Posted on 10/01/2007 11:46:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Like a cranky older child demanding the attention of his parents doting over their newer infant, the threat of some conservative leaders to seceed from the Republican Party is, at this point, more bombast than susbtance.
Sources close to the evangelical leaders on the call are plain: the talk "was an attempt to signal that Giuliani is unacceptable," one of them says.
The thinking inside social conservative circles this morning is that their leaders' desire to defer to James Dobson -- still the movement's cappo di tutti cappi -- led them to make a tactical blunder. Threatening Giuliani is not the way to preserve influence if he's the nominee.
The breakout group of CNPers first broached -- or floated -- the idea of a third party candidate at a CNP meeting in Miami in 2005, sources say. At that point, though, members decided to wait and see whether George Allen would survive his Senate race. Allen did not. Fast forward to mid 2007. The CNP's executive director, Steve Baldwin, was singing the praises of Fred Thompson to some CNP fundraisers and members. The members did not fall in love Thompson, either. And here we are.
Tony Perkins, James Dobson, and many other leading lights of the social conservative political apparatus, are perceived by their members to have seats at the table in the Bush Administration. Whether they exert real influence is unclear -- probably less than they'd admit, but more than skeptical reporters (myself included) think...(continued)
(Excerpt) Read more at marcambinder.theatlantic.com ...
Some people are so into their religion that instead of just practicing it, they have to turn every non-religious organization and activity into an extention of that religious practice. I get the feeling some would prefer if we had a Catholic Republican Party, a Baptist Republican Party, a Jewish, etc. so they can feel like "their own" are the only ones let in.
This guy’s projecting like a Cineplex.
Even Karl Rove admitted Christians staying home was why 2000 was such a squeaker. This has been coming for a long time, but some yoyo always manages to convince the republican leadership Christians have nowhere to go.
They will have plenty of chances to come back around. I don't expect rank-and-file evangelical Christians to overwhelmingly support Rooty in the primaries. If Fred wins the nomination, as I think he will, these evangelical leaders will then have an opportunity to "come to Jesus" regarding Fred. I expect most of them will realize the inanity of doing anything other than supporting Fred's candidacy at that point.
Smells to me like what got Clintoon I elected in '92 without a majority of the votes.
And when I close me eyes I can see a short angry man with jug ears saying:"Larry what we gotta do is lift up the hood....."
This is the perfect prescription to let Clintoon II in again without an absolute majority.
at the margins people will simply not vote for Rudy, they will not work hard to get out the vote for rudy and that will make a difference in key battleground states
Push me Marc Abinder?!
And, maybe you ought to realize that certain people care more about the issues they believe in than whether Republicans win or not.
From a political standpoint, Giuliani will drive out millions from the GOP and can't hold the south. The GOP would be far better off if he quit the race.
There is no chance of that happening this time.
Most of them haven’t, mainly it has been Dobson. Mainly, imo, because he had another choice in mind.
I disagree with the bottom paragraphs, that Rudy would feel indebted and therefore be more in allaince with social conservative’s. Fool’s gold.
I do think some people have made a mistake.
Yes, I DO feel the coalition will fracture with rudy as a nominee. The republicans are kidding themselves if they believe otherwise. Even IF in some fantasy it did not, Reagan Democrats aren’t voting for him. Then there are those conservative’s that don’t bother to vote absent a Presidential election because of these issues. Yeah, count them out. No amount of lectures about DEMOCRATS managed to coerce these voters into voting for republicans in 2006, and it won’t work in 2008.
Where I feel some “leaders” have gone wrong, is that they assessed Thompson and didn’t for whatever reason feel he was good enough. And their congregations apparently assessed him and feel differently. Those poll numbers have risen in spite of everyone telling us not to support him, and those numbers have come from conservatives/christians. IMO, some people need to get back in touch with their base. Not just Republican politicians, but punditry and coalitions on the right. From what I can tell the only coalition typically aligned with the right in presidential politics the last few years that is listening to its base...is the NRA.
Speaking only for myself as a social conservative all my life, Thompson’s acceptable to me. I may not have nailed G.W.B.’s character completely (never suspected the names he’d call his base), but I was right that if he EVER found a VETO pen it would be on embryonic stem cell research.
I was right about his faith and pro-life credentials.
I was right in opposing Clinton, although I think people were also right to oppose Bush 41 with his new world order talk and questionable stance on life.
I don’t think Thompson is as deeply religious as Reagan or as pro life as Bush, but I don’t believe his views are too far away to make him unacceptable. I have a pretty good track record on social/pro-life/faith candidates and have cause to trust my instincts here whatever their scepticism on top.
I believe there is room for a good third party dedicated to ending the corruption that is government today. There is not such a party on the horizon at this time.
Christians have just as much right to get involved in the political process as the NRA does. Are you going to knock the NRA because it says it doesn’t support a certain candidate because that candidate doesn’t support gun rights? Then why are you upset with Dobson for saying he won’t vote for Rudy if he gets the nomination? Ann Coulter said the same thing and I agree with both of them. It’s not because of what they said that makes me say I won’t vote for Rudy, it is the principle of pro-life that I adhere to. Do I have a litmus test? You bet I do, just like all those who say they won’t vote for Hillary have a litmus test also.
Win first, sort out ideological differences later.
Wasn’t that Reagan’s philosophy?
Former Senator Fred Thompson is the only major candidate that gets it. He makes decisions based on principles. Principles don’t change. You have to stand for something and not change who you are based on the polls. That is what Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani have done and all of the Democrats do it. Give me a leader that will stand by his principles anyday versus someone that stands for everything.
I know many, many Republicans that will stay home if Rudy Giuliani is the candidate. He does not represent our values as Conservatives, and never will. Mitt Romney is a RINO (though seemingly a very nice man) that simply has everything else and nothing to do. “I guess I’ll just try to buy the presidency”. Conservatives will simply stay home and the Democrats will pick up additional seats in the House and probably get the 60 seats in the Senate they need to completely destroy our Country. Nice picture huh?
However, I think Fred can bring America back together, if that’s even possible. America needs a rebirth of patriotism and honor. Republicans also need a rebirth. President Reagan was our last rebirth and he can never be duplicated. Fred Thompson will bring his own down-to-earth common sense to this Country and strength back to our party. A little of the good old days of faith and family would do well for this Country. If a Conservative runs as a Conservative, he will win!
Think of it this way: Eight years of another Clinton White House? Now if that is not a sufficient enough reason to pull together as a party, as a Country, and fight this socialist liberal takeover of our government, what is? It is not impossible to take back the House and the Senate. We are winning in Iraq—they know it. The best they can do now is stop our progress and choose defeat, just like they did during Vietnam. We lost because Congress chose defeat. History repeats itself when not learned from.
Folks, we are in for the fight of our lives, just as our young men and women are fighting for our freedoms in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must fight for our Country right here and now! I truly believe Fred Thompson is the one man who can pull this party and nation back together! Rudy Giuliani will just tear us apart as a party. Liberal is liberal every day of the week.
Really tick off the leftist democrats and contribute to Fred Thompson: https://www.fred08.com/contribute.aspx?RefererID=c637caaa-315c-4b4c-9967-08d864cd0791
And I said they didn't...where?
Yeah.
Whatever this has to do with what I posted, I have absolutely no idea, but...yeah.
I believe the owner of this site has made a similiar declaration about not supporting Rudy, but the Christian bashers here have been ignoring that stance.
I’m not happy with Dobson, but not for the reasons the bashers of Christian involvement in politics have. I simply don’t think he was honest about his reasons for opposing Thompson. I don’t care if he has another candidate. i just want him to be honest about it.
All the same, unless people want to bash the involvement of the NRA, The Fairtax movement, CFG, etc...I do think they have no place deriding the organization of social conservatives. It reveals a bias on their part, and I want no part of it.
Great post.
That's the point. Christians have been handing the republicans victories since the eighties with damn near nothing to show for it in the one issue that got them involved in the first place.
And now a very strong contingent of the republican party wants to put up an abortion advocate.
That's not dancing with the one that brung ya; that's laughing at them for thinking they ever had a chance!
“I wish Dobson and his followers would realize this is a POLITICAL party.
Some people are so into their religion that instead of just practicing it, they have to turn every non-religious organization and activity into an extention of that religious practice. I get the feeling some would prefer if we had a Catholic Republican Party, a Baptist Republican Party, a Jewish, etc. so they can feel like “their own” are the only ones let in.”
Darn right. How dare these people seek to promote their principles? What are they thinking, that this is some kinda participatory system where they, too, are allowed to adhere to their moral values? When are they going to realize they are expected to shut up and support their betters regardless of what positions they may take on issues these people consider fundamental and non-negotiable? Stay in your churches, Dobson and others, and vote as you are told by your superiors such as Darkwolf377.
Sometimes you don’t always have a choice. That’s life.
A third party would hand the White House to the Democrats consistently.
Here:
"Some people are so into their religion that instead of just practicing it, they have to turn every non-religious organization and activity into an extention of that religious practice."
No, it wasn't a direct denial, but the effect is the same as "I'm not a perfectionist, I just want it done right."
And that's a problem, why?
I can't decide if you're just silly or simply ignorant of my original post.
I'll try this again, though it's not going to be any use--those who see ANY criticism of ANY Christian as being on the level of calling for mass-extermination of ALL Christians usually can't think straight, but I'll give it a go.
Darn right. How dare these people seek to promote their principles?
I said that? Lemme see...nope, didn't say it. (Hint: If you have to rewrite someone else's post so it says what you WISH it would say so you can feel all victimized, then the original poster didn't say what you want.)
What are they thinking, that this is some kinda participatory system where they, too, are allowed to adhere to their moral values?
I'll just ditto my above comment for your whole post, because I didn't say what you claim I meant, and address the silly non-issues you bring up.
Never said Dobson couldn't participate in the system, and you know I didn't. Never said Dobson or any other Christian couldn't adhere to their values, and you know I didn't, so stop wasting everyone's time with fiction.
What I SAID was what I wrote--which is that this is a political party. One's personal morals are informed by their religion. But when you enter the political sphere, I'm sorry, we don't have a national religion. Dobson does not speak for all Christians--Catholics, Unitarians, Baptists, etc. He is speaking as a religious leader pushing his way into politics--AND THAT IS FINE.
I'll repeat that for the ignorant:
IT IS PERFECTLY FINE FOR A RELIGIOUS LEADER TO GET INVOLVED WITH POLITICS.
OK? We clear on that, silly people?
What I am criticizing is the way people like Dobson are supposedly speaking for "Christians" when no one I know has ever had a visit with the man to tell him their point of view.
What Dobson is attempting to do is become a king-maker. He has no right to do this. I'll repeat it before you can sneak one of your silly rewrites in, he has the right to participate, but he has no right to try to turn this into a religious party, because there is no "Christian party" in this country--there isn't even one Christian church.
And THAT is the point--once we separate into "Baptist Republicans" and "Catholic Republicans," then we're doomed, because the right will fragment based on religion, when it is a POLITICAL party and as a party--which is overwhelmingly made up of Christians of ALL kinds--issues and candidates should be selected according to the issues by the members of that party based on their poltical stances--and the members of the party can base their decisions on WHATEVER criteria they wish--including their PERSONAL religious beliefs!
I wrote very slowly now, so anyone who claims I'm saying Christians can't have opinions or vote with their morals is either a liar or has some mental defect.
So please--dispute what I wrote--don't make up stuff so you can play the poor victim.
No, that's your attempt at spin because I jumped when I caught someone lying about my comment.
What I said was what I wrote. Don't try to tell people what I "really" wrote--they have brains and can use them, they don't need you spinning so they'll think what YOU want them to think.
What was quoted is nothing like how you tried to characterize it. If you really believe that saying "they have to turn every non-religious organization and activity into an extention of that religious practice" is the same thing as denying Christians getting involved in the political process you're beyond hope--something I suspect considering your response #23.
You were saying something about rewriting others?
How is having an opinion about Dobson's very obvious attempts to influence the presidential choice "rewriting" someone?
You need to learn some basic concepts, because you're just looking for a "gotcha!" with me that isn't there, and now you're squirming. I'm enjoying it--please, continue.
Excellent post, and I agree with all of it. I thank you for understanding what I was saying, which some are trying hard not to do.
Evangelicals have a lot to be angry about with the party, but I fear that Dobson's grandstanding isn't going to help matters for them.
I don't think Rudy should or will be the nominee; I think Thompson should and will be. Dobson is dangerously close to being in this election what Pat Buchanan was in 1992. I don't know how that will benefit the interests of Evangelicals--Thompson certainly supports their issues that I can see, so how will Dobson's disdain for him help, well, anyone's interests?
I perfectly agree with you. My morals come from my religion, and I use my morals and principles to make political decisions. But that does not mean I need or require to bring my religion into my politics.
I think a clear example of how that is hurting the Conservative cause is with Mitt Romney. He could be the second coming of Reagan, but because of his religion people would not see his message.
If you don't recognize the obvious intention, it is you that is beyond hope.
If this doesn't mean "stay out of politics" I don't know what it means.
It doesn't bother me that you don't know what it means. If you'd ASK I'd explain the difference between a religious group becoming a political group and religious PEOPLE organizing purely politically, but apparently that's just too darn complicated for you to understand.
LOL Uh, since I wrote it I know a lot more about the intention than you.
it’s hard to see his message since he keeps changing it all the time
Thank you, SoldierMedic, for bringing some much-needed clarity and sanity to this thread.
MUCH more importantly, thank you for your service.
By being jaw-droppingly solipsistic in calling it "having an opinion" when you do it, but "rewriting" or "spin" when another does.
I must agree with you on your criticism of Dobson in regards to his questioning Thompson on his Christianity. If a person is not a Christian what prevents him/her from saying he/she is in order to get votes. (Think democrats)We can get a pretty good idea where most of the candidates stand in regards to morals by the way they have voted in the past.
What's he going to do to them?
Well I don't feel like the Lone Ranger because I see that there are others who drew the same conclusion. Sounds like you are the one with the problem. Speaky zee English.
Deny them access to the White House, for one. Do they really want to spend eight years in the wilderness?
That’s beside the point. If he hit every Conservative point flawlessly, there are those out there who because of their religious feelings would reject him politically.
It’s easier just to say that if Ronald Reagan were Mormon, there would be people who would’ve let their religion take control of their politics, and because of that they wouldn’t have voted for him.
By all means: explain!
No problem. I was having a discussion almost along these same lines over the weekend.
Oh, ok--so when Dobson tries to get involved in choosing the Republican nominee for president, he's NOT being a kingmaker...and when you completely alter my post so it says I don't want Christians to vote--THAT isn't rewriting.
Keep going, you're making me laugh. :D
That’s what Bush did and they voted for him. Why should they respond to that threat again?
Actually, two or three people with a whiney axe to grind--and the view that NO Christian can be criticized because that's saying NO Christian can vote--are the ones with the problem.
Just read SoldierMedic--he gets it. You are intentionally trying NOT to get it so you can play victim. Nice try, but it's a lie.
How is having an opinion about Thompson wrong for a Christian to do? He made some very valid points.. care to show me a picture of Thompson entering or exiting a church from the past 10 years?
I am tired of people getting their panties in a wad over Christian making valid points. OJ Simpson says he is voting for Hillary and it barely gets a response on FR, but low and behold how dare a Christian open his mouth off the clock and make judgment calls from the fruits he sees. Do you think we Christians are so stupid to not take information and process it and digest it and make our own decisions?
Newt was on a show of Mr. Dobson's and made a very heartfelt plea, Mr Dobson probable felt as I have that Newt is a very intelligent man (having read his book, I know this to be true). Dobson wasn't shy about asking about his personal life whatsoever, the same as he has asked about Thompson. Newt stood like a man and took his lumps, and Dobson probable felt it was heartfelt and true. I like Newt, but I as a Christian know that adulterers give ammo to the enemy to blaspheme.. so I will not vote Newt (and he dropped out anyway)...
"The Lord also has put away your (King David) sin; you shall not die. However... by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme..." 2 Sam. 12:13
Again, Dobson just made it clearly known to others that Christians are tired of fence sitters and do know the meaning of lukewarm and spew. Dobson perhaps did Thompson a favor in the long run since this is early in the race. We Christians will not stand by and treated as second class mutes that have no opinions whatsoever and blindly vote the lesser of two evils.
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.
I can't--I'm actually shocked that you didn't get that that IS the explanation.
You REALLY don't see the difference between a religious organization becoming a political one, and religious people organizing a POLITICAL--that's NON-religious, just politics--group? You REALLY don't understand that?
The only people with morals and principles are Christians. Anyone can recognize a Christian by their stand on morals and principles because they get them from the Bible. If you disagree with this then tell me where non-Christians get their morals and principles. I have yet to find anyone with an answer to this. Oh, excuse me. The answer that is whispered is “self”. To say that the way I vote is because I am a Christian is nothing to be ashamed of.
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.