GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Apparently, some leaders of the social right still understand how to play politics, not to mention the principles of federalism, the separation of powers, and constitutional government.
Money quote:
The thing is, abortion should not be something the president has anything to do with. It should not be a national issue; it never should have been.
As one of the originators of the “Religious Right” as a political movement in this country, Robertson understands that politics is about making deals in order to win elections and advance policies. Ultimately, it’s the art of compromise. Unfortunately, some of today’s so-con leaders have forgotten that concept. Or perhaps they never learned it in the first place. Folks like James Dobson seem to think they can build a national political majority out of individuals who desire federal policies on cultural issues that are consistent with the theological principles of a specific religious sect. Outside certain dark red legislative districts and states, this simply isn’t possible. Robertson understands this, and, unlike some of his successors, understands that the house that Reagan built was a fusionist one that kept all elements equally happy (and unhappy) without exalting one bloc of the coalition above all others.
Put more simply, Pat Robertson and I probably disagree on scores of issues within the realm of religion, science, nature, lifestyle issues, and public policy. But I get the impression that despite all of that, Robertson would be willing to work with me. I don’t think Dobson would. Robertson knows how to win elections. Dobson loses them. So-cons have a choice to make.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I was thing last night If hillary is the DNC nominee (or WHO EVER WINS DNC nomination) WHO does SHE NOT want to fear and to face in presidential Debates between n our GOP canidates? I would Guess The DNC fears debating Rudy /Fred ticket the reason I say that is that I forgot theres a VP debate between the DNC ticket also!.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
Certainly many business oriented religious leaders will go along with a social liberal nominee. A divided religious right is a given for the McCain, Giuliani or Romney.
Pat Robertson is viewed as cheesy charlatan in most social conservative circles (do I have to recite the false predictions of disasters and the over the top slanders?). Using this embarrassment of a clergyman as an endorsement is insulting.
What’s really disheartening (to me) is that a lot of Christians are going to give away a vital part of their integrity for earthly power. I’m not going to risk facing God having voted for a pro-abortion Presidential candidate.
If Rudy wins the nomination I’ll certainly have to leave this blog as I doubt a 3rd party supporter would be welcome here.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I don’t agree with Pat Robertson. If a State started allowing infanticide, there would be a civil war if needed to stop it. If a state began a genocide against a particular race, there would be a civil war to stop it. Federalism has its limits, and one of those is when the killing of human beings is concerned. If your pro-life view is such that you believe life begins at conception, federalism is no excuse to leave the decision up to the states. Strategically, it may be the only alternative that is practical. We can call it a necessary compromise if we must, but it is anything but “not a national issue”.
I’m tired of the false logic that if you are against Roe, you must be pro-life. It doesn’t mean any such thing. Being against Roe means only that you want to give the states the right to decide, nothing more, nothing less. Ironically, getting rid of Roe will just allow a different kind of choice to be made. It offers the choice at the state level, as opposed to being at the individual level, but it’s still a choice.
Those who won’t go as far as to replace Roe with a national ban on abortion will have a hard time convincing me they are honest pro-lifers. That is unless they acknowledge the compromise federalism offers. A little honesty from everybody on the abortion issue would be greatly appreciated!
June 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Richard,
Federalism is not a compromise with respect to abortion. It may be used that way by certain candidates, e.g. Guiliani, McCain, and Thompson, but the fact of the matter is that the structure of the Constitution demands that abortion policy be set at the state level because it is not one of the subject matters that the federal Congress is empowered to address by the Constitution.
You are a poor excuse for an American if you insist on having the federal government exercise unconstitutional powers just to satisfy your personal goal of having your preferences enforced upon others by law. Just as poor an excuse for an American as supports of Roe, who would subvert our federal system for the sake of the convenience of abortion on demand. I can’t make you leave the country, but you could at least have the courtesy of leaving my Party. If you want to be an authoritarian, go join the big-government authoritarian Party. They’re called Democrats and Socialists.
Econ Grad,
You need to get a grip, man. Even the Pope has decreed that it is permissible for Catholics to cast a vote for a pro-choice politician SO LONG AS their stance on abortion is not the reason that you vote for them. So, even the Catholic Church - the largest and most militantly anti-abortion organization on Earth - recognizes that there are more issues in an election than abortion and that people of faith need not abandon all of their other political views for the sake of one issue. So, your concern about meeting God after having cast a vote for a pro-choice politician seems a little self-serving and absurd.
The truth is that most people in the pro-life movement care only about that issue and don’t know the first thing about the positions that their “pro-life” politicians take on most other issues. This is sad and disturbing. Maybe, just for a second, pro-lifers should concern themselves with the people who have already been born and who are currently living in this country, and think about how the other policies of their *preferred* candidate will impact our lives, our freedoms, and our well-being.
I’m sick of people who vote on the life issue out of fear of what God will think. These people say that they are unconcerned about their “earthly” freedom which was so dearly bought by so many souls created by God over so many years. Since you are not concerned about earthly power and our earthly freedoms, kindly do the rest of us a service and refrain from voting in our earthly elections.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Econ grad stud,
I agree completely about Robertson.
DaveG,
“I get the impression that despite all of that, Robertson would be willing to work with me. I don’t think Dobson would.”
That’s because Robertson has never been particularly devoted to Christianity itself, or socially conservative goals, but has instead focused on garnering attention, fame, and power for himself. Robertson would support anyone if he felt it would somehow help him. Dobson on the other hand, is much more devoted to social conservatism not as an means, but as an end. It’s that simple. Evangelical leaders who care deeply about abortion and other social issues, rather then using them to whip the masses into a frenzy, won’t support Rudy. It’s that simple.
June 30th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
pb, if I were alive during the 1850’s I wouldn’t vote for a pro-slavery candidate. If the Republican Party nominated them I’d have voted for another party.
If I had voted in a way that furthered slavery I would assume God would hold me accountable for that. I have the same conviction about abortion (and I’m not a Catholic or Evangelical).
It’s really telling that you don’t understand the concept of over riding moral issues.
In the 1840’s the issue of slavery destroyed the Whig Party because it refused to take a side on the most important moral issue. If the Republican Party decides to remove its moral purpose it deserves the same fate in my opinion.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Well, good- since Pat Robertson is a man of his word, ah-hem, then I expect to be hearing from ALL the Republican candidates in a similar forum soon, since he said, “this is the sort of thing we need to do to ventilate all the points of view from our business and political communities.”
I still don’t know how these SAME guys that had such vitriolic attacks aimed at Bill Clinton with his “indiscretions” can even BEGIN to support a man that has had more wives than the average American has children, and that has dressed in drag and calls himself pro-choice. These guys are grabbing at straws!!!
June 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
econ grad stud: get with the program.
A Godly person does not want Hillary in office as she is a proven communist. And one of the most
alarming results of communism is ATHEISTISM!
We also happen to live within a Constutional democracy, with of course, the separation of Church and STate.
Econ Grad stud: Maybe you don’t understand this concept…and it looks like you are a lost cause
just like the people on the extreme left are lost causes.
The extreme to the left happens to be very similar to the extreme on the right.
Government telling and ordering people what to do.
Take a look at history.
Therefore, remember, we live within a constitutional democracy.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
econ grad stud:
As a paleo-social-conservative, what makes you say you would not have supported slavery 150 years ago? That’s what paleo-social-conservatism SUPPORTED then. And they thought the Bible and God was with them.
The only reason you oppose it now is that social liberals won the battle, and now that is your frame of reference for your PSC.
50 years ago, PSCs supported segregation and opposed interracial marriage. Do you really think if you were alive when, as a PSCer, you would have objected? Or would you have been a social LIBERAL instead?
50 years from now, the idea of discriminating against gays and lesbians will be an appalling historical relic. Just like keeping women out of the workforce was.
Social conservatism is nothing but wanting to go backward, regardless of where you are at. And social conservatives don’t even have the historical perspective to realize that social conservatism has always been wrong in the past, and that they would not have been with the wrong camp at that time.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Econ grad stud–who has God told you to vote for. Surely God has identified someone. I don’t want to go to hell since God hasn’t told me yet. I need your help.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Jess they have all-except Mitt-have had to many wives. Don’t go there.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Econ grad stud–I’m waiting–who has God told you to vote for. As I recall you haven’t decided on a candidate yet. What is God waffling.. Or does God only tell you who to vote against not who to vote for.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
David B,
What a silly idea. That’s not how history works, and I always smirk mildly when someone tries to apply terms like “conservative” or “liberal” to positions taken decades or even centuries in the past. Opposing slavery in the 1850’s was no more “liberal”, in modern parlance, then supporting it was “conservative”. Indeed, in many respects supporting slavery could be considered a thoroughly “liberal” proposition. It was, at its heart, a position borne from dependency. Economic dependency in particular. They supported slavery largely because they were dependent upon, and thus were blind to it’s evil. This is classic liberality (not to be confused with classical liberalism). A willingness to support various untoward and unjustfiable policies due to an unwillingness to create opportunities through one’s own merit.
The very idea of gaining benefit, due to the sweat of someone elses brow, rather then your own, is antithetical to the modern day conservative movement, and central to liberalism. Now if by “liberal” you mean, it happened to coincide with the ultimate course of history, then you’ve not only created a false formulation, but you’ve done so in a way that makes the entire distinction meaningless. If to be “liberal” is merely to be right in the long run, then given that we don’t know how history will progress, it’s a useless word for anything other then historical revisionism.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
David B, my religious denominations was an early mainstream Protestant denominations to #1 oppose slavery and #2 include disproportionately large numbers of African Americans.
Abolitionism was a religiously motivated quest. It was based in the New Testament concepts of justice.
For my social conservatism does not involve “going back”. It involves support for policies that will protect the social institutions America depends on most. My social conservatism is based in Christian values guided by my understanding of human evolutionary predispositions.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Grant, I am praying about that issue. I hope that I will be guided towards one candidate as I pray about it and examine their character and beliefs.
Since I’m a fallible human being I can’t claim to know God’s will but I’m going to avoid supporting a politician that I would feel guilty before God about.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Your social conservatism is based on “policies that will protect the social institutions America depends on,” “based in Christian values.”
That, my friend was how slavery was defended. Not granting women the right to vote. Keeping blacks segregated.
Are you so small minded you cannot see what social conservatism IS? Defend if you want, but accept what it stands for.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Why do I attempt to engage in political discussions with someone who thinks God has an opinion on the election, and he must follow it? There is no point.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Is Pat trying to draw the line about whether it is appropriate for President to deal with abortion issue so he could, in future, endore Rudy?
June 30th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
I wonder how many social conservatives realize, that every 50 years their philosophy amounts to:
“What social conservatism defended 50 years ago was barbaric, but NOW, THIS TIME we’ve got it right.”
And every 50 years ago what they were defending is barbaric, yet again.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I wonder how many social liberals realize, that their philosophy amounts to:
“Every evil thing done throughout history was done through social conservatism, and every positive thing through social liberalism, by definition”.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Not at all. Most of the evil is done by economic liberalism, i.e., socialism/communism.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Would you feel guilty before God if your vote helps elect Hillary Clinton?
June 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Yeah Matt after World War I progressives (many feminist among them) passed prohibition.
Now 50 years later I know of no liberals or conservatives who take that for granted.
History is more complicated than ‘conservatives’ simply accepting the ‘liberalism’ of yesterday.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
As I think about it–Gingrich, Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson have had multiple wives. Hillary and Bill are paragons of virtue. I guess I’ll cast my vote based on other things.
June 30th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Grant, my vote helps the person it is cast for. In America votes are only counted for candidates you actually vote for. If Hillary’s elected because the Republican candidate is unacceptable than I simply didn’t have an acceptable option in how to prevent Hillary.
I hope Republicans nominate someone other than Rudy so I can continue to volunteer for the party as I for the last 7 years.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
I have spent a fair amount of time telling country club republicans that socons are needed in the republican coalition. I will now suggest the reverse. If socons can walk because the republican candidate is not pure socon enough(although much more socon than the demo opponent) then ficons can walk too. If ficons can help socons, then socons can help ficons. We need both to win. I can’t see why ficons should elect socons if socons won’t return the favor. Nobody gets a veto over the nominee.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
econ grad stud:.
1-which candidate disagrees with Rudy on abortion?
2-Which candidate opposes a State’s right to make its abortion law as it sees fit?
3-If an abortion law becomes a State’s right, then which candidate has proposed to then
tell that State what to make of that Law??
4-If Roe was overturned and if a State enacted its own abortion law, whether it was pro-life or pro-choice, what would then allow the Federal Government to tell the State what to do?
5-Name one candidate that disagrees with Rudy on 1-4 of the above.
econ grad stud:
6-If Hillary was voted in instead of Rudy, would you support communisim?
7-If Hillary was voted in instead of Rudy, would you be retreated if you had not voted for Rudy?
8-If Hillary was voted in instead of Rudy, would you not believe that the Church would be attacked?
9-If Hillary was voted in instread of Rudy, would you not believe that Hollywood would provide the moral code instead of the Church because Hillary would be 1-1 with Hollywood?
etc.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Grant, especially because we ficons vote for socons, year after year, election after election, without really complaining much.
Now we are asking socons to support ONE candidate. Once in a lifetime. And they threaten sabotage.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Moreover, it takes a very gifted individual (national hero?) with the intellect and charisma and respect necessary to REALLY undo the new deal, to REALLY replace our tax system. Something we’ve been waiting for for the better part of a century, as Reagan wasn’t able to do it.
RUDY CAN DO IT. He’s got a fighting chance. Plus to properly win the war.
By contrast, socon issues can largely be enacted with the stroke of a pen. They can elect socon candidates to the state legislatures, governorships, and Congress, while Rudy is in office.
And, once they have a President of their own, they can put together all the voter they can try to to get those pen strokes.
The ficon battle is very, very, very tough, requiring a once in a century candidate and years of struggle. LET’s GET THAT DONE.
Then do all you want on the socon stuff.
It’s an incredible deal since most socons want the economic reform that ficons do. And to win the war.
To reject this deal is sheer nihilism/destruction. What we normally see from socialists.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Actually the coalition is easy for me–I am both ficon and socon. I can understand someone being so unhappy about abortion that it is hard to vote for a pro-choice candidate. But I rarely get the candidate I want and I accept voting for the best of the realistic choices.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Tom:
“And one of the most
alarming results of communism is ATHEISTISM!”
Are you being facetious?
June 30th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Actually the Demos will never keep us safe–that issue alone necessitate a Republican vote/
June 30th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Nusrat–American liberals are much less religious than conservatives. Liberals are more worried about American Christians than Islamic fundamentalists. That should worry econ grad stud–if Demos control congress and white house.
June 30th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
One last broadside –statistics show that about 600,000 American muslims are sympathetic to islamic extremism–if we let more muslims in, we will be in the fix Britain is in. If we kick them out(not practical nor politically correct) we will be safer. At least if we kick out all american muslims under 40 years old.
June 30th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Who really gives a shit if they’re less religious?
June 30th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
DavidB, come on, were you grew in the test tube? You grew up in the society - beginning with your own family, then the schools, and so on. You cannot say they don’t matter. For instance, why was there a surge in military enlisting after 9/11? I do not think the majority of those people joined because of anger. Shocked, yes; and fear, definitely. And we fear because we have something to cherish. It begins with love for the country and for the freedom. Just in case you have not been keeping up with news; The military is under great attack from the liberals. A lot of ROTC recuiters are barred from schools. The media say almost nothing but bad about the soliders daily. The longer as those attacks continue, we will end up with less and less which we can use to defend ourselves. Again, DavidB, soc-cons does not equal pro-lifers. We soc-cons do have much you could benefit from too, and besides, there has really been nothing you fis-cons and def-cons have done for us. But yet, we continue to work with you. As for Rudy, it was HIM who despite us, not the other way around. He said basically that it is too bad for us. We only ask that he work with us on the agreements we both can accept, and HE JUST STARTED TO, BUT BARELY!
July 1st, 2007 at 3:36 am
SGS, I really don’t think you understood what I wrote.
I have nothing against families and schools and the military, quite the contrary. I think they’re stronger as private affairs without government meddling, and I think that is the essence of freedom and America.
Ficons and Defcons have “religously” voted for Socon Republicans year after year after year.
July 1st, 2007 at 8:46 am
The military is better without government meddling?
i didn’t realize how radical libertarians have become.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:32 am
Oops… I added “the military” on edit, not realizing the 2nd sentence wouldn’t modify it.
July 1st, 2007 at 11:34 am
Also, I’m not a libertarian, as I’m very, very, very much a hawk. And domestically I’m a lot more concerned with capitalism and entrepreneurship than legalizing drugs or prostitution. Libertarians have given a bad name to liberty.
July 2nd, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Grant Gormley thank you I wish more people spoke up about muslims like you. I also think one of the biuggest threats facing this country is the”angry black man” syndrome - - many are and will be recruited by muslim extremeists to do harm to this country….its just a matter of time…