Republican '08 options disappoint evangelicals (Land: would vote for Hillary over Rudy)

Washington Times ^ | April 16, 2007 | Ralph Z. Hallow

[Cincinatus' Wife]

***... Mr. Giuliani maintains a big lead over his Republican rivals in the polls yet has all the wrong policy positions on social issues such as abortion and homosexual rights considered key to cultivating Christian conservatives. However, some evangelicals and pro-life Catholics seem willing to overlook his faults -- including his two divorces -- in the belief that he is the only Republican actually running who can defeat the Democratic nominee in 2008.

Still, Mr. Giuliani and conservative Christians "probably have irreconcilable differences on life and family and that kind of thing," said Mr. Falwell, adding, "I couldn't support him for president."

Nor is Mr. Dobson in Mr. Giuliani's cheering section.

"I do not believe that the current excitement over Giuliani will continue," Mr. Dobson told U.S. News & World Report.

Richard Land, president of the Religious and Ethics Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, takes a hard line against virtually all the major Republican candidates. He says he'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, over Mr. Giuliani if the 2008 presidential race came down to such a choice. And if Mr. Giuliani wins, "he'll do so without social conservatives," Mr. Land said. .....

[soccermom]

Okay, so Land doesn’t care if we capitulate to terrorists. I hope he doesn’t speak for all evangelicals.

[dforest]

Only problem here is that Land never said it. There are no quotes around the part about voting for Hillary.

[Blackirish]

“The GOP lost in 2006 because the party abandoned core principles.”

Except the ones that appeal to the social right. They trotted out gay marriage menace, vetoed stem cells, trotted out flag burning and even banned on-line poker. They stiff armed fiscal conservatives and libertarians. Try that again and you’ll be left with a few southern states and the dims hold the US for years to come. After the incompetence of the W administration and by representing himself and being supported by the southern so-cons you guys aren't very popular with the electorate. In fact it’s a disaster almost all polling trends show the last thing the electorate wants is another good ol boy conservative ask George Allen. The dims art now ahead with people under thirty by a whopping 30%. Don’t blame Rudy blame the priorities of the social right.

[soccermom]

“Evangelicals can sit on their hands and when Rudy wins they’ll be like the black community that believes their leaders and have no say. Hope you enjoy that.” Actually, that is my fear. I think Rudy can, indeed, win without some of the conservatives that will go third party. Unfortunately, I think that will send the wrong message to the GOP establishment. If it comes down to Rudy as the nominee, I will vote for him. But I fear what that means for the pro-life cause.

[garv]

I'm getting mighty sick of it too. Since the start of the Giuliani campaign the distortions, exaggerations and outright lies have been a regular occurance. In the past few days there have been multiple claims that John Bolton is a Giuliani advisor and had "de facto" endorsed him.

I'm not an Evangelical, but to claim Land said he would vote for Hillary is such an obvious distortion it's ludicrous.

[HitmanLV]

Evangelicals last boy wonder was Dubya. Look at what a mess he is.

[dforest]

Since the start of the Giuliani campaign the distortions, exaggerations and outright lies have been a regular occurance. In the past few days there have been multiple claims that John Bolton is a Giuliani advisor and had "de facto" endorsed him.

The fact they have to lie and use deception frankly makes these Republicans as bad or worse than the RATS.

It is plain to see why we lost in 2006. LACK OF HONESTY AND CHARACTER and the capitulation to Democrats on fiscal issues.

It is disgusting.

They stink and I will not vote for a degenerate like Rudy, ever.

[John O]

“As for abortionmurder, I think it’s wrong. However, people ultimately have to make that choice. If a woman chooses that, that’s her choice, not mine. That’s her morality, not mine.”

Do we really want someone who supports murder as a non-punishable 'choice' running any part of our country? I don't think so.

If Rudy gets the nomination, hilliary (or some other democrat) will win. The only good side is that we will retake the Whitehouse and the congress in 2012 after 4 years of hell. It would be far better to run someone who can win now. A pubbie can not win without the social conservatives. Those who would vote for democrat light will more likely vote for a real democrat.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Thank you for the quote and the LINK. Better not to vote for Hillary but still, not voting would never be an option for Democrats - this is more than abortion - this is national security.

[Sister_T]

I don’t argue about what’s fair or not fair. I’m simply saying, if you tell us for months and months that you don’t need us, then don’t start griping about it when the socons start leaving the party. You’re getting what you asked for—be happy. But don’t come back in 2009 and blame us for Hillary getting elected. If you think Rudy is electable then get him elected without us, and take the blame if he doesn’t.

Thank you.

[dirtboy]

Except the ones that appeal to the social right. They trotted out gay marriage menace,

Anti-gay marriage amendments have won in every state where they were on the ballot - even Oregon.

vetoed stem cells,

Mis-handled by Rush and Talent, but it's a losing issue?

trotted out flag burning

Last I checked, that wasn't a socon issue.

and even banned on-line poker.

Last I heard, the main concerns about on-line poker related more to money laundering.

They stiff armed fiscal conservatives and libertarians.

Socons did not push a Medicare prescription benefit. Or $15 billion for AIDS money to Africa. Or No Child Left Behind.

President Bush allied with Dems for those.

So quit blaming socons for the failings of the larger GOP.

After the incompetence of the W administration and by representing himself and being supported by the southern so-cons you guys aren't very popular with the electorate.

I always figured the Rudy boosters would turn on W. I also figure as soon as Rudy starts to slip in the polls, he's turn on the Iraq War as well. He's certainly given himself an out.

[soccermom]

I'm not an Evangelical, but to claim Land said he would vote for Hillary is such an obvious distortion it's ludicrous.

OK -- are you saying this is a distortion:

"He says he'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, over Mr. Giuliani if the 2008 presidential race came down to such a choice."

[Cincinatus' Wife]

...Unfortunately, I think that will send the wrong message to the GOP establishment. If it comes down to Rudy as the nominee, I will vote for him. But I fear what that means for the pro-life cause.

What do you think is going to happen?

[CharlesWayneCT]

The bolton thing was fun. After we pointed it out, someone posted a BLOG which said it (based on the same article we had debunked) and claimed it proved they were right. I wondered it if was one of their own blogs....

[mimaw]

The only hope for pro life issues is the supremes. Some one ask the evangelicals who is more likely to appoint a supreme court justice in the mode of Alito Scalia or Roberts? I’m sorry Mr. Land and his followers will not advance his cause by sitting election out voting third party voting for Hillary. What have anti abortion presidents been able to do for the cause? Some one also ask Mr. Land if national security is important? Ask Mr. Land if living in a socialist country is a good idea. I’m sorry this whole argument doesn’t make sense when we have so much a stake.

[M. Thatcher]

I'm not an Evangelical, but to claim Land said he would vote for Hillary is such an obvious distortion it's ludicrous.

From the article: Richard Land, president of the Religious and Ethics Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, takes a hard line against virtually all the major Republican candidates. He says he'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, over Mr. Giuliani if the 2008 presidential race came down to such a choice.

[RichInOC]

Yeah, those darned liberals at the Washington Times.

Oh, wait...

[Blueflag]

Gotcha — makes sense. While he may not actually vote for HRC in the privacy of the voting booth, he makes his point — ‘whats the difference?’

Personally I can deal with policy differences, even major ones if the candidate is one who WILL STICK to principles— i.e., do what they say, and say what they do, persistently.

Thanks for the reply.

[dirtboy]

What do you think is going to happen?

Let's see what Rudy himself says:

Asked about abortion, [Giuliani] said, “Our party has to get beyond issues like that.”

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[How do you think Bill Clinton won 8 years when he never won 50% of the vote?]

“I know! Because the Republicans kept nominating candidates who turned off the conservative wing of the party.”

---

Ross Perot on Abortion

Pro-choice activist
Perot has not only taken a pro-abortion stand, his is the first presidential candidate ever to have conceived close personal and institutional ties to the abortion industry. The Perots are activists with an interest in the most radical fringe of the pro-abortion movement.

He funded an entire gynecological wing of the Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, which has provided first and second trimester abortions as well as amniocentesis research. He has also been a vocal supporter of Planned Parenthood.
Source: Strong-Man Politics, by George Grant, p. 98 Nov 7, 1992

It’s a woman’s choice, including federal funding

* My personal position on abortion is well-known, but I will restate it just to make sure there’s no confusion: I support a woman’s right to have an abortion. It is the woman’s choice.
* I support encouragement of adoption as an alternative to abortion.
* I support federal funding of reproductive counseling and education that can help prevent unwanted pregnancies so that fewer women will have to face this difficult decision.
* I support federal funding of abortions for poor women. Since these women have already made the decision, for public health reasons, we should ensure that the procedure is done safely.

I believe it is time for Congress to codify these positions into law. Each human life is a precious gift. We should not create a human life unless we’re willing to take responsibility for it. It is irresponsible for two people to create a human life they don’t want. For democracy to work, every single one of us has to take responsibility for his or her actions.
Source: United We Stand, by Ross Perot, p. 93-94 Jul 2, 1992