Having a rational, give-and-take discussion about the strong points of the one candidate and the weak points of the other—this is not allowed. Only the complete condemnation of the one and the uncritical praise of the other is allowed. I would have good things and bad things to say about each if I were to go into detail, so I won’t.
Surely, you can come up w/something. You'll be the first though. I have asked for two months - what has Mitt done FOR our country and not for his own glory and pocket - and no one can supply an answer? Is it because he said we are in recovery and gave Barry kudos for that? Or is it his stuttering or ability to talk and not answer the question. Or do you just like the empty suit?
103 posted on Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:26:19 AM by Charles Henrickson: I should add, reading a bunch of “FU”s, enraged pejoratives, capital letters, and exclamation points directed against a candidate does nothing to persuade me. In fact, it has the opposite effect. Reasoned discussion would be much more persuasive.
Rev. Henrickson,
You and I are both not only evangelical Christians but also members of confessional churches. That means truth for us is not mere sound bites but rather involves detailed examination of issues, realizing that human sin corrupts everything and very few issues are purely black-and-white — most issues are very seriously tainted with sin on all sides and nothing is good except God alone. While my adherence is to Reformed doctrinal statements and yours is to those of Lutheranism, we're both used to the idea that truth needs pages to convey correctly, not a few sentences.
So let me appeal to you as a fellow confessional conservative. I happen to find this Free Republic thread helpful by a pastor who personally knows Gingrich and has endorsed him. The author has taken the time to write a very detailed evaluation of Gingrich's spiritual condition, and while I continue to have concerns, the post is something that should at least be considered by those with continuing questions about Gingrich.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2822096/posts
Romney may have been the best the Republican Party could offer in Massachusetts, and I understand that to win elections, we sometimes have to vote for people who we don't like very much because the alternatives are worse. But voters in the rest of America are far more conservative, and the best we can get elected in Massachusetts is a lot different from the rest of America.
Do we really have to settle for a Massachusetts moderate who told his audience in a debate when running for governor that he's been pro-choice for his entire political life and that was the position of his own mother when she ran for office decades ago in Michigan (my home state, by the way)? There are other things wrong with Romney as well, but for me, abortion is the deal-breaker. If we can't trust Romney to be a solid pro-life conservative, can we trust him to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will be more committed to pro-life positions than himself? The primary purpose of the civil magistrate is to protect the people under his rule, and protecting the lives of babies from baby-killers is a pretty minimal standard which Romney, not many years ago, was explicitly denying.
I can make a very long list of what I believe is wrong with other Republican candidates, but the fact is that Gingrich won South Carolina — a state I still can't believe he won — and he won it by a wide margin. That means he probably can win the rest of the South.
As socially conservative evangelicals, we're probably going to have to make our peace with the fact that Gingrich, flaws and all, is going to end up as the only viable alternative to Romney.
Don't ask me to be happy with that. I'm not. But if we can't win elections, we can't govern, and right now it looks like Gingrich has shown he can win an election in a place where I'm very surprised he was able to do so. That makes him, at least for now, the most viable alternative to Romney.
I'll definitely reconsider if Santorum gains traction, and in Missouri I have no choice but Santorum because Gingrich isn't on the ballot. But at least for now, we'd better as Christian conservatives figure out how we're going to deal with a President Gingrich or we're going to end up with a President Romney or (even worse) a re-elected President Obama.
“Only the complete condemnation of the one and the uncritical praise of the other is allowed. “:
FR will not be used to promote Romney or bash Newt. If you don’t like it you are free to post somewhere else.
I have a sure-fire method of solving your problem with FR. Just give me the word, we’ll git ‘er done.