We all get to vote on our conscience - that's part of the deal of voting in the USA. I think you're being short sighted - condoning is voting for someone still actively involved and/or not the slightest bit repentant - (Rudy)
Newt on the other hand seems to get it. I think what is at stake with our country's future makes people who care about Christianity in their platform really care, not just lip service. Until I see differently, that's what I'm going on -
I'd be delighted to support a Newt or Thompson candidacy.
I'm not convinced that NG is repentant. He has been a born-again Christian since college, and has since committed serial adultery 3 times. if past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior, i would say that is a pretty safe bet that he would offend again. and talk about the "big fish", democrats would love to reel this one in! i would also say that given the circumstances and timing of his last go round, with the spot light shining on him because he was sitting in the seat to judge, yet was committing adultery anyway, makes me question his judgement, as well as his ability to control his actions in this arena. i'm not so worried about his eternal soul, because that is definitely between him and God, but he hasn't convinced me that he is repentant. his latest apologies don't sound anymore credible or believable than the ones he gave after his last divorce.
what i was saying in my earlier post is similar to the old "don't do as I do, do as i say"...if parents smoke, or even smoked in the past, children are more likely to do so as well, even if the parents preach the evils of smoking.
all things being considered equal, I would rather vote on another candidate that does not have such a zipper problem.