Posted on 10/10/2007 11:55:47 AM PDT by TitansAFC
FRC’s Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Center Action, just completed a conference call with reporters. What stood out to me were his comments on Rudy:
“Yes, there will be some evangelicals who vote for him. In my experience, it’s about half and half. … In the eyes of many social conservatives, there’s little distinction between [Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani]. Clearly there’s some distinction, they’re not identical. But when you consider those who have come into the political process on ideological path or issues path, not a party path… These are people who are not there to advance a political party. They are there to advance causes. If they’re indistinguishable on so many issues that are vital to these voters, it’s hard to see why you should vote for one instead of the other.”
Other highlights from the call:
Q: If there is no clear frontrunner, what advice would you give evangelical voters?
Perkins: I don’t think it’s ever good to sit out the process. As citizens we have ability and right, I believe as Christian citizens we have an obligation to be involved. I’m optimistic that there is going to be one or two candidates emerge from the summit next week with a strong consensus of support among social conservatives.
I’m pretty optimistic we’re going to see the field solidify.
On Fred Thompson: I have met a number of times with Sen. Thompson. I think he has a lot to offer. I think he covers a wide spectrum of issues. I think he has a record that shows he is conservative socially. I think he is a fiscal conservative, and is strong in foreign policy and defense. The challenge is that if you look at this field, there’s a lot to like. There’s a little you want to have in each one of them. If you could mix and match, we would have a candidate tomorrow.
This summit will give these candidates a chance to speak directly to a good cross-section of our movement. We have representatives from all fifty states.
On the Utah meeting: I was at that meeting it’s been misconstrued a little bit. It was not a declaration of intent, it was a declaration of principle that there is a line we will not cross. 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.
There’s only one candidate who has this issue, and that’s Mayor Giuliani. It would be very problematic for the party to nominate a candidate who broke with 30 years of Republican Party history.
There’s no desire to create a third party, no action underway, simply the statement that if the party breaks with social conservatives, then social conservatives will break with thee party. It’s an if-then scenario.
I don’t know if I’m going to personally endorse a candidate at all.
Q: If Giuliani exceeds expectations, doesn’t that undermine threat?
One of the reasons we were insistent that he be invited to the Values Voters Summit was to give him the opportunity to say what his message is. We’ve invited the Democratic candidates to come as well. [None have accepted so far.] It’s helpful to have that dialogue.
I don’t envision majority of social conservatives actively supporting a pro-abortion rights candidate… The old ‘ABC,’ Anybody But Clinton, is not enough to rally conservatives who have been working for thirty years to create a culture of life.
[Guiliani] will be treated cordially. He will be given twenty minutes to make his pitch… My experience is, you don’t beat a liberal with a moderate. You get enthusiasm on the left, but you don’t get enthusiasm on the right. Yes, there will be some evangelicals who vote for him. In my experience, it’s about half and half.
Q: What advice would you give Romney?
I gave up consulting when my candidates kept losing, so I’m not one to give advice. But I’d say keep doing what he’s been doing… In my opinion, he’s one of the strongest on our issues. It's true he has had a change of position on these issues. I do believe they’re genuine. I do not see him going back. He’s staked ground that he has to hold to.
[Mormonism] is an unknown religion, in the sense that people are not familiar with it. Some people have said he should be like John Kennedy. I think it’s a little different of a scenario. There are a lot of commonalities between Catholic and Protestant state. Mormonism, there’s a lot of distinctions. He’s best when he’s focused on the issues and his policy positions; then down the road he can have a dialogue on faith.
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.
You have it exactly backwards.
A vote for Rudy will do more harm than voting for anyone else during the Primary.
A vote for Rudy, rather than a vote for an alternative Pro-Life candidate, and yes there will be one available if Rudy is the candidate, will also do more harm.
Rudy garauntees a Hillary victory and the destruction of the Republican Party and the conservative movement within the party.
There is no requirement that one vote, especially for someone/something they find repugant.
If given the choice to murder an ill elderly man or a five-year-old child, which would you choose?
I go with “None of the Above.”
Eight years in the wilderness to ponder pragmatism?
You mean sometime, the baby doesn't end up being butchered like a spring veal while still inside the womb, or having its skull punctured, or its flesh scalded and stripped away via saline solution; and therefore goes on to live out its natural, rightfully allotted time span, then...?
Because, if that's NOT what you meant... then: you're simply babbling, really.
[Silverback PING]
I think this is where many miss the point. The cause is not keeping Hillary from the White House, nor is the cause low taxes. The cause is Christ and His kingdom! That kingdom loves and protects children, even before they are born, it prevents one man from using the tax code to steal from his neighbor, it prescribes the jurisdictional limits of the civil magistrate, and it creates civil consequences to limit the wicked acts of fallen man. The people of Christ have been preserved, purified, tested and strengthened under hostile rulers in the past. But they have never flourished when they have compromised Christ. The kingdom is advanced when the people of Christ overcome by the blood of the lamb, the power of their testimony and do not love their own lives unto death.
I don't think they care, just shut up and vote for Rooty this time and they will dump you next time around.
You won't be needed anyway, they like a permanent minority.
“Perkins says to expect at least half of Evangelicals to look elsewhere if Rudy911 is imposed upon Conservatives.”
And that could be the deciding factor, especially in a close election.
PLUS, add to that the nonEvangelicals, who don’t want to vote for Rudy because he is pro-abortion and a liberal in all respects.
Not voting for Rudy.......I’m a Christian, not a religious evangelical. There is a difference between being religious and being a Christian.
Wm. F. Buckley said it best. All Republicans/conservatives should heed his advice: "I will vote for the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate in any race."
If that's Fred, he's my man. If he can't win a primary, then I'll go down the line. Not to choose is to choose the worst of choices.
And really, it's not pragmatism to invoke William F. Buckley's law: "I will vote for the most conservative candidate who has a reasonable chance of being elected in any given race."
BTW, what do you want to bet that Ronald Reagan voted for Gerald Ford in the 1976 general election? I bet he didn't sit out "on principle" because Ford "wasn't pro-life," or whatever.
I'll tell you, and it's damn easy: He's ask the Father's guidance, and vote for someone. He sure wouldn't sit out. That would be sin---it would be not "rendering to Caesar" by not participating, and trusting the Lord to give you guidance. So I guarantee you, if the choice were Rudy or Hillary, I have no question whatsoever He would vote for Rudy. If God can work through Cyrus and Darius---pagans---he can sure work through a nominal Catholic like Rudy.
I'm repeatedly stunned by Christians who think God can't work through the lesser of two evils, and to give them guidance as to which that lesser is. Sounds like a lack of faith to me---or worse, a case of "Holy-Rollerness" Pharisee-ism.
The God I worship and serve expects me to do my best, and if that’s not a choice then He expects me to the better thing.
The solution is: Don’t let Rudy win the nomination.
It’s real simple.
Instead, some on these threads spend all their time trying to convince others that they’ll have to commit murder. (back to my example).
Under our form of government there is no such thing as a ‘none of the above”. We have an election and the person who gets the most votes wins, period. You could exercise your none of the above option if a candidate had to have one than half the votes cast to win, but in the case of the presidential general election that’s not the way it works.
A lot of people around here will tell you that’s not so, but simple math says it is indeed a fact.
Under our form of government there is no such thing as a ‘none of the above”. We have an election and the person who gets the most votes wins, period. You could exercise your none of the above option if a candidate had to have one than half the votes cast to win, but in the case of the presidential general election that’s not the way it works.
A lot of people around here will tell you that’s not so, but simple math says it is indeed a fact.
You see? This is where the pro-Rudy folks just don’t get it.
There is no way you are the GOP can MAKE someone go vote. Those who say they “will not vote for Giuliani” are not kidding.
Nominate Rudy, we all lose! Get it?
You are correct in every point, but you don’t seem to understand I am not advocating a vote for Rudy in the primary. I am talking about the general election in Nov. of 2008. I pray that Rudy is not our nominee, but if he is then not voting at all is a vote for Hillary. As I pointed out in another post, our form of government does not have the “none of the above” option when it comes to the presidential general election.
Do the math, it’s not complicated. X number of abortions under one President, X times 1.5 or 2 under the other. Which do you think would be better for unborn children? Which administration would have more live births during it’s four years?
I know there are those who say they will not for Rudy aren’t kidding. But if it’s Rudy vs Hillary and they follow through then they bear a part of the responsibility of what happens if Hillary wins.
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.