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.
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