« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Alabama GOP Presidential Forum – An Evening with Newt, Rick and 2,000 of my closest friends

By: Melody Warbington (rwm52) (Diary)  |  March 13th, 2012 at 02:07 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Thanks again to my understanding husband who I stood up for dinner via text so I could spend the evening with Newt, Rick and close to 2,000 conservatives, tea partiers and GOPer’s, plus a handful of SCUM (so-called unbiased media – H/T funwithknives). One of the perks of working in downtown Birmingham is that I didn’t have to fight for a parking spot to attend the forum tonight since my monthly space was only a couple of blocks from the historic Alabama Theatre. I didn’t even have to stand in line for a ticket. Just walked over from work and took my seat as the Chairman of the AL-GOP, Bill Armistead, introduced the first candidate. As planned, each candidate spoke about 25 minutes, followed by one question each from 3 chosen panelists and Chairman Armistead. The first question had to do with turning the country back toward God (from a teenager), the second about preventing special interest groups/unions from influencing D.C. and any bids for jobs (from a woman), and the third about military intervention and defense (from a veteran). The Chairman asked each candidate to explain why he is the best conservative in the race who can beat Obama.

There were definitely more than a few Santorum fans in attendance. And the Senator didn’t disappoint them, or me for that matter. Being a regular at redstate, how could I not be aware of his, shall we say, tendencies toward big government solutions and his inclination to be a team player, both of which are a big turn off for me. Not that I don’t enjoy team sports, but in politics, I prefer a fighter who will go into the ring ready to deliver a knock out. However, I’ve never gotten the angry, whiny vibe from him that others have. The man I heard tonight is one who loves his God, his family and his country. When he said he got in the race because he wanted to be able to tell his children he did everything he could to protect their freedoms, I believe him. No doubt about it in my mind. He would fight to protect religious freedom for all of us. And frankly, I think it’s likely he’s learned a lesson or two about some of his not so conservative votes. The Senator drew solid rounds of cheers and chants, and it was clear he received a very warm reception. I was moved by his earnestness and would be proud to cast my vote for him if he wins the primary. The money quote for Senator Santorum tonight was (and I hope I get this right because I didn’t take any notes), “If you can’t say what you believe, why speak?” Hopefully, a video of the full speech will turn up tomorrow. If it does, I’ll update with a link because it’s definitely worth the few minutes it takes to watch, whether you’ve already voted or not. However, Newt was better.

Anyone who read my diary My Political Romance With Newt knows I committed to vote for Newt after hearing him speak last Saturday night. I heard most of the same speech tonight, but he was even better tonight. I know he was preachin’ to the choir, but Newt got standing ovations with more than one money quote. He made his case by outlining the stark contrast between himself and Obama. The largest round of applause was when Newt said he would never apologize for defending America. The crowd roared when he laid out his plans for Day One of a Newt presidency (eliminate the czars, reinstate Mexico City policy, approve Keystone, restore conscience clauses for healthcare workers, move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, and withdraw Holder’s lawsuits on states). See Newt’s Day One Plan. He challenged Obama to 7 Lincoln Douglass style debates with no moderators and no timekeeper. He offered to meet Obama to discuss algae vs. $2.50 a gallon gasoline at any oil rig, gas station or even on a college campus where Obama would feel more comfortable. He spoke of the culture war and attacks on Christianity from liberals and the media, specifically mentioning the new show, GCB airing on ABC. And Cold Warrior, he came close to taking your advice. He remarked that even if elected, doing what needs to be done would require all of us to get involved and stay involved. One of Newt’s staffers has my business card. If he follows up per our discussion, I’ll be suggesting that he advise Newt to endorse the Precinct Project.

Unfortunately, Senator Santorum had another event to attend, so he left immediately after his speech. Newt and Calista stayed and greeted supporters, shook hands, autographed signs (including mine) and took photos. One of my pet peeves is a weak handshake. I’m happy to report that Newt and Calista each met my standard with a firm handshake.

Interesting to note that neither Santorum nor Gingrich used a teleprompter.

al.com reported these comments from fellow attendees:

Tom Rogers of Calera came out of today’s forum just as he went in.

“I came in believing that Santorum best spoke to my issues, best expressed how I want the president to feel about freedom, about a faith in God you don’t hide in public life and about the life of the unborn,” Rogers said. “I leave tonight comfortable with Sen. Santorum and I’ll vote for him.”

Kitty Lester came into tonight leaning toward Gingrich but having not ruled out Santorum. She ruled him out after tonight’s performance by Gingrich.

“Sen. Santorum was fine in what he said. Didn’t say a thing I disagreed with,” Lester said. “But, did you hear Newt? Did you hear that fight in him? He’s ready to debate Obama right now, tonight and beat him. Really, I didn’t see a lot of difference between Santorum or Newt but there was a difference and it was Newt is ready to fight, fight and fight. … He has my vote.”

Jon Drake of Prattville, just north of Montgomery, drove up for the forum undecided. He left wearing a Newt button.

“Santorum was really good but Newt rules,” said Drake. “I want the guy who takes on the president to be just as convinced as Obama is that he’s right. We need passion and Newt has it.”

I personally spoke to several folks who moved into Newt’s camp after hearing him. I hope they convince their families and friends to do the same.

Vote Newt 2012! I am!

P.S. The poor volunteers at Romney’s table looked lonely. Looked like they were having a lot of trouble giving his signs away. There were several Paul supporters, including the one lone loon voice who yelled “Ron Paul” at one point which I promptly booed.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • WillWong

    Newt delivered a total game plan complete with solid steps. In typical Newt style he took apart Obama energy plan! His three simple steps of building the Keystone Pipeline, reinstating drilling in the gulf, and opening up drilling on Federal land is so easy to understand. His short and long term plan to deal with Iran brought the crowd to their feet (based on the noise level). The loudest cheer was reserved for his insistence that every person on the downticket signed a commitment to repeal Obamacare.

    Santorum gave a rousing speech and got plenty of cheers. The noise level was comparable to Newt’s. However, the overwhelming impression I got was a campaign speech high on cheerleading but low on specifics which was the reason I gave up after 15 minutes. To Santorum’s credit, he was quite good with his line about how his grandfather came to America in 1925 and there were no government programs except freedom!

    Based on the comments, Newt was most impressive!

    • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

      about Newt delivering solutions. Goals. Policy. The 3 simple steps. I think this is what turned some voters toward him. I heard a couple of folks say Santorum’s answers weren’t as direct.

      As I said, I like Santorum, but give me practical solutions on how to solve problems. That’s what Newt did.

      • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior
        • WillWong

          Some people fault Newt for naming FDR as the greatest President of the 20th century and not Reagan.

          History and people’s perception of it changes over time. Many say that history will judge GWBush as a much better President than when he left office. Could it be that Reagan was still quite recent when Newt gave his rendition of FDR as his choice of the greatest POTUS in the 20th century?

        • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

          FDR’s D-Day announcement was certainly, in the Speaker’s words, “very powerful and very poignant”; it clearly began with an address to the Deity and ended with an “Amen”; it doubtless brought a sense of comfort to many who were concurrently pondering the fate of their boys on the beaches; and it stands among other elevated expressions of the American civil religion–but it is not recognizably a prayer, in a historically orthodox, scripturally faithful Christian sense, at all.

          I am still clinging to a hope of being able to vote for Newt, but I would feel better doing so if he were to disabuse himself of the notion that part of his responsibility as President will be to bring the nation back to God. There are indeed people for whom the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a true calling, but that calling has not been given to any President. The latter must indeed do all in his power to justly and impartially execute the powers granted him for the good of all, but to conflate the upholding of civic morality with a return to God is to demean the person and work of the Lord Christ, before whom all must one day appear.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            and what I took from Newt’s answer was just that he would be unashamed of his belief in God. No indication at all that he would go beyond that other than to make sure the 1st amendment applies to all, including Christians.

          • acat

            This is a matter for the Attorney General – do you think Gingrich will appoint a Holder or a Reno?

            This seems to me a battle that needs to be fought in the culture, not in the government .. the best you can hope for in government is someone not actively working against you …

            Mew

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            According to my rough transcript from the C-SPAN tape:

            Question: How will you, like Lincoln, lead our nation back to God?
            Response: First of all, you have to have a President who in fact believes that that is part of his responsibility.
            :
            You also have to have a President who like Lincoln, is prepared to pray.

            I just wish he had felt comfortable giving a version of your statement rather than launch a contested theological missile.

          • WillWong

            to be the salt and light to a fallen world! The President and every single believer in Christ are commanded by the Lord himself to be witnesses for Jesus by their word and deed. That does not mean that the President should use the power of his office to promote Christianity. It simply means that by word and deed, the President can show the world that he abides by a standard that is even higher than any on earth and that his fear of God will compell him to exercise the duty of his office to the best of his ability even when he is alone and unseen by the world. This should give you even more confidence to vote for the man!

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            My confidence to vote for a candidate does not need to be bolstered by theologically-dubious pronouncements. I fully realize that could be applied in spades to certain of the other candidates as well, but I have this thing about levelling my criticism at those I am most attracted to–and that has become Newt over the past months.

            To your title, his comment was not about the responsibility of every Christian but rather about the responsibility of every President–”you have to have a President who”–and that is neither Constitutionally true nor biblically sound.

          • littlehouse18

            Both conservatives make me feel they ‘get it’ more than Mitt and would lead this nation back. If only we could combine them!

            Newt seemed to speak more from the mind and Santorum more from the heart. I guess I just prefer Santorum’s passion, vision, and earnestness. I want to hear big themes and be inspired, especially in the depressing climate in which we find ourselves. Newt does this also to a degree, but this was a more policy-oriented speech, very professorial, and was excellent in specifics. That approach can also be quite comforting in these days. He was consistently good, calm, and rested, and in that respect gave a better speech. But Santorum’s high points stick with me more.

            Newt incisively points out the folly of this president’s policies, and Santorum gets at the driving forces behind Obama. So they have very different approaches, both quite necessary. I like that Santorum gets to the bottom line, but I understand that some people might be uncomfortable with his telling it like it is. It seems that Mitt is one of those people.

            One little quibble, and which is that Newt will never have the chance to take Obama apart in the sorts of debates that he envisions. Obama will never agree to that, so it’s a moot point with me. I also fear that a large proportion of the electorate will never vote for (I hate to say it) Newt and his ‘First Mistress’. It is what it is, and it’s just a shame he chose that path. I think it kills his chances of defeating ‘faithful family man’ Obama.

          • the_invisible_hand

            My fear is that my home state won’t pick a single Not Romney to get around. Tenn. and SC may have disagreed, but they did at least rally behind one Not Romney at a time.

            Romney’s only hope is that AL and Miss. are blinded by Romney’s math and/or can’t decide between Newt and Rick.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            the jab at Mrs. Gingrich. People make mistakes, even big ones. Thank God there’s such a thing as redemption. Even though the path they took involved an affair, Newt and Calista are married.

            All the candidates have baggage, including Mrs. Santorum, but I’m not going to build up my candidate by dragging her into the mud.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Context is important, and I thought the more relevant part of Newt’s comments followed what he said about prayer. I

          • acat

            I’m rather apathetic about what the President espouses, religiously.

            I’m more interested in what actions you think he (or she) can take.

            Seems to me, other than appointing good personnel and using the bully pulpit well, there just isn’t much that the chief executive can do.

            If you see it otherwise, then .. what are you specifically looking for?

            Mew

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            And that’s pretty much what I heard from Newt other than he might ask the country to pray occasionally. To recap Newt’s points:

            1. Bring the federal judges back in line to enforce the Constitution rather than legislate.

            2. Defend religious liberty by speaking out against liberals and elite media.

            3. Appoint an Attorney General & other personnel who will uphold the Constitution rather than impose liberal values.

            Since he’s also a strong supporter of the 10th Amendment, I’m not looking for anything more than that.

          • acat

            some of the Santorum supporters explaining why they prefer him to Gingrich, while acknowledging the actual limits on the President.

            Mew

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            or allow a threadjack. Or maybe not. Do the redstate rules allow me to do so?

            I’m willing to allow this discussion so long as it doesn’t evolve into a bash session of the candidates. Both speeches were positive and uplifting, and I felt motivated to work even harder for a GOP win in November. I have no problem discussing the merits of one candidate over the other, but as soon as it goes into bot territory, I’m calling it off. And you have my permission to do the same if I’m not around.

            Having said that, Santorum said nothing in his response to the same question that troubled me, either. A lot of talk about freedom for everyone. Here’s my summary with the money quote at the end.

            Santorum said he has been very public about his faith and beliefs, and that as a public figure, you should behave in a way that’s consistent with what you believe. He discussed Obama and the recent HHS mandate as well as the recent effort to force a religious organization to hire someone who did not adhere to its faith, an extreme position toward which we’re headed. He thinks we should elect a President who articulates a vision that is not just for freedom of worship (the phrase now used by Obama and the left), but one that also protects what we do outside of our worship service.

            Someone who will talk about the importance of faith in public life, and those of faith being involved in public life with the freedom to speak out from their religious convictions or non-religious convictions. He mentioned James Madison referring to the perfect remedy of the First Amendment – freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech. This so that all people of faith and no faith, of different faiths, can come into public square and make their arguments, because religious liberty is the trunk upon which all other freedoms stem. We must protect that liberty in the public square and the ability of those in the pulpit to speak the truth, or we are not free. “For if you cannot speak that which you believe, then why speak?”

          • acat

            The root of our rights does not come from religious freedom but from property freedom .. it all stems from old common law.

            The religious basis our founding fathers added was, in part, to get the various disparate States on board (remember, Declaration 1776, Constitution 1789…) and seems, to this cat, to have been a wise choice .. although it has certainly caused some troubles and confusion down through the centuries.

            My thought, in this case, is that Gingrich is demonstrating a better understanding of what is possible.

            Mew

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Hard for anyone to argue that Newt doesn’t understand the issues or the Constitution. His solutions to the issues at hand sealed the deal for me.

          • acat

            Too many make that mistake. Don’t join them.

            Mew

          • lineholder

            than it might seem.

            These are disturbing times for Christians right now, that’s all.

          • lineholder

            If so, you might be interested in this piece that was posted on another site yesterday.

            http://townhall.com/columnists/terrypaulson/2012/03/12/the_devil_made_me_do_it

            Granted, the author used Lewis’ character of Wormwood in a political context that wasn’t even close to what Lewis intended. But…there’s more to this battle we’re facing than meets the eye, which is the underlying message presented in this article.

            Santorum is correct in believing that freedom of religion should be protected and preserved. I’m very grateful to him for standing by it, too.

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

            …but I give the author credit for his effort to try a different tack. One pair of sentences, though, did stand out above the rest:

            They used to be praying to the Enemy for guidance and wisdom. Now, they just demand more from their representatives.

            This encapsulates very well the current zeitgeist of our nation

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            I’ve read and heard about them a lot, so I know the basic premise. Our minister references them from time to time in his sermons.

            I have read Mere Christianity and part of the Chronicles. Til We Have Faces is one of my favorite books.

            When I went back and listened to the portion of Santorum’s speech to summarize it in my comment to acat upthread, I was struck by what he said about freedom to worship vs. religious freedom. It’s frightening to think that people don’t realize the difference or what will be lost if Obama is successful in leaving the former intact while oppressing the latter. That seems to be his goal.

          • downstateray

            Congratulations to all the voters in AL and MS who threw away their vote tonight on Gingrich.

          • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

            on Santorum and Romney.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            If you’ve got something further to say, go write your own diary or find an open thread.

          • demsaresatanic

            threw their votes away on your boy Romney? His grits didn’t seem to sell so well.

          • westcoastpatriette

            that “the root of our rights does not come from religious freedom but from property freedom,” then how do you account for the famous words in the Declaration that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights? And that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men?

          • acat

            Each of the inalienable rights are related to property.

            The right to life – self-defense.
            The right to liberty – freedom to do what one will within the confines of ones’ chosen societies’ boundaries and within the rights of ones’ neighbors.
            The right to pursue happiness.

            I have no problem with these rights being given a religious source, but I don’t see where these are found in any religious tradition.

            Mew

          • westcoastpatriette

            Why bring religious tradition into the picture? How is that related to the topic?

          • lapert

            While I certainly agree that religious freedom does not sit at the root of the rights of man as Jefferson understood them (religious freedom is a necessary outcome of freedom of thought) – I wouldn’t be so quick to ignore his choice of ‘pursuit of happiness’ in place of Locke’s ‘property’. I think he would disagree with you that property is related to life or liberty – they stand on their own. Whether he intended property to be folded into pursuit of happiness or not is an interesting debate – Mason had clauses referencing both in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and Jefferson was certainly making a deliberate choice to not have them both separately – was he being influenced by Franklin, was it just for the poetic power of the sentence, did he see property an inherent part of happiness. I have heard all these argued persuasively.

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

            …which is that the individual has rights against the claims of the state (or Crown or noble) as opposed to being delegated those rights by the state.

            The question then becomes what grounds the rights of these individual rights, and that is where those with religious faith would say that God is the higher authority that supersedes the claims of the state – which at bottom becomes an assertion of might makes right.

            So whether one personally subscribes to a faith in God, it still follows that having religious freedom in the society, which allows people to make that appeal to God to stand against the authority claims of the state, is a key root to preserving individual freedom and its subsidiaries, including property freedom.

            That is, remove religion from the public sphere, and you’ve removed a major constraint on the claims of the state. And the umbrella of religious freedom covers also the freedom those who don’t profess religious faith. So it’s win-win.

          • acat

            whether they governed that way or not… and the idea that there were limits on the rights of the King go all the way back to Runnymede.

            The notion that we could govern king-free.. or with an “elected and highly limited king” did not arise from religion, although religion is one of the estates required to keep it that way. The press is another, eh?

            Mew

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

            …as opposed to those societies where the ruler was god, where religion and state were united.

            That is, by rooting his kingly authority in divine sanction – and since the church had its own distinct domain – this also constrained the king because his authority/right of rule could be taken away by God and given to another.

            (China perhaps had a similar concept in the Mandate of Heaven.)

            And in this I see the seed of limited government that can logically be extended to representative democracy. Not saying, of course, that religion is the only stream, though it is hard to find something else that can withstand “might makes right” in the end.

            Rodney Stark has done some interesting tracing of the Western liberal tradition (in the classic sense) from Aquinas and the Scholastics.

          • aesthete

            Firstly, out of the major European powers, only France and the Holy Roman Empire (successor states of the Carolingian Empire) were truly organized around the conceit of “divine right”: none of the kingdoms of the British Isles, the Eastern European principalities, or even the Iberian kingdoms, claimed that their authority was derived from the Papacy or an ecclesiastical authority. As a legal theory, it originated in and was predominantly used in France (the HRE was far too weak as a political entity). Other monarchies, like England and Spain, adopted this legal position at times but mostly as a reactionary posture in the face of emergent or extant phenomena (i.e., to promote centralization or abrogate common law during the High Middle Ages). It wasn’t a particular constraint on the state; to the contrary, the legal theory at its extremes in the 17th Century postulated that the monarch had every right as temporal sovereign to confiscate even church property from even the church, and that only God was fit to judge him.

            In practice, the theory proper was used only briefly by western Protestant monarchs during the 17th century to justify consolidation and centralization . A somewhat similar (though much weaker) concept was in place in France and the HRE based on the coronation of Charlemagne by the Pope at the time as “Emperor of the Romans”, which did however require the recognition of the temporal power of the church in some spheres (hence the many, many French antipopes and conflicts between the Catholic church and those states). Generally, ecclesiastical compacts with temporal powers tended to generate collusion more often than checks and balances; the checks and balances in medieval systems more often than not came from the limited power available to a monarch, the difficulty of creating bureaucratic states, and the monarch’s subsequent dependence on vassals or lords in his realm to provide him with troops or funds. As one might imagine, most of these relationships did little for human liberty or the common serf in most of the Medieval polities.

            The “Mandate of Heaven” was a different concept altogether: it was created to explain the legitimacy of rebellions, and to provide continuity for the next regime — theoretically, the Mandate was removed in the event of improper rule, but practically the means to determine bad rule was the success or failure of revolts. From a practical standpoint, Eastern potentates had limitless power before them, and they historically had much more centralized states and developed bureaucracies; the only thing that the Mandate of Heaven changed was how their successors in a rebellion were seen after a successful rebellion.

            Neither theory was emulated or supported by the Enlightenment thinkers who influenced the Founders.

          • aesthete

            To wrap it all up, it’s very difficult to conclude that these theories were the basis of the tradition of ordered liberty in the British Isles: to the contrary, they were 1) developed relatively late, and in response to common law, pressures from the nobility, and other movements towards liberty, 2) did not positively influence the thinkers commonly associated with the flowering of individual liberty in the British Isles, and 3) did not hold up that well, or last that long, as the official legal position of the monarchy in England.

            You might be able to make a case that the political status of the Holy Roman Empire (as a fragmented political unit) was an ideal environment for freedom to flourish — and you could make something of a case for it in the case of Japan, where the Mandate of Heaven and massive centralization of government under the Emperor as a titular head lead to industrialization and modernization. In England and the British Isles, however, that does not appear to be the case.

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

            Though actually I wasn’t trying to argue historically that “divine right of kings” or “Mandate of Heaven” was the lineal ancestor to the tradition of ordered liberty underlying representative democracy.

            I was arguing against the position that the sense that “divine right of kings” was proof that religion was antithetical to developing a theory of individual rights and liberty, noting that if anything it was a step forward from the elevating the king to divine status and thus perhaps provided a permissive sphere within which the more radical theory of ordered liberty etc. was able to develop.

            What to me is the real area of controversy is over whether our liberties today can best be rooted in the Enlightenment or in natural law traditions. Stark would appear to argue for the latter, and he’s been my major source of information on this matter.

          • aesthete

            but there isn’t really a strong dichotomy between all Enlightenment thinkers and natural law. Natural law was greatly featured in Locke’s works, Adam Smith’s “Theory of Moral Sentiments”, and many other Enlightenment thinkers and theologians. Thomas Aquinas was of course a pioneer in this sort of thinking, but it didn’t really take off, develop intellectually, or find itself implemented into legal systems until the Enlightenment. While the explicit basis of common law is natural law, it developed organically and was somewhat orthogonal to the “official” systems of law established by the monarchies. Almost all of the natural law thinkers from continental Europe found little purchase in their respective spheres of influence aside from limited acceptance of the concept in some of the Italian city.

            As far as I’ve been able to tell, the development of liberty in England came about mostly as a result of the compromises between a jingoistic monarchy which made ill-fated attempts at control in the French mainland and a weak, supplanted nobility with less secure titles or legitimacy which quickly gained power as a result of the monarchy’s loss of vassals and territories on the continent. This instability allowed for two developments to occur more or less simultaneously:

            1) Armed peasantry, and common law. The king did not have a large professional army, and English knights mustered by the nobility were not as well trained, not as well armed or armored, and less numerous than their continental counterparts. In contrast, the Welsh longbow was adapted for use in England, had amazing stopping power, and was utilized by the peasantry to good effect when they were levied or in the course of brigandage. This asymmetry made early attempts at enforcing Norman law brought over from the continent impossible, and made common law the de facto law of the land. Additionally, the extent of the armed peasantry in England set the stage for the Glorious Revolution and other revolts later on, which solidified and legitimized the use and upholding of common law.

            2) Mostly unimpeded growth of free towns and cities that traded with the Hanseatic League. Partly by design (especially after these cities had already developed), but mostly because everyone in power was very, very busy with other things, and could not do anything about the situation due to their lack of authority and scarce resources to spare. Common law was organically applied and expanded to encompass these new economic contexts, which solidified its position and was much less damaging than monarchical caprice undoubtedly would have been.

          • aesthete

            Most of the Enlightenment ideas about radical individualism of the sort embodied in our Constitution and founding documents require a divine source. Deontological ethics are very difficult without a “first mover”.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            that Newt will not attempt to enact what he said, and that even if he were to do so in any official capacity, he would find it impossible to carry out. My critique lies with his sloppy theology rather than his policy proposals–all of which I am quite happy with.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            Newt’s had demonstrated time and time again that he’s only human and makes mistakes, despite being the smartest man in the room.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            .
            .

          • westcoastpatriette

            I read the prayer and cannot see how it in any way “demeans the person and work of the Lord Christ”. Would you elaborate on that one?

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            I’d be glad to–but I’m running out for a few hours. I will attempt to explain my point when I return.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            First, the reference to “civic morality” is intended to echo Michael Horton’s frequent usage, as in his recent On Electing a Shepherd of the National Soul:

            broad civil religion (basically, a morality grounded in a Supreme Being who has a special place for America in his plan)
            :
            believers also must stop expecting politicians to double as high priests of a false religion, an idolatrous religion, that substitutes real confessional communities for a generic moralism.

            and earlier Christless Christianity:

            Now what could be wrong with a call to moral renewal and national righteousness? But the Pharisees were distracted from the real point of the kingdom. Expecting a king who would overthrow Roman rule and reestablish the Mosaic theocracy, they missed the real identity of the Messiah and his kingdom under their noses. The disciples themselves were also distracted, routinely changing the subject whenever Jesus spoke of the cross as they neared Jerusalem. They were thinking inauguration day, with the last judgment and the consummation of the kingdom in all of its glory. Jesus knew, however, that the only route to glory down the road was the cross up ahead. For all their emphasis on external righteousness and behavior, they too affirmed salvation from inside: by moral effort.

            The fundamental problem, for a sola Scriptura, confessionally orthodox Christian, with both FDR’s “prayer” and any later candidate’s pledge to “return the nation to God”, is that salvation belongs to the Lord–alone–and he saves sinners from his wrath only through the mediatory office of Christ, and to presume that he accepts prayers or other religious duties made apart from conscious reference to the Lord Christ is completely overthrown by the Scriptures:

            Jesus said to him,

          • Jack_Savage

            …as I mull over the quote from Michael Horton and look at the takeover of mainline denominations by liberals, whether liberals have made the same mistake in a different fashion. It seems that by attempting to partner with government, they are sub-contracting the hard work of being a Christian to the State, mistaking advocacy and works for discipleship and grace, while edging closer and closer to popular culture as part of the bargain.

            I hardly think the State has moved toward Christianity, which leads to the only other option – that Christianity, as constructed by “progressives”, has moved closer to the State.

            I looked forward to you thoughts, hoped you would return from your errands soon, and you did not disappoint.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            Horton argues that the beginning of the “takeover of mainline denominations by liberals” is no recent phenomenon–much of the seed had been sown by the 1850s. The move “closer to the state” was motivated by the best of intentions–the desire to live out one’s “faith” in the sweeping crusades of moral, societal and political reform which dominated the late 19th century. The liberalising chuches found–as all improvement movements do–that C.G. Finney’s “moral suasion” can be employed far more easily when unencumbered by doctrines of depravity, election, and alien imputed righteousness.

            A more pressing present concern for many on the confessional side of evangelicalism, however, is that many people and churches formerly known as conservative Christians have, over the past 30 years, learned exactly the same lesson and abandoned the gospel of Christ for a piece of political action.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            other than affirming an individualistic “solo Scriptura”, there is very little discernible difference of essence between the “conservatives” and the “liberals”–both resulting tragically in, again using Horton’s term, a “Christless Christianity”.

          • Jack_Savage

            In my research on the PC (USA), it was fascinating to read of the split back in the 1930′s over the Essential Tenets, and even more fascinating that at that time Bonhoeffer had to go to the Abyssinian Baptist Church (up your way) to find Christ being preached.

            BTW, have you read or heard of the book “Radical” by David Platt? From what I hear, it seems to address much of what you have described.

          • westcoastpatriette

            For taking the time to elaborate. Appreciate it and think I understand more clearly what you meant in your comments about FDR’s prayer.

    • littlehouse18

      But Newt was indeed inpressive and consistently so.

      Newt looked rested but Santorum was tired and sweaty. Don’t know what their different situations were.

      • Finrod

        .

  • volunteerstate

    Thanks for the report. I voted for Santorum in Tenn. He can not speak like Newt ( Who can ? ) , but I lost faith in Newt over the years. He talks one way and walks another road. His support for Dede in New York was the final straw.

    Both Newt and Rick have pushed Big Government programs over the years. I am hoping that Rick has “awakened”, seen the light…. You gotta love Newt’s fight and oratory…..

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    Andrew Breitbart would be proud of you!

    I’ve got some irons in the fire and, of course, some messaging ideas for Newt. I voted for him here in AZ and still hope that he will somehow become our nominee. If that does not happen, there are things he can do now to help revitalize our Party — and his campaign. By helping convince grass roots conservatives to make the Republican Party the “biggest, baddest” political party in America, Newt (and any of the other three candidates, for that matter) would not only help increase his chances of winning the remaining primary contests, but would also build a constituency within the Party.

    Erick Brockway published a great Dispatch over at Unified Patriots about his night listening to Mark Levin at the Reagan Library a few nights ago. (I hope you’ll go there and read it and the comments thereto.) During the question and answer period, Levin was asked several times essentially the same question: How best can the average American get involved to “do something?” Levin did at one point say some thing like, “If you want to change your local Republican Party, then do it.” But he left out the specifics. I’ve been at this long enough to know that most good, decent conservative Americans might think “changing your local Republican Party” might mean making a phone call to the county chairman and venting, or sending in a donation, or writing a letter to the county chairman, or volunteering a few hours to man the office phones. But what would not come to mind is attending the local committee meeting and becoming a voting member of the Party. As you and others have done. eburke’s comment in response to one of mine in response to Erick’s Dispatch was particularly illuminating to me, as eburke had never expressed those thoughts to me before.

    Would you be so kind as to send to me the contact info of the Newt aide? I’d like to contact him. coldwarrior1978 at gmail dot com.

    Thanks again for this great report!

    ColdWarrior

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

    Your really captured the essential content, avoiding bird walks and irrelevancies, and were fair to all. And most thankfully, no celebrity worshiping.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    What a compliment that Breitbart would be proud!

    Email is on the way.

  • jamesm

    Melody

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior
  • Common_Cents

    by Gingrich. He is prepared to win and be one of the best Presidents we’ve had at a time when we need a real leader and real positive change in DC.

    Others may talk a good game, but Newt has the right approach and tools to succeed in this environment.

  • recentlyenlightened

    And loved your last diary, too. I followed a similar path to yours as far as my courtship with Newt. I watched the speeches via therightscoop.com last night. I liked what I heard from Santorum and am confident that he shares my heart for America. I disagree with a lot of things he’s done over the years but at least I know he loves this country and will bring a sense of pride and integrity back to the White House that we have been sorely without these last 3+ years. If I have to settle for someone, I’m comfortable settling with Santorum. He seemed able to fire the crowd up with his talk about the Declaration of Independence, faith and it’s role in government, freedom, generally with “warm fuzzy” talk. Newt, otoh, fired the crowd up with contrasts and ACTION! This is what first turned me on to Newt. He has a plan that begins BEFORE his inauguration. He has put it in writing, there is a timeline, basically something tangible. A fire we can hold his feet to. And given his tenacity as Speaker and ability to set a goal and then move the Contract With America legislation w/in the first 100 days, I am confident that we can expect results and success.
    Newt can do the “warm fuzzy” talk too. Santorum likes to paint himself as the “underdog” to generate support. I think it can safely be said that Newt is the true “underdog” in this race.
    I have heard people refer to Romney as a “doer”. I think that applies to Newt as well. And unlike Romney, Newt already knows what he wants to “do”. Romney will get there and then have to wait for someone to give him his honey-do list.

    Telling moment: My husband (who only follows politics b/c he has no choice) listened to the speeches with me. His comment was, “I know you support Newt, but my question is why doesn’t everyone? He’s the complete package. Smart, funny, and he seems like he’s ready to kick some a__!” To which I replied “Amen!” Newt and I have been going steady for some time now, but I think last night could be considered my husband’s first official date with Newt. He is smitten :)

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    My husband is voting for Newt as well. I’ve shared Newt’s speeches and my diaries with some friends who were on the fence between the two men. They’re in the Newt camp now. It’s just hard to ignore a man with a plan for Day One.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    so your comment truly means a lot to me. No doubt I miss the mark sometimes, but I do try to be fair (well, maybe not to Romney).

  • recentlyenlightened

    I like the CPAC speech a lot, that’s the one I tend to share, but last night’s will be going out to my people today! Gotta keep putting the facts in front of people. Many are too disinterested to do their own leg-work, all too happy to listen to the media and take it as truth. I still get a lot of responses about Newt being “run out of the House on ethics charges”. If you put the facts in front of them they will see the light. Unfortunately, it’s all up to us. We must become the mainstream media! Thanks for being “boots on the ground”! Newt didn’t do much in Colorado so I haven’t had the chance to see him in person. I’m jealous!

  • garfieldjl

    I’m sorry, but Santorum can’t win this on his own, he needs Newt to stay in.

    Romney is the absolute worst choice to run against Obama.

    Santorum should have stayed out of Alabama and Mississippi, instead focusing on some other states that he’s strong in.

    This would wreck havoc with Romney’s smear campaign.

  • acat

    In short, without competing in all States where he’s not on the ballot, Santorum doesn’t have a prayer of winning the nomination… and as long as he still has that chance, he’s going to pursue it.

    I will note, by the way, that Gingrich didn’t compete in Michigan, despite being on the ballot.

    Mew

  • garfieldjl

    Gingrich and Santorum probably will end up with enough delegates to reach the magic delegate number if they combine their totals.

    Trick is to make sure they aren’t stepping on each other’s toes and dividing the vote in key states.

    This strategy makes it so Romney would have a tough time trying to focus his attacks.

  • gracie

    How I wish I had been there or better yet that this had been televised for the whole country to see. And excellent, fair commentary by you.

    I cannot help but contrast this with the FNC interview on Sunday. Did anyone notice that Newt was placed in VERY unfavorable lighting sans make-up? The light was in his eyes such that he was squinting, sweating and looked exhausted. On the other screen was the calm, cool (SCUM) interviewer, Chris Wallace.

    Insult upon injury, when the Fox panel discussed the race Newt’s name was not even mentioned! His existence had evaporated!

    How I wish the two campaigns would at least agree to pick states to concentrate on. It may be too late but the delegate count would be different indeed.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I wish every voter could hear the candidates in person. Makes a lot of difference. More than that, however, I wish voters would educate themselves.

    I’m extremely disappointed in several of our local races, and I know that if voters really understood the issues and voting records, outcomes would be totally different.

  • acat

    that Gingrich didn’t compete in Michigan, right?

    Mew