I will be voting against Barack Hussein Obama in the fall. I’m not voting for McCain, even though he will get my ballot. I wish that we had another Ronald Reagan to vote for. But, many in my family and I will be voting against Obama by voting for McCain in the fall.

David

“which is better/worse: a party which gives opposition to it lots of lip-service, but which was been in control of the executive branch of the government for almost eight years now, and which had control of the legislative branch for six of those eight years, and did absolutely NOTHING about it? I suggest that at best it is a wash, and at worst, the party with wherewithall to do something but did nothing instead is the worst.”

For your information, John, President Bush was instrumental in passing the “partial-birth” abortion bill that DEMOCRAT Bill Clinton vetoed twice during his two terms. President Bush has issued executive orders to limit abortions in military hospitals and overseas aid to other countries. Also, you are aware that most abortion laws or policies fall under Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court still has the final say when it comes to abortion. President Bush has given us two strict constructionists in Roberts and Alito on the court that will hopefully challenge the legality of Roe v. Wade one day.

Check the party platform, DEMOCRATS are the party of abortion. Republicans are the party of life. You can spin it anyway you want but you cannot be a DEMOCRAT running for President unless you are pro-choice. The Looney Left of this country is still entrenched in the DEMOCRATIC party.

As for the survey, most of my pastor friends are GOP because of the moral issues. We are not party people, we are issue people. If the GOP ever gives up its pro-life platform, you will see a mass exodus like the one in 1988 when I could no longer be linked with a party that advocates the killing of unborn children.

Easy answer to your snippet’s question: See Mom2’s response. She gets it.

If you oppose abortion, join me in fighting to have it outlawed again. Candidates, not party, are who I support, but I find no pro-life Democrats.

Is your point that we just have to keep electing republican Presidents, and eventually there will be enough pro-life justices to overturn Roe v. Wade? Seems an awfully inefficient process, especially since justices serve for life–and any who admit they will try to change Roe v. wade will probably not get confirmed by Congress (unlike electing conservative SBC presidents , so they can appoint conservative Committee on Committees members whose view is well known and needs only presidential appointment and who serve set terms, so we know both sides will have influence for only a given period). And as Lee points out, the most recent “conservative” apointees don’t seem very inclined to change it anyway.

Why didn’t we see some legislative initiaves while the Republicans controlled congress? If it was truely President Bush’s desire, why didn’t he send legislative initiates to Congress, and use the authority of his office to force the Republican hand? I’m not trying to be argumentative, but if I am missing something, I want to know it.

Abortion was supposed to be done away with, lock, stock and barrel by the time Dubya left the White House. It was a high priority issue during his 2000 campaign, one that he promised to put on the front burner and move forward immediately. Unfortunately, he was distracted by bigger and better things as far as he was concerned, mainly murdering Iraqis, and by the now exposed propaganda campaign of trying to convince the American people that there was a need to do it. So much for the sanctity of human life.

Nor is the current Supreme Court, including both of Bush’s appointees, inclined to overturn Roe. The last three Republican presidents have made certain that it remains at least one, and possibly two, votes short of bringing anything into consideration that would change what both John Roberts and Samuel Alito both call “the settled law of the land.” The fact that the conservative justices on the court all cited the Roe decision in making the determination that the partial birth abortion ruling was constitutional tells you they are not going to overturn it. We were lied to by Reagan, by Bush I and now by Bush II who, through two terms and six years of a Republican dominated congress essentially sat on his hands and did nothing with regard to social issues of interest to Christians. McCain is cut from the same cloth.

There is some faint hope that McCain might actually want to take Christian social issues seriously in that Mike Huckabee appears to be one of the higher level choices for his running mate. That would seal the deal for me, and get him my vote. If he goes with Romney, or one of the other obscure governors he’s considering, I will, along with James Dobson, vote independent.

With the revelation out that the SBC is not a voting bloc of 16 million, but probably only has 6 million active members, many of whom are not voting age, or don’t vote, whether 80% of Southern Baptists support McCain or not will make little difference in the face of the coming Democratic landslide.

Glad to see you are recovering!

If Republicans were really doing nothing about abortion, Democrats wouldn’t be so terribly nervous about their need to elect a president to make some Supreme Court nominations. We’re not many jurists away from an overthrow of Roe, IMHO.

John

As I said, if you’re going to attribute the RR to Falwell in the early 70’s, Roe v. Wade was his motivation, per the biography by his widow. He was by that time a champion of desegregation. If you look at Thomas Road and Liberty U. today, you will see diverse-ethnic make-ups.

Alexis:

I’m glad your mother chose to let you have life, so that you can offer it to Christ completely. I long for the day when our nation will again prohibit the legal choice of a mother to snuff out her baby’s innocent life. And I think God does as well.

Without protecting a child’s right to be born, our best efforts at providing him or her a clean environment, food on the table, shelter over his or her head, employment with a good wage, keeping him or her from war–all the worthy things you mention–are null and void for that dead child, aren’t they?

So, no, I don’t understand how you equate these other issues with protecting the right of an innocent baby to be born. Therefore, I don’t understand how you support candidates who won’t protect that right.

On the other big issue, I’m also glad your mother chose a lifestyle of heterosexuality, so that you could be conceived and born, then able to offer your life to Christ completely. Homosexuality seems to offer the annihilation (through a real low birth rate) of the human race. So, being pro-life, I don’t consider it a worthy alternative to be protected and aggrandized by our society. I won’t support candidates or a party platform that champions it, and don’t understand why any Christian would.