Romney in exile

Just a couple of weeks ago, Republicans were hailing Mitt Romney as the man who would make a great president.  Now, after some more tone-deaf remarks by the Republican presidential candidate of the sort he’s been making all along with party members defending him, his former followers are repudiating him.  From Dan Eggen of the Washington Post:

Ten days after failing to sail into the White House, Mitt Romney is already being tossed overboard by his party.

The former Massachusetts governor — who attracted $1 billion in funding and 59 million votes in his bid to unseat President Obama — has rapidly become persona non grata to a shellshocked Republican Party, which appears eager to map out its future without its 2012 nominee.

Romney was by all accounts stunned at the scale of his Nov. 6 loss, dropping quickly from public view after delivering a short concession speech to a half-empty Boston arena. Then came a series of tin-eared remarks this week blaming his loss on Obama’s “gifts” to African Americans and Hispanics — putting him squarely at odds with party leaders struggling to build bridges with minorities.

“You can’t expect to be a leader of all the people and be divisive,” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) said Friday on MSNBC, adding: “Someone asked me, Why did Mitt Romney lose? And I said because he got less votes than Barack Obama, that’s why.”

It’s a remarkable fall from grace for Romney, who just 10 days ago held the chance of a Republican return to power at the White House.

The messy aftermath of his failure suggests that Romney, a political amalgam with no natural constituency beyond the business community, is unlikely to play a significant role in rebuilding his party, many Republicans said this week.

“He’s not going to be running for anything in the future,” said Rep. Raúl R. Labrador (R-Idaho), who sharply criticized Romney’s comments about Hispanics. “He’s not our standard-bearer, unfortunately.”

via Romney sinks quickly in Republicans’ esteem – The Washington Post.

Is this fickleness and disloyalty?  Or recognition that Romney was not really a very good candidate?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Eric Brown

    I would lean maybe towards the latter, but I don’t think that is fair. The point is this – Romney failed to capture the imagination of the American people (more people voted for McCain and Kerry!), and he has no office, no real political power — and so… there’s more just the simple recognition that right now he has no more usefulness. He is no longer an asset — and if he says things that those in power don’t like, he becomes only a liability.

  • Eric Brown

    I would lean maybe towards the latter, but I don’t think that is fair. The point is this – Romney failed to capture the imagination of the American people (more people voted for McCain and Kerry!), and he has no office, no real political power — and so… there’s more just the simple recognition that right now he has no more usefulness. He is no longer an asset — and if he says things that those in power don’t like, he becomes only a liability.

  • SKPeterson

    I’d like to think that this is merely confirmation of the argument I’ve been making for over a year, and maybe it is. However, I’m not sure that the Republican Party leadership has learned any lasting lessons regarding candidate selection. I must also, say though, that this is a rather startling turn-about regarding Romney from many in the party as they were all convinced that he was the way forward and the best, the best , person to regain the Presidency.

  • SKPeterson

    I’d like to think that this is merely confirmation of the argument I’ve been making for over a year, and maybe it is. However, I’m not sure that the Republican Party leadership has learned any lasting lessons regarding candidate selection. I must also, say though, that this is a rather startling turn-about regarding Romney from many in the party as they were all convinced that he was the way forward and the best, the best , person to regain the Presidency.

  • Kirk

    There is a third option: He’s not shrill enough to be offered a pundit position on any major 24 hour news network.

  • Kirk

    There is a third option: He’s not shrill enough to be offered a pundit position on any major 24 hour news network.

  • Michael B.

    Let’s look at one of the “tone-deaf” remarks that Romney made:

    “What the president, president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote”

    Now are you saying that remark is incorrect, as in not based in truth, or that it is politically incorrect, meaning that it’s wrong because it’s insensitive? Or is it both incorrect and politically incorrect? Chris Christie called Romney’s comment “divisive”, and Gingrich called it “insulting”, but those are how you would criticize something politically incorrect, and not necessarily incorrect.

  • Michael B.

    Let’s look at one of the “tone-deaf” remarks that Romney made:

    “What the president, president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote”

    Now are you saying that remark is incorrect, as in not based in truth, or that it is politically incorrect, meaning that it’s wrong because it’s insensitive? Or is it both incorrect and politically incorrect? Chris Christie called Romney’s comment “divisive”, and Gingrich called it “insulting”, but those are how you would criticize something politically incorrect, and not necessarily incorrect.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I never got the impression that Romney was very conservative to begin with. That’s the first problem; Republicans need to start putting real conservative candidates in, and not pandering to the “moderates.”

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I never got the impression that Romney was very conservative to begin with. That’s the first problem; Republicans need to start putting real conservative candidates in, and not pandering to the “moderates.”

  • Tom Hering

    Republicans need to start putting real conservative candidates in, and not pandering to the “moderates.” (@ 5)

    Yes, please. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Republicans need to start putting real conservative candidates in, and not pandering to the “moderates.” (@ 5)

    Yes, please. :-D

  • kerner

    J. Dean:

    Moderates don’t need to be pandered to, but they do need to be convinced. If we can’t convince them, Tom Herring will have to come up with a way to make those smiley faces even broader, because he and his fellow democrats are going to be happier than ever.

  • kerner

    J. Dean:

    Moderates don’t need to be pandered to, but they do need to be convinced. If we can’t convince them, Tom Herring will have to come up with a way to make those smiley faces even broader, because he and his fellow democrats are going to be happier than ever.

  • Norman Teigen

    There was no there there.

  • Norman Teigen

    There was no there there.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Romney was nominated reluctantly in the first place. We remember the “anyone but Romney” search, as we fluttered from one to the other potential champion, only to have them melt under the national spotlight.
    Romney will always be attached to this disappointing election, consequently, people will be reluctant to even think about him.
    I hope that after Bob Dole, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney, Republicans will resist the next establishment-gold watch-bland-RINO nominee, and find someone who can persuasively make the case for a government that promotes freedom for everyone.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Romney was nominated reluctantly in the first place. We remember the “anyone but Romney” search, as we fluttered from one to the other potential champion, only to have them melt under the national spotlight.
    Romney will always be attached to this disappointing election, consequently, people will be reluctant to even think about him.
    I hope that after Bob Dole, John McCain, and now Mitt Romney, Republicans will resist the next establishment-gold watch-bland-RINO nominee, and find someone who can persuasively make the case for a government that promotes freedom for everyone.

  • #4 Kitty

    That’s the first problem; Republicans need to start putting real conservative candidates in, and not pandering to the “moderates.”

    Yes, please nominate Bachman or Palin in 2016! Please Please Please!

  • #4 Kitty

    That’s the first problem; Republicans need to start putting real conservative candidates in, and not pandering to the “moderates.”

    Yes, please nominate Bachman or Palin in 2016! Please Please Please!

  • Kirk

    @5

    I keep hearing this as the solution to the Republicans woes, as if appealing to a smaller subset of voters is actually going to win elections.

  • Kirk

    @5

    I keep hearing this as the solution to the Republicans woes, as if appealing to a smaller subset of voters is actually going to win elections.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Kitty, has point. We have to jettison the “yes, they’re inarticulate, but their policies are good” mentality (both Bushes, Palin, Bachman etc.). There are many well educated, eriadite, conservative commentators (Jonah Goldberg, Ramish Ponaru, Krauthammer, etc.) why is it so difficult to find a Republican nominee with a Ph.D?

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Kitty, has point. We have to jettison the “yes, they’re inarticulate, but their policies are good” mentality (both Bushes, Palin, Bachman etc.). There are many well educated, eriadite, conservative commentators (Jonah Goldberg, Ramish Ponaru, Krauthammer, etc.) why is it so difficult to find a Republican nominee with a Ph.D?

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Gene Veith 2016!
    “Leadership is his Vocation”

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Gene Veith 2016!
    “Leadership is his Vocation”

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    If the Republicans had nominated any of the presidential primary candidates other than Romney, I suspect the electoral college map would have been just about all blue. The people who voted for Obama would still have voted for Obama, and the moderates would have voted for him in even greater numbers.

  • http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ Kevin N

    If the Republicans had nominated any of the presidential primary candidates other than Romney, I suspect the electoral college map would have been just about all blue. The people who voted for Obama would still have voted for Obama, and the moderates would have voted for him in even greater numbers.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kevin, Kitty, Kirk, Kerner, Michael – yes.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Kevin, Kitty, Kirk, Kerner, Michael – yes.

  • Steve Bauer

    Someone who hasn’t drunk the Grover Norquist Kool-aid.

    A ““traditional conservative” (if there are any left).

  • Steve Bauer

    Someone who hasn’t drunk the Grover Norquist Kool-aid.

    A ““traditional conservative” (if there are any left).

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    I think the thing that most people find offensive about this statement is that it categorizes financial incentives for “the masses” as gifts, but ignores the “gifts” given to large corporations, such as GE’s Happy Wonderful Tax Free Year. Romney could have just as easily pointed to GE or Solyndra as evidence of injustice in the White House – but by focusing on the “little guy”, Romney came across as class-ist and arrogant.

  • http://www.redeemedrambling.blogspot.com John

    I think the thing that most people find offensive about this statement is that it categorizes financial incentives for “the masses” as gifts, but ignores the “gifts” given to large corporations, such as GE’s Happy Wonderful Tax Free Year. Romney could have just as easily pointed to GE or Solyndra as evidence of injustice in the White House – but by focusing on the “little guy”, Romney came across as class-ist and arrogant.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, ‘Oh, you aren’t even ripe yet! I don’t need any sour grapes.’

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Driven by hunger, a fox tried to reach some grapes hanging high on the vine but was unable to, although he leaped with all his strength. As he went away, the fox remarked, ‘Oh, you aren’t even ripe yet! I don’t need any sour grapes.’

  • SAL

    I think it’s both and it shows why Republicans will lose the next several Presidential elections.

    First the Republican Party has been taken over by governing elites almost entirely at the Presidential level:
    Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney

    The base has no loyalty to any of these largely hereditary scions of the governing elite. All allegiance to these elite nominees is a temporary sort generated by fear that the Democrats governing elite will be so much worse.

    When these Republican elites lose they’ve failed in the only category that redeems them in the eyes of the base: Their ability to get elected.

    In line with this pattern I suspect Republicans nominate Jeb Bush in 2016 and lose again with an economy weaker than 2012. I suspect after that many elite losses the Republican base will revolt and nominate a base candidate in 2020 thinking if “we must lose we may as well do it with someone we can enthusiastically support”.

  • SAL

    I think it’s both and it shows why Republicans will lose the next several Presidential elections.

    First the Republican Party has been taken over by governing elites almost entirely at the Presidential level:
    Dole, Bush, McCain, Romney

    The base has no loyalty to any of these largely hereditary scions of the governing elite. All allegiance to these elite nominees is a temporary sort generated by fear that the Democrats governing elite will be so much worse.

    When these Republican elites lose they’ve failed in the only category that redeems them in the eyes of the base: Their ability to get elected.

    In line with this pattern I suspect Republicans nominate Jeb Bush in 2016 and lose again with an economy weaker than 2012. I suspect after that many elite losses the Republican base will revolt and nominate a base candidate in 2020 thinking if “we must lose we may as well do it with someone we can enthusiastically support”.

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    I agree with Pastor Spomer %239 and %2312, and SAL %2319

    I think that, with the pressure finally off, honest Republicans are saying out loud what they’ve been thinking about Romney all along, what conservatives tried to say out loud from the start but had neither the money nor the media platform to broadcast effectively. Romney was a deeply flawed candidate. In principle, there was no way to establish any genuine differentiation between him and Obama on the ideological issues that were important to conservatives in this election (socialized medicine, gay marriage, abortion, fundamental right to keep and bear arms, etc.). In fact, they were agreed in principle, and Romney’s performance as MA Governor proved this. There was only a difference of degree between them.

    Conservatives were never “loyal” to Romney to begin with, but merely settled for him, acknowledging with moderates and neo-cons his “electability” (his money, his willingness to compromise, his youthful looks, his ability to speak in complete sentences). It was his willingness to compromise in particular that conservative pundits used to defend his candidacy: “At least we can control him,” I recall Ann Coulter emphatically saying on a number of occasions. That is, Romney is a prima donna who want’s, above all other things, to be popular; everybody knew this, just as they knew that he would cave-in under pressure to retain what’s most important to him – his popularity. Anybody remember high-school? Yeah, Romney’s that guy. That is what made him controllable, and as such, an “ideal” candidate. His disastrous position on immigration reform is an example. He was pressured by conservatives whose support he wanted, and by a desire to be more popular than Newt Gingrich, to take a ridiculous hard-right position on that issue (Newt had the best position on this matter, IMHO. It was also the unpopular position during the Primaries…). That such a position was unnatural for him, from a social policy standpoint, was evident in his poor articulation and defense of it – nevertheless, he took that position to be popular, in a bid to win the greatest popularity contest on the planet.

    Where did Romney go? Is he in exile? He had the luxury over the past six months, of saying just about anything in public without the Party or right-leaning media being too critical of him. Not anymore. I frankly think he “self-deported” from the political scene. In his mind (and in the mind of most pragmatists, I think), winners are popular and losers aren’t. He can’t redeem himself from this loss. He can’t compromise his way back to popularity and relevance this time.

    My Opinion.

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    I agree with Pastor Spomer %239 and %2312, and SAL %2319

    I think that, with the pressure finally off, honest Republicans are saying out loud what they’ve been thinking about Romney all along, what conservatives tried to say out loud from the start but had neither the money nor the media platform to broadcast effectively. Romney was a deeply flawed candidate. In principle, there was no way to establish any genuine differentiation between him and Obama on the ideological issues that were important to conservatives in this election (socialized medicine, gay marriage, abortion, fundamental right to keep and bear arms, etc.). In fact, they were agreed in principle, and Romney’s performance as MA Governor proved this. There was only a difference of degree between them.

    Conservatives were never “loyal” to Romney to begin with, but merely settled for him, acknowledging with moderates and neo-cons his “electability” (his money, his willingness to compromise, his youthful looks, his ability to speak in complete sentences). It was his willingness to compromise in particular that conservative pundits used to defend his candidacy: “At least we can control him,” I recall Ann Coulter emphatically saying on a number of occasions. That is, Romney is a prima donna who want’s, above all other things, to be popular; everybody knew this, just as they knew that he would cave-in under pressure to retain what’s most important to him – his popularity. Anybody remember high-school? Yeah, Romney’s that guy. That is what made him controllable, and as such, an “ideal” candidate. His disastrous position on immigration reform is an example. He was pressured by conservatives whose support he wanted, and by a desire to be more popular than Newt Gingrich, to take a ridiculous hard-right position on that issue (Newt had the best position on this matter, IMHO. It was also the unpopular position during the Primaries…). That such a position was unnatural for him, from a social policy standpoint, was evident in his poor articulation and defense of it – nevertheless, he took that position to be popular, in a bid to win the greatest popularity contest on the planet.

    Where did Romney go? Is he in exile? He had the luxury over the past six months, of saying just about anything in public without the Party or right-leaning media being too critical of him. Not anymore. I frankly think he “self-deported” from the political scene. In his mind (and in the mind of most pragmatists, I think), winners are popular and losers aren’t. He can’t redeem himself from this loss. He can’t compromise his way back to popularity and relevance this time.

    My Opinion.

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    Steve Bauer – thank you very much for linking to that article! In a recent comment here on Cranach, I stated: If Conservatives are trying to “conserve” something through fidelity to the greatness of the past, they need to understand that the majority of Americans have no acquaintance with this greatness. Of course, I didn’t just come up with this idea of Conservatism “conserving” something – I was borrowing the definition of “conservative” employed by Charles Porterfield Krauth in the Preface of his Conservative Reformation, as he applied it to theology:”The history of Christianity, in common with all genuine history, moves under the influence of two generic ideas: the conservative, which desires to secure the present by fidelity to the results of the past; the progressive, which looks out, in hope, to a better future. Reformation is the great harmonizer of the two principles… Conservatism without Progress produces the Romish and Greek type of the Church. Progress without Conservatism runs into Revolution, Radicalism, and Sectarianism. Reformation is antithetical both to passive persistence in wrong or passive endurance of it, and to Revolution as a mode of relieving wrong… Reformation and Conservatism really involve each other…” [Krauth, C.P. (1871). Conservative Reformation and it's Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. Vii-viii.]

    The link you posted is founded on original material published online by The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal – Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles. These principles define precisely what I was driving at, using a definition of “Conservatism” that is nearly identical to Krauth’s (although applied in a political and social context, rather than a theological context). In fact, I daresay, Kirk’s Ten Principles ought to be the basis of “reformation” among conservatives.

    Again, thank you for posting that link!

  • http://www.intrepidlutherans.com Douglas Lindee

    Steve Bauer – thank you very much for linking to that article! In a recent comment here on Cranach, I stated: If Conservatives are trying to “conserve” something through fidelity to the greatness of the past, they need to understand that the majority of Americans have no acquaintance with this greatness. Of course, I didn’t just come up with this idea of Conservatism “conserving” something – I was borrowing the definition of “conservative” employed by Charles Porterfield Krauth in the Preface of his Conservative Reformation, as he applied it to theology:”The history of Christianity, in common with all genuine history, moves under the influence of two generic ideas: the conservative, which desires to secure the present by fidelity to the results of the past; the progressive, which looks out, in hope, to a better future. Reformation is the great harmonizer of the two principles… Conservatism without Progress produces the Romish and Greek type of the Church. Progress without Conservatism runs into Revolution, Radicalism, and Sectarianism. Reformation is antithetical both to passive persistence in wrong or passive endurance of it, and to Revolution as a mode of relieving wrong… Reformation and Conservatism really involve each other…” [Krauth, C.P. (1871). Conservative Reformation and it's Theology. Philadelphia: Lippincott. pp. Vii-viii.]

    The link you posted is founded on original material published online by The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal – Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles. These principles define precisely what I was driving at, using a definition of “Conservatism” that is nearly identical to Krauth’s (although applied in a political and social context, rather than a theological context). In fact, I daresay, Kirk’s Ten Principles ought to be the basis of “reformation” among conservatives.

    Again, thank you for posting that link!

  • DonS

    Romney is an accomplished executive and, by all reports, a charitable and compassionate man. His comments reflect the frustration of many of us who fear the immense size of the current federal government. We recoil at the selfishness of a generation that refuses to rein in its benefits and entitlements even a little bit to avoid sinking our children in a morass of debt and off-the-books obligations they will never be able to repay and that will have a startling impact on their own standards of living.

    He is right to this extent — the Democratic party demonstrated its willingness in this campaign to risk our future and the well being of our kids to scare voters and buy votes by promising to maintain current entitlements levels with our kids’ money. It’s as simple and ugly as that. And the media abetted this dishonesty and theft.

    Romney would have been a far better president than the one we are now afflicted with for the next four years. But, he is no where near as conservative as I would prefer, and I am encouraged that the Republicans have a very deep bench of young conservative talent ready to run in 2016. I would have preferred that Romney be allowed to retire from public life in dignity, but losing candidates seldom fare well in the post-election discussion, and many have felt the need to repudiate the tone of Romney’s remarks (if not their substance), with the knowledge that much needs to be done in the next few years to educate the voters as to the danger they are putting their children in with their profligacy.

  • DonS

    Romney is an accomplished executive and, by all reports, a charitable and compassionate man. His comments reflect the frustration of many of us who fear the immense size of the current federal government. We recoil at the selfishness of a generation that refuses to rein in its benefits and entitlements even a little bit to avoid sinking our children in a morass of debt and off-the-books obligations they will never be able to repay and that will have a startling impact on their own standards of living.

    He is right to this extent — the Democratic party demonstrated its willingness in this campaign to risk our future and the well being of our kids to scare voters and buy votes by promising to maintain current entitlements levels with our kids’ money. It’s as simple and ugly as that. And the media abetted this dishonesty and theft.

    Romney would have been a far better president than the one we are now afflicted with for the next four years. But, he is no where near as conservative as I would prefer, and I am encouraged that the Republicans have a very deep bench of young conservative talent ready to run in 2016. I would have preferred that Romney be allowed to retire from public life in dignity, but losing candidates seldom fare well in the post-election discussion, and many have felt the need to repudiate the tone of Romney’s remarks (if not their substance), with the knowledge that much needs to be done in the next few years to educate the voters as to the danger they are putting their children in with their profligacy.

  • Joe

    It is at moments like these that I like to remind everyone that the last GOP candidate that ran as a moderate AND won was Eisenhower. Nixon ran as a moderate in 1960 and lost and ran as a conservative in 68 and won (of course he governed like a moderate, a paranoid moderate).

    The point is that elections are about turning out your base. Obama’s campaign understood this and turned their base out big time. Obama ran to the left to excite his base and it worked. For example, turn out was at 87% in the City of Milwaukee. Romney won the independents (by 10% in Ohio) but lost the election because somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 million registered Republicans did not vote.

    So, I do advocate that the GOP run conservatives and not moderates. But, let’s not confuse talking points with an actual intellectual grasp of why conservatives/small gov’t types believe what they believe.

    The GOP has gotten lazy about explaining the why. The party simply says, “We should do X” and when someone says, “Why?” The party says, “Because Reagan.” This needs to end.

  • Joe

    It is at moments like these that I like to remind everyone that the last GOP candidate that ran as a moderate AND won was Eisenhower. Nixon ran as a moderate in 1960 and lost and ran as a conservative in 68 and won (of course he governed like a moderate, a paranoid moderate).

    The point is that elections are about turning out your base. Obama’s campaign understood this and turned their base out big time. Obama ran to the left to excite his base and it worked. For example, turn out was at 87% in the City of Milwaukee. Romney won the independents (by 10% in Ohio) but lost the election because somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 million registered Republicans did not vote.

    So, I do advocate that the GOP run conservatives and not moderates. But, let’s not confuse talking points with an actual intellectual grasp of why conservatives/small gov’t types believe what they believe.

    The GOP has gotten lazy about explaining the why. The party simply says, “We should do X” and when someone says, “Why?” The party says, “Because Reagan.” This needs to end.

  • DonS

    I agree with Joe @ 22. Once again, as we did so well 20 years ago, we need to clearly communicate the vision of conservative ideals to a new generation and to those newer in our country.

    Eric @ 1: “The point is this – Romney failed to capture the imagination of the American people (more people voted for McCain and Kerry!” — this statement is not actually true. People have been comparing partial counts from the current election to the final count of the 2008 election. Romney’s vote total has now caught, and will eventually exceed (since the count is still ongoing), McCain’s 2008 vote total, while Obama missed his 2008 vote total by some 6 million votes. Romney also has exceeded Kerry’s 2004 total by about 1 million votes so far, and is only 2 million votes behind Bush’s total.

  • DonS

    I agree with Joe @ 22. Once again, as we did so well 20 years ago, we need to clearly communicate the vision of conservative ideals to a new generation and to those newer in our country.

    Eric @ 1: “The point is this – Romney failed to capture the imagination of the American people (more people voted for McCain and Kerry!” — this statement is not actually true. People have been comparing partial counts from the current election to the final count of the 2008 election. Romney’s vote total has now caught, and will eventually exceed (since the count is still ongoing), McCain’s 2008 vote total, while Obama missed his 2008 vote total by some 6 million votes. Romney also has exceeded Kerry’s 2004 total by about 1 million votes so far, and is only 2 million votes behind Bush’s total.

  • Grace

    I believe you’re missing the obvious, Romney is a staunch Mormon, not only a member, but an elder/pastor as well. People turned a blind eye, even those within the church, but there were enough who spoke loud and clear, making it plain, that the Mormons do not believe the Bible, from Genesis on. How could God ALMIGHTY bless such a choice?

    Obama is no choice either. Many wrote in their vote out of conscience, allegiance and commitment to Jesus Christ.

    Dependence upon our LORD and Savior is the only answer. Obama isn’t, nor was Romney, they are both on the wrong track, without knowledge and truth.

    The past four years, and the ensuing next years should teach the people of this nation a lesson. If God isn’t leading, it will fail. For years this country has slept for the most part, without giving a thought to Jesus Christ, allowing their pleasures, and desires to take precedent over God. It’s proven to be a disaster, it will not change until the heart of man turns to God.

  • Grace

    I believe you’re missing the obvious, Romney is a staunch Mormon, not only a member, but an elder/pastor as well. People turned a blind eye, even those within the church, but there were enough who spoke loud and clear, making it plain, that the Mormons do not believe the Bible, from Genesis on. How could God ALMIGHTY bless such a choice?

    Obama is no choice either. Many wrote in their vote out of conscience, allegiance and commitment to Jesus Christ.

    Dependence upon our LORD and Savior is the only answer. Obama isn’t, nor was Romney, they are both on the wrong track, without knowledge and truth.

    The past four years, and the ensuing next years should teach the people of this nation a lesson. If God isn’t leading, it will fail. For years this country has slept for the most part, without giving a thought to Jesus Christ, allowing their pleasures, and desires to take precedent over God. It’s proven to be a disaster, it will not change until the heart of man turns to God.

  • Joanne

    RINOs kill! (Philadelphia abortion holocost).
    Sarah Palin got more votes than Paul Ryan (love them both).
    He/she who wins the primaries, get the nomination. We’ve lost several times. Thought we’d vote for the Gov. of Texas, he must really be a great, get-er-done politician. He seemed to be just like W only dummer and a worse speaker. Couldn’t stand it.

    We lived through Newt’s tenure of the house. His gumption put the Republicans in control of the House for the first time in my life. Most Americans had no idea what would happen. Most of the fiscal successes ascribed to President Clinton, were really the very hard work of the new Republican congress and the new speaker, Gingrich.

    Then Newt couldn’t resist the ladies. Not a problem for socialists but a huge problem for religious America who think of the the sixth commandment in the same way as Luther translated it, “You shall not break your honor.” Breaking your honor (marriage vows) with two wives, is also saying to me, he’s likely to break his honor as a politician to me as well.

    But, even with that, we knew that Newt was the only one who could work with the congress to get real change and to fix the big problems, we just did not trust him to keep his zipper up.
    So we wound up with the safest candidate, though the thing about the 4th Abrahamic Religion (after Islam) simply had to be ignored. They can seem so normal in social and politial situations, it could work, although his primary political belief was “be nice.”
    We voted for McCain only because of Sarah. We voted for Romney only because of Paul Ryan.

    What this election proved in spades is that you can’t just be against the other candidate, you have to have a better candidate, even against the worst president this country has ever had.

    The jello middle of the electorate is real and are the ones who elect the president. You win the jello, you win.

    In four years, the Republicans will elect in many primaries their next nominee for President/vice-President. By the time we get to vote in the primary there will already be a canditate way out front. Our favorite canditate may have already dropped out. The woefully outnumbered Republican voters will elect a candidate they think will be the most acceptable to the Democrates and the jello center voters. He’ll be Mr. Nice, he’ll agree with everybody about everything, his political beliefs won’t be worth taking the time to go down to the polling booth. It’s our system of electing nominees, that’s how we do it.

    But, every once in a while, the political magic happens, and a good man is elected who can get progress done even with an opposition congress and a lethal court.

  • Joanne

    RINOs kill! (Philadelphia abortion holocost).
    Sarah Palin got more votes than Paul Ryan (love them both).
    He/she who wins the primaries, get the nomination. We’ve lost several times. Thought we’d vote for the Gov. of Texas, he must really be a great, get-er-done politician. He seemed to be just like W only dummer and a worse speaker. Couldn’t stand it.

    We lived through Newt’s tenure of the house. His gumption put the Republicans in control of the House for the first time in my life. Most Americans had no idea what would happen. Most of the fiscal successes ascribed to President Clinton, were really the very hard work of the new Republican congress and the new speaker, Gingrich.

    Then Newt couldn’t resist the ladies. Not a problem for socialists but a huge problem for religious America who think of the the sixth commandment in the same way as Luther translated it, “You shall not break your honor.” Breaking your honor (marriage vows) with two wives, is also saying to me, he’s likely to break his honor as a politician to me as well.

    But, even with that, we knew that Newt was the only one who could work with the congress to get real change and to fix the big problems, we just did not trust him to keep his zipper up.
    So we wound up with the safest candidate, though the thing about the 4th Abrahamic Religion (after Islam) simply had to be ignored. They can seem so normal in social and politial situations, it could work, although his primary political belief was “be nice.”
    We voted for McCain only because of Sarah. We voted for Romney only because of Paul Ryan.

    What this election proved in spades is that you can’t just be against the other candidate, you have to have a better candidate, even against the worst president this country has ever had.

    The jello middle of the electorate is real and are the ones who elect the president. You win the jello, you win.

    In four years, the Republicans will elect in many primaries their next nominee for President/vice-President. By the time we get to vote in the primary there will already be a canditate way out front. Our favorite canditate may have already dropped out. The woefully outnumbered Republican voters will elect a candidate they think will be the most acceptable to the Democrates and the jello center voters. He’ll be Mr. Nice, he’ll agree with everybody about everything, his political beliefs won’t be worth taking the time to go down to the polling booth. It’s our system of electing nominees, that’s how we do it.

    But, every once in a while, the political magic happens, and a good man is elected who can get progress done even with an opposition congress and a lethal court.

  • EWR

    Re Grace at #25:
    I knew you would be weighing in on this – and your position is predictable. Why you continue to frequent a blog with so many voices approaching these things from a 2 Kingdoms perspective is beyond me.

    I know you’ve heard the challenge before – but once again – let me pose 3 questions to you:
    1) Do you really presume to know the hidden mind of God so well that you are willing to firmly bind God’s name & blessing to a particular (though in this case non-existent) Evangelical Christian candidate?

    2) Do you really presume to know the hidden mind of God so well that you are willing to so firmly detach God’s blessing from non-Evangelical Christian candidates like President Obama and Governor Romney?

    3) Where in the Bible are we told who God would have supported in this particular 2012 Presidential election? (Somewhere in the Prophets maybe?)

    In all seriousness, God bless you for hanging around Cranach. I hope one day some of this Reformation theology sticks. It’s a tremendous comfort! I know from personal experience.

  • EWR

    Re Grace at #25:
    I knew you would be weighing in on this – and your position is predictable. Why you continue to frequent a blog with so many voices approaching these things from a 2 Kingdoms perspective is beyond me.

    I know you’ve heard the challenge before – but once again – let me pose 3 questions to you:
    1) Do you really presume to know the hidden mind of God so well that you are willing to firmly bind God’s name & blessing to a particular (though in this case non-existent) Evangelical Christian candidate?

    2) Do you really presume to know the hidden mind of God so well that you are willing to so firmly detach God’s blessing from non-Evangelical Christian candidates like President Obama and Governor Romney?

    3) Where in the Bible are we told who God would have supported in this particular 2012 Presidential election? (Somewhere in the Prophets maybe?)

    In all seriousness, God bless you for hanging around Cranach. I hope one day some of this Reformation theology sticks. It’s a tremendous comfort! I know from personal experience.

  • Grace

    EWR @26 “In all seriousness, God bless you for hanging around Cranach. I hope one day some of this Reformation theology sticks. It’s a tremendous comfort! I know from personal experience.”

    It doesn’t “stick” for all the reasons I’ve stated many times. I find comfort and joy in Christ my Savior, I know HE loves and cares for me.

    Your so called “challenge” has been answered all too often, only to be asked once again, this time by you.

    The simple answer to your questions is; God does not support sin. Mormons do not believe in the Bible, they have scrubbed Genesis to completely distort the very meaning and essence of God’s Word. This alone, would determine, that a man running for president of the United States, believing such doctrine that diametrically opposes the Bible, is sin – You might be surprised as to how many people believe as I do, but avoid speaking out.

  • Grace

    EWR @26 “In all seriousness, God bless you for hanging around Cranach. I hope one day some of this Reformation theology sticks. It’s a tremendous comfort! I know from personal experience.”

    It doesn’t “stick” for all the reasons I’ve stated many times. I find comfort and joy in Christ my Savior, I know HE loves and cares for me.

    Your so called “challenge” has been answered all too often, only to be asked once again, this time by you.

    The simple answer to your questions is; God does not support sin. Mormons do not believe in the Bible, they have scrubbed Genesis to completely distort the very meaning and essence of God’s Word. This alone, would determine, that a man running for president of the United States, believing such doctrine that diametrically opposes the Bible, is sin – You might be surprised as to how many people believe as I do, but avoid speaking out.

  • Joe

    Grace – please let me know when a sinless candidate shows up. I guess we don’t have to vote until then.

  • Joe

    Grace – please let me know when a sinless candidate shows up. I guess we don’t have to vote until then.

  • Jim Hamilton

    My own view is that many conservatives (myself included) have just given up on the GOP and politics in general. I didn’t vote in this election. What’s the point? It doesn’t make any difference who wins these elections. The country continues to careen even deeper into crippling debt, moral insanity, socialism, abortionism, and on and on. The gov’t ballooned and babies were slaughtered by the millions under Clinton and Bush; the same has happened under the demon-possessed madman that we’ve got in the White House now. Would a liberal MA Republican (and anti-Trinitarian cultist) have altered this in the least? Would a Romney presidency have made a dent in the legion of shiftless deadbeats who seem to believe that the ever-shrinking productive class owns them free abortions, houses, food and birth control? If the majority of people in this country ever valued hard work, individualism, morality, and freedom, they certainly don’t any longer. As I said on this forum before, my plan is to pray without ceasing, hold fast to the Word and the Confessions, treasure my wife and daughter, and ride out the storm until the Son returns. May He come quickly and may our great God protect all unborn children.

  • Jim Hamilton

    My own view is that many conservatives (myself included) have just given up on the GOP and politics in general. I didn’t vote in this election. What’s the point? It doesn’t make any difference who wins these elections. The country continues to careen even deeper into crippling debt, moral insanity, socialism, abortionism, and on and on. The gov’t ballooned and babies were slaughtered by the millions under Clinton and Bush; the same has happened under the demon-possessed madman that we’ve got in the White House now. Would a liberal MA Republican (and anti-Trinitarian cultist) have altered this in the least? Would a Romney presidency have made a dent in the legion of shiftless deadbeats who seem to believe that the ever-shrinking productive class owns them free abortions, houses, food and birth control? If the majority of people in this country ever valued hard work, individualism, morality, and freedom, they certainly don’t any longer. As I said on this forum before, my plan is to pray without ceasing, hold fast to the Word and the Confessions, treasure my wife and daughter, and ride out the storm until the Son returns. May He come quickly and may our great God protect all unborn children.

  • EWR

    Grace @ 26,
    I understand that God doesn’t extend his SAVING Blessings to Mormons (btw not because they have the wrong view of the Bible – but because they are sinners who reject the righteousness of Christ), but do you really believe that God witholds ALL forms of blessing that don’t agree with your particular view of the Scriptures? If so – was Romney completely “unblessed” (in every sense of the word) by God when he served as Governor of Massachusetts?

    Obviously, many Christians don’t agree with your particular view of the Scriptures. I understand you have personal assurance of Christ’s love for you, but can you be sure that God cares and loves other Christians (who receive Christ by faith – but don’t have the “right” view of the Bible)?

    I am aware you are not alone in your views. Who do you plan to vote for in 4 years if Jesus Christ refuses to run once again?

  • EWR

    Grace @ 26,
    I understand that God doesn’t extend his SAVING Blessings to Mormons (btw not because they have the wrong view of the Bible – but because they are sinners who reject the righteousness of Christ), but do you really believe that God witholds ALL forms of blessing that don’t agree with your particular view of the Scriptures? If so – was Romney completely “unblessed” (in every sense of the word) by God when he served as Governor of Massachusetts?

    Obviously, many Christians don’t agree with your particular view of the Scriptures. I understand you have personal assurance of Christ’s love for you, but can you be sure that God cares and loves other Christians (who receive Christ by faith – but don’t have the “right” view of the Bible)?

    I am aware you are not alone in your views. Who do you plan to vote for in 4 years if Jesus Christ refuses to run once again?

  • EWR

    Sorry – the question should have read:
    “but do you really believe that God witholds ALL forms of blessing to those elected officials that don’t agree with your particular view of the Scriptures?”

  • EWR

    Sorry – the question should have read:
    “but do you really believe that God witholds ALL forms of blessing to those elected officials that don’t agree with your particular view of the Scriptures?”

  • Grace

    Jim Hamilton @29

    Very well stated. Your last line is my hearts desire:

    “ride out the storm until the Son returns. May He come quickly and may our great God protect all unborn children.

    Jim, I add this passage of Scripture:


    10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
    11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
    14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
    15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
    16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
    17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
    Ephesians 6

  • Grace

    Jim Hamilton @29

    Very well stated. Your last line is my hearts desire:

    “ride out the storm until the Son returns. May He come quickly and may our great God protect all unborn children.

    Jim, I add this passage of Scripture:


    10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
    11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
    14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
    15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
    16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
    17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
    Ephesians 6

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Kitty, has point. We have to jettison the “yes, they’re inarticulate, but their policies are good” mentality (both Bushes, Palin, Bachman etc.). There are many well educated, eriadite, conservative commentators (Jonah Goldberg, Ramish Ponaru, Krauthammer, etc.) why is it so difficult to find a Republican nominee with a Ph.D?

    Uh, when was the last time you talked to a Ph.D? They are not all great talkers. Seriously. Mitt Romney was a good match for this stage of the game. He knows money, economics, how to forge win win compromises. He genuinely cares about people unlike Obama who is just talking about it. Mitt Romney’s ideas about what is good for people are actually things that are good for people.

    Okay, tangent. Obama thinks health care via an individual mandate is good for people. Okay, let’s assume that is true. What impact might that have on those who hire people like really cheap? Some detractors of the plan think that employers will go to more part time workers, but some employers could go the other way. It used to be in Germany, that all employees fell under the insurance requirement which meant that there was very little part time employment because the hourly cost rose as the hours fell. Perhaps Republicans could nudge the policy towards a mandate for part timers.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Kitty, has point. We have to jettison the “yes, they’re inarticulate, but their policies are good” mentality (both Bushes, Palin, Bachman etc.). There are many well educated, eriadite, conservative commentators (Jonah Goldberg, Ramish Ponaru, Krauthammer, etc.) why is it so difficult to find a Republican nominee with a Ph.D?

    Uh, when was the last time you talked to a Ph.D? They are not all great talkers. Seriously. Mitt Romney was a good match for this stage of the game. He knows money, economics, how to forge win win compromises. He genuinely cares about people unlike Obama who is just talking about it. Mitt Romney’s ideas about what is good for people are actually things that are good for people.

    Okay, tangent. Obama thinks health care via an individual mandate is good for people. Okay, let’s assume that is true. What impact might that have on those who hire people like really cheap? Some detractors of the plan think that employers will go to more part time workers, but some employers could go the other way. It used to be in Germany, that all employees fell under the insurance requirement which meant that there was very little part time employment because the hourly cost rose as the hours fell. Perhaps Republicans could nudge the policy towards a mandate for part timers.

  • Grace

    EWR @ 31 “I am aware you are not alone in your views. Who do you plan to vote for in 4 years if Jesus Christ refuses to run once again?”

    You might think your question clever – it’s isn’t. Christ is God the Son, HIS position isn’t one of running for office. HE paid the price on the Cross, little man likes to play with words, to make a point he doesn’t have.

  • Grace

    EWR @ 31 “I am aware you are not alone in your views. Who do you plan to vote for in 4 years if Jesus Christ refuses to run once again?”

    You might think your question clever – it’s isn’t. Christ is God the Son, HIS position isn’t one of running for office. HE paid the price on the Cross, little man likes to play with words, to make a point he doesn’t have.

  • Julian

    I’m betting Grace (in name only, clearly) is a member of my old denomination. I recognize the persimmony tone of voice right through the internets.

  • Julian

    I’m betting Grace (in name only, clearly) is a member of my old denomination. I recognize the persimmony tone of voice right through the internets.

  • Grace

    Julian @ 36 ” I recognize the persimmony tone of voice right through the internets.”

    persimmony
    There is no definition – It’s not even a valid word, in the game of Scrabble! LOL

  • Grace

    Julian @ 36 ” I recognize the persimmony tone of voice right through the internets.”

    persimmony
    There is no definition – It’s not even a valid word, in the game of Scrabble! LOL

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Sg, I have Ph.Ds in my congregation. one is an excellent Sunday School teacher. Yet, I see you point, education isn’t everything, however it has been conspicuously absent from many Republican nominees. (Romney was bright, but he had other obstacles).

    I encourage everyone to read Douthats recent article, The Liberal Gloat. Ross is the most thoughtful and reflective conservative writing today, and consequently, the most profound in his analysis.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Sg, I have Ph.Ds in my congregation. one is an excellent Sunday School teacher. Yet, I see you point, education isn’t everything, however it has been conspicuously absent from many Republican nominees. (Romney was bright, but he had other obstacles).

    I encourage everyone to read Douthats recent article, The Liberal Gloat. Ross is the most thoughtful and reflective conservative writing today, and consequently, the most profound in his analysis.

  • Jim Hamilton

    For me, it isn’t a question of finding someone sinless to vote for. Obviously, I realize that Joe was using sarcasm to be rude to Grace when he proposed this. I wouldn’t vote for an openly sinful person, like Barack Obama. I really can’t see myself voting for anyone again (in a national election) unless he or she is able to articulate a uncompromising, rugged conservative worldview that accepts the reality that for us to survive we must dismantle the federal welfare state. I would vote for a candidate that promised to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and return charity to the states and localities and churches. I would vote for a candidate who promised to destroy virtually every federal agency including (just for example) the EPA, the Dept. of Ed., and the NLRB. I’d vote for a candidate who promised a flat tax and the total elimination of the death tax. You get the idea. When this candidate comes along, I’ll happily pull the lever for him or her (assuming that there is no issue of obvious immorality). This candidate does not presently exist and isn’t likely to exist in the future. The federal Leviathan and its media familiars would never allow such a person to run for office.

  • Jim Hamilton

    For me, it isn’t a question of finding someone sinless to vote for. Obviously, I realize that Joe was using sarcasm to be rude to Grace when he proposed this. I wouldn’t vote for an openly sinful person, like Barack Obama. I really can’t see myself voting for anyone again (in a national election) unless he or she is able to articulate a uncompromising, rugged conservative worldview that accepts the reality that for us to survive we must dismantle the federal welfare state. I would vote for a candidate that promised to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and return charity to the states and localities and churches. I would vote for a candidate who promised to destroy virtually every federal agency including (just for example) the EPA, the Dept. of Ed., and the NLRB. I’d vote for a candidate who promised a flat tax and the total elimination of the death tax. You get the idea. When this candidate comes along, I’ll happily pull the lever for him or her (assuming that there is no issue of obvious immorality). This candidate does not presently exist and isn’t likely to exist in the future. The federal Leviathan and its media familiars would never allow such a person to run for office.

  • Jim Hamilton

    @38

    Pastor, with all due respect, Douthat is not a conservative. He’s barely a Rockefeller Republican. Also, please tell me you’re not actually giving money to the New York Times.

    To your other point, I can’t think of a single Republican presidential nominee who is “conspicuously” poorly educated. Bush II had multiple degrees from well-regarded institutions, Bush I had an elite education. McCain was graduate of the Naval Academy. Reagan had a small college degree but was very bright and quite a successful president. On what basis do you find these men “conspicuously” uneducated?

  • Jim Hamilton

    @38

    Pastor, with all due respect, Douthat is not a conservative. He’s barely a Rockefeller Republican. Also, please tell me you’re not actually giving money to the New York Times.

    To your other point, I can’t think of a single Republican presidential nominee who is “conspicuously” poorly educated. Bush II had multiple degrees from well-regarded institutions, Bush I had an elite education. McCain was graduate of the Naval Academy. Reagan had a small college degree but was very bright and quite a successful president. On what basis do you find these men “conspicuously” uneducated?

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Jim, you observation are good, and I agree with them factually, however…
    First, let me clarify. I can express my additude toward the New York Times with one term that I suspect you will appreciate immediately, “Walter Duranty”.

    The credentials which you enumerate are true; I’ve cited them myself. However, one wouldn’t know it from the way they spoke. Didn’t Reagan sound wiser than those other men?
    I could always tell that Reagan respected his fellow Conservatives. Those other men always seemed to be saying what they, imperfectly thought that Conservatives wanted to hear, but it was, at heart a second tongue to them.
    P.s. I respectfully disagree with you on Douthat, but I concurs that he must be read circumspectly.

  • http://Www.gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    Jim, you observation are good, and I agree with them factually, however…
    First, let me clarify. I can express my additude toward the New York Times with one term that I suspect you will appreciate immediately, “Walter Duranty”.

    The credentials which you enumerate are true; I’ve cited them myself. However, one wouldn’t know it from the way they spoke. Didn’t Reagan sound wiser than those other men?
    I could always tell that Reagan respected his fellow Conservatives. Those other men always seemed to be saying what they, imperfectly thought that Conservatives wanted to hear, but it was, at heart a second tongue to them.
    P.s. I respectfully disagree with you on Douthat, but I concurs that he must be read circumspectly.

  • Jim Hamilton

    @41

    I always thought the Times would have been better off if they’d sent Jimmy instead of Walter.

    I think I may have misunderstood your earlier post (this is frequent occurrence with me both on the web and in real life). I agree that every Republican president and presidential nominee since Reagan has been both well-educated in the traditional sense and also a generally weak communicator that gave the impression of both average intelligence and poor education.

    I would like the GOP to run someone who, like Reagan, has both the ability to express conservative ideas and truly holds those conservative ideas. But as I said, I think the chances of that happening are nil. It seems like what usually happens is moderate to liberal Eastern Republicans ape conservative talking points in the primaries and then revert to their true colors during the general election. At that point, the public rightfully concludes that it makes little sense to vote for the Dem-lite when they can vote for the genuine article. Result: Liberal Republican loses and the GOP party mandarins complain that the ticket was sunk by crazy social conservatives and religious nuts.

  • Jim Hamilton

    @41

    I always thought the Times would have been better off if they’d sent Jimmy instead of Walter.

    I think I may have misunderstood your earlier post (this is frequent occurrence with me both on the web and in real life). I agree that every Republican president and presidential nominee since Reagan has been both well-educated in the traditional sense and also a generally weak communicator that gave the impression of both average intelligence and poor education.

    I would like the GOP to run someone who, like Reagan, has both the ability to express conservative ideas and truly holds those conservative ideas. But as I said, I think the chances of that happening are nil. It seems like what usually happens is moderate to liberal Eastern Republicans ape conservative talking points in the primaries and then revert to their true colors during the general election. At that point, the public rightfully concludes that it makes little sense to vote for the Dem-lite when they can vote for the genuine article. Result: Liberal Republican loses and the GOP party mandarins complain that the ticket was sunk by crazy social conservatives and religious nuts.

  • Grace

    Jim @ 39 “I would vote for a candidate that promised to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and return charity to the states and localities and churches. I would vote for a candidate who promised to destroy virtually every federal agency including (just for example) the EPA, the Dept. of Ed., and the NLRB. I’d vote for a candidate who promised a flat tax and the total elimination of the death tax.”

    I agree with some of what you state – however I wouldn’t eliminate:

    Medicare, and Social Security – The reason; All too many people work very hard throughout their lives, living frugally, but having next to no funds for retirement, saving what they could. Their children aren’t interested in taking care of their elders – parents are left to shift for themselves. Even Social Security is not enough.

    In regards to those under 55. They need to work and stop making excuses for themselves. Stop running up credit card debt, buying things they cannot afford. There are a great many young people who need to look at positions as tradesmen, instead of believing their path, no matter how poorly they do in college, will somehow turn out well.

    Survey: 40 Percent Of Americans Have $500 Or Less In Savings
    October 19, 2012 12:30 PM
    By John Ostapkovich

    PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — “A survey of about 1,100 Americans finds that more than 4-in-10 respondents admit they don’t have more than $500 in readily accessible savings

    The survey is a kind of departure for CreditDonkey.com, a website that compares credit card deals. Not respondents all were poor. Some had big houses, big mortgages or 401(k)s, but still no more than five Benjamins to rub together right now.

    Jill Michal, president and CEO of the United Way of Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey, reacts to the lack of liquid assets.

    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/10/19/survey-40-percent-of-americans-have-500-or-less-in-savings/

    LEARN TO SAVE!

    Medicaid – it is needed for care for those who are indigent, unable to care for themselves. It is sometimes misused and abused, however we cannot police everything.

    Education, should be re-worked – Unions are a disgrace. One friend of ours was going to Hawaii for a meeting of those on the board (his wife is a top member.) Can you imagine the cost of such a trip, families included, at a resort, plus air fare? Young people can barely spell, nor read at grade level. These same kids feel entitled to attend college, with loans that may never be paid back, add to that no interest in really learning.

    I agree the “death tax” should be eliminated.

    A “flat tax” could, and should be instituted, but only so far. Some people are unable to make enough money to make ends meet, to make them pay exactly the same amount as someone who makes a great deal of money isn’t fair. It also isn’t fair that those who pay the most taxes, or all of them are in the top 5% – “Spreading the wealth” is a dream come true for all those who don’t work, spending the money they do have, on things they don’t need.

  • Grace

    Jim @ 39 “I would vote for a candidate that promised to eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and return charity to the states and localities and churches. I would vote for a candidate who promised to destroy virtually every federal agency including (just for example) the EPA, the Dept. of Ed., and the NLRB. I’d vote for a candidate who promised a flat tax and the total elimination of the death tax.”

    I agree with some of what you state – however I wouldn’t eliminate:

    Medicare, and Social Security – The reason; All too many people work very hard throughout their lives, living frugally, but having next to no funds for retirement, saving what they could. Their children aren’t interested in taking care of their elders – parents are left to shift for themselves. Even Social Security is not enough.

    In regards to those under 55. They need to work and stop making excuses for themselves. Stop running up credit card debt, buying things they cannot afford. There are a great many young people who need to look at positions as tradesmen, instead of believing their path, no matter how poorly they do in college, will somehow turn out well.

    Survey: 40 Percent Of Americans Have $500 Or Less In Savings
    October 19, 2012 12:30 PM
    By John Ostapkovich

    PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — “A survey of about 1,100 Americans finds that more than 4-in-10 respondents admit they don’t have more than $500 in readily accessible savings

    The survey is a kind of departure for CreditDonkey.com, a website that compares credit card deals. Not respondents all were poor. Some had big houses, big mortgages or 401(k)s, but still no more than five Benjamins to rub together right now.

    Jill Michal, president and CEO of the United Way of Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey, reacts to the lack of liquid assets.

    http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/10/19/survey-40-percent-of-americans-have-500-or-less-in-savings/

    LEARN TO SAVE!

    Medicaid – it is needed for care for those who are indigent, unable to care for themselves. It is sometimes misused and abused, however we cannot police everything.

    Education, should be re-worked – Unions are a disgrace. One friend of ours was going to Hawaii for a meeting of those on the board (his wife is a top member.) Can you imagine the cost of such a trip, families included, at a resort, plus air fare? Young people can barely spell, nor read at grade level. These same kids feel entitled to attend college, with loans that may never be paid back, add to that no interest in really learning.

    I agree the “death tax” should be eliminated.

    A “flat tax” could, and should be instituted, but only so far. Some people are unable to make enough money to make ends meet, to make them pay exactly the same amount as someone who makes a great deal of money isn’t fair. It also isn’t fair that those who pay the most taxes, or all of them are in the top 5% – “Spreading the wealth” is a dream come true for all those who don’t work, spending the money they do have, on things they don’t need.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace, I have no problem with a safety net of sorts. I realize that some people are suffering in very extreme circumstances and I have real, sincere concern for them. Ideally, I want any gov’t aid agencies to exist only at the state level. State gov’t has the potential to be more responsive to the voters and also can be more narrowly tailored to the needs of those within the state. I believe very strongly in federalism and despise the manner in which the federal gov’t has grossly exceeded its Constitutional limitations. I believe that state and local aid and private charities have atrophied because too many have become indolently reliant on the largess indiscriminately doled out by the liberty-devouring monster in Washington. Federal agencies are not the answer to all life’s problems. As Reagan noted, they are in fact the cause of many of life’s problems. Think of the untold billions of dollars that the productive class wastes on confiscatory taxation and regulatory compliance. Would the federal relief agencies even be necessary if people were allowed to keep what they earn? Americans are remarkably charitable despite the obstacles thrown up by the federal gov’t. Imagine what we could do to help people if the gov’t stopped stealing all of our money. ]

  • Jim Hamilton

    Grace, I have no problem with a safety net of sorts. I realize that some people are suffering in very extreme circumstances and I have real, sincere concern for them. Ideally, I want any gov’t aid agencies to exist only at the state level. State gov’t has the potential to be more responsive to the voters and also can be more narrowly tailored to the needs of those within the state. I believe very strongly in federalism and despise the manner in which the federal gov’t has grossly exceeded its Constitutional limitations. I believe that state and local aid and private charities have atrophied because too many have become indolently reliant on the largess indiscriminately doled out by the liberty-devouring monster in Washington. Federal agencies are not the answer to all life’s problems. As Reagan noted, they are in fact the cause of many of life’s problems. Think of the untold billions of dollars that the productive class wastes on confiscatory taxation and regulatory compliance. Would the federal relief agencies even be necessary if people were allowed to keep what they earn? Americans are remarkably charitable despite the obstacles thrown up by the federal gov’t. Imagine what we could do to help people if the gov’t stopped stealing all of our money. ]

  • Patrick kyle

    Don S@22 wrote:
    We recoil at the selfishness of a generation that refuses to rein in its benefits and entitlements even a little bit to avoid sinking our children in a morass of debt and off-the-books obligations they will never be able to repay and that will have a startling impact on their own standards of living.

    He is right to this extent — the Democratic party demonstrated its willingness in this campaign to risk our future and the well being of our kids to scare voters and buy votes by promising to maintain current entitlements levels with our kids’ money. It’s as simple and ugly as that. And the media abetted this dishonesty and theft.”

    +1

  • Patrick kyle

    Don S@22 wrote:
    We recoil at the selfishness of a generation that refuses to rein in its benefits and entitlements even a little bit to avoid sinking our children in a morass of debt and off-the-books obligations they will never be able to repay and that will have a startling impact on their own standards of living.

    He is right to this extent — the Democratic party demonstrated its willingness in this campaign to risk our future and the well being of our kids to scare voters and buy votes by promising to maintain current entitlements levels with our kids’ money. It’s as simple and ugly as that. And the media abetted this dishonesty and theft.”

    +1

  • helen

    “Imagine what we could do to help people if the government stopped stealing all of our money.” — Jim Hamilton

    How many elderly, presently on social security, will you/your church volunteer to provide for? How many, presently on Medicare, will you underwrite medical bills for?

    And while you’re thinking of that, figure out what you will donate to maintain the roads, parks, water and sewage systems, electricity and natural gas entities in your locality. [We're rather past outhouses and homemade candles, both unsafe in proximity to others.] And if you say that all these things will be privatized, pray tell how people will pay for them AND save for their old age on minimum wage?

    OR are you really saying, “I’ve got mine; too bad about you.” like any good Republican millionaire?

  • helen

    “Imagine what we could do to help people if the government stopped stealing all of our money.” — Jim Hamilton

    How many elderly, presently on social security, will you/your church volunteer to provide for? How many, presently on Medicare, will you underwrite medical bills for?

    And while you’re thinking of that, figure out what you will donate to maintain the roads, parks, water and sewage systems, electricity and natural gas entities in your locality. [We're rather past outhouses and homemade candles, both unsafe in proximity to others.] And if you say that all these things will be privatized, pray tell how people will pay for them AND save for their old age on minimum wage?

    OR are you really saying, “I’ve got mine; too bad about you.” like any good Republican millionaire?

  • Jim Hamilton

    @46

    There is literally nothing that the gov’t can do better or more efficiently than a private entity. People already pay for the all the services you mentioned through taxes, fees, tolls, and so on. The difference is that the gov’t provides these services poorly and at great cost.

    You’re “Republican millionaire” bit is tired and sad. According to multiple studies, your greedy Republican plutocrats give much more generously to charity than caring and compassionate liberals. So enough with that shopworn talking point. You may worship the federal gov’t and look to it for your salvation, but I don’t. I want to keep the money I earn and not send it to Washington to be flushed down the toilet.

    By the way, if your precious federal relief programs are so wonderful and effective, why are there still so many poor people? We’ve been subsidizing poverty and indolence since the 1930′s and the results have been predictable. Whenever you subsidize a thing, you get much, much more of that thing.

  • Jim Hamilton

    @46

    There is literally nothing that the gov’t can do better or more efficiently than a private entity. People already pay for the all the services you mentioned through taxes, fees, tolls, and so on. The difference is that the gov’t provides these services poorly and at great cost.

    You’re “Republican millionaire” bit is tired and sad. According to multiple studies, your greedy Republican plutocrats give much more generously to charity than caring and compassionate liberals. So enough with that shopworn talking point. You may worship the federal gov’t and look to it for your salvation, but I don’t. I want to keep the money I earn and not send it to Washington to be flushed down the toilet.

    By the way, if your precious federal relief programs are so wonderful and effective, why are there still so many poor people? We’ve been subsidizing poverty and indolence since the 1930′s and the results have been predictable. Whenever you subsidize a thing, you get much, much more of that thing.

  • reg

    Jim,
    There is nothing the gov’t can do better or more efficiently than a private entity? Let me see, police, fire fighters, military-you want to privatize those? How about roads and bridges? privatized too. Health and safety regulation, like FDA, FAA, OSHA, etc. Privatize those too? You are spouting slogans and nonsense, bro. And I did not see a denial anywhere that you are one of those Republican millionaires! Helen has you pegged. (and I bet your charity (not that of generic conservatives) is as parsimonious as your comment would suggest).

  • reg

    Jim,
    There is nothing the gov’t can do better or more efficiently than a private entity? Let me see, police, fire fighters, military-you want to privatize those? How about roads and bridges? privatized too. Health and safety regulation, like FDA, FAA, OSHA, etc. Privatize those too? You are spouting slogans and nonsense, bro. And I did not see a denial anywhere that you are one of those Republican millionaires! Helen has you pegged. (and I bet your charity (not that of generic conservatives) is as parsimonious as your comment would suggest).

  • reg

    Jim,
    ps-you love those adjectives: the productive class, indolently reliant on the largess indiscriminately doled out. Wow! you sound like a real winner.

  • reg

    Jim,
    ps-you love those adjectives: the productive class, indolently reliant on the largess indiscriminately doled out. Wow! you sound like a real winner.

  • Grace

    helen @46

    You deserved everything Jim stated @47.

    It is churches who have built almost all of the hospitals in the United States.

    It is charities, run by churches and their groups, who have made possible food kitchens and shelters for the hungry, homeless, and women who have been abused, need immediate care for themselves and their children, and the dying, who are lonely.

    Before you fly off into your un-thoughtout ‘thought experiment’ into magical thinking, without knowledge – I would say ‘think it through FIRST.

    I started, and organized an organization in the north of our state, to help ALL, no matter whether they were homeless, hungry, in need of medical care, or dying. I had an answering service 24/7 to take all calls. About 10 to a dozen women answered the call to man the phone lines. These were women from a variety of churches, wanting to help those in need. The pastors wife from my church helped as well. A physician offered his help, FREE.

    Food, medical help, shelter, hospital visits to those who were dying was there. One special woman who was only 35 had diabetes, she was told she would die within a year, her husband left her, she was losing her sight. It broke my heart. I asked one of the dear women in my church who was the music directors wife to visit her in the hospital – she went right away, the woman wanted to know Christ, she believed in HIM that day, she had FAITH. My friend gave her a Bible, which she could NOT read, but stated “for me” she was touched by the kindness of the woman who had come to see her.

    The story doesn’t end there. The woman, whom I will call Mary, went back to live in her apartment, helped by the those in the Society for the Blind. They showed her how to use a stove, and live without normal sight. She wanted to be baptized and walked all the way to a Presbyterian Church, and asked the pastor to please baptize her – he did so. It was most likely the church most close to where she lived.

    Mary died, however she believed in Christ Jesus as her Savior. What a great ending to such a tragic life.

    The government wasn’t involved in anything we did, it was only the churches and those who gave their time, because others needed help.

  • Grace

    helen @46

    You deserved everything Jim stated @47.

    It is churches who have built almost all of the hospitals in the United States.

    It is charities, run by churches and their groups, who have made possible food kitchens and shelters for the hungry, homeless, and women who have been abused, need immediate care for themselves and their children, and the dying, who are lonely.

    Before you fly off into your un-thoughtout ‘thought experiment’ into magical thinking, without knowledge – I would say ‘think it through FIRST.

    I started, and organized an organization in the north of our state, to help ALL, no matter whether they were homeless, hungry, in need of medical care, or dying. I had an answering service 24/7 to take all calls. About 10 to a dozen women answered the call to man the phone lines. These were women from a variety of churches, wanting to help those in need. The pastors wife from my church helped as well. A physician offered his help, FREE.

    Food, medical help, shelter, hospital visits to those who were dying was there. One special woman who was only 35 had diabetes, she was told she would die within a year, her husband left her, she was losing her sight. It broke my heart. I asked one of the dear women in my church who was the music directors wife to visit her in the hospital – she went right away, the woman wanted to know Christ, she believed in HIM that day, she had FAITH. My friend gave her a Bible, which she could NOT read, but stated “for me” she was touched by the kindness of the woman who had come to see her.

    The story doesn’t end there. The woman, whom I will call Mary, went back to live in her apartment, helped by the those in the Society for the Blind. They showed her how to use a stove, and live without normal sight. She wanted to be baptized and walked all the way to a Presbyterian Church, and asked the pastor to please baptize her – he did so. It was most likely the church most close to where she lived.

    Mary died, however she believed in Christ Jesus as her Savior. What a great ending to such a tragic life.

    The government wasn’t involved in anything we did, it was only the churches and those who gave their time, because others needed help.

  • reg

    Grace,
    your wrote”Before you fly off into your un-thoughtout ‘thought experiment’ into magical thinking, without knowledge – I would say ‘think it through FIRST.” Priceless irony!

  • reg

    Grace,
    your wrote”Before you fly off into your un-thoughtout ‘thought experiment’ into magical thinking, without knowledge – I would say ‘think it through FIRST.” Priceless irony!

  • Grace

    reg @48 “And I did not see a denial anywhere that you are one of those Republican millionaires! “

    Is it a requirement that Jim give you his financial statement, or otherwise state what amount of money he has, or makes? Does that make him a good or bad person, or one you can rail at?

    It is the “millionaires” who have built the hospitals, given to the poor, with very little thanks. All they get is ridicule.

    You have no clue as to anyones financial situation on this blog, you’re just baking away at those who disagree with you.

  • Grace

    reg @48 “And I did not see a denial anywhere that you are one of those Republican millionaires! “

    Is it a requirement that Jim give you his financial statement, or otherwise state what amount of money he has, or makes? Does that make him a good or bad person, or one you can rail at?

    It is the “millionaires” who have built the hospitals, given to the poor, with very little thanks. All they get is ridicule.

    You have no clue as to anyones financial situation on this blog, you’re just baking away at those who disagree with you.

  • Grace

    reg @51 “Priceless irony!

    You know not of what you speak -

  • Grace

    reg @51 “Priceless irony!

    You know not of what you speak -

  • reg

    Grace, As someone once said (can’t remember who) “Before you fly off into your un-thoughtout ‘thought experiment’ into magical thinking, without knowledge – I would say ‘think it through FIRST”

  • reg

    Grace, As someone once said (can’t remember who) “Before you fly off into your un-thoughtout ‘thought experiment’ into magical thinking, without knowledge – I would say ‘think it through FIRST”

  • Grace

    reg @54

    You’re getting it – even if it’s slow, and you can’t remember who wrote it :lol: what a hoot!

  • Grace

    reg @54

    You’re getting it – even if it’s slow, and you can’t remember who wrote it :lol: what a hoot!

  • Jon

    I think it’s a case of sort of “reverse groundhog day” for the GOP. Kinda like, deja nope. Like they keep waking up expecting the day to be different than it is, but it’s the same as it used to be. Same as it ever was. It’s like the whole campaign, like the whole election thing ever happened. We just woke up the morning after and nothing was different. Although, we expected that it would be. It was supposed to be different. But it wasn’t. So the only thing we can figure is that it must be Romney’s fault. We must have convinced ourselves that, wrongly, that Romney was able to do it. And he wasn’t. So, we have to jettison him and go on to someone else. Someone better. Any ideas who that is?

  • Jon

    I think it’s a case of sort of “reverse groundhog day” for the GOP. Kinda like, deja nope. Like they keep waking up expecting the day to be different than it is, but it’s the same as it used to be. Same as it ever was. It’s like the whole campaign, like the whole election thing ever happened. We just woke up the morning after and nothing was different. Although, we expected that it would be. It was supposed to be different. But it wasn’t. So the only thing we can figure is that it must be Romney’s fault. We must have convinced ourselves that, wrongly, that Romney was able to do it. And he wasn’t. So, we have to jettison him and go on to someone else. Someone better. Any ideas who that is?

  • Grace

    Jon @56

    Obama, nor Romney are/were good choices.

    I, and many others never thought or believed that this country would magically change, I doubt anyone believed that, no matter who won.

    There was NO CHOICE. From the time Romney was chosen as the GOP candidate, the dye was cast. Those who know what Obama stands for, would never vote for him. Those who know Romney’s core beliefs would never vote for him.

    We as Believers will one day stand before God ALMIGHTY, I can’t imagine explaining away, why I voted for either candidate this time around.

    Killing unwanted infants is dispicable – not believing who God is, (as in Genesis 1) is despicable and unconscionable, without reason.

    The world is getting worse. I don’t know why anyone is surprised, or expecting some sort of celebration, it isn’t going to happen.

  • Grace

    Jon @56

    Obama, nor Romney are/were good choices.

    I, and many others never thought or believed that this country would magically change, I doubt anyone believed that, no matter who won.

    There was NO CHOICE. From the time Romney was chosen as the GOP candidate, the dye was cast. Those who know what Obama stands for, would never vote for him. Those who know Romney’s core beliefs would never vote for him.

    We as Believers will one day stand before God ALMIGHTY, I can’t imagine explaining away, why I voted for either candidate this time around.

    Killing unwanted infants is dispicable – not believing who God is, (as in Genesis 1) is despicable and unconscionable, without reason.

    The world is getting worse. I don’t know why anyone is surprised, or expecting some sort of celebration, it isn’t going to happen.

  • reg

    Grace,
    And here is the rub. You say “We as Believers will one day stand before God ALMIGHTY, I can’t imagine explaining away, why I voted for either candidate this time around. ” When that day comes I do not plan to justify anything I have done, its all bad. I will look solely to Christ’s blood for justification. I hope you won;t try to justify yourself that day.

  • reg

    Grace,
    And here is the rub. You say “We as Believers will one day stand before God ALMIGHTY, I can’t imagine explaining away, why I voted for either candidate this time around. ” When that day comes I do not plan to justify anything I have done, its all bad. I will look solely to Christ’s blood for justification. I hope you won;t try to justify yourself that day.

  • Jim Hamilton

    @49

    My friend, as I said to Helen, you are certainly entitled to worship at the teat of your federal god. That’s your right. God knows millions of your fellow citizens will be right there in there with you. For me, I want the gov’t out of my life. I want the productive members of our society to stop being required to support the lazy and indolent. We have way to many deadbeats and not enough makers in this collapsing welfare hell.

  • Jim Hamilton

    @49

    My friend, as I said to Helen, you are certainly entitled to worship at the teat of your federal god. That’s your right. God knows millions of your fellow citizens will be right there in there with you. For me, I want the gov’t out of my life. I want the productive members of our society to stop being required to support the lazy and indolent. We have way to many deadbeats and not enough makers in this collapsing welfare hell.

  • Michael B.

    @Grace@57

    I think one of the reasons you get a lot of grief on this forum is because you tend to be a theologically conservative first, and socially and politically conservative second, while the opposite is true for the mainstream members here.

  • Michael B.

    @Grace@57

    I think one of the reasons you get a lot of grief on this forum is because you tend to be a theologically conservative first, and socially and politically conservative second, while the opposite is true for the mainstream members here.

  • Tom Hering

    Someone who holds to the Evangelical innovations of the past 150-or-so years is a theological conservative?

  • Tom Hering

    Someone who holds to the Evangelical innovations of the past 150-or-so years is a theological conservative?

  • SKPeterson

    Yes, Michael. Please define: ‘theological conservatism’, ‘social and political conservatism’, and ‘mainstream’. I am curious, intrigued even, by your categorizations.

    I would argue the opposite, as Tom @ 61, implies. Most of what I might call the ‘mainstream’ here is theologically conservative, from a historic, catholic understanding of the faith, with the social and political viewpoints falling all over the place. Grace gets far more castigation for her aberrant theological musings in this forum than she does for her politics.

  • SKPeterson

    Yes, Michael. Please define: ‘theological conservatism’, ‘social and political conservatism’, and ‘mainstream’. I am curious, intrigued even, by your categorizations.

    I would argue the opposite, as Tom @ 61, implies. Most of what I might call the ‘mainstream’ here is theologically conservative, from a historic, catholic understanding of the faith, with the social and political viewpoints falling all over the place. Grace gets far more castigation for her aberrant theological musings in this forum than she does for her politics.

  • EWR

    Michael B @60,
    It’s just the opposite of how you stated it. She is more politically and culturally conservative than she is theologically conservative.

    The reason Grace gets a lot of grief is because she is unwilling to think through the implications of what she is proposing. In her mind, one’s qualifications for political leadership are determined by your view of the Bible. Everything is SO black and white according to her – God blesses conservative Christian leaders and does not bless in any way non-Christians.

    Most of us believe that there are man things that we ought to confess boldly: Christ is Lord over all things in heaven and on earth, Justification is by grace alone through faith alone etc. But to boldly know the hidden mind of God on particular candidates . . . That seems a step too far.

  • EWR

    Michael B @60,
    It’s just the opposite of how you stated it. She is more politically and culturally conservative than she is theologically conservative.

    The reason Grace gets a lot of grief is because she is unwilling to think through the implications of what she is proposing. In her mind, one’s qualifications for political leadership are determined by your view of the Bible. Everything is SO black and white according to her – God blesses conservative Christian leaders and does not bless in any way non-Christians.

    Most of us believe that there are man things that we ought to confess boldly: Christ is Lord over all things in heaven and on earth, Justification is by grace alone through faith alone etc. But to boldly know the hidden mind of God on particular candidates . . . That seems a step too far.

  • Stephen

    Okay, okay . . .

    I’ve been reading along and it’s depressing how much despair I hear over the non-election of an unprincipled Mormon, for one thing, and the myth that half the country is a bunch of freeloaders.

    But be that as it may, here’s something to lighten things up. When I saw this recently it made me think of the Mitt Romney message to those people he “can’t worry about.” Funny it didn’t have the same effect on the chicks!

    For a laugh – really, watch this . . .

  • Stephen

    Okay, okay . . .

    I’ve been reading along and it’s depressing how much despair I hear over the non-election of an unprincipled Mormon, for one thing, and the myth that half the country is a bunch of freeloaders.

    But be that as it may, here’s something to lighten things up. When I saw this recently it made me think of the Mitt Romney message to those people he “can’t worry about.” Funny it didn’t have the same effect on the chicks!

    For a laugh – really, watch this . . .

  • Stephen

    “You fill me with inertia.”

  • Stephen

    “You fill me with inertia.”

  • Jim Hamilton

    A tiny minority of Americans pay the vast majority of federal income taxes. Nearly half the country pays no federal income tax at all. I think voting should restricted to people with a stake. A minimum standard should be payment of some amount of income tax. Ideally, voting would be confined to property owners. When a vast horde of shiftless deadbeats can vote to confiscate the property of productive people, we’ve got a serious problem. Give me my Obama phone!

  • Jim Hamilton

    A tiny minority of Americans pay the vast majority of federal income taxes. Nearly half the country pays no federal income tax at all. I think voting should restricted to people with a stake. A minimum standard should be payment of some amount of income tax. Ideally, voting would be confined to property owners. When a vast horde of shiftless deadbeats can vote to confiscate the property of productive people, we’ve got a serious problem. Give me my Obama phone!

  • Greg M

    We conservatives may find the best candidate yet in the years to come. But will he/she be able to survive the slanted, biased and snarky media coverage (even before the race begins!) that will undoubtedly arise from the 5th Estate who leans the opposite of conservatism? This, more than a quality candidte, is the hurdle to be overcome.

  • Greg M

    We conservatives may find the best candidate yet in the years to come. But will he/she be able to survive the slanted, biased and snarky media coverage (even before the race begins!) that will undoubtedly arise from the 5th Estate who leans the opposite of conservatism? This, more than a quality candidte, is the hurdle to be overcome.

  • Stephen

    Jim @66

    It has been shown that 90% of government entitlements go to people who have worked all their lives, or who are seriously disabled, or who are working but cannot make ends meet. And all of those people do pay taxes – property taxes (which pay for schools), sales taxes (which pay for state and city services usually), gas taxes (which, you know, pay for other stuff that we all use), as well as a number of other taxes tacked on to the things we buy to live here and which pay for things we all use.

    The problem isn’t shiftless deadbeats. That’s a myth. who do you think all those people are out on the roads commuting every day? Half the country isn’t home doing nothing and living off the government. Besides, a few hundred bucks in food stamps for a family of four to buy food is a drop in the bucket compared to what it takes to live.

    Why not be pissed off at the few hundred corporate billionaires and hedge fund “managers” who have robbed to public of the lion’s share of this countries wealth? Over half of it goes to them. The problem is people are not paid enough to live (or tax) and that companies have no loyalty to the people that build that wealth. The problem is the cost of health care is a far worse threat to people’s well-being than taxes. These are things that people who voted for Obama sense. As far as people “confiscating the property of productive people” you must mean the people around me everyday who have their pay and benefits frozen or cut so that the wealthy can maintain their egregious largesse regardless of how poorly they do their job.

  • Stephen

    Jim @66

    It has been shown that 90% of government entitlements go to people who have worked all their lives, or who are seriously disabled, or who are working but cannot make ends meet. And all of those people do pay taxes – property taxes (which pay for schools), sales taxes (which pay for state and city services usually), gas taxes (which, you know, pay for other stuff that we all use), as well as a number of other taxes tacked on to the things we buy to live here and which pay for things we all use.

    The problem isn’t shiftless deadbeats. That’s a myth. who do you think all those people are out on the roads commuting every day? Half the country isn’t home doing nothing and living off the government. Besides, a few hundred bucks in food stamps for a family of four to buy food is a drop in the bucket compared to what it takes to live.

    Why not be pissed off at the few hundred corporate billionaires and hedge fund “managers” who have robbed to public of the lion’s share of this countries wealth? Over half of it goes to them. The problem is people are not paid enough to live (or tax) and that companies have no loyalty to the people that build that wealth. The problem is the cost of health care is a far worse threat to people’s well-being than taxes. These are things that people who voted for Obama sense. As far as people “confiscating the property of productive people” you must mean the people around me everyday who have their pay and benefits frozen or cut so that the wealthy can maintain their egregious largesse regardless of how poorly they do their job.

  • Stephen

    Jim,

    The plutocrats destroyed our economy, and that of the world. And yet they continue to run things – right into the ground every chance they get. So much hand wringing about “liberals” having cultural dominance and yet social conservatives fail to see that their political leaders have failed to do anything about abortion – the great promise they keep making – for instance. And the corporate media mouthpiece of the Right, Fox, spins out some of the worst in popular culture, appealing to the lowest impulses, as well as misinformation and mythology about working people through its news arm.

    What is happening is the legacy of Reagan unfolding. Tax rates on the wealthy are at historic lows, while the wealth of this country is in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Nothing is trickling down. This is trickle up economics that started in the 1980s and has not ceased since. But conservatives are blind to all that because they despise powerful women, ethnic minorities, and gays. So the powerful corporate elites spin this tail of a public at the teat of government, demonizing people in need and all the while paying less of the burden while stealing from savings of people who work.

    Jim, I think you drank the Kool Aid. But then you’d say the same for me I suppose. Oh well . . .

  • Stephen

    Jim,

    The plutocrats destroyed our economy, and that of the world. And yet they continue to run things – right into the ground every chance they get. So much hand wringing about “liberals” having cultural dominance and yet social conservatives fail to see that their political leaders have failed to do anything about abortion – the great promise they keep making – for instance. And the corporate media mouthpiece of the Right, Fox, spins out some of the worst in popular culture, appealing to the lowest impulses, as well as misinformation and mythology about working people through its news arm.

    What is happening is the legacy of Reagan unfolding. Tax rates on the wealthy are at historic lows, while the wealth of this country is in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Nothing is trickling down. This is trickle up economics that started in the 1980s and has not ceased since. But conservatives are blind to all that because they despise powerful women, ethnic minorities, and gays. So the powerful corporate elites spin this tail of a public at the teat of government, demonizing people in need and all the while paying less of the burden while stealing from savings of people who work.

    Jim, I think you drank the Kool Aid. But then you’d say the same for me I suppose. Oh well . . .

  • Stephen

    Did I write “spin this tail?” Ha! Maybe that was a Freudian slip, as in “the tail wagging the dog.”

  • Stephen

    Did I write “spin this tail?” Ha! Maybe that was a Freudian slip, as in “the tail wagging the dog.”

  • Grace

    reg @58

    As I wrote, and you quoted:
    ““We as Believers will one day stand before God ALMIGHTY, I can’t imagine explaining away, why I voted for either candidate this time around. “

    Sinful man will be judged. Voting for anyone who willfully sins, and is proud of it, refusing to change their mind (abortion and believing that another man did mightier works than God) is sinful. Every single Believer who has studied the Bible knows the difference.

    “God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet”

    History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409). Joseph Smith

    ABC News
    Mitt Romney’s Abortion Evolution

    2012: ‘There’s No Legislation With Regards to Abortion That I’m Familiar With That Would Become Part of My Agenda’

    Less than two months after accepting the GOP nomination, Romney seemed to tack back toward the center on his abortion stance, telling the Des Moines Register this week that he would not make abortion legislation part of his agenda.

    “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the Des Moines Register Tuesday.

    Such a stance seems to contradict the National Review Op-Ed Romney wrote in June 2011, when he named three pieces of legislation he would support if elected president.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
    2 Corinthians 5:10

    And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
    Revelation 20:12

  • Grace

    reg @58

    As I wrote, and you quoted:
    ““We as Believers will one day stand before God ALMIGHTY, I can’t imagine explaining away, why I voted for either candidate this time around. “

    Sinful man will be judged. Voting for anyone who willfully sins, and is proud of it, refusing to change their mind (abortion and believing that another man did mightier works than God) is sinful. Every single Believer who has studied the Bible knows the difference.

    “God is in the still small voice. In all these affidavits, indictments, it is all of the devil–all corruption. Come on! ye prosecutors! ye false swearers! All hell, boil over! Ye burning mountains, roll down your lava! for I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet”

    History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409). Joseph Smith

    ABC News
    Mitt Romney’s Abortion Evolution

    2012: ‘There’s No Legislation With Regards to Abortion That I’m Familiar With That Would Become Part of My Agenda’

    Less than two months after accepting the GOP nomination, Romney seemed to tack back toward the center on his abortion stance, telling the Des Moines Register this week that he would not make abortion legislation part of his agenda.

    “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told the Des Moines Register Tuesday.

    Such a stance seems to contradict the National Review Op-Ed Romney wrote in June 2011, when he named three pieces of legislation he would support if elected president.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romneys-abortion-evolution/story?id=17443452

    For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
    2 Corinthians 5:10

    And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
    Revelation 20:12

  • Grace

    Who Pays Almost All Federal Income Tax?

    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats have talked about repealing President Bush’s tax cuts for upper-income Americans. But those who earn the most money – and invest the most in the economy – are already paying almost all federal personal income taxes, a recent report reveals.

    Congress’ Joint Economic Committee disclosed that the richer half of the American population pays nearly 97 percent of income taxes. Most of that, 54 percent, is paid by those in the top 5 percent, Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) disclosed.

    And the richest of the rich – just the top 1 percent – pay a hefty 34 percent of all personal income taxes collected by the federal government.

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/5/112446.shtml

  • Grace

    Who Pays Almost All Federal Income Tax?

    “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and fellow Democrats have talked about repealing President Bush’s tax cuts for upper-income Americans. But those who earn the most money – and invest the most in the economy – are already paying almost all federal personal income taxes, a recent report reveals.

    Congress’ Joint Economic Committee disclosed that the richer half of the American population pays nearly 97 percent of income taxes. Most of that, 54 percent, is paid by those in the top 5 percent, Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) disclosed.

    And the richest of the rich – just the top 1 percent – pay a hefty 34 percent of all personal income taxes collected by the federal government.

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/5/112446.shtml

  • Stephen

    @ 72

    Well yes, that would make perfect sense because the wealthy have all the money. And yet as percentage of their wealth,their tax burden is extremely low compared to the middle/working class. Do they really invest in the economy? I thought they were in the business of exploiting it for themselves (witness 2008 et. al.). The 47% who don’t pay federal income tax have barely enough or much less than that. They invest their labor. And try as they might (and they do, contrary to the Republican myth), the deck is severely stacked against them to improve on that situation.

  • Stephen

    @ 72

    Well yes, that would make perfect sense because the wealthy have all the money. And yet as percentage of their wealth,their tax burden is extremely low compared to the middle/working class. Do they really invest in the economy? I thought they were in the business of exploiting it for themselves (witness 2008 et. al.). The 47% who don’t pay federal income tax have barely enough or much less than that. They invest their labor. And try as they might (and they do, contrary to the Republican myth), the deck is severely stacked against them to improve on that situation.

  • Grace

    Jim @66 “Nearly half the country pays no federal income tax at all. I think voting should restricted to people with a stake. A minimum standard should be payment of some amount of income tax. Ideally, voting would be confined to property owners.”

    My husband and I agree, we have discussed it many times.

    Those who vote should pay taxes – those who don’t pay, will invariably vote for more free goods, services, college educations, cell phones, or anything else they can acquire. Who wins elections when those who want FREE anything/everything? – - the individual who promises them whatever it takes, and WE pay for it!

    It would be much more beneficial, if those who voted, WORKED. It would encourage those who don’t work, to find a job and pay their way.

    Strange how illegals come here, and find work. The reason they work, is because they aren’t afraid to work, they don’t believe they are above physical labor positions.

    The jobless college graduates, complain because they can’t find a position, and are forced to work in a shoe department of major department stores, or worse yet, stock shelves, or a variety of other jobs.

  • Grace

    Jim @66 “Nearly half the country pays no federal income tax at all. I think voting should restricted to people with a stake. A minimum standard should be payment of some amount of income tax. Ideally, voting would be confined to property owners.”

    My husband and I agree, we have discussed it many times.

    Those who vote should pay taxes – those who don’t pay, will invariably vote for more free goods, services, college educations, cell phones, or anything else they can acquire. Who wins elections when those who want FREE anything/everything? – - the individual who promises them whatever it takes, and WE pay for it!

    It would be much more beneficial, if those who voted, WORKED. It would encourage those who don’t work, to find a job and pay their way.

    Strange how illegals come here, and find work. The reason they work, is because they aren’t afraid to work, they don’t believe they are above physical labor positions.

    The jobless college graduates, complain because they can’t find a position, and are forced to work in a shoe department of major department stores, or worse yet, stock shelves, or a variety of other jobs.

  • Reg

    Grace and Jim,
    Yes let’s go back to poll taxes and land requirements for voting so the nasty poor and minorities will have no say. And only the people who matter can install the leaders they like in office.
    Maybe we can Also make them sit in the bad seats in the back of our churches too. Lets only let right thinking people whose wealth signifies God’s approval have the good seats.

  • Reg

    Grace and Jim,
    Yes let’s go back to poll taxes and land requirements for voting so the nasty poor and minorities will have no say. And only the people who matter can install the leaders they like in office.
    Maybe we can Also make them sit in the bad seats in the back of our churches too. Lets only let right thinking people whose wealth signifies God’s approval have the good seats.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen-

    Unlike people who believe as you do, I’m not jealous of wealthy people. I don’t covet what they’ve earned. I don’t want to “get even” with them because they have a better car than me. I’m humbly content with what God has given me. I don’t sit around demanding other people pay for my birth control pills and abortions (although, in my case, this would not make a lot of biological sense). I don’t think that my more successful neighbor owes me a living.

    You can believe that evil plutocrats have made success and advancement in this country impossible. You can believe that the poor are uniformly a noble mass of earnest strivers who just can’t get ahead because greedy “hedge-fund managers” have stolen all their money. You can believe that higher taxes on productive people and more gov’t regulation of business will improve things. That’s you’re right and, as I said, many millions of people agree with you, as the last election showed.

    The reality, unfortunately for all of us, is that huge swaths of this country are lazy “victims” who would rather blame others for their failures and expect the gov’t (i.e., actual productive people) to feed, house, and dress them from birth until death.

    After all, why should poor people seek to better themselves when their liberal plantation masters will continue to excuse their laziness and stupidity by blaming others?

    I know you think I’ve “drank the Kool-aid.” (Side note: when are people going to stop using this expression? I could also do without “moving forward, we’re going to…” and “not so much.”) Putting the best construction on your comments, I guess that liberal people really believe that huge portions of the country are adult babies who are incapable of providing for themselves and therefore must be cared for. This is seen as “compassion,” rather than as condescension and elitism. I will agree that nearly 100 years of liberal social programs probably have breed the desire to work and achieve out of many victim groups. That’s really sad.

    To conclude, people like Stephen are the reason why I’ve given up on voting. Traditional American values like thrift, hard work, and individualism have been demonized by secualr leftists hell-bent on creating an earthly utopia with other peoples’ money. We’ve reached the point where the selfish, the lazy, and the greedy out number the productive citizens. So why bother? How can a message of self-reliance and achievement possibly compete with a banana republic generalissimo handing out “free” Obama phones and food stamps?

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen-

    Unlike people who believe as you do, I’m not jealous of wealthy people. I don’t covet what they’ve earned. I don’t want to “get even” with them because they have a better car than me. I’m humbly content with what God has given me. I don’t sit around demanding other people pay for my birth control pills and abortions (although, in my case, this would not make a lot of biological sense). I don’t think that my more successful neighbor owes me a living.

    You can believe that evil plutocrats have made success and advancement in this country impossible. You can believe that the poor are uniformly a noble mass of earnest strivers who just can’t get ahead because greedy “hedge-fund managers” have stolen all their money. You can believe that higher taxes on productive people and more gov’t regulation of business will improve things. That’s you’re right and, as I said, many millions of people agree with you, as the last election showed.

    The reality, unfortunately for all of us, is that huge swaths of this country are lazy “victims” who would rather blame others for their failures and expect the gov’t (i.e., actual productive people) to feed, house, and dress them from birth until death.

    After all, why should poor people seek to better themselves when their liberal plantation masters will continue to excuse their laziness and stupidity by blaming others?

    I know you think I’ve “drank the Kool-aid.” (Side note: when are people going to stop using this expression? I could also do without “moving forward, we’re going to…” and “not so much.”) Putting the best construction on your comments, I guess that liberal people really believe that huge portions of the country are adult babies who are incapable of providing for themselves and therefore must be cared for. This is seen as “compassion,” rather than as condescension and elitism. I will agree that nearly 100 years of liberal social programs probably have breed the desire to work and achieve out of many victim groups. That’s really sad.

    To conclude, people like Stephen are the reason why I’ve given up on voting. Traditional American values like thrift, hard work, and individualism have been demonized by secualr leftists hell-bent on creating an earthly utopia with other peoples’ money. We’ve reached the point where the selfish, the lazy, and the greedy out number the productive citizens. So why bother? How can a message of self-reliance and achievement possibly compete with a banana republic generalissimo handing out “free” Obama phones and food stamps?

  • Jim Hamilton

    Hi Reg-

    “Yes let’s go back to poll taxes and land requirements for voting so the nasty poor and minorities will have no say. And only the people who matter can install the leaders they like in office.
    Maybe we can Also make them sit in the bad seats in the back of our churches too. Lets only let right thinking people whose wealth signifies God’s approval have the good seats.”

    I don’t see the connection between requiring people to hold a stake to vote and giving people “bad” seats in church. People pretty much sit where they want at my church. Do you have assigned seats at yours? That seems weird to me.

    Of course, I obviously see that you’re just calling me a racist because you don’t want to bother making an actual argument. While it’s remarkable to me that liberals never seem to tire of calling anyone who disagrees with them a racist, I guess I applaud you on your consistency if nothing else.

    I don’t believe in judging people based in their skin color. That’s what liberals do. I judge people based on their behavior. I’m disgusted by modern black culture. That is, the glamorization of the criminal underclass, the contempt for education, the tendency to view personal failure as the rsult of racism, and so on. I think modern black culture has been horrendous for black Americans. I feel sad for black people who believe in hard work, good moral behavior, and the value of education. Such people are routinely mocked and belittled by the pathetic and often criminal race hustlers who pass themselves off as “leaders” of black people. So call me a racist if you want, but I want everyone to know the feeling of pride and satisfaction that comes from hard work and achievement.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Hi Reg-

    “Yes let’s go back to poll taxes and land requirements for voting so the nasty poor and minorities will have no say. And only the people who matter can install the leaders they like in office.
    Maybe we can Also make them sit in the bad seats in the back of our churches too. Lets only let right thinking people whose wealth signifies God’s approval have the good seats.”

    I don’t see the connection between requiring people to hold a stake to vote and giving people “bad” seats in church. People pretty much sit where they want at my church. Do you have assigned seats at yours? That seems weird to me.

    Of course, I obviously see that you’re just calling me a racist because you don’t want to bother making an actual argument. While it’s remarkable to me that liberals never seem to tire of calling anyone who disagrees with them a racist, I guess I applaud you on your consistency if nothing else.

    I don’t believe in judging people based in their skin color. That’s what liberals do. I judge people based on their behavior. I’m disgusted by modern black culture. That is, the glamorization of the criminal underclass, the contempt for education, the tendency to view personal failure as the rsult of racism, and so on. I think modern black culture has been horrendous for black Americans. I feel sad for black people who believe in hard work, good moral behavior, and the value of education. Such people are routinely mocked and belittled by the pathetic and often criminal race hustlers who pass themselves off as “leaders” of black people. So call me a racist if you want, but I want everyone to know the feeling of pride and satisfaction that comes from hard work and achievement.

  • Stephen

    Wow Jim,

    “Unlike people who believe as you do, I’m not jealous of wealthy people. I don’t covet what they’ve earned. I don’t want to “get even” with them because they have a better car than me. I’m humbly content with what God has given me.”

    I’m envious and you are pious and humble. That’s your best construction? When are we going to stop hearing about how working people and the poor are just envious? That’s worn out too. You don’t get it. People are working and applying themselves.

    “Traditional American values like thrift, hard work, and individualism have been demonized by secualr leftists hell-bent on creating an earthly utopia with other peoples’ money. ”

    That’s really sad that you believe this lie. You seem to be hanging on to quite a few untruths regarding people you obviously know little about. Other people’s money is flowing upward and disappearing. I had 1/3 of it stolen by wealthy investors who give working people no other choice but to play along in the 401k game. Pensions are gone. Where else can one go to make their money work for them? And then after they lose it all they come back and tell you to trust them all over again so they can do the same thing.

    Oh well, just like voting is for you, talking about what is really at stake seems to be a lost cause in your case. That’s too bad.

  • Stephen

    Wow Jim,

    “Unlike people who believe as you do, I’m not jealous of wealthy people. I don’t covet what they’ve earned. I don’t want to “get even” with them because they have a better car than me. I’m humbly content with what God has given me.”

    I’m envious and you are pious and humble. That’s your best construction? When are we going to stop hearing about how working people and the poor are just envious? That’s worn out too. You don’t get it. People are working and applying themselves.

    “Traditional American values like thrift, hard work, and individualism have been demonized by secualr leftists hell-bent on creating an earthly utopia with other peoples’ money. ”

    That’s really sad that you believe this lie. You seem to be hanging on to quite a few untruths regarding people you obviously know little about. Other people’s money is flowing upward and disappearing. I had 1/3 of it stolen by wealthy investors who give working people no other choice but to play along in the 401k game. Pensions are gone. Where else can one go to make their money work for them? And then after they lose it all they come back and tell you to trust them all over again so they can do the same thing.

    Oh well, just like voting is for you, talking about what is really at stake seems to be a lost cause in your case. That’s too bad.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Hi Stephen-

    “I’m envious and you are pious and humble. That’s your best construction? When are we going to stop hearing about how working people and the poor are just envious? That’s worn out too. You don’t get it. People are working and applying themselves.”

    We’ll stop hearing about how victim groups and poor people are “just envious” when they stop demanding other people’s stuff and accept that life is hard. If people are “working and applying themselves,” then they should be happy with what they have and stop trying to take what doesn’t belong to them. I’m sincerely sorry you lost money. But who hasn’t? Does that entitle you to recoup your loses at the expense of the taxpayers? Life is tough, man. I agree that people who are truly destitute and needy should be helped. But we live in the wealthiest country in human history. People are not starving in the streets. Stop complaining about how unfair life is and be grateful for what you have. Nobody owes you or anyone else a living.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Hi Stephen-

    “I’m envious and you are pious and humble. That’s your best construction? When are we going to stop hearing about how working people and the poor are just envious? That’s worn out too. You don’t get it. People are working and applying themselves.”

    We’ll stop hearing about how victim groups and poor people are “just envious” when they stop demanding other people’s stuff and accept that life is hard. If people are “working and applying themselves,” then they should be happy with what they have and stop trying to take what doesn’t belong to them. I’m sincerely sorry you lost money. But who hasn’t? Does that entitle you to recoup your loses at the expense of the taxpayers? Life is tough, man. I agree that people who are truly destitute and needy should be helped. But we live in the wealthiest country in human history. People are not starving in the streets. Stop complaining about how unfair life is and be grateful for what you have. Nobody owes you or anyone else a living.

  • Stephen

    Jim,

    I’m complaining? Oh really? I’m stating facts about the conditions people find themselves in. Yes, we live in the wealthiest country in human history. But let’s be honest about where that wealth is concentrated and why. So you are being robbed and so am I. Life is tough. Stop complaining about how unfair it is and be grateful for what you have. Nobody owes you or anyone else a living.

    Jim, I’m sorry but you sound like you are working from a script. Get over yourself. No one is making a living off of you. And even if they were, it would be God’s righteous judgement that they do. A person of faith can accept (make that “should accept”) the re-election of Obama as just that – God’s righteous judgement being worked out so that the goodness and mercy of God may be made manifest on earth as it is in heaven. No matter what we think is going on, we don’t actually get to decide that. It would be the same for me if it had been a Mormon elected, from a cult so inherently dishonest I want throw up and a prospect I dreaded but was working, in repentance, to accept should it have happened. And if it helps, I would have gone down kicking and screaming just like you are now. I could barely stomach GW Bush, and I’m a Texan. But that’s because, like you, I’m a sinner who trusts in everything else but the mercy of God in all things. Thank God for Jesus Christ!

    So here’s a word to you as a brother in Christ – Rejoice in the Lord always, in all things give thanks. That’s a command. We’d both do well to figure out how to do it.

    And oh yeah, I pay income tax, own a home, work a lot, save, raise children, give to charity and my church, try to help my immediate neighbors and those God places in my path – the whole middle class ball of wax. But none of that matters. What matters is the condition of my neighbor. We can disagree about how to help them, but as far as characterizing their plight, it’s only merciful to deal in realities. I don’t see that you are.

    My advice to you is to get to know some poor people, preferably some black ones. It’s not difficult. You can tutor a kid. And while you are on that side of town go to the grocery store, the same chain you use, and check the produce, check the isles, check the prices. You’ll find the prices are the same but the quality of the food is not compared to where you shop. That’s just one example of my neighbor’s situation. There’s others. Just dip your toe in the water of grinding, systemic poverty and see what you learn. See if your suspicions are confirmed or if they get even the least bit tweaked. Just a thought. Blessed are the merciful.

  • Stephen

    Jim,

    I’m complaining? Oh really? I’m stating facts about the conditions people find themselves in. Yes, we live in the wealthiest country in human history. But let’s be honest about where that wealth is concentrated and why. So you are being robbed and so am I. Life is tough. Stop complaining about how unfair it is and be grateful for what you have. Nobody owes you or anyone else a living.

    Jim, I’m sorry but you sound like you are working from a script. Get over yourself. No one is making a living off of you. And even if they were, it would be God’s righteous judgement that they do. A person of faith can accept (make that “should accept”) the re-election of Obama as just that – God’s righteous judgement being worked out so that the goodness and mercy of God may be made manifest on earth as it is in heaven. No matter what we think is going on, we don’t actually get to decide that. It would be the same for me if it had been a Mormon elected, from a cult so inherently dishonest I want throw up and a prospect I dreaded but was working, in repentance, to accept should it have happened. And if it helps, I would have gone down kicking and screaming just like you are now. I could barely stomach GW Bush, and I’m a Texan. But that’s because, like you, I’m a sinner who trusts in everything else but the mercy of God in all things. Thank God for Jesus Christ!

    So here’s a word to you as a brother in Christ – Rejoice in the Lord always, in all things give thanks. That’s a command. We’d both do well to figure out how to do it.

    And oh yeah, I pay income tax, own a home, work a lot, save, raise children, give to charity and my church, try to help my immediate neighbors and those God places in my path – the whole middle class ball of wax. But none of that matters. What matters is the condition of my neighbor. We can disagree about how to help them, but as far as characterizing their plight, it’s only merciful to deal in realities. I don’t see that you are.

    My advice to you is to get to know some poor people, preferably some black ones. It’s not difficult. You can tutor a kid. And while you are on that side of town go to the grocery store, the same chain you use, and check the produce, check the isles, check the prices. You’ll find the prices are the same but the quality of the food is not compared to where you shop. That’s just one example of my neighbor’s situation. There’s others. Just dip your toe in the water of grinding, systemic poverty and see what you learn. See if your suspicions are confirmed or if they get even the least bit tweaked. Just a thought. Blessed are the merciful.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen @80

    “My advice to you is to get to know some poor people, preferably some black ones. It’s not difficult. You can tutor a kid.”

    Are black people the best kind of poor people? Would getting to know a Mexican poor person not work as well? Is there any value in getting to know a middle class Asian? Is there a negative effect from getting to know an upper class black person? What about genders? Are female black poor people better than male black poor people? This is all very confusing. Maybe I’ll just not worry about and go back to tormenting the serfs that are laboring in my salt mine.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen @80

    “My advice to you is to get to know some poor people, preferably some black ones. It’s not difficult. You can tutor a kid.”

    Are black people the best kind of poor people? Would getting to know a Mexican poor person not work as well? Is there any value in getting to know a middle class Asian? Is there a negative effect from getting to know an upper class black person? What about genders? Are female black poor people better than male black poor people? This is all very confusing. Maybe I’ll just not worry about and go back to tormenting the serfs that are laboring in my salt mine.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen-

    While I was laughing demonically and gleefully lashing the serfs in my salt mine, I realized that I forgot to ask about handicapped people. Are poor crippled female black people the best kind to get to know? What if a poor person is just a plain old healthy black guy and a lower middle class person is a Mexican, crippled, female, single mother? Who do I choose then? I’m getting very upset about this. There are endless potential combinations of victim characteristics that have to be considered. You have opened quite a Pandora’s box, my friend.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen-

    While I was laughing demonically and gleefully lashing the serfs in my salt mine, I realized that I forgot to ask about handicapped people. Are poor crippled female black people the best kind to get to know? What if a poor person is just a plain old healthy black guy and a lower middle class person is a Mexican, crippled, female, single mother? Who do I choose then? I’m getting very upset about this. There are endless potential combinations of victim characteristics that have to be considered. You have opened quite a Pandora’s box, my friend.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen-

    “Jim, I’m sorry but you sound like you are working from a script. Get over yourself. No one is making a living off of you.”

    Tell that to the Obama phone lady. She seems to disagree with you.

  • Jim Hamilton

    Stephen-

    “Jim, I’m sorry but you sound like you are working from a script. Get over yourself. No one is making a living off of you.”

    Tell that to the Obama phone lady. She seems to disagree with you.

  • Michael B.

    @Tom Hering

    “Someone who holds to the Evangelical innovations of the past 150-or-so years is a theological conservative?”

    A fair point, and I understand I’m being sloppy with terms like “theologically conservative”. I think SKPeterson also brought this up. But in my defense, even world-renowned Biblical scholars will use terms like “orthodox”. Doesn’t Bart Ehrman use the term “proto-orthodox”?

    When I think of a theological conservative, I usually look for someone who has a systems of beliefs that are very exclusive — that is, their religion has doctrines that separate them from secular society, and they believe that there are big consequences for not adhering to them. So just 2 examples. Let’s take Oprah who will get together a Muslim, Jew, and Christian and talk about how their different paths all got them to the same place — I see her as very theologically liberal. On the other end of the spectrum, I look at someone like a Paul Washer as being very theologically conservative. Basically, a “here is what you need to believe and do that’s different than most people, and if you don’t, expect to go to hell”.

  • Michael B.

    @Tom Hering

    “Someone who holds to the Evangelical innovations of the past 150-or-so years is a theological conservative?”

    A fair point, and I understand I’m being sloppy with terms like “theologically conservative”. I think SKPeterson also brought this up. But in my defense, even world-renowned Biblical scholars will use terms like “orthodox”. Doesn’t Bart Ehrman use the term “proto-orthodox”?

    When I think of a theological conservative, I usually look for someone who has a systems of beliefs that are very exclusive — that is, their religion has doctrines that separate them from secular society, and they believe that there are big consequences for not adhering to them. So just 2 examples. Let’s take Oprah who will get together a Muslim, Jew, and Christian and talk about how their different paths all got them to the same place — I see her as very theologically liberal. On the other end of the spectrum, I look at someone like a Paul Washer as being very theologically conservative. Basically, a “here is what you need to believe and do that’s different than most people, and if you don’t, expect to go to hell”.

  • http://www.technorealism.com/ TechnoRealism.com

    great information and nice post

  • http://www.technorealism.com/ TechnoRealism.com

    great information and nice post


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X