Conservative Christians Scrambling?


The New York Times has an interesting article today portraying conservative Christians as scrambling for a presidential nominee. Apparently, Giuliani’s personal life and positions on abortion, gun rights and homosexuality has leaders in this important voting block strategizing how to propel someone like Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback to front runner status.

As this blogger has asserted many times before, if the party faithful has no where to cast a vote, they won’t cast at all. Principles like protecting innocent human life, are the impetus for showing up to vote.


Comments

  1. Thus electing Hillary Clinton… If Giuliani will give us our judges, I’ll vote for him! These other folks are the same folks who gave us Governor/Senator Napolitano because they weren’t comfortable voting for a perfect pro-lifer, but very Mormon, Matt Salmon. I wonder how they like the alternative now?

    Maybe they can run Len Munsil for President…

  2. Tim is right, although the real reason we have Napolitano was the warfare in the Republican Primary for Attorney General in 1998. Without that self immolation by Kaites/McGovern, she would have been done in this state.

    Romney and Thompson are pro-life, although I do doubt that Romney can carry the South – an absolute must for a Republican to be Pres. – due to unfair political realities. I am not a Mormon, but I believe that the Mormon, Evangelical, conservative Catholics had better find a way to work together politically or they will all continue to lose in the big elections.

    I support Thompson but not with Reaganesque zeal. Romney has been too inconsistent on more than a few issues, and, more importantly, I do not believe he can win. Thompson has the Campiagn Finance fiasco on his ledger, but has not been inconsistent on a whole slew of issues and is capable of beating Hillary in the South.

  3. DoubleDecafLatte says:

    Front runner status for Mike Huckabee, Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback. I damn near fell off my chair laughing.

    Sounds like a gag you might see on the Daily Show.

  4. A non-vote is a pro-Hillary Clinton vote.

    Hillary will appoint pro-choice judges, Rudy would appoint strict constructionist judges…

    What would you rather have?

    Rudy presided when adoptions increased in NYC. Isn’t that a good thing?

    Fred lobbied for pro-choice causes…Mitt was pro-choice long before he was pro-life…McCain is pro-life…

    Huckabee, Hunter or Brownback may be Veep material, but no way are they moving up to top tier status.

  5. This is either a bit of wishful thinking by the NYT or a deliberate attempt to suppress the evangelical vote and elect a Democrat.

    The mainstream media flooded with us stories about overspending, the “culture of corruption”, a broken congress and others to keep conservatives from supporting the Republicans in 2006. Now that the Dems are in, they have proven to be more corrupt, but for some reason, the issue has largely disappeared.

    I trust conservatives won’t fall for the left’s attempt to trick us into not voting for someone who is socially moderate (Guiliani is moderate, Clinton is liberal).

  6. Duke the Dog says:

    All you guys are right. Don’t get duped by the NYT propaganda. We as a party had also get our act together. Pro-life is nice but it isn’t everything. Look what we have now, a President that is pro-life but he spends like a drunken sailor (no offense to sober sailors), he expanded entitlements more than LBJ, won’t defend our borders and national sovereignty, and lets an Iranian terrorist roam the streets of NYC.

    I’ll tell you what, if Rudy or Romney draw the line just on spending and entitlements and actually started cutting them like Bush should have, I’d vote for them even if it turned out they were caught writing checks to Planned Parenthood.

    Pro-life needs to be a bonus, not a must. Abortion is the new 3rd rail of the GOP like guns are for the Dems. We had better realize that or we’re going to see a lot more of Gabby and Hillary.

  7. Mr. Conservative says:

    Ok, can anyone here name for me what bill Reagan signed in 1967 that had to do with abortion? My point is, we as conservatives seem to have decided that we need to make up unrealistic “benchmarks” as to who is one of us and who isn’t. Reagan himself wouldn’t make most of these complainers happy today. I can’t wait until I see how many people call me a liberal for speaking the truth…

  8. When evangelical leaders like James Dobson, Richard Land and Pat Robertson speak, the last minute evangelical voters listen and vote. I have a strong suspicion that unless the GOP has a candidate that these people can conscientiously vote for, they won’t vote and there’s nothing you or I can do to convince them otherwise. The lesser of two “evils” is still “evil.”

  9. nightcrawler says:

    If that truly comes to pass, the evangelical leaders will lose credibility for decades to come. If one wants to protect the sanctity of life, one must take actions, popular or not, to insure that the end result is accomplished.

    A non-vote tantrum of the Christian right will in fact insure the exact opposite outcome. The unintended consequences of such political maneuvering will have long lasting consequences, perhaps eternal.

    If protecting the innocent is your top priority than actions speak louder than words. A less than ideal candidate may still appoint the proper judges. In the end, that is what matters.

  10. DoubleDecafLatte says:

    Dr. Dobson, Tony Perkins, Richard Viguerie and the other politically active Christian leaders who met in Salt Lake city are no friends of the Republican Party when they talk of supporting a third party candidate.

    They are either with the party or against us. If they are supporting someone other than the Republican Party nominee they need to out and quit sticking their nose in party business.

  11. I have considerable respect for this blog and those who post here, but I cannot understand how anyone can continue to believe that the GOP has any commitment to conservative values.

    What has the GOP done since 2000 for conservative values EXCEPT LIP SERVICE?

    I thought conservatives believed in a responsible budget. I thought conservatives were against out of control pork and corruption. I thought conservatives believed in freedom of speech, habeas corpus, and upholding the constitution and, in particular, the fourth amendment.

    I can’t tell. Is this blog behind conservatives (Gingrich, Buckley, Reagan, Goldwater,….) or the GOP (Cheney, Rove, Abramoff, Delay, Vitter, Craig, Foley, Hunt, Lay, Haggard,……)?

    How do you reconcile the two? I can respect the former even though I disagree with some positions. I consider the latter distilled scum.

  12. We got Justices Roberts and Alito and a host of other good judges at the federal level. Don’t underestimate the value of those good men and women!

  13. Oro Valley Dad says:

    x4mr,

    The truth is that the GOP does not have any commitment to conservative values. In fact the GOP has no commitment to anything. It is made up of thousands of personalities and egos, just like the Democratic Party.

    That being said there are many great conservatives within the Republican Party. You named national figures in your list but this blog mostly focuses on state and local elected officials. One of our favorites is Trent Franks. There are also people like David Schweikert, Jim Weiers, and even Tim Bee. They will do just fine to keep me in the GOP. I do not have to like the top of the ticket to work for someone else running for office. I personally will not be wasting my time with some third-party presidential candidate when I have plenty of congressional, state, and local candidates to support.

  14. Okay, OVD. I’ll respect your choice, but I think the GOP has been seduced. I think conservatives are in denial about an inevitable divorce with a spouse who has cheated and broken sacred vows, sleeping with corrupt profit mongers who could not care less about conservative interests.

    Divorce is painful. People live in denial for years. The fundamental question involves the soul of the country, and don’t take my word for anything.

    In your own judgment, who is stronger, the GOP without the conservatives, or the conservatives without the GOP? My faith in humanity tells me Newt Gingrich is a bigger person than Karl Rove, that Ronald Reagan is a superior human being to Dick Cheney.

    Reagan and Gingrich stood/stand for something bigger than themselves. Rove and Cheney stand for themselves.

    In my opinion, the GOP has cancer, and the good, decent people within it have to figure out whether they can save the patient, or abandon it to create something clean and good for this country.

    This is not the United States of Exxon, at least not yet, and if Exxon could turn a handsome profit with abortion clinics across the country, you think they’d pass?

    Do you really think Exxon forgoes a thin red cent on principle?

  15. Oro Valley Dad says:

    You and I are focused on different things. I do not spend much time or effort on national figures. I am mostly concerned about Arizona officials. I also think that I have mentioned that Bush/Cheney/Rove are yesterday’s news. We might as well argue over the Nixon or Harding administrations. Trust me, I do not send large checks to the RNC, NRSC, or the NRCC. Regarding most of the people that you mentioned I have no skin in the game.

    If the charges against him are true, Ted Stevens will certainly have let down the party. But I will not be joining the party of William Jefferson and Jack Murtha. I spent some time as a registered Libertarian. It was an exercise in futility, as would joining a 3rd party movement.

    I do not care if the GOP has been seduced or not. I focus on one candidate at a time. When I find a pro-life, less taxes, smaller government Democratic candidate in Arizona that supports the 2nd amendment I will support that person. Until that happens I will continue to support candidates that have a strong conservative record, they almost always seem to be Republicans at this point.

Speak Your Mind

*