Replies

It was Buchanan/Perot's fault that xlinton was elected, and the 'purists' who supported them. Only 43% voted for xlinton. He would NEVER have won without the Buchanan/Perot zealots.

Being an adult means taking responsibility for your own choices. Did you hide under 'moral principle' when you voted AGAINST GHW Bush, and as a result FOR xlinton?

What 'moral principle' made you do that.......that Bush was a 'reprobate,' or pro-gay, or pro-abortion (which, for the record, he, of course, was none of)? Or was it sheer political animosity?

I hear the same cry now as was given in 92, that voting for a guaranteed loser (who is a good man, from all I have heard) is somehow a matter of 'moral principle.'

My guess is, that it is far more political than it is moral, just like it was in 92 when the same group of uber rightists threw our country down the toilet by helping defeat GHW Bush because of their 'principles'......

It was Buchanan/Perot's fault that xlinton was elected, and the 'purists' who supported them. Only 43% voted for xlinton. He would NEVER have won without the Buchanan/Perot zealots.

Being an adult means taking responsibility for your own choices. Did you hide under 'moral principle' when you voted AGAINST GHW Bush, and as a result FOR xlinton?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to answer anyway.
I disagree with you about Buchanan and Perot, and I voted for President Bush against Clinton. Even though I supported him, I also blame him for blowing that election and running a lousy campaign.
Politicians are selling a product: their candidacy, with all of the positions and baggage that entails. The currency paid for that product is votes.
A politician with a bad product, or who markets badly, isn't going to sell his candidacy to enough voters to win elections. When President Bush 41 grew complacent about his constituency, and took their votes for granted, many took their votes and bought stock in Perot.
Yes, Clinton was a disaster. But it does no good to blame voters for behaving the way they have always behaved. To do so is to ignore human nature. Disaffected voters will cast their ballots elsewhere. This is the nature of democracies.
So, what's the solution? Place the responsibility for successful or failed campaings where it belongs: on the politicians and their strategists. Make them earn our votes, over and over. If we don't, we risk nurturing further complacency, and losing more elections.

It was Buchanan/Perot's fault that xlinton was elected, and the 'purists' who supported them. Only 43% voted for xlinton. He would NEVER have won without the Buchanan/Perot zealots.

ONLY 43%? Only 43%? That clearly means that half the country is immoral or amoral!! So, tell me again, whose fault is it? The American people, that's who. It's also the fault of many Christians who did NOT vote at all (they succumbed to rapturitis) and many other Christians who did not vote moral principle. If all Christians voted moral principle instead of trying to out-guess God and manipulate the future, McClintock would win (deny that!). But becuase many Christians are touting a reprobate, there will be consequences to pay!

Being an adult means taking responsibility for your own choices. Did you hide under 'moral principle' when you voted AGAINST GHW Bush, and as a result FOR xlinton?

I was not a Christian before 1995, I was a blind, deaf and dumb, just like most of America today.

I hear the same cry now as was given in 92, that voting for a guaranteed loser (who is a good man, from all I have heard) is somehow a matter of 'moral principle.'

what are you - a fortune teller? Trying to out-guess God again? This faithless attitude (that's right!) gives God no room to operate. You KNOW BETTER than God, eh? I will say it again, if all Christians voted moral principle (as they clearly should!), then godly men would be elected. But they don't - many are like you - they listen to talking heads who give them ungodly and unbiblical advice. I will say again, the RIGHT THING to do is vote moral principle, not policy. It is a moral COMPROMISE to do otherwise. Period.

My guess is, that it is far more political than it is moral, just like it was in 92 when the same group of uber rightists threw our country down the toilet by helping defeat GHW Bush because of their 'principles'......

Rightist? If voting moral principle according to the bible is "rightist," then I am guilty and proud of it! Our founder, John Jay (know who he is?) said we should prefer Christians in our voting. But what does he know, he only wrote the Federalist papers, was the 1st Chief Justice of SCOTUS, and attended the Constitutional convention.

I want you to tell me how it is wrong (biblically and morally) to vote for moral principle. You can't do it! You can't do it becuase it's right! You are wrong and you are grasping at the same lame excuses that all Christians use when they want to justify their non-trust of God.

Respond to this and justify it if you can:

But Ahh-nold is also pro-gay rights and the governor most certainly does and has signed pro-gay legislation into LAW. Just look at the bills signed by Gay Davis. So, there's no way around it. A vote for Ahh-nold is a vote for the continued demolition of God's family. Not to mention the gun laws he might pass that are in violation of the 2nd Amendment.