During my time in the Tennessee General Assembly I had the pleasure of sharing the stage once with Dr. Richard Land, who is the director of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. In addition, Dr. Land is also the Executive Editor of The Christian Post where I serve as the Politics Section Editor.
I recently sat down with Dr. Land for coffee and we discussed a number of political issues, primarily centered around the Republican presidential race. Dr. Land told me he was going to write an open letter to former Speaker Newt Gingrich and below I have included a link to the article.
Not only is Dr. Land’s advice to Speaker Gingrich timely, but it is exactly what he needs to do in order to show evangelical voters – namely women – that he is indeed sorry for any personal failures that have hurt others in his life.
Having a great deal of personal experience in this area, I can truly say that most people – especially those who embrace and understand God’s word – will forgive and simply want to see true repentance from those who have fallen short in the public arena. However, the repentance must be genuine and if not, people will see right through it.
I’m going to write more on this issue in the next few days, but in the meantime, please read Dr. Land’s column.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/dr-richard-land-an-open-letter-to-newt-gingrich-63393/
If an apology must be made, why should Newt be the only one to apologize to evangelical women voters? Newt lived and slept with his present wife Callista while he was still married to his second wife Marianne. (NY Daily News – Aug 12, 1999). Was this adulterous cohabitation non-consensual?
More likely, Callista knowingly engaged in a sexual affair with another woman’s husband; she consciously facilitated the destruction of another couples’ marriage. And now she would be our First Lady? How do evangelical wives, mothers and voters feel about that?!
Why don’t Newt and Callista both apologize to Marianne, before they apologize to any “Christian conservative” interest group.
If the social conservative movement gets behind a man like Newt Gingrich, social conservatism is done for.
Any authentic social conservative ought to agree with Newt’s ex-wife Marianne, “I don’t want him to be president and I don’t think he should be” (Vanity Fair – Sep 1995).
It was extremely revolting to read Dr. Land’s letter to Newt Gingrich. I don’t understand why Dr. Land would coach a candidate regarding his moral shortfalls on what to say in order to get elected, especially things that may not be true or reflective of how he (Gingrich) feels. It is sickening that, as Christians, we are now coaching candidates on how to perform deceiving rhetoric simply to win an election. The irony in all of this is in an effort to lead Gingrich to reveal his moral shortfalls, Dr. Land is acting rather immoral himself, and he heads an ethics commission. What a joke! I wouldn’t have a problem with the letter if it was addressed to Christians to forgive him for his misdeeds, but it is rather sinister to coach a candidate to articulate things to tickle ears in order to get elected. The other thing I don’t understand is why Dr. Land is, in essence, endorsing Gingrich. His political record is horrible. He was fined over $300,000 for ethics violations,
he supported President Obama’s individual healthcare mandate that would force people who didn’t have private healthcare to purchase government healthcare. Of course he has since flip flopped and rejected this mandate. He appeared in commercials with Nancy Pelosi where both of them agreed something needs to be done about global warming. This issue has heard only one side of the scientific community, namely the side that gets state grants. There would also be heavy taxes levied on the American people based on their “carbon footprint”. He supported the TARP bailouts. He took over 1 million dollars from Freddie Mac as a “private consultant”. What he fails to recognize is that he took the American people’s money, not Freddie Mac’s. In a combination of his political/private life he pushed for the impeachment of Bill Clinton in regards to his relations with Monica Lewinsky, while he was having an affair on his second wife with his eventual and current wife. What hypocrisy! Many would say that Gingrich’s pursuit of impeachment was because Clinton lied to the American people under oath. My answer to that is what about his oath to his wife before God? Certainly he can be and is forgiven, but refrain from being a hypocrite. Dr. Land, you have endorsed a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I beseech you not to lead others astray. Ron Paul is the only upright, constitutional, small government candidate we have left. All others are establishment Republicans, and would lie just to get into office. Please do not support or endorse Newt Gingrich, for to do so would be promoting sinister deeds.
Ben,
Thanks for your comments. I spoke with Dr. Land before and after he wrote his open letter to Speaker Gingrich. Dr. Land, like many others who are heavily involved in the national political scene, speak with all of the major candidates every few weeks. I believe his advice to the former speaker was timely and good, but Dr. Land was not endorsing Gingrich in his comments. This I know for a fact.
After having spent a week in South Carolina, I got an up-close look at the remaining candidates and their families. It was interesting to watch them in the two debates last week and I was amazed that Speaker Gingrich got such a bump in the polls (confirmed by South Carolina’s primary results) after a very tough day on Thursday. But you have to hand it to him, he is amazing on the stump. Yes, I too have concerns about Newt’s prior support of several issues and that’s why as I voter, I am watching him carefully.
By your comments I can see you are a Ron Paul supporter. Dr. Paul certainly appeals to a wide range of voters and brings many to the polls who would not normally be active in a Republican primary. But, at the sake of raising your blood pressure, let me make the following prediction: Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee.
Yes, he will go into the convention with a respectable number of delegates but his foreign policy views and libertarian views in general are tough for a number of primary voters to digest. I predict his son, Rand Paul might go further in national politics in the years ahead. Regardless of the outcome, it is once again a unique campaign season.
Regards,
Paul