Republicans Prepare for Gubernatorial Primary
- Thursday, May 7, 2009, 4:03
- Iowa, Top Story
- 1,038 views
- 72 comments
Recent polls show that a majority of Iowans think that the state of Iowa is headed in the wrong direction. Governor Culver’s approval rating is at its lowest level since he was elected (42%). One would think that a number of Republicans would be clamoring for the opportunity to take on Culver in 2010. Yet, on this 7th day of May, Iowa Republicans still lack an announced candidate to run against Governor Culver.
The situation couldn’t be more different from four years ago when then-Governor Tom Vilsack chose not to seek re-election after serving two terms. Back then, Congressman Jim Nussle began laying the groundwork for his campaign right after the 2004 elections were over. Some would even argue that the preparation began long before that, and I don’t think many would argue with that point of view.
In late January and early February, a number of Republicans announced that they were interested in running against Culver. The 2006 Republican nominee for Lt. Governor, Bob Vander Plaats was the first throw his hat into the ring. Vander Plaats has been actively campaigning and raising money for his likely campaign, but he still states that he is only testing the waters.
The other people who showed an interest were Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, State Auditor Dave Vaudt, State Representative Rod Roberts, businessman Bruce Rastetter, Congressman Steve King , and State Representative Christopher Rants.
Rastetter and Roberts have been quiet since their initial intimations of running against Culver. Northey, Vaudt, and King have all recently backed away from their earlier statements that they were looking at a possible run against Culver. Northey told Mike Glover of the Associated Press yesterday that he is inclined to see re-election to his current office, and Vaudt said a decision would be coming soon, but seemed to indicate that he was leaning against a gubernatorial run.
Outside of Vander Plaats, the only other potential candidate making early moves that might indicate an actual gubernatorial campaign is imminent is Christopher Rants. In the ten days following the end of the legislative session, Rants has visited Davenport, Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Council Bluffs, and Sioux City.
With Culver’s poor poll numbers and an issue environment that favors Republicans, you would expect to see more than just the two likely candidates of Vander Plaats and Rants. What is preventing other candidates from wanting to take on Governor Culver?
It is likely that the emergence of gay marriage in Iowa has narrowed the potential field of Republican gubernatorial candidates. It’s not that these potential candidates support the Supreme Court’s decision, but it’s an issue that some would probably prefer not to have to deal with. Both Vander Plaats and Rants have been vocal leaders in gay marriage debate. Their actions give them both credibility with Republican primary voters. Other candidates would need to deal with the issue the minute they announce their campaign, and with that being the case, a misstep could prove to be deadly in the primary.
A candidate from the business community or a candidate that hadn’t previously weighed in on the marriage debate may find the primary more difficult to navigate than it would have been if the Court’s decision had been different. This may be the reason why, out of nowhere, we have seen some long-time GOP powerbrokers like Dave Roederer and Doug Gross warning Iowa Republicans that the focus cannot be on the issue of gay marriage if we want to win elections.
Last Friday, at the press conference where the results of the Iowa First Foundation poll were released to the media, Doug Gross said, “I can’t remember any time in the last half dozen years where the issue agenda was more favorable to Republicans, but at the same time, we have this negative branding we have to deal with. We need candidates who are committed to reform, committed to accountability, committed to transparency, and who will listen to people, not be exclusionary. If we have those kinds of candidates we will see those brand numbers change.”
Gross has not been shy about his belief that the fiscal issues create an agenda which will unite the Republican Party. Many, if not most, Republicans probably agree with that. The only problem is that the issue of gay marriage has been thrust to the forefront in Iowa by the Court’s decision. Ignoring the issue or trying to diminish its importance is simply not an option.
With only 397 days until the primary, it is likely that the gubernatorial primary will be between Vander Plaats, Rants, and maybe one other candidate. While it is true that there is plenty of time for candidates to emerge, the clock is ticking. It takes time to organize people and raise the huge amounts of money needed to run statewide campaigns.
With the legislative session over, we have seen Rep. Christopher Rants begin to lay some ground work for a potential campaign. We have also seen people like Dave Roederer and Doug Gross try and shift the focus from marriage back to the fiscal issues. These are the calculated moves that indicate someone may be throwing their hat into the ring in Rants’ case, and for people like Roederer and Gross, it’s an indication that they are probably having difficulty recruiting a candidate of their liking.
Primaries can be a healthy exercise for political parties to have. If done correctly, they can help the party grow and get organized for the general election. The Republican gubernatorial primary is about to begin. Instead of relying on certain polls and political calculations to determine what the party should stand for and focus on, we should be patient and let the people decide. After they have spoken, we need to accept their verdict and get to work on ousting Governor Culver. If we are successful, it will be the first time since 1962 that a sitting Iowa Governor was voted out of office.
Let’s make history!
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 454 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
72 Comments on “Republicans Prepare for Gubernatorial Primary”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
King would be my personal choice. This is an extremely hardworking man and he has the potential to get this state back on track. He has a clear understanding of economic issues as well as the social issues.
No one articulates issues better than King. He never needs a teleprompter.
A polarizer and with no juice in the metropolitan areas. A sure ticket to another loss. Instead, give Northey a good look. He doesn’t have all the sharp edges King does.
I will vote for any candidate that denounces and rejects Steve Deace…meaning…he or she never goes on his terrible show.
> I will vote for any candidate that denounces and rejects Steve Deace
I don’t agree with Deace much, but I wouldn’t go that far. I think you have to *handle* Steve Deace. We need an alternative Republican viewpoint on the air as well. A moderate voice and viewpoint would be nice.
I Like History
Madison,
If you are thinking about running for Governor on the GOP side it would be dumb not to go on Deace’s show. If you are more of a moderate, it is best to go on his show and face him head-on, otherwise he’ll talk smack and you won’t have an opportunity to defend yourself. Also, you can’t blame Deace for the GOP firing squad. Other “talking heads” went against their own in the GOP primaries. Rush, Coulter, Hannity bashed everyone but Romney, Rudy, and Thompson so what Deace is doing isn’t out of the mainstream of talk-radio. Get used to it.
No, Stacia, you are wrong. There is a huge difference in what Deace does and Rush, Coulter and Hannity.
Deace uses people and God to pump up himself. When Deace gets done using someone, one wonders what was his point. He has no constructive point except to make himself feel superior.
Deace does his hit and run attacks all the while hiding behind God. Deace is perfectly willing to sabotage the very causes in which he claims to care about.
The man is destructive.
Deace and Rush are huge liabilities when it comes to attracting independent and young voters. People are looking for problem solvers not bomb throwers.
Krusty would probably make fun about Northey’s dunlop-over-the-belt. Er, I assume he would because the man does have a girth just like Krustus points out about Chet.
I’m a big fan of Steve King, but rightly or wrongly he needs to overcome the perception some have of him being too strident. I’m thinking somebody like Jeff Lamberti might be able to bring together the different factions and attract independents and some dissafected dems.
Lamberti would be good. He’s a good man.
Moderation: Rush is no bomb thrower. He is exactly that–a problem solver. Listen to him.
Now, on another post Deace voted for Obama admitted that they rarely listen to Deace’s show. So why are you so obsessed with what he says when you don’t hear it for yourself?
Why all this personal obsession with Steve Deace? I mean even down to your screen name.
What gives? Interesting that the ones telling us to unite are the same ones that want Deace to shut up and be taken off the air. Go figure.
Rush’s demographics are horrible with the people we are trying to attract. He is alienating the young and minorities. His strength is with older white males. Big deal. His solutions are masked by his vitriol. His is a drag on the party. No wonder only 25% of the electorate identify themselves as Republicans. I’m sick of being a political eunuch. Let’s start winning elections.
@Moderation in Everything
Agreed. I read a great article called “‘Shrink to Win’ Isn’t Much of a Strategy”. Here’s a great excerpt that summarizes the way I feel as well about our party:
“In the party now there is too much ferocity, and bloody-mindedness. The other day Sen. Jim DeMint said he’d rather have 30 good and reliable conservative senators than 60 unreliable Republicans. Really? Good luck stopping an agenda you call socialist with 30 hardy votes. “Shrink to win”: I’ve never heard of that as a political slogan.”
Read the article at WSJ here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124112865488674761.html
Dagney: Contrary to how Deace operates, I’ll be right up front. I want this man off the air as he is destructive and obsessive.
Deace’s goal is to keep everyone in disarray. He is hurtful. He has a 15 hour a week opportunity to blast anyone he wants. When he’s all done with his rants, stop and ask what was he trying to accomplish.
I want lawmakers that have sound economic philosophies. We must have lawmakers that know the necessity of smaller government, less spending, low taxes, low regulation on business so that the economy will prosper.
The social issues are also extremely important. It is wrong to kill unborn babies and the idea of two people of the same gender marrying is a joke.
Right now the Democrats in Iowa, and the nation are in the process of destroying our economy. They are more than pro-choice–they are pro-abortion. The more abortions the better.
Today’s Democrats don’t even have the courage to say that the idea of two people of the same gender demanding to be “married” is ridiculous. The people don’t want this.
In Iowa, right now, the Republican lawmakers are a solidly conservative group and an excellent base on which to build a great future for Iowa.
To deliberately undercut them for no good purpose shows the pettiness of Deace and the willingness to forfeit solutions to the very issues he claims are important to him.
Moderation: You are correct. It would be wonderful to have the luxury of 60 solid conservatives but until we get to that luxury, we must build a majority the best way possible.
Exactly my point. People like Deace consider losing winning if it means compromising the tiniest percentage of agreement.
I recall having to hold my nose to vote for Ganske. I did it. He was still better than Harkin. I defy anyone to deny that.
“A candidate from the business community or a candidate that hadn’t previously weighed in on the marriage debate may find the primary more difficult to navigate than it would have been if the Court’s decision had been different.”
Conservative wackos make life difficult for credible Republican gubernatorial candidate. Film at 11.
DVFO/Jeff–dead on. You win elections by ADDING people to your party. That means attracting independents and moderates. Let’s turn our pup tent back into our big tent and start winning again.
Iowa Cynic: Are you calling those who believe marriage can only be between a man and a woman a wacko? If you are, you are in the minority and the idea is absurd.
Moderation: Agreed. I am a social conservative–always have been, always will be but I recognize the necessity of welcoming ALL to the Republican party.
The Republican party is the party of solid economic ideas which benefits everyone. The Republican party is also the party who understand the necessity of a sane energy policy–contrary to the extremist Democrats we have in control now.
They are a disaster.
I also believe traditional marriage is a winning issue for Republicans. Democrats even refuse to allow citizens to vote on the issue. Democrats are being obstructionists.
Only those with a death wish for the economy would vote for a Democrat.
DVFO,
Traditional marriage is a “solid economic idea(s) which benefits everyone,” so why would we ask conservative Republicans to quit talking about it?
We shouldn’t and I don’t know of anyone who has advocated that. It is a winning issue right along with spending, taxes, and energy.
Peggy: Nobody is saying you can’t talk about marriage. Just don’t make the issue the centerpiece of a campaign. I believe ultimately it is a loser of an issue. Let me tell you why. I consider myself a devout Catholic. I take great satisfaction in organizing our Parish’s food bank and shut-in outreach programs. Not once in participating in these activities has anyone uttered a word about the marriage issue. It is simply not an issue that many people care about.
Mod,
It comes as no surprise that people who are going hungry aren’t talking about same sex ‘marriage,’ but to say that it’s “simply not an issue that many people care about” is inaccurate.
Peggy: Maybe I would be more accurate in stating that people may care about the issue but that it won’t be a weighty factor in how they vote. Even our parish priest has said nothing about it.
Moderation in Everything,
Are you kidding me right now??? You call yourself a devout Catholic, but your screen name is “Moderation.” How do “devout” and “moderation” simultaneously co-exist? If I had never read the Bible, I still would have trouble reconciling those two terms. Do you really think God wants moderation? At the risk of sounding like Deace, in Revelation 3, God says that “because you are neither hot nor cold, I will SPEW you out of my mouth.” Does that sound like God wants moderation? Read Luke 9:57-62 and see how God feels about moderation. Mark 12:30 says you should love the Lord with ALL your heart, mind, and soul. Very little room for moderation. While I respect your principled stance, I’m just having trouble rationalizing it in my head. Could you please provide some clarity?
“It is simply not an issue that many people care about.” You have got to be joking. What the heck have we been talking about for a month now? I know, we are crazy. But the left cares about homosexuality too! Consider who they want for a Supreme Court Justice. You can agree or disagree, but I think its false to say people don’t care.
> Do you really think God wants moderation? At the risk of sounding like Deace, in Revelation 3, God says[...]
You do sound like Deace. It could just be the Moderation has been able to reconcile a difference between his personal beliefs and how this free society should be governed.
You truly *can* be a Catholic and believe that the government should stay out of your life. I mean, isn’t that a major reason that this country exists in the first place? Because our founders wanted the freedom to live and worship as they chose, without the government picking a religion and imposing its viewpoints upon its citizens?
Otherwise, as a candidate just tell people to read the Bible when they want to know your opinion on anything. Or simply direct them to the Vatican when the want to know your stances. You’ll absolutely get about 20% in the general election. You’ll lose soundly, but you’ll have your principles.
Apparently some don’t want a free society and government that protects freedoms, but rather we want a Christian society that legislates Christian beliefs.
I’m tired of this. I’m joining a libertarian party. I won’t vote for any social conservatives. It’s either my way or the highway. And i don’t care if my candidate gets 0.5% of the vote, at least I’ll have my principles (and get steam-rolled by the democratic legislators).
FYI, I was joking in that last paragraph. I’m sticking with the GOP, I just hope my moderate friends and I are allowed to stay.
Consider these contradictions.
I believe in free speech, but I want Deace taken off the air! He shouldn’t be allowed to say things I don’t like!
I am against abortion and homosexual marriage, but in order to win elections we must vote for people who don’t support those ideas.
Sounds like a great plan.
Jeff,
You can stay (as long as you follow our rules)…lol.
I agree that government is not a theocracy and politics require compromise. However, there are some principles that can’t be compromised. If murder (i.e. abortion) were not a “winning issue” it would not be any less important or relevant. What would you think if I decided lower taxes weren’t a “winning issue” and so we should ignore that plank. I know, that sounds crazy, right? Because it is important to people and it does matter to people. People can move to the libertarian party or wherever they want, but how does that further the “big tent” idea you preach? How are you more likely to win without the social conservative vote? So, for all this ranting, lets agree that the Republican party needs fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. And by and large, we all agree on all the issues.
To my discussion about moderation, he stated he was a devout Catholic and brought religion into the fray. Politics aside, moderation is not advocated anywhere in the Bible. Politics, however, is an art of compromise to get things accomplished. I was speaking only to Moderation’s religious perspectives.
Dagny,
Point well taken. Almost laughed out loud a little bit…
Don’t count out the marriage issue. My wife’s mom (solid democrat) wouldn’t even think of voting for a republican – until now. It is a big enough issue for her that it would change her vote.
“I am against abortion and homosexual marriage, but in order to win elections we must vote for people who don’t support those ideas.
Sounds like a great plan.”
Dagny: Actually when it comes to a general election, yes, you should vote for someone who does not support your ideals if that is what it takes to get Republicans elected. I know I’ll get flamed for it but in no way am I asking you to change your beliefs. I agree with your beliefs but to allow the Democrat to win because the Republican may not be 100% to your liking allow the Democrats to have one more toward a majority and you will get zero percent of what you want.
Actully, I know of no Republicans who are not for traditional marriage. It is more likely to run into a Republican who is not 100% pro life. Even they are not that common.
I know what I believe and I also know what it takes to bring me closer to getting an agenda advanced with what I agree. We MUST have a Republican majority. My chances with Democrats are zero.
Thinking: I brought up my Catholicism simply to show that the marriage issue is not an issue with the members of my religious community. I agree with Jeff. I don’t want the government telling me that my moderation is not countenanced by scripture. In my secular life I prefer to win elections. To do so we need to remove religious fervor from politics and realize that people of faith can reasonably differ on some issues. Thinking: you and I can meet at the parish hall and talk religion all night, and yes talk about marriage. However, making such issues the hallmark of a political campaign is a sure way to lose.
> So, for all this ranting, lets agree that the Republican party needs fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. And by and large, we all agree on all the issues.
I agree with you.
It’s also an issue of priority for me. I care most about the fiscal side of the GOP, and reducing government’s reach into my daily life. I’m against abortion, but I would vote for a pro-life Republican if s/he agreed with me on the issues I just referenced. Why? Because abortion is not going to be made illegal anytime soon; so, to me, I’m spinning my wheels by concerning myself with it when I have bigger fish to fry.
Yes, I know “It’s murder”. I agree. But (and this may be shocking) there is lots of murder going on in the world and I don’t bat an eye when I hear it.
Otherwise, what else can the do about it? Reduce funding to Planned Parenthood? Pffft. Who cares? That’s small potatoes.
I know, many people will vehemently disagree with me. That’s ok. We agree on other things. I’d also like to add that I’d vote for a pro-life Republican too. The issue is low on my list, as are most social issues.
So if you wanna campaign on social issues, that’s fine, you just better give equal time to your discussion of fiscal issues as well.
“No one articulates issues better than King. He never needs a teleprompter.”
Apparently deace didn’t see his sad display on the floor of the house the other day discussing his list of sexual “isms” . He really could have used a teleprompter, a speech writer, someone to help him formulate a point, really should have just had someone else get up and speak for him. If that is best you all got, I wouldn’t make any plans to move the elephant symbol to front the governor’s house anytime soon.
Silence
You can’t have your religion forced onto others through legislation. the majority of americans are turned off by the chritian right because of this. You will not win this election on social issues. once again, “it is about the economy, stupid!!!”
Silence
Well, I guess it’s a good thing then that Iowa’s Democrat governor and legislative leaders have run the state into the ground both fiscally and socially, or haven’t you been paying attention to the financial mess in Iowa government, Silence?
Wow, Silence: You certainly saw that differently than I. I know exactly what you’re talking about and Congressman King is to be applauded on this so-called “hate crimes” legislation he’s talking about.
Maybe you also want to protect pedophiles like the rest of the Democrats in the House. King was merely reading some of the isms that Democrats are trying to protect. He’d never heard of some of them. I haven’t either and I don’t even want to.
These perversions are rare and now we’re supposed to become aware of them in order to make sure we don’t think a bad thought about these people.
Good luck with that one. Now we have the thought police trying to control what we think.
Also Silence, you’re trying to force your religion on the rest of us, all in the name of virtue.
Prove the majority of Americans are turned off by social issues. You hate the Christian right but what about the “Christian” left. They’re a huge force, too. They are the ones with the most lobbyists. Have you ever heard of the extreme “interfaith” alliance? How about the Methodist church and their lobbyists? They’re there to promote their brand of religion. The difference is, you agree with their agenda.
Deace, I believe that religion has no place in politics, period. You forgot the catholics and jews too deace to be fair. Oh, yeah the mormons have a big lobby too and even the muslims. I don’t hate the chritian right, I think they are severly misguided and are bringing the republican party down. Forcing my religion??? Interesting, since I have not announced my religion in any fashion on this board, i just want to keep religion out of government, you know, the separation of church and state. King looked like a bumbling old fool, rambling about things that were not related to the proposed legislation, just paranoia generated by the right. I don’t know why any law abiding citizen is afraid of legislation that deals with punishing assualt and battery and other vicious crimes, unless you want to commit them.
Lydia, most states are in a financial mess, due to the national fiancial mess created by republicans, or have you missed that. Iowans out to be thankful they have a democratic governor and not some upstart presidential candidate wannabe like Jindel or Palin who would turn down financial aid from the federal government to grandstand for their political future at the cost of their states.
Silence
“Even our parish priest has said nothing about it.”
This only proves the gutlessness of your parish priest.
Maybe one of the ‘Catholic’ state legislators who couldn’t bring themselves to go against their rabid leadership is a parishioner of his?
Archbishop Hanus, call your office!
No, Peggy. My parish priest is consumed with other issues such as how we live Christ-like lives rather than how we cast judgment upon others. One member of my parish is a Democratic house member. He and his family are exemplars of the Christian life. Their children attend our Catholic school and he and his wife serve faithfully on a number of parish boards. He too has been able to separate the sacred from the mundane.
So your parish priest has sold out the Faith to protect the ego of a legislator-parishioner? Lovely.
And having your kids in Catholic School is not proof of one’s orthodoxy.
Peggy–you are a living example of what’s wrong with the party. You want the government to be an the advocate for your religious views. Leave soul saving for the church. Let’s work together on finding ways to attract more people to the party. As far as my kids, the orthodoxy they learn at Catholic school has no place in politics.
What your priest and the three lukewarm central-and-eastern Iowa bishops are trying to avoid is a public defense of the Holy Eucharist. EVERY Catholic legislator who went along with the Dems’ arrogant defense of the Supreme Court’s marriage decision should be held up for public scrutiny and denied Holy Communion.
They are NOT Catholic and certainly shouldn’t be treated as such.
Moderation, you seem to have the right idea on how to build the republican party back up, I would forget trying to convince the peggys of the world of anything, in her little world, there is no room for compromise, she will only be happy with a government that legislates her religious views onto all others.
Silence
Judging by what you’ve shared about your priest, parish and parishioners, I can assure you your kids aren’t getting much orthodoxy at all. But, hey, at least you can tell your friends and neighbors your kids go to private school!
wow, now peggy is the pope and is excommunicating bishops and priests, she not only wants to bring down the republican party, but also the catholic church, damn you are ambitious girl.
Silence
Peggy: You are right about one thing, priests and bishops should avoid public defense of the Holy Eurharist. It is not the public’s business. It is the church’s business. To contend that you are the arbitor of who is Catholic and who is not, not to mention who is worthy of Holy Communion is the height of arrogance.
Can you comprehend ANYTHING you read, SD?
peggy, now telling others how to raise their children??? Nice??? I think this is probably your most insulting post yet. No one needs to take child rearing advice from you.
Silence
So you must have really hated what the U.S. Bishops had to say about immigration, huh Mod?
I can comprehend that you are a self righteous judgmental little person with no comprehension of what is wrong the republican party.
Silence
No, you can’t. It’s official.
I will add little comprehension of the bible or the christian faith.
silence
Moderate wrote:
> You want the government to be an the advocate for your religious views. Leave soul saving for the church. Let’s work together on finding ways to attract more people to the party.
I agree 100%.
Peggy, please keep the discourse a notch higher. Maybe you feel backed into a corner in this discussion. Come back out and drop the hyperbole and extreme implications of your arguments. I think we’re getting a good discussion going here.
Hey, guys, in case you haven’t noticed, my last several hyperbole-free comments have nothing to do with the government but everything to do with the Catholic Church.
Jeff, I am a strong believer in the the two party system, I think for checks and balances to be effective, you need two strong parties, however, i just don’t see the republican party becoming a strong national factor again until they get the religious ideology and religous right out of their rhetoric and shift away from the neo-cons. they have shifted so far from the party of reagan that he would not even recognize the republican party of today.
Silence
I thought this was a political blog and had no idea that we’d be fighting religious wars here as well.
Peggy, you just seem to be a generally unpleasant person to have around.
con dem, I think this blog is really a metaphor for the republican party and politics in general due to the radical christian right, you can’t have a political debate without it being hijacked into a religious debate. I am guilty of falling into the debate as many others are, but this seems to be the unforunate state of where our politics have sunk to or at least republican politics.
Silence
Con Dem,
This is also supposed to be Republican blog but that’s never stopped you. Just so I have this straight, you don’t want me to interject any moral beliefs into the political discussion but, in addition to that, you don’t want to allow me the freedom to speak strictly of religious matters? Guess that free speech thingy only applied to liberals, huh?
Peg, as we’ve learned what to expect as being usual, you _do not_ have it straight. You are really stretching to see any suggested restriction to either freedom of religion or to freedom of speech.
And I might add, I perceive that you seem to be working _very_ hard to present yourself as a paragon of Christianity. Kinda smells a bit pharasaical.
Nice diversionary tactic.
Ahh Peg, thanks, you brought it back to the fun level. I appreciate the compliment.
con dem, no fair using big words (”pharisaical”) with peggy, obvious diversionary tactics.
Silence
SD saiz: con dem, no fair using big words (”pharisaical”) with peggy, obvious diversionary tactics
Well, yeah, but a “nice diversionary tactic” at the least.
yes, a very polite way to distract her, I am taking notes!!! lol
Silence
Secular life and christian life. Gees, and all this time I thought being a Christian was a 24 hour responsibility, not just when it was convienent for me… It’s nice to know I can actually pick and choose when I want to follow God’s law. But really..no, I don’t think so… It rubs me wrong when people make excuses for their behavior–like, “I want to win so I’ll just ignore what’s right.” But hey, if you cheated on tests in school to look smart why change your spots?? Beng wishy-washy really shows a high level of commitment to your faith.
Peggy, Sarah, how does all this apply to the original topic of this post “Republicans Prepare for Gubernatorial Primary”? Glad to see you can have such a civil discourse even when I’m not involved.
Sarah: You are right. Being Christian is 24/7. However politics is not.. The fervor that we bring to our Christian beliefs needs to remain in the church. This does not mean we abandon our prinicples. It means we resign ourselves to the fact that politics means getting along with people that may not agree with everything we believe in. The sacred/mundane distinction is what gets me through all of this. Pray hard at church. Work hard to extend my hand in politics.
Mod, I really do understand what your saying. I do. I just choose not to vote for someone who has a different moral base. I believe we are expected to live out faith, and never compromise on it. It starts with babysteps, and before you know it you’ve lost the farm. I’m just one person, though–obviously not a majority,. I can’t make much difference one way or another. I simply like to make my views known.