AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So, Roxxxanne, referring to the article you posted, would you say that a person's close friendships and associations are an important issue in a campaign? That a person's advisors and personal relationships should be taken into serious consideration when we choose who to elect President?

I think a conservative principle might be that character does count and that there is room to at least consider the company that people keep when assessing that.

The ridiculous implication (Foxfyre rarely communicates any thoughts directly, it is always implications) is that Barack Obama's character should be questioned based on a few soundbites pulled out of hours and hours of speeches which attempt to demonize a respected pastor.

First, the image created by the right of Rev Wright is false. Secondly, Barack Obama explained the relationship and denounced the stuff Wright said in the few soundbites. The relationship between McCain and Graham is an entirely different matter and has to be examined on its own merit.

I agree that McCain and Gramm -- at least spell the fella's name right -- are a different issue than Obama and Wright and each should be examined on its own merit.

The implication you seem to be drawing with the article you posted, however, is that the relationship matters. So how does it matter with McCain and not for Obama?

It's a reasonable question. Take your time. I'll wait.

(Pertinance to the topic goes back to No. 4 on the list: the universality of conservative principles.)

Foxfyre wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

So, Roxxxanne, referring to the article you posted, would you say that a person's close friendships and associations are an important issue in a campaign? That a person's advisors and personal relationships should be taken into serious consideration when we choose who to elect President?

I think a conservative principle might be that character does count and that there is room to at least consider the company that people keep when assessing that.

The ridiculous implication (Foxfyre rarely communicates any thoughts directly, it is always implications) is that Barack Obama's character should be questioned based on a few soundbites pulled out of hours and hours of speeches which attempt to demonize a respected pastor.

First, the image created by the right of Rev Wright is false. Secondly, Barack Obama explained the relationship and denounced the stuff Wright said in the few soundbites. The relationship between McCain and Graham is an entirely different matter and has to be examined on its own merit.

I agree that McCain and Gramm -- at least spell the fella's name right -- are a different issue than Obama and Wright and each should be examined on its own merit.

The implication you seem to be drawing with the article you posted, however, is that the relationship matters. So how does it matter with McCain and not for Obama?

It's a reasonable question. Take your time. I'll wait.

(Pertinance to the topic goes back to No. 4 on the list: the universality of conservative principles.)

Relationships do matter when the person is a surrogate and a potential cabinet appointee.
"Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he'd consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration."

I did spell his name right BTW and can you possibly be more clueless?


Could you spell pertinence right?

I did spell his name right BTW and can you possibly be more clueless?

The relationship between McCain and Graham is an entirely different matter and has to be examined on its own merit.

Gramm is often a surrogate for the Arizona senator, particularly in meetings focused on the economy. And McCain has hinted he'd consider the former Texas senator for Treasury secretary in a McCain administration

Roxxxanne wrote:

You are wasting your time, TKO. Like many conservatives, Foxfyre cannot grasp nuance.

Are you claiming that you, yourself, are nuanced, in any way or to any degree?

I think a conservative principle might be that character does count and that there is room to at least consider the company that people keep when assessing that.

So nice of you to show up and contribute something JTT.

Foxfyre wrote:

So nice of you to show up and contribute something JTT.

So where are you in your count, Foxy, or has the truth been, yet again, conveniently banished from your mind.

Rox and other apologists for Obama's and his long-time mentor, Rev. Wright, are merely trying to create a diversion to take the heat off their hero. The Left has a lot of experience with spin, diversion, double-think, name calling, and character assassination. Given almost any excuse they revert to innuendo and incendiary attacks on any target in view. They are far too often hypocrits, whose claims to objectivity and dedication to truth, justice and an ideal America founder on reality. Faced with unpleasant truths, they go into denial, they blame the big, bad conspiracy of conservatives, republicans, wealth, and old White men for everything... including their own failures.

During this primary season it has been somewhat gratifying to watch them utilizing their penchant for name-calling, accusations, and character assassination on one another for a change. But, they are naturally angry people and perhaps they just can't help themselves.

Trolls are very active on April 1st, didn't you know that Foxy?

Diest TKO wrote:

It's plenty relative, don't get me wrong. The point is that if we are to judge one candidate by the company he keeps, then we must do the same for all candidates.

Wright's statements don't pose any practical threat. That is to say, if Obama had some radical agenda, it would have manifested itself already in his past voting record.

Gramm's practices however do pose a practical threat.

If who you keep in company and their agenda is worth inspection, it is only relavant if the candidate has validated the radical ideas by using his or her office to promote that said agenda.

Question: "What are you affraid Obama will do?"

T
K
O

How do Gramm's practices pose a practical threat? What power does Gramm have? I didn't realize he currently held any elected or appointed office or had any enforceable influence on policy decisions anywhere.

So the only issue could be whether, good or bad, McCain could be expected to share Gramm's opinions or whether McCain would likely be influenced by Gramm's perspective on whatever.

So do you think Gramm, as a friend and supporter of and advisor to McCain, should be an issue? If so why?

And if you do, then why would not friends and supporters of and advisors to Obama or anybody else running for elected office not also be an issue?

(As to your question re what Obama might do, my fear is that that he would push a liberal agenda and sign liberal bills and make liberal appointments that I do not think would be good for the country. I thought that long before I knew there was a Jeremiah Wright, however.)

Rox and other apologists for Obama's and his long-time mentor, Rev. Wright, are merely trying to create a diversion to take the heat off their hero. The Left has a lot of experience with spin, diversion, double-think, name calling, and character assassination. Given almost any excuse they revert to innuendo and incendiary attacks on any target in view. They are far too often hypocrits, whose claims to objectivity and dedication to truth, justice and an ideal America founder on reality. Faced with unpleasant truths, they go into denial, they blame the big, bad conspiracy of conservatives, republicans, wealth, and old White men for everything... including their own failures.

During this primary season it has been somewhat gratifying to watch them utilizing their penchant for name-calling, accusations, and character assassination on one another for a change. But, they are naturally angry people and perhaps they just can't help themselves.

You look a mess my little gnome friend.

White House plays down Haggard ties
Pastor used to be briefed weekly on Bush's agenda
Lee Bowman, Scripps Howard News Service
Saturday, November 4, 2006

WASHINGTON - As president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard has advised the White House on issues ranging from judicial appointments to steel tariffs.

But he also sought to widen the agenda of Christian evangelicals into areas the Bush administration - and many of his Christian brethren - would rather avoid.

Haggard resigned as president of the association, which says it represents about 30 million evangelical church members, and took a leave as senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs amid allegations that he paid a gay former escort for sex and drugs.

Although he had been active in lobbying for conservative Christian causes before, Haggard's profile rose after he became head of the NAE early in 2003.

He made frequent visits to the White House and was included in a select group of religious leaders briefed on the administration's agenda during a weekly teleconference with White House staff, a session meant to "feel the evangelical pulse," he's said.

"We have direct access (to the White House)," Haggard told a Wall Street Journal reporter shortly before the last presidential election, adding that he could take a concern to the president through staff and get a response within 24 hours.

Asked Friday about the Haggard controversy, White House spokesman Tony Fratto downplayed the pastor's connections to the Bush administration.

"He had been on a couple of (conference) calls but was not a weekly participant in those calls," Fratto said, adding that Haggard had been to the White House "one or two times."

"But there have been a lot of people who come to the White House," Fratto said.

Haggard keeps two framed photos of himself and President Bush on the wall outside his church office but also has spoken admiringly in the past of the faith of former Democratic presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

Haggard was naturally on the "A" list of evangelical Christians invited to the Bush White House for the signing of a bill banning late-term abortions or to be called in advance of any announcement for a chat about pending Supreme Court nominees.

Still, he criticized the White House for emphasizing the evangelical faith of failed nominee Harriet Miers, rather than her judicial philosophy.

New Life Church sits near the United States Air Force Academy, and Haggard has been at the forefront of evangelicals determined to stop Pentagon regulations that might prevent military chaplains from evangelizing.

At the same time, Haggard has angered some religious conservatives for urging Christians to protect Muslims in the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and more recently for urging missionary outreach to Muslims, but not to win converts or force Christianity on them.

Last summer, he joined an eclectic group of 27 religious leaders who ruffled the White House with a statement published in newspaper advertisements urging the government to "abolish torture now - without exception" in dealings with prisoners, including those suspected of terrorist activity.

In fact, Haggard has argued almost as frequently for freedom from government intervention as he has freedom of religion. He was one of the few religious conservatives to endorse a 2003 Supreme Court decision striking down Texas' anti-sodomy law on privacy grounds.

In a 2004 interview with the Rocky Mountain News, Haggard told the story of meeting with President Bush and a half-dozen other evangelicals and using the occasion to argue against the extension of steel tariffs.

"Your responsibility is the good of the people, and free trade is the way we get cheaper steel," he recounted telling the president during the session.

The taxes were dropped soon after the meeting.

Haggard's recent efforts promoted through the NAE a "broad biblical agenda" that included improving health care, ending racism and addressing global warming, which he recently declared should be an evangelical priority.

Like the White House, however, Haggard seeks to find environmental solutions through a free-market approach rather than through tight government controls or taxes on emissions of greenhouse gases.

Although the association's board approved some broad goals for social activism earlier this year, many Christian conservatives have criticized the move for going beyond the "values" issues that have traditionally been the political focus of the community.