BUMPED: "Faith-based" and hand-wringing

BUMPED TO TOP: I’ve had a lot of positive feedback on this piece and a request to bump it to top for today. Happy to comply!

“A life is either all spiritual or not spiritual at all. No man can serve two masters. Your life is shaped by the end you live for. You are made in the image of what you desire. “ – Thomas Merton

The other day I wondered if we were making our political parties and voices into idols.

Today I’m wondering how it can be that the “faith-based” party — full of people who presumably have prayer lives – is in such a sorry frenzy. “Frenzy” should not be a word that applies to believers. Nor should “fear.”

I had Rush Limbaugh on earlier in the week only long enough to hear some woman calling in and screeching gasping about how “scared” she was, how “fearful,” it all seemed to her that John McCain could possibly be the GOP nominee. And Rush seemed to enjoy her fear and to congratulate her on it.

Apparently fear of the McCain is the beginning of wisdom in these new scriptures, the Gospels of Rush, Hannity, Coulter and Levin.

What the hell is all this “fear” about? There’s no crying in baseball and there’s no hyperventilating fear in Christianity.

For crying out loud – THIS is how the “faith-based” party acts when it doesn’t like the choices set before it? Instead of getting quiet, prayerful and thoughtful, the “faith-based” party gets emotional, fretful and spiteful?

Instead of saying “Lord, what gives? What angels have you for us in this whirlwind,” and taking some time to wonder about it, you freak out and go sobbing to talk-radio saying, “save us! I believe, O help my unbelief!”

And the word cometh from on AM-high, and the word says, “all will be righted if you vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday, even though he is not really pro-life, even though he was shaky on the surge!”


Pope John Paul II preached “Do Not Be Afraid; look to Jesus.”
Talk radio preaches “Be Afraid and Look to Us.”

Where are you supposed to be looking right now? Who are you supposed to be putting your faith in? Where are you supposed to be going for answers?

If Mitt Romney wins on Tuesday, apparently all will be well. Then, assuming he can beat the Democrat candidate, you only have to pray he won’t crumble on judges, taxes and Iraq – which is very likely.

And of course, if John McCain wins on Tuesday, there will sackcloth, ashes, weeping and gnashing of teeth, and oh, yeah, “I’m voting for Hillary!” Or, “I’m sitting the vote out,” which is the same thing, essentially.

But let me ask you:

When you have troops in harms way, and a worldwide terrorism movement just itching to see America replace a “strong-horse” president with a “weak horse”, how do you reconcile your support for the troops with a vote for a candidate who seems not to appreciate the seriousness of those issues?

When you claim to be “pro-life” and you know that 3-4 Supreme Court Justices will be named by the next president, how do you reconcile your commitment to life with voting for a candidate who will (if a Dem) appoint judges who will uphold Roe v Wade, or (if Romney) very like fold for the Democrats on their wishes, since his “pro-life” commitment is as new as…oh, as John McCain’s commitment to tax cuts!

When you claim to be a patriot, how can you reconcile the second coming of Sandy Berger into your White House?

Last night, I watched Paddy Chayefsky’s brilliant film, Network, and I felt like William Holden, watching a mob-mentality jump to their windows and scream, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,” because they’re been roused by the authoritative voice of “someone on tv,” and shaking his head.

He was shaking his head because he knew that there was a great illusion at work.

And to a point I am shaking my head for the same reason – although I only suspect the illusion. Mostly I’m shaking my head because there is so much noise – so many breathless pronouncements serving up fear and loathing – that reality is being skewed; it is being replaced by the sort of intellectual dishonesty that says “John McCain is the same as Hillary Clinton.”

Humbug. And we Christians should think about that.

What is your prayer these days, is it, “Jesus I trust in you,” or is it “Lord, I’m so scared, please make it all go the way I think it should?”

They’re both prayers. I won’t gainsay yours, whatever it is – but remember that the best prayers are the ones that are positive, not negatives, because there are no negatives in Christ.

Here’s my prayer:

“Jesus, I trust in you. Our nation is overrun with noise, chatter and misdirection. It is not easy to discern the servants from the would-be masters, to know who wishes to serve the nation and who wishes to merely acquire power. Help us to see the way with clear eyes and an open mind. Help us to cultivate silence so that we might hear your voice. Grant us peace within the tumult of the world and the chatter of its princes. Grace us with the wisdom necessary to pierce through the confusion of this age, and the frantic exhortations of the world, to see your will. Keep us always mindful of your promise to touch us and guide us with “peace beyond all understanding.” Help us to be faithful and unafraid in a fearsome time. Amen.

And I always ask Mary, the Mother of the Christ, to pray for us, too. And St. Michael. And Cardinal John O’ Connor. And Pope John Paul II. And Ronald Reagan. Because you know – the Communion of Saints; that great cloud of witnesses – they’ll join our prayers with their own.

You don’t have to do any of that, of course, but to me it seems like a better way. No hand-wringing…just hand-clasping and a humble heart.

Let me be very clear, so I don’t get 1000 emails again: This is not about McCain. This is not about Romney. It’s about how we come to our decisions. It goes hand-in-hand with my post from yesterday, where I asked if our political parties had become our idols. And it’s about our souls.

Neo-neocon has a very good piece up – it’s sure to upset those on the far-right whose eyes are currently bugging out as they grab people by the shoulders and scream into their faces, “vote for Romney! He’s not John McCain! Vote for Romney to save the country!”

Romney, Neo notes, is far from a “perfect” conservative but he is become the salvation of the conservatives, endorsed by all the purest purists on the right; and he’s not John McCain, which is all that matters. To a portion of the right, if Mitt Romney is not crowned on Super Tuesday, then the White House immediately goes to Hillary or Obama, and that – according to the pro-life, pro-war right – is the better thing.

Neo has quotes which were left over at Ed Morrissey’s place in this thread – they mirror a lot of what I’ve seen all over the “right” blogosphere:

McCain is no different than Hillary other than the (R) after his name. I too will likely vote for Hillary because if someone is going to create a Nanny state with government programs and destroy the economy – I WANT it to be a democrat.


If America is to go to hell in a hand basket , at least let it be under the watch of a Democrat. With Hillary we’d manage to get the House and Senate back. Remember: It took four years of Carter to give us a Reagan. (It was worth it)

Writes Neo:

Let that sink in:

Carter was worth it, to get to Reagan. This not only supposes that Reagan could not have been elected but for the Carter years…it also supposes that whatever Reagan did was important enough that it canceled out the damage done by Carter.

This ignores Carter’s disastrous Iran policy, to take just one example. It can be argued that Carter’s incompetence was instrumental in creating the present-day threat from Iran, which has been a worldwide state sponsor of terrorism for many years.

Quite right. We are today, right now, even at this very moment, still paying for four years of Jimmy Carter – and we’re paying for those years with the lives of our young – and he left office in 1980, remember.

Neo calls fanaticism on the “true conservatives” who will demonstrate their “trueness” by voting for the pro-abortion, anti-troop candidates unless their boy (the recently pro-life, unknown-for-troops Savior Romney) is the GOP nominee.

I’m going to say it one more time, for all you hate-mailers: I am no fan of John McCain. Faced with a choice to vote for him or Romney on Tuesday, I frankly want neither. But there is a reason why this is the contest before us – everything happens for a reason and “all things work together for good to those who love God.” If this is the hand we must play, then let it be played and with clear eyes – not eyes clouded with rage, anger, suspicion, malice or spite. And certainly do not cast your vote in fear, not if you belong to the Lord.

So, I don’t much like McCain; I see nothing in Romney that tells me he is going to be reliable for as much as a week in the Oval Office. If these are my only two choices – or, really, our only FOUR choices – I have a lot of praying yet to do. I am genuinely torn.

Rachel Lucas is writing that she is disgusted with the far-right. Me? I’m just remembering something St. Paul wrote – that all that he hated, he had become.

All I know is this: I’m already missing George W. Bush.

Dr. Sanity is on a similar page.

Fred Barnes says, Grow Up, Conservatives. I’m sure that will not be received well.

About Elizabeth Scalia
  • http://bamapachyderm.com Beth

    “All that he hated, he had become.”

    Isn’t that the truth! The MDS conservatives have become no different from the far left, from talk radioheads to the National Review (who’d have thought the jewel of William F. Buckley would become so bug-eyed?!) to the bloggers to the consumers of the MDS media.

    What has happened to the Right? When did we adopt the rhetoric and irrationality of the Left? Maybe it’s just that society in general has evolved; that people have become (more) impatient, less honest and authentic, more convinced of their own victimhood (“conservatives are being pushed out of the GOP!!!”), less aware of reality outside their own digital echo-chambers.

    I’ve often thought that nowadays, only a person who can withstand a tsunami of hatred from political opponents is really equipped to be President, because I don’t see this insanity ending, despite the fact everyone seems to hate the toxic political environment. I know Bush’s faith has given him the serenity to do what he believes is right despite the War on the President. I think that John McCain has the fortitude to do so as well, and so is/was Giuliani and Fred Thompson. I’ve always thought that men (or women) who have successfully overcome tragedy or great strife are in a far better position to deal with the inhuman stress of the Presidency. That’s one of the reasons why I support McCain–he’s already been to hell and back, so I think he’s got the right perspective on what’s important in life. The fact that he was willing to risk his political future for the surge (and for immigration, regardless of one’s opinion of it) because it was the right thing to do–not the “easy” thing–says a lot. For another example, Rudy could have taken that dirty $10 million check, but he didn’t take the easy way. He stood for principles. And Bush, of course, has done those kinds of things over and over again. It’s things like that that show who’s got the right stuff, who’s got the moral fiber for the job.

    I don’t know what it’s going to take to change the culture of ugliness–certainly no President can do that–but I sure hope it happens sooner rather than later. People are destroying our nation from within like this.

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    For those needing a breather, what with all the overly zealous, overly ambitious spouses of candidates, from Hillary in 1992 to Elizabeth Edwards in 2007 to Bill Clinton in 2007-08, I find this to be a refreshing breath of fresh air, and a good sense of where our priorities should lie –

    SOLEDAD O’BRIEN: But a lot of times, your career helps define who you are.
    MICHELLE OBAMA: It doesn’t for me. It doesn’t for me. I mean, what I do in my life defines me. And a career is one of the many things I do in my life. I mean, how I — I am a mother first. Where do I get my joy and energy? First and foremost, from my kids.
    In the midst of this campaign, what I’ve done is I don’t campaign every day. I’m not gone for weeks on end. I will not go on a trip that will have me away for more than two days. And the campaign has understood that. I’m not going to miss a ballet recital. I’m not going to make them move their world around to accommodate me and Barack. We have to do the accommodating.

    Yes, all this bile and intra- and inter-party warfare is ripping good fun, but let’s keep in mind the really important things in life — and politics is fairly far down the list.

    The Obamas might be loony lefties, but they strike me as decent, good-faithed, sincere and authentic people.

  • TheAnchoress

    Thanks for that, Bender. Nice article. The truth is, if you asked me who I’d rather sit down and have a meal with – just “have a meal,” mind you – that “test”, the Obama’s would be my choice. Romney’s would probably be my second. Look, Bender – you got me wondering about it! Thanks!

  • Pingback: Which Candidate would you want to break bread with? | The Anchoress

  • http://gobsmackedagain.blogspot.com/ mizze

    This seems a good opportunity to emphasis and remember what we Christians are in very real danger of losing and who we need to be encouraging. From an article you must read:

    “While there are those of other ideological stripes who are conscious of the danger we are in — Christopher Hitchens being one of them — the energy and electoral impetus to battle the resurgent Islam comes largely from evangelical Christians.

    Should they withdraw from the political realm, the rest would not be able to come together in sufficiently high numbers to exert the political clout necessary to continue the struggle. There are simply not enough Hitchenses around to carry on the fight. Without the evangelicals, America’s will to fight would collapse.

    All those who care about this civilization should realize that if the evangelicals lose politically in the US, there will not be enough will left anywhere in the West to fight for it.

    To put it simply: As it goes with American evangelicals, so it will go with western civilization.”###

    Why American Evangelicals are the West’s Last Hope
    By Vasko Kohlmayer at American Thinker.

  • TheAnchoress

    Mizze – had already posted Vasko’s piece – here. You might also like this.

  • Pingback: links for 2008-02-03 | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

  • Bush fan

    I’m thankful that I have until Tuesday to make up my mind.

    I am worried about the New York Times and the rumors about a big story about McCain.

    And what about the famous McCain temper? Will he make it through to election day without turning off non Republican voters?

    I absolutely will not stay home and not vote for the Republican and for those so-call conservatives who do, (because he’s not Thompson or Giuliani or, fill in your favorite) I say shame on them.

  • stevesh

    It happens to the best of us:

    “…what is that to you (Peter)? You follow me!” Jn. 21

  • Terrye

    Yes, the right has gone nuts. They have become judgmental, hysterical, and fanatical. I wonder how many of these people are even Republicans? The truth is they do not represent a majority of the Republican party and the Republican party does not represent a majority of the American population. And yet, they seem to think they are the center of the universe and Rush is the one true God.

    Crazy people. It is as if they were trying to turn the GOP into a party of fringe lunatics.

    From Jeff Jacoby:

    Conservatives bristle at the thought of a Republican president who might raise income and payroll taxes. Or enlarge the federal government instead of shrinking it. Or appoint Supreme Court justices who are anything but strict constructionists. Or grant a blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

    Now, I don’t believe that a President McCain would do any of those things. But President Reagan did all of them. Reagan also provided arms to the Khomeini theocracy in Iran, presided over skyrocketing budget deficits, and ordered US troops to cut and run in the face of Islamist terror in the Middle East. McCain would be unlikely to commit any of those sins, either.

    Does this mean that Reagan was not, in fact, a great conservative? Of course not. Nor does it mean that McCain has not given his critics on the right legitimate reasons to be disconcerted. My point is simply that the immaculate conservative leader for whom so many on the right yearn to vote is a fantasy. Conservatives who say that McCain is no Ronald Reagan are right, but Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan either. Neither is Mike Huckabee. And neither was the real – as opposed to the mythic – Ronald Reagan.

    The conservative case against McCain is clear enough; I made it myself in some of these columns when he first ran for president eight years ago. The issues that have earned McCain the label of “maverick” – campaign-finance restrictions, global warming, the Bush tax cuts, immigration, judicial filibusters – are precisely what stick in the craw of the GOP conservative base.

    But this year, the conservative case for McCain is vastly more compelling.

    On the surpassing national-security issues of the day – confronting the threat from radical Islam and winning the war in Iraq – no one is more stalwart. Even McCain’s fiercest critics, such as conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, will say so. “The world’s bad guys,” Hewitt writes, “would never for a moment think he would blink in any showdown, or hesitate to strike back at any enemy with the audacity to try again to cripple the US through terror.”

  • http://gobsmackedagain.blogspot.com/ mizze

    Thank you for the links. I had missed your Vasko post, because I was in Google Reader and didn’t scroll down past the video. Big lesson – scroll or go to the whole source page. Lots of nuggets to be mined. :)

    I noted in your Vasko piece you wrote: “I’ve said before that Islam has a supernatural mindset that secularists simply cannot fathom – that takes others with the same eye/ear toward supernature.”

    True, secularists have huge blindspots – it’s like they’ve replaced their eyelids with duck tape.

    Spengler takes up the related subject -
    Muslim apostates convert to atheism, with this perspective:

    “The empty and arbitrary world of atheism is far closer to the Muslim universe than the Biblical world, in which God orders the world out of love for humankind, so that we may in freedom return the love that our creator bears for us. Atheism is an alternative to Islam closer to Muslim habits of mind than the love-centered world of Judaism and Christianity. ”

    While that’s a sound analogy, I don’t go along with his notion that more Muslims convert to atheism than Christianity; I’d need to see some hard data.

  • http://conservativebelle.blogspot.com ConservativeBelle

    I don’t disagree with your faith-based analysis, but I would also argue that the same fear-mongering can be attributed to the people supporting McCain who fear Democrats taking over in a time of war, or Mormons, or the Clintons, etc…

    I don’t like or support McCain but I don’t have fear of his candidacy. All I can do is make the case for why I don’t believe he is the best candidate that meets the ideals of the political party. However, I will be in serious need of prayer for the resentment I may harbor at his arrogance and the possibility of him being president. :P

  • Terrye


    I don’t think it is fear mongering to point out that both Democrats have promised to high tail it out of Iraq pronto and that both Democrats have a double digit lead over Romney.

  • Hantchu

    Guys, hey guys, pull your socks up, get a grip. You are selecting a political candidate, which is by definition choosing the lesser evil. You are not identifying a messiah or even picking a future husband for your daughter. Better yet, pray, and relize that God has to accept a lot from us that is far from ideal, but He still doesn’t despair of us entirely.

  • mwmcbrayer

    I think all the folks swearing they would never vote for McCain because he is not a consevative have forgotten how to evaluate priorities. Sure, he is wrong on campaign finance and immigration, but I cannot have any respect for conservatives who have stressed the absolute importance of national security and the pro-life agenda saying they would sit this one out or vote for the Dems rather than McCain, who is solid on both. You have hit the nail right on the head. Which candidate do you really think those who would harm the USA would be least likely to test? I rest my case.

  • http://www.marchhareshouse.blogspot.com March Hare

    B/c I am Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit has His Hand in all this. We may not get the President we want; we will get the President we need. (Even Carter, ;) Same idea as the selection of the Pope–unlike some “pundits”, I believe most Americans are decent, honest, God-fearing people. I worry that we become distracted by the noisy minority.

    A, have you heard that McCain might select Rudy for AG?

  • Terrye


    Yes I have heard that. And I agree, most Americans are decent and good.

  • smmtheory

    I agree with Hantchu. For all of my adult life, voting day has been about having to choose the lesser of two evils. The best people for the job (or jobs) the politicians hold… don’t want anything to do with politics. So the choices are down to people who aren’t the best for the job (who ironically think they are the best for the job). Although, in defense of some of them, there are those who actually do try to be servants to the nation. I think President Bush has been exemplary in that regard.

    I don’t agree with Vasko Kohlmayer’s take on things though. Western Civilization may be on the wane, it may not be, but one thing is for sure… Jesus is slowly but surely transforming the world, and the world is still resisting. It’s typical.

  • dmd25

    “All I know is this: I’m already missing George W. Bush.”

    Amen, Anchoress, Amen.

  • alexandrag

    Sadly, some on the right seems to have adopted the “primal scream politics” of the left. I have turned off talk radio this past week, as it has become boring, chicken little, the sky is falling, yadda, yadda, yadda. Thank you, Anchoress, for your combo religion, politics and other human interest blog. It helps me to stay focused on the real prize, which is beyond politics, thank goodness. No candidate is perfect. My main question is who is best for the most difficult issues that confront us today, and, yes, the Lord works in mysterious ways.

  • http://mutnodjmetsmusings.blogspot.com/ Mutnodjmet

    Anchoress: I don’t know if this will help, but I offer it for your consideration. One of the best men I know is my father-in-law. His best friend (also a kind and wise man) has met and socialized with Romney on a few times. The firend really likes Romney and considers him a genuine, warm person with great savvy (personal and professional). The friend’s son indicates Romney is a great boss. I just discovered this all yesterdat over Superbowl chili. One of the complaints you have (as well as many others) is that Romney seems phony. Could it be that people are more comfortable with flaws and images less than perfect, because they are not sanguine with others who “have it all”. Why should postive appearance and a calm demeanor be a negative, unless the viewer deems it so?

  • TheAnchoress

    His demeanor is not what I have a problem with, Mut – it’s the fact that he is not reliably pro-life, not reliably pro-troop and it seems (according to links at Instapundit) not reliably pro-second amendment.

    But it doesn’t seem to be bothering the “true” conservatives! :-)

  • Bender B. Rodriguez

    Oh, yes, the “pro-life” John McCain, who runs commercials claiming that he is “a proud social conservative who will never waver,” but then tells reporters that “It’s not social issues I care about.”

    He’s going to nominate and fight for an anti-Roe Supreme Court justice?? Get real. He has no desire to engage in the nuclear war that it will require to confirm an anti-Roe justice. Sure, he might “keep his word” to nominate a judicial conservative, but it will be one that considers that stare decisis is a supreme consideration against judicial activism.

    Meanwhile, while I had remembered (and will never forget) McCain’s repeated insistance in 1999-2000 that he was OPPOSED to reversing Roe, and that there was a NEED for abortion, I had forgotten this little window into his “pro-life” views –

    McCain struggles with sensitive abortion question
    By Jonathan Karl/CNN
    January 26, 2000
    MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain, when asked Wednesday what he would do if his 15-year-old daughter Meghan became pregnant and wanted an abortion, said it would be a “family decision.”

    “The final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel,” McCain said, speaking of himself and his wife Cindy.

    “I would discuss this issue with Cindy and Meghan, and this would be a private decision that we would share within our family and not with anyone else,” McCain told reporters in New Hampshire on board his campaign bus nicknamed “The Straight Talk Express. “Obviously I would encourage her to bring, to know that baby would be brought up in a warm and loving family, but the final decision would be made by Meghan with our advice and counsel.”

    McCain describes himself as a “pro-life” candidate and says he favors a ban on abortion except in the case of rape, incest or to protect the life of the mother. But he has also angered anti-abortion advocates last year by saying that reversing Roe v. Wade now would force thousands of young women to have illegal and dangerous operations.

    McCain grew irritated as reporters pressed him on the subject. Asked if that was the same answer an abortion-rights advocate would give, McCain said, “I don’t think it is the pro-choice position to say that my daughter and my wife and I will discuss something that is a family matter that we have to decide.”

    Huh? Family decision? What’s to “decide”? What is the “choice” here?

  • http://mutnodjmetsmusings.blogspot.com/ Mutnodjmet

    Anchoress: True, I am more financially-oriented when I decide to vote, so I prefer Romney. And if you decide McCain, that will be OK with me, as I will back either GOPer in November, for many of the reasons you provided this morning. I just wanted to add my two-cents in, as some people are discounting Romney outright based on personality (as opposed to policy). I just hope we all retain our sanity and perspective through 2008. I am about to cry! :)

  • Pingback: Hillary’s crying again! | The Anchoress

  • kelleyb

    Rush et.al. are stomping their little feet and threatening to take their toys home if everyone doesn’t play Right. I say take ‘em. Just remember that when you do take those toys (withholding your vote) you are guaranteeing a DEMOCRAT win in November–a liberal Supreme Court that uses world court standards to judge our Constitution–an irreversible socialist agenda—the neutering of the military—etc. If the Rushbo has a “savior” waiting in the wings to step forward as a third party candidate, he will also guarantee that the Dems will win.
    It doesn’t matter which democrat wins. Both candidates have promised FUNDAMENTAL changes to our country. If all you all can stomach far reaching socialism, than by all means, sit out the election.
    For almost a year, I have drastically reduced the political noise that comes over my threshold. I read very few blogs, watch very little tv, listen to almost zilch talk radio. (I was on the road last week and listened to 10 minutes of the Rushman before I turned him off in sadness.) I do read a lot, several newspapers etc. I have found that my Spiritual life has expanded as I have taken the time to be still and to pray and to listen. I agree with A…pray…read the scriptures…go to Mass…and VOTE when the time comes. I will Vote for the best I can find. Maybe we can step back and let God take care of the details.

  • http://www.marchhareshouse.blogspot.com March Hare

    Hey, Bender,

    Just read your comment about McCain & abortion. I, too, have daughters and I have thought just how I would answer such a question myself. (It’s kind of fun to play “Presidential Candidate!”) Frankly, I like McCain’s answer. It’s the answer I would give to a news reporter myself. The decision would be a private, family decision, based on a lot of prayer. Unfortunately, b/c of the way the laws are written, if either of my daughters want an abortion, they don’t need my permission to have one. All I can do in that case is try to persuade them otherwise.

    Had McCain answered that he “wouldn’t allow it,” a hue and cry would be raised that he was a Neanderthal who considered his girl child his possession. The question is akin to “When did you stop beating your wife?” There is no way to answer it w/o pissing some group off. So, “it’s a private matter” with the ultimate decision resting on the 15 y.o. daughter is what it truly is.

    Seems to me that Betty Ford got herself in a similar pickle when asked a “hypothetical” question about her daughter, Susan. Sometimes I think politicians are just TOO accommodating of the MSM’s questions, instead of telling them to MYOB. :)

  • Greg

    Terrye Says I don’t think it is fear mongering to point out that both Democrats have promised to high tail it out of Iraq pronto and that both Democrats have a double digit lead over Romney

    And Rudy was leading in the polls, six months ago. Or was it Fred? In any event, so what?

    Polls for elections 9 months away are meaningless. Believing in them takes really blind faith.

    Speaking of faith, what in the world causes you to label the Republicans as the “Party of Faith”? Have you never talked to a socialist? Have you never talked with someone who believes that “more government” fixes problems? That “this time” they’ll get it right?

    I’m a Republican because I refuse to lie to myself, or delude myself. Government doesn’t fail because it has the “wrong people” running it, it fails because it has people running it, and people are inherently fallible. (As are our machines, which is why having “computers” run it wouldn’t make things any better.)

    Freedom of Speech is important because the ability to criticize politicians and the government, the ability to point out their screwups, failures, and mistakes, is all too often the only way to get them fixed.

    Which, come to think about it, is yet another reason why I loathe McCain. Because the whole point of McCain-Feingold was to make it harder for us peasants to criticize our “betters”. (See McCain’s actions in the 2004 “Wisconsin Right to Life” case to see what he thinks about “We The People” trying to take advantage of the proximity of an election to criticize one of our masters an incumbent politician).

  • carly

    Romney is a man who develops a vision based on information and facts gathered by people who are as smart or smarter than he is but who do not intimidate him. Romney studies, listens, considers–and then he creates a plan of action which he carries out, with help from these excellent lieutenants. He’s done it in the private sector; he did it for the Olympics, and he did it in Massachusetts as best he could with the overwhelming opposition of the leftist majority.

    This country needs more than a war capo. We need a man who is a leader with vision to fight the war that we’re in for the next generation or so, whether we choose to be or not.

    From what I can tell, McCain lacks this vision and is a man of impulse who will go with his gut, rather than depend on the careful, sober, sane and nonjudgmental evaluation of fact. I’m voting for Mitt Romney because he’s a man of intelligence and vision who will do what is necessary–what is RIGHT–dependably, for all the right reasons. He can lead without bullying because the basis for his decisions will make sense.

  • Pingback: Mike's Noise

  • Pingback: Heading out to vote…UPDATED | The Anchoress

  • Noatak

    I believe that in large part, we are seeing a grand display of religious bigotry that people are not honest enough to admit.

  • Pingback: Snarky Bastards » Blog Archive » Anti-anti-McCain

  • Pingback: Romney: Brokered or Third Party? | The Anchoress