Walk that lonesome road

(Yes, I’m still taking some time off, but this morning I’m taking just a little time off from my time off.)

That’s because reader DE brought this Washington Post article to my attention about the effort to get right-leaning Christian music culture to look left, and I wanted to comment on it while it’s still freshish. The story includes some passages about southern gospel and Rick Hendrix, who has used his connections with gospel music to raise the profile of Democratic politics at gospel venues. Money quote:

But how does this cultural crusade go down with fans? If Hendrix’s experience is a barometer, it may be a mixed bag. He says he staged hundreds of Clinton events at concerts before she dropped out, including Young Harmony at Ole Country Church in McDonough, Ga., and the gospel group Heirline at Victory Baptist Church in Dallas. There were repercussions. Someone tried to run over a volunteer (yes, with a car) in Tuscaloosa, Ala. Coffee was thrown in Hendrix’s face in Raleigh, N.C. A few radio stations he worked with sent back his CDs, cracked.

“He could have possibly lost his business,” says Angie Hoskins, a “lifelong Democrat” who has won multiple awards with her gospel band, the Hoskins Family.

The scene for a Democratic performer is “tough. It. Is. Tough,” she says. “We have to be really careful how much we say, because in the industry we work in, it can pretty much kick you out if you’re not careful.”

Derek Webb, an award-winning contemporary Christian musician who considers himself politically independent, says many churches stopped inviting him to play after he came out in 2005 with “A King and a Kingdom,” which included these lyrics:

There are two great lies that I’ve heard:

“The day you eat of the fruit of that tree, you will not surely die”

And that Jesus Christ was a white, middle-class Republican.”

The whole thing is worth reading. Several things occur to me: One, gospel music may treat him like a hackish pariah (even as he continues to be hired by artists because he gets results), but this article makes me think Hendrix may be getting more attention and being taken more seriously in Democratic political circles than those of us who know him primarily as a music promoter have been willing to imagine or concede. I find it hard to believe he’s the “biggest evangelist for the Democratic party,” as the Post article puts it, but then I often find it hard to believe that radio stations run a lot of the crappy songs Hendrix promotes up the chart as high as they do. And as I’ve suggested before, unlikelier careers in politics have been from the political equivalent of Hendrix’s unique, erhm, gifts in promoting gospel music.

Second, as one of those left-leaning gospel-music fans, I guess I would have to say Rick Hendrix wasn’t my first choice for our standard-bearer, but to borrow a phrase and philosophy from our dear Republican friends: you campaign with the political evangelists you have, not the ones you want.

And finally, as anyone who’s spent any amount of time in the industry knows, there is a not insubstantial minority of industry insiders and other professional who think progressively and vote Democratic. But it’s uncommon for these people to broadcast this fact, not least of all for the reasons Hoskins describes in the article. So it’s fascinating to see the willingness of non-Republican people in the bidness to go public with their political affiliation. Unless the antipathy in southern gospel culture toward Democrats and other left-leaning types is overblown (and I’m not sure it is), might this mark the unofficial beginning of a trend, or will these folks be made an example of? Or alternatively: is it significant that the two sg types who openly avowed their status as Democrats are two people who don’t depend on booking dates in the heart of the heart of red state America for their bread and butter?

Email this Post

Comments

  1. Leebob wrote:

    I am sure that most of the issues where people have problems with Christians being Democrats is the platform. It is blatantly against Biblical standards in the realm of social issues.

    Through the years I had actively worked for different Republican candidates simply on the social issues. What I have learned since then is that most people, even the Christians, let the Biblical standards go and vote their pocketbook. If their pocketbook is doing well they vote for the guy/party in office. If it is not good then they vote the other guy/party in. This time may be the exception with the alternative to the status quo having the potential of placing a Muslim in office.

    I look forward to seeing how this one plays out. Considering we have 300,000,000 people in this country, this is the best we have to offer? The other curious thing is that it has now become Palin vs. Obama rather than McCain vs. Obama. You have the feminists in the unenviable position of having to blast a viable candidate for a position of authority (I guess she is not man or woman enough for them, I haven’t decided how that works), the people crying for an outsider are now saying she is too outside of the loop, and Hillary is worried that if McCain wins and something happens to him, that Palin will be the first woman President and not Hillary.

    Bottom line…we tend to support whoever supports in words what is most important to us and nothing really ever changes for the better, does it? Trust God with all the political stuff because nothing takes Him by surprise. Pray about it, vote as He leads you and live in peace with the comfort that it is all still in His control.

  2. Brian wrote:

    I agree with Leebob. It is the social stance of the left that is against Biblical principles. That is obvious to most of us. However, according to recent discussions on this blog, the Bible is not literal and is not to be taken literal. The Bible, the left would have you believe, is merely a work of man with suggestions of how we are to live our lives that can be formed or transformed to mean anything you need it to mean according to your circumstance.
    We, on the right, are said to be old, fat, uneducated men that cannot think for ourselves. Thus the “progressive thinking” comment in the blog above. Our minds are so feable as to not have the ability to think the way they think and therefore we are to be pitied because our eyes have not been opened to the “truth” as they know it.
    Get your little digs where you can Doug, even if you never have to answer for them. Because that is all you have. The real truth, lies on the side of the believer in the Holy, whole, inerrant, living Word of God that is the cornerstone to the one true faith that man has today. Not left or right, not conservative or liberal, only truth. The truth is the Word as He gave it to us, not how we interpret, not what we think He meant, only what it says.
    I will stand with the Word, in my personal life, in my work, in my play, in my marriage, in my ministry, in my political dealings, in my family and in my business dealings. ALL areas of my life, not just the ones that benefit me at the time. My children will be taught the simple conservative beliefs that have sprung up in me through Gods Holy Word. The simple belief that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. The understanding that if you have to stop and ask yourself if this is right or wrong, then most likely it’s wrong. But most importantly, if Gods word says it’s right, it’s right and if God says it’s wrong, it’s wrong. No grey area.
    If that makes me simple minded, unable to think for myself then so be it. I can wear that badge for Him. He bore my stripes for me.

    Now…the article mentioned above is, in my opinion, simply an area where the left think there may be an opportunity to “steal” a few votes from folks that may have otherwise voted right. If they can get the fans of the Hoskins Family to vote along with Angie, well it’s a few more than they had before. It is a small victory for the Dems to have an outward professing Christian making a little noise for them, and folks Doug is just doing his small part here. Additionally I don’t think any of the groups or soloist mentioned above are exactly “movers” in the industry. They still represent a small faction that resides here, no matter what the media may tell you. We will see Ricks name more and more in the coming months and then in the further future as his campaign gets fully underway and probably a few more articles that put conservative SG in a negative light because we have supposedly made outcast of our own. Afterall it only goes to show you how closed minded we are.

  3. Matthew Moore wrote:

    LeeBob

    A Muslim ofr president? Really? There are so many things wrong with an Obama administration, why would you bring up a point as baseless as that. He is not a muslim. A socialist, yes. Marxist, definately. Hate-monger and bigot, only if you don’t believe his reason for staying in Rev. Wright’s church for so long (not the Rev. Wright he knew). There are many valid reasons to challenge Barak Obama. Talk about the ones that are factual.

  4. SGfan wrote:

    I agree with my two friends that have posted above that us SG conservatives have shunned the Democratic party mostly for such issues as its pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-Christian stances. Some of us are even smart enough to know that we don’t want income redistribution by the gov. and we don’t think it is fair that anyone, no matter how wealthy, should end up paying nearly 50% of their income in taxes while a segment of able bodied workers in this country sit at home waiting on their gov check so they can go buy the beer for their cook out this weekend while they watch the ball game. I myself find myself in disagreement with the Republican party from time to time, but the Democratic party is so far off from my values that I couldn’t possible support them. Kind of makes me proud to see McCain pick a VP candidate like Sarah Palin. Now that is a far bigger political story than Rick Hendrix ever will be, no offense to Rick.

  5. steve wrote:

    I’M SHOCKED THE ANGIE HOSKINS QUOTE ISN’T PRINTED IN ALL CAPS.

  6. Videoguy wrote:

    The rigorous series of mental calisthenics a professing Christian must endure to align Scripture with the pro-choice stance is quite fascinating.

    Please spare me the rhetorical ploys; I’m not out for a brawl, just an answer. How does a professing Christian conjugate God’s Word such that they can stump or vote for (or become) a pro-abortion candidate? How do you deal with Psalms 22, 127, 139? Galatians 1:15?

  7. David wrote:

    Leebob-please don’t believe all the emails you receive that have Fw: Fwd: FWD: FW: Re: Fw: FWD: in the subject line. Barack Obama has plenty of real issues and stances that will cause me not to vote for him. I do agree with you regarding Hillary’s concerns. Let’s say your scenario plays out, and Palin has to finish out McCain’s term. If she’s the least bit unpopular, I think the voters would clamor for a male candidate in 2012 and Hillary would stand no chance. By 2016 Hillary would be 68 and would probably no longer be a viable candidate.

  8. art wrote:

    I’ve said it before on this website: I’m uncomfortable when, at an SG performance, a singer drops in a political endorsement — overt or subtle. It detracts from the spiritual experience that I’m seeking.

    Likewise, I’m uncomfortable when posters on this blog turn their attention to political issues. I have my strong political beliefs, and although I love to discuss, I hate to argue.

  9. j-mo wrote:

    #9…I don’t know many Christians who are pro-choice, but I know a lot of Christians who are democrats. The two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. Besides, if you believe in the sanctity of life, don’t you have to believe in the sanctity of all life and not just the lives of unborn babies? Democrats are for abortion, but Republicans are often war-happy and for the death penalty. Don’t you have to take the entire platform into consideration? I personally find it asinine to completely rule out the validity of an entire political party based on one or two of its social stances.

  10. Obzerver wrote:

    #9 - J Mo,
    Abortion is much more than a “social stance”. It is no small matter. Yes there are some things we can agree to disagree on but personally I will never “agree to disagree” with anyone who supports abortion. As far as your comparison goes, the death penalty is not obtained inncocently. Comparing the killing of an unborn innocent to the death of a violent criminal is ludicrous and while war is a horrible thing, the deaths of soldiers in the line of duty is hardly comparable either. I find it hard to reconcile the democratic party platform with the beliefs and convictions of Christianity especially as it pertains to abortion. While you find it “asinine to completely rule out the validity of an entire political party based on one or two of its social stances” I find it mind-boggling that someone who proclaims Christianity as their faith would NOT rule out the validity of a party that is so agressively in favor of slaughtering innocent children. Again…it not just a social stance…it is murder of the worst kind.

  11. wackythinker wrote:

    j-mo — Thank you for saying that. Abortion rights, gay marriage, and gun control are not the only issues, but some Christian Republicans would like to have us think they are. What about taking care of the sick and the poor?

    And there’s still the economy and a war about which we were lied to (and now they’ve changed their story).

    And with the current Republicans’ family histories, don’t EVEN try to talk about “Christian family values”. Adultry, divorce, pre-marital pregnancy. These candidates are no better in the “family values” department than anyone else.

  12. cynical one wrote:

    I can see the hospital from my house. I guess that means I’ll be prepared to perform surgery by January.

    And there’s a recording studio 2 blocks from house the other dircection. So, even though can’t carry a tune in a bucket with a lid on it right now, by January, I’ll be prepared to be the next American Idol, too.

    Is this country great, or what?!?!?! Where else can a woman field dress a moose, put lipstick on a pitbull, and think she’s ready to be the President?

  13. Ron F wrote:

    Ive been playing southern gospel music for 11 years, and I am a strong Republican. But I have learned through the years to keep my mouth shut about politics and just play the music. What Im saying is I think there are more Democrats that listen to SG than we really know.

  14. SGfan wrote:

    #12 cynical one
    Your words:

    “Is this country great, or what?!?!?! Where else can a woman field dress a moose, put lipstick on a pitbull, and think she’s ready to be the President?”

    Or a community organizer make a speech in 2004 and then he’s ready. She is running for VP and has much more executive experience than Obama (maybe you forget the fact that she is a governor that has actually signed legislation into law), so I don’t think I would try to point fingers at the bottom of the other ticket until I looked at the top of my own if I were you. Do you really want to make this an argument about experience?

  15. Jim Alben wrote:

    I would never rule out an entire party because of what a few believe in but every democrat that is “in the spotlight” is not only pro-choice but pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and the list continues. Obama would clearly be an obamanation to our culture and our country. I would hope that americans have enough common sense to see through him for what he really is. If something doesn’t convict you to take a stand against it you must be for it, don’t care, or just trying to make a buck. Too many people today vote for who they think will put the most $$$ in their pocket. If God takes his had off our nation $$$ won’t make a difference one way or the other.

  16. KDM wrote:

    Okay, I’d like to play devil’s advocate here. PLEASE don’t bite my head off…I just think it might be interesting to discuss this…

    When voting for President, do you vote for the person you believe is the most morally upright, or the person you believe is best equipped to effectively govern the nation? The two qualities don’t usually go hand in hand. Sometimes we get lucky, but most of the time you have to choose between morals and skills. I know I’m going to make someone (or several someones) irate here, but let’s face it. Bill Clinton was a very effective president. His moral standards need some work. GW is a staunch Christian, but honestly, he’s not been a ball of fire in the administration aspect of things.

    So the question again. How do you best serve your conscience and your country? Do you vote for a morally upright leader who may not have the qualifications or skills to govern, or do you vote in the candidate that can get the job done, regardless of his moral state?

  17. Barry wrote:

    If Rick Hendrix is our voice, will he try to stop the murder of babies? Will he bring people like Pelosi around to our side of the world?

    Or is he just another Washington pillar of personal growth?
    Time will tell- not a bad story

  18. GospelMusicFan wrote:

    Ron F:
    You right on!
    Keep playing the music.
    Alot of the posters here are painting themselves right in the corner where they are.

    Another Republican.
    From Massachusetts.
    We hold our state conventions in a telephone booth.

  19. cynical one wrote:

    SGfan — Do you REALLY think anyone is ever truly prepared to serve as President of the United States before they’re sworn in? I think it doesn’t matter whether you’ve been a governor, senator, mayor, salesman, lawyer, gospel singer, or peanut farmer — that’s a job no one can ever really be totally prepared for until they have to jump in and do it. No matter how much briefing you’ve had from a sitting or former president, as well. And if most former presidents were honest (and not trying to boost their own egos), they’d probably say the same thing.

    With that being said, maybe none of the parties involved are really any more ready than any other.

    Besides, why do we tend to jump on the bandwagon of a bunch of liars, anyway? The old lawyer joke applies to politicians, as well: How can you tell when they’re lying? When their lips are moving.

  20. SGfan wrote:

    #19 cynical one,

    “Do you REALLY think anyone is ever truly prepared to serve as President of the United States before they’re sworn in?”

    Funny, I thought you might change your tune if the shoe were put on the other foot. I don’t think anyone is ever fully prepared, but I do believe that there are those that are more qualified and more prepared than others. Let’s face it, John McCain (whether you like him or not) is a heck of a lot more qualified, experienced, and prepared than Barrack Obama will be for quite some time. As far as Palin is concerned, I do like her. I agree with her on many issues. I am also more comfortable having a VP that is getting on the job training than I am having a president getting the on the job training.

  21. cynical one wrote:

    Let’s see. . . 8 years ago, John McCain was not the Republican’s first choice. W was supposedly the best man they had.

    Now, a rather large percentage of the population is not happy with the job W has done for the past almost-8 years. And we’re supposed to vote for the Republican’s 2nd or 3rd best?

    HMMMMMMMMM!

  22. Leebob wrote:

    On the instance of Obama being a Muslim…whether he is or not isn’t the point. The point is that there are enough people out there who believe him to be that will sway some of the vote. If you have read any of my posts you know that I know there is far more to not like about Obama than his Muslim upbringing. The fact he thinks there are 57 states is far worse than misspelling potatoe (wink-wink).

  23. quartet-man wrote:

    #11 wackythinker, we are to care for people, but we as Christians and people, not the government who uses the payouts to buy votes and do not hold the recipients to standards. If we weren’t taxed so much, we could help people more and we could make sure the people were in need and bettering themselves instead of popping out kids to keep the dough rolling in.

    #21 cynical one, McCain isn’t my first choice either, but he still is far better than Obama. Doesn’t say much for Obama, does it?

  24. Revpaul wrote:

    #16 KDM wrote:
    “do you vote for the person you believe is the most morally upright, or the person you believe is best equipped to effectively govern the nation?”

    Years ago, when I was a younger republican, I voted for a professing Christian for president (Carter) even though he was a Democrat, for the very reason that I believed he was the most morally upright. Being naive, I supposed that the fact of his being a Christian would best equip him to effectively govern the nation. I was wrong. As a matter of fact, I don’t see how a true Christian could do the kinds of things a president seems to be required to do these days to survive in office.

  25. SGfan wrote:

    #21 cynical one

    2 years ago, the congress was changed and became controlled by the Democratic party. Their approval rating since has plummetted to less than half of Bush’s. Gas has skyrocketted, the dollar has weakened, Gov spending grew at nearly record pace and now we have a so called financial crisis ( all in the two years Dems have controlled Congress), and Obama’s answer is (drum roll please). Higher taxes, bigger gov. and stimulus check paid for by windfall profits tax on Big Oil. LOL!!!!! Now that’s a plan that will boost the economy and job growth. Please, someone stop the bleeding.

  26. jebbar wrote:

    #25…….I was waiting on that. Most Christians are so blinded by Bush. If a Democrat were in office with a Republican Congress….somehow it would still be that Presidents fault JUST because he is a Democrat. You cant see past you own thoughts to realise the problems with this Country. As I said in a different post Bush has taken this Country to hell in a handbasket all in the name of Jesus. But remember its OK because he SAYS he is a Christian. hahahahaha

  27. SGfan wrote:

    #26 jebbar

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    Try presenting some facts.

    That was the weakest post I have seen yet on this topic. I’ll be laughing the rest of the evening.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  28. David Bruce Murray wrote:

    If Rick Hendrix proposes to be a Democrat in the tradition of Zell Miller, more power to him. :o)

  29. Angie M wrote:

    #16: Thank you! Excelent post. I wish I had more to add, but basically, you said it all. The candidates’ skills are what concern me.

  30. RF wrote:

    As a Christian and a Democrat (though I have an open mind about most things), I can say that I do not base my vote on Christian principles. Why? Because a President is the President of all people. Yes, everyone should be faithful Christians, but they are not and never will be. The best Christian in the world (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), may be the worst leader.

    I look at this election in terms of what is best for the country. What has W done to make this country posperous and better? Nothing that I can think of. What can John McCain do (who,as far as I can tell has no religious affiliation that he speaks of–and I applaud that because he is president of all the people and not just the religious)? Beats me, but I know the policies of a Christian President have been disastrous.

    Call me liberal (which is the fashion) or whatever you want, but a specific religious belief makes no man qualified to hold the highest office in the land. We’ve proven that lately. I do know that the country and world is a mess and who do we have to blame? The status quo which many Christians voted for in big numbers because of the single issues of abortion and gay rights. Yes, those are imortant, but what of the other issues which are ignored?

    Most of us will not have an abortion or come out of the closet gay, so what’s the problem? Fear? Fear is terror and we’re putting ourselves through terror on these issues and ingoring the more improtant ones.

    Many want a theocracy in this country. Just remember this. The Republican leadership, made up of the ungodly (much like the Democrats, by the way), have used you to win elections and led you to ignore the real issues in this country, so vote on.

  31. JR wrote:

    I agree with no. 9, there really are three ways at looking at politics: Republican, Democrat, and God’s way. You have to sell your soul to Satan to be president, Republican or Democrat. You can’t possibly in good conscience make decisions for this country and be a true christian. You would have to compromise your beliefs somewhere. Every politician does that for power and money and greed: pure evil.

  32. marie hardy wrote:

    Wackythinker, what part of Bush’s Iraq position did he lie about? Did you know WMD’s were actually there? Yellow cake uranium that he had purchased to make nuclear bombs was found. If you had bothered to find other sources of information than the MSM, which didn’t report it because they are in the tank for Obama and the Dems, you would know something like 500 tons were shipped to Canada for use in their nuclear power plants. Now we know that Sadaam had the same plans in mind for that yellow cake that Canada has, right? Truth is, Sadaam is dead, Al Queda is decimated, a struggling democracy is forming in Iraq, and just as it took years to fully develop here, it is happening there. So this argument that Bush lied is just a lie and if you tell a lie long enough, people will believe it. You don’t believe me? Do a little google search, that is if you really care about the truth or would just rather believe the lie that Bush lied.

  33. SGfan wrote:

    RF,

    I have just a few of questions for you.

    1. What is Obama proposing to do that will turn this country around, in short what change is he going to bring and how?

    2. What makes you think that we are in such bad shape as a country now?

    3. If we are in such bad shape, is it just us or is the rest of the world having similar problems?

    4. If the rest of the world is having similar problems, then how do you blame everything on Bush?

    5. What role has the democractic run congress had in getting us to this point, how much responsibity is theirs?

    6. What legislation has Obama authored that would point to the fact that he has the ability to address this issue?

    7. Which promises have the Democratic Congress met in the last two years they have been in office (lower gas prices, energy independence, stronger economy, etc.)? I haven’t seen them accomplish one thing except bigger gov.

    Just a quick note: John McCain attends a Baptist Church in Phoenix and Sarah Palin is a charismatic (pentecostal). However, as she rightly put it, they don’t wear their religion on their sleeve. Being a Christian may not make you be a good leader, but making a good speech doesn’t either. I would much rather have a President that has Christian principles ( not racist principles taught by Jeremiah Wright), experience, and a proven record. I want someone that knows when making yes or no decisions, Present is not an option.

  34. Up In Arms wrote:

    Am I the only one here that would rather have Rick H as President. Johnathan B as Vice President and Angie H as grounds keeper?

    I am a Rickcublician!

  35. buttercup wrote:

    Leebob,
    Interestingly enough, there are 57 (muslim) states in the world

  36. CVH wrote:

    What’s interesting about most of the comments posted here when the topic turns (or is construed to be) political is how insipid they are; polarizing and accusatory, repeating the same tired, old arguments back and forth.

    Is it any wonder that as a voting block, evangelicals are considered easily influenced and manipulated? (And hello? By Republicans!)

    At the risk of offending the literate minority, let me suggest a few books to consider regarding the relationship of faith to the culture and politics in particular:

    ‘The Future of Faith in American Politics’ by David Gushee (Baylor Univ. Press); ‘Brand Jesus - Christianity in a Consumerist Age’ by Tyler Wigg Stevenson (Seabury Press); ‘Beyond Left and Right’ by Amy Black (Baker); and ‘Unchristian America - Living with Faith in a Nation That Was Never Under God’ by Michael Babcock (Tyndale).

    We are blessed to live in a society that allows and encourages free expression, especially on blogs such as this; what a shame to squander that blessing with so much mindless rhetoric.

  37. Barry wrote:

    Well the Rick Hendrix story and aspirations will quickly turn if the Democrats do a major upset in Hendrix home district. A lawyer who is currently the district attorney of Hickory,NC is running this year. I think he is 30 years old and a double amputee from jumping in the water as a soldier to save his friends. He earned a purple heart.

  38. Jim wrote:

    I heard Rick Hendrix say he was voting for McCain. How can he work for Obama and vote for McCain?

  39. not a grammarian wrote:

    #34, I hope and pray you are.

  40. Barry wrote:

    Nowhere has Rick Hendrix stated who he is voting for?

  41. Barry wrote:

    Rickcublician ??

    I like that term funny

  42. Up In Arms wrote:

    #39 - What does that mean? “I hope you are.”

  43. RF wrote:

    #33:

    1. What makes you think I am an Obama fan? I never said that at all. I only said that religious belief is not a basis for voting for a candidate who will be the President of all the people. Nothing more.
    2. Apparently you aren’t paying attention to the shape this country is in financially and economically. Living in the richest county in the world, wouldn’t you think things would be better? Why aren’t they?
    3. Every country has problems, but they are magnified here. In our zeal, as Christians, to support the candidate who gives lip service to faith, we’ve watched the who redistribution of income. Right or wrong, the recent failures of Bear Stearns, Lynch, and AIG point to a lack of regulation, something many of those faith based candidates support. Look at the whole picture.
    4. Never blamed Bush, but since you did, you must know that things are bad and we need change. See No. 4.
    5. You absolutely cannot blame a congress of either party for the problems of this country. Regardless of which party is in control, you have to admit that the last two decades of Republican control has not improved one thing, so 4 years of Democratic rule cannot be put to blame for our problems. The goals of the Republicans–faith-based goals like prayer in schools, changing aborting rights, and many other things have simply not come to pass. You willing to blame the Republicans for that? Nah, it had to be the Democrats though the Republicans had the majority in Congress and the Presidency.
    6. What legislation has McCain authored? The “maverick” has been all over the board, changing positon faster than you can kiss a duck (in the words of the great Johnny Cash), but that’s OK.
    7. It’s called an administration who has enough friends to block this legislation. Read the newspaper. Oh, i forgot. We can only trust Fox News and you local Chrsitian radio station that reports the news as they see it. “Fair and Balanced.”

    I’m glad John attends a Baptist church. so does the former state senator in my area who recently completed a land deal that caused several families to lose their homes and laughed about it. Really, i could care less where any of the candidates attend church. That is each individual’s preference and none of my business. It is not part of my thought process on who I vote for.And as far as racist principles–I might remind you that my pastor is an idiot in many ways. He is clueless when it comes to treating people fairly, and one that I do not have any respect for. I attend church and serve on committes so that I can rid our church of him, but I’m in a small area. His views do not mirror mine. I have a feeling Sen. Obama would feel the same way. Sometimes, you’re too busy to get involved and sometimes you get tired of all the rhetoric. When Wright went nuts recently Obama rejected him. And what proof do you have that John McCain has Christian principles? Look at his lifetime record and tell me the specifics. I think you’ll be surprised, as if that would sway my vote.

  44. Jim E. Davis wrote:

    Hendrix would be a great show to watch. Hope he wins.

    CVH is right. More of the same tired arguments. Not from the Bible thumpers only – also the same pottage from the “progressives”. Don’t you just love that word? Sounds so…so…well progressive! There will always be a struggle between the two as long as there is freedom. Why is it that conservatism never dies? Why do liberals keep popping up (all the way back to the Garden of Eden) century after century. I think Jesus was both. He told the conservatives to clean up the inside (whited sepulchers) and told the liberals to clean up the outside – go and sin no more. Why can’t we do both?

    Not sure about the books recommended here – the titles alone already reveal the substance or lack of inside. When I read the actual words of our early presidents and the prayers of Abraham Lincoln, I have no doubts as to what our forefathers envisioned for America.

    PS. We might as well add the hardcore lefties to the easily influenced and manipulated voting block. All they need is Michael Moore to make a sensational sickflick or Al Gore to be self anointed as the apocalyptic weatherman and they swoon. They also “evangelize” their gospel making them evangelicals in their own right…or should I say, left?

  45. John C wrote:

    #37 (Barry), I don’t know if Rick Hendricks had anything to do with the choice of that candidate, but if he did, he made a very wise decision.

    Although the candidate is not the District Attorney in Hickory, NC, he has served as an assistant DA in another NC city.

    The candidate is the son of a Presbyterian Minister and was awarded with the Navy Marine Corps Medal for his acts of bravery in time of peace.

    I pray that he is elected and can rid our little corner of the world of some of the political corruption we have faced in recent years.

  46. quartet-man wrote:

    #33 Sgfan, great post!

  47. GospelMusicFan wrote:

    Poster #38

    First of all, I would like you to name the source/link of that statement you made beside just “I heard” it.

    Second of all, I would not think he would make that kind of public statement.

    Third of all, a scenario like people saying they are voting for the Democratic candidate but going the other way in the booth is the reason why he needs a 10% lead in the poll on Election Day.
    The current political situation today makes it possible for people not being honest with the polling people. The “do not call list” messes up the polling today.

    Fourth of all, politics do make strange alliances. We do that all the time in Massachusetts.

    Fifth of all, situation ethics comes into play when you are a Republican in Massachusetts.
    Long time ago, my father had a business and attended church in a small city of 65,000 people which was mostly control by Democrats.
    My family lived in a very small town which was smaller than Sarah’s hometown at the time. The little small town was controlled by the Republicans.
    The advice my father gave me that you wear your Republican hat at home and be very friendly to your friendly Democrats in the city.
    The advice work very well for me.
    Wish it could for some of you.

  48. SGfan wrote:

    # 43 RF

    I just asked simple questions. You just revealed so much more about yourself. I’ll be laughing for a while over that response that was so wordy, and yet said so little.

  49. Carol wrote:

    I think it is quite insulting to suggest that only those voting Democrat are the “progressive thinkers” . . . and yes, morals issues should be part of our decision of who we vote for President because of the decisions that are made regarding the Supreme Court nominations. Just like there has become no accountability in our SG industry for be a “minister” and being held to a higher standard (as is the Biblical stance - i.e. the increased divorce rate, and being allowed to “make a mistake” like adultery and then come out of “retirement” a few months later), we have been trained by the left-wingers (i.e. the clinton moral issue) that moral beliefs should play no role in leadership when in fact out LEADERS should be held to a higher standard including moral standards.

  50. marie hardy wrote:

    Just wondering why my post was not posted. Who makes that decision. It was lengthy but so are many other ones on here. This election is critical for this nation and we need to pray earnestly that the truth gets out there. McCain was not my first choice but he is an authentic American hero who was imprisoned in Hanoi and they never broke him, though they did break his arms. That’s why he can’t sit at a computer and type, Barack. Barack was a community organizer and voted “present” a lot in the Illinois State senate. Really bold leadership. The differences are stark. I can’t see why any thinking American would vote for a novice with no experience for President of the United States. Folks, pray!

  51. not a grammarian wrote:

    #42,
    your question “am I the only one”? my answer, “I hope you are (the only one)”
    I will agree that both Rick and Johnathan are master (self) promoters - I’m just of the conviction that you should have some experience or real answers to be elected, not just a capacity to boggle folks’ minds with smoke and mirrors.

  52. CVH wrote:

    Jim E. Davis - good to hear from you…been awhile. Points well taken. The problem on the left and the right both is a lack of critical thinking and analysis. Too many willing to be told what to think and believe.

  53. UKCatsfan wrote:

    I’m a registered Republican, and most of the time vote republican. I would register independent but my state has a closed primary therefore, I wouldn’t be elligible to vote. I personally am moderate on 95% of the issues that have been discussed, with the exception of abortion of which i’m 100% pro-life. However, I’m opposed to the death penalty. I do think the welfare system is definitely in need of some major repair, however, I think it’s our obligation to help the people that CAN’T help themselves; not people that WON’T help themselves. And gay marriage, I don’t really care; I know, strange coming from me.

    And for the upcoming election, it’s Johnny Mac all the way for me. I’m sure Obama is a good man, and apparently very intelligent. But, so far, his whole platform is philosophical rhetoric. I want the hear the facts and well laid out avenues for change to make this country better. And even CNN (or Clinton News Network) said that McCain beat Obama on that point, when it came to Convention speeches anyhow.

    As far as politics and faith go, it’s always a touchy subject. Personally, and this is just me, I don’t think the church has any place in politics or politics any place in the church. Now, when I say “the church” i mean organized religion. I think we should have a candidate that has faith and God. However, I firmly believe with Thomas Jefferson, “seperation of church and state.” Otherwise, I fear we would wind up with a religious dictatorship. After all, wasn’t religious freedom one of the main impetuses for starting this great nation?

  54. marie hardy wrote:

    RF, so the pastor of your church is an “idiot”! Did you ever consider that maybe you might be wrong? Or, by the slim chance you might be right, maybe you should LEAVE. Has that ever entered your thinking at all? If I can’t respect my pastor, the shepherd of the flock, who is charged with sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ every Sunday, then I must find a pastor I can respect. It’s no wonder your views are so convoluted. Perhaps a few days in fasting and prayer might enlighten you on a course other than to be the potential catalyst for a church split.

  55. Glenn wrote:

    SG Fan #48,

    I have been monitoring this site for a long time. I have read too many of your posts during that whole time and RF made more sense than you ever have.

  56. RobinAshley wrote:

    54…Marie.
    I wholeheartedly disagree with your post. It’s the congregation’s job to run the church. The deacons can lead that decision making process. But if a person is unhappy with a pastor for valid reasons than it is their responsibility to not only question his judgement, but to stay around to help work things out. If you blindly listen to everything your pastor says I fear you’re heading down a dangerous road.

    Also, why are you so angry?? RF was just stating his opinion. That doesn’t mean he’s trying to be the “catalyst for a church split” or that his views are “convoluted”.

    Well, he doesn’t need me to defend him.

  57. JAYSON wrote:

    When did Angie Hoskins win numerous awards?? LoL

    Rick Hendrix Rocks, Id vote for him.

    Great article I read on him. It really has some interesting views .

  58. Grave Digger wrote:

    54- In the words of that great philosopher JD Sumner, “when an idiot gets saved, it doesn’t make him smarter. It just makes him a saved idiot.”

    Perhaps RF’s preacher falls into that category.

    I must say that I have been in that same boat. It’s difficult to leave a church you’ve attended for most of your life even though they call a pastor who isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer.

    Our family felt the need to do this about four years ago, and it was one of the most difficult decisions we’ve ever made.

  59. Jim Alben wrote:

    What kind of people are Democrats- On October 5th Biden will excuse himself from the ticket due to health reasons and be replaced by Hilary. What a joke the whole party has become.

  60. NonSGfan wrote:

    Patrick Henry once said, “be it known that this country wasnt formed by religous zealots, but Christians”.

  61. RK wrote:

    I certainly respect the political views of those mentioned and their right to espouse them, but my question is this: why weren’t these “Democrats” speaking up about their left-leaning views back when Bush was getting re-elected and his approval ratings were high, Republicans were sweeping almost every election except for the coastal states, etc.?

    To speak up then would have shown courage of convictions in the face of right-wing momentum. To speak up now shows us finger-in-the-wind posturing and a desire to reach the inner circles of Democratic candidates’ “faith outreach” initiatives.

    On top of that, a double-standard is quite clear. Those who disagree with the right-wing mainstream politics of Southern Gospel music are quick to frown upon artists that espouse their view publicly, saying they should “minister” and “entertain” rather than give political speeches. But when Southern Gospel figures espouse a left-wing view, those same people seem to applaud it. What gives? It is an obvious double-standard. (On the flip side, I’m sure many conservatives are just as guilty…)

    You can’t have it both ways. Either discourage all viewpoints from being offered or welcome all viewpoints from Martin Cook and Scott Fowler to Angie Hoskins and Rick Hendrix.

  62. Leebob wrote:

    #35 Buttercup…you made my point for me. thank you.

    With the press being 83% Democrat you will never get the coverage of this fauxpas the way that Quayle still receives grief over potato(e). I personally think that a tired Obama started to say 47 or 48 (contiguous states - which would have been a fauxpas in itself) and placed the 5 in front of it to come up with 57. When you watch the you tube of that event Obama hesitates while speaking and so I choose to simply chalk this one up to being tired. However, it does bear mentioning that this same fauxpas, if it were a Republican, would be thoroughly covered ad nausium.

  63. Leebob wrote:

    #54 Marie and #56 Robin… Now you ladies are getting into Pastor led vs. Deacon/congregation led church. This could be some fun. I will tell you from experience as an associate, being in a pastor led church is far easier to work in than a deacon led church. Less bosses means you know who you answer to adn if you happen to get on to one of the deacons children during SS you are not voted out the next deacons meeting.

    Scripture never gives the deacons the responsibility of “running” the church. “Anything with more than one head is a monster” comes to mind. Since we are talking poilitics in this thread, in our American culture we tend to run things by a majority vote which is why there are so many church splits over “idiot” things like the color of carpet and which side the piano sits. Neither does scripture give the pastor “carte blanche” to be a dictator. This is why the role of pastor has to be filled by one with wisdom and he “leads” the congregation. I have been fortunate to be a part of a couple of wonderful churches (current one included) in which the pastor has been a Godly leader and example. I have also been a part of a church where confusion ruled the day and we know where confusion comes from.

    Finally, when you get to the point that you feel you can do better than your pastor, either get in there and help or leave without causing a big scene. Causing a big scene when leaving brings strife among the brethren and places us in a precarious position with God (see Proverbs 6:19; God actually hates the person sowing discord among brethren, His words not mine).

  64. RobinAshley wrote:

    63, Leebob:

    Hey! I almost completely agree with you. When I referred to the deacons of the church leading decision-making processes, I meant it. :] Especially when the pastor is the topic of conflict. Obviously, if there is a problem with the pastor, the pastor himself is not really the best person to help resolve that conflict. I DO completely and totally agree with you, however, when you say that you should either get in there and try to help solve the problem, which is what I understood RF to be doing, or leave quietly.

    I’m in this position with the pastor at my church at the moment. We have some very unhappy people and, while I think he’s amazing, it is causing discord in our church. So I fully understand the importance of church unity.

    One last thing, haha. It’s important that deacons in office be upstanding, understanding men who understand the importance of the position they hold. Whoever voted someone out because of the VBS incident is just…ridiculous.

    Okay. Enough of the completely off topic post. :]

  65. SGfan wrote:

    # 55 Glenn,

    I wouldn’t expect you to understand. Maybe that is “above your paygrade.” LOL!!!

    You see, I am very well aware of the situations this country is facing, but I don’t think we can put all of the blame on the President when we have 3 equal branches of goverment. 1 of those happens to be the legislative branch, congress (currently controlled by Democrats), who for the most part has thrown their responsibilities out the window. While we were paying record prices for oil and transportation, Nancy Pelosi and other Dems were on vacation so she could do her book tour. They should have been working and voting on a comprehensive (that means all inclusive: oil, natural gas, coal, solar, wind, tide, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear) energy policy to help get us off foreign energy sources and make us energy independent. RF’s post did nothing more than just blame the President for all that is wrong, did not give him credit for anything that is right (and there is plenty of good to balance with the bad), and tried to down play the role of faith and or belief system in its importance to who should be president. He showed his ignorance when he suggested McCain had not authored legislation, and his refusal to recognize the failure of congress (many of whom have their hands in the cookie jar of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (I believe the top two recipients of contributions were Chris Dodd and Barrack Obama). Maybe you want to put all the blame on President Bush also. I don’t know. I do know that I think in some ways he has failed and some ways he has been a success (no terrorrist attack on our soil since 9/11/01 and how many did we have while Clinton was in office?). I do look forward to some changes, but to get real results, those should begin in congress. We as the public need to effectively fire those in congress that were so corrupt that they put their own self interest and well being ahead of the people they were elected to serve. I think McCain will make a much better President, and I think under his administration we will see the gov. get closer to being what it was meant to be. The last thing we need in this country right now is higher taxes, bigger gov., energy insecurity, a weak commander and chief who can’t make a yes or no decision, and income redistribution where the gov. writes checks to those who don’t pay one red cent in taxes and call it a tax reduction. What we do need is low taxes that encourage the growth of small businesses that will increase jobs, a strong commander in chief that can make clear decisions without hesitation, energy security, and smaller gov. We need to cut the pork.

  66. sockpuppet wrote:

    1) As Christians, we are supposed to abstain from even the appearance of evil.
    2) things that God detests are referred to in the Bible as “abominations”
    3) Should Barack Obama win this upcoming presidential election, we would in effect become “Obama-Nation”
    4) “Abomination” — “Obama-Nation” it’s just too close, I’m not taking any chances on that.

  67. Kyle wrote:

    I go to restaurants to get food. I go to hardware stores to get tools. I go to a theater to watch a movie. I go to clothing stores to get my wardrobe. I go to church to get spiritual replenishment. I go to concerts to hear music.

    If I want political statements, I’ll go to a political event.

  68. RF wrote:

    I think Kyle should have the final word on this. We need to agree to disagree.

  69. CVH wrote:

    sockpuppet (#66), I hope your post was tongue-in-cheek. If not, yours is the perfect representation of the insipid comments I referred to in my post (#36).
    Please tell me you’re 15 and your friends think you’re clever.

  70. Angie M wrote:

    #65 SGfan: given Dubya’s record of vacation days…I don’t think you’re making the strongest argument you could possibly make. :-)

  71. quartet-man wrote:

    #67 Hey, Kyle, what do you go to Wal*mart to get? ;-)

  72. SGfan wrote:

    #70 Angie M

    Would you like to elaborate? If you want to challenge my statement, how about backing it up? I haven’t seen “Dubya”, as you referred to him, blocking energy policy that would make us more energy independent. In fact, he did lift the executive ban on drilling and your Democratic controlled congress have yet to do the same. Hey, Pelosi and her Dem. friends have not even allowed a vote on it. Instead, they have actively blocked it, even with the majority of Americans wanting the “Drill Here Drill Now” philosophy because they recognize that we need a bridge to the new technology. Now, that is what I call real concern for the average everyday American citizen (insert sarcasm).

  73. sockpuppet wrote:

    CVH,
    My most profuse apology - I see in post #72 where SGfan used the direction (insert sarcasm). For your benefit I guess I’ll start prefacing my comments with a disclaimer and 4 or five clues as to which direction my thoughts are going so you don’t get thrown off balance.
    Maybe you could contact Kyle and find a place where you could both go find a sense of humor. Not everything posted on this site is in deadly earnest.

  74. Kyle wrote:

    (as Kathy Bates in “The Waterboy”) There is no place for a sense of humor in gospel music. Humor is the DEVIL!!!!

    I just hate politics with a passion, and when it comes to trying to insert politics into other realms (especially entertainment), it really bugs me. I’d rather just sit back and enjoy the show.

  75. Angie M wrote:

    #72 SGfan: A cursory glance at google yields the following:

    As of August 2007, bush had spent 418 days of his presidency on vacation:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_W._Bush:_The_War_President_is_Missing_in_Action

    This site quotes a CBS correspondent: “…The presidential vacation-time record holder is the late Ronald Reagan, who tallied 436 days in his two terms. At 418 days, and with 17 months to go in his presidency, Bush is going to beat that easily.”

    In the first three years of his term, George W. Bush took more vacation days than Clinton did in seven years:

    http://ask.yahoo.com/20031001.html

    I’m sure there’s more. And there are other ways to support energy independence than “drill here, drill now.”

  76. GospelMusicFan wrote:

    What does all this junk has to do with southern gospel music?
    I love politics but this is not the place to do it.
    People love to talk, rant and rave a crusade but never have work on a campaign except to make a small check in response to a fund raising letter that make music to their ears.
    There is people that meet every morning at the local coffee shop, DD or Big Mac establishment trash & burn what happen last night at the local town hall all across America.

  77. SGfan wrote:

    #75 Angie M

    Funny! You failed to mention the terrorrist attacks that happened under Clinton’s watch ( of which 9/11 can be connected) and you also failed to mention the site you source does not provide hard detailed facts. I looked and the numbers are all over the place on this issue from site to site, but the issue is not about vacation as much as it is about the fact congress has failed to accomplish anything of significants. Plus, I don’t think you want to really draw parallells of Bush to Reagan ( the greatest President in modern history). Nice try though.

    On the energy issue, yes there are other things that have to be included, but the drill here, drill now philosphy recognizes (as do my earlier posts) that we need an all inclusive policy: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal. We need them all if we are ever going to be truly energy independent. Why is it that dems are fine with drilling as long as it is not on our soil? I don’t see the first liberal jumping up and down telling Saudi Arabia to quit drilling because it is enviromentally unfriendly. Are they enviromentalists only when it pertains to the U.S.? Angie, I would love to hear your suggestions on how we become energy independent without increasing domestic oil production. What do you think is the right path? How do you think we are supposed to pay for it (after this trillion dollar bail out of Wall Street)? Again, at least Bush has made steps toward the energy independence by lifting the executive ban on drilling. I do disagree with how the Wall Street “financial crisis” is being handled. I welcome you to educate me. Show me where I am wrong. Show me how this “do nothing” congress that is controlled by the democratic party has accomplished anything other than record spending.

  78. cynical one wrote:

    re: Pastor-led churches vs deacon-led churches–

    Does the Bible indicate the church should be a democracy?

    Just askin’!

  79. CVH wrote:

    sockpuppet (#73) - thanks for the clarification. What scares me when the threads go this way is just how much of the b.s. thrown around IS deadly earnest.

  80. Leebob wrote:

    No it does not Cynical one #78.

    That was my point. We could cure alot of church splits by eliminating some of the voting ad nausium that goes on. If a pastor becomes a dictator he will pretty much run off everyone and have nobody left to dictate. Yes this flies in the face of our American culture but since when should American culture dictate what the church does?

  81. Glenn wrote:

    SG Fan,

    Isn’t it a huge burden to know everything?

  82. Jim E. Davis wrote:

    Wow! Angie’s wonderful tidbit on vacation is very inspiring. Just think. Reagan took more vacation time than all the rest and was one of the most beloved and respected presidents in our history. Clinton should have paid attention. Of course, Bill was on vacation some days when he was at work and those didn’t get counted so we really will never know. But nevertheless, I shall ask the boss for additional vacation days tomorrow - wish me luck!

  83. cynical one wrote:

    Leebob #80 - And to extend your final thought even further (or is it farther?), since when should American culture dictate world culture? Does America REALLY have the right to try to impose democracy on other countries?

    Just axin’.

  84. SGfan wrote:

    #81 Glenn,

    I know. Sometimes its a blessing and sometimes its a curse. (again insert sarcasm)

  85. Leebob wrote:

    Would agree with you except sometimes it is better to “encourage” countries in that direction, especially those who are working to keep the economic climate aorund them in upheaval. That being said, the Middle East will always be in upheaval until the arrival of anti-christ.

  86. JW wrote:

    Somebody way up there (Carol #49) and maybe some others said it, but I get a laugh out of wannabe elitists who link “think(ing) progressively” with voting Democratic. Give me a break. Just going against the grain doesn’t make you “progressive.” Sometimes yes, sometimes it’s childish. To link it with being in Southern Gospel and voting Democrat is hardly “progressive” thinking. Doug, that’s so laughably biased and silly.

    I’m as conservative as they come, and that does indeed mean I vote Republican most of the time. But, it’s not a given.

    I have become very leary of us on the right who maybe have gone a tad too far, though. James Dobson’s political actions have caused me to step back and reconsider a bit.

    If we hold McCain up to true Biblical standards, I can’t vote for him as he has some huge moral problems related to his personal life and some other issues.

    But, I can’t vote for Obama as I think he is a socialist who would truly ruin our economy with his socialist policies, not to mention the Democratic stance on gay rights and abortion.

    I wish I had a great pat answer, but unfortunately, politics is about compromise much of the time. Either that, or to me the answer is Christians would have to remove ourselves from public issues.

    One more thing, no matter what and I’m sorry to say this, the vast majority of Christians will vote their pocketbook no matter what, just like 100% of everyone else.

  87. Ben Harris wrote:

    Maybe someday Christians will come to realize the truth…..nothing in politic even comes close to representing Christian ideals. It is like oil and water. The ONLY difference between McCain and Obama are the titles in front of their names…Rep or Dem. Both would sell their soul to be President, and both will forget the promises they made to get elected shortly after taking office. My thought process is to throw all the bums out.

  88. GospelMusicFan wrote:

    Poster #86 makes alot of “sense” because the focus of the message. like it or not, is the common “cents” truth.

  89. Grigs wrote:

    From the article:

    “Hendrix has demanded that his musician clients let him stage rallies or set up informational tables for Democrats, at or near their shows, whether they like it or not.”

    If that’s true, I find it disturbing, especially the word “demanded” and the phrase “whether they like it or not”. If I’m promoting a concert and a politician tries to set up in my venue, I’m going to personally throw him out of the building. If I’m an artist and my radio promoter makes such a demand, I’ll fire him and he’ll be hearing from my lawyer.

    Of course, the article might misrepresent Mr. Hendrix. I know that he reads this blog, so I’d like for him to respond.

  90. Rick Hendrix wrote:

    I appreciate your comment. I wish Presidential races were not so fast paced. But, in the middle of 22 hour days, I cant find a bunch of time to spend on the topic.But, for those that do know me….I would never ask a person to do anything they were not comfortable doing. I do hard sell my issues and desires. SO, I might badger you to death…But demand you to walk my way…I would not…

    I hope you are well! And thanks for the opportunity to clarify-
    Rick

  91. Grigs wrote:

    Thanks, Rick. I didn’t think you got to your level of success by making demands of your clients. That’s why I thought there was a strong possibility that the article was inaccurate and wanted to hear your side.

    I do disagree about Presidental races being too fast paced. This thing can’t end fast enough for me…lol.

  92. Barry wrote:

    So how big a part does gays and abortion have to do with this election? Will some vote for Obama for change in spite of the things he stands for????

  93. SGfan wrote:

    # 90 Rick Hendrix

    “22 hour days”?

    Now lets not get into the exaggeration that is typical of politicians. There may be some days like that, but you would not last a month if everyday was like that. No one would. I guess I’ll be the bully and ask the tough questions. When do you believe life begins? Do you believe that marriage is one man and one woman or that it has to be redefined? Finally, do you support your party’s candidate (Obama) and look forward to socialist ideals with massive income redistribution and massive government growth and interference? You said the following:

    “I do hard sell my issues and desires. SO, I might badger you to death”

    So, heres your chance to answer questions on issues and to point toward what your desires are. I promise I want “badger you to death,” but I do look forward to answers to those questions.

  94. jebbar wrote:

    #93 you are obviously a dumb ass, I cant speak for Rick but I sure when he said “22 hours a day” he meant it as a figure of speach.

  95. Bones wrote:

    I missed it when Angie Hawkins won multiple awards. When did she?

  96. Bones wrote:

    I mean Hoskins. I know they were stuckup and wouldn’t speak. Where are they now?

  97. Bones wrote:

    I mean Hoskins.

  98. WannaKnow wrote:

    I heard Keith Thornton died some years ago, but what happened? He seemed pretty young. I enjoyed the rapport he had with Eva Mae.

    Also, I have wondered for a long time who the members of the Steeles are seen in this video, how they are related to each other and where they are now.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avA4xUYLg5U

  99. SGfan wrote:

    # 94 jebbar

    I am sorry that asking questions just upset you so much. You must be a democrat. I could be wrong, after all you labeled me their mascot. If that is the best you got, then you don’t have very much my friend.

  100. Harry Peters wrote:

    Old Harry Peters will weigh in and tell you that he is voting for Sarah Palen and whoever that old man she’s running with is. Fonda wants to go moose hunting with her.

    Old Harry Peters could never vote for Obama. First off, he just doesn’t even pass the brother test. Brother Obama? Brother Barack? Brother Huessin? Using any of Barack Huessin Obama’s names just don’t sound Christian to old Harry Peters.

    He can’t give a straight answer to any question. Rick Warren’s interview put that in the spotlight.

    CBS reports his airplane stinks. Any man that doesn’t keep his big bird clean will probably have a stinkin White House. After it has already had to be completely fumegated after all Bill did on the carpets, we don’t need another mess to clean up.

  101. Harry Peters wrote:

    I also bet the Oak Ridge Boys aren’t going to have any commie ding dong democrat tables set up anywhere near them.

  102. Harry Peters wrote:

    Rick Hendrix: In addition to 22 hour days, (I know what you meant just teasing), you wish presidential campaigns weren’t so face paced? Old Harry Peters thinks that was tongue in cheek again on your part. Hasn’t this presidential diatribe (campaign) been going on for over 2 years? :-)

  103. Harry Peters wrote:

    Old Harry Peters is one of the least judgmental men on the planet…but if you can call yourself a Christian and support the Demonocrat Platform, you have sadly sold your soul to the devil and you are most likely of a reprobate mind. I’ll shake the dust off Old Harry Peters Feet.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

*

*