Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.
The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”
The participants spoke on condition of anonymity because the both the Council for National Policy and the smaller meeting were secret, but they said members of the intend to publicize its resolution. These participants said the group chose the qualified term “consider” because they have not yet identified an alternative third party candidate, but the group was largely united in its plans to bolt the party if Mr. Giuliani became the candidate.
A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major portion of Republican primary voters. But the threat is risky for the credibility of the Christian conservative movement as well. Some of its usual grass-roots supporters could still choose to support even a pro-choice Republican like Mr. Giuliani, either because they dislike the Democratic nominee even more or because they are worried about war, terrorism and other issues.
In recent polls by the Pew Research Center, Mr. Giuliani has received a plurality of support from white evangelical Protestant voters despite a rising chorus of complaints from Christian conservative leaders about his liberal views on social issues and his unconventional family life. Some players in the movement not present at the meeting may be open to Mr. Giuliani as the lesser of two evils.
Rev. Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcast Network, for example, has provided relatively generous coverage to Mr. Giuliani and his campaign. Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative political advocate and a Republican primary candidate eight years ago, said that, speaking by phone to the meeting, he urged the group to proceed with caution. “I can’t think of a bigger disaster for social conservatives, defense conservatives, and economic conservatives than Hillary Clinton in the White House,” Mr. Bauer said.
Still, he added, “But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party—low taxes, strong defense and pro life— and if we nominate some who is hostile on one of those three thing it will blow up the GOP.”
In response to the Christian conservatives, a spokeswoman for the Giuliani campaign provided a statement from Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican who supports Mr. Giuliani, saying, “Conservatives are rallying around the one candidate with the executive experience and proven leadership our country needs.” Calling Mr. Giuliani strong on fighting terrorism and “fiscal discipline,” Mr. Sessions said Republicans want a candidate who “can beat the Democratic nominee.”
For months, Christian conservatives have been escalating their warnings about the risk that nominating Mr. Giuliani could splinter the party. Dr. Dobson wrote a column declaring that he would waste his vote before casting it for either Mr. Giuliani or a Democrat who supports abortion rights like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Richard Land, the top public policy official of the Southern Baptist Convention, has said that nominating a Republican candidate who supports abortion rights would make white evangelical votes “a jump ball” between the Republicans and Democrats, with other issues taking the fore.
Many Democrats, including Senator Clinton, are doing their best to soften the edges of their support for abortion rights, emphasizing they favor policies that might reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
But participants in the group that endorsed the resolution said they reached their position hearing an assessment of the state of the Republican primary from Mr. Perkins, who acts as a point man in Washington for the movement. Mr. Perkins told them that Mr. Giuliani could plausibly win the primary if he carried Florida, which is also a state with many conservative Christian voters, and now was the best-chance to stop any momentum behind the campaign.
2007
2:59 pm
These people are the exact reason Rudy Giulaini must win the Republican nomination. This country was founded on separation of chuch and state. GET OUT OF GOVERNMENT AND LAW MAKING. Will you “bless” us with Hillary to prove how badly you just don’t get it?
— Posted by Peter D.
2007
3:08 pm
Will somebody with the right credentials tell these evangelicals and conservative christians that Jesus Christ was a liberal/radical in his time ?
I think Rudy is a joke but I don’t want him out because of religious fanatics.
The grip these fanatics have on our government is a frightening one and not unlike the fanaticism of those we are battling in the middle east.
— Posted by Leticia P. Carlos
2007
3:24 pm
Please, please have your silly third party campaign! Guarantee the Democrats the White House! Pleeeease?
— Posted by Lunza
2007
3:33 pm
PLEASE let them nominate a third party candidate. This will ensure the Democrat wins the general election. I hope the fundamentalists do this from now on. Perhaps that would ensure we never get another crazed religious fanatic as president.
— Posted by Dianna St. Onge
2007
3:36 pm
Perfect. We all know Giulaini is a power-hungry wack job anyway. So go ahead GOP, split your vote on this single issue, kill two birds with one stone - no Giulaini, and better yet, no Republican.
— Posted by Michael E.
2007
3:37 pm
So sad. Why does these people think they should completely dictate the party’s platform? Rudy has paid them homage, with his promise of appointing strict constructionist judges. Would they rather Hillary win? Several months ago, Rodger Hedgecock (sp?) was hosting Rush’s show, and he was just pounding Rudy about being divorced, being pro-gay rights, etc.
Recently, Dobson attacked Fred Thompson, too.
Thanks to Pat Robertson for being realistic.
— Posted by ej
2007
3:38 pm
Great news. Nothing better than fundamentalists choosing to marginalize themselves.
— Posted by Kevin
2007
3:38 pm
Does it not saying anything that the top Republican candidate is pro-choice, and is not the traditional GOP candidate? The Republicans better get their heads out of the sand and realize that changing realities necessitate different thinking and leadership. The fact that Rudy is one of the top contenders is a testament to people’s realization of this change.
— Posted by Bassam Lazar
2007
3:38 pm
I am an Obama supporter who has voted Democratic in the past. Although I am a Christian, I do not consider myself part of the “conservative Christian” movement at all. But.
If it is shaping up like a Giuliani-Clinton race, and IF (big if) the Christian conservatives put up a decent, honorable, competent candidate who is respected across party lines and who values openness and transparency, then the Christian conservative third party candidate is the one I will vote for in the general election.
— Posted by corinne
2007
3:42 pm
This coming election is not about
abortion rights. The Republican
candidate will be defeated because
President Bush sent our troops to the
Mideast under false pretenses. The
situation is worse now and we have lost
many American soldiers besides spending
billions of dollars which did not
accomplish anything.
— Posted by Morry
2007
3:42 pm
This country was not founded on seperation of church and state. That is never even cited in Our Constitution. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson on having a “State Religion”. We need a true conservative for President. We sure don’t need Hilary. She couldn’t even manage health care when Bill was in office let alone the country.
— Posted by Rick
2007
3:43 pm
Great idea ! ! Split the Republican votes.
It will be a fantastic way to guarantee the Democrats win - which is not a bad idea at all. The right wing Republicans have had 8 years and have really screwed up this country and our standing in the world.
This moderate Republican is happily voting Democratic next year. I am tired of right wing bigots and lying, torture, unnecessary war, decimating the middle class, and on and on . . .
— Posted by Chuck Swanson
2007
3:43 pm
I’d love to see the rabid conservative right, who want to have it all, lose it all by dividing their parishioners like Nader did for the democrats.
jm
— Posted by jm
2007
3:45 pm
Christian conservatives may want to cast their attention to a truly conservative candidate, who’s positions on abortion are aligned more closely with their own: Congressman Ron Paul.
— Posted by Aaron Sands
2007
3:47 pm
‘Christian Conservative’ is an oxymoron. Let the innocent blood of the past seven years expose this group for what it really is - a hoax.
Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Ring any bells?
— Posted by TW
2007
3:47 pm
They’ll give themselves just exactly what they DON’T want: split the conservative vote and hand the election to the Democrats, just as Ralph Nader did for the Republicans last time around.
Which will make ME happy, but not them!
— Posted by Laura C.
2007
3:48 pm
Maybe these so-called Christian folks need to spend more time preaching to their own kids and less time worrying about what everyone else does. We are electing a civil leader, not the head of a church. School prayer is an issue that really gets me. Would someone please tell me how a student is prohibited from praying in a public school. He or she can pray any time desired. Not true you say? Oh, you want to pray aloud. Why not outloud prayers at a post office? State Universities? Those who work interstate highways should have hourly prayer sessions for all drivers to observe. The bottom line is that it’s important for everyone else to see how prayful one is. What’s the point of praying if you can’t impress others with your religiousity.
— Posted by Nick from Iowa
2007
3:48 pm
Shouldn’t the U.S. Supreme Court now be the target of the anti-abortion folks, rather than the presidential candidates?
After all, the Court not has a majority of conservative, Republican Catholics.
Shouldn’t conservatives opposed to abortion be asking the Court, What’s the delay?
— Posted by Inquirer
2007
3:49 pm
What a huge risk to take– and what I risk I hope is taken: a “loss of the Presidency” for my more conservative brothers and sisters could show that everything we hold dear isn’t going to collapse and vanish if a president doesn’t fit their mold. Are things better for us than they were ten years ago? I don’t think so. A loosening of our stranglehold on political debate could be one of the best things that have happened in a while.
— Posted by Bailey P
2007
3:53 pm
Let the Republicans nominate Rudy so the Evangelicals can run a 3rd party candidate. We’ll get a Clinton in the office with just a plurality of the vote. Sounds like 1992 all over again!
— Posted by SteveG.
2007
3:53 pm
No, no Peter. The Republican Party has many core issues. If they’re not being represented, then it’s time for more parties! Let’s see one for No Choice. Let’s see another for anti-immigration. And another for walls on the borders. A party for no taxes. A party to support the needs of suffering corporate executives. Let’s roll!!
— Posted by Mark
2007
3:54 pm
Perhaps these radicals would prefer it if the only topic allowed to be discussed in the upcoming presidential election is abortion, and voters can decide upon their next president based soley upon his/her abortion stance. After all, it’s much easier to focus the herd and show them how simple it is to vote for the only moral candidate, and people will appreciate not having to worry about which candidate has the knowledge, experience, and motivation to tackle the multitude of other domestic and international issues that will inevitably have to be faced.
— Posted by Cathy B.
2007
3:55 pm
This morning on ABC’s This Week, one of the roundtablers opined on the possibility of a left-wing challenger should Hilary get the nomination. This possibility was voiced after George Will said that Democrats were unaware of how far left their party had been pulled by the “netroots!”
Of course, you wouldn’t be able to tell that from recent resolutions passed by the Senate.
Anyway, Donna Brazile shot that down a third-party challenge rather quickly by summoning the ghost of Ralph Nader’s 2000 bid. Funny how the conservatives at the table overlooked the possibilty of an evangelical defection from their party.
I, as a Democrat, would not want to stop the good Dr. Dobson and his peers from peeling off from the Republican party. Go right ahead. But to my fellow Democrats who are impatient with the leaders and candidates of our own party, I’d say, heed Donna Brazile’s remark.
— Posted by phil martin
2007
3:56 pm
Maybe they could call themselves Dixiecrats.
— Posted by Bob Wilson
2007
3:58 pm
Hope they break away for a third party candidate. Lovely news for the Democrats. Hooray.
— Posted by Donna
2007
3:59 pm
Right wing conservative Christians have as much right as anyone else to support or oppose any candidate or issue. Being religious does not make anyone give up their constitutional rights. This country was founded on that. The Constitution is clear that Congress cannot impose or impede religious practice or affliation. But any citizen has the right to vote, voice their opinion and use any legal means to influence the political process. Please get your facts correct before repeating the myths of separation of church and state!
That said, I agree with the last line. It’s called cutting off your nose to spite your face and these guys have been threatening that for years. Fight for your candidate in the primaries but unite against Hillary behind whoever wins.
— Posted by James G
2007
4:00 pm
Peter,
Religious people, including religious leaders, have as much right to participate in the national debate and political contests as the non-religious do.
Bravo for them. I believe if carried out, there commitment to bolt the party, will influence the party to stick to its platform and majority beliefs.
— Posted by Joseph
2007
4:02 pm
Amen to Peter D.
— Posted by James R.
2007
4:05 pm
Best news I’ve heard all day! Go, evangelicals, go!
~A Democrat
— Posted by Paul
2007
4:06 pm
Separation of church and state was to stop the state from choosing which religions were “legal”. Go back in the books and look for yourself.
— Posted by InFlorida
2007
4:09 pm
ALL men are religious. Either they think THEY determine what is right and wrong or God does. Since God is the only one who isn’t a liar at some time or another I vote like “These people” that we elect someone who is interested in LAW based on TRUTH; GOD’s LAW-which says the GOVERNMENT is subject to God. LAW is from God. All else is godlessness. To hear what God has to say read the ENTIRE Holy Scriptures. Truly seek Him and HE WILL be found! He is not a liar.
— Posted by pj
2007
4:10 pm
Here’s your hats, guys, you must be going.
— Posted by arty
2007
4:11 pm
Oh Please…no, really, I hope they do it. What better opportunity for the Democrats to win in ‘08
— Posted by Joe A.
2007
4:12 pm
It’s a good thing we don’t have to spell the candidates’ names at the ballot box, eh, Peter D.? Certainly agree with your feelings on church and state, though. On the other hand, I think Rudy Giuliani belongs in Washington about as much as James Dobson does.
Anyway, as a liberal, this is probably the first decision James Dobson has made that I actually support. Let these degenerate vampires have their Ralph Nader. 2008 will be daybreak in the coffin regardless. Burn, suckers.
— Posted by tyler
2007
4:13 pm
Fundamentally I believe that abortion is wrong. In my heart of hearts, I beleive that abortion is murder. As a result, I can NOT vote for a candidate who supports abortion, no matter how appropriate the rest of his/her platform may be. To me, the issue of abortion is a deal breaker. I am pro-life and pro-family. I do hope that ONE of the parties puts forth a candidate who supports my values.
— Posted by Erica
2007
4:14 pm
As many people figured, including me, the Republican base is fracturing, which means the Republicans are fracturing.
I know that Thompson was seen as a savior for the conservatives. Well, now he is in the race. He, so far, is not getting much traction; however, he would be my guess who the third candidate would be for the Republicans.
All Democrats would have reason to stand up and cheer if the Republicans do run a third party candidate.
Ruth Beazer
— Posted by Ruth Beazer
2007
4:14 pm
Oh,good.
Maybe then the Republicans can get back to being Republicans.
— Posted by Perley J. Thibodeau
2007
4:15 pm
It is so ironic that the part of the GOP which was considered their greatest strength, among their ranks, is now their greatest weakness.
— Posted by Ned
2007
4:17 pm
This would be a good time for fiscal conservatives and other “secular” Republicans to take their party back from the evangelicals.
— Posted by Ed Greenberg
2007
4:18 pm
I am no fan of Dobson, Perkins, and their ilk. But I also am worried about Rudy Giulani getting the Republican nomination. If you like a candidate yelling 9/11 all the time and getting phoney phone calls, Rudy’s your guy.
— Posted by Ronald Cowin
2007
4:19 pm
Nobody is arguing for integrating religion into government - but if you think that abortion is murder, must you abandon that view because it stems from your religious convictions? I don’t think so.
— Posted by Gregory
2007
4:23 pm
If the Religionists were to disown the Republicans, the Democrats could nominate Mickey Mouse and win. Won’t happen. The Republican nominee will grovel, McCain-style, at Dobson’s feet and agree that (1) protecting children only until they’re born is morally sound; (2) lower taxes for the rich is more Christian than all that nonsense about caring for the poor that Jesus used to spout; and (3) relegating families to unaffordable private health insurance is morally superior to providing their children with government-funded care like that Republicans in Congress and the White House enjoy. If only moral blindness and hypocrisy were a pre-existing conditions that rendered them uninsurable!
— Posted by Glenn Becker
2007
4:23 pm
Sounds like a great idea to me! Let the Christian 3rd party candidate take the wind out of the sails of the Republicans, just like the Green Party did to Gore in 2000! Us Dems don’t mind the tables being turned…
— Posted by Mike P.
2007
4:25 pm
Things that make me smile #1: Another hardcore Christian Conservative who reminds us of George Bush running against any Dem in ‘08.
Things that make me smile #2: A 3rd-party run by a Christian fascist like Roy Moore who will play Nader to the GOP’s Gore in 2000.
Maybe the Christian Right should just move to Canada, y’know? Is there a Christian Iran they can set up somewhere?
— Posted by Dave
2007
4:26 pm
The solution is of course, Ron Paul. His Sanctity of Life legislation and personal philosophy should appeal to Christian conservatives, and his opposition to the legislation of morality by the Federal government should appeal to small-government Republicans.
— Posted by C.A. Baker, Ph.D.
2007
4:29 pm
How do you spell election disaster? D-O-B-S-O-N!
This is the best news a Democrat can hear!
— Posted by Putney
2007
4:30 pm
Ah, eating their own, I see.
Good. Leave more freedom for you and me.
Old white men seem to believe
They are the only ‘fish in the sea’
Stupid old men, stupid, I say
And the very reason they are ‘fading away’
in that genepool elimination by choice.
Everyone else wants a voice.
— Posted by mommadona
2007
4:34 pm
Yes, Dobson! YES! Do it!
Please bless us with the Republican Ralph Nader!(the best part: they can’t bash evangelicals the way the DLC bashes Naderites; it’d be utterly priceless)
Then again, if Hillary gets the nom we might see the resurgence of the real Ralph Nader, and that would be no good at all.
— Posted by Abe
2007
4:34 pm
One can only hope these idiots do exactly what they threaten. Maybe then the Republican party will be returned to the party of conservative economics and small government. And if it takes a Democratic win to accomplish that, so be it. Some of our forefathers came here to escape government sponsored religion; we don’t need to reinvent Europe.
— Posted by Michael McF
2007
4:36 pm
Good, let the Republican Party Split. The Republicans
will then be doubly doomed. It serves them
right for inflicting George W. Bush on the United States.
— Posted by janye
2007
4:37 pm
While I disagree with Dr. Dobson, Mr. Perkins and their ilk; many of these leaders do not represent a local church per se, but rather people with particular religious beliefs and political ideologies and they deserve to have a voice in how our nation is governed. This country was founded on the principle that the state should not control or have undue influence on the church, not that people who happen to organize themselves around a combination of religious and political ideas are not allowed to have a voice.
— Posted by Norm
2007
4:37 pm
they are right. giuliani betrayed his wife and children. he is a bigot. he will betray America.
— Posted by nmf
2007
4:38 pm
You really should sit down and read the Constitution sometime. There is no direct statement of “Separation of church and state”. That was a comment in some writing of Thomas Jefferson. The Constitution states that the Govt. will not be involved in the business of the church and will not have the church as its head. In other words they did not want the govt. to dictate what the church could and could not do…not the other way around. If you look at the history of England you’ll understand the intent of the original writing. Also, the country wasn’t “founded” on this principle. It just happens to suit alot of people who don’t want the church or anyone else telling them that what they’re doing just might be wrong. If you look at the writings and beliefs of our founding fathers you’ll see that they held to the strong belief that without God and godly men in office our country would crumble and the Constitution itself would be worthless. Keep looking…maybe you’ll “get” why it is just so important for “these” people to stand up for what they believe.
— Posted by Read the Constitution
2007
4:39 pm
Nuts in revolt, God up for grabs, ideologies atwitter, an erstwhile, half-hearted crime fighter become America’s NightMayor.
Good taste and common sense couldn’t have much bigger affronts.
Now if Dobson will only wait until Giuliani’s next speech to break the news to him by cell phone.
— Posted by Jazzbeaux Beiderbecke
2007
4:40 pm
IN TRUTH YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE TRUTH IS.
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ONLY MEANS THE STATE WILL NOT SUPPORT ONE RELIGION OVER ANOTHER BY FORCING YOU TO PAY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONIES TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT THEY TURNOVER TO THAT RELIGION.
BEING IGNORANT OF THIS YOU ARE IGNORANT OF EVERYTHING ELSE RELATED TO THE ISSUE
AND TO SUGGEST THAT CHRISTIANS SHOULD NOT HAVE A VOICE IN GOVERNMENT MAKES THEM NON CITIZENS.
— Posted by KEN
2007
4:44 pm
Well as Dostoevski said, “Let one lizard devour the other”!
— Posted by Frank J
2007
4:46 pm
post#1 - What you don’t get is that someone’s religious affiliation does not exculde them from the political process!
I guess everyone has political rights in this country except Christians. Their voices on any issue must be silenced!
The left has totally distorted “the separation of church and state” to try and silence political views not of there own doing.
There is no such thing as separation of church FROM state. In fact, the left gladly (and hypocritally) welcomes any church that lines-up with their views … so really I guess it’s just conservative Christians that the constitution is talking about.
Go ahead left, try to use the constitution to supress certain political views … I’m sure JFK and MLK would be proud.
— Posted by Ken Bagwell
2007
4:46 pm
What a wonderful thing to happen, should it come about!
Here in Kansas these voters gave us a wholly addled Attorney General candidate who spent and barely eked out a win in 2002 over a sane moderate Republican. Republicans backed him in the general and he won an extremely narrow victory over a competent but underfunded Democrat. After four years of lunacy, he was dumped when virtually all the moderate non-evangelical, charismatic and fundamentalist Republicans voted to give him the sack. A moderate Democrat narrowly took the governor’s mansion in 2002 but won over two-to-won in 2002 despite a 2-1 Republican registration edge. Given a choice between extremist candidates for state Board of Education seats, voters tossed out the anti-evolution, anti-sex education, pro-voucher and pro-charter schools board majority and elected two moderate Republicans in their places.
Five other Democrats were elected to the state house to reduce the grip of the fundamentalists on the legislature in 2006. They included one former incumbent candidate who had been ousted in the 2004 primary by religious zealots and won after changing parties.
If only that voter revolt could happen nationally!
— Posted by Frank Smith
2007
4:48 pm
The statement posted by Peter D. is so fatuous it almost merits no response. But on the very chance that someone will steal away with it as though with some considerable treasure, I say: Perhaps Peter ought to take a trip over to the local law school to brush up on his Constitutional Law. Even if one accepts that there is a “wall of separation” between Church and State, could there be a more perverse consitutional exegesis than one painting evangelicals as constitutional usurpers on the charge that they take their religious values into the voting booth with them? Given statements like Peter’s, does anyone really wonder why evangelicals continue to vote as though it were for their very survival?
— Posted by Adam Chapman
2007
4:50 pm
wow, poster #1, so does separation of church and state mean that those who believe differently than you aren’t allowed to vote? Or work toward the candidate of their choice? I thought democracy was all about voting your conscience.
— Posted by Barbara S.
2007
4:50 pm
Hmmm…the parallel of Moveon.org’s situation with the Dems.
Interesting.
— Posted by alexis
2007
4:52 pm
James Dobson and others need to get out of politics! They should concentrate on ’saving’ souls and not the world.
They have done a lousy job, sofar! Rudy, Larry, Fred, to name a few, and W requires special attention!!
— Posted by Nick K Wagenfeiler
2007
4:52 pm
Way to go, upstanding theologically-challenged “Christians”! Go ahead with a third-party candidate, split the Republican vote, and help get Hillary elected.
— Posted by Keith B.
2007
4:54 pm
I must correct one comment you made. If you read the Constitution, you will not find a reference to Seperation of Church and State. Sir, it ain’t there. Nor will you find it in any of the writings of the major principles of the founding of the country. It ain’t there. In fact the only reference to religion in the Constitution is a statement telling government to keep out of the affairs of religion, not the other way around. This is one of the Great Fictions we often see in comments about people who believe in God.
— Posted by Rex Allen Brewer
2007
4:55 pm
My first reaction to this story was “they can’t be that stupid.” However, my second reaction was “Good! The super-conservatives drive the republican party too far conservative.”
Actually, i think this is a great sign of things to come. The second step I would really want is for the super-left to threaten the same thing if Hillary gets nominated. I know many leftists hate her for being not left enough. Then my dream would come true.
I have always dreamt of moderate republicans and moderate democrats leaving their respective parties and joining a new party in the middle of the spectrum. We’d dominate for decades. Or decades * 100. Make that decades * infinity!! I always thought I’d call it the “Rhino Dino party.” Its mascot could be a triceratops or some such thing. Yay!!! But in seriousness, I wish both extremes on conservative and liberal sides would be overpowered and ignored by the vast majority who are in the moderate middle.
— Posted by lordvoldemort
2007
4:58 pm
Okay, I may just be a little dim, but what is a ‘defence conservative’ exactly? Is that just another one of those titles that pollsters invent like ‘Soccer Mom’ that covers everything and the kitchen sink? Are we to assume that’s just a codeword for the 30%-ish that has stuck by Bush through thick and thin in Iraq? Wasn’t invading a rather radical policy to pursue in the first place? Like as in the opposite of conservative which seeks to ‘conserve’. Oh, it gives me a headache.
Of course if Guiliani - whom I personally detest but that’s just a personal opinion - were the Republican nominee then isn’t splitting the right-wing vote not going to guarantee a Democratic victory like, say Clinton for example?
Does anybody else see the potential for another Ross Perot or Ralph Nadler here?
— Posted by Nicola
2007
5:00 pm
Actually, the so-called separation of church and state “foundation” was stated thusly: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This (1) restricts Congress’ ability to establish an official religion, and (2) restricts the government’s ability to prohibit an individual’s freedom to exercise any such religious practices. American case law seems to be well on its way to establishing Atheism as the official state religion, unfortunately.
— Posted by Greg J.
2007
5:00 pm
Peter D., I think you misunderstand the concept of separation of church and state and how that concept was perceived by the founders.
The founders perceived the separation of church and state to be a separation of actual church’s and state and not religious principles and the state (e.g., the nation didn’t support or recognize a particular church but it did recognize religious beliefs). Now, what separation of church and state has become under the modern supreme court (30’s going forward) is a different story. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with groups of citizens getting together and trying, through the democratic process, to push forward a particular candidate, idea, or principle.
— Posted by John
2007
5:01 pm
No Peter D., you don’t get it! It’s the government that is to stay out of the church. The legal liberty of the taking the life of unborn people devoids the government of creditability and integrity and devoids the government of God given authority to govern. However typical of the shallow nature of mankind, the government will seek further to marginalize all that is sacred to harvest all imputed value to fuel its vain goal
of replacing the great, “I AM” of which they are sure they can negotiate with when He shows up and they will talk with the pretender, but not with the real One and Only, for God is sovereign. His word does not return to Him void.
— Posted by Richard Morckel
2007
5:03 pm
These well meaning power brokers of the political right are laying the groundwork for assured success by the democrats. There is little chance for a 3rd party candidate to win. Even though I am in agreement with them on most social issues, I fear they care more about political power than in proclaiming the gospel. If they are worried about being disenfranchised now, just wait until we have President H.R Clinton……
— Posted by Russell R.
2007
5:03 pm
I consider this excellent news. These developments enhance the possibility that we may yet be able to restore the integrity of the United States Constitution and guiding principles upon which this great nation was founded. Good riddance, both to Giuliani and his evangelical opponant.
— Posted by Mark Gary Blumenthal, MD, MPH
2007
5:07 pm
The thing that scares me is that U.S. Representive Ron Paul would make an acceptable GOP candidate in the eyes of such folk as Dobbins and Robertson.
Dr. Paul, an obstetrician, is pro-life. He is a firm constitutionalist, supports the 2nd amendment, wants to bring the troops home and have them guard our borders, wants to do away with bithright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, and many other. He also wants to do away with the “guilty until proven innocent” income tax–because the constitution does not establish a federal income tax.
So far so good.
However… Dr. Jimmy and Rev. Pat will probably balk at the idea of decriminalizing drug possesion and use.
The reason I began by saying I am scarred is because, should the religious right hop on board the Ron Paul bandwagon, what effect would that have on the Democrat, Libertarian, youth, non-Christian and gay supporters, such as myself, who chill at the prospect of having to share the same bed with the Jesus bangers.
But then, politics does make strange bedfellows.
— Posted by Charles W.
2007
5:08 pm
Please read the Constitution carefully. There is nothing in the original Constitution about any “separation of church and state”. The only reference found about religion that I could find was in the 1st Ammendment which state that the govt. shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion. So in effect it just states that the govt. has to stay out of the church’s business, not the other way around. Cosidering that this country was founded by men who believed strongly in the Word of God and the importance of godly people running this country, maybe it’s not such a bad thing that “these” people are trying to stand up for what this country was really founded on.
— Posted by Laura J.
2007
5:09 pm
I wish they (the Christian Right Nuts) would go for it, carry through with the threat. It will absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no holds barred, ensure the Democrats control all aspects of the government after 08. Then one right leaning Supreme Court Justice has one more epileptic fit, and wah-lah, Democratic aligned United States, and the Pub Licking get the pay back they deserve . . . nothing in their future.
Khan said “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”
— Posted by Douglas Van Terry
2007
5:09 pm
This nation was founded with the idea that there would be no national religon, not that God would be left out of government. I really hope that these people consider what a nation will look like if they split the party and give the election to Hillary, A la Ralph Nader and the green party. There has been enough morons elected to public office because of how they stand on both sides of this issue, let’s not make it worse.
— Posted by Dan L.
2007
5:11 pm
It’s time to put an end to the stranglehold these backwards thinking Evangelicals have on our government. They are turning religion into a political agenda based in “THEIR” twisted version of Christianity and giving ALL Christians a bad name. It’s time to move America forward again instead of regressing into some Taliban-like state that the Evangelicals are trying to create. If EVERYONE voted (and I don’t care for who), then we could finally put an end to this insane Evangelical power base once and for all.
— Posted by SheilaNoya
2007
5:11 pm
This will lead to two things:
1) Hillary Clinton will be guaranteed the Presidency.
2) The Republican Party will be returned to the true Republicans, having rid itself of the cancer that is the Christian Right, which has never understood what a real Republican should be.
The end result will be four painful and disastrous years of Hillary at the helm, followed by a much stronger and more practical Republican Party taking back the reins.
— Posted by Dave K. (New York, NY)
2007
5:11 pm
Evangelicals were instrumental in helping Bush get elected and re-elected. What a mess we have now? How do Christians elect/support leaders who pursue war? Hypocricy
— Posted by joe schepis
2007
5:13 pm
Yes, I agree. This constant meddling in one party has in my opinion comprimised it to the point of fracture. After these years of Republicans playing both sides of the fence with conservatives and mainstreamers, it is now time to own up and pay the dues. I’m just sorry these divided and angry past years are costing the party so heavily.
How long until these fools get the picture: continue demands and division in the party, and bring it to its knees.
— Posted by David L.
2007
5:14 pm
If Rudy loses the Christian Right, he’ll make it up with the voters Republican seldom get, Pro Choice Moderate women like me, Independents,most men , Moderate or otherwise..Demos know this, that’s why they attack Rudy so furiously…even women who just can’t stand Hillary, and we’re out there believe me….
— Posted by danielle
2007
5:15 pm
I believe that I have listened to the right wing republican litany for just about long enough. That group is as stupid as any that has ever taken part in American politics since the Republic was founded. If there is a reason not to vote for Hillary Clinton it is the FACT that if she gets elected all the presidents from 1988 to at least 2o12 will have been named Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, and Clinton. We are a republic, not an hereditary monarchy. If we start down the road where the same families run the country decade after decade we may as well crown a king. Twenty years of two families are enough
Now, moving along, I would like to see some statistics that would show that the women who call themselves evangelicals have fewer divorces than liberal religious women AND that they in fact have fewer abortions than liberal religious women. I think that the true statistics would show that they are no more interested in family values than any other group.
The problem with almost everyone in our country is that they are only interested in themselves. The nominal followers of Christ are in fact not followers of Christ; they are seekers of the almighty dollar, praise money. They care nothing for Christian charity, or good works, or living an ethical, moral life. Abortion is what actors call a beard. Its all a cover for a bankrupt religious philosophy that seeks only power. They are oh sooo concerned with the unborn, but they down care a whit for the already born.
The right wing religious fanatics have already bought the soul of the true Republican Party with their money and their votes. The payoff for the party will by 2008, have been a very effective 14 years of power. Thats pretty good though; usually you only get 7 years of wealth, power, and prosperity when you sell your soul. Now think fellow citizens, who is it that goes around buying souls?
We may need to have a third party to run a candidate for office in 2008, but only if there isn’t at least one of the present group who hasn’t been bought and paid for.
Oh yes, if what I am saying sounds like nonsense, then tell me good citizens, who really appears to have been running our foreign policy for the past 7 years.
If it looks to you like we may need an exorcist in America real soon, you’re on the right track.
— Posted by Joel L. Friedlander
2007
5:15 pm
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with letting religion influence government and law making. The “blessing and curse” of living in a democracy is that the people rule, and if the majority of people is religious that means religion will most certainly influence government and law making.
— Posted by John E
2007
5:18 pm
Democracy and religious zealotry, like that of the CNP, are fundamentally non-compatible. Democracy is based on the individual being responsible for his own choices and decisions, while the CNP lays down the policy that no adherent dare refute or discuss. Does the CNP ever take time to laugh at itself? What is really funny is the notion that you will stop abortion by illegalizing it, that is really the crux of the matter. 95% of Americans would like to see less abortion, but only 15% want it to be criminalized, rightly so. Even those 15% change their minds when it comes to women in their own personal circles who are faced with such a decision. Also, how do you square anti-abortion with pro-death penalty — the answer is you cannot and remain intellectually credible.
Another crucial aspect about illegalizing abortion the CNP cannot answer — what is the proper penalty for a woman who has had an illegal abortion performed, if this involves taking life, then do they favor the death penalty for the woman? Why or why not?
— Posted by Gaurav G
2007
5:18 pm
There is no longer any such thing as influential Evangelical Christians. Dobson, Robinson, Perkins, Bower are men who do not reflect the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They are a counterfit, and total fraud.
Mark
— Posted by Mark
2007
5:19 pm
At this point in time I can’t see any of the prospective candidates as a good choice to be the leader of our country. So I nominate myself.
Really, why can’t we find the correct person in all our citizenry to lead our country? Hummm, maybe I am the best!
— Posted by Jerry Graham
2007
5:22 pm
Well, so the Republicans are split. Too bad one can’t say any better about the Democrats. Will it be Hillary or Obama? “Saving the middle class”… does the middle class really need more taxes?
— Posted by Justin B
2007
5:23 pm
All I can say to religious conservatives who want to establish a new party is: BRING IT ON! We need something in this country to break up the current game of “liberals” vs. “conservatives”. Let there be a religious party, a green party, and a third party that has fresh ideas and will illuminate the real problems in these modern times. Introducing this third type of party might just help to bring our country back to what it was supposed to be. It might also help to demolish the irrelevant Republican party whose ideas are exactly two: 1. Reduce taxes (bridges crumble, etc.) and 2. Increase the military (after terrorizing the American populace).
— Posted by Donald Hickman
2007
5:31 pm
This is an example of why I denounced my allegiance to the Christian Fundamentalists; their effort to influence, control, and condemn personal choice and individual accountability. Objective thinking is discouraged; opposing views are summarily dismissed.
I hope they susceed in their course of action, charging headlong to their organizational demise.
— Posted by James T.
2007
5:31 pm
Hey Rick, have you ever bothered to read the first amendment? You bet your booty this country was founded on the principal of separating religion from government. The Republicans have done an excellent job of blurring the distinction but—bendito sea diós—the tide does appear to be turning.
— Posted by Steve Zimmerman
2007
5:32 pm
I’m a lifelong conservative Republican, and it’s clear that the game is over for the “Christian Crazies “. It ended with the Terri Schiavo debacle, (aided and abbetted by Rove, W., and company),
that violated every conservative and Republican principle.
Now all they can do is defeat a Republican if they’d rather have Hillary. They can’t elect their zealous idealogues anymore.
Thank God.
— Posted by Earle Mauldin
2007
5:33 pm
I am a moderate Republican and I consider Dobson et.al on a par with the Taliban. I will vote for the candidate who is firm on national security. I consider that the only issue at this time.
— Posted by elinor stickney
2007
5:34 pm
the resulting dialogue of this truly happening could be interesting….
— Posted by Donna E.
2007
5:34 pm
Perhaps this is a blessing in disguise and opens up the possibility of a “fringe” candidate unifying the Republican party around the ideals everyone came to know Reagan for. An upstanding person who believed in policies that advocated small government, fiscal conservatism, and a (late) realization that the jungle of the Middle East is filled with irrational politics.
In my opinion, the closest person to those core set of ideals is Ron Paul, who coincidentally worked on Reagan’s campaign. (Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXW1hb-JQg) Tying back to the post, Paul has an impeccable record for supporting the pro-life position, is not Mormon, and is a welcome change in the face of politics the way Reagan was back in his day.
Hopefully Ron Paul makes headlines with his campaign donations for the third quarter and the media gives him the exposure that he deserves.
— Posted by Conrad S
2007
5:34 pm
I thought one of the core values of the republican party was to curb government spending and influence. But I guess some core values are more expendable than others.
The Christian right’s corruption of the republican party is the main reason I no longer am a republican.
— Posted by matt
2007
5:39 pm
I would love to see the Republicans fragment, but not because I want to see Hillary president. I think this country needs a viable third, fourth, and fifth party. I’m sick of having nothing but a choice between hamburger or meatloaf. I want filet mignon.
While we’re at it, let’s ditch the electoral college and make public financing of campaigns a realistic option. Democrats and Republicans deserve better than the set menu we’re getting.
— Posted by Julie
2007
5:42 pm
Religious war in America. Intolerance. Hatred.
All for what?
Remember that when bigots win, the first thing they will do is TURN ON EACH OTHER.
— Posted by William
2007
5:42 pm
Wars, genocide, the possible veto of a children’s health care bill, domestic poverty, international strife…
…and all the religious right wants to talk about is abortion. They should be ashamed of themselves! Women have the right to termintate a pregnancy in this country and if they try to take that away from us, it will be a very ugly day in America.
Let them talk their facist nonsense, as they have a right to do, divide the party and put Clinton, a feminist before everything else, in the office.
— Posted by Sara
2007
5:46 pm
I think it would be great if we had a truly pro life candidate, both anti abortion and anti death penalty. Also, a candidate that recognizes the importance of the environment, as many Christian evangelicals do. I only hope this because it might cause the republican party to realize that issues like the death penalty and leaving environmental protection to “market forces” are against what many true Christians believe. If we could throw some social justice into the equation, wouldn’t we really just have anti-abortion democrats…
— Posted by Marylee
2007
5:46 pm
Like many above, I’m heartened by this and hopeful it happens. I’ve been predicting for awhile that Bush has damaged the GOP so much that it could be replaced by a third party, although I’d think a successful third party would pull votes from the Democrats too, like a Libertarian party would.
The anti-abortion crusaders really ought to take a look at Nicaragua though. Abortion in any circumstance is illegal there. The number of abortions hasn’t dropped, but the number of young girls committing suicide and the number of fatal botched abortions have both shot up. So that’s the alternative to legal abortion: abortions still practiced but many more dead people. I don’t understand why they can’t grasp that fact.
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
2007
5:49 pm
Yes, this country was founded on the seperation of church and state, that can’t be disputed, but what needs to be taken into consideration is the context in which the founders of our country lived. At the time that the United States was founded, they were breaking away from a Theocratic Monarch in which the ruler of the country presided over both the church and the state. This limited freedom for citizens to truly pursue their own religious beliefs. The founders wanted the citizens of the United States to freely pursue ones own religious system. The freedom to choose one’s own religious beliefs without government involvement is the goal of separating meant by church and state. Separation of church and state is not people with religious not having involvement in government and the election of government officials.
It seems that the men mentioned in this article use their religious beliefs to guide their politcal beliefs and agendas which is natural and expected. It is not church and state coming together. With respect, I do not agree with the stance that these men are taking, especially because these few men are being seen as the voice for the entirety of the Christian community in America. It is my belief that a man or woman can not be judged by one issue because this will lead to nobody being qualified for any office. A man or woman should be judged by the sum of all the issues.
— Posted by Mike
2007
5:49 pm
We have the right as human beings to choose to do what we know is right. America was BLESSED to have received an education in morality from the words of God. Some of us have unfortunately lost the ability to tell the difference between right from wrong anymore. Most Americans I know would defend or help someone that needed it, the best way they can. There are the few that will walk away pretending they don’t see or some other selfish excuse. In other countries without the foundations that America was BLESSED with, people do not have much if any worth.
These people are Americans standing up for the infants that cannot say that they want a chance to live. We do not have the right to kill the innocent. Didn’t someone get executed for doing just that?
What we don’t get is that America is not great because of it being affluent but because of the moral laws it was founded on.
— Posted by Angela D.
2007
5:51 pm
All those conservatives who like to discredit separation of church and state, should remember, that early supporters of Separation of Church and state in the Christian world were Baptists who didn’t believe that religion belonged in politics.
— Posted by Christopher J. Noyes
2007
5:53 pm
Ohh, goodie, my mouth waters at the possibilities: Bush railing against the ’schisimatics,’ or the ’schisimats,’ or maybe even the ’schismeticals.’
Give Dobson a medal.
— Posted by John Abdenour
2007
5:56 pm
This country was in the black with a surplus of money when Bill Clinton was in office. Many people had jobs, and government-funded services were provided that were desperately needed. Now, many are unemployed, and important services (public mental health, for example) have all but disappeared — all to the detriment of society. Look at the billions wasted on a senseless war that will never be won. That money could have been used domestically to provide much-needed jobs and healthcare. Look at the lives that have been, and continue to be, lost. I’m all for seeing a Clinton back in the White House. Go ahead, relligious right. Split the Republican Party. Help us win. We can only hope that George W. doesn’t do any more damage before 2008. And by the way, I was a Republican for years. Last year, I changed my party affiliation to DEMOCRAT.
— Posted by Winn
2007
5:56 pm
It is wonderful news for the country and its future. If the ‘dixicrats’ bolt to form their own party then the real republican party that would be left would help keep the democrat party on trac and vice versa while the born again flat earth folks could have their say as all good citizens deserve and not muck up the process of picking a leader. oops, I meant … oh what the hell, let ‘em preach to the choir till they get hoarse.
— Posted by charles peck
2007
5:58 pm
Peter D: This country was founded on the idea of freedom to practice your religion without government interference, not some separation phrase that appeared in a Jefferson letter; the U.S. Constitution does not use that phrase.
— Posted by Jeff
2007
6:00 pm
“I can’t think of a bigger disaster for social conservatives, defense conservatives, and economic conservatives than Hillary Clinton in the White House,”
—-I can’t think of a bigger victory. Should a schism develop within the Republican party, the Democrats are almost guaranteed a victory with either Obama or Clinton.
— Posted by Daniel
2007
6:02 pm
Gee, I guess putting your rant in ALL CAPS will convince us of your viewpoint!!!! When, I ask, did anyone suggest Christians not have a voice in government? All most of us want is a government that treats all religions equally, and for that to happen, the only rule that works is separation of church and state. To people like “KEN” the only way they feel like citizens is if they can tell the rest of us what to believe. How does that make the rest of us citizens? Sorry.
As a registered Republican, I have been very sad over the takeover of the party by religious extremists. I hope they form their third party. We might lose a few elections, but it will allow us to rebuild the party into something we can be proud of again.
— Posted by carlos zapato
2007
6:04 pm
Outstanding news!! Please, please get a third party republican candidate out there so we can, once and for all, dump the entire republican agenda and quash evangelical influence once and for all. God, what a travesty these holier-than-thou types and their republican cohorts have become.
— Posted by Bill
2007
6:06 pm
Angela D.-Are you aware of the many countries where women die daily from back-alley abortions and 13 year-old girls who have been violated by relatives must give birth to that baby? This is America. Women have the right to family planning and I am damn proud that they do. I am sad to see that people actually devote their time to trying to take away a right that is omnipresent in almost all developed and democratic countries. This is not murder, this is being a responsible adult in a civilized country. America is not founded on “moral laws” but rather laws that provide a foundation for individual liberties; these laws get amended to meet the changing needs of our time.
— Posted by Sara
2007
6:06 pm
Please let me know where I can send a check to support the “Christian” dissident candidate, if Mr. Dobson & Company are foolish enough to carry out their threat. I can think of no better way to guarantee a Democratic victory in next year’s election, and that, we can all agree, is the best outcome for the country. Even better would be a subsequent mass emigration effort by Mr. Dobson and his “Christian” followers; perhaps they could join forces with their fellow religious extremists–Al-Qa’ida–to set up an fanatical theocracy on some far distant shore under which they could all happily live. And the rest of us could live happily without them.
— Posted by Andy
2007
6:08 pm
bush has only served to prove the point that religion should never, never be mixed with business or politics. Over the years time and time again in my business life I have learned the hard way at first then through casual observation that any person that mixed religion in with our business dealings was only using it as a crutch to gain an advantage.
My religion is my affair and only mine and is not promoted or sold like a cheap carnival show. I know many highly successful businessmen whose religious beliefs have never entered into conversations regarding business.
I only hope bush has shown the American public at large a very important lesson about mixing religion with politics.
I hope a third party does join with the far right wing religious wack jobs. They can name it the party of Non Existance.
— Posted by Kyle Clark
2007
6:09 pm
If abortion versus pro-life was the only major issue facing America, some of this idea might make minimal sense. I doubt that I will be voting for Rudy, but the reason is not his being pro-abortion even though I believe in pro-life. He simply does not possess the leadership qualities/abilities necessary to guide us through these troubled times and issues at hand. The abortion issue will be around until the end of time, as will be trials and tribulations about bigotry and discrimination. Let the Good Lord pass judgement upon those that destroy life via abortions.
— Posted by g.v highley
2007
6:12 pm
Dear Angela,
The only thing we disagree on is the source of our “blessing”. Our morality is a synthesis of the values espoused by many religions, shaped by the Enlightenment, which revealed our ability to understand, not just believe. Those who advocate separation of church and state understand that the moment religion becomes a political instrument, it is corrupted beyond repair. Separation of church and state is not a limitation on religoin–it is a benefit, which many despotic regimes before ours failed to understand. If we do’t understand that, we become no better than the Taliban.
— Posted by carlos zapato
2007
6:12 pm
actually, the constitution not only explicitly states that there should be a separation of church and state in both directions, it is also categorical that there can be no religious “test” regarding anyone who runs for public office.
— Posted by scott Salbo
2007
6:12 pm
Ken chill!!!
Calling people ignorant does no good. These are serious issues that need serious CIVIL discussions. No one here is saying that Christians shouldn’t have a voice or a vote, or even that they shouldn’t vote based on their values. The frustration of the other posters comes from years of having other’s values shoved down their throats by the very government that is supposed to protect the right for everyone to make their own choices.
Incidentally Ken is right about the real point of the constitution was to prevent a state sponsored religion, not to create an impenetrable wall we have now (or we’d like to think we have). But we should remember the founding fathers did that as much for the sake of the religion not the state. As we can see here a religion that gets over focused on politics forgets what it should be doing, providing spiritual guidance to its members (which is in fact different from political guidance.)
— Posted by Bethany
2007
6:16 pm
I’m a life long republican and am sick and tired of the religious right trying to redefine my party. I’m for strong defense, low taxes and people solving their own problems without the government interferring. But I don’t give a damn about who prays where and to whom. These people have kidnapped my party and are ruining it for all the “normal” republicans out there.
— Posted by Bill
2007
6:17 pm
To have a GOP that no longer branded itself as “God’s Own Party” may not be a bad thing. If the evangelical wing left the Republican party, and if the party then abandoned those platform planks that are little more than bait for rabid Christians, it might give people like me - fiscal conservatives/ social liberals - a choice. We would not be forced to accept a Democratic candidate whose economic polices may not align well with our own as a trade-off to prevent - or slow down and undo - the theocritization of America.
— Posted by E A Over
2007
6:18 pm
A third party is exactly what is needed for Christian Conservatives. The GOP has played us for fools for too long. They have done nothing about the core isues we hold dear and scorn us behind our backs. They take our donations and our votes and lie to our faces. To compromise with them again would be to sell our selves down the river rather than be the principled and faithful people God wants us to be. Beware of politicians like Rev. Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer who have forgotten from where they came and now only seek their own power.
— Posted by Bob Smith
2007
6:22 pm
I AM SO FLABBERGASTED….THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA I KNEW. MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION? WHY DO YOU HATE GOD? WHY DO YOU HATE YOURSELVES. CHRISTIANS ARE “TALIBANS?”…..LOOK AROUND US… AND REMEMBER THESE WORDS….”A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND”….SOUNDS FAMILIAR? IT SHOULD BE..BECAUSE THIS GREAT NATION IS THE MOST DIVIDED NATION ON PLANET EARTH….AND….IT WILL FALL!!!!!!LET’S THINK WISELY AS AMERICANS SHOULD ALWAYS DO. STOP THE HATE…AND…RESPECT THE PRESIDENT…WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT….HE IS THE PRESIDENT. GOD DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MENTIONED IN ANYTHING. WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT…HE IS THERE…WATCHING, WAITING…BUT NOT INTEERFERRING.
— Posted by Herbert J. Hooker
2007
6:22 pm
Following Christ’s example, this religious group is marching to Cesear, lobbying the senators, drafting edicts, threatening to take their ball and go home and suggesting we legislate morality.
This is much easier than showing it in your lives, showering love on the un-loved by healing, feeding and caring for others.
These people have taken something beautiful and made it their own. It will be ashes in their hands.
Let Christ speak for himself through our actions and the world will know the truth they seek.
Why would the victor submit and be yoked to the damned? If my God is so powerful, I need not worry the pitifull leadership of a dying country.
I will start in my home, when love has matured it will be enough for the community.
Or I will scam all the attention I can get out of the media.
— Posted by Tom
2007
6:23 pm
That is the very last thing this country needs is a group of fanatics running it. Don’t we have that already? Don’t those hypocritical Christians know and realize Jesus was a rebel. Why the hell do they think they crucified him. His beliefs were too liberal. I will never vote for a Democrat. The country will die with Hilary and another Republican is still bad, but anything beats Hilary Clinton
— Posted by Mona
2007
6:24 pm
To: Rick,
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— Posted by Henry ca
2007
6:25 pm
I’m a republican, and I say, if the ultra-conservative wanna leave, let them leave. The next thing that would make me rejoice is if the ultra-left threaten to bring in a fourth party candidate because they think Hillary isn’t crazy left enough. Let the games begin!
On a serious note, it has always been my dream that the moderate republicans and the moderate democrats leave their respective parties and form a new one in the middle of the spectrum. Ultra-conservatives are too much, and ultra-liberals are totally ridiculous. We need a party in the middle to represent the majority and overpower and ignore the two extremes. I’ve always dreamt of a middle party. I call it the “Rhino Dino party.” The mascot could be a triceratops or some such thing. Yay!!
— Posted by lordvoldemort
2007
6:25 pm
Never allow these so called “religious people” to think they represent God and Christians. They represent hatemongering right wing extremist under a false banner of God.
Yes if Republicans got rid of the extreme element they could be called the Party of Lincoln again. And since my control of my private life trumps all other issues (To thine ownself be true)I will vote Democrat 95% of the time. What is the use of money if you are not free?
This co8untry was not founded so the majority could rule…it was founded to protect the interest of a minority, funny that….it was a religious minority. How soon the forget.
Oh and Jefferson may have written the seperation of Church and State letter, he also wrote the constitution.
— Posted by Richard
2007
6:27 pm
For all you who talk about separation of church and state. Think about the practice of creating laws based on a religious doctrine, and what that means for now and in the future. Yes, this is a predominantly protestant christian nation now, but what about the future. What if we became a catholic nation and birth control was outlawed, or an islamic nation. Don’t start a practice that you can’t live with in all different circumstances.
— Posted by David P.
2007
6:27 pm
Oh, and Dr. Dobson, who are you supporting for mayor of Salem next year?
— Posted by RussBBinVegas@aol.com
2007
6:28 pm
These narrow minded people are one issue voters that look no further than abortion in a candidate, but they have no problem with supporting a war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. They also have no problem voting down domestic programs that help the poor and middle class women and children.
— Posted by Cheryl
2007
6:31 pm
Goodness, I hope these jerks go through with this…
Now, I’m staunchly pro-choice and (as of very recently) staunchly anti-Rudy, so anything that prevents the evangelicals and the rest of the Republicans from voting as a bloc is great news for me. This move will practically guarantee a Democratic win.
Truth be told though, this is obviously a power play on behalf of an evangelical movement that’s realizing that it’s on a steep decline into political obsolescence. Their hope is that Rudy sees this story and makes moves to appease this very loud and very irritating (sorry, one man’s opinion) wing of the Republican party for fear that, without the evangelicals, he stands no chance in the general.
The beautiful fact is that, without the evangelicals, he stands no chance in the general. Every democrat in the country is (or should be) quietly rejoicing.
— Posted by Lewis
2007
6:33 pm
If Dobson needs a nominee for his third party of the GOP’s Neanderthal wing, who’d be better than Pat Buchanon? An anti-Semitic, xenophobic, Hispanic-baiting relic of the Nixon White House, he’s the perfect reflection of a portion of American life that does not really believe in democracy. They’d constitute a good pay-back to the Republicans for inflicting eight years of W. on the rest of us.
— Posted by Jim Ryan
2007
6:34 pm
My guess is that if a third-party religious candidate runs, Hillary will win the White House easily. Then 2012 rolls around; Giuliani runs again; and Hillary’s single-digit approval ratings cause Giuliani to get elected. Finally, we end where not one of those right-wingers wants to go; an America with no real conservative party, just the liberal Democrats and centrist Republicans.
— Posted by John
2007
6:37 pm
Isn’t it always a choice between the lesser of two evils when election time rolls around? I have had too much time to try and make a choice , it’s too bad the “road to the white house” was opened so soon! The traffic there is very congested.
— Posted by Rose
2007
6:41 pm
Oh, _please_, please do this, Dr. Dobson, please…
— Posted by michael
2007
6:41 pm
I am shocked that people on both sides of this do not see the value of a third party beyond that of a spoiler. Democracy is more than bubbling in ‘not-Rudy’ or ‘not-Hillary.’ We stand to gain quite a bit from giving a meaningful political voice to other parties.
And remember - Gore lost to Bush on the margin of Democratic votes that went to Bush, not on those that went to Nader.
— Posted by Nathaniel
2007
6:45 pm
Too bad we can’t have a vigourous Christian voice that takes the message of Jesus to care for the “least of these” - such as the already-born children living without medical and dental care - the main focus of their moral debate.
— Posted by Minta
2007
6:46 pm
And now, that ounce of flesh has been called for, that chicken has come home to roost, that quid has met it’s quo….
Hey, you can only fool some of the people some of the time.
dmbones
— Posted by Michael Sears
2007
6:48 pm
Dear Christian conservatives, please do not splinter off from the Republican party because this is exactly what the Clintons want. This is how Clinton #1 got elected. If you can remember what happened Ross Perot was a third party candidate when Clinton #1 ran for office. Perot siphoned off enough votes so that the Republican candidate George HW Bush did not win. (Some people think that this was a plan created by Perot with the Clintons) Even though Bill Clinton did not get a majority of the poplular votes he still won the election. You would be playing right into what the Clinton machine wants if you create a third party, it would only hurt the Republican candidate and the country if you do this. Religious conservatives must stick together to defeat the spiritual vaccum that is the “Clinton machine”.
— Posted by ckfauman
2007
6:49 pm
An independent party for Christian conservatives would be a positive development for the American political system. It would put an end to the Faustian bargain that Richard Nixon struck with reactionary Southerners in the 1960s and help the Republican Party find its way back to the mainstream once more. The GOP allowed itself be hijacked by the “religious right.” The sooner it rids itself of this element, the better.
— Posted by K. Everett
2007
6:51 pm
I have no problem with religious groups trying to influence politics. God knows they’ve been doing it forever. What I have a HUGE problem with is their tax-exempt status. You wanna play? Then you gotta pay. Otherwise, stop preaching politics from the pulpit!!
— Posted by Troy Murray
2007
6:51 pm
not to correct you, ken (number 20) or to infer your ignorance, but a simple review of THE ACTUAL TRUTH on wikipedia would reveal that it was roger williams, founder of rhode island, who originated this concept on the principle “of state neutrality in matters of faith” after fleeing the religious oppression of colonial massachusetts. your narrow minded misrepresentation above only further supports that it is this ignorant, LOUD and oppressive voice of the extreme religious right that continues to place our nation harm’s way. it is indeed our right to have a voice in government, but it is also our responsibility have an educated voice. what would Jesus do? vote for hillary, of course.
— Posted by david titus
2007
6:52 pm
I would just like to say to Dobson, et al .. if you cut off my reproductive choice may I cut off yours?
Reproductive choice is exactly that .. a personal choice between a women, her man, and her god .. not Mr. Dobson or other secretive consul members.
— Posted by b. a. plummer
2007
6:53 pm
Well, good luck finding someone who’s theologically pure enough to satisfy their orthodoxy! They’ve got 13 candidates and not one is good enough? Everyone would be better off if religious conservatives split and formed their own political party. Real Republicans might be able to rebuild the party as it once was before it was highjacked to the extreme right, Democrats can make the dumb mistake of nominating Hillary and maybe still winning the election anyway, and religious conservatives can have an ideologically pure party and fundamentalist candidates to vote for that reflect their narrower views for America
— Posted by windrider
2007
6:57 pm
How can someonw be prolife and support a war. If “collateral” deaths are accepted, then life is not sacred and taking a life becomes a subjective and relative decision. Someone draws the line here, someone draws it somewhere else. The sanctity of life is no longer sacred.
— Posted by WFR
2007
7:00 pm
WHY DID WE LET GEORGE BUSH DO WHAT HE DID?? WE NEED a party for those of us who do not believe in abortion,do not believe in same sex marriage, does not believe in a free ride for the rich,will enforce our laws,and can answer a question with one word!! i see no one one the horizon.wont someone please do something??? why did we let this happen???
— Posted by richard dixon
2007
7:01 pm
What many of you dont realize is that this nation was not founded on the seperation of church and state. That was a phrase that Thomas Jefferson used in a statement that he made about limiting the power of the Federal governmnet. In fact, up until the 1920’s, each individual state had its own official religion. Until that time, the US constition only prevented the Federal governmnet from establishing a religion, not the states. The Supreme Court re-interpreted the law at that time. While I agree with the idea that religion in government is not neccesarily a good thing, the ignorance of the majority of American’s to the facts behind what is one of our most devisive issues infuriates me, because if you dont know the basic facts then how can you have any scholarly or moral authority to pass judgement or comment? You dont.
— Posted by Chris G.
2007
7:03 pm
This is one of the best reason I can think of to nominate Rudy Giuliani. These people have spent years mixing politics and religion and it is time it ends. They have driven so many people from the party that is makes me ill.
Now it is time for common sense Republicans to take back the party from some of the most unethical people I have ever seen. Most of the Republicans that keep getting in trouble are the so-called religious right types where you can do anything as long as it is for the cause.
Personally I hope Dobson and the rest are very happy in a 3rd party because they have overstated how many people will follow them. A lot of social conservatives are already on board for Rudy and are tired of the doom and gloomers, my way or no way crowd that hangs around with Dobson. Gary Bauer, their standard bearer in 2000, did so well (not) that they are laughable with their temper tantrums.
They will be marginalized which suits me just fine.
— Posted by Samantha
2007
7:03 pm
Wondreful. Let evangelicals field an evangelical candidate. No thanks to them it is still a free country!
Curious to see the vote tally. That will let everyone know exactly how big the evangelical vote is.
Also, since many regular candidates will realize that the evangelical vote will go to the evangelical candidate — then the regular candidates will not have to kow-tow to them.
I’am al for it! Go evangelicals!Go!
— Posted by lawdog
2007
7:04 pm
Rick,
Sorry, but you’re not as right as you think you are.
Although the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in our Constitution, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause in that document combine to form the understanding that the American government is to be separate from religion. That much has been established repeatedly—even Justice Scalia has had to bow to that idea.
Our founding fathers were primarily Deists, not Evangelical Christians. The Puritans (zealots though they were) were fleeing religious persecution in England that was the direct result of a state religion, or the absence of the separation of church and state that they required to practice their faith.
Our country was in many, many ways founded on the separation of church and state. There are plenty of ways in which you could argue for religion playing a greater part in government today … but you will never win that argument by claiming something that the history of this country and the language of its Constitution plainly proves otherwise.
Also, the idea of the separation of church and state is much, much older than that Jefferson letter. I’ve heard it goes back to Locke, but something tells me that the problems the combination of church and state engender had much earlier led someone/some group to conceptualize and attempt to enact said separation.
T. Tavi
— Posted by T. Tavi
2007
7:05 pm
One problem,
This “moral majority” dose not exist. The majority can be read about and polled, but this group claiming supiriority only has a mouth and no body.
Their followers are the ones getting abortions, raising gay sons and living life one day at a time like everyone does.
If they were so large in number and so holy, we would not be having this discussion as we all would be convinced of Christ’s love.
— Posted by Tom
2007
7:05 pm
funny what George Carlin said is so true..’ the epole that are anti abortion are the ones that you wouln’t want to have sex with anyway.’
Abortion should be retoactive. choice and mandatory birth contol. Stop crack heads from breeding. Empty death row, kill them. Don’t feed them and don’t breed them.
— Posted by John Volt
2007
7:06 pm
This is wonderful. I hope they actually do it. I hope that Rudy can start to reclaim the republican party from the equivalent of taliban extremists. The government has far more important things to be doing than involving itself with what people are doing with their sexual organs, who they love, who they pray to, and debating about the origin of man.
— Posted by gaz
2007
7:08 pm
Wow, I’ve been hoping for this for months. A three-way throwdown between Hillary-Rudy- and some fundamentalist whacko! Just imagine what a circus the debates will be! This will be the most entertaining presidential race in history!!!
— Posted by Steven Pieragastini
2007
7:09 pm
hey ckfauman, remember, Bush got elected because of Nader..
As far as R’s and a third candidate, they have to stand for something dont they? Otherwise, its voting against something only. The issue of people having a religion as stated accurately is fine, but, not for a priv/non profit to be a political entity, which happens and gets violated all the time. Throw out the money changers!
— Posted by JP
2007
7:09 pm
Churches that make political statments should NOT be tax exempt
— Posted by john volt
2007
7:09 pm
To “KEN” at #20:
A couple of points KEN:
For starters, you might want to try pressing the cap lock key on your keyboard–all CAPS are–in the online world–the equivalent of shouting.
And really, my friend, as sincere as you maybe in your beliefs–or upset about what you believe is an assault on your faith, shouting isn’t the way to win the day
I suspect–from reading your words–that you are probably a Christian and one of those among that faith who believe that your religion is under constant and unremitting assault from the secularists you see lurking behind every corner.
Frankly, KEN, I must tell you that among the secularists I know–and I know many–there really isn’t one who wants to take your faith away from you. They just want to be sure you–or the government acting in your behalf–doesn’t impose that faith on the rest of us.
Your statement that separation of church and state simply refers to the government not taking tax money and giving it to a specific church is not 100% accurate:
To quote from Wikipedia’s discussion of the topic:
The U.S. Constitution says:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .”
The concept of separation is commonly credited to the combination of the two clauses: the establishment clause, generally interpreted as preventing the government from establishing a national religion, providing tax money in support of religion, or otherwise favoring any single religion or religion generally, and the free exercise clause, ensuring that private religious practices not be restricted by the government. The effect of prohibiting direct connections between religious and governmental institutions while protecting private religious freedom and autonomy has been termed the “separation of church and state.”
Seriously, KEN–I don’t think anyone is arguing that Christians can not have a voice in government.
The issue–from where I sit–is whether or not it gets to be the only one.
And on that issue, I think the founding fathers–and mothers (god bless their all too often overlooked role) would agree with me.
— Posted by Doug Johnston
2007
7:10 pm
A Christian Conservative is equal to a terrorists who would like to see the United States of America destroyed? Such a gross, damning statement demands specifics.
http://theoutlander.blogstream.com
— Posted by The Outlander
2007
7:15 pm
why screen out anyone who does not think like you?? when you do you loose all your prestige
— Posted by richard dixon[not nixon]
2007
7:15 pm
A post by Peter D. say’s in part:
“This country was founded on separation of chuch and state. GET OUT OF GOVERNMENT AND LAW MAKING.”
May I provide to Peter D. this:
Here is what Thomas Jefferson said about “separation of church and state.”
“The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, but that wall is a one ddirectional wall, it keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principl(s) will always stay in government”
Thomas Jefferson, 1 Jan., 1802,
address to the Danbury Baptists
I say that by government inacting a “separation of church and state” condition it is doing exactly what the founders did not want to see take place.
For, by doing so the government is interfearing with the “establishment” of religion, and the term of “establishment” meaning the INSTITUTION OF RELIGION.
— Posted by David
2007
7:16 pm
They are such good judges of the Christ-like qualities in candidates … I hope they pick Ralph Reed or other pious man.
P.S. Jame Dobson of “Focus on The Family”, focus on your own family … leave mine alone, please.
— Posted by northrhombus
2007
7:16 pm
Rick, you don’t know history. That mantra about this not being a country founded on a separation of church and state just won’t fly. It’s like saying the Unitarian Jefferson was an evangelical. Ever hear of a Church of the United States? No. Well, there is a Church of England. It is a state church, supported by revenues. Its symbolic head is currently Elizabeth II, as it used to be George III. That is why the colonists wanted to separate Church from State. NO STATE RELIGION. Having no state church means the Founding Fathers separated Church from State. Get it, now?
— Posted by Lisa Kazmier
2007
7:17 pm
I wish everyone that uses the phrase “separation of church and state” would learn the correct definition. When this country was founded, it meant that if you’re in office, you couldn’t be punished due to your religious choice. Over the years it became a distorted phrase that everyone misuses. Anyways, I’m a Christian, and since I follow the Bible, I’m going to vote for a Christian who also follows the Bible. I don’t care which party they come from… but in this case, I’m definitely voting for the third-party. I know that’s who God wants me to vote for!
— Posted by Kathryn
2007
7:17 pm
wow u’ve got to hand it to the evangelicals, taking votes away from their party to support a third party, wow. sounds like Teddy roosevelt vs taft in the 1909 election. oh wait, wilson won that because of the split. smooth
— Posted by blahblah
2007
7:18 pm
I don’t think Rudy will get the nod — I’m expecting old Fred to come out on top. He’s so different from Bush that people will gravitate toward him regardless of the recent Republican mistakes. I’ve been participating in the electoral process since 1960 and my prediction is that Fred will win by a nose.
— Posted by John B.
2007
7:19 pm
If my conservative brothers and sisters had done a better job running this country, we wouldn’t be facing a pro-choice candidate in the Republican primary. As a Christian conservative, I am dismayed by the shameful performance of an administration I voted for 2x. While the war(s) is one issue, the fiscal irresponsibility is shameful. The hypocrisy of senators such as Larry Craig is heartbreaking. Just as the love of money is the root of all evil, the love of power is certainly evil. Don’t forget that the Pharisees of Christ’s time were the politically powerful, socially conservative, party in Israel.
We all vote our religion and philosophy; I could not in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate. I believe that abortion is a deep stain on our country, 49 million deaths since 1973.
— Posted by David in Colorado
2007
7:21 pm
Yes, that’s a really “bright” thing, James Dobson , and others thinking as you do. Hillary will be real happy !! I’ll bet you used to get your bat and ball and go home when you were a boy growing up…..oops; sounds like you have not grown up.
Johnny Gilmer
— Posted by J. Gilmer
2007
7:21 pm
Music to my ears.
Ross Perot was one of the best things that ever happened to America. His third party ballot played a decisive roll in keeping Clinton in power. Peace, stability, prosperity and responsible government was the legacy.
Arguably, the same role Perot filled was one Nader played in ensuring Bush got elected - twice.
Which is about the worst legacy Ralph Nader bestowed on America and the world. So bad a result, I don’t think his other good deeds make up for it.
Sp…bring on the evangelical alternative candidate! I’ll make popcorn.
Speaking as a Canadian though, the idea that Giuliani would get the Republican nomination vs. either Obama or Clinton means two things:
1 - no matter who wins, the USA will get a better President;
2 - no matter who wins, the world will be better off.
— Posted by Robert Trifts
2007
7:24 pm
The true social evils of the society are dogmatism and mean-spiritedness. The so-called “Conservative Christians” (who are neither) exhibit this to an astonishing degree. So, too, do all those who see anyone who professes religious values as a bigot or all Republicans as evil. Rather than preserving the traditional values upon which this country was founded, the neo-cons and right-wing religious fanatics have jeopardized the true spiritual values of America. I yearn for a return to a civil society. I do not see any of the front-running candidates as able to do that, with the possible exception of John Edwards, who, of course, has little chance at the nomination since he is not nearly enough strident for the current tone, which is reflected so clearly in may of the statements on this blog. All these angry Christian voices should reflect on the sin of self-righteousness and pray for forgiveness.
— Posted by Timothy O'Brien
2007
7:31 pm
Great News (says the Democratic Party). The single issue (Pro Life) Republicans will certainly guarantee a Democratic victory. I’m even sure the DNC will send some money your way because that would be the best investment they could make for thier own victory. I am a conservative, pro-life Republican who finds this strategy unbelieveable and hopeless for the cause. Grow up people. Work to change the party, the system but don’t take your toys and go home!!
— Posted by Randall
2007
7:34 pm
It’s all moot. Rudy Guiliani will never be the Republican nominee.
And history shows that even when a Clinton is in the White House the Republicans in the House and Senate fight harder to keep Democratic policies from being passed. When a RHINO is in like Bush they let anything pass and that’s why they’ve gotten into trouble the last eight years.
— Posted by Inflorida2
2007
7:34 pm
I am a Christian. I do not care if our next president claims to be a Christian or not, but I do pray that he is an honorable, truthful, man of integrity. We have had so many in office in recent years that have proven to be otherwise. The shenanigans that went on in the Clinton era were an embarrassment that will never be lived down.
The Nixon years were riddled with lies beyond belief. It just goes on and on. So, please, give us an honest, decent candidate. That’s the only way to bring us back into good standing in the eyes of the world.
— Posted by Bev Hart
2007
7:37 pm
It’s time for a 3rd party.Democrats & Republicans are the same. Republicans have alienated conservatives foe too long & it is inevitable that conservatives respond.
— Posted by Mike Renta
2007
7:40 pm
I have great respect for James Dobson but I think he’s wrong on this one. National Security is our #1 priority right now. We need a president that is decisive and offensive militarily…not quaking in his boots to make a decision. Generating a 3rd party will only split the vote and the results will not give us what we want. I am pro-life and a Republican, and if given the choice betw. Hillary and Rudy, I’ll pick Rudy.
— Posted by nursprof
2007
7:42 pm
The Democrat party of today is the same as the socialist party of the 60-70’s and the Republican party is the same as the 60-70’s Democrat party, Maybe it is time that we have a split to identify where we all stand and get us back to the small goverment nation we are constitutionally supposed to be
— Posted by ray
2007
7:43 pm
To all you self righteous liberal democrats slamming the Christian right- please take a look at your own party. You can’t even be considered the presidential nominee in the Dem. party without being pro-abortion. Rudy’s one of frontrunners. Who’s intolerant? You hypocrites make me sick.
— Posted by Tim Sternitzky
2007
7:43 pm
Speaking objectively, or as objectively as I can be as a liberal, Giuliani seems to be a terrible candidate for the current state of the GOP. Buckling under constant controversies, facing even larger losses in Congress, the front-runner is someone who’s views run contrary to the all-important Republican Evangelical voter base.
Not to mention the fact that he seems to be quickly making himself a non-candidate to independents and the left of center.
I would not want to be a Republican strategist right now. Democrats have problems of their own, but they seem to pail in comparison.
Then again, would Evangelicals be obtuse enough to neutralize their own influence within the GOP by supporting an independent? That is their political leverage, and they are not that dim.
— Posted by Leandro
2007
7:45 pm
I think the third party/Republican split is the dream of the Left. Hillary is running 49-51% negative (folks who will not vote for her) so how do you get another Democrat in the White House? Do it the way Bill got there with only 39% support. I have to hand it to at least some on the left who have looked back and see that the last time a Democrat Presidential candidate received more than 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Even the 76 election was a squeaker for the Dems. So what to do? You have to have a 3rd party run to split the Republican Majority! It worked in 92 and again in 96 so why not in 08?
Too bad for the Lunatic Left, Giuliani will not be the nominee.
— Posted by Joe SixPack
2007
7:47 pm
“Religion is the opiate of the masses.”
Best of luck to you all. You’re certainly going to need it.
— Posted by Greg Tidwell
2007
7:47 pm
Our nation was founded on God and the ten commandments.I doubt half of the candidates know them. We need a President who knows and lives by them.All of the commandments not just the ones who pick and choose which one to go by.It wouldn’t matter if he was purple polka-dotted as long as he ran our Country by all of the Commandments, no matter who liked it or not. Our Country would’nt be
the Immoral cesspool that it is right now.Learn the truth and the truth shall set you free!!
— Posted by Vicki Bryant
2007
7:48 pm
For all who claim to be Christian and say they vote for people who follow the Bible…just when did Jesus teach us to start wars and kill innocents? (See the latest on Blackwater in Iraq if you don’t know what I’m talking about). Picking a subject like abortion and voting for a candidate because of it is foolish. We’ve had to up our credit limit 5 times under Bush to keep up with his reckless war debt, yet he’s against health care for poor kids.
WHAT IS CHRISTIAN ABOUT MAKING KIDS BE BORN INTO THIS PHYSICAL WORLD AND THEN DENYING THEM HEALTHCARE? Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, and I could go on listing his unChristian activities… but no need. After all, he’s against abortion. I guess that makes everything else ok.
— Posted by A Christian Who Knows What It Means
2007
7:49 pm
ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease run your 3d party wingnut! A Democrat will win the White House for sure and your uselessness to Republicans will be exposed. Then (and only then) can we have a real debate our country, minus the religious rantings of the last 25 years.
— Posted by Dave
2007
7:58 pm
You know, reading this makes me think there might actually be a god.
This is so funny. I hope those morons in the GOP loose for good and stay out. Maybe this will lead to the end of these idiots, who’ve been plaguing the United States since the 1860s. It was all Lincoln’s fault that there was even a Civil War, remember?
— Posted by Loli
2007
7:58 pm
We Canadians are amused and somewhat befuddled at the seemingly large number of Bible-thumping, Talibanistic, irrational extremists you seem to have down there in the USA.
These people pick and choose what they claim is relevant from the Bible for today and ignore the parts that are downright evil, pathetic and disgraceful. There are hundreds of references I could provide but these two alone should be enough to show that any decent rational person should burn the darn book before it corrupts their children.
God’s command to Israel to kill all of the men from a neighbouring tribe, but to keep the virgins for themselves is without doubt nothing less than commanding them to commit brutal rape. Secondly, the story where a man, rather than send out his guest to an angry mob outside, asks the mob if they will be satisfied if he sends his young daughter to them instead so that they can do what they want to with her.
These two stories are, of course, just the tip of the iceberg. The right wing fundamentalists spare no insults when it comes to speaking of the Koran yet their own so-called holy book is hands down more evil and cruel than the Koran. It boggles the imagination! Please, split the vote and ensure the Democrats win…..the last thing we want up here is another Bush-like freak show living in our basement for another four years.
— Posted by Craig Neal
2007
7:59 pm
To all the Canadians posting… shut up! I wish we would invade you and take your maple syrup and whatever else you’re known for.
— Posted by Tim Sternitzky
2007
8:02 pm
The best man for the job can still be drafted.
— Posted by Will C
2007
8:05 pm
You quackpots all spout off about the “separation of chuch and state” in the constitution but you are just parroting what your liberal leaders put in you Koolaid. The constitution implies a separation of “state, from Church” in that there can be no government sponsored religion.
Rudy is a liberal in everything social, and the fiscal conservatism he professes is not enough to make any responsibly thinking person believe he is much different than another Clinton. I won’t vote for any of the frontrunners as they are all pandering to whatever group thye are speaking to on the given moment.
If you lemmings want to follow liberals down the path of government dependency then just admit it before asking the rest of the achievers in the nation to support you with out taxes.
— Posted by marlin
2007
8:07 pm
The american people have been lied to over and over again abaut Iraq. Can anyone find the document that clearly outlined a secret meeting before the election 7 years ago on how they would invade Iraq? It saddens me every day to see what has become of this once great country.
As a christian Hillary has my vote. Why? She doesn’t lie as much/ I have said from the beginning of this administration that Bush is NOT a christian. I am a christian and I would never do what he has said/done. Many Christians are upset believe me. The next election if not rigged will be a victory for the truth and honor this country once stood for!
— Posted by susanne evans
2007
8:09 pm
Craig Neal, #178
Consider this a love letter.
Yippee and right on.
— Posted by Tracey
2007
8:10 pm
Wow … a double-secret meeting! Have they put the Republican Party on double-secret probation?
— Posted by Walt McBride
2007
8:13 pm
It will be a great day when the evangelicals get their nose out of politics and quit trying to tell the rest of us what is right and wrong, who to marry, what god to believe in and what we can do with our own bodies. They are in large part, ignorant, self-righteous, holier-than-thou bigots whose opinions on political matters or the facts of life are at best grossly misinformed. To them I say, get your own life and quit worrying about what others are doing with theirs.
— Posted by paul
2007
8:16 pm
To Tim Sternitzky,
Please keep your country out of our affairs, as well as those of every other country on this planet.
Cheers.
— Posted by Greg Tidwell
2007
8:17 pm
Canadians like Craig Neal are brain dead. If you want to critique a book, why don’t you try to read it first. Stick to comic books as the pictures are more your speed.
The Biblical examples you lamely attempt to misquote were in the old testament. Such occurences were common tradition before Christ was crucified for the sins of the world. Research some of the new testament in the bible, ( or have someone help you) and you will find many things have changed. If you Canadians had any other country on your border, you would have been invaded and surrendered long ago. The muslims have got you on the ropes already and they are not even bordering your country.
— Posted by marlin
2007
8:17 pm
James Madison, one of our founding fathers, said it best: “Both religion and government will exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.” If you let religion start making rules for the government, then the government must give legal definition to those rules, which ends up in regulating religion. Keep government and religion separate unless you want to destroy them both.
— Posted by SheilaNoya
2007
8:18 pm
Christianists extremists: you are right, nothing prevents you from voting for the candidate that reflects your beliefs.
But prior to Bush, laws could and did prevent Christian nutjobs from cramming your fascist magical belief system down the throats of people who choose not to live as fanatically as you do.
We are a country forged by people who fled RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION!!!!! Get it? …one religion using the power of the state to screw those of another religion. But you are incapable of learning and can’t wait to destroy anther country with your vapid intolerance.
— Posted by Jasper von Holywater
2007
8:26 pm
Please… Christians….. Fred Thompson is your guy…. Stand behind him…. Every single one of you…. vote for him…..
Thank you
— Posted by whomung
2007
8:26 pm
As an outsider (ie. non-American) I’ve always been astonished at what a poor grasp of Christianity the American fundies actually have. What happened to all that stuff about humility and tolerance and peace and helping the poor? But no, they all get hung up on the supposed rights of a cluster of stem cells. Disgraceful.
As miserable as I am that America doesn’t really seem to have a serious left-wing, I still will be breaking open the champagne if next year, on the other side of the Pacific, Hillary Clinton takes the reigns from the present drunk emperor. Good luck, y’all.
— Posted by LB
2007
8:26 pm
I think the third party/Republican split is pipe dream of the Left. Hillary is running 49-51% negative (folks who will not vote for her) so how do you get another Democrat in the White House? Do it the way Bill got there with only 41% support. I have to hand it to at least some on the left who have looked back and see that the last time a Democrat Presidential candidate received more than 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Even the 76 election was a squeaker for the Dems. So what to do? You have to have a 3rd party run to split the Republican Majority! It worked in 92 and again in 96 so why not in 08?
— Posted by Joe
2007
8:26 pm
I think the Christian right will eventually devour the republic party than themselves. We are a secular country founded by people who were mostly just deist. It is time for Christians to think of more than one or two polarizing issues.
— Posted by Mark
2007
8:28 pm
American voters have the right and obligation to support and vote for any candidate they wish. I voted for Nader in 2000 and have no regrets. It sent a message to the Democratic party that in the long run I believe will be postive.
— Posted by Bob
2007
8:28 pm
This country was not founded on the ideal that Church would not be involved in state. Only that state would not interfere with Church. If you nominate a baby-klller like Rudy or Mitt, then you deserve to get Hillary. The real reason American Blacks and Labor Unions have no real political power is that everybody knows they will vote for Democrats no matter what. If real conservatives continue to vote for Republicans no matter what they do, then we will lose our power. If we can’t get the Republicans to work to save the lives of babies, then it remains possible we can turn the Democrats back to our side. Remember the Kennedy wing of the Democrat party was pro-life at one time before the pro-life people started giving all their money to the Republicans and the baby-killers started giving all their money to the Democrats.
A country that murders a million babies a year deserves whatever else happens. If we continue to murder a million babies a year, then we deserve to have a weak national security, which is exactly what the Democrats will give us.
— Posted by Michael Whitt
2007
8:29 pm
Finally, the Evangelicals have come out of the closets. the airport toilets and other dark and dank places they ferment in. We can all see now what they look and smell like. Like their pal the POTUS they have given religion a bad name. I got a great idea for their third-party candidate. Alberto Gonzales.
— Posted by Fast Fred
2007
8:29 pm
democrat…republican…third party?….no difference…we are all sinful in nature.
— Posted by rich(i wish)
2007
8:30 pm
This third party candidate will give the republicans their own Ralph Nader.
Let’s hope Giuliani is in and that Dobson and his gang will honor their promises.
I don’t want HIllary in, but at least she’s a better alternative than “more of the same” republican sycophants to the American Taliban mullahs.
As for our neighbor to the north (in our attic), you don’t even know your own country. I lived in Canada for almost five years, and got to know a lot of people up there. There are plenty of evangelicals and fundamentalists up there. But at least up there they tend to be more liberal than American liberals. And your vitriol aimed at the Bible betrays a hypocrisy that you need to think about a little bit. How are you any better than these American fascists?
— Posted by Eric
2007
8:31 pm
“Dr. Dobson”??? I thought the editorial policy of The Times was to reserve the title “Dr.” for physicians. Those who have a Ph.D., D.D.S., D.V.M. etc., are still “Mr.” or “Ms.”
— Posted by Harvey Hudson
2007
8:32 pm
In 20 years all our infantry will be strictly composed of Mexicans( think not? Ask a recruiter next time you see one if the military has recruiting stations in Mexico). And if you don’t understand the danger in that- the fact that our standing armies will be made up of foreigners- then there was no hope for you in the first place.
In 20 years a majority, an overwhelming majority of Americans will have thoughts and feelings that will qualify us for being classified as terrorists.
In 20 years the front door of your house is gonna be blown in with det cord and your house will be swamped with SS.W.A.T. because you told a trusted co-worker that you thought the 9 o’clock Federal curfew was illegal.
— Posted by BWG
2007
8:33 pm
Ron Paul is the only candidate who does not leave his Christianity at home as an elected representative of the people.
Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who can win in November.
The only reason the far right Christians do not support Paul, yet, is that they believe in liberal application of the force of government to suppress behavior they disagree with. JUST LIKE DEMOCRATS but on different issues. They will come around.
In the end, they will help get Ron Paul nominated even though his advocacy of personal liberty allows that some peole might do things they disagree with. He is a true conservative who believes in the conservative application of the force of government and the rule of law; even on issues he personally opposes.
— Posted by Jeffrey Northrup
2007
8:36 pm
There is no balance here. The fact is that the most killing that goes on in this country is by the abortionists. Rudy cannot win without the Pro life bloc. This is not rocket science!
— Posted by Jay
2007
8:38 pm
My prayers are answered. The Republican Party is spliting apart.
— Posted by Lou Spadia
2007
8:41 pm
I think the best thing for the country would be the creation of a true Christian political party. We could uphold the values we hold dear. We need God back in politics. We’ve become so calous about Jesus. I’m glad we have concerned Christians who are willing to take the time to invest in the things of this world so we can ensure that our beliefs are not only represented in government but that God willing, everyone will believe in Jesus and think exactly as we do. Our country was founded by good, clean-minded white Christian men, who believed we are destined to show the rest of the world how living Godly lives should be, and we are showing Iraq and Afghan people today how to live good Christian lives. A solid Christian coalition would help us spread the Wod of God throughout the world and hasten Jesus’s second coming. I full support the idea since the Republicans are deciding to choose a godless person like Guliani, and Heaven forbid, an anti-Christ such as Hillary Clinton. I pray for you all.
— Posted by Karen Johnson
2007
8:41 pm
Every one of the core issues Baur mentions–low taxes, strong defense and pro life–has been betrayed and sold out by Bush and his version of Conservatism. The low taxes he has bestowed on this generation will fall on the next and the next when he bills fall due. Strong defense? Expense and ineffectual is more accurate, with Bush’s empty swagger providing thin cover. And even if Roe is repealed, abortion will remain legal in most states, and with it will follow the affluent and intellgent centrist voters who make presidents happen. The evalgelical agenda is a wreck, and Bush is the captain who wrecked it.
— Posted by DFC
2007
8:42 pm
What is frightening is the Christian conservatives feel they have the POWER to decide who is president! For this reason, I vote Democrat, because the religious nuts dictate what happens with the Republican part. All the Christian conservatives think about is the abortion issue. If they want to stop all abortions, I assume these same high on their horse Christians will be providing homes for all those unwanted babies? It’s far less Christian to allow a child to enter the world to parents who are druggies or are so poor they can’t provide food, shelter and necessities for their child then to allow an abortion. Vote for Hillary Clinton for President! Our country needs a change for the better.
— Posted by Kate
2007
8:42 pm
I wasn’t one of them, but there were lots of people in cities like New York and SF talking secession on November 3, 2004. The more noise the Fundamentalists make, the more likely it is an authentic national divorce movement will emerge in the coming decade.
The best way to reduce abortion is to support contraception and fact-based sex education. The truth will REALLY set us all free.
— Posted by Matthew Carnicelli
2007
8:44 pm
Regardless of religious affiliation or one’s stance on abortion, We need change. Ron Paul is the answer. Learn about him yourself, not from what the media portrays. If he decides to run as a Libertarian, the Republicans have no chance regardless of the candidate. Maybe that means Hillary would win. If so, so be it. The republicans would be forced to learn a lesson for not supporting Dr. Paul. Republicans and Democrats like Ron Paul because he’s for freedom and liberty which if you haven’t noticed is slipping away day by day due to Huge government.
— Posted by Eric
2007
8:45 pm
As a Christian conservative myself, I’d rather see this group of Christian conservatives get behind Alan Keyes for President. He’s a strong conservative and without a doubt the best candidate capable of articulating his ideas. There is no difference between democrats and communists. The GOP is acting like sissy democrats. We need a strong leader like Alan Keyes for President before its too late.
— Posted by LWM
2007
8:47 pm
They should be putting up an alternative candidate who can get more votes than Rudy, instead of complaining. I have an idea for a name for this party: The Moron Party. Instead of the Constitution and the law of the land, they have Stone Age myth and Medieval superstition. Instead of science, they have unshakable belief (faith) in magic. Instead of a society where everybody gets a fair shot, the men are in charge, and the little ladies stay home with the kittles. The ladies are more or less the property of the men after all. Foreigners and non-whites: go back wherever you came from.
I’m liking this a lot. This third party could be the source of incredibly entertaining political theater. The antics of The Moron Party will make life in these United States much more interesting than it would be with only Rudy and his wife taking potshots at Hillary and Bill and their sad lives, and vice versa. I might even send some money to the Moron candidate, just for the hell of it.
— Posted by Philip J Tramdack
2007
8:48 pm
You bunch of liberal freaks. Don’t push your religion of liberalism on me.
A New York liberal is a New York liberal whether named Clinton or Giuliani.
We need a 3rd party with gridlock to make sure no more freedom snatching legislation gets passed.
— Posted by C
2007
8:49 pm
I am a coservitive evangelical and i want Ron Paul !
This guy has a record of small goverment and is prolife and pro pot. He believes in a thing called the constitution. Our goverment is out of control. And all the other guys are the same empty promises and lies, both republican and democrat.
Did u guys watch on line aaron russo’s film america freedom to fasicsm? I am no longer republican or democrat im for truth and freedom.
Sent from I phone
— Posted by Paul
2007
8:51 pm
I like to think of Rudy as the Family Values candidate…………….I guess the conservatives don’t feel the same……………..
— Posted by tby
2007
8:51 pm
As a liberal (though not always a democrat) I certainly wouldn’t mind such a split in the republican party. I’ve long considered the alliance of the religious right, which is generally made of members who aren’t rich enough to justify economic conservatism, and the wealthy economic libertarian types, who generally aren’t very religious, to be quite artificial. Of course the democratic party is an equally artificial alliance, except that the republican alliance works better, because money is the priority of the rich and religion the priority of the evangelicals.
However, my core belief is this: if you are willing to choose a president on the basis of abortion (or really, almost any one issue), you seriously need to take a good look at the hazards in this world. War, global warming, trade and governmental deficits, campaign finance and media conglomerates undermining the democratic process, the myriad of problems facing the world’s poor, and the growing income gap in this country and in the world all dwarf a situation as morally ambiguous as abortion.
— Posted by Eric
2007
8:53 pm
Maybe the evangelical christian conservatives can join up with their true ideological brethren the Taliban and finally rid the United States of its secular evils.
— Posted by Tom A.
2007
8:54 pm
Hey, Peter D.,
Are you saying religious conservatives should not have the right to participate equally in the American political system? If not, what’s your point?
— Posted by Gus
2007
8:54 pm
I think it is important to also remember that the text of the Constitution says that there will be not religious test for any public office. Certainly some people have their own religious test as to whom they will vote for, but the Founders wanted to overcome that tendency in our selection of leaders.
Also it bears remembering that at the Constitutional Convention Ben Franklin gave an impassioned speech during a particularly contentious argument that the Convention should seek God’s guidance. He suggested the office of Chaplain to provide prayers. He was a Deist who had little faith in prayer. But, the Christians in the Convention voted down his suggestion that official prayers be offered.
As a Christian I want to elect the person who will do the best for America, and it could be that would not be the person who would promote my beliefs. What is wrong with sound thinking?
— Posted by Ron Schooler
2007
8:54 pm
The fact that conservative christian voters allow themselves to be pulled on a leash makes me lose a lot of confidence in the ability of the political system to represent the constituency as opposed to those of interest groups, which Dobson’s organization looks more like with each election. Hopefully they do split and their candidate loses to someone with more sense than to be so biased and close minded- whether they are Democrat or Republican.
— Posted by Naura
2007
8:54 pm
To all of you stating “this country was founded on a seperation of church and state” I hate to break it to you but no it wasnt. It was a statement Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, nothing more. It was to keep the state out of religion, not the other way around. Thomas Jefferson even let the Treasury Building be used as a church when a local baptist church burned down. It is not in the Bill of Rights, it is not in our Constitution. Its a statement liberals have used to manipulate laws in the last 30 years. It is not a wall to keep religious people out of politics (as much as the liberals would love that). People make decisions based on thier beliefs and religious people are entitle to vote and make thier decisions in a democracy based on thier beliefs.
— Posted by Rich
2007
8:56 pm
Please tell me this is true. People like Dobson drove me from the party. If they leave, I might just come back.
— Posted by Mike Triggs
2007
8:56 pm
To Dr. James Dobson and the cabal he leads:
We now have a “conservative leaning Supreme Court” compared to what it was before the current President Bush was elected. Don’t you remember how he won the election? It wasn’t because you and the Evangelicals you try to control got out and gave him a majority. Then why did George W. Bush win the election in 2000? It was because the liberals, The Green Party led by Ralph Nader, split off from the Democrat Party and then captured enough of the Democrat voters in Florida to allow George W. Bush to win Florida and the election.
I believe that Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican candidate who can beat Hillary Clinton. But now you are apparently planning to offer a third party candidate for president if Giuliani becomes the Republican candidate. You and your cohorts stayed home in the 2006 election. You should carefully consider what you brought us. Because of your boycott of the 2006 election, the Democrats now control the House and the Senate. All of your people can clearly see what you have brought us – Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi among others in control of Congressional committees too numerous to mention.
If you go forth with your plan, you will turn over the Presidency, 61 votes in the Senate, and somewhere in the neighborhood of 320 House seats to the Democrats. There are currently three liberal Associate Justices of the Supreme Court who will obviously leave the court during the next eight years and the probability is that at least one of the conservative Associate Justices will be gone from the Supreme Court within eight years.
If you are successful in finding a third party candidate to run for president on your platform, you will be responsible for turning the Supreme Court over to the most liberal Associate Justices which can be found by a liberal Democrat President. Don’t be surprised if Senator Schumer is appointed to the Supreme Court.
Joe Miller
— Posted by Joe Miller
2007
9:05 pm
The 2 party system is a sham and should be ignored. We should form a party and call it the Christian coalition or something similar and be about conservative / Christian politics. The notion that we must take what the 2 parties (big business, big labor etc) shove down our throats is a concept whose time has passed. We don’t need the parties or big money to have elections anymore. The power of the internet alone, to promote candidates etc, is enough to completely bail on the TV ads and the whole money machine way of the past. The time is now. So who do we run?
— Posted by David Chamberlain
2007
9:06 pm
Dr. Ron Paul is the best candidate, from one of our two major parties, from a Cristian and conservative point of view. Rep. Ron Paul, (R)Texas, says what he means, and means what he says. He is unequivocally pro-life, anti-tax, pro-Second Amendment/right to keep and bear arms, against big government, against interventionist foreign policies which have cost America greatly in terms of lives and treasure since Vietnam (with no positive results to show for it), is fiercely patriotic and the only true statesman among the major candidates. Go Ron Paul 2008!!!
— Posted by Walter J. Kujawa
2007
9:07 pm
I have been a supporter of Focus on the Family but if they continue in this pursuit, you can all but guarantee saying welcome our new Commander in Chief, Hillary Clinton.
— Posted by Brent Taylor
2007
9:11 pm
Evangelical Christians would make a tremendous self-destructive mistake if they split the Republican movement as they will leave our nation’s national security in the hands of the wrong people at the most perilous time in our history. Right now I am more concerned about the murders of 300 million American children, women and men by fanatics in the middle east should they get their hands on nuclear weapons than the philosophical and religious debate over when human life is conceived, for if America is not free or millions of us see mushroom clouds over our cities and towns, we will not have to worry about abortions–we will have to worry about mutant infants being born, if anyone is still alive.
Let’s take care of our national security first, then let’s worry about domestic issues which can be fought out in Congress and via the Supreme Court.
What’s the point of committing suicide to prove a point. That’s what the lunatics from the other religion do when they do their suicide and martyrdom operations. This is a democracy and even if an elected president like Guliani initially doesn’t agree with you he may change his mind over time as the national debate continues and as different interest groups make their cases.
— Posted by RickAnalyst
2007
9:11 pm
WE CANUCKS LOVE TO SEE YOUR RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS KICK UP THEIR HEELS….COME TO THINK ABOUT IT THEY ARE MUCH THE SAME AS OURS…FROM CANADA WITH LOVE
HOOF HEARTED
— Posted by JERRY
2007
9:11 pm
What’s wrong with Rudy? OK, he has a habit of getting married over & over, is that bad? His children won’t vote for him, is that a problem? Located New York’s emergency response center at the World Trade Center after the first bombing, any thing wrong with that? Used 9/11 to make big bucks, wrong? Was anti NRA when it was convenient, pro NRA now, is being a flip flopper so terrible? Hey there you right wing nuts, he’s perfect, cause he’s just like you! Then again he does have a lisp, but unlike Bush he speaks in full sentences, way to go Rudy!
— Posted by Mike Foster
2007
9:13 pm
There won’t be a need for a third party Christian candidate because Mike Huckabee will get the nomination. Newt’s American solutions will set the dialog for the election and Mike will rise to the top and win.
— Posted by Eric Worthington
2007
9:14 pm
None of the candidates “believe” in abortion. Some believe that women have the right to choose an abortion. I’ll vote for those who believe women have a right to choose abortion. I’m not religious; I don’t believe in abortion.
Please religious people: work on your own souls and leave me to mine!
— Posted by eded112233
2007
9:15 pm
Please wake up and stop thinking in terms of ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republican.’ It is absurd. This country is desperate for multiple parties, and desperate for the truth. If Christians want an authentically pro-life candidate who is anti-abortion, anti-war and anti-death penalty, Ron Paul is our man! Christianity=speaking truth to power. No more empire, no more war, no more government tyranny. Come on America, get your sh*t together!
— Posted by Mary
2007
9:18 pm
Outrageous that a religious group should dictate a political party’s platform.
By law, if they insist on taking part in the political arena, this should be enough grounds to abolish their “tax exempt” status.
I don’t like any of the Republican candidates but I think the evangelicals have gone too far this time and I will certainly initiate a petition to have the MoveOn and Democracy for America lobbies protest their tax free status all the way to the supreme court.
The evengelicals are entitled to reject abortion it certainly is their choice, but they cannot be allowed to push this on everyone who does not.
Mad as hell!
— Posted by Romulo
2007
9:19 pm
As long as all the liberal elites in this country keep trying to force their immoral beliefs down the rest of our throats then the Christian right will continue to fight against it. So man up boys and girls because we’re not backing down.
— Posted by PC
2007
9:19 pm
To the one who said that Jesus was a liberal. Jesus didn’t condone immoral behavior such as homosexuality and the murder of children in the womb.
The fact is, you can’t be a liberal and a Christian at the same time. It’s almost to the point that you can’t be a Democrat and a Christian.
Having said that, a third party run would be folly. It would only hand the country back to Bonnie and Clod and their Sodomite backers.
— Posted by Dave
2007
9:20 pm
Let’s not dignify Dobson by referring to him as “Dr.”
— Posted by Lee Garrett
2007
9:23 pm
What a bunch of hypocrites you liberal posters are. If the Democrats nominated a pro-life candidate, you’d vote for Nader.
— Posted by John
2007
9:23 pm
Amazing how many whack jobs visit this blog! Maybe we can get Shrillary and Dennis the menace on the same ticket and accelerate our decent into oblivion. Thanks to all the liberals and nutjobs that think the country was founded on freedom from religion and separation of church and state, only that country is (no longer) Russia. Please move there and take Alec Baldwin and Rosie with you since they promised to leave if Bush was elected.
— Posted by Roach
2007
9:25 pm
Re: “This country was founded on the separation of church and state.”
The Episcopal Church, the American branch of the World Anglican Communion, has deep roots in American history. In the Colonial period, it was the official church of Virginia (1609), Massachusetts (1620), New York (1693), Maryland (1702), South Carolina (1706), North Carolina (1730) and Georgia (1758).
(Wikipedia & The Federalist http://patriotpost.us/)
So how could the Episcopal Church be the official church of VA, NC, SC, etc. if
American was founded upon a separation of church and state?
The founders wanted religious people to serve in government, and NEVER implied, spoke of, or wrote anything about the separation of church and state.
The separation of church and state is a a prevarication of history.
Personally, I don’t think any religions are useful. But you can’t deny the fact that the founders employed religions in there daily lives.
— Posted by JCL
2007
9:26 pm
I thought being liberal was all about accepting every value system in the political arena. These people aren’t trying to get you. They have common beliefs and they are organized in their pursuit of government based on those ideas. The left could take a lesson here, or just beat a drum about crazy christians.
— Posted by Shane
2007
9:29 pm
When all the votes are counted, there is only one that will matter, the one cast by Christ. Do you suppose He will wink and nod at one who supports the murder of innocent children?
— Posted by Andy
2007
9:31 pm
If religious conservatives need to inject their god into every conversation, why can’t they put a positive marketing spin on the guy? The grouchy, fire-and-brimstone, punishing, judgmental and jealous behavior seems awfully petty for a guy who is supposedly eternal, all-powerful, omnipresent, etc. Dr. Dobson’s god reminds me of dyspeptic Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace….a bitter loner and misanthrope whom I wouldn’t invite to a party, let alone worship. If the only thing that keeps you from raping and killing each other or putting people in gas chambers is the threat of an eternal burning hell, I’d say you may have a socio-pathological problem. OH, I FORGOT, raping and killing are perfectly OK if your god tells you to do it and the victims are “different” from you. Right, I get it.
If you choose to subvert your will and intellect to an invisible Daddy in the sky, that’s fine with me, just don’t expect capitulation or respect from those who don’t share your fantasy, and don’t expect us to lie quietly while you tie us to the stake. Our goal is to improve mankind’s options and outcomes in the present; in THIS life we see and know. As history shows, fanaticism in any form strips the mind of purpose and denies the joy and beauty in this shared experience.
That said, there are many devout people of all faiths who are comfortable in their choices and can respect the values of others without feeling persecuted. I don’t vote for a candidate on what they believe spiritually, but on their vision to strengthen the rights, opportunities, human potentials and possibilities that are the true wealth of a free nation.
— Posted by Steve Fortuna
2007
9:34 pm
The abortion issue is a litmus test to both liberals and conservatives. Like anything it can be used as a banner to rally the troops without being fundamentally addressed by the candidate. As a conservative Christian it is a litmus test for me just as civil rights was for the generation that came before.
Liberals miss reality when they condemn Christians for not caring for children’s and “the poor’s” needs. We meet those needs through private support of time and money. Do a little research and you will see that those efforts dwarf the government’s. They also provide individual face time with people, not just a government spending cash on more staffing.
The current administration’s unthrottled feasting at the public trough is embarrasing for a “conservative” administration. Funny how the budget fights don’t occur unless the executive and legislative are in seperate hands. More competition in government and political parties is good for all of us.
— Posted by David in Colorado
2007
9:35 pm
A third “party” is what put Clinton in office. This is a bad idea. I must say that the first comment by Peter D. is ignorant. Seperation of Church and State is NOT in the US Constitution, what the US Constitution says is that the State shall NOT elect a denomination for the people. Why are so many people ignorant on the US Constitution?!
— Posted by Max
2007
9:36 pm
It is so sad to see how hateful Americans are against other Americans. I am a Christian and would not back anyone who has been married numerous times, does not speak out forcefully for the unborn and does not care if our taxes are run up to the stratosphere, is not for illegals being told what they really are, law breakers, etc., etc. I know Rudy did a great job as a leader after the 9/11 attacks, but that alone doesn’t qualify you to be President. Stop the hate, and remember, be careful what you wan’t you may get it. United we stand, divided we fall. Trust in Jesus Christ and you can’t go wrong.
— Posted by Leonard L
2007
9:39 pm
Our USA was founded on keeping church and state separate. The constitution does not need to specifically say those exact words. Read the 1st amendment, church and state are to be separated. It is common sense. But you know what they say about common sense.
— Posted by Casey
2007
9:40 pm
The Democrats sold out their agenda for social justice, the working man, and many of their social programs for abortion on demand. If it were not for this issue many of the Evangelical community could vote for them. Economic conservatism is not a Scriptural mandate. If the Republican party is on the same page with the Democrats with regard to abortion then Evangelicals can do either one of three things: 1.Choose between two abortion supporters based on each of the candidates other positions. 2. Refrain from voting entirely. 3. Support a third party candidate. Under any of these circumstances the Republicans receive less support and votes. So if all those conservative Republicans that have shown so much disdain for their fellow Republicans of the Evangelical persuasion want to go it alone then go ahead and nominate Giuliani. Without Evangelical support the Democrats contolled both house of congress for forty years. Without Evangelical support neither of the Bushes would ever have been elected. Can you say President Gore or President Kerry. Go ahead and nominate Giuliani and you will be back to a permanent minority party.
— Posted by Dave S
2007
9:40 pm
I have not had the opportunity to read all the entries above, but I did not see Mike Huckabee’s name listed. With Governor Huckabee having been a former minister, I feel he is more than qualified to carry the conservative banner. His unwavering Pro-life stance sets him apart from any of the other “top tier” candidates. He deserves another look from all voters that would consider a third party candidate.
— Posted by Brian Crowley
2007
9:41 pm
“I think the best thing for the country would be the creation of a true Christian political party. We could uphold the values we hold dear. We need God back in politics. We’ve become so calous about Jesus. I’m glad we have concerned Christians who are willing to take the time to invest in the things of this world so we can ensure that our beliefs are not only represented in government but that God willing, everyone will believe in Jesus and think exactly as we do. Our country was founded by good, clean-minded white Christian men, who believed we are destined to show the rest of the world how living Godly lives should be, and we are showing Iraq and Afghan people today how to live good Christian lives. A solid Christian coalition would help us spread the Wod of God throughout the world and hasten Jesus’s second coming. I full support the idea since the Republicans are deciding to choose a godless person like Guliani, and Heaven forbid, an anti-Christ such as Hillary Clinton. I pray for you all.
— Posted by Karen Johnson”
Sorry folks, but, is she for real? Is this honestly what some Americans believe? Yikes. Goodbye enlightenment.
— Posted by LB
2007
9:42 pm
I’m glad for another choice if it would be Rudy against Hillary. I can vote against Socialist Hillary. I can vote against flip flop Rudy. I can’t vote against what God tells us is right or wrong. If Hillary wins…then we Christians will just become stronger in our faith living under persecution by Hillary and her Godless supporters.
— Posted by Dave
2007
9:42 pm
My conscience will not allow me to vote for either Hillary/Obama (whomever it may be) or Guiliani - I refuse to vote for anyone who endorses abortion rights. If the Republicans put Rudy on the ticket - they will lose my vote and most of the votes in my family. If there is no third party candidate worth voting for…I will simply stay home…its that easy….the Repub Party is foolish if it thinks conservative Christians (including Roman Catholics) will come out and support such a candidate — just look at what happened to them in mid-term elections (because of their piss poor political performance of the last several years)….it will be the same outcome..
— Posted by Aaron
2007
9:43 pm
The American “TALIBAN” are at it again….our women in veils will be the next plank in the Republican platform
— Posted by howard mumm
2007
9:44 pm
Religion is the cause of most of our problems Keep these religious right wing wack jobs out of our government
— Posted by Ihatereligion
2007
9:50 pm
Ever think a republican could still be the answer
how about Ron Paul!
— Posted by Scott Petrick
2007
9:51 pm
Frankly, this country was founded by men such as George Washington whos faith was supremely integral to their political motivations of establishing a nation were individual liberty is placed first.
The person who most resembles this model of leadership is Mike Huckabee.
With the endorsement of the Christian right and people simply sick of Washington corruption and incompetence, Mike Huckabee who is already surging in early state voter polls will have a serious shot at taking the nomination and the Presidency back from the Washington insider for the American people.
I personally am excited at the possibilities.
— Posted by chukmaty
2007
9:51 pm
This country so desperately needs an atheist as president… sadly it doesn’t know it needs this.
— Posted by Bill
2007
9:52 pm
What else could you expect from a political party that has been completely been taken over by the far right wing zealots both at the state and federal levels as well as at many local school boards. This was the “far right wing” plan going back 20 + years ago.
— Posted by Ken Koehn
2007
9:54 pm
I think the third party/Republican split is the dream of the Left. Hillary is running 49-51% negative (folks who will not vote for her) so how do you get another Democrat in the White House? Do it the way Bill got there with only 39% support. I have to hand it to at least some on the left who have looked back and see that the last time a Democrat Presidential candidate received more than 50% of the vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976. Even the 76 election was a squeaker for the Dems. So what to do? You have to have a 3rd party run to split the Republican Majority! It worked in 92 and again in 96 so why not in 08?
— Posted by Brian
2007
9:54 pm
Folks, I think the real problem is that without vigourous seperation of church and state we can all choose to reflect on how OUR GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST was born for us and died on the cross for us. This nation was created by godfearing Christian white men and all the other socalled Americans that come here later on, let’s face it!, are contamenating the US of A. All you Hillary-and Osama-lovers, go back where you came from!
— Posted by nascarman
2007
9:58 pm
If the Republican party nominates Guliani - it will be the strongest signal yet that it has turned against its political base! And frankly - they will deserve what they get - a disaster at the polls next year. And let me remind a number of you that we Christians who are conservative still have a right to vote AND to speak out in this country - despite the efforts of most liberals to deny us that right. For those of you who aren’t paying attention - there are not thousands of us, there are millions; we can not - and will not be silenced by continued Christian biogtry that grows daily in this county.
— Posted by Michael
2007
10:00 pm
I wish the press would stop calling these nut cases Christian Conservatives…there’s nothing Christian about them.
— Posted by Bruce
2007
10:02 pm
Here’ a thought. Maybe, if the evangelicals peel off because of Guiliani, and the progressives peel off and draft Gore, we could have a more pluralistic election. It would certainly get out the vote.
— Posted by Tom
2007
10:05 pm
OK, no one is saying that Christians do not have the right to vote their beliefs, that is a ridiculous twisting of peoples words. What we are saying is that these same “Christians” vote the way they do because they want the government to tell the rest of us what to believe, what is right, and force us to conform totheir standards of personal conduct. And that IS the very thing seperation of church and state was ment to prevent, declaring one religious community’s beliefs as law.
Go ahead vote the way you want. But don’t hound others because they refuse to push your idealogical agenda and claim they are “supressing your voice” by simply not supporting you.
Thanks
— Posted by Justin
2007
10:06 pm
As an athiest, I must say I am proud of my moderate Christian friends on this board. They are absolutely correct that this nation was founded on the deepest of moral principles. They believed that government arose out of the emergence of the enlightened Christian thinker. Our nation owes the deepest of gratitude to the faithful. If Dobson et. al. believe they need to diverge away from political life, then that might help them in their ongoing quest to actually save souls, rather than promote the institutionalization of their rigid dogma. Their rigid dogma is the stuff of one-on-one conversions and life-changes, not of the flexible and compromising world that is politics.
Their choice to split off would be good because the difficulties that our nation faces require deep intellect, hope for the future, and graceful flexibility. Fatalistic fundamentalists attack intellect, have no hope for anything but an afterlife and are rigidly dogmatic. Only the enlightened Christian (and of course others of other faiths) and the unshrill Athiest working to solve the problems of the day with hope, candor and trust can get us out of these dark days and onto a new path of brotherhood and sisterhood.
No conversion attempts please. I used to be fully ensconced in a fundamentalist Lutheran church, and have happily been saved from that. Instead, I hope that all will pray for the deliverance of our Nation from the fundamentalists, the rapturists, and the rest of the Armies of Ignorance.
— Posted by jason kendall
2007
10:06 pm
As a Catholic, I just don’t see any moral values out of this administration. I feel for the children who will suffer from this administration. How can a President who claims he is for life be so stubborn and rightous? Our children are dying in an unjust war.
— Posted by Sunny
2007
10:07 pm
The religious bigotry demonstrated on this board is disturbing. Whatever happened to freedom of views and assembly? Are only sanctioned views allowed? The comments I read here are alarmingly similar to those made by dictatorial regimes to demonize their opponents. Would these opinions be openly written against a group of African American or Latino ministers? Many of these attitudes are blatantly hypocritical.
And no, I am not a Republican apologist. I am not planning on voting for any of the likely nominees.
— Posted by Steve
2007
10:08 pm
I think it a shame that people consider Christians who are against abortion the same as radical islamic terrorists. No candidate will be perfect but I am in favor of anyone who will lead this country back towards morality. WAKE UP! OUR COUNTRY HAS NOT GOTTEN ANY BETTER! IT HAS GOTTEN WORSE! people protest for the stupidity of running naked in the streets and they arn’t considered nuts. WHy is someone who stands for morality considered radical? I am against a theocracy government but I believe that the U.S. needs to wake up and return to morality. Washington himself said that morality and religion are the supporting pillars of national prosperity.
— Posted by Josh Gregg
2007
10:09 pm
Dobson is an idiot
— Posted by Don
2007
10:09 pm
I despise the religious right. Therefore, if I receive a solicitation in the mail for a third-party candidate, I will give unstintingly and generously. That would be great - a pied piper who whines the anti-abortion tune and leads the rabid right into the political wilderness, where they could remain for a Biblical 40 years for all I care. I’m all for it. As your Leader so aptly said: “Bring it on!”
— Posted by zorbathegeek
2007
10:11 pm
to: Ihatereligion
Perhaps we are better served by leaders such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot? Hate will only destroy… even Jerry Falwell appears to be learning that lesson.
— Posted by David in Colorado
2007
10:14 pm
I have an idea: Ron Paul. Gets us our of Iraq, lowers our taxes, cuts govt, leaves abortion decisions to the states, but most important, gets govt to leave us alone to run our lives, and lets individuals and private groups extend help to the less fortunate. What enlightened citizen couldn’t get behind that?
— Posted by Dale H.
2007
10:14 pm
Christian and Jewish cult members are what made the Republican party into what it is today.
Think about that the next time some delusional sociopath waves a Bible around and claims God is telling them what to do.
— Posted by Ugly American
2007
10:15 pm
I have no problem with religious fanatics wanting to put up a political candidate. I have a massive problem with them not paying taxes as they become political entities when they get involved in politics. As an atheist, I am greatly irritated by the fact that I pay more taxes so that these Taliban style “Christians” don’t have to pay any at all. Anybody hear them complaining about that??
— Posted by Linda in Florida
2007
10:20 pm
Great News! Thanks guys!
— Posted by David J
2007
10:20 pm
I won’t exactly call it a message strait from The Lord…but an idea did occur to me! How about the Rev James Dobson for president and the Rev Warren Jeffs for vice-prez. I have heard both of these fine gentlemen have some good ideas about keeping our white women virtious - brandin’ ‘em with their husbands’ names. Serously, friends, we need someone like James Dobson to take the reins of our sinful sinful nation. THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION. ALl other religious should be bannd.
— Posted by bibleman
2007
10:21 pm
Re: Gary Bauer’s comment about the calamity of Hillary. Interesting that in a quorum devoted to honoring the moral imperative, he is as concerned about “defense conservatives” and “economic conservatives”. Choose, Gary: which is your moral imperative? Is a tax break for the rich as morally critical as abortion? Is spending more for defense than the rest of the world put together more important than following Him Who said to love your enemies? Only one of your three concerns BEGINS to have Gospel implications.
— Posted by Gerry D.
2007
10:23 pm
I think the Christian Conservatives should form a third party. That way we know they can no longer be effective in muddying the political waters with their hypocritical warmongering thinking. This way maybe we can get a president who is not locked in on one issue political thinking that has so limited our domestic and foreign policies for the last six years.
— Posted by Fred Welch
2007
10:24 pm
It may take a Democrat President and 4 years of eye-opening reality to help America wake up that this country is going down the tubes fast. You Democrats still think you can negotiate with the likes of Iran. If you people were around in the 1940s, we’d all be speaking German. And my Jewish brothers, you are voting with the 2007 Chamberlain. And when have Democrats helped blacks? Illegal immigrants have taken your jobs. Oh, I forgot, they’re only doing jobs Americans don’t want to do, like hanging sheetrock, roofing and construction work. Your national health care will be as good as Canada’s. Oh, I forgot, they’re all coming here because their health care sucks. You idiots hate Bush so much, you’re ready to embrace the President of Iran.
— Posted by Garry Haralambou
2007
10:26 pm
It looks like everyone is slamming the ‘Christian right’ but they would be the first ones you would run to (and could count on) if you needed aid/comfort. What is wrong with them - OH, they don’t like to see unborn babies killed, they believe in a culture of life, they don’t believe men or women should cheat on their spouses, they don’t believe you should steal, they don’t believe you should covet others belongings. The world would be so much better off without these goof-balls!
Every group has people who don’t do a good job representing their group, but by and large, Christians give more money and time than non-Christians to people in need, the poor. Who do you think are building orphanages and taking care of the poor in other countries as well as here? It sure isn’t the liberals - no, they think the government should take care of everyone. They pay their taxes and most are then done with their ‘giving’. Or, they don’t even pay taxes because they know the loopholes like Ted Kennedy and George Soros (yes,it is on record) OR they are so poor, they don’t pay any taxes.
I happen to think this is a pretty awesome country, one founded on Christian values. But it sounds like many of you are scared of the Christians. You ought to really think why that is, who are they hurting? Do you really think this country would be better off if all the churches were gone? That thought scares me to death. It is like that in England now and they are a complete mess.
— Posted by Diane
2007
10:27 pm
LOL!!!
Evangelical Christians in America are the last people you want as a base for your political party. The Republican Party should have seen this coming a hundred miles away. They BARELY have the support of the Evangelical Christians. The only reason they have support is 1. they scared the people to death 2. they offered them a feeling of power over their fears 3. the ONLY reason this worked is because THIS is how these people are convinced to be apart of a church by their leaders… and the Republican’s did it to the religous leaders! LOL!! The big joke and what I’ve just been waiting to happen, as it happens in churches ALL OF THE TIME, is that these Evangelical Christians have ZERO allegiance!! It’s a common known fact among ministers that Evangelical Christian churches have a bigger turnover than gyms!! LOL!! It’s only a matter of time before they get big heads and start demanding more and when they don’t get what they want… THEY GO START A NEW CHURCH… or in this case… LOL!! THEIR OWN POLITICAL PARTY!!! LOL!!!!!!
Oh man… this is just too funny to watch happen. You guys think that they are given Guilianni a hard time… wait til you see what happens if Romney wins the Republican Primary!! LOL!!
HELL WILL FREEZE OVER BEFORE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WILL VOTE FOR A MORMON!!!
The Republican’s were sly to exploit Evangelical Christians, but they don’t realise that they made a deal with the devil… and the devil will always come for his due.
Evangelical Christians are KNOWN for their constant back stabbing and splits. There is NO loyalty among them. They are wanna be politicians every one of them. I grew up in an Evangelical Christian church and went to seminary to be a minister. I quit for morality reasons. These people will eat their own children. The Republicans… they gave an illusion of power to the wrong group of power hungry people. And it’s going to bite them in the ass if they don’t appease them.
— Posted by Anton Bursch
2007
10:27 pm
I doubt Gary Bauer is reading this blog, but Economic Conservatism as I was raised to respect the term means we expect government to pay its own way, not push tax increases to future generations for a temporary burst of borrowed money inserted into my wallet. Republicans want to steal money from my unborn children and hand it to today’s voters to gain their favor. Shame on them.
Thus the party of Economic Conservatism is the Democratic Party. He’s wasting his time trying to align Republicans behind an “Economic Conservative” when no such create has existed since President Eisenhower.
— Posted by John Jay
2007
10:27 pm
Great. Reading the screeching of the posts leads me to believe it’ll be Rudy for the Republicans and Hillary for the Democrats.
Wonderful.
— Posted by Mark
2007
10:29 pm
To Tim Sternitzky,
Please keep your country out of our affairs, as well as those of every other country on this planet.
Cheers.
— Posted by Greg Tidwell
To Greg Tidwell,
I didn’t know Canada had any “affairs”. The only revelance you have as a nation is that you border the USA.
As far as staying out of other nations affairs- if the USA would you’d only shut up for a little while. Because then there would be no one to feed the world’s starving, give aid to the poor, help with relief when tsunamis and huricanes strike just to name a few.
Without the USA there would be very little good in the world.
Cheers!
— Posted by Tim Sternitzky
2007
10:30 pm
I think it’s absurd to compare a Christian conservative such as Dr. Dobson to the Taliban or Al-Queda. I’d have to say “Reverend” Jessie Jackson and “Reverend” Al Sharpton, not people like Dr. Dobson, are the real enemies. To think that the far left liberal Democratic party is on your side is stupid. All they want to do is be Robin Hood. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Oh, by the way, the people who do have money, have earned it. I don’t like the idea of giving my money to the government so poor people can sit at home and do nothing and use my money to buy food that way they can use their money on alcohol and drugs. I support welfair for only the people that need it. Most of the people on welfair are just too lazy to get off their buts and work. Afterall, they are getting free money. It’s the Republicans who are trying to teach American morals and ethics. Why do you think Republicans are always the rich ones? Because we actually have a work ethic. If Democrats really helped the poor in the country, then they wouldn’t have a job. There goal is to keep poor people poor because that means they keep getting votes!
— Posted by Joshua
2007
10:31 pm
Christian conservatives fielding their own candidate would split the Republican party and practically ensure a democratic victory in the general election. In response to the posts accusing the more liberal users of attempting to silence religion in the United States, there is no attempt to revoke your right to practice, but rather your using government to impose faith based values on the general populous of the nation.
— Posted by T. Holdren
2007
10:31 pm
Individual voters have the right to consult their own moral compass before casting a vote. It’s extremely disappointing to read the disparaging comments towards Christians on this site. Are they not supposed to fight for what they believe just because that belief has a religious basis? Too many people speak the mantra of “separation of church and state” as if it were a magic phrase that trumps all other arguments. Would one of these misguided individuals please point out this phrase in our Constitution? They can’t because it’s not there.
— Posted by Ross
2007
10:32 pm
Can you be a Catholic and Pro-Abortion?
Simple: NO Way, “Stupid.” And do not talk to me about hypocrits such as Biden, Kennedy, Kerry or the Apostate Bishops, who kiss their rings.
Face it: The Nation is divided. Either you are a Christian, Catholic or “Protestant,” or you are a Pagan.
So, cut the bull feathers: Let the RINO’s and Sociocrats stop babbling “other issues,” since if I do not have A RIGHT TO LIFE, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT WHERE I GET TO SIT ON THE BUS, OR WHAT WATER FOUNTAIN, OR BATHROOM I GET TO USE. Hillary or Rudy stand for the SAME THING; they have the SAME VALUES.
Jerry O’
— Posted by Jerry O'Callaghan
2007
10:32 pm
Sorry to break the news to the agents of intolerance frequenting this thread, but the Separation of Church and State became law with the passage of the Civil War Amendments. Before the 14th Amendment, the States were still theoretically free to discriminate against Americans on the basis of religion. After the passage of the Fourteen Amendment (and its Equal Protection Clause), the Separation of State that Jefferson postulated was written in stone.
Personally, I would feel a whole lot better if American were obsessed with virtue. But, to me, critical thinking, and the ability to understand the differences between parable and reality, is the foundation of virtue in the modern world. America was an Enlightenment Era experiment. We were absolutely not a Christian experiment, but an Enlightenment era experiment. That’s why Jefferson cites “Nature’s God” in the Declaration, and not Jehovah, Jesus, or any other Christian variant. I suspect that a majority of the men in Philadelphia in 1776 and 1787 believed in a creator God; but I also suspect that the God they believed was anything but as witless and mean-spirited as the God Fundamentalists routinely praise.
— Posted by Matthew Carnicelli
2007
10:32 pm
I am sending money to Rudy!
— Posted by garbo
2007
10:34 pm
L. B., you’re about as “out of the country” as I am in Texas. “Fundies?” c’mon.
Craig Neal, please read the text and don’t quote out of context–the incident in Genesis (or in Judges–two similar incidents took place) were roundly condemned in the context! Yeesh. At least read the story and get it right!
Joel L. Friedlander, you wrote:
“They are oh sooo concerned with the unborn, but they down care a whit for the already born.” That’s rather a broad generalization, isn’t it? Most conservative Christians I know actually work in inner cities and try to actually help people get jobs and pull themselves out of poverty. Where did most of the charity hospitals come from in our nation?
It seems to me that civil discussion is so hard to come by. We (liberals and conservatives and religious fundamentalists) are so ready to use “guilt by association”, straw men, and overly broad generalizations to attack. Can’t we discuss issues rather than attack each others’ motives?
Personally, as a conservative Christian who opposes a NATIONAL abortion policy (take it back to the states where it belongs) I think it would be better for a Guilliani (who really can’t do anything about abortion anyway) than an Obama or a Clinton.
Besides, the “conservative Christain candidate” wouldn’t get that much traction. No conservative Christian Republican of stature would touch it with a 30 foot pole!
— Posted by Kyrux
2007
10:35 pm
So, the party of God wants to have it’s cake and eat it too? Maybe it wants yet another version of God considering that JC is out of circulation for awhile. Well, Well. God is otherwise engaged. It is difficult being omnipresent, what with the laws of physics to contend with. The solution must be with yet another Manifest Destiny declaration. Go for it, I say. Do it! We got rid of the guys living here before God’s anointed arrived, and dealt with all the other uppity foreigners and now one of them wants to be Prez? We showed our tolerance having a Catholic as Prez, and now this !! Oy vey ! What next?
— Posted by Lilith Shakina
2007
10:35 pm
When a real Christian White Man becomes prez (Bush is pretty good but needs a rest because the Crusade Against Iraq has worn him down a little), the first thing he should do is:
1) make female adoltery a cappital offense (especially for white women - the other women probbly can’t be controlled)
2) put non-Christians in re-ed camps to learn about Our Lord and Savior
3) make English - what Jesus spoke - THE national langage
4) change Mt Rushmore to just have Jesus head on it
5) make the Rev James Dobson our spirtual prez …cuz Man does not live by bread alone.
— Posted by johncuepublic
2007
10:36 pm
A society that fully (from the leaders to the poorest person) accepts killing live human beings in the womb, or in the nursing home, for convenience sake, is a failed society. Look at world history. The interesting thing most liberals forget is that most conservative folks won’t kill their unborn children, which increases their presence in the voting booth in future generations. So lets all get it on and stay married and intentionally reproduce while the enlightened folks teach their kids to kill off their inconvenient, accidental, offspring.
— Posted by jon g
2007
10:38 pm
This country is founded with the fear of GOD. i believe with the same purpose with our founders, this country can become a real leader again…..this is not about religion, but we have to admit that God really bless this country because the fear of HIM…whoever the next leader, he/she should never ever forget GOD.
— Posted by Jack_Queens
2007
10:40 pm
charles w. should rethink his support of ron paul. ron paul is against social legislation, which means his employer could fire him just because he IS gay.
— Posted by john davies
2007
10:41 pm
That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Why dilute the vote even more? I am a conservative, and I am a Christian. I am NOT one of THOSE Christian conservatives though.
Do me a favor, “Christian Conservatives”, from now on, I am revoking your right to wear the color red. What? I can’t tell you what to wear?! Ok, ok, there is no life at stake, but there is still basic human rights. THINK IDIOTS.
— Posted by Brandon
2007
10:42 pm
Whether a candidate is pro abortion or pro choice has nothing to do with the reality of abortion. Women will get abortions. Making abortion illegal will cause more deaths not less. When abortion was illegal women got abortions in back allies with coat hangers often putting the mother at serious risk. Get real folks. Pro choice is more humane like it or not.
— Posted by Ron Richman
2007
10:44 pm
Democrats,
Stop complaining about this situation…if the christian groups nominate a 3rd party candidate that has their backing it could split the GOP vote making it even easier for the democrat to win and get this country back on track
— Posted by Dan
2007
10:45 pm
Seems kind of strange that its only the Leftwing news outlets that are reporting how the Religious Right is going to support a 3rd party if Giuliani gets the nomination.
Could it be that they know that in a one on one race against Hillary, Giuliani will beat her even in many of the Blue States?
The fact of the matter is while the Religous Wing of the party may not be crazy about Giuliani, they realize that he is the only one that can beat her and that scares them more than anything else.
Remember what Jerry Falwell said, Even Satan couldn’t get a larger turnout of Evangelicals to vote against him than would turnout to vote against her!
— Posted by Foncool
2007
10:47 pm
Bibleman, just a correction: James Dobson is not an ordained minister.
— Posted by Tina
2007
10:48 pm
“No better than the Taliban?”
How many Christians smash airplanes into buildings, burn down schools full of little girls to prevent them from getting an education, and killed non-Christians on TV while screaming about how great God is? You need some perspective badly.
— Posted by MGB
2007
10:50 pm
Why is everyone so upset? None of the Christian Churches support abortion. These people have a voice and are allowed to do so, because it is their right. Liberals have the far left extremists, who speak very loudly too. It is not preached in my Catholic Church, who to vote for. I am voting republican period. Many republicans are pro-life and will influence any President towards this goal. In the Primary, I will be voting for Fred Thompson. They have no idea what all the issues are and Fred Thompson has some good answers to all of them. Visit his site fred08 and decide for youself, it is your right and your vote does count!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
— Posted by Darlene Hawkins
2007
10:50 pm
Everyone assumes that if the Pro-life Christian vote goes third-party that the Dems will win. Nonsense. Obviously there aren’t enough Pro-life Christians in the Republican Party to make a difference in an election. Right? Right?
— Posted by Sean M.
2007
10:50 pm
dear pj
go read Genesis.God lied all the time.Of course we rationalize our way out of the lies.Like He did not mean Die when he said “whoever eats the fruit…will die…”If you read literally God lied.
— Posted by andy o'donnell
2007
10:51 pm
Everyone should have a right to try to get his/her point of view represented in the national politics. This includes religious conservatives. Although I disagree with them, I believe I can partially understand the passion of the evangelical Christians.
That said, what I don’t like about evangelicals and others like them, is that they take advantage of the openness of other people, of the spaces that are available for political action and debate, and then attempt to shut them off to everyone else. In this respect, they act like the Taliban, as someone else already said. If they are so righteous, they should be comfortable letting other people express their opinions, since they are so secure in theirs. Why the secrecy, why the mystery, the closed-door dealing, the lies even? If they are so sure of the correctness of their position, let them be fully open about their opinions AND their aspirations. But somehow I suspect that is not part of their idea of “Christianity”.
— Posted by Robert M.
2007
10:51 pm
The only thing worse than Evangelical Christians running your party is George Soros running your party. It is funny to me that ONE man pulls all the strings for the Democrat Party. America has been looking for a good third party candidate.
— Posted by Lovejoy
2007
10:51 pm
First, to Joe Miller (#229): I’d like to echo your comments. The only difference is I would say those things to ENCOURAGE a third party on the part of Dr. Dobson. He’s making a threat that I want to hear is a promise.
Second, could we stop with all the Ron Paul comments? Yes, he some decent ideas and is the only Republican to admit the war was and is a horrible mistake that needs to be ended. However, his idea to put us back on the gold standard scares me. The gold standard died decades ago for a reason…lets leave it there.
To all the “pro-lifers”… Did you know that the rate of abortions in the US went down during the Clinton administration and has gone back up during the current one? Hmmm… I’m sorry, but I simply no respect for you people…none.
Finally, to Will C. (#189): I love that idea…its GOREgeous.
— Posted by oxfdblue
2007
10:52 pm
Imagine Christians actually wanting to vote for someone who shares thier ideals… wait, doesn’t everyone do that? Isn’t that the point of voting in the first place? So why are these liberals bashing the conervative Christians, as if their voting isn’t something they are entitled to? Theoretically, if 70% of this country were Christians, then the President should be a representative of the majority (i.e. Christian). It’s called democracy.
— Posted by SGarcia
2007
10:52 pm
I am a Consevative and a Christian. We do not need a third party. What we need is for all the disgusted, “like me” Republicans and all the middle class, working, Democrats “like some of my friends”, to get together and support Doctor RON PAUL for president.
He is someone we all should be able to get behind. If you are an anti-war Democrat then you should like Ron Paul, if you are a moral and fiscal conservative you should like Ron Paul too. He was against the War and pro family values long before they were a political issue.
RON PAUL, the only “Person of Integrity” in the race. If we could all get over the Republican-Democrat and the Red-Blue state thing we should be able to get together and do what is best for this country, VOTE RON PAUL.
RON PAUL, Christian, moral conservative, fiscal conservative, anti-taxation, anti-war, anti-amnesty and PRO CONSTTUTION, shouldn’t we all be able to get behind a man like this?????
Ron Paul for all Americans.
— Posted by R.Michael Jones
2007
10:53 pm
Let them do it. It’ll only make the way easier for the political candidate.
And why, pray tell, if churches should be allowed active political participation (beyond the right of their individual members to vote and participate; I’m speaking of the actual church), why do they lose tax-exempt status if they endorse a particular candidate?
And most of the Founding Fathers were secular deists or spiritual, open-minded Christians who’d spin in their grave to see themselves lumped with these American Taliban fanatics.
These people openly want to do away with the establishment clause of the First Amendment. They admit it.
— Posted by Kelsey
2007
10:53 pm
I’m amazed at the negative tone in all these e-mails towards Christians. NO CIVILITY…the ones that preach “tolerance” have NO tolerance of any ideas other than their own……You would not have seen this attitude or tone 30 yrs ago……shows the downward spiral of our society….
— Posted by randyloy
2007
10:54 pm
Some comments demonstrate complete ignorance of the Constitution. The separation of church and State simply means that the government will not establish a religion nor interfere with the free exercise of religion. This in no way justifies the absurd and bigoted view that religious conservatives should “get out” of politics. Letting people keep their own money is conservative. The borrowing by the government is less when tax revenues go up due to greater economic activity. John Jay needs to go back to class.
— Posted by Martin
2007
10:54 pm
Where did the idea of separation of church & state come from? It is not part of the constitution, rather it was a mid 20th Century legal decision, a court decision that has undermined the very freedoms this country was founded upon. The establishment clause reads. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF”. But in fact, our nation has enacted numerous laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Many are happy about this development, but they are enemies of the freedoms our nation has sought to preserve. Freedom is not, the ability to do whatever you want - that is the perverted freedom of the pedophile, the homosexual, those who defend bestiality etc. True freedom is being able to do what is right without fear of being persecuted and those who yell the loudest for tolerance are hypocrites because they are tolerant of everyone EXCEPT those that disagree with them. But in as much as you rage against those who expose the sin of our nation, you validate their judgement, because you know they are right.
— Posted by Rob S
2007
10:56 pm
The only losers in such a third party venture could be the demagogic religious leaders who have to keep their followers stirred up defending a doomed stem cell and the flat earth theory –salted with a dose of subliminal racism– so that the leaders’ power and donation coffers keep growing.
Hopefully, intelligent Christian conservatives will realize that they are being misdirected on a hopeless, divisive, and narrow path that is not in their or our country’s best interest.
— Posted by Norman
2007
10:57 pm
Abortion is no more a fundamental issue for conservative Christians then it is for liberal democrats. It’s a matter of principle. For conservative Christian to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would be like a liberal voting for a pro-life candidate. Some things cannot be compromised.
— Posted by M C
2007
10:58 pm
What you Northerners don’t understand is that the Right-wing Crazies support the Neo-Cons because they thought a war in the Middle East would hasten the Second Coming of Christ. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson thought they would each be sitting at the right and left hand of God at the Throne. They take all that stuff LITERALLY. And, if they have more control over what goes on in the delivery room, that’s good, too. (But only until the baby is born, as has been previously noted.) They are crazier than you think!
— Posted by Sarah
2007
10:59 pm
Let us be clear about the nature of the concerns expressed by James Dobson and Tony Perkins - the issue is not Christianity. The most devout Christian president of the past century, Jimmy Carter, is someone who would be anathema to both of these men. Christianity is not supportive of any particular partisan views. For example, Christian teaching would require very heavy spin to be interpreted as supportive of an invasion of Iraq that Christian theologians generally agreed did not meet the Augustine criterion of “just war’, not to mention the pacifistic admonitions of Jesus. Support for specific social and tax policies is conspicuously absent in the Gospels. We see in the present-day Islamic world parallels to the pre-Reformation Christian world half a millenium ago, parallels that should introduce a strong note of caution regarding the introduction of theological litmus tests into the body politic. People on the far right like Messers Dobson & Perkins (or, for that matter, their counterparts on the far left) have every right to participate in political discourse, but it is discouraging to rational people of faith when they present their ideological biases as though they were religious imperatives. America will benefit if their efforts fail.
— Posted by Dan Davis
2007
11:00 pm
#262 NASCARMAN, sorry to burst your balloon bro, but you may not be aware that some Jews in Philadelphia worked very closely with their Christian brothers, including Ben Franklin, to finance the American Revolution. Jews also fought in the war. The American idea, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights/Constitution all were heavily founded on Judeo-Christian principles–and in fact if you look on the back of a US dollar bill you will see a six-pointed star, not a crucifix. So when you come down from going around and around at 200 mph Nascarman, and you start hitting the esses and the curves, trust your car to the man who wears the star.
— Posted by SCCAMAN
2007
11:00 pm
Hahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!!!!! This is the sound of me laughing my rear end off.
When Nader ran he split off 2% of the vote, but a Fundamentalist could take 15% or more. I hope they stand by their principles and don’t chicken out. This could be the biggest one versus two whackfest since Wilson won in 1912. What’s more, normal, everyday business conservatives will *never* forgive the evangelicals if they ride in on the calvary and completely blow any chance they have of salvaging something next year. This could lead to an entirely new, unpredictable political alignment in the future.
— Posted by Dan
2007
11:01 pm
Some vote wallet. Some vote ideology. Some just vote straight party because that’s the way Mom and Dad did it. Evangelical Christians should vote their conscience. Rudy is already flip-flopping on the abortion thing, just like most politicians will do to save their political careers. Abortion is just one of the issues that Rudy has been wishy-washy on. Most evangelical Christians just aren’t into the lukewarm, fence-strattlin’ type. If he’s in, it’s time for a third-party candidate. It may be throwing away a vote, but at least it won’t violate one’s conscience.
— Posted by Smiley Jones
2007
11:01 pm
Gideon chapter 10 verse 18:
“And the LORD saith REPENT all ye who forswear the Chosen One Jesus Christ. For He shall do battle and make bloody war against ALL those who savor of death and Sin. And the Lord Our Father sent down triple lightnings to singe the beards of the naysayers.”
MEN AND WOMEN: THIS IS WHY WE NEED A CHRISTIAN MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE. AMEN.
— Posted by Rev Humburgh
2007
11:02 pm
As a lifelong republican, I see that the party has already been co-opted by the neo-con internationalist movement, largely influenced by AIPAC and other questionable contributers.
I’m making a clean break with the republican party, hopefully this 3rd party will materialize, we’ve needed a powerful alternative (hopefully traditionally conservative).
Today’s Republican is not republican and not conservative.
— Posted by John
2007
11:04 pm
Fellow Dan (#305),
Who’s complaining? We’re thrilled!
Cheers,
Dan
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
2007
11:07 pm
TW - The blood that has been spilt is far from “innocent.”
I’d like to see a third party Christian win. Then maybe this country can completely turn from its wicked ways. If not America is heading for a catastrophic fall. Turn back to God and all will be fine.
I’m on Livejournal.com if anyone wants to hear the truth. Raven55 and News_byraven55.
— Posted by Raven55
2007
11:08 pm
FYI, “Separation of Church and State” is a FRENCH idea, not an American one.
It came out of the French Revolution. It is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Go ahead and look for it, post the article/amendment where it can be found in the Constitution here… if you can find it. Besides, the word “Church” meant the Catholic Church, not Christianity as a whole.
Guess what, because of that very idea the majority of Paris school children are now…..Muslim. If that is what you what here, then I hear France is beautiful this time of year, go get yourself a one way ticket.
— Posted by Sean M.
2007
11:08 pm
Why do people say Jesus was a political liberal? In his one political statement he said “give to caesar what is caesar’s.” Sounds pretty status quo to me and conservative to me.
— Posted by Carl
2007
11:10 pm
As a “moderately conservative” Christian, I would say that this group would be making a terrible mistake. Our “loss” would be to have a President Clinton, or President Obama — not a President Giuliani — sometimes we make fools of ourselves by being shortsighted, as do our opponents.
— Posted by Missourimule
2007
11:10 pm
I am an independent, and am in favor of a third party which represents the majority of the people. A Party that can get something done before America falls apart. Take action! Move this stagnant nation to it’s dreams. Drop the Democrats, and Republicans in the deepest part of the ocean, and wake up to a new day.
— Posted by Ronald E. Dacre
2007
11:14 pm
These people supported George Bush and look what a travesty that has been.
These people in the past were alluded to as the “Christian Right”. Of course they often were not right and rarely seemed to act Christian.
Maybe they should spend more time in Bible study and less in politics.
— Posted by JOHN KLINE
2007
11:15 pm
I am a conservative Christian who was a Republican party volunteer. I have already stopped voting Republican. Voting Democrat, of course, is not an option. We are accountable to God for ALL of our choices and actions. If we choose to compromise our morals and vote for the “lesser of two evils”, I am certain we will have to answer for those actions too. I will find a pro-God, pro-American candidate in whom to vote, regardless of the party name.
— Posted by Kerry
2007
11:15 pm
If the GOP nominates Giuliani, and Republican Neanderthals run a Third Party Candidate, the kind who yells Right to Life and loves Capital Punishment, the kind who doesn’t believe in Woman’s rights, hates Aliens, disrespects Separation of Church and State, and wants to wage foolish unwinnable Wars in Iraq and Iran; then the Democrats are sure to win.
If the GOP itself runs such a Neanderthal Candidate, it is likely that there will be a Third Party Candidate, and perhaps an anti-War candidate, this would attract reasonable Republicans.
Likewise, if the Democrats nominate a Pro-War candidate, such as Hillary Clinton, who seems to support war against Iraq and Iran; it is likely that there will be a Third Party Candidate which would attract Democrats who are Anti-War.
So, if the GOP nominates a Socially Conservative, Pro-War candidate, and the Democrats nominate a seeming Pro-War candidate. a Third Party ticket of Mike Bloomberg and Chuck Hagel, might well win the election, resulting in the first successful Third Party Candidacy since Lincoln in 1860.
It is quite possible that in 2008, Republican and Democratic will be compromise candidates chosen in Conventions, due to insufficient Primary Delegate Counts for any candidate. My suspicion is that Al Gore will be the Democratic Nominee (with Osama as Veep) and that the Republican Nominee will be Newt Gingrich. In this case there will be no major Third Party Candidate, and Al Gore will be elected President. The USA and the World will rejoice.
— Posted by Brian Sussman
2007
11:16 pm
It appears that most here are not in favor of this group supporting a 3rd party. Why? Our country needs Christ. Look what has happened since we took him out of our schools. We need to get back to being a Christian country. We need to stop doing the things that God said Not to do, and killing babies is pretty high up on that list.
— Posted by Derek
2007
11:17 pm
Christian conservatives are the republicans version of MoveOn.org.
— Posted by Jonesy
2007
11:21 pm
“Separation of Church and State?”
“Religious-wacko-nutjobs who play the ‘with-God-on-our-side’ card?”
Thank “whatever” for the advent of the intellectual elite to protect us from THOSE types, eh?
Doncha just love that Patrick Henry guy? You know, that raving lunatic Biblical allusionist, who once stood in, of all places, St. John’s Church, in Richmond, VA, and wrapped up some historically trivial soapbox diatribe with something to the effect, “Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
Worth a quick read: http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/henry.shtml
Please forgive this Conservative Christian for having allowed the facts of who founded this country and the guiding principles thereof to cloud his otherwise scientific mind.
A ‘third party” cannot beg, buy, or steal my vote, but a principled individual of unwavering core values–AMERICAN values–can have it gratis.
So far, no takers. God help us all.
— Posted by Scotchtown Jim
2007
11:22 pm
What would Jesus do?
— Posted by Keith
2007
11:28 pm
Anyone who believes that the changing world does not require active dynamic thinking is just a primitive animal. Christianity and all religions are cults which arise from the lower part of human development. Jefferson would be appalled at the “religious” reverance for the Constitution. Many people just feel the need to worship, similar to the need to eat and breed. If anything kills the human race it will be our tenacity to base animalistic needs. Religion is a prime example- completely irrational, instinctive and a leftover of organizational schemes of lower life forms. Of course, the potential for exploitation enables egomaniacal humanoids such as Dobson, born with subserviance and self aggrandisement in equal measure.
— Posted by Anti constitutional cult commando
2007
11:29 pm
Hmmmm…what a big bowl of crazy I seemed to have wandered into…so we have an actual letter from Jefferson himself, the AUTHOR of the constitution, saying there should be a “wall” between church and state, and that somehow doesn’t count because it’s not an “official” document? Wha-huh? That’s like finding a letter written by Jesus Himself, explaning what he meant in the sermon on the mount, but not taking it seriously because it’s not technically in the Bible. OK…if that’s where you want to go….personally, I’m sick of the godchat. What would Jesus blog? The conservative christian right would vote for the stupidest person alive as long as he could find his way to a church once a week, before they would vote for, say, a supremely successful business leader with a JD, MBA, PhD who just doesn’t happen to genuflect in the direction Dobson points. Oy vey.
— Posted by Peet
2007
11:29 pm
Dave,
If you read the Gospels, Jesus didn’t say diddly squat about homosexuality. He did, however, have a lot to say about helping those in need, loving your neighbor and supporting peace, humility and mercy. I also remember something about how the rich will find it quite difficult to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. And something to the effect of, “Whatever you do to the least among you, you also do to Me.”
How many unwanted children do “pro-life” Americans adopt? Why is it that you’re all in a hurry for them to be born, but after that, they’re someone else’s problem? “Pro-life” Bush shooting down legislation that insures poor LIVE children. For shame.
And you must think very little of your God to think that He’d have any care whatsoever in something as filthy as American politics. It’s not on you to dictate who is a Christian and who is not, thank you very much.
I swear, Christians in this country and the Taliban in Afghanistan are really two sides of the same coin. They only distort different books.
— Posted by Kelsey
2007
11:30 pm
The desire to reduce abortions is very reasonable. The Christian groups will do much better by supporting candidates that will truly commit to programs that reduce unwanted pregnancies. The people of America clearly want to maintain legal abortion; but everyone wants to reduce wanted pregnancies.
— Posted by Anil Gupta
2007
11:31 pm
Christians are dangerous???
What religions did Hitler, Stalin, or Castro belong to??
— Posted by Jered
2007
11:33 pm
It’s the Republicans who are trying to teach American morals and ethics. Why do you think Republicans are always the rich ones?
—-
There’s your first problem, Joshua. It’s not the government’s job to impose morality on anyone. Crimes like murder and theft are illegal in the constitutional sense because they deny a person of their rights (life, property, etc.).
I’m taking a stab here, but it seems that most rich Republicans kind of a took a detour at some point. I mean, did Ken Lay “work hard,” or was his wealth the result of mercilessly exploiting his employees and leaving them with nothing? Moral, indeed.
— Posted by Lynn
2007
11:34 pm
I’d be a Republican if it weren’t for these Evangelical Christians. They are creepy and remind me of the Taliban– anyone seen Jesus Camp? They need to found their own island country where they can regress back into the 15th century if that’s what they truly want.
— Posted by D M
2007
11:36 pm
MGB,
Some Christians have bombed the Olympics, bombed abortion clinics, put doctors on hit-lists, bombed the Oklahoma City federal building and are actively praying for the deaths of liberal Supreme Court justices.
Perspective, huh?
— Posted by Lynn
2007
11:39 pm
Why isn’t this stressed more? Church and state are separte!
In my opinon, the candidates that are nominated to run for control of our country, should not be affiliated to ANY religion.
A president of one religion will always treat those of different or no religion differently or unequally. And if they didn’t, then they aren’t true followers of that religion.
— Posted by Ryan
2007
11:41 pm
I would not consider myself a Christian fanatic…a Christian, yes - a fanatic, no! The United States of America was founded on the premise that government would not dictate policy to the churches…that what freedom of religion means. It is not freedom “from” religion but freedom of religion…meaning that Christians and church goers, who are not Christians, just like every other American citizen can stand and should stand for principles in which they believe. Christians stand on the principles that Christ preached….”Love God and love thy neighbor and do what is right.” Christ always protected the innocent and showed mercy and love in OBEDIENCE to the laws and principles set forth in The BIBLE. A presidential candidate, whom I knew to be a God-fearing, God-believing man, knowing the scriptures, and obedient to God….would be the man for whom I would vote. This country was founded by forefathers, who actually used the Bible in their educational studies, memorized it, read it in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and English. They prayed prior to meetings and even during meetings. They knew that nations are ordained by God and succeed when they are in obedience to Him.
The USA is a God-fearing country and I believe that the problems in our country stem from a basic eroding of the Judeo-Christian principles on which our forefathers established this country.
A very well known painting is one of George Washington, dismounted from his horse, on his kness in the snow, seeking the help of the Almighty. A mighty military leader, calling on the Almight God…one can never go wrong with that combination! America must stand on godly rights, which would see to you that you and I can think and feel differently on many issues, because that is what the truth does….it sets you free.
Glory be to God….and God Bless America and give her godly leaders.
-Posted by Ellen
— Posted by Ellen Underwood
2007
11:42 pm
“Believing… that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” –Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
as a christian…i am not interested in having a christian country. the kingdom that jesus initiated can’t be seen or touched. jesus wasn’t a politician and didn’t believe the way to establish his kingdom was through strong-arming people, picketing, voting in the right candidate, or any other over powering method. it was through love, self-sacrificial love, pouring himself out for everyone (including his enemies), etc.
jesus was looking for disciples who followed his way, looked and acted like him in though, action, and deed. the church is to be the body of Jesus in the world today…yet these people who call themselves christians are more interested in politicking, strong-arming, and judging everyone…while establishing a “christian” nation. jesus is not interested in having a “christian” nation that mandates, dictates, legislates, or coerces christianity. he wants his followers to embody the Kingdom of God that spreads like a mustard seed through love, service, grace, etc. people want to be a part of that movement…not the movement that you conservative christians are trying to ram down everyone’s throat.
— Posted by brandon andress
2007
11:42 pm
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
This is Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli. It was unanimously passed in the Senate under President John Adams. I’d love to have someone explain it for me.
— Posted by Cheryl
2007
11:45 pm
… JCL et. al. make good points, but there are a couple of things that you guys don’t seem to be taking into consideration.
First, our country may well have been founded on ideals that the founders themselves discovered are difficult to uphold. The same people who fled religious persecution came to persecute religiously; the same people who sought freedom enslaved others for free labor, and they justified that action religiously. It’s not even a stretch to say that we are still trying to live up to many of the ideals that this country was founded upon. The statement that this country was founded on the separation of church and state is not a prevarication of history—it’s a reading of past events that has a lot of support, but with which you nonetheless disagree.
Second, not everything in the Constitution went into effect immediately after the Constitution was written or ratified. The framers wanted slavery abolished within a couple of decades of ratification … but that was 80 years or so before emancipation. The establishment and free exercise clauses, and their combined effect, are plainly in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution—yet we are still debating whether Muslim organizations should get the same treatment and tax breaks as Christian organizations.
Third, the notion of that separation being semi-permeable—keeping gov’t out of church, but not the other way around—is defensible, but it is also something that needs close and constant attention. This Bush administration has demonstrated repeatedly how working the church into gov’t can achieve the most cynical ends. And church leaders like Dobson have proven themselves astonishingly eager to participate in the process. Suddenly, Christians with rote knowledge of their Ten Commandments find themselves voting (twice!) for a President who talks about faith but who refused to show forgiveness by staying executions, and who still excuses an unprovoked war and the destruction of Iraq with the statement that it is better “we” fight “them” “over there” than at home.
Scores of slaughtered Iraqi civilians, and that’s not counting our own casualties. And like it or not, as the occupier of that country, we are responsible. Now, which God ever said that one life is better than another?
T. Tavi.
— Posted by T. Tavi
2007
11:46 pm
Liberal Dems, Don’t get too excited because every one of the Republican Candidates is ten times better than the sleeze bags of your party. It will not be necessary to run a third party candidate. Dobson and the others are just posturing. You can panic now.
— Posted by John Voholetz
2007
11:50 pm
Who cares who wins. This country is going down the tubes. It is too late for the government to save us. I suggest you save yourself.
— Posted by Beckster
2007
11:51 pm
This has the potential to be an excellent idea. The one caveat is that this coalition should not limit itself in its choice of candidates. A candidate who makes their Christianity the focus of their campaign will not win, but a candidate who can galvanize support around Middle American values will win. Rudy is as much a globalist elite as President Bush, and now is the time for Americans of various faiths and ideologies to say NO to the ruling elites, whether they be Democrats or Republicans.
— Posted by Nick
2007
11:54 pm
OK, I’ll vote for anyone who is not a Christian, a Muslim, or an atheist. Those three groups seem to be the ones making the most trouble, with their pig-headed determination to make everyone think and do things their way. The trouble started with monotheism, because “only one god” quickly leads to “only one right religion.” Polytheistic pagans were (and still are) much more tolerant of a diversity of beliefs and practices. (See Jonathan Kirsch’s book on the history of religious conflict; it’s pretty much always the monotheists.)
The evangelical atheists are nearly as bad as the monotheists; going from one god to no gods did not really help much, because they still think they have the only truth, and that anyone who is religious is deluded. These militant atheists know next to nothing about the 99% of the world’s religions that are pagan, but they blame all religions for the sins of the bible-thumpers anyway.It’s a bad combination of ignorance and arrogance that leads them to imagine that all religious viewpoints must be irrational just because they can’t personally imagine what it’s like to be religious and rational. (Hint: go talk to the Buddhists or the Unitarians, guys.)
Slamming all religion as “irrational” is rude, ignorant, and dishonest. And no, religion is not “dying out” because most people have spiritual longings that atheism does not fill. If anything, we’re moving into a time of great and vibrant diversity of many religions. So: no militant atheists in the White House. (But agnostics are fine, because they don’t usually try to push it on anyone else.)
So I say it’s high time for a Hindu or Taoist or Wiccan president in the White House. Or maybe a Jewish president; the Jews don’t try to push their religion at other people, even though they’re monotheists. Or maybe some adherent of Hopi or Shinto religion, that would work too. So very *many* possibilities to choose from other than Christians. So long as Christian extremists are so arrogant and bigoted as to think that they have the only right religion, I’d much rather that they just go away and start their own country or something.
Seriously.
If you don’t welcome religious freedom and diversity, if you don’t support the wall of separation between church and state, then you don’t belong in this country. Those of us who DON’T try to push our religion at others are the ones who belong here, because we’re truly following in the original spirit of the founders of this nation.
Religious freedom means: *All* Religions.
That means: Many Gods and Goddesses.
Encourage religious diversity:
ONE NATION / MANY GODS
A vast teeming diversity of many religions with many gods and many different ideas is the only realistic way to keep any single religion from taking over or having too much influence, whether it’s the Christians or the Muslims. Then and only then will we be living up to the full potential for religious freedom that our founders secured for us at the birth of this nation.
— Posted by Dee
2007
11:55 pm
Why can’t the “conservative” Christians support Dr. Ron Paul, a Christian who is also a medical doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies and is decidedly pro-life? Come to think of it, why cant “liberals” support Dr. Paul, the only candidate, Republican or Democrat besides Kucinich who has consistently opposed the Iraq war and further wars? They both can, and do! Dr. Paul’s message has brought together a very diverse group of supporters, and this is a force to be reckoned with.
— Posted by Peter
2007
11:57 pm
All Anti-Abortion Zealots that think you’ve got more weight with God than we liberals:
Your deeds are as filthy rags. It isn’t hard to want to save little babies. Try something requiring a little more personal effort.
You and Dobson typically support worshipers of Mammon, not the God of Abraham. You have consistently made deals with the Devil. Your rogue’s gallery of Rove, Reed, Delay et al is an abomination. Your blindness helps these principalities, powers, wickedness in high places, create an environment that exacerbates socio-economic conditions; in turn, that causes more desperation and more desperation in turn leads to your bane, more abortions.
You support a regime that has, as a direct or indirect consequence of their actions, resulted in the displacement of 2.5 million and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq.
Have you adopted your African baby with HIV yet? Have you called your senator and told him you want something done faster in Darfur? Do you purchase clothes made by the sexually molested 13 year-old girl in south-east asia? Are you OK with the preachers of hate and terror who reside here in your back yard?
All of neptune’s seas can’t wash the blood from your hands, brothers and sisters. You preaching about abortion doesn’t curry favor with God. You, like the rest of us, have failed to grasp the parable of Sheep and Goats. You are pro-birth, not pro-life - You do nothing and say nothing about a regime that thinks nothing of aborting persons after they are born; whether through denial of health care, destabilizing an entire country, selling out workers to the wealthy. So say a prayer and be convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Elect someone that will create better conditions for you to spread the Good Word. Believer, atheist, Buddhist; it doesn’t matter if they facilitate your Great Commission by making the world a little better place to be … even the Pharaoh was a tool for God’s purpose.
— Posted by northrhombus
2007
12:05 am
johncuepublic @ 299
You must be Stephen Colbert posting incognito!
Those are the funniest lines I have read in these blogs in a long time.
English the language Jesus spoke… LOL
Sorry but, Jesus has been speaking Spanish all his life, even after he swam across the Rio Grande and migrated to LA
Cheers,
— Posted by Romulo
2007
12:05 am
Republicans should nominate Fred Thompson. The Christian Party should nominate Ralph Reed. Then sanity could rule the day. President H. Clinton.
— Posted by robert ringgold
2007
12:06 am
I too am a conservative Christian that is supporting Fred Thompson (Fred08.Com) - he is a Federalist that considers the following two issues to be of great import: (1) Security of our nation and its borders (2) Curbing out-of-control spending and dealing with looming entitlement disasters that threaten future generations with a massive tax burden.
He’s also a Federalist - how many candidates today even cite our U.S. Constitution? Many of them chafe at it as it gets in the way of their elitist socialist agenda of fostering federal government dependence and further control over all our lives.
Finally, Fred is plain speaking, he “says what he means” and “means what he says”. He’s got my vote!
— Posted by Lee
2007
12:07 am
All those who think that our secular government is some sort of ‘fiction’, see the Treaty of Tripoli, article 11, written by George Washington, then read Article 6, sec 3 of the constitution, then if that is not enough to convince you of the secular nature of our constitution, find God anywhere in the document.
— Posted by Terry
2007
12:07 am
Why oh why oh why is abortion a religious issue? You people clearly have not thought this through, abortion is not a religious issue. Nobody is for the mass murdering of people. Who would be “for” the killing of a newborn baby? The real debate is, at what point would it be wrong to kill it? How about 1 day before he was supposed to be born? 2 weeks before? a month? 3 months? 8 months? The bottom line is, the development of a child is not a black and white cut thing! It is grey, it is gradual. Why should we trust government or even ourselves that we have figured out the correct placement of the line where something is pointless flesh or a human with rights. Murder of an innocent human is something nobody wants, from a christian to an athiest. Sometimes I wonder if people hate the Christians soo much that they will take the opposite side no matter what the issue is.
— Posted by Kelly
2007
12:12 am
Christianity is, and always has been, the backbone of America. Not that all are Christians - obviously many are not - but it is the Belief that makes us a free people, and the basis for having a nation worth defending. Look at the history of secular nations. Without exception, turning their backs on God was the beginning of their end as a free people. They may be free in form, but in fact they are just subjects of a government without impetus to help build a future. Without a higher purpose, a nation implodes. If our leaders do not hold those godly standards high, expect it here too.
— Posted by Rollins
2007
12:14 am
I’m a Christian. And an evangelical white male at that. But I’d vote for a gay, cross-dressing gorilla if I was pretty sure that they would: a) Stop illegal immigration and close the border with Mexico and Canada, b) Unleash our soldiers in Iraq and allow them to kill the real bad guys like Muqtada Al-Sadr, and c) Most importantly mandate by executive order that U.S. oil companies drill in ANWR and off every American coastline until the U.S. no longer needs Mideast oil.
IMO Rudy G. offers me nor any conservative any of these possibilities. I couldn’t care less about abortion given the huge problems our country faces, but I’m also not vote for a man that believes taxpayer funded abortions to be a constitutional right…Guilliani has stated this position publicly, just as he has stated his opposition to cracking down on illegal immigration.
So for me it’s no Guilliani, no way, no how!!! Let the GOP machine find a better candidate. For cryin out the election is 13 months away and we’d better do better than the likes of Guilliani or America is finished.
— Posted by Jeff Smith
2007
12:16 am
Man, I hope these guys do separate from the neo-Cons. Then, America will have an easy choice;Crazy Religious Wackos, Morally corrupt neo-Cons, or the righteous Democrats.
— Posted by hacp
2007
12:17 am
0. Democrats always throw the victory party before the actual victory. It’s almost guaranteed loss when they start chanting, “We’re gonna win”.
1. Odd-year congressional elections are never a predictor of presidential elections.
2. George Bush and his lying lies are not running for re-election. There is no advantage in running against Bush. Every candidate is already doing this.
3. Republicans cannot win an election for dog catcher without the evangelical vote.
4. Reagan was pro-life and that is the spirit all modern conservatives must channel in order to win.
5. History has shown the front runner at this point almost never wins the nomination. (Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Bush 2, etc…)
6. Pro-life support is a deal breaker for evangelicals. Period.
7. Jesus was a radical. He believed God loved non-Jews. He also believed (and clearly stated) that homosexuality was an abomination to God.
8. The first act of our congress was to allocate funds for, and appoint a minister to bless the actions of the elected representatives.
10. All the candidates basically suck.
— Posted by Having a blast
2007
12:20 am
When the moment of truth comes, Americans concerned with the security of the nation, with the survival of their families, will vote for the candidate who they believe will make America safe. The fact that a few religious zealots who specialize on abortion/family issues have lost their focus and allow themselves to become the instruments/the tools to elect liberals (exactly the opposite of what they want on both domestic and foreign policy/defense issues)will mean little when the true patriots among the conservative and Republican right wing wake up to the disaster that a third religious party would do to America and sober up the overwhelming majority of conservative voters.
Nascar, SCCA, NRA, white collars, blue collars, Evangelicals, non-Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Hindus, and even some Moslems will join together to compromise (since there is no one perfect candidate and we need a candidate that can win votes from the center and even left of center to defeat Hillary/Billary & Co.) and elect a Rudy Guliani or Fred Thompson to save America from the threat to our freedom and existence.
Everyone should understand, that no matter which Republican were to get elected, even the most arch conservative anti-abortionist, the Democrats will still likely have a majority in both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, even with the conservative justices appointed by President Bush, may still be reluctant to totally dump some kind abortion rights. To hand the election of president to left wing Democrats based on the irrational belief that electing an anti-abortionist president (who won’t be able to change much in that area anyway) is like shooting yourselves in the head for nothing.
— Posted by RickAnalyst
2007
12:22 am
One scenario both parties would fear is of conservatives from BOTH parties quickly and angrily forming a coalition party that would expouse the views of most of the country between the coasts. There is incredible unhappiness in the country with both Democrats/Socialists and the Republican/Corporate parties; and if a coalition could get a powerful candidate who would speak from the hip and demamd the securing of our borders without equivocation they might stand a chance of winning.
Otherwise, I really do not think we will get any type of leader out of this election. Period.
— Posted by willisg
2007
12:24 am
Sean M. @330
“FYI, “Separation of Church and State” is a FRENCH idea, not an American one. …It is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution. Go ahead and look for it, post the article/amendment where it can be found in the Constitution here … ”
Sean, Amendment #1 + Amendment #14 disagree with your assertion in my legal opinion:
#1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
#14 Section1:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The combination of these 2 amendments are pretty clear. Public spaces must allow access to all or to no religious group … the latter being easier to enforce and more respectful to all.
“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
(Thomas Jefferson - Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802)
“Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.” (James Madison: Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).
Last I checked, Sean, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison weren’t French … if you need more quotes from other sources ?
Just ask.
— Posted by northrhombus
2007
12:26 am
I am extremely dissapointed with Dr. Dobson’s expressed views on Fred Thompson. It is clear to me that he is precisely the conservative candidate that Republicans need. If Dr. Dobson wants to ensure that Republicans have an alternative to Rudy Giuliani, then he will get behind Fred. But if he doesn’t, and Rudy prevails, then the WORST thing Dr. Dobson can do is split the vote, and put Ms. Clinton into the White House.
As a Christian I can assure you that Fred Thompson satisfies me as the best candidate in the field. Read this article:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/president_thomps on.html
— Posted by Bob Barney
2007
12:26 am
I am a mainline Protestant, Country-Club Republican. I believe the coming election will be won or lost on issues of national security, a desire for a “stright arrow” President, and a reaction to “Clinton-Bush fatigue.”
A strong argument can be made for Fred Thompson. I feel he satisfies the “likeability” factor which is understated in its importance.
Apparently Fred has failed the Dobson “litmus test”
because Fred’s record against abortion is based upon jurisprudential reasoning and not religious dogma. In this sense Dobson marginalizes himself, and his movement is now fractured over is “private e-mail, complaining that Fred doesn’t “go to church enough”
Yet, Thompson’s record is consistent on this issue
which is only one of many issues and which is not the overriding issue of this election.
Dobson has a short memory. Conservatives should remember the recent confirmation hearings of Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative, brilliant Judge.
who is rooted in his religious tradition but not a religious fanatic. Who ushered his confirmation through the Senate? It was one who was perceived as jurisprudentially conservative, a person of integrity, a federalist….Fred Thompson.
This linkage with the Roberts Nomination and Confirmation provides a glimpse of a Thompson presidency, one of integrity, collegiality, and
moderate conservatism.
Fred…I am in church most Sundays and apparently your are not. So what! I am looking for good public policy, truthfulness, a tilt toward conservativism, fiscal sanity, and a strong defense. On the social issues I like your federalism, as many issues should be resolved by residents of the respective states. A federal
“rule by fiat” on all issues such as marriage is not good government.
Fred, you are not a Ronald Reagan (who also seldom attended church), but you have the potential for being a truthful, communicative and prudent leader, one who can look us in the eye and “tell it like it is.” And as with McCain-Feingold you have shown you will cross the aisle when you feel it is in the national interest.
Country-Lawyer from Ohio
— Posted by Stephen C.
2007
12:48 am
Someone mentioned relegious radical in DC. We have’nt had a christian pres. since maybe Reagan. Judge a tree by it’s fruit..And I voted for him..Between the two, I voted right..Sometimes we just don’t have anyone to vote for..I think Hillary will get elected,because the vote will be split. To bad for us and our children..Also this country was founded on Bible principles totally..There is no seperation of church and state in the constitution.. shawn tx
— Posted by Shawn
2007
12:56 am
Why do Christian/Conservatives (the ones that believe the Bible) even waste time arguing with Dems? Ever heard the phrase “don’t cast your pearls before swine”. Yup, it is from the Bible and it means don’t waste time arguing with those that are so blinded by their selfishness that they ardently defend murdering babies (abortion), but ironically defend terrorists that blow kids up in cars. Yeah, maybe President Bush (oh yeah and all of Congress that had access to the same intel) was wrong about WMDs, but face it; going to war with Iraq was RIGHT regardless of WMDs. I think the administration was just looking for a nice way to “wrap up the deal and sell it” to the average Joe (like me) not smart enough to figure out that a fanatical dictator who paid people to blow up Israeli children on busses needed some bayonnetting from the Marine Corps. As a Marine with 2 deployments to Iraq, I can tell you, politics aside, when it comes down to it, we are killing terrorists in Iraq and Afganistan every day. To me, in a very simple way, that means we are indeed fighting a war on terror. It sucks that Rudy, who is pro-baby killing, might win, but I sure hope Christians will be “wise as serpents” and vote for the lesser of two evils…which is anyone that can wip the Dems.
Jonathan
— Posted by Jon
2007
12:58 am
What’s interesting in this article is what the Times is NOT saying. That is, religious conservatives are really looking at only two candidates to carry this banner. Sam Brownback appeals to Catholics while Mike Huckabee appeals to evangelicals.
And did I mention that conservative Christians have as much a right to vote as agnostics, Jews and Muslims?
— Posted by DSW
2007
1:15 am
The difference between Democrats and Republicans are marginal, except when it comes to the life vs death issue of abortion. I will be voting for the pro-life candidate regardless of which 3 party’s she is in. The constitutional right to life is the foundation on which all our other rights reign.
— Posted by Max Weir
2007
1:18 am
I haven’t the time to see if this has been suggested previously, but the most conservative party I’ve found out there which is already established is the CONSTITUTION PARTY. I strongly urge people to take a look at their platform. I am guilty of not doing very much research currently, but have gotten on their mailing list, and what they have to say, (SO FAR!)has found a receptive audience in my home. At the same time, there is a desperate urgent need for all of us to get on our knees and ask our Good God for forgiveness for our (America’s) sins. Praying the Rosary for this cause will be MOST beneficial!
— Posted by Chris
2007
1:19 am
Wow… some of the things people are posting are truly terrifying. Not having to be exposed to people who think like this on a daily basis makes me forget the narrow-mindedness and lack of tolerance that characterize this sect of the Republican party. It’s exactly what makes me hesitate before before I tell people I’m a Christian - I’m afraid to be lumped into the same category. They have as much a right as anyone to speak out about their political beliefs, but not the right to insist on a candidate that imposses them on the rest of us. I’ve heard many Republicans say that they feel the Conservative Evangelical Christian Right have hijaked their party, and many Christians say they feel they’ve hijaked their faith. They need to realize what they are - a minority both of their party and Protestantism, and stop trying to impose their beliefs on those who have no desire to do the same to them.
— Posted by Shells
2007
1:29 am
Wow, look at all the liberal Dems posting here saying they are glad Hillary will benefit and possibly win if a third party springs up! The same Hillary who voted for the war they hate!
Talk about your hypocrites! The leftist Dem party controlled by moveon.org is sinking with them!
— Posted by Inflorida2
2007
1:30 am
Christian conservatives should consider Congressman Ron Paul. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. It would be a safe bet that he understands better than most the mircle of birth along with any challenges that it may bring.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
— Posted by The Mikey
2007
1:46 am
This could be a very important development in moving the ball bakc in a conservative direction. if the Republicans are goign to act like Democrats, then what is the point of Republican victory?
As Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus puts it, with the Democrats incharge, it’s as if you’re driving off a cliff at 100 miles per hour. At least the Republicans drive within the speed limit. But you’re still going off the cliff. What we need is to turn the car around.
Perhaps an effort like this will help us begin to do so.
— Posted by Timmer
2007
1:48 am
Yes, our country needs Christ…but, it doesn’t need a spilt in the Republican Party that will give all of us…Christian and non-Christian alike…another another Bill Clinton to ruin the country. A split gave us nothing but grief and left us totally unprepared for the terrorist threat and cultural upheaval we’re now facing. We’re not going to be electing a Pastor-in-Chief in ‘08 and we need to understand that single-issue politics will cost us dearly. Dobson et al. should try to convert Giuliani to Christ, not cut off the country’s nose to spite the church’s face.
— Posted by M.D. White
2007
2:01 am
UH, what’s so great about the dems? They voted to give GW Bush’s executive its power and are doing nothing to stop him. The troop could be home by now. Get a clue, the government will not save you and the dems will not fix it. www.ronpaultv.com
stand up for yourselves help is not coming.
— Posted by MarkT
2007
2:06 am
We are a Christian nation and the Republican Party is built on three principles: 1) low taxes, 2)sanctity of state rights and 3) pro-life. We cannot and shall not let anyone represent our party in the election if he does NOT all these principles. If we do not stand of life, what do we stand for? Remember, we are a Christian Nation.
— Posted by Robert Putman
2007
2:07 am
The Conservative vote should go to RON PAUL a pro-life conservative Republician!
— Posted by Steve
2007
2:36 am
Excellent…maybe the GOP can get back to its roots. Do not forget what contempt Barry Goldwater held for the “Christian right” when he was alive. I would say the vast majority of Republicans are folks who don’t want their lives meddled in, and have tolerated the Chrisitian wingnuts because the Democrat, socialist-lite alternative seemed worse. However, this does not change the fact that evangelicals are just as meddling, dour-faced, angry and crusading as leftists, just with a different set of gospel. Time for the Republican party to once again be the party of “leave me alone…my life is not your business, my money is not yours to spend, and your life is not my fault”
— Posted by I.S.
2007
2:45 am
Why should the political establishment get to take for granted the votes of millions of Americans who do not accept the wrongful limitation of their democratic right to govern themselves and decide for themselves how abortion should be regulated? The arrogance of the Supreme Court, and then of the political establishment, in taking this issue out of the political process and keeping it out, is breathtaking. If the Republican party nominates anyone who isn’t opposed to Roe v. Wade, it is destroying itself, no matter what Dobson & co. may or may not do. Wrongful homicide should not be permitted under law, and Roe v. Wade encroaches on the principle of self-government (there is no such thing in our constitution as a “right” to abort, which is a complete fiction imposed by raw judicial arrogance). This is a central issue of our time: Republicans shouldn’t duck it.
— Posted by Alan
2007
2:50 am
Yeaaaaaaaaaaa a 3rd party candidate. There IS a God.
— Posted by ikky
2007
3:03 am
Every time I hear someone say “these people”, I am thrown back in time to when black Americans were struggling for social and political existence. With all the talk of tolerance these days, I fear that the only thing people can not and will not tolerate are those that cling to the truth of the Bible and look for ways politically/socially/personally to live that truth out.
— Posted by Mark S
2007
3:07 am
This is how republicans lost the last election, ie: the House and Senate, We sat out and watched. No regrets they deserved to lose, but having Mrs. Bill Clinton is not an option. I can’t even believe Dobson and other Christian leaders would be that stupid. Have we forgot about Ross P. and what that did for Mr Clinton. The socialist witch of the East, HRC must really like this news. Oz will be hers to rule with Bubba once again. Besides a stronger socialist country, new and more taxes, and Free Health Care(By the way we all are going to pay for more ways than one) we have to look on the bright side. As America turns to crap then Jesus can soon return
— Posted by Norb Kinne
2007
3:16 am
The souls Christian Conservatives are hoping to save never existed in the first place. It’s delusional. Religion is truly the Opium of the masses. Decent men and women– people of ethical values, who care and have compassion for their fellow human beings must work to deliver a single message to the strong-headed yet weak-minded fanatics of all religions– whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. That message is that we’ve suffered too much at their hands. That their frenzy to make everything conform to their ideological perfection is a dream that can never be fulfilled. And we must stand up and tell them that they are not going to hold sway over our lives anymore. Tell them that we want to live in peace while we still live. And that their obsession is the root cause of more pain and suffering than all the atom bombs combined. In the USA, weapon sales are one of our largest exports, if not the largest. We sell more weapons to developing nations than any other country on earth. And yet we choose our leaders because of an embryo while we ignore the death of our children, our brothers and sisters, fathers and uncles so we can fight for the stupid fanatical failings Bush-Cheney? We tear a hole in the fabric of our society and our economy to the tune of $800 billion in defense costs? We slip our children in the face and tell them that our future is at risk because we won’t fund education in America? We allow insurance companies to tell us whether or not we can be cured based on their need to profit… and yet we think these things pale in comparison to souls? THERE ARE NO SOULS. It’s something they were told or read about in a book written by ignorant, superstitious men who were the ultimate flip-floppers, some 2,000 years ago. These biblical authors spoke out of both sides of their mouth… saying turn a cheek; but also remember… and an eye for an eye. Which is it?
I’ve met Rudy Giuliani. I’ve met Hillary Clinton. Neither one meets my standard– not because they are pro-choice. But because… is this the best the United States can do?
So… let the Christian Right splinter the GOP. The only reason they are in the Republican Party is because Regan played them like a song, and they bought into it. For a while it looked like they were gaining traction, but in the end– the truth always comes out. They can do with the GOP as they please. The party of Lincoln stopped looking and sounding like Lincoln’s party when Lyndon Johnson signed Civil Rights legislation giving Blacks equal rights (or at least the appearance of civil rights). The white South fled the Democratic Party and hid behind the notion that they were for fiscal conservatism when they were just angry that they had to share a toilet with a black man. What a laugh. The Republicans waste as much money as the Democrats. They just have different pork projects. If you ask me… I’m fed up, and I’m not going to take it anymore.
— Posted by Robert Cohen
2007
3:33 am
All these Johnny-come-lately constitutionalists have their knickers in a twist, and yet, they who are quick to jump on the original poster are getting it wrong, too. Here’s what the Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
This is pretty simple:
Issue 1: The government is not getting in to the religion business, and by that, by holding up one over the other is not going to happen. Sorry theocrats.
Issue 2: You are free to worship whatever or whoever in any way you see fit.
Get it? In other words, the “godless liberals” have no right to tell you how to worship, or get in the way of your worshipping. However, you also have no right to tell the rest of us who, what or how to worship, or not, if that is our choice.
Understand? Religionists need to remember the utter failure state-sponsored religion would be in practice: most Christians cannot agree on what is the correct interpretation of Christianity is, let alone other religions. Imagine if, in their utopia to get organized school prayer in the public schools, they were Baptists and the prayer was written by an Episcopalian, or Catholic? Imagine if they are conservative Christians the prayer is written by a black, gay lesbian liberal Christian? Would they be down with that.
This stuff is nonsense, but since the vast majority of Christian conservatives are ignorant of our own Constitution and want to force others to be subjected to their narrow views, we will be arguing this forever.
Also, Christians, rememember: having religious freedom is a precious right. Don’t squander it.
— Posted by B Brown
2007
3:56 am
We as Christians have the right to voice our opinions in any and all matters relating to the Government that we live in (Good ol’ USA). Learn English, Respect the American flag, read the Constitution and learn about what true freedoms are.
1st Amend: Allows us the right to our religious beliefs. It allows us our right to speak and exist (freedom of speech). The right to worship is not given to us by man it’s a right given by the Almighty. Read the writings of our forefathers and you will see how they included GOD in a majority of their writings and decisions.
The Bible has always been attacked throughout the history of time and it won’t end. Mankind does not like for his dirty laundry aired out in public for all to see. The Bible brings to light the sin that we all are born with. Ask Jesus for forgiveness of your sins and believe by Faith that God has a free gift of eternal life with him in Heaven and you will be there one day. The alternative is reject God on HIS terms and end up spending your after life in a place of torment Lake of Fire and brimstone.
USA is the greatest country in the world and many men and women have laid their lives down so that we can breathe free air. Don’t allow the libs to steal your Constitutional rights away from you. Vote for a viable canedate that is strong on social issues even if you don’t agree with every little thing that he stands for.
Mitt Romney is socially conservative and he cares about stopping the invasion from the south of our border. Duncan Hunter is a great choice (born again Christian, strong defense, pro AMERICA, anti-globalism) but he has a small chance. Don’t throw away your vote and allow another anti-gun Democrat or a liberal Republican in office. I’m not happy with Bush either but he was a better choice than Kerry or Gore. I’ve met both and had conversations with both. Very stuck up and condescending people.
— Posted by Dan
2007
4:22 am
It’s amazing at how little Americans know about the separation of church and state. They use the phrase so casually, yet clearly have no concept of the facts and embarass themselves. People should read the new book “Wall of Misconception” by Peter Lillback and educate themselves.
— Posted by Rudy
2007
5:12 am
As a fundamentalist Christian there is zero chance that I would support or vote for Giuliani. This election will prove one thing, as they go down in flames, that is the how important the Christian vote is in the Republican Party. A third party candidate is the ticket!
— Posted by Brian
2007
5:26 am
While most conservative Christians do vote, most of the outright haters of Bush don’t (or don’t know how, or fear jury duty). Some of the wild posters about religion, separation of church and state and the standard of a two-party system really need to revisit all the propaganda they absorbed in our wonderful public school system. They aren’t called sheeple for nothing. Vote the Constitution party, the Dems and Reps are all about who looks the best on camera.
— Posted by dave m
2007
5:27 am
we christian conservatives already have a pro life candidate in Huckabee. If he can’t win the primary then how a we gonna win the general election. all you are doing is assuring we have another clinton in the whitehouse for 8 more years. Then how many conservative supreme court judges will you get! Fight for your candidate now then support the one we get later.
— Posted by bob smith
2007
5:38 am
“…This country was founded on separation of chuch and state…” by Peter D.
Um, no, no it was not. The country WAS “founded” upon basic ineliable rights and one of those is the Freedom of Religion. There is NO “Freedom of the Separation of Church and State” nor no “Freedom FROM religion” for those of you who disdain the religious freedom (and beliefs and fair exercise of those) by and of others.
It’s good that these Christians are speaking out as they are. The Liberal drift by the GOP has gone on too long and obviously gone way too far…though Giuliani seems to be a good guy, he appears to be running for Hillary’s V.P.
— Posted by WALDO
2007
5:42 am
Wow, now reading through the previous comments, I see that Christians really do get you Liberals worked up.
You all nominate Hillary, we Conservatives will work out our own issues as to nominee and then vote accordingly. It’s time the GOP was herded back into something Conservatives can and will support but nominating Liberals for the Presidency isn’t the way to go about it. We already have to suffer and contend with the RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) in Congress, and look what a mess they’ve made for the Party accordingly.
We need more Conservatives in D.C. and especially another Conservative in the White House. Rather than allow the Clintons and other Liberals to twist our nation into another version of the old U.S.S.R., our nation should be motivating lost Liberals to garner some sense and observe more reverant approach toward use of government (or non use of it).
— Posted by WALDO
2007
5:43 am
For a Norwegian, it is almost impossible to imagine that the Christian conservatives has so much influence on the American politics. It’s frightening. To me, there’s no difference between Christian fundamentalists, and Muslim fundamentalists. And mixing any kind of fundamentalism with politics is dangerous!
— Posted by Hans s Holand
2007
5:53 am
Proverbs 6:16-19
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
Ring any bells?
— Posted by TW
————————–
That pretty well sums up the DNC, most if not all Democrats and certainly Hillary (AND Bill(Clinton).
The GOP needs to organize behind a Conservative candidate for the Presidency. If and when it does that, the election is a given for the GOP. BUT people are disenfranchised by the “party only vote” and are refusing to lend support a lot lately to the GOP BECAUSE it’s become too Liberal (illegal aliens, amnesty, big government, lack of immigration enforcement, etc.).
The War in Iraq is largely supported by most Conservatives as an branch of national security. It’s a tool/meme used by Liberals to denigrate the GOP but you’re wrong about that being the motivator toward a Democrat win, it’s merely a motivator to get more Liberals filled with anxiety and voting like fools for more Liberals as they cast aside a Republic in eagerness to seat a Dictator and other Socialist messes where once we had Liberties.
Giuliani has the support he has garnered so far not because he’s a Conservative but because he poses someone who will be strong on national security. However, due to his “sanctuary city” and “amnesty” positions, that tends to render him dubious for many Conservatives on that same issue of national security (because these are contradictory stances).
Conservatives in the GOP want the party to represent small government, the rights of the individual, sustain and protect our Constitution, and many other pro-life, pro-quality-of-life issues (among those, national security, pro-defense, border security, an end to sanctuary cities and amnesty, protection of marriage, many others).
It would be an interesting challenge and victory for the nation if and as Hillary is elected and she’s impeached like Bill was (but escorted out, like Bill was not). Nothing lasts forever and the Clinton disaster is due a conclusion and soon. The GOP will find it’s worthy nominee for the Presidency as soon as it organizes itself back into something that Conservatives can respect. However, it’s a given that we don’t respect the DNC, for the most part. The options remaining are: nominate a Conservative President and then elect a Conservative President, followed by removing RINOs from Congress. AT least, for Conservativse, those are the options.
Good luck, you Liberals, with backing the Clinton disaster train. It’s pitiful that you do.
— Posted by WALDO
2007
5:54 am
Nobody is denying anyone from practicing their religious beliefs here in America. What the argument is about is proselytizing as official business of the state. Nobody says you can’t be against abortion, or for prayer in the school, but the government can’t preach against abortion or force students, of diverse religions, to pray a given prayer. These are private matters and no one dictates what individuals believe. Particularly in the case of evolution, a well established theory that is being undermined, even denied, because some Americans don’t want their universes to change. I thought Galileo had fought that fight successfully centuries ago, just as Jesus the Revolutionary had fought for justice and forgiveness centuries before Galileo’s monumental struggle. Those who go by the name of ” christian ” and champion wars, the death penalty, wealth, scientific progress and inequalities of any kind, are really secularist of the basest kind, in ” christian ” clothing! You are having your cake and eating too! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.
— Posted by Don Fitzgerald
2007
6:00 am
I am amazed at how many Americans say that they support the freedom of speech, and the Constitution in general, yet fail to see how their anti-Christian comments fly in the face of such beliefs. Last time I checked it was not against the Constitution for a group of people with similar beliefs to get together and try to make a political statement. These “fanatics” are still Americans, and they deserve the same rights as all the other “fanatics” on the other side whose church is Moveon.org.
— Posted by Lee
2007
6:09 am
by Sara: “…Are you aware of the many countries where women die daily from back-alley abortions and 13 year-old girls who have been violated by relatives must give birth to that baby? This is America. Women have the right to family planning and I am damn proud that they do…”
That’s not America, that’s moral decay, that’s anarchy and corruption. Women as do men have every right to organize their sexual behaviors to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and to respect sex as shared between a man and wife in marriage. The “America” you refer to is the result of the “Progressives” running amok in society, especially using public education to do so, in their efforts to eliminate values, individual worth and religious expression from daily lives. Or else, you’re describing Mexico, where they say the “age of consent is 12″ for sexual relationship — our country, the United States of America, was founded on principle, religious beliefs and the value of individual liberties and individual worth and motive. There’s nothing there in our nation’s founding principles that says people with Christian beliefs are to be eliminated from the public realm, that belief in God is something to be eliminated and/or penalized, that anyone with Christian beliefs is to be silenced.
Liberals want a Liberal world without standards, without requirements to change or inspire. The more desperate conditions you create, the bigger your government response is and that, our country was never founded upon. How about inspiring girls and boys in their behaviors and stop selling them destructive options. That would require ideals, however, which is why I believe so many Liberals here as quite so consistently intolerant of the beliefs of others.
I’m a religious person but I’ll vote for Giuliani if he’s the GOP nominee. I completely disagree with him on his Liberal positions - mostly amnesty, sanctuary cities, his indulgence and “progressive” indulgences as to illegal aliens in conflict of national security interests, his “flexibility” as to the lives of the unborn, and more. But I’d never, under any circumstances, for (again) for a Democrat.
— Posted by WALDO
2007
6:35 am
If Republicans are not going to stand for life, liberty, and marriage, we don’t need them. This includes Congress — the house just passing HRes 590 395-0. If Republicans fund radical feminist domestic domestic violence programs, which many know are just plain hate legislation, they need a painful lesson taught by the voters. Out with them all!
— Posted by David R. Usher
2007
6:41 am
In the U.S. we have a two-party system. Third parties cannot get elected; they can just throw an election to the party OTHER than the one they are more closely in tune with. Check out Ralph Nader’s impact in 2000. Since there are only two seriously competitive parties, each is made up of a coalition of interests, which often don’t get along with each other. In Europe they would each be separate parties, then form coalitions after the election. Christian conservatives are an important part of the Republican coalition, but not the only part. By going their separate way they would marginalize themselves, and hand the election to a Democrat. It’s smarter to work for nomination of a favored candidate now, but then coalesce behind the winner, realizing that a Giuliani (if he wins) is much better than any Democrat for conservative issues, and by remaining a part of the coalition, the opportunity remains to impact races at other levels, as well as future Presidential races. Marginalization accomplishes nothing.
— Posted by Dave
2007
6:43 am
It seems the in situ de facto inertia can not be overcome with a third party- been tried many times and foundered on the shoals, a la Anderson, Wallace, Perot et al.
Better that we back a candidate that can win for America
— Posted by venturager
2007
6:45 am
SHHHHH! Listen! Hear that??
That’s the voice of God telling you to DO IT, Dr. Dobson! I know God talks to you all the time Dr. Dobson, so surely you recognize his voice.
It sounded like He said for you and The Flock to bolt the Republican Party and for you, yes YOU, to run for president.
— Posted by NashvillePaul
2007
6:58 am
Ouch! Some of the commentators need to reevaluate their comments. Like’em or lump’em, these leaders represent tens of millions of Americans and are the reason why the GOP is a competitive party in the US. The way to diminish their influence (if that is desired) is continue to provide the judges and opportunities to overturn Roe v. Wade, give the abortion issue back to the states and then you will see a natural dispersion of the “Christian” vote among both parties.
— Posted by Richard from Cleveland
2007
7:06 am
The republican party cannot win trying to imitate the democrats. Choosing Rudy will ensure Hilary’s election. The nation’s first woman president is virtually assured if it’s Rudy vs. Hilary. Republicans who think the abandonment of core principles such as telling the truth instead of lying, true conservatism instead of window dressing conservatism, need to prepare for irrelevancy. It’s coming.
— Posted by Independent
2007
7:08 am
First…the country was not founded on ‘the separation of church and state, it was founded on STRONG religious principles. Second…this is a ruse put up by the Times and other lefties to stir the Rudy pot. Divide the Republicans and the DemocRATs win. If you are a conservative Christian and you are thinking third party…just send your money to Hillary…you’ll be working to elect her. Think further than your nose, then, hold your nose and vote for WHO EVER THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE is…he’s better than the alternative.
— Posted by Phocus
2007
7:12 am
Hmmm . . . by slavishly approving every crazy action Bush has taken since he slithered into the White House in 2001, Christian conservatives and almost all other Republicans have built the sinking boat that is the Bush administration. Was it truly Christian to attack a country at peace and kill 200,000 people? Was it Christian to lie and claim Iraq would strike us with nukes when Bush knew Hussein had no nukes? Does “Thou shalt not lie” ring a bell? Was it Christian to dramatically slash taxes on the super-rich? Was it Christian to DOUBLE the amount of illegal aliens flooding into the US AFTER 9/11? Yet Bush did all of these things. Giuliani agrees with these crazy and, in some cases, treasonous actions of Bush. If you worship Bush, why don’t you worship Giuliani? Bush is the worst president we have ever had, and Giuliani would try to claim that title for himself.
Republicans, wake up. You are the ones making Hillary look reasonable and normal, because you have been supporting the Bush gang’s incompetence and treason for 7 years. If Hillary gets in, you have only yourselves to blame.
— Posted by R. Ashton
2007
7:13 am
Always amused by those who would compare Christian Conservatives with the Taliban. These people are the same Atheists who have never traveled beyond their city or state line!
— Posted by Tim
2007
7:16 am
As a life-long conservative (adult life, that is), I think that Rudy would make an excellent President. Only Newt might be better and he is not running. I am not a Christian nor am I a pro-life zealot. I do believe that abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. Family planning and education are needed. More emphasis should be placed on responsibility for one’s actions instead of letting the govt. be responsible (blamed?) for everything and everyone (Hillary care??) Also, more govt. programs that reward mothers having children out of wedlock produce the results we see today. Thanks, LBJ and Democrats, for the “Great Society” that you created!
As for third party “Christian” candidates, they will only serve to get Hillary elected. It only shows how selfish and self-centered they are. Keep God in our country but out of elections.
— Posted by ricardo maxwell
2007
7:17 am
Well say to one who is thinking about a 3rd party , you can help the Dem, to get in , also does one want to destroy our way of having two parties that makes us different than most other countries Know we have lots of unAmericans in this country, do you as 3rd part voter want to be like other countries or keep our way , you notice all, mostly all, want to come to America ,”THINK”
— Posted by Shirley Robbins
2007
7:43 am
Peter D. said: “This country was founded on separation of chuch and state.”
Please point out in the Constitution where is says this. Article and section please.
Ooops. It’s not in there. Another liberal lie.
— Posted by Klabdak
2007
7:49 am
What this group and all true conservatives must understand, that weakening the party by offering a third party candidate is the way to get Senator Clinton elected. What is needed is for these groups to get behind a true conservative, Governor Huckabee. Now is the time to look to give support to a candidate that has stayed true to the conservative values. By the middle of February the primaries will be all but over. Today is when we can make the most change possible.
— Posted by Jon Yuengling
2007
8:04 am
Did you secularists know that almost every single politician up until the 20th century would be considered a religous fanatic today. Hmm, who would I choose? George Washington or Rudy? Boy that’s a tough one. If the republican nominee was for higher taxes, but against abortion, religous conservatives would be against him too. If the republican nominee is against the war on radical islam, the religous conservatives would be against him. Wake up secularists, this is not a give and take issue. Would religous conservatives ask you to give up your opposition to higher taxes so a pro-tax, anti-abortion candidate can be elected? NEVER. Sela(that means think on this)
— Posted by martin
2007
8:05 am
Please let Romney win or Guliani split the GOP. This seems too good to be true, but I don’t think for a second that these religious fanatics are rational.
— Posted by seth o
2007
8:06 am
Instead of wringing their hands, Christians should be embracing Ron Paul. Among his accomplishments, he introduced the partial birth abortion ban that was upheld by the Supreme Court.
My vehement opposition to Giuliani though has little to do with his abortion stance. Giuliani ruthlessly persecuted Michael Milken & Drexel Burnham Lambert. Among his transgressions, he had investigators interrogate Michael Milken’s 90+-year old grandfather. They also followed Milken’s sister around. Giuliani was gunning for a 10-year prison sentence for alleged offenses that amounted to less than $700,000 of damages — for this you ruin a man & shut down a thriving company? To show you what kind of honorable man Milken is, after he was released from prison Milken reached out to Giuliani when he was diagnosed w. prostate cancer & helped the creep.
— Posted by Eric G. Wruck
2007
8:08 am
Let them do whatever they want as long as we start taxing the church. Without paying taxes they should not be part of the political process.
— Posted by Brad
2007
8:10 am
Why is it that conservative Christians are the only interest group not entitled to express their opinions and attempt to influence the selection of a candidate, without sending leftists and RINOs into paroxysms of hysterics?
If keeping Clinton out of the White House is the prime objective, then the RINOs should consider backing someone other than Guiliani. Why should the Christians always be the ones to settle for half a loaf?
— Posted by Rick
2007
8:15 am
Let’s hope the choice for POTUS does not come down to socialist Clinton and fascist Rudy. We are in trouble either way. Anyone who thinks you will get less government intrusion or less war from either of these candidates needs a reality / history check.
As a Christian conservative, I will not vote for Rudy as he is not a conservative and would fit in well as a democrat. I have a hard time believing that a pro-abortion, pro gay-agenda, pro illegal immigration and anti-gun candidate would get the republican nomination no matter what the unreliable polls say.
Frankly, it does not matter what Dobson says - most Christians will not back Rudy - Period. Some people vote their beliefs, as well you should in a free country - it’s your right! The media blackout on the so-called second-tier republican candidates will insure that we will get more of the same Clinton / Bush garbage big money establishment candidates that the country has been suffering from for years.
I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s beliefs, but I see him as frankly the only candidate that can pull support from both sides and have a chance of winning. RP’s anti-war stance and his strict Constitutional views of government’s role will insure support from a diverse group and the establishment on both sides is scared to death of him!
The major media won’t give him ANY air time whatsoever and even the alleged fair and balanced network (FOX) won’t even let the guy speak when they do give him air time. A big thank you to Cavuto and Hannity for doing their best to attempt to shut up and discredit RP whenever they interview him.
I believe the life expectancy of the US is less than 20 years if we continue on our present course. Things need to be turned around and soon. Think about that when you head to vote and consider a guy like Ron Paul to turn around this mess that we are in.
— Posted by Matt
2007
8:20 am
This country may need Christ, but does anyone think it will come any closer with Hillary at the helm? That is exactly what will happen if the evangelicals field a third-party candidate. Why do Christians always play into the hands of the foe? Whether it is ill-considered boycotts or political nitwittery, conservative Christians seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot, while the rest of the country just rolls its eyes at what loonies Christians are, which further erodes the image of Christianity. Nice job!
— Posted by Paul
2007
8:24 am
This is good. It’s wonderful, indeed, that the exclusionary party & war-mongering party, is having a time finding anyone who represents the most exclusionary and war-mongering candidate in the run for President. Having dissed their own Log Cabin Republicans; African-Americans; Hispanic-Americans; and certainly, Peace-Loving Americans, the GOP will have a brain bubble, collectively, when video and photos of Rudy in Drag begin to plaster the air waves. Many of us, of course, have seen these already. But, with millions who aren’t computer or web savvy, the raw images, and perhaps sound bytes recorded for posterity, of Rudy prancing around in drag ought to be mind blowing.
And by the way: yes, a fair question for Rudy should be: how often have you dressed in drag? Do you LIKE to dress in drag? Should we assume that if elected, we will have the first known drag queen in the White House? Are you willing to discuss drag dressing as a preference for yourself?
Not that we can’t have a drag queen in the white house. Just that the nation should know. If it’s a secret, then clearly, Rudy would never be granted a top secret clearance, since he’d be blackmailable. Wow! I hope he is brave enough (since he’s always talking tough), to be honest. And, he’d best hope that private video doesn’t exist of frank discussions with friends when he’s been “in costume.”
Candid statements made in such settings could reveal a host of truths.
— Posted by Jerry
2007
8:27 am
They should put their votes behind ron paul … He is against abortion, but will make it a state dhoice,death penalty,illegal immigration and unlike many his voting record is an testament of his words…ronpaul2008.com
— Posted by melisa
2007
8:33 am
This is America and if Christian Funds. want to creat their own party more power to them.A reoccurring comment I read is that Christian Funds. only follow part of the Bible.It is said that somehow they forget about the poor and suffering. This statement is not true Millions of chuches and other Christian organizations give billions of dollars to the poor and suffering.They also help the down trodden in so many other ways.
— Posted by Kevin
2007
8:39 am
It would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.
— Posted by Eugene Boyanton
2007
8:41 am
To Matt (#295) “Sorry to break the news to the agents of intolerance frequenting this thread, but the Separation of Church and State became law with the passage of the Civil War Amendments. Before the 14th Amendment,”
14th Ammendment says that states will not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
Help me with the leap to “Separation of Church and State”.
Do you really think the intent of the 14th Ammendment was to get religion out of politics?
Do you think that our “Enlightened” founding fathers would oppose a group of religious people promoting a political cause? They didn’t seem to mind in 1776.
— Posted by Ben
2007
8:50 am
As a bible-believing Christian, I am tired of being “Used” by the Republicrats.
I am a Born Again Christian. Call me all the names you want. I believe in the bible. I believe Jesus died to give me life eternal with Him and the only other option is eternal damnation. That’s what the bible says. Why go to church, sing hymns, and go through the motions like so many institutional American “christians” if you don’t believe in what the bible says?
That said, my identity does not rest in politics, the Christian Coalition, or any other pseudo-religous/political group. I will vote for whoever I feel led to vote for, Democrat, Republican, or Other Party.
My faith is in God. God is bigger than Hillary. If she wins because I am not a “Good Republican Soldier”, I am not worried. God is in charge.
— Posted by Mike
2007
8:56 am
Hey Peter D: This country was NOT founded on “separation of church and state.” It was founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM — Freedom from governments telling people when and where they can and cannot observe their faith. Today’s government tells us we cannot practice our faith in schools that we fund, even though the US Congress approved a bible for use in public schools back in the late 1700s. The Religious Right is a backlash against the secular forces that are trying to destroy religion in America, pure and simple. God was expelled back in the 1960s; I ask you: Has education and the nuclear family gotten better or worse in the past generation?
— Posted by Jodeo
2007
8:57 am
James Madison was the main author of the Constitution,,Thomas Jefferson did the Declaration of Independence..There is an “establishment clause”,,But I wonder why more lawyers don’t argue the second part of that amendment,,”the free exercise clause”? It should carry as much weight!!
— Posted by Dannie
2007
8:59 am
Yes! Let the conservatives form a third party and finally give us democrats a chance to win!
— Posted by matt
2007
9:09 am
I have been an active Rep for more years then I like to even think about. I don’t regret any of them, because of the purpose that I felt I was representing and serving. But I have left all of this because of what I feel is a total misrepresentation of what that real purpose was. I believe the Rep. party has wandered far from it’s base and does not show a true dedication of what the American values are. Let alone the Christian values of that was in the founding fathers hearts and minds in the formation of this country. Like this group I can see where Rudi does have charisma and leadership ability, but the moral fiber that should be present I find missing. Leadership without moral fiber is not leadership it is about power seeking. We would have that with almost all of the Democrat candidates. Great minds and a dead heart, just alot of cosmetic words. We have that in almost all of our serving congressmen/women a senators alike. A bunch of mindless self serving individuals seeking star status. We are in trouble and I agree with the group that meant. Even if we loose maybe the message will be heard for a change. You know we have to remember one thing we obviously keep forgetting, who really is in control. GOD is in control all of the time, maybe this is the purpose that HE has in mind for us. Our life is about GOD and serving HIM and not just this country. Maybe HE has HIS plan that HE will carry out and HIS work will come to light because of what we do, that seems so out of the ordinary to us. Think about it.
— Posted by Beytop
2007
9:16 am
As I tell my Christian Evangelical friends: participate in the primaries and by all means, vote for the candidate of your choice; but if the Republican nominee turns out to be Giuliani, prepare to vote for him. Why? Rudy may not be your cup of tea, but at worst he’ll ignore your concerns. Hillary will persecute you. If you want proof of what she and her followers are about, all you need to do is read some of the “progressive” responses to this very article.
— Posted by A. Rodriguez
2007
9:17 am
People are overlooking the fact that there is indeed an anti-war Republican in the race as well: Ron Paul. He is pro-life but anti-big goverment as well as a staunch (and I mean STAUNCH) Constitutionalist therefore meaning he is not one to allow the church-state seperation to become even more lessened.
— Posted by Jonnyfrag
2007
9:19 am
I agree with one or more comments here that the Conservative religious right should consider Rep. Ron Paul. He is everything that a real American should want. He is a Liberterian running on the Republican ticket. He is honest and only wants what all of us want, to be left alone, to safe and secure and to restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
There are some on the religious right unfortunatly that want to bring about the “end times” as quickly as possible so that Christ will return early and “rapture” them off to heaven and will vote for another Bush or Clinton. Heaven help them.
And there are those that are on the religious right that call themselves Christians and the Jews God’s chosen. These poor delussional people will only vote for someone of the same belief. Christians are God’s chosen people no matter what nation they are from.
True American Christians that truly love America and the Constitution should consider Ron Paul. Every American whether they are religious or not should vote for Ron Paul.
— Posted by XPIOLT
2007
9:23 am
I think Rudy Giuliani would be the BIGGEST mistake for our country!! He is so rude…taking phone calls from his insecure wife during meetings and even speeches… This would be the most egotistical couple ever…and that’s saying a lot!!
But I also think we need to nominate a true Republican…which is anyone except Giuliani and Paul…
— Posted by A True American
2007
9:26 am
Remember Perot . I voted for him twice and got 8 years of a immoral slick willie whose power hungry wife WILL be elected if the conservative vote is split
— Posted by John
2007
9:27 am
Please people, stop showing your ignorance by comparing the Christian right to the Taliban. The Christians are a noble people who have a right to their opinion just as much as you do. They do not kill anyone that I am aware of - no suicide bombers, no I.E.D.’s . They do not attempt to force you into Christianity at the end of a gun. Think about it, nearly every noble institution in our country was started by the Christians. (schools, hospitals, Red Cross, etc.) Their high morals, inclination toward wholesomeness, and dedication to God and this country have been instrumental in making America great. The Christians have earned their respect as some of the greatest of Americans, right from the beginning of this country.
Please, get a hold of your thoughts. When did it develop that the only group we can openly discriminate against were the Christians? They have as much right to their opinion as anyone else. Do some real unbiased homework. Stop bashing one of the brightest spots in the American fabric. Consider strongly the idea that they have been and may be again right in what they are saying. At the very least temper your commentary toward them - have some respect.
— Posted by W.A. Hendrix
2007
9:29 am
I disapprove of all religions, but I think they are useful.
That said, as a lifelong conservative, the worst thing that could happen to this country is a religious political party. It would split the conservative vote, thereby guaranteeing rule by the liberal coalition. What a terrible end to this great country.
I could never vote for any liberal, but before I would vote for a member of the “We got God” party, I would not vote at all.
— Posted by george
2007
9:33 am
I have always voted Republican. The Republican Party is leaving me, first by becoming fiscally irresponsible. If Rudy is nominated, I would welcome a third party candidate. The party must know that we will not blindly vote for whomever is nominated. Maybe then the party will return to it’s principles.
— Posted by steve
2007
9:37 am
I’d say the whole US military has been hijacked to bully the world for Christianity.
If they’re “evangelical”, that means they think their afterlife depends on getting you to endorse their notions about what God thinks.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
9:41 am
It always amazes me to read the horrible, biggotted comments leveled against Christians in these comment logs. “Fundamentalist Christians are the same as fundamentalist Muslims.” Please, people who say this are either intentionally spewing hate or they are spectacularly misinformed (or just stupid). Christians don’t blow themselves up and kill innocent people.
How dare you suggest that Christians should not be able to vote based upon their own consciences. Conservative Christians believe that abortion is murder. We believe that a life is ended intentionally in the procedure and that it is therefore immoral. You are free to disagree, you are free to believe that the woman’s health, or the woman’s right to a child-free life, or the baby’s prefence of death over being unwanted are all legitimate reasons to kill it. I disagree and I will vote based upon that conviction (in additon to other issues which I feel strongly about).
If Giuliani is the Republican nominee, I will strongly consider voting third party. Even if that gives the presidency to Clinton, I would rather vote my conscience. Besides, I am conviced if Hillary wins she will do a wonderful job proving why conservative beliefs are better.
— Posted by Tom
2007
9:44 am
Comparisons of the religious right to the Taliban are fair, accurate, & completely approriate….People like Pat Robertson, Tony Perkins (of the Family Research Council), Dr. James Dobson, etc. want to formulate policy based on their 13th. century views….The relgious right got its legs during the Reagan years, & have become too influential in society today…I voted Republican in my early college years in the 1990’s, but the religious lunatics that have high-jacked the Republican party drove me (and many others from the party) & I absolutely will never vote for a Republican again - EVER!!
Barry Goldwater would turn over in his grave if he saw what has happened to the Republican party….
— Posted by Rick
2007
9:53 am
So funny how quickly the Republicans fight among themselves at the first hint of someone being a “traitor” to every single quality they project as their own.
If the separation was not a fundamental idea for the founding fathers than why would TJ have written about it as though it was his basis in thinking about the Constitution? Think about it. Saying that a leader of a church cannot lead the nation is the same as saying that the nation should not be endorsing the positions of any one religion. What else is the head of a church supposed to do but proliferate their relgion’s agenda?
Oh and btw: Jesus was a Democrat. He actually cared about the poor.
— Posted by Separation is a principle
2007
9:54 am
As a Christian and a conservative, I think Dr. Dobson and the others are misguided. I abhor abortion but Roe v Wade is not going to be overturned anytime soon. That battle must now be fought in the scientific arena, not through politics. The President, whoever he or she may be, has no bearing on abortion other than by using the presidential bully pulpit and nominating judges. Mr Guiliani will nominate no-nonsense law and order judges to the Supreme Court. This will favor conservative ideals. I don’t know who I support among the Republican candidates at this point, but I have very favorable views of Mr. Guiliani. The threat of Islamo-fascism and the sieve that is our borders are our nations most pressing concerns and he rates well on those issues.
To the posters who think that conservative Christians are the Taliban, all I can say is that you have obviously never lived under the Taliban and have no clear knowledge of what the Taliban is. Such comments are an insult to the millions of people who have been brutalized and murdered under this extreme regime. The old maxim applies: It’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.
— Posted by Diehard
2007
9:54 am
what alot of anti-Christian comments posted here…talk about intolerance.
— Posted by Brett
2007
10:02 am
While Dr. Dobson is a leader in the Social Conservative movement, does not expect that what he says is the gospel. Unlike the Democrates and main stream GOP, Social Conservatives are taught from a very early age to question and test everything that is taught from their leaders.
Social Conservatives are free thinkers and they are our future leaders of this country.
I for one am not a Rudy Supporter since I see very little difference between he and Hillary / Obama.
Social issues drive physical policy and a Social Liberal will ultimately drive Liberial Physical Policy.
We need a candidate that is a Social Conservative and that will lead with conviction and so far the only GOP candidate that speaks with conviction is Gov Huckabee.
— Posted by Mark
2007
10:02 am
I think this group is misguided in its efforts, and will only serve to make it more difficult for convervatives in the future. That being said, I still have got to say this to TW (who may never read it or care):
Yes, Proverbs 6: 16-19 does ring a bell:
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look (Bill and Hillary Clinton), a lying tongue (Bill Clinton “I did not have sex with that woman, Hillary Clinton, “Hsu?? He wasn’t vetted properly. I don’t know anything about that”), and hands that shed innocent blood (Bill Clinton, Kosovo, Bill Clinton no action in Rwanda),
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations (Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky), feet that be swift in running to mischief (Bill Clinton - Monica Lewinsky), A false witness that speaketh lies (Bill Clinton “It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is”, and he that soweth discord among brethren (Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin..ah, why go on).
How about this one, TW? “With the measure that you judge, you will be judged.” Unless, or course, you’re a liberal democrat playing to the MSM.
Ring any bells?
— Posted by Scott
2007
10:04 am
Hear, Hear!! to Glenn Becker says the mother of a child with Chron’s disease (uninsurable).
Seriously, do we actually have a group of supposedly intelligent people willing to split a vote on a near non-issue? Granted, they are entitled to their beliefs, but is that actually THE most important issue our country will face in the next four years? I am not a supporter of either major candidate, having lived 10 years in Western New York under their “leadership”, but there are more important issues on which to base a major decision.
— Posted by Kelly
2007
10:08 am
I know the left thinks the Christian right are a bunch of kooks! Let me warn you of some things. Right now Jesus Christ is our Saviour. Soon he will be our judge and we will all bow on our knees and profess that Jesus Christ is LORD to the glory of GOD the Father. The day WILL come and you WILL see! GOD guarantees it! You can count on it! Accept HIM now while you can!
— Posted by Kirk Hawes
2007
10:16 am
Newsflash: A number of contributors have referred to the United States of America as a Christian nation founded on Christian principles. There is some truth to this but lets get it accurate as it is very important that we use language carefully. Here are the facts:
1. While the overwhelming majority of Americans follow or associate with some form of Christianity, there are more forms of Christianity than the fingers on a persons hands and feet. Each group claims they are the true Christians. Either only one can be right or none are right. Then there are the Mormons who consider themselves Christians but who are not considered Christians by many Christian groups.
2. Sorry, the United States is not a Christian country, it is though a country with a lot of Christians. The founding fathers came here and they or their families left England and the rest of Europe to escape religious persecution. Religious tolerance was central to their thinking and they never endorsed any specific religion.
3. It is more accurate to say that the United States was founded on Judeo-Christian principles than just Christian principles. Christianity itself arose from Judaism–and it might be recalled that Jesus himself was Jewish as were most of his followers. Most of our laws, and even the main objection of right wing Christians to abortion is rooted in the Ten Commandments, thou shall not kill. Most of our moral principles in the US are based on the Ten Commandments. Many Christians in the US have fought to have the Ten Commandments in public places because they so believe that they truly form the foundation for a civilized society.
4. Again sorry to say it but the overzealous and passionate attempt to impose one’s fervent religious beliefs on other Americans and to deny the validity of others religious beliefs, including all the other variations on the theme of Christianity, is essentially UnAmerican, and would have caused terrible dismay among our founding fathers.
Finally, we need to come together as Americans, particulary Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and those Moslem Americans who support democracy and freedom of religion, and who condemn terrorism no matter what the cause, to meet the existential challenged posed by radical Islam in the form of nuclear seeking fanatic nations and terrorists in the middle east. Don’t play into the hands of the divide and conquer tactics of our enemies. The key to the success of the American experiment is tolerance and the ability to make reasonable compromises, and the agreement that we can agree, move on, take care of our most vital business,and then try to work out our differences through the political process.
The Republicans have several fine candidates, none of whom are perfect, everyone who has some flaws, but all who are decent and reasonable men who are not so rigid as to listen to alternative views and make adjustments. Rudy Guliani has been criticized for altering positions–but that shows oppeness to change and flexibility. I have read is rationale for changing some of his positions and I think he is frank about why he has done so. Many people change over time with learning and experience. Also understand that a candidate must change his frame of reference as he changes the population he represents. Rudy was the mayor of New York City in New York State. He is now taking into account the views of people across the United States. So it is only natural that there will be alterations in how he sees things to adapt to a more complex and diverse electorate. The politician who is unchangeagle in his narrow views is the politician who will remain a local for his entire career. To be elected president of the United States, the president must be the president of 300 million Americans from 50 different states, from Florida to Alaska and out to Hawaii.
— Posted by SCCAMAN
2007
10:23 am
I would welcome a fundamentalist christian 3rd party. Perhaps we would see a true return of real republicans: for small government, true fiscal responcibility etc. Under Bush and the neo cons with the help of the over zelous christians of the nation fear has been used to drastically expand the federal government driving up spending and invading a foreign nation.
With out the christians to pander fear to neo cons will lose their base and we will never hear of an anti gay marraige amendment from the republicans again (how is a ban on gay marriage amendment small government). Without fundamentalist christians maybe we will see a return of republican candidates who listen to the people and keep their intersts in mind when writting and voting on legislation. this could be a great thing. Rudy would lose a great amount of support without people to listen to his fear mongering (9/11 plan) and we wcould see the only true republican, Ron Paul win the nominee. He raised over $1 million in 1 week.
— Posted by tom
2007
10:25 am
Those who generally have conservative values on the issues and are honest, must score it something like thus: (A = Excellent, B = Above Average, C = Average, D = below average, F = Fail)
Economic Growth - Romney A+, Giuliani A, Thompson C, McCain C
Taxes & Spending - Romney A, Giuliani A, Thompson B, McCain C.
Record on Abortion / Sanctity of Life - Romney A, McCain A, Thompson B, Giuliani D
Traditional Marriage - Romney A+, McCain B, Thompson B, Giuliani D
Illegal immigration - Romney A+, Thompson B, Giuliani D, McCain F
Terrorism / Mideast issues - Romney A, Giuliani A, McCain A, Thompson B
Healthcare - Romney A+, Giuliani C, McCain C, Thompson C
Potential Ability to Fix Washington - Romney A, Giuliani B, Thompson C, McCain C-
McCain/ Feingold - Romney A, Giuliani A, Thompson D, McCain F
Executive Experience - Romney A, Giuliani A, McCain D, Thompson C
Personal / Family Conduct - Romney A+, McCain C, Thompson C, Giuliani D
Education / Professional Accomplishments - Romney A+, McCain B, Giuliani B, Thompson C
Electability - Romney A, Giuliani A, Thompson C, McCain D
Ability to work with all people, including Democrats - Romney A, McCain A*, Giuliani B, Thompson B (* in this instance the A is bad… as in immigration, McCain/Thompson/Feingold campaign reform)
Apparent faithfulness to his religion and his moral convictions - Romney A, McCain B, Thompson C, Giuliani D
If I’ve given grades you disagree with, ok, Americans can hopefully still be civil and differ in their opinions, but if a conservative minded person is grading honestly on the candidates RECORD on the big issues above (and those I might have missed), Romney will score much higher than McCain, Giuliani and Thompson. AND he does NOT have the heavily weighted black marks (pro choice, wrong side of immigration, McCain/Feingold, personal conduct). This is simple, wonderful, scary math!
For those who care about the sanctity of life… PLEASE don’t throw away all these decades of work, sweat and anguish by supporting Mayor Giuliani when the next president will FINALY pick a supreme court judge (or two) that can change the balance and overturn the blood soaked Roe v Wade and the blight it has been on women and our culture.
For you evangelical Christian members of the conservative base, you know, if Romney wasn’t a Mormon, for all the plain, obvious math laid out above, he’d be your exceptional candidate. Please go to www.evangelicalsformitt.com which is not associated with the Romney campaign and see how fellow Christians get over all the conspiring sophisticated pharisaic smoke to see things as they truly are.
Thanks for considering one grateful American’s thoughts
— Posted by Eric
2007
10:27 am
Third party candidates have always insured the election of the liberal Democratic candidate. I have always voted Republican and feel very strongly that the Republican party has abandoned the conservative movement. However, if we think we can afford to live 8 years under Hillary Clinton’s rule we might as well kiss our freedoms and economy good bye. Conservatives are disappointed with the top candidates - well perhaps we should stop running down our potential conservative candidates and possibly someone good will step up to the plate. If the Democrats start supporting candidates based on one or two key issues they would not be in control right now. They look at the big picture and support candidates with blemishes and we conservatives keep getting Democrates in power because we all want our own way. Guess I better shut up - its beginning to sound like I’m talking to a couple 6 years olds.
— Posted by Greg
2007
10:27 am
I don’t understand what kind of fanaticism is being displayed by these evangelicals. They are involved in the political process just as any other interest group is. They are not impeding anyone’s freedom of religion.
Evangelicals don’t like Giuliani because he is, in their view, living an openly immoral life and supports what is tantamount to murder for them. Disagree with them if you wish, but please stop branding them fanatics.
— Posted by ojc
2007
10:28 am
Glenn Becker post #44
I dont think the Dems would want to nominate Mickey Mouse seeing how Disney, owner of many major media outlets (ABC news) donated about $2 million to the Bush campaing last election.
I agree with your point that the dems are greatly favored by the split but wished to point out the hypocrisy of the republicans screaming “liberal medai” all the time.
— Posted by tom
2007
10:29 am
Sponge Bob Dobson……………Need I say more?!?
— Posted by Angel
2007
10:29 am
As a Christian, the choice of abortion is between a woman and God. I can be against abortion, but I’m not God’s instrument to stop another. The President really doesn’t have much power when it comes to changing that particular law.
— Posted by kathryn
2007
10:30 am
bob smith, Huckabee’s been a big advocator of amnesty for illegal aliens and an appeaser as to “open borders” so to speak. I think he’s a great person but his politics are, also, quite Liberal for a Republican.
One of the (very) top-tier issues today for most Conservative/GOP voters is as to these issues surrounding illegal aliens. I realize that a lot of Democrats are, too, concerned about these same issues, but MOST CONSERVATIVES really, really want the illegal alien problem to be handled, managed through to a conclusion, such that their numbers are reduced (dramatically and soon) in the U.S., such that large, greedy (all Democrats, by the way) business people (Gates, Buffet, agribusiness, public workers’ unioins, hospitality, etc.) do not continue to violate the nation’s taxpayers by profit based upon violating our immigration and security laws.
THAT’s the reason that U.S. workers today are struggling, because wages are reduced or they’re stagnant (still a reduction), and illegal aliens are the primary reason why. We NEED deportation but few are willing to approach that (yes, it’s a tough reaction but it’s the one that needds to be applied to make changes), we need a correction of the Fourteenth Amendment (”birthright by being born here” isn’t what the Fourteenth was written to mean or bestow, yet it’s been allowed to be violated massively — Congress is a coward in not tackling this problem), we NEED to do away with sanctuary city benefits that the rest of the nation pays for in more ways than mere taxes.
These are the big issues affecting most voters today among the Right. Yes, also national security but the illegal alien problem and border and immigration insecurity are aspects that compromise our national security — not connecting these dots is foolish to incompetent.
It’s not Democrats who will solve these problems because Democrats have created these problems (with the help of RINOs in Congress). It’s not RINOs, either, who are going to solve this problem, but Conservatives. Whenever I read/hear Liberals say they’re voting for a Democrat because they “care about workers rights,” I wonder what country they’re from because the Democrats are the PROBLEM to remedying “workers rights.” The solution is higher wages and people getting to keep more of wha they earn, and, employer-provided health insurance (group policies through private industry). If you think healthcare is bad now, it’s going to be monstrous if a Democrat is in the White House and especially if the Democrats manage their thread-bare “lead” in Congress. You’ll see far less in your takehome pay, you’ll see longer lines, you’ll quickly see far less provided for what you pay for…it’s not something any sane voter should ever consider. If you think Cuba, for example, has “great healthcare” for Cubans, go live there for a while and try to get routine treatments for any problem. You’ll have dripping water from rusty pipes, peeling paint on walls, homemade “remedies” and contraband “prescriptions,” but you’ll see polished big homes with luxury treatments at the ready for wealthy visitors from other places. That’s what “state run” healthcare is all about…using the vast majority as chattel, using surplus for to benefit the state.
The solution is in individual rights and more individuals working at jobs that support them, and in keeping more of what they earn before and after taxes, then having their own money to go purchase goods and services on a free market economy.
— Posted by WALDO
2007
10:30 am
Apparently liberals are the only ones allowed to post on here.
— Posted by Charlie Kelly
2007
10:35 am
They have it backwards. They split the Republican party, we get a pro-choice president - GUARANTEED! At least, if we get Rudy, you have a chance of using your power to sway him to your point-of-view. No chance of that with Hillary. I’m a Libertarian, so I have to vote for a fiscal conservative and am relatively happy with Rudy’s stance on “lifestyle” issues. This whole “throw yourself on your sword” attitude of the holy rollers sickens me and is a perfect example of why the mainstream thinks that the evangelical right is a lunatic asylum.
— Posted by Rob
2007
10:37 am
Do you get the idea from reading the above that our lives are greatly complicated by what some people believe they need to do for a better billet in their supposed afterlives?
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
10:40 am
Does any one remember Ross Perot…????
— Posted by Joann
2007
10:45 am
Typical NYT effort to cause dismay amongst conservatives. Yawn.
— Posted by rico
2007
10:46 am
Isn’t it wonderful that we live in America and whatever we choose to be - liberal, conservative, Christian, atheist etc. we have the RIGHT! yes the freedom to choose a 3rd party candidate if we so CHOOSE! Amazing - those who want to bash the Christian convservative for wanting to put forth a candidate that is someone they would vote for - think about it - we have that RIGHT! And I say we because I’m one of them! Do I think a 3rd party candidate is the best - probably not…because it does take away support from the Republican nominee whoever that may be, and will only empower the Democrat candidate..which is the last thing any of us want. But goodness - we do have the right to have a 3rd party, Independent party, Green party, you name it…go for it! This is not just a two party government even though that’s the way it normally works…there’s room for more people!
— Posted by momof3
2007
10:47 am
Having already planned to support a third party candidate if Guiliani is nominated I commend these religious leaders for standing by their beliefs. As a Christian it is important to stand up for what you believe in and that is EXACTLY what these people are doing. We believe that abortion is murder so it would be against our better judgment to support someone who does not agree on that issue. You can argue about the separation of church and state all you want, that is not the issue here. The issue is of religious leaders banding together and deciding to NOT support a candidate who’s views do not include a pro-life stance. I applaud them and their willingness to address this issue.
As to the other statement made, one does not have to be religious to be pro-life. I know of several doctors and researchers, agnostics and atheists who are pro-life. The issue isn’t one of religion, its an issue of WHEN does life begin, and until we have a definitive answer, this debate will continue.
— Posted by Crystal
2007
10:51 am
I cannot get over the HATE for conservative Christians in the comments I’m reading. Talk about hate speech. Equating conservative Christians to the Taliban? Come on you people! I guess hate is acceptable when it targets a “politically incorrect” group of people. Does Nazi Germany ring any bells?
— Posted by Betty J Field
2007
10:57 am
Mr. Bauer said.
“But I do believe there are certain core issues for the Republican Party—low taxes, strong defense and pro life—”
So evading taxes (and therefore ignoring your obligation to the poor), killing people (soldiers and innocent civilians) and not killing people (the unborn) are core christian issues.
Go back and read the Bible…
Proverbs 14:31
— Posted by Ms Obvious
2007
10:57 am
As a conservative Christian, Dobson does not speak for all of us. He is dated; his power is depleted; his strategy is dumb.
— Posted by Brett Arnold
2007
11:01 am
The bigoted Republicans on this combox who shout “bring it on” and compare the Christian Conservative wing of their own party (which was the crucial factor in the Reagan revolution) reveal their ignorance of politics. Dobson and otehrs are simply doing what the political process requires, warning before we reach the point of no return that while other candidates might be “hold your nose and vote” Republican candidates for them, Giulani crosses a line. They are not insisting on their own candidate from the extreme but defining the range of what’s acceptable if the Big Tent Republican Party is to hold together.
If after this clear warning, Republicans go ahead and nominate Giuliani, then they will be saying, we can do without this wing of our party. They can’t and intelligent Republican activists know that.
But for small minds to shout, “bring it on,” “we’re glad you Taliban-Christians are leaving” is the height of stupidity. Republicans have won elections only by holding together a coalition. Part of the rules of holding a coalition together is that neither extreme gets their own extreme candidate because that would alienate the opposite extreme.
The claim that Giulani is a centrist who alone can unite the whole Republican coalition and win Dhimmicrat votes on top of it is simply false. That’s what Dobson and Bauer are saying–purely out of political strategy, Giulani is the one candidate who can’t keep the coalition together and would be disaster for the party, not because of the Christian Conservative wing, but because of who he is.
Those of you gleefully writing off this portion of the party are signing the party’s death warrant. You need the people you are mocking just as much as they need you. That’s all they are saying–Giulani is a direct slap in our faces and for that reason, he’s not the “realistic” candidate, he’s the one Republican who can’t defeat Hillary.
— Posted by Stranger
2007
11:03 am
I am a Christian and have been a Republican my entire life, but I am just sick to death of Bush Cheney, Rove, illegal immigration, the side trip to Iraq when we should be getting Bin Laden, squashing our Constitutional rights, and the crap about abortion. When the heck did the religious right suddenly take over our party? Please DO LEAVE and create your own party. Then we can get back to what really matters; locking down the borders, keeping Islamic terrorists out of the U.S., taking some of our manufacturing back from China so we don’t need to worry about our kids getting lead poisoning or eating food laced with anti-freeze, and getting the heck out of Iraq, the world’s largest money pit. Put the billions of dollars to feeding and educating our kids, to helping the folks who have lost their homes, and to helping those who lost their jobs to offshoring while the rich got richer. The Republican party used to help our corporations and the wealthy because they in turn created more jobs for us which in turn helped us buy cars and houses and feed our families. Now the party just seems to feed the corporations and the rich while they send our jobs to India and China. In the meantime, guys like me have to live with relatives and drive 12 year old cars. It is time the REAL Republicans take our party back from from the religious zealots and the corporate lobbyists and put a REAL president in the White House, not some incompetent like we currently have or some actor or even a guy who lead us on 9/11 but looks to be another Bush.
— Posted by jon
2007
11:05 am
If this is true of Dobson & Perkins, then they are casting we Evangelicals as obstructionist and irrelevant. Need they be reminded that this is exactly how the Clinton[s] got into office the first time - thanks to the ego of Ross Perot? I plan on being relevant and not “wasting” my vote like falling on my sword. At this time, I support Fred Thompson. BTW, the president is the chief executive officer, not king. The oval office is not the only seat whence Abortion can be opposed. Wake up Dobson, Perkins, etc., and join the culture. Don’t adopt a Perot-sized ego and lead your constituents into the oblivion of irrelevancy!
— Posted by Tom Farley
2007
11:13 am
So far most of the Republican frontrunners share one vote-killer in common - they support ’scamnesty’ for the millions upon millions of illegal alien invaders. In order words, Rudy, Fred, McShame, all support giving what used to be our country away to the invading hordes. As a result, I too am looking forward to a third-party candidate since I will NEVER vote for any of these fools. And regardless of what Rudy/Fred/McShame may be saying NOW, I look at what they have said and done in the past for their TRUE positions and reject them utterly. If Mitt turns out to be the nominated candidate, I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for him.
— Posted by Pamela
2007
11:16 am
A socially moderate Republican? Likely the nearest thing to a Libertarian I will see in my lifetime…where do I send a check. The funny thing is moveon.org will make him out as Jerry Fallwell in the general election.
— Posted by John in Milwaukee
2007
11:17 am
#191. - September 30th, 2007 8:09 pm
Craig Neal, #178
Consider this a love letter.
Yippee and right on.
— Posted by Tracey
DITTO to ya’ both (and everyone else out there with shared perspectives as these).
Another thing, then I’ll close for today:
Suggesting or even declaring that the Christian Right in the U.S. is ANY way correlatable with “the Taliban” is disgusting and indecent.
Christians in the U.S. (nor much anywhere else that I know of) are not advocating blowing themselves and anyone else up when there’s disagreement, we’re not taking off other people’s heads (or anything else), and we sure as heck are not the ones advocating the deaths of the unborn.
About the unborn, everyone has as much right already as anyone else not to conceive a child they don’t “like” or “find inconvenient.” You control yourself, you teach those you’re responsible for to control and respect themselves. It’s called abstinence, even in marriage if there are no more children “wanted”.
If and as you reproduce and then think it’s traumatic or otherwise a bother to birth your child, you’re responsible for the life of that human being, you chose to engage in an opportunity in which you allowed the creation of another human life. Asking society to “help” you kill an unborn human being is MOST “like the Taliban,” as is killing the unborn, not those of us who ask you not to take that action.
And those of you here opining to be “Christians” and yet proclaiming your motives as to voting for Hillary Clinton, note, please, that she has never declared herself a believer in Jesus Christ (she says she’s “a person of faith” which could mean she thinks her baseboards are going to enlighten her; it does not define her as a Christian, nor any “faith in” does other than in Jesus Christ as Savior and Son of God). HER CHARACTER reveals her quite dubiously not to be a Christian and as a Christian, all I can add here is that I trust what God advises by leading me to trust or not to trust and I do not trust either Clintons.
Someone else here wrote that “Jesus was a rebel.”
No, Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God. He didn’t rebel, he teaches and instructs. He TEACHES that we are to follow our laws and pay our dues, so to speak, to those who they are owed. He spoke out against people such as Hillary and Bill Clinton (in so many ways) and particuarly as to the Pharisees, who the Clintons are eager to replicate, if not already: people who fancy themselves those who control the wealth of others and then dispense it as they deem fit, or do not dispense based upon ideology.
You are being fooled by the Democrat party, and by the Clintons. You are being deceived by them.
Wars are not good things but sometimes we as a nation (as do other nations) have to respond with force to protect ourselves and others. That is not sin, that is not condemned by Christ, not by God. It’s wrong to take innocent live, to kill wantonly.
That many Liberals can overlook the lives of the unborn and yet promote themselves as opposing taking life (”war”), is ridiculous. But it’s deceit when it’s said by people who pose as “Christians.” Christ is not mocked. “The least of these…”
— Posted by WALDO
2007
11:21 am
I consider myself a devout Roman Catholic and like many I cannot and will not support someone who supports abortion. There are some things that simply make a person unworthy of serving as President and support of abortion is one of them. Is this trying to legislate morality? Yes. Absolutely. However, ALL of our laws are legislated morality. It is someone’s moral values that I can’t drink and drive, or that I can only drive 55 mph on the highway, or that I can’t rob a bank, commit murder, perjury, or rape. It is someone’s morality that I have to pay my taxes, keep my house in order, and maintain the emmissions on my car.
I may want to cheat on my taxes, drive 70 in a 55, and rob a bank in order to pay my taxes, yet someone bozo in Washington has dared to legislate his morality on me that I can’t do any of the above things. Hopefully, you recognize the absurdity in this scenario. Hopefully one day we will also all recognize the absurdity in allowing the murder of unborn children.
That being said, I am supporting Sam Brownback. Should Rudy win the nomination, I will probably write in a vote for Pro-life Rita, a fictional person intended to send the message that I will neither tolerate nor vote for someone who is pro-lfie.
— Posted by Pat B.
2007
11:23 am
This would actually be smart for them. Why?
Because millions of Right Wing Fundamentalist Christians will not come out to vote for a hypocrite like Giuliani.
At least by putting up their own candidate; they get to have a voice and to manifest their political clout.
On the other hand, from a purely partisan perspective; I hope scenario # one actually plays out.
Either way, Giuliani will be a disaster for the Republican party…and if, he were somehow”elected”; it would be proof positive that the counting/voting system was utterly corrupted.
At that point many, many good people will be wanting to leave the USA for more democratic locations as we will be on the road to a serious dictatorship that will make the Bush years seem like “the good old days” in comparison.
— Posted by Nick Lento
2007
11:24 am
Rudolph W. Giuliani is married to his third wife, his kids barely talk to him and he’s comfortable with leaving intact the national policy permitting abortion.Rudolph W. Giuliani and Clinton are THE NEW YORK TWINS they talk the same and so it if it is between the two of them we the rest of the country have no choice , just you the NEW YORKERS and the west coast would have a say .So I will say if it is the NEW YORK TWINS I think a 3rd Party just might be able to pull it off with 41% of the votes thart is giving either Sen Clinton 29% and Giulianin 30% that would mean a 3rd party victory !! I can see it happening !! Can’t you ?? Mike In Nashville , Just a Pickin an a Grinnin !!
— Posted by Mike In Nashville
2007
11:24 am
The GOP and the Dem’s have had a semi-monopoly control of the government for over 190 years. One Hundred Ninety years! H_E_L_L_Q! Its more than time fro a third party! I think so!
— Posted by Thomas Shea
2007
11:26 am
I am with Mike. Politicians are not where they are
because they are honest people. The Good Lord is in
charge and always will be. This country deserves
what it gets. End of La story.
— Posted by Quazimoto
2007
11:27 am
Sorry, one more:
“Christians are dangerous??? What religions did Hitler, Stalin, or Castro belong to??” - — Posted by Jered
No religion. They were/are all evil men. Just attending some parochial school and sitting in a pew somewhere does not “make” someone a Christian.
“You will know them by their fruits.” Hitler was an occultist, invovled in various disgusting, deranged “beliefs” that included all the New Age, Satanistic and Pagan correlations he could come up with (also I’m quite sure he was mentally ill and I know few who would argue with that — either ill by organics or ill by “evil spirits,” call it possession, call it fallen, call it evil, Hitler was affected by it), and same for Stalin. While both of these attended or were exposed to Christian groups younger in life, obviously both opted by individual choice to follow evil and not to follow Christ.
You/anyone can’t assume someone is “Christian” just because they can quote scripture, attended one school or another, had parents of whatever denomination or not, but on who each individual is. You can tell by what a person professes and what they believe it, and what their actions are. What someone’s parents believed in doesn’t count, nor does church attendance by rote count (meaning, just sitting in church isn’t going to pass the test, but it does tend to help advance one toward learning).
Castro, same thing. Look at Hugo Chavez, he fancies himself “Catholic” and yet he’s also suffering from a mental illness (has had a live-in psychiatrist for years). Castro can hardly be called a Catholic, certainly not a Christian. Marxism, Socialism, these forced “redistributions of wealth” are not Christian, they’re expressions of human ego through political power and threat of force. Just like Hillary proposes, as does also Obama, by the way.
For all the Liberals in the U.S. who fawn over Castro, Castro uses firing squads to kill people who HE THINKS pose a challenge to his sense of totalitarianism as a dictator. Or who he generally suspects of not being a subservient, whatever. He also lives mightily by the works and earnings of millions of other people, which he has no honest basis accessing.
These are not “people of faith” except faith in their own egos. They are/were humanists and evil men.
— Posted by WALDO
2007
11:27 am
Don’t these people realize that this is the worst thing the conservatives could do. If they bring in a third party it will split the conservative vote and almost secure Hilary Clinton as our President. I am against abortion but I am more against having another Clinton in office, especially Hilary.
— Posted by Dionna Randas
2007
11:32 am
Win the battle, lose the war! Do we of the evangelical influence remember Ross Perot? Some suckers voted for him and put Billy boy in the Whitehouse.If you want more of the Clintons, go ahead and make this a one issue, “I’m right on principles”, election and enjoy Hillary! Oi! Oi!
— Posted by clarence
2007
11:33 am
It is troubling to see so many emotionally-charged comments from individuals bashing the efforts of a group of citizens who simply want a candidate who will most closely represent them in office.
The last time I checked, it was a Constitutional right to run for office, no matter what party affiliation — even as a “Christian conservative”.
The irony is that many of the people, who imply that these “religious leaders” will somehow circumvent constituional process and “decide” who will be president, are themselves subscribing to a dangerous notion that would limit or impede these groups from exercising their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Don’t be critical of citizens who choose to vote for candidates who incorporate God’s laws and principles into their platform (as opposed to the self-serving, special interests of some political party). Be more cautious of buying into the idea of anyone advocating trampling our Constitution by restricting a citizen’s right to vote for the person of their choice.
— Posted by James R. McNab
2007
11:33 am
Like anyone else, Christians have the right to bring their moral and ethical views to the public square. The liberals ought to understand this now that most Democratic presidential candidates have simultaneously “found God” after realizing that a party platform of extreme secularism simply won’t fly in America.
Please, evangelicals, do not cut off your nose to spite your face. So many people I know voted for Perot because George HW Bush wasn’t enough of a true conservative for them. Perot never had a chance of doing anything other than sinking Bush, and as a reward we had Bill Clinton in office for eight years.
— Posted by SNS
2007
11:42 am
Christian Conservative = Dr. Ron Paul
If they aren’t supporting him 100% or even considering him, then they are full of crap. He’s the most conservative and most Christian of all the candidates, Democrat or Republican or Third Party. If you don’t believe me, LOOK HIM UP. Google Ron Paul, or check out www.ronpaul2008.com to see his positions . He’s been in Congress for 20 years, has delivered over 4,000 babies, is PRO-LIFE and has more experience than any of the other candidates. PERIOD! He also speaks the truth! That’s why the Mass Media ignores him.
— Posted by Jill
2007
11:42 am
Christians, you need to join me in voting for Ron Paul. He’s pro-life and he’s the only one who CAN beat Hillary! And you can read that from National Review! Ron Paul believes in the Rule of Law not the Rule of Men…I think any thinking Chrisitian can support that.
— Posted by Aaron
2007
11:42 am
Without life, all other rights are meaningless. It is not by accident that the right to life was the first right listed by our founding fathers. The ultimate civil rights catastrophe has been occurring for over thirty years in the U.S.; that’s right, the unmitigated destruction of millions of innocent human lives through abortion. It’s sickly humorous that liberal Democrats claim they are all for human rights, and against capital punishment for heinous criminals, yet they are gleefully supportive of the unrestricted right of one human to take the life of another through abortion. Truly sick.
— Posted by Steve
2007
11:46 am
One more — because this is both pertinent and very important, a quote by George Washington, the first President of the United States (accredited in history as being “the father of the country”):
“It is impossible to rightly govern the world
without God and Bible.”
– President George Washington
The father of our nation said that. And lived that. And governed thusly.
— Posted by WALDO
2007
11:48 am
I get a real kick out of all of the liberal posts. They’re screaming because they may not be able to continue killing fetuses. I’d suggest “get a life,” but you don’t have any respect for life.
The libs show complete ignorance of the notion of separation of church and state. Do a little research, folks, and get it right.
As for conservatives, it’s about time they showed backbone and stood up for their beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, especially when the beliefs are good.
Giuliani is not an acceptable candidate, and if he’s the GOP choice, we’ll go down in flames, which is exactly why all of the libs who have posted here are ridiculing the idea of a true conservative carrying the GOP banner.
— Posted by Bill Moore
2007
11:49 am
One poster, Rick, said that this country wasn’t founded on the notion of separation of church and state. I beg to differ. Check the 1st Amendment of the Constitution as well as Article 6, sec. 3.
The justification of the 1st Amendment and Article 6 and of separation of church and state was articulated by Jefferson and Madison. It is childish quibbling to suggest simply because it wasn’t phrased thus that it doesn’t exist. We clearly know their intent, we know the historical factors that led to their forumaltion of those portions of the document, we know the Enlightment authors that influenced their thinking.
A good book on the topic is “The Godless Constitution,” by R. Laurence Moore and Isaac Kramnick. We’re supposed to have a secular government, not a theocracy.
S
— Posted by Steve
2007
11:53 am
I’m a strong Republican and share many of your values. Howerer, no person is perfect and if we want to destroy our party then go ahead and form a third party and give the election to the libs and moveon.org! Would you be proud of taking credit for that?
— Posted by Denny
2007
11:53 am
President Bush is an evangelical Christian and I supporthis (our) intervention in Iraq. He knows no other country can take out the monsters, so it has to be us. Unless you Bush haters would rather Saddam and his 2 mutant sons to continue murdering thousands of Iraqis. The UN can’t do anything they only go into countries after the fighting to keep the peace.
Pres. Bush is correct in his foreign policy of trying to get democratic type governments in the middle east. Democratic Governments go after the people that jeopardize their safety and freedom.
Besides, we would be victorious and out of there by now if the liberal left had stood up for the US and our soldiers instead of wanting President Bush to fail so bad that they took America down with them.
— Posted by Bette
2007
11:55 am
Contrary to the ignorance of Pete D., there is no such thing as separation of church and state in America and it has never existed
— Posted by Donny Anderson
2007
11:56 am
I think the Christians have as much right to voice there opinions, and even pick a thrid party candidate if they want just as much as the atheist, George Soros moveon.org type do…so don’t even go there saying what rights have a christian got to tell parties what to do, they have the same rights as any fellow AMERICAN, and or group does, and have been doing since the founding of America…for me it’s Ron Paul, or I sit out 08…he is the only candidate that is a true Constitutionalist!
— Posted by Debra
2007
12:02 pm
There are many of us Republicans who would be just fine with the conservative christian wing of our party branching off and creating their own. This will marginalize them even more.
For these “leaders” to have an urgent meeting to whine about Giuliani becoming the possible nominee just shows how ridiculous and out of touch they are with what is important in this country today. Have they not paid any attention to Giuliani’s promises that he will nominate judges akin to Scalia?
Single issue voters on BOTH sides of the aisle are ruining this country…
— Posted by Kirk in Denver
2007
12:09 pm
To the Republocrats and Democrats: I would sooner waste my vote than vote for Rudy Gilianni. If Billary wins…then so be it.
We seem to have a two party system in America than is oblivous to the needs of either side. All they want is power…both parties….no exceptions.
All of these Politicians make me sick.
I think I will just stay home….I think it is supposed to rain that day anyway
— Posted by Eric from Pittsburgh
2007
12:11 pm
The Focus On The Family crowd desparately need a civics lesson. The president cannot make abortion policy. He will, however, appoint judges. So, the question for them (since its all they care about) is not Guiliani’s actual stance on abortion but whether he is likely to appoint generally conservative judges (remember, no serious Supreme Court justice nominee will make assurances about their abortion votes, so “generally conservative,” is the best they can do).
— Posted by J Orenstein
2007
12:12 pm
If you wonder why the country is totally adrift, look at all the people who imagine it is run from the far side of the sky by an immortal being made in their own image.
In reality, nature does not share any human concern.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
12:14 pm
In any democracy people vote for what they believe is best for their country and themselves, no-where does it say in our Constitution or Laws where those believes ought to come from or that religious people’s opinions are to be excluded. This is just intolerance of values held by Christians or of Christianity itself. Seems like the dictatorship of secularism and of relativism ( no such thing as absolute good or evil ) has taken over most commentators of this piece.
— Posted by may
2007
12:17 pm
Conservative Christians are overlooking a candidate that fits all their requirements: Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
If they were to rally around him, he’d start rising in the polls and the media would take notice.
A third-party candidacy is political suicide.
— Posted by Dave
2007
12:22 pm
So many of the comments are showing such a disconnect with reality, it really grieves my heart. The Christian faith is a faith of love not hate. If you think otherwise, you don’t know us. Our faith also promotes a life of “righteousness”; not for its own sake, but because selflessness is ultimate liberty whereas selfishness is the ultimate bondage. Look closer at what true love is and what true love does in the Bible. There you will also see us falling short of our lofty aims, but we get up and try again bolstered by fresh mercy and God’s steadfast love.
As to the question of a third party; I think that if we don’t take consistent stand for the values of Love then we lose all credibility and any claim to integrity. The Republican Party has demonstrated that they do not take our core values seriously. Media conservatives often ask minorities why they don’t leave the Dems enmasse when the Dems do so much that actually hurt their cause? I think we must ask the same question of ourselves as Christians. We’re not really leaving the Republican Party. They have lied to us, betrayed us, took us for granted and left. How can we even consider staying? May God bless our president but he has disappointed me on more fronts than I care to go into in this venue, as has the Republican congress. That’s why they lost their majority.
— Posted by Jeff
2007
12:22 pm
I say bring on a 3rd Party! It’s time the people have more choice in an election–it will take a few turns before a 3rd will gain enough ground to be competitive, but maybe 4 (or
years of Hillary will teach these liberals WHY the liberal ways only makes the American dream LESS attainable for poor people. (Well, the leaders know this, but the lemmings that follow the liberal socialist ways don’t “get it”.)
One thing is for sure–elect Hillary and we won’t see another democrat in the Presidential office for a LONG time. And then it’s down to the Republicans (who look more and more liberal each day) and the new 3rd party (who will take the place of conservative party).
People should be supported in voting with their conscience. No matter which side of the fence you fall on, you should be able to vote without pressure. But I do think you should be able to defend your position with logical factual conversation–not name calling or hatred, but just the facts and why you believe they are true.
Frankly, Gulianni is NOT my type of candidate. He is not trustworthy–his political experience is that of MAYOR, he treats his family like yesterday’s trash, and even his kids are supporting Obama… His wife found out he was cheating on her (again) when he held a PRESS conference (sheesh, what class!) and he isn’t even on speaking terms with at least one of his children.
I wouldn’t trust this guy to run my finances, much less run the country.
He’s riding on the backs of 911 victims to pretend he’s some knight in shining armor. He did what he had to do. Yes he did a good job. But Presidential material? Nah. VP? Maybe for pinage–to add that wilder side to the ticket. But President? No way.
Yes, it is TIME for real conservatives to VOTE their conscience. Do I want higher taxes? Heck no! Do I want pro-choice? Heck no! But I’m tired of lazy spendy liberal Republicans expecting and taking for granted the votes of the social conservatives. We need to break away–to shake things up–and make a change. Change is painful. So invest your money wisely (international) and get ready for a ride.
— Posted by Just Me In CA
2007
12:23 pm
Well, it just goes to show how much smarter Republicans are than Democrats. At least a good number of us have decided to jump ship and not waste our vote on someone just to beat the other side in an election. When will the Democrats wake up and realize that they are being led by an equally dishonest war mongering party?
They have basically handed Bush all he needs to wage more unjust wars. They are a total joke. If they are true liberals they should be voting for Nader not Hilarudy Clintiani.
Go Ron Paul!!
— Posted by Mike in Albany
2007
12:29 pm
As a Christian “fundamentalist” I can honestly say that I would welcome a third party candidate with true conservative values. I also think this candidate would WIN! I also am amazed at how much hatred the left has for Christianity. Tolerance huh? Also, some of those on this page need to check up on their history, there is no separation of church and state. Our founders came here to have the FREEDOM to live out their faith, and yes, unfortunately for the lefties, that means voting your beliefs!
— Posted by Joseph
2007
12:32 pm
Secret organization? I wonder if you are going to use this new term for every private orgainzation out there. New York is filled with many secret country club organizations also. For every conservative “Secret Organization” there is 10 Liberal ones, but I have never seen an article about them.
— Posted by Jeff
2007
12:33 pm
RON PAUL!
i challenge everyone to check him out and ask yourself how he would not be great for the job!
— Posted by Ed
2007
12:35 pm
I can’t believe that there are actually people out there who will risk our country becoming the United Socialist States of America because of Rudy’s stance on abortion. If you run a 3rd party candidate, Hillary will certainly win and she’s pro-choice…so, not only have you ended up with a pro-choice president, you have also put us all in a heap of trouble on all the other issues. THINK PEOPLE-this is not an election to be messing around with. The implications could be disasterous.
— Posted by Lisa
2007
12:37 pm
So our evangelical brothers and sisters won’t support a devout Catholic like Sam Brownback or even get behind one of their own like Gov Huckabee in sufficent numbers so as to mount opposition to Rudy or other less than suitable candidates, but they’ll put up a 3rd party candidate who won’t win in order to insure Hillary or Obama becomes President. Makes perfect sense to me but then again I can’t figure out the far less than and true and logical biblical interpretations my evangelical brothers and sisters have used to ween 1000s of Christian denominiations. That is what they are best at - disunity!
— Posted by Stephen Imbarrato
2007
12:38 pm
Ron Paul all the way.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
— Posted by Kris
2007
12:40 pm
Mark my words: If Guiliani is the nominee, we’re going to have another Clinton in the White House. Conservatives, including me, will sit on their hands or write in the name of an acceptable candidate. Guiliani will NEVER become president. He will never have the backing of real conservatives … and without it, he’s going to lose.
A wolf in sheep’s clothing is not acceptable. Clinton is at least a known quanity .. a double-talking liberal who will turn this nation upside down.
I, for one, have had it with voting for the lesser of two evils.
— Posted by Bill Moore
2007
12:41 pm
It’s time about secular and religious conservatives addressed the improprieties of the neurotic left. It’s enough that the LGBT line and staff of the RNC and DNC have foisted upon it’s conservative base nothing but social liberals for the 2008 presidential nomination. We’re about to watch the Democrats nominate the other half of a psychological dyad (pay attention to the offspring, intellectual capacity has no bearing)while the conservatives attempt to address directly the collusion among neurotic legal and medical professionals to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias via gay marriage. I cannot think of any political battle of more importance.
— Posted by RJLigier
2007
12:42 pm
Let them go!
I am tired of their lukewarm conservative support. If we non single issue conservatives are forced to build a “real” majority we will be stronger in the future. As it is we remain hostage to the single issue types and we have a foundation built on sand.
Meantime, let the single issue types see how far they get, without us. It is time to stop letting the tail wag the dog and ending up with “Clintons” being elected. These folks need to learn that in politics, you sometimes have to settle for INCREMENTAL gains and live to fight another day. Job one is getting a conservative elected and if you do not get everything that you want, you sometimes have to be thankful for what you did not get.
— Posted by John
2007
12:57 pm
All you people claiming religion controls our government are out of touch with reality. In case your haven’t noticed, we are not allowed to do such things as pray in school or even say “under God” when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. Not only that, but there seems to be more of an acceptance of non-Christian religions in a country founded on Christian principles. That, disturbs me!
— Posted by Josh
2007
12:57 pm
Conservative and Christian dont belong in the same sentence. I get so annoyed at the religious right and moral majority. If they were really concerned with abortions, they could sell everything join a community and give to everyone as he had need. They could shape policy that prevents abortion from even being considered understandable. They could advocate social piety instead of their personal piety that when examined is a form of sanctified vanity. A one issue canidate is ridiculous, they should know that when a republican president and a completely republican congress took no action towards abortion, that the issue is deadlocked. Its simply ignorant.
— Posted by Ryan
2007
12:57 pm
Conservative christians only have one candidate to trust, it’s Ron Paul.
— Posted by CorrosionX
2007
1:07 pm
Poor poor Steve, Waldo, Bette and Bill Moore. The inability to think outside the box is what dooms you to failure. Getting your talking points from Rush and Hannity is not considered intelligent thinking. As for you Waldo, slogans are no better at running a country than is wishful thinking and praying to an imaginary god. Gods have been around since the time man walked upright. Why is your god the right god but the gods of the Greeks, Incas, Egyptians, Romans isnt? And doesnt your god and jesus teach you to love? And yet all you can feel from the conservative christians on this board is hatred towards liberals and you think the word liberal is a dirty word. Look up both conservative and liberal in the dictionary and then decide what is worse.
— Posted by thor
2007
1:11 pm
What a bunch of freeekin anti Christian bigots!
Christophobes…..
— Posted by zip
2007
1:12 pm
How can anyone say that Giuliani is strong on fighting terrorism? He was mayor of what city? Besides, there already is a third party candidate; Dr. Ron Paul.
— Posted by Candy
2007
1:14 pm
Anyone who agrees that it is alright to deny the right to life for the most vulnerable of our society; children in the womb, does NOT deserve to be President of this great country.
How despicable that the posters above would defend those who support this horrible practice and denounce those who want us to stop murdering babies. Shame on you.
Stephanie Lish
— Posted by Stephanie Lish
2007
1:17 pm
Many may be voting for a third party candidate, like myself for Ron Paul, because they are fed up with the status quo, both parties are alike and are selling us down the river. Either way, we will be voting our convictions and won’t be disappointed down the road that the RINO wasn’t all we expected him to be. We know that NOW.
Many of you, on the other hand, will have to settle with the “hold your nose” candidate who only marginally represents your views. Sure, he may beat Hillary, but have you really won anything? Nope, just more of the same. And again, you will be wringing your hands four more years from now hoping that our Republic will turn around with the next GOP RINO that is shoved down our throats.
Our founding fathers and patriot ancestors had had enough. They fought the British in order to turn this Republic around. Will you ever stand up and fight as they did, or will you continue sitting on you butts hoping some RINO will be our savior? It’s never going to happen until you say enough is enough.
— Posted by Crockett
2007
1:22 pm
I am a Christian conservative, a Southern Baptist, very conservative in my social views. Even so,I wonder how long it will be before religious conservatives will mature politically enough to realize that we cannot elect a president on one issue, abortion. We must not put ourselves into the position of having to endure another Clinton for two terms.
— Posted by Jean Vaughn
2007
1:23 pm
dear readers,
please be respectful of other people’s views and comments in this thread.
and please refrain from the vicious name-calling, not only against one another but also against one another’s political and religious views and identities. the attacks are neither constructive nor instructive, and will not be published.
kate phillips
online politics editor
the caucus
— Posted by Kate Phillips
2007
1:29 pm
Conservative Christians are doing absolutely nothing that the hard left interest groups in the Democratic Party do all of the time … they are telling the part that if their issues and positions are not taken seriously by the Presidential nominee they will withdraw their support. That is exactly how the system is supposed to work. And it is way past time that they did it. Had they done this several election cycles back when they first started discussing this problem, we might not be facing the poor choices that are before us now.
Many of we “rabid fundamentalists” see abortion as the bellwether issue on the grounds that if a candidate will not support the right of an innocent human being to exist, the most basic of all human rights, he will not protect any other human right ….. in the womb or outside it for any other class of human being.
— Posted by Bill
2007
1:31 pm
The evangelical right needs to open their eyes. If a Republican is not elected no matter if he/she is conservative or moderate the future of any conservative changes happening in Washington will just be a faded memory. With all of the radical “hate Bush left” in absolute hysterics that Hillary and every leading democratic candidate now has back tracked on the Iraq withdraw issue, there is a better chance of a Left wing third party than a conservative one. I would hope that Dobson remembers Perot and the fact that Bill Clinton never won a majority of the electorate the two times he ran for and won the presidency.
— Posted by cv
2007
1:33 pm
Dobson gave up speaking for me the last time he pulled a stunt like this. He got his undies twisted when he thought that the GOP-controlled Congress wasn’t doing enough to push his agenda through, and stormed up to Capitol Hill and threw down an ultimatum to do his bidding or he’d pull his support and take the evangelicals with him.
That said, to the poster #209 who believed we shouldn’t call Dobson a doctor because that’s only limited to physicians; sorry to bust your bubble, Harvey, but Dobson’s doctorate comes from … wait for it… UCLA medical school! He’s a psychologist with an MD. Earned, mind you.
That said, I still think he’s too big for his britches. If there was to be a third “Christian” party, I’d love to see its platform equally informed by evangelical left-wingers like Jim Wallis as it would be by Focus on the Family.
— Posted by Mike S
2007
1:34 pm
Nominate a NY liberal and you’ll disenfranchise many Republican voters. Remember what happened in ‘93 and ‘96 when Perot split the vote? I’ll write in Mike Huckabee if I need to but I will never vote for a liberal.
Shok
— Posted by Shok
2007
1:41 pm
For Waldo and the rest of the so called Christians.
I wonder if you could please provide a scriptural basis for your conclusion that it against God’s law to kill the unborn fetus of an American woman while ignoring the killing of actual living men, women and children in Iraq. I believe Christ’s teachings when it came to responding to violence of any kind directed at Christians was to turn the other cheek. I do NOT recall there being any disclaimer or loop hole for defending oneself or consideration for “American interests”. In fact 1st century Christians routinely were used as sport in Rome because they refused to defend themselves even if it meant dying in order to stay true to the teachings of Christ. You and your ilk have choosen to disregard the very teachings you demand others submit to whenever it is conveniant to your own political agenda. There is no such thing as a Pro War Christian!
— Posted by Ron Ellington
2007
1:43 pm
All this is mute, if we don’t get a handle on the tanking dollar. Soon we won’t even be able to afford the gas to go to vote. Bailing out hedge funds and bailing out mortgage lenders is not helping the situation at all.
— Posted by John
2007
1:46 pm
I have respected James Dobson for decades. I read his child-rearing books, marriage books and he is a very wise and knowledgable man. However, he needs to step aside when it comes to politics. The very idea of forming a 3rd party is a GUARANTEE that Hillary will win. I am not particularly impressed with Guilliani, but would prefer him over Hillary anyday. The thought of another Clinton in office makes my hair stand on end.
Dr. Dobson - please stick with your Focus on the Family Ministry. You have helped millions of Christian families and I appreciate that as the mother of 4. Leave politics alone. By condoning a 3rd party, you are handing the election to the liberals. It would be much worse for all concerned to have Hillary or Obama in office rather than Guilliana or Thompson.
— Posted by Kathleen
2007
1:49 pm
“..
I think the best thing for the country would be the creation of a true Christian political party. We could uphold the values we hold dear. We need God back in politics. We’ve become so calous about Jesus. I’m glad we have concerned Christians who are willing to take the time to invest in the things of this world so we can ensure that our beliefs are not only represented in government but that God willing, everyone will believe in Jesus and think exactly as we do. Our country was founded by good, clean-minded white Christian men, who believed we are destined to show the rest of the world how living Godly lives should be, and we are showing Iraq and Afghan people today how to live good Christian lives. A solid Christian coalition would help us spread the Wod of God throughout the world and hasten Jesus’s second coming. I full support the idea since the Republicans are deciding to choose a godless person like Guliani, and Heaven forbid, an anti-Christ such as Hillary Clinton. I pray for you all.
— Posted by Karen Johnson”
I’m trying to figure out if the above post is satire; if so, it’s brilliant.
— Posted by Liz
2007
1:50 pm
Oh yeah… That’s just what we need. Split the republican votes so that Hillary can have an easy landslide. And I’m sorry… I thought it was in the constitution that this country be based on a separation of church and state.
— Posted by Sage Kramer
2007
1:50 pm
Ron Paul is the only candidate who deserves ANYONE’s vote. Contrary to media spin, he has the support of the American people. All “top-tier” candidates are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Why should we choose between fascism and communism when we can have freedom?
— Posted by Aaron
2007
1:50 pm
Some liberal wrote:
Comparisons of the religious right to the Taliban are fair, accurate, & completely approriate….
My response:
When I start to see Christian women in America being forced to wear burkhas then you’d be right. No such thing is happening, so you’re wrong.
— Posted by inflorida2
2007
1:51 pm
Mark my words, Conservatives will get Alabama governor Bob Riley to run, after all hes a splitting image of Ronald Reagan.
— Posted by Greg, California
2007
1:54 pm
I am a Christian. There is only one who accurately and faithfully aligns himself with the true teachings of Christ. That is RON PAUL. The others are pandering to our base.
Learn about the true man of God here:
http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/
— Posted by Karl
2007
1:55 pm
When I hear John McCain state things like “only Christians should be elected” (paraphrase)so he can pander to the likes of James Dobson, and his ilk, I literally become sick to my stomach. When a politician finally realizes that he/she serves all of the people, because this is a country of, by and for the people, not of, by, and for the religious right! Only might we see some modicum of honesty in the political landscape. Geez, if these self-proclaimed religious speakers of truth and keepers of “the one and true law” for all of Christianity hate old Roman Catholic Rudy, what the hell do they make of LDS Mitt? Secret meetings of a religious elite (at least in their minds) to attempt to destroy a growing political force with progressive ideas - sounds vaguely familiar…….. Anybody ever hear of Caiphus and the Pharisees!!
— Posted by Baltoman, Melbourne, FL.
2007
1:56 pm
Dear All,
To me the choice to vote third party or no is simple. If the sanctity of life, among other issues is “vital” to you, then you in good conscience cannot vote for a candidate supporting abortion or euthanasia.
It comes down to this: One can vote on principle or continue to vote for what appears to be “the lesser of two evils”.
If we do not vote on principle, there will eventually be no principles to vote on. Abortion will become a non-issue. More and more the “Ds” and “Rs” sound more and more alike. Both parties are mostly interested in power, although their are a few men of character and principle still around (like Tom Tancredo, for instance).
Your typical peon
— Posted by Joe
2007
2:09 pm
This is idiotic on a number of levels. First of all they already have a party,the Constitution Party, run by Mr. Viguerie’s buddy Howard Phillips. If they really want to do this then just bolt already. Viguerie for all his smarts has been obsessed with a third party for the better part of at least 20 years. As others have said this would also marginalize conservative Christians.
— Posted by theIbis
2007
2:23 pm
Pamela (# 474): Regarding scamnesty among the Republican front-runners, you really should consider Ron Paul. He has spoken out forcefully against illegal immigration & has derided the Bush-like proposals as rewarding illegal activity. He calls ‘em like he sees ‘em. Please go here http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul389.html to read the piece Congressman Paul wrote this past May. I know people don’t want to believe it, but on so many issues, Ron Paul has it right. If –& this is the big IF– Paul were to win the nomination, he would sail into the White House.
— Posted by Eric G. Wruck
2007
2:24 pm
Someone state that the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution, as if that nullified the concept that is clearly there. Well, my conservative Christian friend, “fair trial” is not in the constitution, nor the words “religious liberty.” Does that mean therefore that those concepts are not in the constitution? For that matter, the words “Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior” are nowhere in the Bible: by your logic, does it then mean that the Gospels do not teach that?
— Posted by gcamp
2007
2:28 pm
I don’t know that I have ever seen such vicious attacks on people before. You liberals are doing all kinds of name-calling… “facists”, “flat earthers”, “neanderthals”, etc. If you don’t have the intelligence to put forth a reasoned, logical opinion, then you shouldn’t waste your time and everyone else’s with your petty diatribes.
— Posted by Stephen Norton
2007
2:30 pm
Chritians remember how Republicans have sold us out on abortion. It is time to vote 3rd party
— Posted by mark
2007
2:43 pm
This country was NOT founded on separation of chuch and state.
This verbage or anything like it is NOT in the Bill of Rights. This country was founding on the oppososite of this. The first amendment reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
These means that there is no state sanctioned or offical religion, and that all people are free to believe as they see fit.
Please get your facts straight before you cite these phrase.
— Posted by Legal Scholar
2007
2:45 pm
Will all of you Ron Paul supporters give us a break. We have seen all 70+ of your postings on this site and you are past the point of being annoying. Sort of like Shakespear suggested, “the lady doth protest too much.”
If we were persuaded by your candidate, we would have bitten by now. Sorry.
— Posted by John
2007
2:45 pm
Guiliani won’t get much of the conservative vote, Christian or otherwise. He also won’t get the votes of Second Ammendment supporters either. So, Rudy will not be President.
Hillary is a pretty polarizing figure as well. Some might say unelectable for that reason (as well as others).
The election isn’t until next year.
Who can count how many times the front runners at this time were no where to be found come election day?
Rudy and Hillary are not shoe-ins.
However, I predict that if the candidates actually end up to be Rudy and Hillary that we will have one of the lowest voter turnouts ever. Why?
Because there really isn’t much difference between them.
We really need a third and a fourth party to make things interesting in this country again.
— Posted by Ariel
2007
2:48 pm
Good to the right wing republicans to hold their splinter party. As a fiscal conservative who is also socially liberal (I don’t want government meddling in my social life), I’m fed up with the holier than thou who want to spend more time on stem cell research, anti-abortion platforms and terry Schiavo.
I’d rather spend more time on real government issues (pocket book concerns) than proslytizing to the great unwashed.
Jeff E.
— Posted by Jeff
2007
2:51 pm
In the 80’s the two national parties really stood for different principles and different fundamental policies. But I’m not even sure why we have two national parties anymore. Aren’t they the same? Two boats sailing for 5th-century Rome by way of modern Amsterdam, merely at different speeds?
Perhaps I’ll be forgiven for dreaming of another 1854.
Honestly, so much of what goes on in politics these days is political tribalism. I mean, why on earth did conservatives bother to promote the nat’l GOP so heavily as the salvation to the country’s ills, when it was clear that the nat’l GOP was simply Democrat Lite? To what end? Folks like Hugh Hewitt (who, actually, I highly respect) and Rush promised nirvana if we’d put the GOP in power this decade. We did that. It stunk. It was just like being ruled by the Dems, except that we got the PBA Ban.
The long-term effects of further building up Big Govt - as the nat’l GOP has done - will be with us in painful measure for a long time and nearly impossible to unravel.
— Posted by AT
2007
2:57 pm
Please let the relegious right pick their own canidate, because of their waning power, whoevver it is will not be a viable canidate. Personally I have had enough of the likes of Robertson, Dobson, et al. trying to dictate their morality down my throat.
— Posted by george timmons
2007
3:01 pm
Have conservative Christian Republicans not heard of Presidential candidate Ron Paul, a conservative Christian Republican? Something doesn’t add up here!
— Posted by Andrew Jones
2007
3:09 pm
This is terrific news. Let the so-called Party of Lincoln (ha!) fragment itself into a million small special-interest pieces.
I like some of the Deomcratic candidates more than others, but you can be sure that come Nov. 2008 I will be voting for a Democrat.
— Posted by ralph tyler
2007
3:17 pm
Yes, the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the constitution, nor does it remotely suggest that abortion is a right.
A Fair (and “speedy”) trial is clearly alluded to under the discussion of “due process” and “habeas corpus” etc…
“Religious liberty” is also clearly covered by the 1st Amendment (Free Exercise).
The words “Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Personal Savior” are not needed in the bible as they are also clear in “the is no path to the Father, but through me…” “I am the way, the truth and the life”, and Jesus’ discussion of being “born again” on the road to Damascus.
— Posted by David
2007
3:19 pm
I’ve read 100 posts saying “why are we discriminating against Christians” and “Look at all these Liberal Posts”…. where? I’ve read almost exclusively “trust in the lord and savior” and “this person and that person is not Christian”. If anyone on here was truly religious they would see that they should look past the flaws of the peoples running for office and understand their positions as a human being. Simply voting for someone because of one issue is ignoring the forest for the trees. No one will ever match every one of your positions.
And for someone to dismiss any of the candidates (not very Christian of you to bash the Clintons so viciously) before clearly understanding their beliefs is idiotic to say the least.
All these “Christians” are taking pot-shots at people who they’ve never met. Doesn’t seem very Christianly to me. But what do I know I’m a “Dhimmocrat”. (what an oxymoron)
— Posted by Surprised
2007
3:20 pm
Of course the Dems rejoice at the prospect of a split within the Republican party, but why should a Christian vote for a nominee which represents his views no better than Hillary. There’s less than a dimes worth of difference between the two from a christian point of view.
We need a third party. Now is the time.
— Posted by Adheeb Mahut
2007
3:21 pm
I guess it is only appropriate to condemn Liberals as non Christians on this board so I will try to rephrase my comments in a way that is acceptable to the powers that be on this board.
It is high time that the followers of the teachings of Christ take back their religion be they Republicans or Democrats or somewhere in between!The fact of the matter is that those who are so adamently trying to inject their version of Christian “truth” into the lives of the American people simply choose to ignore the very teachings of the man they claim to worship. If you are Anti Abortion yet you support the Death Penalty and are Pro War. You simply choose to ignore the teachings of Christ. Jesus taught a singular message on the topic. Pacifism. Turn the other cheek…yes even if it meant the end of your physical life. There are NO scriptural loop holes or work arounds for “american interests” or “self defense” or even a “war on terror” in the New Testement. NONE! PERIOD! You cannot have it both ways. Either admit that you only care about those teachings of Christ that support your own political agenda or simply denounce your self appointed status as a Chrisitan.
If you support the idea that Profit at all costs (selling out the American worker by outsourcing living wage jobs to 3rd world countries, denying universal health care for the poor comes to mind) at the expense of the poor, then you simply choose to disregard the teachings of Christ on the topic. Jesus was NOT a capitalist, profit is King advocate. There is NO scriptural support for that view. NONE!
Personally I don’t care what a persons personal religious beliefs are but I am SICK AND TIRED of those who willfully ignore the teachings of Christ trying to pass off their Political agendas as the will of GOD!
— Posted by Ron
2007
3:39 pm
I blame Ronald Reagan for the rise of the religious right….Under Reagan, the American ayatollahs were empowered. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and other religious right-wing ideologues were brought into the policy-making fold. That led to the ongoing agenda to eliminate a woman’s right to choose a full range of health care options, and not just abortion. It led to censorship of textbooks that didn’t give equal time to creationism as the theory of evolution. It’s not unfair to argue that Reagan’s giving political legitimacy to Falwell and Robertson, was the precursor to Bush Jr.’s “Faith Based Initiatives” that so brazenly dishonor our separation of church and state..
Remember, the next president will probably appoint 1-2 Supreme Court justices….If you care about a women’s right to choose, if you care about First Amendment rights, etc. well, a justice appointed by a Democrat will help preserve those rights….If however, you want to return to the 13th. century & see abortion & first amendment rights trampled, then you support the Republican nominee…
Conservative justices = love that second amendment but hate the first amendment w/a passion….
For the sake of the Supreme Court, vote for whomever the Democratic nominee is!…
— Posted by Rick
2007
3:48 pm
“The father of our nation said that. And lived that. And governed thusly.”
— Posted by WALDO
Wrong as usual Waldo. Here is what George Washington was required by law to govern by :
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
If he were Muslim he could have sworn on the Quran .. an Atheist, his good name … ALL presidents are beholden to the Constitution during their tenure, … the rest is purely speculative; unless you are a blasphemer who claims to know the souls of men and the mind of God, Waldo.
Get thee behind me WALDO.
— Posted by northrhombus
2007
3:50 pm
1st Amendment… “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Article VI:… “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Religion is the worlds number 1 cause of death
“Onward Christian soldier”
— Posted by Mike Oxbigg
2007
3:57 pm
There is no group of people more out-of-touch with current reality, both here in the USA and in the world-at-large than religious people. Religion, ALL religion, originated from human desire to understand the world around us. There was a time when, perhaps, religion played a progressive, unifying, edifying role in human history. That time is no more.
There has never been a more scathing criticism of “Christianity” than the stultifying influence of American Christians upon domestic and foreign policy since the 1980 general elections! No one has to criticize Christians. Their shameful record speaks for itself!
— Posted by Concerned Citizen
2007
4:01 pm
That’s what the dems are counting on. Giuliani is a strong canidate that will represent conservatives well. He will represent our pro-life values, period. I kindly ask my fellow conservatives to support Giuliani if he wins the primary. A vote for a 3rd party canidate is a vote for a democrat.
— Posted by Marie
2007
4:02 pm
Regardless which candidate from each party is nominated, it is dangerous to mix religious ideals with political backing. As much as many Christian conservatives would like to think that this country was founded with Christian ideals…it is not.
Religion is only stated once in Constitution, in the 1st Amendment and it strictly forbids “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Also in Christ’s time, it was religious interference in political matters that had Christ executed in the first place.
— Posted by Don
2007
4:18 pm
Abortion, abortion, abortion. Abortion abortion. Talk about Abortion anyone? Although my own views are pretty conservative on this matter, I’d really appreciate hearing from someone who is actually concerned about the sanctity and quality of life (everyone’s life) for those who have already made it into this world. Somehow, religious and political conservatism too often ties in with a marked willingness to let others suffer who are not of “us”.
— Posted by Jill
2007
4:22 pm
Neither Hillary. McCain, Mitt nor Rudy have the ideas of a true Christian, either one of them is working overtime to do away with our Christian rights as well as our Constitution, the only true candiate that shares the ideas of the Christian and not destroying our Constitution is RON PAUL.
I feel that is why the Main stream media is so determined to not give him the credit that is due to a decent and honest Christian that wants to perserve our Christian way of life.
— Posted by Richard
2007
4:26 pm
Until we have a viable third party (it we ever do) you need to vote for someone who has a chance to win. I consider myself a conserative who is also a christian but would vote for Guiliani if he were the Republican nominee. I’m opposed to abortion but no one issue can be the do all end all issue. If I vote for someone opposed to abortion with no chance of winning I’ve only guaranteed the Democrats a victory.
— Posted by David
2007
4:47 pm
Dave @ 237
“The fact is, you can’t be a liberal and a Christian at the same time. It’s almost to the point that you can’t be a Democrat and a Christian.”
Thanks, Dave. Can I get a receipt for my immortal soul. Do you get glory-points (Th 1 2:19) taken away for every soul to whom you personally refuse salvation? Should I use you as my intercessor to God now? Show me a sign Dave!
— Posted by northrhombus
2007
5:07 pm
The answer is simple: Ron Paul.
If we don’t get the best (Ron Paul) then maybe we deserve the worst (Hillary).
And if we DO get Hillary then maybe, just MAYBE, after our economy completely collapses and more Americans die overseas then America will FINALLY wake up.
This isn’t a joke people, this isn’t a drill. Time to turn off Oprah, Greys Anatomy, and CSI and start to pay attention. You can go back to sleep after the elections next year.
— Posted by A Californian Republican
2007
5:35 pm
Sounds too good to be true. really.
My opinion is that if Rudy beats Fred, the over majority of the “Christian” Right will choose Rudy
over Hilary getting in, who they see as
Satan’s Mommy.
BUT what could be more likely is that the “Christian” Right will tip the balance in Fred beating Rudy, even though James Dobson has said he won’t vote for him. Plus,
in the end most southern, mid-western and rocky mountian good-ole-boys will take
Fred the Cowboy also over Rudy the Yankee.
When the reality of Stevens being replaced on the Supreme Court hits them, they will not vote third party, no doubt.
— Posted by william
2007
5:47 pm
How can one be Pro-Life while being Pro-Capital Punishment, and not be a completely Hypocritical Fool?
How can one call themselves a Christian, and yet be Pro-Capital Punishment, considering that Capital Punishment was imposed by a government on Jesus?
All real Christians, no matter what their belief regardign Abortion, have to be firmly against Capital Punishment, or they are not real Christians at all.
Find a Conservative candidate who is against Capital Punishment, if you want to elect someone who follows the main beliefs of Christ, even if that Candidate is not actually Christian.
— Posted by Brian Sussman
2007
6:02 pm
Wouldn’t it be interesting if the Christian conservatives paired up with the Green Party in advocacy of IRV (Instant Runoff Voting)?
— Posted by corinne
2007
6:07 pm
Both parties for the most part are bought and paid for. We need a big change. From a former “NEOCON” I am campaigning for Ron Paul. He is the only conservative running.
— Posted by Richard
2007
6:36 pm
Ron Paul seems like a great choice for the Christian Conservatives. I’m glad they dislike Guiliani.
— Posted by Steve
2007
7:26 pm
Have you ever read the bible? Jesus was not a liberal. The bible is a dictatorship. It’s Gods way or the highway.
We have needed a third party for some time now. Lewis Black said it best: republicans-suck, democrats-blow. A third party would give all those disgusted with their party another choice and cause the other two parties to not be so high minded.
— Posted by Daniel
2007
8:17 pm
No matter how cynical I get, it gets harder and harder to keep up! The history of 3rd parties in USA politics is one of abject failure. There is no clean candidate running for office in the presidential election of 2008. Therefore, the downhill slide to chaos, anti-democracy, oppression, delusion, war-in-the-name-of-peace, torture, rendered prisoners, erosion of civil liberties,and continued rollback of the Social Contract will continue unabated! Cheers!
— Posted by Concerned Citizen
2007
8:39 pm
Giuliani - pro-choice and pro-gay
Thompson - former lobbyist for abortion group
McCain - believes in evolution
Romney - pro-gay until he decided to run for Pres.
Paul - does not support ban on gay marriage (and he’s just creepy)
_____________________________________________
Mike Huckabee is the only true conservative candidate.
— Posted by Bella
2007
8:51 pm
I am not Christian, but I fully respect Christians and believers of all religions. Likewise, I fully respect Deists, Agnostics and Atheists. I also respect Capitalists, Socialists and Communists (which to some people are equivalent to religious causes).. This is to say, I respect Freedom of Thought, Freedom of Belief and Freedom of Conscience. All beliefs are valid to their believers, and rightfully so.
My problem is with persons who try to impose their Beliefs on others. The paradox is that sometimes it is necessary to impose ones beliefs on others in order to prevent others from imposing their beliefs. For instance it is correct and necessary to impose racial integration on racists.
For instance it is correct and necessary to impose the constitutionally mandated Separation of Church and State on those bigots who would impose their own religious beliefs on others. Likewise, it would be correct and necessary to impose the constitutionally mandated Separation of Church and State on those bigots who would impose their lack of religious beliefs on others if such a situation actually occurred in the USA. Of course, in the USA, religion is safe from the imposition of Atheism on the Religious, but always at great risk of the religious imposing their beliefs on the Atheists. The worst circumstance is one religion or branch of a religion imposing their beliefs on members of another religion or branch of religion. The purpose of the Constitutionally mandated Separation of Church and State is to prevent imposition of beliefs on others.
As a spiritual non-Christian, I resent Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, Animists, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists imposing their beliefs on me or on others, and dislike the concept of Evangelism if it means an attempt to impose religious beliefs. I do respect people trying to intellectually convince others of their own beliefs, but not to impose them.
The revolutionary concept in the US Constitution is that the government is a secular institution that should never be used to impose religious or irreligious beliefs on others. This has nothing to do with the French Revolution, but within the USA’s Federal Government has everything to do with the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) was then applied to State Governments by the 14th Amendment.
When you use the Federal or State Government to force your own beliefs upon others, you are violating the vey principles the USA was founded upon, and are quite obnoxious and repulsive to attempt doing so. It is people who attempt to force their beliefs on others who have something in common with the KKK or Taliban or Hitler or Stalin or Emperor Constantine I of the Roman Empire or .with Religious Fundamentalists of all religions or with those who would seek the elimination of any or all religions.
For those who fondly recall the past when school prayers were allowed, they are referring to the time period when Slavery was legal, when Jim Crow was legal, when lynching was ignored by the Federal and State Government, when self-righteous bigoted Christians burned crosses on their Christian neighbors’ lawns. I’m 57, and assure you that within my lifetime (and perhaps within my fathers’) the Public Schools of NY never permitted Prayer in School, and there were no lynchings in NY. In contradiction, in the 1950-60’s there was prayer in Public Schools in the Deep South, and there were Lynchings. The Lynching seemed to end around the same time as Prayer in School was banned. In fact it is the very persons who call themselves ‘people of values’ who are descended from the bigots who own slaves or imposed Jim Crow and Lynchings. These are the very people Jesus would be likely to condemn.
If you take Liberalism to its extreme you end up with people like Jesus, M Gandhi or ML King jr. If you take Conservatism to its extreme, you end up with people like Hitler or Stalin. The extreme Liberals tend to get murdered while the extreme Conservatives tend to murder others.
Regarding Hillary Clinton (and Bill too), Liberals consider the Clintons (and most of the other Democratic Candidates for President) to be much to Conservative, in the same way that Conservative Republicans might consider Rudy to be too Liberal. The true Liberal is Dennis Kucinich who is Anti-Iraq War, Pro-Labor, Pro-Minority, Pro-Women and Pro-Choice. The true Republican Conservative is Huckabee. Neither Kucinich nor Huckabee will run as a Third Party Candidate. My own tastes run toward Kucinich, but comes the 2008 Presidential Election, I am likely to vote for whatever Democrat is running. However, like most Democrats, I would prefer voting for a firm Anti-War Candidate.
That said, I applaud the GOP breaking up due to a Extreme Conservative Third Party, as it is good for everyone else, and bad for Extreme Conservative, and for the GOP too. I would fear a Third Party Anti-War Candidate, because for me and other Democrats that would be quite tempting. Therefore I hope the GOP breaks up into a Third Party but that the Democratic Party doesn’t divide, as that would be good for most Americans.
— Posted by Brian Sussman
2007
9:33 pm
Oh yeah. Where’s Deal Hudson and his Catholic crowd? Why haven’t they joined the crowd?
It seems to me that RG knows he’s gained more of the Catholic vote than lost with the GWB coalition. Will RG win? Doubtful. A HRC/Obama ticket will kick them out for good.
It’s so nice to see them split. The important states will now go to the left. Good. Why the split? Because they are all hypocritical. They have their own skeletons like the bathroom senator. All of DC knows it. Good riddance.
This truely is a gift from god.
— Posted by ohyeah
2007
9:35 pm
After 45 years of going to church with the Evangelicals, I finally got out. Men like James Dobson have lost sight of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. What they want is power, and we know that power (and money) corrupt. We certainly don’t need them in charge in Washington.
— Posted by Frank Dooris
2007
10:12 pm
As a member of a minority religion, I am not interested in voting for a evangelical Christian slate or agenda. However, to confuse evangelical Christians for the Taliban is direly unresponsible, not to mention just plain wrong and uninformed.
I miss the old, fiscally responsible types of conservatives, Goldwater era thinkers. The neocon movement has brought a stridency into conversation that is now being matched by the worst excesses of the liberal side of the bench.
Frankly, none of the front runners appeal to me. I’m looking for pro-life, pro-gay, pro gun candidates who also have a good pulse on foreign policy (unlike the current inhabitant of the White House), years of experience in getting things accomplished politically, fiscally-sound policies, socially tolerant of belief, and so forth. Will I find that ideal candidate? No. I’ll have to pick the best fit, and if that means one or another of my above qualifications fails to meet the grade, I’ll choose among the best available. I guess you can color me a non-secular progressive conservative!
Right now, I’m not very hopeful.
— Posted by Diane
2007
10:22 pm
The pro-life vote can go to either party, or a third party, if they advocate protecting life. It should be noted that the greatest gains in the House for Dems in 2006 were with pro-life dems. The pro-life movement, because they detest abortion, does have momentum and the demographic future is bright. Those who support abortion rights, sadly and predictably, tend to have them.
— Posted by Devin Pintozzi
2007
10:26 pm
If one actually read the Bible, they might notice that Jesus avoided politics. Then politicians used the state to kill Jesus anyways. If anyone thinks that politics is purer and more truthful now than it was 2000 years ago, they are indulging in wishful thinking. People can only be changed from the inside out. That’s why Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this world. We’re supposed to be spreading the gospel, not bombing the world. My fellow Christians who think they can change the world by passing laws and forcing the world to be just like us are sadly being misled by their leaders. Who would Jesus bomb?
— Posted by Media is Censored
2007
10:39 pm
I am appalled at the attitudes displayed by the left toward myself and my Christian brethren. Those who do not consider history are doomed to repeat it.Consider this if you will. This nation was established by people who were fleeing religious persecution! They just wanted to worship God as they believed He should be. They just wanted to raise their children to embrace the values that they held dear! They were fleeing a society that they felt was way too secular way too vulgar way too intolerant of views different from their own. They were tired of the killing and the persecution. They wanted to live free. They wanted a country that reflected their hallowed values. They were an humble, imperfect, and God-fearing folk.It is God who has blessed and prospered this land. Whereever the blessings of God are found you’ll find secularists trying to explain it away and trying to ride its coattails too! But we know who our source is. You secularists will just have to excuse us while we give Him just homage. Even so it is way too little and way too long in coming. Do try not to be too alarmed as we attempt to hold together ” one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all” (even and especially those unable to defend themselves). We must stand on principle, even if that means we will seem to lose. You secularists won’t get it, but Jesus Himself showed that sacrifice and even apparent defeat in following God’s will results in ultimate and total triumph. I am sorry that those who share my conservative values will not appreciate the sacrificial (metaphorically) necessity. And I grieve that those who do not share my values, so deeply mistrust and hate the things I value. Your malignance is puzzling; somewhat akin to a rabid animal that has lost all sense of reason and would attack even those who wish it well
— Posted by Jeff
2007
11:13 pm
The religious right is blind to see that they a candidate they want already running - low taxes, strong defense and pro life. Ron Paul in 2008! I just don’t understand them.
Huckabee is not a true conservative.
If they have a 3rd party candidate he will not be any different than someone already running. What a waste.
— Posted by Terry
2007
11:52 pm
I think it’s obvious that Ron Paul is the perfect alternative to Giuliani’s ‘NY-Style Republicanism’
Ron Paul Has respected Human Life in both Politics and Private Enterprise, working as an OB/GYn.
And looking at these early poll numbers, its clear that The only one capable of beating Hillary is ROn Paul.
— Posted by Rocco
2007
2:27 am
While you may have pledged your allegiance to one of the other good pro-family candidates, consider this: only one president came directly from the U.S. House – James Garfield – and that was 128 years ago. Only two people went directly from the Senate to the White House: Warren Harding (1920) and John F. Kennedy (1960). Four out of five of the last presidents were governors, and only one governor meets the life/marriage standard: Mike Huckabee. (from Janet Folger)
— Posted by AZ
2007
8:08 am
Brian Sussman @575:
I really appreciate your clear and well reasoned discourse. Thank You.
— Posted by Fran N.
2007
8:22 am
Speaking strictly about Constitutional construction:
The words “separation of Church and State” are not in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence.
A further accounting of certain words in these documents:
“God”-1 *
“Creator”-1**
“Religion”-1***
“Christian”-0
“Bible”-0
“Jesus”-0
“Values”-0
“Moral”-0
“In God we trust”-0 ****
“Under God”-0 *****
* D of I: “[…] the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them […]”
** D of I: “[…] “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights […]”
*** Constitution, Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
**** “In God we trust”- -“The motto “In God We Trust” was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War.” http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in- god-we-trust.shtml
***** “Under God”- -From the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on 9/7/1892, as part of an advertising campaign for the owners of a children’s magazine [“Youth’s Companion”] who were selling flags to schools. It was officially recognized by Congress on 12/28/1945. The words “under God” were first proposed by The Knights of Columbus, and then by Presbyterian minister Rev. George Docherty in a sermon which was heard by Pres. Eisenhower on 2/7/1954; debated in Congress and signed into Law by Pres. Eisenhower on 6/14/1954. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
The words were meant to be taken from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address: “[…] that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom […]”. There is some controversy as to whether or not he actually said these two words because 2 of the 5 copies of the speech do not have those words in them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address
Gary Wills in “Lincoln at Gettysburg” points out that contemporary newspapers reported Lincoln saying “This nation shall under God…” as opposed to “This nation under God shall…” For a discussion of the difference between these two wordings, see linguist Geoff Nunberg at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001 089.html and at http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001 090.html
where he says: “[…] where it’s actually rather frequent in works published before 1860, usually with the meaning “with God’s help,” or “after God” (with an implicit “of course”) in expressions of indebtedness, gratitude, obligation […] In short, the phrase “under God” had nothing to do with God’s temporal sovereignity; it was, rather, a way of acknowledging that the efforts of men are always contingent on His providence. And that is how Lincoln intended it, as meaning something like “with God’s help, of course”.”
— Posted by Fran N.
2007
9:56 am
An “establishment of religion” is any belief derived solely from faith.
The Congress is barred from respecting any faith-based belief in legislation, and we the people must defy such legislation to get standing in court to challenge it, since the courts recognize no standing to challenge such legislation by anyone but a defendant charged under it.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
10:10 am
To Jeff,
While also being a Christian, I believe one should live a Christian life as an example to others…not impose laws on others to force them to believe what you do. Imagine if you, being a Christian, lived in an Islamic state where your “Christian values” would be under assault. The same goes here.
This country is secular…being a Christian should be evident in your life by those you are surrounded by. Share your beliefs, do not support politicians (liberal or conservative) who would impose laws on others to enforce your beliefs.
You also have a misconception about liberals. We can be Christians also. The right does not have a monopoly on morality or Christian values. And not all liberals are secularists.
— Posted by Don
2007
10:52 am
I’m from the UK and I don’t think I will ever understand how one bloc has such power in elections or how they can be swayed between candidates based on their position on one issue - abortion. do these people not care about healthcare, war, the environment, taxes etc etc.
— Posted by Mark
2007
11:36 am
I am a Christian and although I believe abortion is wrong, I still believe that people should have the right to decide for themselves if they are going to make that decision or not. It’s not fair to make the whole country follow one religious belief when we’re supposed to be letting everybody have their own beliefs. And if this anti-abortion candidate is in fact elected President, women will result in getting illegal and dangerous abortions. It’s just not a good idea. What happened when we tried to outlaw alcohol nation-wide decades ago? It didn’t work. People still found their own way of getting alcohol illegally-which will happen again. I know these people are trying to do the right thing, but there’s a border that is being crossed here.
— Posted by Lauren
2007
1:09 pm
It is these so called “Conservative Christians” that give the rest of us Christ followers a bad name! I would ask Mr. Dobson to consider his options VERY VERY carefully. If he and a bunch of other Pharisee’s want to put another candidate’s name out there what may occur is that they will take away enough votes from the former Mayor and therefore give Hillary Clinton enough votes to win. Do they want that?
— Posted by Gary Smith
2007
5:12 pm
Evidently, many Americans place such importance on the dubious prospect for afterlife that they put up with some kind of hell here to get it.
One is often shocked when, in some near-heavenly setting in this life, some nutcase has nothing better to do than screw it up, when life is already too short. Anyplace where people lived eternally would become Hell.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
7:50 pm
The United States wasn’t founded on atheism. Atheists might feel more comfortable somewhere in the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba. Enjoy your trip. Write soon!
— Posted by Billary
2007
8:41 pm
Leave it to Christians to put Hillary in the Whitehouse!
— Posted by Rick
2007
10:09 pm
Friends, I think it paramount that the Republican Party look to those who vote and realize that if you are not strong on family values you are going to signal the death of the party. I won’t vote for someone who does not accept family values, and if that means I have to vote for a marginal, second tier, or a third party candidate, so be it. Better to be honest with outselves than to choose someone who has no use for God or the Bible. This country was founded on some very solid Christian basics and we need to keep that in mind. Jim Hollingsworth, Coeur d’Alene Idaho
— Posted by Jim Hollingsworth
2007
11:49 pm
What are you republicans complaining about. you talk about you will not vote for a democrat? listen you republicans have a war. a war of your own making. there was on Wapions of mass distruction in iraq. Now you want to start another war in iran.i as a ex-veteran of vietnam would like to sit back and send all you republicans to fight the next war.see if you all can fight. YOU ALL TALK THE TALK . CAN YOU DO THE WALK? get your sON’S AND DAUGHTER’S TO FIGHT THE NEXT WAR. YOU AND BUSH AND CHENEY MAY START WORLD WAR III. IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT. then you will not be safe here in the good old U.S.A. what will you do with bombs on you head?
— Posted by vicent passiatore
2007
12:21 am
The Republican Party is already irreversibly split so accept it and lets find a solution that will keep Hillary and her democratic congress from socializing us all…
Mitt Romney, John McCain, Rudy can’t beat Hillary, no way!
its Ron Paul or Hillary, take it or leave it..
Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary both to the left on the war, and to the right on everything else … which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can employ.
Go Ron Paul.
— Posted by paul
2007
12:31 am
This threat of a third Evangelical Christian Party is the beginning of a slippery slope towards the kind of inter-religious and ethnic chaos that has infected Iraq and that took hundreds of thousands of lives in Bosnia/Serbia. Will there then be fourth, fifth, sixth and nth religious parties? Will there be a Liberal Protestant Party? A Roman Catholic Party? A Russian and/or Greek Orthodox Party? An Orthodox Jewish Party? A Reform Jewish Party? An Atheist and Agnostics Party? A Buddhist Party? A Shintoist Party? A Sunni Moslem Party? A Shiite Muslim Party? An Arabic Speakers Party? A Spanish Speakers Party? An African American Party?
The reason our founding fathers built so many protections in our Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect minorities from the oppression of the majority is that they brilliantly anticipated the kind of “we are a Christian nation” nonesense that is being smeared all over these forums. Making such theocratic statements which are intimidating to both non-Christians and many Christians who believe in pluralism is frankly unAmerican. Real Americans respect the religious choices of all other Americans and try to recognize and celebrate our common values as well as appreciate some of our differences. The notion of a Christian nation is meaningless as there are perhaps 15 or more different variations on the Christian theme. Furthermore, in terms of fundamental values, with the exception of accepted certain Christian religious dogma, which itself varies among Christian groups, there is perhaps about an 85-95% agreement on most issues of morality among all the Christian groups and the Jewish groups. In fact, some of the Christian groups are closer to some of the Jewish groups than they are to some of the other Christian groups. Evangelical Christians and devout Roman Catholics are closer to Orthodox Jews in terms of beliefs about abortion for example, and liberal Protestant groups are closer to Reform Jews on this issue. Things are both a lot simpler and more complex that what has been represented here.
People, wake up. America is surrounded by hostile forces who want to kill us and end our way of life. This religious and ethnic splitting is exactly the opposite of the grand American dream of diverse peoples living together.
Most of the people on this forum have taken extremely rigid views of all the candidates. They all are human beings who are open to some degree of change in response to appeals from different interest groups. These people are politicians for God’s sake. The same people who have for example called Guliani rigid have criticized him for changing positions in the direction of more conservative views. One can’t hold both of these positions at the same time.
— Posted by RickAnalyst
2007
12:50 am
God bless Dr. James Dobson for his unselfish desires and convictions to serve God in spite of the onslaught of criticism. Apparently, his spoken and written words are of great influence in this society. One may agree or disagree with him, but he cannot be ignored. Few Christian leaders have the moral backbone to act with such courage and to use the public platform that God has given him to advocate for the biblical values of love, compassion, and truth.
— Posted by CC
2007
8:00 am
Dobson only serves Dobson.
Show me somebody who claims to know what God thinks and I’ll show you a blatant fraud and/or psychopath.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
12:02 pm
The “grand dream of diverse people living together” is called “Umma” by Muslims and “Zion” by Jews.
Is there an equivalent concept in Christianity, on the living side of death?
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
2:12 pm
A lot has been said by a good number of non-Republicans, but what Democrats think is of no consequence to me. So, where are the Republican responses to this? I guess I am bit confused. What does the Republican Party stand for, if not for pro-life, low taxes, and strong defense? The issue of pro-life stems from a very real belief that we all have the same rights. You can say I am religious, but I say that I am just practical. Who is to say what is human and what is not? You only have to look at survivors of abortion attempts to realize that there was life before the attempt took place. I don’t know when life begins - and neather do you.
— Posted by Kati
2007
2:23 pm
Unbelievable. There’s already an anti-abortion Republican candidate, who would also be the best friend to Christians everywhere. Ron Paul. If you don’t know about him yet, you will soon.
Fence-sitters need to get off the fence and register as a Republican to vote for Ron Paul, and Democrats sick of what is going on in Washington (on both sides) should do themselves a favor and look into Ron Paul. You’ll be very glad you did.
— Posted by Tom Leland
2007
5:03 pm
RickAnalyst #598….Good post! We need “faith-based” political parties about as much as we need thermonuclear war. In fact, one could lead to the other. “Religion is the opiate of the masses.”
— Posted by Concerned Citizen
2007
1:11 am
Only those who can so unfairly mischaracterize the motives of Dr. James Dobson do not truly know the real person. Such misperceptions are grossly inaccurate and perpetuated further in the mainstream media. If one’s diet of news is limited to the “old dinosaur”, it would be obvious why one would have such misleading views. Only those who have heard his radio programs and read his books would truly understand the heartbeat of this courageous Christian leader who stands firmly in the midst of withering attacks. I doubt that few of his detractors would have the moral substance of character to withstand the pure unbridled hate poured onto this man. It’s so easy to type hateful comments in one’s comfortable computer chair and attack Dr. Dobson. It’s a different story for anyone of us to publicly stick to one’s moral convictions with integrity in the face of hateful attacks and death threats like the way that Dr. Dobson does.
— Posted by AZ
2007
1:18 am
To Steve Bolger: I too know what God thinks about what is right and wrong. Here’s a small clue…there’s a book called the Bible. Perhaps the Ten Commandments and other Biblical sections might somehow point us in the proper direction.
Oh, I’m sorry, I do plead guilty now for being a fraud and/or a psychopath, along with millions of others who believe in Scriptural truths.
— Posted by Pro-Life
2007
9:26 am
I know of a Republican candidate who is anti-abortion, strong on defence, against illegal immigration, and pro-gun. His name is Ron Paul. Who is Ron Paul?
— Posted by Locke
2007
1:47 pm
I am a christian, but maybe I have missed something, can anyone who is highly read on James Dobson tell me why he does not support Ron Paul? I really am interested in knowing this…not that it will change my support of the man as president, but I am just curious to know.
— Posted by Debra
2007
2:18 pm
You’ll know America is finally growning up when the people who claim God even wrote a book are laughed out of public policy.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
4:12 pm
The conservative christians have every right to split off from the Republican party - the GOP has used these folks - promising them that they will behave as an armed clergy on their behalf. Singing “That Great Come and Get It Day” (Finian’s Rainbow) all the way to the bank. Second, the word god is not found in the Constitution, but clear concern for it is: And with a classically liberal compromise the amendment at once prevents the imposition of a state religion and simultaneously allows for whatever religious belief one has - unless the belief interferes with a public health law see - Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872. Nowhere can one find a better example of the betrayal of the christian conservatives than in this case written by Justice Scalia, nominated by St. Reagan himself!
Finally, this will be my third attempt to break into this caucus - I have a point I would like to share with the people of faith on this blog: I find it galling that you define me (atheist, agnostic) based on something you believe. I really think a more apt description is a mass hallucination rather than a belief but apparently this language is too vitriolic for the caucus editor. I am perplexed given the language of the believers that my comment was offensive. Liberals Unite! No amount of facts, proof, evidence, science, or truth will ever, ever shake these conservatives from their tree of ignorance - they didn’t arrive at their opinions via logic and they will not be persuaded by logic.
— Posted by mde
2007
8:32 pm
I think a third party candidate is just what america wants and needs. Many dems are saying it will split the vote but I think it would pick up votes from both sides who are sick of the politics going on in Washington right now. I think Shawn Hannity would be a great third party candidate for the Christian Coalition. I would vote for Shawn!
— Posted by Eddie Richards
2007
10:33 am
The Church in America must learn that we live in a pluralistic society and that European History is a lesson on the consequences of ignoring that fact. The secularists hopefully realize, after the last few decades, that Christians in America will not forfeit their political rights. Maybe then we can get on with more important battles, like abolishing The Electoral College.
— Posted by Chris
2007
1:08 am
Remember….!
The Grand Old Party was the third party when it started. It began because of one issue: slavery. It began because neither party would address that issue to the satisfaction of many people. It ran a man named Freemont on its first presidential ticket and lost. It ran a man named Lincoln on its second presidential ticket and won.
DON’T DISCOUNT A MORALLY OUTRAGED THIRD PARTY, FOLKS! It happened once in history; it could happen again.
Now… having said that… I don’t really like the idea, because it would hand Clinton the White House, BUT… I WILL NOT VOTE FOR RUDY! 2008 may be the first time I DON’T vote Republican! GOP, get your act together and nominate a conservative. We need it. You need us!
— Posted by Matthew
2007
6:42 pm
Conservatives better take another look at Fred Thompson before supporting him.Look up Conservatives Against Fred Thompson and a listing of his dismal voting record on the rights of gun owners and second ammendment rights. Ron Paul is the only true conservative in the race but the big money(free trade not fair trade, open borders crowd-North American Union) want even acknowledge he is in the race. That includes all the radio shock jocks that are suppose to represent the conservative right. Who is really selling the conservatives out?
— Posted by packeryman
2007
9:40 pm
To those who are bashing Christians:
It is nothing new. Jesus, the savior of the world, was crucified by us. America is already going down the tubes morally. Abortion, pornography, causual sex on television (most of it done outside of marriage). I appreciate candidates who are moved by their faith in Jesus. As some one in American history said, “Prefer Christians as your rulers”. I hope that a conservative will get the GOP nomination.
— Posted by Richard
2007
1:22 pm
OK, I’ve just read through ALL of the above, and while some of it was very good reading I never saw an answer to my reasonable question so I’ll ask it again. By the way, RickAnalyst’s recent post at #598 is one of the best and most accurate of the lot, which is funny cause I usually totally disagree with him.
So at #99 I asked about Nicaragua. They’ve made ALL abortion illegal, which has not changed the number of abortions noticeably but has made botched fatal abortions and young girls’ suicides MUCH more common. That’s the result of the Pro-Life goal. Please, just think about it for a second: laws don’t change basic human nature, notice how well Prohibition worked.
I don’t approve of abortions either. But there are three things you can support that will actually reduce their frequency.
1) Promote birth control. I know it’s also anathema to the highly devout, but it’s a heckuva lot better than abortions and it should be obvious that abstinence goes against human nature and is an ineffective policy.
2) Increase sex education and start about a year before the onset of fertility. Combined with birth control that’s easily accessible (really it already is except for a few lunatic pharmacists), this would decrease the numbers of abortions dramatically.
3) Increase the number of easy, outreaching adoption services, so that it’s a simple matter to donate an infant (like communities with the no-fault, no-questions drop-offs at any first-responder departments); AND so that adoptions are common and orphanages have a minimum of time spent there (so mothers will know their babies will find a home soon).
I’m a Buddhist mainly, but I’m a Realist first and foremost, and most Christians are also pragmatic (see today’s article here on churches using Halo III of all things to attract members). I would really appreciate any answers from Pro-Life adherents on these two questions:
a) why would making abortion illegal again (it has been in the U.S. before) turn out any differently from how it’s gone down in Nicaragua?
b) why wouldn’t any of my above anti-abortion practices work?
Thanks for your time.
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
2007
8:22 pm
The first settlers who came to this country did so because they wanted the freedom to worship God as they saw fit. Some of them imagined there were witches among them, so they used their beliefs and new religious freedom to burn the witches. Some kept slaves based on biblical scriptures that they adhered to. Some excluded those from different religions from participating in government affairs. In any case, none penned the Constitution and the other great documents that established the laws of this nation. For that, we had men of high intelligence and rare reasoning, thank God. They certainly did include the separation of church and state, which those who have read our documents and studied our history are aware of and understand.
I am sick and tired of the so-called Christians of this country arrogantly and condescendingly telling me that if my values and morals don’t match theirs, I am wrong, immoral, and shouldn’t count. I am sick of their efforts to turn this country into a theocracy. I am sick of their threats that if the democratic and republican parties don’t toe their religious line, they will form an alternative party that will. This is not democracy; this is dictatorship in the making. How, I ask, are their methods any different from those of communist nations, from Nazi Germany, from the fanatical mid-east?
When you pack the senate, the congress, the Supreme Court, the office of the president, and every other government office with these Christian fanatics, what do you have? It isn’t government of, by, and for the people, as our forefathers well knew.
Look at what we have suffered as the result of a born-again, “compassionate” conservative in the White House. This is nothing to what we’ll suffer if the rabid Right has its way. Those of us who can still think for ourselves had better do so and consider why our constitution has been the most successful in the world, thus far, and why, until recently, we were respected around the world.
The radical Right does not understand that you cannot legislate morals or force one set of values on every individual. That they seek to do so is testament not only of their arrogance and ignorance, but of their seeking after the power that is God’s, not man’s.
A lot of harm has been done in the name of religion. History is strewn with the bones of those who were designated enemies of the established and more powerful faiths. Jesus Christ himself, according to scripture, was a victim of those who disagreed with him.
The “Christian” Right needs to tend to their own business instead of meddling into everyone else’s. Their sheep need to learn to think for themselves instead of falling behind those who will lead them astray. It isn’t the liberals in this country who are the danger; it is the fanatical and self-righteous conservatives.
Lastly, we need some published statistics showing what sector of this country commits the most “sins” that these pharisees preach against. I can guarantee you that liberals will not be the ones over-represented.
— Posted by Judy Kilgore
2007
9:44 pm
Amen, Ms. Kilgore.
I’m still hoping for a reasonable refutation of my thesis above, but I’m getting the feeling that those opposed are too cowardly and stubborn to admit I’m right. I’ll bring it up again later, when people are going on again about these ‘innocent babies’ that aren’t innocent by their own religion, since they haven’t been baptized.
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
2007
3:46 am
Mr. Stackhouse (love the name!), you might be waiting a long time if you want a “reasonable” refutation. The Right is not known for its reasoning powers, as you can see by most of these responses to the threat of their loss of power and the unthroning of their religion. Readily available birth control and sex education might pollute the pure minds of their children — rather, other people’s children —and is entirely too secular for them. What they can’t solve by prayer, they want to enforce by Christian law. So while you are asking reasonable questions and positing reasonable solutions, you will perhaps be disappointed if you expect a response in kind from the Rad Right. What they need is a good dose of objective education, but as you see, they want to spend their hours in school in prayer fests and their idle hours at home in speculation about others’ sins and how these sins are responsible for every public ill.
I was reared in the southern baptist south and was one of them before I learned to think for myself. I know a few who truly practice what they preach and respect the rights of others, but not many. And if you do not agree with the majority of them, then not only are you the enemy, you are bashing them and seeking to destroy them. They simply do not believe that any differing point of view has merit or has the right to exist.
Having said all this, let me say that I believe there is hope for them, yet. If they get enough exposure to different points of view and to reasoned thought rather than emotional, self-righteous spewing, perhaps they will learn to be more tolerant. They might even learn what democracy is and come to respect it.
So keep up the good work, Mr. Stackhouse, — and you, too, Rickanalyst — and we may live to see future politicians who can be honest with the electorate AND help us to preserve our great nation. It is people like you who give me hope.
— Posted by Judy Kilgore
2007
9:06 pm
I completely support Dobson here. If the Repubs nominate Giuliani, I won’t vote for him. He is the same as Hillary.
— Posted by Scott
2007
9:45 pm
Thanks Judy Kilgore, by all means call me Dan. The name is really mine, it comes from a town in Yorkshire where the Stackhouse fortification was invented wayyyy back… we even appeared on the 1086 census (as Stacuse tho).
You’ve reciprocated on the hopegiving too, with your tale of coming from the same roots as the extremely Pro-Life crowd but having snapped out of it. And I wouldn’t write off all of the Right faction, for example RickAnalyst is a member. Sen. Hagel too, I have nothing but praise for him.
So yeah, I probably won’t get a rational refutation here, but things keep improving. No one’s been burned for being a witch in America for ages. Seems to me too that the older generations are the more intractable and illogical, and they won’t be around forever.
Thanks again, Judy, see ya later,
Dan
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
2007
10:33 pm
Before forming another 3rd party, they should check out the already existing 3rd parties. I’, sure the Constitution party would love the boost in membership. And maybe, by becomming a force, the big 2 parties would learn to play fair.
— Posted by Linde Knighton
2007
10:21 pm
It still amazes me how many left wing wackos there are out there. In no state in the 2000 or 2004 presidential election did Ralph Nader garner enough votes to tilt the electorial votes in favor of President Bush. We all remember the former president Clinton never recieved 50 percent of the popular vote. If Ross Perot whould have stayed in troll school nobody would even remember who the Clintons are. Unlike liberals the god fearing right always vote. They will turn the election in favor of Mrs. Bill Clinton and the ” smartest woman in America” will lead the country down the path of hell. The way I see it voting for a third party the regilous right will enable the unholy left to advance there idotic ideas. And most of those ideas are adverse to their own.
— Posted by Eugene Boyanton
2007
11:27 am
If you think nature has it in for you personally, you’re a narcissitic paranoiac.
“God fearing” is about sucking up to authority that doesn’t even exist.
— Posted by Steve Bolger
2007
2:55 am
So the question is do the Christians let everyone suffer with a liberal becoming President by splitting the vote between republicans and a third party. We true Christians will be fine if Hillary gets in, we’ve been whipped, thrown into lions dens, tortured, ridiculed, mocked, spat on, smacked, and every other mean thing done to us so Hillary is nothing to us. But to the Non-Christians, are they ready for Hillary or a Liberal. Maybe we should let Hillary win so that everyone will learn what happens when Republicans start crossing the line and supporting abortion in some cases and such and Republicans start support gay marriage and other things opposed to the party base.
Actually believe it or not, the Christian Evangelical movement is losing steam, a lot of the pro-life organization have switched sides supporting abortion in some cases instead of no abortions at all. Homosexuality is creeping up in the churches and is slowly becoming the norm. Even many ministers and pastors who believe it’s okay to marry two same-sex couples is becoming the norm.
A majority of Americans support abortion at least in some cases, such as, to save a womens life anyways and Christians, Republicans, and Americans in general are more socially liberal than they were in the past. The term, “Christian Liberal” is becoming more and more popular term for the new Christians so to speak. Some Christians also support embryonic stem cell research. So I say give the people what they want and elect Hillary. After all, the American people are riding a fence called moderate. I support getting a third party together as this will seperate the FAKE CHRISTIANS from the real one’s and force people to get off the fence of moderation and do a deep soul searching asking themselves, “What do I really believe.” Saying your a pro-lifer who supports abortions to save the mothers life is not being a true pro-lifer. C-Sections can be done to save both the mom and the baby, so their is no excuse. Americans this next election are going to have to chose because their is no gray, you are either for something or not. If a 3rd party being formed splits the vote than it’s a good thing because it’s an indication of what a majority of Americans believe.
And if people get stucked with Hillary and she screws things up, Americans will learn an important lesson.
Their’s my 2 cents.
— Posted by Andrew Thomas
2007
12:19 am
This is in response to Dan Stackhouse post on #99 and #616. I’m a Christian right and I support your position to reducing abortions, what may be impossible to do by law we just might have to implement some of your policies. That is Christianity at it’s core is changing the hearts of people to not want abortion. I’m all for increasing adoption agencies and for making adoption the more positive alternative, I believe all life is sacred. As for birth-control pills, it’s a short term solution and I worry about dangerous side-effects including strokes, blood clots, and heart problems. Anytime your taking medications and injecting chemicals that mess with your bodies natural functions in general is not a good thing for the person.
Plus Birth-Control pills are only effective for about 6 to 8 years and than the body develops immunities to the drug. So birth-control pills only is a temporary solution and not a permament one. Furthurmore, abstinence is not against nature, the Christian Right is not saying don’t have sex at all, but avoid it till your ready to live a committed relationship and are ready to have children. Even animals don’t have sex all the time, they have mating periods where the environment is ready for them to produce offspring.
All the Chrisitan right is saying is to be smart with what you do. Abstinence is the only 100 percent guaranteed way to not get STD and to not have to worry about having a baby, so I think it should be taught as part of lets say, “Be Smart About Sex” program.
And finally with respect with your Halo 3 comment, I agree with you totally. The religious right is not the same as it was when the movement began. I agree with some of the criticisms of the Christian right movement as we all know with Ted Hager, the major Evangelical leader was caught buying drugs off of a homosexual prostitute. And for those who want to do fact checks for whose more of a hypocrite, in many cases it is Chrisitans as 50 percent or so of divorces happen witin Christian couples. A lot of abortions are most likely performed by either Christians or those who aren’t Christian but raised in a Christian home. Keep in mind that this is a Christian Conservative stating the facts about other Christians.
— Posted by Andrew Thomas
2007
2:05 pm
Thanks Mr. Thomas (#626),
I really appreciate that reasonable response, but it looks like you agree with me on most of the points. As for the divergence, birth-control pills, I agree that they’re not the best solution, but condoms are completely safe and there have been improvements recently in dermal implants and longer-term birth control… plus there’s always getting spayed.
Your comments are also generating more hope that compromise solutions can be reached that will reduce the numbers of abortions. I think Pro-Life people in general should be more aware that Pro-Choice people usually want less abortions to occur as well. I think the most helpful advancement, hopefully coming soon, would be a safe hormonal birth-control method that could be applied at puberty and reversed once children were desired.
I’m still waiting to see if anyone’s got a complete refutation of my questions at #616, but it’s probably unlikely. The most reasonable answers on the issue seem to be the compromise of the middle ground.
— Posted by Dan Stackhouse
2007
12:45 pm
Yes. A third party - Libertarian. We can vote Republican and Libertarin at the same time and his name is Ron Paul! 70% of Americans think Iraq was a mistake, and Ron Paul was the only Republican (and one of few Democrats) who had the guts to stand against our current dictator!
— Posted by Steve O in FL
2007
11:19 pm
Values do mean something! We have become a country that does not stand for anything. Our democracy is nothing more now than poll data and sound bites! It is time that Christians stood up for their foundational beliefs and left the Republican party. We cannot continue to be married to an adulterous spouse! While it may cost the White House for the Republican party, we are no longer represented by either of the two dominant parties therefore a loss by the Republicans is not a loss for the “Christian Right”. Hopefully this could lead to a time where we can elect U.S. Reps from heavily Christian districts or Senators from “Red” states that do reflect and vote their values! While we may never own the presidency, imagine what one or two Senators could mean to the swing of the Senate.
— Posted by Michael
2007
7:51 pm
I agree 100 percent with Dobson on this one. There is no way that I would support a pro-abortion candidate like Giuliani who walked out publicly on his wife and humiliated her. He is simply not a candidate I could support in any way, shape or form. He and Hillary are the same, as far as I’m concerned. Heck, if Dobson ran, I’d vote for him over Hillarudy.
— Posted by Scott
2007
12:36 pm
I can’t agree with Dobson because there are already pro-life candidates in the party. Ron Paul is pro-life, and so it Mitt Romney. If Ron Paul does not have a chance than what is the problem with Romney? We are not voting for a pastor in this election, so I do not have a problem with the election of a Mormon. I prefer Ron Paul’s stance on the war, but will vote for Romney because he is pro-liquid coal ( a good energy policy) and he is pro-life. So what if he is a mormon. Dobson should stick to psychology and stay out of politics before he loses his tax exempt status! (He won the tax fight last time but may not be so lucky this time.)
— Posted by Steve O in FL
2007
2:00 pm
If its in the media its a definite half truth which makes it a LIE!
— Posted by Frank in Seattle
2007
8:41 pm
I am saddened at the state our country is in. It is a shame that we have to fight over things that should not even be dreamed of doing (like abortion). I would never vote for anyone who believed it is ok to take an innocent life. I have seen lots of information at our local pregnancy center about it and I am educated on it and it is awful. Our country does need someone strong who can stand up against the people who hate us so much that they are willing to do anything to kill us. No we cannot sweet talk our way out of it, they want blood. It is better to fight there than for them to be here. People please get out of your denial it only weakens our country when we are not united. No one person is going to have it all right but we have to go with our moral compasses and if you don’t have one then don’t vote!
— Posted by Lisa Frazier
2008
8:47 pm
Voting for always allowing abortions or staying with the current law saves live too. How about the girls 12 to 18 that become pregnant and take their lives because of fear and no access to medical care. Either way GOD cares for life plain and simple, this is an issue that is manipulated by so called Christians. Isn’t medical care better than suicides due to no care, guilt or choice. In China, a couple can have only one child.
— Posted by Rob Jorgensen
2008
8:49 am
Many of you keep refering to the Republicans as the right wing. In this election, it looks like there will be no “Right Wing”. McCain is as liberal as most Democrats. McCain is going after the traditional Democratic states like New England, west and east coasts. I don’t believe he can win those states in November, but he could cripple the Democratic vote. This leaves the whole center of this country with no candidate, and most, including me, will not unite behind McCain. Bush won in 2004 by carrying the central states. It looks like a great time for a third party to dethrone a left moving Republican party, or else they should put some right wing planks back in their platform which might prevent some of these liberals from running under the Republican banner!
— Posted by Ray Klingensmith
2008
12:06 am
I used to be a democrat! then I got smart and became a Repulican. Now I am an independent. I also will not support McCain. Since him and Democrat Senator Ted Kenedy support a bill to give illegal aliens amnestiy and voting rights. Also all the other horible things Obama, Clinton and McCain have voted on and been up too in years past.
This may be a different year for Democrats too. So many people here do not like Obama or clinton and would prefer Mccain.
Also The green party and Nader is back. Also the Libertarian party also has big names on the nominee list
The Constitution Party & it’s partners are in talks with Alan Keyes and others for their nomination. Alan Keyes the most powerful nominee. Also my 1st choice.
So this year don’t expect the democrats to soar thru if somebody A BIG NAME suddenly jumps unto the nomination of the Libertairan Party. He’s thinking about it. And he would steal lots and lots of votes away from the democratic party
So it’s anybody’s year still
Look for a 5 way race maybe a 6 way race depending on who’s running
— Posted by Paul G