<p>jclay2 - so you think Robertson’s motivation is revenge? I guess I just have a hard time understanding how someone could compromise their beliefs that they have held so close for so long. If one candidate was more aligned with my beliefs, no matter how much I was hurt, I’d still rather support that candidate than risk electing someone who will support policies that I find so detestable. Since I’m a Democrat, and haven’t paid as much attention to the Republican candidates for the primaries, are there any Republican candidates that do not support the statehood of Israel?</p>
<p>All I know is that out of the top 3 in the republican party, guilliani is the most neocon and sure to help Israel. This along with the revenge factor is what I believe caused this shocking endorsement.</p>
<p>And now the National Right to Life endorses Thompson!</p>
<p>Crazy. One thing’s for sure - the Christian community is divided.</p>
<p>Endorsing Giuliani makes no sense at all - a 3-time adulterer? And they had problems with Clinton’s bj? How hypocritical!</p>
<p>This thread makes me cringe.</p>
<p>lealdragon, not all Christians are Republicans. I’m probably voting for Edwards for the Democratic nomination (registered D). If I were a Republican, I’m not sure I’d bite on Robertson endorsing Giuliani.</p>
<p>
In which case our arguments are truly diminished, though I will still posit my position on behalf of sub-18 young women.</p>
<p>You know, it’s not just abortion. It’s also contraception. It’s also gay rights. It’s also sex education. Heck, it’s even marriage to the extent that they approve of women staying in bad marriages for the sake of the children. The would-be ayahtollahs, the Christian Taliban with which the Republican party has made a deal with the Devil for short term gain, has a wide ranging agenda based on suppressing people that they suspect somehow and somewhere are doing things of which they don’t approve, particularly women doing things of which they don’t approve.</p>
<p>BZ, you’re free to live by that arrangement of choice. You just may not impose that upon others.</p>
<p>The would-be ayahtollahs, the Christian Taliban, aren’t a majority of Christians by any means but in everything from the Air Force Academy to the Supreme Court, they’re trying to impose their narrow sectarian vision on the country as a whole in a way very similar to their radical Islamic counterparts in theirs. </p>
<p>Religious pluralism is one of the shining lights of this great country and I’ll be damned if I’m going to acquiesce in that light being put out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OOPS, sorry, I did it again.</p>
<p>Correction: right-wing evangelical Christians.</p>
<p>let’s get back on topic. This isn’t about abortion, per se. it’s about robertson’s endorsement. I saw Robertson on Hannity and Colmes and I think the only reasonable conclusion to be made is that Robertson is only a SYMBOLIC Evangelical leader and has no power/strength with the actual Evangelical community. Just an out of touch guy trying to pick the winner and get back in the limelight.</p>
<p>It does seem that the consensus is that the GOP candidates are all courting the “name” evangelical honcos to gain currency with the dwindling values movement. See [Anti-abortion</a> group: Thompson best candidate to beat Giuliani - CNN.com](<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/thompson.endorsement/]Anti-abortion”>Anti-abortion group: Thompson best candidate to beat Giuliani - CNN.com)</p>
<p>Pat R. just tried to pick the candidate least offensive to the centralist in the GOP. If you look at my previous posts on McCain and Ron Paul’s position on the hot button abortion issue you will see that they really aren’t effectively seeking to ban abortions while sounding true to the pro-life line. Rudy just says “pro-choice,” BUT “with limits.” All of them are on the fence.</p>
<p>I think Robertson would’ve endorsed McCain except for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li> McCain has supported stem cell research.</li>
<li> He knows McCain won’t be his “whippin’ boy”.</li>
</ol>
<p>Two reasons why WE SHOULD endorse McCain & give him our votes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? Someone’s telling me I have to wear a seat belt at all times! I’d only be “hurting myself” if I didn’t. How can that law stand and not one that says, “wear a condom so you don’t have to hurt the baby you made and now don’t want”?</p>
<p>Actually I’m being a little facetious - obviously we can’t have “condom police” (haha) writing citations - but you get my drift. I just don’t see why abortion has to be a legal - thus government sanctioned - form of birth control when there are others that PREVENT the unborn child from even entering into the equation. Makes no sense.</p>
<p>“You know, it’s not just abortion. It’s also contraception. It’s also gay rights. It’s also sex education. Heck, it’s even marriage to the extent that they approve of women staying in bad marriages for the sake of the children. The would-be ayahtollahs, the Christian Taliban with which the Republican party has made a deal with the Devil for short term gain, has a wide ranging agenda based on suppressing people that they suspect somehow and somewhere are doing things of which they don’t approve, particularly women doing things of which they don’t approve.”</p>
<p>See, the Dad, I don’t see females under the age of 18, generally, as women. I see them as girls who need to be parented. Don’t get me wrong, there are situations where intervention between parent and child is warranted, but that is not the norm and there are procedures in place to get the girl the help she needs. It is not perfect by a long shot, but for me (and only me) when I place priorities on my personal scale, the larger number of girls who are best supported and guided by their parents outweighs the small number of girls who aren’t. The girls who really and truly can’t go to their parents (as opposed to don’t want to) should be removed anyway and would be better off with professional help under an opt out process than having an abortion, keeping a huge secret AND dealing with an abusive homelife. I don’t see the upside of having girls make medical decisions for themselves except making bad choices convenient.</p>
<p>Excellent post zoosermom!</p>
<p>Very logical argument.
Your points are well-taken here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well said!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I still can’t quite grasp the logic that says it’s ok for a 15 year old to get an abortion, but not her driver’s license. </p>
<p>As for Robertson’s endorsement, he clearly outlines his reasons:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[FOXNews.com</a> - Pat Robertson Endorses Rudy Giuliani For President - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum](<a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308997,00.html]FOXNews.com”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308997,00.html)</p>
<p>The POTUS doesn’t actually have much to do with abortion legislation, after all. The important issue is the Supreme Court, and any appointments to be made during the next administration.</p>
<p>I would like to add the disclaimer here that when I was a 17 years old, with a job and great grades who had never stepped out of line in my life, I made a mistake (an absolute error in judgment) that could have cost my life and at the time that I made the error, I weighed my options and it seemed to me more sensible to choose the dangerous option instead of upsetting my father who was going through chemo. I can’t articulate to you how much this made sense to me at the time and it wasn’t until a couple of years later that I realized that my parents would have been upset, but nothing like what would have been the case if I had been killed. A pregnant teen in the vast majority of families is a very upsetting, disturbing, life changing event, but there are other events that would be similarly disruptive. That’s part of parenting, part of growing up. Ultimately, with those few exceptions, no one will love a teenager like their parents and no one will have their best interests at heart like their parents. Not a boyfriend, not a predator, not the mother of a boyfriend, not a counsellor, not someone for whom abortion is an everyday occurrence.</p>
<p>Well said again!</p>
<p>Ok, so back to Robertson.</p>
<p>“Ok, so back to Robertson.”</p>
<p>The fact that we can’t even make him that important is indicative. Who gives a rat’s, well you know, about Pat Robertson? I think the post above that he just wanted to make himself seem important is the whole thing in a nutshell.</p>
<p>The fact that Roberston didn’t endorse McCain just goes to sjow that McCain is not subject to “Political Back-Scratching”.</p>
<p>McCain is a straight-up guy & won’t get in a position to “owe” anybody anything. Can’t buy his favor.</p>
<p>That’s the only explanation, given McCain’s pro-life stance.</p>
<p>"McCain is a straight-up guy & won’t get in a position to “owe” anybody anything. Can’t buy his favor.</p>
<p>That’s the only explanation, given McCain’s pro-life stance."</p>
<p>That’s surely true, but I wonder if Robertson might think that McCain has no chance.</p>
<p>I agree, Giulliani seems to be the GOP’s best shot at defeating Hillary. Unless there is a serious third party challenger.</p>