Posted on 10/05/2007 5:16:07 AM PDT by Kaslin
Meeting recently in Salt Lake City, conservative Christian leaders almost unanimously approved a resolution to support a third-party candidate if neither major party nominates someone who is pro-life.
______________________________________________________
Things that make you go hmmmmm.
And then there's Mike Huckabee. If Dobson really meant what he said in his op-ed -- that winnability shouldn't be the deciding factor in supporting a candidate -- then Huckabee should be receiving bouquets of Ben Franklins with his morning beignets. A southern Baptist preacher, the former Arkansas governor is a human checklist of conservative values, as well as being personable, likable and funny.What Huckabee doesn't have is the golden coffer, which means that electability is, in fact, a Christian concern.
If Dobson and his colleagues want to determine who will be the Republican nominee, they must put their money where their mouths are. Their threat to bolt the party appears petulant and selfish. The way to get your candidate to win is to convince voters to vote for him. That requires organization and cash.
If Giuliani, McCain, Romney or one of the other "unacceptable" candidates gets the nomination, it will not be the result of secretive bargaining in a smoke-filled room somewhere. Whoever wins will do so by convincing the voters in the Republican primaries that he can best protect their interests and beat Hillary. Thus far, I have not seen how Dobson, et al., propose to do that.
Ms. Parker, with whom I generally agree on most things, must understand that Christian Conservatives have been lied to and taken for granted by Republicans since at least 1988 and the first Bush Presidency.
As a governor in Massachusetts, he did a few things which Christian Conservatives could not abide — he was pro-choice, pro-homosexual union, pro-universal healthcare....
That is not to say that he hasn’t had a “campaign conversion,” but I, like so many other here at FR and beyond, remain unconvinced of his sincerity. It’ll take more persuading for me to believe him — and I’m not alone I think...
“Want Hilliary’s Socialist Health system? Vote Romney.”
If you bothered to look, you would know that Romney’s plan was nothing like Hillary’s socialized health care.
But you obviously didn’t bother to look into it.
Or vote for a RINO that does all the above and destroys the Republican Party to boot.
Or vote for a RINO that does all the above and destroys the Republican Party to boot.
That’s odd. ROmney’s my first choice because he’s competent, smart, has executive experiences, speaks well, is fiscally conservative, and looks for solutions without overly involving the government or my tax dollars.
He is with me almost perfectly on guns, is with me and the pro-life movement on every aspect of the abortion issue including embryonic stem cells (a position that is becoming increasingly less available among our candidates), is with me on the “government” part of universal health care, and most importantly is a man of faith who is truthful, has good moral character, and who I can trust.
For a politician, anyway. I’ve seen no indication that any of the front-runners have fewer cases where what they said could possibly be questioned.
He doesn’t support gay marriage. He in fact led the charge to get the ballot initiative against gay marriage to the voters (which failed once he left office). He has always opposed gay marriage.
He never supported abortion legislation. His record as governor has been a pro-life record. He is even extreme in his pro-life views, being with us on embryonic stem cells, a point even many good pro-life politicians left us on.
He “comes across” is a statement of how the media portrays him — the lying liberal media who want Hillary and will do whatever it takes to ensure that republicans who could beat her don’t get nominated.
And he’s not really “from” massachusetts, although he did live there for some time. Not that where a person is born should be a deciding factor in whether we should pick them for president.
This is my problem with him too. Robo-politician just puts out a "phony" vibe.
I agree with you about the threat for a 3rd party.
Of course, we read those threats on FR every day from our fellow conservatives.
I have inlaw in Mass. They clued me into how he was there. He is a gun grabbing, pro abortion, pro government run health care liberal.
The main thing I LOOKED at was how Hillary, Kerry and Kennedy immediately came out in support of it, singing it's praises. "nothing like?" How about the mandatory health insurance...seems to ring a bell...let's see/Oh yeah. here's some excerpts from one sight:
In April 2006, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney signed into law a broad new program requiring all citizens to obtain health insurance...Massachusetts' Mandatory Health Insurance program, which becomes effective on July 1, 2007
http://usliberals.about.com/od/healthcare/i/MassHealthIns.htm
If Hillary, Kerry, and Kennedy did praise it, that means nothing. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Again, you obviously haven’t looked at his plan. I have and it’s nothing like Hillary’s. Hillary Care was a free ride on the taxpayers’ dime. Romney’s isn’t. Why should people continue to get free health care from emergency rooms when they’ve got the ability to pay for their own insurance? Romney’s right on that.
As for the “flip-flop” allegations, Reagan was a conservative who had to compromise at times because of a Democrat-controlled Congress. Romney is a conservative who has been in the same situation with a liberal legislature in Massachusetts.
Is that why he’s been “lackluster” in his campaigning?
I'm afraid that what Thompson will do is guarantee that Giuliani is the candidate.
I hate it when people outside the group try to tell people inside the group what’s best for them. Parker has no interest in giving sound advice to social conservatives.
Then you're either 13 years old, or fantastically naive.
I'd rather destroy the Republican Party than destroy the country. Hillary is wrong on everything. I may disagree with any one of the Republicans on several things, but not one of them will do the damage Hillary is capable of doing.
That is where we differ. I believe that Giuliani is capable of inflicting every bit as much damage as Hillary. I also believe that Giuliani is one of the candidates that cannot beat Hillary in a general election.
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.