I have come to understand how unprincipled the Christian electorate in America is. That’s not a self-righteous rant either. I had to do some serious soul searching myself after pulling the lever for McCain-Palin in 2008. We in this house have determined not to do that again. Apparently not many believers have been so enlightened.
After seeing the rousing applause New Gingrich inspired during the S.Carolina debate, I wasn’t surprised he made a strong showing in the primary there. I was not however, expecting this. From ABC:
The former House speaker dominated in the socially conservative northwest portion of South Carolina, Huckabee’s stronghold in 2008.
Despite Rick Santorum’s continued play for the socially conservative, family-values vote, exit polls showed Gingrich dominating statewide among “very conservative” voters, tea-party supporters, voters who say abortion should be illegal in all cases, and white evangelical or born-again Christians. Gingrich took Greenville, South Carolina’s northwestern bellwether county, 40 percent to Romney’s 25 percent and Santorum’s 18 percent.
I can’t believe this, but I agree with the Op-Ed writer at the LA Times.
They converge upon our state this week. Ron Paul isn’t campaigning here very heavily as it’s a “winner takes all” state. There are two debates scheduled before the January 31st primary. Two opportunities for Newt to work his Jedi mind trick on the so-called “more informed” conservative electorate. Let the games begin.
I knew you were waiting with breathless anticipation for my analysis and I did not want to disappoint.
I was shocked. I haven’t watched a single debate, but I was really surprised that he won.
Well Terry you and I had several discussions of this nature four years ago. I was VERY disappointed in the way conservative Christians stood behind McCain/Palin while condemning Barack Obama as unChristian. I suspected then and know now that for many, Christian values are really a smokescreen for other things. I am no Obama supporter, I am a Christian, but I can not support Newt Gingrich for the same reason I can not support President Obama, MAJOR beliefs/practices that are in direct opposition to Christianity.
Christian voters need to admit to themselves that these elections have nothing to do with family/Christian values anymore and are more about how we can keep our money out of the hands of those we feel don’t deserve it. It is an “us vs. them,” mentality promoted by SECULAR CONSERVATIVE MEDIA that has been successful in making the majority of hard-working, tax-paying Christian Americans believe that those who are struggling are lazy, immoral, substance abusers who are out to do nothing but take from tax-paying Americans. The working poor is never mentioned or talked about. They are among the majority of Americans applying for and benefiting from government benefits. Christians voters have allowed unbelieving radio stars (Rush and Beck), and secular conservative TV news stars (Hannity to name one) to shape their thinking more so than the Word of God they claim to love. They have become self-serving in their voting habits all while trying to put a Christian spin on everything. The Christian vote has been bought by SECULAR conservatives who know that every sin will be tolerated and ignored as long as they give LIP-SERViCE to gay marriage and abortion. The GOP is no more “Christian” than the Dems. They “bought” the Christian vote just like the Dems “bought” the minority vote. Neither party is sincere in dealing with either of these groups they just want to “say enough” to ensure a large, ready made voting block that they can count on no matter what.
Christians need to wake up and understand what has transpired. Damage is being done to the Word of God when Christians play the hypocrite by standing by a man like Newt Gingrich and everyone is taking notice. At least admit your main goal is not Christian/family values, it is keeping as much of your money in your pocket as you can. Money, not our Lord and Savior appears to be the main goal and motivating factor behind Christian voters today.
I just don’t even know where to start in this election race. No one looks good to me. Not one single person has everything I am looking for. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Gingrich? I wouldn’t vote for him as city dogcatcher.
@ the jos: the only reason I am not as shocked as you jo#1 is because I watched the entire 2 hour debate the other night. Newt is unflappable and aggressive on the stage. He also seems to have a command of the facts. Those who haven’t taken the time to really look into this progressive masquerading as a liberal can easily get taken in, and they did. I’m more surprised that his delusions of grandeur and pompous way of going on and on about how great he is didn’t turn more people off.
And I’m with you jo#2 in that while I cast a primary vote for Paul as the best of this abysmal crop, none of them enthuse me a great deal and I just can’t see myself voting for the lesser of two evils again in November.
I was listening to Boortz on the radio this morning and he was going on and on about how important it is to get Obama out of office, as he is a malignant tumor on the republic and will mean the death of us if he’s re-elected. I think we’ll find out if that’s true in November because I sense Obama is going to be re-elected.
@Mrs. Henderson:
You’re right. We have discussed this before and it’s very interesting to watch the church once again sell its soul and principles for the sake of political expediency.
When the serial philanderer Clinton was found out, how many times did you hear conservatives say that private behavior is an indication of character and should be taken into consideration when choosing our leaders?
Apparently that only matters if the leader in question is a democrat.
@ Hearthie:
LOL.
Terry, I had a long reply planned in my mind to your “then there were four” post, covering many aspects. I love politics as you do and my research and reading have taken me in so many different directions since I last commented . I never had the time to sit and write it out and was thinking I still would today after the SC election, but now I don’t really care. I am sick – I am numb. I am from SC and the “Christian, conservative” section of the upstate spoken of in the article. We’ve lived in two areas of the state and from my Facebook and my experience at church yesterday, I know the VAST majority of my Christian, conservative friends voted for Gingrich. The reason most cited, boiled down in my own words: He stood up to a journalist and so he can beat Obama..(A few liked his stance on jobs from the Mon night debate) I spoke my mind in my small ladies’ Sunday School class before it started and the election chit-chat was quickly shut down. Thank you for your post – yes, I knew you would have one. I very much appreciate hendersonfamily’s comments also. And now – *sigh* – I have nothing more to say.
I am moving to Canada….
I can’t add much to what everyone else has said except to register my disgust. The so-called ‘christian church’ is every bit as corrupted as the liberals they so fervently accuse of being the same.
I am sure, no..it couldn’t be.., I am sure that the voting system works and is true and there is no way there is any fixing going on…
LOLOLOLOL Getting my popcorn out. Might as well enjoy the horror show.
Can’t beleive the Duggars! For goodness sake, RS, REALLY?
Elspeth, how about you and me and our families meet on the beach to watch the fireworks
Ace
Our answering machine just picked up a call which was an attack ad against Newt Gingrich. Mitt Romney is on the ropes, getting desperate. There is a debate tonight. Don’t know if I’ll watch or not.
I wager El Presidente will be with us another 4 years. Any takers? LOL.
Yes, Ace. It’s becoming a parody of itself. While I recognize the seriousness of this and what it implies, I’m finding that I have to put on my “detached observer” hat so as not to get too alarmed.
Oh, and what about the Duggars? I haven’t heard anything.
My money says that the level of disgust on display here is directly correlated to the level of dissatisfaction wherever these comments originate. Somewhere out there are several giant piles of laundry, disgruntled husbands, or mindless work being overlooked in favor of expressing extreme displeasure with “so-called conservative Christians” and the people they elect.
Maybe she means that the Duggars have endorse Rick Santorum. Can’t really see what’s wrong with that. I think he’s better than Newt, Mitt and Ron.
Cane: laundry? Yes, a couple of piles. Disgruntled husband? Not so much. I spend all my time doing school with the kids, changing diapers, cooking food and chasing the dumb dog around the neighborhood. Although, I do agree that you can be a conservative Christian and still vote for one of these peeps with a clean conscience. Calling Christians “so-called” because of this vote is a little harsh. Still, accusing wives of neglecting their work and husbands so they can come comment here sometimes is a bit over the top. You can be informed, express your opinion and still tend to your tasks.
Personally, I’ll be voting for Jim Bob….oh, were you referring to something else, Ace? And Jamala, that’s “I’ll be moving to Canada, eh.” Gotta get the lingo right! (like when I took a business trip to Quebec to speak German….no kidding)
OK, joking aside, this is seriously depressing. Aren’t there any non-sociopathic candidates out there to get some traction on EITHER side of the aisle?
@ BikeBubba… I’ll stand corrected “eh”
Oh, we small-c conservatives in Canada would love to have y’all! Last time we got a buncha Yanks, was in the 60s, and they were all draft-dodgers, not good trad Christian folks…
The last thing we want, were those twits who threatened to move to Canada when W. was president; we need more Canadians who are like you, not them…
Still, accusing wives of neglecting their work and husbands so they can come comment here sometimes is a bit over the top. You can be informed, express your opinion and still tend to your tasks.
True enough. My point wasn’t that such tasks were being neglected in favor of commenting on blogs, but that dissatisfaction with oneself for procrastination often drives one to see the error of “so-called-ness” in others. It’s a particular tic of procrastinators*. I figure that (for most of us salt-of-the-earth types) this specific kind of bad mood is the result of undone chores; chores we know we should have done awhile ago.
I did not mean to limit the scope of possible sources of personal stress that might lead to the kind of lamentations recorded above. I simply didn’t reckon any commenters were wealthy enough to have “fire the cook” as a responsibility being procrastinated.
*Also true of over-eaters and perpetual dieters, but I wasn’t going to kick that dog.
I apologize for blabbing on, but I kept thinking about this comment from BB:
Aren’t there any non-sociopathic candidates out there to get some traction on EITHER side of the aisle?
especially in light of Elspeth’s post the other day. She’s right that we do get the candidates we deserve. I hope no one is under the impression I’m even remotely satisfied with any of the candidates…I just think Obama is worse. However; I could be wrong. I just heard today that Chris Christie nominated an openly gay black man and a Korean-born citizen to NJ’s supreme court explicitly for more “diversity”. I don’t care about the orientation or ethnicity nearly as much as I do the abysmal line of logic.
So, on what we “deserve”…There are a lot of people in the so-con/trad/right who want justice–good and hard. I’m not one of them. Every time I say the Lord’s Prayer it’s a plea that I might never experience justice! We deserve an America-hating, socialist, would-be emperor, but I hope justice is not done here, either.
It is quite true Cane that in a house with 5 kids, there is usually at least one pile of clean unfolded laundry and at least 2 on deck waiting to be laundered, LOL.
However, I can assure you that my husband is not at all the type to walk around disgruntled or unsatisfied without comment. And he is fully aware that when he expresses dissatisfaction or complaint with my job here, I will assess and respond accordingly.
You don’t agree with us on the importance of voting for the lesser of two evils. I get that. It is duly noted. but Did anyone here use the words “so-called” besides JG, who I don’t even believe is a Christian?
Do I believe there is a line of masqueraders before us in this campaign? Pretty Much, at least among those most likely to get the nomination. I like Ron Paul on the issues and Santorum as well. I believe they both have more sincerity in their pinky fingers than Gingrich or Romney combined. But I also know that neither one of them is going to get the nomination.
I fully appreciate how frustrating it is to feel as if the whole country lies in the balance and this vote is of the utmost importance. And to have fellow believers paint themselves as too principled to cast a vote to save the republic is frustrating. I felt that way in 2008: “Anyone but Obama!” was my constant line. I simply believe that it is a sin to violate our conscience for the sake of political expediency, though I’ve admitted I didn’t always feel this way.
In the end, I’ll vote however my husband decides to vote. If he weighs the landscape ans decides that it’s worth it to vote GOP and his conscience is clear with that, then I’ll follow his lead with a clear conscience. To be honest with you though, I see him more likely to bite the bullet for Romney than for Gingrich, LOL. At the end of the day, I think most conservative leaning swing voters are going to feel that way.
You’re right Cane. It is my earnest prayer that God would extend mercy to me personally and to this nation in which we live. I don’t “want justice-good and hard.”
I am however, keenly aware of the fact that while I throw myself on the mercy of the Divine Court Daily, that is a different matter from whether or not the nation at large can escape reaping what we’ve sown.
When Israel went into exile, the faithful remnant went right along with her. Sometimes it just works out that way, you know? But please don’t think I’m waiting in gleeful anticipation for the suffering to begin. Whatever else I may be, I’m not a masochist and I want better for my children. The issue is whether or not God’s definition of “better” lines up with my own.
“I don’t care about the orientation or ethnicity nearly as much as I do the abysmal line of logic.”
Agreed. That’s disappointing. I thought Christie was better than that.
Why I lumped nearly everyone together.
You don’t agree with us on the importance of voting for the lesser of two evils. I get that. It is duly noted. but Did anyone here use the words “so-called” besides JG, who I don’t even believe is a Christian?
You didn’t say “so-called”–you wrote this:
You’re right. We have discussed this before and it’s very interesting to watch the church once again sell its soul and principles for the sake of political expediency.
If we see use in political expediency it doesn’t doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve “sold out”, are only “so-called”, or any of the other terms that all really mean “no REAL Christian would…”
I realize it was not a personal attack, nor am I taking it as such. The truth is that I respect you and most of your commenters very much, and don’t want to let my side go undefended on this point. If for no other reason than that–from a logical perspective–it’s a slippery slope from “I can’t vote for X candidates”, to “The only fastfood we eat is Chik-Fil-A because they’re closed on Sundays like real Christians”, to “the Pope is the Anti-Christ and all Catholics are going to Hell.”
Nor am I accusing you, Elspeth, of going down that hill. But logical conclusions will be followed by others, too; if even unconsciously.
the faithful remnant
What a great topic…seriously. I ruminate on them (us, hopefullly!) often. If you haven’t read “The Remnant” by Albert Jay Nock (though I suspect you have), everyone should. The first Google hit is to Lew Rockwell’s site. I’m not a fan of him, but it’s still a very good read.
As is often the case Cane, I’m sure we are closer to one another than we are apart in our views. And if I implied that the values voters who voted for Gingrich were not truly Christians, that was not my intent. I stand behind my conviction that values voters who profess Christianity sold out on their principles by voting for a man who left his first wife for his second and then his second wife for his third wife. And then converted to the RC church at the behest of the third wife who had no problem sleeping with him for 6 years while he was married to his second wife and what is the RCC’s position on this kind of thing? Good grief, trying to sort out the whole thing really makes my head hurt. But that’s not the problem, really. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. And I like Paul have no problem referring to myself as chief of sinners. Well his behavior is a problem but it’s not the biggest problem I have with his candidacy. After all, his politics in practice have often belied his political rhetoric the same way his behavior in practice has belied his values rhetoric. Like that crack he made about why he (a traditional values conservative) would be interested in supporting any bill that Hollywood approves of when asked about SOPA. I laughed out loud, LOL. See? It’s still funny.
The biggest problem I have is that this is the same man who led the charge in the impeachment proceeding s against President Clinton, with the full support of the religious right based on the premise that private conduct is indicative of character and should be seriously weighed when we consider those we want to lead us. Since this is what he asked of us in the 90′s, it reeks that he now wants to play the “let’s stick to the issues” card. The fact that he doesn’t have the integrity to see that if he holds himself to the standard that he held Clinton, he doesn’t deserve to be president without answering for his conduct and expressing contrition for it.
I am not at all averse to voting for Santorum or Paul or even Romney if that’s what my husband ultimately decides is the right thing for us to do. But Gingrich? Uh-uh. And yes, I am disappointed in the Christians who voted for him. We do look like sell-outs when we excuse in one candidate what we refuse to excuse in another based on political partisanship.
Seriously Cane, is mine such an unreasonable and irrational position? I can’t see how it is.
And again, just as the case with the LA Times, we have to turn to the left to find someone asking the questions. Enter Jon Stewart (whom I truly can live without 99% of the time):
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/deconstructing-gingrich
I think what it comes down to is Newt is tough with his rhetoric and there is a big part of the Republican base who wants someone who talks tough, who they think is going to stick their finger in Obama’s face (quite literally if possible) and “take their country back”. The fact that Gingrich’s attempt to characterize himself as a conservative, family-values, “outsider” candidate is a complete joke on all levels, he is picking up votes and steam because of his ability to sound tough.
Im of the opinion at this point that democratic nations get what they deserve when they vote for someone, no matter whom they be. If they end up voting for Newt, so be it… with rights come responsibility to own up to what you choose.
Thanks for the analysis, Terry.
Seriously Cane, is mine such an unreasonable and irrational position? I can’t see how it is.
No, and I hope I haven’t said it is.
As is often the case Cane, I’m sure we are closer to one another than we are apart in our views.
Most assuredly. By the way, I did not earlier mean to imply that my respect for you or the others was in danger. It’s not. I’m just explaining my impetus for debate. And thank you for specifying your target to the label “values voters”. That is much clearer, and one more point of agreement.
One point where we differ is on Newt’s appeal; which TOFH, ah, nailed. I never believed the values voters were all that concerned about values. What we’re seeing now is the truth: They never cared about Clinton’s affair; in the abstract; as a sign of moral failure. It was just a soft target. You couldn’t swing a dead cat among values voters without hitting a good ol’ boy willing to cheat on Hillary. There’s a good chance you’d whack a few women willing to forgive it, too.
There’s another factor, too. Bill Clinton failed to regard even the smallest bit of propriety. Monica was much younger. She was an intern. It was a purely animal affair, empty of any emotion towards Monica; probably from her, either. He disgraced the Oval Office itself. In summary: It was a flippant, liberal, hippy way to conduct an affair. And–as everyone knows–self-identified Values Voters are the sworn enemies of Hippies.
From this perspective, only now are the real principles being practiced. The selling of souls happened in the 90s when values voters feigned monstrous outrage; when they lied; when they bore false witness (that they valued the sanctity of marital vows above national issues) against their neighbor Bill Clinton.
I’m much more interested in the Why more than the Who or What. I can tolerate an openly gay black judge. It’s the Diversity as Virtue argument that gets my dander up. So, my conviction that Obama is a socialist would-be emperor who hates traditional American ideals is more important to me than whether Newt will keep Callista around or not. I think Newt–ridiculous though he is–likes to believe he embodies some of those ideals, and that’s an improvement; though small enough.
And then converted to the RC church at the behest of the third wife who had no problem sleeping with him for 6 years while he was married to his second wife and what is the RCC’s position on this kind of thing?
The phrase “By hook, or by crook” comes to mind. So does “legalism”. One of several obstacles between me and my good and mostly admirable friends on other side of the Tiber. Too many RCs do these things with depressing regularity, and remain in good standing.
Got this from National Review Online: http://online.wsj.com/article/global_view.html
As good as the Jon Stewart video, but broader, less funny, and more biting.
my conviction that Obama is a socialist would-be emperor who hates traditional American ideals is more important to me than whether Newt will keep Callista around or not.
But, traditionalist ideals include the definition of marriage as one man and one woman in lifelong union.
The concern here seems to be that if a man does not appear to regard his marriage vows as a sacred trust to be protected and upheld, then why would the American people feel he would be committed to doing what is right by the (comparatively nameless, faceless) citizens of our country?
It is certainly a valid consideration.
I’m reading “Deliver Us From Evil,” by Ravi Zacharias. I’m underlining practically the entire book. Can I just leave a really long quote here? It pertains a bit to the conversation, but it’s more about the state of morality in the church and I might add, is not targeted at anyone, just thought it was so interesting and wanted to share.
Stories have a way of making the rounds, especially if they have a good punch line. One such story told and retold in India describes a rich man who sought to buy up an entire village. The man walked from house to house, offering a disproportionately large sum of money to each householder in exchange for his property. Delighted at the prospect of such a large profit, all readily entered into the sale except for one determined old man who owned a small shack right in the center of the village. No sum of money would change his mind, and he responded to each increment offered with the calm rejoinder, “I’m not interested in selling.”
Frustrated, the rich man finally had to be content to buy the whole village except for this tiny piece of real estate in the middle. The old man relished his symbolic victory. Every time the rich man had a visitor in the village, the old man stepped out of his little hut and, wagging his bony finger, tauntingly declared, “If he tells you he owns this whole village, don’t believe him; this part right here in the middle still belongs to me.”
There is a sad, yet striking similarity in this story to the church and her solace when conceding the cultural dominance of secularism over what was once religious terrain. The analogy is even heightened, for the transference of dominion has not been just of land but also of ideas. Retreating from the world, many Christians seek cover inside their church buildings, wagging their fingers at the “secular ownership” of the social landscape and receiving petty satisfaction in saying, “This little part still belongs to us.” This is the way the dust has settled after the storms of conflict and the winds of change have raged over which central ideas should govern our culture.
I can’t say I haven’t been guilty of that myself. I don’t want to get in the world and reclaim the morality that existed as a matter of fact not so long ago. I just want to hide in my house, with my kids and my husband and my friends and wag my finger at the world. Most of the presidential candidates come to mind when I read that passage. Especially Newt. Is he really supposed to be a Christian?
Anyway, in the end, would he be 100 times better than Obama? Not that I want Newt to get the nomination.
That’s a good quote. Usually Mr Zaccharias has some very thought-provoking (and soul-pricking) ways of looking at things.
We have that book around here somewhere, but I’ve not read the entire thing. Perhaps it’s time…
1. When my wife has a bad day, she’s apt to take it out on me. She’s never once taken it out on the cashier. We all treat public and privates spheres differently.
2. You are accusing him of not living up to the ideal. Thats a very different thing than saying the ideals are wrong. These are very diffent things. Newt is guilty of the first. Obama is guilty the second. If a man steals, he makes another man poorer; if a man says stealing is not a sin, then we’re all in danger.
I really want to know what Pelosi has on Newt. Better it comes out now. If it’s truly a career-ender, how deeply cynical and manipulative of the American public it is to keep it secret.
@ Cane Caldo,
I’m not sure if your most recent comment was directed at mine–I do appreciate reading the clarification of your view, but want to be clear that I did not accuse Mr. Gingrich of anything… only was making an observation as to what appears to be the concern.
We all treat public and privates spheres differently.
Some do, and others do not.
You are accusing him of not living up to the ideal. Thats a very different thing than saying the ideals are wrong.
Yes, the two can be different. None of us lives up to the ideal, but if one is consistently, unrepentantly living as though he believes the ideals are wrong, it seriously undercuts any claims made otherwise.
As I said, I make no personal accusations here. I’ve not been following things closely enough to have much opinion beyond “I’d feel pretty hesitant about voting for Mr G”. Just giving my understanding of why Elspeth’s post (and several comments) took the tone it did.
@Heather
Yes, it was in answer to you. And, no, you did not outright accuse Gingrich…but you should have because he’s guilty by his own admission. I dispensed with the hypothetical because it turns out to be true.
Some do, and others do not.
Is that your real answer? I’m not a psychologist, but I’d bet that if I was I’d know that only sociopaths do not differentiate among their dealings with strangers and intimates.
Please don’t be distracted by the me versus the cashier juxtaposition. You and some others may not behave this exact way in this exact circumstance. It was merely an illustration of the type of behavior; not diagnosis. Some people have a tendency to miss the point by focusing too narrowly on the particulars. Bad business, to swallow camels.
By the way: Mrs. Caldo is not likely to get sharp words from me at the end of my bad day. My M.O. is to brood silently. Not any better, I’m afraid, but I thought her action-oriented response was more illustrative of the analogy.
Yes, it was in answer to you.And, no, you did not outright accuse Gingrich…but you should have because he’s guilty by his own admission.
. Ok. The facts are what they are. My own hesitance there is rooted in my personal ignorance of the situation. I’ve not seen his response, so am unsure of whether he has expressed regret over past choices.
Is that your real answer?
I think so
And I’ll readily agree that there are things people do in the privacy of their own home that they would never do in public. Of course we ought to discern between intimate relations and non.
What I meant is that there are those whose strong sense of integrity runs pretty consistently through both public and private interactions even though the actions might be different and even though (since we are all human) the behavior might sometimes fall short of the goal. But such people tend to desire to do the right thing and can accept correction when error is found.
And, there are those who regularly nudge the line in favor of their own indiscretion as suits their current situation, regardless of the sphere in which they are operating. Justification of wrong actions/behavior is often a motive. Honesty requires me to admit to doing this at times, but for some, it is a habitual thing.
If someone is comfortable with lying or stealing or bullying others etc, it is likely (s)he eventually will not distinguish strangers from intimates. They are simply acting based on who they really are.
I thought her action-oriented response was more illustrative of the analogy.
understood.
Okay, here’s my deal with Gingrich which I suppose has gotten lost in my preoccupation with his marital woes:
He took in millions of dollars in salary from Fannie Mae (or was it Freddie Mac?) He has a history of skirting a fine line between what he says he stands for and how he conducts his politics. And you’d better believe that the Obama campaign will have a field day with Newt as the nominee because his inconsistency has a track record that stretches back decades. He’ll say it’s pragmatism and that concessions have to be made when governing. And it is true that sometimes you have to find common ground with those whom you disagree. But at a time when people are looking for consistency and stability in political leaders, he cannot win against Obama.
Yes, he’s a superior debater, but i don’t think that’s going to cut it. And yes, I do think his conduct in his personal life is to be considered here.
It’s one thing to fall short of the ideals. We all do. I just don’t know that we can say for sure that Newt Gingrich is convinced that the ideals are ideal. He hasn’t convinced me of that.
“He’ll say it’s pragmatism and that concessions have to be made when governing.”
“There must be an inner urge, or hunger, to keep and honor that law because it is good. Secularism cannot accomplish this in the hearts and minds of people, because the mind it has created is a pragmatic one, and pragmatism will always find ways to circumvent and misuse the law rather than to revere it.” *emphasis mine*
Ravi Zacharias
Actually, it miffs me a great deal that “we” can love on Newt so much and ignore his marital indiscretions (he’s such a great debater and that was such a long time ago), but publicly crucify Herman Cain for rumors of indiscretion. I guess we just don’t like to see the wife humiliated publically? So as long as you cheated on her and she found out privately, we don’t mind that you cheated on her? I don’t get it and the duplicity disgusts me. Holding up candidates to different standards is something I don’t understand. What is the standard for each of them? Why is it different? How am I to know when the standard changes? I do take it seriously when a politician is unfaithful to his wife. If he can be unfaithful to someone he knows so personally and pledged to be one with for the rest of his (or her) life, then be unrepentant about it, he’s not going to hesitate for a nanosecond to sell me and my family’s interests to the highest bidder.
I’m not defending Newt, but here’s my thoughts:
1. Cain quit. Newt simply won’t. This is probably because he’s a narcissist, or it could be that he really thinks it doesn’t matter in comparison to the problems of America. I think it’s four parts choice 1, and one part choice 2.
2. If Cain is innocent, he’s been the target of a massive effort. He must have decided he didn’t want to fight the slanderers.
3. If Cain is guilty and hiding it, he doesn’t know when the next bomb will go off–a very unnerving way to campaign.
4. Cain was widely varied in his responses. Newt has been consistent. The press knows that, once an accusation has been asked and answered firmly, and enough details revealed, individuals will make up their minds, and then move on. In other words: it won’t sell any more papers by printing the same thing over again. Cain’s mistresses kept appearing; whether for point 2 or 3.
I do take it seriously when a politician is unfaithful to his wife. If he can be unfaithful to someone he knows so personally and pledged to be one with for the rest of his (or her) life, then be unrepentant about it, he’s not going to hesitate for a nanosecond to sell me and my family’s interests to the highest bidder.
This is demonstrably false. Several of the Founding Fathers were adulterers (some serially), and yet they literally risked their necks for their ideals.
Men are not women. Generally, women are more likely to maintain loyalty to a person above their ideals. That’s how nice girls can be best friends with skanks, or more readily forgive a cheating husband, hoping he can turn it around. Men who stay in bad marriages tend to do it for the sake of marriage itself; even if they start their own affairs on the side. They often both do it for the children, but even then the reasons are reached quite differently.
I think it’s hard for many women to accept, but good husbands generally value principles above people; even wives. This is actually quite good when matched with a woman who cares about him above principles. They’ll both be stronger, and make wiser decisions for their families. Another way of saying that is: Women love a man in uniform.
If Newt sells us out (and he might), it will be because of a lack of ideals; not because he’s a cheater.
Forgot one.
5. Newt has natural leadership talent matched to a remarkable wit, much like Chris Christie. Cain doesn’t.
I do take it seriously when a politician is unfaithful to his wife. If he can be unfaithful to someone he knows so personally and pledged to be one with for the rest of his (or her) life, then be unrepentant about it, he’s not going to hesitate for a nanosecond to sell me and my family’s interests to the highest bidder.
This. And the thing is, it’s entirely possible that the “selling” is already a done deal. We just don’t know the details, yet.
Several of the Founding Fathers were adulterers (some serially), and yet they literally risked their necks for their ideals.
Perhaps they were wrong. And perhaps we would be wrong to admire their commitment to “principles” while simultaneously neglecting personal duty.
It’s not a matter of whether “people” or “principles” are most important, but of individual character. A man who holds God-honoring ideals will strive to do what is right for those with whom he has interaction. Not all will appreciate his efforts, of course. But he doesn’t regularly use a sliding values scale with “wife” marked on one side and “boss, country, freedom, etc” on the other.
“Several of the Founding Fathers were adulterers (some serially), and yet they literally risked their necks for their ideals.”
Their ideals? Newt’s ideals? I don’t trust his as far as I can throw my husband…which isn’t very far. I suppose “their ideals” got me the country of my birth, but I don’t think Newt can be trusted with my family’s future.
I acknowledge that men are vastly different from women and that as a woman, I will only a wee bit be able to understand the way man’s brains work. I am looking at if from a woman’s standpoint and casting judgement from a woman’s point of view. Still…
A man who holds God-honoring ideals will strive to do what is right for those with whom he has interaction.
I’ll try to stop picking on Newt now.
Oh, and I meant to mention that I am not at all convinced that Cain was not involved in his purported affairs; he likely was. I think all 5 of your points are spot on.
Perhaps they were wrong.
They most definitely were on some points, but it’s irrelevant. They stuck to their public ideals while privately failing. It was put forward that people could not do this. I gave an example of when some did.
And perhaps we would be wrong to admire their commitment to “principles” while simultaneously neglecting personal duty.
Perhaps we try to take Phillipians 4:8 seriously; even when it’s from filthy men just like us. Using your standards, I don’t see how anyone could make it through a trip to the grocery store. I’d fall to my knees before I got to aisle three, bewailing the state of humanity.
…Unless you somehow separate concepts; prioritize principles a bit; dispense some grace…
Using your standards, I don’t see how anyone could make it through a trip to the grocery store. I’d fall to my knees before I got to aisle three, bewailing the state of humanity.
Maybe that wasn’t supposed to be funny, but I did laugh.
I see your points Cane, and I won’t dispute them on the issue of forgiveness and grace.
Bottom line for me is that Newt’s politics clash with mine on a couple of fronts, and I think the fact that he has stooped to using class warfare in this campaign further illustrates a duplicitous tendency in the way he uses whatever is at his disposal to reach his ambitions.
I see a pattern in his public presentation that is really not all that out of step with what he has demonstrated in his private life.
FWIW, I have already cast my primary ballot for Ron Paul today. Yes, he has his problems and I’m not in lockstep with him on every issue. But he is consistent. He is not a flip flopper. He does not change his rhetoric to fit any particular audience.
It kind of disappoints me that this kind of principled approach isn’t valued. It seems we are too easily swayed and seduced by style over substance.
I said before and I’ll say again: I think Newt’s inconsistencies will be an albatross around him in a match up against Obama. They are probably hoping he gets the nod over Romney. They’d consider it a gift.
Oh yes, and that bit abut the grocery store was quite funny.
I’ll second Joanna on that.
It was my pleasure.
FWIW, I have already cast my primary ballot for Ron Paul today.
Good for you! I don’t mind Paul. I think he’s wrong on Israel specifically, but right in his general foreign policy. I don’t think he can win though. Too many will stay home if he runs because they think he’s a nutjob.
Actually, I think the only possible winner is a Romney/Santorum ticket. There’s enough people willing to vote for those two over Obama to win. Newt can’t win with anybody because he’s an a-hole. What a sorry field.
I think the only possible winner is a Romney/Santorum ticket. There’s enough people willing to vote for those two over Obama to win. Newt can’t win with anybody because he’s an a-hole. What a sorry field.
Agreed. My mom was telling me about a Walter Williams opinion piece she read where he said that he didn’t think anyone in the field could win over Obama, and in that case he gives us 5 years before America hits the fan. I’m trying to find it to link to here. But I agree with him that I don’t think any of these candidates can win against Obama.
I gave an example of when some did.
And I was merely pointing out that some here have expressed a legitimate hesitancy about willingly supporting a candidate when they have concerns about his trustworthiness.
Perhaps we try to take Phillipians 4:8 seriously; even when it’s from filthy men just like us. Using your standards, I don’t see how anyone could make it through a trip to the grocery store. I’d fall to my knees before I got to aisle three, bewailing the state of humanity.
Not sure where you got the idea that I believe men are “filthy”. All people make mistakes and all are in need of God’s grace.
I’m not digging around trying to discover dirty secrets of current politicians or founding fathers. And my statement was not intended to be an imposition of “my” standards on others or a judgment on “the state of humanity”. It was merely a consideration of whether it is wise to deliberately choose a representative whose character has already, publicly, been called into question. I believe this was the topic of the post.
…Unless you somehow separate concepts; prioritize principles a bit; dispense some grace…
It’s not ungracious to exercise discernment and individual conscience based on Biblically informed principles.
I’ve condemned no one for their faults, but I do believe it is wise to try to assess a situation in order to know how one ought to respond.
Good grief.
And I was merely pointing out that some here have expressed a legitimate hesitancy about willingly supporting a candidate when they have concerns about his trustworthiness.
And I was merely exposing the fallacy of that supposed legitimacy.
And my statement was not intended[...]
I don’t know what you intended, and I think that puts us both in good company.
I don’t know what you intended, and I think that puts us both in good company.
You are probably right.
I have a tendency to become repetitive when I think someone misunderstands my view. I apologize for that.