FRC’s Perkins: There Will Be Some Evangelicals Who Vote For [Rudy911], (But at Least Half Won't)

The Campaign Spot - National Review Online ^ | 10-10-07 | Jim Geraghty

[TitansAFC]

---"We’re a third, roughly of the Republican party and we’ve had a good relationship with fiscal conservatives and national security conservatives over the past 30 years. We need a candidate who is acceptable on our policies, as well as fiscal policy and defense and foreign policy. We’ve tried to be respectful to the other members of our coalition by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of their priorities; now we’d like them to be respectful by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of our priorities."---

Quote of the year for the militant Rudophiles to consider.

[TitansAFC]

The “Stop Rudy” ping list!

E-mail/ping me if you want on/off the list! SPREAD THE WORD!!!

Perkins says to expect at least half of Evangelicals to look elsewhere if Rudy911 is imposed upon Conservatives.

[stephenjohnbanker]

BUMP

[fatnotlazy]

Perkins says to expect at least half of Evangelicals to look elsewhere if Rudy911 is imposed upon Conservatives.

***

Ok, but to whom are they going to look? The Democrats? Libertarians? Some other party?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

If the party chooses to break its commitment to creating a culture of life, we’re not going to go in that direction with the party.

A man of genuine principle. Astounding.

What's more: he's absolutely right.

[jwalburg]

One word: Gravitas

[RC2]

When it comes down to voting Democrat or Republican, vote Republican. When the elections are over, start forming a third party and do it seriously. Do anything to keep the Clintons out of office. If they took over the Oval office again, they can do enough damage that it could take 100 years to fix. Not worth taking the chance this time around.

[BMIC]

Given the choice between two pro-abortion candidates I for one will write in for “none of the above”. There are limits to the extent to which one can compromise. Every Republican I have EVER voted for has required me to compromise to at least some extent. But there are limits, and this is clearly one for many of us.

[DoughtyOne]

FRC’s Perkins: There Will Be Some Evangelicals Who Vote For [Rudy911], (But at Least Half Won't)

I would like to urge folks to avoid refering to themselves as "Evangelicals", "Fundamentalists" or by any other substitute other than Christians. The left has done it's best to add in words that trigger negative mental responses by the general public. Obviously it's okay to refer to yourself as a Baptist, or Catholic, or whatever religion you're a member of, but as a group we are Christians and we should demand the media respect that.

They should be called on it every single time they try to label us something for their own purposes.

[jwparkerjr]

But what do you do when sticking to your principles does more harm to the cause to you want to further than, in your opinion, abandoning the will?

[LS]

I’m not a “rudophile” (silly name calling) but you will be surprised. If he’s the nominee, and Hillary’s the opponent, it won’t even be an issue for the evangelicals I know.

[LS]

These are the people who are so darn “godly” that they don’t trust God to tell them whom to vote for in a two-party system if one person is Hillary and the other is Rudy. I call that a total lack of faith.

[Beagle8U]

When you walk into the voting booth your choices will be to vote for someone or something. There is NO choice on a ballot to vote “Both are evil” or none of the above!

I refuse to vote for something I hate. I will just write in a name if Rooty is on the ballot!

[jwparkerjr]

Being pro-abortion isn’t always a ‘either/or’ situation. There are degrees of being pro-abortion and when you are faced with two such candidates your obligation is to vote in the way that will do the least of amount of good for the more pro-abortion candidate. Simply sitting out the election, as a write-in “none of the above” is, is not the best use of your vote in the situation. If doing so would reduce the number of abortions I would agree with you, and vote with you, but that’s simply not the case. When faced with two pro-abortion candidates it means that for the term of that person abortions are going to continue. The question then becomes which candidate will do the most to reduce the number of abortions. Clearly in this case it would be Rudy. Sometimes you don’t have the luxury of simply doing nothing.

[penowa]

Evangelicals are the tip of the iceberg. I’m not one, but I will NOT vote for Rudy if he gets the nomination, nor will anyone else in my family. That’s a given. I may be able to hold my nose and vote for some of the others if they win the nomination, but Rudy - NEVER!

[penowa]

You’re kidding, right? Or kidding yourself.

[TitansAFC]

-—”The question then becomes which candidate will do the most to reduce the number of abortions. Clearly in this case it would be Rudy.”-—

That is either a fundamentally dishonest or ignorant statement that is impossible to back up with any facts whatsoever - period.

Rudy once described himself as one of “the most effective abortion rights activist in America” before a NARAL meeting.

Wise up. Lies are unbecoming.

[roamer_1]

We’ve tried to be respectful to the other members of our coalition by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of their priorities; now we’d like them to be respectful by not backing a candidate who isn’t respectful of our priorities.

precisely.

[fatnotlazy]

Correct. You’re preaching to the choir here. :)