Skip to main content
Yes, the Iowa Straw Poll is only slightly less pointless than the Iowa Caucuses, but I told you so; the first establishment finisher on the list is Pawlenty. Pawlenty will be your nominee, I'm telling you. You don't have to be a centrist, you just have to look like one. No matter what my sympathies with the Tea Party, the label screams, "I'm not centrist!" Winning politics is about appearing balanced and sensible. Bachmann can't do this. Cain can't, either. (And, Obama ruined Black prospects for president for at least 4 elections; sad but true.) The Catholics will do in Romney; the cafeteria ones will vote Obama; the orthodox won't vote for a Mormon. Bonus: Pawlenty is a tad "fallen-away," if you will, but he's socially conservative, and he fell away because his wife is an Evangelical (and so is he). Political gold, friends. It's not just because I like him; he's a perfect general election candidate. Just watch, he'll get third in Iowa, (Bachmann) second in New Hapshire, (Romney) and then he'll reel off a solid 20 states to win the nod, because: The base hates Romney, they are not scared of Obama, but they're not stupid either, and a Tea Partier can't win. There's a lot of buzz about Rick Perry, but A) it's early; B) he's Southern; and C) Obama will tie him to Bush (yes, Bush) faster than you can say 'Harriet Miers.' You need a geographical advantage without negating the cultural one. Easy answer: Nominate a Midwesterner who doesn't annoy the base, who doesn't lose his cool, and who has executive experience. And, as we did before unsuccessfully, point out that Obama had none, we tested it anyway, and how's that working out? The ads write themselves, people.

Comments

I'm afraid to say you're prediction has killed him off. Ahem. Pawlenty has stepped out of the race (foolishly, I think -- finishing behind Bachmann and Paul in Iowa ought not serve as a good reason to end a campaign).
Make that "your" prediction. Ack!

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un