Skip to main content
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.

Comments

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