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.'"
..is your church a member of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship?
And without it, you would have a President Kerry right now.
that matters not. Bush will be judged by 3 things for history. Did we win the war and reshape the ME, how did the economy do, and is he a good and righteous man.
2 are already in the bag. The third is quickly becoming evident.
I agree that there's a moral logic to it. I believe, though, that this moral logic should be overridden by political logic. I don't ALWAYS believe in political logic over moral logic. But in this case I do, essentially because there is a MORAL obligation to keep the Rats out of the White House.
If the GOP insists on nominating a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda RINO, there IS NO WAY it can get done! Those who want to bad-mouth the Christian Conservatives need to understand that. Run Rudy and risk it all. Run someone who can unite the party, and we have a chance.
I'm southern baptist and I'm voting for Rudy....
true. but also recognize that this demographic ALONE can't achieve victory. its a coalition. its a see-saw balance of getting these voters, other republicans, and independents. some candidates tip the see-saw in different ways - worse with socons, better with socons, worse with independents, better with independents, etc.
the trick is finding the mix that gets you to 270 electoral votes.
Good for you.
Liberals write the history books. He won't get much credit unless his victories were clear and unambiguous.
In any event, the fact that 100 years from now some folks think highly of him doesn't help us here and now, and in 2008.
Liberals try to write the history books. But they only get to write the ones used by colleges, not the real ones.
It took all of 5 years before the amiable dunce became Mount Rushmore material.
He probably doesn't have problems with shacking up, but it's marriage that bothers him.
I detest blackmailers. These insufferable individuals that threaten Presidential candidates with holding their vote are awful. I have no use for them and I hope Rudy doesn't, either. The polls indicate loud and clear that the GOP base is supporting him in big numbers – and that's all that matters.
Of course it takes a coalition, that is why I said it would take a "uniter". I think a pro-life candidate can unite the GOP, as Reagan and GWB did. A RINO pro-abortion cannot and will not unite the party. The Religious Right will not cave on their principles.
Oh, I suppose he is an authority in what constitutes mistakes and habits. Ask him how many times is someone allowed to break a promise, or does someone need to break their promise more than once to constitute a mistake?
I said "I think" that is what he was saying. I am not defending what he said, nor am I agreeing with him. I was just trying to make some sort of sense of it.
Wait and see.
OK.
Two is ok, three is bad. Makes perfect sense, for the clinically insane that is. :-)
You're heading into swampy territory. Heartfelt religious belief v. political pragmatism. Whenever the two meet, religious belief ends up with the nasty end of the stick.
> So why are you here?
I suppose it was so that I could be subjected to clever grade school comebacks by loving Christians for daring to suggest that many of the Founding Fathers of our Country and many of the greatest leaders of the Western world were not up to their lofty standards when it came to personal morality or theological conformity.
Personally, I'd vote for a whiskey-swilling, foul-mouthed, agnostic like Winston Churchill over some squeaky-clean choir boy any day. God helps those who help themselves.
;-)
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.