US evangelicals warn Republicans

BBC ^ | 3/17/6 | Jamie Coomarasamy

[Crackingham]

Prominent leaders from the Christian right have warned Republicans they must do more to advance conservative values ahead of the US mid-term elections. Their message to Congress, controlled by Republicans, is "must do better". Support from about a quarter of Americans who describe themselves as evangelicals was a factor in President George W Bush's two election victories. The Republicans will need to keep them onboard if they are to retain control of Congress in November.

At a news conference in Washington, some of America's most influential conservative leaders said the current perception among evangelical Christians was that the Republican majority was not doing enough for them. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said that apart from confirming two conservative judges to the Supreme Court, "core values voters" did not feel that Congress was advancing their interests.

The leaders appear to be reflecting a growing sense of frustration among the Christian right, over what they see as a lack of legislative progress on issues such as banning same-sex marriages.

[irishjuggler]

D) There are a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice, it does not drive the election IMHO.

Poll after poll indicate that more than two-thirds of GOP voters are pro-life. A Giuliani candidacy is DOA unless he makes a pro-life conversion (see Bush 41 in 1980).

[hellinahandcart]

If you only arrived here in 1981, you have very little frame of referrence for what a cesspool this city truly was.

Gee, I got there as soon as I could. My parents convinced me to finish school first.

I do have relatives in the city who've lived there since before it became a cesspool in the first place, but I'm sure you'll find some assumption or other to make about them too. You're on a roll.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...he's a NY prosecutor. That means he's a fighter.

No, that just means he is a lawyer. He is still a liberal.

The guys who are the real fighters put on a uniform or carry a badge, and we are not going to win this war in a court room with diminuitive, tassle shoed liberal lawyers.

[durasell]

Ooookay then...

[linda_22003]

Oh, some were certainly tolerated ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", for example). :) But I don't believe that Christianity is the property of any political party.

[JamesP81]

I'm shilling for Giuliani...not because he's a conservative, but because he's the closest thing to a Churchill around today.

Evangelicals WILL NOT vote for a pro-choice leader. It isn't going to happen. Get used to this idea, because a Guiliani candidacy in 08 translates into a HRC presidency. The R's might keep congress, but if evangelicals are faced with two candidates, both of which are pro-choice, there's going to be a lot of third party voting or no-voting.

[georgia2006]

like what do they want exactly??

The leaders appear to be reflecting a growing sense of frustration among the Christian right, over what they see as a lack of legislative progress on issues such as banning same-sex marriages.


Problem is the votes arent there...bringing up the amendment only to have it fail is useless.


I think what is going on here is that the see the GOP is in trouble so they are being opportunistic in their piling on

[JamesP81]

Republican ought to stand up for a change and warn evangelicals!

Then they'd definitely lose the election. Not a smart move.

[JamesP81]

They just want their 'team' in place and Constitutional limitations on the national government out the window if it fits their cause

This is depressingly true. A lot of my friends make comments about 'doing it the way the Founding Fathers wanted us to' but I don't really think they truly know what that means. If we followed a constitutionalist system the way that Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, etc intended we would have to:

a) Repeal the Social Security Act
b) Repeal the 16th Amendment
c) Repeal the 17th Amendment
d) Discontinue ALL federal educational funding
e) Discontinue ALL federal welfare spending
f) Discontinue ALL federal disaster relief spending in NOLA

They look at me like I'm crazy when I say all that, but even a cursory reading of the Founders writings and some of their actions in government after the Constitution was ratified finds solid precedent for all those actions.

[JamesP81]

There are a lot of Republicans who are pro-choice, it does not drive the election IMHO.

Maybe not in your alternate reality, IMNSHO.

[JamesP81]

An idle threat at best. Where else would they throw their support.

Constitution party, most likely. It's a party for fiscal restraint and moral values.

[JamesP81]

It will just remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the feds.

An imminently worthy goal, I assure you.

However, it's not about what a candidate can do, it's about who he is. I'm not comfortable with a man in office who can't see anything wrong with killing babies. It doesn't matter whether or not he can do anything about it. It says something bad about who he is as a person, and I don't want that kind of person to be my elected leader.

[JamesP81]

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

I completely fail to see how this verse in any way suggests evangelicals should vote for someone that supports things that they think are immoral.

I think reducing federal spending is a good idea. I think moral issues are critically important. Rudy helps with neither. Why the hell would I vote for him?

[barkeep]

You are so right. I was there in Ft. Worth '94 when the hard evangelical right took power and tossed Fred Myers (only the most successful fund-raiser/candidate-finder in state history at that time.) I was there in San Antonio, '96 when the new State Chair Tom Pauken had to explain to the multitudes that we could not legally instruct our delegation to the San Diego National Convention to ignore the primary vote and cast Texas' delegate votes for a Pat Buchannan/Alan Keyes ticket. You really had to be there, the place went nuts when that motion was made from the floor.

96 was the high water mark for the "grassroots" evangelicals. It was the only convention where I led a full slate of delegates and alternates physically on the floor. That convention came within two committee votes of excluding Sen. Hutchison from the delegate slate to national, they would have except Sen Phil Gramm and former Gov. Clements pulled out all the stops to prevent us from forming into a circular firing squad. As it was, then Gov. George W. Bush had to accept co-chair status with Pauken, and was lucky to get that.

Pauken, by the way, has never won an electoral contest since, and that is symtomatic of the problem. Given their way, the evangelicals would move the Republican Party to positions that are electorally suicidal. The hard right is dedicated, as you point out, they are willing to do a huge amount of the scut work of elections, IF they are catered to on platform and candidate selection.

The last two cycles, some of their more extreme positions have been frustrated, and we see a lot of empty seats at State Convention. The people I am talking about are not in the 25% who vote Democrat, but they will indeed sit home when they don't get their way.

[Godebert]

"Rudy did a good job post 9/11. He was out and about. He showed the despair we were all feeling. My prediction: he helps the republican candidate on the campaign trail, then gets tapped as attorney general."

We don't need a creepy gun-grabbing liberal like Julieannie as our attorney general. Maybe as ambassador to Italy or something where he can't cause any problems.

[Godebert]

"Well, I am NOT Evangelical, I am libertarian, and I DO support Guiliani and McCain, and I vote, too. I've been voting Republican for decades but if the party decides to pander to Evangelicals they can kiss my vote goodbye."

Good riddance.

[durasell]

Okay, but what's with the "Julieannie" spelling? I don't get it...

[La Enchiladita]

I don't accept BBC's views on American conservative Christians. This is part and parcel of British ignorant arrogance on the subject of "Yanks."

[La Enchiladita]

Whatever happened to FReepers considering the source of an article...?
That's all that need be said!

[Godebert]

I'll spell that gun-grabber's name any dang way I please.