Posted on 10/01/2007 9:51:01 AM PDT by shield
Salon has posted a story about how a “shadowy” group of “Religious Right” leaders met in Salt Lake to discuss what to do if Rudy Giulliani becomes the GOP’s nominee.
“Sept. 30, 2007 | WASHINGTON — A powerful group of conservative Christian leaders decided Saturday at a private meeting in Salt Lake City to consider supporting a third-party candidate for president if a pro-choice nominee like Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination.
The meeting of about 50 leaders, including Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, who called in by phone, took place at the Grand America Hotel during a gathering of the Council for National Policy, a powerful shadow group of mostly religious conservatives. James Clymer, the chairman of the U.S. Constitution Party, was also present at the meeting, according to a person familiar with the proceedings.
“The conclusion was that if there is a pro-abortion nominee they will consider working with a third party,” said the person, who spoke to Salon on the condition of anonymity. The private meeting was not a part of the official CNP schedule, which is itself a closely held secret. “Dobson came in just for this meeting,” the person said.”
You can just consider this about as true as one of those “Truth Out” stories because no such meeting - as described occured. Salon obviously jumped on this report by World Net Daily which has a reputation of sometimes getting the story wrong. Who ever this “anonymouse source” is he hasn’t a clue what he is talking about.
During CNP such meetings do occur as they do in groups on the left, that would form strategy and such. Nothing sinister about it, it’s politics 101. But in this case the particular meeting for the purposes reported did not happen.
How do I know? I’m related to a member of the council. If the “anonymous” individual wants to contact me, feel free.
UPDATE: While many news orgs and blogs are picking up on the story (meme),the fact is that the story is still false.
Posted by Macranger on Sunday, September 30th, 2007 at 5:44 pm.
ping
Getting the story correct was not the purpose of the story. You won't be contacted and there will be no correction. The story did it's job and will be assumed as fact from here on out. That's way the propagandists play the game.
Christians will not buy into it. Especially, those that are led by our Our Lord. There are those that will follow what their Pastors tell them...and any Pastor worth Pastoring will ask the source if it’s true.
Even CNN is reporting this morning that Christian conservatives may form a third party if Giuliani wins the Republican nomination. Liberals must really be worried about the “Cackler” winning their nomination.
They know Rudy will beat hildabeast. And they’ll not have a WH chance for 8 years. They’re doing everything possible to put her in the WH. Will NOT work.
It is my belief that it is the Dems who are more worried about ending up with a polarizing nominee in Hillary. As a Christian I don’t like many of Giuliani’s social policies but I will hold my nose to vote for him if this is what it takes to keep the “Cackler” from being Commander in Chief. I think I am not alone among Republicans and Democrats in my spite for this excuse of a woman.
My candidate today is Duncan Hunter.
Not if we succeed in trashing him so bad that he can't win the general election.
Or he wins anyway without us and figures he owes us nothing and acts accordingly.
Politics is not for the pure in heart, or the purists. It's for the practical.
I oppose Rudy, and will do nothing at all to encourage him or his followers to vote in the primaries.
But I'm still pretty sure that if he manages to win the nomination anyway, I'll vote for him in November, unless the democrats manage to pick a candidate not currently running who holds better positions on the issues than Rudy does.
I won't vote against my own interests to send a "message" to a party.
My candidate today is Duncan Hunter.
***Mine also. And I’ve even posted that Hunter should name his VP candidate up front so he can gain the corresponding publicity which his campaign seems to be lacking. One of the names I floated for Hunter’s early VP slot was James Dobson. Dobson brings name recognition, feet on the ground, money support. Hunter brings political credibility, solid record.
Dobson would NEVER do it.
Now it looks like Fox News has even picked up the drumbeat about Christians abandoning the GOP if Rudy is nominated.
Dobson would NEVER do it.
***Why not? Actually, if what you say is true, Hunter could get a freebie on the publicity scale by announcing that he wants Dobson as VP candidate. He would get the upsurge in publicity, a corresponding shift in support from christian conservatives, and the VP slot would still be open.
If Rudy is nominated, I will not vote for Rudy. It amazes me that republicans would insist on Rudy and allow Hillary to win.
It appears Fox is like the rest of the hateful msm....their trade is in pushing lies lies lies....
I understand that thinking....but it would be a dumb move...that’s what most folks would think.
Question: If Our Lord led you would you STILL NOT vote for Rudy? Now don’t tell me He wouldn’t...
He wouldn't.
Rudy expressed early on in this campaign that he was not interested in getting any votes from pro-lifers. As a result he will not get mine. Not in the primaries and not in the General.
If we as a nation choose to leave ourselves with a choice between either Hillary or Rudy, then we as a nation deserve no better than Hillary.
I have drawn a line in the sand. Rudy has made it clear he does not want my vote. And in good conscience, I cannot vote for him in any election under any circumstances.
If that means 4 years of Hillary, then I'm prepared for such a consequence. I hope the Rudy supporters here are ready for that consequence as well.
You are correct that I am a Republican (large “R”), but you are wrong if you believe I am insisting on Rudy. I believe that for the Republicans to pick a big-city, blue-state social liberal for their candidate is nothing short of a slap in the face to rural and middle America. From my vantage point, whichever power-hungry fool wins the White House, they will have my prayers for wisdom during a period where U.S. influence in the world is much declined.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.