Friday, September 21, 2007

Get Values Voter Debate DVD

Anyone who missed the Values Voter Debate in Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on Monday, can order a DVDy it at. Values Voter Presidential Debate,

The debate was 3 hours long and posed all questions of interest to socially conservative voters. Order one to show at your church or group function.


Stephen R. Maloney said...

"The debate was 3 hours long and posed all questions of interest to socially conservative voters. Order one to show at your church or group function."

In a country like Saudi Arabia, which asserts only one set of values (Islamic) and doesn't even allow Bibles in the nation, their values presumably different from those of the "socially conservative voters" you mention above. As I keep explaining, our country is not a theocracy, a comment that some find mystifying. People differ on their values in the United States, a reflection of the fact that this is a free country. I wonder how many of the so-called "values voters" understand these simple, obvious points. I believe the candidates who stayed away from the "my values are better than yours" session did the right thing. Early in the game Mike said (believe it was him) that the U.S. was electing not a national preacher but a national President. Do the value voters know the difference? At times, Mike has sought to talk frankly -- and honestly -- to evangelicals. He did so in his comment about life not ending at birth. He also did so in his comment about racism being a factor in the opposition to immigration reform. He did so in his observation that DC residents were being subjected to taxation without representation. All these comments are obviously true, but he managed to offend some "values voters" (including the Romans) whose values frankly are highly suspect. I like the Mike who tells the truth no matter whom it offends. It is after all the truth that makes us free, not adherence to a narrow ideology.

steve maloney

Larry Perrault said...

BTW, Steve: Huckabee also made a statement that soliciting minority and traditionally Democratic constituencies is critical for Republicans. A link is posted at the campaign blog.

"I believe the candidates who stayed away from the "my values are better than yours" session did the right thing. "

Your hair-ttrigger pseu7do-telepathic cynicism just went off, again. Most people know that it's a free and not a "Christian state." (a strange idea, actually: a Christian state would be free)

But of course, beginning with the sanctity of life, people want to know if a potential president holds up values that they hold as critical. That includes me and I'm not a whisp sorry for it. It isn't about "my values atre better than your." It's about, "My values are my values and thy are mine because I believe that they are true.

Of course, there are people who think in patterns that you love to mention. But, you project those thoughts onto the great majority people who are largely innocent of them.

But, it seemed to have become clear a long time ago that questioning your perceptual nightmares is a waste of time. It looks like regardless of how accurate they are, those perceptions couldn't be dislodged with data, logic, or a jackhammer.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I think my problem lies in the occasional absence of the old Christian value of respect for others. I remember Senator Vitter of Louisiana, much in the news lately, saying once that the "biggest issue" confronting America was . . . "gay marriage." He is assuming that the values voters he courts are profoundly stupid people, who may not have noticed issues like Iraq, the War on Terror, the $90 trillion unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare. And his biggest issue is gay marriage? That is a trivial issue, and for most people -- including most conservatives -- it is basically a trivial issue. For someone like Vitter, the biggest issue in his life should be his own marriage, which appears to be mainly one of appearance rather than reality. I couldn't care less if Fred and Sam, or Sue and Laura, get a civil union or, in Mass., a "marriage." It's basically none of my business. There are many problems in this country and respect for life is certainly one of them. However, respect for other people, including those with different values, is also a big problem. I believe we help breed people like Mark Foley, Larry Craig, and Ted Haggard. We ask nothing of them other than they pander to us during election periods. I wonder how they really look at social conservatives? Probably as individuals who are easily duped.

As far as a Christian country goes: I doubt many of the "social values" voters value any form of Christianity other than their own. I have a hunch that Rev. Ride in Iowa is not alone. He despises Catholics, but he's a 'good Christian.' I don't buy it.

Larry Perrault said...

I have studied Catholic theology relatively closely. The bottom-line is that I think presumptions at the base of Catholicism are incorrect. Catholic theologians are big into reason and logic and that's quite proper. But false premises logically yield false conclusions, and I believe they have in the history of Catholic thought.

I doubt Rev. Rude (that;'s his name - great, isn't it?) despises all Catholics. He just things that Catholics believe falsehoods. And, he believes that falsehoods bring condemnation, which is a falsehood itself. We all embrace false and iniquitous things, but it is not accurate dogma that relieves condemnation, it's only the grace and love of Jesus Christ, which Christians embrace and should EMULATE.

Simply enough, Catholic or Protestant has nothing to do with that, and some fail or succeed at Christ's grace and love among both. Both Catholics and Protestants are faithful and active Christians and some of both are not.

You typically paint with a broad brush and smear people unnecessarily. And all of the error is on the one side that you balefully disdain. But, impropriety is on all sides. Don't miss it behind you and don't miss goodness under the pale of your glare.

As I've told you, I don't advocate for a marriage amendment because I don't believe ANY government, especially federal, has or should have anything to tell us about marriage. The whole idea is ridiculous: government has the authority to determine what marriage is? Phooey! But I could never get elected because most people can't understand that, especially in a 15 or 30-second sound bite.

Given how the people roll over and accept whatever government says, even that destroying our own offspring in the womb is legitimate, I can understand why people take it very seriously that the foundation stone of society might be redefined from what it is and always has been in human history. I agree that that's a problem. I just don't agree with the proposed solution. We should ignore what government has to say about family, and we shouldn't expect people who believe differently to act like they don't.

Stephen R. Maloney said...

I'm not going to endorse Mike Huckabee next week, although I think he's a fine man and might even do a good job as President (hamstrung as he would be by a heavily Democratic Congress). I hope he will spend the remainder of his time as a candidate (that is, until the S.C. Primary) telling people exactly what he believes -- something he's taken a stab at several times.

As you know, I think the "principle" argument for supporting Mike is mainly hooey. It's narrow-mindedness and politica naivete. Why not support the Rev. Dobson and his wife? Most of the great Presidents of the U.S. has been at best nominal Christians, including Ronald Reagan. If a person can't win the general election, and I believe Mike cannot do so, then he needs to seek another avenue for his life's work than running for President. The Republican Party cannot win Ohio in 2008 -- in fact, the state elected a Senator and a Governor who are Democrats more liberal than Hillary Clinton. Another fine Christian man, Ken Blackwell, ran for Governor and he got totally skunked, as did the fine man running for re-election as Senator. Also, for some complicated reasons, the Republicans will lose Colorado, mainly because of the ramifications of the Amnesty fight. Colorado elected a liberal Hispanic Democrat as Senator (Ken Salazar). What that means is that to win the election, a Republican would have to win two very difficult states, such as PA and NJ. No one of sound mind believes that Mike, good Christian that he is, could win either of those states. If a small number of evangelicals want to make a statement (one I think is quite absurd), they should begin now to start the paperwork for a third party. Mike cannot win. I think in their heads (if not in their hearts) most of his suporters, who truly are fine people, know that. Alternatively, they can vote for Mrs. Clinton. In recent Gallup Polls, it cames out the most popular politician in America is . . . William Jefferson Clinton. The most popular female, politician or otherwise, is . . . Hillary Clinton (followed closely by Oprah). I don't know where Mrs. Dobson ended up, but it was pretty far down the list. It may well be that most evangelicals, no matter how long ago their ancestors came here, occupy a country that is quite foreign to them. I didn't create the country. All I can do is seek to influence it in the best way I know how. I don't believe Mike could get 70 electoral votes, so I am not backing him, although I'd welcome him as next-door neighbor.

I will use some of this as a column, and I may mention Mike from time to time, but I won't endorse him and I will encourage others not to do so.

Principle is fine, but fantasy is not fine.

Larry Perrault said...

"I don't believe Mike could get 70 electoral votes, so I am not backing him, although I'd welcome him as next-door neighbor."

That's understandable given that you believe that. Do you think I believe that? I don't. In fact, I think that 70 votes business is terribly misguided. Honest, I grant. But, misguided. I think Ron Paul is also honest, but misguided.

Have you spent any time looking at what liberals say about Mike Huckabee, online? Sure, there are the hardcore, "He's a whacked-out religious extremist who doesn't even believe in science" types. They won't vote for him, but they won't vote for ANT Republican.

But, they aren't the majority. Even more say they like and respect him, even though they disagree with him.

Have you heard his talk about most Americans being more concerned about vertical than horizontal politics? More than "right-left," "liberal-conservative," Republican-Democrat"... People want to know whether you are going to lead America up or down.

Contrary to both you and your caricature of socially-conservative people, a big reason why I support Huckabee is that I believe he has the MOST potential of the Republicans for the general election.

I believe that it's a delusion to think that the best chance for a Republican is to be as much like a Democrat as possible (Giuliani). And I understand that the predisposition to believe that will only lead one to look at Giuliani's sound defeat and say, "Wow...Just imagine how bad it would have been with someone else."

In other words, there's no way out of that kind of a confession. For me, the way out of that is faith not in the people or your calculations about them. But, it's faith in the truth. Mike Huckabee has valid basic beliefs about human nature and his responsibilities and an honest and gracious way of presenting them.

If I didn't believe that there was any value in that, then I just wouldn't care and wouldn't try. So, my faith is not in trying to prognosticate and calculate about human beings. And, my faith is not in James Dobson, (whose intentions I respect but whose prescriptions I often disagree with) or anyone else. My faith is in God and my hopes are to do what is right by him. People can reject that all day long, and my perceptions about it might change, but my intentions won't. People think they have other ideas about "victory." They can have them. Dung!

Larry Perrault said...

Remember that the Arkansas legislature was almost 90% Democrat when Huckabee was governor. And, he passed a broad-based tax cut. How did he do that? How did Reagan pass tax cuts with a Democrat Congress? BTW, a long time ago, Harry Truman said that if you give Democrats the choice between a real Republican and a Republican emulator, they'll take the real one, every time. It's the same the other way around. I'm not looking for a liberal fudging Republican.

Anonymous said...

mobile spy android 4.0.4 spy phone calls free [url=] spybubble installation[/url] use your android phone second monitor spy phone iphone 4 spy kids 3d game over cast and crew
use android as usb monitor spy on cell phone pictures [url=] mobile phone spyware free trial[/url] connect android phone pc monitor iphone 4s spy software without jailbreak wireless spy camera iphone
[url=]cell phone spyware samsung intensity[/url]
free sms text spyware spy phone software gps tracking [url=] mobile phone spyware software[/url] best phone spy software review easyspy free download disney cars 2 spy train