Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Fri Sep 20, 2019 11:05 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:11 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 am
Posts: 3019
Likes: 0
Liked: 190
I have to say, IMO, Gingrich has a better character than Romney, Cain or Perry. No, he's not my first choice....no, I can't be excieted by him as I was by Governor Huckabee. Do I think he could do the job, is the best to go up against Obama of the 4 mentioned above....you bet...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:30 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
nrobyar wrote:
I have to say, IMO, Gingrich has a better character than Romney, Cain or Perry. No, he's not my first choice....no, I can't be excieted by him as I was by Governor Huckabee. Do I think he could do the job, is the best to go up against Obama of the 4 mentioned above....you bet...


I have a hard time evaluating the character of a guy who, despite all his positives, left his first, cancer-stricken wife for his second and then left his second for his third. Intellect, yes. Vision, yes. Innovation and out of the box thinking, yes. Political experience, yes. But personal character, discipline and integrity? I don't feel I see evidence of that. Again, I like him and do respect him on many levels. But I would prefer that the next leader of the free world during these morally troubled times is not a guy who has had a different wife for every decade of his adult life.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com



Post by TheValuesVoter has received Likes: 3 ConservTexan, maryrae, Southern Doc
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:54 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General

Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:01 pm
Posts: 884
Location: Indianapolis
Likes: 166
Liked: 73
TheValuesVoter wrote:
nrobyar wrote:
I have to say, IMO, Gingrich has a better character than Romney, Cain or Perry. No, he's not my first choice....no, I can't be excieted by him as I was by Governor Huckabee. Do I think he could do the job, is the best to go up against Obama of the 4 mentioned above....you bet...


I have a hard time evaluating the character of a guy who, despite all his positives, left his first, cancer-stricken wife for his second and then left his second for his third. Intellect, yes. Vision, yes. Innovation and out of the box thinking, yes. Political experience, yes. But personal character, discipline and integrity? I don't feel I see evidence of that. Again, I like him and do respect him on many levels. But I would prefer that the next leader of the free world during these morally troubled times is not a guy who has had a different wife for every decade of his adult life.
I agree that integrity is very very important. However, let's compare Newt and his indiscretions, with Obama and his seemingly perfect faithfulness to his wife....who do you want to run this country the next four years, provided it lasts that long???

I can't believe I am defending Newt, but this is what we are left with: comparing very flawed candidates with Obama. We are going to have to hold our noses, eyes, ears and our principles, while we vote for ABO. :cry:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:31 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
We would all PREFER a person of upright moral character... but Huckabee's not running...
:cry:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:53 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
Indiana4Huck wrote:
TheValuesVoter wrote:
nrobyar wrote:
I have to say, IMO, Gingrich has a better character than Romney, Cain or Perry. No, he's not my first choice....no, I can't be excieted by him as I was by Governor Huckabee. Do I think he could do the job, is the best to go up against Obama of the 4 mentioned above....you bet...


I have a hard time evaluating the character of a guy who, despite all his positives, left his first, cancer-stricken wife for his second and then left his second for his third. Intellect, yes. Vision, yes. Innovation and out of the box thinking, yes. Political experience, yes. But personal character, discipline and integrity? I don't feel I see evidence of that. Again, I like him and do respect him on many levels. But I would prefer that the next leader of the free world during these morally troubled times is not a guy who has had a different wife for every decade of his adult life.
I agree that integrity is very very important. However, let's compare Newt and his indiscretions, with Obama and his seemingly perfect faithfulness to his wife....who do you want to run this country the next four years, provided it lasts that long???

I can't believe I am defending Newt, but this is what we are left with: comparing very flawed candidates with Obama. We are going to have to hold our noses, eyes, ears and our principles, while we vote for ABO. :cry:


This made me think about the religion issue again.

The Dallas preacher who made the remarks about Mormonism being a cult and all that. He himself was willing to admit that he would vote for Romney over Obama even though he thinks Obama is a Christian and Romney is not. Although, all other things being equal he would rather have a Christian. But he'd vote for Romney because he thinks Romney has the better values relevant to the presidency.

This is kind of the same issue again but in the way of character rather than religious faith. Do we vote for someone who has been faithful over someone who hasn't been? It's kind of like asking, do we vote for a Christian over someone who isn't?

The legitimate point in the religious discussion was, I think, this: in evaluating politicians for public office, a person's religion is relevant to the extent that it informs and determines his values. Otherwise, we shouldn't be concerned with what someone affirms in the way of theology. Consequently, we support someone with the right values over someone who might have the right theology (but is lacking in some values).

So, what's the legitimate point in the discussion of past moral failure? Is it relevant to the extent that it will affect his leadership and decisions? Is it relevant to the extent that the president is, for better or worse, a role model?

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:51 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
We would all PREFER a person of upright moral character... but Huckabee's not running...
:cry:


Not running YET! I continue to believe that there is a Huckabee-shaped void in this contest and there is still an opportunity for him to fill it.

Here's just one bit of food for thought. In the 1990's, many folks here disliked President Clinton not just for his liberal social stances but because of the way we perceived his moral character. Many of us have continued to decry the loss of morality in this country as the pace of the degradation of standards of decency has accelerated to a truly scary level over the past two decades. And one of the most important arguments that many of us here continue to make when discussing the issue of traditional marriage is that marriage is the foundation of society and that we can't support the way that society is deemphasizing marriage and attacking its sacred foundation.

So, what happens if those of us who consider ourselves social conservatives become "the base" that elects a guy who, despite his many good qualities, has a life story that is almost a walking billboard for the types of things that undermine the sanctity of marriage?

Do you think anyone would ever take the "sanctity of marriage" argument from us seriously after that?

I can imagine a person who supports same-sex marriage looking at the exit polls the day after a Gingrich or Giuliani victory and noticing the fact that Evangelicals overwhelmingly supported a guy who has been married three times and has ended two of those marriages in the most un-sacred of manners. And when the next same-sex marriage measure passes somewhere and we're out there saying that it's wrong to undermine the foundation of the family, that person and perhaps even the majority of the voting public will point out the glaring hypocrisy of us voting one way and talking the other. The people will mock: "you want to strengthen marriage? Then stop voting for people who throw their spouses away and mind your own business!" Am I the only one who thinks that the credibility of social conservatives would be severely undermined in that case?

Once we cross the line and say that past character doesn't matter, we can't cross back and forth, choosing to get outraged when one person does something deeply immoral while looking the other way at our guy or gal who did the same thing. The next time there is a tawdry scandal involving a politician, we'd better not say anything at all. Once we decide that we're not going to hold our leader to a high standard for personal integrity, we sort of lose the right to really hold anyone else to that same standard either.

Also ... and I sort of hesitate to say this because I do believe that people can make mistakes and that people can also truly change and repent. But, what happens when the First Couple is a pair that started seeing each other when the husband was married to a previous wife? Doesn't that sort of tarnish the way that we esteem the First couple? In that case, isn't it sort of hard to describe to the public the story about how the President met his wife?

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com



Post by TheValuesVoter Liked by: Southern Doc
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 2:54 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
The only opening I see for Huckabee now is as VP or brokered convention, & both of those are extremely long longshots. IF we get a miracle Huck entry, all these other options will immediately fall to the wayside AFAIC.

Till a miracle occurs, I have to choose from what's on the slate. So I am willing to support Gingrich or Santorum over & above Grumpy, Sleepy & Dopey. That is NOT an endorsement of Gingrich's character or morality; that is an endorsement of the effort to stop Obama from slaughtering larger numbers of people & destroying this country.

With Clinton, we could have chosen another term with Bush Sr. - we had a choice between Sleazy and not (I really had to restrain myself from the descriptor I almost used). Therefore, it was wrong to go with sleazy.

However, if I had to make a choice between Clinton and Obama, I would go with Clinton. Would you argue that Obama has a better character than Clinton & therefore we should support him? I would argue that sex is not the only, nor even the primary, source of immorality (granted it's probably the most popular), & Obama has one of the most flawed characters that has ever occupied the WH.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 5:43 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
As of this moment, I am leaning toward voting for Gingrich in the Georgia primary. I believe he can beat the President in November and has my full confidence in being a competent commander in chief, as well as a visionary leader. His personal issues are unfortunate, but as far as decency goes, I can only hope he's learned from his mistakes and has sought forgiveness. I believe he wants what's best for the country, and I know longer see his bid for the nomination as a unfeasible.

As far as Huckabee for VP, the only 3 candidates I can see picking him are Romney (for political expediency), Gingrich (because he respects the Governor), and Huntsman (a mixture of both reasons).


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 9:40 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
I could go for a Newt-Huckabee ticket as long as Newt is shackled firmly with a chain of moral accountability held in place by his VP Huck.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 10:38 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
I think it would be a pretty stunning development if the party of social conservatives and family values nominates for President a man who is married to his former mistress for the second election in a row.

I have to type that again because it's pretty hard to imagine. For two elections in a row, the party of faith and family nominates a guy who left his former wife for his current wife. That development could essentially put an end to the idea of values voters in general and would likely sap a lot of the credibility of politically active people of faith.

If Evangelicals put Gingrich at the top of a Presidential Ticket or even into the White House, just four years after backing John McCain, I wouldn't blame people if they never took seriously anything we said about the sanctity of marriage again.

I like and respect a number of Gingrich's qualities, including his intelligence and his creativity. But he has never been particularly known for being very disciplined, either in politics or in his personal life.

As for me, my current candidate of choice is Rick Santorum. He's not getting a lot of attention. But he has political experience, is right on a number of the issues most important to me and, as far as I am currently aware, doesn't contradict his position on the issues in his personal life. I can even get past him having supported Romney in 2008, even though I honestly don't in the least understand the logic behind that endorsement.

But, obviously, the best thing that could happen in politics would be for Governor Huckabee, the guy that all of us easily agree on, would somehow change his mind. Still praying.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:38 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Considering that the party of social conservatives and family values is not actually held by a majority of social conservatives, sadly it does not surprise me in the least.

The opportunity for a new hero to the social conservative movement for this next presidential election has passed. We are down to the choices before us - bleak as they are.

Why would a social conservative pick Gingrich over Santorum? Maybe because they have seen Santorum compromise his principles enough times in the past to question the depth of his principles? Or maybe because comparing resumes, they might plausibly perceive that Gingrich has a better chance of actually accomplishing more social conservative goals than Santorum who has become something of a lightning rod for the left?



Post by QuoVadisAnima Liked by: christopher.wilkerson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:13 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
Those who are reluctant to embrace Romney have good reason. He ran and governered as a moderate to liberal Republican and now claims to have had a conversion to mainstream conservative Republicanism. This seems quite unconvincing but in the name of electability many have and will rally to his campaign.

Those who are reluctant to embrace Newt have good reason. His position has generally been conservative in rhetoric and usually in governance. He has however broken two sacred covenants by way of adultery. These actions involved sustained and repeated lies to his wife(wives), and constituents. The actions undermined his personal effectiveness, his political effectiveness at the time, and the agenda of those who voted for him. Now he claims to have had a conversion and he and Calista are now upright defenders of the greatness of America and its values. This seems quite unconvincing but in the name of electibility many have and will rally to his campaign.

As much as I want to see Obama out of the Whitehouse, I want his agenda out more. For me the most destructive part of Obama's agenda is not the socialism, or fiscal, economic, and military collapse. I think those are symptoms not the fundamental illness. It is the sustained campaign to redifine right and wrong that rots all. Doing the wrong thing is terrible, but as long as there is some sense or voice calling out that the thing is in fact wrong, then there is hope that something might be learned from the error. I want moral leaders, but we have more to fear from all of us becoming amoral than even most of us being immoral. When a nation can no longer blush it is beyond hope.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc has received Likes: 2 TheValuesVoter, WhatsNotToLike?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 12:21 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Honest question - so you would urge everyone to rally around Rick Santorum?

Unless he pulls off something big in Iowa, I do not see it happening. If we could not get our fellow conservatives to back Huck who WAS the full package, how could we possibly get enough support for Santorum, who is a significantly weaker candidate and only one leg of the 3-legged stool, to do anything other than fatally divide the conservative vote?

I would say that the message for Christians in all this is that our country is a mission field that we have neglected far too long - and for those of us responsible for the Great Commission, it starts from the bottom up not the top down.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:04 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Honest question - so you would urge everyone to rally around Rick Santorum?

Unless he pulls off something big in Iowa, I do not see it happening. If we could not get our fellow conservatives to back Huck who WAS the full package, how could we possibly get enough support for Santorum, who is a significantly weaker candidate and only one leg of the 3-legged stool, to do anything other than fatally divide the conservative vote?


Sometimes I think you just have to play at being George Washington. Washington's great skill was at keeping the army alive, preserving his own integrity, and waiting for a Providential God to offer him some opportunity for victory.

We are clearly on track for conservatives to lose this 2012 Presidential round. The question is how much will we lose. If we invest, or really divest, our integrity into supporting candidates who are anathema to our ideals, we lose too much even if we gain the Presidency. The Presidency is not the only game, nor the only power that concerns me.

The truth is we must preserve a "plausible" defense as to why we have embraced any of the GOP Presidential field. I believe that defense must be moral and not pragmatic or we forfeit who we are as Christians in the political arena. It is our ideals that matter most because they are the only thing that lasts and has any real power to change lives. The political actors are, like us, just vessels of clay. But we need them to not be crackpots or filled with dead mens bones and all manner of corruption.

This 2012 round I will have a very difficult time voting for any of them. I will not give my consent to Newt nor Romney because I really do believe some things are worse for our cause than four more years of Obama. It's not that I want four more years of cancer it's just that I know that quack cures labeled "Tested and Approved" will not only fail to work but they will also undermine confidence in those actuall cures "Tested and Approved." How, and why, will folks believe us in the future when we say we have the real cure?

Perry, Cain, Santorum, and Bachmann, all require me to hold my nose and curb my scepticism, but thus far, they don't require me to abandon my beliefs.

If I were in Iowa I'd go with Rick cause he's done what Iowan's have always expected.

At the end of the day this cycle is one in which I want to advance our cause down ticket as the top of the ticket will be Romney, Newt, or Perry at this point. If they win, and I doubt any would, they will have to be held in check by more genuine characters with more genuine character. If they lose then we must have a strong House and Senate both State and Federal.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc has received Likes: 3 bmk2307, FirstCoastTerp, TheValuesVoter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:13 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
Southern Doc wrote:
Perry, Cain, Santorum, and Bachmann, all require me to hold my nose and curb my scepticism, but thus far, they don't require me to abandon my beliefs.


I generally agree. Of the four, though, I think the one who would be most capable of actually running the country would be Santorum. I personally like Cain but his performance over the past few weeks has made me think he's a great businessman but not quite ready for prime time. I sort of discounted Bachman long, long ago. I honestly wonder if Perry is qualified for his current job, not to mention the job of being President. So, of the folks running now, Santorum seems to be the guy whose life matches what he speaks about, who can speak intelligently about issues, who can string a series of sentences together and who has some experience.

Wow! Just listening to what I just wrote, I realize how far our expectations have been lowered. It sounds like we're interviewing prospects to join the neighborhood Homeowner's Association, not to assume the Presidency.

Anyway, I think I finally figured out where I stand with regard to the current candidates.

When exactly would it be officially too late for Huckabee to change his mind?

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 1:21 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
My current plan is to continue the development of my time machine. :tinfoil

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes



Post by Southern Doc Liked by: christopher.wilkerson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:35 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
If I were in Iowa, I would vote for Santorum, too. Please remember that I am looking at this race from the perspective of the TX primary, as well as all those other states excepting the first 3 or 4, where all we get is the leftovers. Accuse me of pessimism for believing that Santorum won't even be on our ballot, and I won't deny it, but please don't accuse me of abandoning my beliefs.

Huckabee's morals are not the same as mine. For example, you may remember that I was very disappointed when he not only showed that Obama girl clip on his show, but was actually fairly offensive in his followup defending it. While I am confident that he is a God-fearing man, I still believe he has some flaws in his character that offend God seriously.

I did not care all the much for Dubya or his character, but despite all the garbage hurled against him, he really was a friend to social conservatives for the most part.

Even more to the point, I voted for Rick Perry despite the fact that I think he's a totally crooked sleazebag with no character because Bill White - a man of good personal character and a competent executive both in business & politics - would have taken our state further down the path of immorality.

I'm not voting my approval of the person when I vote for a politician because it's impossible to know the real person or their true soul; I am voting for the person who I am discerning AND praying will do the most for the causes that I believe in.

I am pretty darn confident that any one of the GOP candidates will limit the immoral slaughter of the innocents that Obama has facilitated - even if some of them would be doing the right thing for the wrong reasons - and I don't doubt for one moment that God is much more concerned with that than the scenario wherein a prodigal son (or not) gets elected to lead this country away from that evil.

In our country, these are men FROM the people - representatives of us. That they are flawed and have ugly track records speaks NOT of where are country is going, but of where our country already IS.



Post by QuoVadisAnima Liked by: Miserere
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:33 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:46 pm
Posts: 1563
Location: Texas
Likes: 178
Liked: 374
Agreed with QVA. I think we can't take politics too seriously and expect too much. We have to muddle through and do our best. But, honestly, doing our best this time could mean saving thousands and thousands of lives. That's one of the differences in the election that matters.

_________________
THE TIMES are nightfall, look, their light grows less;
The times are winter, watch, a world undone:
They waste, they wither worse; they as they run
Or bring more or more blazon man’s distress.
And I not help. Nor word now of success:
All is from wreck, here, there, to rescue one—
Work which to see scarce so much as begun
Makes welcome death, does dear forgetfulness.
Or what is else? There is your world within.
There rid the dragons, root out there the sin.
Your will is law in that small commonweal…
G.M. Hopkins.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:25 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:21 am
Posts: 2747
Location: Arkansas
Likes: 200
Liked: 653
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
If I were in Iowa, I would vote for Santorum, too. Please remember that I am looking at this race from the perspective of the TX primary, as well as all those other states excepting the first 3 or 4, where all we get is the leftovers. Accuse me of pessimism for believing that Santorum won't even be on our ballot, and I won't deny it, but please don't accuse me of abandoning my beliefs.


I wouldn't dream of accusing you of either. I think you are clearly motivated by reason and faith. I think it is completely rational, not pessimistic, to conclude you will have nothing but compromised choices by the time the election reaches Texas. I also understand that an argument for "lesser of evils" is at the heart of ethics. To govern is to choose and when Christian citizens determine to govern as "We the People" they must choose.

What I want to interject into the conversation is that our understanding of the ethical calculus should, as TVV has pointed out, consider not only the near term desire to reverse the evils we see supported by the current administration but also the long term considerations of voting for "Anyoine" but Obama. Well "Anyone" is increasingly looking like what we are going to get. I want folks to consider whether more damage is done by supporting individuals who are morally compromised than by losing an election. I would not even have the conversation if I didn't believe that the audiance moral.

I believe the best example of the "greater universe" of moral consideration as we calculate strategy might very well be the history of the abortion fight. Since 1980 our GOP Presidential nominees have been professed Pro-Life candidates. Generally they have done very little (including in the failure of nearly half their choices for the Supreme Court to be operationally pro-life). Democratic Party Presidents have been more outspoken and consistent advocates (including their Court appointments). Yet the pro-life side is winning this battle. It is much bigger than the office of President. It is a battle of hearts and minds on an ethical issue. But the loss to our pro-life cause would be significant if the majority of "pro-life" voters supported an obviously pro-choice candidate simply because he seemed less likely then the Dem to do as much damage. The "damage", I am arguing would be greater.

It is a sad truth that sometimes it takes losing to wake up political movements and parties. Last time 3 million evangelicals stayed home. Obama won. I had hoped that such a "silent" message would be heard by the party leaders. If I supported a man for President like Newt, who has shown himself fundamentally untrustworthy in the most intimate of his promises, I (just me here) would be compromisng my beliefs. I'd also be suspending my judgment as I think he would neither win election not govern well if elected.

But in closing: I am quite certain that you QVA will always seek a moral purpose in your choices.

_________________
"As for us, our days of combat are over. Our swords are rust. Our guns will thunder no more. The vultures that once wheeled over our heads must be buried with their prey. Whatever of glory must be won in the council or the closet, never again in the field. I do not repine. We have shared the incommunicable experience of war; we have felt, we still feel, the passion of life to its top."

Oliver Wendell Holmes


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:55 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:12 pm
Posts: 4153
Likes: 307
Liked: 525
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Accuse me of pessimism for believing that Santorum won't even be on our ballot, and I won't deny it, but please don't accuse me of abandoning my beliefs.


Not at all, QVA. I hope you didn't think I was saying that - I was not accusing anyone here of anything.

I am saying though the following:
1) If the GOP puts forward another nominee who is married to a person they had an extramarital affair with and if Evangelicals eagerly support that candidate, there will be a serious erosion of credibility of "values voters." It will effect our ability to make arguments to protect marriage.

2) If values voters support a morally compromised candidate, it will further prove to the GOP establishment that they can put out any candidate they wish and still get the Evangelical vote. Why bother considering candidates like Huckabee and Santorum if you know that all they need to do is roll out the Democratic boogeyman and we'll come running.

3) Every time we put forward leaders who have sketchy backgrounds, we continue to lower our standards for our leaders. Ten years ago, in the wake of the Clinton scandal, the thought of America electing a man who not only cheated on his wife but ditched her for the other woman might have been unheard of. Cue an endless list of political leaders, in both parties, who have made serious moral mistakes in the last few years. Cut to 2008 where we have a potential first couple with a similar background, although the McCain's situation occurred thirty years ago and not just eleven years ago like the Gingrich's. Now it's unfortunately sort of normal. Not to mention the fact that getting a leader with actual executive experience these days is more of a luxury and not the norm. Our standards for our leaders continue to slip further and further and yet we're still a little surprised to see how the morals of society overall keep falling.

_________________
The Values Voter
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com



Post by TheValuesVoter Liked by: Southern Doc
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY