Georgia Christian Coalition releases 10th CD voter guide

The GA Christian Coalition announced the release of their voter guide to the 10 CD special election in a press release email this afternoon, asking folks to “view and download” the scorecard by clicking the link www.gachristiancoaliton.com. (Yes, I realize that “coalition” is misspelled in the link — unfortunately, the super-duper press release typer-and-proofreaders at the GCC did not, and therefore stuck a bad link in their press release. One would think that folks would be able to spell a web address correctly in a release, especially if that web address is exactly the same as the name of their organization ;-)).

Below the break, some interesting points from the results:

In this 46-question survey, four ofthe five Republicans who responded (Whitehead, Broun, Greene, Myers, and Underwood) gave the exact same responses on all but six (with three candidates breaking from the pack on two questions each). Here’s where they differed:

  1. Greene answered “No” to the question “Would you Vote to override a presidential veto of pro-life legislation?,” as well as to the question “Would you support legislation that allows federal-funding for faith-based charitable organizations?
  2. Underwood answered “Yes” to the question “Do you support affirmative action programs that provide preferential treatment to minorities?” and answered “No” to the question “Do you support allowing state governments to block federal approval for Indian gambling in their respective state?
  3. Myers answered “No” to the question “Do you support legislation that would restrict the age of legal gambling to 21 years of age?” (though his reason for that was that “Military Personnel should have the rights of any other adult”), as well as to the question “Would you support legislation that would impose stricter security measures on our borders?

The most interesting responses, in my opinion, came from Democratic candidate Evita Paschall.

Paschall answered with the Republicans on 20 of the 46 questions, disagreed on 22, and did not answer 4 (she was the only candidate of the six who participated to not answer one way or the other on any questions, listing either that she would need to read the legislation in question before deciding, or that the question itself was too broad).

22 comments

  1. griftdrift says:

    Methinks Greene was confused. Not a good sign for his candidacy either way.

    Also, can someone of the faith explain what this, “Do you support affirmative action programs that provide preferential treatment to minorities” has to do with Christianity?

  2. Jeff Emanuel says:

    There were several sections of the questionnaire, grift — some even surprised me. They included EDUCATION AND PARENTING, TAXES AND SPENDING, IMMIGRATION, CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT, ABORTION AND EUTHANASIA, HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS, PORNOGRAPHY AND TAXPAYER-FUNDING OF ART, HEALTH CARE, EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM, and FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFORM. (Sorry about the all-caps; I cut and pasted the topics from the questionnaire itself, and they were in all caps there).

    Affirmative action came under the heading of “Employment and Social Security Reform.”

  3. Or the flat tax for that matter. Seems like churches would be screwed if there was no more deduction for charitable giving. (Not to mention that poor people, who make up most of church givers would pay more in taxes under this millionaire’s scheme).

  4. I Am Jacks Post says:

    Uh, that whole thing is disgusting. As Jesus said to Peter, “You must always prevent federal employees from securing the right to strike.” This is also where we get W.W. J.S. (When Would Jesus Strike).

    I’m as Right-to-Work as they come, but c’mon. There’s like three of four truly scriptural issues in there, and the rest of it is like a Human Events pop quiz.

    If a Christian Coalition voter guide falls in the forest, but no one is there to see it, does it make a sound?

  5. As long as Biblical principles are not applied to any of these issues, America will continue to have the freedom to do whatever she pleases.

    Too, she will continue to have representation that bastardizes her.

  6. You are Jacks Post,
    You like to throw temper tantrums.
    You reject historically tested methods
    Of constructing polity and policy on principle.

    Is it not 2007 in the yr of our Lord Jesus?
    Please explain what the 2007 means,
    Or else start your own calendar
    All by yourself and resort to
    French Revolutionary philosophy.

    Your juvenile attitude toward covenantal policy
    Is costing Americans their freedom.
    So grow up or shut up.

  7. profg says:

    Both the Georgia Christian Coalition and the Georgia Christian Alliance (which USED to be the Georgia Christian Coalition) sent out questionnaires to all of the candidates. I had a long talk with Sadie Fields of the GCA about their questions (which were nearly identical to the GCC’s), which I believe were incredibly poorly worded. If Congress worded bills as poorly, legislators would be voting the opposite of where they stood quite often.

    That being said, I’m almost positive that on the GCC’s question, “Would you Vote to override a presidential veto of pro-life legislation?”, I answered Yes. However, they have me down as No. Since I didn’t keep a copy of the survey, I can’t be sure that I didn’t mistakenly mark it wrong; however, let it be publicly known (as far as posting on Peach Pundit is public :-): I WOULD vote to override a presidential veto of pro-life legislation.

    I am 100% pro-life, from conception to natural death. I have been actively involved in the pro-life movement since I became a Christian 19 years ago. I’ve led and taken part in pro-life marches, protests, counter-protests, sidewalk counseling, picketing, letter-writing campaigns, political campaigns, and more. I have been certified by Georgia Right-To-Life as Pro-Life, and endorsed by some of the strongest pro-life activists in the nation, such as Dr. Alan Keyes.

    I am pro-life, and will vote as such in Washington, D.C.

    I hope this clears up any misconceptions. Thanks for the opportunity to do so.

    Bill Greene

  8. Harry says:

    Bill, I appreciated the opportunity to meet you at the Liberty Caucus. All the best to you.

  9. rightofcenter says:

    The honorable thing to do, the one with integrity, would be to refuse to answer the questionnaire on the grounds that it is a great distortion, in fact a lie, to call it “Christian.” The first Republican who stands up to these pseudo Christians will get my vote.

  10. Federalist says:

    I didn’t know profg was Bill Greene. Wow, let me take this moment to make sure everybody in this forum knows something about him. I was at a candidate forum recently and heard him brag about having a PhD. As a real PhD, this made me extremely angry. He got his “Phd” from an unaccredited virtual college (Miami Christian University). The curriculm is a joke, as are the requirements for a degree from that website…which are as follows:
    1. Bible
    2. Possessing the Holy Character of God
    3. Developing a Prophetic Consciousness
    4. Doing the Mighty Works of God
    5. Understanding and Declaring the Ways of God

  11. Jeff Emanuel says:

    Federalist, I don’t believe for a minute that you have a PhD. If I am wrong and you do, then we need to immediately audit the DOE and the college which awarded it to you to find out why they are turning out PhDs who are so substandard that they are incapable of thought, analysis, or coherent written communication.

  12. Federalist says:

    University of Chicago. Oh, but that must mean that I am a liberal elitist…and whatever rhetoric you want to throw out as well. If my thoughts seem incomplete, it is only because I assumed that I was communicating with people who are well read enough to understand my thoughts, and not need additional explanation. Analysis…yes I analyze rather than advocate. I hope that I do not need to explain the difference between the two…but since you are a student in GA I probably should. Coherent written communication…this is a blog not a newspaper or academic journal. I, just like everyone else in this forum (except the occasional candidate), write in dialogue…you know what that means don’t you? Have you even graduated yet Jeff? You go to UGA, and I am certain that you must think a lot of your professors are absent minded…keep in mind that this trait is highly typical in the academic community.

  13. Jeff Emanuel says:

    I’ll write very, very slowly so that you can hopefully understand (I know complete sentences are difficult for you). This will be my only response.

    (A) Yes, you are “a liberal elitist” — look at the sneering condescension with which you write that we’re just too dumb to understand the incoherent, half-sentence gibberish that you write here.

    (B) “Analyze rather than advocate”? Riiiight…find me one comment on this site in which you’ve offered analysis rather than simply spouting off thoughtless, scornful catchphrases and talking points. If your commentary on this site is representative of your analytical effort and ability, then I call once again for a serious audit of any institution that gave you a PhD.

    (C) “Student in GA”? I don’t know what makes you think that I am a “student” or haven’t “graduated yet,” as you so snidely put it. I hold probably as many degrees as you do (if not more — I’m dubious about yours), and my affiliation with Georgia, formerly in pursuit of an additional degree, is in the form of a research fellowship — to quote you, “you know what that means don’t you?” Also, your comment “this is a blog not a newspaper or academic journal” shows a pathetic sense of superiority (as in, “I don’t have to be refiiiiiined with you little people, so far below the academic commuuuunity”).

    Sorry, I’m not convinced that you’re “in the academic community,” for several reasons, from your lack of analytical ability, to your inability to communicate coherently, to your pathetic-at-best knowledge or understanding of history, current events, economics, and English, just to name a few.

    So, to sum up — keep firing blanks if you’d like; I’m done here. Have a great day arguing with nobody 🙂

  14. Federalist says:

    I will be the bigger man Jeff, this is stupid to debate. Analysis, I presented my findings from a election forecast model a little over one month ago. I am not a blogger, nor am I a journalist…the mediocrity of both is below me,…you are correct on that point. Jeff Emanuel is a moron. Like I said in a previous statement…this is dialogue. Act like somebody is speaking to you Jeff, I am sure people do not like you enough to actually speak to you…but act. My commentary on this site is just that commentary. I am not going to waste my time actually pulling together the resources to demonstrate political behavior in any fashion…it will only lead to further protest from mediocre minds such as yours. Understanding of history, current events, economics…what? You seriously need to reappraise your commentary on the thoughts that other people present. You are obviously, and I will use a catch phrase here, one of the intolerant, self righteous, opportunist from the Republican church of hate.

Comments are closed.