Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My Fellow Evangelicals Blow It By Supporting Mike Huckabee
North Star Writers Group ^ | January 8, 2008 | Dan Calabrese

Posted on 01/08/2008 5:56:29 AM PST by Invisigoth

Secular America looks at the rise of Mike Huckabee and fears the growing influence of evangelical Christians in the political process.

This evangelical Christian columnist fears it too, for exactly the opposite reason.

Huckabee’s win in the Iowa caucuses, and his sudden viability as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, owes to one thing and one thing only. Large numbers of evangelical voters are looking for someone to represent their values, and Huckabee is the only candidate who seems to do so.

(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: christianity; election; evangelical; mikehuckabee; openbordershuck; proillegal; valuevoter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last
To: indylindy
Once everyone gets done getting their respect, we can choose and get on with it.

We can only hope that the candidates that best represent all three legs of the stool will still be in the race by then.

51 posted on 01/08/2008 6:48:57 AM PST by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth
I am an evangelical and a Pastor, and I am not voting for Huck in the Florida primary.
I think many in the GOP are simply frustrated and are simply reaching for anyone they think will hear their concerns. I think this is a large part of the Huckabee surge. I don’t think it will be long lasting.
I think the thing that is one of my major concerns this time around is how the MSM is manipulating their candidates and agenda. And if we fall for their propaganda we will elect a President who will turn out to be a disaster for the Republic. We are at war and since no attacks have occurred since 911 we have been lulled into complacency.
52 posted on 01/08/2008 6:48:57 AM PST by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

>How about Islam?

Absolutely not. Islam has a lot of redeeming virtues. It’s the radicals if Islam that I would be intolerant of. But I don’t consider radical Islam to be a mainstream faith (though it seems like a lot of people like living in the 7th century).


53 posted on 01/08/2008 6:49:22 AM PST by tortdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth
Large numbers of evangelical voters are looking for someone to represent their values, and Huckabee is the only candidate who seems to do so.

They didn't bother to look too long or hard.

IMO, they stopped looking when they saw his religon.

54 posted on 01/08/2008 6:49:33 AM PST by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
If it’s been truly an evangelical GOP Party, why is abortion still legal? Why is that some states can go against the peoples will and still allow gay marriage?
55 posted on 01/08/2008 6:50:15 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Do you not recognize hyperbole? It should be very easy, just read the posts of those who are spewing gloom and doom because Huckabee has done well in one state.

*******************

Do you not recognize reality? There is no chance Huckabee will win, because conservatives won't vote for him. There are clearly some Evangelicals who are so angry at their perceived snubbing by the GOP that they will do anything to get a fellow Evangelical elected, never mind the fact that he is a socialist who advocates for illegals. Does that seem like a winning strategy to you?

56 posted on 01/08/2008 6:50:27 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cinives

“There are perhaps more churchgoing leftists than this nation realizes.”

But Huck is not their candidate, Obama would be.


57 posted on 01/08/2008 6:50:55 AM PST by HereInTheHeartland ("We have to drain the swamp" George Bush, September 2001)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
So you have concocted a faux war in your mind, with those on your side?

To what end?

Surely you see it is not working? Your list of grievances above have all occurred under the Presidents and Congressmen that have been elected under the evangelical litmus tests.

So obviously it is not a change in government that your seek.

What have you produced, what is the result of your imagined battle with the “establishment-suits-elites”?

58 posted on 01/08/2008 6:51:09 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn

So what. Piss off a bunch of Mormons and Catholics and you still have a sure-fire win in the works. Who needs the votes of members of those wacko religions...


59 posted on 01/08/2008 6:51:21 AM PST by tortdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: flowerplough
Baptist Preacher Falwell’s politics seemed to be mostly about Pope Falwell enjoying ordering his subjects to vote as he decreed.

Wow! You really drank the left's koolaid where Falwell is concerned.

60 posted on 01/08/2008 6:53:38 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
I've never claimed to be without sin. Never will. That does not mean that we shouldn't fight as hard as we can. That was the meaning of "I did not come here to bring peace, I came here with a sword."

If a religious war is what you seek, I'm certain you can find yourself one.

61 posted on 01/08/2008 6:54:10 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth

I know several Huckabee supporters. I am not really concerned with them, because I think that Huckabee will not get the nomination.

In all honesty, I want to see Fred Thompson get the nomination. If it happens that Huckabee has to drop out, Fred will get his votes.

It is my honest opinion that Fred will win the nomination. We cannot use Iowa and New Hampshire as the entire test. This test has several pages, and Fred has not yet beeen tested down south, where he should be expected to do better.

The truth is that even Romney should be blowing everyone away in New Hampshire. Even Mitt were to win New Hamphire, it will not be a blowout.


62 posted on 01/08/2008 6:54:41 AM PST by Preachin' (I stand with many voters who will never vote for a pro abortion candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
So you have concocted a faux war in your mind

Who says it is a fake war? Not the bible, not Jesus, not Paul.

Surely you see it is not working? Your list of grievances above have all occurred under the Presidents and Congressmen that have been elected under the evangelical litmus tests.

Evangelicals have been the red-headed stepchild of the party. I think that was valid in the past because they were less potent of a force, but that is changing. Unfortunately, the party elites are laggind indicators.

63 posted on 01/08/2008 6:54:48 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

Are you nuts? Roe is law. Has been for years. You can only change it with Supreme Court justices.

What is POTUS supposed to do? Whack one of the sitting lib judges?

be realistic.


64 posted on 01/08/2008 6:54:57 AM PST by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If a religious war is what you seek, I'm certain you can find yourself one.

Yup, starting with control of the Republican party, the media, and academia.

65 posted on 01/08/2008 6:56:08 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland

I disagree. Obama believes in abortion at any time, Huck does not. That’s the only difference between them.


66 posted on 01/08/2008 6:56:09 AM PST by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

You’ve had an evangelical in the White House for the last 8 years, elected with the help of many non-evangelicals, so please spare me the notion that non-evangelicals have been spurning evangelicals.

I could understand the pro-Huckabee position if there -weren’t- a candidate that was right on pro-life issues -and- conservative issues. But there is - Fred Thompson.

And not only that, but Thompson’s approach to pro-life issues (first getting Roe v. Wade overturned) is infinitely more realistic and productive than going straight for the (for now) overkill HLA which will only drive people away from the pro-life position and which this country won’t be ready to pass for some years, at -least- not until we’ve had 3/4 of the states largely ban abortion so that an amendment is feasible, and the way to start that -requires- eliminating Roe v. Wade and -then- fighting the fight among the states.

But by demanding that no one but yet another evangelical, socialist or otherwise, will be acceptable to you, you are practicing the ugliest of identity politics. That and your other posts make it very plain that you are a liberal across the board, so why do you even post here?

Qwinn


67 posted on 01/08/2008 6:57:29 AM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

You forgot the next verse.

“For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.”

You certainly seem to see a lot of Republicans as your enemies.


68 posted on 01/08/2008 6:58:08 AM PST by nhoward14 (Fred Thompson will get it DUN DUN in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
Yup, starting with control of the Republican party, the media, and academia.

So basically you want what the Church of England had before the shooting started.

69 posted on 01/08/2008 6:58:41 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Invisigoth
"Huckabee’s win in the Iowa caucuses, and his sudden viability as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, owes to one thing and one thing only. Large numbers of evangelical voters are looking for someone to represent their values, and Huckabee is the only candidate who seems to do so."

If I'm not mistaken, more evangelicals voted for someone else than voted for Huckabee. I don't believe his premise is correct.

The answer is more "cultural" than "evangelical." And "evangelical" has been so misused and overused as to render it almost meaningless. Example:

"There are some voters over here who think Jesus is okay! Hoo-boy! ...those evangelicals are really out voting today"

jw

70 posted on 01/08/2008 6:59:11 AM PST by JWinNC (www.anailinhisplace.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

The seeds are in place to overturn Roe. It just needs the right lawsuit before the court. We need to keep a true conservative majority on the Court in order to protect that.

Huck would protect it.

Romney would protect it.

Thompson would protect it.

Giuliani and McCain? Not so sure.


71 posted on 01/08/2008 6:59:12 AM PST by tortdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: tortdog

I guess it depends on what you consider to be intolerant. If tolerance means you ignore key differences between religious faiths and accept them all as equally valid paths to enlightenment, then I (along with most evangelicals) would be considered intolerant. If it is intolerant to recognize that Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and furthermore claimed that the only way to the Father was through Him, then count me (along with Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and the other apostles) amoung the intolerant. I guess that makes us religious bigots. OTOH, I am also an economic bigot, since I think free enterprise capitalism is good and big government socialism is bad. And I guess I’m a political bigot since I think right of center limited government policies are good and leftist, excessive regulatory government policies are bad. Welcome to the Intolerant Republican Party.


72 posted on 01/08/2008 7:00:15 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775
“I am an evangelical and a Pastor, and I am not voting for Huck in the Florida primary.”

I am an evangelical and a Pastor, and I am not voting for Huck in the Georgia primary.

The real truth of the matter is that most of America is asleep at the wheel in regards to politics, including the church. I am not attempting to justify that; I only feel that it's the truth.

The evangelicals are watching from a distance and seeing that Huckabee is espousing Christianity, so they jump on board.

Like most Americans, they really don’t know one candidate from another.

For what it’s worth, I think that there are many many Baptists who will vote for Huckabee, just because he is one of the. I also expect Romney to do well where the LDS are in large numbers. That’s just how it goes.

In the end, I am hoping that revelation comes to the masses about Huckabee, and his supporters move to Fred. I am sure that Fred would get the lion’s share of Huckabee’s supporters.

73 posted on 01/08/2008 7:00:54 AM PST by Preachin' (I stand with many voters who will never vote for a pro abortion candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
You’ve had an evangelical in the White House for the last 8 years

Bush is a pet of the Republican elite establishment. He is the son of Bush Sr. His family's political ties as country club Republicans and secularized noblesse oblige elites are long and distinguished. And let's also not forget that Bush is a Methodist, which is a liberal mainline denominiation, *not* evangelical.

74 posted on 01/08/2008 7:01:28 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: tortdog

We do not have a true conservative court right now. Everyone knows it. We need one more to get the edge.


75 posted on 01/08/2008 7:03:50 AM PST by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: nhoward14

I assumed the next line in the verse was obvious. It is for me, as a Christian in a family of atheists. And yes, secular Republicans elites are the enemy: “He that is not with me is against me.”


76 posted on 01/08/2008 7:03:51 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

The real reason the Soviet Union failed was atheism, not socialism
____________

I assume you are simply offering your opinion, as I notice no historical analysis follows to defend that comment. Do you have one? With the specific events that led to the failure of the Soviet Union, and how atheism is at their core.

You may be the first evangelical freeper to admit (that I’ve read, I should say) that socialism is not the worst thing that can happen to a nation. You almost sound like you want it here in the US.


77 posted on 01/08/2008 7:04:08 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

I completely agree with you. You forgot “criminal releaser”.


78 posted on 01/08/2008 7:05:15 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

I agree COMPLETELY with the writer. But it’s also important to not overlook sleazy stunts and cheap shots the Huckster has recently made:

—The anti-Mormon “Jesus and the devil are brothers” jab, followed by “Who me? I didn’t mean to offend anyone or stir up religious bigotry! I’m innocent! “ Year, right.
—Running the floating cross commerical, then pretending he didn’t know there was a cross image in the background. Again, when he’s called on it he does the fake innocence routine: “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I wasn’t trying to be manipulative, you must be imagining things.”
—The “I’m-not-going-to-run-negative-ads-against-Mitt-Romeny” press conference stunt. What an insult to voters’ intelligence.
—His “Bush has run foreign policy with a bunker mentality” cheap shot.
—His “Bush hasn’t read the intelligent assesment reports for 4 years” cheap shot.
—His “I’m more like the guy you work with than the guy who just laid you off” class warfare cheap shot. (BTW, it’s clear he’s insanely jealous of Mitt Romney’s success and wealth)

Huckabee is not conservative, is a foreign policy moron, and he’s made a habit of taking cheap shots to manipulate voters or get a laugh. If I were Southern Baptist, I’d be ashamed.


79 posted on 01/08/2008 7:06:49 AM PST by RooRoobird20 (Thankfully Convered Catholic)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
When you outrightly use Christian biases against the Mormon candidate, then you are a bigot.

Although Romney is full of $hit and a double-talker, he does not deserve that.

80 posted on 01/08/2008 7:06:51 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill
Which is my point exactly.

What we have been doing IS NOT WORKING.

Even RR and Helms could not get a RTL amendment passed.

Nor has a marriage amendment.

BUT, in the meantime government becomes more enormous, our bureaucracies are stacked with more and more liberals, who STAY decade upon decade.

And more and more Americans are turning to government for every need, want, grievance, whether real or perceived. Our public schools remain cess pools of propaganda, K-12.

IMO, more work should concentrate in the state and local level to educate grass roots. Electing state and local governments to our liking is easier and will be our political strength to force the hands of the Fed. Our obsession now with “calling DC” is not working.

Our President in 08 must be a CIC, this is reality, and he must be ruthless and cunning, in dealing with the UnAmerican Democrat Party, the MSM, and with Federal Bureaucracies of the State Dept, the CIA, and domestic depts.

No new tone, no speaking of bipartisanship or uniting or working together.

Only the tone and attitude of defeat of our enemies, here and abroad.

81 posted on 01/08/2008 7:07:37 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: indylindy

We don’t have a 6-3 conservative court. Talk to a liberal and he’ll strongly argue that he’s fighting against a majority of five.


82 posted on 01/08/2008 7:08:53 AM PST by tortdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: trisham
Do you not recognize reality? There is no chance Huckabee will win,

See my post #40

Does that seem like a winning strategy to you?

Winning to evangelicals would be the same for you - to have a voice in government. If they loose their voice in the party, it doesn't matter who wins, they loose.

83 posted on 01/08/2008 7:10:10 AM PST by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: dmz
I assume you are simply offering your opinion, as I notice no historical analysis follows to defend that comment. Do you have one? With the specific events that led to the failure of the Soviet Union, and how atheism is at their core.

You may be the first evangelical freeper to admit (that I’ve read, I should say) that socialism is not the worst thing that can happen to a nation. You almost sound like you want it here in the US.

Write me down then: Jibaholic is the first freeper you've known who thinks that atheism is worse than socialism.

1. Communism never established itself in Christian, particularly Protestant, nations. Particularly those with a strong Protestant working class, such as the methodists in England.

2. Communism was brought down by Christians, namely the Catholics in Poland and elsewhere. Interestingly, they were members of labor unions, which are hardly the vanguard of free markets.

3. If the problem with the Soviet Union were simply it's economic policies then the Soviet Union should have been able to rebound when it changed them. For the most part, the Soviet Union has been unable to rebound despite some years with good economic growth. Alcholism, broken families, and low birth rates reign.

What has not changed since the end of the Soviet Union? The people are still atheists.

84 posted on 01/08/2008 7:10:10 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

>I guess it depends on what you consider to be intolerant. If tolerance means you ignore key differences between religious faiths and accept them all as equally valid paths to enlightenment, then I (along with most evangelicals) would be considered intolerant.

Nope. It’s the inability to accept people into the mainstream political life because you disagree with their religious beliefs.

It’s the Mormon who won’t vote for a Catholic. The Baptist who won’t vote for a JW. A Jew who won’t vote for a Muslim.

>If it is intolerant to recognize that Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and furthermore claimed that the only way to the Father was through Him, then count me (along with Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and the other apostles) amoung the intolerant.

Gee. You sound Mormon, because that’s exactly what it teaches. Welcome to the fold!


85 posted on 01/08/2008 7:10:51 AM PST by tortdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: tortdog
But Christ never did get rid of the legal penalties imposed by the state. You can’t just dole out mercy at the expense of justice.

That is not correct.

Remember the "woman of the city" that the Pharisees brought to Jesus for judgment? Her sin required that she be stoned, yet Christ said "He among you that has not sinned, let him cast the first stone". He then forgave her and told her to "go and sin no more".

86 posted on 01/08/2008 7:11:06 AM PST by roamer_1 (Vote for Frudy McRomsonbee -Turn red states purple in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic

Name a candidate that the evangelicals did not get, that they wanted?

Who?

And in what year?


87 posted on 01/08/2008 7:11:49 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

>Remember the “woman of the city” that the Pharisees brought to Jesus for judgment? Her sin required that she be stoned, yet Christ said “He among you that has not sinned, let him cast the first stone”. He then forgave her and told her to “go and sin no more”.

He rejected the manner. He did not go out and urge the state to get rid of the laws (and punishment) prohibiting adultery.

Do you believe that it is not Christian to impose a punishment for the violation of the law?


88 posted on 01/08/2008 7:14:40 AM PST by tortdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
Winning to evangelicals would be the same for you - to have a voice in government. If they loose their voice in the party, it doesn't matter who wins, they loose.

****************

I'm for FRed Thompson because I believe he would be the best man for president, not because I want a "voice" in the party. If Evangelicals are willing to vote for the wrong man simply because he shares their faith, they are dooming this country's future.

89 posted on 01/08/2008 7:14:54 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

That short bald-headed guy from FRC.


90 posted on 01/08/2008 7:15:22 AM PST by tortdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

I’ve never gotten the candidate I wanted, until Huck (I would prefer Huck to have Romney’s economics, but that is negotiable). The party elite filters candidates so as not to be excessively Christian. By the time you get to Presidential contenders you only get a little tokenism.


91 posted on 01/08/2008 7:17:10 AM PST by Jibaholic ("Those people who are not ruled by God will be ruled by tyrants." --William Penn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: cinives
One has only to look at the current state of the Episcopalian church to understand that.

Make that all the older, mainstream denominations. With these groups, Huckabee's economic liberalism and family values might sell very well to the people in the pews. These people like government "do-goodism" but are appalled at the behaviors they see in society. Mike Huckabee plays right to that.

92 posted on 01/08/2008 7:17:11 AM PST by CommerceComet (Mitt Romney: boldly saying whatever the audience wants to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Name a candidate that the evangelicals did not get, that they wanted? Who? And in what year?

I'm not sure who evangelicals wanted in 1996, but it sure wasn't Bob Dole. The field was so weak that year, and nobody ever rose up to pick up the mantle of conservatism so we looked around and turned the GOP nomination into some kind of Lifetime Achievement Award for Dole. Had we selected a true conservative and contrast to clinton rather than just a "clinton Lite", we wouldn't have had to endure those last 4 years of clinton and hillary wouldn't even be on the radar today.

93 posted on 01/08/2008 7:17:41 AM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: nhoward14

‘Social conservative’ is a misnomer. Many are not conservative at all - they just oppose values held by many liberals.

Many ‘social conservatives’ don’t fear the Nanny State - they just want to be the ones hiring the Nanny.

If worshiping God is the most important part of your life, you want small government. Only by allowing others the right to live in ways we don’t approve can we assure ourselves of the right to live and worship in opposition to their beliefs.

But many evangelicals either don’t understand that, or don’t care - but a government powerful enough to run other peoples’ lives is powerful enough to run yours as well. And all it takes is one election to change the course...


94 posted on 01/08/2008 7:19:43 AM PST by Mr Rogers (Without limited government, there is no religious freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: indylindy
Majority in the House and 60 in the Senate can make and change law the same way they did with the partial birth abortion ban which was upheld as Constitutional by the USSC. There have been no votes in the congress to ban abortion outright. What congress and the Executive did in Roe vs. Wade was punt the final arbiter to the USSC which congress and the Executive can make legislation to take the issue back.
95 posted on 01/08/2008 7:20:43 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: trisham
If Evangelicals expect to elect the next president and achieve their goals, they might want to consider that they'll need a little help from the rest of us.

That is very true, but by the same token, If the Pubbies had not tried to shove Giuliani down the Christian's throat, they would not have the bit in their teeth right now.

It is PARAMOUNT that each of the factions respect the others, and only vote for a candidate that is palatable to ALL, including the Christians.

United we stand, Divided we fall.

96 posted on 01/08/2008 7:20:49 AM PST by roamer_1 (Vote for Frudy McRomsonbee -Turn red states purple in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Between the Lines
“Early last year Republicans were celebrating the death of the value voter”?

I am a news-polictical-GOP-Republican-activist-value voter junkie, and I have NEVER heard of this huge development, ever.

Please give me more info.

And please do not think that I nor anyone else want to “saw of the leg” of the Republican stool.

Quite the opposite.

I appears, with all due respect, that this victimhood routine is imaginary, and being used for votes, frankly. I see it here more and more, how the GOP is abusing VV, there is a conspiracy by the “suits-countryclub-rich-ceo-establishment”?

Where is your evidence?

Values voters have complete and total control over the litmus test for our candidates, and have for decades.

Do you deny that?

97 posted on 01/08/2008 7:21:40 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tobyhill

We all know that, if they did, the final decision would end at the Supreme Court.


98 posted on 01/08/2008 7:23:04 AM PST by dforest (Duncan Hunter is the best hope we have on both fronts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1
That is very true, but by the same token, If the Pubbies had not tried to shove Giuliani down the Christian's throat, they would not have the bit in their teeth right now..United we stand, Divided we fall.

*****************

Giuliani is a bad candidate, no doubt about it, but Huckabee is also a bad candidate.

Neither should be running as a Republican.

99 posted on 01/08/2008 7:26:55 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Jibaholic
Who is the Party Elite?

How do they filter candidates exactly?

And what candidate did the value voters not get, that they wanted? What primary? Who?

100 posted on 01/08/2008 7:27:48 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-205 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson