Posted on 02/16/2007 4:56:04 AM PST by Spiff
Republicans Can't Win Without Christian Conservatives (this means you, Rudy)
SOURCE: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:QS6fK2c8AP0J:pewforum.org/events/index.php%3FEventID%3D115
Americans who regularly attend worship services and hold traditional Christian religious views increasingly vote Republican, while those who are less connected to religious institutions and more secular in their outlook tend to vote Democratic, according to a major study by the Pew Forum.
Some of the conclusions of this report were already evident in 2004 exit polling data. For example, voters who attend church more than once a week (16 percent of all voters) chose Bush over Kerry by a margin of 64 – 35 percent.
Likewise, those who attend Christian denominational Churches on a weekly basis (26 percent of voters) supported the President by a 58 – 41 percent margin. Also very telling, those who never attend Church (15 percent of voters) overwhelmingly supported Kerry 62 – 36 percent.
The study further found that traditionalist elements within each religion tended to vote Republican, while modernist groups within the religions trended towards the Democrats. A multiple regression analysis of exit poll and public opinion survey data from 2000 and 2004 enabled the Pew Research Center to assign a relative weight to various demographic markers.
Interestingly, church attendance was tied with race as the most significant factor. But even that number is deceiving; in that race is only an important factor due to the high level of support the Democrats receive from black voters.
These trends represent a major shift over the past forty-five years. White Christian Evangelicals in 1960 favored Democrats by a two-to-one margin; now they are Republican by a 56 – 27 percent margin. Seventy-eight percent of them voted for President Bush in 2004.
In 1960, 71 percent of Catholics were Democrats and now Democrats have only a slight edge among Catholics (44 – 41 percent) and Catholics voted for President Bush (52 – 47 percent) in 2004. These trends have also brought an increased acceptance of religion in the public square.
While Americans do tend to favor the separation of church and state, 70 percent of voters want their President to have strong Christian religious beliefs. Likewise, the study reveals that 52 percent of Americans believe that Christian churches should express political views. Surprisingly, support for political involvement of churches is strongest among younger voters age 18 to 29 (59 percent).
There are many influential evangelical leaders who you've never heard about. You only hear about the ones who issue regular press releases, or stir controversy. Trust the fact that Southern Baptists know who Land is. Why don't you check and see how many Baptists are influenced by the man?
Do you realize that nearly every Sunday, pastors across the country give sermons that remind Christians about their position on abortion, partial birth abortion, assisted suicide, stem cell research. etc.? They are entitled to speak out on those issues, as they are part of their faith. It can even be political, reminding their members that they should vote for candidates who represent their values. They are not allowed to endorse candidates by name, but they know how to get the message across effectively.
Choosing between two liberals is not a wise vote, either.
Not surprisingly, you've totally missed the point. The disconnect lies in the fact that this bonehead won't support a Giuliani, but will take an endorsement from Liberman, a guy who he must certainly view as far more liberal than Giuliani. It's as if he got an endorsement from Rudy himself!
Well, I guess the devil ... sorry ... is in the definition of liberal.
You got that right. "Moderate Rudy" lately discovered he needs prolifers to make a showing, so he'll be having these "Come to Jesus" moments---temporary blackouts that he will conveniently discard should he, by some fluke, get anywhere near our WH.
Rudy is joined at the hip to NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion-on-demand-with-the-govt-picking-up-the-tab crowd. No way will they allow Rudy to move anywhere but forward to expand abortion to unknown dimensions. Partial birth abortion? If Rudy is elected, you ain't seen nuttin' yet.
Giuliani said just last week "I'm against abortion but I must uphold Roe v. Wade." This is the classic pro-abortion political statement. NARAL, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion savages clapped their hands with glee knowing that Rudy is STILL on their side, and has been from the very beginning.
From the FEC database: 04/24/1999 Donations
NEW YORK STATE NARAL INC WOMEN'S HEALTH PAC
NARAL donated exclusively to Democrat candidates with one exception----Rudy Giuliani.
Giuliani accepted $1,000 from NARAL in 1999.
NARAL gave $250 to Hillary Rodham Clinton.
NARAL gave $1000---4 times as much-----to pro-abortion Giuliani.
Clearly, NARAL trusted Rudy's pro-abortion credentials, and Rudy's willingness to advance NARAL's radical abortion-on-demand agenda, even more than NARAL trusted Hillary.
Rudy was the honored guest speaker and made The Opening Remarks to the N.A.R.A.L. "Champions of Choice" Luncheon few years back.
In a CNN interview, Giuliani indicated he does not support even a modest ban on the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure saying, "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing." Giuliani also indicated he would have upheld President Clinton's veto of the partial-birth abortion ban.
Maybe Mayor Rudy offered women "other options" to abortion, but Rudy told Phil Donahue he'd give his daughter the money for an abortion (to get rid of his own grandchild).
Keep in mind that sometimes you lose a battle in order to regroup to win the war.
If Rudy is the future of the GOP, I don't want to be a part of it. I'm thinking long term.
And don't lecture me about judges. With his position on social issues, guns, etc., there's no way he's going to nominate judges that I like.
The point is this -
This guy represents the thinking of a lot of Christians....you can disagree as to his credentials and who fowarded his book....big deal.
No its not as though he got a endorsement from Rudy....it doesn't matter....what matters is that he's right.
There are 20 to 40 million of us born-again evengelical christians in America, depending on who's counting, and we are a lot more politically savy than we were 20 years ago.
On which planet?
So you say. Fine. Go ahead and try and push that poll with the # of people who will vote for Rudy above 40%. Good luck with that. You say you are a conservative with a consicence. Your willingness to go out and cast a vote for a baby killing, pro-gay, gun grabbing, environmentalist who views California politics as mainstream robs you of your right to claim such a title.
Pay attention here folks.
After all, the Southern Baptist boycott shut down Disney...
And they want a reply of the same failed strategy now, but instead of a moderate they're putting up an outright liberal candidate. It is a strategy doomed to failure.
If Rudy gets the nomination and the only other options are third party or democrat...third party votea will give it to the democrat. Is there a democrat who is pro life? What kind of supreme court judges witll the democrat appoint?
If there could ever be a viable third party...true conservatives...that would be a God send.
Well you see, I had a Rudy supporter explain all of that to me. You see, it goes this way - if the GOP loses a conservative vote - they just lose one vote. If they gain a dumbocrat vote - it's like TWO votes, because it means Hillary LOSES a vote. Apparently, that's their whole strategy.
The GOP is a train wreck in the making - even though Rudy may be polling 30some percent in the polls - the latest FOX poll showed that 50some percent of Republicans want to see a new name out there. Most of us on this forum can see this train is heading for disaster. We need to switch tracks, before it's too late. Rudy is a loser for us.
You are absolutely correct. This is why we have primaries. We duke it out there but when it's over, we pledge to defeat the RATS. That is the only way we will ever advance.
If Rudy is the nominee, I may be forced to stay home for the first time ever. There is no difference in Rudy and Mr. Clinton .
Pray for a godly conservative that we can all support to rise up.
Nothing could make me vote for Rudy - nothing.
It would also apply to Ronald Reagan. Does Land believe Reagan should never have been President because he was divorced and remarried? Does Land want us to believe that "social conservatives" use divorce at a litmus test in 2008 when they obviously did not in 1980?
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.