Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Rudy, babies, and Christian leadership

Cheers to Dr. James Dobson, Tony Perkins et. all for their public announcement that they will not support a pro-abortion Republican nominee for President. Often these figures serve only as GOP cheer leaders, which marginalizes the pro-life, pro-family agenda.

Tony Perkins on Hardball last night (via NRO's The Campaign Spot):

...the vast majority of social conservatives came to the Republican Party because of the life issue and the other social issues. If the party leaves those issues, I think it's unreasonable for them to demand that they stay in the party. And I don't think they will.

...We are not going to sit down at a table and negotiate away the protection of human life and shake hands and get up and go forward. That's not going to happen on my watch.

...We're simply saying that there is a line which we won't cross. That is, we will not be supportive of a candidate who supports abortion.

Amen to that Tony.

Additionally Marc Ambinder calls into question Giuliani's definition of "strict constructionist" judges:

By the way: as Giuliani as has said, his "strict constructionists" might well preserve Roe v. Wade, which means that Giuliani employs the phrase to describe judicial orientation, rather than outcomes, which is how the phrase plays in politics.


Educator-To-Be said...

If the choice is Giuliani versus Clinton, conservatives will nonetheless vote for Giuliani as the lesser of two evils. Really, is there a realistic choice? Staying home on election day, as a practical matter, is a vote for Clinton. Amy

John Galt said...

Good question Amy, Mr. Lyman who would you have us vote for on election day Rudy or Hillary?

If Josh Lyman Were Conservative... said...

The bottom line is that the lesser of two evils IS STILL EVIL.

Rudy wants to kill babies just as much as Hillary does.

I'm not going to stay home on election day. I'm just not going to vote for a baby killer.

I will go vote on election day; I will vote for Bob Schaffer and Marilyn Musgrave, just not Rudy.

John Galt said...

You are right, evil is evil.

However in this scenario it seems that we would conciously be putting in something that was even more evil for the sake of making a point. Or am I missing something?