Posted on 09/11/2007 10:17:51 PM PDT by goldstategop
Isn't it amazing they all have more important things to do to get elected President than to meet face to face with Christian and Jewish leaders who represent millions and millions of votes?
I tell you it is gut-wrenching fear that kept them away.
They are scared to death of the questions. They're scared to death they won't have a good answer. They're scared to death they might say something they will live to regret.
So, all four of the "front-runners" have decided "to play it safe."
Playing it safe means not showing up, making excuses for their absence and hoping they really can take all those values voters for granted. Surely, they will not vote for Hillary! Surely, they won't sit on their hands.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Oh Gosh... yer right !!
What was I thinking...
Wait... that’s it...
I WAS THINKING !!
OK.. No more of that !!
//sarc
LMAO !
= )
So why do we need a 'Values Voters' debate to determine that? Fred Thompson has stated his positions on illegal immigration. All you have to do is read his essays and listen to his radio commentaries. Same for abortion and homosexual 'marriage'. He has made his views known. Why should he have to perform for some self appointed leaders in order to re-state them, just so that he can get their 'blessing'. That's no different from the liberal media folks, except for the tenor of the questions.
So... ya never heard of any of them before right?
How would you know if they were self appointed or how they came to be doing what they are doing then?
Why should anyone have to perform for anyone... maybe we should go back to the old Front Porch Campaigns?
And it’s a VERY SIGNIFICANT difference from how and what the Liberal Media Folks are doing... but you know that Suzi... And we know you know that...
= )
:) Well, I am looking forward to the debate. It should be very informative.
I think they should have cardboard cutouts at four podiums with COWARD written across the front.
With that, I am off to bed. Goodnight
They will !!
LOL
A Democratic version of the debate would have been held the following week, except that all candidates declined the invitation…
"Even with two-thirds (19 million) of the evangelical Christian eligible voters sitting on the bench in the last presidential election...
This is why the front runners won't attend. It's not worth the risk. It's a lose/lose situation on the national level, particularly for Fred Thompson for whom this would be the first debate he's participated in. I am not offended by this. I think these debates are a colossal waste of time. Ron Paul is the only one who benefits from them. FDT has stated many times he doesn't like the "debate" format which results in everyone speaking in 3 minute sound bites.
The Dims can pander to moveon.org and gays because they know their voters won't punish them for it. We Christians had better wake up and realize it doesn't matter what a man's position is if he can't get elected. Principles don't make policy. I won't vote for anyone who is pro-choice, but character counts more than statements made 14 months before the general election.
Joseph Farah can make broad statements about the lesser of two evils now that we are three years past the threat of a John Kerry presidency, but the rest of us had better work to get that 2/3 who didn't vote last time into the voting booth in '08, or the Mexicans and Muslims will become the voting block that makes the difference in future. They are pro-life too, but I doubt there is anything else we agree on.
W, for all his warts, is a good, earnest, and God-fearing man. None of the other front-runners, Thompson included, have shown me that they either are made of the right stuff.
Because of the decision of the Supreme Court, in Roe-v-Wade, all laws against abortion were struck down. As a result, we've had, for all intents and purposes, abortion for any reason at any time in the pregnancy, since 1973. It took a few years and a lot of media propaganda about the 'right to choose', but there was, for a while, a majority of folks who agreed with the media.
Then along came Operation Rescue, and people began to see that the media had been lying to them all along. Pro-lifers were not rabid, anti-female men who just wanted to force women to have as many babies as they possibly could. There were all kinds of folks in the pro-life movement; men, women, young and old, and they began being heard past the media filters. As a result of that, and also as a result of what folks were seeing young women who had bought into the lie go through, as a result of their abortions, their hearts and minds began to change.
Unfortunately, there are still many selfish people in this country who will never want to go back, but we do have the chance to save a lot more babies than are being saved today. If Roe-v-Wade can be overturned, the issue will go back to the states. At that point, we pro-lifers have a golden opportunity to make our case directly to the voters in our states, and may just change even more hearts and minds. We may never get to the point where all babies can be saved because most states' voters will require that exceptions be made in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, but that will stop about 98% of all abortions in those states. That is a far better situation than we are in today. And who knows, after a few years of that, we may even get to the point in this country where folks are ready to support a Human Life Amendment, but that is many years off. We have a lot of work to do before then.
What Fred Thompson is proposing is that important first step of overturning Roe-v Wade, but that won't happen unless there is a Republican in the Presidency to appoint justices who will do just that.
By snubbing candidates who don't feel like jumping to the tune of Values Voters or any other self appointed arbiters, and even considering sitting out the race, or even worse, voting third party, that possibility will be lost, probably forever, because the next President will have the opportunity to appoint 2 or even 3 justices to the Supremes. If that person is a Democrat, you can kiss any restrictions on abortion goodbye, and you can expect court challenges to any state laws banning homosexual marriage, and those laws will likely be struck down by a liberal court. If you don't like the direction the country has been going in for the last 30 years, you'll see it get even worse if the Democrats are allowed to return to the White House.
I’ve heard of several of those folks. It’s the umbrella group, Values Voters that I’d never heard of. And frankly, I don’t like the ideas of several of the ‘leaders’ mentioned, and they certainly don’t represent me. That doesn’t make me less of a conservative, I just take a different viewpoint.
As I said, I have heard of some of them before, and don’t like some of them. They can endorse whom they choose, but they shouldn’t presume that just because they don’t like a particular candidate that I’m going to jump through their hoop, just because they proclaim they have the corner on values.
That is the same "lesser of two evils" that has been foisted upon conservatives all along. Fred cannot win the general election without the conservative right, and the conservative right won't be voting for him... Ergo, Fred cannot win. We had best get behind someone everyone believes in.
And just who might that be, Duncan Hunter, who can't even get above 10% of Republican voters? Do you HONESTLY think he could beat any Democrat who is nominated in 2008? The Republican candidate will not only have to appeal to conservative voters, but to independent voters as well. That doesn't mean that the candidate needn't espouse conservative ideas, but that the person will have to be someone with whom a wider range of voters will be comfortable.
The 'lesser of two evils' as you call it, will still be able to appoint Justices who will uphold the values you and the others here proclaim to hold so dear. By sitting out the election because your guy isn't the nominee, or even worse, by voting third party, you're showing that you don't really care if your values are upheld, you just want to punish the Republican party for not choosing someone YOU want.
Back in 1992 when Ross Perot was courting disaffected Republicans, folks thought they had the luxury of making their statement. The world was in a relatively peaceful place. We don't have that luxury today. We are in a war with folks who, if they are victorious, won't care a hoot in hell what OUR values are. They'll be imposing their own values and way of life on us. I believe there is a vast difference in the way a Republican President will handle the Islamic threat versus what a Democrat would do. I don't want to give the Democrats a chance to put us in that kind of danger.
It is nothing even approaching the same thing. These people have made no representations that they represent all Christians have they?
Do they go around and shake others down for money because they are not Christian? Everytime a Christian is raped or murdered do you see one of these people in the camera saying it was because they were Christian? So, nothing like Jackson.
What they are I think is a group of concerned citizens like any other who are holding a debate to see where candidates stand on the issues with which they are concerned.
They are no different than South Carolinians, Iowans, The League of Women Voters or anyone else who might want to hold a debate. If a candidate doesn't want to debate, he isn't being forced to do so. Why are Republican so downs on debates of late? I think we should have one every week. How hard can it be to stand at a podium and say what you believe?
Duncan is my first choice of course, and I wouldn't mind Tancredo. The rest don't deserve the vote. There are no other conservatives on the field.
Do you HONESTLY think he could beat any Democrat who is nominated in 2008?
As far as Hunter is concerned, I think he is the only one who could beat the dems with a mandate and coattails. Tanc might win, but wouldn't have as good a chance as Hunter.
[...] will still be able to appoint Justices who will uphold the values you and the others here proclaim to hold so dear.
Or, at least they say they will appoint conservative justices; but then, that just depends on what their definition of "conservative" is.
I believe there is a vast difference in the way a Republican President will handle the Islamic threat versus what a Democrat would do. I don't want to give the Democrats a chance to put us in that kind of danger.
So... Where does Fred get his war credentials? "Hunt for Red October"? The ONLY candidate on the field to support for our troops sake, is one of their own. The Republicans still hold the war card (I don't care what the polls say) provided they hold up a candidate that the nation can accept as CiC, One who has credibility.
You may argue, you may rail, but those same 19 million hard right conservatives and quite a few of their broken-glass compatriots (including myself) must be on board before you think of any independents or blue-state calculations. If your candidate cannot carry the base en masse, your candidate will certainly lose.
That is the basis of my reasoning in fact. The primary is the important selection. We must put forward a true conservative, with faith and confidence. You tell me, who stands a chance at bringing the right, the hard right, and the Libertarians along? WHo has the record to prove it?
How long shall you run to your prophets with itching ears?
See tagline.
We don’t and I don’t recall saying we did. :) That’s a bit of a straw-man there. If Fred has stated his positions he doesn’t have to do anything more. Why would he need to go to any debate? Why would he need to run any commercials? Why would he need to appear on Leno?
The Values Voter Debate is for the sole purpose, I would assume, of introducing the candidates to those they represent. They haven’t proclaimed themselves anything, nor have a heard a word or read a word from them about the top tier not attending.
This attempt to marginalize Values Voters puzzles me. Fred supporters are spinning this as some “Holier than thou” group and making spurious assertions that these people expect candidates to grovel for their “blessing”. This is just not the case and I think you know that.
Is this some rapid response talking point or something? The Values Voters have said nothing about Fred as far as I know. I think we are just beginning to see the real Fred. New Hampshire and values voters, he doesn’t need their blessing. Leno and traveling to England to get Thatcher’s blessing, you bet. I think even you would admit you expected better from Fred? Sometimes our big splashes are just ripples in the pool :)
You mean other than columnists who likely consider themselves 'values voters' calling the candidates who decide not to attend the debate, gutless wonders?
“...I won’t ever vote for Hillary but I won’t vote for any one who ignores me because they think I fear Hillary enough to vote for them anyway. They don’t know me.”
I’m not at all down on debates, but the comments on this thread seem bizarre.
People need to stop getting their panties in a bunch and not feel “dissed” because a candidate hasn’t yet met with a “Christian Leader.”
Without the folks they’ve dissed by bypassing this debate, these RINOs are nothing but utterly powerless vassals of the Democrats.
But I thought the sole reason that Fred was ‘drafted’ was because he was a federalist that’s a socially conservative alternative to Rudy McRomney.
So to reinforce that image, Fred ignores a Values Voters debate just because Rudy McRomney decide not to show? Hmm...doesn’t quite sound right.
If Fred had been the only one of the Big 4 to go there, don’t you think that would have told social conservatives that he was serious about values?
I mean, think about it. At the most, it’s a half a day’s worth of time for a candidate to deal with a two-hour debate, once prep time and winding down is factored in. How would his appearance there have been a BAD thing?
Fred Thompson entered this race. He looked Left, and there were Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. He looked right, and there were the Values Voters, personified by the likes of Phyllis Schlafley, Paul Weyrich, and Don Wildmon - the true backbone of the GOP. At that moment, he faced the choice about who he would identify with. And we can see now what choice he made.
Personally, I’m not surprised.
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.