The Republican Party is not a church any more than politics is a religion(despite what some may believe). Our Founding Fathers believed deeply in keeping government & politics out of religion, but they also had the great foresight to understand that in order for freedom of religion to flourish, ALL beliefs deserved protection. In the political realm that means tolerance of those who don’t always agree with our position and working toward common goals. In this case, that means economic issues are probably going to trump the socon issues because that is what is most important to the majority of the voters. That doesn’t make them any less “principled” than you!

You believe that unless the rest of us see things exactly like you, we are lacking prinicples and you even accuse others of lacking prinicples. Well, you think your principles are superior to mine and yet I chose to leave the ELCA (that you’re in full fellowship with) seventeen years ago so stop throwing your superior priciples in everyone else’s faces. You’re a hypocrite and I’m not impressed.”

Geeze, am I the only one wondering if DV is looking into a mirror as he types that?

You believe that unless the rest of us see things exactly like you, we are lacking prinicples and you even accuse others of lacking prinicples. Well, you think your principles are superior to mine and yet I chose to leave the ELCA (that you’re in full fellowship with) seventeen years ago so stop throwing your superior priciples in everyone else’s faces. You’re a hypocrite and I’m not impressed.

You’ve beat the church denomination thing to a pulp, you’re making large leaps in your statements on that subject and nobody is really seems to be jumping on that bandwagon with you.

But it is true that if a candidate is not trustworthy, they should not be elected. Just make sure you hold up your own favorites to the same scrutiny. That’s the part that tends to get missed. That’s when the principles come in. If these Rants accusations are proven to be true and you still see me on the BVP bandwagon, then you’ve got every right to rip me.

He didn’t think through his EO promise and then he opened his mouth big time by claiming if he is governor, he’ll opt Iowa out of nationalized health care.

VP shows he is so hungry to be governor, he’ll say anything to get the nomination. Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Unless VP can prove he improved the assets of OU by the 440% he claimed, he’s a proven liar.

Good job picking them, Tyler. I think you need to start looking at yourself when you’re accusing others of lacking principles.

You and Doug Gross don’t care about principles. You and he simply want the power that the guys with deep pockets can get you. And then you owe them big time when that person gets elected. Like I said, that’s wanting to win simply because you want the power. And if your guy can win without the votes of some people who really care about the principles, then congratulations. Let me know how that works out.

I would say money, name ID, and inevitability were the reasons for the win in the primary. (It seems that Gross and Nussle were the darlings of the Des Moines monied Establishment. That’s from where the money and the notion of inevitability flowed.)

I would offer the notion that the reason they lost the general was that two of them were the darlings of the Des Moines monied Establishment. Iowans appear to have a passive aggressive gene in their DNA and will reject what the “Establishment” serves them for candidates.

For this reason I believe that a Branstad candidacy is a recipe for disaster. He has the backing of the money people, his name ID is high (16 years as governor), and the inevitability factor. He may win the Republican nomination, but Iowans will reject him because he will be viewed as the Establishment candidate.

I’m too young to remember much of those races so please answer the questions at the top of this post.

What is it you want to know? Fortunately, my bishop has written a most excellent article about it.