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. .....

[California Patriot]

Land and Dobson should be ashamed of themselves. Weyrich is being sensible.

[hinckley buzzard]

Richard Land, president of the Religious and Ethics Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention,...says he'd vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, over Mr. Giuliani

It's all well and good to be "a fool for Christ." But it's another thing altogether to just be a damned fool.

Land is obviously devoid of any power of discernment, and therefore unfit to set himself up as a self-appointed leader of Christians. He needs to go back to selling hotdogs or whatever it was he did before he decided to cash in on the credulous faithful.

[Florida native]

Richard Land does not make sense.

I am a conservative Christian; if my choices came down to voting for the lesser of two EVILS, then I don't believe the Good Lord would expect me to vote for either candidate.

I have not made up my mind, but Guiliani is not my top pick at this stage of the game.

In this day and age, can anyone truly who they say that a politician wants the best for this country? How can we believe when we see what power does to all of them? Look how long most Congressmen and Senators have been in office! They aren't truly interested in this country or in our security as a people - they are only interested in themselves.

I've stopped listening to what they say - I watch what they do.

P.S. I could never in my right mind vote for Hilary Clinton

[Mia T]

Given the clintons' plans for the Religious Right (RR), it is quite ironic that the RR may in the end be the vehicle that delivers another defective and dangerous clinton to the Oval Office.

WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


AFTERWORD: A Note to the Religious Right

Rudy will PROTECT the unborn (and ALL the children) by his selection of judges and by his prosecution of the war... as opposed to the only other real alternative in our 2-party system, hillary clinton, who will imperil them.

If you reject Rudy, you will be helping to elect hillary. That is the choice. It's really that stark.

Look. In the end you may decide to help elect hillary clinton, but at least do it honestly, with your eyes open.

But if you do decide to place your de facto vote for the clintons, don't preach morality to me. To my mind, there can be nothing more immoral than knowingly, willingly helping the clintons retake the White House.

What's black and white and read all over and is more self-destructive than pre-9/11 thinking?
Pre-clinton thinking, that's what....
Putting doctrinal purity ahead of making sure a defective and dangerous clinton never again controls this country is pre-clinton thinking.
We no longer have the luxury of time or circumstance to massage our sensibilities, to indulge our indignations.
We will not survive another clinton. (We may yet not survive the first.)

[DarthVader]

I will vote for anyone over the Hildebeast.

[TomSmedley]

The RINOs in charge of the Republican party have evidently decided to throw the next election, since they keep asserting that a pro-abort anti-freedom Rudy is our best choice.

[Mia T]

That makes two of us. ;)

[Cincinatus' Wife]

(Wash Times correction) Land: "Could never vote for a pro-choice candidate such as Hillary Clinton"***An article in Monday's editions incorrectly characterized the position of Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on the 2008 candidates for president of the United States. Mr. Land has said he would not vote in the presidential election for any candidate if Rudolph W. Giuliani were the Republican presidential nominee. Mr. Land also has said he is "pro-life" and could never vote for a pro-choice candidate such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.***

[68 grunt]

... He will never win the primary.

You may well be right in your analysis. I sure as heck won't be voting for him in the primary and I'm really, really hopin' that I won't have to hold my nose in the general.

The point I continually try to make is that there are those who purposely post those '10th posts', and they do it for the division sake and they will do that against whomever is the leading candidate.