Conservative evangelical leaders met privately this week to discuss putting aside their misgivings about John McCain and coalescing around the Republican’s presidential bid while urging him to consider social conservative favorite Mike Huckabee as a running mate.
About 90 of the movement’s leading activists gathered Tuesday night in Denver for a meeting convened by Mathew Staver, who heads the Florida-based legal advocacy group Liberty Counsel.
Many evangelical leaders backed other GOP candidates early on and remain wary of McCain’s commitment to their causes and his previous criticisms of movement leaders. But with the presidential field now set, many evangelical leaders are taking a more pragmatic view, realizing also that the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, is making a strong play for evangelical voters and talking freely about his faith.
It’s hard for me to believe any half way intelligent conservative evangelical would consider voting for the most liberal member of the Senate. Am I missing something?
Hard for me to believe that anyone would consider Huckabee a good choice for anything at all.
Furthermore, adding Huckabee to McCain as a running mate would be a bit like adding oh, say, Jimmy Carter as a running mate. Although I’ve already made my decisions about whom not to vote for, I do know some concerned folks who are teetering on the edge regarding McCain. A choice of Huckabee as running mate would pretty much push them over that edge — but not the edge towards McCain.
Perhaps as a protest vote? If both candidates are revolting, why not “punish” the RNC for putting up such a candidate.
I am planning on writing in Ron Paul or [more likely] voting for Bob Barr. I have stopped backing the RNC because they have taken the tack that Evangelicals have nowhere else to go, so they just give us lip service…sometimes.
The RINO’s and neo-cons have taken firm control of the RNC. They are part of the Big Government problem, not the solution. They are also prone to military adventurism and global trade entanglements.
I think it is likely that Sen. Obama will win. I am not looking forward to that, but some good may come of it. If he is true to his rhetoric, NAFTA and GATT are on the chopping block. That would be a big win for working Americans. I know I am tired of all the outsourcing to other countries. An Obama win would also put to bed the “race card” of discrimination. An African American making it to be president would just pull the rug out from under anyone claiming that they can’t get ahead in America because of their skin color. An entire demographic group will start having to take personal responsibility for their failures in life [70% illegitimate birth rate, 50% incarceration rate, etc.] That would all be to the good.
On the down side, Sen. Obama gives every appearance of being a first tier socialist. The country will survive, but it won’t be pretty.
I hope the RNC is taking note. They refused to back a real conservative, Ron Paul, and now they will reap the reward of their duplicitous conduct. If they would honestly return to a constitutional platform, they would win every single time. But then, the Federal Reserve would be out, the IRS would be gone, we wouldn’t have such a magnificent military to play the nation building game with, and think of all the fun that would be missed by not listening into phone calls, reading emails, and checking on our library cards. Meanwhile, the borders remain wide open and we check about 5% of the containers being shipped into our ports. Americans get strip searched at the airports while the cargo going into the belly of the aircraft remains uninspected. Feeling safer yet?
Perhaps they can’t get past McCain’s Gang of 14 obstructionism to conservative judge appointments.
Perhaps they can’t get past McCain-Feingold’s attack on free speech.
Perhaps they can’t get past McCain-Kennedy’s amnesty for millions of illegal alliens.
Perhaps they can’t get past McCain’s pattern of voting against tax cuts in 2001 and again in 2003.
Some folks are just RINOphobic.
S&T;– I am totally confused. You are voting for Ron Paul but you think Obama isn’t all that bad? Two points–Forget the fact he is a socialist/communist; If Obama is elected there will be a nuclear challenge somewhere in the world within 60 to 90 days. It may be Iran, or Pakistan or a dirty bomb in Manhattan, or something else, but it will happen, because the Islamists will want to see how far they can go. Second, please check out the pork barrell projects in Mr. Paul’s district. He and Obama have one thing in common; they talk a good game, but they are simply politicians, as usual. The one good thing about McCain is what the Russians used to call the Nixon factor. There’s just no telling what he might do on a bad day. And Sarah–you are right about Huckabee.
Who said I didn’t think Obama is all that bad? [b]I think Sen. Obama will be a terrible president.[/b] I was just pointing out two things that I thought might be a good outcome if he wins, which I think is likely. I don’t want him to win, but the reality is the GOP has blown it so bad that I think they will be trounced.
They have no one to blame but themselves. Come on…McCain, Giuliani, Romney? RINO, RINO, and RINO! Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in AR, putting them in front of US citizens from neighboring states! He said he was willing to change the constitution to allow foreign born Americans to be president…for Arnold the RINO Schwarzenegger! Fred Thompson was in favor of McCain-Feingold, voted against tax cuts. The 2004 Republican Party platform says: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution.” Thompson said he could not run on that platform. In fact, he opposes it.
No, the Republicrat party has been hijacked. It isn’t conservative anymore. They left folks like me [taking us for granted] and it’s going to take a real swing back to the right to get us back, if ever.
Just one more comment on Thompson. Our founding document, the Declaration of Independence states:
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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
How could Thompson be opposed to codifying the unalienable Right to Life in the US Constitution, given that he says he believes that life begins at conception, and abortion is the taking of a human life, and the Supreme Court has legislated from the bench in favor of abortion? If he truly believes what he says, where is the follow through?
Our election system is broken. How else can there be eight candidates on either side, but not one qualified to represent the Republian party’s conservative or, on either side, who puts America’s interests above special interests?
It’s going to be a poor outcome no matter who is elected. But this may be what is needed to galvanize the true conservatives in the country to put up a viable candidate next time around.
Jim Elliott
Ah yes, abortion enters the political chat, right on schedule — and always in favor of the right to life, notwithstanding those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed by the United States with a pro-life Republican at the helm. (Well, pro-life except for supporting the death penalty and cutting federal funds for lifesaving medical research. But still — no abortions!)
If you don’t vote for McCain, you’re voting for Obama, despite what Sarah and S&T;may say. That is the reality of it. And “the Republican Party” didn’t pick McCain, the voters of the Republican Party picked him in the primaries. Was he my favorite candidate? No, but I won’t go off and sulk in my tent while the worst candidate in my voting life is elected by default of those who KNOW he will be an unmitigated disaster. Handing the presidency to Obama by not voting or making a throwaway protest vote for a third party candidate is childish and unconscionable. This election has come down to who we DON’T want elected, not who we would like to have. Not voting for McCain assures the overwhelminglng “don’t want” candidate will be our next president.
#9
Puleeze. Try to peddle this line elsewhere.
RINOs, conservatives, neo-cons, libertarians… What [i]is[/i] the Republican Party, anyhow? Who gets to define it? You? Me? The guy down the block? The talking head?
What would Abe say?
For about 25 years I have argued that “none of the above” should be placed on every ballot. Should “none of the above” win, all the other candidates would be scraped and we begin again. I know that my solution is fraught with problems (but are they any worse than what we’ve got now?); nevertheless, I don’t see any other way to discern the best from what’s foisted on us…
BTW: my “solution” doesn’t even begin to address who should be allowed to vote and who actually does vote.
dpchalk+
+1 (on another forum, that means “I agree wholeheartedly”, similar to ‘dittos Rush!’ but is shorter and easier to type!)
Jim Elliott
#9 Ember–I am not an absolutists on abortion, but abortion as birth control or for convenience is a problem, and you know it. Even people like the Clintons and Obamas believe abortion should be rare. At least that’s what they say. And the “hundreds of thousands” figure–admit it; you made that up. #12–He’d suspend habeaus corpus for war criminals.
#15 David — you’re right about the civilian body count; per http://www.iraqbodycount.org, it’s actually only 93,575. My mistake.
Ember–You are being sarcastic with people’s lives. You know you are making this up. If you want to say “I hate George Bush and the US military” just say it. I can respect that even though I disagree. Making up numbers to be cute and to make the US military out as baby killers–I can’t respect that. I heard enough of that in the 60’s. It wasn’t true then and its not true now.
I just accessed your web site. It appears militants, terrorists and Iraquis are killing civilians, not the US. That I can agree with.
[blockquote]1. Pam C. wrote:
It’s hard for me to believe any half way intelligent conservative evangelical would consider voting for the most liberal member of the Senate. Am I missing something? [/blockquote]
Well, I’m (theologically) conservative, mostly evangelical (but with a dark Catholic side), and probably half-way intelligent, and I’m strongly leaning toward Obama. I know plenty of Christians who are theologically conservative and politically liberal like me. Although, truth be known, I’ve always kinda liked McCain as well and would’ve gladly voted for him if he had been running against any of the other Democrats. I voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries and Obama in the primaries this year, so I’ll be quite happy with either one.
I thought Obama was the most liberal Senator currently serving?
[blockquote]It’s hard for me to believe any half way intelligent conservative evangelical would consider voting for the most liberal member of the Senate. Am I missing something? [/blockquote]
#1, yes, you are missing something.
1. In the phrase “conservative evangelical” the adjective is a theological descriptor, not necessarily a political one.
2. Your phrase “most liberal member of the Senate” is meaningless for two reasons: (a) somebody has predetermined what “liberal” and “conservative” mean and then analyzed voting patterns accordingly; (b) I don’t know whether “liberal” is bad or “conservative” good unless I know what the issue is. For example, I would think that the defense of the unborn, being a matter of civil rights and government interventionism into otherwise private affairs would be a “liberal” social policy, but this is not the way the label is used. I do not find the labels meaningful.
3. The Bush administration may have given us eight years that have been much better than the Gore/Kerry alternative, but unmitigated foreign policy disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran; the unconscionable national debt; the crashed-and-burned housing market; the generally languishing economy; the pitifully weak dollar; the disappearing middle class; and the well documented deception and cronyism (just to get started) don’t give conservatives a lot to be proud of or to build upon politically.
So it does not surprise me to hear that “conservative” evangelicals might look elsewhere. It might even be “half way intelligent” to do so.
#21
Only liberals have trouble understanding what is meant by the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in public discourse. Of course they refuse to self-identify but that’s beside the point because their liberalism is clear to see. Conservatives might quibble about whether someone’s positions are conservative enough or not, but they all know what and who is conservative, at least to the degree necessary to differentiate between them and what/who is liberal. Again, the only people who ever surface this suppossed lack of understanding are liberals. It’s like you can spot a revisionist Episcopalian the minute they start blathering about our “Baptismal Covenant” or begin their letters to their flock, “Dear Sisters and Brothers (“in Christ” is optional).”
#22, thank you. Now I understand. Conservatives know what they mean by the words they use and liberals don’t. Since, I’m a conservative, now I know what I mean when I use the words. Perfect. Good thing I’m not a liberal, or I would have no idea what I was talking about.
I’m amused by the libera/conservative division. It kind of presumes that there’s all there is in the world. Not sure where Distributivists, or those who appeal to Henry George’s economic views, or polyarchists fit. I suspect that
The republican party has always had different competing factions. It had a progressive, anti-socialist wing which is easily forgotten. Especially after the Republicans started using race as a voting factor during the late 1960’s to attract people from the Democratic party.
As far as Obama being “liberal” or a “socialist/communist” I continue to be disappointed that nobody is actually making any sort of references to who his advisers are; or who he counts as influences. Obama is a practical politician: he’s not a 60’s ideologue.
He believes that communities have the right to organize for their self-interest. To some this is communism. I call it democracy. He was influenced by Saul Alinsky, who was openly hostile to communists and socialists who had hierarchical, ideological views about power. Alinsky worked with churches and unions for very practical causes (public parks, better schools, clean roads). He didn’t care about ideology. Neither does Obama.
He will most likely govern from the center because he is a pragmatist. His view seems to be that of “libertarian paternalism.” And if you want to understand what inspires him, you might want to study the story of Harold Washington. The former debates of the 60’s (vietnam / civil rights) just don’t apply. If you really think he’s a socialist, I’d like to know what real evidence you have aside from that perhaps he attended some meetings with a couple.
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-thalerandsunstein2apr02,0,3730262.story]Here is an article about Libertarian Paternalism [/url]
They can save all the advertising dollars. I wouldn’t vote for Obama under any circumstances. Not crazy about what’s-his-name, but I am enthusiastically voting against Obama. I only wish Hillary were on the ticket. That way I could enjoy voting against BOTH of them. Maybe if I go to Chicago, I could vote against Obama several times?
#23, do you occasional read the voting records? Obama voted against the Born Alive Act, which would have required doctors to give life saving treatment to babies that survived abortions. Got that? Obama thinks those babies should be left to die.
How does that fit into your definition of liberal?
Chris, I don’t know much about the Born Alive act, but you seem to think that babies being left to die is about being a liberal. But I’m not sure what your issue is. Are you supporting universal health care for those babies?
Personally, universal health care would probably save hundreds of thousands of lives, and give people a better standard of living. But that’s a liberal issue.
But if your criteria is numbers of abortions in any given time span, then we’re talking something else. If you want to reduce abortions, offer real alternatives to and make sure men are employed.
The accusation, of course, is that he is not merely a “liberal” but a socialist or communist. As a Liberal he might give incentives to discourage abortions by using incentives rather than big government.
Do you read anything about economics? How does economics fit into your definition of “socialist?”
CharlesB – Are you white and over the age of 60? You’ve probably been voting Republican since Lyndon Johnson. Obama would never get your vote anyway…. Not sure what your point is.
[blockquote]#23, do you occasional read the voting records? Obama voted against the Born Alive Act, which would have required doctors to give life saving treatment to babies that survived abortions. Got that? Obama thinks those babies should be left to die.
How does that fit into your definition of liberal? [/blockquote]
#27, I am sorry to have riled you so. Nothing I said could be counted as approval of Obama’s pro-abortion stance. See my #21 and you will see that I have not given a definition of “liberal” or “conservative” but have rather pointed out the folly of sweeping approbation or disapprobation on the basis of these arbitrary and historically contingent labels.
OC, you might be less obtuse if you didn’t presume to know what people were feeling in their comments. I was not riled, merely perplexed why you resist the practicality of descriptors that, though they are historically contingent, yet can be so modified within the present historical context as to be understood. Today’s liberal is not the same as last century’s, and few people voting today would think of a 19th century liberal when saying that Obama’s positions are standard liberal fare. If I say within the context of a debate in the Presbyterian church that some pastor is orthodox, no one is going to think that I mean he reverences icons. Like it or not, meanings of such descriptors change as the party or movement that most embraces them changes. Now that movement wants to drop the descriptor without providing a better more accurate alternative. That’s sneaky.
Your refusal to acknowledge how the labels have changed seems obtuse at best, disengenuous at worst.
Occasional reader, I meant. Oops.
Wilkins, I only want to say to you that your statements about the Born Alive Act reveal you to be a loathsome and reprehensible human being.
#34 Chris Hathaway–Is describing someone as “a loathsome and reprehensible human being” what Jesus would do? (“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”) Is it a constructive thing to say? I hope you will retract your attack on Wilkins.
CH, I heartily concur with your comment about the “practicality of [political] descriptors” and our ability to understand them within a given context. Well said. My point simply remains that sweeping judgments by means of these labels are still not helpful, since behind each of the labels are a set of contingent and not always coherent commitments, which, as you so helpfully point out, are also liable to change. Better, I think to talk about the actual issues. This was the substance of my original reply to #1. My contributions to the thread have consistently been about the usefulness of the labels for the sake of discourse.
I apologize for thinking that you were “riled.” You sounded “riled.”
Not only was the attack on Wilkins uncalled for, I don’t really understand why what he said was loathsome. Because he pointed out that abortions would drop if parents were provided better opportunities for healthcare and employment? That doesn’t mean he’s in favor of abortion; he’s just pointing out (rightly) that these “liberal” programs are effective at reducing abortions, which is something that Chris Hathaway should support.
[i] Let’s get back to the thread. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Hi Chris – seems I’ve made you angry. Did you talk to one of my ex girlfriends? She didn’t tell you the entire story. Otherwise, I’m impressed by your intuition about my character, given that we’ve never met. And I’m easy to find online!
I don’t have the same confidence that your insults reveal much about who you are except that I’ve infuriated you. I’ve been in the same position and insulted people myself. The internet doesn’t really promote civility, as you clearly demonstrate.
I don’t know much about the Born Alive Act. I think it was an issue at the beginning of the Bush Administration, right? A bone to throw at the pro-life movement? I don’t think Obama was in congress at the time. A minor detail, but you might be right that Obama hates babies. Personally I’ve heard he’s planning on both enslaving the white race AND instituting a Marxist centrally planned economy. He once knew a Marxist and had dinner with one, so we are pretty sure where his sympathies lie.
As an aside, I do think the “babies” meme is often a cheap political tool for those who want to avoid talking about our economy. We love the babies when their born, but we don’t want to help the mothers who have them, or the families who have to take care of them. We love babies, but we hate kids.
How would Jesus talk to a slave trader, one that was unrepentant? How about a rapist? Hmmm…I don’t remember any examples off hand but I do seem to recall that Jesus’ condemnation of the pharisees was pretty strong.
Some people think it a Christoian virtue to speak kind words to the wicked and to those who wink at evil. I read Scripture and don’t see God sharing that attitude. He seems to really hate the oppression of the poor and weak. To me a newborn baby is about as weak as you get.
I retract nothing. Anyone who callously makes a political football out of infanticide would have recieved worse at the hands of the church fathers than I dished out. I was rather restrained in that regard.
Those in the pro-life movement love babies and children and women. We actually care about them as human beings, not as fodder for government programs, which is the only way soem people think caring can be measured. I haven’t noticed much practical love of mankind flowing from those who don’t much mind the slaughter of children as so much garbage.
Abortion will never become totally illegal–despite anyone’s fruitless efforts to the contrary. And abortion will never be totally acceptable–I don’t think anyone could honestly claim otherwise. Voting for one politician or party over another will never ever alter these facts.
I wonder, ember, whether you believe that the law can do anything to restrain evil and to encourage good. If not, why should we vote at all? I sense a dublicitous cynicism in your comment.
#43 Chris Hathaway–I do not intend cynicism. I do think laws can restrain evil and encourage good. I think abortion will never become totally illegal, and I think making abortions illegal won’t prevent them from occurring, and I do not intend that as duplicity.
The Mystery of the Faith:
Christ has died;
Christ is Risen;
Christ will come again.
I think on that day abortions will certainly cease. We are called to be Christ-like and bring His Kingdom into this fallen world. That does affect how I think about abortion.
I do think laws can restrain evil and encourage good. I think abortion will never become totally illegal, and I think making abortions illegal won’t prevent them from occurring,
This is a contradiction. If laws can restrian evil, and abortion IS an evil, then laws can restrain abortion, that is, deter them. Of course law cannot eliminate abortion anymore than law can eliminate any activity, but people’s choice to do evil things is influenced by the permission society gives by not condemning it through law.
Abortion generally requires someone else beside the mother to perform it. That second person is usually not motivated by high ideology but is doing it for the money, and thus legal disincentives would become a strong deterent. If you declare in law that such types of abortion are, what “doctor” is going to perform them and risk losing what liscence he has? If a woman cannot get that type of abortion it is not logical, given the increase of abortion after its legalization, that she will necessarily find an illegal means of obtaining it. She may instead give birth to the child and either keep it or give it up for adoption.
Human behavior is malleable, according to the drives and desires within the heart AND to the rewards and disincentives that society gives. To claim that one type of evil cannot be restrained by law as an argument against making a political issue out of it is really to say that you don’t care that much about restraining that kind of evil.
We have laws to deter shooting people, but those laws don’t apply in every single instance (for example, in cases of self-defense). Similarly, we can have laws to deter abortion, but those laws can’t apply in every single instance. These facts have nothing to do with whether I care about restraining evil.
As for the claim of an increase in abortion after its legalization, TIME magazine, Jan. 21, 2008: “Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the U.S., abortion rates are at their [i]lowest[/i] level in three decades.”
I won’t comment further in this thread.
Roe v Wade was more than three decades ago. How does today’s abortion rate compare to when it was illegal in many states? Hmmm?Look at the rate of abortion before and in the years immediately afterwards.
Your example of laws against shooting is truly idiotic, as self defence is not detered by those laws precisely because self-defense is permitted within the law. But go look at where even self-defense is prohibited, like in Britain, and tell me that the practice of defending yourself with a gun is unchanged.
I can understand why you won’t comment further when your arguments are so bad.