Vote in FRC’s straw poll II
This is a prequel to the live blogging I’ll begin tomorrow afternoon from the FRC Washington Briefing.
I am in DC and saw Gary Bauer yesterday, who gave me permission to blog his thoughts. Bauer is the former head of the FRC. He ran for president in 2000 and currently heads American Values and The Campaign for Working Families, which he founded….
About the Washington Briefing, also known as the Values Voter Summit, Bauer said, “The winner of that straw poll may be one of the lower tier candidates who doesn’t have a chance to beat Giuliani. Don’t necessarily get excited about the winner if it’s a second tier candidate.”
I think that second tier candidate may be Mike Huckabee. I noticed yesterday several Huckabee blogs have for two weeks been encouraging their people to vote for him online in the FRC poll. See here, here, and here, for example.
My sense is pro-life leaders are beginning to coalesce around Romney and Thompson. Huckabee only has $650,000 on hand, which is Davidlike when considering the 2008 presidential campaign will take $50-60 million.
Romney’s two problems: Mormonism and flip-flopping. Bauer said we can’t let differences in religion separate us. For instance, Jews don’t believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah whatsoever. Does that mean Christians would not vote for a Jew for prez? He also said politicians can only convert once. Converting again, or reconverting – say, going from pro-abortion to pro-life to pro-abortion – would be political suicide.
Thompson’s two problems: His late start and concerns of stamina. Bauer noted political elitists commonly levy smears of low stamina and laziness against conservative presidential candidates, like, for instance, Reagan and Bush II. We shall see during the next month whether Thompson has what it takes. Bauer also noted Thompson has $7 million in the bank.
Ron Paul? He has quite a pro-life following and raised quite a chunk of change the last quarter, $5.2 million, and still has a fat bank $5.4 million bank account. But his anti-war stance disqualifies him from serious consideration. The name of the game now is beating Giuliani, and Paul can’t do that among Republican primary voters if the discussion narrows between the two to the War on Terror.
Unless conservatives unite around one guy, Giuliani will likely win the nomination. Talk of a 3rd party candidate appears to be fading.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
How can you be both pro-life and pro-war? Only Ron Paul is an uncompromising defender of the sanctity of human life, and the suggestion that value voters should compromize their integrity to support any candidate who has not understood throughout their public life that abortion is murder is blasphemy.
Peace at any cost is not peace at all. Many people subscribe to a just-war theory.
well then we should just congradulate Hillary now, if Giuliani wins the republican primary.
Ron Paul is also against protecting minority rights, including their right to vote. and he is completely against any rights for homosexuals, even going as far as to introduce a bill that would stop them from challenging the constitutionality of the “Marriage Act”.
“and he is completely against any rights for homosexuals”
homosexuals have all the rights that anybody else has.
It’s too bad Duncan Hunter’s name was not mentioned…
Jasper;
not really. they cannot marry who they love. and you or Sarah could challenge any law on its constitutionality, whereas if Ron Paul had his way, gays couldnt. THAT is taking away rights.
Wow, Ron Paul is against the right of homosexuals to have free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to petition government, right to bear arms, right to own property and have control over that property, right to not be denied life, liberty and property without due process, right to have a speedy trial, right to be tried by jury, right to not be inflicted with cruel and unusual punishments, right to vote, right to work, and the right to live wherever they want?
Oh wait, no, he’s just against perverting the definition of “marriage” to make a bunch of radicals happy. Whoops.
JL;
i have no problem if when he voted for the Marriage act. its the fact he wants to take away the right to FIGHT it. seems kind of like hes taking away their freedom to Petition the Government.
Also, he said (i’ll look for the quote… sarah showed me) that he supports States being allowed to make Homosexuality a crime again. so yes, that would take away their right to live where they want, assemble, and liberty (if they are jailed).
Jonathan, please get your ignorant nose of my country’s affairs. There is no such thing as a law which would stop anyone from challenging the constitutionally of anything. Even if it was written into the Constitution itself, “Marriage is the union of one man and one woman”, your radical homosexual friends could still petition for that section of the Constitution to be repealed. Nobody would stop them. Nobody would throw them into secret prisons. You see, in America, unlike in Ireland, you can actually walk down the street without being shot at or otherwise inflicted with violence.
Oh, does Jonathan live in Ireland?
JL; Really? then why is your murder rate so much higher then ours?
Also, i never said there WAS a law, but he PROPOSED a law.
“He co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.”(Paul, Ron (2004-09-30). Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized)
Bobby, im Irish, living in Germany right now.
but my wife is an american from Michigan.
Jonathan,
“and he is completely against any rights for homosexuals”
not really. they cannot marry who they love.
Which is it? He is completely against any rights or just one right. The right to marry someone of the same sex?
And you can’t “take away” a right that wasn’t there in the first place.
There is a difference between special rights and no rights…
Homosexuals have every single right that I have.
I can marry a person of the opposite sex. They can marry a person of the opposite sex. I cannot marry a person of the same sex. They cannot marry a person of the same sex.
I cannot marry a 12 year old. They cannot marry a twelve year old. I cannot marry more than one person, they cannot marry more than one person.
I cannot marry whom I love, if that person is married already, a close relative, underage or the same sex that I am.
They have the exact same rights that I have. What they want is special rights.
How come 3% of planned parenthoods business is not considered a lot, yet 3% percent of the population gets such a huge input in how our country is run?
I’m not even saying how I feel about it. Just that our rights are equal…
JL; Really? then why is your murder rate so much higher then ours?
“my wife is an american from Michigan.”
Oh cool, I’m from Michigan! What part is she from?
MK-
“I cannot marry a 12 year old. They cannot marry a twelve year old.”
I like how in your first sentence you used the number 12, and in your second sentence you wrote twelve :) . But as always, you make excellent points. God love you, my friend.
I think I found what you’re talking about. It’s the “We the People Act”, a strictly ‘states rights’ piece of legislation which intends to empower the states while weakening the influence of the federal government.
This law would prevent federal courts from telling states what to do. It has no effect on state courts, state legislatures, or even the federal legislature. It has no effect on the right to petition any legislature for new laws. It has no effect on the right to petition for Constitutional Amendments.
Oh, OK, so you’re talking about the Defense of Marriage Act. Fine. The point of that was to stop state courts from telling states what to do. For example, if State A legalizes gay marriage through the legislative process, then State B’s courts cannot say “State A has legalized gay marriage, therefore it must be legal in State B as well.” That’s all.
If you weren’t a total dunce when it comes to America, with your head full of insane amounts of anti-American nonsense, you might understand. I truly don’t expect you to get it. Ever.
As for the violence, what mk said.
Bobby,
Just keepin’ it interesting! :)
Must be tough work being an authority on Catholicism, Communism and American Government…seems it’s easy to mix them up sometimes.
when homosexual marriage became legal in massachusetts, the state supreme court said that “marriage is an evolving paradigm”. Unbelievable. A lesbian jurist on that court disagreed with the decision.
No kidding, mk. Usually an authority on the American Government knows the difference between federal and state government, and between legislative and judicial branches. Of course, usually an authority on Catholicism knows that suicide is a mortal sin, and an authority on Communism knows that it’s the most evil, bloody, anti-freedom form of government ever devised.
Oh silly me. Why should I expect a Communist to understand states rights? Such a concept is quite foreign to Communists.
:)
Hey John,
Why aren’t you workin?
Jasper, and the DOMA sought to prevent judges in other states from declaring “Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage, therefore you must legalize it as well”, or other similar situations. It does not stop the right to petition the legislature, which is the branch you are actually SUPPOSED to petition. You’re not supposed to petition the courts!
mk, I’m trying out life as a Communist. You know, just sit around all day doing nothing in particular, whining about how evil America is, waiting for my government paycheck. Or maybe I just have the day off. Hmm.
MK – Ireland was VERY violent when i was a kid…. now its much safer, as you should know since your sister lives there. Unlike America, we have become LESS violent over the last 40 years, not more.
JL; read the text of the document, it also prohibits courts from saying the law is unconstitutional inside their OWN state.
early mornings, 6am-2pm….
JL,
We got 170,000 petition (need only 60,000) votes to put the marriage question on the 08 ballot, but the liberal Massachusetts legislature blocked it from going on the ballot. They said that it would cause too much “division”. So, what the people want doesn’t matter.
Yes, Jonathan, that’s because you don’t petition courts if you want to change a law. You petition the legislature. If radical gays want to pervert marriage, they have to do so via the legislature. Of course, that’s how it should be done, and that’s how its supposed to be done. Funny that we have to pass new laws to make our system of government work how it was designed to work, and then fools come on here and say that those laws are anti-freedom.
If you weren’t a total dunce…
JL, could you possibly be more shrill in your comments here? As near as I can tell, you are the only one throwing insults around, and your posts usually read as if they had been written in all caps. It isn’t a very Christian thing to be doing.
And the next time you think about going off on someone about a spelling or grammatical error, remember that even you are capable of dropping an adverb:
Jonathan, please get your ignorant nose of my country’s affairs.
JL; ya, it really sucks when people say everyone should be allowed to marry who they love. and just because 6/10 biblethumping rednecks agree that “fags are ggross” doesnt mean we should treat them as subhuman.
Hey Ray, nice of you to comment. How nice of a God-hating pagan nightmare to be concerned about how Christian I’m behaving.
Now if you don’t have anything relevant to say, kindly butt out.
Jonny, ya, it really sucks when you have to actually follow the Constitution as it was laid out by the Founding Fathers of America, petition the legislature and not the courts, and change the hearts and minds of the American people to get your way instead of just ramming your BS down their throats through judicial activism.
Jasper, I live in MA too. I can’t picture the MA legislature ever letting it come to a vote.
JL; oh, you mean like forcing all the people to follow misguided christian morality (a la outlawing abortion) even tho not everyone is a christian?
but the liberal Massachusetts legislature blocked it from going on the ballot.
Jasper, do you mean the “liberal Massachusetts legislature” that was legitimately elected by the people of Massachusetts to represent them in such decision-making?
Our system of government was designed, in part, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority or other minorities. In this case, it seems to have functioned as intended. If voters kick these liberals out of office in the next election, then it will be clear what the will of the people was, but somehow I don’t think it will turn out that way.
Why yes Mr. pseudo-pro-life fraud who now says that being anti-abortion is ‘misguided’, I do expect everyone to acknowledge the scientific fact which has been known for about 150 years that human life begins at conception. Where exactly does it say that in the Bible? If it’s in there, you should know, being an “expert”.
Too bad people like you are so anti-democracy and anti-freedom that you won’t even let us vote on the issue.
You have a point Ray, we get what we deserve. If we elect lousy people (Mass Legis.), we get a lousy government.
JL; dont misinterpet what i am saying, I agree abortion is wrong. i merely think making people follow the views of one religion over the other is ALSO wrong. I meant being a Christian is misguided. not being against abortion.
Jonathan,
JL; ya, it really sucks when people say everyone should be allowed to marry who they love. and just because 6/10 biblethumping rednecks agree that “fags are ggross” doesnt mean we should treat them as subhuman.
Yes it’s much better that a group that represents 3% of the population gets to change something that 97% of the population has held sacred and sacramental for 6000 years.
And no one said anyone was “gross”. Except you.
AND should I be able to marry my brother? Should I be allowed to marry six men? Should I be able to marry a nine year old?
After all, I LOVE them!
Alright, so Jonny is just insane.
First he says that it’s misguided to ‘force’ pro-life laws on people because that’s a Christian position. Now he says that being a Christian is misguided and pro-life laws are OK!
Either being pro-life is a solely Christian position or it isn’t; it cannot be both.
But it’s good to see that you now consider Christians themselves to be “misguided”. So, are you a heretic, or are you an outright apostate? I can’t wait to see your pathetic attempt to squirm out of this one. “Oh, JL, sorry, I got my Gaelic mixed up.” Haha…
There are laws that protect people (ie- the 9 yo) and laws that simply are set up to hurt. Does it effect your life at all if 2 gay people are granted the title of “married” and given protection under the law?
One value hurts a group, the other DOESNT hurt either group…. hmmmm wonder which is better.
Jonathan, there are atheist and agnostic prolifers.
JL; I would be considered a Heritic. i believe the church has outlasted its usefulness. I still believe in God, but not the church.
I said “oh, you mean like forcing all the people to follow misguided christian morality” which means i think forcing people to follow YOUR religious beliefs is wrong, even if it is something i agree with (a la Abortion).
simple enough isnt it?
You’re right, Jonny – the government should legitimize and encourage sodomy. The government should also declare that the family, the most fundamental unit of society, is arbitrarily defined.
Carrie, i know. i did not mean that being PL was a strictly christian thing, merely that if it IS your religgious belief, you need better reasoning.
Yep, I want to right a law which says “All Americans are required to join the Catholic Church and partake of the Sacraments. Those who don’t will be jailed for no more than twenty years.”
Oh, no, wait, I want a law which will protect human life because science tells us that human life begins at the point of conception. Huh. I guess I don’t want to force my religion on anyone.
I love the ever-evolving positions of Jonny. First he said he was a pro-life Catholic. Then he said he disagreed with some positions of the Church. Then he said he Christians are misguided. Now he said he has totally rejected the Catholic Church. I await his upcoming post which will contain a quote something like “I am an atheist.”
How sad, I don’t have any more time to continue to show Jonny how wrong he is about every single topic imaginable. Please try not to spread around too much nonsense while I’m gone.
I got this quote from godlessprolifers.com, but I don’t know who said it. It pretty much sums up my position. “…because life is all there is and all that matters, and abortion destroys the life of an innocent human being.”
I am not an atheist anymore, but I try to leave religion out of it only because I don’t feel qualifed to bring it into it. There are many people on this board who are better suited to discuss the religious aspects of the prolife position.
should read qualified. sorry.
OK, I followed the 2000 Election very closely, b/c I did not want Al Gore to get into office. But I do not remember a Gary Bauer running for President.
And MK:
In Alabama a 13 year old can get married if he/she has parental permission.
Oh wait, excuse me it is 14.
Alabama: If either of you are under 18, you will need a certified copy of your birth certificate. Both parents must be present with identification, or if you have a legal guardian they must be present with a court order and identification. If one or both parents are deceased, proper evidence of such must be provided. Individuals under the age of 14 may not marry.
Just in case anyone wants to look up their states laws in regards to leagal age to marry:
http://www.coolnurse.com/marriage_laws.htm
Alright, so Jonny is just insane.
JL, what is with all your hostility toward liberals? What have we done to you? We don’t want to force you to marry a man or make you use birth control or get an abortion, we merely seek to prevent you from imposing your narrow morality in these areas over the rest of us. This hurts you how, exactly?
How nice of a God-hating pagan nightmare…
While I most certainly believe in God (or as I refer to it, Creator), I do not hate God. This is an assumption of yours. As for pagan, I take that as a badge of honor. Pagan has an interesting meaning. One definition is “dated derogatory a non-Christian.” Accurate in my case. But this is where it gets interesting: “ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin paganus
OK, I followed the 2000 Election very closely, b/c I did not want Al Gore to get into office. But I do not remember a Gary Bauer running for President.
From wikipedia:
In 1999, Bauer resigned his post at the Family Research Council, which he held since 1988, and ran for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. He dropped out of the race in February 2000 after doing poorly in the primaries.
Gary Bauer- great guy.
Ray, they did recount the counties in question in Florida, Bush won the election no matter the SJC decided. Sorry, I know this kind of throws a wrench in the nutty lefts conspirancy theory.
Jasper, it is not clear at all that Bush won. Here are the results of one study of the ballots, which show various outcomes based on different scenarios:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount
Note that per a review of all ballots statewide according to standards as set by each county Canvassing Board, Gore would have won by 171 votes. I have never used the word conspiracy. Miscarriage of justice is more appropriate.
Ray,
Miscarriage of justice is more appropriate.
I bet you wished you’d said “abortion of justice”…
LOL
I bet you wished you’d said “abortion of justice”…
Actually, no. I said what I intended.
Jasper, don’t know if anyone has broken it to you yet, but as history shows, marriage is and has evolved. The court is right, at least in that respect.
And I congraulate our legislature for not letting minority rights going to a majority vote, it simply makes no sense. If there had been a majority vote during the civil rights movement, it wouldn’t have happened. If the south hadn’t been forced to apporve (I think) the thirteenth and fourteenth ammendments to rejoin the Union, they wouldn’t have passed. History has a funny way of repeating itself doesn’t it?
Ray said: “I’m a crazy moonbat, and proud of it. Here are some wacky conspiracy theories.”
Well sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend your right to say it, even if it is ignorant and stupid.
FYI:
-In the 2000 Presidential Election, the votes were counted in FL. Twice. Bush won both counts.
-The election was certified. That should have been the end of it.
-Gore sued in an attempt to steal the election. The strategy? Shake the chads off of ballots in districts that vote 90% Dem until you “find” enough Gore votes to turn FL over to Gore.
-The FL courts went along with Gore; the SCOTUS said that the FL courts were idiots and stopped their ad infinitum recounts. They did not “select” Bush – they applied the law, which the FL courts were ignoring.
Thought experiment:
-What would have happened had a third recount been allowed? Answer: Bush would have won again.
-What would have happened if Gore kept demanding more and more recounts until he managed to shake off enough chads to win? Since the election was already certified, FL’s electoral votes would have been thrown in, resulting in neither Bush nor Gore having an electoral vote majority. What happens in that case? The House of Representatives breaks the stalemate. Who controlled the House of Reps in 2000? REPUBLICANS.
Enjoy your kool-aid, John.
Ray, JL statements regarding the election are completely true. Where’s the kool-aid in that?
It was widely thought that Bush would win the popular vote in 2000 and Gore would win the electoral. In several interviews Bush was asked about the possibility of that happening and if he would contest the results. Each and every time he stated that the votes of the Electoral College were what were needed to win and he would abide by what happened on that occasion.
JL statements from above that are true:
-The election was certified
-The FL courts went along with Gore
The rest is pure fantasy.
The SCOTUS, in 5 to 4 decision, stopped the recounts on the basis of Equal Protection. So, on the pretense of treating votes equally, they threw out thousands. To really protect votes, they should have ordered a complete recount, which was never done until after the election. If it had been done, subsequent examinations of the ballots have shown that Gore would have won by 117 votes.
Regardless of Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s “certified results,” Bush was given Florida’s electoral votes despite not receiving a majority of the votes there.
Oh Ray,
I was only teasin! A miscarriage happens because of nature while an abortion is done by “someone”…
Miscarriage makes it sound like it just happened while abortion makes it sound like someone caused it to happen…
Dan,
I remember it differently. I always thought that a war happened in there somewhere. Didn’t realize it was just a matter of a minority vote.
Ray, what I have said is what reality is. If you fail to accept reality, that’s your problem, isn’t it?
You actually admitted that the election was certified in FL. Well then, if you knew anything else about the law, you’d know that if a recount, ANY recount, favored Gore, the FL electoral vote would have been scrapped. You can’t change the result of the election after it’s been certified.
The absence of an electoral vote majority would have left the ultimate decision to the House of Reps. Your delusion that the Supreme Court chose the winner and that they could just have easily declared Gore the president is your problem. Let go of the propaganda and try thinking.
mk, the civil war did happen, but even a majority of the northern states didnt want those ammendments to go through. Like I said, if the south hadn’t been forced to ratify them (as they certainly would have opposed it given the chance) they wouldn’t have passed, and slavery would have lasted past that point in time. So the minority got what they wanted by forcing a majority to vote a certain way in the governing body.
As for the civil rights movement (which is not nearly the same, but is certainly more comparable than ending slavery) that was the minority making a decision for the majority. The majority of people wanted the country to remain segregated, and for blacks to remain below the whites, and subjugated to more abuse.
No delusions, John. The results that were certified were incomplete, a bill of goods sold to the American people. I never said I believed the Supremes could have declared Gore president as they did Bush, only that if equal protection was really the issue, they should have insisted that all the votes be counted by the standards set by each locally elected canvassing board. The fact remains that this true recount never happened, and that an examination of the ballots has revealed that Gore would have won. It is simple math and not up for debate.
In a separate, but related matter, I firmly support the current movement in some states to circumvent the electoral college by awarding all that states votes to the winner of the national popular election, and I hope it is embraced by all 50.
“You’re right, Jonny – the government should legitimize and encourage sodomy. ”
Sodomy is anythign that isn’t intercourse. I wasn’t aware that the government wanted to outlaw oral sex or actively discourage it, either. As far as I know, the white house has done a lot of positive PR for t!
(sorry couldn’t help myself)
DUDE
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/exclusive_senator_chris_dodd_will_put_a_hold_on_telecom_immunity_bill.php
rockin it
Chis Dodd is putting our country in danger, he should be hung for treason.
Jasper, who has harmed our country more, Chris Dodd or George W.Bush?
Thanks again Jasper, for not even addressing the article but for just randomly smearing a candidate the minute you look at the title.
Can’t say you aren’t consistent.
“Jasper, who has harmed our country more, Chris Dodd or George W.Bush?”
Chris Dodd. Have you been attacked since 9/11 Hal?
PIP, I read the article.
But you didn’t address it. You addressed the main title– i.e. Chris Dodd, not what he actually did. That was my point.
Anyway, you should be against government. I sure don’t love the crazy 1984-esque policies he’s going against. Calling him a traitor for just that seems more communist than ever, jasper. Congrats.
@PiP: Have you ever noticed how Communists were always called “reds” and were represented by the color “red” and Republicans are represented by the color “red”?
Interesting coincidence, I think. :)
Christian Just War Theory, in a nutshell, is defensive war. Congressman Paul clearly articulates Just War Theory with more clarity than his republican opponents obfuscate their pre-emptive war theory/implementation.
Christians need to think and reason from the Bible and from Christian History (Augustine’s Just War Theory) and to reason from the Constitution to the most constitutional candidate as well as most biblical candidate. The candidate that arises from such a principle approach (from the Bible and from the Constitution) is clearly Dr. Ron Paul.
Stop caving to fear-mongering resulting in disobediently (to the Bible and the Constitution) instigating and continuing wars in the middle east.