Ted Haggard’s gay? No...way! Next thing they’ll be telling us is that Neil “the stud” Patrick Harris is gay. Okay, maybe that’d be a stretch. I mean, come on, the dude was "Doogie Howser,” and there ain’t no way the Doog's gay.

I’m not sure what surprised me more; that the Left-tilting media tried to capitalize on Haggard’s “outing” by attempting to persuade evangelicals that it’s not what Haggard did that was so offensive but his congregation’s reluctance to embrace it, or the fact that his congregation never gleaned the enigma that is Haggard’s sexual predilection. Are these folks that sheltered or just hearing impaired?

There are so many aspects of this issue that clearly delineate the differences between Christians and secularists; Democrats and Republicans, that I almost don’t know where to begin. The secularist media views Christians through a jaundiced lens that filters out most of the light and depicts Christians in an elitist pose. Through that distorted viewfinder, Christians reserve their places of worship for those without obvious sin, which is why the Left refer to what happened to Haggard as a “fall,” when indeed Christians realize that no person need “fall” very far to stumble upon lascivious behavior. Christians insist that it is only through God that they can keep from faltering; some to greater degrees than others.

It is likely that Haggard knew of his homosexual proclivity from the jump, but he probably also realized that it was only through God’s work that he could keep it in check, so to speak, which is how close most of us are to sin on a continual basis. The real hypocrisy would be for him to now deny his ongoing struggle and God’s work within that milieu by admitting to his homosexuality and capitulating to its grip on his life. Is he homosexual? Yeah, most probably. But being homosexual and engaging in destructive homosexual behavior are two entirely different things. The Left would love for him to recuse God from his struggle and in typical agnostic fashion attempt to minimize his own culpability by insisting that it is God’s law that is fallible and inflexible, and not his inability to resist the temptation of what comes natural.

Most Christians seem to understand that what comes natural doesn’t necessarily come without a cost, and that what comes natural doesn’t necessarily excuse the behavior, either. Take adultery, for instance; men are naturally inclined to want to engage in sexual activities with a beautiful woman, but that certainly does not excuse the behavior, especially when they’re married to someone else.

By comparison, whenever Democrats find themselves slipping in the latest Gallop poll, they insist that it’s because they haven’t been able to get their message out, which is code for “We’re not sure what position we should take on a particular subject at this juncture.” As with Pastor Haggard, wherein secularists would encourage him to embrace his sexual predisposition, Democrats are all about doing what the masses think is appropriate. They seek consensus and compromise when they should espouse leadership and guidance.

If your popular religious leader admits to serious moral failings, the Left believes s/he should throw a moist finger to a stiff breeze and reconsider the populist opinion on the subject before declaring his/her newfound, albeit morally ambiguous position on the matter...as though it were more important to align oneself with the majority opinion than to stand out like the sorest of thumbs.

Cultural mores, like voter opinion, is a perpetual moving target, and politicians who oscillate to reflect those capricious political mood swings are not leaders at all, but bureaucrats prone to political expedience and impetuousness. Besides their belief in collecting revenue (taxes), do any of us really believe that the Democrat party has a set of core beliefs that they consider edicts, which they would rather lose an election over before surrendering to the alter of electability? Many would say a woman’s right to choose, but I’m quite certain they’d throw the baby out with the bathwater if it meant winning a seat in Washington.

President Bush realizes that his Presidency will be judged on the Iraq war, but not unlike President Lincoln who knew that his presidency would be judged on the Civil War, which never achieved greater than a 35% approval rating, he has stayed the course and has done what leaders do...dried his finger, stuck it back in his pocket and made a decision...a decision to finish what he started.

Republicans didn’t lose their respective elections because of the President’s perceived failure in Iraq, they lost because they failed to demonstrate sound leadership, which allowed the Iraq war to assume front stage, center. They didn’t distinguish themselves from the centrist Democrats by championing the diktats of Conservatism.

People follow the Reagan’s, Lincoln’s and Haggard’s of the world because of their conviction to their core principles. Even in the afterglow of a political nuke that portends to vaporize their careers – 220 US Marines murdered in Lebanon, the emancipation of millions of free laborers, and sexual depravity, respectively – they had to remain steadfast and true in order to survive and eventually prevail. If Haggard were to take the path of least resistance by bending to secular pressure to proclaim homosexual sex as morally equivalent to heterosexual sex with a spouse, he would gain the respect of the masses as he blended seamlessly into their compliant herd. Leaders don’t blend and they don’t seek minimal resistance, which is exactly what the Republicans candidates did. They were too all-consumed with political self-doubt and the perceived liberal wave washing over the land that they denied their Conservative roots, which is what the Party's constituents were looking for and not finding...leadership.