Super Tuesday Results Show Split Between Evangelicals and Their Spokesmen

[Micah68]

Super Tuesday Results Show Split Between Evangelicals and Their Spokesmen

Dobson's anti-McCain e-mail doesn't seem to have made a difference.

Collin Hansen with reporting by Sarah Pulliam posted 2/06/2008 10:08AM


A nationwide Super Tuesday primary may have tightened Sen. John McCain's hold on the Republican presidential nomination. But his candidacy has already exposed divides between evangelical voters and their spokesmen. And with surveys indicating many undecided evangelical voters, experts say Democrats could make inroads, depending on which candidate they eventually nominate. (continued)

 

[elsbeth]

Personally, I think any indication that people actually are thinking for themselves is a good thing.

 

[angelwind]

Personally, I think any indication that people actually are thinking for themselves is a good thing.

LOL...well I am trying to think....I thought I was voting for a Christian when I voted for President Bush...what a shock and dissapointment he has become in my eyes.

The governor of California, my state, is a Republican and I cannot agree with much of what he says.

There really are no candidates for believers out there, in my opinion...we are not a Christian nation. Oops...Huckabee is a pastor, yet I've read disturbing things about him.

Then my other concern is...how do we really know what the truth is...TV reporting is very limited.

I voted, but it may come to the point where I will not vote for anyone.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

Probably a lot of people are taking a good hard look at their economic situation.

The leaders tend to go for the people strong on the social-conservative issues, but who advocate policies which tend to benefit the rich and hurt everyone else.

The more so since most of these leaders are among the rich.

Abortion and gay marriage aren't quite as pressing when you are worried about paying your mortgage and putting food on the table.

 

[Micah68]

Personally, I think any indication that people actually are thinking for themselves is a good thing.

We can hope at least

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

This conservative evangelical is not much concerned with the political opinions of Dr. Dobson or any other so-called evangelical leaders.

Here's what I'm looking for so far as policy:

1) Foreign policy: I want someone moderately hawkish but sensible about it; i.e., a traditional conservative Republican, not a neocon. The elder Bush, George H.W. Bush aka Bush41, would do just fine. But he's too old, he's already had the job, and he was totally clueless about domestic policy.

2) Economic policy: I want a real small-government conservative, one who's actually serious about shrinking the size and scope of government, about reducing bureaucracy, and about cutting taxes and spending. Ron Paul is exactly what I'm looking for on this one.

3) Social policy: Ron Paul, a pro-life libertarian who believes in controlling the borders, is just right for me. I want nothing to do with a theocratic troglodyte like Dobson.

So, Ron Paul would be my guy except for foreign policy, but that's a deal breaker. With Romney, Thompson and Hunter out, there's nobody left that I'm real happy with. But I sure can't see letting Obama or Hillary have it without a fight, even if McCain isn't all I would hope for.

 

[Micah68]

This conservative evangelical is not much concerned with the political opinions of Dr. Dobson or any other so-called evangelical leaders.

Here's what I'm looking for so far as policy:

1) Foreign policy: I want someone moderately hawkish but sensible about it; i.e., a traditional conservative Republican, not a neocon. The elder Bush, George H.W. Bush aka Bush41, would do just fine. But he's too old, he's already had the job, and he was totally clueless about domestic policy.

2) Economic policy: I want a real small-government conservative, one who's actually serious about shrinking the size and scope of government, about reducing bureaucracy, and about cutting taxes and spending. Ron Paul is exactly what I'm looking for on this one.

3) Social policy: Ron Paul, a pro-life libertarian who believes in controlling the borders, is just right for me. I want nothing to do with a theocratic troglodyte like Dobson.

So, Ron Paul would be my guy except for foreign policy, but that's a deal breaker. With Romney, Thompson and Hunter out, there's nobody left that I'm real happy with. But I sure can't see letting Obama or Hillary have it without a fight, even if McCain isn't all I would hope for.

Ron Paul almost had me as I did like his foreign policy with regard to stopping U.S. dollars to Israel, our country has too much desperate need of it's own. I dislike his racist views.
I do agree with omitting anyone for a theocracy i.e. Huckabee as this, IMO, would be the down fall of America.
I am for getting rid of any neo-con and special (big $) interest involvement in Government.
Health care and education are big ticket items for me.
Bringing our troops home is a must, we need to definitely work on changing our current image and return to what made American Great.
I do like OBAMA as I think he represents at least a chance for Change. I don't not agree with all that he says but all that he represents.

This video, with Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu, represents what will be the deciding factor into my cast ballot.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=&affil=wmbb



HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- The global "war on terror" can't be won if people are living in "desperate" conditions, Archbishop Desmond Tutu told CNN.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu says "war on terror" will be thwarted by poverty, disease and ignorance.

"You can never win a war against terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate -- poverty, disease, ignorance, et cetera," the Nobel laureate said.
Tutu is in Hong Kong, where he is due to give a lecture on conflict resolution, reconciliation and forgiveness.
He said the disparity between the rich and poor in parts of the world causes instability and insecurity, but added that he was hopeful the relationship between the two was becoming clear.
"I think people are beginning to realize that you can't have pockets of prosperity in one part of the world and huge deserts of poverty and deprivation and think that you can have a stable and secure world," he said.
The former head of South Africa's Anglican church is an advocate of reconciliation, and he often speaks out against violence and is a frequent critic of human rights abusers.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/16/talkasia.tutu/index.html

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Ron Paul almost had me as I did like his foreign policy with regard to stopping U.S. dollars to Israel, our country has too much desperate need of it's own. I dislike his racist views.
I do agree with omitting anyone for a theocracy i.e. Huckabee as this, IMO, would be the down fall of America.
I am for getting rid of any neo-con and special (big $) interest involvement in Government.
Health care and education are big ticket items for me.
Bringing our troops home is a must, we need to definitely work on changing our current image and return to what made American Great.
I do like OBAMA as I think he represents at least a chance for Change. I don't not agree with all that he says but all that he represents.

This video, with Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu, represents what will be the deciding factor into my cast ballot.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=&affil=wmbb



HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- The global "war on terror" can't be won if people are living in "desperate" conditions, Archbishop Desmond Tutu told CNN.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu says "war on terror" will be thwarted by poverty, disease and ignorance.

"You can never win a war against terror as long as there are conditions in the world that make people desperate -- poverty, disease, ignorance, et cetera," the Nobel laureate said.
Tutu is in Hong Kong, where he is due to give a lecture on conflict resolution, reconciliation and forgiveness.
He said the disparity between the rich and poor in parts of the world causes instability and insecurity, but added that he was hopeful the relationship between the two was becoming clear.
"I think people are beginning to realize that you can't have pockets of prosperity in one part of the world and huge deserts of poverty and deprivation and think that you can have a stable and secure world," he said.
The former head of South Africa's Anglican church is an advocate of reconciliation, and he often speaks out against violence and is a frequent critic of human rights abusers.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/09/16/talkasia.tutu/index.html

Ron Paul isn't a racist. His newsletter contained some things that were, but they were ghost written by Lew Rockwell, an old friend of Paul's, and Paul is too loyal to disavow him. If Paul had a chance, it would matter.

I think you should go with Obama, as you seem to agree with him on the issues. I like the man myself, but I don't like any of his policies so far.

IMHO Archbishop Tutu is wrong about having to end world "poverty, ignorance and disease" -- the usual liberal whipping boys for everything that's wrong in the world -- before we can defeat the Islamist threat. We (humanity that is, not Uncle Sam) can and should try to end them of course, but leftist means will not be effective and it will be a very long term project, much longer than defeating the Islamists. What will work to end them? Only one thing: free markets, property rights and the rule of law, established in every country that wants to move out of Third World status. Or so Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto argues, and I find his case convincing.

 

[jiminpa]

If you think that including the rich in tax cuts is wrong, then quit pretending to be a conservative, register Democrat, and vote for the most tyrannical Marxist out there, (McCain). The "rich" are even more overtaxed than the rest of us, and Bush's cuts were across the board, (that means everyone benefited). "Tax cuts for the rich," is a half-truth slogan to exacerbate the class envy that the Marxist party relies on so heavily. If you bought into it, please go all the way, and just sign over your whole income to them, and hope that your masters see fit to give you back enough to almost feed yourself.

And so you know, I am not among the rich. I work my rear off and fall below the poverty line, but I can't morally have a vendetta against those who have done better than I, and I refuse to feel good about the government persecuting them for their achievement. Wrong is wrong whether I am rich or poor, and it is always wrong to take someone's earnings by force to hand over to the lazy. It is good for those with more than they need to voluntarily give to those with less, but the government violates the constitution and God's laws, to just take what someone earned and call it charity, especially since it really only serves to enslave the recipient.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

If you think that including the rich in tax cuts is wrong, then quit pretending to be a conservative, register Democrat, and vote for the most tyrannical Marxist out there, (McCain). The "rich" are even more overtaxed than the rest of us, and Bush's cuts were across the board, (that means everyone benefited). "Tax cuts for the rich," is a half-truth slogan to exacerbate the class envy that the Marxist party relies on so heavily. If you bought into it, please go all the way, and just sign over your whole income to them, and hope that your masters see fit to give you back enough to almost feed yourself.

And so you know, I am not among the rich. I work my rear off and fall below the poverty line, but I can't morally have a vendetta against those who have done better than I, and I refuse to feel good about the government persecuting them for their achievement. Wrong is wrong whether I am rich or poor, and it is always wrong to take someone's earnings by force to hand over to the lazy. It is good for those with more than they need to voluntarily give to those with less, but the government violates the constitution and God's laws, to just take what someone earned and call it charity, especially since it really only serves to enslave the recipient.

Jim,

I just went back and read through this thread. I didn't see anybody mention that they opposed the Bush tax cuts. I'm for them myself, but I imagine one or two who've posted in thread are against them, but they didn't specifically say so. That being the case...

 

[Micah68]

Ron Paul isn't a racist. His newsletter contained some things that were, but they were ghost written by Lew Rockwell, an old friend of Paul's, and Paul is too loyal to disavow him. If Paul had a chance, it would matter.

I think you should go with Obama, as you seem to agree with him on the issues. I like the man myself, but I don't like any of his policies so far.

IMHO Archbishop Tutu is wrong about having to end world "poverty, ignorance and disease" -- the usual liberal whipping boys for everything that's wrong in the world -- before we can defeat the Islamist threat. We (humanity that is, not Uncle Sam) can and should try to end them of course, but leftist means will not be effective and it will be a very long term project, much longer than defeating the Islamists. What will work to end them? Only one thing: free markets, property rights and the rule of law, established in every country that wants to move out of Third World status. Or so Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto argues, and I find his case convincing.

Other than Christ coming back, what would be better than ending "poverty, ignorance and disease". We all know what ignorance breeds, a classic example is the number of prisoners in our prison system.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Other than Christ coming back, what would be better than ending "poverty, ignorance and disease". We all know what ignorance breeds, a classic example is the number of prisoners in our prison system.

I agree: that would be a wonderful thing! I was just commenting on what means I thought would be effective toward that end.

Btw, I got to hear Scot McKnight speak at a local church. He was terrific!

 

[jiminpa]

Jim,

I just went back and read through this thread. I didn't see anybody mention that they opposed the Bush tax cuts. I'm for them myself, but I imagine one or two who've posted in thread are against them, but they didn't specifically say so. That being the case...

oops, I must have had another thread on my mind, sorry.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland

Watch out for these "Super Delegates"! If the popular vote is for one candidate and most of these delegates are for this person, these "Super Delegates" can change the vote to another because they what is best for the government and country. A brief link....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates

There was a super piece on a online video with MSNBC news last week. Something to think about...remember what happened between Kerry & Bush?

In Him, david.

PS..If the above link does not work go google.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

From Finland

Watch out for these "Super Delegates"! If the popular vote is for one candidate and most of these delegates are for this person, these "Super Delegates" can change the vote to another because they what is best for the government and country. A brief link....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdelegates

There was a super piece on a online video with MSNBC news last week. Something to think about...remember what happened between Kerry & Bush?

In Him, david.

PS..If the above link does not work go google.

Super Delegates is a Democratic Party thing. Republicans don't have them.

If their Super Delegates don't go along with the choice of the regular delegates, it could be big trouble for the party.

 

[Holten]

The split between voters and 'leaders' isn't just Evangelicals... it is the entire "conservative" element of the Republican Party.

The question keeps getting asked "How did this happen?" regarding McCain seemingly going to be the GOP candidate. Well, I do believe the way it happened is the voters voted.

Whatever people are basing their decision on, it apparently is NOT some of the traditional "conservative" issues.

I happen to believe that very many people are wanting to get as far away from the Bush presidency as they can. I don't know if it will be Hillary or Obama... but I don't think McCain has a chance. And, honestly, I sort of feel sorry for him. He's wanted to be President a LONG time, and I get the sense he really does want to make the country better. But I don't think it's gonna happen this time around, and given he's already 71, I doubt he'll run in 4 years.

 

[Micah68]

The split between voters and 'leaders' isn't just Evangelicals... it is the entire "conservative" element of the Republican Party.

The question keeps getting asked "How did this happen?" regarding McCain seemingly going to be the GOP candidate. Well, I do believe the way it happened is the voters voted.

Whatever people are basing their decision on, it apparently is NOT some of the traditional "conservative" issues.

I happen to believe that very many people are wanting to get as far away from the Bush presidency as they can. I don't know if it will be Hillary or Obama... but I don't think McCain has a chance. And, honestly, I sort of feel sorry for him. He's wanted to be President a LONG time, and I get the sense he really does want to make the country better. But I don't think it's gonna happen this time around, and given he's already 71, I doubt he'll run in 4 years.

What are, todays, traditional conservative issues?