[Knucklehead]

From our Midday News. I'm not quite sure how I feel about this:

Meanwhile...Jerry Falwell, Jr. says John McCain is not the kind of conservative Republicans need.
But, he points out, that the first George Bush wasn't much of a conservative either -- before his father exerted influence.
You'll recall, Falwell Jr. threw his support behind Governor Mike Huckabee before the Iowa Caucus.
Falwell now says he believes Huckabee is more likely to be a strong vice presidential candidate for John McCain.
He says McCain's credentials haven't impressed him yet, but there's still time for the senator to find his conservative base.
Jerry Falwell, Jr., Liberty University - "My father supported George Bush, Sr. back when he was considered a moderate. He was one of the first conservatives to endorse him, and by doing that he was able to move George Bush, Sr. to the right on a lot of issues. Maybe we can do the same thing with McCain."
The Associated Press is reporting that McCain contacted Falwell's brother, Pastor Jonathan Falwell, asking for support this week.
That report says Jonathan Falwell is open to the idea, but is hoping to learn more about McCain first.

[TylerBakersGonnaBGreat]

amen.

[LUconn]

I think this is interesting that people seem to be looking for Jr's opinion more than Jonathan's. I guess they're looking at the name vs the profession. I think they've got it backwards.

[Hold My Own]

I think it's more of the recognizable place....LU is more widely known to all than TRBC

[TylerBakersGonnaBGreat]

I think it's more of the recognizable place....LU is more widely known to all than TRBC

[Hold My Own]

Also LUconn it's important to remember just because one is involved in a church and another in a Christian University does not mean that one is more responsible to answer these questions. JJ has proven that he is interested in politics and wants to get involved (at some level, not as much as his father but it's to early to expect him to be). Jonathan has shown no interest at all in politics, at least publicly I believe there are discussions privately with people to let them know how the conservatives feel on some of their stances. There is no mention in Church what so ever about the election and this is his time to voice his opinion publicly if he was going to. I just dont think he wants to, and thats ok. JJ does, and that's great...there was a time when I feared the conservative would lose their voice once JF passed but it appears that wont be the case, thank the Lord

We shouldnt expect JJ or Jonathan fulfill everything their father did...JF's shoes are impossible to fill. They have/will find their niche and go from there but every aspect will not be covered by these two men alone.


Its times like these you truly have to sit back and wonder how in the world was JF able to handle everything he did...it's unreal.

[paradox]

Jonathan was on Hardball w/Chris Matthews during the South Carolina primaries. He said that he appreciated all of the canidates in the GOP and would give his support to whoever emerges as the nominee.

Personally, I thought that his on-air prescence in that format was favorable. He clearly defined the conservative Christian agenda in a reasonable way.

[Hold My Own]

Dox, I value your opinion...and I didnt see the show so I cant really comment on his stance...but from the whole "we support anyone in th GOP" does that come across as a little "Joel Osteeny" not really wanting to upset anyone? Or was it a good and fair stance.

[paradox]

Dox, I value your opinion...and I didnt see the show so I cant really comment on his stance...but from the whole "we support anyone in th GOP" does that come across as a little "Joel Osteeny" not really wanting to upset anyone? Or was it a good and fair stance.

No, he wasn't being wishy-washy or weak at all. I gathered that he believes that national security is the most vital issue of the day, which would mean that all of the canidates are strong in his opinion--except, of course, Ron Paul, who isn't legitimate to any conversation regarding the GOP field.

By priorotizing national security, I don't think that he's putting pro-life issues on the backburner. Bush recently appointed two very conservative judges and abortions per year are at an all-time low since thier legaliztion back in '73. Secondly, all of the canidates have publically stated that they'd appoint strict constructionist judges, including Gulliani.

[Hold My Own]

I completely agree...there were times when JF did not have abortion and other "Christian" issues at the top, b/c to be honest it wasnt needed to be #1 b/c of the world we live in. Right now I dont think much can be done about abortion more than what has been done (supreme court) so I agree security should be #1...I DO however wish more was mentioned on Sundays