QUICK LINKS
Why Gregoire Endorses Obama
The Washington State caucuses this past Saturday certainly gave us some things to think about.
One question that comes to mind is why Gov. Gregoire is endorsing Obama over Clinton. Clearly she has some strong motivation to endorse a candidate before her party even chooses their nominee.
In endorsing him the PI quotes her as saying, "either would be a great president."
I guess that depends on how you define "greatness."
I can think of a couple of reasons why she would jump on the Obama wagon so quickly.
First, I think it is a personal political calculation on her part. She cannot win against Rossi without substantial help for the independent voters. And they have been going with Obama more than with Clinton.
Secondly, her endorsement says much about who she is and what she really believes. Clinton is no conservative, but in the race to prove who is more left leaning, Obama seems to be winning that particular point over Clinton.
We do not know how far to the left Gregoire will go if left to her own unchecked devises.
Gregoire told the PI, in comparing Obama to John F. Kennedy, "If elected, I believe he will lead us all---young and old, 'blue and red'---to create a positive change in our communities, this nation and the world."
Wow. He may be the first global President.
With all due respect, could she really believe that he will lead us all?
It won't happen because there are differences between us that are not political. In her political world its all about ideas. While ideas are very important, there is something that transcends ideas. It is the deeply held belief that peoples of faith base their very lives upon. A Biblical worldview. These are not just theological beliefs but are actions carried into the social and cultural arena.
The Governor and the media to a great extent, view this election through a political lens. People of faith view it as a matter of principles more than politics. It is merely played out in the political arena.
When secularists and left-leaning politicians talk about coming together or "uniting," they are talking about compromise, but only from one side. Our side to theirs. In their world, uniting means getting behind their elitist, secularist, socialistic agenda.
No, Governor, he will not lead us all.
It bears repeating. This 2008 election is not about a political party or personalities. It is about principles.
It's about, "What Do You Believe?"
__________________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
8 Comments:
Thanks Gary,
It seems that Washington and Oregon's governors are in a race to see which can be the most liberal, and ignore not only people of faith, but the will of the people in general. I refer to the working around Measure 36 in Oregon by our governor and elected officials. I do hope we remember that at election time. It saddens me that people of faith are remaining silent in this, a defining moment in our history. We must wake up this sleeping giant, and become the mighty army we are called and appointed to be.
Blessings,
Bobby J. Blake
Gary, your comments are right on ... Thank you for expressing your insights which I will be sharing with those in my circle of influence.
Poulsbo, Wa.
A Biblical worldview is not an idea???? That is exactly what faith/worldview is - an idea in your mind (presuming to represent reality) of something that you cannot see (in fact, Heb tells us that).
I am surprised to hear this non-Biblical concept being endorsed here.
Patrick
As promised, I sent Gary's blog to my circle of friends and the following is a "spin-off" reply from James in Hoquiam, Wa.
Have you ever taken the time to stop and think about the phrase “Separation of Church and State”? One can hear phrases tossed about so frequently and so harshly especially by those on the political left. There are what seem to be very deep emotions in some who want to hurl the phrase in the face of those who practice their religion.
There is also a sense of reverence and awe of the phrase that is held by those who try to use the phrase to keep religion at arm's length from them. The phrase has almost come to mean freedom. The phrase has almost come to mean liberation from tyranny.
However, I have to say “Wait.” Have you stopped to realize that our Founding Fathers thought so much about religion that the freedom to practice religion is mentioned in a preeminent place in the amendments to our constitution? Do you know the very first amendment to our constitution?
The very First Amendment reads,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
One can clearly read that the very first part of this amendment deals with religion, so it is very safe to say that the first part of the First Amendment gives us the freedom to practice our religion before it gives us the freedom of speech, the press, or to assemble as those freedoms are additions to the freedom to practice our religions.
I must assume that our Founding Fathers worded the amendment on purpose as these amendments were not made without due consideration. I have to admit that the framers of the amendment thought that religion was something that was so important that it needed to be the very first thing they addressed.
Yet today, those that yell separation seem to want us all to turn our backs on religion. I wonder if our venerated fathers would be trembling before their God for what we are now doing.
Now, when I contrast that with what I hear from some who want to quash and silence those who practice their faith, I have to say “Wait.” To those who want to divide our country and say they are uniting it, I have to say “Wait.” This is not what our forefathers intended at all.
evyana-
As one who is a practicing Christian, I do not find your representation accurate. Rather, I find your representation of "those who would divide the country" disimulating - deceptive - simply a product of "newspeak". In fact, it is those who would impose their values on the entire society that are causing the divide - typically we call them "the religious right". What I hear from you is a made up picture simply being used for political purposes as opposed to anything to do with reality. Though, you personally may actually believe this - but it is a false picture.
Greg
Hi Greg,
Is it at all possible that your picture -- the one that you have not shown us -- is the false one that is a complete departure from reality? Would you be so kind as to give us your picture so we can compared with that of Gary's to see whose represents "reality", as you put it?
Thanks Mark,
The reality is that you and I would have to dialogue regarding this. I don't want to start without agreement from you to continue since that would not result in any benefit.
Interested?
Greg
Hi Greg,
Thanks for your response. A dialogue would be great, though I may not have the time to really get engaged in it. I'm hoping that others will join in so that it'll be more meaningful and benficial and not be limited to just you and me. What I'm looking forward to is that you point out where exactly it is that you think Gary's is a "false picture" and that it is only his "values" and not those shared by many of us.
Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home