Monday, January 21, 2008

Ranking Their "Positions": Personal Commitments and Morality

Some may claim that we shouldn't get into presidential candidates' lives, that by doing so we are getting too personal, or using too fine a microscope. And I would concede that a candidate's personal moral history should not be a deciding factor. After all, everyone has the propensity to make mistakes--to fall into sin--and, sometimes, those slip-ups can lead to something as drastic and destructive as divorce. Besides that, when dealing with a public figure trying to retain some privacy in his or her life, we can have a difficult time figuring how much each spouse is at fault in a separation.

On top of that, if a person appears genuinely repentant, we, as Christians, have to consider forgiving and forgetting.

Having laid that groundwork, I do still feel that a candidate's personal life can be a contributing factor to the selection process. What can we learn from a presidential aspirant's past, and why does it matter? I feel like we can potentially gain some insight, though not concretely, into the following areas:

a) Commitment: What does it mean to him when he says, "I do; I will; for better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; 'til death do us part"?

b.) Selflessness/Desire to Do the Will of God: When a person spurns his wife, scoffs at God, and renigs on a lifetime contract, narcissism is much more likely prevalent in that person's life than selflessness and dedication to God.

c) Fear of God: What does it mean to him when he hears "In the sight of God" and "holy matrimony"?

d) Honesty: Someone who lies in order to carry on an affair (if that is indeed the case) will, in all likelihood, lie in order to accomplish other forms of personal gratification, whatever they may be.

e) Responsibility as a Public Figure: How seriously does an adulterating/fornicating politician take his/her role as a role model, a representative of the people, a prominent image of his constituents to the nation and to the world. Can he be trusted with the closely scrutinized position of the presidency?

As a final thought, before we begin to look at how the presidential candidates match up, remember that, just because we should forgive someone, doesn't mean we have to trust them with one of--if not--the most powerful and influential jobs in the world.

1. Ron Paul: (Wikipedia)

I am bequeathing the honorary Number One position upon Ron Paul in honor of the fact that he has been married to his one and only wife Carol for almost 51 years. Together, they have five children and seventeen grandchildren! (Interestingly enough, Wikipedia reports that they have eighteen grandchildren and one great grandchild, but the article it references as support confirms the statistics on Paul's campaign site.)

Paul is a solid supporter of traditional marriage, but he opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment because of his constitutional interpretation of federal jurisdiction.

2(t). Mike Huckabee: (Wikipedia)

Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, has lived up to his responsibility as a role model, at least when it comes to the duration and amount of marriages of which he has been a part. That is, he's been married once, for 33 years, to woman named Janet. They have three (now full-grown) children.

He helped institute "Covenant Marriages" in Arkansas, renewing his vows to his wife, and he is and always has been a strong supporter of traditional marriage, promising to push a federal marriage amendment as President.

On a side note, he had a great soundbite in one of the recent debates, when he said that marriage is not about each partner giving fifty percent, but about each partner giving one hundred percent.

2(t). Duncan Hunter: (*No longer running: dropped out 1/19/08; endorsed Huckabee)

Duncan Hunter, one of the forgotten men in this year's presidential race, has been a much better example in marriage than several of his colleagues who are far ahead of him in the polls. He has only been married once, is still married, and has been married to his wife Lynne for over 33 years. They have two sons, two daughters-in-law, and three grandchildren.

Hunter is a staunch advocate of traditional marriage, and, like Huckabee, would attempt to pass a marriage amendment as President.

2(t). Mitt Romney: (Wikipedia)

Married for over 38 years, Romney and his only wife Ann have had five sons together, who have in turn given them eleven grandchildren.
All appears fine on that front, with his children campaigning with him, but we must remember that Romney is a Mormon. His wife Ann converted to Mormonism before they married, and they no doubt raised their children in a Mormon tradition, which means that Romney is responsible for leading (or at least trying to lead) a woman and five children down the wrong path. However, I have decided not to downgrade Mitt Romney in this particular post for that reason.

2(t). Alan Keyes: (Wikipedia)

Keyes, a stalwart when it comes to the defense of traditional marriage and strong families, defines himself as a "dedicated family man." He and his wife Jocelyn have three children.

One of his daughters, Maya, has come out as a Lesbian. There were reports that, when Alan found out about this, he "threw her out of the house, stopped talking to her, and refused to pay for her college." According to Wikipedia, Maya confirmed these reports, but Alan denied them. "He asserted that he never cut her off and never would because it would be 'wrong in the eyes of God.' He also said he would not be coerced into 'approving of that which destroys the soul' of his daughter. He contended that he must 'stand for the truth [Jesus Christ] represents' even if it breaks his heart."

I'm not sure what to make of all that. If his defense is true, he's right. But the conflicting reports are disturbing. As for raising a child that turns out to be a lesbian, I don't know if you can blame Keyes. I certainly wouldn't be so bold as to shamelessly blame my parents if I were to fall into sin. However, this situation begs us to look more closely at Keyes devout Catholicism. Does he have a true relationship with Jesus Christ, which he could therefore pass on to his children, rather than some type of legalism or ritualism? But, again, this could happen to devout Protestant Christians' children, too.

***After originally ranking Keyes 5th, I have decided to move him up with the others. There is simply no justification for downgrading him.

6. Fred Thompson: (Wikipedia) (No longer running; dropped out 1/22/08)

Fred Thompson has been divorced once and married twice. He married his first wife when he was only seventeen years old, proceeding to have three children (two surviving) with her. After remaining married for over twenty-five years, they divorced. Thereafter, Thompson was romantically linked to several women, eventually marrying his current wife, Jeri, in 2002. They have two very young children.

7. John McCain: (Wikipedia)

Divorced once and married twice, just like Thompson, McCain is placed under Thompson because of the way his marital relationships transpired. Initially, John married a girl named Carol in 1965. She had already been married, but she divorced. McCain adopted her two children, and they had a child of their own.

In 1979, while still married to Carol, McCain fell in love with a new, much younger (17 years) girl. He acted accordingly, filing for and attaining a divorce. He's now been married to Cindy for over 27 years, having three children.

According to Wikipedia, McCain's children would not attend his second wedding, understandably, although they have since reconciled with him and Cindy. McCain has four grandchildren.

8. Rudy Giulani: (Wikipedia)

Giulani has been divorced twice and married three times. He originally married his second cousin. Within ten years, he and his wife agreed to a trial separation, their marriage struggling. Seven years later, Giulani met someone new and thereafter filed for a legal separation. He began living with his second wife-to-be, attained a civil divorce, and received an annulment from the Catholic church on the basis of the fact that Giulani supposedly thought his first wife was his third cousin, not his second. When he (and the Catholic church) "discovered" the truth, the marriage was deemed to be illegitimate.

A while later, Giulani married his live-in. The marriage became strained, however, and in 1997, word started leaking out that Giulani was having an affair, which was indeed the case.

But that affair was not the one in which his current wife, Judith, was a participant. That came soon after, as Giulani carried on a secret relationship with her, while he was still married. The relationship became less and less secretive over time, as Giulani was seen publicly with Judith, stopped wearing his wedding ring, and had police and security details take him to have secret rendezvouses with his partner in adultery. Judith had also been divorced twice.

When Giulani announced his intentions to separate from his second wife, his wife did not about his plans before he made them public. Heavy criticism and a nasty divorce settlement ensued.

Eventually, however, he did divorce his second wife and marry his third.

Rudy has two children by his second wife, and one stepchild with Judy. It has been reported within the last year that Giulani is estranged from his two biological children.


Rankings (after five issues)[with Hunter]:
Hunter: 1.8
Keyes: 1.8
Huckabee: 2.2
Paul: 3.6
Romney: 4.2
Thompson: 4.2
McCain: 6.4
Giulani: 7.6


Rankings (after five issues)[without Hunter]:
Keyes: 1.8
Huckabee: 2
Paul: 3
Thompson: 3.4
Romney: 3.6
McCain: 5.4
Giulani: 6.6


5 comments:

Anonymous said...

How many points do you loose if your 17 year old son hangs a dog? Mike "Vick" Huckabee

Kingdom Advancer said...

It's not about "points." It's about rankings. I didn't penalize anyone for their children. I only downgraded Keyes from being tied with the others because of the conflicting reports he and his daughter gave about the situation. If you could show me a conclusive reference that shows Alan Keyes was telling the truth, I may be persuaded to move him up with the others.

I mentioned Keyes' Catholicism simply because it is troublesome to me and I thought it was a thought-provoking question. But I then pointed out that it could (and regularly does) happen to Protestant parents, as well. I didn't downgrade Romney for his Mormonism, so I wouldn't downgrade Keyes for his Catholicism, in this post.

I think we can look into the children of presidential candidates, but, especially with a one-time incident like this (with Huckabee's son), there are always aberrations, not to mention conflicting explanations.

Anonymous said...

Our forefathers; that wrote the US constitution; being born again believers, through shed blood of Jesus Christ, attempted to show their allegiance to Jesus Christ in everything they were and did. Their attitude was that, in HIM we live and move and have our very being. Many of them were ministers of the gospel. Having such a faith in HIM and knowing that a unless the Lord build it, they labored in vain. Our forefathers set out to charter a course, lead by the Holy Spirit, not out of legalism, but a course to ordain a constitution with a set of principles and precepts, within the teachings of God Word and HIS laws that were written on their hearts and make them their laws of the land. Write them on their doorposts if you will. An attitude of thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Over a period of 200 plus years; we have come to a place now where men have been so blessed with materialism and with every material blessing and we have became so blind; as not know the source of the blessing or from whom the blessing came. Many have gone the way of Baal. We have worshiped the created things more than the creator. How did it happen? It is very evident, over a period of time, we forgot to teach our children the source of the blessings and the purpose for which they were given. Now we have moved across this so-called bridge to the 21st century. We have thrown out many of the original precepts and now are letting others throw out more; our children have grown up in the ignorance of not knowing the source and the purpose of the why the blessings where given. As a matter of fact; we have organized movements now; I don't have to name them; everyone knows who they are, that have enacted contrary precepts, that the source of the blessings is not even relevant to anything and these orginal Godly principles and precepts are not to be used when selecting a leaders to enforce; make or preserve the original precepts. The general consensus of some is, it doesn’t really matter what a leader believes and all those teachings and all those original precepts should be discarded when we are selecting a leader. It’s true these precepts do not save us. Only the shed blood of our savior Jesus Christ can atone for our sins. However after once realizes their helplessness apart from HIM and after they received HIS atonement for their sins on the cross, why would they not realize that the Father sent HIM and why would they not have confidence in HIS precepts and HIS laws?

We have many men do we have in America who have become so worldly educated that they cannot see the need for honor and reverence for Jesus in all things, even in the public square. The churches looks and searches for effective evangelism programs to call to lost to repentance and with the same mouth they tell a lie, strait from the devil's mouth that the belief in separating HIM from anything is good and just or Christian like. Some Pastors of the churches have become so intimidated by the all the lost members on the church roster.The children have never been taught that HE must have supremacy in everything if we survive as a nation. Some of the Pastors are fearful of their jobs and there pay checks and most pastors only look at fulness of the church rooster or how many new members they are able to turn in to the main denominational headquarters in a report. It appears on paper to be doing evangelistic work; eventhough they are actually not. But we know regardless of whether the members claim HIS supremacy in their everyday life or not; that HE is worthy of their praise on honor. This statement would cause us to ask the question; how many church people on the roster has truly had a heart change and it shows.

Most Pastors in this 21st have a daring task and we should pray for them everyday. Today they dare not preach anything along the lines of what I am saying, and did our forefathers as they practiced what they preached. These non-regeneragated lost church members will either non- verbally or otherwise communicate to the Pastors, if they do preach such from the pulpit, your Shepherdship will be history at this church. God help us in this area. Even on Christian forums the threat to silence the message of HIS supremacy in everything goes on daily.

The communication is, stay off the subject and don’t speak about HIS supremacy in anything and when they do some members of the church will attempt to shut them up. As I heard a preacher say not long ago, every wants to go to heaven, they just don't want God to be there; when they get there. The truth is when a leader or a potential leader doesn’t even submit or adhere to proclaiming HIS name from the rooftops, a red flag should go up for the christian and just because one does say I’m a Christian, means nothing unless it is followed with fruit history. The early disciples were faced with beatings and ultimately death and still lifted up HIS name high and proclaimed HIM as KING. Today won't even face a little criticism and stand and speak the truth in the face of opposition because the devil has told us a lie that it's only about Sunday and when we get that opposition in proclaiming HIS supremacy in all things, we hear the lie about getting along the others being the priority. What a lie. We hear the lie that we must compromise truth for unity. God's Word brings unity when accepted and divides when it's not.

When a leader is being selected and HIS character and integrity are being discussed and questioned; many will say; I’m not worried about their allegiance to the Lord, that has nothing to do with whether they can lead a nation. To me, this statement indicates that the person made the statement or at least an attempt to just jerk GOD off the throne, which if they weren’t so deceived and blind, they would know that’s not possible. They are just cutting their own throat, lose thier soul and take away a nations blessing.

Then you hear that it is impossible to discuss politics and religion; the old saying goes, two things we don’t need to discuss, religion and politics. Let me ask this, who was it stood against claiming Jesus as King and giving HIM due supremacy. If you will read in God’s Word with me, it was the Pharisees. here is your king, Pilate said to the Jews, but they shouted, "take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked. We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered. The Pharisees couldn’t discuss Jesus’ authority and politics at the same time, why, because they gave HIM none.

If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. He is a rewarded of those who diligently seek HIM. In all your ways, acknowledge HIM and HE will direct your paths.

I appreciate the priviledge and the opportunity to proclaim HIS name and I am well aware that it is the Spirit of Christ that prompts me to do that. Because without HIS SPIRIT, I would not be proclaiming HIS name anywhere; if HE did not give the unction to proclaim it. I would have way to many worldly things to do that were much more important to me. Not I but Christ, The life I now live, I live by faith in the SON of GOD who loves and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of GOD, if righteousness came by the law, Christ died in vain.


I have made an attempt to convey some things that the Holy Spirit should produce in a christian; not things that will produce a christian. Although I attempted, maybe I failed and it was rejected because I focused more on the bi-products and not only than the source (Jesus). Every good and perfect gift comes from above. Is it a lack of love for the brethren to make such statements about the lack of Americans to give HIM supremacy, I don’t feel it is. I think truth is truth, whether it hurts of not, and it still love. If I were in a burning building and the only way my rescuer could get me out was to drag me out by the hair of the head; would it be lack of love; if someone saved the person in that manner? Would it be love to let them perish and save them from the pain of dragging them by the hair of the head. Is agreeing with anything that does not recognize HIS supremacy unity or is it compromise? Do I my myself have any perfection apart from Christ? No, Far from it, and it goes against my flesh to give anyone besides myself supremacy in anything. Only He can give us the power to give HIM supremacy in anything. I certainly am not boasting in my own righteousness or anything that comes from within my own power, but only in HIM. When I do give HIM supremacy in anything HE is always worthy of much more. What a peace I have when I do. I think you are right on in praying, but he also calls us to speak along with the praying. There has been a great lack of speaking and that’s why things have got to where they are in America, I believe. We are to speak even in the face of great controversy, just as the disciples before us did. We are not going to win the peace prize speaking truth but we will win a prize worth much more.
Ezek 22:30-31
30 And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.
31 Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord GOD.
Jesus stood in the gap for us at the cross. Are we grateful enough for HIS son and the cross to stand in the gap for his glory? The former Governor and future President is standing in the gap.

Katrinka Yobotz said...

Your comments about Alan Keyes deserve rebuttal and reconsideration.

This is from Adam's Blog http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the-hobsons-candidate/

"... it’s blatantly false that Alan Keyes threw his daughter Maya out because of her lesbianism. In August, the story began to swirl around the blogosphere about Maya’s lesbianism. Keyes found out about the stories, but not only did Maya remain on with the campaign, but she continued to work for Keyes’ organization in Chicago. Maya’s blog from November 22nd, 2004 has this note:

Well, really I had many changes of plans.

But this particular change of plans was re: Thanksgiving (a holiday which, like Columbus Day, I’m not particularly fond of celebrating) - I was planning on staying in Chicago through Thanksgiving but then the parents called and asked if I could come home and I really could not pass up a moment where my family actually likes me so I had to come home and spend it with them. So that’s where I am now - at HOME, on my OWN bed (having not had a bed since August, this is excitement in itself) blogging comfortably and unhomesickfully. I’ll be here till December 2 when i return to Chicago and look for an apartment.

It doesn’t sound like she was thrown out because she was “gay.” Even though they were quite aware of the fact. Indeed, she returned to Chicago and was holed up in an apartment owned by Keyes’ organization in Chicago, all the way until late January 2005. Did she take another step further into Lesbianism that signalled the getting kicked out? The media would tell you yes, but Maya Keyes on January 28, 2005 was quite explicit what had happened:

A couple days ago I got my official two-week warning that I have to be out of this apartment; so finally for real I’m getting cut off. I got no severance or anything like that from my sudden termination of employment (don’t I have freedom of speech? the right to protest Bush without losing my job? Hehe… most people would think that working under a parent would be security but for me it’s quite the opposite.)…

After all the arguments and tension over the years, I always hoped it would never actually get to this point, although I suppose given our vastly divergent political beliefs it was inevitable. (emphasis mine)

Not “my sexual orientation” , not “his homophobia” but “divergent political beliefs” is what she blamed at the time. You see she went to the counter-inaugural featuring those And no, Maya, you don’t have the right to work at a conservative political organization, while also working on behalf of far leftist nuts.

Of course, it’s not just politics alone. Becoming involved with the anti-war kooks like Code Pink is a dangerous proposition. At these type of protests, you’ll have anarchists, maybe some dangerous people, at best some unsavory people that can harm your ability to get good jobs or security clearances. She was behaving irresponsibly and in a self-destructive way and to continue to give her a rent free apartment and a job where her afterhours anti-American activity contrasted with her job was simply enabling her behavior.

And even looking at her own (biased) statements, he didn’t say, “Get thee forth, you awful lesbian.” He gave her time, notice, etc. Of course, the “he kicked me out because I’m lesbian” meme has become quite popular (as well as quite lucrative.) However, the truth is far more complex.

This brings me to the heart of the challenge for a Keyes campaign. It’s in the media that he heartlessly kicked his daughter to the curb because she was a lesbian. Is this truth? There’s some evidence that at the very least least strongly suggests this wasn’t the case. Were Alan Keyes to tell his side, he might gain some sympathy from political activists, most of which are closer in age and situation to middle aged parents, not troubled young adults (she was of majority age to start with.)

But the problem is that not only does it look really bad for a father to “attack” his child, it’s simply not in Alan Keyes’ character. The guy gave “no comment” after “no comment” when this was raised. He doesn’t think the interworkings of the Keyes family are any of your business and I tend to agree.

So, thus Alan Keyes is left in a serious spot. Either fail to respond and have people think he’s a no good rotten scumbag who kicked his daughter out only because she was a lesbian or respond, violate your character and be seen as a no good rotten scumbag who publicly attacks your daughter.

In the end, we don’t know what all went into the Keyes’ family decision. We do know from Maya Keyes’ Xanga that it’s a little more complex than the official media version. Wise people would thoughtfully consider whether they, as parents would like to be tried and convicted in the court of public opinion based on what their disgruntled 19 year-old child says after doling out “tough love.” If we followed the golden rule, we’d give him the benefit of the doubt.

Unfortunately, we don’t and we won’t. Most will believe what the media says without question. Keyes will ignore the issue while the media and others will totally trash him on it. Welcome to 21st century politics in America."

Kingdom Advancer said...

Katrinka,

I've decided to move Keyes up with the others, simply because I lack the information to confidently downgrade him.