'This Is Not a Bluff' - A Christian political leader on the threat of a third party.

Newsweek ^ | Oct 22, 2007 | Jeffrey Bartholet

[TitansAFC]

Christian conservatives want more respect. They were instrumental in propelling George W. Bush to power—twice—and now they're feeling neglected. At a "Values Voters" summit in Washington last week, leading evangelicals gathered to speak out and take a straw poll. The survey showed how unhappy they are with the twice-divorced, pro-choice Republican frontrunner for the presidential nomination, Rudy Giuliani. He got less than two percent of the overall vote. (Some Christian activists have threatened to back a third-party candidate if Giuliani wins the GOP nomination.) Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the straw poll of 5,775 conservatives, which included voters who were able to cast online ballots since August. But many evangelicals are uncomfortable with Romney's Mormon faith. That may have factored in the voting of people who actually attended the summit: Romney lost that tally by a wide margin to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who is also an ordained Southern Baptist minister. To better understand the current thinking of Christian conservatives, Newsweek's Jeffrey Bartholet and Eve Conant spoke to Richard Land, a leading evangelical who serves as president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Excerpts:

NEWSWEEK: So we wanted to ask you, first of all, about the third party idea and whether it's serious. A number of people are suggesting it is just a threat. Land: My intuition [is that] this is not a bluff. If Giuliani is the nominee, there will be a third party. There are things that Giuliani could do to help mitigate the damage. But I have been in too many discussions over the last 15 years where evangelical leaders have said, "The one thing we will never allow to happen is for the Republican Party to take us for granted the way the Democrat Party too often takes the African-American community for granted." This is not a bluff.

So what you are saying, as a bottom line, is that you would be prepared to help Hillary [Clinton] get elected if Giuliani were in the race? Well, I personally wouldn't be saying that… It's just [that] I'm not willing or able to violate my moral conscience. It would be like asking an African-American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate. I personally can't do it. I am not going to criticize those who choose the lesser-of-two-evils option. [But] I can't do it, and my guess is somewhere between 25 percent and a third of our people won't do it.

We met with Gov. Huckabee recently, and he said, "Well, why don't they vote for me right now? They've got me. Why do they need a third-party candidate?" Well, I think if anybody other than Giuliani is the nominee, there won't be a third party.

But his point is that you are not helping him to beat Giuliani. Well, that's not my job. That's Governor Huckabee's job. I just encourage people to vote their values and their beliefs and their convictions, and when I am asked why Huckabee isn't doing better, I can only answer that that's up to the voters.

Did I hear you say that there are things that Giuliani can do that could mitigate... No, he's not going to do that, and if he did, nobody would believe it. He would [have to] say, number one, "This is a pro-life party; I realize I am out of step with where the party is, and I am not going to try to in any way weaken the [pro-life] plank." He could say, "I will only appoint strict constructionists, original-intent jurists to the federal judiciary." Strict constructionists by definition think that Roe v. Wade was an overreach, and is a badly decided decision. If he were to agree to appoint a pro-life attorney general in the mode of a John Ashcroft…

Just to go back, he has said repeatedly that he supports strict constructionists, right? So that much he's already done. That's one.

Okay. So he's passed that test. The thing is to do the whole basket. And if he also said, "I will not veto any legislation that comes across my desk that restricts abortion. And if he were then to further say, "I will veto any legislation that comes to my desk that expands abortion rights…" If he did that, he would mitigate the damage.

Is there a short list of people that you could imagine serving the role as the [candidate of a] third party? No. I haven't really thought about it. And as I said, I won't do anything to help formulate a third party.

What's your view of Romney? Well, he seems to have been an extremely effective chief executive officer. He seems to have been a very confident governor. I don't have a problem with his recent conversion to the pro-life, pro-marriage stance. The media does, and the reason is [that] the media overwhelmingly is on the other side of that issue. So they see any switch away from their position as obviously having some nefarious connotation.

Well, I think the term "flip-flopper" was coined by your side, wasn't it? Well, not by me… But I think that if he wants to gain the kind of support [from] evangelicals that he wants, he needs to give a JFK-type speech [in which Kennedy said he was "not the Catholic candidate for President," but rather a candidate "who happens also to be a Catholic."]. I have told him this.

What are the three or four things that he absolutely needs to say more vigorously? For starters, he needs to quit trying to convince evangelicals that Mormonism is an orthodox, with a small "o," Trinitarian, with a capital "T," Apostolic, with a capital "A," faith. He is not going to win that argument [and] he doesn't need to try. That's not the issue. Kennedy didn't try to defend Catholicism. He defended the right of a Catholic to run for President. What I think Romney has to do is he has to give a speech in which he defends the right of a Mormon to run for president and appeals to Americans' basic sense of fair play. I would encourage him to say that "there was no higher percentage of Mormons in my administration than there were Mormons in the percentage of the population in Massachusetts." That is a concern that has been expressed to me by my constituents--that he would have a disproportionate number of Mormons in his administration.

What did Romney say [when you suggested that]? He said he would consider it. [But] he has not given that speech. I've seen him go to South Carolina and say things like, you know, "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior." Well, you know what, that ain't going to work in South Carolina. The most generous description [evangelicals] will give [Mormonism] is the one that I give it, which is that it is the fourth Abrahamic religion, you know, Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, and Islam being the third. And Joseph Smith plays the Mohammed figure in a fourth Abrahamic faith, but it is not a Trinitarian Christian faith. Evangelicals know this because the two most evangelistic groups in America are evangelicals and Mormons, and so evangelical pastors have taught their people what Mormonism believes because they want to inoculate them against [missionaries]. They know. I mean, they have had Sunday school classes, and they have had sermons preached on the beliefs of Mormonism. Trust me, that is not an argument he is going to win, and it is not an argument he has to win.

What about [Fred] Thompson? You know, there was a lot of enthusiasm for him [and] it seems to be deflating. Well, we'll see. You know, the one hole in his resume was that he's never run anything, but he's running a campaign now, and we're going to know within 60 to 90 days whether he's an effective executive or not. I thought in the first debate that he started off shaky and found his sea legs and was in charge of all he surveyed by the end. He's also been my senator for eight years. I have seen him campaign up close and personal. He's a natural retail politician.

Do you buy this portrait of him as not having fire in the belly? No, I don't. He wouldn't run if he didn't have a desire to be president, but he wants to be president for a reason.

If the Republicans do nominate Giuliani and if the Democrats nominate Hillary, do you think Hillary is more likely-- I don't know. I do see Giuliani as sort of an East Coast version of [California Gov. Arnold] Schwarzenegger. I think that what you could see is a complete scrambling of the red-blue state map, so that you would have Giuliani running on a conservative fiscal and security platform and a liberal social-issues platform, winning a state like California and then losing a state like Texas. Enough [evangelicals] could stay home, and I think Hillary will get massive turnout among African Americans, a massive turnout among working-class women, and a massive turnout among Hispanics, so that you could see California and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and New York going red, and you could see Alabama and Tennessee and Florida and Texas going blue.

When Rudy says "I will appoint strict constructionist judges," you are not hearing that? I hear it. I hear it.

Well, you don't hear Hillary saying that. [Land turns to question a Newsweek reporter] Could you vote for a Klansman?

[Reporter responds] No.

You've answered my question. I cannot vote for someone who believes that it's all right to stop a beating heart.

But when he says [he would] appoint nothing but constructionist judges, [perhaps] he is trying to say to you, "I am in your camp, but I don't want to say it too loud because I want to win the general election…" you know-- But he's not in my camp. And I hesitate to say this, but I might as well because it is in the equation. If Giuliani were a once-married man who was still faithful to his wife, I might be more inclined to take his promises seriously, but he is a thrice-married and twice-divorced man, and the circumstances of at least his second divorce are abominable. Now, I am not saying that I wouldn't vote for a divorced man. I am not saying that divorce disqualifies a man or a woman from being President.

McCain, for example. Yeah. Well, and Thompson and Reagan. When it comes to divorce for most evangelicals in 2007, the number and the circumstances are important. In terms of numbers, more than one divorce is a problem, and adultery is a problem.

Do you feel that to be a person of faith, being pro-life goes with it? I think it's impossible for me to comprehend how a person can be a person of faith and be pro choice and be consistent, but human beings by nature are inconsistent. Look, I grew up in a society where I am very grateful that I was always taught at home that racism was not only wrong, it was sinful, but I lived in a society [Houston] that was still segregated. I went to segregated schools, lived in a segregated neighborhood, and I knew people who were in many ways profoundly faithful and religious people who had an enormous blind spot called "race." For many of them, it was a very paternalistic attitude. It wasn't a hostile, vicious attitude, but it was a very paternalistic one.

Did anything about the recent "Values Voters" summit in Washington surprise you? Anything in the results of the straw poll? The straw poll, no. I wasn't surprised that Huckabee won among the people actually there, and that Mitt Romney mounted a strong Internet voting campaign and won the whole thing. Romney's campaign is extremely well organized and extremely efficient. People who were there told me that Huckabee did phenomenally well in his speech. Mike's a tremendous speaker, and he was speaking to his crowd. Probably 75 percent of the people in that room are evangelical Christians.

Is Huckabee's success there a harbinger of things to come? Is he starting to gain some traction? We'll see. Everyone says he does great when he speaks; everyone says he does great in the debates. But so far that hasn't translated either into fundraising success or into a surge in the polls. He's moved up, and I would think he's a natural inheritor of what support [Kansas Sen. Sam] Brownback had. But I just looked at a Politico.com poll that showed that Thompson was the favorite of churchgoing evangelicals, and Giuliani was second. So, you know, it's a crazy season.

What did you think of Giuliani's speech? Was he able to, as you put it, "mitigate" any of the negative perceptions about him among evangelicals? In that speech, no. In the recent debate, I think he helped himself a lot--[particularly] when he made the statement that if some sort of critical mass of four, five or six states [allow] same-sex marriage, he would support a constitutional amendment [to ban it]. He said that had always been his position. It may have been, but he certainly kept it a well-guarded secret. That will help him among social conservatives.

Did anything jump out at you and surprise you about the summit? If the days of the so-called religious right are done, why did all the Republican candidates show up? It doesn't look dead to me.

[TitansAFC]

---"[Land turns to question a Newsweek reporter] Could you vote for a Klansman?

[Reporter responds] No.

You've answered my question. I cannot vote for someone who believes that it's all right to stop a beating heart."---

This is very similar to my GOP Anti-Semite argument. If the GOP nominated someone who thought Jews were lesser human beings, the property of others, or that there was really nothing the GOP could do about the oppression of Jews becasue it's so divisive an issue (billions of people, after all, have no problem with it), would anyone be saying it doesn't matter because we have to beat Hillary? Would anyone dare compel Jewish Republicans to "suck it up" and help beat Hillary? How about if we replace "Jews" with "Protestants," "Catholics," or "Women?"

So why, again, is it okay to say about babies?

[TitansAFC]

Ping!

Forgive my example. It is not meant to offend, but merely to reinstate the idea that babies ARE human lives worthy of saving, and that it is NOT okay to support a Pro-Abortion candidate - just as it would NOT be okay to support anyone in the above mold.

[SteveMcKing]

If Hillary were overtly anti-Jewish, then your analogy might hold. But she isn’t.

[TitansAFC]

-—”If Hillary were overtly anti-Jewish, then your analogy might hold. But she isn’t”-—

So you’d vote Hillary?

[blade_tenner]

So why, again, is it okay to say about babies?

The man-crushes and swooning in the GOP (and some here) over Rudi and Fred is getting a little old. The former is adamantly "pro-choice", and the latter is "pro-choice" when it comes to $$ for his "private" law practice.

We have a couple of decent conservatives running.. what is wrong with Huckabee or Hunter?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

So why, again, is it okay to say about babies?

Obvious conservative answer: it isn't. Excellent analogy!

[Perdogg]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915214/posts?page=160#160

[SevenMinusOne]

Respectfully disagree - The current WOT/WWIV is more important than the long going battle of abortion.

Reality is Mr. Giuliani will not make abortion his litmus test for appointing federal judges (as most certainly will Democrats), however, Mr. Giuliani will appoint conservative judges to the bench. Being a conservative in terms of the law will be his guidelines (as it should be).

The abortion battle (for those on the pro-life side) is being won via education & technology.......

Reality is serious minded adults need to make choices between the options actual available to them (even when bad, ugly options are all they may have during a given instance)....one cannot wish away such realities nor choose some pie-in-the-sky nonviable alternative.

If Mr. Giuliani were to win the GOP nomination...and the choice be between him or the ilk of the Democrat candidate....There is no real choice for the serious minded at this time period, with this great nation. Mr. Giuliani would have to be that choice.

We have too many warriors down range risking all 24/7 than to cut bait on them over a domestic issue that has been on going for the past 40 years (+) -

[Archon of the East]

Because if you vote 3rd party instead of Rudy you will elect Hillary a vehement pro abortionist, pro late term and partial birth fanatic and someone who will install Ginsburg like judges up and down the line. So knowing this you are not voting principle at all. Lets not play dumb here.

[frankiep]

You are not a ‘true’ conservative. You are nothing more than a baby-killing, facist, communist, shill for JulieAnnie. Go back to DU.
Please note the heavy sarcasm.

[samm1148]

The trouble with the moderates who endorse Guiliani is that they wanted him from the get go despite their limp protestations to the contrary. If they really wanted a conservative candidate they’d endorse Thompson/Hunter, whomever. Instead we heard that: “The conservative candidates can’t win.

They’ve gotten away with defining the argument as hold your nose and vote for our RINO. No more of that; the moderates need to go along with our candidates or they can kiss their tax cuts away.

I know one of those smarmy moderates is chomping at the bit to say: “You’ll elect Hillary.” No—you are the one putting a democrat in office by turning your back on conservatism.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Mr. Giuliani will appoint conservative judges to the bench.

This has been crushingly disproven so many bloody times, on this very site, that -- at this point -- I'm no longer willing to assume either innocence or simple ignorance of the facts on the part of the speaker. Those who adamantly persist in adhering to said demonstrable falsehood, in the face of all readily available evidence to the contrary, are either delusional or lying (or both).

Conservatives aren't buying this particular cut-rate off-brand of okey-doke. We've already done our homework, thank you.

Jim Rob has very thoughtfully placed a handy "Giuliani Truth File" amongst the other common keywords for this site. Read it

[SkyPilot]

Hey Christians! Look, accept abortion! OK!
I am a Catholic - so I am like a bible...something....believer
right?! Look, give up on the gun thingy. Who needs a gun?!
Just my bodyguards...OK. Ohhhh.......so I have have multiple wives and divorces. Who doesn't......right?

[lapster]

The so-called “leadership” of the Christian right will not abandon the GOP no matter who is nominated. It would cost them their possible invitations to the White House and various other in-crowd perks. Many among the masses will stay home — thus handing the election to Hillary (and rendering the 50% negative rating irrelevant). But, the “leadership” will not give up its privileged prerogatives.

[TitansAFC]

Were you born yesterday, or is this your first visit to FR?

All of your statements have been regularly debunked at FR.

Seriously, dude. Welcome to earth.

[plain talk]

I know of no Republican candidate for abortion except Giuliani. Makes more sense to line up for an alternative Republican candidate such as Thompson and keep Giuliani from getting in then to make it easy for Hillary to win by going 3rd party.

Sheesh.

[KevinDavis]

The Cry Baby Conservatives speak out:

[chesty_puller]

"pro-choice" when it comes to $$ for his "private" law practice.

Why do you have to lie to support your ideas? You know there is no truth to that statement. Are defence lawyers "pro-murder"?

[stephenjohnbanker]

Rudy has a long history of appointing liberal judges, and backing Mario Cuomo.

[avacado]

'This Is Not a Bluff' - A Christian political leader on the threat of a third party.

And Hillary Clinton as Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, President of the United States of America, and Queen of Federally Funded Abortion Mills is NOT A BLUFF... EITHER...

[CindyDawg]

Who do you think most of those warriors will vote for?

[dixiechick2000]

There’s quite a bit wrong with Huckabee.
Though I like him, I wouldn’t vote for him.

The only thing wrong with Hunter is that he can’t up his numbers enough to be competitive.
I certainly wish he could...

[Man50D]

Mr. Giuliani will appoint conservative judges to the bench.

Think again. His History proves otherwise. Some facts about Giuliani and judicial appointments:

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state's lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuilani's record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state's leading abortion-rights group. "They were decent, moderate people," she said. Source: Ben Smith, The Politico, 3/1/07

One judge approved by Giuliani, Rosalyn Richter, had been executive director of a gay rights organization, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, before being named to the bench. After her initial appointment by former Mayor David N. Dinkins, Richter changed the questions asked of potential jurors to be more welcoming to gay and lesbian couples. She was later reappointed by Giuliani.

Another judge, appointed by Giuliani to the criminal bench in 1996, Dora Irizarry, has called herself pro-choice and was later elevated to the federal bench with strong support from Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

A family court judge reappointed by Giuliani, Sheldon Rand, was excoriated on the conservative-leaning New York Post editorial page last week for ruling that city funds be used to pay for a sex-change operation for an indigent New York resident.

And a fourth judge, Paula J. Hepner, appointed initially by Dinkins in 1995, issued a ruling that allowed a lesbian to adopt her partner's child. Four years later, Giuliani reappointed Hepner to New York's family court bench. Hepner was subsequently married to another woman in a ceremony in Canada. Source: om Hamburger and Adam Schreck, Los Angeles Times, 3/12/07

[topher]

Good point about bringing up about an anti-Semite candidate.

The Louisiana election is a warning to both the GOP and DUmmies party.

The DUmmies party (Democratic) candidate struggled to come in second. He might have come in third.

The Independent Candidate had almost the same amount of votes as the Democratic candidate -- in a state that has been traditionally Democratic for almost 150 years.

The Winning Republican is not your normal Country Club Republican -- he was someone with parents who immigrated from India to the United States. He was someone who was raised Hindu but converted to the Catholic faith...

Again, not the profile of a normal Republican candidate.

Maybe the Republican party should make note of what happened in Louisiana.

The party of the DUmmies are too DUMB to notice that taking advantage of black voters in the South is a pig that is no longer flying...

[EternalVigilance]

But, the “leadership” will not give up its privileged prerogatives.

You got that right.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

“...If the GOP nominated someone who thought Jews were lesser human beings, the property of others, or that there was really nothing the GOP could do about the oppression of Jews becasue it’s so divisive an issue (billions of people, after all, have no problem with it), would anyone be saying it doesn’t matter because we have to beat Hillary? Would anyone dare compel Jewish Republicans to “suck it up” and help beat Hillary? How about if we replace “Jews” with “Protestants,” “Catholics,” or “Women?”...”

---

> > > So why, again, is it okay to say about babies?

---

---

“If the days of the so-called religious right are done, why did all the Republican candidates show up? It doesn’t look dead to me.”

---

---

BUMP!!

[CindyDawg]

There is a thread going about who would you vote for if you weren't afraid they couldn't win. The posts are overwhelmingly for Duncan Hunter.

America, be brave. Vote like your candidate can win and he will.

[SaxxonWoods]

“Christian conservatives want more respect.”

Gang members want more respect too.

Both groups confuse respect with fear.

I think some Christian conservative leaders are not motivated to win the battles they fight. Like Democrats, they just want “evil” to rail against in order to fill the collection plates. If the “evil” ever goes away, they have no reason to exist. These leaders need evil like Democrats need the poor.

[penowa]

"Being a conservative in terms of the law will be his guidelines (as it should be)."

Sorry, but Rudy is NOT conservative when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. His interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is even more ridiculous and less honest than the majority of "liberals." At least they admit they want it gone as far as applying to individuals. Rudy's interpretation depends on where you live! He has no more regard for the Constitution than any of the Socialists calling themselves Democrats who hope to destroy this country.

[blade_tenner]

He wasn't defending he was LOBBYING

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19thompson.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

And just how do you spell DEFENSE again? Am I being called a liar by a G*D* Brit posing as a Marine???

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Giuliani as President = Lawrence Tribe as Supreme Court Justice

[CindyDawg]

Just about every day there is a thread about not needing the votes of the “RR”. If so, why even bother? IMO it’s a love hate thing. The party loves to win but hates that they need conservatives to do so.

[SteveMcKing]

So you’d vote Hillary?

No. But as a 3rd party vote is a vote for Hillary, it seems that you would.

[penowa]

"Who do you think most of those warriors will vote for?"

Won't matter who they vote for any more than it has the past two presidential elections since the Democrats have managed to make certain the majority either received no ballots in time, or if received and returned, weren't counted.

[Man50D]

Because if you vote 3rd party instead of Rudy you will elect Hillary a vehement pro abortionist, pro late term and partial birth fanatic and someone who will install Ginsburg like judges up and down the line.

The GOP has moved so far to the socialist left to appease the socialsit Democrats in the name of compromise they have aligned their political ideology with the Democrats. They are essentially one party. Voting for another party will be the second party.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume she will be her party's candidate let alone win the election. Hillary has problems with her own party. Many are very upset with her by attempting to appear as a "centrist" concerning the war in Iraq. it could very well backfire on her. Rudy would be no better than Clinton. He shares views with Hitlery on many issues.

So knowing this you are not voting principle at all. Lets not play dumb here.

It would be dumb to vote for someone such as Rudy, who has no conservative principles, under the pretense he doesn't have the same socialist views as any of the socialist Democrat candidates simply because there is an R after his name.

[TitansAFC]

Nope.

Gonna vote for a SECOND party.

The DNC\GOP merger is not for me.

[CindyDawg]

The military registered in Florida elected George Bush.

[penowa]

"Because if you vote 3rd party instead of Rudy you will elect Hillary a vehement pro abortionist, pro late term and partial birth fanatic and someone who will install Ginsburg like judges up and down the line."

And a vote for Rudy = identical Naral approved "pro abortionist, etc."

[EagleUSA]

Wasn’t the 2006 election enough of a total disaster for America and our Republic??? So now we want to fragment the conservative vote? The Socialist Rats are just salivating at the though of another repeat of the Ross Perot DISASTER....they would just love it.

Haven’t the so-called conservative voters done enough to America already? How about keeping a power-mad, anti-American, anti-Constitution MARXIST out of the Oval Office? That should be your NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

[Man50D]

The trouble with the moderates who endorse Guiliani is that they wanted him from the get go despite their limp protestations to the contrary. If they really wanted a conservative candidate they’d endorse Thompson/Hunter, whomever. Instead we heard that: “The conservative candidates can’t win.

Anyone who claims to be a "moderate" is not a conservative because he or she is willing to sacrifice conservative principles to appeal to the largest number of people possible regardless of their ideologies.

[Shortstop7]

The former is adamantly "pro-choice", and the latter is "pro-choice" when it comes to $$ for his "private" law practice.

I call BS.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

“Christian conservatives want more respect.”

Gang members want more respect too.

One can only assume you're including our host in your KOSsified description of Christian conservatives as the equivalent of "gang members" as well, then:

Free Republic is a conservative site. A pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-God, pro-constitution, pro-gun, pro-borders, pro-limited government. We fight FOR Life and Liberty!

[Man50D]

No. But as a 3rd party vote is a vote for Hillary, it seems that you would.

Read post #35.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

How about keeping a power-mad, anti-American, anti-Constitution MARXIST out of the Oval Office? That should be your NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.

Agreed. That's why were laboring so diligently to ensure that pro-infanticide, pro-gay marriage, pro-illegal immigration Marxist stooge Giuliani is NOT the Republican Party standard bearer in 2008.

[SaxxonWoods]

I’m with DevSix on this one. Rudy is my last choice for the Republican nomination, but if he gets it, he gets my vote in the general election. No president or Supreme Court Judge can outlaw abortion. Overturning Roe v Wade will simply give the states the right to vote on whether abortion will be legal in a particular state. And 49 states can be counted on to keep it legal.

This stupid chasing of presidents and judges over abortion is a waste of time and a red herring. As long as the vast majority of Americans want abortion to be legal, it will be legal.

And all that is in addition to the correct position DevSix gives re the Global War on Islamo-fascism.

This tilting at the abortion windmill has got to stop before it destroys us. You will only outlaw abortion by changing the minds of tens of millions of citizens. Presidents and judges can’t legislate it, can’t order it, and will never get it done. The religious leaders that push this idiocy do it to raise their own power. Those following them are being used as suckers. These leaders need such things to fight, that’s their reason to exist, and how they keep the money flowing in.

[Man50D]

Haven’t the so-called conservative voters done enough to America already?

Hasn't the GOP done enough harm to America by disenfranchising conservatives by constantly appeasing the socialist Democrats over the years in the name of compromise to realize that strategy has been a failure? Doesn't the GOP understand the socialists never cede any of their socialist principles?

[penowa]

The military in PA had their votes tossed and we were not the only state whose Democrat governor did the same. A handful were eventually counted in PA because even the press called Rendell for his wanton attempt to count none of them, but in other states they got away with it. Don’t think the Democrats headed by the Clintons won’t make certain it happens again anywhere they have a Democrat in charge who calls the shots. And I’m talking about the military overseas, not the ones who can make it to the polls here. Of course, at many bases there are no longer polls, and a military man has to either leave the base to vote, or make arrangements to vote by absentee ballot.

[fightinJAG]

Wise Words.

Prepare to duck.

[SaxxonWoods]

“Free Republic is a conservative site. A pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-God, pro-constitution, pro-gun, pro-borders, pro-limited government. We fight FOR Life and Liberty!”

My sentiments exactly.

The leaders I speak of are false religionists, and not interested in God, or liberty. They are charlatans who mislead people in order to create power structures and monuments to themselves and their huge egos.

They are Jim Jones without the bad koolaid. They are Koresh without the machine guns. I vomit them from my mouth and will have nothing to do with them. My allegiance is to God, not these fakers.

[prov1813man]

I don’t endorse any of the current candidates for the nomination. That said, as an evangelical conservative, I will vote for the nominee of our party because to do otherwise will be to elect hillary or someone like her and I’ll take the half loaf rather than nothing at all.

It’s the judges stupid. We all need to remember that while giving thanks to God for small, incremental, victories. We know who ultimately wins this battle. In the meantime, I am tasked with using my discernment.

Giving value to life, it is a statistical fact that the dims will kill far more babies than the most liberal of the rinos.

Again, judges. They will outlast the next several Presidents. I am frankly growing frustrated with so called “Evangelical Leaders” who claim to speak for me. Any one of them whose pride and arrogance at not being the center of attention would allow, even plan for, a hillary victory, will surely fall.