Did Conger sit in meetings for 20 years with Archie P Jones while he taught all about "dominionism" and never raise a word of objection and then make it known that Jones was his spiritual advisor for his campaign?

Didn't think so. Looking back through all your posts, Carla, to see where you wrote this type of story about Obama.

Haven't found it yet. Maybe you can help.

I so love how every Blue Oregon post these days is an exercise in personal attacks or guilt-by-association. McCartyism is alive and well on BO.

I love it because it's so obviously manipulative and lowbrow. If there were policies or values to talk about we would -- by jumping into the mud immediately, it shows that BO has no other ammo.

Much as this story fits into a long running narrative about church and state, I know that how much power developers have is also a long running narrative there.

I recall a time back in the 1990s when a slate of city council candidates ran together. They were all men who didn't wear business suits to work (restaurant, exercise club, that sort of thing) and had no ties to developers.

Their slogan was something like "Men Without Ties". They won.

Seems like Pat has a point.

Fact is, you can't control who supports you, but you can repudiate those with whom you have serious disagreements. So, the burden is on Conger to call out if and in what ways he disagrees with those who have spoken out in favor of his candidacy.

That was what the right clamored for in the case of Obama and Rev. Wright.

Is what's good for the Democratic goose somehow not applicable to the GOP gander?

So, the burden is on Conger to call out if and in what ways he disagrees with those who have spoken out in favor of his candidacy.

So Conger is supposed to find out what wierd views every one of his supporters hold and call them out?

It would be one thing if this guy was Conger's pastor and spiritual advisor. That is why the "right" thought Obama should hav repudiated Wright - he had a close personal association with the guy for 20 years, which is an implicit acceptance of Wright's extreme views, given they were part of his sermons.

If anything similar was true of this guy and Conger, then maybe. But if it is just a supporter, there is no reason why Conger has to make a point of repudiating anything.

The link to the Source Weekly article erroneously shows the author as "H Bruce Williams", but should be H. Bruce Miller.

So, Questioner...if you were running for something and the leader of some controversial group with strong opinions (choose from Westboro Baptists, Earth First!, Code Pink, Focus on The Family, Glen Beck or PETA) went around publicly praising "Our Buddy, Questioner, who represents our values"...you don't think the voters would be justified in drawing conclusions based on whether you did or didn't speak out about how such a group really did or didn't represent you? You don't think it would be fair play for your opponent to draw attention to their endorsement, if you didn't repudiate it?

I mean, nothing's stopping Conger's enemies from forming a group called "Sex Offenders for Conger" just to embarrass him...but I think we could expect Conger to speak out pretty loudly against such a group. Why not against dominionists, if he indeed does not represent their values?

Admiral: The only connection to any dominionist was in a quote from the dude that was in the flyer put out by the head of the Prepare the Way group.

When asked about it, Conger distanced himself. What do you want, a press release?

Small correction: Jason Conger is not a Bend city councilor.

There was a lot of reporting and discussion about the relationship between President Obama and Rev. Wright. I'm sure many people chose not to vote for the President because of that association. There were some very valid reasons for people to be concerned. Jason Conger is rubbing elbows with Dominionists, that's also a valid cause for some people to be concerned.

"However, Miller speculates on whether this association would pressure Conger on social issues such as marriage equality, Death With Dignity, prayer in schools and reproductive choice."

Regardless of this article or any associations to a religious leader, if Conger is a Conservative, it's likely his views on the above issues wouldn't change.

So Jason hangs with some real nutbags. Ok. Fine.

Let's talk issues - from his website:

Education "... we must use technology to empower teachers and provide better educational content at a fraction of the cost ..."

Wow, that's a sweeping statement. At a "fraction" of the cost?

Oh do provide details Jason ....

Great point, Scott!

How does technology help a student who does not understand the assignment, a student who needs to proofread and re-write a written assignment, etc.?

It's weird to me how different we Liberals are from Conservatives. I saw the Rev Wright thing and it really didn't bother me a bit. Because I understand that the Rev does not hate America but seeks to challenge conventional wisdom. I mean the Rev. was a Viet Nam era Marine that helped save Lyndon Johnson when he was the president's cardiac nurse, what could be more patriotic? Do you really think he meant that God should damn America or do you think that he meant that at times this country has done some damnable things?

Just as the right questions Waco and Ruby Ridge so does the left question the shootings of demonstrators at Kent State and the torture of enemy combatants at Abu Graib and Gitmo. Skepticism of some motives doesn't mean that you hate America it means that you agree with Churchill when he said something along the lines of... Democracy was the worst form of government except for all the others. Things get untidy in a democracy but we solve them, it sometimes just takes too long.

This Preacher in Bend, that thinks that you pray that God is on the candidate's side, goes in another direction. It seems he may be saying the exact converse of Lincoln's prayer that we were on God's side. That is the difference between this nut case and a liberation theological perspective.

"Help spread the word so we can gather as a City church, letting go of denominationalism, standing together to support a Godly man willing to represent God in a very challenging hour in government.”

Opps, good way to lose your tax exempt status.

If I were a voter in this district (and I'm not) I would ask myself:

1. How do I feel about the democrat machine from over in "the valley" taking over the Metolius decision?
2. How do I like the democrats and Judy voting me a 1% increase in my health insurance costs?
3. How do I feel about the democrats spending all of the tobacco settlement money in the general fund and then mandating $500/yr smoking cessation treatment in my medical insurance policy?
4. How do I feel about' do I support the rhetoric of M66/M67?
5. How do I feel about national democrats ramming through federally back student loan changes that will probably result in te loss of Oregon private bank jobs?
6. Do I support how democrats nationally passed HCR?
7. Do I support the recess appointment of Becker to the NLRB?

I wouldn't give a rip about whether or not the republican challenger was a Lutheran, rather did their voting record or thoguths about the above match mine.

It will certainly be an interesting fall 2010.

BOHICA,

<h2>They never lose their tax-exempt status....even when then tell people from the pulpit how to vote. That's the problem. Churches have a total pass as institutions to do whatever they please with little consequence.</h2>