The undecided evangelicals
Since Michael Farris claimed he had first dibs on their “Joshua Generation” idea, the Obama campaign is now using a slightly clunkier name for its outreach to young evangelicals: “Young. Evangelical. For Obama.” David Brody has a sneak peek at the site – a place for supporters to find volunteer opportunities, blog, plan house parties and network – and says, “At this point the Obama campaign is winning the narrative on the younger Evangelical front.”
Despite Obama’s best efforts, however, the data has yet to show serious inroads among evangelicals as a whole. A Pew Forum survey shows that McCain has a slightly smaller lead among white evangelicals than Bush had at the same time in 2004. In 2004, Bush had 69% of the white evangelical vote. This year McCain has 61% of white evangelicals, while Obama polls 25% — about the same as Gore and Kerry polled in June 2000 and June 2004.
Polls like this have God-o-Meter wondering if Democrats should just give up on cracking the monolithic evangelical voting bloc. But before they give up, Democrats should see which way undecided evangelicals swing.
There are more undecided white evangelical voters this year – 12% according to the Pew Forum and 17% according to a July 11 Newsweek poll. If Obama can gain a little over a third of these voters for 30% of the evangelical vote, it will total 6-10% of the entire electorate, according to sociologist John Schmalzbauer – no small feat, but no small reward either.
This indecision may mark younger evangelicals, who are less reflexively Republican and more Independent than their parents, just as passionate about abortion but more apathetic about gay marriage. They may shrug their shoulders at McCain’s confused attempt to take a stand on gay adoption. But if Obama pairs his Christian rock concerts with a move towards the center on abortion, he’ll have a better chance of winning young evangelicals’ votes.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top104 Comments to “The undecided evangelicals”
it all seems to big
Report comment to moderator
When I was young, immature and stupid, I did a lot of things that were immature and stupid.
Character, substance and experience should count in this election. One candidate has little of any of the above.
Report comment to moderator
young, immature, stupid vs character, substance, experience
I was one before I became the other.
Disclaimer: I’ve been wrong before.
Report comment to moderator
Metanoia:
True, but I wouldn’t be so hard on John McCain. 1 out of 3 isn’t bad.
Report comment to moderator
And even McCain’s experience doesn’t save him from repeated foreign policy gaffes. Even giving him the benefit of the doubt on errors that could be simply misstatements (”the border between Iraq and Pakistan”, or calling Vladimir Putin the president of Germany), and letting go the minor stuff (like talking about Russia reducing energy supplies to Czechoslovakia, which hasn’t existed since 1992), he still makes major blunders, especially about the war in Iraq.
For example, just a couple days ago he claimed that the surge was responsible for the “Anbar Awakening,” when in fact the surge was not even announced until 4 months afterwards.
He claimed in May that we had already drawn down to pre-surge levels, when in fact we still had 25,000 more troops than we did pre-surge.
And of course he claimed that downtown Baghdad was a safe market stroll for Americans, in obvious contradiction to the reports of people who live and work there (military, journalists), and failing to mention that his own walk through Baghdad was heavily guarded.
Obama, on the other hand, has made none of these kinds of gaffes. You may disagree with his policy, but he’s not making blunders like this.
And for you “the media has a liberal bias” types, notice that Katie Couric edited out the embarrassing McCain mistake about the Anbar Awakening. The media has been salivating this week over the possibility of a Obama foreign policy gaffe while he’s on his foreign tour, not because they have a conservative bias, but because it would fit their narrative of him being inexperienced. But the John McCain gaffes they whistle right past.
Report comment to moderator
One Man Gaffe Machine Imitates Energizer Bunny
Recently in Israel, Obama made a pledge:
“In terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words.You can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.”
Only problem was JJF, Barry is NOT a member of the US Senate Banking Committee! No gaffes, indeed.
Report comment to moderator
The fact of the matter is, JJF, evangelicals — not the younger ones, but the ones who have been supporting conservative issues in the voting booth for decades — care more about social issues than who can correctly line up the names of nations and their leaders. Or even the names of the committees Senators lead.
After all, GOD Himself is the one who establishes nations and rulers.
Report comment to moderator
After all, GOD Himself is the one who establishes nations and rulers.
True, Outkast. So why all this talk of the lesser of two evils, as if withholding a vote from the least troublesome guy (there’s an endorsement!) or voting 3rd party will usher in the anti-christ?
Report comment to moderator
No one here has ever suggested that the results of this election will usher in the Anti-Christ, Yeah.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
That was hyperbole. Some people rightly profess that God establishes rulers and nations, then recoil at what they insist are the inevitable consequences of voting for the God-fearing 3rd party candidate and not supporting the least terrible (albeit, “viable”) candidate: the other guy gets in, followed by Armageddon (again, hyperbole).
Report comment to moderator
I hear Obama made a speech today. Imagine that!
Now sing with me:
“Imagine there’s no countries, it isn’t hard to do…” ~ John Lennon.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe the young evangelical crowd can explain this??
In the article today, “Obama Scraps Visit to Wounded US Troops in Germany”, we see another example of the mistrust, uncertainty, misjudgment, and unbelievability in Barak Obama’s strange dialogue to us and to the world. I don’t understand it. What’s wrong with a campaign stop in Berlin IF he can make a campaign stop in Maryland, to the Walter Reed Army Hospital??? Maybe somebody can explain!
BERLIN (AP) — Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his campaign said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.
A campaign adviser said the U.S. military saw the visit as a campaign stop.
“We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event,” the adviser, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement. “Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perveived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go.”
Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign immediately criticized the move.
“Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military,” said Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the Republican contender.
Obama’s decision raised a number of questions because the visit, which had been scheduled for Friday, never appeared on the schedule of events distributed to reporters who are accompanying him on his travels.
The first word from the campaign about its existence was a statement from Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Obama had been planning to go to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany before a flight to Paris. Gibbs said the stop was canceled because Obama decided “it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.”
Report comment to moderator
LOL, Joel!
(Thanks, now you have me singing that song in my head as I watch Good Will Hunting with my wife. Funny, I used to sing that John Lennon song in karaoke, albeit I would naturally — supernaturally? — change the lyrics to “imagine there’s a heaven . . . it’s easy if you try . . .” The bar crowds always loved it.)
Report comment to moderator
Outkast:
You didn’t answer Yeah’s question, which is exactly the question I had when I read your comment at #7: “GOD Himself is the one who establishes nations and rulers.
If it is God himself who establishes nations and rulers, why are so many Christians on this blog pushing other to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” If you trust God’s sovereignty, why would you feel compelled by fear of Obama to vote for someone you don’t believe is right for our country (just better than the alternative)?
Report comment to moderator
Another karaoke fun song I re-wrote (King of the Road):
Health care for sale or rent
If your body’s broken or bent
No money for pools or pets
It all goes to government
Ah, but two hours in a waiting room
Don’t expect to be helped soon
She’s the Queen of healthcare, baby
So don’t catch a cold.
Third visit going insane
Just to fix that nagging pain
Old worn-out heart and lung
At least we’re not paying none!
Ah but, high taxes we DO mind
And medication’s hard to find
She’s the Queen of healthcare baby
So don’t catch a cold
I’ve seen every doctor in every town
Every time I visit one of us frowns
Cause every handout that Democrats give
Is not in a lockbox, thanks to the libs
I sing . . . health care for sale or rent
If your body’s broken or bent
No money for pools or pets
It all goes to government
Ah, but two hours in a waiting room
Don’t expect to get help soon
She’s the Queen of healthcare, baby
So don’t catch a cold.
Too bad Hillary didn’t go any further, cause I bet I could have sold that parody!
Report comment to moderator
JJF: Using your logic, why do Christians vote at all? Or why do we even get out of bed in the morning?
Find another line of logic, cause this one’s going nowhere . . .
Report comment to moderator
As to voting, I would point out that polling data from 2004 had Kerry taking 20-25% of the Evangelical vote. So an increase to 30% certainly looks reasonable given moves by Obama and the general under-whelmingness of the Evangelical community to McCain.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, too bad there’s no evidence that Barry will get 30% of the evangelical vote!
Report comment to moderator
Outkast wrote: “JJF: Using your logic, why do Christians vote at all? Or why do we even get out of bed in the morning?”
Outkast, JJF’s and my question is a honest one. You were the one who referred to God’s sovereignty. It was insightful of you to do that, and your application was apropos. But the argument has been that we *must* support McCain–the lesser of two evils–because the consequences of doing otherwise (President Obama and all that that is thought to entail) would be disastrous, as if God were *not* in control of the consequences.
The Bible teaches God’s sovereignty. Should we therefore ask, “Why do we even get out of bed in the morning?” No, because Scripture also teaches the responsibility of men–responsibility to obey God *without fear* of the consequences.
Report comment to moderator
So I’m voting for McCain without fear of any consequences, knowing that God’s control. Thanks for clearing that up for me. You leftists are great at that.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t worry, the vast majority of evangelicals will vote for McCain. They may hold their noses, but they know the consequences of a BHO win.
The masses of the Democratic party will vote for BHO. They will drink their kool-aid before they do.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
The gist of the discussion should not be hard to grasp. I’m suggesting a vote for the lesser of two evils may be wrong–yes, even a repudiation of trust in God’s and His sovereignty. I know you would not say you don’t trust God, nor would any Christian, and I’m confident you are strong in your Christian faith. But I’m trying to examining the ramifications of the lesser-of-two-evils stance. This is a place where we discuss ideas, isn’t it? Not sure how the “leftist” jab, with accompanying smiley, furthers the conversation.
I’m also not sure why bringing the issue up the way JJF and I have (and a few other have done) always elicits such a thin response. It’s disrespectful to the debate. How is the notion of supporting the lesser of two evils garnered from Scripture? That’s all I’m askin’. Anyone (else)?
Report comment to moderator
I do get the gist of the discussion, Yeah, so come down off your high horse and join the rest of us.
Millions of unborn and just-born babies have a chance of living if McCain is elected this year, Yeah. It’s therefore much more than just a “lesser of two evils” situations.
Spin again.
Report comment to moderator
Have you ever thought of running for public office, Outkast? You avoid the question with the kind of dogged persistence I’ve seen only in veteran politicos, and you lay down covering fire with a practiced speed.
Here’s the script:
I’ll put it as directly as I can:
Outkast, you apparently belief that if you don’t vote for the lesser evil, the greater evil will result. Does this belief not indicate a lack of faith in God’s sovereignty that you are willing to choose evil rather than choose good and trust God?
I don’t mean to suggest the question is an easy one to decide. I’m considering voting for the lesser of two evils (Obama, to my mind) also. I also consider, by analogy, that if my family were starving, I would steal to feed them. Perhaps this is indicative of a lack of faith in me, that I would be willing to commit sin rather than trust God, but that’s my “gut reaction.”
But I don’t see how it’s possible to tout one’s trust in the sovereignty of God while still acting as though it’s all going to fall apart if you don’t chose the lesser evil.
You seem quite untroubled by your choice of the lesser evil. But how is the notion of supporting the lesser of two evils garnered from Scripture?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
Really, there’s nothing to be afraid of by joining the discussion at the point of debate, which is whether it honors God to support the lesser of two evils (not who has the wittiest rejoinders).
You say it’s more than a “lesser of two evils” situation; I’m saying it’s not such a situation *at all*, unless you can articulate an argument from Scripture that, in certain circumstances, choosing the lesser of two evils is appropriate, ’cause I can point to a lot of stuff in there that suggests otherwise.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, I can’t join JJF in considering Obama an option; I think both candidates are Scripturally unqualified. At least JJF appears to be pondering the Scriptural implications involved in choosing. I think it’s more complex than tallying the number of aborted babies. That level of thinking hasn’t done much for the cause of Christ in the last 4 or 5 elections.
Report comment to moderator
In all honesty, I hope Outkast joins the discussion so I can hear his perspective.
Whether he does or not, I’d like to hear yours, Yeah.
Clearly all politics involves some measure of compromise. You might think a candidate’s tax plan poor or his stance on immigration weak, but vote for him anyway in good conscience. So the line between “a good (but not perfect) candidate” and “the lesser of two evils” seems to fall in Serious Moral Issues.
For example, I take Serious Moral Issue with McCain’s positions on war, on torture, and on presidential spying powers. I take Serious Moral Issue with Obama’s stance on abortion.
Are there other issues of Obama’s on which you take Serious Moral Issue, Yeah?
Report comment to moderator
There are plenty of reasons I’m supporting Senator McCain with not only my vote but also yard signs and a bumper sticker. Besides the abortion issue, he has pledged to support SCOTUS justices along the lines of Roberts and Alito, he believes we must remain in Iraq until the Iraqis can handle security on their own, and he believes in domestic fiscal responsibility.
On each of those issue Barry is 180% of the opposite view, so I feel very good supporting McCain — even though we differ on other issues.
Report comment to moderator
That level of thinking hasn’t done much for the cause of Christ in the last 4 or 5 elections.
What a twisted way of thinking. The cause of Christ is to be furthered by the faithful acts and thinking of individual believers, not by politicians.
Report comment to moderator
JJF,
I’m at work, so I apologize I can’t offer a more thoughtful post. I promised another poster here–Musing–that I’d provide him or her with a follow-up related to a different thread, and never did it. I don’t want to make another false promise, but if I have time tonight I can return to the subject. But here is a short article articulating something of the position with which I agree. And here is a little bit more from a guy I think actually is a worthy candidate.
I also agree with your thinking that big moral questions enter in to the thought process, but they’re subordinate to the candidate’s profession of faith in Christ and his faithful application of Scripture to politics (and guys like Jimmy Carter and George W., whose faith I don’t question, fail in the latter category).
Outkast, I’m not angry with you. I don’t understand the caustic nature of your replies. Among the plenty of reasons you’re voting for McCain, are any of them based on a perceived Scriptural injunction to support the lesser of two evils, and can you articulate that injunction for us?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast #29: Honest question…really, it’s an honest one. Do you consider supporting the lesser of two evils to be the faithful act of a believer?
Report comment to moderator
I sincerely believe my support of Senator McCain — the only candidate who has a chance of defeating the most liberal Senator in the race to the White House this year — is based on a faithful reading of Scripture.
Helping the victims of violence (in Iraq), fighting against needless murder (of unborn and just born babies), those are things I feel led by Scripture to act on. So it’s NOT a matter of “supporting the less of two evils,” as you claim, but of doing my part to help protect against the destruction of our society.
BTW, I’m not angry nor am I intending to act caustic, and it speaks volumes of your own character that you accuse me of those things.
Report comment to moderator
OK. I hate to do it. It’s trite. It’s overused. Maybe even flat out dorky, but in response to Outkast at #32, I have to resort to it, so here goes:
LOL
Report comment to moderator
Outkast:
——————————————————————-
???
Report comment to moderator
If you think those posts are caustic, JJF, you have no idea what “caustic” means. Posts 20, 23, 29 and 32 of mine were simply statements of fact. Sheesh.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, there’s an excellent article by Joel Belz on this very subject in the current (July 26) issue of WORLD. He talks about the motives for Christians fighting against big government (which I would say would be epitomized by a BHO administration.
In the end, big government is wrong for two important reasons: It minimizes the freedom God has designed for His people to enjoy, and it minimized God Himself. It makes Uncle Sam the object of our doxology.
McCain is for limited government, and Obama is for bigger government. Ergo, I (as an evangelical, born-again Christian) am voting for Senator John McCain.
Report comment to moderator
#29, good reply Outkast, and right above too.
Report comment to moderator
A hopeful thought:
For the undecideds, Obama is a bit like candy. You really love it at first, but when you get fed candy (and nothing else) meal and after meal, you get tired of it. This may already be a factor. His speeches are all he has (he is clearly not running on his experience, his record or his accomplishments) and they are all ear candy. And sometimes you don’t even know what you have inside until you bite.
Report comment to moderator
I will be undecided only if McCain picks Romney for His VP. In that case I will NOT vote for McCain. Whoever is his VP will most likely be the Republican candidate for 2012. Romeny was classified by Human Events in 2005 as the 7th most liberal Republican in the Country. He represents the country club Republicans. His appointments of judges in MASS were very liberal as well.
Report comment to moderator
In my view, McCain picking Romney is the best case scenario left to us. Romney is strong on the economy and well accomplished in both the private and public sectors, and quite decent. I would actually vote for a Republcfian as liberal as McCain if he chose Romney. Romney has moved to the right over the years and I think it’s genuine. Moving to closer to the pro-life side brings a smile to all who value life.
Report comment to moderator
Rich Allen – 39
YOU WRITE:… “I will be undecided only if McCain picks Romney for His VP. In that case I will NOT vote for McCain.”
There are many of us who are thinking the same way. Many will stay home and vote for no one.
Romeny is not only in a cult, but he changed his whole belief in abortion. He knew he wouldn’t have a chance if he kept his pro-choice views.
One’s belief is very important, especially about the LORD Jesus Christ. Of course their Book of Mormon is far more correct to them than the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
I sure hope Romney is picked. I met him several times during the Iowa caucuses and talked with him personally, and feel his move to the right is genuine and real. I hope Victoria and Rich will join Joel and I in praying for Romney’s salvation, as during this campaign he has suddenly become much closer to a lot of believers.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast – Thank you for sharing that. If McCain does pick Romney, your words will help me feel more comfortable about it.
Report comment to moderator
Great – a cultist, blasphemous VP. Just what the Lord and our founding fathers ordered.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, the Lord was one of the Founding Fathers . . . which Constitutional Convention was that?
Report comment to moderator
Outkast,
Mitt Romney coming closer to a lot of believers isn’t the same as leaving a cult and following Jesus Christ, instead of the LDS.
Consent of Joseph Smith to inherit the kingdom of GOD? And this same person could end up being the President if something happened to McCain. Just how would that honor GOD?
People can vote or they can stay home, this might be the only election where there is NO CHOICE but to stay home. My allegiance is with GOD, there is no possible way I can put a cultist no matter how nifty he appears, what his background is, into office of President, if there should be a tragedy, and McCain would be unable to direct this country.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
May I encourage you to vote for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party? The latter is a link the the party platform, and while it overstates the Christian-ness (that’s a word, I think) of our country’s origins, it affirms that Scripture should guide *even politicians.* Oh, the audacity!
A bonus to such a voting decision would be that it avoids the incoherence of Outkastian thought.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah
I won’t be voting for Chuck Baldwin, that isn’t an option for me. I’m sure he is a good man, but he lacks experience in foreign affairs, etc.
Report comment to moderator
Fair enough, Victoria, but “foreign affairs,” along with most matters political, has only taken on the complexity of the IRS tax code because men have tried to discern it (foreign affairs) according to the prevailing political mindset, which, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, holds no regard for the authority of the Bible. In other words, it ain’t that complicated.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
If you don’t think foreign affairs are complicated, or you believe someone in the Oval office having no experience would be a good choice, we have nothing to discuss.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, OK. I guess we have nothing to discuss. If anyone else feels the way Victoria does, though, I’d be curious to hear what current foreign affairs issue is so complicated that it cannot be soundly addressed by Biblical principle, and without the lard of modern political nuance. Oh, I don’t suggest there may not be complexities, like the difficulty of extricating ourselves from a ridiculous war that would have been avoided in the first place if politicians had considered that God has already weighed in on the matter. But any day of the week I’ll take a guy who can demonstrate a grasp of God’s good governance over any insipid sot who smirks at the Scriptures. We have 8 jillion laws on the books in this country. Has the system become so complicated because we’ve embraced the scriptural imperative, or abandoned it?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah
Understanding world affairs, the complexity of many different problems Globally, isn’t something you learn on the job.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t believe in war, they would never do a thing if the entire country were attacked.
I wouldn’t make remarks such as “insipid sot who smirks at the Scriptures” – do you have PROOF that President Bush has done this?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Did you mean understanding world affairs *is* something you learn on the job? I thought that was your position.
Which foreign affairs position of Chuck Baldwin’s isn’t sufficiently sophisticated?
All kinds of people are like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and don’t believe in war either. Is the proper position derived from a Biblical analysis, or is it gleaned from years of association with some political party or in some political office? The Jehovah’s Witnesses, if they’re wrong, err exegetically…*and so does anyone who errs in any matter.*
I wasn’t referring specifically to President Bush, although some of his statements cast his view of Scripture in an unfavorable light (cf., equating the Muslim and Christian Gods).
Report comment to moderator
Yeah – 53
YOU WRITE:…. “Did you mean understanding world affairs *is* something you learn on the job? I thought that was your position.”
Read my posts over again, starting with #48. I didn’t say that at all.
Foreign affairs are complicated, Chuck Baldwin has no experience in this area, just to name only ONE. He doesn’t have the background to be the President of this country.
Report comment to moderator
What is it with people getting huffy in these threads? I mean, what *is* it?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah – That all depends on what your definition of *is* is.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for that, Karen O! I should have said, “Why be that?”
Report comment to moderator
And, yes, now I understand Victoria’s statement about learning on the job. My bad. I took her to mean that a person doesn’t learn it while holding some political office, since I was distinguishing between *that* qualification and one’s ability to rightly divide God’s Word.
If Victoria’s still around, I’d be curious to know what kind of experience, specifically, she thinks a person should have in order to be president. Specifically, how does experience X (whatever that may be) make one better qualified than another person who can articulate a sound Scriptural foreign affairs policy? McCain has all kinds of political experience, yet Victoria may not vote for him. What if an intelligent guy with *no* political experience came along, but expressed a political ideology *identical* to Victoria’s. Would he get her vote?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah
I would vote for McCain tomorrow, but unlikely if Mitt Romney is chosen his VP.
Yeah, I expect those who run for President of the US to have experience, either as a Senator, Congress, Governor or a military General, or someone with a great deal of experience.
I wouldn’t go to a surgeon, who hadn’t gone to medical school and specialized in surgery – I wouldn’t go to someone for legal advise who had never gone to law school, nor would I send my children to college to listen and study with prof’s who didn’t have degree’s. In the same way I wouldn’t vote for a President without experience, OR shared values I consider to be very important.
Yeah, I wouldn’t vote for a pastor to be President without political experience, anymore than I would go to a wonderful Christian pastor to perform surgery on me, without experience in medicine, surgery.
Report comment to moderator
There is a positive in the debate over how “young evangelicals” will vote. It is the fact that they will vote at all. If there was ever a presidential election year to throw one’s hands up in the air and say, “Forget it, I am not going to vote this year”, it would be 2008.
If the New York Times will endorse McCain as their choice for the best candidate to represent the Republican Party, then we know we are in trouble in November.
Both younger and older evangelicals have to respond to the Shakespearesque dilemma:
To vote to the left, or further to the left, that is the question.
Report comment to moderator
45 – the best one!
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for your response, Victoria. I still think it begs the question as to what qualifications a candidate should have. You’re putting weight on a certain background, I’m putting weight on another. To me, a solid grasp of the Scriptures is as much a requirement for a political candidate as a doctorate is for a surgeon. I think the Scriptures declare as much.
I’d still be interested in hearing how, specifically, a particular experience or set of experiences would be of significantly greater value than a well-considered Biblical position on, say, foreign policy. But it’s fine if you’ve had enough of this thread. I don’t want it to get heated.
Report comment to moderator
July 29, 2008
Evangelicals warn against McCain-Romney ticket
by Ralph Z. Hallow
The Washington Times
Report comment to moderator
God uses means. In this case, He will move on the hearts of people to elect someone president. We must vote our consciences for that reason, and give each other room to be moved in a different way than each other. (The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord.)
God is omniscient and knows who will win and why He will allow that. He may choose to protect us, or He may choose to punish us.
I’m planning to vote for McCain because I believe that the types of justices he promises to appoint will do more to protect innocent life and religious freedom, including the freedom to teach the whole Word and to direct the upbringing of our own children.
If McCain chooses, Romney, I’m quite sure my husband won’t vote for him (and definitely not for Obama, either). I’m still undecided about that, but probably will vote McCain anyhow, and thank God that He’s ultimately in control!
Report comment to moderator
re #64,
Obama is not an option unless he is saved between now and election time and radically amends his radical views on the intrusive role of govt!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (59): I expect those who run for President of the US to have experience, either as a Senator, Congress, Governor or a military General, or someone with a great deal of experience.
Frank: By your standard, Jesse’s youngest son — you remember, the sheep herder? — wasn’t qualified to be king of Israel.
I don’t think a presidential candidate absolutely must have experience in areas A, B and/or C in order to be qualified. Rather, he ought to demonstrate wisdom.
The wisdom to publicly submit himself to the lordship of Jesus Christ is an excellent start.
And the wisdom to appoint wise and seasoned counselors to help him navigate various areas (such as foreign policy, e.g.) is also important.
The position of POTUS is not like unto the position of surgeon. He doesn’t have to be an accomplished expert at foreign policy, economics, war-making, etc. But he does need to surround himself with men who know these areas.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
Keep fighting the good fight … you ol’ “leftist” you!
(Isn’t it amazing the conclusions people will jump to about you when you say something against the “anointed” Juan McSame?)
Our job is to be faithful and trust God for the results.
Chuck Baldwin 2008
Report comment to moderator
JJF -
Same with you — keep on holding their feet to the fire.
But I hope you don’t seriously consider casting a vote for Obama. If nothing else, all that does is reinforce the (false) validity of the whole “to-party” system.
Think different. Vote outside the box.
If not Chuck Baldwin, at least cast a protest vote for Bob Barr. (Although just FYI, I cannot in good conscience vote for him.)
Report comment to moderator
As re. “radical views on the intrusive role of govt.”, Juan McSame is NO advocate of small gummint! Two examples:
This is the guy who co-sponsored the unconstitutional and big-gummint McCain-Feingold.
This is also the guy who thinks the Feddle Gummint should be involved in (i.e., keeping records of) every firearms sale/purchase BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES. He calls it “closing the gun-show loop-hole.”
Hey, Juan! FREEDOM is a loop-hole!! If you don’t feel comfortable with my buying a gun from my neighbor without you knowing about it, I don’t feel comfortable with you in the White House.
Vote for McCain if you like, my fellow believers, but don’t delude yourself into thinking he’s an advocate of small gummint!!
Report comment to moderator
Frank
YOU WRITE:…..”Frank: By your standard, Jesse’s youngest son — you remember, the sheep herder? — wasn’t qualified to be king of Israel.”
That doesn’t mean Chuck Baldwin is the man to lead this country.
Report comment to moderator
Vic,
Nor does his lack of experienceas a Senator, Congressman, Governor or General mean that he is not the man to lead t6his country.
David was a herder of sheep. Likewise Pastor Baldwin.
Who knows how God can use a humble sheep herder and man after His own heart?
Christians, that’s who. At least, they should know.
Sadly, most Christians today would probably choose a Saul over a David. “More qualified” and all that.
Report comment to moderator
Frank -71
I know the background of King David. However that doesn’t mean that Chuck Baldwin should be President.
It’s the comments above where your credibility takes a leap in the dark.
I remember when you were for Ron Paul, the guy who wanted to legalize marijuana.
Ron Paul voted against bill that included a federal Amber Alert program. You certainly thought that was OK.
The LINK below will take you and anyone else to the thread where this was discussed.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
And I can make a biblical case for those positions, as well.
a) Biblically speaking, not all sins (including the smoking of marijuana) are automatically to be considered crimes per se. That is to say, the civil magistrate is not competent to punish all sins — only those sins which God’s law recognizes as crimes.
b) As I recall, the bill that included the federal amber alert program was also laden with a great many more big-gummint programs. If you had a headache and I placed pills before you that contained both tylenol and cyanide, would you not refuse the tylenol on the grounds that it was mixed with cyanide? That was (probably) the same reason that RP “voted against [a] bill that included a federal Amber Alert program.” Don’t try to paint it as though Ron Paul is insensitive to the plight of kidnaped children.
Anyhow, is it your contention that those two positions make RP somehow unfit to be POTUS?
To the contrary — those two positions demonstrate a much-needed understanding of the proper relationship between sins and crimes, and between the federal and state governments.
Report comment to moderator
PS Vic:
Thanks for the blast from the past link at (72)! Some of your, ahem, “best” work, to be sure!
Report comment to moderator
Frank the AMBER ALERT has been a wonderful tool, getting information out INSTANTLY so children can be found. Ron Paul couldn’t find it in his heart to support it.
Your comparison between tylenol and cyanide, is a joke.
YOU WRITE:..
“Don’t try to paint it as though Ron Paul is insensitive to the plight of kidnaped children.”
Now Frank you can try and wiggle out of the bill which Ron Paul voted NO on, but it won’t work.
Marijuana and the AMBER ALERT — Chuck Baldwin must agree with both of these or he wouldn’t have supported Ron Paul.
Your guy now Chuck Baldwin supported Ron Paul when he wanted to be President, as the video link below proves. That doesn’t say much for Chuck Baldwin.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Victoria,
Just so I know you understand it, can you explain Frank’s cyanide metaphor, then explain why it’s a joke?
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, it’s too obvious to miss -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (75): Now Frank you can try and wiggle out of the bill which Ron Paul voted NO on, but it won’t work.
Frank: What, me wiggle?! Hardly!
I explained at (73) above why I thought, to the best of my recollection, RP voted against the Amber Alert bill.
And thanks to your link at (72), I now remember why he voted against the Federal Amber Alert: The inlcusion of the expensive and UNCOSNTITUTIONAL “RAVE Act.” See my explanation in that thread at
http://online.worldmag.com/2007/09/06/ron-paul-circa-1988/#comment-220015
Now let’s see if you can follow some basic logic here, Miss Vicky:
Somebody proposes a Federal Amber Alert Bill. It may or may not be constitutional, but for the sake of discussion, let us assume that it is. That’s the Tylenol for your headache.
Then somebody else attaches a grossly UNconstitutional provision — e.g., the RAVE Act — to the Amber Alert bill, because the RAVE Act has failed to get anywhere on its own merits. He concludes, “Nobody would dare to vote against the Amber Alert, so my [UNconstitutional] RAVE Act will pass!” That’s the cyanide mixed in with the Tylenol.
So here’s a question for you, Victoria: When a congressman encounters a bill in which an UNconstitutional [poison] provision is attached to an otherwise good [medicinal] provision, should he vote for or againsst the bill?
Report comment to moderator
BTW, Victoria:
Chuck Baldwin states very clearly why he supported Rep. Paul’s candidacy:
“Congressman Paul has a proven record that is faithful to the Constitution, that is faithful to the principles of liberty, and I can think of no one beter qualified to be our next president.”
Guys like John McCain rape the very Constitution they swear to uphold eight ways from Sunday (see, e.g., McCain-Feingold; see his support for closing the “gun-show loop-hole), and nobody bats an eye.
Ron Paul is faithful to his oath by voting against bills containing UNconstitutional poison, and somehow he’s the weirdo?
Anyhow, Vic, thanks so much for giving me ANOTHER reason to support Chuck Baldwin! Indeed, it is time for me to send the man some money!
Report comment to moderator
The evolution of “conservatism.”
Report comment to moderator
Yes, there are a ‘few’ individuals who would vote against the AMBER ALERT bill, and then give lame reasons for their vote.
Many parents have lost children, who, if there had been an extra few minutes an hour, or a day might still have their children if the AMBER ALERT had been in place when their child was taken.
People can argue this point, but a child’s life depends on moments, minutes, time is of the essence.
Anyone who could vote against this bill, I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR.
A little girl or boy begs for mercy, and there is NO AMBER ALERT? A child is helpless, they can’t fight back an adult who is intent on hurting, harming, inflicting the worst sort of crime against a small helpess child. Can you imagine a child understanding some sort of Tylenol comparison to their pain, the sexual abuse they must endure.
Let’s remember this when voting for our President.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I posed a question to you at (78):
Let me ask it another way: Suppose, e.g., that the Amber Alert bill also included a mandatory federal registration of computers and printers — a clear violation of tjhe First Amendment, but all in the name of protecting children. Would you still expect Ron Paul (or any other congressman) to vote for it simply because it included the Amber Alert?
Report comment to moderator
Frank,
I don’t give a hoot how you want to distort the AMBER ALERT Bill, you can use Tylenol, computers, printers, to promote such a mean spirited rant against a bill which saves childrens lives.
Ron Paul votes against almost everything. He’s the NO guy, — many of you fall for it. It appears Chuck Baldwin goes along with it too, he endorsed Ron Paul, — he didn’t have a chance, and now Chuck Baldwin wants the job.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Paul votes against almost everything.
Please, legislators, please follow Ron Paul’s example.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, no one is going to follow this guy, that’s not what the people of this country want.
When a guy like Ron Paul can vote against the AMBER ALERT he isn’t going very far with the rest of the country, parents who have lost children, or those who can only imagine the pain and suffering children go through when abducted by maniac’s – Every MINUTE is precious when looking for a child who will be abused, raped, murdered or all of these, just for the pleasure of their abductors.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I’m not “distorting” anything — indeed, I challenge you to demonstrate where I am. Rather, I’m asking you a question, which you persist in avoiding:
Do you think a legislator should vote for a bill that saves childrens’ lives if it also contains unconstitutional provisions, such as infringing such constitutional rights as free speech or prosecuting/penalizing business owners for the illegal actions of their customers (a la the RAVE Act)?
C’mon, Victoria. Time to engage in a fair give-and-take discussion.
Report comment to moderator
VicTORRRRRRiaaaaa … come out and PLAAaaaayyyyy …
Report comment to moderator
[crickets chirping]
Victoria does not answer questions, you see.
She merely makes emotional assertions and presumes that that settles that.
Weak, sister …
Report comment to moderator
Amber Plan – Amber Alert – Information on all U.S. State Plans
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Nobody here is confused about what an Amber Alert is.
I’m kind of wondering if there’s *anything* that could have been added to the bill under question that would have disqualified it for Victoria. Forget about a possible infringement on the First Amendment. What if a provision was added that allowed the *murder of kittens!*
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
When you start asking questions which make sense, aren’t tangled with little tricky kid stuff, I’ll reply. Until then, have a nice evening!
Report comment to moderator
Wow. That, folks, is a brick wall.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria (91): When you start asking questions which make sense, aren’t tangled with little tricky kid stuff, I’ll reply.
Frank: Do you think that legislators should vote for any and all bills that purport to “save childrens’ lives” — period — regardless of any unconstitutional provisions they may also contain?
Or do you think instead that they should vote against bills that purport to “save childrens’ lives” but which also contain unconstitutional provisions?
(There you go — two questions that “make sense” and “aren’t tangled with little tricky kid stuff.”)
Report comment to moderator
Yeah,
Not a brick wall.
Just a brick.
Report comment to moderator
Boo hoo, what will you two do? Questions answered and then more questions asked, over and over again – if it isn’t Tylenol and cyanide, its computers and printers, last but not least is the ugly little remark about *murder of kittens!* ——- and no answer from Victoria – give yourselves a big ‘pity party’ – you can sit on the brick wall!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You are the one who said, “When you start asking questions which make sense, aren’t tangled with little tricky kid stuff, I’ll reply.”
But now, when I have done what you asked, it is you who are shown not to be a woman of her word. How sad is that?
And incidentally, it is you (not me, as you asserted at (83)) who is shown to be distorting Ron Paul’s NO vote on the Amber Alert bill.
Specifically, you have made it sound as if the federal Amber Alert was the only provision in that bill, and that the Amber Alert is all the big heartless meanie Ron Paul voted against in that bill.
Yet when I seek to engage you on the true multifaceted, multilayered and unconstitutional nature of the bill, all you do is dodge, dodge and dodge some more.
Well, with all that squirming, I take some consolation in knowing that the arrows are hitting their target.
(BTW, I really love the “boo hoo” stuff. So mature … )
I’ll leave you with this constructive criticism, Victoria: You seem to be genuinely incapable of engaging in a rational give-and-take discussion. Take heart — I don’t think it’s permanent or anything. But just like the drunkard, you won’t be able to address your problem until you admit you have it.
Report comment to moderator
My comment was to Yeah #91, it was NOT to you Frank.
Post #91 to Yeah “When you start asking questions which make sense, aren’t tangled with little tricky kid stuff, I’ll reply. Until then, have a nice evening!”
Frank
YOU WRITE:… “I’ll leave you with this constructive criticism, Victoria: You seem to be genuinely incapable of engaging in a rational give-and-take discussion. Take heart — I don’t think it’s permanent or anything. But just like the drunkard, you won’t be able to address your problem until you admit you have it.”
As for my post #83, take a look at your post #82, you scrambling computers, etc., into the AMBER Alert bill. The Bill passed, we now have the AMBER Alert Bill whether you, Ron Paul or your new candidate like it or not.
You have posted similar things in the past, that’s why I don’t post to you often. As far as you choice of candiates for the office of President which included Ron Paul, who didn’t have a chance and now Chuck Baldwin who also has no chance of winning, take a look at yourself.
I bring up the AMBER Alert bill which passed only to show you how nutty anyone can be to vote NO on this bill, not to mention the guy you now support, supported none other than Ron Paul.
Give it up Frank, sit on the fence and pout,
Report comment to moderator
If our leaders would rule biblically and execute kidnappers, rapists and murderers, there wouldn’t be any need for the Amber Alert.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
And still, I come back again to ask your view on this fundamental issue:
For all your bluster about Ron Paul’s constitutionally principled vote against the Amber Alert bill, you simply cannot bring yourself to answer an honest question.
If you don’t wanna engage issues, Victoria, why are you even here?
Oh, and I’m not “pouting” over here on this fence … I’m admiring my marksmanship.
Report comment to moderator
PS Vic: You and I (and everyone else here) know good and well that even if Yeah asked you the same questions I’ve asked, you still wouldn’t answer!
(X ring.)
Report comment to moderator
Bianca – 98
YOU WRITE: … “If our leaders would rule biblically and execute kidnappers, rapists and murderers, there wouldn’t be any need for the Amber Alert.”
Kidnappers start at some point to abduct children, you can’t execute someone before they commit the crime. THINK ABOUT IT.
Rapists begin raping, but before they begin this hideous act, no one knows who would commit this act, how can you execute someone before they rape? THINK ABOUT IT!
Murderers have to commit a crime before you can bring them before the courts, you certainly can’t execute someone before they are tried and found guilt. THINK ABOUT IT!
We have the AMBER ALERT for a very good reason Bianca. Before you give your snap remarks, THINK ABOUT IT!
Report comment to moderator
I have thought about it, and I think you’re out to lunch, dinner, breakfast lunch and dinner. You’re just mad because you’re being constitutionally not to mention biblically eaten alive here by more than a few people.
Report comment to moderator
Tell the truth now, Victoria: Did you write this?
Ron Paul: Pro Child-Predator Candidate
Scroll down to read the comments and learn just how many people are on to the use of hysterical rhetoric in passing bloated federal legislation.
Had Ron Paul voted against a free-standing AMBER Alert bill, without all manner of other big-gummint provisions and add-ons … well, you might have a beef.
But he didn’t vote against a stand-alone AMBER Alert Bill. He voted against a monstrous amalgamation of big-gummint intrusions into people’s lives, which had the went by the name “AMBER Alert.”
And people like you, Victoria, take the bait and run hysterically into the night with it:
“RON PAUL HATES CHILDREN AND PROTECTS KIDNAPPERS AND PERVS!”
Sheesh. “What a piece of work” would be putting it politely!
Report comment to moderator
I think we all chased Vickers away.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!