this be the case, the only “variable” in the two instances is whether the mother had been merely sideswiped [yielding a $-penalty] vs. more severely hurt [yielding application of Hammurabi...including the potential death penalty if the mother had died from the fall].

    Thus, in THIS instance, the “fetus” would not be viewed as co-equal to the mother in terms of “humanity” [instead, termed "potential life"].

    *

    I recognize the possibility – which is explicitly excluded from the Masoretic Text [which is translated directly from the composition two millennia ago rather than via Greek/Latin, etc.] – that the “damages” towards the “fetus” could “vary” [recognizing the absence of any NICU-support, centuries ago] and, thus, that a premature delivery [rather than a miscarriage] could yield a live-birth [and, thus, "no harm, no foul"]…regardless of what may or may not have occurred with regard to the “mother.”

    In THAT instance, the fetus would be viewed as co-equal to the mother in terms of “humanity” [here, termed "life"].

    *

    Clear?

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …it is notable that this discussion traverses other languages (from Hebrew to English) and doesn’t cite “Jewish” interpretive sources (relying exclusively on Christian-oriented thinkers).

    I’m not decrying this fact; I’m merely noting it…and its potential impact on how the discussion evolves [particularly when compared with that in the JPS-Torah].

    Instead of fixating on the character of the references, however, I want to “deliver” a “fair/balanced” presentation, recognizing that the JPS-authored compilation [which I only excerpted, albeit providing the complete reference] is assuredly not “political” [as perceived within the Jewish Community, a conclusion drawn from multiple conversations over the decades].

    {If the JPS weren’t viewed as the prime repository for disparate input, I would have been the FIRST to note this accusation; its HQ is here in Philly and I have met one of the editors of one of the books in this series. It is not tethered to any one Jewish movement, and the references draw from 18 Biblical translations, per page 1776.}

    To be explicit, if it is assumed that the former instance yields NO damage to the mother while the fetus COULD have died, then a $-penalty [only] would have resulted from loss of “life” [rather than "potential life"]. In this instance, therefore, abortion would not result in the “death” of “life” and, therefore, the “fetus” would not yet have assumed the status of “life.”

    ([{Please don't kill the messenger!)]}

  • nathanalbright

    I can understand that, but again, I fail to see how this is specifically excluded from the Masoretic text. Again, I view the life of the mother and the fetus as co-equal, and see nothing remotely objectionable about such a view, as heavy as the implications are. That’s the only part that loses me :B.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …to focus on one concern ["... I fail to see how this is specifically excluded from the Masoretic text."] by distilling the point #3 [truncated]:

    “The word ‘damage’ is viewed as referring to the potential death of the mother, per Rabbinic tradition articulated by Mekhilta of Rabbi Ishmael.?

    This is the description of this document:

    “A JPS classic reissue of the critical volume, based on manuscript and early editions.

    “Mekhilta de-Rabbi Ishmael is a classic collection of midrash. It contains commentary on a large part of the Book of Exodus (chapters 12 to 23) and represents the two main modes of interpretation: the halakhah (legal doctrine), and the aggadah (moral and religious teachings). The work also contains allusions to historical events and ancient legends not found elsewhere.

    “A new introduction by noted scholar David Stern highlights the work, now published in a convenient two-volume set. It retains the original text from the JPS 1933 edition, reset in a modern, readable typeface, with Hebrew and English on facing pages and the original indexes.

    “This classic work is widely recognized as a model of meticulous and thorough scholarship. Its translation is accurate, straightforward, and usable by scholars, students, and lay readers. Out of print for many years, it will be heralded as an important reissue that should belong to every rabbi, rabbinical school, and Jewish Studies professor, and will be an important addition to synagogue libraries and public libraries with Judaica collections.”

    http://jps.org/product/9780827606784/mekhilta-de-rabbi-ishmael

    *

    Thus, we are dealing with Midrash ["a homiletic method of biblical exegesis. The term also refers to the whole compilation of homiletic teachings on the Bible. Midrash is a way of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal or moral teachings. It fills in many gaps left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities that are only hinted at."].

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

    This is NOT the musing of some obscure Medieval rabbi; rather, it has roots in Roman times, virtually contemporaneous with when the application of the Torah was being transformed in-writing for practical application.

    *

    This is viewed — by many people with whom I’ve chatted over the years — as the major reason why a pro-Choice component of Jewish thought has been promoted, notwithstanding the potentially-offsetting references cited elsewhere [rooted in the Talmudic extension of the Genesis-quote].

    It would be wise for the Christian Community to accept this POSSIBILITY, ok?

  • nathanalbright

    I don’t consider the midrashim of rabbis on biblical law to be remotely normative when they contradict (as they sometimes do) the plain meaning of the text. I have a pretty substantial mistrust of the way that rabbis corrupted the law (for example, denying that an oxen who gored a goy was subject to the biblically mandated death penalty) and therefore the rabinnical interpretation of this passage is also suspect.

    As I suspected, it was not the Masoretic text of the Hebrew itself, but rather the Talmudic interpretation that seems to rule out the obvious sense of the passage. I can intellectually understand where the reluctance to enforce such a law would come from, but I do not consider it normative or decisive as an interpretation. Furthermore, I consider the whole biblical context to be decisive in taking God’s foreknowledge in the womb into consideration (see, for example, Jeremiah 1) and therefore in my judgment the view of the “prophets” who wrote scripture trumps the flawed exegesis of the rabbis, whose opinion to me is as irrelevant as the Church Fathers and creeds I discussed in a different thread with a similar biblical flavor.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …was that you consider the POSSIBILITY of this interpretation to be legitimate.

    Citing the classic Jewish concept [quoted elsewhere on this site as the humorous intro to an analysis of this issue] of multiple-opinions [Hillel and Shammai initiated this type of debate], the point that must be emphasized is that this disputational approach yields greater understandings of the forces at–play.

    Citing one opinion with which you disagree hardly impugns this overall approach, and the citation of these ancient writings in conjunction with interpretation of the Masoretic Text suggests some degree of homology.

    And, I might add that there is particular dispute with a point you made earlier regarding whether the two lives [mother/fetus] should be treated equally if one is endangering the other. Therefore, it’s OK to have beliefs, but let’s limit the discussion here to the ability to draw documentation into the discussion, as much as possible.

    Your “goring” metaphor is particularly unrealistic, for it is generally understood that the application of the Death Penalty by the Sanhedrin was non-existent. [I'll skip the accompanying aphorisms.]

    There is one loose-end, here, namely the Jeremiah 1 citation.

    I’ve done my part, and it may not be possible for much resolution to occur if you can’t accommodate the possibility that a differing approach can be viewed as legitimate.

  • nathanalbright

    …that resolution is elusive, largely because our presuppositional ground is so different. In addition, I consider your pitting of the life of the child against the mother to be a false dilemma, and see your entire hermeneutic on the subject to be illegitimate. And that sort of disagreement does not admit to any sort of resolution, except perhaps an understanding of the different ground and an agreement to disagree.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …that we both agreed to disagree AND that there is some legitimacy that we both can cite to support our conclusions?

  • nathanalbright

    …though I personally consider your position immoral, I do at least believe you have intellectual legitimacy in having done your research to back up your position and having taken the time to articulate it consistently with your own belief system. That is certainly a fair conclusion to make.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …believe it or not, I divorced my belief-system from this discussion!

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

    Good man

  • bobguzzardi

    Conventional wisdom is that Rick Perry can’t win Pennsylvania. I disagree. Rick Perry will light up a base and convince Independents that this is time for a bold choice to change the direction of the country. Michele Bachman offers a clear change of direction.

    All the others stay the course but slow the ship.

  • bobguzzardi

    Abortion is completely prohibited in both teaching and practice among Orthodox. The teaching of Orthodox rabbis is consistent with Sarah Palin’s view.

    dr. bob is not learned in the Oral Law and teachings of the rabbis.

    He and I disagree. He claims himself as the authority; I look to the rabbis who have learned as the authorities.

  • nathanalbright

    …but my own view is very strongly anti-abortion. I am not surprised that there was a more “liberal” tradition dating from the time of the Roman Empire, though, as there has always been various divisions among Jews (and Christians) as to one’s level of strict enforcement of the biblical law.

  • sunshinek67

    Why write off Cain and not Gingrich?

  • changeforrickperry

    Or is it an organization? I’m interested…writing off Paul is a significant blow according to things I’d read last week…he was hoping for some evangelical support in Iowa. I didn’t think he’d get it, but all the same, this announcement seems significant.

  • sunshinek67

    I was travelling earlier, y’know conservative online activist between red lights lol

  • changeforrickperry

    I guess I’m a conservative online activist between baking bread and nursing sick baby goats.

    I just read the article. Wow, this IS pretty significant. Their statement:

    “Each individual of the seven member voting Board of Directors expressed many positives of Representative Ron Paul and businessman Herman Cain. The stumbling block for the board regarding Representative Paul dealt primarily with ?States? Rights? as it pertains to the sanctity of human life and God?s design for marriage. Regarding Mr. Cain, the board cited a narrative of questions versus clarity on the key issues of life, marriage, foreign policy, and presidential readiness. The board did not give consideration to Governor Romney.”

    OUCH. Especially in regards to Cain.

    I just went to The Family Leader’s website and they have a contact page. I strongly suggest that we write them and explain our support of Rick Perry and encourage them to endorse him. This seems to me like it would be a pretty critical endorsement.

  • changeforrickperry

    She asked if they might use Perry’s own “states’ rights” issue against him. My response was, “NO, because Perry supports constitutional amendments to protect marriage; Ron Paul opposes even that. Perry thinks until we get amendments then it’s up the states to decide, but we DO need amendments ASAP.” So maybe we should point that out in our letters to The Family Leader, explaining the very real difference between Paul and Perry’s philosophies on the subject.

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …without injecting my own viewpont {which is “multiple choice”].

  • bzip

    At least the family leader group gets it in regards to Cain. I have been worrying much about our fellow conservatives these days. This is good news.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68932.html

    “The Family Leader ? Iowa activist Bob Vander Plaats’s social conservative advocacy group ? says that it has cut its list of possible 2012 endorsees to four names: Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.”
    …..

    Yes, we should all write the family group for a show of support for Rick Perry :-) .

  • changeforrickperry

    So they shouldn’t have any fears on that account. Nor should they worry about his pro-life record. So we’re definitely on the high ground here, bzip!

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    [probably kept The Newt because he showed-up and is up in the polls]

  • Pingback: Delicia Skyberg

  • Pingback: Holli Axelrad

  • Pingback: Herb Beetley

  • Pingback: Renetta Servidio

  • Pingback: electronic cigarette

  • Pingback: carpet cleaning boston

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: Automotive Forum

  • Pingback: ropa para bebes kukuli

  • Pingback: zakopane noclegi

  • Pingback: corporate magician

  • Pingback: skype pobierz

  • Pingback: Egal Gabbay

  • Pingback: Buy Meratol online

  • Pingback: Randka

  • Pingback: cv wzór

  • Pingback: backyard activities

  • Pingback: Mining Technology

  • Pingback: Zierfischfutter

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: how to homebrew beer

  • Pingback: แทงบอลออนไลน์

  • Pingback: helpful source

  • Pingback: ανακαίνιση

  • Pingback: jesus adrian romero y abel zabala enamorame

  • Pingback: Mining Technology

  • Pingback: คอนโดเอแบคบางนา

  • Pingback: BBCAT

  • Pingback: descargar musica gratis ipad 2

  • Pingback: reviews

  • Pingback: Koi

  • Pingback: distilled vodka

  • Pingback: kozmetika pre muzov

  • Pingback: Payday Loans Online

  • Pingback: Aquaristik Bücher

  • Pingback: Fusevision.com.sg

  • Pingback: faded furniture finish

  • Pingback: Pool Shop

  • Pingback: Pensé en esto

  • Pingback: Google

  • Pingback: magiczna randka

  • Pingback: หอพัก

  • Pingback: skilled

  • Pingback: Video on Demand

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: central florida cornerstone construction central florida

  • Pingback: wielu ludzi w jednym miejscu

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: aquarium filter

  • Pingback: mobile phone advertising

  • Pingback: darmowa strona randki

  • Pingback: umow sie na randke

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: darmowa strona z randkami

  • Pingback: PPT

  • Pingback: football summer camps 2012 lexington kentucky

  • Pingback: Susan Goodell Del Mar

  • Pingback: proven used vehicle extended warranty

  • Pingback: learn to draw people

  • Pingback: Exploretalent Casting Calls

  • Pingback: zirconia engagement rings

  • Pingback: how to cure a yeast infection naturally while pregnant

  • Pingback: task list manager comparison

  • Pingback: cost of assisted living

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: lcd screen

  • Pingback: randki internetowe

  • Pingback: Arkadas Ara

  • Pingback: rewelacyjny portla randkowy

  • Pingback: darmowy serwis randkowy

  • Pingback: portal randkowy za darmo

  • Pingback: free advertisement

  • Pingback: one-time provide

  • Pingback: SEO Services Australia

  • Pingback: payday loan lenders

  • Pingback: casino gaming

  • Pingback: this

  • Pingback: internet marketing methods revealed

  • Pingback: he brought up

  • Pingback: Network

  • Pingback: economical price

  • Pingback: his answer back

  • Pingback: Butterball

  • Pingback: gold and silver investments

  • Pingback: Jospeh Silloway

  • Pingback: Kirk Thakur

  • Pingback: alfileres de boda

  • Pingback: Fisher Review

  • Pingback: The bonus

  • Pingback: Angla Dallam

  • Pingback: Kip Auer

  • Pingback: Tyree Pascal

  • Pingback: online dating

  • Pingback: Alcohol Detox

  • Pingback: my latest article

  • Pingback: Lender of Payday Loans

  • Pingback: sofy rozkładane

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: John Markin

  • Pingback: honda usa cars

  • Pingback: Auto Forum

  • Pingback: las vegas bankruptcy

  • Pingback: find a telephone number

  • Pingback: Teichfolie

  • Pingback: Very yrev test

  • Pingback: executive jacket

  • Pingback: texas driver education

  • Pingback: keto diet plan

  • Pingback: facebook likes, no username or password needed

  • Pingback: Your #1 urban lifestyle destination

  • Pingback: www.eztraffic.org

  • Pingback: Welcome to My Blog

  • Pingback: golfkeuring

  • Pingback: super randka