Where have all the ethics gone?

[Macrina]

He has most conservitive past, why some like to see him run.

Oh, I understand why some in his own party would like to see him run. But he's not someone who can capture the swing vote. Having him lead the Republican ticket would be a boon to the Democrats. (In the same way, I don't think the Democrats would be wise to run Clinton, since I don't think she has wide swing-vote appeal, either. It goes both ways -- a moderate just has a better chance of getting elected and thus getting the party into the White House).

 

[AWorkInProgress]

Oh, I understand why some in his own party would like to see him run. But he's not someone who can capture the swing vote. Having him lead the Republican ticket would be a boon to the Democrats. (In the same way, I don't think the Democrats would be wise to run Clinton, since I don't think she has wide swing-vote appeal, either. It goes both ways -- a moderate just has a better chance of getting elected and thus getting the party into the White House).

hehe just saying what I heard. Newt might be conservitive but not really had execitive experience so really dont see that happening. Personally I take Guiliani or Jeb Bush. Both shown excellent skills as exectives even under pressure. just my opinion anyways.

I hope Hilary does get shut out and we be done with the Clintons, they are dangerous bunch. Kinda feel sorry for Oboma for he is in the way of Clinton inc.

 

[Nadiine]

Because sexual sins only matter if you're gay, silly.

O PLEEEEEEEEEEAZ :{
to the op:
Stop & think about it... what other candidate CAN they embrace? I'm not much happy with any of them (on EITHER side)-

Newt's issue w/ wife #2 is LONG past over... & I have yet to figure out why people keep rehashing 15 yrs ago. How many people have had multiple spouses? lots. But I wasn't aware that Newt was a self proclaiming Christian?
I don't give sin a pass (even in my own life, I strive to call it what it is & work to stop it), but Newt is a conservative and stands for what this country USED to be.
Conservatism isn't sinlessness and not all republicans are conservative (namely socially) OR Christian!

What I find more interesting is that [libral] people attack us [conservative] Christians for "judging people", then attack us when we embrace people who sin!
IE. YOU'RE ALWAYS WRONG no matter which side you take, no matter what you do.
That's a fact & that's why I don't bother compromising to suit our accusers. You can never please them and I refuse to gravel for their favor.

 

[Macrina]

O PLEEEEEEEEEEAZ :{
to the op:
Stop & think about it... what other candidate CAN they embrace? I'm not much happy with any of them (on EITHER side)-

Newt's issue w/ wife #2 is LONG past over... & I have yet to figure out why people keep rehashing 15 yrs ago. How many people have had multiple spouses? lots. But I wasn't aware that Newt was a self proclaiming Christian?
I don't give sin a pass (even in my own life, I strive to call it what it is & work to stop it), but Newt is a conservative and stands for what this country USED to be.
Conservatism isn't sinlessness and not all republicans are conservative (namely socially) OR Christian!

What I find more interesting is that [libral] people attack us [conservative] Christians for "judging people", then attack us when we embrace people who sin!
IE. YOU'RE ALWAYS WRONG no matter which side you take, no matter what you do.
That's a fact & that's why I don't bother compromising to suit our accusers. You can never please them and I refuse to gravel for their favor.

Of course I can't speak for the OP, but here are my thoughts: People are aware of perceived hypocrisy. The Republican party gains much of its ground through proclaiming family values and disparaging the morals of Democrats; to find a leading Republican with significant problems in these areas discredits that aspect of the party's platform. It goes both ways, too -- the Democrats gain much of their base through the idea that they work on behalf of the disadvantaged against money-hungry powers; some of the shine of that position wears off when the public realizes that the candidate in question is quite wealthy and privileged (e.g. John Kerry). I think the further a candidate and his or her party puhes a certain value toward center stage, the more likely it is that people will be disturbed by discrepancies in his or her personal life -- Newt is a great example of this.

 

[AWorkInProgress]

Of course I can't speak for the OP, but here are my thoughts: People are aware of perceived hypocrisy. The Republican party gains much of its ground through proclaiming family values and disparaging the morals of Democrats; to find a leading Republican with significant problems in these areas discredits that aspect of the party's platform. It goes both ways, too -- the Democrats gain much of their base through the idea that they work on behalf of the disadvantaged against money-hungry powers; some of the shine of that position wears off when the public realizes that the candidate in question is quite wealthy and privileged (e.g. John Kerry). I think the further a candidate and his or her party puhes a certain value toward center stage, the more likely it is that people will be disturbed by discrepancies in his or her personal life -- Newt is a great example of this.

Totally agree.

Why it always seems like voting lesser of two evils lol

 

[Nadiine]

Of course I can't speak for the OP, but here are my thoughts: People are aware of perceived hypocrisy. The Republican party gains much of its ground through proclaiming family values and disparaging the morals of Democrats; to find a leading Republican with significant problems in these areas discredits that aspect of the party's platform. It goes both ways, too -- the Democrats gain much of their base through the idea that they work on behalf of the disadvantaged against money-hungry powers; some of the shine of that position wears off when the public realizes that the candidate in question is quite wealthy and privileged (e.g. John Kerry). I think the further a candidate and his or her party puhes a certain value toward center stage, the more likely it is that people will be disturbed by discrepancies in his or her personal life -- Newt is a great example of this.

K, Newt didn't LIE to a grand jury about his involvment w/ adultery. There's a big difference there.
HE APOLOGIZED & STEPPED DOWN from his position. Yet we all seem to ignore that for some reason?? How many years does he have to have this held against him?

(when do we let it go & stop condemning him for his past?). Lots of people demand that we're to forgive others, are we actually doing it ourselves?

And again, not all republicans ARE conservative - many are more socially moderate. Conservative also doesn't mean "sinless".
People have lumped all republicans into being 'christian conservatives', & it's false. We also cant' expect non Christians NOT to sin, can we?
We dont judge the lost for their sin, just politicians?

It's still a fact that the liberals will ALWAYS find fault in conservatives - either we're "self righteous, judgmental puritans, or we're hypocritical liars.
We're bad & wrong for pushing morality on everyone, or we're bad & wrong for being immoral as republicans - as if only democrats own the market on condoning lower standards! lol Only THEY can be immoral hypocrites.
Either way, it's -darned if you do, darned if you don't.
It's just a fact.

I don't support sin - not mine, not anyone elses, but honestly, none of the candidates on either side impress me for different reasons.
Imo, it boils down to voting for a lesser of the dangerous... and Newt may very well be the lesser in this election - adultery may be a minor issue compared to what we have to select from.
I'll wait & see who our choices will be.

 

[Macrina]

K, Newt didn't LIE to a grand jury about his involvment w/ adultery. There's a big difference there.
HE APOLOGIZED & STEPPED DOWN from his position. Yet we all seem to ignore that for some reason?? How many years does he have to have this held against him?

(when do we let it go & stop condemning him for his past?). Lots of people demand that we're to forgive others, are we actually doing it ourselves?

And again, not all republicans ARE conservative - many are more socially moderate. Conservative also doesn't mean "sinless".
People have lumped all republicans into being 'christian conservatives', & it's false. We also cant' expect non Christians NOT to sin, can we?
We dont judge the lost for their sin, just politicians?

It's still a fact that the liberals will ALWAYS find fault in conservatives - either we're "self righteous, judgmental puritans, or we're hypocritical liars.
We're bad & wrong for pushing morality on everyone, or we're bad & wrong for being immoral as republicans - as if only democrats own the market on condoning lower standards! lol Only THEY can be immoral hypocrites.
Either way, it's -darned if you do, darned if you don't.
It's just a fact.

I don't support sin - not mine, not anyone elses, but honestly, none of the candidates on either side impress me for different reasons.
Imo, it boils down to voting for a lesser of the dangerous... and Newt may very well be the lesser in this election - adultery may be a minor issue compared to what we have to select from.
I'll wait & see who our choices will be.

Whoah, no need to go all CAPS on me, Nadiine. I'm not trying to put you on the defensive. My post was deliberately even-handed, acknowledging discrepancies within both major parties. Furthermore, I distinguished between what the popular sentiment is about a political party and what a particular candidate emphasizes. You had expressed bewilderment at why people jump on situations like this one -- I tried to explain by saying that when an individual doesn't fit with one of the common perceptions of his or her political party, it tends to draw fire from the opposite side. I know perfectly well that Republicans stand for more than "family values" and Democrats stand for more than "lifting up the disadvantaged," but these are popular perceptions -- and popular perception is the currency of the political marketplace. I didn't say anything about grand juries, lying, or lumping all Republicans together as Christian conservatives. I talked about a political party's strategy to try to win the swing vote, not whether or not that party or its candidate should win. Please don't take it so personally when I am merely trying to reflect on a cultural phenomenon that applies across party lines.

 

[Nadiine]

Whoah, no need to go all CAPS on me, Nadiine. I'm not trying to put you on the defensive. My post was deliberately even-handed, acknowledging discrepancies within both major parties. Furthermore, I distinguished between what the popular sentiment is about a political party and what a particular candidate emphasizes. You had expressed bewilderment at why people jump on situations like this one -- I tried to explain by saying that when an individual doesn't fit with one of the common perceptions of his or her political party, it tends to draw fire from the opposite side. I know perfectly well that Republicans stand for more than "family values" and Democrats stand for more than "lifting up the disadvantaged," but these are popular perceptions -- and popular perception is the currency of the political marketplace. I didn't say anything about grand juries, lying, or lumping all Republicans together as Christian conservatives. I talked about a political party's strategy to try to win the swing vote, not whether or not that party or its candidate should win. Please don't take it so personally when I am merely trying to reflect on a cultural phenomenon that applies across party lines.

K, first of all Macrina, I "go all caps" all the time! lol It's the way I post, it's mainly in emphasis of what I think is important.
I didn't take your post personal at all - I went straight to issues & kept it non personal and generalized.

The lying to a grand jury was generalizing to the OP who complained of the adultery against "wife #2". He had apologized for his behaviour as I remember back then.

I agree, this goes across party lines - many of them do it... and many are never caught & exposed for it either.

Sorry my post came across that way - it's just my debate style - I actually thought it was toned down! lol.

 

[Chie]

K, first of all Macrina, I "go all caps" all the time! lol It's the way I post, it's mainly in emphasis of what I think is important.
I didn't take your post personal at all - I went straight to issues & kept it non personal and generalized.

The lying to a grand jury was generalizing to the OP who complained of the adultery against "wife #2". He had apologized for his behaviour as I remember back then.

I agree, this goes across party lines - many of them do it... and many are never caught & exposed for it either.

Sorry my post came across that way - it's just my debate style - I actually thought it was toned down! lol.

hehehee ..........some people thinks caps is used for YELLING. oh btw any news on BRITTENY lately LOLOL

 

[Nadiine]

hehehee ..........some people thinks caps is used for YELLING. oh btw any news on BRITTENY lately LOLOL

Actually, I do have some! LOL

 

[Macrina]

K, first of all Macrina, I "go all caps" all the time! lol It's the way I post, it's mainly in emphasis of what I think is important.
I didn't take your post personal at all - I went straight to issues & kept it non personal and generalized.

The lying to a grand jury was generalizing to the OP who complained of the adultery against "wife #2". He had apologized for his behaviour as I remember back then.

I agree, this goes across party lines - many of them do it... and many are never caught & exposed for it either.

Sorry my post came across that way - it's just my debate style - I actually thought it was toned down! lol.

Yes, in cyberspeak, CAPS is considered shouting (and lots of formatting doesn't come across well, either). And usually when you quote someone, it's assumed that the following post is in response to what that person said. Just so you know how it comes across. Anyway, I'm not trying to debate, no matter what style you use. I'm just discussing an interesting phenomenon.

 

[Chie]

Actually, I do have some! LOL

gotta love me cause CAUSE JESUS SAYS SO!!!

 

[bliz]

Newt's issue w/ wife #2 is LONG past over... & I have yet to figure out why people keep rehashing 15 yrs ago. How many people have had multiple spouses? lots. But I wasn't aware that Newt was a self proclaiming Christian?

Well, since it was so long in the past, I'm sure none of it matters any more to wife #1 and their children.

Lots of people have multiple spouses, but not all of them cheat on the current spouse or fail to meet their obligatons to their children and former spouses. And self proclaiming Christians (Dobson and Falwell) do not off them their pulpits.

K, Newt didn't LIE to a grand jury about his involvment w/ adultery. There's a big difference there.
HE APOLOGIZED & STEPPED DOWN from his position. Yet we all seem to ignore that for some reason?? How many years does he have to have this held against him?

This is the standard? Newt didn't do what Clinton did, so it's OK? How long will these issues be brought up? As long as wants to run claiming that family values matter.

Newt is not my big concern. Dobson is! Dobson has the ear of the Christian community and he uses it to white wash this guy who only gives the more rudamentry confession.

(when do we let it go & stop condemning him for his past?). Lots of people demand that we're to forgive others, are we actually doing it ourselves?

Forgivness is not the issue. Trusting is. I can forgive the man and still think that a serial adulterer makes for a bad lader.

I

t's still a fact that the liberals will ALWAYS find fault in conservatives -

BTW, I'm a registered republican.

I don't support sin - not mine, not anyone elses, but honestly, none of the candidates on either side impress me for different reasons.

But 2 Christians leaders are choosing to promote the guy. That's my concern. One used ministry dollars to give the man air time!

 

[Macrina]

Newt is not my big concern. Dobson is! Dobson has the ear of the Christian community and he uses it to white wash this guy who only gives the more rudamentry confession.

I heard a show on NPR the other day that was specifically talking about Dobson's political power. I didn't realize what a gatekeeper he is for the Republican party. Apparently he wields a great deal of influence.

So was your impression that he was putting his support behind Newt, or just that he was being favorable?

 

[LadyGarnetRose]

The problem is, Technically Clinton didn't lie. He was asked a bad question, and as a good lawyer he answered it exactly as it was asked. While it was misleading, he did not lie within the scope of the question asked.

Which is why he was aquited. He did appologize as well for misleading the American people and for his faults in his private life but people tend to forget this.

People are "upset" about Rudy Gulianni's "Moral stance" and why hasn't Rudy appologized? Because he never stood up and ranted and raved about Family Values the way Newt has. Clinton didn't do that either now that I think about it.

Rudy has never stood up to be anything other than what he is, all his faults out for the public to see no holds barred. "Scandal" was always met with "yeah and?" Instead of trying to appologize years later.

While we are to forgive those their trespasses, are we also supposed to forget? Are we to forget him expousing how much Family Values he has and how he stands for Family Values...yet had none of his own? Plus he hadn't owned up to it until there might be a slot for him as a Presidental Candidate?

 

[bliz]

I heard a show on NPR the other day that was specifically talking about Dobson's political power. I didn't realize what a gatekeeper he is for the Republican party. Apparently he wields a great deal of influence.

So was your impression that he was putting his support behind Newt, or just that he was being favorable?

If we see him having friendly chats with other candidates or would-be candidates, then he ws only being favorable. But I am saddened all the same. I have no illusions about there being perfect candidates, but to promote one whose life flies in the face of family values.

 

[The-Doctor]

We're currently out of ethics.

If you come back in a couple of days, we should have a new shipment in and will have had time to restock our shelves.

Darn, I came in specially to get some too!

 

[Nadiine]

If we see him having friendly chats with other candidates or would-be candidates, then he ws only being favorable. But I am saddened all the same. I have no illusions about there being perfect candidates, but to promote one whose life flies in the face of family values.

Well, what other candidates are there? Gulliani is OUT lol (no comments), Romney is out (he's Mormon)... McCain? I'm not sure on all his moral stances or background other than being a POW (I'm not much into him as a candidate for certain reasons)...
who else?

There's rumor that Fred Thompson may run for office - I'd vote for him! for sure. (I kinda hope he doesn't run, he's got such a good reputation, I wish NO ONE this job of presidency in a world like we have).

 

[Macrina]

Well, what other candidates are there? Gulliani is OUT lol (no comments), Romney is out (he's Mormon)... McCain? I'm not sure on all his moral stances or background other than being a POW (I'm not much into him as a candidate for certain reasons)...
who else?

There's rumor that Fred Thompson may run for office - I'd vote for him! for sure. (I kinda hope he doesn't run, he's got such a good reputation, I wish NO ONE this job of presidency in a world like we have).

Tangent here: In terms of electability, I think McCain is the most likely Republican to defeat whomever the Democrats nominate; he has quite a following among moderates.


Sorry for the derail, there, Bliz -- I've been listening to too much talk radio.

 

[Macrina]

If we see him having friendly chats with other candidates or would-be candidates, then he ws only being favorable. But I am saddened all the same. I have no illusions about there being perfect candidates, but to promote one whose life flies in the face of family values.

That troubles me, too. I would have thought that a conservative Christian interviewer would touch on some of those issues. Not that I think a candidate's personal life is the be-all and end-all, but just that it seems like it would be of obvious interest on an ostensibly Christian show.