Posted on 03/22/2007 4:24:28 PM PDT by pissant
A top leader in the Southern Baptist Convention predicted that former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani would not succeed in winning the votes of Southern Baptists if he were to become the Republican nominee for president in 2008.
In brief comments after a chapel service at the North Carolina legislature on Wednesday, Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said former U.S. House speaker Newt Gingrich would likely fail for the same reason.
"Three is one marriage too many for them," said Land, referring to the 16.4 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant group. Both Giuliani and Gingrich have been married three times.
A friend and adviser to President Bush, Land keeps close watch on politics as head of the commission, which studies moral, social, and religious liberty issues for the convention.
Though Southern Baptists are independent and do not necessarily follow his counsel, Land said three others who have already entered the presidential fray were more likely to win support among Southern Baptists. Those three are Sam Brownback, a Republican Senator from Kansas, Michael Huckabee, the former Republican governor of Arkansas, and Duncan Hunter, Republican Congressman from California.
As for Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, who is a Mormon, Land didn't rule him out. But, he said, the Republican hopeful has to convince the American people that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints won't dictate his policy. Land said he met with Romney recently and told him: "That's not a hill that can't be climbed. But you're going to have to climb it."
Finally, Land said he sensed that U.S. Senator John McCain was perceived as a wild card.
"People are uncomfortable with his predictability," said Land. "They tell me, 'We don't know how he's going to come down on the issues.'"
I've come to believe that the supposed nemesis of religious influences on a candidate's politics is an overreaction on the part of secularists to something they don't understand. I'm not a Mormon, but I am not at all spooked at the idea of a Mormon becoming President. By contrast, it seems to me the more secular candidates have plenty of manifest shortcomings to which their fellow secularists, hypnotized by their fear of religiosity, are not attuned.
Uh, the last time we dealt with the whole slave issue it turned into kind of a mess. So, let's not go there again.
Pols are like anyone else, they want to keep their jobs. The abortion issue is a one-way ticket home.
Roe was not a constitutional decision - there is no right to abortion in the constitution.
there is also no constitutional prohibition on abortion. if the voters, through their elected represenatives, want it - they can have it. even before Roe, abortion was legal in many states.
As I recall, Roe v. Wade was decided by judges who were appointed by presidents. Don't think for a moment that his power is limited!
Since the dems became the party of abortion, that has been the case. Record numbers is true, only in the sense that the nation voted in record numbers. It was not a shift of allegiance by the baptists. The shift came in the RC faith, thank God.
Translation: Southern Baptists want to live in another world than the one that, unfortunately, exists. They will accept a Shrillary or Hussein or Breck Girl presidency rather than let their skirts get a little mud on them. And they can't even stop Rudy effectively. Some will vote for Romney, if he kisses their pure little rumps. Others will support Saintly Sam Brownback. Others will go for Hunter.
Yes, these Holy Joes are very, very effective. At whining, not much else.
We must hope that Mr. Land is wrong. And he must might be.
He is not allowed to receive communion. He is not excommunicated, but I would assume it as close as he can get.
I'm not a Catholic either, but I do respect their belief that abortion is wrong.
I see that Land is "an adviser to President Bush."
Maybe that's one little part of W's problem. Dumb advisers, dumb president.
Also, Bush lobbied strenuously for the PBA ban, and proudly signed it. The President matters. He also stopped federal funding of embyonic stemm cell research, he overturned Clinton's executive order that allowed US money to go to pro abortion groups in the UN, he resigned the regulation prohibiting the military from paying for abortions, and he uses the bully pulpit to promote the sanctity of human life, all in addition to putting constructionists on the bench (unlike his GOP predecessors).
There is no man on earth that affects this issue the way the President does, except maybe the Pope.
And we registered several million new voters, and they voted for GWB. Those same people are not excited at all about a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda Rudy Giuliani.
There is a moral logic to it. They simply don't want to be responsible.
His poll numbers are climbing while the congress' is sinking. Not bad. The Press is 50% to blame for unhappiness amongst americans for Bush. If it treated him like they did Clinton, or remotely covered the war in fairness, he'd look like hercules.
I agree. Hopefully primary voters will have enough sense to judge who is a lib and who is a conservative.
..real class
the problem with some of those other issues you raise is that they aren't very ambiguous. I am pro life, but I can see how someone can think abortion isn't murder, for example.
Ancient jewish law, for example, treated the fetus differently than a fully born human being. If someone harmed and destroyed the viability of a fetus, he had to pay restitution. If someone kills a human being, it was a criminal matter.
Aspects of the abortion issue, whether we like it or not, are ambiguous. I think people can rationally come to different conclusions about it. Not so for some of the other examples you give.
Who is better on gun control? Global warming? Hate crimes laws? Gay agenda? Illegal immigration? Hillary and Rudy are in lock step on those.
Not having read all the comments, I have this to say, Richard Land doesn't speak for all Southern Baptists and shouldn't pretend he has that kind of authority.
That said, if it comes to a choice between Rudy and Hillary, I'll vote Rudy. I will NOT contribute to the winning of Hillary by voting 3rd party.
I agree, but the bottom line is there is still a broad opinion that he sucks, for whatever reason.
there isn't anything the federal government can do about gay civil unions in the states. Thompson, Hunter, pick any of them. you could elect James Dobson president and he couldn't do anything about it either.
yes, you are correct. that 80-20 margin and those new voters, voted for GWB. and with all that, he managed to win by one state with a 65K vote swing. that's the point, even with the maximum effect of that demographic, that's the best we could do. in 2008, we have other factors working against electing a republican (hispanics, independents not happy with iraq, etc, etc) - so a "repeat performance" of the same turnout and electoral model in 2008 - I just don't think it can get it done.
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.