Captain's Quarters -

Now how can Mr. Dobson's suggestion of running a third party candidate, not imply endorsement? Wouldn't he eventually have to say, whether openly or by default, who he endorses? Tell me why his organization and any other religious group should not loose their exemption for this exact behavior.

I'm a tad confused about what is the 'Christian coalition'. On the one side there are the Jimmy Carter Christians who will support abortion so long as they get their gold coins entitlement goodies (becasue afterall Jesus helps the poor people). On the other side are the James Dobson Christians who will overlook Islamic-terrorists hacking off Christian's heads so long as the hackers are pro-life.

Further, if a third of all abortions are done against black females (referred to as The Klan in the Hood Planned Parenthood) why do 95% of the Democrat black voter continue to empower those politicians funding the abortionist who are basically exterminating the black race. What good are the entitlement goodies if your people no longer exist?

And how come the Catholic Church is taking a blind eye to what Hugo Chavez is doing to a dominately Catholic country? What's up with that, how come the Catholics don't care about Latinos?

As an evangelical Christian, I refuse to heed Mssrs. Dobson's & Perkins' advice. We've got Islamic terrorists who are trying to destroy civilization. I haven't seen proof that preventing terrorist attacks is even on Hillary's radar. I'm certain that it's on Rudy's radar. Why would I then help form a new political party that guarantees Hillary's election?

That isn't just stupid, it's downright dangerous. If Rudy wins the GOP nomination, I'll work day & night to get him elected.

If we lose the war against the jihadists, other issues won't mean a thing. PERIOD.

Thankfully, I know from many conversations that other evangelical Christians share my opinion.

It's called having an ethical code and holding to it. I will not vote for Rudy for his choice to support the murder of the unborn. And you can call us all the names you want, there it is. The Republicans want to troll for votes among modertes, they can expect to lose some conservative votes.

We seem to be the Republican equivalent of the Black vote to the Democrats - Kick us around, do nothing for us, and expect us to thank you and vote for you everytime an election rolls around. Not this time.

Unfortunately Ray not all Christians hold their ethical code for if they did abortion would not be an election year political platform. Many a pro-abortion Christian voted for Baptist Jimmy Carter who supports the murder of the unborn because the Socialist in them was more important. Personally I have changed my stance on the issue and today I do not support abortion because it imposes a heavy burden on women who now are forced to bear all reproductive responsibilty since 'it's your body, you deal with it' let men off the hook.

That said, because the Christian ethical code is all over the place with regard to abortion I have no idea where Christians stand on the issue. It appears to me that with regard to this issue the Christians are kicking each other around not the Republicans.

Even though I abhor what abortion is doing to my gender, I will not let my feelings interfere with the fact that our country is at war with a barbaric stone-age ideology threatening the existence of all Americans no matter race, creed or sexual orientation.

Just to clarify, my gender brought the heavy burden of abortion upon ourselves so I don't blame the male population for our weaknesses.

I am one of those evangelical Christians, and I just had part of this same discussion with some family members over the weekend. A Brother-in-law was steadfast in his insistence that he would not vote for what he called “the lesser of evils”. It is just an unfortunate reality that in this election cycle, not doing so really equates to voting for the greater of evils, which is going to be Mrs. Bill Clinton. A few decisions like that and Christians will no longer have to worry about who to vote for; as they may well no longer have that option. The Capitan is correct. We either vote Republican this time around, or we accept responsibility for another Clinton White House. You just can’t have it both ways.

Every vote is for the least bad candidate. You will never be happy.

I'm not a GWB fan. He was simply the better of some not very palatable choices. I'm not a Rudy fan either, but if he's the nominee, he gets my vote.

You don't seem to understand that for many of us Christians, politics is not another contact sport. It's not a chance to strategize and out-maneuver our opponents in some sort of clever end-run around reason.

It is, quite simply, a matter of life and death. If I keep my life, but allow thousands of children to be murdered by doctors each day, then what good has my life been?

Look, I yearn for someone to emerge from the Republican primaries who I can vote for in the general election. But if it's Rudy who emerges, I will not now nor will I ever vote for him. Period.

A man or woman who can't see that children are people from the moment of conception is far too dangerous to have in elected office, regardless of party affiliation.

I agree with Ray --- or at least his analogy with Evangelicals and African-Americans. Commentators here have spent the last few days talking about how African Americans should not blindly vote for Democrats, but you expect Evangelicals to vote for whoever the Republican candidate is.

Rudy can promise whatever he wants now. Once he gets the nomination, he'll move to the center so fast your head will spin. If evangelicals want someone else, they should go for it.

Ed, this is but the latest in a sad chain of rah-rah posts in favor of a mediocre outfit.

You wanted Gonzales out for being too inflammatory to Democrat hacks; you keep harping on the "damage" ideological wrangling does to America; you praise Gingrich for developing "bipartisan" plans for more federal government; and now you're telling the conservative "faction" that it better have the maturity, the sensitivity, the intelligence, to blindly vote straight-ticket Republican, or the great guys who run the Republican Party won't trust them.

Nuts.

In 2004 the GOP tied all federal elections into one mandate for an agenda. It won huge. The subsequent failure to deliver is so damning, so inexcusable, that the modern "leadership" prefers to pretend 2004 is the ancient history of some other country. Their plan to win 2008 America is to behave like refugees of a shipwreck: head for the beach, every man for himself, and whoever makes it can worry about what to do next.

This is not Puritan v Big Tent. It is the battle for a new Puritanism within the GOP, where conservative Republicans who voted for the GOP every year of their lives are barely tolerable only so long as they obey.

I will not spend five seconds worrying if I'm worthy to stand behind the GOP machine. Maybe it should worry why it ends up giving ultimata to lifetime Republicans?

"It's how Bill Clinton won in 1992, when fiscal conservatives abandoned George H. W. Bush for Ross Perot because of Bush's tax increase in 1990."

Very true, and for the next dozen years, the GOP delivered on tax cuts, unconditionally, in war and peace, boom or recession. They remembered the flogging.

This is highly unscientific of course, but back in 92, I counted the number of friends, relatatives, etc., who voted for Ross Perot. It totalled 19. I polled them. If Perot was not on the ballet, 4 of them said they just would have stayed home. But every single one of those 15 others said they WOULD have voted for Bush Sr., if Perot was not on the ballet. Not a single one of them would have considered voting for Clinton.

I almost voted for Perot. It was almost an election day, in the booth, decision, to vote for Bush. I stood there and sighed and said to myself: "I don't want to be the one who gives Florida to Clinton." Bush Sr. was almost as much of a big government, ignore your base, RINO as his son is.

I am 100% convinced that Perot is the ONLY reason Clinton won in 92.

Whatever your position is on abortion - if you decide to sit home and not vote at all, or vote for a third party - in order to send a messege - you need to ACCEPT the reality that Hillary WILL be our next president. G-d help us all.

I am not saying don't do it. Nor am I saying DO do it. Lord knows, the RINOs who have ruined the conservative movement and who have betrayed our party do NEED to be sent a very strong message.

But if you make that decision, you need to do it with your eyes wide open. And understand and accept the consequences of a Hillary presidency.

Before we start tearing each other apart, I would like for someone, anyone, explain to me how a president can affect the abortion debate, outside of appointing conservative judges. He/she can't. Period.

In my opinion, presidents are supposed to be concerned more with the security of the entire nation, international trade, etc. Social positions should be handled by the induvidual states. Does anyone remember the 9th and 10th Admendment?

Lets not let our religious faith get in the way of selecting a president. Faith in the Almighty is a good thing, but should not be the only guiding light in our considerations.

First of all, President Bush has already used the veto-power of the presidency twice to prevent the destruction of embryos for research. That's one way among many that a pro-life president can exert influence in the debate.

Secondly, if a candidate for president claimed that theft was all well and good, we'd all question his judgment on other matter of moral consequence. Similarly, a president who condones one sort of murder is highly unlikely to have the necessary moral compass to lead this nation.

Personal sins shouldn't disqualify one from the Oval Office (else no one would be eligible.) But a total lack of correct moral reasoning on something so basic as the right to life is automatically disqualifying in my book.

With the Christian right and conservatives abandoning Rudy ......... the Republican Party has a problem.

As I wrote here, it's time for conservatives to establish their priorities. I'll bet that my list is sturdy & that most conservatives would readily agree with it.

(Disclaimer: I am also a Christian Conservative)

One of the favorite ploys of the democratic machine/playbook is to attempt to find issues that can be divisive within the Republican Party, i.e., if it disenfranchises---promote it. They are banking on many conservative Christians to stay home. What they fail to understand is that Christian Conservatives DO NOT feel that the abortion issue is the sole purpose for going to the polls---or not. CC's feel strongly about fiscal responsibility from their local communities all the way to the federal government's pork busting policies. They also feel very strongly about the sanctity of marriage, which drove many to the polls when a number of states where constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman were held. Calling a commanding four-star general a "betrayer" and replacing the last supper of Disciples with homo-sexuals will also drive CC's to the voting booth.

Posted by Mark D | October 1, 2007 7:57 AM

[F]or many of us Christians, politics is not another contact sport. It's not a chance to strategize and out-maneuver our opponents in some sort of clever end-run around reason. It is, quite simply, a matter of life and death. If I keep my life, but allow thousands of children to be murdered by doctors each day, then what good has my life been? Look, I yearn for someone to emerge from the Republican primaries who I can vote for in the general election. But if it's Rudy who emerges, I will not now nor will I ever vote for him. Period.

If you grasp the stakes, and understand that it's a matter of life and death, you'll understand that less evil is stil less evil - and less death is still less death. If the choice is between someone who is pro-choice but who might help overturn Roe and might reduce the number of abortions, and Hillary who may shortly have you paying for abortions through socialized medicine, this is not a difficult equation. Elections are always about choosing the lesser evil.

Posted by The Yell | October 1, 2007 8:03 AM

"It's how Bill Clinton won in 1992, when fiscal conservatives abandoned George H. W. Bush for Ross Perot because of Bush's tax increase in 1990." Very true, and for the next dozen years, the GOP delivered on tax cuts, unconditionally, in war and peace, boom or recession. They remembered the flogging.

Sure, and we also missed a historic opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court by delivering two liberal appointments to Bill Clinton. No Breyer and Ginsburg, no Stenberg v. Carhart - indeed, quite probably no continued Roe-Casey. Now we have that same opportunity, and once again, there's a splitter faction who wants to cut off their nose to spite all our faces.

Posted by Rovin | October 1, 2007 10:24 AM

What they fail to understand is that Christian Conservatives DO NOT feel that the abortion issue is the sole purpose for going to the polls....

Ed, stop blaming the customer because he refuses to buy shoddy goods. Why aren't you saving your ire for a Republican party that can't even come up with a candidate to the right of Hillary Clinton?
Simon, I am frankly disgusted by your attitude that I- and others like me- should be held hostage to our patriotism and accept a 'lesser-of-two-evils". It's a shoddy arguement, worthy of a Begala. If the RNC- and yourself- can't come up with a better strategy to convince their largest voting block to show up at the polls than, "You're un-American if you don't betray your principals!"... get used to losing, and deserving it.

Dave, if you want to vote for Hillary - directly by punching a card for her or tacitly by undercutting the GOP nominee, it makes no difference - you are betraying your principles. You are taking steps - passively or actively - to permit your principles to be flattened into the dirt under a President who would be implaccably hostile to them.

In 2000, Nader voters were warned that they were going to let Bush in. They said something to the effect of "pshaw, we're standing on principle." And look where it got them: between two candidates who didn't perfectly mirror their views they got the one least convivial to their views. So it was in 1996 and 1992. Right now, the Christian right are behaving just like the loony left in 2000: they were too blind to see the difference between Gore and Bush, and now they've had seven years of having the differences that were self-evident to the rest of us crammed down their throats. I'm not asking you to betray your principles, I'm asking you to see that what you propose to do IS betraying your principles. I doubt you'll see that - so you're disgusted with me and I'm disgusted with you. Who wins? Hillary does. The abortionists do. Divide and rule. Which was Rovin's point.

You people seem to be arguing over a moot point, in my opinion. Does the linked article highlight a concern that is on the minds of a significant block of voters? Certainly. But the base assumption of the article is that Rudy gets the nomination. While he may certainly be the most popular choice among all Republican voters in the country (and a large share of moderate independents) the voters are not now nor have they been for a very long time, the ones who get to pick the nominee. The party machinery does that by controlling the message and leading the attack where needed. (This applies to both parties, by the way.) While Rudy may be the most popular, he has a swiftboating coming his way in the very near future. The Republicans who are really in control will destroy him enough to ensure he isn't the nominee, just like they trashed McCain back in 2000 in that embarassing display.

Kind of a shame too, as I won't cast a vote for Hillary Clinton in this life, but Rudy was the only Repulican in the race I *would* have voted for.

Ed, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Tired. Exhausted.

Give me a candidate I can vote FOR. Somebody with decent traditional values who has a backbone. Giuliani is not that candidate.

Mark my words: If Giuliani is the nominee, he will fail and Clinton will win. And at least we'll know what we've got in the White House. Giuliani is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Same with Bush.

Huckabee is my guy, and even if he doesn't get the nomination, he's going to get my write-in.

Giuliani does not have a prayer of becoming president, and if you continue riding that horse, you're going to fall off.

Wonder why the immigration bill failed even though Bush and the GOP backed it? It failed because the conservatives were angry. Well, that scenario is going to play out again in 2008.

I've had enough of liberal Republicans, and I'm ready for a conservative one.

"Right now, the Christian right are behaving just like the loony left in 2000: they were too blind to see the difference between Gore and Bush,"....

First and formost, too many here have conceded that Rudy is our "only" choice to defeat Mrs. Bill Clinton. I have not made that decision. Simon, you may be "pre-prophetising" the Christian right's behavior when they may be just letting our "leaders" understand that our basic moral values have not changed.

Even a marginal third party candidate, IMHO, would spell disaster for either party. Perot and Nader were crucial differences in both those elections.

I'm also quite pleased to see the Council for National Policy meeting to plan how they will use their clout to shape the process. It certainly has the attention of Bill Prendergast at DKos who is comparing the CNP to the John Birch Society. But what can you expect from the "looney left"?

(Disclaimer: I am also an Evangelical Christian)

I have a great deal of respect for James Dobson and if he doesn't want to support Rudy, that is his perogative. I too, prefer a candidate who is committed against abortion, but if comes down between Rudy and Hillary, I will vote for Rudy! The Republicans have got to get their collective act together! We cannot, as a nation, spend 4 years under a democrat whose sole purpose is to raise taxes, enact more pork and continue to ignore the wishes of the people who elected them.

We only had one perfect person on this earth and NONE of the candidates even come close!

Each of us must vote his/her own conscience, but we need to VOTE!

You all are very silly. Rudy's toughest fight is the primary. If he wins the primary, the general election is cake walk. I love these pro-lifers (including my mother) who just think of that unborn child, when many many many children are abused, murdered, etc. Where is the outcry there. It's all about control. Believe it or not, a conservative is small government, strong national defense and low taxes. The government has no place in moral relevance. That is between you and the almighty. I say Mr. Dobson, stay home. No one needs your crap.

The GOP has long been driving two mules. We have the fiscal cons who like small government, low taxes and governing efficiency. Then we have the social cons who seek to legislate public morality and religion to suit their personal views.

Both mules, pulling in tandem, have been pretty successful, and so they should be. America is, after all, a very conservative country. What's not to like about low taxes, government efficiency and public morality?

But we've recently added a third mule, a fractious one at that, and now the ol' buckboard is headed for a nasty crash.

The third mule is the neocons. They don't care about fiscal conservatism or small government. They have a vision of American power transforming the entire world.... by force when necessary, through nation-building certainly.

Americans are deeply uneasy about the idea of using the US military to knock off sovereign governments and replace them with wannabe "democracies" that need to be endlessly propped up, protected and coddled. It's expensive, bloody work, and somehow both un-American and un-conservative.

We can never find a candidate who truly embraces all three of these major "isms", because no one of them is in agreement with both of the others. And if you can't even get a candidate to agree with himself, how can you possibly unite a whole party behind him?

"Republicans don't need petulance from its internal factions. Primaries exist for these groups to make their best case to the voters, and the voters decide which candidate fits their agendas. Threatening to take one's ball and go home doesn't build respect or confidence in any faction, and it's getting old from this particular one, even among its own members."

Excellent Captain...

Well stated.

Everyone should remember it, including Fred Thompson supporters.

And those who entertain Ron Paul.

Thank you.

Although I have never voted for a Democrat, I cannot call myself a Republican because of the strong influence of the Religious Right in the party. The holier-than-thou, preachy, social conservatives turn me and many other Americans off. People who tend to be fiscally conservative and prefer a strong national defense program often have problems voting for Republicans because they cynically use gay marriage, abortion, and other socially conservative causes.

I am opposed to abortion, but I also realize that it never will - nor should it - become illegal. Instead of fighting a losing political battle, why not spend the time, money, and effort fighting the NON-political battle? Use persuasion with women with unwanted pregnancies instead of the law. Persuade them and help them raise their babies instead of aborting them.

Likewise with the gay marriage issue. I fail to see how forbidding two loving couples from marrying is in the interest of the government. If two gays marry, does that mean that there are fewer marriage licenses for everyone else? Religious conservatives are on the wrong side on this issue, and they continue to drive people away from the Republican Party.

When I look at the Religious Right who wants to use the force of government to enact some moral code of their own devising, I see similarities to the religious police of Iran who beat women because they are not wearing the proper clothing.

To those religious conservatives here, I ask what happened to Jesus' exhortation to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's? Let Caesar govern and do the the things that are necessarily outside the scope of your faith.

Speaking from the sidelines of this controversy, I have to agree with the folks dissenting from the Captain's post. Apparently, for a group that has served as the GOP's solidest anchor to weigh in on who should/should not get the nomination is "petulant."

I say good on them for giving notice of their intentions, in response to the GOP establishment's indifference toward them thus far. National politics isn't a forum where you can be heard by waiting your turn. You have to use your weight, through ultimata if necessary. The GOP can take notice, or not.

It's not like there aren't other viable candidates. I should add that Giuliani makes me cringe, and I would tentatively prefer any of the other GOP candidates, socially liberal views be damned. And I'm a social liberal.

Romney, Giuliani, Thompson....just not Hillary! I do not want to wake up on a cold Wednesday in November and read, November 5th, 2008: Christian Conservatives Provide Clinton Margin of Victory.

Rovin, I don't mean to "pre-prophetise" their actions, I'm merely taking them seriously, taking them at their word. I think these are honorable people who're trying to do what's right, the problem is that they're terribly misguided and either they're bluffing or if they're serious, they're going to hang all of us.

Biwah, I don't think anyone's suggesting that it's "petulant" for any group under the GOP tent to weigh in on who ought to get the nomination. The question is what ought to happen after the primary if their preferred (or disfavored) candidate) is the nominee.

It's not just a Democrat President to worry about. It is a Democrat everything. No checks at all on them when all of congress and the presidency are theirs. That cannot be allowed to happen. We will all be very unhappy should we allow it. Definitely something worth praying about.

I have never posted here before, but I have been a Republican since I first registered to vote and I have voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election in which I have voted. The reason I became a Republican was because I believed that the Republican party has, and continues to be, the party that stands up for the basic human rights and dignity of every human being. That is how the party was born, in opposition to the inhuman, degrading institution of slavery. It sustained the party through its fight against Communism. And the GOP has continued to be true to its roots in its opposition to Islamic funadamentalism and the cruel, inhuman institution of abortion. I have been proud to call myself a Republican because I believe the Republican party is more likely than the Democratic party to protect our most cherished, most fundamental human rights.

I do not consider myself a "Christian Conservative." I am a Catholic, but I admit that I do not attend mass every week (although I should). However, my belief in the most basic human right--the right to life--trumps my party affiliation. If Giuliani is the nominee, I will vote for a third party candidate or a write-in candidate. I cannot in good conscience vote for any candidate, Democrat or Republican, who accepts the slaughter of millions of innocent children. I hope is does not come to that. I hope Thompson or McCain or Huckabee or some other pro-life candidate wins the nomination. And I hope Giuliani sees the error of his ways and changes his position. But if Giuliani remains pro-abortion and wins the nomination, I will not vote for him.

Ed, I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Tired. Exhausted.

Give me a candidate I can vote FOR. Somebody with decent traditional values who has a backbone. Giuliani is not that candidate.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````

You can't vote for someone who'll appoint strict constructionist judges? You can't vote for someone who'll kill jihadists & use every tool at his availability to kill the global jihadist movement? You can't vote for someone who believes in cutting taxes & crime rates?

If you can't vote for that, I'm wondering what planet you're living on.

Abortion is hardly the SOLE ISSUE drivng Conservative Christians out of the GOP.

And Captain, I'm finding the more I scratch the surface of Mike Huckabee, the more he reminds me of Hillary - especially on taxing and a national health care policy.

He is NOT lining up "perfectly" with a CHRISTIAN platform!

I'm one who refused to vote for H. Ross Perot or for Robert Dole.

I voted for George Bush Sr. But I didn't vote for for Gerald Ford.

I think it's very easy for the rest of the GOP to "blame us" for NOT VOTING for the lesser of two evils - but the fact is that you don't feel any obligation to field a candidate acceptable to you guys who has any character.

I've seen NO ONE with the attitude that the GOP needs a candidate who won't violate the conscience of half their base!

It isn't as if we haven't given specific and meaningful reasons why some of them are very far from anything we can swallow - and those reasons mean nothing to you guys.

You are content to have any one of 5 or 6 different candidates who are so far LEFT and so LACKING in CHARACTER, that the DIMS would be PROUD to have them, and you rail at us for not supporting the RINOS that will move the nation LEFT - a DIRECTION YOU KNOW WE ARE NOT WILLING TO GO.

Your so-called "STICK" is HILLARY, and your so-called "CARROT" is someone we've told you WE DO NOT ASSESS TO BE A BETTER PERSON, LIKELY TO DO LESS DAMAGE, while WE are looking for a CONSTRUCTIVE CANDIDATE who will move the nation TO THE RIGHT.

If moving the nation TO THE RIGHT is NOT an admirable goal for half the GOP, then CELEBRATE the leaving of the Christian NUTJOBS and go suck up to the DIMS and get HALF THEIR BASE to replace us - seems to be your goal, anyway.

Rudi - always at the ready to set aside an election for an apointment by a few rabble-rousers at speeches, if HE is the beneficiary

Fred - perjury in a personal injury lawsuit by a politician/apparent serial rapist is a "TRIVIAL MATTER" to this former prosecutor, who will appoint JUDGES to an already corrupt bench, and McCain Feingold Thompson

Mitt - flip flopping like Hanoi John, is that a disease in Massachusetts? Who wants to find out????!!!!!!!

John McCain - McCain Feingold, open borders, SHAMNESTY, unanimously censured by the Arizona Caucus

Huckabee - loves to tax so much he taxes NURSING HOME BEDS at $5-6 DAILY EACH, wants to control smoking and WEIGHT through National health care

Just so barfing! Cannot the GOP field a frontrunner who hates SOCIALISM?????

Like Nicole above, abortion is my critical issue.

The Republicans were once a third party, the only party which addressed the "anti" side of the slavery issue. The two parties in power were the Whigs and the Democrats (the same Democrats we know and love today).

What happened to the Whigs? Answer: They failed to take sides in the most polarizing issue of the day -- slavery.

The Republicans tooks sides. The Democrats took sides. Which two parties are in power today?

Now, what is the most polarizing issue today? Answer: it's a toss-up between abortion and immigration.

The moment a pro-unrestricted-abortion, pro-unrestricted-immigration candidate is fielded by the Republicans, that's the moment the difference between the two parties is erased. I've always viewed the Republicans as the party of individual liberty and fealty to law, and the Democrats as the party of group tyranny and legal disobedience. The difference will be gone if Giuliani is nominated.

Like Nicole, I'm a Catholic, and I've found nothing anti-scientific or anti-human in the Pope's teaching on the sanctity of human life at all stages of its existence.

We'll see if we have more in common with evangelicals than with a nominally Catholic candidate for President.

Uncle,

Great historic points. I never thought of it that way before...thanks.

But on another thread, I finally admitted that for me, the thought of the Hildabeast in the WH is far too chilling an eventuality to contemplate...don't you agree?

It sickens me to hear how often my shipmates on this site espouse the “lesser of two evils” theory. But how can you even ponder the idea of the Hildabeast seating herself (and her fellow Clintonistas) in the oval office again?

I don’t want pro abortion / gun grabbin’ Rudy in there either…but isn’t the alternative unfathomably worse? Couldn’t you vote for Rudy…then ease your conscience by railing against him on the abortion issue once he’s in the WH?

I'm still trying to figure out how staying home and allowing Hillary to win is the Pro-life position? Not one person here as addressed that only their own vanity.

Affecting the election by not voting is no different as affecting it by voting. As Rush said (the band, not Limbaugh) "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

If you stand by and watch someone who was shot bleed to death instead of administering first aid you are just as responsible as the person who pulled the trigger (not legally maybe, but morally).

Similarly, if we get more abortions with Hillary than we would with Rudy, those losses would be just as much on the hands of those that stayed home as those that supported her -- a sin of omission rather than a sin of comission, so to speak.

Besides, isn't Rudy's legal position that it's a States issue? That's exactly the grounds for overturning Roe v. Wade. It should have been left to the states to decide instead of finding some implied right to abortion within the U.S. Constitution.

I'm an ardent pro-lifer who will support whatever nominee gives the best chance of blocking the pro-death agenda and advancing the pro-life agenda. I sympathyze with many of the views expressed in earlier comments. Fight like heck in the primary to get a stronger pro-life candidate, but if it doesn't happen don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Posted by Simon | October 1, 2007 10:27 AM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Nice post.

However, once slippage has become AVALANCHE, a little or a lot is more than we can handle. Don't expect us to endorse the GOP Avalanche into Socialism as better than the DIM avalanche into Socialism.

You'll achieve AVALANCHE and Socialistic rule by TINY OLIGARCHY without our endorsement.

If we Christians aren't to be courted, and look how LEFT the CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES of today are from Paul Revere, George Washington, James Otis, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty, then as one of those men said, WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE TO SAVE THE UNION???

As long as you are dragging us left, whether we want to go there or not, don't expect us to tie the ropes on ourselves.

You'll not stand before OUR God on Judgement Day and tell Him you thought this move was great because WE WENT ALONG WITH YOU ON IT.

"This memorable quotation is from Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813). Scottish jurist and historian, he was widely known in his time and was professor of Universal History at Edinburgh University in the late 18th century. "The quotation is from the 1801 collection of his lectures: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

"The vote of your opponents is the most honorable mark by which the soundness of your conduct could be stamped. I claim the same honorable testimonial. There was but a single act of my whole administration of which [the opposing] party approved... And when I found they approved of it, I confess I began strongly to apprehend I had done wrong, and to exclaim with the Psalmist, 'Lord, what have I done that the wicked should praise me?'" --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1812. ME 13:162

Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
- George Washington

Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
- George Washington

I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.
- George Washington

If someone like Duncan Hunter should come out of the Primaries with the nomination, would the MODERATE Republicans REFUSE TO VOTE FOR HIM?

The moderates have shown an ENTHUSIASM for voting for a candidate IN THE PRIMARIES that the KNOW the CONSERVATIVES WILL NOT VOTE FOR - is th ere a candidate so far to the RIGHT (No, Ron Paul doesn't count), SOMEONE LIKE DUNCAN HUNTER, that the Moderates feel the same about - that THEY would rather see Hillary get it than vote for such a disgusting candidate????????????

This "electability" straw dog is JUST THAT, because once someone IS THE NOMINEE, people who didn't want them FOR the candidate will reconsider. And so the ELECTABILITY thing works both ways.

Some Moderates "SEE" Rudi as "ELECTABLE" while CEMENTING THEIR EYES SHUT TO THE REALITY OF THE GOP BASE WHO WILL NOT TURN OUT for such a candidate. How "ELECTABLE" is THAT????

Dick Cheney and the Federalist party. He controls everything doesn't he? He is pro-life isn't he. Tired of supporting the GOP and being used as a pawn? Form a party around the Federalist platform and run Dick Cheney with Pat Roberts of Kansas and you'd probably be surprised. What could Rudy use as barter for your votes? I would love to hear the patronizing pedantic tone, you'll help elect Mrs. Clinton. How can you marginalize Dick Cheney? He certainly has proven he's quite qualified to run the country, don't ya think?

People should start pressing their local political structures for MANDATORY RUN-OFF ELECTIONS every single time ONE CANDIDATE DOES NOT GET at least 50+% of the ballots.

THAT would break the stranglehold of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM, which isn't enshrined by the Constitution.

Lets not let our religious faith get in the way of selecting a president. Faith in the Almighty is a good thing, but should not be the only guiding light in our considerations.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Personal sins shouldn't disqualify one from the Oval Office (else no one would be eligible.) But a total lack of correct moral reasoning on something so basic as the right to life is automatically disqualifying in my book.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Just because we don't find a Socialist already intent on dismantling the Bill of Rights acceptable do esn't mean we are demanding The Messiaqh as the next American President.

But a LOT of sinners still have a conscience and still have an affinity for a democratic republic form of government, rather than a STALINIST DICTATORSHIP.

The two views above are how the Dim party got Bill and Hillary, Hanoi John, Algore, Toady Chappaquiddick, Nancy Pelosi (there is a felony conviction on her election campaign PAC) and Harry Reid and William Jefferson.

Patrick Henry - Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

I think there is plenty of room to find a good man who still has feet of clay, but also has a CONSCIENCE and a healthy view of America and her Constitution.

Ed:

I absolutely agree 100% with your post.

Sure, and we also missed a historic opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court by delivering two liberal appointments to Bill Clinton. No Breyer and Ginsburg, no Stenberg v. Carhart - indeed, quite probably no continued Roe-Casey. Now we have that same opportunity, and once again, there's a splitter faction who wants to cut off their nose to spite all our faces.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Then it is in YOUR best interests to vote for someone IN THE PRIMARY that CAN DRAW the Conservatives to your nominee.

If it is YOUR opinion that you can vote for the most Left-leaning Candidate on the PRIMARY BALLOT, and we just have to lump it, we'll let you lump it, too.

SHOW US THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE "CARROT" AND THE "STICK"!!!

AT THIS POINT, my best recommendation to you is Duncan Hunter - great on the war, great on the border security, won't support abortion of slashing the 1st and 2nd Amendments...
I'll bet we can strust him for Judicial appointments, too.

The problem with politics today is that both abortion and gay marriage should not even be national campaign platforms and is best left to the states to work out; this is a Conservative ideal not a Christian ideal.

For those Christian Right insisting 'it's a pro-life candidate or none at all' the problem is that the Christian Left will abandon their Christian ethics in order to keep Democrat Party in power.

Not all churches which call themselves Christian serves the Lord their God, they serve the Socialist their Savior.

For example, when the Methodist Church and the Church of Christ signs along side the Marxist (Soros) funded Moveon.org even though Moveon.org believes Christians are evil backward rednecks who never have sex, well there's a darkness in God's Church.

It's about time the Christian Right (including Catholics, Protestant, Baptist, Episcopalian etc etc) and the Christian Left (including Catholics, Protestant, Baptist, Episcopalian etc etc) come to some sort of agreement as to what are Christianity's Ethical Codes.

It's confusing, what is a pro-abortion Christian/Catholic/Baptist/Episcopalian anyway?

Further, if someone could please logically (not emotionally with something like 'it means love') tell me what "same-sex union between a man and a woman" is, then perhaps I can support it however I have no idea what that means. And bashing me over the head with emotional blackmail words like 'homophobe' will not encourage me to vote for such platform.

Bongboy

I can't figure out you're suffering from penis envy or Cheney envy. Do tell.

To Rose's point, moderate Republicans would have no problem voting for a Duncan Hunter type conservative.

The problem is that you can get every single conservative Republican and every single moderate Republican and you still can't win an election. The same is true of the Dems. Every moderate Dem and every liberal Dem won't give them the win.

The only way either side can win is to do two things. One -- turn their base out in massive numbers. Two -- draw more independents, undecideds and moderates from the other side than the opponent. There appears to be an inherent conflict between these two goals in both parties. You see it on the other side as well with those who are so ardent they refuse to support a "pro-Iraq War Hillary."

I'm a Christian, a pro-lifer and at least as conservative as most who read CQ regularly. I'm also scared enough of the Dem candidates to support whomever gets the GOP nod even if a 3rd party candidate I agree with more is in the mix.

My conscience will not allow me do anything that assisted in a Hillary victory and more Bader-Ginsberg type judges.

Posted by the fly-man/bong boy | October 1, 2007 4:01 PM

Dick Cheney and the Federalist party. He controls everything doesn't he? He is pro-life isn't he. Tired of supporting the GOP and being used as a pawn? Form a party around the Federalist platform and run Dick Cheney with Pat Roberts of Kansas and you'd probably be surprised. What could Rudy use as barter for your votes? I would love to hear the patronizing pedantic tone, you'll help elect Mrs. Clinton. How can you marginalize Dick Cheney? He certainly has proven he's quite qualified to run the country, don't ya think?

Works for Me!

The problem is that you can get every single conservative Republican and every single moderate Republican and you still can't win an election. The same is true of the Dems. Every moderate Dem and every liberal Dem won't give them the win.

So, then, Hanoi John is our current President?

And so if you shut out ever Christian Conservative GOP vote to try to win part of the DIM RIGHT, you have more voters than all the GOP Conservatives AND Moderates put together?????????

Well, as long as you don't need my vote....

Still wondering how we got Reagan elected.

You can't vote for someone [Rudi] who'll appoint strict constructionist judges? You can't vote for someone who'll kill jihadists & use every tool at his availability to kill the global jihadist movement? You can't vote for someone who believes in cutting taxes & crime rates?

If you can't vote for that, I'm wondering what planet you're living on.

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

You've only got Rudi's word for all that - and frankly, we already know - that ain't worth SPIT - especially when ALL the brakes are off.

"The GOP has long been driving two mules. We have the fiscal cons who like small government, low taxes and governing efficiency. Then we have the social cons who seek to legislate public morality and religion to suit their personal views."

Heaven forbitd that a conservative Christian should try and get his/her conservative morality legislated, let's just sit back and let the liberals continue to get their liberal morality legislated.

Again, threatening someone to get their vote is growing tiresome. When the only way a political party can try and get someone's vote is to hold up a Hillary voodoo doll and say BOO, then they have lost.

It's not envy, it's sheer recognition of the ahem, the depth of this man's powers. He's the trilateral commission on steroids. He has personally, on the floor of the Senate told a fellow Senator to go fornicate himself. He has no peer, singular, well maybe Putin, but Putin buys his judiciary, Cheney usurps ours fiber optically. Or, do you think he will become the single most influential private contractor when his term is up. I just don't see him fading away with Don Rumsfeld over on the Eastern Shore. We shall see. Go look up some stuff on John Adams and The Federalists, very intimidating, Cheney channels him. Seriously check it out.

GHWB put David Souter on the Court to avoid a pitched battle, and I think enough "prudent" Republicans would support Giuliani doing the same thing to decide the "settled law" forever.

None of the Republican candidates is seriously working to shape the Senate and House into a vehicle for their agenda --no endorsement of Senate or House candidates-- but Rudy makes clear if he wins, the bully pulpit will not be the launching pad for the next conservative crusade.

If Hillary and the Democrats win control, it will be because a majority of American voters chose to give them that control. We do not make an effective case against that liberal rule when we set out describing ourselves as a "lesser evil", when we insist the best Republican arguments are based in a mature desperation, despair of reform, apathy towards outcome, acceptance of stalemate, contempt for enthusiasm, tolerance of deception.

Whatever happened to discerning the ideal BEST outcome, and fighting like Hell for the BEST outcome, as the BEST outcome?

The history of communism and fascism and monarchism shows erroneous zeal trumps correct complacency. If we reward the "fight smarter not harder" pragmatic utilitarians we'll enact more lasting liberalism than 2 years of Hillarysm could produce.

I, for one, welcome the departure of Christian conservatives from the Republican party. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, fellas. If nominating Rudy is the means by which the GOP can cut from around its neck what's increasingly an general-election millstone, then bring it on.

Maybe once we get rid of the Roe dead-enders and assorted mutants, the GOP can return to its small-government principles.

Oh puhleaze, George Bush has always been a strong prolifer and the right still turned on him. If it is not abortion, it is immigration, if it is not immigration it is shutting down the Department of Education. There is always something to bitch about. One reason certain people remain frustrated is that they are never satisfied. And they will never be satisfied until and unless the majority gives them what they want and that is not going to happen. Never. Not in this country. Because the religious right does not represent a majority. That is just a fact. Don't blame the GOP for that.

Americans are center right. They prefer the states run things domestically whenever possible. They are not comfortable with politicians involving themselves in issues of religion or personal morality. They want efficient government that is responsive to their needs. They want a strong military. They want a strong economy.

Now the difference between the lesser of evils? Well Hillary will not only not stand against abortion, she will make it more available here and over seas and she will make a point of appointing judges who will keep it that way.

A guy like Richardson will not not be tough on immigration, he thinks the border wall is stupid and wants to allow same sex benefits to immigrant couples.

Obama wants to talk to Ahmadinejad and invade Pakistan.

Edwards wants to shut down the NSA program and God only knows what else.

None of these people are even slightly interested in what the Christian Coalition wants. Not even a little bit.

As a moderate would I vote for Duncan Hunter? Hell yes, if he was running against Hillary Clinton. Unlike some people, I am not into biting off my nose to spite my face.

The time for praying for your candidate is now; I'm really praying John McCain doesn't get the nod....but if he does I believe it is my duty to do whatever I can to make certain Hillary doesn't win the general election.

Many sat out '06 to "teach them a lesson"; that worked out well, we now have dumb and dumber heading up the House and Senate.

If any candidate were to promise they would get rid of Roe v. Wade if elected, they would be lying to you. GWB did the best he could, he got 2 conservative justices seated.......that's the best any conservative can hope for. If Hillary is elected expect to see more Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones on the bench.

FWIW, when was the last time some of you anti-Rudys paid attention to what he's said about abortion? He said it would not be his choice for members of his family, abortion shouldn't be anyone's first choice. He said he'd like to see more emphasis on adoption and if any of you have family or friends who've been thru adoption you know what a trial that can be.

Abortion isn't my hot button, illegal immigration is. When the debates first started Huckabee piqued my interest, that is until someone on this forum suggested I Google Huckabee and LaRaza.....what an eye opener!!

We all have the Internet at our fingertips, there is no excuse for hanging on to old perceptions regarding the candidates.

To me one of Rudy's appealing traits is his irreverance. What you see is what you get; he isn't a "stiff".

I truly admire Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, but I'm also a realist and these 2 gentlemen are not going to be elected President. I'd love to see them in the next GOP cabinet though (provided we won't have to listen to the press speculating about President Clinton's potential cabinet members).

In politics it always comes down to the lesser of two evils. I am pro-life, but if Mayor Guiliani is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him, and not help divide up the conservative vote in order to elect a Democrat, especially Mrs. Bill Clinton.

Come on, conservatives! In all likelihood there will be at least one Supreme Court appointment in the next presidential term. Which candidate is more likely (not certain—remember Souter—but more likely) to nominate a strict constructionist judge—Mayor Guiliani or Mrs. Bill Clinton?

You know the answer: There's a good chance Mr. Guiliani will. There is NO chance Mrs. Bill Clinton will. Little in life is certain, so you have to go with the odds. And you know damn well that if a third-party candidate gets more than three or four percent of Republican/conservative votes, it's all over. In effect, if you vote for that one, you'll be voting FOR abortion.

/Mr Lynn

Even if Hillary is somehow discarded from the lineup; and, I have no idea HOW. Only that she doesn't poll well.

And, if nominated, would need more dead people, voting for Bonkeys, (in some sort of form that it wouldn't stick out at ya like her $3-Bill);

Makes me think that STEALING can be the thing that makes the difference. But, as Hugh Hewitt said in 2004. When re-electing Bush was thought to be close to impossible. YA GOTTA VOTE IN ENOUGH NUMBERS, SO THE ELECTION CANNOT BE STOLEN.

And, I think that all sorts of people will join together in the mainstream. And, you won't be able to tell a person's genitalia; or skin color. OR the depth of their various religious faiths, in this mix.

About as far as a household that's ultra-ultra-ultra religous goes; it will be up to the MAN to "demand." Here? It's like sex. You ever heard a wife tell her husband "he wasn't great?"

So, there are some people who get off thinking they are commanding others to do their well.

Our Founding Fathers knew that game! That's why your ballot, and whom you choose to vote FOR, is your secret.

Me? I've blown that secret more than once. But NOBODY, and I mean no one at all ever told me for whom I was to cast my vote!

As to republicans? Until we get in a better class of people willing to run the gauntlet of politics; we've got to stay alert to the phonies. Those who steal from us, while promising all sorts of wonders.

Hillary, by the way, can promise the moon. No one thinks she can deliver it.

While congress squanders the public's pride in our government. Clicks and factions? YES. Stinks about the same in wacky academia, too. Be nice to think we can change the performances, ahead.

Who know? Vaudeville bit the dust.

Leadership is an art in short supply.

The left is totally without any.

The right? Meager. But a good manager, like Guiliani, who knows how to run a government by holding those he selects to run agencies ACCOUNTABLE; is one of the differences that could bring about change.

But like ducks, luck's gotta stay aligned. A candidate can't afford ill health.

I like the way Lincoln did it. He stayed home. And, let everybody else knock themselves out.

I am a conservative, not a Republican. The Republican party has abandoned me. I have no more obligation to the Republican party than I have to the Democrat party. Either one needs to earn my vote - if neither does, then neither gets it.

I will not vote for Giuliani. There is NO really acceptable candidate running so far as I can tell. If the Republicans insist on nominating a non-conservative (RINO), then we will part ways, and I (and many others) will sit this election out. Christians know one thing - it doesn't really matter who is president, since the president is not in charge of our affairs. And yes, I think I would have a clear conscience even if I knew for sure that my refusal to cast one vote for a bad man was the missing vote that put an evil woman into the White House.

Finally - This is why we desperately need two things in voting reform: 1) a "None of the Above" vote (so if "NOTA" wins, the election must be re-called, and none of the previous candidates are allowed to run again), and 2) two votes, one "for", one "against" - this prevents the Perot/Nader effect, since people can vote both for the best candidate, and against the worst one. This was impractical once-upon-a-time but is increasingly do-able with modern voting methods - not necessarily electronic!

Posted by The Yell | October 1, 2007 7:19 PM

AMEN!

I've seen that happen too often in the past. That is why I am not NEAR as afraid of a Dim Liberal as I am a lying egomaniacal RINO.

Posted by Simon | October 1, 2007 11:04 AM

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

No, if you support RINOS that you know your Conservative base won't turn out to vote for, then YOU selected the NEXT President by refusing to work WITH YOUR BASE instead of attempting the CHEAP DIM MANIPULATING TACTICS of EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL.

SHOW US THE "CARROT"! TWO "STICKS" WON'T GET IT DONE!

If two restaurants have a contest to outsell eachother, and one serves a lousy dish NOBODY wants, and the other sells a SPECIALTY DISH they know their customers love, but won't draw newbies, the Specialty dish will outsell the LOUSY dish NOBODY wants.

You offer us rotten people with no moral character, pushing a LIBERAL Agenda, and expect us to vote for them as gladly as DIMS vote for their DONKEY STALINISTS.

Sorry, Charlie. NO SALE! ONLY THE BEST "TUNA" WILL DO!

Funny how I'm the lunatic fringe AND the without-which-nothing, at the same time.

Carol has a point. What if 700 superdelegates opt for Hillary's Cabinet in an Obama Administration? It's not like Bill Clinton will retire from politics if Hillary has to stay in New York. How quickly could the GOP retool to describe an unknown black man from the Midwest as equally dangerous as the Hildabeest?--since that's all we got to run with, apparently.

Maybe, just maybe, we might have a plan to make America a better place that is so good, in and of itself, it doesn't matter who lines up against it?

This two-year campaign is a bust. It doesn't extend the honeymoon, it just ensures that by Election Day we're already fed up with the hype.

I'm sure there are many worthy comments above, but I come here to (try to) correct some of the misapprehensions about the puritans. Don't mix us up with the Pilgrims.

My first direct ancestor to land here was Rev. Richard Mather. He and his wife and three sons landed at Jamestown in 1632. He had been yanked out of two different Anglican congregations (over congregation protests) in England because of his puritan ways. His offense? Refusing to get himself up in imitation Popish trappings, pointy hats and gold brocade robes and incense thingys, etc. He conducted services in his normal very presentable street clothes. He was very much welcomed in Jamestown, and the local pointy-hat guy was shipped back to England.

Was he related to Cotton Mather? Yes, his younger brother. Elder brother Cotton was working hard up north to crack the Pilgrim fundamentalist streak, and the nastiness that came out of the hysterical 'witch trials'. Check their writings for further details.

So, are we straight on what the puritans were about? Puritans were about: Dress doesn't make the thinker.

Am I still one of those? Youdamnbetcha.

All you have to do is look at the Mayors legal team! He has Olsen and Thompson. Everyone here would have been doing cartwheels if either had been placed on Supreme Court by W(not that Roberts or Alito is bad), hell two weeks ago many conservatives were willing to go to the mattresses for Olsen as AG. I have no reason to beleive Rudy wouldnt appoint people just like these to the SC. The CCs leaving the party is the equal of the kid who runs home crying after losing a whiffle ball game. Goldwater was right about some of these people;

".....kiss politics goodbye....."

Rose:

I am glad to hear you are not afraid of a liberal because chances are by the time the my way or the highway fringe of the Republican party gets through throwing yet another hissy fit.....a liberal is what you will end up with.

and then they will bitch about the liberal. For years and years.

The Christian right split the Republican party in Oregon in the 70's and 80's. There have been no statewide Republicans elected in the state government since. Better to vote pragmatically in our system.

I think there are a lot of people for whom electing a Republican--any Republican--is the only goal of their political participation. That is not the case for me. I am not scared of Hillary Clinton. Pro-lifers have been fighting this fight for a long time. During Bill Clinton's two terms, the number of pro-lifers in this country increased and pro-abortionists decreased. The fight for human rights does not end if Hillary is elected President. However, the pro-life cause will suffer a huge blow if the Republican Party joins the Democrats in supporting infanticide. If both major parties are pro-abortion, that leaves those of us who support life without a party.

Also, I think people are wrong to dismiss the anti-abortion movement as a "religious right" issue. One doesn't have to be religious, or even believe in God at all, to know that it's wrong to murder innocent children. This is a matter of basic human rights, and while people of various religions have supported the cause, there are atheists and agnostics as well who are willing to uphold the dignity of every human life.

Giuliani's promise to appoint strict contructionist judges is, to me, a hollow promise. There is no telling what he will do when he is actually in office, especially if the Senate is controlled by Democrats. Plus, there are lots of places where the President can act on the abortion issue apart from judges. Will Giuliani allow federal funding for the destruction of human embryos for research? Will he fund overseas organizations that perform abortions? Will he use the platform of the Presidency to claim that women have the right to "choose" to slaughter their own children? No, I will not vote for such a man. If the result is President Hillary, so be it.

It's called having an ethical code and holding to it.

Your ethical code orders you to stand on the sidelines or work to hamper a nominee that will appoint strict constructionist judges and allow someone who is unabashedly pro-Roe to appoint the judges instead?

Interesting ethical code you got there.

Here's something to think about: Would your ethical code have precluded you from being allied with Joseph Stalin in WW2? Because if you say yes, you just doomed most of the world to a life under Nazi control.

And needless to say, that's a much, much more extreme case then this one, where you are forced to ally with someone who agrees with you more often then not. Not someone who agrees with you on only one issue such as Stalin (i.e. we only agree that Nazi Germany is bad).

Sorry to come so late to this discussion Ed, and while I agree with most of what you say, I couldn't help but think back to last year and replacing "Christian Right" with "convservative right" and the abortion issue with the Judy Myers nomination and voila--the same putdown you give to the Christian right now needed to go to the conservative right then. You say if they follow thru it will lead to the election of another Pres Clinton. Well, what did the conservative right give us by their puffing and pouting last year? The election of another democratic congress. Which is worse???? To quote one of your posting titles today, "Sauce for the goose". When you are part of a team, you have to temper your public disagreements with its leaders in order to pursue the larger victory. Apparently the Christian Right nor the conservative right have learned this lesson.

From Dub - "Christians know one thing - it doesn't really matter who is president, since the president is not in charge of our affairs."

Not this Christian. For me it is not good enough to just have my own house in order. I feel a responsibility to the rest of humanity as well -- and for that humanity who is president does matter. I can't just say to hell with the world it can rot as long as I'm saved. It just doesn't mesh with my understanding of Christianity.

Reminds me a little of Jonah. He was satisfied with where he stood and wanted to sit it out, but more was expected of him.

"Your ethical code orders you to stand on the sidelines or work to hamper a nominee that will appoint strict constructionist judges and allow someone who is unabashedly pro-Roe to appoint the judges instead?"

If you review these comments you will find voters who agree with us that Giuliani will attempt no such thing, will not be permitted to do any such thing, and conclude with us that his victory would do great damage to the pro-life cause --but these voters applaud such an outcome.

"Well, what did the conservative right give us by their puffing and pouting last year? The election of another democratic congress."

I rather think that was the result of the uncorrected Republican excesses, abuses, and failures of which we were complaining.

You guys are totally focused on winning election after election. We're more concerned with how the government makes policy in between contests.

Posted by Cliff - "Here's something to think about: Would your ethical code have precluded you from being allied with Joseph Stalin in WW2? Because if you say yes, you just doomed most of the world to a life under Nazi control."

So, was Stalin pro-life or pro-choice? Your argument makes no sense.

Posted by BC - "I, for one, welcome the departure of Christian conservatives from the Republican party. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, fellas. If nominating Rudy is the means by which the GOP can cut from around its neck what's increasingly an general-election millstone, then bring it on."

Don't worry BC, conservative christians will be around long after the Republican party becomes the Democrat-Lite party. What...it's already happened? Well, never mind then.

Posted by BC - "Maybe once we get rid of the Roe dead-enders and assorted mutants, the GOP can return to its small-government principles."

Please answer me a couple questions, BC. Republicans have controlled the Congress from 94 until 2006, and the White House from 2001 til now. How much smaller has government gotten during that time periond? How much has the federal budget shrunk over that time period? How many fewer government employees are there now than in 94? Are christian conservatives responsible for the Bush/Kennedy Education Bill? Are they responsible for the expansion of medicare to cover drug prescriptions? Are they responsible for the bloated Department of Homeland Security, which can't and won't secure our borders? Just curious.

Not sure where I read it, but someone described stupidity as doing the same thing over and over and over again, and expecting different results every time. Remember that when you feel an overpowering Pavlovian impulse to vote for someone only becuase they have an R next to their name.

If Rudy is the nominee the GOP will lose. But not because of abortion. Although I respect anyone's right to withhold their vote for any reason. The issue that will decide the election is the one that shut down the D.C. phone system, illegal immigration. And you hear the same arguments made about Rudy being better than Hillary on this issue also. And they will be about as effective. The GOP(Lucy) has pulled the football away on conservatives (Charlie Brown) one time to many.