McCain Has Some 'Mo'
by Motte Brown on 01/30/2008 at 1:39 PM
The elder President Bush once referred to political momentum as "the big Mo." And it appears that one presidential candidate has finally gotten some heading into "Super Tuesday" -- Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). As today's Wall Street Journal reports,
Sen. McCain inevitably gains an important edge in momentum and fund raising heading into "Super Tuesday" next week, with primaries and caucuses in more than 20 states across the nation. Even before the Florida win, polls in three of the largest states voting -- California, New York and Illinois -- showed Sen. McCain with big leads over Mr. Romney and other rivals.
McCain won with broad support from seniors, veterans and Hispanics. However, he again lost the largest Republican voting bloc, conservatives. His challenge will be to win them over heading into next weeks Super Tuesday and, subsequently, the general election.
On the Democratic side, Hillary won Florida easily but got nothing for it because the Democratic National Committee stripped the state of its delegates for moving up the primary date. Like McCain, however, Hillary has sizable leads in delegate rich states like California, New York and New Jersey.
The only other news coming out of Florida is that both Giuliani and Edwards dropped out of the race. Giuliani is expected to endorse McCain but Edwards is staying mum for now.
1. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 2:10 PM on Jan 30:
"The only other news coming out of Florida is that both Giuliani and Edwards dropped out of the race. Giuliani is expected to endorse McCain but Edwards is staying mum for now."
Bahhh! That's huge! Guiliani drop out? I bet he would've done better if people had known that he was mayor of NYC during 9/11.
2. James said the following at 5:45 PM on Jan 30:
Good, I'm glad Guiliani dropped out. Though I'm just as wary of McCain.
I think it says something when the guy's own home STATE doesn't like him. Then again, we're a conservative state but have a lesbian democratic governor who has been governor for consecutive terms. Wierd.
I'm torn between Romney and Huckabee. I like Huckabee more, but I think Romney could make a good president as well. And if Huckabee is already sunk (that's not sure yet), then voting for him in the primaries will only hurt Romney as he fights against McCain. And I do NOT want McCain to win.
So, I'm not sure who I will vote for. I will be happy with either a President Huckabee (my first choice) or a President Romney (2nd choice. his mormonism doesn't concern me. there is no requirement for the president to be orthodox in his faith).
3. Lauren T. said the following at 6:09 PM on Jan 30:
Don't forget, though, that Hillary can request her stripped delegates from Michigan and Florida to be seated during the convention. It will most likely happen; in this kind of a race, I bet she'll be fighting for that edge.
4. farmer Tom said the following at 6:20 PM on Jan 30:
Andrew R,
Let me congratulate you, that was very funny. I laughed out loud.
Of course I think he lost because as I told one of his phone bank callers prior to the Iowa Caucus, (She said, "can we count on your vote of Mr. Ghoulini on Thursday?") I replied, "Madam, I do not vote for baby killers, I don't care where they're from or what party they claim."
"Thank you sir", Click.....
5. Jason said the following at 7:54 PM on Jan 30:
Forget McCain. The only Republican worth voting for is Huckabee. Heck, the guy has actually claimed to have read a book by Francis Schaeffer! I doubt very seriously any other candidate out there could say that...
6. JB said the following at 8:13 PM on Jan 30:
Any bets on how long Huckabee has left? If I had to guess, I'd think that his eventual drop out will boost Romney, though that might be canceled out by Giuliani's endorsement of McCain. If I were McCain, I'd be writing a check to Huckabee right now.
7. Courtney said the following at 9:22 PM on Jan 30:
Does it not scare anyone else that Romney is a Mormon?? I don't believe I could ever vote for him because of this one fact. Forget his political policies, I would much rather vote for an atheist than a Mormon.
As I see it right now, Huckabee's chances are pretty much gone. This means that McCain is the only "conservative" (used loosely) option. If it came down to Romney vs Clinton, I would have to do the impossible and vote Clinton. If it came down to Romney vs Obama, I wouldn't vote at all. I could not, in good conscience, vote for either. I see this election as a crucial point in American history, and it scares me that I don't see anyone worth voting for.
8. BDB said the following at 11:37 PM on Jan 30:
Let's see here...Huckabee will stay in the race until at least Feb. 6th...
Folks, I have to say, that McCain has spent the last 8 years trying to rebuild bridges to conservatives. Yes, it was a mistake for him to blow off conservatives in 2000. But he's been a good Republican ever since. Campaigned for Bush in 2004 and everything.
What will cause the Republicans to lose the presidency is two things: unrestrained Federal spending, and the anti-immigration stance. Those two things are a great way to stay out of power. About 99% of Americans are either immigrants or descended from immigrants. Those who are against immigration should go back to Europe, where unemployment is MUCH higher. There's no economic basis for being anti-immigrant, the economy has never been going this well for this long. I'm old enough to remember the Reagan recession; everyone today is a bunch of wimpy whiners. I remember when middle-class people could typically only afford a 1200 sq ft house and a station wagon - and that WAS the American Dream. Now people whine that they can't afford their 3000 sq ft home and SUV payment. Immigrants are not causing this kind of greed, people.
And to be brutally honest, most of the workers I've seen from Mexico work much, much harder than most 3rd generation Americans - who are too busy playing video games to do work that involves sweat. My grandfather came from Germany in 1920. He paid his way through college digging ditches and cleaning houses. I know few frat boys who have the character to take jobs like that.
We need more straight talk in this country. Hopefully it won't take another 40 years of a Democratic congress for Republicans to find their soul again. Geez.
9. Joseph said the following at 11:56 PM on Jan 30:
I am in a similar place, I thought the Republicans had no hope until I saw Mike Huckabee. While I didn't love his compassionate form of fiscal politics, social politics are far more important to me.
I am hoping Sen. McCain will put Huckabee on the ticket, cause honestly McCain is 71 and well, I know I know that is aweful for me to think that way, sorry for being honest.
10. James said the following at 6:22 AM on Jan 31:
Courtney, no it does not scare me that he's a mormon.
Yes they are way whacky theologically. But so's an athiest, and so is the RCC.
Mormons are generally very moral people and also quite friendly. In fact, they're probably the nicest cultists you'll ever meet.
11. Carrie (the original) said the following at 6:42 AM on Jan 31:
Andrew R, a second congrats. Like farmer Tom I laughed out loud too.
12. John D. said the following at 7:03 AM on Jan 31:
Huckabee is a phony. He is a big government liberal masquerading as a conservative. That dissembling alone is enough to undercut his veneer of Baptist holy man. No one gets to the top of Arkansas politics with squeaky-clean hands.
I am enthusiastically voting for Ron Paul. Dr. Paul may not wear his faith on his sleeve (though he is reportedly a devout Presbyterian), but his honesty and integrity put him head and shoulders above the other candidates. He is the only true conservative in the race (which is why he can barely break 10 percent).
I'm still voting for him.
13. John said the following at 7:57 AM on Jan 31:
"No one gets to the top of Arkansas politics with squeaky-clean hands."
I would take out the Arkansas. I think that that could be said of all politics. Is it possible to be even close to 100% conservative (socially and fiscally) and get elected?
I don't think so. There is not one candidate that is even 50% conservative. They're either really strong social conservatives, but liberal fiscally or fiscally conservative but socially liberal or both liberal socially and fiscally.
How can a conservative vote their conscience AND vote for someone who has a chance to win?
McCain is a liberal on both aspects who wants to squash freedom of speech and open up our borders.
Romney is a flip flopper cult member who probably isn't even orthodox about his own faith.
Huckabee is a big government liberal with a cross around his neck.
Of course the Dems are ultra left.
The irony would be that having a Dem in office could be helpful in swinging the pendulum back to the right, because after 4-8 years of liberal ideology, the public will want that wonderful "change" that they all talk about and vote for 4-8 years of liberal ideology with the veneer of conservativism.
Back and forth it goes all the while America creeps further and further from its founding principles and closer and closer to the hammer and cycle. (Which are especially desirable due to their low greenhouse gas emissions.)
14. Jonathan said the following at 9:17 AM on Jan 31:
BDB, I totally agree with you on the big budget spending...it's absolutely ridiculous the amount of money being put into programs right now, money that could be much better utilized elsewhere (in my ever-so-humble opinion:-)). I also agree that the anti-immigration issue is hurting republicans, but the ironic thing is that, at least from what i know, it's not so much anti-immigration as it is anti-illegal immigration. And personally, having worked for a refugee resettlement agency i completely agree with trying to cut down on illegal immigration. Not only does it bring up a big issue with taxes, laws, etc. but it is also a huge hindrance to those who are fleeing persecution from countries not called Mexico or Cuba. There are millions of people in refugee camps as a result of some form of genocide worldwide, and the US would be able to help more of them out if the whole snafu with people pouring over the border could be worked out. Not only that, but the funds available to help out these people once they reach the States are quite minimal since so much money is spent on taking care of illegals who don't have insurance etc., but still must have their medical needs met (all while not paying taxes which would further alleviate the problem). Anyway, my 2 cents on that...it was, in all honesty, while very frustrating at times still very rewarding to help out those fleeing persecution. I would highly recommend that anyone reading Boundless check out an organization such as World Relief or IRC as the work they do is very tangible and very much goes along with our call to help the needy and oppressed.
15. anonymous said the following at 10:21 AM on Jan 31:
I'm really concerned about this election.
The mormon church is a cult - and one of the marks of a cult is the extreme degree of control and allegiance that the organization exerts over its members. Putting Romney in the white house would be very dangerous indeed.
McCain concerns me too. He has a long history of running his mouth and being highly critical of just about everyone in the public square. He also appears to be a big supporter of the "freedoms" of the big mega-corporations at the expense of the freedoms of the individual American. With more power must come more accountability; unrestrained and unaccountable big corporations could mean the end of freedom in our country, particularly in our high-tech age.
Huckabee to me seems too inexperienced to do well in the general election.
As far as the top candidates on the Democratic side, I haven't been too impressed with them either, even if I ignore the moral liberalism of both Obama and Clinton.
Voting in this election seems a lot like shooting one's self in the foot -- we just get to choose which foot... :)
16. Amanda said the following at 11:11 AM on Jan 31:
BDB, I (and other conservatives) know that our nation is made up of immigrants. Also, yes, the hispanic immigrants of today also work very hard. BUT, the problem lies not in the legal, lawful immigration, but in the total disregard for our laws and requirements by ILLEGALLY, AGAINST THE LAW, coming into our country. My child is the son of a hispanic immigrant, so you can't say that I hate immigration. I do not like people ignoring our laws and choosing to come here however they want to. And I dare say that most Americans who are concerned about immigration are concerned about the ILLEGAL aspect of it---not about stopping LEGAL immigration.
17. Emma said the following at 11:53 AM on Jan 31:
Romney would be an awesome president. He understands the economy (he's actually owned successful businesses), and he's good on getting serious about cracking down on illegal immigration.
Huckabee is only a social
conservative, and frankly, as president, I don't really care what you think about abortion.
McCain is a joke as a conservative.
My vote is definitely for Romney. Mormons are probably more moral than the majority of evangelicals, and I am an evangelical. Of course I don't agree with Mormonism, but maybe as evangelicals we could take a lesson from them about how to follow more closely to our ideas that we suppossedly hold.
18. James said the following at 5:07 PM on Jan 31:
Wayne Grudem (professor of Phoenix Seminary, and well respected calvinist evangelical) wrote up why he personally supports Romney, and addressed the objections to Romney's mormonism, etc.
Wayne is a noted biblical scholar, and I personally know him to be a very Godly man. His wisdom on this issue should not be ignored. Read his position (just google it), and decide for yourself if you're going to be scared out of your mind simply because someone with apostate faith becomes the President.
19. Luke said the following at 8:22 PM on Jan 31:
I really like Huckabee but Im not sure He can win, even if he does get the nod from the GOP-- McCain could win, but Im afraid to vote for him because his name ends in Cain:)-- I dont see Hillary having a chance, her being President would be a nightmare beyond-- I dont need to finish-- Obama doesnt stand for anything I do-- but I think he has some common sense-- If Obabma gets the nod, I cant see anyone beating him except McCain-- God help Mike Huckleberry!
20. DannieA said the following at 9:54 PM on Jan 31:
I know most of you won't like what I'm about to say...and that's ok I still like you :)
I saw the debate between Obama and Hillary...
Obama as a smooth tongue and eloquent ways....that spells trouble...you don't know what he'll do
Hillary is a better choice...at least she spells out what she wants to do, so you are informed whether you agree or no.
I'm a registered Democrat so next
Tuesday I will vote for Hillary...if Huckabee wins out...good for him, I might have to see if I'll vote for him...if it's Hillary vs. McCain...Hillary all the way...if it's Obama Vs. McCain...I'm defecting
21. DannieA said the following at 10:04 PM on Jan 31:
Jonathan...are you saying Cubans don't have a good reason to leave????? my parents both immigrated here from there FLEEING PERSECUTION because of Religion from the communism that took hold in 1959...that was real...
22. BDB said the following at 12:37 AM on Feb 1:
Andrea wrote:
>>And I dare say that most Americans who are concerned about immigration are concerned about the ILLEGAL aspect of it---not about stopping LEGAL immigration.<<
Fine. Change the law so that anyone with proof of a job can come and go across the border as they wish. Illegal immigration solved.
The restrictions on the Irish and other "undesireable" Europeans in the early part of the 20th Century put us on this road. The Chinese and other Asians faced tremendous discrimination in California and elsewhere.
The unfortunate reality of our restrictions on immigration is that it is exporting jobs to other countries. It used to be that very smart people would come to the U.S., go to college, and STAY. Now they go back home to India and build their companies there. That's why India is now the #2 software powerhouse in the world. It would have been much better to just let those engineers move to the U.S. permanently so they could create their jobs here.
It also used to be common for agricultural workers to go back and forth. Part of my family was very involved in agriculture. Guys would come up from Mexico, work a few years, make enough money to build a house - and move back to be with their family. Now it's too risky to keep crossing the border, so they STAY during the off-season.
There is lettuce rotting in the fields, folks! Like software, agriculture is just going to move out of the U.S., too, because it's too hard to get workers now. Do you realize that food used to be the #1 EXPORT for the U.S.? We were the world's bread basket! Next time you hear about the U.S. trade deficit, don't blame Honda for building Accords in Ohio. Blame laws that leave food rotting in the fields.
We need to change the law so that the smartest people in the world can move to the U.S., build companies and create jobs. The success of the U.S. Economy thus far is because people leave Europe and Asia and the other continents to get economic and political freedom in the U.S. Europe has riots because they import workers and refuse to give them any political rights. The answer is not to "tighten the border." The answer (which will get me flamed) is to require people who come here to learn English and learn the principles that underly U.S. freedom.
And I speak from my own family experience. My grandfather's generation was REQUIRED by my great-grandparents to speak English at home. They learned all about America in the naturalization process. If it was good enough for my family to learn English and become Ameicans, everyone else should be required to learn English, too. Focusing on the border is the wrong solution.
It's not like we can keep the Canadians out anyway. They MOW the Northern border. There's actually a treaty that they have to mow it so they know where it is!
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-boundary26may26,1,3158732.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&track=crosspromo
23. Priscilla said the following at 4:18 AM on Feb 1:
I'm not an American, so I won't be voting in any of your elections. But like much of the rest of the world, I've been following the coverage of your elections, because, like it or not, whoever rules the US has an unproportionately large say in what happens in the rest of the world (whether it comes to the global economy or world politics or conflict resolution or whatever).
I'm also a Christian and I've been reading Boundless for some time. I really appreciate a lot of Focus on the Family's resources, Boundless included, and they have helped me grow in my faith. One thing I cannot quite figure out, however, is the take of most American evangelicals on American politics that I see on Boundless and on the blog.
Why do all evangelicals (or at least the vocal ones) seem to be Republican? I agree that if I were American I would have a problem with the pro-abortion stance and the pro-homosexuality stance of most of the Democrats, but then I would also have a problem with the anti-gun control, anti-immigration and pro-big business stance of most Republicans. And let's not even start on foreign policy -- most Republican politicians have a foreign policy stance that is hypocritical and scary for those living outside the US.
So, what I am trying to say is: when both sides of your political divide have problems that wouldn't hold up to God's moral standards, how do most of you uniformly decide that the Republican party is the only one for evangelical Christians?
In my own country, one of the main political parties is fanatically devoted to the majority religion and fanatically against all other religions; they are fanatically opposed to conversion to Christianity or missionary activities of any kind; some powerful elements of that party have taken part in violence, riots, murders, massacres, church burning and persecution of Christians. In such a situation, it's easy to say that no Christian would vote for them.
But how do you decide that as an evangelical American Christian, Democrats are not to be voted for?
I do hope no one is offended by any of this. I am just curious. In my country, the US is viewed as a Christian country, so what you do and say is seen as representative of Christians. So this is important to me.
24. John said the following at 5:13 AM on Feb 1:
DannieA,
I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully you understand that you'll be voting for unbelievers who are anti-christian. You do understand that, yes?
You also know that you are registered with an unchristian, in word and deed, organization, yes?
25. Carrie (the original) said the following at 7:51 AM on Feb 1:
Priscilla,
Thanks for such a line of questioning! One big thing that distinguishes the two parties is their view of government. Republicans/Conservatives (traditionally) have held the position that government should be small. Whereas Democrats/Liberals hold the position that government should control most aspects of the lives of private citizens. Now, in recent years, these lines are much more blurry than they used to be.
Republicans, usually, call for tax cuts. Democrats, usually, call for higher taxes. Supposedly, republican tax cuts only benefit the wealthy. I haven't been a tax-paying adult long enough to compare and contrast the two from experience. All I know at this point is that I don't want to pay more taxes. That means I get less money in my paycheck which is small enough right now. If my paycheck were smaller, the belt would be tighter. The belt is tight enough right now.
As far as immigration goes, it would be nice of the international community kept in mind that we are still a relatively young country. We don't have a long-lasting national identity yet. We have an economy that is burdened by people crossing our borders and not paying for health care or taxes that help fund public education. So, we need to crack down on people that come here with no intentions of being a responsible citizen.
Now, I'm all for immigration. As a Christian I don't want people to suffer at the hands of some corrupt government. This is not something that most Christians can come to a good conclusion on. It's difficult because we don't want our money wasted on illegal immigrants, but at the same time many of these illegals are the only hope for their family back in their home country. This my least favorite political subject to discuss because I have no idea how to go about it. I don't think all illegals are over here for bad reasons, but I know some of them are here for bad reasons.
To address your specific question of "how do most of you uniformly decide that the Republican party is the only one for evangelical Christians?"
I will say that we are in the midst of a shift on how evangelicals will vote. As an evangelical, I'm quite sick and tired of how most of my brothers and sisters seem be lemmings when it comes to political elections. They tend to be one-issue voters (anti-abortion). They let the issue of abortion blind them. For the last several elections this has been the biggest issue. However, I think that is going to change this election. Christians are realizing that there is much more to think about since 9/11. In the '04 election the majority of people thought it would be best to see if George W. Bush would clean up the mess in Iraq. We were hopeful.
So, I would say that beginning 2004 we started to come out of our typical one-issue mentality.
This election will be interesting. Huckabee and Paul are not doing as well in the primaries as originally hoped. They are the two biggest pro-life candidates the Republican party has.
If it ends up being a McCain/Guiliani tickets, I will not end up voting Republican. I would hope that many other evangelicals would follow suit. I hope they don't vote Democrat either. Major political elections need a third party.
26. Chris said the following at 7:54 AM on Feb 1:
Hey Priscilla. I think you ask a great question. I come from a house of both christians, and immigrants(africans and Bajans!). And I think that both parties have an equal amount of biblical truth and good in them, and both maintainig philosophy that are in conflict with the views of christ. With that said john said that hillary was anti-christian. Where did you get your info from, serious question? Oh and does everyone fill that Barack obama is muslim and a possible anti-christ. Just askingg, I my self would'nt agree, but justaskin. Oh yeah and if you do, can you give me some links other than wiki or youtube. Yeah one of my boy's try to do that the other day. I told I was'nt convinced, lol.. But I think that will be about it for me talking, and I look forward to hearing responses. Grace and Peace...
27. Jonathan said the following at 8:43 AM on Feb 1:
DannieA,
Where in my post did I say that people from Cuba(or Mexico) don't have a reason to leave? The organization I worked for resettled thousands of Cuban immigrants fleeing persecution, most undoubtedly with stories like your parents. And frankly, were I to live a few miles from a country that would offer my family such a greater standard of living and freedom I too would likely risk everything in order to get them there. But I do think, ironically, your response highlights how being anti-illegal immigration is usually seen as being heartlessly anti-immigration.
28. Eliza said the following at 10:56 AM on Feb 1:
Priscilla,
I am registered as independent, but am definitely voting Democrat this year. I also still consider myself Evangelical, but if the American Evangelical church keeps heading the way it is, I might just cut ties with that name altogether.
Carrie (the original),
I respectfully disagree that "big government" means that Democrats think government should control most aspects of the lives of private citizens. "Big government" means "more programs and agencies" (programs: welfare, social security, veteran's care, healthcare, etc.; agencies: FDA, DEA, USCIS, EPA, etc.). The issue is purely about money. Republicans want everyone to keep what they earn and individually determine where to spend it, trusting that citizens will make good choices. Democrats see citizens as not having the resources to make spending decisions regarding "public" institutions such as hospitals, schools, transportation systems, and social programs (obviously with "social programs" being the most controversial).
I strongly disagree with the idea that Dems want to control most aspects of the lives of private citizens. The ACLU is one of America's most liberal organizations, and its whole mission is to keep government out of people's private lives. It is the Republican administration who is eager to wiretap private citizens phones and read private citizens emails and arrest private citizens, call it "terrorist-related" and strip them of their rights to a fair trial. I can only think of one instance where Republicans argue harder for private citizen's rights, and that is with guns.
I'm fine with attributing things like "big government" to Democrats--that's perfectly true. But please don't paint a more negative picture than is necessary. And I'll do my best not to paint an unrealistically negative picture of Republicans;).
29. DannieA said the following at 11:23 AM on Feb 1:
Jonathan...semantics...I should know better than to answer something if I didn't understand what your line of thinking was...the way it was written sounded like Mexicans and Cubans didn't have anything to escape from...so I apologize if you think I was attacking you...
John...I'm registered with a party that made it possible for me to go to college and puts funds into public schools where I work. In politics nowadays, I don't think anyone is a True Christian with Christian ideals. Everything is political. I don't always vote democratic...I don't believe in straight ticket voters. That to mmy opinion shows that one didn't read up, just voted due to a particular party. But in primaries I do need to vote Democratic because I'm registered as one...and well I vote in EVERY election because I think it's part of my Christian duty.
McCain does not exemplify ideals that most Christians agree with anyways so please don't say that if you vote for McCain that you are more Christian than I. Thanks :)
30. John said the following at 12:06 PM on Feb 1:
"John...I'm registered with a party that made it possible for me to go to college and puts funds into public schools where I work."
Not the governments job to forcibly take money from some (extortion) and give it to others (redistribution of wealth).
"In politics nowadays, I don't think anyone is a True Christian with Christian ideals."
Perhaps true. More true of the dem party than repub party.
"Everything is political. I don't always vote democratic...I don't believe in straight ticket voters."
That is good. No one should mindlessly vote for a party, but instead should vote for the person.
"But in primaries I do need to vote Democratic because I'm registered as one"
You can change your party affiliation. As a Christian, would you affiliate yourself with a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-socialist organization? The answer should be obvious. So why do "Christians" support the Dem party, which has been liberal since its inception?
"...and well I vote in EVERY election because I think it's part of my Christian duty."
One of your Christian duties is to support biblical candidates and biblical policies. Not easy to do in our political environment, granted, but that doesn't mean it is okay to go against the bible and support an unbiblical organization.
"McCain does not exemplify ideals that most Christians agree with anyways so please don't say that if you vote for McCain that you are more Christian than I. Thanks :)"
McCain is a RINO. He exemplifies everything a Democrat is. It is impossible to "more Christian", you either are or you're not.
Anyway, like I said, our political environment is one where it seems like the choice is between which eye to gauge out, the right or the left.
Not easy an easy choice.
Do you vote your conscience (hopefully redeemed conscience) knowing your candidate will most likely not win?
Do you vote against somebody by voting for someone else?
Do you not vote at all?
I pray to God that a miracle will happen and somehow we get a president that is not ultra to even moderately left nor completely incompetent. (One Jimmy Carter is enough for any country!)
It's a shame the GOP didn't stick to its principles 10 years ago, principles that resemble biblical principles, unlike Democrat principles, which are anti-biblical.
31. John said the following at 2:15 PM on Feb 1:
I also forgot to mention that it is not the governments job to educate.
32. JB said the following at 2:52 PM on Feb 1:
John,
I'm curious, do you think there are any political issues on which two Christians can disagree and still both be Christian? You seem so very certain when you designate a party or a person or a position anti-Christian. Apparently, Christians can't support any Democrat or McCain (and I'd guess Giuliani is in there too). Would you admit the Christianity of supporters of Romney, Huckabee, or Ron Paul?
33. k. said the following at 3:34 PM on Feb 1:
Priscilla - I'm a registered Independent, and don't think that either party has a monopoly on Christianity. :)
John - Have you read Das Kapital? Or The Communist Manifesto?
34. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 7:04 PM on Feb 2:
I'm rooting for McCain. He's experienced, he's a war hero, he's got a great sense of humour and he's the most moderate of the Republicans. Plus, he's the most frequent guest on The Daily Show, and he was the underdog until recently.
I am a liberal, so I would like to see a Democrat in the Whitehouse, but McCain getting the nomination would be great- especially if values-voters distance themselves from him. Then Obama or Clinton will have a sure win.
35. BDB said the following at 9:33 PM on Feb 2:
Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) wrote:
Come to think of it, you're right, he has been on the Daily Show a lot. One of those appearances (just prior to the 2004 election cycle) made me realize how loyal a Republican he was trying to be: he refused to let them goad him into announcing a presidential run and slamming Bush. Instead he went down the policy positions where he disagreed. Colin Powell was given a wide-open opportunity to blash Bush, too, and wouldn't take it. But did precisely define points of disagreement on policy. Both McCain and Powell understand that a certain amount of pragmatism is necessary to govern. We're electing a commander in chief, not a pastor. And the fact tha both appeared on The Daily Show demonstrates that they're a lot more aware of what people are concerned about than certain other members of the Republican party.
Changing gears...
Where on Earth do people get the idea that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes? Everyone who buys food pays sales tax; everyone who lives in a house or apartment pays property taxes (or pays their landlord, who pays property taxes.) Those two taxes fund most local things like schools. The Democratic party and their unions waste vast amounts of money on public school administration, far more than a few illegal immigrants.
The solution on education is to wipe out bilingual education. Children learn English quickly, it takes 6 months to 2 years, tops, for a kid to learn English, depending on how motivated they are. The Democratic-sponsored bilingual education programs are what is creating a growing underclass of immigrants in this country. They should be ashamed. Again, my family came and learned English, there was no option of German-speaking teachers to help them out. I'm not asking anyone to do anything that my family hasn't already done.
I notice that DannieA is writing in English. Many Asian cultures require their kids to learn English without ever planning to move to the U.S. I just had a couple of Swedish college students visit me, their English was GREAT. There's zero excuse for people in the U.S., legal or otherwise, to not learn English. Non-Americans all over the world are learning it.
Perhaps you mean welfare? Well, welfare rolls have declined sharply since Clinton and the Republican congress tightened the rules. If it's all illegals, then I guess zero Americans now take welfare. (This is absurd, folks. Of course there are Americans taking welfare, and defrauding it, too.)
Income tax maybe? About 40% of Americans don't pay income tax, either. Their incomes are too low, they get credits for children, etc. Most cash-paying jobs taken by immigrants are low-paying. They probably wouldn't need to pay taxes, either. Kind of like how many waitresses don't report their cash tips. Maybe we should deport waitresses, eh?
How about illegals with fake ID who get paid by check? There again, their employer will withold social security and medicare taxes, so they do pay.
The immigration compromise that Bush and McCain were pushing was a pragmatic solution, it's too bad it got shot down. Eventually people will wake up and realize that our economy is stronger than most countries in Europe precisely because we allow immigrants to participate. We need more of this, not less.
36. John said the following at 12:27 PM on Feb 3:
"I'm curious, do you think there are any political issues on which two Christians can disagree and still both be Christian?"
For example? I think Christians can be well intentioned and be wrong. What is troubling is that professed Christians, who are really confused about the gospel, actually believe that certain politicians are christian or even conservative (whether dem or repub). When someone believes that a dem is in any way christian or conservative, they are sadly mistaken, especially if they simply read the candidates positions or the positions of their pary.
"Apparently, Christians can't support any Democrat or McCain (and I'd guess Giuliani is in there too). Would you admit the Christianity of supporters of Romney, Huckabee, or Ron Paul?"
Pat Robertson supported Giuliani.
I didn't say can't! What I am pointing out, is the obvious unchristian ideaology of different parties and individuals.
The dems do no articulate one single biblical policy. It is a blatantly anti-christian party.
The repubs DO articulate many biblical policies, but do very poorly in walking the walk.
If anybody would bother to read my posts, it is clear that I've stated that none of the GOP candidates are even remotely conservative enough AND the one that talks like he is, Romney, is a cult member who is a flip flopper.
I really don't know who to vote for because none of the GOP, like I said, appears to have a chance to win, especially the more conservative ones, or they are simply a rino, like McCain.
I also said that, for tactical reasons, a Christian could vote for a dem. The only reason I could see to justify such a vote would be to put the liberals front and center in order to swing the pendulum back towards the right, again.
What is real sad is the supposed Christians posting here who believe socialism and communism are somehow compatible with Christianity. Modern liberalism is another ideaology that is thought to be compatible.
These idealogies are not just unbiblical, they are anti-biblical. They are man-made philosophies that are contrary to God's word.
Politics is tactical and imperfect. It requires strategy, being innocent as a dove, but wise as a serpent.
Robertson, for example, inspite of Giuliani being socially liberal, gave him his support because of his promise to select conservative judges to the SCOTUS. Robertson was being strategic.
Some have said that that should be the most important issue of the coming election, the retiring judges on the SCOTUS.
Others think differently. (Especially since this didn't happen when two supposedly conservatives, Reagan and Bush Sr., nominated liberal judges)
It's a tough call.
It's also illogical and contradictory to call yourself liberal AND christian. Communist AND christian. Socialist AND christian.
I already asked, but I'll ask again, is it possible to be 100% conservative (or even close) and work in politics?
37. John said the following at 12:31 PM on Feb 3:
k.,
No, I prefer to read God's word. Not that a person can't learn something about the enemy by reading what his puppets have written, but it's mostly a waste of time to read such garbage.
Outside of the bible, I read Sowell, Stossel, and Friedman, as concerns economics and politics.
38. JB said the following at 11:08 PM on Feb 3:
John,
So when you talk about "liberals," "communists," "socialists," and "conservatives," do you identify political principles which correspond to these labels, or do you just see them as a collection of policies?
39. Peter Wells said the following at 6:36 AM on Feb 4:
John,
You've piqued my curiosity, which stems mostly from my ignorance, probably.
You're saying that you can't be a liberal and be a Christian, but where in the Bible does it endorse typical 'conservative' government? I don't mean the standard abortion and gay rights claptrap that both sides always wave around, I mean the 'small government' and 'taxes are illegal' side of things that you talk about.
Or do you get your ideas on government elsewhere? Simply curious given that we (as you've previously noted) have opposing worldviews. Just trying to see where you're coming from.
Personally, I always figured that whilst education wasn't a government's responsibility, it was in the government's interest to promote education because it helps economic growth. Maybe that's not so much of an issue in the States, but I know from my experience with the education system here in Australia that it's a big issue for us.
40. John said the following at 10:51 AM on Feb 4:
I guess it comes down to definitions.
Liberals today articulate stances that support abortion, gay marriage, gay rights, big government, eat the rich, no borders, etc.
The bible clearly speaks to all of these issues.
The bible talks about boundary stones (borders)
It talks about the alien (immigration)
It talks about roles and responsibilities of the God ordained institutions (family, government, church). Where any one of these oversteps its bounds and begins to take on roles and responsibilities of the other institutions, this is going against God's plan and causes terrible consequences.
The bible speaks about stealing and coveting (private property).
All of these things are discussed in his word AND it is clear that his word and liberal/socialist/communist ideologies are incompatible.
Here's a link that I think does an okay job of explaining biblical government and economics:
http://www.intouchmission.org/biblical_principles_government.htm
41. k. said the following at 3:10 PM on Feb 4:
John - Stop the presses...we agree on one (tiny) thing: I also like Thomas Friedman!
But I think you would benefit from taking a look at Das Kapital, or the Manifesto. You're not going to get contaminated just because you read them, you know. And perusing them doesn't mean that you agree with Marx and Engels...I certainly don't.
While those are not exactly light reading (I only read them because they were requirements in a grad class), they're definitely required for anybody who wants to talk knowlegably about socialism.
As an aside, early church members were not huge fans of private property. Neither were the Pilgrims when they first landed.
42. John said the following at 5:52 PM on Feb 4:
k.
I am truly sorry to have to tell you, but I was refering to Milton, not Thomas.
It is interesting that you bring up the Pilgrims.
Read these and let me know what you think:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/11/21/the_tragedy_of_the_commons
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2007/12/05/tragedy_of_the_commons_ii
Maybe one day we will agree on one thing:)
43. Daniel from the Maritimes said the following at 10:02 PM on Feb 4:
John,
I've read the articles you've linked and I'm willing to discuss them. The ones from TownHall.com on The Tragedy of the Commons were very interesting. Mr. Stossel argues the case for private property well.
I take issue with the other article (Biblical Principles of Government), though. I'm not going to pick apart the whole article, but I would like to point out how I think point 9 ("A free market economy") stretches the Bible's teaching in some areas and overlooks it in others.
Here is what point 9 says:
"A free market economy based on the private ownership of property (Exodus 20:15, 17; Deuteronomy 19:14) and individual free enterprise (Ecclesiastes 5:19; Proverbs 10:2-4; 12:24; 13:4,11; 1 Thessalonians 3:10). Any taxation of 10% or higher was defined as oppression (1 Samuel 8:10-18), and any taxation of property or of inheritance was strictly forbidden! (1 Kings 21:3). Institutions and individuals involved in the full time service of the Lord were not allowed to be taxed (Ezra 7:23,24). Any unequal or progressive system of taxation was expressly forbidden (Exodus 30:14-15; Leviticus 19:15). Biblical economics also forbid unjust weights (unbacked currency) and measures (inflation) (Leviticus 19:35-36; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10; Amos 8:5-7; Micah 6:11-12)"
I was going to take issue with some "interpretive leaps" that are made in this paragraph in regard to taxation and in equating unjust weights and measures with unbacked currency and inflation. However, I realize that the author has written a book on the subject; I trust he has explained his reasoning there. Furthermore, I can see how a case could be made for these interpretations.
What I do want to object to here is what is omitted from this paragraph. The fact is that the economic system established in the Torah has some crucial differences from capitalism as we know it. It is inconsistent to use the Bible to object to [most] taxation and yet raise no objections to charging interest (see below). I believe that the economic system God established for Israel, while probably not binding on modern governments, is wiser than anything man has come up with. Wiser than Karl Marx's ideas but also wiser than Adam Smith's ideas.
I like what C.S. Lewis had to say about economics (Mere Christianity, Bk. III, ch. 3):
"There is one bit of advice given to us by the ancient heathen Greeks, and by the Jews in the Old Testament, and by the great Christian teachers of the Middle Ages, which the modern economic system has completely disobeyed. All these people told us not to lend money at interest: and lending money at interest--what we call investment--is the basis of our whole system. Now it may not absolutely follow that we are wrong. ... That is a question I cannot decide on. I am not an economist ... This is where we want the Christian economist."
I see three key economic concepts from the Torah that were left out of the article you mentioned. They seem too important to omit in a discussion on the economic system God mandated for Israel.
1) The year of Jubilee.
Okay, it was mentioned in one of the verses in the article, but not elaborated on. Every 50 years, all of the land outside of city walls (i.e. agricultural land) that had been bought and sold was to revert to its original owners. In an agricultural society, land is capital. So every 50 years, Israel was to undergo capital equalization. That certainly isn't characteristic of our capitalistic system.
Associated with the year of Jubilee is the Sabbath year, a year of no work and debt cancellation.
2) Usury (interest) forbidden.
Jews were forbidden to lend money to a fellow Israelite at interest (Exodus 22:25, Psalm 15:5).
3) Gleaning.
Landowners were to leave the corners of their fields unharvested, and refrain from going back for crops that they dropped or missed. This was a way which the Lord provided to allow poor and disadvantaged people to survive. It was a far cry from handouts, though. No modern equivalents are coming to mind. Any ideas?
Ron Sider's book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger taught me a lot about the teachings of the Bible on the above subjects. In chapter 5, he writes, "Throughout biblical revelation, the legitimacy of private property is constantly affirmed." However, his very next sentence says, "But the right of private property is not absolute." Sider goes on to explain that, "God alone has absolute property rights," and "'the right to property was in principle subordinated to the obligation to care for the weaker members of society.'" A balanced view, imo.
Thoughts, anyone?
44. DannieA said the following at 10:26 PM on Feb 4:
I think one can affiliate with a particular party due to certain things one agrees with and still be a Christian.
BDB...yes I am very fluent in English and my parents who immigrated as teenagers and my aunt who didn't come to live in this country until well into her late 20s/early 30s are also extremely fluent in English.
I believe that all people here should learn English.
on educating or not helping people with an education....
We Christians value Christian Education. Christian education is not cheap. Following John's logic, only the Christians which have more money to their name should be able to access Christian education.
I disagree with that. I'm thankful that the government was able to help me get a Christian education at a good Christian University in Texas.
There are some things about policies that Democrats do that I agree with and there are others I don't. I also am not going to be wishy-washy and change my party affiliation every 4 years...that's absurd. If I want to vote Republican...I have the ability to do so during the presidential election...
45. John said the following at 5:15 AM on Feb 5:
Dannie,
Your conclusion does not follow my logic.
46. John said the following at 5:27 AM on Feb 5:
Dannie,
There are only "some" things that the Democrats do that you don't agree with?
Which ones would that be: support of abortion, homosexuality, eating the rich, socialized health care, open borders, just to name a few.
If Christians didn't have to compete with the communist education of our government, all Christians could educate there children freely. (Not for free, but freely as they so choose)
You can't compete against a monopoly, the government being the biggest monopoly there is.
47. John D. said the following at 6:27 AM on Feb 5:
As far as the Year of Jubilee is concerned, I've long wondered (somewhat mischievously) why conservatives, who love the death penalty because it is in the Old Testament, don't have equal enthusiasm for the cancellation of debts that occurred in the Year of Jubilee.
Judging from the bankruptcy reform bill the Republican-controlled Congress passed a few years ago, I think I know the answer.
48. k. said the following at 8:19 AM on Feb 5:
John - Oh, well, maybe someday.
But I'm not sure why you wanted me to read those articles. I said that the Pilgrims didn't advocate private property "when they first landed." That changed, of course. (And reasonably so, in my opinion...talk about going into a new life unprepared!) My point in bringing up the Pilgrims, and the early church, was that those are two groups of Christians who did not believe that Christianity and private property were automatically correlated. There's some room for experimentation.
While I'm all in favor of private property myself, I don't think it's the only biblical boat to float.
49. Jo said the following at 8:58 AM on Feb 5:
John - your comments on this post are really interesting.
On a tangent, BDB and DannieA and anyone really -
You say that immigrants in the US should learn English (I agree and feel the same about immigrants to the UK) - so what are people's opinions on English-speaking people emigrating to other countries? Should we be required to learn the local languages too?
That might be a pointless question since I'm expecting everyone to say yes... however, I was/am of the opinion that we English speakers are as a group pretty arrogant in that we expect everyone to understand us, but I recently visited Prague and it struck me how difficult it would be to learn Czech if I lived there, since EVERYONE there speaks English. The same was true of Krakow in Poland; I guess if you ventured outside the big cities / tourist spots it would be a different story, but I found it frustrating that I'd made an effort to learn some of the language but barely had a chance to use any of it because they all automatically spoke to me in English.
50. DannieA said the following at 10:32 AM on Feb 5:
Jo....I think that Europeans in general speak in more languages than we do in the states. (if you know different, than correct me) So it's not uncommon for a lot of europeans to know and speak English fluently.
However, if I were to live in the Ukraine or somewhere, I'd definately would learn Russian/Ukrainian.
I knew of some missionaries taht went to Thailand and studied the language straight for a year and are fluent in Thai (speech and written/read)
So I personally would....
just my 2 cents worth.
John....how is this for thought
Hillary--wants to strengthen our borders and put restrictions
McCain--wants to open our borders
what is different in this picture?????
Another case of voting for the person and not just making blanket statements on a party.
51. Eliza said the following at 10:48 AM on Feb 5:
I think it's really important to learn the official language of whatever country you're in. However, a lot of rhetoric in the debate about bilingual education is unnecessarily inflammatory. I have often heard English-only proponents talk to and about non-English speakers (or people who are learning and speak poorly as of yet) as if they're stupid. That is just ignorant.
Also, imagine a public school teacher who has 30 or 35 1st or 2nd or 3rd graders, half of whom do not speak English at all at home. They are hyperactive, normal kids, with all kinds of learning styles and some of whom probably have learning disabilities. Often this teacher is strictly forbidden from speaking anything other than English to these children, regardless of the circumstance. This approach towards forcing English retention is nice in theory, but can create more problems than it solves and hinder the education of everyone in the class.
My point being, principles that may work in theory sometimes are difficult to manage in practice.
52. John said the following at 11:04 AM on Feb 5:
McCain is a democrat with an R. He's a RINO.
Hillary wants to do that. Can you provide any support of that?
What about licenses to illegals?
53. JB said the following at 11:19 AM on Feb 5:
John,
I read your article about the biblical justification for, well, the US Constitution (more or less), and I have to say I'm unimpressed. Some of the alleged scriptural support is just bizarre. Jewish judges were told not to treat the rich and the poor differently in making decisions, and this therefore means that modern graduated income taxes are forbidden? It seems to me this is another example of conservatives deciding on positions they like and then searching the Bible for any possible support.
Let's take national single-payer health care for example. What does the Bible tell us about this? I don't see any prohibition against the government taking on health care as a concern and I don't see any prohibition against taxes. Can you find any, taking into account the difference between ancient theocratic monarchies and modern democratic republics?
54. DannieA said the following at 11:35 AM on Feb 5:
John,
If you actually go to their webpages, read articles, and follow the debates...you will notice that one of the differences between Obama and Hillary is that Obama wants to give licenses to illegal immigrants and Hillary does not.
It's fine if you support a party ideals and a particular person, but I'm just saying one needs to weed out candidates from party rhetoric.
55. John said the following at 11:45 AM on Feb 5:
JB,
It wasn't a "biblical justification for the US constitution."
"It seems to me this is another example of conservatives deciding on positions they like and then searching the Bible for any possible support."
I don't know of any examples of conservatives doing that. That is a tactic of liberals and other non-christians.
For one, a communist health system would hurt the least of these more than any other group. Jesus said whatever you did for the least of these you did for me. That's just one example.
When I have more time, I'll help you understand why a communist health system is sinful and unbiblical.
56. John said the following at 11:52 AM on Feb 5:
JB,
By the way, it's not "alleged" support. It IS support. The support is not accused of a crime. They are actual supports given by the authors. You can disagree with them, but that doesn't mean they stop being supports.
57. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:54 AM on Feb 5:
I've thought about it for a while, and I've realized that I agree with John about socialized-medicine. It's stupid, unfair, and sinful. But I don't think we should stop there.
I've never been robbed, but I'm paying taxes on my hard-earned money to fund the police. How ridiculous! I think that sinful- I mean, socialized-policing should end. You should pay for your own cops if you need them. Then companies can sell Police Insurance, a lot like Health Insurance.
Ditto for firefighters. My house has never been on fire, yet every year my family has paid thousands of dollars in taxes just to help some poor schmuck who was too stupid to blow out a candle. I say, no more! If your house is on fire, you should have to prove to the firefighters that you can pay them before they put it out. Privatizing this service will be a great savings to our falling economies.
And libraries... really, if I want a book, I'll buy it. I'd be able to buy a lot more books if I didn't have to pay taxes for libraries! And roads! You know what ending socialized roads would mean? Less construction. Which means less traffic! It's a win-win situation, instead of a sin-sin situation!
So, yeah, John, I'm sorry we faught earlier. You can see that I 100% agree with you now- socialized-anything = sin sin sin sin SIN!
58. Jessica said the following at 12:19 PM on Feb 5:
Jo said, "You say that immigrants in the US should learn English (I agree and feel the same about immigrants to the UK) - so what are people's opinions on English-speaking people emigrating to other countries? Should we be required to learn the local languages too?"
If you're really wanting to know, understand, contribute, much less be respected, you'll learn the language of the culture you're in. Even if you don't find it easy and can't learn fast or do as well as you'd like, they'll appreciate your efforts and will feel respected, valued, and loved, even. In areas where English is the common language for even the nationals, I'd try to find the equivalent action (cause the younger gen. especially won't appreciate the language effort, since they see their future dependent on English--but you'll win points with the grandparents, probably!)[there's always the exception to the rule, I know]
Almost every country speaks more languages than we do here in the States. A lot of times b/c of need. Take India, for example. Whereas Hindi and English are predominant, there are over 20 official languages, plus the regional dialects among them. In the area I'm familiar with, people could understand if not converse in 3-5 Indian languages. That's the everyday joe, not the educated. Educated, it could be more (English would be at this level).
I'm saying this from having lived in South Asia for two years; other places, I'm sure, would have a different perspective. But people do appreciate being met at their heart culture and language level. I think this is one of the underlying reasons we believe they should learn English, don't you?
There's more that could be said, but I'll stop here. Sorry for the tangent rant!
59. John said the following at 5:44 AM on Feb 6:
I don't even have to counter any thing said.
The provincial characterization of biblical economics is so laughable, anything I say would only take away from its power to assure people the stupidity of socialism.
I need not say a thing. That's what I love about free speech. You get to see clearly just how stupid ideas like socialism really are when they are presented by those ignorant enough to believe in it.:)