A Sea Of Red

I am madder than a Baptist at an empty buffet table.
What is the deal with these evangelical "leaders" coming out saying they won't support a "pro choice" candidate on the Republican ticket????? It is so short sighted, self absorbed and ignorant statements I have EVER heard. Add to that their statements that they can't vote for anyone who broke their marriage vows. THEN they couch it by saying "I am not tellling others they can't I am just saying I won't" Geez, if the late JF had got up in the pulpit how many in the congregation would NOT vote that way as well??? Here are a couple things they may consider:]
1. Presidents can't do jack squat to end abortion. Abortion stayed legal through 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of George Sr and 8 years of GWB. This just end, they didn't end it. Now the supreme court can have some say. Wouldn't a logical rational SANE person look at whom the candidate would nominate to THOSE positions over their own personal beliefs? And what if there was a LOT of common ground, say supporting Parental Notification and NOT supporting Partial Birth abortion, two things that a Pres can do something about? Would not THAT be considered a HUGE win considering there are neither at the moment? But noooooooooooooooooooooooo they want to take their pet issue and go home. And in comes Her Thighness Mrs Clinton. Yep, there is a step in the right direction for the Right To Life movement.

2. What does a persons married life have to do with anything. Now they want to rule out a candidate that is on their 2nd (or 3rd) wife. THis is insulting not only on an intellectual level but on a personal and historical one as well. Are they saying that a person who is divorced is not qualified to run the country? Correct me if I am wrong but the GREAT (and I mean that) Ronald Reagan was divorced and even had a child who adopted an alternate lifestyle. Ditto Darth Vader Dick Chaney (on the kid part) "Oh but if they break their marriage vows how can I trust them with other things?" Oh give me a break. That is righ you are all Holier then thou. That is like saying How can I trust someone to help me live a Christian life if they can't control their over eating? Their jealousy? Their poor ability to handl finances? Their addiction to hair styling products?

This it the type of crap that makes me ALMOST embarrassed to be an evangelial. (NOt much can embarras me actually) These "leaders" are holding up arbitrary standards for a Republican candidate that will just about guarantee a Democratic victory. Why is this? What sense does this make? Basically, since we can't get EXACTLY what we want, we aren't going to play? Yep, THAT'S a GREAT strategy!!!!

You lost me in your first few sentences. Who said "Pro Life" candidates were bad?

I think he's talking about The Dobsonator. Can the founder of Focus On The Family vote for a guy who'd been through multiple wives?

I think Haize left out a couple of key words.

What is the deal with these evangelical "leaders" coming out saying they won't support anyone but a "pro life" candidate on the Republican ticket?????

Purple Haize wrote:Presidents can't do jack squat to end abortion. ... Now the supreme court can have some say.

How do the justices get nominated? By presidents. So, technically, presidents can do a little more than jack squat about ending abortion.

Purple Haize wrote:what if there was a LOT of common ground, say supporting Parental Notification and NOT supporting Partial Birth abortion, two things that a Pres can do something about? Would not THAT be considered a HUGE win considering there are neither at the moment?

You know that partial birth abortion has been banned now, right?

You can't expect Christian leaders to suddenly embrace what Haize would characterize as expedient positions on abortion in an effort to defeat Hillary.

I'd rather see Hillary in office with the pro-life movement intact, rather than Hillary defeated and this huge political expediency cloud hovering over conservative/moderate Christians.

That said, if Rudy gets the GOP nod, he'll get a great deal of evangelical support from the place that carries the most weight of all -- the actual voting booth.

Purple how do you really feel? Don't hold back!

The GOP is trying to tell us that they really don't care about the issues we value. Fine.

Maybe 4 years of Hillary will wake the country up. We survived 8 years of her husband, we can survive her, too.

http://pewview.mu.nu/archives/242630.html

Seriously -- God let Saul rule Israel. He knew what Saul was going to be, and do -- He was trying to teach the people a lesson. Maybe the US needs a lesson, too.

Or maybe it's Christians who need a lesson. Maybe He's trying to tell us to stop trying to change everything politically, when we ought to be changing people's lives with the power of the Gospel. Government can't save you, after all.

In 1999, Giuliani said, “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights.”[136] On the subject of a partial birth abortion ban, Giuliani said, “No, I have not supported [a ban], and I don’t see my position on that changing."[137] In addition, Giuliani supported public funding for abortions when first running for mayor in 1989, and reaffirmed his support in 2007 while campaigning for the presidency.[

# Opposed Pres. Bush's ban on gay marriage. (Jan 2007)
# Pro gay rights. (Jul 2006)

"I can't imagine why Evangelicals don't overlook the pro-life issues or how many marriages a canidate has had"

This guy try's to appease to everyone. Quit drinking the Koolaid of how sly he is with his words or how smart he sounds and actually look at his voting record the last couple of years.

"Sir, why do you feel you should be the next president of the United States?"

"9/11!"

"Sir, what did you have for dinner before the debate tonight?"

"9/11!"

"If you could ask a genie for just one wish, what would it be?"

"9/11!"

jack_sparrow81 wrote:In 1999, Giuliani said, “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights.”[136] On the subject of a partial birth abortion ban, Giuliani said, “No, I have not supported [a ban], and I don’t see my position on that changing."[137] In addition, Giuliani supported public funding for abortions when first running for mayor in 1989, and reaffirmed his support in 2007 while campaigning for the presidency.[

# Opposed Pres. Bush's ban on gay marriage. (Jan 2007)
# Pro gay rights. (Jul 2006)

"I can't imagine why Evangelicals don't overlook the pro-life issues or how many marriages a canidate has had"

This guy try's to appease to everyone. Quit drinking the Koolaid of how sly he is with his words or how smart he sounds and actually look at his voting record the last couple of years.

I got generally tired of teh Republicans around the 04 election. I actually voted third party that year

Read and Acknowledged.

paradox wrote: I'd rather see Hillary in office with the pro-life movement intact, rather than Hillary defeated and this huge political expediency cloud hovering over conservative/moderate Christians.

IMO we are still paying for the last truly liberal president. Bill Clinton was not a true liberal but a moderate IMO, the Republican Congress kept him mostly in check. If Hillary wins this next election, it will be a Jimmy Carter like presidency all over again. She will create messes that we may never clean up (Carter created much of the mess we have today with Iran), especially with a Democratic Congress helping her. Universal health care is all but done if Hillary gets elected IMO. I'm not sure any politicians are willing to stick their neck out far enough for gay marriage, but I definitely see the dependency on the government growing in ways that can not be repealed. (i.e. Social Security type programs)

Social issues like abortion can change over time. Guiliani has already stated that he would put in pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. Welfare on the other hand, is nearly impossible to take away. If we give everyone health care, things will never be the same. I know most won't agree with me, but if we don't get a conservative in the White House we could be cleaning up their mess for the rest of our lives. That is just my two cents.

Curious, for those who are anti-some form of national healthcare, why are you?

belcherboy wrote:

paradox wrote: I'd rather see Hillary in office with the pro-life movement intact, rather than Hillary defeated and this huge political expediency cloud hovering over conservative/moderate Christians.

IMO we are still paying for the last truly liberal president. Bill Clinton was not a true liberal but a moderate IMO, the Republican Congress kept him mostly in check. If Hillary wins this next election, it will be a Jimmy Carter like presidency all over again. She will create messes that we may never clean up (Carter created much of the mess we have today with Iran), especially with a Democratic Congress helping her. Universal health care is all but done if Hillary gets elected IMO. I'm not sure any politicians are willing to stick their neck out far enough for gay marriage, but I definitely see the dependency on the government growing in ways that can not be repealed. (i.e. Social Security type programs)

Social issues like abortion can change over time. Guiliani has already stated that he would put in pro-life justices on the Supreme Court. Welfare on the other hand, is nearly impossible to take away. If we give everyone health care, things will never be the same. I know most won't agree with me, but if we don't get a conservative in the White House we could be cleaning up their mess for the rest of our lives. That is just my two cents.

Agreed. While many Christian leaders such as James Dobson won't support Guiliani, he'll be regarded as the lesser of the two evils, and in the end, he'll get enough tacit support from evangelical voters to win.

Realist wrote:Curious, for those who are anti-some form of national healthcare, why are you?

I'm all for exploring ways to make health care available to all our citizens, as long as it doesn't affect my ability to receive care and treatment in a timely and affordable fashion. In Canada it's a nightmare—if you need health care, it's take a number. By the time your number's been called in Canada, your number may have already been called elsewhere, if you know what I'm saying. It's okay as long as it isn't urgent.

Here in America, I have amazing, affordable health insurance at my job. As much as I care about those less fortunate, I don't want them ruining that. If we adopted a universal health care plan similar to Canada, that's exactly what would happen.

jack_sparrow81 wrote:In 1999, Giuliani said, “I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights.”[136] On the subject of a partial birth abortion ban, Giuliani said, “No, I have not supported [a ban], and I don’t see my position on that changing."[137] In addition, Giuliani supported public funding for abortions when first running for mayor in 1989, and reaffirmed his support in 2007 while campaigning for the presidency.[

# Opposed Pres. Bush's ban on gay marriage. (Jan 2007)
# Pro gay rights. (Jul 2006)

"I can't imagine why Evangelicals don't overlook the pro-life issues or how many marriages a canidate has had"

This guy try's to appease to everyone. Quit drinking the Koolaid of how sly he is with his words or how smart he sounds and actually look at his voting record the last couple of years.

hey roomie, you forgot # Encourage adoptions; ban partial-birth abortion. (May 2007)
# Embryonic stem cell research ok if limited properly. (May 2007)
# Ok to repeal Roe v. Wade, but ok to view it as precedent too. (May 2007)
# Allow states to fund or not fund abortion. (May 2007)
# Encourage adoptions; ban partial-birth abortion. (May 2007)


plus,Rudy has said it before and it's true- Marriage and abortion should be left up to the individual states. Also, he is pro-gay rights-but not pro gay marriage-he's pro civil unions-which is the same stance that your boy bush has.

mrmacphisto wrote:

Realist wrote:Curious, for those who are anti-some form of national healthcare, why are you?

I'm all for exploring ways to make health care available to all our citizens, as long as it doesn't affect my ability to receive care and treatment in a timely and affordable fashion. In Canada it's a nightmare—if you need health care, it's take a number. By the time your number's been called in Canada, your number may have already been called elsewhere, if you know what I'm saying. It's okay as long as it isn't urgent.

Here in America, I have amazing, affordable health insurance at my job. As much as I care about those less fortunate, I don't want them ruining that. If we adopted a universal health care plan similar to Canada, that's exactly what would happen.

but what if someone uninsured gets the beetus? (I love that icon- that video of him on youtube , produced by the dam# show, is one of the funniest things i've ever seen.

Read Rudy's book leadership, published in 2002, where he talks about how he constantly reevaluates his stances because he likes to learn more about an issue. He reveluated the methods of partial birth and changed his stance. As for all the 9-11 hype, Rudy was already well qualified and already planning a senate run well before 9-11 happened. Don't forget, this really should be Rudy vs. Hillary part two, but he had to back out because of prostate cancer.

PS. BELCHER BOY- PROPS FOR POINTING OUT CARTER AND HIS FAILED POLICY LEADING TO THE MODERN DAY PROBLEMS W/ IRAN!

another interesting point, go to the bottom of the page and look how he scored on the worlds smalled politlcal quiz- moderate libertarian conservative- he was further to the right than I am. (Except for immigration of course)

First of all, even if a President had a bench full of Scalia's, that wouldn't "end abortion" per se. Granted, it may overturn Roe v. Wade, but abortion won't be illegal (and it never will). Overturning Roe v. Wade would turn the issue back to the states (where it should be).

While some states will probably ban all forms of abortion (and others will try, and fail, such as South Dakota), most will probably say "ok in the first trimester, not so much the second, no in the third". That is what will happen. The effect that the end of Roe v. Wade will have on our national infanticide will be minimal. Guaranteed.

What this is all about is power. Dobson and his pig-headed ilk realize that if someone such as Rudy Giuliani gets elected, it will be without his help... And thus, Rudy will have no reason to give Dobson a seat at the table.

ReadAndAcknowledged wrote:Read and Acknowledged.

brilliant!

Ed Dantes wrote:The effect that the end of Roe v. Wade will have on our national infanticide will be minimal. Guaranteed.

"When it comes to abortion, I'm pragmatic. I'll take what I can get." - Jerry Falwell on WLNI's Morning Line program, 2006

I agree with Jerry. Take what you can get. Something is better than nothing. Even just futzing up the system for a while would be better than the well-oiled murder machine that it is right now.

Ed Dantes wrote:What this is all about is power. Dobson and his pig-headed ilk realize that if someone such as Rudy Giuliani gets elected, it will be without his help... And thus, Rudy will have no reason to give Dobson a seat at the table.

I don't think Dobson has anything to worry about.

In the end, issues like gay marriage and abortion are nothing more than things used to get people to vote. The pols in DC have no intention of doing anything about any of those issues and frankly, they are not that important right now. It was right when it was said that over turnign Roe would send it to the states. All that would do would put this whole thing in motion again when the courts turn the other way. Until there is Scientific proof that like really does begin at conception, and even that won't do it for a lot of people, there will be a fight to keep abortion legal. I don't agree with Rudy on all the issues and I would prefer another of the GOP candidate over him but if he does get the nomination, I will support him because I do think he will be better than Hil. Rudy has promised to appoint "Strict Constructionist Judges" which is all I ask for. Dobson should be happy with that. I think Jerry would. There is a power void among evangelicals now that several of the big leaders are no longer with us and with people like Dobson leading the way, Evangelicals are at risk of losing a very strong voice.

El Scorcho wrote:"When it comes to abortion, I'm pragmatic. I'll take what I can get." - Jerry Falwell on WLNI's Morning Line program, 2006

I agree with Jerry. Take what you can get. Something is better than nothing. Even just futzing up the system for a while would be better than the well-oiled murder machine that it is right now.

Don't get me wrong, something is better than nothing. But it sounds a lot like Dobson is ready to accept "nothing" than get "something".

Actually, I take that back. Dobson is willing to accept worse than "nothing". Dobson and others, namely Richard Viguerie, want to tank the Republican party (and thus pave the way for President Hillary). In the next few years, it is quite possible that there will be two Supreme Court vacancies -- John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They are the two most liberal justices on the court right now. When you consider that the ideological balance on the court is 4-to-4-to-1 -- the next president will have the opportunity to set the tone of America for a generation. If President Giuliani replaces Ginsburg and Stevens with someone in the Scalia mold (as he vowed), you will see an end to Roe v. Wade. But that won't happen with President Hillary.

El Scorcho wrote:I don't think Dobson has anything to worry about.

I think we ALL have things to worry about... because of Dobson.

Ed Dantes wrote:

El Scorcho wrote:I don't think Dobson has anything to worry about.

I think we ALL have things to worry about... because of Dobson.

I just meant that to say that I highly doubt a Republican candidate is going to be victorious in '08.