If Corker wasn’t good enough yesterday, why today?

August 4, 2006
By

Here is a problem with situational party politics.  Its all about party and very little about principle.  You have groups like the conservative Team GOP and others who go all out for a primary and blast someone like Bob Corker.  They tell you all the things he has done wrong and why he is not worthy of our support, they tell you he is just like a democrat and then… the day after he wins the party nomination for Senate they tell you we must support him.

What?  Either he is a abortion supported, Kerry, Gore, and Naifeh wanna be, or he is a man of principles that can be trusted with my vote.  Which is it?  According to the TEAM GOP updates I received this election cycle Corker is the following:

  • Bob Corker is neither a patch on their (Hillary and Bryant) shirts nor someone who will be remembered other than the guy who could not buy himself a senate seat with Big Oil’s money.
  • “This is the same Bob Corker who supported abortion rights and attacked Bill Frist’s GOP credentials in 1994, but all the while was donating to Democrats the same year. This is the same Bob Corker that discussed with Democrat House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh ‘about his running in the future as a Democrat,’ and that Corker was a Democrat ‘deep down inside.’ This is the same Bob Corker who held a meet and greet at his home in 2002 for Phil Bredesen during the gubernatorial campaign.”
     
    Critics of TeamGOP.org often chide the group for having a very rigid dogma of criteria that must be met. Ward strongly disagreed. “We rarely discuss issues; however we always seek party loyalty. Our belief is simple. We are not opposed to Mayor Corker because he is too moderate or too conservative. We oppose his candidacy because Bob Corker is a political phony. That may be good enough for Jimmy Naifeh; I don’t believe it is good enough for the average Tennessee Republican.

There were many more quotes as to why I should not vote for Corker, but I think the most telling line is this.  “We rarely discuss issues; however we always seek party loyalty.” 

It sounds a lot to me like the folks over at TEAM GOP would support a monkey as long as he had an elephant on his shirt.  That is a shame.  If Corker is a Democrat in republican clothing why should we support him at all.  Why shouldn’t we convince a Hillary or someone with the character of Bryson to run as an independent.  Notice, that I did not say because they are Republican, but rather because they have character.

I know, those are tough words to hear.  After all to support an independent candidate one has to be an independent thinker.  One has to be able to tell the party pundits NO when they cross the line and put up someone like Corker who is out of touch with main stream Tennessee.

But at the end of the day the real question behind the politics is who sets the standard?  Are men running for office selected based on any arbitrary standard that we decide is convenient to us today.  Or are there transcendent standards to which our leaders, or at least leaders in a free nation must subscribe to.

I would submit to the world that when the principles are nothing more than a party line, we are on the quick path to slavery.  But when men have submitted themselves to the God who created the universe and the unchangeable standards of his word, then we will have men who will preserve our freedom, even at great personal cost to themselves.  That is the history of this great nation.

As for me and Bob Corker?  He doesn’t deserve my vote any more than Harold Ford does!  Good luck on that front GOP.  I’ll support Bryson because his character deserves support, but I’ll not betray my conscience and the standards of my God so you can fill another seat with an “R” instead of a “D”.

5 Responses to If Corker wasn’t good enough yesterday, why today?

  1. September 2, 2006 at 1:31 am

    I have seen God use wicked men in spite of themselves. But I have seen him use the faithfulness of his people far more often.

    For me that’s what it really all comes down to. Do I trust in man and his limited human reasoning, or do I trust the God who created all things and to whom all things are subject?

    If there was a Democrat by the name of A. Hitler and a Republican by the name of V. Lenin who were running for senate, who would you support?

    It’s tricky, because the Republican says he will only kill 100,000 people during his term, while we are assured by the Democrat that he will kill at least a million. So who would you support?

    You know if you don’t vote for the Republican that an additional 900,000 people will die if the Democrat wins…

    Here’s the point, there are standards and limitations to what we as Christians can “legally” i.e. Biblically, support with our vote. I believe Corker falls into this category, for several reasons, but mostly over the issue over the killing of unborn children.

    When we come to this point, to not vote is not to “do nothing”. In fact it does several things.

    1. It preserves our conscience before God.
    2. It sends a message to those in power in the respective parties that we have a limit and they can not continue to betray our values and expect our support.
    3. We can encourage others to take a stand for what is right.
    4. We can write a blog about it and let other people know about Biblical standards and encourage other to turn to the Bible for the decisions they make.
    5. And finally, we can pray that God will use our sincere efforts to turn the heart of a nation towards him.

    One last point. If God can use an evil man, what’s the difference if he uses a Republican or a Democrat?

  2. John Cummins
    September 1, 2006 at 11:25 am

    And BTW, NO we don’t “elect” Ford if we fail to elect Corker. Find a write-in candidate, vote positively for someone who DOES have integrity but NO it doesn’t mean you have supported Ford, that’s arrogant.

  3. John Cummins
    September 1, 2006 at 11:24 am

    Another thing, Kathy. Do you honestly think that Bush the lesser and company would have supported Bryant if he had won???? REally??? He supports Lieberman over the Republican nominee in Connecticut, so much for the “party”.

  4. John Cummins
    September 1, 2006 at 11:22 am

    I have to agree with Paul totally! Kathy, arrogant? Arrogant? Was Elijah arrogant to challenge the prophets of Baal? I was a total supporter of Bryant BECAUSE I thought he was a man of principles and integrity. His support for party over principal is disgusting.

    As to Ford versus Corker. What is the difference? I submit that we would have been MUCH better off if Kerry had beaten Bush the lesser. At least, then, maybe the Republirats would have opposed the same legislation that Bush has pushed through: NCLB, the unconstitutional Patriot Acts, on and on. No, Kathy you are wrong on this. THIS is why we keep losing because of boneheaded support for liberal, commie democrats in republicrat clothing. Enough is Enough, Paul is right.

  5. Kathy Hardin
    September 1, 2006 at 8:43 am

    I agree that Corker is not my first choice (we campaigned hard for Bryant in the primary) but if we don’t elect Corker, we elect Ford. Do we really want Ford? This is not a local race that will only have a small ripple effect. This will affect things at a national level. And to some extent, it will help to have a Republican in there as opposed to a Democrat. At least with Corker, we can put party pressure on him to somewhat tow the line. You can rest assured that Ford will NEVER vote with the Republicans. There are many people praying and working with Corker to be what he should be. Should we be so arrogant as to say that God can’t use him? I know of several men in the Bible that God used whose integrity was suspect. Not voting is not a choice as it is akin to good men doing nothing while evil flourishes.