Religious Right To Bolt If Republicans Choose Rudy

James Dobson, Tony Perkins, and some others within the Council for National Policy are threatening to leave the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, according to The New York Times. This is big news. I for one am happy to see these leaders standing on principle, and I intend to stand with them. I don’t care if Giuliani believes in lower taxes and smaller government. If he’s wrong on the greatest human rights crisis of our time (abortion on demand), then he’s not qualified to be President.

“Giuliani Inspires Threat of a Third-Party Run” – by David Kirkpatrick (New York Times)

35 Responses to Religious Right To Bolt If Republicans Choose Rudy

  1. Carlito October 1, 2007 at 9:25 am #

    I agree, Denny, on your assessment that abortion is the “greatest human rights crisis of our time”.. It’s our generation’s holocaust, and it’s sickening. In my opinion, the abortion issue is one that Christians should prioritize above all others when assessing the candidates’ voting records and strategies. Please, brothers and sisters, vote Pro-Life!!

    Personally, I heart Huckabee; however, I don’t know if he’s got a fighting chance.. I like what he has to say on most issues and he’s rock solid on sanctity of life..

  2. Bryan L October 1, 2007 at 9:32 am #

    Where would they go? Are they going to form their own party?

    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  3. Denny Burk October 1, 2007 at 9:33 am #

    Bryan,

    Take a look at the article. They’re considering a third party candidate if Rudy gets the nomination.

    Thanks,
    Denny

  4. Bryan L October 1, 2007 at 9:59 am #

    Oh thanks. That will be interesting to see how it plays out. Would they still just pick someone who has republican policies but is also pro-life?

    Blessings,
    Bryan L

  5. Faimon October 1, 2007 at 10:21 am #

    If they go 3rd party, there is no doubt that Hillary or Obama will be the next president. I think the ‘stand’ is just the last gasp of a movement that is slowly being marginalized from within.

  6. Barry October 1, 2007 at 12:01 pm #

    Famous,
    You are correct in that the GOP cannot win if these guys bolt. For that reason alone, I don’t think that they’ll give Rudy the nod.

    Barry

  7. mlm October 1, 2007 at 12:05 pm #

    A president is supposed to reflect the will of the people, right? I mean, we’re a democratic republic, right? Personally, I don’t like the idea of the president being in Dobson’s pocket anymore than I like the idea of the president being in Soros’ pocket. In that way, I don’t think I would vote on a candidate based upon only one issue. Except maybe if that issue was national security. For what good will pro-life laws do if we’re all blown to bits?

  8. Kyle Barrett October 1, 2007 at 12:20 pm #

    mlm (#7)…

    I agree with you about the concerning pattern of presidents-in-a-pocket. But isn’t it because we value life that we want a robust national security? I don’t think it’s legitimate to mark the two off against each other. I’ll vote for the candidate who best represents my concerns but I can’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t represent what should be the fundamental concern for everyone – life in all its forms.

    Also, I agree that the president is supposed to represent the will of the people but at some points the president must stand against the will of the people especially if the will of the people is evil.

    Blessings,
    Kyle Barrett

  9. mlm October 1, 2007 at 1:20 pm #

    Kyle,

    I understand where you’re coming from, but there is danger in your proposition, for you don’t take into consideration the leader who stands against the will of the people when the will of the people is just.

    It is safer all around to have leaders who truly represent the will of the people (that’s what we elect them to do, isn’t it?) and don’t do their own thing, regardless of how noble it is. Because there will no doubt come a day when “their own thing” won’t be good-willed and we will all suffer immensely.

    Please keep in mind that I’m just sharing a thought, not picking a fight. I’m immensely pro-life. I’m disappointed overall in what the GOP is offering as candidates.

  10. Kyle Barrett October 1, 2007 at 1:40 pm #

    mlm…

    I think you missed my point. Presidents must represent the people AND resist the people. It’s “both/and” not “either/or”. It’s not safer to have leaders who only represent the will of the people precisely because the people are wrong sometimes. The system of checks and balances our gov’t operates under helps to keep presidents from doing their own thing.

    Blessings,
    Kyle Barrett

  11. Ken October 1, 2007 at 2:01 pm #

    I disagree that the people are best served when their elected representatives simply and always do “their” will. The will of the electorate is fickle and often uninformed. I want my representative to do the right, if unpopular, thing.

  12. Don October 1, 2007 at 2:16 pm #

    What does Dobson expect the next President to do? Make an exeutive order halting abortion.. Look at Bush. Pro-life and he got no where on it. If there is a 3rd party say hello clinton for the next eight years.. Right now the way the whole thing is going the dems are looking at gaining in both the house and senate and may grab the white house…There has been a huge failure in leadership from both houses and the white house. Ther are at least 2 more supreme court judges ready to go… Does Dobson and the rest of his group want a clinton obama or that lightweight edwards picking them? Think about it.

  13. Kevin Jones October 1, 2007 at 2:27 pm #

    Don,

    I think their point is this…

    If Rudy gets the nomination then it does not matter to them who wins. The whole point of the threat is to get the GOP to NOT nominate Rudy.

  14. Don October 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm #

    Kevin, I get the point but then who will get it and can that person win? I don’t like Rudy myself.. I think he will be another Bush. Open boarders, etc. But if he is the guy this group better get behind him or We will be up the creek..

  15. scott October 1, 2007 at 4:01 pm #

    What does Dobson expect the next President to do? Make an executive order halting abortion.. Look at Bush. Pro-life and he got no where on it.
    I wouldn’t say Bush got nowhere. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Bush has done more for the pro-life cause than anyone else in recent years. He put two non-liberal judges on the supreme court, has vetoed expanding govt. funded stem cell research, and helped bad partial birth abortions. These are significant steps in the right direction, I think.

  16. Lucas Knisely October 1, 2007 at 4:12 pm #

    *chants*

    THOMPSON! THOMPSON!

  17. Don October 1, 2007 at 4:52 pm #

    Scott, Sorry he tried but he didn’t get there. Sure he put 2 pretty good judges in there that was big.. But it will not turn the tide. As for Thompson, well right now sounds good, will run out of gas, no real experience, senators do not win the white house… I like him but we will find him to be short on effort, and empty on substance..

    Huckabee and Hunter may be the best but no name, and lack of ability to raise $ needed to win. Could be a good grab for VP.

  18. Carlito October 1, 2007 at 6:11 pm #

    According to Newt Gingrich & Bill Clinton, Huckabee has the best chance to be the “dark horse”… http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bill-clinton-gingrich-agree-on-huckabee-as-gop-dark-horse-2007-09-30.html

    If he can get a little momentum, I think he could make some serious noise as far as gaining an identity on the national scene.

    As you said, Don, Gingrich thinks that a successful Huckabee campaign hinges on whether he can get a bump in campaign funds. Kind of sad that $$ is one of the primary criteria for winning an election.

    Oh well, it is America after all. Ugh.

  19. Daniel October 1, 2007 at 9:46 pm #

    I like Huckabee. I don’t get why he’s never talked about as a viable candidate by the mainstream media. It’s too bad that politics is all about money.

  20. sofyst October 1, 2007 at 10:27 pm #

    I confess that I am not as in the ‘know’ as I use to be about these issues. At first glance, this does appear to be a monumentally stupid decision on the part of the ‘Religious Right’. It appears that if they do not vote for Giuliani, this will necessarily leave a democratic candidate to be the next president (I’m assuming either Obama or Hilary – both of which I do not believe would be very pleasing to the Religious Right).

    However, the only way I can see this as not being an idiotic move, but rather an ingenius move, is if there is another candidate from within the Republican party that is not as popular as Giuliani, but is a much better spokesman for the Religious Right (that is afterall what they want, a Religious Right spokesman in office, isn’t it?).

    So, would anyone care to fill me in as to whether there is a better person other than Giuliani for the republican nominee.

  21. paul October 1, 2007 at 10:35 pm #

    then all I can say is “Go Rudy!”

    The last thing this country needs is the recklessness that we’ve seen over the past six and a half years.

    Speaking of pro-life issues, I am shocked that Denny hasn’t talked about the abortion clinic that isn’t being allowed to open in Aurora, IL. It’s all the news in Chicago, and it’s actually a beautiful story unfolding.

  22. Yvette October 2, 2007 at 9:51 am #

    If he has not read it, Dobson seriously needs to read Greg Boyd’s book. This is definitely “power over” conversation rather than “power under.”

    Doesn’t this smack of manipulation? “If you do this, then I’m taking my toys somewhere else!” Doesn’t Dobson realize that there is a primary system? Is he trying to force his will on others?

    Sofyst, as far as other Republicans go, the most consistent values candidates for the religious right are probably not viable candidates. Sam Brownback is conservative, but definitely second tier. Fred Thompson claims pro-life, but lobbied for abortion groups. Mitt Romney is a Mormon and claims to have changed his mind and is now pro-life. He was also governor of Massachusetts. I believe Romney was the highest Republican fundraiser in the third quarter. I’m not sure where McCain is on abortion. Sorry. Carlito can probably tell you more about Huckabee.

    It is also interesting to note that while Christians talk of Guiliani’s abortion position, little dialog is made of his adulterous relationship. If Christians wanted Clinton impeached for the Lewinsky scandal, then only a consistent ethic should lead to not voting for Guiliani.

    I also think Christians need to become consistent in the pro-life stance, including capital punishment and war.

    BTW, MLM makes a great point about the president being in Dobson’s pocket or anyone else. Thanks for that thought.

  23. Paul October 2, 2007 at 11:00 am #

    “It is also interesting to note that while Christians talk of Guiliani’s abortion position, little dialog is made of his adulterous relationship. If Christians wanted Clinton impeached for the Lewinsky scandal, then only a consistent ethic should lead to not voting for Guiliani.”

    DING! Give the woman a fish!

    “I also think Christians need to become consistent in the pro-life stance, including capital punishment and war.”

    and again!!!!

    And, by the way, why aren’t y’all talking about Ron Paul? He’s AN ACTUAL RIGHT WING CANDIDATE! He wants to lower taxes, but he also wants to lower spending. WHAT A CONCEPT! And he’s pro-life! What’s stopping you? Heck, if Ron gets the nomination, I’LL vote for him.

  24. Carlito October 2, 2007 at 12:20 pm #

    2 quick things:

    1) I think most people (Christians and non) who didn’t care for Clinton were using the Lewinsky incident as an excuse to kick him out of the White House. Granted, we Christians in America regrettably have many double standards; however, when a President commits adultery inside the Oval Office (with an intern no less), I would say that ‘ups the ante’.

    2) While war and capital punishment are tricky issues and there are valid arguments on both sides, abortion (in my opinion) supercedes all other life-related ‘moral’ issues in the political arena because of the sheer magnitude of the numbers (50 million+ lives snuffed out since ’73 in the US ALONE).

    Per the declaration of independence, there are 3 things we’re guaranteed as American citizens, and what is the first one listed? Life. Enough said.

    P.S. I would vote for Ron Paul as well if he were to somehow win the nomination.

  25. GUNNY HARTMAN October 3, 2007 at 1:16 pm #

    Kevin Jones wrote: “If Rudy gets the nomination then it does not matter to them who wins. The whole point of the threat is to get the GOP to NOT nominate Rudy.”

    True AND there are some in the GOP who are ready to “send a message” to the GOP leadership that their pro-life votes can’t be assumed. I’ve even heard talk of “mailing in” this one to let them have 4 years of Hilary and having their rears handed to them in both houses so they might wake up. Remember the backlack after ’92?

    Don wrote: “senators do not win the white house”

    Well, I don’t think that’s any legitimate reason to minimize Fred Thompson’s chances. After all, nobody’s saying that about Hilary or about the Muslim Obama.

    Incidentally, folks I know from Arkansas tell me Huck has a very poor reputation in his home state.

    This is going to be a bizarre election, with a Mormon, a Muslim, an alleged Lesbian, and others all striving for the presidency. What I find most intriguing is how they all are purporting themselves as “people of faith.” … Not “extreme” or “radical,” but just enough to throw a bone to the rank & file Christian who’s been told that he/she can’t vote for the atheist party.

  26. Paul October 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm #

    1) if you want to be a brainless republican zombie, then fine, but DON’T make up lies about people on the other side. Obama is a member of the UCC, and the last I checked, the UCC is a CHRISTIAN CHURCH.

    2) the only people accusing Hilary of being a lesbian are the same idiots calling Obama THE CHRISTIAN a muslim.

    3) Huckabee has a poor rep? Wait till you hear more about Thompson. About the only thing that Thompson has in common with Reagan is that they both slept a lot.

    4) if you call yourself a fascist, sure vote for anyone in the republican party and have a happy day. However, for those of you actually calling yourselves REPUBLICANS (that is…SMALL GOVERNMENT, heard of it?), you have two choices: back Ron Paul, or rename your party the hypocrite party.

  27. GUNNY HARTMAN October 3, 2007 at 2:43 pm #

    Wow … I’m picking up some edge from Paul.

    1. I actually don’t call myself a Republican, but a Conservative with Libertarian leanings. I doubt Denny wants this to be the Obama Muslim forum, so I’ll just say I think there’s more to the Muslim thing.

    2. I don’t know who all is accusing Hillary of Lesbianism, but I can contradict your absolute statement because I first heard that in ’93 or ’94, from a friend who was/is a staunch Democrat. She just happened to work as an intern in the governor’s office in Little Rock while Bill was the governor. I’ve heard it since and apparently you have too, but that was my first exposure to it.

    3. Well, if Thompson’s rep comes to light, I’ll deal with it then. But, I’ll share a lifelong Arkansas Republican friend’s thoughts on Huckabee:
    “Mike Huckabee is doo doo! He early released more violent criminals from prison onto the streets than maybe any other Gov. in Ark. He raised taxes like eating popcorn. And he was pretty much an overall bufoon!

    Back in the day, as Lt. Gov running for US Senate, he was so far in the lead that no one could touch him. He gave up his senate bid to stay on as Gov. when the corrupt Ark. Gov got sent to prison. Why would anyone give up a sure Senate seat, arguably more influential than piddly Gov., to a liberal Dem? That was madness and a sure sign of his education space.

    Mike Huckabee is a RINO folks.”

    That’s all I’m saying and I’ve heard similar stuff from other Arkansas folks.

    4. Well, I’m not really sure what you’re advocating here, but many small government folks will vote Republican on Super Tuesday because it will be a better option for them than voting Democrat.

    Think of a restaurant, sure I’d rather have Cherry Coke, all things being considered, but given only a choice between Coke & Pepsi, it’s a no-brainer.

    This is, me thinks, one of the difficulties of the 2-party system.

    Now, Paul, what’s up with all the hostility and name calling, dude?

    E.g.,
    “brainless republican zombie”
    “idiots”
    “fascist”

  28. Paul October 3, 2007 at 3:09 pm #

    Gunny, I’ll get right to the meat:

    1) namecalling: who has started the “Obama was a muslim” thing? Ann Coulter and her referring to Mr. Obama as B. Hussein Obama, therefore scaring all sorts of good ol’ boys. Those who have followed in her footsteps deserve a good dosage of the same medicine she’s serving. The idiot thing is true too. I’ve never heard ONE political pundit of note (so no Hannity, Rush or any of the other Weekly World News styled yappers) make that claim. But the same people calling Obama a muslim are calling Hillary a lesbian. If Rudy was my leading candidate, I’d be scared too, but this takes things too far. And I’m sorry, but the Republican party neo-cons of the moment ARE fascists. It’s not about small government, it’s about bringing everyone into line. It ain’t Mussolini, but it’s only a couple of steps away. Ron Paul is the only true small government Republican running, and nobody mentions him. Likely because there aren’t too many small government republicans left.

  29. Don October 3, 2007 at 4:18 pm #

    Gunny,Thanks for the info on Huck… Like I said I heard good things about him. Heard him on the radio. Sounds OK to me. I like Hunter the best but he won’t get far.. AS for name calling the three from the left are libs that’s it. We are now on a steady slide as a once great republic they will only grease the wheels. Paul, Ron Paul is a joke… sorry.

  30. GUNNY HARTMAN October 3, 2007 at 5:04 pm #

    Well, Paul, I didn’t know that “Muslim” was namecalling. If you’re wanting to say he’s not, that’s one thing, but if you have a problem with Ann Coulter, don’t take it out on me!

    😉

    I don’t know man. I know we don’t know each other, so what do you care what I think, but I’m really sensing a lot of pent us aggression and some projection.

    I’m just saying to call me a “brainless zombie” and an “idiot” and a “fascist” seems a bit over the top.

    I’ll be the first to say this is not our daddies’ Republican party and that it is not without its faults. There’s plenty to criticize, it seems to me.

    But that doesn’t make loyalists fascists or the above. They may only be pragmatists.

  31. GUNNY HARTMAN October 3, 2007 at 5:06 pm #

    Don,

    I have some theological differences with Huck, though he be a SBCer. Of course, Bill Clinton was also a SBC church member, he and I didn’t quite see eye to eye either.

    But, we don’t really have a plethora of viable candidates this go around, which I’m been lamenting since ’99 when I thought GWB was being used too soon.

    Hey, nobody asked me, oddly enough.

    : )

  32. paul October 3, 2007 at 5:30 pm #

    Gunny,

    calling someone who is not a muslim a muslim in the political climate that we live in is most certainly name calling of the basest order, and both you and I know it.

    And I’m not calling you a brainless zombie, an idiot or a fascist. If you’re a flag waving member of the republican party who lets his politics get in the way of his faith, then sure, you’re all three. But if you’re a pragmatic person who logically thinks out his political choices before voting, then you’re not any of the above. Of course, given what the neo-cons have done to the republican party over the last 13 years, I can’t see how you can reconcile thinking and voting republican, but…

  33. GUNNY HARTMAN October 3, 2007 at 8:26 pm #

    Paul … a couple of quick hits.

    I’ve really been a bit out of the political loop for a while and didn’t know the Muslim thing was such a hot issue. I take it Obama is flatly denying that?

    Second, I’m not one of those who sees the Republican party as God’s party or anything like that.

    For the Christian, I speaking to the Christian now, this is only for the Christian, trust should be put in God and not in a particular party.

    That being said, unless Barry Goldwater is running, I have to pick the best among the options out there. I think Fred has a legitimate chance and I prefer him over Hillary, Obama, Mitt, and Rudy (other perceived front-runners).

    So, that’s how I roll.
    http://gunny93.blogspot.com/2007/07/what-cologne-you-gonna-go-with-london.html

    Paul, what will you do if Ron Paul doesn’t make it past the semis?

  34. Carlito October 4, 2007 at 8:55 am #

    Interesting interview with Obama from 2004. I’m pretty sure this is legit, as it’s an excerpt from a book called “The God Factor” by Cathleen Falsani. http://www.simplysharing.com/assuringlight/obama.htm

    He clearly professes faith in Christ. However, it seems he has a postmodern universalist all-paths-lead-to-God worldview.

    Sample excerpts:

    “So, I have a deep faith. I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people, that there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and that there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived. I probably spent the first forty years of my life figuring out what I did believe, and it’s not that I have it all completely worked out, but I’m spending a lot of time now trying to apply what I believe and trying to live up to those values.”

    —————————-

    “I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma, and I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others,” he continues. “I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious, too, of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding. I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.”

    ———————-

    Obama doesn’t believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell. But he’s not sure if he’ll be going to heaven either.

    “I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. That’s just not part of my religious makeup,” he says. “What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, aligning myself to my faith and values is a good thing.”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. the Protestant pub » Blog Archive » :sigh:…politics again… - October 1, 2007

    […] Dr. Burk links to an article in the New York Times wherein it is told us that the ‘Religious Right’ threatens to leave the Republican party (or move their vote from this party) and support a third party candidate if Rudolph Giuliani is nominated as the Republican candidate, as they do not agree with Giuliani’s abortion views. […]

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes