Posted on 03/07/2007 8:06:23 AM PST by LibertarianInExile
ASHVILLE, Tenn. — A Southern Baptist leader said Tuesday that evangelical voters might tolerate a divorced presidential candidate, but they have deep doubts about GOP hopeful Rudy Giuliani, who has been married three times.
Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, told The Associated Press that evangelicals believe the former New York City mayor showed a lack of character during his divorce from second wife, television personality Donna Hanover.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Your #36.........ROTFLMAO!
Nice apology. Then you go on to insinuate that Reagan had his girlfriends abort children with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.
What is it with you people? Your guy is so dirty and disgusting that you have to repeatedly smear President Reagan.
That is just so pathetic.
May I add a little wood to the fire? Check out this video and this website.
"I would like to run on the Democratic line if I could figure out how to do it"
-Rudy Giuliani
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1795844/posts
I thought you preferred Rudy.
>>Richard Land, head of public policy for the Southern Baptist Convention, may want to checkout the details leading to the Giuliani divorce, which were reported in excruciating detail in NYC print and broadcast media.<<
I think Richard Land is taking the right approach. Guiliani is not the right guy but in depth trashing of his personal life is not that way to approach that. Guiliani's policies don't match. That's enough.
Dr. Land's famous quote "Jesus would never use a derogatory term to refer to a human being" is wise. The wisdom he shows by working with Catholics and other Christians while also joining the Chicago declaration reminding us that inter-faith cooperation does not prevent the expression of religious freedom through evangelism shows his understanding and balance.
Dr. Land has also screwed up in the past and hopefully learned from that - he attacked the Walt Disney company and urged a boycott over "gay days" and then it came out that Disney did not start, endorse or approve of gay days - anybody can come to Disney World and declare it any kind of day they want.
In short, I think Dr. Land hit the right tone here and no deeper personal attacks are warranted or wise.
Conservatives need to work on finding the right guy to best represent conservative principles rather than dissipating energy attacking the others.
As a purely tactical matter, Ronald Reagan's approach "Thou shalt never speak ill of another Republican" has the advantage of not alienating the portion of the party whose guy doesn't get nominated - that a way, a conservative can not only get nominated but actually get elected.
>>Nice apology. Then you go on to insinuate that Reagan had his girlfriends abort children with NO PROOF WHATSOEVER.
What is it with you people? Your guy is so dirty and disgusting that you have to repeatedly smear President Reagan.
That is just so pathetic. <<
I was wrong yesterday - I was nice to Silverleaf before I realized how nasty he was being. I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he quoted a White Power site to attack Ronald Reagan.
But we don't want want to go too far the other way. Posts like that are not generally reflective of conservatives who currently express support for Guiliani. We can win this debate on issues. Once someone matches up on the issues you then it becomes important whether he is Presidential material. John McCain could match perfectly and still not be the right guy for the White House.
But Rudy doesn't even match on issues - it will work out.
Trashing Giuliani? Not at all. I beg to differ. We are not trashing Giuliani.
Sorry to say, you completely misread the recounting of Giuliani's personal life, leading to his divorce.
If the realtime recounting of Giuliani's personal life SOUNDS trashy......it's because Giuliani himself provided all the trashy details by leading a horrendously trashy personal life.
That's Giuliani's problem. Not ours.
He should have thought of the consequences before he made all those trashy life decisions.
Believe me, Dr. Land represents the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of the 16 million Southern Baptists.
Oh, please---don't tell me you actually believe the WD Company's statement on gay days?
Disney's is the classic CYA statement when the bottom line begins to sink.....to get park attendance up.
Another reason why ex-WD head Michael Eisner who hired numerous gays in top positions and who endorsed Gay Days at Disney was ousted.
Re: your posts #90, #88
You have contributed so much more here than I, for so much longer, I almost don't want to argue with you but in the interest of honesty I wanted to at least acknowledge your replies and say I disagree pretty strongly for the reasons I cited in #86 and #87.
To go further than what Dr. Land said would conflict with both my sense as a Christian and with my strategy of of electing conservatives.
Separately, the only problem I have with gays is if they want special rights (like state recognized gay marriage) or if they commit crimes toward others - I certainly don't object to them being employed by Walt Disney or any other company.
Beyond that, homosexuality is an issue of sin -the bible is clear that homosexuality is a sin. As with other sins that are personal, whether we are talking gluttony or keeping the sabbath or even the most serious sin of all - rejection of God's love and forgiveness - it is a matter for God's judgment.
But all this takes us away from the key issue of the day - "who should conservatives support?" Who will represent our issues, is electable and is Presidential material? Its clearly not the current Republican front runners, so who is it?
Or any of the divorced dems?
And no, it's NOT because any dem has come forward with a comment about divorce being good. Or a comment about morality being stupid. Nope. That's not it.
It's the MSM's perception. Maybe some liberal reporter ( is there any other kind?) can quote some of the dems who don't care about marriage or morality. We'd love to hear this stuff - from the horses' mouth... if it's out there.
If.
Come on guys, get a quote or two. From an elected democrat. About how marriage and morality don't matter... if you can find someone ... any elected dem.
We're waiting....
Waiting.
Wonder why?
Why doesn't the MSM care about divorced dems? Why do they "care" when it comes to Republicans - but not care about the situation for themselves, or their friends or their fellow liberals?
It's a stick. Period.
They pretend it matters - and that they're too cool to be bothered. Yet, the MSM never quotes an elected dem saying it's OK to have sex outside of marriage or OK to be divorced.
Isn't that odd?
Why would the MSM have one standard for us (we must walk on water) and one standard for dems (anything goes)?
Is it because dems come out openly condemning marriage and fidelity? Nope. Can't find one quote from an elected democrat saying marriage doesn't matter. Or that divorce should be celebrated. If there is a quote out there - the MSM needs to let us know - and know who said it.
Dems don't go public with these "beliefs" if they in fact even hold them ... so let's find out. Any MSM folks out there who want to put a dem on the record?
Maybe some liberal reporter (is there any other kind?) We'd love to hear this stuff - from the horses' mouth ... if it's out there.
If.
Come on guys, get a quote or two. From an elected democrat. About how marriage and morality don't matter ... if you can find someone ... any elected dem.
We're waiting....
Waiting.
Agreeed......current Republican front runners do not represent conservatives. Doesn't mean we throw up our hands and compromise. Notice that no other groups are being asked to sacrifice their principles----only Christians. I find that appalling. Thankfully there are Christians like you----and thankfully there are people like me. We can both contribute to the dialogue.....in different ways.
>>Doesn't mean we throw up our hands and compromise. Notice that no other groups are being asked to sacrifice their principles<<
I appreciate your post and absolutely agree with you. I find it particularly galling to be asked to give up before the first primary even starts. There have been lots of early front runners who never even got the nominated, much less elected - Mario Cuomo, John Dean, Gary Hart and Edmund Muskie - just to name a few.
Likewise, when a Republican is headed for the nomination because its "their turn" like Bob Dole or Gerald Ford - they can get the nomination but, without an energized base, a Republican has never won in my lifetime.
And when it's "somebody's turn" the door is open for an insurgency. It has happened on the left, it could happen for conservatives.
>>As late as January 26, 1976, Carter was the first choice of only 4% of Democratic voters, according to the Gallup Poll. Yet "by mid-March 1976 Carter was not only far ahead of the active contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, he also led President Ford by a few percentage points,"<<
Amen. We will never capitulate.
There have been lots of early front runners who never even got nominated, much less elected - Mario Cuomo, John Dean, Gary Hart and Edmund Muskie - just to name a few.
Excellent point. Thanks.
Re: Post #78
"Examples of inappropriate posts are those that are off-subject or contain...Nazi (or other hate group) material..."
Please, follow the link in the aforementioned post, and consider what kind of material that site would provide. And feel free to review the libelous comments silverleaf is posting about Nancy Reagan upthread, which his non-apology apology alludes to.
You can take it to the bank, Dr. Land will not be endorsing Rudy.
Dr. Land is a very wise man.
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.