What a complete LOS. Why should any conservative support a politician who favors murder, homosexuality, and whatever else ills society?
Rino Romney may say he supports these values, but his histroy in Mass suggest otherwise. I think he is saying what he thinks will get him elected. Basically I think he is lying.
I am uncommitted and pro-life.
I look at McCain as the censor of pro-lifers (McCain-Feingold) in political campaigns and totally unacceptable for that alone.
Ron Paul’s anti-war Bush bashing does nothing for me.
The vote in Iowa and New Hampshire (I live in PA and probably won’t have to make this decision for my primary) comes down to either a principled vote for Hunter, Tancredo, Huckabee or a tactical vote to keep Rudy from winning.
The obvious tactical vote based on the polling data at this point is Mitt Romney.
In South Carolina it may be Fred Thompson right now but I’m still trying to figure him out. Is he there to divide votes or be a stalking horse for someone else?
Is that why he’s been “lackluster” in his campaigning?
I like Rudy a lot but his praise of McCain makes me wonder if the deal is to make McCain VP (and good old boy Thompson who supported McCain-Feingold is in there to split conservative votes to give Rudy the win).
I’m pure speculation at this point and analytical.
I do tend to vote principled instead of tactical so I would be hard presssed personally to vote for Mitt.
But honestly it looks like the options for you folks in Iowa and New Hampshire come down to what I described before.
“If they were smarter, they’d embrace Romney as the one who can beat Hillary because he, more than anyone else, unites all wings of the party — economic, security and social.”
“If” is right. Apparently, many Christians don’t seem to pray much for wisdom and discernment.
This is not an election for Theologian-in-Chief. We’ve had Presidents in the past who were nonChristans but were still good Presidents.
Lincoln was a great President and didn’t become a believer until much later in his presidency.
Eisenhower grew up as a Jehovah’s Witness.
We don’t know people’s hearts or what God has planned for them.
Romney’s an intelligent conservative who’s got the presence to pull in swing voters. That should be enough reason to vote for him.
These analyses are nearly pointless... unless you just want to rant. Choosing “the lesser of two evils” is what has brought us to the point that we very likely may get Hillary vs Hillary-lite. It’s nearly too late to change our direction away from socialism. The RNC is counting on all of these nay-sayers to lay down their principles when it comes time to pull the lever, regardless of the candidate... they’re playing a game of chicken.
Harranging those who will vote their conscience isn’t the way to garner support for your candidate. This is a marketing exercise... if we really want to win, we need a better product (or at least one that’s significantly different). It doesn’t matter if our candidate is currently polling 1-2%... if they get the nomination, they will get exposure. Many of the candidates we have in contention now won’t look too good with too much exposure...
Hillary can count on 41-43% of the vote—no matter what she says or does. Our side tends to actually vote conscientiously. A poll yesterday said that 27% of the GOP base will not stomach voting for Rudy. The solution to this problem isn’t calling the 27% idiots, it would be idiotic to not seek a candidate we can rally behind.
That’s my two cents on the matter. Your mileage may vary.
lemme see.... mitt Romney may be a Mormon and a god fearing man... BUT, 1) he is from massaupchucks, 2) he supports gay marriage, 3) he supported abortion legislation. He comes across as fake and phony and a lying 2 faced political hack.... whats not to love?
What fools (not leaders). The world is much too large, dangerous and complex for serious adults to become "one issue" voters.....This is what non-thinking lib-women think like.
We are in the middle of a world war. We have warriors risking all 24/7 down range. The GOP base needs to understand you fight this nations most serious threats first...(that being terrorists, foreign, and the sickening ilk of the Democrat party, domestically).
FIND A MEGA-CHURCH LOCALLY THAT ACTUALLY TEACHES GOD'S WORD AND NOT ONLY BE THERE EVERY SUNDAY AND WED. NIGHT--BUT TITHE GOD'S MONEY BACK TO HIM.
but, doncha know? Romney's a Mormon! Mormons aren't Christian! (It must be that the only reason the real name of the Mormon Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is to fool people. And just because Mormons profess to believe that Jesus is the Savior, the Christ...that doesn't make them Christian. Thus sayeth the evangelicals. Yessir. And that's an end to it because the evangelicals are speaking directly for God.)
How quickly we forget the results of November, 1992 (third party candidate Perot) and November, 2006 (not turning out to vote because we’re frustrated with Republicans - "that will teach them"). If we do this to ourselves again, we might as well vote for Hillary right now. A vote for Perot in 1992 was a vote for Bill Clinton. Staying home out of disgust in 2006 was a vote for Nancy Pelosi.
“Perfection is a tough standard and hardly anyone is just right.”
That’s correct and who should understand this any better than a Christian? Jesus Christ is the ideal that we all fall short of. It’s crazy to expect that the same outward religiosity we may have for ourselves should be publicly displayed by a politician before we'll support them, especially in the culture we live in. Requiring such could automatically result in Hillary, or Rudy for that matter.
“Christian leaders believe any presidential candidate has to commit to traditional moral values, including the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage and other pro-family principles.”
Again correct. However, differing views on how to accomplish such goals (FMA versus an incremental approach) should not disqualify a candidate from being the right candidate at this time for Christians.
Minimally, that means anti-Roe v. Wade, no same-sex marriage, no government funding for destruction of human life at any stage and no pro-sex education.
I wouldn’t use the word “minimally” for any of these. These are the core values that will shape the foundation for all of a candidate’s social views.
I enjoy reading Kathleen Parker. I will take her own process but come to a different conclusion. We want to beat Hillary with a candidate who espouses the above principles. Unfortunately, to do that we first have to beat the Trojan Horse candidate in our own party, Mr. Giuliani. There is only one candidate who meets the Christian values test and the 'can he beat Rudy test'. That is one Fred Dalton Thompson.
I’d still take Romney over Rudy.
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...
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.