« Washington Briefing: Christians and the Arts | Main | Chesterton Pegs the Media »

October 22, 2007



Thank you for your play-by-play account of your time in our nation's Capital.

I think the Republican ticket will be Gulliani and Huckabee, a GOP version of the 1960 Democratic ticket: a North-South balanced ticket that best represents the ideological diversity within the party. By choosing Huckabee, Gulliani will be telling the Christian conservatives: I respect you and I am serious about it.

This will pressure Hillary to pick a running mate to her right, which is nearly impossible to do in the Democratic party these days. Picking Obama would just shore up her base. But she needs more than her base. She can't pick Lieberman, for his pro-war stance will offend the base. She can pick Bill Richardson, which is her best bet for getting out the Latino vote. But because there will be a lot of pressure for her to pick Obama, picking Richardson may just keep some Democratic African-American votes at home. Hillary does have the Clinton name and the organization. But she lacks her husband's charm, wit, and savvy.

What is interesting here is that this scenario reveals that Republicans are far more tolerant of disagreement than is usually portrayed. OF course, it could be purely pragmatic. But I don't think so. I just think that Republicans, and especially Christian conservatives, are far more mature and sophisticated than when they entered the fray whole hog in the early 1980s.

Early prediction:
Hillary and Richardson v. Gulliani and Huckabee (McCain is named Secretary of Defense at the convention, like Colin Powell was named Secretary of State in 2000 convention).
Winner: Gulliani/Huckabee: 50, 49. Electoral College: 286-252. Republicans will pick up Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Iowa, but will lose Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado, largely because of Richardson on the ticket. Gulliani makes the difference in WI, NJ, NH, and IA. The election will come down to Ohio and Florida, both of which will be won by Gulliani/Huckabee by a wisker.

"She can't pick Lieberman, for his pro-war stance will offend the base. She can pick Bill Richardson, which is her best bet for getting out the Latino vote."

Lieberman also isn't a democrat; being a member of a political party is a useful step in getting its nomination. The Democrats don't have to worry about turning out the Latino vote, Tancredo,et al have solved that one nationally the same way Pete Wilson solved it in California (and Wilson's endorsement of Rudy will get lots of attention in the right places :) ).

If Dr. Beckwith is correct (as to the ticket) I guess it would be a poster child for the unequally yoked: A conservative pastor with a record for honest and competent governance playing second fiddle to a mobbed up, thrice-married, cross-dressing, somewhat deranged, authoritarian.

I don't think someone like Rudy can survive a general election without a meltdown, so one part of me would like to see him nominated; on the other hand, we need a country and two political parties and electing another fool (this time one on steroids), may well be more than either the United States and the Republican Party can survive.

In this election the veep candidate will probably count for less then usual. With the exception of Utah, the interior West is trending purple and the Dems carry most of the rest outside the old Confederacy.

Oh, and the AFA is charging for the privilege of listening to the candidates who were at their conference. Guess they aren't trying to reach those outside the choir. It's also tacky.

"A conservative pastor with a record for honest and competent governance playing second fiddle to a mobbed up, thrice-married, cross-dressing, somewhat deranged, authoritarian."

First, Bill Richardson is not a conservative pastor. And second, Hillary's been only married once. Everything else is on the money. :-)

Recommended reading for Gulliani fans: http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2007/

He's not especially appreciated by a lot of fire fighters, and I've read that his own son won't be voting for him either. Thought you should know...

et tu quoque from a philosophy prof :)?

The Republicans have virtually no chance of winning this election. None, nada, zero, zilch. The incumbent has been too incompetent and deceptive and thus periled the party for at least a decade.

Bank on it.

I'm confused...I came across your site looking for some info on Christian apologetics. You seem to be much about politics, specifically Republican. I am a born-again, orthodox Christian and love my Savior Jesus Christ, but I am a Democrat. Politics is a blunt instrument for spreading the Gospel, no matter what party you are in. The terms liberal and conservative, to my mind, no longer have any meaning, and cannot describe a follower of the Christian faith. If you are true thinkers you would realize this. Can't we leave the politics behind?? After all, the world follows after such gods as "presidents", etc., but we are to have no other gods but God. He will judge all of us of every party, opinion, etc. Please rethink what you are about.

Maybe this analogy helps. One doesn't talk about cutting or raising taxes in an American Legion or Veterans for Foreign Wars speech. They talk about military/war policies. A candidate might talk more passionately about responding in a strong way to terrorism threats in that speech than he might in other speeches. It's perfectly ok.

This was called the Value Voters Summit. It is what it is, a speech directed towards a constituency of values voters. Let's not forget that. This was also a non-partisan event, all candidates were invited, the fact that the democrats didn't show up isn't FRC's fault.

You addressed Gov. Huckabee as Pastor Huckabee. I'm not sure why you did that, maybe its because you wanted to show respect towards him. I hope it wasn't used in a way to somehow diminish the positions he has held in the public arena.

He has been a popular and successful Governor for 11 years and a Liet. Gov for 3 years prior to that. While being Governor of Arkansas he was the Chairman of the National Governor's Association (yes of all 50 states). His hallmark of being chairman was bringing forth the issue of education. Everyone praises him for the contribution he has made in that area.

Contrary to your opinion, even liberals are coming in support or at least feel threatened of losing the election by Gov. Huckabee's resurgence.Jonathan Alter of Newsweek who is an open liberal came out with a remarkable article making the case for Gov. Huckabee.
I can give you numerous other articles from the left that state the same.

About Mitt Romney: Only a very few people are concerned about his Mormonism. Honestly, I would vote for Orrin Hatch any day(who is a mormon) because he is consistent,authentic and has never wavered. So to make Romney a victim is not fair, he undercut his own campaign by mysteriously becoming Pro-life close to a year before running for President. His campaign is very scripted. It will be extremely hard for him to gain any democratic/independent votes.

You might ask is Huckabee going to get any these dem/indp votes (because he's a right wing christian conservative nutjob and all)?? I say yes because I read the comments people make on the Gov. Huckabee's campaign website, and also the Governor had 48% of the african american vote and also significant democratic support in both of his elections in Arkansas. He has an ability to speak without being judgmental and anybody who sees him speak knows he is speaking from the heart. That really matters a lot these days. Don't ask me why it matters but I know he has the God-given ability to communicate effectively.

You are more than free to speak your mind, Melinda. I just hope that with the influence you have that you at least keep open the notion that this man has the executive experience to become the next President. It hurts when Christians stifle other Christians chances to get ahead and serve the American people. I still believe that you haven't looked into Gov. Huckabee's campaign enough to make a complete judgment.

Thank you. By the way, I'm attending Greg Koukl's lecture on relativism in chickasha, oklahoma. I just came back from it as a matter of fact. He's a great guy! I'm going back tomorrow to listen to him again.

Justin (justinok.blogspot.com)


Spend a little more time on the site and you will see that a majority of the topics deal with aplogetics but it will also engage politics as our faith informs our voting (at least it ought to). You will also find that atheists, agnostics and Christians will post comments to the articles which many times allows for a lively debate. That is the heart of apologetics - giving reasons for the faith that lies within you.

Ruth said,
"The terms liberal and conservative, to my mind, no longer have any meaning, and cannot describe a follower of the Christian faith."

Why do only Democrats say this? Ruth, it sounds kind of smug, "My faith is above politics, you are mired in Conservatism. I'm neutral, I'm a Democrat."

Politics have always been an important topic for Christians to consider. Augustine asks what our role is in The City of Man vs. The City of God. It would be strange of Christ to look at such divisive issues as killing 40 million unborn babies, accidentally killing innocent civilians in a war, taking money from the rich to feed the poor, socializing medicine and environmental concerns...for Christ to look at all of these topics and just say, "Roll the dice, I don't care."


I’m glad you found the site; it’s worth it to browse around the different resources found here.

As for politics, you wrote:

Can't we leave the politics behind??

The short answer is no. By definition; a Christian can’t leave politics behind. You’ve admitted you’re part of politics - calling yourself a Christian and a Democrat. You can at least extend the same courtesy to those that think differently about politics than you do.

I hope you give this site some time before making up your mind about it.

Thanks for the responses! And you all make sense. I must confess I'm a Democrat partly because my husband is, I don't always vote that way. But our faith SHOULD be above politics. Neither one of the current political parties lines up with the teachings of Jesus. You are right that we should do our best to relieve suffering in this world, and influencing public policy is one way of doing that. But we have to be careful not to fall into the world's way of doing things. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world." There is so much animosity in our country between political parties, and that does not seem like a godly thing. There is a Higher Power we can appeal to to help us be reconciled with one another. I seem to be around "liberals" all day long (not necessarily my choice) so that's the side I usually hear, and I try to share my not-so-popular convictions with them at times.
This rambles a bit and is not systematic - sorry. Thanks for listening.

The comments to this entry are closed.