“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.” - Mitt Romney
A recent article has brought great attention to Romney’s “secret” views of Obama supporters. This is somehow supposed to be shocking, as if we did not already know that both presidential candidates do not have “flowery” views of those who vote for their opponents. As our blogger Alfredo pointed out, “What is the big deal? Have liberals never heard conservatives say they are welfare queens before?”. If you’ve been around the mainstream media long enough, it’s no surprise that they make a crying fuss out of everything. But leave it to them to applaud a blatantly false commercial that pictures Paul Ryan pushing an old lady off a cliff. It’s okay to picture republican politicians and voters in this way, but it’s not okay to think of liberals as welfare drama queens. I happen to agree with Romney on this one, but it’s not exclusive to democrats as we have our own share of blind voters.
It’s a proven fact that conservatives are happier than liberals (see here) due in part to their religious and ethical views. Liberals have a different state of mind than conservatives do. The former is more critical of religion because it considers it an obstacle to progress and a promoter of intolerance. They’re more likely to force religious institutions to provide condoms to advance this agenda, for example. Not surprisingly, at least half of them are against Jerusalem and God as the DNC proves. Not to mention that this 47% does not pay for taxes. They tend to be anti-intellectual or just woefully ignorant of the complexity of the issues at hand. The solution to our problems is more entitlements, more regulation, and more government. But this just creates a greater dependency, which opens themselves up to being more vulnerable to the claims that liberals make against people like Paul Ryan. Let’s just take one example of this mindset from Squashed:
According to Romney, if your income isn’t high enough to pay federal income taxes, you’re apparently not taking “personal responsibility and care” for your life. Is it reasonable for Romney to ask people to earn enough that they’re paying income taxes—or is this just an example of out-of-touch dickery?
Notice what Romney emphasizes in the quote that is being addressed here: “Forty-seven percent of people pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect.” This makes sense if you think about it. If they don’t pay taxes already, how is a “low tax” message going to appeal to them? People like free stuff and that’s precisely what Obama offers. Most of these people are anti-intellectual or woefully ignorant of the complexity of the issues at hand. Romney’s not asking them to “earn enough” to care about his message, but they don’t because they act on their personal emotions, not on facts or principles. If the general public is stupid enough to base their facts on commercials, tidbits, and little nice-sounding slogans then I think that speaks more of how stupid americans can be. Does that sound offensive to you? Then you’ve fallen for the same liberal trap. Truth is truth no matter how offensive it is. To see this, all you need to do is compare the writing and speeches of someone like Abraham Lincoln to the speeches of Obama or Romney. People couldn’t stand Lincoln’s speeches today, which says a lot about their mental capacity. I think Romney is right on when he says,
“And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn’t win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of ”hope and change.”
That’s all that we’re reduced to – slogans and charades. This is what will ultimately decide the fate of America, and unfortunately, I do not think it will be a pleasant one. As Doug Powers pointed out, there are over 8.7 million american workers that are collecting federal disability insurance. That’s ridiculous! How could someone vote for a man that has brought insane increases to our deficit only to find that our US credit rating has been downgraded once again? It just surprises me that a blogger on First Things could make the same mistake as liberals. He claims that we need to ” think about how to empower people who are struggling to stay in the middle class rather than to write them off as “moochers.” but that’s precisely what republicans like Paul Ryan have done! Ultimately though, this outrage toward Romney fails to understand the state of mind that is being advanced in these people’s voting decisions and does not encompass a proper understanding of economics.
13 Responses to Romney Attacks 47% of Americans
Justin September 18, 2012
Personally, it would be hard for me to vote for a man who has disdainfully written off half the nation.
You do remember that the people Romney talking about are real people, right? Real people with hearts, brains, moral awareness and emotions. They have families and friends. Many of them are also republican. This post lacks the necessary empathy that I would expect from a Christian.
May I ask if you pay taxes?
Gil Sanders September 18, 2012
Justin,
Personally, it would be hard for me to vote for a man who has disdainfully written off half the nation.
That’s the exact same kind of emotional argumentation that I criticized. Is it more important not to offend or to speak the truth? A person could speak lies and make the most appealing statements in the world. Or a person could speak the truth and make the most unappealing statements in the world. It seems like you’d choose lies over truth because of your empathy. Now, his statement can be disputed but at least provide reasons.
You do remember that the people Romney talking about are real people, right?
Yes. You realize Romney is a real person too, right? Perhaps you’d care to defend your brutal attack against him?
This post lacks the necessary empathy that I would expect from a Christian.
Truth is the best empathy, and the best remedy. If a person is suffering due to their laziness, should I blame the rich or should I tell them that they need to work? The latter is clearly the better choice, but I’d want to do so by offering them opportunities and encouraging them as well. If this is somehow intrinsically non-christian then I don’t think you understand the issue here. Even in Christianity, Paul writes off the entire world when he says, “There is no one righteous; no, not one”. Or perhaps more hardcore is Romans 1 where it describes the sinful state of man:
“And because they did not think it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God delivered them over to a worthless mind to do what is morally wrong. They are filled with all unrighteousness, evil, greed, and wickedness. They are full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, proud, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, and unmerciful. Although they know full well God’s just sentence—that those who practice such things deserve to die—they not only do them, but even applaud others who practice them.”
This is much harsher than anything I have ever said. The prophets go at it harder when Israel was in the same situation that America finds itself in now. The people of Israel listened to what sounded pleasing to the ear and shunned the prophets of God because they hated its message. It’s something else that you call me a “religious extremist” for sharing a view. That’s hardly a “empathizing” term to use. It’s okay for you to use them but not for me?
Justin September 19, 2012
Please, Gil. Brutal attack? You have to be kidding me. I said nothing that could have been considered brutal. Having concerns about our potential president is COMPLETELY different from condemning MILLIONS of Americans with BASELESS accusations. You haven’t supported anything you’ve said here. Also, I said:
“I don’t feel that way about Romney. He’s shady. He’s shady in his business practices. He’s shady in his taxes. He’s used and abused government funds countless times then bragged about it (re: Olympics). I just don’t buy that someone who has been focused on getting richer, abusing/using every loophole that exists, is suddenly going to have a new found clarity and concern for the average American when he’s never showed that trait before.”
Now, I would hardly consider this a “brutal attack” as these are legitimate concerns about him. Besides, you never responded to it.
My first “argument” had nothing to do with emotions. Because that’s EXACTLY what Romney did here. He completely wrote off 47% of Americans. Doesn’t this make you concerned about how he views the average American? Furthermore, by your comments about how they should “work” instead of being “lazy” is more proof you have no idea how the real world works. You think most American’s aren’t actively looking for work? The economy is so bad right now, and yes, I do in fact blame Obama for that.
As Lerrrr pointed out, it seems as if all of your posts are blamed on emotional reactions and have no resemblance of the concept truth. I’m sorry for being a little harsh here, but man, you’re calling millions of people… MILLIONS of people idiotic for no reason other than they’re liberals. You’re attempting to save yourself in pointing out certain wording, but you should have worded it more carefully and you should do so in the future. You have no one to blame but yourself if both Lerrrr and I interpreted your post this way and you shouldn’t attempt to rationalize what you’re doing. You’re calling me, my family and my friends idiots(not to mention your friends and their families the same thing). Where will this get you and how will readers who aren’t uber-conservative view your blog?
This is not the attitude of a Christian and I can almost certainly guess you don’t talk to liberals like this face to face. You know why? Because you are taking into account how they will react. It’s called using empathy. Wouldn’t you rather have a real discussion than mindless mud slinging? Look at where this post has got you with two of your friends(one of them Christian).
I again apologize for being harsh, but this is completely unacceptable for someone who claims to search for the truth. What do you think about those Muslim extremists who are killing people over “the truth”? What do you think about Scientology who only cares about “the truth”? You need to have a different method of approaching truth before people will take what you say seriously. I don’t know what kind of bloggers you’ve been reading, but you didn’t act this way a year or two ago. You had a great method of approaching discussion and debate. This method is not working at all, and these comments are clearly proof of that.
Now, I will respond more peacefully in the future. But look at the contrast in how you respond to Lerrrr and what you’ve wrote here. You don’t see a change in tone from how you’re talking about your position?
Gil Sanders September 19, 2012
Please, Gil. Brutal attack? You have to be kidding me. I said nothing that could have been considered brutal. Now, I would hardly consider this a “brutal attack” as these are legitimate concerns about him.
Look at what you said: “Romney is about the LEAST trustworthy and the LEAST honest person you could compare someone to.” That’s a strong attack if you ask me. At least you had some prima facie justification, but come on, if you’re going to attack me for being offensive then at least be consistent.
Having concerns about our potential president is COMPLETELY different from condemning MILLIONS of Americans with BASELESS accusations. My first “argument” had nothing to do with emotions. Because that’s EXACTLY what Romney did here.
Baseless? It’s based on simple observations. I supported this by comparing us to “the writing and speeches of someone like Abraham Lincoln to the speeches of Obama or Romney”. Think what you want about the moral character of Romney, but it would be absurd to think that his entire team does not know how to run a campaign. If the American people must have the issues spoon fed to them in a commercial, then I’m afraid that just says more about their mental capacity and intellectual integrity more than anything else. I mean come on, this should just be obvious from a look at Facebook. And I tend to observe people, both through the news and in real life and I can tell you that most people are AT LEAST ignorant.
My first “argument” had nothing to do with emotions. He completely wrote off 47% of Americans. Doesn’t this make you concerned about how he views the average American?
If 47% of Americans were like Romney, you’d write them off too. The problem is that you continue to appeal to emotion without realizing it. You’re making such a fuss about how offensive it is that you think this disputes his claim. What if I kept repeating “You wrote off Romney! You insulted him! He has a wife, kids, and a heart.” after you said he’s a huge liar? That’s obviously emotional. Instead, I responded by asking “Well, what do you have to support that claim?” because I wanted to see what reasons you had. Could you at least do the same favor for me?
Furthermore, by your comments about how they should “work” instead of being “lazy” is more proof you have no idea how the real world works
Look man, it was a scenario that I created to make a point about offensiveness. I said “If a person is suffering DUE to their laziness” then he should work. Any other reason is necessarily not a part of MY scenario. It doesn’t mean that I don’t acknowledge the existence of other reasons.
As Lerrrr pointed out, it seems as if all of your posts are blamed on emotional reactions and have no resemblance of the concept truth. I’m sorry for being a little harsh here, but man, you’re calling millions of people… MILLIONS of people idiotic for no reason other than they’re liberals.
That’s a blatant lie. How are ‘all of my posts” emotional reactions? Do you seriously think I don’t have reasons? Apparently you think I hate just to hate. Where were you when I mocked Romney, by the way? You sure didn’t make a comment on that one. It’s clear that I do not do this just because they’re liberals.
You’re attempting to save yourself in pointing out certain wording, but you should have worded it more carefully and you should do so in the future. You have no one to blame but yourself if both Lerrrr and I interpreted your post this way and you shouldn’t attempt to rationalize what you’re doing.
I admit to having rushed the post a bit and that it could’ve been clearer. I’m not perfect, but I think wording is important here. If I deny that I meant to imply that in the comments, then accept it. However, I don’t think I’m being read carefully or charitably here. The scenario I provided should’ve been clear but both of you still misrepresented me.
Wouldn’t you rather have a real discussion than mindless mud slinging? Look at where this post has got you with two of your friends(one of them Christian).
Sure. The problem is that my position is going to offend no matter what. And as my friends, I expected some more favorable understandings of my motives. But if you’re going to accuse me of being a religious extremist, then I don’t think you know me.
I again apologize for being harsh, but this is completely unacceptable for someone who claims to search for the truth. What do you think about those Muslim extremists who are killing people over “the truth”. I don’t know what kind of bloggers you’ve been reading, but you didn’t act this way a year or two ago. You had a great method of approaching discussion and debate.
I still have that approach, but I’ve always had a satirical side to me. Remember VP and Jean? Remember WarpedFX on DDO? I do prefer to be more civil toward others and most of my blog posts show that. Sometimes I just get so infuriated with the media that I cannot help but vent on WC about them. It’s perfectly permissible, however, because this is a public forum. If I was talking to a person face to face, particularly a liberal, I would not start harshly. I’d want and hope to convince them otherwise as respectfully as possible. But if they refuse to listen, I’m more inclined to be rhetorical with them.
Lerrrr September 18, 2012
Ok let me start near the bottom here – a man who has brought insane increases to your deficit? Head here: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm
You will see that according to your treasury, the OVERWHELMING majority of increases to your deficit have happened under republican presidents.
Now I’d like to create a list of baseless claims here man, because this is totally unacceptable:
1) Liberals are anti-intellectual
2) Liberals are ignorant of the complexity of the issues at hand
3) Liberals all act on their personal emotions
4) Liberals do not act on facts or principles
5) Using nice-sounding slogans, commercials and tidbits is an exclusively LIBERAL trap
6) Liberals are less happy than conservatives (not so much untrue as misleading; look at the article your source quoted. It notes that conservatives are happier……and that EXTREMISTS are happiest of all! Sounds to my like a pattern of “the more set in your ways you are, and the less you question the status quo…the happier you seem to be”. Why is this a surprise?).
7) More regulation creates greater dependency (what????)
The above claims are not substantiated, and highly indicative of a complete conservative bias. They have nothing to do with living a Christian life, and on the contrary are designed solely to advance a political agenda. I don’t consider myself completely liberal, but on some issues I identify more with that side, and I don’t mind saying that I consider myself proof of the ridiculousness of several of the above statements. This is effectively conservative propaganda, and I feel it does a great disservice to the honest, thinking, open-minded individual and to this website – which I believed was trying to promote those values.
Justin September 18, 2012
+1
I have to say, I’m a little disappointed in this post, Gil. You sound like nothing more than a religious extremist who is only concerned with pushing forward his own political agenda. In your post about uniting the churches (here: http://www.walkingchristian.com/2012/09/03/hadrians-wall-meets-wc/#respond) you stated: “I quickly learned the hard way that I should never begin with a premise that attacks what a person holds dear to them,” but that’s exactly what you’re doing here! It’s almost as if you’re not using any empathy at all or have already written off everyone against Christianity!
You should remove and rewrite this post.
Gil Sanders September 18, 2012
Lerrrr,
Ok let me start near the bottom here – a man who has brought insane increases to your deficit?
How does that dispute my statement? I never said that a republican never increased the deficit. The problem here is that Obama hasn’t submitted a budget in THREE YEARS and the budget he did propose was immediately shot down. The debt increase has been monstrous under this administration and it is only set to get worse with Obamacare.
Now I’d like to create a list of baseless claims here man, because this is totally unacceptable:
I think it’s important to read closely what I said. First, I said that it is not “exclusive to democrats as we have our own share of blind voter”. That entails that all of what I said about liberals can just as equally apply to republicans. I also argued that the speeches of BOTH Obama and Romney are watered down. Then I proceeded to give an example of a time when more intelligent speeches were given as proof that America in general has been dumbed down. Romney’s complaint about intellectualism not working in the campaign applies across the country. People don’t want to listen to six hour debates like they used to. Also, I think it’s important to note that I said “THEY TEND” to be anti-intellectual. There’s very important difference between a tendency and an outright sweeping generalization. In response to happiness, that’s why I linked to Maverick Philosopher! He responds to the liberal interpretation of that news article.
I’m sorry you feel that this has been dishonest, thoughtless, and closed minded, but I suppose I cannot help that this is the reaction that political debates bring. For me this much more than just a “political agenda”. This is an example of America’s corruption in general… This is what I am warning and fighting against. I know I come off as strong, but it’s just that it frustrates me to see this happening to us. I do not want America to fall, I want it to thrive, but it’s not if it is going to continue this way.
Robert September 18, 2012
http://www.walkingchristian.com/2012/05/31/no-more-chances/#comment-1058
Lerrrr September 18, 2012
1) I never implied that you said “no republican ever increased the deficit”. The reason it disputes your statement is that you attempt to advance an agenda against this liberal president, citing (in that particular sentence) the “insane increases” to your deficit, as well as a subtle implication that Obama is responsible for your credit downgrade. I intended to point out that actually, far more insane increases to your deficit have taken place under republican presidents since the Reagan administration. And secondly, that it is extremely naive to think that the story behind your credit downgrade began when Obama took office.
2) I did read where you said that conservatives have their share of blind voters, and contextually it did not imply that every point you made applies equally to both camps…..it implied that the preceding paragraph did.
If somebody came on here and wrote a post about how “Christians tend to be fundamentalists”, would you be thinking to yourself “ah that’s a reasonable claim given that he said they only TEND to be”?
Yes, I’m aware that you didn’t flat out state that ALL liberals are X or Y. But using phrases like “they are mostly” or “they tend to be” does little to water down the implication and generalization Gil, come on
I read Maverick Philosophers post, and also the article he linked to; he offers his conservative interpretation in response to a liberal interpretation. Fair enough – but since when does that make it a ” proven fact that conservatives are happier than liberals (see here) due in part to their religious and ethical views”? There are a great many psychological and sociological factors that may explain the noted trend, and also why extremists appear happiest of all.
If a person is suffering due to their laziness, should I blame the rich or should I tell them that they need to work?
The above is the sort of thing I take issue with. You have claimed that liberals tend to react more with emotion – and yet the above is an emotional reaction. It is an emotional reaction based on a gross misunderstanding of the causes of wealth or lack of wealth. Reminds me of this Gina Rinehart woman (the world’s wealthiest woman) who said:
If you’re jealous of those with more money, don’t just sit there and complain; do something to make more money yourself — spend less time drinking, or smoking and socializing, and more time working
It is a myth propagated by the right wing that poor people are poor because they choose not to work. And it is a myth propagated by people who tend to have no conception of what it is like to be without, and to be struggling to find work (Gina Rinehart, for example, inherited her fortune).
My biggest concern with this, Gil, is that I cannot see how this is related to Christian living. It is purely political – if that’s the direction you’re looking for then no problem, but I was under the impression this was supposed to be about reaching out to all Christians, not just the Christian right.
Gil Sanders September 19, 2012
I intended to point out that actually, far more insane increases to your deficit have taken place under republican presidents since the Reagan administration.
I agree, those increases have been on both sides. This is due to the republican failure to live up to conservative values, but sometimes, it is more complex than this for both sides because of war and the like. You’re interpreting me completely backwards here. It seems that you think I got this axe to grind (or agenda) with liberals at the exclusion of republicans. It’s not who I criticize that defines my political philosophy, but my political philosophy that defines who I criticize. It doesn’t matter what party this person comes from. This political philosophy is perfectly integrated and grounded in my metaphysical, ethical, and religious views. So unless I have some “agenda” in those areas too, I think it’s best to drop that claim. Also, I’m a bit surprised at the uncharitable positions being assigned to me. I think they’re straw men because I never asserted that our credit rating problems all began when Obama took office. That’s obviously not the case, but I could gladly take fault for failing to be clear on this.
I did read where you said that conservatives have their share of blind voters, and contextually it did not imply that every point you made applies equally to both camps…..it implied that the preceding paragraph did. Yes, I’m aware that you didn’t flat out state that ALL liberals are X or Y. But using phrases like “they are mostly” or “they tend to be” does little to water down the implication and generalization Gil, come on
That paragraph set the “theme” for the rest of the post. Perhaps less obvious, I did move from liberals to the “general public” and to “how stupid americans can be”. This naturally included the “blind conservative voters”. The only reason I focused on liberals was because they made a fuss over it. And you’re the one that used the phrase “liberals all act on their personal emotions” to describe my position, so at the very least we both made mistakes in wording here. If it’s true that Christians today tend to be fundamentalists just as I think they tend to be divisive, then sure, I think that’s true. And perhaps it’s just me, but I always thought that it made a substantial difference to say “A match has a tendency to heat when struck” to “A match is hot when struck”. I think I’ll need to change that bad habit of mine.
The above is the sort of thing I take issue with. You have claimed that liberals tend to react more with emotion – and yet the above is an emotional reaction
You’re over-analyizing here. I just used that as a particular analogy to demonstrate my point on offense. It was not a comprehensive treatise on why the poor are poor. Even a conservative agrees that there are different reasons for this.
My biggest concern with this, Gil, is that I cannot see how this is related to Christian living. It is purely political – if that’s the direction you’re looking for then no problem, but I was under the impression this was supposed to be about reaching out to all Christians, not just the Christian right.
Whoa, don’t jump the gun man! Walking Christian includes our political being, but it is never going to be purely political. I’d only make political posts if that were the case. It’s just that “Christian living” is intrinsically tied to how we live with our government. The only reason I’m focusing on it a bit more is because the election is close. The great thing about WC is that it can adjust to various events that go on in the world and talk about them accordingly.
Lerrrr September 19, 2012
1) I only say that you have an “agenda” in so far as you are obviously conservative, and so it is quite clear that in your interpretation of events like this you are trying to paint the conservative position in as favourable a light as possible, and the liberal position in as poor a light as possible. If you re-read what I have said, it’s not so much that you make the claims explicitly, as that they are implicit in several things that you say. As in, to a neutral reader, that is how they come across (like the thing about Obama and the credit rating; you didn’t explicitly say it, but you did imply it to an extent when you said “how could somebody vote for a man…………..only to find out that our credit rating has been downgraded once again?”. I don’t think the positions being assigned to you are straw men – they are all based on implications and explicit statements made by you in this post.
2) There is a substantial difference in terms of formal logic between those two statements, but in common usage the reality is that, again, there is an implication made which is not watered down by adding phrases like “they tend to be” (aside from the fact that this is still untrue anyway).
3) I only took that sentence because it seemed to express a particular sentiment relevant to the topic (i.e. it didn’t appear to be an analogy taken from some other area and applied here, it appeared to be an EXAMPLE).
4) No gun-jumping! That’s why I asked! Well the same point could be made about ANY worldview; a blog devoted to Hinduism would then have to involve politics, as would a buddhist, an atheist……and so on. LIVING is intrinsically tied to how we live with our government, the strictly Christian part of living is what I thought we were sharing here (how we live with our government is not the strictly Christian part!).
Gil Sanders September 19, 2012
Lerrrr,
Wouldn’t that just about apply to everyone with a political view? Let me see if I have this right… I have an agenda to paint events as favorably as possible for conservatives and as critically as possible for liberals because I am a conservative. This agenda was brought to light because of my statement’s implications. And I intentionally implied this because I got an agenda. And I have this agenda because I am a conservative. That seems like circular reasoning to me. By that reasoning, I could draw implications from anything. For example, I could say that by implication, you are calling me a dishonest political extremist and are doing this because you want to paint me as horribly as possible. In my opinion, those are some weak implications. They only make sense if you have a preconceived view of my motives. If I had said “How could you vote for a man that is responsible for our bad credit rating” then you may have a point but I referred to “deficit increase” and noted their effects. I did not refer to the entire deficit itself.
I got nothing much to add here except admit that I did not express myself as well that I could have. You’re right. Every worldview does have political effects. I suppose I’m just interested in political thought from our Christian worldview.
Lerrrr September 20, 2012
Gil (If you want to know my main point here, scroll to the bolded section),
No, it wouldn’t. At least, not if one aims as best they can at balance and objectivity (obviously it’s never going to be completely objective, but presenting a blatantly conservative bias on a website about Christian living gives the false impression that the two are in some way connected).
And nope, no circular reasoning: I propose that due to the fact that you’re a conservative, you are trying to paint conservatives in a good light and liberals in a bad light (not saying, btw, that liberals don’t do the same thing). I then give an example of one way you are trying to achieve this, which is by making (false/inaccurate) implications about liberals. I have no PRECONCEIVED view of your motives, otherwise I would have not been surprised in the least by this post and would probably not have felt a need to comment on it.
I’m sorry, but for example, tell me:
“Most of these people are anti-intellectual or woefully ignorant of the complexity of the issues at hand.”
“They tend to be anti-intellectual or just woefully ignorant of the complexity of the issues at hand. ”
How is it a weak implication to draw from these 2 separate statements that you have a preconceived notion of liberals being anti-intellectual? Reeeeeeeally?
Gil, part of what I’m taking issue with here is precisely what you ended with: “political thought from our Christian worldview”. You have mentioned several times how you would like to achieve unity, but one of the things you need to see if you wish to achieve that is that there IS NO particular political position that is intrinsically linked with Christianity. There are liberal Christians out there, and conservative Christians. If you want unity, if you want inclusiveness, if you want this to be a place where CHRISTIANS all come to share their thoughts on the Christian life and experience, then you have two options when it comes to politics:
1) Leave politics completely out of it
or
2) Present balanced views on politics, making as much effort as possible to remain objective and constructive
If you present predominantly (and overwhelmingly) conservative political viewpoints, I absolutely guarantee you that liberal Christians out there will say “this blog is not for Christians………it’s for the Christian right”. You understand where I’m coming from? This isn’t about me trying to call you an extremist, or dishonest – or anything else which I know to be untrue. I am just trying to bring to your attention that posts like this will UNQUESTIONABLY alienate an entire section of your potential readership.