Comments on: Which Southern Baptist To Believe? Land or Graham?

By: R. E. Cooper

R. E. Cooper — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:16:04 +0000

Actually, the Rs on the Senate panel failed to listen and asked the same questions over and over and over again, about the same non-issues, and got the same answers over and over and over again. Why? Two choices. Either (1) they could not find anything relevant or significant to oppose in this candidate and were pontificating for the benefit of their “base” (multiple meanings intended) or (2) they are too stupid to listen and treat a question as having already been asked and answered. Take your pick, but to me, either shows a real intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Judiciary Committee Rs, and probably of most of their colleagues in the Senate and House!

By: Karen G

Karen G — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:37:17 +0000

John, I think you are right. These hearings were not bad - although I wish Senators would talk less.

By: John Fariss

John Fariss — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:45:06 +0000

Karen,

Maybe. Then again, maybe it is related to the maturity level of the senators. Maybe they understand that the senate’s “job” re: appointees is less making sure they agree with their constitutional and judicial philosophy and more to do with making sure that the nominee is qualified for the position (whether they agree with them on issues or not).

John

By: Karen G

Karen G — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:45:43 +0000

What does it say?

It says “We don’t have the votes to oppose Ms. Sotomayor and appearing tough on her will offend several voting blocks, so we will save our fire for the next nominee, and make lemonade by moving quickly to the inevitable approval.”

Like Democrats did with John Roberts.

By: R. E. Cooper

R. E. Cooper — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:10:09 +0000

Both Wallis and Campolo openly disagreed with Clinton on abortion, on welfare reform, and on several other issues.

By: Derek Taylor

Derek Taylor — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:36:07 +0000

The quote from Richard Land is his way of saying that he doesn’t want conservative Christians to be patronized. I don’t doubt that Land agreed with Bush most of the time (although Land did take issue with interrogation techniques like waterboarding; he also disagreed with Bush’s approach on faith based initiatives) - the main reason being that Bush had his back in virtually all of the internal battles within the GOP against the more socially liberal and liberterian elements of the party. Richard Land knows which politicians whispered sweet nothings and delivered squat. He also knows who said what they meant and did what they promised.
Regarding Wallis and Campolo: I’m hopeful that they will speak up during the Obama Administration - I’ll agree with you that it is too early to judge. However, their record during the Clinton years and many years before are bereft of examples where they have taken on abortion activists or other extremists within the DNC. If you can show me one instance where they have engaged in an internal battle with other Democrats, it will be the first I’ve ever heard of.

By: big daddy weave

big daddy weave — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:49:28 +0000

Land was rarely (if ever?) a voice of dissent during the Bush Administration. What item on Bush’s agenda did Land dissent from? Anything? He did a great job of selling the war for Bush - that’s for sure. I’ll give Jim Wallis more time before I decide whether he too is a partisan. We’re only 6 months into the Obama Administration.

And I surely realize that all issues have the potential for religious liberty implications.

“No more engagement. We want a wedding ring. We want a ceremony; we want a consummation of the marriage.” Richard Land’s declaration to a NYT reporter concerning the relationship between the Religious Right and the Republican Party.

By: Derek Taylor

Derek Taylor — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 14:07:15 +0000

What does it say or mean when Richard Land doesn’t walk in lockstep with Republicans?
It means that we still live in a country where people don’t have to be monolithic or bow to party leaders in order to be a part of a political party.
Frankly, it has been this way for a long time. Richard Land, James Dobson, Falwell and many other conservative Christians have agitated within the Republican party and conservative movement a heck of a lot more than Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo have within the Democratic party.
And by the way, racial preferences, hate crime legislation and private property rights are not disconnected from religious liberty. You speak as if these things should be hermetically sealed off from any discussion on religious liberty.