Christian Right rejecting Rudi, McCain

[Taco John]

Christian Right Labors to Find ’08 Candidate
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

Many conservatives have already declared their hostility to Senator John McCain of Arizona, despite his efforts to make amends for having once denounced Christian conservative leaders as “agents of intolerance,” and to former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, because of his liberal views on abortion and gay rights and his three marriages.

Many were also suspicious of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts; members have used the council as a conduit to distribute a dossier prepared by a Massachusetts conservative group about liberal elements of his record on abortion, stem cell research and gay rights. (Mr. Romney has worked to convince conservatives that his views have changed.)

And some members of the council have raised doubts about lesser known candidates — Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Representative Duncan Hunter of California, who were invited to Amelia Island to address an elite audience of about 60 of its members, and Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who spoke to the full council at its previous meeting, in October in Grand Rapids, Mich.

Although each of the three had supporters, many conservatives expressed concerns about whether any of the candidates could unify their movement or raise enough money to overtake the front-runners, several participants in the meetings said.

Finally, in a measure of their dissatisfaction, a delegation of prominent conservatives at Amelia Island tried to enlist as a candidate Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a guest speaker at the event. A charismatic politician with a clear conservative record, Mr. Sanford is almost unknown outside his home state and has done nothing to prepare for a presidential run. He firmly declined the group’s entreaties, people involved in the recruiting effort said. A spokesman for Mr. Sanford said he would not comment.

“There is great anxiety,” said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation. “There is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that.”

Mr. Weyrich, a longtime member of the council, declined to discuss the group or its meetings. The council’s bylaws forbid members from publicly disclosing its membership or activities, and participants agreed to discuss the Amelia Island meeting only on the condition of anonymity.

For eight years and four elections, President Bush forged a singular alliance with Christian conservatives — including dispatching administration officials and even cabinet members to address council meetings — that put them at the center of the Republican Party.

But in the aftermath of the stinging defeats in the midterm elections, and with discontent over the Iraq war weighing heavily on the public, some Christian conservatives worry that they may find themselves on the sidelines of the presidential race.

Both Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney have worked hard to pitch themselves to Christian conservatives — Mr. McCain by delivering speeches at venues like Mr. Falwell’s Liberty University or a recent abstinence-promotion event, Mr. Romney by leading the charge for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. But neither has won over many of the movement’s leaders.

The conservative concern may also be an ominous sign for the Republican Party about the morale of a core element of its political base. Conservatives warn that the 2008 election could shape up like 1996, when conservatives faced a lesser-of-two evils choice between a Republican they distrusted, former Senator Bob Dole, and a Democrat they disdained, President Bill Clinton. Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family later said in a speech to the council that he voted for a conservative third-party candidate that year rather than pull a lever for Mr. Dole.

The Council for National Policy was founded 25 years ago by the Rev. Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians to strategize about turning the country to the right. Its secrecy was intended to insulate the group from what its members considered the liberal bias of the news media. In recent years the group has brought together a cross-section of the right from Edwin J. Feulner to Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association.

In addition to doubts about their ability to generate enough money and momentum, each candidate who addressed the group also faces initial skepticism from one faction or another on issues like immigration, trade, taxes and foreign affairs.

“Right now there is still a vacuum among conservative Republicans,” said Gary Bauer, a Christian conservative who was a Republican primary candidate in 2000. Conservatives, he said, “want a more provable conservative who also is demonstrating that they can put together the resources necessary to prevail.” He declined to comment on the Amelia Island meeting.

A spokesman for Mr. Brownback said he would not comment on the senator’s presentation to the council, citing its rules about strict confidentiality. Several others who attended his speech said he received heavy applause for his emphasis on restricting abortion and amending the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. But foes of illegal immigration objected to his support for a temporary guest worker program, and some faulted him for touching only briefly on the threat of Islamic terrorists, an increasingly central focus of the council and many social conservative groups since the Sept. 11 attacks.

(People who attended the Amelia Island event said Rick Santorum, the former senator from Pennsylvania, delivered a well-received address to the council about what he called the gathering threat of radical Islam.)

In an interview, Mr. Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee and a supporter of Mr. Bush’s plan to send more troops to Iraq, said the need for a strong national defense was the centerpiece of his speech. That defense, he argued, should include cracking down on illegal immigration, building a wall along the Mexican border and renegotiating foreign trade deals to protect American manufacturing. “We are losing the arsenal of the democracy,” he said.

But several people at the council meeting said his stance on trade alienated the business wing of the Republican Party, compounding his substantial fund-raising challenges.

Mr. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister who was the head of the Arkansas Baptist convention before becoming governor, has the advantage of strong personal ties to many council members. Many prominent evangelical Christians consider him a friend, and he has appeared several times as a guest on Dr. Dobson’s popular Christian radio program.

In an interview, Mr. Huckabee said he believed his roots in the evangelical world helped set him apart from his rivals. “I am not going to them,” he said. “I am coming from them.” He said he did not remember speaking about his opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage, “although I am sure that I must have.” He said he emphasized education, among other issues, and talked about a continuing war “with a radical form of Islamic fascism,” which he called “a bastardization of religion.”

But many conservatives, including several participants in the Amelia Island meeting, said Mr. Huckabee faced resistance from the limited-government, antitax wing of their movement. Some antitax activists fault Mr. Huckabee for presiding over tax and spending increases. (He says the only tax increase resulted from a public referendum.)

In the interview, though, Mr. Huckabee said he was now leaning toward signing a pledge not to raise income taxes that is presented to all the candidates by Mr. Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Mr. Norquist said he remained open to any of the three candidates who spoke to the council or to Mr. Romney. He argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records, just as some high school students take abstinence pledges even after having had sex.

“It’s called secondary virginity,” Mr. Norquist said. “It is a big movement in high school and also available for politicians.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us/politics/25secret.html?ei=5065&en=1e92d10e8c647cf1&ex=1172984400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

[recxjake]

November 2008, they will be voting for Rudy for one reason: Hillary Clinton... for them it's the lesser of two evils

[Taco John]

November 2008, they will be voting for Rudy for one reason: Hillary Clinton... for them it's the lesser of two evils


You just outlined the reason why Hillary will never get the Democratic nomination. Keep praying for it to happen though, because it's the only way the republicans even have a shot in 2008.

[recxjake]

You just outlined the reason why Hillary will never get the Democratic nomination. Keep praying for it to happen though, because it's the only way the republicans even have a shot in 2008.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Obama can't beat the Hillary machine

Obama can't win the south

[Taco John]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

Obama can't beat the Hillary machine

Obama can't win the south



ROFL

You dork! What are you showing me polls in February 07 for? You've got this strange idea that the leaders of the polls right now have this thing locked up. Where did you get such a stupid idea anyway?

Polls don't mean a thing DURING the election. They certainly don't mean anything right now.

[recxjake]

ROFL

You dork! What are you showing me polls in February 07 for? You've got this strange idea that the leaders of the polls right now have this thing locked up. Where did you get such a stupid idea anyway?

Polls don't mean a thing DURING the election. They certainly don't mean anything right now.

You are right to a certain extent. It is early. But this election is unlike prior elections.

Hillary, Obama, Rudy, McCain are ALREADY on the campaign trail. Bush didn't start his campaign until June and didn't make it real until September. We are in full swing campaign mode in Iowa. Every single day these guys are coming and going. The Dems already had their first "forum" and even had the first dropout. It's going to be Hillary or Obama, either way... The far right is voting for Rudy over either of them

[Taco John]

Haha... You've got a LOT to learn about national politics kid...

The far right is going to have trouble motivating their votes if the choice is between Rudy and Obama. The far right will see that as essentially the same choice.

[recxjake]

Haha... You've got a LOT to learn about national politics kid...

The far right is going to have trouble motivating their votes if the choice is between Rudy and Obama. The far right will see that as essentially the same choice.

Not on fiscal issues
Not on war on terrorism

Rudy's controversial issues aren't that bad.

Gun Control- State Rights- New York and Iowa shouldn't be held under same standards
Gays- Civil Unions
Abortion- Pro-Choice, but would appoint judges like Scalia, Roberts and Alito

I'm just fine on all of these


In the End... they will vote for Rudy

[jAZ]

Not on fiscal issues
Not on war on terrorism

Rudy's controversial issues aren't that bad.

Gun Control- State Rights- New York and Iowa shouldn't be held under same standards
Gays- Civil Unions
Abortion- Pro-Choice, but would appoint judges like Scalia, Roberts and Alito

I'm just fine on all of these


In the End... they will vote for Rudy
You are confusing your willingness to look past "Rudy's controversial issues" with "the(ir)" willingness to do so. They aren't sold on Rudy's or McCain's double speak sticking when he's elected to office.

[Logical]

You are right to a certain extent. It is early. But this election is unlike prior elections.

Hillary, Obama, Rudy, McCain are ALREADY on the campaign trail. Bush didn't start his campaign until June and didn't make it real until September. We are in full swing campaign mode in Iowa. Every single day these guys are coming and going. The Dems already had their first "forum" and even had the first dropout. It's going to be Hillary or Obama, either way... The far right is voting for Rudy over either of them



If CA moves their primary ahead of Iowa like may happen, Iowa will become completely irrelevant.

[recxjake]

If CA moves their primary ahead of Iowa like may happen, Iowa will become completely irrelevant.

Iowa will just move it up... Chet Culver has said Iowa will be first no matter what....

I heard this idea today on one of the sunday morning shows....

Iowa and New Hampshire... then 4 rotating regional primaries spaced out

It would bring some order to this mess

[recxjake]

You are confusing your willingness to look past "Rudy's controversial issues" with "the(ir)" willingness to do so. They aren't sold on Rudy's or McCain's double speak sticking when he's elected to office.

I agree.... but they simply will not vote blue

[jAZ]

I agree.... but they simply will not vote blue
That's rather arrogant... keep it up though. Arrogance is often followed by a major failure.

[Taco John]

I agree.... but they simply will not vote blue


ROFL

Then how the hell did Clinton get elected?

You should save these posts and put them in a file marked 2016, and get a good laugh at your naivety in the future. And trust me, you *will* have a hearty laugh.

[oldandslow]

If Hillary is not the nominee...(and perhaps if she is)...

5-10% of the conservative base will stay home if Rudy or McCain are nominated.

Repubs are in trouble in 08.

[BucEyedPea]

November 2008, they will be voting for Rudy for one reason: Hillary Clinton... for them it's the lesser of two evils
Remember the lesser of two evils, is still evil.

You do know that Rudi supports welfare for illegal aliens, right?

They're all traitors. They're all bought and paid for by the same interest groups. The NeoCons will use whatever party, whatever candidate to get its agenda of world conquest and empire...except for a few.

If the CR was smart they'd put their power behind Ron Paul, even if they don't support all his libertarian social issues. It's unlikely he'd be able to implement all he believes in, and we would be safer.

[recxjake]

If Hillary is not the nominee...(and perhaps if she is)...

5-10% of the conservative base will stay home if Rudy or McCain are nominated.

Repubs are in trouble in 08.

wrong, they aren't going to stay home so a super liberal would get elected

[htismaqe]

Not on fiscal issues
Not on war on terrorism

Rudy's controversial issues aren't that bad.

Gun Control- State Rights- New York and Iowa shouldn't be held under same standards
Gays- Civil Unions
Abortion- Pro-Choice, but would appoint judges like Scalia, Roberts and Alito

I'm just fine on all of these


In the End... they will vote for Rudy

You evidently haven't been paying attention. Just listen to the conservatives on WHO radio - they're not gonna vote for Rudy based on fiscal issues or the WoT. Most of them are actually AGAINST the war.

Steve Deace spends more time bashing Bush, McCain, Rudy, and the rest than he does bashing the Dems.

When it comes down to it, make no mistake about it. They're not gonna vote, PERIOD, if it comes down to voting for Rudy or McCain.

[htismaqe]

wrong, they aren't going to stay home so a super liberal would get elected

You're wrong, and it's coming straight from the mouths of the EC's themselves.

If they can't find a 3rd-party candidate, they simply won't vote.

[BigRedChief]

Doesn't matter. The religious right will not have the same power after the next election.
Even if a Republican wins that Republican winner will be more centered politically or they will not have won in the first place.

[Direckshun]

The religious right will be able to bring down McCain. They've done it before.

They won't be able to beat down Rudy, though, and it's largely their own fault. They were largely responsible for the ultra-repetitive "9/11" bludgeon that pounded the public into submission in 2004, and you can bet Rudy will use that same hammer in 2008.

[BucEyedPea]

wrong, they aren't going to stay home so a super liberal would get elected
I assure you that I will vote possibly Democrat, outta protest, but most likely 3rd party. I am a conservative pub ( at least for now I'm still a Pub...just to nominate these days).

I've hung in conservative GOP circles and what I'm hearing is that many will vote their conscience and just let the Dems take it.

It doesn't just hang on the war on terror issues though, ( divide and conquer) even if a strike on Iran will mean a definite loss in 2008, but on the illegal immigration one too. Once Giuilietta is exposed as in that camp...it's bye-bye WH too with or without a war with Iran. Additionally, I've read that Bush Co is about to sell out the right on environmental issues now by cooperating with the Dems. Keep thinking he's a conservative or the lesser of two evils.

Lesser of two evils is still evil.
A divided govt is actually the safest route in these times.

[ChiefsCountry]

Pretty stupid McCain is the best canidate IMO. I consider my family pretty conservative and not quite to the religous right but close and they all like McCain.

[recxjake]

I really disagree with you guys...

1st off Rudy has yet to even start his campagin off... he's just done very minor things... I think this is good because he is staying out of they hillary/obama fray

I think the far right will learn about past mistakes about skipping elections and will vote

Even if the far right doesnt vote, more independents will vote for Rudy and make up for the loss of Republican voters

[recxjake]

Pretty stupid McCain is the best canidate IMO. I consider my family pretty conservative and not quite to the religous right but close and they all like McCain.

Why? He's flip flopped on everything... a few months ago he said Rummy was the best, now calling him the worst... he's too old, looks terrible, already tried and failed, not raising any money.... he will be bowing out soon IMO

[htismaqe]

I really disagree with you guys...

1st off Rudy has yet to even start his campagin off... he's just done very minor things... I think this is good because he is staying out of they hillary/obama fray

I think the far right will learn about past mistakes about skipping elections and will vote

Even if the far right doesnt vote, more independents will vote for Rudy and make up for the loss of Republican voters

Which far right?

If you're talking about Evangelicals, then no, they won't vote. To them, cheating on your wife isn't a "very minor thing".

And as far as "independents" you're not gonna find many around here that will vote for Rudy once they find out where he stands on immigration...

[Cochise]

It's entirely too early to judge where these chips are going to fall. Giuliani is not stupid. He knows that he's going to need to court the religious. He'll meet with the Dobsons of the world and try to gain their favor.

I'm not sure it's going to matter that much. There was a poll last week that had Rudy up 22 points. The closest person after Rudy and McCain was down by 33 points. Is the endorsement of the CC or Focus on the Family going to be worth 33 points in a (realistically) 3 man race? I really doubt that.

I hear a lot of non-religious people in this forum spout off a lot about how relgious people think about politics. I almost never coincide with this supposed insight on the mind of a relgious voter and I am one.

I can tell you that I'm going to sleep totally fine supporting Giuliani in the primaries. But if McCain won, I'd still go out and vote for him, even if I didn't really like it. Or whomever else there is.. no problem. I'm not going to stay home and be a part of putting Hillary in the White House. I think that is the strongest sentiment you will find amongst the right at this time.

But anyway... I look forward to continuing to hear about what I REALLY think in the coming months.

[StcChief]

They will vote, The worst of two evils still applies.

[htismaqe]

It's entirely too early to judge where these chips are going to fall. Giuliani is not stupid. He knows that he's going to need to court the religious. He'll meet with the Dobsons of the world and try to gain their favor.

I'm not sure it's going to matter that much. There was a poll last week that had Rudy up 22 points. The closest person after Rudy and McCain was down by 33 points. Is the endorsement of the CC or Focus on the Family going to be worth 33 points in a (realistically) 3 man race? I really doubt that.

I hear a lot of non-religious people in this forum spout off a lot about how relgious people think about politics. I almost never coincide with this supposed insight on the mind of a relgious voter and I am one.

I can tell you that I'm going to sleep totally fine supporting Giuliani in the primaries. But if McCain won, I'd still go out and vote for him, even if I didn't really like it. Or whomever else there is.. no problem. I'm not going to stay home and be a part of putting Hillary in the White House. I think that is the strongest sentiment you will find amongst the right at this time.

But anyway... I look forward to continuing to hear about what I REALLY think in the coming months.

That may be the case with you.

It's certainly not the case around here with the people that I hear and talk to.

They've finally given up on the "lesser of two evils" in favor of not being a party to "evil" at all.

[Taco John]

I personally don't beleive Rudy even stands a chance to get the nomination.

I think that what's going to happen is that Leiberman is going to flip parties, and run with McCain as Veep, and that's going to be the Republican ticket.

[htismaqe]

I personally don't beleive Rudy even stands a chance to get the nomination.

I think that what's going to happen is that Leiberman is going to flip parties, and run with McCain as Veep, and that's going to be the Republican ticket.

They refer to him as "Emperor McCain" around here...

[Taco John]

But anyway... I look forward to continuing to hear about what I REALLY think in the coming months.


Bah. Nobody is telling you what you think. Plus, you're way outside the conservative norm here with your take. Just that the fact that he lived with two gay dudes and their dog Bonnie is going to make a difference. We're talking about the folks who fall for that kind of swift boat crap. Not to mention Guiliani's stance on Abortion, Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Research and other hotly contested political issues pretty much make it a hopeless cause. *YOU* might support him. But it's laughable to think the he's going to get any sort of popular evangelical support. Just freaking laughable.

[htismaqe]

Bah. Nobody is telling you what you think. Plus, you're way outside the conservative norm here with your take. Just that the fact that he lived with two gay dudes and their dog Bonnie is going to make a difference. We're talking about the folks who fall for that kind of swift boat crap. Not to mention Guiliani's stance on Abortion, Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Research and other hotly contested political issues pretty much make it a hopeless cause. *YOU* might support him. But it's laughable to think the he's going to get any sort of popular evangelical support. Just freaking laughable.

ROFL

The big conservative talk show here in town refers to Rudy's living situation EVERY DAY.

[Taco John]

ROFL

The big conservative talk show here in town refers to Rudy's living situation EVERY DAY.



Exactly.

The right just got done beating a hornets nest about Gay Marraige, even going so far as to talk about AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION to prohibit the practice... Now I'm supposed to believe that all these Bible belt folks are going to throw up their hands and give up the cause in order to vote for a big-city New York liberal who happens to call himself a Republican?

Come on. I was born in January, but it wasn't this past one.

[htismaqe]

Exactly.

The right just got done beating a hornets nest about Gay Marraige, even going so far as to talk about AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION to prohibit the practice... Now I'm supposed to believe that all these Bible belt folks are going to throw up their hands and give up the cause in order to vote for a big-city New York liberal who happens to call himself a Republican?

Come on. I was born in January, but it wasn't this past one.

It goes even deeper than that.

I've heard church-going people (my parents are deeply religious) suggest that Bush "betrayed" them...they voted for him and he's done nothing to stop the gay marriages, the abortions, or anything else they wanted him to do. I've heard them, more than once, refer to the Republican Party as the "enemy".

It's almost like they've decided that they're beliefs supercede the system and that they feel there's enough of them that they can change the way the US electoral process works...

[BucEyedPea]

I think someone can live with a gay person or couple and not support gay marriage. I did it at one time and at that time did not support gay marriage nor did my gay roomate. I think it depends on what policy he'd take.

I don't like Giulietta's views on welfare for illegal immigrants and that fact that the NeoCons are in love with him.

[Cochise]

That may be the case with you.

It's certainly not the case around here with the people that I hear and talk to.

They've finally given up on the "lesser of two evils" in favor of not being a party to "evil" at all.

I'm definitely more pragmatic than the leaders of prominent Christian organizations are acting in terms of this election.

The infidelity thing is troubling. I definitely don't mean to endorse or imply that I respect that. But I don't think that it is news to many people. That was not exactly a low profile divorce. I don't know where knowledge of the issue would poll among conservatives, but I would think that most are probably aware of it. I'm sure when someone starts slinging mud it will have a more pronounced effect than it has now, but 20-30 points? I'm not sure that there are that many people out there who are both totally clueless to it, and who would change their vote just on that factor.

[htismaqe]

I think someone can live with a gay person or couple and not support gay marriage.

Living with gay people = acceptance.

For most of the EC's I know, that's enough right there.

[Cochise]

I've heard church-going people (my parents are deeply religious) suggest that Bush "betrayed" them...they voted for him and he's done nothing to stop the gay marriages, the abortions, or anything else they wanted him to do.

I think those ideas are pretty silly.

He appointed two strong pro-life justices. Bush has been one of the most pro-life presidents there has ever been.

The gay marriage issue is dumb to deride him about because that issue was won. There is no federal amendment but the public jumps at the chance to outlaw gay marriage whenever it is presented on the ballot. No action from the federal/executive branch was even needed.

Maybe it's just the people you are around. Although I would give him a C, among religious people I know, I think he's still very popular.

[BucEyedPea]

Living with gay people = acceptance.

For most of the EC's I know, that's enough right there.
EC's= Evangelican Christians?

If so, then yes for them. That's true as well for many devout, traditional RC's ( not secularized modernized Catholics maybe as much) as the Douay-Rheims Bible says to not even associate with them.

[htismaqe]

I think those ideas are pretty silly.

He appointed two strong pro-life justices. Bush has been one of the most pro-life presidents there has ever been.

The gay marriage issue is dumb to deride him about because that issue was won. There is no federal amendment but the public jumps at the chance to outlaw gay marriage whenever it is presented on the ballot. No action from the federal/executive branch was even needed.

Maybe it's just the people you are around. Although I would give him a C, among religious people I know, I think he's still very popular.

He hasn't stopped the abortions, nor has he technically done anything on the gay marriage front.

Right or wrong, the people I hear say inaction = acceptance.

It may just be the people I'm around, but I don't think so. These people aren't bible-beating Fred Phelps-types at all. They're normal, everyday people who's #1 priority in life is Jesus Christ.

[BucEyedPea]

My understanding is that Giuiletta is not just pro-abortion but also supports federal funding of them. He shoulda stayed in the Democratic party.

[Cochise]

Douay-Rheims Bible says to not even associate with them.

Maybe that is written in the Catholic bible, but I don't think that is the view of evangelicals that I know at all.

I think the opinion of most would be that it is evidence of un-salvation, so shunning them by default is not the right course of action. I think most would say that like any unsaved person you should reach out to them by word or by example and try to get them to repent. But there's certainly nothing wrong with being friends with a coworker who is gay or something. I think if you asked most evangelical ministers they would express the view in this paragraph.

I'm kind of surprised at the impression many non-religious people have of what goes on in an evangelical church. I guess the media teaches that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the norm.

If you want to be versed in what the framework of the beliefs is today, listen to a Christian talk radio station or actually go to a church. 90% of the time it's just about how to take care of your life and your family, how to live according to the principles. It's not like preachers get up there and say, "Rudy is de debbil" or "Vote no on proposition 2." I can only think of one political message I ever heard from a pew in my life, and it was in very general terms. :shrug:

[BucEyedPea]

Maybe that is written in the Catholic bible, but I don't think that is the view of evangelicals that I know at all.

I believe that is the case. That does not mean a gay person cannot be a RC so long as he abides by it's laws ( that includes more than the Bible for a RC)...which includes chaste behavior. The same with a priest. It's one thing to be something. It's another matter entirely to practice. Controlling ones urges or behavior is the domain of any religion. It's just part of the striving to improve one's spiritual character.

I know that the RCC teaches that the King James Bible has at least 50,000 errors in it. For the sake of religious tolerance, I'll just say 50,000 pts of disagreement because I'm cool on whatever one wants to believe.

[Sully]

I'm not going to stay home and be a part of putting Hillary in the White House. I think that is the strongest sentiment you will find amongst the right at this time.


...and I believe most of the left, as well.

[Taco John]

He hasn't stopped the abortions, nor has he technically done anything on the gay marriage front.

Right or wrong, the people I hear say inaction = acceptance.

It may just be the people I'm around, but I don't think so. These people aren't bible-beating Fred Phelps-types at all. They're normal, everyday people who's #1 priority in life is Jesus Christ.


The story that you're singing is the same/similar story that I'm hearing from my friends and relatives in Idaho. Though, I believe they'd be more inclined to vote for McCain than for a third party at this point.

[Taco John]

I'm kind of surprised at the impression many non-religious people have of what goes on in an evangelical church. I guess the media teaches that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are the norm.



For what it's worth, I don't fall under the non-religious label at all. I was born and raised in an Assembly of God church, which is the world's largest Penacostal denomination. Admittedly, I'm not as active now as I was growing up, as I have unresolved questions about the church doctrine, but I still remain a practicing Christian.

[BucEyedPea]

A vote for McCain is a vote for the continuance of the Bush Doctrine.
No change in our current foreign policy if that's what American's are looking for. McCain was even for the continued bombing of women and children in Kosovo/Bosnia.

[Cochise]

I know that the RCC teaches that the King James Bible has at least 50,000 errors in it. For the sake of religious tolerance, I'll just say 50,000 pts of disagreement because I'm cool on whatever one wants to believe.

There aren't even that many verses.

I am sure that the purveyor of a substitute product will always tell you that his product is better.

[htismaqe]

For what it's worth, I don't fall under the non-religious label at all. I was born and raised in an Assembly of God church, which is the world's largest Penacostal denomination. Admittedly, I'm not as active now as I was growing up, as I have unresolved questions about the church doctrine, but I still remain a practicing Christian.

Basically you're where I'm at. Was raised in the Church of Christ and have a lot of unresolved questions. I still believe in JC, but I don't go to church.

[BucEyedPea]

There aren't even that many verses.

I am sure that the purveyor of a substitute product will always tell you that his product is better.
Doesn't need to be. Don't forget some books are not accepted by each side.

As for a substitute product: FACT is it was the RCC that compiled the first Bible. There was NO Bible for about the first 350 years of Christianity. I like to point that out to Bible-only Christians. In order for there to be a "substitute" there would have to be an original that get substituted for. I may be cool on what one wants to believe...but I make decent attempt at RC apologetics for a non-practicer.

[Cochise]

Doesn't need to be. Don't forget some books are not accepted by each side.

As for a substitute product: FACT is it was the RCC that compiled the first Bible. There was NO Bible for about the first 350 years of Christianity. I like to point that out to Bible-only Christians. In order for there to be a "substitute" there would have to be an original that get substituted for. I may be cool on what one wants to believe...but I make decent attempt at RC apologetics for a non-practicer.

I am not ignorant on this topic and resent that assumption. My point was to point out the obviousness inherent in stating that Rome thinks that its bible is better than others.

I'm also not interested in holding a theological debate since I am Five Solas and thus there is probably very little that we would agree upon.

[BucEyedPea]

I am not ignorant on this topic and resent that assumption. My point was to point out the obviousness inherent in stating that Rome thinks that its bible is better than others.

I'm also not interested in holding a theological debate since I am Five Solas and thus there is probably very little that we would agree upon.
It's not that it's "better" to them, it's just the "original" to them. I'm aware of the divide between Protestants and RCs on certan issues. I am just sayin' what their pov is.

It's not my intent to engage you on this in detail either. You had brought up a certain point is all. Like I said, I'm cool on what one wants to believe, I was just pointing out, originally at least, what their view is on gays.

[Laz]

hope the Christian right goes to war with the rest of the GOP ......... mutual destruction. :clap:

[Mr. Kotter]

hope the Christian right goes to war with the rest of the GOP ......... mutual destruction. :clap:Misery loves company, eh? :shrug:

Considering the knock-down drag-out affair that Hillary's nomination is going to provoke....:banghead:

[Laz]

Misery loves company, eh? :shrug:

Considering the knock-down drag-out affair that Hillary's nomination is going to provoke....:banghead:
not gonna happen imo

nobody really wants Hillary ........ some people might want to try and get Bill Clinton back to the white house so badly that they would settle for Bill lite(aka Hillary) but i don't think anyone really wants hillary by herself.


i still say keep hillary out as the front runner for the GOP concetrates all their fire power and dirt dishing on her ..... then slip somebody else in. Nobody beats the GOP at slander and general dirt throwing.

[oldandslow]

not gonna happen imo

nobody really wants Hillary ........ some people might want to try and get Bill Clinton back to the white house so badly that they would settle for Bill lite(aka Hillary) but i don't think anyone really wants hillary by herself.


i still say keep hillary out as the front runner for the GOP concetrates all their fire power and dirt dishing on her ..... then slip somebody else in. Nobody beats the GOP at slander and general dirt throwing.

Yup...Barak Obama is going to be the nominee.

[Mr. Kotter]

Yup...Barak Obama is going to be the nominee.Well, he better hope that the Conservative (anti-Liberal) and Redneck-Racist coalition (a pathetic marriage of convenience) is smaller than I think it is...otherwise, his chances in the general election are no better than Hillary.

[oldandslow]

Well, he better hope that the Conservative (anti-Liberal) and Redneck-Racist coalition (a pathetic marriage of convenience) is smaller than I think it is...otherwise, his chances are no better than Hillary.

You may be correct - I haven't had time to count up the EV's from the states I think he would win.

But I will say that I think the repubs will have a MUCH more difficult time with Barak than Hillary...

If they nominate Guilliani that anti-liberal, christian base stays home if Obama is the nominee. Hillary-hate might bring them out otherwise.

McCain isn't beating anyone.

Romney is probably their best bet.

Finally, if the repubs nominate a right winger, Obama wins in a cakewalk.

[Mr. Kotter]

You may be correct - I haven't had time to count up the EV's from the states I think he would win.

But I will say that I think the repubs will have a MUCH more difficult time with Barak than Hillary...

If they nominate Guilliani that anti-liberal, christian base stays home if Obama is the nominee. Hillary-hate might bring them out otherwise.

McCain isn't beating anyone.

Romney is probably their best bet.

Finally, if the repubs nominate a right winger, Obama wins in a cakewalk.

I see Obama stuggling to beat any of those guys--because he's liberal AND black. He could get away with liberal in a normal election...but the race issue will bring the rednecks out in sufficient number to make his election unlikely, in my view.

Apprarently I'm less hopeful than you seem to be that racism (latent, and otherwise,) unfortunately, will be a significant problem for Obama.