It's Still A Pig Under The Lipstick
Posted by: tony on 10/04/2007 10:38 PM
Updated by: tony on 10/04/2007 10:38 PM
|
Expires: 11/04/2007 12:00 AM
|
Paul, The Regular Guy™ appears to be steamed. I really can blame him, because I'm angry also. I like to think it's the righteous anger of Jesus driving the moneychangers from the temple, but you can be the judge.
Paul writes regarding an article by Tony Blankley regarding the "problem" people of faith have with regard to Rudy Guiliani.
They also would be walking away from a coalition that, since 1981 (and particularly since 2001), has delivered a higher percentage of their agenda than it has to any other part of the conservative coalition. Fiscal conservatives received tax cuts but not spending cuts. Hawk conservatives received assertive foreign policy but bad management of it and a dangerous running down of the Army. But social conservatives received first-rate Supreme Court justices, a real effort at faith-based initiatives, constant rhetorical support for biblical values, and in fact, they have been denied nothing of consequence that brought them into politics.
Indeed? Abortion is a thing of the past? Congress passed that life amendment we've been asking for? Did the marriage amendment pass when the GOP was still controlling both house of Congress? I failed to notice that -- perhaps because it didn't happen. And those "first rate" Supreme Court justices you mentioned? They won't reverse Kelo for the fiscal conservatives? They won't support the administration's construction of executive power for the hawks? They were just for us social conservatives? Well, they haven't reversed Roe yet, so really we've gotten very little more than just talk.
That's right. We've heard a lot of talking with regard to life and family issues, but we have yet to see any action. There is little walking of the walk. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm skeptical of Mitt Romney's "battlefield conversion".
Here's the deal, Mr. Blankley. Nobody is a saint, and if we refuse to vote for those who are not saints, we will not vote for anyone. This effectively casts half a vote for each of the two scalawags who are running.
We people of faith are required to "minimize evil" when we go to the voting booth. This means that we have to look objectively at each of the candidates, and using our informed consciences, vote for the one who is the least evil. This means that I, as a Fred Thompson supporter, will work as best I can to see him get nominated. Should I fail at that goal, and the race comes down to a choice between Hillary and Rudy, I will be forced to vote for Rudy although the choice is a lot like voting between Satan and Beelzebub.
Now here's where the game gets more interesting... Should our evangelical friends succeed in getting a true socially conservative candidate on the ballot, one who is on the correct side of life and family issues, then I will have no other choice than to vote for him or her. Even if the other half of the "double effect" is that Hillary gets elected.
Mr. Blankley, the evangelicals are playing a high stakes game of "chicken" with you, and I hate to break it to you, I don't believe they are going to blink as long as you are running a pro-choice, planned parenthood donating, gay marriage supporting, thrice divorced, once from his cousin, Catholic-in-name-only, faux-conservative for president. I'm telling you up front, that if I wanted to vote for a Democrat, why should I vote for a Democrat wannabe, when I have the real thing.
I don't believe I'm the only one. I think there are a lot of us out there who are thinking exactly the same thing.
And before you say we're blackmailing you... Naw... Go ahead and say it. We are blackmailing you. Reconsider Rudy, or else...
|
