Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Stop listening to them already!

I have never understood the eagerness of some Repubicans to take strategic advice from liberal media pundits.

It happened back in 2008 when they proclaimed that John McCain was the only candidate who could beat Hillary, and enough Republicans bought it to give us one of the worst campaigns in recent history. Sure, John McCain was a war hero, but as a politician he hasn't done anything even remotely inspiring. His main qualification is that he regularly stabs his own party in the back.

It happened again in 2012, when we bypassed a number of solid conservatives to nominate the governor who implemented government healthcare remarkably similar to Obamacare in his home state. Who thought that it was a good idea to nominate a Wall Street insider in the middle of a recession triggered, at least in the public perception, by Wall Street?

Wake up, folks! These people offering us unsolicited advice on which Republicans can win elections don't want us to win! And they certainly don't want a principled conservative to win.

They are not all Democrats, either. There are plenty of "moderate" Republican types who don't want the "crony capitalist" status quo to be disrupted.

Let's take the recent election in Virginia as an example of their flawed thinking.

Reagan won re-election Virginia by a margin of 62% to 37%. So anyone who says that a true conservative can't win there is just wrong.

But Obama beat McCain in Virginia by 6 percent and Romney by 4 percent.

These candidates who were sold to us based on their electability rather than their merit lost in a state which Republicans have usually won.

The recent election of a new governor in Virginia featured a true conservative, Ken Cuccinelli, who successfully led the fight against Obamacare as Virginia's attorney general. The Republican party establishment wrote off Cuccinelli from the start, so his opponent outspent him four to one. Many Republicans in statewide offices actually endorsed the other guy. Democrats backed a fake "libertarian" candidate who had a record of backing taxes on mileage of your car, to steal away votes from Cuccinelli. In the last week of the election, all sorts of liberal starpower was brought in to back the Democrat. In addition to the usual Hollywood crowd, the Clintons and Obama himself stumped for the liberal. The media constantly predicted that Cuccinelli would lose by 14 percent or more. With the Democrats, the media, and most of his own party united against him, he ought to have lost badly.

He didn't win, but he lost by about two percent.

That is, he did better than McCain or Romney.

Now the same people are telling us that Chris Christie is the only candidate who can beat Hillary. This is the guy who was all to eager to implement Obamacare in his state, supports amnesty and gun control, and chums around with Obama. A real, solid, principled, articulate conservative like Ted Cruz can't win, we are told.

As the Obamacare disaster continues to crash and burn, voters in all fifty states will be ready for a real alternative. It's time to stop listening to the people who steer us towards more spineless moderates while their own hard left ideologues win. A real conservative can win. We have plenty of evidence that nominating a squishy moderate does not help us to win, and even if it did, it means we get a squishy moderate President.


Steve Finnell said...


The opposite of a positive is always a negative. When the positive is stated it is understood that absent the positive, that the negative occurs or has occurred. Example: If a person is alive, that is a positive. The negative is the opposite, which is, a person is dead.

Matthew 24:11-13.....13 But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.

The positive stated: He who endures will be saved.
The negative implied: He who does not endure will not be saved.

Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

The positive stated: He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved.
The negative axiom: He who has not been baptized will not be saved.

Luke 7:50 And He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

The positive stated: Her faith saved her.
The negative inference: Without faith she would not have been saved.

Romans 9:27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, "Though the number of the sons of Israel be like the sands of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved;

The positive stated: A remnant of Israel will be saved.
The negative understanding: The whole of Israel will not be saved.

John 10:9 I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture.

The positive stated: If anyone enters through Jesus he will be saved.
The negative implication: By not entering through Jesus you will remain unsaved.

Acts 2:41,47 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there added about three thousand souls. 47...And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

The positive stated: The Lord was adding the saved to His church. (The saved were those who believed the gospel and were baptized.)
The negative implication: Those who did not believe Peter's message and were not
baptized, were not saved, and they were not added to the church.

Romans 10:13 for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

The positive: If you recognize the authority of the Lord and appeal to His authority you will be saved.
The negative implication: If you deny the authority of the Lord, and do not call on Him, you will be lost.

1 Peter 3:20-21...safely through water. 21 Corresponding to that , baptism now saves you---not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience---through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The positive: Baptism saves you.
The negative axiom: Those who are not baptized remain unsaved.


Revelation 2:10 Do not fear what you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, so that you will be tested, and you will have tribulation for ten days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

The positive stated: Remain faithful in order to receive the crown of life.
The implied negative : If you do not remain faithful you will not receive the crown of life.



Don Dodson said...

The positive: anyone who eats poison will die.
The implied negative: if you do not eat poison you will not die.

Therefore, you can be immortal by not eating poison, right?

Don Dodson said...

Steve, your construction is a logical fallacy. Therefore, your conclusions are meaningless. Some of what you say is right, and some is not.

The statement "If A then B" does not imply "If not A then not B."

It does imply "If not B then not A."

Example: If an animal is a mouse, then it is a mammal.

This is a true statement.

Let's apply it in the case of a cat. It is not a mouse. Can we conclude that it is not a mammal? No!

The positive: All mice are mammals.
The implied negative: All animals which are not mice are not mammals.

The implied negative is false.

However, all animals which are not mammals are not mice. That is the implied negative.

The statement "Baptism now saves you" does not imply that if you are not baptized, you are not saved. The criminal crucified next to Jesus was not baptized, but Jesus said "Today you will be with me in paradise." The statement does imply that if you are not saved, you are not baptized. Dunking a non-believer in water only makes him wet.

Don Dodson said...

I have read a number of Steve's blog entries, and find him to be unreliable and frequently just plain wrong in terms of his theology and doctrine. He falls into the common trap of adding requirements for salvation, relying on human effort and works both to obtain and maintain standing with God.