In 6 months I’ll be headed to the Iowa caucuses for our unique first-in-the-nation electoral free-for-all.
I have absolutely no idea who I’ll support.
While Republicans have been disappointing in recent years, I’m not ready to jump the boat and go independent. Voting Democrat isn’t an option – for moral reasons. The unthinking support if abortion, the complete rejection of biblical morality and family values. Of course, my party has often given lip service only.
Too often the choice seems to be between the craven secularism if the Democrats and the shallow hypocrisy of Republicans.
There are now over 115 Republican candidates and over 450 total, including independents and Democrats. But there are 16 or 17 major candidates in the race.
So far, there are two candidates I’ve elimated from consideration.
Donald Trump – I’m not a huge fan of McCain, but when you say he’s not a war hero because he got caught, you show yourself to be an idiot and a blowhard, lacking the gravitas, self-control, and wisdom to be president.
Chris Christie – ethically challenged pro-abortion candidate? Pass.
The rest are a mish-mash of views, backgrounds, and positions. All are at least nominally pro-life.
Bush and Walker seem to be front-runners in the polls (discounting he-who-shall-not-be-named).
I like Huckabee, but wonder if he has that presidential gravitas. Loved the way Walker stood strong in Wisconsin against entrenched power groups. Can he do the same in DC? Rand Paul is a generational improvement, but his isolationist foreign policy gives me pause. Cruz, Rubio, Jindal – glad to see some diversity but none of them stand out yet. Carly Fiorino seems competent but isn’t gaining traction. Dr Carson us an attractive candidate but I’m not sure how he’ll do beyond the social issues he’s so strong on. Who am I forgetting? Is Santorum running again? Kasich?
That’s 14 of them. I know there’s more. I may edit later.
The only decision I’ve made is an absolute and firm no to Donnie Hairdo and the governor of NJ.
Beyond that I’m wide open. Anyone settle on a candidate yet?
Tell me what you think.
I’m still waiting for more to get in… 🙂
Though early in the game, I think we can seed these candidates as the most Biblical in platform and policy in the following way today, prioritizing of course the bedrock and foundational principles of family and faith – meaning a consistent and long-term policy and record of pro-family (thus anti-homosexual rights and SSM) and pro-life (anti-abortion, euthanasia):
1) Ted Cruz (the more electable of the top two candidates, both possessing evangelical backgrounds and credible professions of faith)
2) Mike Huckabee
3) Rick Santorum (yes an unlikely and dark-horse candidate)
4) Marco Rubio (a promising candidate long-term who may be just one election cycle away)
5) Bobby Jindal (solidly conservative though perceived in the Santorum vein)
Other candidates I don’t believe that biblically based, Christian voters should consider: Bush (a mere moderate social conservative); Christie (see Bush); Paul (a libertarian, which is to say a social liberal based on poor anthropology and theology); Walker (another Romney like, unreliable, recent convert to pro-life and pro-family positions); Carson (questionable wisdom and his caving into media pressure on the SSM controversy disqualified himself); Trump (a socially liberal loose cannon who I hope and pray will choose NOT to run as an Independent once he’s taken out of the GOP race).
The others (i.e. Fiorino and Kasich) are suspect and non-descript on the important social issues.
I’m voting for Ben Carson.
I like Carson in a lot of ways. My fear is his subdued personality and reserved communication style, not sure he can grab & hold the attention of the public & voters in the ways needed for a presidential candidate.
Brent,
I have the same concerns about Carson that you do. But, I sure would like to see what he could do in the Whitehouse.
David
Speak softly but carry a big stick. I think he has that down. He grew up in inner city Detroit.
I’m going to ‘write in’. I choose R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Barring Dr. Mohler, Ben Carson has my support.
Dr. Mohler for President! Been sayin it for years 😉
Walker. I refuse to vote for Bish even in the general election. He is not to be trusted to stand firm on conservative principles. I think walker would. I like Jindal but he has too much baggage from His poor performance in a state of the union response. Perry would be great but again a failed previous campaign. Gotta be Walker.
Perry! That’s one of the ones I forgot.
I have to admit I don’t get the whole “Jeb’s not a conservative” thing. What has he done to tick off conservatives so much?
Simple, he is “NOT” a conservative, he is a RINO.
Support that.
Nate Silver puts Bush next to Romney and McCain. We keep getting told that we need moderates like them to win the general election, but that hasn’t worked out so well.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/jeb-bush-president-republican-primary-2016/
Look at his response to the Supreme Court decision redefining marriage. It’s the law of the land and we will just have to live with it. Of course he said he supports “traditional” marriage but I have no outrage and will not work to change it. That was his response. Sure he had conservative initiatives in Florida. But I don’t trust him. Part of this is the way his brother and dad governed. They claimed to be conservatives but did not govern conservatively. Not going to support those guys any longer. We have that issue with McCain in Arizona. Not going to vote for him. Rather have a liberal dem than a squishy republican.
W Bush was a social conservative – but that is about the extent of it. HW Bush was not even that.
The liberals are right when they say that our terrible economy is the result of the last 30 years of governing. Absolutely. The issue they ignore is that the governing philosophy for the last 30 years has not been in any way conservative policy.
At this point either Ron Swanson or Daffy Duck.
Nerd
Ron Swanson would be ideal
Okay guys, gimme some “why.”
For the record, this is a serious question. I’m genuinely interested in the reasoning and decisions of others.
I’m so undecided I can’t even decide how to decide.
Don’t know. I like several and almost all would be acceptable. Trump is, of course, the jackass and rodeo clown that others have labeled him. A rich jackass, BTW.
Bush, Rubio, Walker make my top tier.
I do like Carly Fiorina much more since I’ve seen her do a good many interviews. She is competent and savvy.
She said, “”I am quite certain, that I would not have been able to endure those [cancer, loss of a child] without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ,” she said. “I am forever grateful that I rediscovered a personal relationship with God before that happened.”
I’m probably the last person here who would vote for a political candidate on the basis of their faith but I like what she said.
Carson has no chance, can’t give a speech, doesn’t come across well.
Cruz and Perry are the angry dudes this go-around. No chance of the nomination.
Perry has improved his act.
Santorum, ho hum but practiced and seasoned.
Kasich, OK.
Christie, love his candor (“You’ve maximized your tan, now get the hell off the beach.” prior to hurricane Sandy).
Graham makes my top tier because he called Trump a jackass. Single guy.
Huckabee is running to keep his mail list and popularity with the RR going. It’s lucrative. I don’t trust him.
Jindal is good. Ought to be the nominee with Nikki Randhawa Haley, SC governor as VP. The Hindu/Sikh ticket hasn’t been tried (both are self-declared Christians now). Pataki, pooh. Paul, OK.
Almost all of us voted for the non-born again (his own phrase) John McCain in 2008 and the Mormon Mitt Romney in 2012 over the declared Christian candidate, Barack Obama, proving that a candidate’s faith doesn’t mean much in spite of what we say.
It will be fun.
Graham. There’s the other one I forgot. Don’t really mind forgetting him.
Knows more foreign policy (he’s a retired USAF Col.) than half the other candidates combined and more than any individually.
Graham knows a lot for sure – he’s no dummy – but he is a big govt. Republcan in the mold of (maybe worse than) John McCain and Bob Dole.
Why did Lindsey Graham destroy his cell phone? If the guy doesn’t even know he can change the number and keep the same phone, I’m not sure he should be president, but that’s just me.
LOL.
Well being smart does not mean you have common sense. I think Graham is intelligent – but his common sense is quite lacking.
Graham won’t win SC if he makes it here, wouldn’t have before the flag issue as well
Walker kicked the public sector unions out of Wisconsin. Guy knows how to stay in a fight.
Rubio is clearly the shining star of the whole bunch.
Bush has a record, solid guy. Money.
Though I don’t support him for various other reasons, I believe Chris Christie is pro-life on abortion (I know I’ve heard him say he is pro-life). Your the first person I’ve heard claim he is pro-abortion. Did he recently announce he had changed and I just missed it somehow or is the pro-abortion assumption made because he is from the northeast or what?
By the way, I believe George Pataki, the former governor of New York, is not prof-life if I remember correctly (please correct my memory if that is not correct).
Last time I did this I got slammed by the Paulites – but here goes again….
I really like Scott Walker for the reasons you mentioned about taking on the entrenched power groups (teacher unions up there are intense) and doing so sticking to conservative principles. He also won three statewide elections (IN 4 YEARS) by decsisive margins while fighting for conservative values in a long time blue state.
He is very, very strong on the the pro life issue – second to NONE in the race – (and has been all his life and his political record is unmatched in this regard by anyone else in the field) he de-funded PP in Wisconsin, passed an ultrasound requirement, banned abortion completely after 20 weeks, strengthened parent notification to parental consent. Also, he has been a very vocal voice on behalf of the unborn – consistently.
Of course, there could be things I do not know about that I might not like that may come out later – opposition research is intense on him I am sure – but so far it trully seems that others TALK the talk and Walker WALKS the talk. Plus he seems like a guy I would want to just hang out with if I had the opportunity – other candidates do not seem to have the magnetic type personality that I think Walker has.
Plus he has been a governor, and a local administrator and enacted conservative policies everywhere he has led – again in a BLUE region/state. I tend to prefer governors over senators for president – so long as there is a conservative governor to choose.
I like Jindal too – but I bet it is easier to be a conservative in Louisiana – not sure he can take it Washington. I would like to see him and Kasich in the cabinet. They are both brilliant, IMO. Rubio – perhaps VP? A walker/Rubio ticket would be hard to beat. I would think a a Walker/Paul would be too – but I am not thinking Paul would play second fiddle too well and probably would not be willing to try – that is just an opinion though – I might end up surprised though.
Fiorina – maybe – but I do not think she will last.
Cruz – Maybe – he is a bit of a wild man though – LOL
Hairdo – HECK NO
Graham – HECK NO
Christie – HECK NO
Huckabee – HECK NO
Pataki – HECK NO
Bush – NO (not as firmly against him as I used to be – is a good campaigner and would probably be a decent president) but I really do not WANT to vote for him.
Carson – is socially good – but I think he is in over his head on other issues – plus he is too monotone and his speech delivery is sooooooo boring.
Santorum/Perry – NO although I think they both would possibly make better leaders than they seem on the trail – they are just not good campaigners.
William makes a good point above – one I have made before (For the record that is why his point is a good one – it was mine first. 😉 ) that Nikki Halley, Governor of South Carolina should be considered for VP no matter who gets the nomination.
Mike Huckabee. Gov. Huckabee has proven government and leadership experience, political savvy on domestic and international matters that matter, outspoken about the moral decay of our country, openly critical of SCOTUS decisions which liberate evil, lives and breathes his Christian faith … and, therefore, not electable.
i have no idea
Dave,
” Can’t go democrat for moral reasons), how can you say that with a straight face, when Republican Justices voted in about every immoral law we have.
Jess,
I can say it, because Dems are almost ALL pro-abortion, Big Brother-Big Govt., and promote the homosexual agenda.
I wouldn’t say that Republicans are moral. Because, we sure do know that that’s not the truth. But, many of them do stand on issues that Christians can agree with, and some of them are Christians.
BTW, Jess, I’m an independent, conservative, myself. And, I vote against anyone, who is for abortion, for raising taxes and promoting more govt. control over our lives, and who is pushing the same sex marriage/homosexual agenda.
David
Right, Vol. The DNC national platform speaks for itself.
“When I stand before God and the congregation I think I must tell the truth and as much as possible and leave my opinions out of it. Not long ago I made the statement that I’m against abortion, I also pointed out that Republican appointed Justices voted that abortions are legal. I also said I’m against homosexuality, and Republican appointed Justices struck down sodomy laws. If I don’t tell both sides of the story then I am guilty of lying to the church. The same holds true with the gay marriage issue, a Republican appointed Justice was the deciding vote.” -Jess Alford (in another thread)
Come on Jess. It’s hard to take you seriously. You warn people about the Republicans because they appointed Justices who gave us same-sex marriage and abortion while voting for Democrats who have support for both of those things in their party platform. You are nothing if not grossly inconsistent.
Jess also says in the statement you quoted that he is “against homosexuality”. Well, unless he adds: “except the ones who are born that way, can’t help it, and are automatically given a pass by God” His statement purporting to be against homosexuality goes against EVERY other post he has made on Voices relating to that issue and once again is grossly inconsistent.
Anthony Kennedy was not Reagan’s first choice. Reagan only nominated Kennedy because the Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted down a more conservative nominee (Robert Bork).
George H. W. Bush probably would have liked to have nominated a more conservative judge than David Souter, but he couldn’t because Democrats controlled the Senate.
(Taps Jeff on shoulder)
FYI, the facts never interfere with Jess’ routine slamming of republicans. They are irrelevant to him.
You cannot be seriously anti-abortion and vote pro-Democrat. Those things are antithetical.
Unfortunately, the Republicans have been more lip-service than true passion. But the four men who are conservative judges are all nominees of Reagan or the Bushes. They’ve nominated a couple of turncoat stinkers, but the Clinton/Obama court nominees are uniformly disastrous.
On the national level I agree with you, but on the state level and the local level pro-life Dems exist. I voted for one this last election in Oklahoma.
The national Democratic platform is a mess on moral issues, but the national Republican platform is a mess on social issues. And both for some reason or another currently suck on foreign policy- namely they don’t know what to do with a global economy or with regional conflicts.
While Trump is probably not electable, at least he is willing to say things the rest of the “politicians” won’t say. Who cares what John McCain thinks? He isn’t running, he already lost, and he is opposed to stopping illegal immigration. For that matter I also wouldn’t care what Mitch McConnell has to say because he’s already proven to play politics rather than actually strive to be a leader.
The sheer fact that Jeb Bush is running, and being propped up by the RNC is ridiculous. He can’t win. I don’t know anyone who wants a 3rd Bush and he is so soft on immigration, unwilling to speak his mind, etc. that is beyond reason how he can be polling so high. He only thinks Congress should investigate Planned Parenthood. Pick a side Jeb! Geez. Oh, that’s right, its an act of love.
What the rest of the Republicans should realize is that Trump refuses to allow the liberal media (or anyone else) to have the last word, regardless of whether you like or hate what he has to say. The rest of the candidates should take notice. Regular people hate politicians. That’s why Trump is so high at the moment, because he says what everybody else is afraid to. People resonate to Trump because he seems to hate politicians as much as the rest of us.
The other candidates better start standing up for themselves instead of just belittling Trump, even if its deserved. Cruz has demonstrated more than the rest to avoid slamming Trump and still take up many of Trump’s talking points.
How many of the other candidates, or the media, have slammed McCain for calling people who like Trump “crazies.” Call me crazy but I would rather listen to anything Trump has to say rather than John McCain, who never saw an issue he didn’t want to exploit for his own political gain and stature. He called Trump’s followers crazies but when he ran for office he refused to bring up Obama’s connection to Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, etc. McCain should not receive any air time whatsoever.
Nate,
Trump is the one to beat, if he happens to do good in the debates he will blow them all out. I can see the rest of the Republicans ganging up on him, but if he keeps his cool, the White House is his.
“If he keeps his cool, the White House is his.” Well, he’s probably not going to be in the White House then 😉 haha
Besides the fact that if Trump is the Republican nominee, the Democrats could win by nominating a three-legged dog.
I’ll give him this: he has tapped a vein of discontent and knows how to exploit it. So far he has done better at that than any of the other candidates, on either side. Fact is, as pastors, we all know that it is easier to rally people AGAINST something than it is to rally them FOR something. However, the rally against something rarely lasts, and when it does, it rarely if ever accomplishes anything positive–and there are a lot of positive things that need to be accomplished in and for America. Just being against stuff won’t do that.
I used to like Christie, until Bridgegate. I would still like him had he just come out and said, “Yeah, it was politics, that’s the way we play it in New Jersey, so if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Carson: no experience in governing. Cruz: the Senate dislikes him too much (both sides of the aisle) for him to accomplish much, much less that I don’t care for his grandstanding. Rubio: maybe. Bush: I am hopeful, and would like to be convinced to vote for him. Paul: too much of an isolationist. Jindal: he has not accomplished much in La., besides the botched response to the State of the Union. Walker: I don’t know, maybe. Hillary: it entirely depends on who the GOP nominates; if Cruz, Trump, Jindal, Paul, or several others, I might.
Remember what I said on this forum either 4 or 8 years ago: general elections in the US are won or lost in the center. If the GOP nominates a candidate who can appeal only to the far right, or even the right, by default, the center will go to the left, i.e., the Democratic candidate.
John
If presidential elections are won ” in the center” – please explain Obama’s election twice?
Republicans nominated two candidates that were center-right they were not far right they both lost to a man that is far, far, far, left.
I think the election of Barack Obama has shown us that policies matter not anymore – audiology matters not anymore – the only thing that matters is identity (gender and race) politics – whoever plays that the best will be our next president – Republican or Democrat.
In my opinion the only person running on the Republican side for the office that I believe is a true blue conservative and not a player of identity politics is Scott Walker and Maybe Kasich. I’m holding out hope that a solid and substantive candidate like him can actually still win in America – but as I posted above I doubt it.
Ideology not audiology.
What I mean, Tarheel, is that the majority of American voters are centrists, not that Obama is. He won the middle because the Republican candidates either painted themselves (or allowed themselves to be painted) in the far right, yes possibly farther right then they actually were. But people do not act on reality, rather they act on their perception of reality. Neither of those candidates followed Nixon’s advice; if you recall, he said you ran to the right in the primaries, and to the center in the general. (Of course, with communication and news cycles being what they are today, that may no longer be possible.) But the point is that in order to appeal to the Republican base, and to keep them fired up, McCain and Romney both allowed themselves to be perceived as right wingers, and that is just not the direction America is currently moving (didn’t say it was right, just that’s the way it is). Mr. Obama being a great campaigner, the center gravitated in his direction.
Complicating the picture, in the last two elections, both GOP Presidential candidates had issues that hurt them: Romney, first by being Mormon and second by his 47% comment (deserved or not, true or not, it hurt his candidacy with voters, especially Independents and those in the center); and McCain was hurt by his choice of a vice-presidential candidate. You may like her, I don’t know; for that matter, I like her beliefs, but a great many people, including me, had a perception of her as one who does not finish what she started (resigning before her term of office was up in her major ofices), not to mention her gaffs on foreign affairs and her belligerence; and she embraced an ideology which the American center perceived as far-right. Interestingly, one of our former church members, who was transferred from here to Alaska united with the Baptist church she is either a member of or attends frequently, and told me her private persona is very different from her public one. But again: it is perception, not reality, that people act upon.
John
I fear the running to the middle is gone – neither side does that anymore.
I am becoming more and more convinced that very many Americans at all are even caring or knowledgeable enough to know where they actually fit on the ideological scale.
Of those who do care about politics and engage in it – there are very, very, very few in the center anymore the vast majority has run to the far corners. Democrats have been there longer than republicans and they keep winning elections – republicans keep nominating moderates and that has proven over and over to not be a winning strategy. The only exception to that in the last 30 years in GW Bush.
When republicans offer centrists who pride themselves in being so – Dole, McCain, Romeny they lose. There is no contrast. Conservatives are disheartned and whatever independents there are go with the ones who stand for something and don’t try to play the middle.
I detest almost every policy of Obama – but he is doing exactly what he said he would do. He ran unabashedly far left both times. He touted socialism over and over and over. It appealed to folks because he was promising them things….promising to take from others and give to them – In so doing he provided a contrast for the painted picture of republicans who want to take it all away – but truth be told they were all big govt statists too – so they offered no real conservative alternative.
I would like to see a real conservative run – offer alternatives to the socialism of the democrats – stand for something – be as far to the right as the likely candidate for the dems will be. (I still think there is a good chance it will NOT be Hillary – I think she is and will implode – and in will ride Elizabeth Warren “on her white horse to save the day.) We need a contrast and centrism (whatever that is – since moderates stand on nothing concrete) has not and will not work this time either.
I’m not sure John and I would always vote alike (just a feeling, without a lot of evidence), but I think his analysis is spot on.
Here’s my sense. Republicans need to run a solid conservative, but not some fire-breathing, “ship-em-all-back-to-Mexico,” harsh, kind of conservative.
The problem is that to a lot of conservatives, if you aren’t fire-breathing, they assume you aren’t conservative.
Dave Miller,
Walker is seen as a true conservative and is not a fire breather. He appears to be just what you are describing you want.
I agree with you about the fire breathing part – this is why Cruz is not high on my list despite agreeing with him a lot. Paul is also a grandstander, IMO.
Walker is one of my favorites, because of the way he stood up to the special interests and power groups in Wisconsin.
I don’t think he’s the one to beat, and I don’t think he can keep his cool either, but it will be a fun ride. If you look at all the early leaders from previous elections, none ended up with the nomination.
I do think he will do well in the debates b/c he won’t try and be a politician, or afraid to say insensitive things. In fact, he’ll probably tell he moderator he’s fired for asking a stupid question. It will be interesting to see which of the other candidates will actually spar with him and not simply respond with politically correct statements. That may give me an indication of whom I might end up voting for.
He’s the moral choice to be sure: four wives, numerous bankruptsies, had no problem with abortion, and openly said that he has never asked God for forgiveness but praises the work of Norman Vincent Peale.
If a Christian can’t get behind a candidate like that, then just what kind of candidate could one support.
Trump/Blagojevich ’16! Blagojevich had several racketeering counts dropped and may get out just in time to run with Trump.
Well, hope springs eternal.
It’s been amusing to watch Trump shake up the other Republican candidates. I’m not a fan of Trump and never have been and don’t plan to vote for him. But he speaks openly and honestly about what he thinks. That’s refreshing. He seems to get the goad of some of the other candidates who are relying on their ability to mince words. They see that people actually like it when a candidate is willing to be bluntly honest with them about what he actually thinks and it foils their status quo strategy. It’s hard to lie and come up with the kind of zingers Trump whips out rapid fire.
Jim, his greatest contribution is going to be to “cull the RHINO herd.”
“cull the RHINO herd.”
Nicely put.
Yeah Trump has proven he is a horrible human being. The fact that you would say that you would support him based on his racist views on immigration says a lot about you and your lack of understanding of scripture. Perhaps you should spend more time reading the Word and less time reading The Blaze.
Seriously. Most pathetic comment I have ever read on this blog.
You are right about why Trump is high in the polls right now.
Definitely not Perry, Cruz, Trump, or Carson. Still working through the others. Probably Walker or Paul.
I’m probably closest in political leaning to Santorum and Rubio.
In all honesty, if we end up having to choose between Clinton and Trump I’ll either not vote or vote for an Independent candidate. Both would be detrimental.
Just out of curiosity Tyler, what policies do you think Trump would try and implement that you would be that unwilling to vote for him. Hillary is a socialist and wants government to get even bigger than where Obama has it, for example. Not sure I’ve heard Trump say anything policy-wise that I disagree with, at the moment. Seal the border. Tell Mexico, China, Japan, and South Korea they are not going to take advantage of us anymore, etc.
Clinton is a Socialist – “take over and run private enterprise quickly.”
Trump is a Fascist – “pretend not to be taking over private enterprise but really doing so at a slower rate.”
I have a good friend who said that: “Trump wants to be CEO of ‘Americaco’.” He wants America for his own – he wants to make get richer and more powerful and this is his latest gig.
I think is Foriefn Policy is awful along with his views on immigration.
Tyler, certainly respect your right to avoid the polls, but don’t think it is possible to avoid voting.
Everyone that does not vote, has voted for the winner. We cannot distance ourselves from our civic responsibilities by non-action.
In the face of difficult decisions, not decision is not a moral stance. It sounds like a moral high road at first blush, but reality has a way of knocking off that blush.
Again, that is my perspective and I understand that you do not share that perspective. I think of it as a simple matter of humanity: if Hillary wins, humanity suffers more than if say, “Trump” wins.
It is hard to prove this of course, but here’s part of my reasoning: when America is strong and good, our nation is a great blessing all over the world. When we are weak and morally stagnant, evil seems to rage all the more around the world.
I realize that this is a very subjective argument, but I feel it is supported by years of history, at least in part if not perfectly.
I guess with Hillary the almost certain Democratic nominee I have to reach into the world of sports to help guide me in finding a candidate to vote for.
When someone asks me, who’s your favorite professional football team, I usually say, “The Steelers, or ANYONE PLAYING THE COWBOYS.”
I feel a little like that in regard to another Clinton.
I agree, Jack.
I would take it a step further and talk about third party voters….
I know we all hate to pick the lesser of two evils – but I also think that voting for a third party candidate who cannot win by any stretch is akin to voting for the worse of the two evils. We have a system where one of the two major party candidates is going to win – we can “rail against the system” all we want by voting third party – but that just takes a vote from the lesser of the evil and essentially gives the worse of the two evils an advantage.
There’s always the option of writing in your own name. That way you could have the “perfect” candidate.
Jack, I think there is a lot of wisdom there. Thanks brother.
Tyler, I hope you realize I wasn’t slamming you or even criticizing your perspective.
I was really struggling with how we have come to such a low point in American life that many of us–I include myself here–feel like we are doing something “immoral” when we vote for either of those who are proffered as candidates.
I am going to vote, but I bet I am not going to feel great afterwards.
Oh no worries. I thought no such thing. I was very encouraged by your comment, brother.
I would vote for any of them over a Democrat any day. The last Dem I would have even considered voting for was Harry Truman.
And Jess, you keep talking about Republican court justices voting for every immoral law, how did the Dem appointed ones vote? How did the majority of conservative justices vote?
John, I was about to say, “I’d vote for a dead person before I’d vote for a Democrat.”
Then . . . I realized all dead people are registered Democrats.
John Wylie,
When it costs two cents to make a penny, and a dime to make a nickel, something is wrong.
All the money is going to the top dogs, the only way a president will win an election, is to focus on the middle class working man. The middle class working people are the ones to beat in an election. Which ever candidate supports the middleclass the most will get the job.
No one. Like last time: Left that spot blank.
Had some people tell me I need to bite the bullet and go for the lesser of two (or ten) evils, but no.
One of my best friends lives in Wisconsin and is a staunch conservative politically. He didn’t go into all the reasons other than calling him a slime ball, but he said no way he would ever vote for Walker as prez.
I’m from Ohio.
Like the way Kasich has both kept conservative values and crossed party leaders in giving aid to the poor and unemployed. He comes from working class roots and he seems to understand what regular people need. Has had experience in Washington [sorry for the cuss] and I believe some foreign relation committee time as a congressman.
Not much to dislike about the guy unless you’re an Ohio democrat pol.
If Ted Cruz is not the Repub candidate then I will write in my own name. Everybody remember……when all the other candidates are repugnant then the name to write in is Jake Barker!
A Walker/Rubio ticket would be consercative and electable.
I’m going to say something that I never thought I’d say, but Donald Trump is a better politician than just about anyone in the GOP field.
He has identified issues that are of serious concern to millions of Americans. He says the things that people want to hear regarding immigration, persecution of Christians and international trade.
That said, Trump’s biggest problem isn’t his mouth, but his ego. Trump’s ego wrecked the USFL way back in the 1980s because summer football wasn’t BIG enough for the Donald and he had to compete against the NFL head-to-head. Part of me wonders if this whole political episode is nothing more than self aggrandizement. He has a history of that.
We will have to see if Trump keeps his momentum going. It is a long way until the voters start hitting the polls. That means Donald Trump will be on the hustings a long time. Will his enthusiasm remain high or will people get tired of his act?
One thing seems sure, voters are forgiving of Trump at this point. In some ways, like Bill Clinton always getting the benefit of the doubt, it seems Trump is getting lots of leeway because he is trolling the mainstream media and the Beltway political gamesters. And yes, McCain is a political insider who insulted Trump prior to Trump’s faux pas.
Walker has my vote today. Just moved back home to South Carolina and I would only vote for Lindsay Graham if the alternative in the primary was Trump but doubt he will last until the SC primary.
I was a Rick Santorum man last go round and still like him. I would love to see him as Attorney General or on the Supreme Court if he does not get nominated.
Being from SC it bothers me that some of Cruz’ campaign leaders here are the same fellas who wanted the flag to stay up. One of them is on the SEBTS Board of Visitors, Sen. Lee Bright of Spartanburg. I am not a fan of those who support that flag flying but that is a whole different talk.
If I had to choose my favorite right now I’d go with Rubio. Thought Romney should have taken him as VP nominee, but I’m glad he didn’t at this point. Rubio is a good communicator, high likability, and seems to be pretty conservative by conviction.
I also like Walker and Carson a lot, but I’m not sure they have the charisma needed to run the long national campaign. I’d be glad to be proved wrong with both of them. I like Jindal but not sure he has the name recognition or stature yet in such a crowded field.
Fiorina has continued to impress in media appearances but I’m afraid lack of political experience makes her too much of a risk as presidential candidate, but as VP… I’d go for that. She can really go on the attack without turning people off, very articulate and not afraid to push back on media bias.
I could live with Cruz or Bush, for different reasons, but am afraid the Bush name is too much of a drag and not sure Cruz will have wide enough appeal or likability for general election.
At this point my choice would be a Rubio/Fiorina ticket but I think the bench is deep and could be happy with several of the candidates. Maybe the last eight years have so lowered the bar that my standards have gone to pot.
My top pick right now is Rand Paul. He’s honest. Not married to the Republican power structure and has fresh ideas.
Rubio is my second choice. One of my friends is roommates with Rubio in DC. He says he’s the real deal as far as his faith. That’s a plus for me. In addition, he would be more reasonable on dealing with the undocumented immigrant situation.
Barring those two, I would hold my nose and vote for Jeb.
On the Republican side, that’s it. Rest of them are a joke, outright liars, retreads, or so ingodly I would never vote for them. Ever.
On the Dem side, I’m curious to hear from Bernie Sanders. I know o won’t be able to vote for him due to the abortion issue, but I’m curious to hear him on poverty and economic opportunity. I also haven’t heard much from him on foreign policy. He gets dismissed as a Socialist, but I am not sure if that’s a label he has shed over the years or if he still holds those leanings.
I’m already bored with Hillary and if she gets the nomination I think the GOP has an easier time getting in the White House unless they do something stupid like nominating one of the crazies (Trump or Cruz)
Just my thoughts. Flame away.
Rubio – real deal in his faith – and that’s enough for you?
You know he’s a RC, right?
He actually attends services at both a Catholic Church and an SBC church. Let that bake your noodle for a minute.
So in your opinion the fact that he’s a committed (not nominal) RC disqualifies him? Even though that means he agrees with our convictions on the abortion issue as well as SSM?
No. I did not say at this qualifies him – I simply question you’re saying he’s the “real deal” when it comes to faith with his face is that of a Completely different religion from yourself.
Myself, Although it’s not a personal political litmus test, I would not refer to someone is being the real deal in their faith unless their faith is evangelical Christianity because I don’t think one can’t be the real deal absent that.
Wow. Trying that again.
No. I did not say that this qualifies him – I simply question you saying he’s the “real deal” when it comes to faith when his faith is that of a Completely different religion from yourself.
Myself, although it’s not always a personal political litmus test, I would not refer to someone as being the “real deal” in their faith unless their faith is evangelical Christianity because I think one can’t be the real deal absent that.
Tarheel,
I want to be clear, I certainly take great exception to Catholic doctrine, but I have met committed Christians who were practicing Catholics. How can that happen? I think that perhaps they were raised that way and just never broke with their church.
*disqualifies
So you are saying that:
1) Catholicism is a completely different religion – which puts it with Mormonism, Hinduism, and Islam
2) That all Catholics are by definition lost
Am I understadning you correctly?
I’m saying that Roman Catholicism, based the fact that its theology is not rooted in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ – is not the same as evangelical Christianity – I do believe that there are some Catholics who are saved but it is not because of the religion and the faith that they are taught it is in spite of it.
Further since Catholicism is not rooted in the basic essential of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, and instead is based on works salvation, then – yes, by it’s doctrine it is a different faith system.
John W.,
I too have known people who claim Christ and deny works salvation and have embraced Jesus Christ through faith – i would argue that theologically speaking once they do that they ceased to be Catholic.
Doctrine is what defines a belief system – should a person deny such a foundational tenet of a belief system then are they not in fact denying the belief system?
Tarheel,
I understand and agree with much of what you are saying. My point is that Rubio could, in fact, be the real deal and still be attending a Roman Catholic congregation. That’s sounds unfathomable to you and I, but then again, we weren’t raised Roman Catholic.
John W.
Neither was Rubio. He was raised Mormon but left when he met Jesus.
His story, what I know of it, is pretty interesting. I know enough to not be skeptical of his faith being found in Christ and not works.
Like I say, he’s my second choice. A ticket of him and Rand would really shake things up in my opinion. I don’t think Hillary could take Rand in a debate. And Rubio would likely dominate a VP debate on charisma alone- much less knowledge. He’s sharp.
My fear is we are going to wind up with one of the nut jobs on the ticket and it will be over before it starts. The crowded field is not a good thing. IMO
Ryan,
I agree that the crowded field is bad, no doubt. But other than Trump, I really don’t think that anyone else in the running is really a nut job. They have just been framed that way by the media. Rand, would be my first choice as well.
I am not saying he is not a Christian. I am saying if he has believed on Christ by faith then he is saved by Grace and is by definition no longer a Roman Catholic.
The fact that he was Mormon (another works based salvation system) and the joined the works based RCC when he rejected Mormonism – actually gives me more pause. But, I will say that he could very well be saved by faith exclusively in Jesus Christ – but if so – he is not Catholic.
Another example, I have heard Rick Santorum’s testimony and by it he excludes himself from the RCC because he expresses that he is saved because of his exclusive faith in Jesus Christ.
All I am saying is that when someone expresses salvation by grace through faith – they are by definition no longer Catholic.
I know that tradition keeps many who are saved attending RCC congregations – but as I said – their salvation is not because of RCC teaching/theology it is in spite of it. Also, one would think that the Holy Spirit would not bear witness very long for them to attend church where an anti gospel is believed and taught.
Tarheel, what are you talking about, supported for Romney last time. Gee! I wonder what he was.
I’m kind of with William on his picks. Trump is a sideshow. I kind of lean towards Rubio. I’m not opposed to Walker but I haven’t followed him much. I don’t think Paul has the right temperament, nor does Christie. I’m not opposed to Bush other than the whole dynasty thing.
If the election happened today. I would vote for Carson. The things he says mostly sound like common sense, which is certainly lacking in Washington these days.
I agree that Trump is riding high mostly because he speaks straight and honestly and doesn’t care what anyone thinks about what he says. I love that in him. But he holds a few positions that would make it problematic for me to vote for him.
For a blog of voices involved with the Southern Baptist Convention very little has been said here about the candidates who come from our own ranks. Granted, a Southern Baptist may not always be the best candidate, but we do have some good choices this time around. If you are a conservative, Ted Cruz seems to be true blue, or maybe I should say true red. If you are more moderate fiscally, then Mike Huckabee would be a great choice. If you want a man who won’t shirk from the fight, Scot Walker has proven himself there. Walker may not be a part of an SBC church, but he does have strong Baptist roots (grew up as Baptist PK), and I suspect his theology lines up pretty close to ours. And then there is Lindsey Graham, but I won’t say who might want to vote for him. I wouldn’t want to be accused of calling anyone a bad name. 🙂
Gov. Huckabee’s “controversial” words this week:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FdNCB-N70E
I’m late to the party, but here’s my take:
Trump is leading the polls right now because he already has the highest name-recognition and is a genius at self-promotion. He’s the candidate I would find most entertaining in a debate or at a town hall meeting, but that doesn’t mean I want him appointing federal judges, commanding the military, or holding his finger on the proverbial nuclear button. While I appreciate the fact that he’s not afraid to speak his mind, I have little confidence in his conservative principles on social issues like abortion and religious liberty. I’m dubious when he starts talking about his concern for persecuted Christians. He says it because he knows it whips up the base. But last year during the ebola crisis in Africa, he tweeted that Americans like Kent Brantly of Samaritans Purse who contracted ebola doing mission work were “great” but had to “suffer the consequences” rather than being returned to the US for treatment. Also, I think he would get trounced in the general election. There are too many Americans of all political persuasions who are already convinced he’s just a self-aggrandizing blowhard. I like him at times as an entertainer and pundit but wouldn’t want him as president.
Of the others, Walker holds my interest the most right now. I need to learn more about him. I’ll be voting in SC’s first-in-the-south primary. I like Tarheel’s description of his pro-life stance as governor of WI.
“But last year during the ebola crisis in Africa, he tweeted that Americans like Kent Brantly of Samaritans Purse who contracted ebola doing mission work were ‘great’ but had to ‘suffer the consequences’ rather than being returned to the US for treatment.”
Exactly! I have not forgotten.
I like some of the things that Trump says. However his latest statement that he would consider creating a third party if he is not “treated fairly” by the RNC did him in for me. A third party splitting the conservative vote would insure a Democrat win and that would be a tragedy.
All right we have beat around the bush on this long enough – no true conservative could ever vote for Donald Trump – even in the primary.
Jess stating he would vote for him tells us all we need to know – a progressive liberal like Jess saying he’d vote for him reveals a lot.
Trump is an opportunistic, narcissistic liberal. Among other things.
His immigration statements that the “fed up people” resonate with Are in stark contrast to the very things that he said just a few years ago – like I said – he’s a self aggrandizing opportunist.
He’s also described himself as “very pro-choice”.
Tarheel,
Thank you for calling me a progressive liberal, I like the word centrist, but I will settle for progressive liberal. As long as you don’t call me conservative, we can be friends.
I call ’em as I see ’em.
Don’t worry about being called a conservative – no one who reads this blog would ever mistake you for a conservative – either politically or theologically.
If Trump gets the nomination, he has my vote. He would be a refreshing change to Washington. Anyone that has had anything to do with the Tea Party will not get my vote. It’s Trump or nothing, or else I will vote for a Democrat.
I want a president that will represent all Americans, not just a few.
In light of the Trump and Dems scenario and comments, I’m curious enough to throw the proverbial and ethical hand grenade into the mix: if you are faced with two final candidates (regardless of party affiliation) who are both pro-abortion and pro same-sex marriage (SSM), who would you vote for? Would you abstain from voting at all as many evangelicals did in the last Presidential election (Romney v. Obama)?
I would not let that deter me in anyway from voting. The Republicans gave us both items you listed, because of this, I will proudly vote for a Democrat unless Trump gets the nomination.
First ladies and gentlemen, everyone is partisan and the court which ostensibly is to be non-partisan in enforcing and applying the constitution is of course as partisan as van be, as one can note by merely reading the bios and political ideology of each justice (i.e. writings and opinions).
Furthermore, they are appointed and approved by partisan bodies of government (White House and Congress respectively). In a perfect world SCOTUS (Supreme Court) would be non-partisan but as we live in reality, it is far from that ideal.
As to voting for a Democrat, that is a non-option today as I see it for the Biblical Christian, being that the typical (if we must generalize) Dem, is pro-abortion and pro-homosexual rights, to say nothing of their secularly humanistic views on personal property, education, religious freedom of expression and national security, which are fundamental tenets to God’s ordination of government (Gen.; Exo.; Ro. 13:1-7).
Aside from all that, Dems make great candidates for public office…! Republicans? Yes, they’re not off the hook as they are far too often unprincipled, compromising “Democrat lites”. For me, it is making the most Biblically oriented choice from those available, partisanship aside.
It just so happens for the Biblicist or “conservative” if you will, which is the modern political ideology which most closely aligns itself to a Biblical theology, the GOP is the default position until such time that a truly Biblical and conservative Independent or third party candidate is available or a revolutionary, counter-party Dem (unlikely).
Bernie, back in the 50s and 60s there was less partisanship on the court.
That is true Dave that the court was less partisan at one time. But as I said, today, that couldn’t be farther from reality. Pres. Obama has handpicked and pushed through ultra-liberal justices to the court accompanying yes, conservatives that were nominated by W. Bush.
Ironically the all-too familiar swing vote being Kennedy, was nominated by Pres. Reagan- in retrospect, a major faux pas.
Jess,
You mean the Americans that ignore the despicable act of murdering the unborn?
Or, did you mean the Americans who think gay marriage is acceptable?
Or, did you mean the Americans who are increasingly atheists?
Chief Katie,
Don’t act so sanctified, the Republican Justices gave us abortion.
I guess if you say it enough, you hope it might become true?
Justices are non partisan – especially back then in the pre Roe v. Wade days. The president’s were Dem or Rep but the justices, especially back then, were not.
Dave,
Do you not know your history? Look it up, Roe vs Wade. We had a Republican president and a Republican Supreme Court.
Republicans also struck down the sodomy laws.
A Republican Justice Kennedy tipped the scales for SSM.
Look it up! I dare you.
Oh, and the Republican Justices voted with the Dems to take prayer and bible reading out of schools.
In my opinion the Republican party is two faced.
I simply cannot understand why the religious movement is so against the working man, and the poor.
Folks talk about the democratic platform and yet the republicans vote all the liberal ideas in.
Dave, tell me the truth as to why I should vote for a Republican. Don’t use scripture, because Republicans do not follow the bible, because they are against the poor, and the middle class.
If you convince me, I will change my name to Conservative Jess.
The Court is NOT partisan.
You are just trying to avoid facing the fact that the party you support is the one that is wholeheartedly and enthusiastically in support of abortion.
Your party supports abortion. No amount of sophistry can change that fact.
I’m not happy with my party on abortion, but your party embraces the death culture with enthusiasm .
Jess, look up how exactly Kennedy was pun on the bench – 2 much more conservative nominees were blocked by the democrat controlled senate and RR had to nominate someone who was conservative light to get him approved by the obstinate democrat senate.
If Justice Bork (RR’s first choice) had not been so villified and, and yes mistreated by the democrat controlled senate, (and denied based purely on the basis of poltics – a new approach to SCOUTS nominations – brought on by democrats) – his credentials were impeccable!) We would not have Kennedy sitting there today.
Please educate yourself on how things work.
Jess, thank you for giving me another reason not to vote for Trump.
The fed-up crowd resonates with Trump.
The let-up crowd serves the Democrats
The wake-up crowd is what I am watching for.
A broad swath of America seems to have contentment with not voting on anyone. If 14 republicans can’t arouse the base of conservative voters to a better than 50% turn-out, we are bound for at least 4 more years of yet another novelty (female this time) president with even more dysfunction in government.
The trends are before us–It will be many generations, if ever again, before Conservative Evangelical Christianity will have a politician of their own in the White house.
We may all have to swallow real hard and join the Fed-Ups with Donald the Great as our grand poo-bah?
Tarheel, you said, “””look up how exactly Kennedy was pun on the bench.”””
Thank you for not allowing important facts to drift into obscurity. I had forgotten about that. There was even a political phrase for the process used to keep Bork off the Court. It was called, “Borking.”
I know Dave said above that the Court is not partisan. It certainly is not supposed to be partisan, and maybe that is not the best term to describe it. Democrats are easy to recognize when they get on the Court. They stay the course. Republicans, not so much. They tend to have either been RHINO’S, or become RHINO’S.
As Bork’s situation demonstrates, it has been impossible to get a truly “constitutional” judge on the Court for many years.
The Democratic process of “Borking” has given us the Court we have today that tilts to the left.
Again, thank you for a sharp mind to have rescued this fact for the discussion.
Well if he should win the nomination, Ted Cruz. My number 2 is Kasich. But it really makes little difference. The US govco is so disfufunctional, so heavily bought, that i do not think a President alone can fix it. Democracies will not last. They devolve into totalitarianism. We were supposed to be a republic. With a real 10th amendment.
Carson. We heard him speak and I asked him questions… Great answers. I think he’ll nail debate.
Carson made Obama squirm at that prayer breakfast! I’ll coast on that!
I would love to see each one of you pastors stand before your church Sunday and tell them you are for cutting Social Security and Medicare. That you are for rich corporations and not for the poor working men and women, and the middle class.
You all yell the Democrats gave us abortion, that is a flat out lie. Tell your church you are for cutting food stamps.
Tell your church exactly what you believe. If any of you still have parents alive, tell them how you want to cut their income.
Go ahead and make my day!
Jess, you can rant and rage and accuse all you want but abortion is and always has been the platform of the Democrats since Roe v. Wade.
What proposal is on the Republican platform for cutting the social security of those now collecting it? There may be some nutcase representative that has a draft to do this, but I know of no Republican that has proposed this.
Now, I might have missed this. Can you point to some fact or evidence for this claim? It seems to me this would be political suicide.
There are republicans who are seeking to make modest changes in FUTURE social security and Medicare so that it doesn’t go bankrupt (the current course is GOING to do that) and EVERYONE loses it.
No one is proposing immediate “cuts” – democrat talking points won’t work here Jess.
Dems are pretending it’s all fine and scaring people with lies in the short term to get and keep votes – and by doing so the dems are messing us all up!
Jack,
These cuts have been all over the news. 20% cut is no modest change. Dems, are supporting the law of the land, that means both parties are in the wrong on the abortion issue. But yet you support republicans as if they are God, murderers will say God’s name once in a while yet they are still a murderer.
I remember 50 years ago preachers were supporting republicans, and many were against social security then.
Jack, does it really make a difference what the democratic platform is, when the republicans always vote in immorality?
I ask you which party is doing the lying?
Jess,
Please cite where there’s an actual republican plan to cut benefits by 20%?
Tarheel,
Jeb Bush, has a plan to cut Social Security by 20%, it made the News. Look it up.
Google showed NO such plan. It pulled up a bunch of fire-breathing liberal sites (perhaps your favorites? ) that were apocalyptic about his suggestion about raising the SS retirement age.
But I could find NO support for the statement you made. None. Maybe you could either provide a link?
Please stick to facts and avoid wild accusations.
Tarheel,
This is disability Social Security, that will effect 9 million Americans. You can google it, and it was also on the news.
Giving tax breaks to millionaires and cutting Social Security is what the GOP is all about. Anything that will better the working people of this country, the GOP is against.
Jess, reading the Democratic talking points memos might not be your best place for accurate news!
Ill look it up – but it doesn’t sound right.
Plus Jeb holds NO elective office and may not in the future – so what he sayat this point carries no more legislative power than what any of us VOICES opiners say about social security.
As usual – you’re wrong again.
He’s suggested raising SS collection age by two years – for those currently under 40.
Nothing about reducing benefits by 20%.
https://jeb2016.com/news?lang=en
You can read for yourself on Jeb Bush’s website just what he actually said on these issues.
I found it and read it again. You can also go to AARP and look what they say about republicans cutting social security. You guys don’t like social security, but I do. Time and time again republicans said we must cut social security, it had made the news multiple times. You folks just find what you want to find. Now the republicans are not wanting to move money around to fund the disability part of it. It’s there hunt it up for yourselves.
The great thing about America, I suppose, is that people can believe what they wish without having to check their facts.
You are wrong as wrong can be, Jess, but in this land you can be wrong as much as you’d like.
You might try reading something other than left wing stuff, and seek to understand the other side accurately.
Jess blames the Republicans for same sex marriage, but only one Republican appointed justices voted for it. ALL of the Democrat appointed justices voted for it. Yet, Jess gives them a pass. It’s a case of the more bizarre and ridiculous thinking on this subject.
In 1987, Reagan tried to appoint a conservative (Robert Bork) to the Supreme Court. Look at how the DEMOCRATS slandered him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNaasFvvFlE
Since the Democrats voted down Bork, Reagan was forced to nominate a less conservative judge (Anthony Kennedy). Kennedy was the only Republican-nominated justice to vote for Obergefell.
When the misinformed or biased people fail to discuss and/or understand reasonable corrections and reject truth after numerous attempts, its time to just hit the IGNORE button.
Pew Research shows that SS reserves will be depleted by 2033. Already people are receiving more in SS payments than they paid in during their lifetime.
Yes, people like getting their check, but it is a broken system. People don’t want benefits cut, but they also don’t want to pay more taxes. (although they seem to be happy to let other people pay more taxes)