The Political Waters Are Stirring
Recently I've read several compelling posts by evangelicals about why they would not support Rudy Guiliani if he wins the Republican nomination, even if it means conceding the Presidency to Hillary Clinton.
You can see them here, here, and here.
Paul Kengor, a presidential historian who recently authored God and Hillary: A Spiritual Life talks about why a Clinton presidency should be of grave concern to pro-lifers:
If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.
By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.
As the Republican and Democratic primaries near, evangelicals must get serious about how we are going to respond to the prospects of potentially two pro-choice candidates running for office. The time may well be upon us that we can no longer vote a ballot strictly according to political parties. Evangelicals need to mobilize behind an electable candidate who holds to our core values, even if that reduces us to one-issue voters (such as John Piper). I, for one, will never knowingly cast a vote for a pro-choice candidate, even if it means that I have to be governed by the socialist Hillary Clinton.
posted by Aaron @ 1:43 PM
3 Comments
3 Comments:
Aaron,
I have to ask this... I read in another article/blog that Guiliani is very strong about appointing originists/constitutionalists who will not try to reinterpret the constitution like liberals. (But I honestly don't know if that will be good enough since Guiliani will not push the issue since he is pro-choice.)
So, to get to the question... would it not be important to cast a vote for Guiliani if he's going to be more faithful to appoint good judges to the supreme court?
I'm still undecided (and I don't know that Guiliani will get the Rep. nomination) and I currently feel very much like watching America learn more lessons for its disobedience and find out what it's like to see Hillary ruin this country even more.
How do we know that Guiliani will honor his word to appoint those justices? He didn't honor his word of fidelity to his wife and publically paraded his mistress all over the city of New York before his divorce. We can't dismiss his lack of morality in his marriage and sex life as inconsequential to what he will do as President.
I'm not usually a one-issue voter, but I can't get around the fact that Guiliani is pro-choice.
Even if he does appoint constitutionalists to our judicial benches, there is some kind of approval process and a Democratic-led congress will seek to derail any such nominations.
That's a great point about his wife. I forgot to take that into account also.
In the end, I just cannot trust many of the more popular Republican candidates to stand the ground on these important issues. Bush has been shaky enough (in my view) and the Democrats hate his guts.
Honestly, I don't think the Republicans have a chance as it stands right now. But we still don't know what will happen as the new year comes rolling around and things start to narrow down with the primaries.
Thanks for the reply.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home