Baptist: Giuliani won't get our votes

News and Observer ^ | 3/22/07 | Yonat Shimron

[capt. norm]

I wouldn't even bother if I did not see 15 articles each day promoting him here. Jimrob is getting some serious heartburn, I'm sure. LOL

Glad you're concerned about everyone's health.

I would rather see us promote those we favor and not get obsessed with torpedoing those we don't like.(Reagan's 11th commandment).

I am sure that if we all devoted as much effort to trashing a candidate as you do, we could turn this forum into a real compost heap, but I don't think that's what we're all about.

Whatever happened to the "positive approach"?

[Terriergal]

we'll end up with Hillary or some other horrible result. Is that what we want?

Maybe if the heat gets cranked up a little too fast the frog will jump out of the pot.

[HitmanLV]

'Rock Star' is a colloquialism, not intended to be taken literally.

Did Haggard reflect the leadership of his large denomination? Is afternoon dalliances with hustlers seen as holy to his breed of Christian?

[WalterSkinner]

Is the Southern Baptist convention out of sexual therapy yet?

..the only one I am aware of which needed sex therapy was the apostate church where Bill Clinton was a member during the Impeachment...

[Terriergal]

Why is that so hard for other denominations to do that?

See my post about Jim Wallis above. Also I'm sure Tommydale can give you some ideas, or Gamecock, or Alex Murphy.

There's a huge delusion going on in the church at large. Sometimes people can't find a church to attend because they've all gone liberal/watered down.

I personally attribute it to stuff like the vain philosophy of men, "Church Growth" which is false teaching. It bascially ends up being "do what it takes to bring in a crowd", thereby diluting the saltiness of the 'salt of the earth' -- and who can make it salty again?

[dmw]

Don't you think that Fred Thompson would be a strong candidate if he got in?

Not being sarcastic here, but I'm curious to know if you care about the social issues or if those matters are of no concern to you?

[pissant]

What is positive about promoting liberalism here on FR? And what is negative about torpedoeing it? Read the mission of FR. Nowhere does it say to be kind to liberal GOPers. Reagan is great not because of the 11th commandment, but becuase he grabbed a spineless left drifting party and restored its conservative values to prominence. Rudy is the anti-Reagan. I've been tepid in my criticisms of Rudy compared to many, including the site's owner.

[Terriergal]

I don't blame folks for being alienated by the evangelicals' taste in leaders, given they delivered us a president who many, many people are dissatisfied with.

By the way, the title "Evangelical" has been hijacked. Most people who call themselves Evangelical now are liberal social-gospel adherents, and they call evangelicals-that-don't-follow-suit "Fundamentalists." I guess that makes me a Fundamentalist then.

[capt. norm]

Have you delivered this message to the Rudybots who have posted dozens of pro-Rudy articles here daily? Obsession definitely describes these folks. Do you consider this "weird" too, or is it just those who are anti-Rudy?

I have no problem with us all supporting our favorites. But there are those with only negative messages trashing people (some, debatably) on our side of the line.

I don't see that as a plus. Once the truth is laid out there is no need to re-run it.

I'm not a Rudy fan, but I get your point......again and again.

[dmw]

Geez, the Rudybots have used one MSM poll after another here to try to convince us that the evangelical vote is solidly behind Rudy. Seriously. Sorry, I'm not gonna go tract them down for you, but it's true.

[babygene]

"They'd rather have Hillary Clinton?"

Clinton is not likely to be the Dem candidate...

[Terriergal]

A couple can be happily married and then something happens that disrupts it. It happens, what else is there to say?

Uh...for those that believe marriage should be faithfulness to one person of the opposite sex, in sickness in health, for better or for worse, richer or poorer, til death us do part, there's a lot else to say. You grow up and work it out.

[dmw]

" I'm surprised that the Rubybots haven't declared victory over Jim Robinson and renamed this place "RudyWorld."

Ain't that the truth!

[Nephi]

Fred Thompson would be the only conservative in the race if he joins it......

who, as a one term senator, voted for McCain/Feingold. Thompson's record on illegal immigration isn't very impressive, either.

[capt. norm]

You have issues beyond what we discuss here.

You seem to be able to rationalize it out so you can feel good about it and that's what counts....I guess.

[WalterSkinner]

..Ted Haggard was not SBC.

AND he got what he deserved by hurting and deceiving a lot of people.

He doesn't represent every professing Christian or Christianity...

[Clemenza]

I judge folks by their actions. If you philander, consort with homosexuals, endorse law breaking, and are pro-abortion, than you are no Catholic.

Giuliani doesn't have the balls to state his true religion: situational ethics.

[Terriergal]

So, what do you suggest? Vote for a liberal republican and get "democrat light"?

See we're all out for a joyride speeding toward a cliff. The democrats have a heavier foot than the Republicans do, maybe, and they hit every pothole, and generally make their passengers sick. The Republicans (lately) might drive smoother with a lighter foot but their course is only about 5 degrees different from the beeline for the edge that the Demoncrats are making. So... I guess it makes sense to let the Republicans take the wheel... (sigh)

Me, I think I'll opt for the one who will try and stop both of them, even if he's unsuccessful at first.

[Terriergal]

but it's "do you want Hillary"

They sound like they're really getting the hang of whipping out the false dichotomy with which to skewer anyone's objections. I'm finding that's a popular weapon in many people's arsenal, not just with regards to the presidential race.

[HitmanLV]

I don't think he is ready for prime time, frankly, but I think he is a good guy. I think if he were the nominee against Hillary, he would likely lose. I would vote for him, though, but I could see him losing several states Bush won - Ohio (which the GOP stands to lose anyway), Arizona, Nevada (where I live - Dubya couldn't be elected dogcatcher here), and some other states.

I think Thompson is better suited to the VP role for either Rudy or Romney, and I could see those tickets winning in 2008.

I am personally a social conservative, but I also think social conservatives have a lot invested in issues they have already lost. Abortion isn't going to be illegal anymore - I just don't think enough states would ban first trimester abortions to make a big difference in the bottom line in a post Roe political landscape.

I think civil unions will happen, but not limited to same sex couples. Most people will go along with that, though most people would be against same-sex marriage.

Social issues are important to me, but I see a disconnect between my social conservative values and what enough americans want. In other words, I think some big-ticket items that social conservatives hang their hat on have, for practical purposes, been lost. I see no upside in fighting a continuously losing battle.