Howdy … I’m new to the team and will follow in the footsteps of Jay the Bennett in giving a little bio as the preamble for my first post.
My name is Eric Michael Hartman, Sr., but I’m affectionately known as “Gunny” (particularly among the elect). Under the gaze of those spooky red eyes and fearing for my life here’s a quick rundown of who I am:
- Skin of my teeth graduate of Texas A&M University, Bachelor of Arts (BA) with an emphasis in Speech Communication.
- Less disgraceful graduate of Texas A&M University, Master of Science (MS) with an emphasis in Educational Leadership.
- Cum Laude graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, Master of Theology (ThM) with an emphasis in Pastoral Leadership.
- No Laude graduate of Oxford University, Master of Studies (MSt) with an emphasis in History of Doctrine: Reformation Theology.
- Wheels spinning completer of coursework at University of Texas at Arlington, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) with an emphasis in Rhetoric.
- Currently the pastor of Providence Church (SBC) in Garland, TX.
- Served as adjunct professor at DTS (church history and preaching) and presently at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (preaching).
- Father of four and the faithful though unimpressive husband of Mary Ellen since 1993.
- My personal blog is SEMPER REFORMANDA.
Yet, every once in a while I get a little jazzed and felt I had to weigh in on this 3rd party talk.
The Perot comparisons are pertinent. I’m firmly convinced that without Perot in ’92, Bush beats Clinton. Does Clinton even get the nomination in ’96?
My gut feeling and contention based on special revelation from the Magic 8-Ball is that without Perot in the mix Clinton is never president and if Clinton is never president then Clinton is never in the running for president in ’08, Hillary Clinton, that is.
That being said, I’m curious about the “Rudy would do more harm than Hillary” statements.
As a conservative (libertarian may be a better label) who goes GOP in presidential elections, I would think it would be better for the GOP for Hillary to win than for Rudy to win.
If Rudy wins, the GOP is no longer the pro-life party and no longer can assume that vote. Not only has precedent been set, but now Christians will have a much more difficult time voting Republican, or at least explaining their rationale for voting that way.
I’m not convinced in the least that Rudy would select judges in keeping with the mold sought by those advocating the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Personally, I’ve not resigned myself to a pro-choice candidate, being still a supporter of Fred Thompson.
Thus, I think it’s premature to hear so much “saber rattling” about a 3rd party candidate, trying to intimidate the powers that be.
I know you can’t whip up a candidate overnight (i.e., after the RNC), but if the goal is principle and/or to send a message to the GOP, then it doesn’t really matter. You could even write in a vote, like I did in 1996.
And … let’s be honest, for many of us this is a moot point anyway. It’s probably an opportunity for many to “take a stand” where there are no risks.
For example, I live in the Lone Star State. That state is going Republican. I could vote for Rudy or Hillary or write in Don Corrleone and it would affect the electoral votes Texas awards.
So, on the one hand, I’m all for sending a message and all, but I’m more curious to hear from those who live in states where the outcome will be close.
Would I feel the same “freedom” to vote principle if I lived in Florida? If I really thought my vote for a 3rd party candidate would/could cost the GOP the White House, would I be as bold in such discussions?