Why I am not impressed with Chuck Baldwin

Sprittibee hates talking about politics, and yet she can’t seem to stop.  I love talking about politics, and yet I just haven’t desired to wade into those waters.  But I’ve been asked so I thought I would answer.

There is a rather popular idiom common to Western nations, but peculiarly prevalent in American politics which summarizes the way many of us on the conservative side feel about our political choices:

I will be voting for the lesser of two evils.

Meaning, of course, that we see two options available to us, neither of which we are particularly keen on.

And in this election, with a strong Christian in the running, many have responded to this frustration with a slight turning of the phrase:

If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

But there I must beg to differ.  The “lesser of two evils” is merely an idiom.  It does not, in fact, mean that either choice is “evil” in the biblical sense of the word.  It means only that they are both unpleasant.  There are a number of issues I disagree with John McCain on, but I cannot call him “evil” merely because we have a different vision for the direction our country should take.

And honestly?  I have as many concerns about Chuck Baldwin as I do about John McCain.  He is a pastor, not a politician.  That is not a bad thing, but at this point I have no idea how well he can lead a city, let alone a state or a nation.  He has said a lot of things as a pastor which are good and right, but I do not know what that means when I try to apply it to politics.  Perhaps with more familiarity, my discomfort would be alleviated, but I know from experience that not everyone who starts talking about “biblical principles” and “our founders’ vision” means the same thing I do when I bring up these phrases. Some of them mean something very different, and worse than anything John McCain or Barak Obama would bring to the nation.

The Volokh Conspiracy passes Baldwin off as “an enthusiastic purveyor of all manner of far-right conspiracy theories.”  Baldwin has stated that on the day he is elected, “the New World Order will come crashing down.”  Really?  And how does he propose to do that?  Conspiracy talk always pushes me away, but I have not yet been able to decipher what kind of conspiracy theorist he is.  The problem is that in all of my research, most of the theories I have tracked down have their origins in very anti-semitic and often racist ideologies which began to surface in the late 1800s, with the focus shifting from the “Jews” to the “international bankers” in the 1930s.  That is not to say that everyone who holds these views is anti-semitic or racist.  Baldwin certainly isn’t.  I only mention it to provide some context for my own biases in these discussions.  That and the lizard people.  I tend to lump it all together, fairly or unfairly.

But to get back on track with this, to say that the NWO is going to “come crashing down” is a rather odd rallying cry.  And why I would like to know more what he means when he is talking about the NWO.  To me, I cannot separate it from the notion that the Free Masons and the Illuminati control the world…in which case the election has been decided.  But then to focus heavily on our nation’s founding seems odd since most of our founders were Free Masons, a factor which contributed heavily to their ability to meet “in secret” under the noses of the British.

I question his biblical interpretation when he reaches to Ezekial 22:25 as proof that there is a “conspiracy.” There was a “conspiracy” or “treason” of Israel’s prophets, but that is not proof of what most conspiracists are talking about, and fully irrelevant to what he is talking about.  And he completely lost me somewhere between the moneychangers in the temple in John chapter 2 and the international bankers setting up shop in the “temple. What temple?  Then there is his reading of the Declaration of Independence:

In the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” If that isn’t a clear reference to conspiracy, I don’t know what is.

I’m sorry, I don’t see it.  I see no reference to conspiracy, only to the right and duty of people to throw off despotic governments.  Ironically, the Declaration of Indpendence was a “globalist” document as our founders attempted to make their case for independence before the court of the world.

I am a devout Christian.  And I do have concerns with what we often call the “secularization” of America.  But words like this concern me in a world leader, regardless of his religious leanings:

After all, the United States of America was a nation established in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and for His glory. The founders of this country were emphatic about that! Therefore, the imprint and influence of the Savior are seen and felt throughout the length and breadth of this nation. And it is that same imprint and influence that the secularists are feverishly attempting to expunge . . . Therefore, if America wishes to remain a free and independent republic, if this nation truly desires future peace and prosperity, and if we genuinely aspire to remain a blessed and protected land, we must quickly throw off this foolish infatuation with multiculturalism, which is nothing more than an attempt to de- Christianize our country, and humbly return to the God of our fathers!

This is what I’m talking about when I say I don’t know how to take his positions as a pastor and apply them to politics.  Is he going to “expunge” America of secular influence?  Does that mean doing away with freedom of religion and liberty of conscience?  Does it mean a theocracy?  I may agree that we’d be better off returning to Christ, but bringing that about is not the role of government.

Then there is this, written right after 9/11, which I have read five times and I’m still not entirely sure I know what he is saying.

Second, the architects of an internationalist, New World Order must not be allowed to expunge the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights. We cannot allow our own government to do by fiat what foreign terrorists want to do by force. Americans must not surrender their liberties to any government. It is more important to be free than it is to be secure! In truth, liberty by its very nature is a risk. We must never give in to the temptation to acquiesce our God-given freedoms.

America doesn’t need the approbation of NATO or China or anyone else. We certainly don’t need the blessing of Pakistan! The United States of America is a free and independent nation and must never accept any attempt by internationalist influences to diminish our freedoms or abridge our rights.

I think he is saying we don’t need to work together with other nations or ask their permission to invade Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda.  If so, I disagree and wonder what kind of foreign policy we would have if this were followed.  As noted above, we sought the approval of the world in our own fight for independence.  How much more do we need to work with other nations in order to go to war abroad?  And we must remember that the attack on the World Trade Center was not just an attack on the US.  It was an attack on all nations, and other nations have suffered terrorist activity within their own borders as well.

Perhaps I am left voting for the lesser of three evils, but I am seeing it less that way every day.  None of the candidates embody all I would have in a president, but what does that say?  We are not raising up leaders to the task.  Even we, who talk about limited government, are looking to central government to secure that.  Something has gone awry, but it happened long before this election season.

Interested in more from Roscommon Acres? Sign up for my newsletter and receive updates right in your inbox!

36 Responses

  1. Thanks for doing my homework for me, Dana. I’ve been trying to hammer down my vote; I spent about an hour last week reading up on John McCain and decided I like him much better than I thought I did, but didn’t really know anything about any of the third party candidates.

    I’m not really sure I believe that pastors *should* be presidents — I think the calling to shepherd God’s people kind of trumps that, not to mention there is too much room for confusion. Leaving public ministry to work in a factory or teach algebra is a very different animal than leaving public ministry to hold public office.

    And no, I don’t know my local election issues like I do the national ones. Except for our famous sheriff’s race. But in this little one-horse town, most of the candidates are uncontested anyway. Sometimes we don’t even have candidates! I haven’t thought much about the congressional race , so I’d better look at that.

  2. I was surprised at how many things I agreed with him on when I really started researching. I think he has become a focal point for all conservatives’ frustrations with the Republican Party.

  3. Thanks, Dana for an outstanding post. I have been praying and researching until I feel like I can’t even read (or think) straight! This was VERY helpful. My thinking has been going in a similar direction. McCain is NOT an evil candidate. In fact, he is a good candidate…he is further right of center than he is often portrayed by conservatives. Obama’s policies (on defense, the economy, gay rights, and abortion) make him an incredibly dangerous candidate for our country. We need to NOT elect him. Period. That’s my story and I’m sticking with it!! Thanks again.

  4. BTW I recently had a Facebook exchange with my cousin in England who said that elections are much the same there…most people feel that they are simply voting against the candidate they don’t want rather than voting for a candidate they do want.

  5. If you are voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

    I don’t see this phrase as meant to be taken literally. As I see it, the point isn’t that one candidate or another is evil in the biblical sense but rather that you’re voting for Candidate A primarily because you fear Candidate B getting elected, not because you support A or he’s your top choice among all candidates running.

    As an independent who does not limit my choices only to the major parties, I view the “no one is perfect except Jesus” argument (which Tackett made in his post) as a strawman. Perfection isn’t my standard for voting, and to be honest, I wasn’t that thrilled with the third-party choices this year either. Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but when I hear people reminding voters who are open to voting for a third party candidate that no one is perfect, I take it to mean “if you would just get over yourself and your silly principles, you could help us defeat so-and-so.” It’s just another way of saying that I should get in line and vote for the Republican candidate like a good Christian.

  6. Good post, Dana. I’m uneasy with pastors running for public office. Pastors are shepherds, father figures, confessors. They bless, absolve and guide. These are good things, but they don’t fit the model of our government (IMO). We don’t need someone to guide the minute details of our lives. This was my biggest problem with Huckabee, he seemed to want to be our Pastor-in-Chief.

  7. “These are good things, but they don’t fit the model of our government (IMO).”:
    What exactly is the model of our government?? People are making assumptions on what ‘should’ be our president and ‘who’ he should look like. The model of the government is looking rather ugly and our past speaks for themselves when it comes to us ‘picking’ candidates that have political background. That doesn’t seem to have helped our country out anymore than a person off the street to run. To run for president you DO NOT need ANY political background. You only need to be 35 yrs old and been a natural born citizen, and have lived in our country for at least 14 yrs. Our first presidents NEVER had political backgrounds. Most were lawyers and that is all the law they knew. Most didn’t even have that. So I am not sure why our candidates now NEED to have a political background. Apparantly that is the problem here! Someone also commented: “I’m not really sure I believe that pastors *should* be presidents — I think the calling to shepherd God’s people kind of trumps that, not to mention there is too much room for confusion.” Did you ever think that IS his calling to shephard God’s people?? Nobody can understand what God calls us to do.. and we should never question it. I have voted for Chuck Baldwin.. because Politics doesn’t get the job done… Check out this video for those who do not know what the one world government is or what New World Order is. It is REAL and its coming quicker than you want it to..Also why all of a sudden our money is declining, and our borders are not being protected.. at the beginning of the video it has ‘potty’ mouth but the rest of it will give you an idea of where the US is going.

  8. Thank you, Dana, for a very well-written post. I’ve always struggled with the “lesser of two evils” perspective and you’ve brought some light to this matter for me. I also enjoyed the link to Del’s post at Truth Observed.

  9. Thanks for posting that, Dana. Every time I start reading Chuck Baldwin’s platform my eyes roll into the back of my head- what’s up with that? :p

    Seriously, I don’t have a problem with anyone who wants to run for President, but it certainly helps if they have a resume, so to speak. A pastor does administrate and govern in his role of shepherding a church, but I want to hear specifics about plans and policies and qualifications, not just grand claims.

    I was rooting for Huckabee, and he got major points from me for being a supporter of the FairTax. Since I can’t have Mike, I’ll vote for McCain.

    BTW, I am not interested in preventing the establishment of the ‘New World Order’- “Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus”, KWIM?

  10. So, you decided to write a political post! Good. Thanks for your perspective.

    In my research about the candidates and our gov’t recently, I found out things about the Republican Party and the “goings on” behind the doors for years, so I won’t be hearing them for some time without wondering what that ‘really means’.
    Of course, I don’t believe Obama, because I have seen him say two different things about the same issue just two days apart. [No one’s memory should be that bad who will govern the US].

    I agree with Lynn about politicians and pastors. I would rather have a man in who knows the law and the Constitution and has no political experience than a career politician who is thrown by the winds to special interests [or self-interest].
    I also disagree with the aforementioned jobs of the office of Pastor. The only one who can absolve me of anything in a spiritual matter ultimately is Jesus and God Himself.
    While I do not believe we need to have a Pastor as a Pastor for President, I do know that the majority of Republicans in the last two elections were ga-ga over Bush because he was such a ‘good Christian’.

    I was concerned when I took a “likeness test” about John McCain and his politics the other night, and it said that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, when, though that may be true, he does place some unmentioned stipulations on that agenda. I also wonder if people know that he is for stem-cell research, or if that issue has been hushed in the light of him claiming he is ProLife.
    Anyway, I only ended up agreeing with him on 53% of the issues, and about 63% on Palin’s. Chuck Baldwin wasn’t on there, of course, but that would have been interesting.

    Of course, politics is interesting. I *have* enjoyed watching and listening to the Third Party debates, because there is no digging at each other, each candidate is genuinely respectful, and they seem to have a lot more to say about issues rather than focusing on ‘scoring points’ with the US citizens. Quite different from the two Dem/Rep Debates they had.

    I won’t even try to sway you, :LOL: because I know you are conscientious and studious of governmental and political issues, but I wanted to comment, since we were Twittering about it the other night!

    blessings friend!

  11. but at this point I have no idea how well he can lead a city, let alone a state or a nation.

    I know you know this, but as far as anyone leading a nation… God did appoint a shepherd boy to be the King of His most beloved people. He looked as though he was not ready either [and in many regards was not ready, but who really is?], but God told Samuel that he should not pick David’s older, stronger brother. God wanted the man in there who was after His heart.

    I am not saying Baldwin is David or is more after God’s heart than anyone else. I am just saying that we put these stipulations of career politics on offices, when, sometimes who we really need is the little guy who has not forgotten what it is like to be the little guy. ~ the one whose character is a strength more far-reaching because the experience is there, just not in the way we deem it should be.
    Does that make sense?

    I mean, I had no experience training up children, and only by God do I have such wonderful children. I am glad the government does not [yet] have the right to tell me I have to have their approval and understanding of how to raise children before I could have children.
    [Though this practice may not be far off!]

    Just another thought after re-reading your opening.

  12. Lynn wrote: “To run for president you DO NOT need ANY political background. You only need to be 35 yrs old and been a natural born citizen, and have lived in our country for at least 14 yrs.”
    An excellent point which makes all the media hype about Sarah Palin’s and even Barack Obama’s “lack of experience” fall flat. It is wisdom, character, and the ability to lead which matter, and these can be developed in almost any sphere.

    Lynn again: “Did you ever think that IS his calling to shephard God’s people?? Nobody can understand what God calls us to do..”
    Do you mean to ask if I think God can “call” someone to serve as president (or in any other political office, for that matter)? Sure. Should I then vote for Baldwin because HE believes that God has so called him and I should not question that? If Baldwin is not elected, does that mean he was wrong, that he has not been called by God to be president? If he wins, does that mean his calling is confirmed? But then what if Obama wins? What does that mean? The people asked for a king, and God appointed Saul. And yet God warned them from the start what kind of king they were getting. Even so, David himself would not lay a hand on Saul because he was God’s anointed. How many ungodly and even pagan kings and rulers are mentioned in the Bible as sent by God, to accomplish His purposes?

    Did I ever think the presidency IS his [Baldwin’s] calling to shepherd God’s people? NO. Absolutely not. America does not equal Christ’s church. The president serves, leads and represents all Americans, and not all Americans are “God’s people”. The calling to shepherd God’s people IS a calling to the pastoral office. Not to the presidency. In fact I would go so far as to posit that being a pastor uniquely DISQUALIFIES a man from serving in government, not on political, but theological, grounds. A pastor has a higher calling to a kingdom that is not of this world and yet encompasses people of every tongue, tribe, and nation, and the two callings are quite incompatible. (Just look at history for some ugly messes that have resulted!) Prophet priest and king come together only in the person of Christ Himself. So, as an American, as a Christian, and even as a pastor’s wife, I don’t think that pastors should be presidents.

    Lynn: “I have voted for Chuck Baldwin.. because Politics doesn’t get the job done…”
    You are absolutely right that politics don’t get the job done, if the job is making God’s kingdom come. That is precisely why it is dangerous for Christians to look to a politician to bring about spiritual (or even societal) renewal (Psalm 118:8). Like it or not, the presidency is a political office, and the job IS politics (but not politicking!). It is our duty as voters to choose someone whose *political* leadership and *political* wisdom will allow us to live “quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.” If you believe Chuck Baldwin can best do that, then by all means vote for him.

    It is a rare man who can lead a country without losing his soul. Which is why we are commanded to pray for our leaders.

    “Grant also health and prosperity to all that are in authority, especially to the President and Congress of the United States, the Governor and Legislature of this State, and to all our Judges and Magistrates, and endue them with grace to rule after Your good pleasure, to the maintenance of righteousness and to the hindrance and punishment of wickedness, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. May it please You also to turn the hearts of our enemies and adversaries, that they may cease their enmity and be inclined to walk with us in meekness and in peace. Lord in Your mercy: Hear our prayer.”

  13. Thank you for your post. I always appreciate your thoughts. I have added a link to it at my current post: “Last Thoughts On The Election” at my blog.


  14. Lynn, please read what I wrote carefully what I wrote about pastors and politics. I’ll requote it here to be clear.

    He is a pastor, not a politician. That is not a bad thing, but at this point I have no idea how well he can lead a city, let alone a state or a nation.

    I never said nor implied that a pastor cannot be a politician. But just because he is a pastor does not mean he will be a good leader. Just because he is a Christian does not mean he will be a good leader.

    I disagree with him on various points, many of which I’ve mentioned. Another HUGE one for me is another stance I cannot quite decipher regarding free trade. Whenever he mentions it, he seems to jump to the NAU and general political and economic union which I would naturally oppose.

    But I am for free trade. And I don’t see how anyone can say they want to “return” to our founders’ vision and be against free trade agreements. Our first ambassadors had one primary goal in Europe and that was to open nations up to free trade. Free trade is our strength and our security. I would like to know a LOT more about what he is talking about when he starts to criticize them.

    And re: the New World Order. If you are talking about the Illuminati who supposedly “really” run the world, I disagree. And don’t see how you believe any politician would have an effect on it anyway. If “they” control the world, who cares? The election is a sham and we are all powerless. And please pay my a little respect. I’ve been following these stories for years, have read many of the books and seen many of the supposedly underground videos. I haven’t seen anything convincing and actually wonder more about the motives of those putting this stuff out there.

    I don’t believe in human conspiracies, but do I see a trend toward centralization and globalization? Of course. Call it the New World Order if you will, but it is happening because we want it. Like those in Genesis who feared being spread out all over the earth so they built a great Tower reaching toward the heavens. We were dispersed, but the desire is still there. It doesn’t take a conspiracy. And I don’t want to get into huge eschatological debates, but my reading of Revelation says it is going to happen. What God has written into history is not going to be changed by Chuck Baldwin.

  15. I read both of those articles the other day when they came across twitter. I am glad to see you sounding in on the issue. I guess that I can conclude you won’t be voting for Obama? LOL

    I decided after reading those articles that I have a greater duty to my children and country to defeat socialism than I do to vote “Christian”. And while I have no idea of McCain’s religious beliefs, I do know that Palin is decidedly and vocally a Christian. It isn’t like we aren’t voting Christian at all by voting McCain. I know where voting Obama would lead. I read the free-market voting card (where all the candidates from top to bottom weigh in with answers to specific questions).

    Here’s what concerned me:
    Issue: Teaching of homosexuality in schools
    M – against, O – for

    Issue: Hate crime laws
    M – against, O – for

    Issue: Homosexual adoption
    M – against, O – for

    Issue: Infant born alive act
    M – for, O – against

    Issue: Making it a crime to cross lines for abortion for minors
    M – for, O – against

    Issue: pro-life supreme justices
    M – for, O – against

    Issue: Private handgun ownership
    M – for, O – against

    Issue: School choice
    M – for, O – against

    Issue: Govt controlling health care
    M – against, O – for

    Issue: Lift offshore drill ban (reduce dependence on foreign oil)
    M – for, O – against

    Issue: Tax increases
    M – against, O – for

    My other big issue is with the Global Poverty Act, Obama’s pro-illegal and pro-UN views, and his socialistic taxes (I know of 2 people personally that will be put out of business if his plans go through – one of whom did not get paid this week because she had no money left after she paid her employees).

    For me, there is no other choice but McCain. I voted. I feel good about it. I also realllllly like all the Republican county and state members we have locally, so it was a no-brainer for me to vote Republican on this election… even though I was swayed quite heavily for Baldwin, I have to admit! I really liked Ron Paul. I wish he was our front runner.

  16. Jacque, I just wanted to reiterate in response to this part of your comment:

    I am just saying that we put these stipulations of career politics on offices, when, sometimes who we really need is the little guy who has not forgotten what it is like to be the little guy

    I do NOT believe that his lack of political experience disqualifies him for office. But nor is it a plus.

    The difficulty I have is that he has said a LOT of things in his role as pastor which are fine for a pastor to say. And I think this is what April was getting at when she said,

    These are good things, but they don’t fit the model of our government (IMO).

    Lynn reacted to that as well. I cannot speak for April, but can say how I took it and why I agree with her. We were founded as a Christian nation, but not as a Christian state. Patrick Henry wanted to write God into the Constitution and the framers rejected it. My fears may be completely unwarranted, but I don’t know. He seems like the classic, an idea I wholly reject.

    Some in this discussion may lean that direction and that is fine. Just know that I am questioning his stance because dominionism is something I find very flawed and dangerous both to the nation and to Christianity. That is why I want to know very clearly what Baldwin means by some of his statements he has made as a pastor. It is one thing for a pastor to say “this is how you should run your life” and a governmental leader to say “this is how you will run your life.” I don’t care if it is a “secularist” or a devout Christian, that is not the role of the central government nor the role of the President. Hence the concern that “they don’t fit the model of our government.”

  17. And also Jacque, you and Baldwin may share a lot on a political likeness test. I don’t know, but if so, that is who you should vote for. I think I differ too strongly on a few issues which are important to me and I don’t know quite what to make of other stances.

    Someone here or elsewhere mentioned abortion. I may have a very different view of where abortion should be in this nation than some…at least those who have been calling McCain “pro-abortion.” Either they are being intentionally disingenuous about his stances, or we disagree on how abortion should be regulated. I’m fine with the latter, but I prefer to have those differences lined out rather than being bombarded with emails telling me McCain is pro-abortion or putting pro-life in some kind of sarcastic quotes.

    He is pro-life.

    NARAL does not want this man elected. They scored him a big fat zero on every thing they measure. What is pro-abortion about that.

    Even in the debates, he seemed to indicate that he wanted restrictions put on abortion in the case of endangerment of the life of the mother. I may be reading something into this, but from what I’ve heard and the commentary on NPR, he seems to want to restrict abortion to strictly problems with physical health and not leave it open to emotional or psychological health.

    I know there are those who are against abortion in any form for any reason. I know Doug Phillips of Vision Forum believes this, and rejects abortion even in the case of ectopic pregnancies. If a mother chooses to take the risk, that is her choice to do so. But let us recognize also that ectopic pregnancies are a leading cause of death of the mother in the first trimester. While there are rare instances of children who implanted in places other than the uterus surviving, there are no records of mothers surviving when the baby implants in the Fallopian Tube.

    Those passing these emails to me and commenting about McCain as a “pro-abortionist” may well agree with this stance, and that is fine. But don’t try to pass off McCain as pro-abortion because he doesn’t want women to die in childbirth. Be a little more upfront about where the difference lies. In all the email I’ve gotten accusing him of being pro-abortion and lifting up Baldwin as being the sole pro-life candidate, not one has lined out the difference. So either they are trying to scare my by lying to me, or they are trying not to let me know exactly what their stance is.

    His stance is well within what the vast majority of Christians believe about the issue, even those of us who consider ourselves 100% pro-life.

    My stance, from reading one whole post, is more in line with the White Washed Feminists.

  18. Thank you, Sprittibee. A couple months ago, I finally sat down and really dug into his record. And I realized he isn’t that bad. Not just in comparison to Obama, but all on his own. He isn’t as conservative as I am and I do have some concerns. But mostly, I’ve held a few highly controversial bills against him with little consideration for the other work he has done.

  19. Shauna–

    Almost missed this. Sorry:

    As an independent who does not limit my choices only to the major parties, I view the “no one is perfect except Jesus” argument (which Tackett made in his post) as a strawman.

    I can see where you would read that. I came at this from a different standpoint as someone who has been bombarded with emails questioning everything from my ability to read scripture to my salvation if I consider voting for anyone other than Chuck Baldwin. I got a lot of nice emails from his supporters, as well, but the nasty ones have really been on my mind recently. Someone commented on his site as well referring to third party candidates as a way out of this “lesser of two evils” thing as well. But I’ve definitely been told in no uncertain terms that voting for McCain would be voting for evil.

    So that is more what was in my mind as I was reading his words.

  20. And Rebecca, excellent points, as usual. You can post for me next time I decide to go an get all controversial with my readers. 🙂

  21. I am writing-in Chuck Baldwin for president in PA. He is the only current presidential candidate that will actually follow his oath of office and stand for morals and the Constitution. Any other vote is a waste and in bad form if the person is principled and does not want to endorse corrupt politicians.

  22. PAFreedom, I am glad that you have found a candidate you so strongly support. But insinuating that I am not principled or desire to endorse corrupt politicians if I vote for someone else does not really endear me to your position.

    It would be much more effective if you took up the issues and the questions I have or pointed me to some of the things Baldwin has said that might clarify some of the things he’s said that I don’t quite understand.

    The left is telling me I’m a racist if I don’t vote for Obama. You’re telling me I’m unprincipled if I don’t vote for Baldwin. Some who have emailed me say I can’t possibly be a Christian if I vote for anyone other than Obama.

    All I want are answers to the questions I have asked.

  23. sorry…meant some say I can’t be Christian if I vote for anyone other than Baldwin. Proof positive I’m up past bedtime. Even if I do get to set the clock back.

  24. I haven’t read any comments.

    I just have to say that I am STILL struggling with my choice. A conservative democrat whom left the party on June 3, 2008, after feeling that the democratic party had been highjacked by Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazil and even our national media, I still cannot make up my mind: McCian or my write-in choice.

    What I do know is that neither Obama nor McCain am I comfortable with… and although I find myself leaning towards McCain and do know for sure I will not vote Obama, I am still contemplating writing in my candidate even though I know that “it won’t count.” It does count. It counts as a no confidence vote in the candidates we have been presented with. And it counts towards a clear conscious for me. What I cannot do is not vote.

  25. I have never seen so much shaming, fear-mongering, and manipulation and as I have during this election! I was just informed that voting for a third party is a sin, which is interesting considering that I read on a blog that Jesus would vote for Chuck Baldwin, and as you’ve been told, if you vote for anyone other than Baldwin you can’t possibly be a Christian. Thank God this election is almost over!

  26. Some people think that they can control Christians through these tactics, others are very convinced of their own choice and have a difficult time not equating their choice with God’s choice, or what God led them to do.

    That is what frustrates me about Christian politics. Thankfully, we aren’t all like that. Actually, nothing makes me question a candidate faster than too many people equating them with Christ’s choice and questioning the salvation of anyone who disagrees.

  27. And Shawna, I was surprised at the number of Hillary voters who are really upset with Obama. At first, I just passed it off as a sort of political move. Hillary will have a better chance in the next election if McCain wins it this time.

    I haven’t followed it much, but just caught a bit of some genuine anger and frustration with Obama’s politics in the primary. If it is all true, I cannot imagine turning the White House over to him. (But like I said, I don’t know that much and accusation isn’t the same as fact!)

  28. I might not agree with her politically, but I agree that I do not like either major party candidate and I have not decided who I am going to vote for tomorrow either. And, even with the thought that time is running out and I need to make up my mind quickly…

    [Thank God this election is almost over!]

  29. **At first, I just passed it off as a sort of political move.**

    Dana, just curious… what do you see it as now? those of us who truly supported Hillary and are completely not comfortable with Obama.

    For me it has never been about party, btw… but I think you knew that. But the party did really upset me… well, they let me down I should say… and not simply because Hillary did not win, but because of the closed door handling of the whole primary, the coronation of one choice over another long before all of the people had a chance to speak, and because of a manipulation of rules and regulations to suit their political, and I feel–personal–agendas. I just don’t feel I can be a member of such a party any longer… but that is not why I will not support Obama and it is not why I struggle with McCain, so my curiosity drives me to ask what people think is motivating such voters as me: former Hillary supporters whom adamantly do not support Obama.

    Sorry for my long-windedness, but hey, it’s me 🙂

  30. Sorry, I should have been more clear. At first I passed off Hillary’s objections to Obama and the endorsements for McCain coming from those close to her as politically motivated. Not people like you who are considering voting another way. I just think you’re intelligent and that is why you are looking to someone other than Obama. 🙂 (Just joking…I think you are intelligent no matter who you vote for.)

    I didn’t mean to imply that voters struggling with the decision were being strategic about what might happen four years from now. I’m sure they are voting for whichever candidate they choose for the same reasons I am…the candidate’s views more closely represent theirs and they are looking at what they think is best for the nation over the next four years, not what will be best for their party/candidate four years from now.

  31. I am definitely looking at the nation as a whole as neither candidate tends to represent my views–I guess because I fall on both sides of the political spectrum: liberal and conservative.

    Thanks for the answer… I am so tired of hearing that I won’t vote for Obama because he is black, thus I am a racist. Or because I am bitter and therefore a sore loser. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just cannot reconcile what I am hearing from Obama with past actions and associations and that leaves me not trusting him and honestly, a little afraid of him.

    With McCain I at least know who he is, I have a record to reconcile or not with his words and promises. There is a sense of validity in that. I would, however, still like to cast my vote for Hillary as a write-in, and as a no-confidence vote in Obama and McCain… but that will not help the national interest and there seems to be too much at stake this time around.

  32. “But there I must beg to differ. The “lesser of two evils” is merely an idiom. It does not, in fact, mean that either choice is “evil” in the biblical sense of the word. It means only that they are both unpleasant. There are a number of issues I disagree with John McCain on, but I cannot call him “evil” merely because we have a different vision for the direction our country should take.”
    It does if they are both evil and they are, it’s not just some idiom, if you feel good about using semantics to justify your vote it’s a free country for now!
    It’s true both candidates support abortion mccain has said on several occasions he is fine with abortion if a person says they were raped yes just says they were raped. oh and he supports stem cell research that kills life also. he also voted in two pro abortion justices. it just goes on and on and on. if you don’t like baldwin fine but mccain wow!

  33. It is a misrepresentation of his record to say that he is pro-abortion. Yes, he allows exceptions and many are opposed to that.

    But abortion has never been the only issue I vote on. And I’d prefer a candidate such as McCain who at least wants limits put on it. It is a step in the right direction.

    I think we need to realize that this is where most of America is with regards to abortion. You render yourself irrelevant if you can’t engage on a rational level with those who oppose abortion, but allow exceptions.

  34. It does if they are both evil and they are, it’s not just some idiom, if you feel good about using semantics to justify your vote it’s a free country for now!

    And if you think that calling everyone “evil” is going to get what you want, you are free to do so. But it does nothing to advance your argument with those who disagree with you.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge