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

[Aquamarine]

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.

Amen! People need to turn away from this temptation of compromising with evil.

[Mr J]

Rudy911, lol.

[BobS]

I voted for Schwartzeneggar and you saw how long it took for him to turn. I won't get fooled again.

These debates look like game shows. When does the 5% rule kick in? Get rid of the half wasting time and make the top half go into detailed responses. Really! I just quickly tuned in and Ron Paul looked & acted wired/bushy tailed on something. Off it went. I heard what I needed from radio anyway.

[SoConPubbie]

Primary or General, the same principles apply.

Don’t vote for someone who lacks morality.

Rudy lacks morality, he supports the murder of unborn children, therefore, he does not get my vote, EVER!

Let me repeat it again, if the Republicans decide to walk away from the conservatives and nominate a pro-abortion candidate, they lose my vote, and probably millions more that they cannot afford to loose.

The onus is on the Republicans to do the right thing, otherwise they will suffer the consequences of their choices.

[SoConPubbie]

No they don’t. The people who choose to nominate someone they know is wrong on the issues are totally to blame for the scenario you present.

Those who vote their conscience are blameless.

You really don’t understand Christianity and Christians do you?

[jwparkerjr]

So if you see a child being beaten or otherwise abused by an adult and you do nothing to intervene you are blameless and your conscience is clear because the entire blame is on the adult who doing the abusing.

re: You really don’t understand Christianity and Christians do you?

I thought I did, but then I joined FR and found people like yourself who seem to be Super-Christians and, thank God, they are always willing to point out the shortcomings in my faith.

Remember the story of the Good Samaritan? By your standards the traveler would have been perfectly right with God had he simply ignored the injured man and moved on. After all, his principles forbid him from having contact with ‘those people’.

In my arrantly lame version of Christianity I am not only required to do something when I see a problem I am required to what’s right. In my book if my only choice is between one who openly supports abortion and will do anything he or she can to see there are as many abortions performed as possible and someone else who says he or she thinks abortion is wrong and will work as hard as they can to reduce the number performed under his or her watch the God I love, worship and serve expects me, in my humble opinion, to cast my lot with the latter.

[jwparkerjr]

Your principle would work if Hillary and Rudy were exactly the same kind of person and there would be no difference which one was elected. But that’s not the case. As important as abortion is, it’s not the only consideration when voting for a president. In the area of judges alone Rudy would be better for our country than Hillary would be. Same for crime, she talked her husband into pardoning convinced murderers because. Or terrorism, she wants to treat it as a criminal problem and give terrorists access to American courts and rights they don’t accord their victims. Welfare, same there. Taxes, not even a close call.

I don’t share your opinion that because we can’t solve the entire problem to my satisfaction that we have no obligation to change the part we do have the power to affect.

[sweet_diane]

This Christian can definately say I will not be voting for Rudy in the primary. I will more than likely vote for Thompson.

Should Rudy make it to the general election I'll just have to cross that bridge if we get to that point. If Romney or Hunter are the nom, I'd have no problem supporting either of them, but would prefer Thompson.

[penowa]

"Do the math..."

I did. BOTH have the NARAL stamp of approval. That means there will be an equal # under either one. If you want to buy Rudy's B.S. about encouraging adoption and the rest of the crap he tries to sell without ever saying he's had a change of heart from abortion at any time, for any reason or no reason, paid for by taxpayers, that's your choice. I'm not foolish enough to buy any of the garbage he's peddling since he has not only a very clear record of his stated beliefs, but also a hard record of what he's actually DONE when he had any power.

It amazes me and makes me very suspicious about posters claiming to be pro-life, pro-gun, pro-tax cutting, pro-marriage, etc., who permit themselves to be so totally fooled by his non-denial denials, and ridiculous non-promise promises.

[SoConPubbie]

(Sigh is right)

You still are ignoring the facts.

Rudy himself has said that his position on the issues is almost identical to Clinton’s.

The only difference between the two is mostly because Rudy figured out in the last three or four months that is Liberal stance on the issues just was not playing well in Peoria. I don’t trust a man who changes his position on issues without a real heart-felt conversion on those issues. It amounts to pandering. If he was wrong before, he needs to come out and say he is wrong and tell us why. Otherwise he is lying and judging by some of the other whoppers he has been willing to tell lately I would put all of my money on hime just lying on where he is on the issues.

[Oberon]

“Anybody but Clinton” is not a winning message. If you play to avoid losing, rather than playing to win, you’ll lose every time.