I want every one to know that despite a widening delegate lead for Governor Romney to the tune of about 200 delegates, Santorum ought not despair. He did very well tonight; the fact remains that the majority of Republicans do not support Romney. If Santorum-Gingrich voters supported one person, that man would win. After the southern primaries next week, Gingrich will not be in the race, in my opinion. The delegate race is indeed close if the two conservative candidates' support is combined. With due respect, Gingrich would not defeat Romney head-to-head. But I do believe that most if not all of Gingrich's supporters would back Santorum. At the risk of great offense, the second choice of a not insignificant portion of Romney supporters is President Obama. Romney will not beat Obama in November. Mr. Gingrich, sir, for the sake of a real choice in November, drop out now. 1144 is the only number that matters: the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Romney can easily be prevented from reaching it if Gingrich does the right thing; he himself cannot reach it, and he is not as strong as Santorum. I do appreciate the former Speaker's great intellect and long commitment to conservative ideas. If this thing is not about any one of us, but about those ideas, then it is for those ideas we must fight. It does no good to beat Obama if our man believes, in his heart of hearts, the same things. Would we reasonably see a decline in crony capitalism under Romney, assuming he could win? What sort of judges would he appoint to the courts? Even if time has led to growth on social issues, do you believe him? Santorum is not nearly as devoted to limited government and economic freedom overall as I would like, but his betrayals came in a different time, not as urgent a time as today. We all see it; this election is about fundamental liberty. The foolishness of foreign intervention militarily is plain, even if our standard-bearers cannot bring themselves to say it. I was unwise and emotional in supposing that Obama saw it, no matter what he says. I'm sorry. If it came to it, I would hope for, even pray for, a Romney victory against Obama. Against all hope that Romney is telling the truth. But I cannot actively support him, now or then. For that, I am also sorry.
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
Comments