Posted on 10/05/2007 4:24:54 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Conservative evangelical leaders have long openly expressed dismay over the prospect of being forced to choose between two pro-choice presidential candidates. But now, a coalition of evangelicals has gone as far as to threaten to pull their support for the Republican Party if such a candidate is selected for the last stretch of the White House race.
Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family – who recently emerged from a controversy over a private email he sent criticizing Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson – says he and others in the social conservative coalition will not support Rudy Giuliani or any pro-choice candidate that the Republican Party picks for its presidential nominee.
“Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles,” Dobson wrote in an Op-Ed in The New York Times on Thursday.
“In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades.”
Dobson said a candidate should support the “the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles.”
Giuliani, on the other hand, supports abortion and gay rights.
Some Roman Catholic leaders have also opposed Giuliani’s stance on abortion. An archbishop from St. Louis this week said he would withhold communion from Giuliani, a Roman Catholic.
Giuliani’s personal life is also another red flag for some conservative Christians. The former New York mayor has been through three marriages, two divorces and is estranged from his two children.
Yet despite these moral obstacles, Giuliani is said to have reached out, with some positive response, to more than a dozen pastors of large evangelical churches and Christian leaders including Jonathan Falwell, the son of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson, according to the New York Times.
A recent Gallup Poll also found that the former New York City mayor had an overall favorable rating from churchgoing Protestants. Among the top tier Republican candidates, Giuliani rates third after Fred Thompson and John McCain among religious Protestants.
As the frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination, Giuliani has repeatedly stated he can beat Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton – an appealing statement for those who see Clinton as a larger threat.
But to Dobson and others in the coalition, “Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear.”
The coalition met Saturday in Salt Lake City after a larger meeting of the Council for National Policy – an exclusive conservative networking group. The smaller group included Dobson, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, and dozens of other politically concerned conservative Christians.
seems like another good article for your ping list
And whatever, pray tell, could be their reasoning???
Is it that they know that Hillary could beat Rudi hands down?
He wouldn’t even face her in the New York Senate race, why should we think he’ll beat her for the highest office in the land?
It appears that Dobson would rather see Hillary as president...and witness retreat in the jihad, a nuclear Iran, National Healthcare and no less than 3 Hillary appointed USSC Justices...than to vote for Rudy.
That's a man of principal, yessiree.
Gee... who could have predicted THAT?!
I mean, besides anyone who could rub two neurons together.
Republicans don’t want the evangelical vote unless evangelicals will shut up and have no opinion about anything.
You seem to have no values...
Why? Because if it came down to voting for Rudy or Hillary I’d gladly place a vote for Rudy?
I expect evangelicals to not sell the country down the river either.
hear, hear!
“Giuliani, Evangelical Rift Grows Over Abortion”
Under no circumstances do I vote for that liberal.
I’ve been saying that for years.
When her highness ran in 06, I was all for Rudy to jump in and kick some serious ass.
After all, all of his supporters keep saying that the only reason that he surrendered NY to the liberal trash is that he had prostrate cancer.
Well, there was his chance to redeem himself and prove his supporters right, once and for all, and receive the highest praise for knocking ms clinton into the footnotes of political history, but no.
Instead, he did nothing. - I believe that he read the tea leaves and feared that it might be him knocked into the footnotes, and therefore would not face her in his own state.
Now if Rudy cannot deliver NY for the GOP, then I am left with the assumption that he felt that he had a better chance on the National stage than in NY itself.
A poor omen indeed for those who want to actually win and not join the list of political has beens cluttering up the ranks of defeated politicians.
I lost all faith in Rudy in 06 and I will have to prepare to have to say "President Clinton" for another 8 years, if he is nominated.
“It appears that Dobson would rather see Hillary as president”
Or his values are just more important than which liberal occupies the oval office in 2008.
That works both ways.
Regarding the WOT, She would probably be the toughest. Reason be, she would be trying to prove that she had testicles. Otherwise (and you can bet she realizes it), she would be the LAST women elected president for the next 200 years.
That said, neither of them are suitable candidates. The primaries are important... Get behind the most suitable conservative candidate you can and squash Rudy.
You are so right, he handed her the Senate and it wouldn't surprise if he and his liberal wife were in this to assure a Hillary victory.
“Under no circumstances do I vote for that liberal.”
You probably won’t have to. Rudy isn’t a done deal.
Actually, I can not see anyone that has any true conservative values ever being able to vote for any democrat, much less to the lineup of criminals, prima donnas and nut jobs the democratic party is fielding for their current Presidential offerings.
Hillary or Obama vs who? I do care who, but I will be damned before I will vote for anyone that has aligned themselves with America's flourishing communist party, the democrats.
I do not see any "republican crossover vote." It isn't happening. And that is a demonstration of personal values.
Bump to your post.
I can’t figure why Fred isn’t a good fit since he is for traditional marriage, a man and a woman. Also because the president does not do a constitutional amendment all by his lonesome. Seems like they ought to be jumping on the Congress more than anyone else. Dobson needs to be trying to get more good people in Congress instead of bashing presidential candidates. Seems like all this is a wasted effort for what he wants done.
At the risk of telling you something you already know, the rest of the country is a tad to right of NY. In fact, Republican Presidential candidates have been successful without winning NY for years.
Of course, I'm not suggesting you vote for a democrat.
“You probably won’t have to. Rudy isn’t a done deal.”
Thank God for that.
The liberal who promote increased abortion, or the liberal who'll simply tolerate what we have now.
Guiliani represents the old Rockefeller Republicans trying to take control of the party. Dobson is right to do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening. It would be better to endure four years of Hillary than letting that vile wing take over the party again.
Interesting analysis and I can’t say I disagree.
“The liberal who promote increased abortion, or the liberal who’ll simply tolerate what we have now.”
Which one is which? I get my liberals confused.
Do his "values" include losing the War on Terror, and sacrificing thousands of Americans (born and unborn) to Al Qaeda? If so, the boy needs a values adjustment.
That wasn’t my point at all. My point was Rudy vs. Hillary, not the venue.
I won’t be choosing between one pro-infanticide candidate and another.
I think Rudy would be good for national defense, but with Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his 87th year of life, a couple of justices in their early 70’s, and Rudy’s lean toward amnesty I really don’t want to vote for him.
Frankly, now I'm not sure what your point was, but I'm sick and tired of self-appointed "evangelical leaders" who think they own the GOP. The Democrats can act like the filthiest heathens who ever lived, and put the country's safety at risk to boot with not so much as an audible peep from the Dobsons of the world ("oh, they're Democrats, of course they're going to act that way"). Let one Republican suggest that pro-choice people should be included in the "big tent", and these paladins of pious palaver will be heading for the nearest MSNBC microphone to announce that they're bolting the GOP.
I believe that no real practicing Catholic will vote for Giuliani. Period. I have faith that real practicing other Christians will refrain as well.
And no Evangelical, worth the name "Evangelical" should do so either. Their vote on this one will tell whether they're really an Evangelical or not.
Regards,
Star Traveler
LLS
A country which would choose between Hillary and Rudy probably doesn't deserve much.
PISSANT GHOULIANI pretends to be a conservative.
You guys need to vote for me...
Platform:
Bomb the sh!t out of the Islamics.
Put abortion providers in jail (or under the jail).
Deport ALL illegals.
Mine our southern border.
Impeach about half of the Supreme Court.
Isolate gays and aids victims.
I’ll think of more...
Yoy seem to have no sense
I meant to say yoy!:’>
E-mail/ping me if you want on/off the list! SPREAD THE WORD!!!
What’s a few million babies between fellow Republicans, eh? Damn those Christians!....won’t sacrifice everything they believe in to be good little loyal Republicans no matter what!
Yes, that looks like a sure sign of no conservative values to me.
Exactly!
No major political party in American History has KNOWINGLY nominated a candidate for president who they knew couldn't even win their home state (the 'Rats had no reason to think that Algore couldn't carry Tennessee in 2000 since BJ Klintoon won it both times).
A conservative with a conscience protesting the nominee by failing to vote for the Republican in an election where the Democrat wins has effectively voted for the Democrat. Anyone remember 1992 and 1996?
How can anyone speaking of being true to their conscience not vote for the best choice of two, even if the best choice is not perfect, or is even far from perfect?
The primaries are the place for selecting the best standard bearers. Opinions on who's best will vary. My first choice in 1980 was not Reagan -- I wanted Phil Crane. My first choice in 1988 was not Bush -- I wanted Kemp.
As a Republican, I chose to support the Republican party's nominee, because no Democrat is an electoral option for a conservative with a CONSCIENCE.
Make the choice to support the most conservative choice of the two electable choices, and do so as matter of damage control if for no other reason.
A vote cast on that basis should give any one with a good conscience a clear conscience -- that is if the person really cares about electoral outcomes, and Supreme Court appointments to be making something more than just a self-righteous statement about themselves.
The stakes are higher than any single issue.
We're on the team fighting for conservatism. We may not always like the quarterback, but we will be certain to make no touch downs if we choose to play tepidly or simply decide to just walk off the field.
No, he just doesn't want to see a liberal in the White House, like most of us he realizes that there is ZERO difference between Rooty Toot and Hitlery (other than the fact that Rooty is more comfortable wearing a dress).
I know what James Dobson’s principles are, but what are yours?
Dobson seems to have forgotten about small steps leading to a larger goal.
We don’t have to resign ourselves to Giuliani at this point or even into the next coming months. There are better options clearly available to us.
“Of course, a truly prolife conservative must be on the correct side of the immigration debate as well to get our vote.
Of course, the answer is DUNCAN HUNTER!!
But why is ANY LIBERAL an option?
The stakes are higher than any single issue.
You're right, and Rooty Toot is the biggest single issue candidate since William Henry Harrison back in 1840.
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.