Very well said Jim. I think this was a big advantage McCain had over Romney. Republicans may not agree with McCain on everything, but you know where he stands and he doesn't take positions based on popularity.

Posted by: Eric | February 7, 2008 6:36 PM

I think Mitt Romney is a very competent business man and leader. I think his speech today illustrates how dignified and classy he is as a man. As far as his flip-flops, McCain and Hillary are both guilty of that. And for whatever reason, it did seem that the media took umbridge with Romney, his hair, his family, his religion, and his positions on issues. I think Mitt was given a hard time by the media and his party. John McCain offers more of the same in Washington as does Hillary Clinton. An Obama-Romney contest would have been most desirable. Two men with very different ideas on how to lead this country. Now we've got two establishment candidates (unless Barack can pull us through) who are more alike than not.

Posted by: sojoman | February 7, 2008 7:01 PM

"Romney's problem was not that he was a Mormon, but that he was a Mormon sitting on top of a weather vane changing his positions every time the wind blew in a different direction. He showed no moral compass people could trust, and his candidacy was doomed."

And that is the problem with every other candidate except for Fred Thompson and Ron Paul, and Fred was the only real conservative. At this point there is no difference between Obama, Clinton or Mc Cain. Time for a new conservative party.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 7, 2008 7:39 PM

"At this point there is no difference between Obama, Clinton or McCain."

This is ridiculous. Do you your research.

To the article, I actually agree with it completely. Voters were not persuaded by the arbitrary fanboyism of right wing talk radio directed at Romney.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 8, 2008 1:19 AM

The only people making an issue of Romney's Mormonism was the liberal press asking all the other canidates about it. Yes - I am an evangelical and personally - I do not believe that Mormonism is part of the Christian faith. I have a Mormon friend that agrees as she believes the same. SO WHAT. So you have to congratulate the Old York Times and Company for focusing the attention on religion rathan issues. As for him sitting on a weather vane - can we talk about Bill Clinton who constantly licked his finger to see which way to political wind was blowing so to determine what legislation to sign or not. (and let's not talk about his 'moral cumpass' shall we - hum...)

Because I live in MN - the land of 10,000 taxes thanks to the DFL. My canidate of choice has never made it onto the ticket. (in 2000 - I wanted E. Dole) So it looks like McCain will be the canidate to the Republican Party. If that is the case, he will have my support. I will have to do my part to assure that he keeps his Moral Cumpass. (both public and 'private')

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 8, 2008 8:23 AM

To Paul Quillman: Is being conservative more important to you than having real answers to real problems?

Don, I do not believe that moderates or liberals have answers that will actually answer real problems. Only the Gospel has answers to real problems, and conservatism has more in line with the the Gospel than liberalism, comunism and socialsim.

Paul

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 8, 2008 9:35 AM

conservatism has more in line with the the Gospel than liberalism, comunism and socialsim.

Well, from what I've seen of "conservatism" over the last seven years, it has very little in common with the Gospel.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 8, 2008 10:38 AM

Well as one wiseman has said, whoever turns out to be Prez should consider appointing Romney as Secretary of Lookin' Good :)

Posted by: splinterlog | February 8, 2008 11:43 AM

Almost certainly, if McCain is elected in November he will reward Romney for dropping out this early.

What do you think? Romney as Secretary of Commerce? Maybe Secretary of Treasury?-- altho not sure Romney has the economics training for that position.

Posted by: carl copas | February 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Posted by: squeaky | February 8, 2008 11:58 AM

No way--that's John Edward's job.

Thanks for the chuckle squeaky! I thought the same thing but it would not have been as funny coming from me as it is from you.

Have a great weekend!

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | February 8, 2008 12:10 PM

Funniest thing I've seen posted yet!!!!Thanks Don, R,R,R,,,

Posted by: Doug Sharp | February 8, 2008 12:29 PM

In what ways is conservativism in line with the Gospel and in what ways is liberalism not?

Liberalism, socialism, and comunism all have the same fatal flaw, none of them take into account the prevasiveness of sin and the effets of the fall.
When Adam and Eve sinned, it damaged everything. THe environment, animals, plants, the human body, our hearts and minds, our desires, eonomics, everything. Liberalism, socialism, and communism presuppose the inate goodness of man, which is unBiblical.

Conservatism, on the other hand, exposes our need for the Gospel, rather than minimizing that need. And when conservatism is driven by the Gospel instead of the stereotypical greed, the results trump any of the real damage that liberalism, socialism and communism do the poor.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 8, 2008 5:56 PM

Conservatism, on the other hand, exposes our need for the Gospel, rather than minimizing that need. And when conservatism is driven by the Gospel instead of the stereotypical greed, the results trump any of the real damage that liberalism, socialism and communism do the poor.

All I need to do is to look at the history of the African-American community to refute that statement. For it was a conservative regime in the South that it had to fight just to get the right to vote -- in fact, its primary focus is denying rights and opportunities to the poor and disenfranchised -- in fact, that's precisely why it became so powerful in the 1980s.

Conservatism of that genre is by definition self-absorbed, divisive and arrogant and thus cannot reflect the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it's why African-Americans, even evangelical Christians and pastors, want nothing to do with conservatism (even though the Bush Administration wanted to pay them handsomely to do so through "compassionate conservatism").

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 8, 2008 11:42 PM

And the Democrat party continues to abuse the African American community by letting a few have power, but not too much, amd continuing to push policies that are destructive to the African American community. Liberals have had a couple of generations and what has that brought? More poverty, more dependance on Democrats to deliver on broken promises that they continue to fail to deliver on.

Correction, Paul: The "Great Society" was very effective in raising the economic state of black Americans, especially with job training and college loans and grants. You simply do not have a large middle-class outside the South without it (there always was one in the South, but so many left at the beginning of the last century because of abuses from white Southerners). In fact, on Sunday I watched a program on Sargent Shriver, who oversaw some of these programs, and they actually worked pretty will; Johnson's pursuit of the war in Vietnam sabotaged them. On the other hand, it's the conservatives, who today dominate the GOP who hated those programs and wanted them eliminated because they didn't at all benefit from them. That's the reason so few blacks vote Republican and even fewer are ideologically conservative.

And do you know what really began to cause problems in the 'hood? Frankly, white flight to the suburbs, which was based partially on race and partially on class. That began in the 1950s, before the "Great Society" was implemented. Therefore, the situation you complain about would have happened anyway (and indeed may have been even worse), and conservatives never talk about that.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 9, 2008 8:18 AM

Unfortunately, the church has largely abandoned its role and left its calling to the government. The least and the lost have been abandoned to welfare lines, government handouts, and there are few that remember when the church extended itself as the Gospel demands of the church.

What about MLK Jr.? He was a pastor in Montgomery, Ala. whose rich church was involved in doing all those things that churches should do (as the black church always has). However, that wasn't the problem his parishioners had -- they couldn't vote or participate in civic affairs and, sadly, white, "conservative" churches down there had nothing to say about that. (They even refused to support the bus boycott!)

My point is that the problem was never about "handouts," another way the conservative agenda has distorted the issue (because they can't control the outcome) -- it's about helping the poor to get out of poverty and make their own way. If government means help in that regard I'm all for it.

Rick, I guess you can believe in your distorted view of modern conservatism if you want. However, liberals have kept minorities in line for 50 + years, with broken promises that they have no intention of delivering on.

I'm sorry, buy my analysis of modern conservatism is spot on. Even the conservatives themselves know this, otherwise they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions, possibly even billions, of dollars over the past 40 years on such things as think tanks, lobby groups and media promoting their views -- money that could have spent actually helping the poor. That includes the considerable misinformation you've just mentioned.

If your not so "Great Society" actually worked, why are there more poor than before? Why has poverty not been eradicated? Why, after Katrina, did we find out that New Orleans was in such bad shape even before Katrina. It should be a utopia since liberals have run the state of Louisana and the city of New Orleans for 50 years.

Answer one: The total population has grown. Answer two: Reagan-style conservatism, which made it OK for, as Eldredge Cleaver so aptly said in "Soul on Ice," the wealthy to "calculate how to hide bread from the hungry" -- the reality is that people actually became poorer during the time he or any conservative was in office. Answer three: As in many metro areas, those with means actually moved out of New Orleans for "greener pastures" and contribute virtually nothing to the upkeep of the city.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 9, 2008 3:17 PM

Don: The Gospel isn't dependent on politics

Paul: I never said that the Gospel was dependant on an imperfect human system. I am saying that some systems are better than others , and liberalism, socialism, and communism are far more destructive than modern conservatism.

Rick: Even the conservatives themselves know this, otherwise they wouldn't have spent hundreds of millions, possibly even billions, of dollars over the past 40 years on such things as think tanks, lobby groups and media promoting their views -- money that could have spent actually helping the poor. That includes the considerable misinformation you've just mentioned.

Paul: And liberals have spent the same ammount of money on the same things. BTW, how is it that conservative groups are called lobby groubs, but liberal lobby groups are called "rights groups"? As to the media, liberals have owned most television, radio and print media for the last 50 years. The only reason conservative media is finally getting some recognition is that people are getting tired of the same liberal policies that have a history of failure for the last 50 years. I have never seen any extra money in my bank account that resulted in the rich getting taxed more. In fact, if the rich are taxed more, my business takes a hit, and I have less money to hire people, or put food on my table. Which one of my employees would you fire, or which of my kids will you take food from?

Rick: My point is that the problem was never about "handouts," another way the conservative agenda has distorted the issue (because they can't control the outcome) -- it's about helping the poor to get out of poverty and make their own way. If government means help in that regard I'm all for it.

Paul: Having been on welfare lines before, I can tell you it is a hand out, and the system is easily fooled. Add to that the inherent racism of such a system, and perhaps you might understand why I find no dignity in government welfare. It was indeed about handouts to keep a few powerful politicians in power, and it worked.

Rick: Answer one: The total population has grown. Answer two: Reagan-style conservatism, which made it OK for, as Eldredge Cleaver so aptly said in "Soul on Ice," the wealthy to "calculate how to hide bread from the hungry" -- the reality is that people actually became poorer during the time he or any conservative was in office. Answer three: As in many metro areas, those with means actually moved out of New Orleans for "greener pastures" and contribute virtually nothing to the upkeep of the city.

Paul: Since the population grew, then the relief should have grown in proportion. If you want the wealthy to give bread, stop stealing from them at the point of a gun, and start giving them insentives to give the money to private orginazations that do feed those who are hungry. Yes they will do it for the tax break, but so what? The money gets to the people that need it. Let God deal with their motives and heart.
As for moving out of the city, did they have any insentive to stay in the city?

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 9, 2008 5:58 PM

Rick: Having seen the effects, some of them indirect, of modern conservatism on my academic and professional life, I beg to differ.

Paul: Having actually lived some of the effects of modern liberalism, and socialism (I was on welfare for a time) I beg to differ with you. The system is, by design, racist and classist. Sorry, but when you are told you will probably not qualify for welfare because you are white, you might have a different prespective. When you spend a couple of house gathering together the required documentation, getting the boss to sign off on forms, and dealing with the humiliation that comes with that, and then the ase worker spends 2 hours going over your paper work, when they only spend 10 minutes with someone else who fist a different profile, and you are told the disparity is due to race, you might think differently.

Rick: "Liberal" lobby groups are called rights groups in large part because they do fight for people's cosntitutional rights.

Paul: Interesting. When was the last time the ACLU actually supported the Constitution? When I compare their positions with the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, there seems to be a right side, and a wrong one. The Constitution and the Federalist Papers end up on the right. I'll let you guess where the ACLU falls.

The ACLJ does a far better job defending the Constitutional rights of the citizenry.

Rick: Conservative groups, on the other hand, fight against them because of their own basic selfishness -- they want everyone to answer to them.

Paul: The ACLJ comes to mind as an orginazation that is not only Conservative, but fights for Constitutional rights. They usually fight the religious tyranny of the ACLU.

Rick: Ask any conservative how he/she feels about the NAACP, which helped to break the back of Jim Crow in the South -- most of them HATE it.

Paul: Funny, I know several African Americans who despise the NAACP. One guy I know would prefer the Jim Crow laws to the NAACP. Another guy views the NAACP as a bunch of Uncle Tom's, and a third, well, I can not quote what he says in polit conversation. Personally, I disagree with many of their policy positions, but they have as much right as any other group to make their case. The men I mentioned above disagree with me on that point. They believe that the NAACP is a rogue orginazation that should be shut down. Mind you, these are all African Americans who hold the harsher view than I do.

Paul: Since the population grew, then the relief should have grown in proportion.

Rik: You're right -- but the right wanted and had it cut.

Paul:As for moving out of the city, did they have any insentive to stay in the city?

Rick: That's not the point. The truth was, they didn't want to be in the same area with the poor and especially with blacks.

Paul: We are talking about Louisiana, and New Orleans. They are no bastians of conservatism, quite the contrary. Liberals have run that state and city for more than 50 years. And they have a long history of cronyism. I have clients from there that left because they got tired of one scandal after another. THey also got tired of being taxed to kingdom come. They left for greener pastures, because they had no reason to stay. If the government you live under is taking a large sum of your money, and you can move to live under a government that takes far less of your money in taxes, what are you going to do? The population grew, the taxes grew, the insentive to stay for those who could leave went down. We live in a country that allows freedom of movement. Do the math. Give people an insentive to stay, and you might have a different picture. Stop allowing the government to steal from them at the point of a gun and you might find that more of the wealthy are willing to stay. Sure, some will move anyway. Some for racial and classist reasons. Some because they do not like the urban environment, and prefer a suburban, or country environment. I know many conservatives who love urban settings. I know plenty of liberals who love suburban settings.

Again, if you want the rich to engage the poor, give them a reason to. For the rich that are believers, preach the Gospel to them. The expantion of ther Kingdom should be enough incentive to do so. For the non believers, give them tax breaks. Money is their motivator, so give them the motivation. Stop demanding that the government steal it at the point of a gun, that's not charity, it's welfare, and breaking the 8th commandment.

You might find the site www.freebooks.com helpful. There are several books that can be downloaded for free. The site allows you to have titles listed by subject. Look under the heading economics, and start with everything by Dr. George Grant.

Paul

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 10, 2008 3:47 PM

Rick: I, too, was on welfare for a brief period. However, this was during a time when I couldn't find a job for over a year -- in 1983-84 -- and when I did find one it was part-time in a grocery store. And I found that only through the local Job Service. I didn't have the skills or the contacts to get anything else.

Paul: I am a college dropout. I went through a string of bad jobs, and company reorganizations, until I ended up cleaning houses for another company. I left that company and tried it on myt own. I have no real marketable skills, but I can clean toilets. Being male, it is a much harder road than if I were female. THe preeption is that men can't and don't clean. My wife had to work, I have worked 2nd and 3rd jobs, just to make ends meet. The job services from the government were nearly non existant, so I went out on my own. I had already tried unemployment, and it was a joke.

Rick: Those people you talk to think it should be more radical than it has been -- it was always geared toward the bourgeoisie, who were the original foot-soldiers in the civil-rights movement -- and that's a conversation that goes on even to this day in the African-American community.

Paul: Actually, they think it is far too radical. One guy left the civil rights movement when he got tired of what he precieved as unnecessary violence.

Rick: This does not mean, however, that they're conservative; indeed, likely far from it.

Paul: All of them are conservatives, and irritated that GWB turned out to be moderate to liberal, instead of moderate to conservative.

Rick: But that's beside the point, because conservatives resent any voice it can't control, which is why it took GWB a number of years even to visit its convention -- it doesn't take any right-wing guff.

Paul: Um, your charicture of conservatives is way off base. I do not know a single conservative that wants to control everything. They just want the government of everybodies back, so that we can actually have equality of oppertunity. Personally, I was a bit more miffed that Bush went to Bob Jones than going to the NAACP. But that is because I have a great many theological issues with Bob Jones (modern fundamentalism is anti-intellectual, and I am conservative Presbyterian/ historic evangellical. Perhaps you can see the problems I have with BJU?), and my issues with the NAACP are more political than theological. You would also find that I am far more likely to have lunch with Unfume (I hope I spelled that right) than a theology professor at BJU.

Rick: This is well beyond "charity"; we're talking about justice -- actually rejiggering the political and economic system so that folks can have a chance to earn their own way -- why don't you on the right get this?

Paul: Because hyphonated justice (economic justice, environmental justice, racial justice, ect) has always been just another means of liberals pushing classism. Injustice is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. All liberals seem to want to do is treat symptoms, and not deal with the root issue; sin. Do you want racial recconsiliation? Preach the Gospel. You want less economic disparity, stop creating reasons for people to stop investing , and give them reasons to invest, while you preach the Gospel.

Rick: You've heard the proverb "Give a man a fish, he eats today; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Well, John Perkins had a corollary to that -- "Give me a chance to own part of the riverbank." And THAT'S what conservatives want the least because they want to control everything -- and that breaks the First Commandment.

Paul: Um, what's wrong with someone owning the riverbank, and allowing someone to fish, and split the profits? Did it occur to you that perhaps the fisherman mught be ableto save enough to own a part of the riverbank as well? Or he could go to a different riverbank? I do not get it. Every conservative I know wants the government to back off, and let people have some actual freedom to go and work some fish banks, so that they an save up to buy a part of the fish bank? However, liberalism, socialism, and communism place such restrictions and taxes on owning a bit of the fish bank, it keeps the guy at the bottom from ever getting up enough money in savings to be able to afford a piece of the bank. And if someone is lucky enough to make it, then there are more restrictions and taxes ascociated with working the fish bank. In the end, these taxes are on the guys at the bottom of the totem pole. The restrictions keep the guy at the bottom from ever getting to the top. So who really is into control here? BTW, if you could explain how this is related to idolitry, I would appreciate it.

Posted by: Paul C. Quillman | February 10, 2008 7:29 PM