8mm
Posted on 10/03/2007 10:36:53 PM PDT by neverdem
REPORTS have surfaced in the press about a meeting that occurred last Saturday in Salt Lake City involving more than 50 pro-family leaders. The purpose of the gathering was to discuss our response if both the Democratic and Republican Parties nominate standard-bearers who are supportive of abortion. Although I was neither the convener nor the moderator of the meeting, I’d like to offer several brief clarifications about its outcome and implications.
After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.
The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.
Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.
The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don’t measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one’s principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Perhaps not, but that would just mean you are an idiot.
If you abandon social conservative issues you will love our votes and the election. We want smaller cleaner government but not at the expense of abandoning the lives of innocent babies. We will not stain our hands with blood by voting for someone like Giuliani in the General Election. So please, if you want to win give us a candidate that we can vote for in good conscience.
Maybe you or someone else could explain to to me just how Hillary (or any democrat) sitting in the Oval office nominating pro-choice judges/supreme court justices advances the pro-life cause?
Because I don’t see how it does.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/1906325/posts?page=8#8
Conservatives Should Stay With the GOP
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/10/05/conservatives-should-stay-with-the-gop/
Frank Donatelli
10/5/07
A group of social conservatives recently made headlines by suggesting they might abandon the GOP and run a third-party candidate for president if former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani were nominated by the Republicans. Giuliani’s pro-choice views make him anathema for many social conservatives, and these leaders have been expressing the frustration of many who believe they do not have a natural candidate in the GOP field.
This course is a profoundly bad idea for the very cause that these conservatives are trying to advance. Let’s mention five reasons why this would set back the pro-life cause for years to come.
First, splinter parties tend to marginalize the participants and their cause. The history of right-wing parties outside the GOP in the last 30 years has not been pretty. Lacking a credible candidate or a galvanizing issue to a large number of voters, this movement is destined to go nowhere.
Second, past conservative actions have focused on influencing the GOP, not leaving it. The Manhattan 12, a group of conservatives that challenged the wayward policies of the Nixon administration way back in 1971, focused on running a candidate in the GOP primaries, not leaving the party. Parties, after all, are coalitions of people who share the same general values but are certainly not monolithic on all issues. The best way to gain long-term influence is to work to move that coalition in your direction.
Third, your choices are not bad. John McCain has always been pro-life. Even Giuliani has promised to appoint strict constructionists, not judicial activists, to the bench. The challenge is to move abortion questions out of the judiciary and into the political realm so the people, not judges, can make these decisions. A Republican president is unquestionably better in this regard.
Fourth, the Republican Party contains the largest group of pro-life activists anywhere in the country. Why would you want to abandon a party where you have established such a large footprint? It’s not that the GOP is abandoning the pro-life cause. Rather, Republicans are rating security and foreign policy concerns higher than social issues in this election season.
Fifth, you can rest assured that Hillary Clinton or any other national Democrat will have a litmus test of appointing only judges who believe in judicially created and protected abortion rights. If that party won’t even tolerate a pro-life speaker at its national convention, you can bet it will fill the federal judiciary with judges who are itching to make social policy without bothering to run for public office.
With GOP congressional prospects looking bleaker by the day, GOP retention of the White House should be the No. 1 goal of all conservatives.
Nothing could make me vote in support of any democrat for president, but the issue is a bit more complex than that.
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.