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. .....

[garv]

Where's the quote, in his own words, saying he would vote for Hillary?

I provided a direct quote with a link to the source for his response to that exact scenario. If the reporter has a quote from Mr. Land why wasn't it included in the article?

[dirtboy]

I don't see quotes there.

And someone went and found Land's own words, and he says he wouldn't vote for president if it were Hillary versus Rudy.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Why don’t you write to the Washington Times and ask for a retraction?

[Texas Federalist]

So a liberal even pulled off some of Clinton’s vote and Bush/Dole still couldn’t excite their base enough to win the vote. See how futile it is to run a liberal Republican candidate for President?

[red irish]

Exactly. If the republican party goes with Rudi it will divide the party for sure! Anything against Hitlery is nuts. Beside we all should be working for Obama. lol

[Cincinatus' Wife]

LOL

You’re going to get cramps twisting up like that.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Pushing a liberal to fight Hillabama would be more insane than pushing a conservative to fight Hillabama.

[garv]

Why don’t you write to the Washington Times and ask for a retraction?

Perhaps I will, although I would venture that Mr. Land might have a bit more influence on that.

[Hat-Trick]

There is not enough differnece between Rino Rudy and Hitlary to notice.

Exaclty, and it bears repeating, but I'm sure it will still fall upon deaf ears.

If either one ends up being the 44th POTUS, our country will remain endangered from wide open borders while we continue to watch our consititutional rights erode, abortion-on-demand continue unabated, and we will progress ever rapidly towards the morally irrelavent big-government nanny state socialist eutopia the left in this country so desperately desires.

But I guess I should still support Guliani in the '08 primary because he is the only candidate who has a chance to beat Hillary. Right? /sarc

[garv]

Just to clarify, any distortion of what Land said is entirely the fault of the reporter and the Washington Times.

C-Wife, while you're a sadly misguided Giuliani supporter, you're not someone I believe would intentionally distort the facts and you bear no responsibility for any inaccuracy in the posted article.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I would still like you to ask for a retraction so as to find out why this reporter would write this.

I don’t like distortion and I would hope all FReepers would keep that same code.

[red irish]

This is the deal, we have such a low percentage of people who even vote in this country,so the last thing the republicans should do is divide the party.And when it comes down to it nobody knows for sure what a candidate is going to do because they all have paybacks to give back for all the money they took.

[Ciexyz]

The last gasp of the irrelevant.

Dobson stuck his nose into the Arlen Specter election, coming to PA to campaign for Pat Toomey. I'm not wanting to rehash that whole controversy again, but it's getting tiresome to see the evangelical preachers lecturing the different states how they should vote. My position is, these elections have to look at the BIG PICTURE: the candidate's position on fiscal issues and security issues over FRINGE ISSUES like abortion.

[Ciexyz]

I just sent off my tax returns and had to write out a check for each one of them. Imagine, now, how much MORE of our tax money we'll be sending the government under a HILLARY ADMINISTRATION.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Shudder to think!

[soccermom]

Because I fear the GOP establishment will look at Giuliani’s success as an indication that the party is no longer pro-life rather than what it really will be — an indication that Giuliani picked up some “undecideds” and “middle of the roaders”. I’m all for Giuliani broadening the base of the GOP — I just don’t want the GOP to take that as a message that we are no longer pro-life.

[Ciexyz]

You put a little money away in stocks and bonds, it makes a profit, and the government comes forward with their hands out for a piece of your pie. Yes, I can understand that we must pay our fair share. But the Democrats look at small investors as chickens to be plucked! Hillary and the Democrats will raise our taxes the first chance they get. Just like Ed Rendell (Governor, D-PA) did in my state of PA as soon as he succeeded the previous Republican administration.

DEMOCRATS RAISE TAXES, ALL THE TIME, EVERY TIME!

[soccermom]

I agree with your argument. Giuliani is clearly better for us than Hillary. I guess what was really the final shot in the gut for me regarding Rudy, though, was the funding for abortion. It is one thing to try to take the I'm-personally-against-abortions-but-I'm-staying-out-of-it approach. It is entirely another matter when one advocates paying for abortions. I was really disappointed in him on that. (Again, Hillary would be no better and I think, or at least I hope, Rudy is slightly better on PBA and parental notification. Clearly, he is better when it comes to the justices.)

[Retired COB]

Panic, no. Disgust, yes, at alleged conservatives who seem hell-bent on ripping the pro-life plank out of the GOP platform to push a seriously flawed liberal candidate.

I agree with Mr Land that if Rudy is elected it will be the end of the Republican Party and the Conservative movement as an influence in modern politics.

While I would not go so far as vote for Hillary, I would most certainly not under any circumstances vote for Rudy. I could easily see myself going third party if those are the only other choices I have.

[Paperdoll]

Washington Times quotes Richard Land as saying he would sooner vote for Hillary than one of the GOP candidates.

Who can blame the Christians? How can they not be soured on “compassionate conservatism”, when their voices in protest of the open borders and movement toward the New World Order go unheard by this administration? We have been twice burned by a Bush. The first was replaced by Bill Clinton. Let us hope we learn from that experience.

How can voters make a sensible decision until they have studied ALL the GOP candidates? Has the Washington Times given space to any of them? Are the readers writing letters to the editor about such staunch and sturdy conservative candidates as Duncan Hunter? The media blackout on the true conservative candidates is mighty, but the American GOP voter (Christian or not) had better rely on other sources to get their information - long before the primaries, and financially support their choice, if we expect the party to survive another defeat.