Greetings to all. I'm a new member and this is my first post. I thought this might be a good place to post some general thoughts about Bob's judicial and political philosophies which have been covered over a long period of time on many shows.
With all due respect (seriously) to Bob's reasoning abilities and godly heart (as best I can judge), I find myself unable to determine how he realistically and practically expects our government to operate--particularly with respect to the electoral system and the judiciary. Even though I find myself agreeing with most of Bob's points, it seems to me that there is a heavy dose of idealism embedded in his approach.
I've been stewing about this for quite some time... at least since the 2004 elections and probably longer. I heard Bob's interview with Hugh Hewitt and heard many of his comments about those who think like Hugh. I appreciate Bob's perspective, but I also wonder how Bob envisions it working out in a practical sense.
I see HH as taking what I would call the Pragmatic approach. The idea being that since the fellows who would really be in-line with our thinking don't have a snowballs chance of getting elected we take the next best electable choice and, thus, do what we can to keep things from sliding too far left too fast. No, we don't get what we really want, but the Left doesn't get what they want and it's at least better than it might have been (even if only very slightly).
On the other hand we have Bob, who says he can't vote for anyone who would not strictly hold to his/His standards; an idea I admire, but which troubles me some in that practically speaking it could have the negative effect of allowing those on the far left to prevail in elections by means of the third-party-effect.
Now, the only way this makes sense to me is if, as Christians, we believe that God honors such trusting obedience to His principles--and our prayers--to the degree that He would find a way to *sovereignly* overcome the third-party-effect (or strengthen us as we endure the effects of an even more ungodly government). We could call this the Faith approach. If that's what Bob believes I wish he would expound on that thought more--and I think there are plenty of biblical examples from which he could teach this principle. (And he should have explained that more clearly to HH.)
Short of that foundation, the Pragmatic approach seems to make sense and Bob's idealism seems foolish. (Are we fools for Christ--or just fools?)
Similarly, as Bob call's for such high standards in the men being chosen for positions on the Supreme Court, I wonder if he realizes that NO ONE of that caliber could possibly be confirmed short of a miracle of God's grace and mercy (like all the Dems in the Senate dropping dead during the hearings or something); especially considering that we live in a post-wisdom age.
Does anybody (most especially Bob) care to comment?
Thank you. Carry on...
L
With all due respect (seriously) to Bob's reasoning abilities and godly heart (as best I can judge), I find myself unable to determine how he realistically and practically expects our government to operate--particularly with respect to the electoral system and the judiciary. Even though I find myself agreeing with most of Bob's points, it seems to me that there is a heavy dose of idealism embedded in his approach.
I've been stewing about this for quite some time... at least since the 2004 elections and probably longer. I heard Bob's interview with Hugh Hewitt and heard many of his comments about those who think like Hugh. I appreciate Bob's perspective, but I also wonder how Bob envisions it working out in a practical sense.
I see HH as taking what I would call the Pragmatic approach. The idea being that since the fellows who would really be in-line with our thinking don't have a snowballs chance of getting elected we take the next best electable choice and, thus, do what we can to keep things from sliding too far left too fast. No, we don't get what we really want, but the Left doesn't get what they want and it's at least better than it might have been (even if only very slightly).
On the other hand we have Bob, who says he can't vote for anyone who would not strictly hold to his/His standards; an idea I admire, but which troubles me some in that practically speaking it could have the negative effect of allowing those on the far left to prevail in elections by means of the third-party-effect.
Now, the only way this makes sense to me is if, as Christians, we believe that God honors such trusting obedience to His principles--and our prayers--to the degree that He would find a way to *sovereignly* overcome the third-party-effect (or strengthen us as we endure the effects of an even more ungodly government). We could call this the Faith approach. If that's what Bob believes I wish he would expound on that thought more--and I think there are plenty of biblical examples from which he could teach this principle. (And he should have explained that more clearly to HH.)
Short of that foundation, the Pragmatic approach seems to make sense and Bob's idealism seems foolish. (Are we fools for Christ--or just fools?)
Similarly, as Bob call's for such high standards in the men being chosen for positions on the Supreme Court, I wonder if he realizes that NO ONE of that caliber could possibly be confirmed short of a miracle of God's grace and mercy (like all the Dems in the Senate dropping dead during the hearings or something); especially considering that we live in a post-wisdom age.
Does anybody (most especially Bob) care to comment?
Thank you. Carry on...
L
