For all who have speculated on how the religious right might react to the GOP candidates, Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-robertson8nov08,0,2060626.story?coll=la-politics-campaign), Paul M. Weyrich endorsed Romney, and the one time hope of the religious base, Sen. Sam Brownback endorsed McCain.

Does this clear anything up? Any projections on what Dobson will do now? Will Robertson's endorsement help or hurt Rudy? I personally don't care who endorses who, I'm going to vote for MY choice, so do any of these endorsements matter?

No. I myself am OK with the moniker of "conservative Christian" but say this: Pat Robertson does NOT have a say-so with us.

Folks of all religious and political persuasions: Please don't base your vote on what Pat Robertson says. He is fringe material. He gives conservative Christians and those right of center a bad name.

Check out each candidate yourself rather than looking at the endorsements of the likes of Pat Robertson.

Well I was surprised at Robertson endorsing Giuliani. Giuliani is pro-Choice and of course Robertson is pro-Life. Giuliani will still probably get his own support, but if anyone ever wondered about Robertson as being flaky, this should be the proof in the pudding. The guy claims he hears from G-d and that the reason he backs Giuliani is because he would be the strongest candidate against Islamic terrorist. I do think Giuliani would be strong on national defense matters, but none of the voices in Pat Robertson's head originated from Mt Sinai. Now I guess he thinks G-d is pro-Choice acceptable in favor of national defense. By far this was the oddest arrangement of support that I've seen in awhile. Seeing the two together on the TV news yesterday reminded me of the odd couple.


I don't know enough about Paul Weyrich to comment, but Brownback's endorsement of McCain seems cohesive. I like Brownback more so than McCain, but I can live with it and I will take a stronger look now at McCain.


Bobby

Considering Giuliani is a social liberal which is anathma to him... I think that Robertson is dogpaddling as fast as he can in order to hold together his radical right wing constituency through fear of terrorists(Guililani is the 911 candidate), and, thus, his position as a power player.

He doesn't understand that the world has passed him by... the oil crisis is only going to get worse and worse, we are headed into a Recession, America has to change direction from the policies and errors of the Bush Administration, as a vast majority of Americans have stated in polls, and face the realities of resource wars, climate crisis, exploding federal deficit due to 7-8 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH expended in Iraq.

There is finally an understanding out there that America is in real trouble economically, and folks don't want to be distracted by right wing tactics that draw attention away from *REALITY*.

I don't think Robertson carries the clout he once use to, I don't think it will hurt Rudy though.

Here is a more reasoned and compelling endorsement from an evangelical leader / author.


Townhall.com::Why Evangelicals Should Support Mitt Romney::By Wayne Grudem (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WayneGrudem/2007/10/18/why_evangelicals_should_support_mitt_romney?page=f ull&comments=true)






Grace and peace

Robertson said Giuliani's national security credentials overrode differences over social issues.But I think social conservatives will jump on the Republican candidate's bandwagon who has the greatest chance of beating Evita. Politics is about coalition building and it appears to me that Rudy is doing the best job of it.

Yesterday's polling in Connecticut shows a hypothetical race between Rudy and Madame Defarge is a dead heat. This illustrates what Rudy has been saying;that he puts some blue states into play for the Republicans. Polling in the South also shows he is popular .

Before Jerry Falwell died he also indicated that he would support the strongest national security candidate even if that candidate did not pass the litmus test issues that are important to the evangelical community. He saw that as the greater national issue.

Byron York at National Review wrote :
At yesterday’s announcement, held at the National Press Club in Washington, Robertson said he chose to support Giuliani because the social issues with which he, Robertson, was mostly closely associated in the past are not the top issues facing Americans in the 2008 election. "To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorism," Robertson told reporters. The second-most important issue, Robertson said, is fiscal discipline. Only after that, he suggested, are the social issues, with the overriding priority being the makeup of the federal courts. "Uppermost in the mind of social conservatives is the selection of Supreme Court justices," Robertson said, and Giuliani "has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia."

Byron York on Rudy Giuliani & 2008 on National Review Online (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2VhZjY5NzUzMGQ3NGU2M2FkYTZjZmVmMDAyZTdlOTg=)

I think Rudy has adequately answered their concerns about the social issues. The appointing of judges is the biggest influence that a President can have on the hot button social issues . He has Ted Olsen as his judicial adviser and Olsen is a stand up guy who any social conservative should love. The thought of Hillary appointing judges should put chills down their spine. She will reverse over 30 years of the movement's influence. Almost every Democrat says that they are personally against abortion or want to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare” then they appoint judges that would permit partial birth abortions .

Tony Perken's threat of a 3rd party run will not happen .With Rudy in the White House evangelicals still have some influence... With Evita they have none. Robertson's endorsement is important . Although he no longer is the major player in the movement ,his endorsement still gives them cover to swallow their pride and cast their ballot for Rudy despite his flaws. They are not likely to coalesce around one candidate because there is no "perfect candidate " in the field. McCain got Brownback ,Richard Land and Tony Perkins are for Thompson, Bob Jones and Paul Weyrich back Romney, the FRC straw poll went for Huckabee and Don Wildmon endorsed Huckabee.

Tom, while I do believe Giuliani would be strong for our national defense, what credentials does Robertson think Giuliani has that nobody else can acquire or already has? I mean the guy was a lawyer that many moons ago busted the mob and add to that he was a politician in NYC at the time of 9/11. So? How does that make him more qualified or have more insight or pull in our national government? I've got to go to work, just curious. Have a good day.


Bobby

Considering Giuliani is a social liberal which is anathma to him... I think that Robertson is dogpaddling as fast as he can in order to hold together his radical right wing constituency through fear of terrorists(Guililani is the 911 candidate), and, thus, his position as a power player.

I'm sure Robertson will be dog paddling but I imagine it will be trying to stay afloat for endorsing a pro-choice candidate. Here's a little clue for you Choux - RickJ already made the point as I have in the past - most of us really don't care what Robertson does.


He doesn't understand that the world has passed him by... the oil crisis is only going to get worse and worse, we are headed into a Recession, America has to change direction from the policies and errors of the Bush Administration, as a vast majority of Americans have stated in polls, and face the realities of resource wars, climate crisis, exploding federal deficit due to 7-8 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH expended in Iraq.

There is finally an understanding out there that America is in real trouble economically, and folks don't want to be distracted by right wing tactics that draw attention away from *REALITY*.

Do you not see even the slightest bit of irony in complaining of Robertson's fear-mongering just prior to erupting with a good dose of your own?

Well I was surprised at Robertson endorsing Giuliani. Giuliani is pro-Choice and of course Robertson is pro-Life. Giuliani will still probably get his own support, but if anyone ever wondered about Robertson as being flaky, this should be the proof in the pudding. The guy claims he hears from G-d and that the reason he backs Giuliani is because he would be the strongest candidate against Islamic terrorist. I do think Giuliani would be strong on national defense matters, but none of the voices in Pat Robertson's head originated from Mt Sinai. Now I guess he thinks G-d is pro-Choice acceptable in favor of national defense. By far this was the oddest arrangement of support that I've seen in awhile. Seeing the two together on the TV news yesterday reminded me of the odd couple.


I don't know enough about Paul Weyrich to comment, but Brownback's endorsement of McCain seems cohesive. I like Brownback more so than McCain, but I can live with it and I will take a stronger look now at McCain.


Bobby

Weyrich is a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the Free Congress Foundation (http://www.freecongress.org/). He has just a little bit of pull. Robertson is still just flaky. :D

But I think social conservatives will jump on the Republican candidate's bandwagon who has the greatest chance of beating Evita. Politics is about coalition building and it appears to me that Rudy is doing the best job of it.

I think you hit the nail on the head - even our own Gov. Goodhair Perry jumped on the Rudy bandwagon fairly early.


Yesterday's polling in Connecticut shows a hypothetical race between Rudy and Madame Defarge is a dead heat. This illustrates what Rudy has been saying;that he puts some blue states into play for the Republicans. Polling in the South also shows he is popular .

Before Jerry Falwell died he also indicated that he would support the strongest national security candidate even if that candidate did not pass the litmus test issues that are important to the evangelical community. He saw that as the greater national issue.

That should be a revelation to critics of the Christian right - evangelicals are not quite the fascist, theocratic threat they're portrayed to be.


I think Rudy has adequately answered their concerns about the social issues. The appointing of judges is the biggest influence that a President can have on the hot button social issues . He has Ted Olsen as his judicial adviser and Olsen is a stand up guy who any social conservative should love. The thought of Hillary appointing judges should put chills down their spine. She will reverse over 30 years of the movement's influence. Almost every Democrat says that they are personally against abortion or want to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare” then they appoint judges that would permit partial birth abortions .

Tony Perken's threat of a 3rd party run will not happen .With Rudy in the White House evangelicals still have some influence... With Evita they have none. Robertson's endorsement is important . Although he no longer is the major player in the movement ,his endorsement still gives them cover to swallow their pride and cast their ballot for Rudy despite his flaws. They are not likely to coalesce around one candidate because there is no "perfect candidate " in the field. McCain got Brownback ,Richard Land and Tony Perkins are for Thompson, Bob Jones and Paul Weyrich back Romney, the FRC straw poll went for Huckabee and Don Wildmon endorsed Huckabee.

Again, excellent analysis. I do think Robertson's endorsement was important for the reasons you say. Dobson is apparently going to endorse Huckabee (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12292). Seems he doesn't like being irrelevant in this race. I like Huckabee, but I am not voting for someone that can't beat Evita.

Naturally, the Kossacks see hypocrisy and a Machiavellian conspiracy.


Religious right backing ALL liberal GOP nominees (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/8/04939/5395)
by Bill Prendergast
Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:49:39 PM PST

Actually, it's not a bad political strategy--if you're what evangelical Christians call a "moral relativist."

Why? Here's a theory:

You see, the complaint of the evangelical political movement (EPM) has been that they have no Republican horse in this presidential race. All the prospective candidates are waaay too liberal, none of them suck up to the EPM the way that George W. Bush always did.

Now, in the space of a week--that "no compromise with morality" objection is gone. All of the sudden--ALL these liberal GOP candidates are being endorsed by some prominent figure in the EPM. Pat Robertson came out for Rudy Giuliani. Evangelical favorite Sam Brownback endorsed McCain. Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III are endorsing Mitt Romney.

What do these evangelicals handing out endorsements this week have in common? Practically every one of them named in the excerpt that follows is thought to be a member of the Council for National Policy; the "brain trust" of the American evangelical political movement. The CNP roster includes the most influential members of the American religious right; it is the crossroads where the most powerful evangelical activists, televangelists, and "social conservatives" network with the Republican party and "secular" conservatives. Republican presidential hopefuls come on their knees to the CNP; the organization sent a shockwave through the various campaigns and the GOP when it announced that it would consider forming a third party rather than back "liberal" Rudy Giuliani as the nominee.

Like I said: all the GOP hopefuls come to the CNP to be anointed--Giuliani, Romney, Thompson--they all address them and hope to get their nod, because wisdom says the GOP can't win the White House without their backing and all the lovely millions of evangelical votes these guys can deliver via their media chains, the churches and GOTV drives.

So what are we to make of this? Before this week, they were announcing that they could anoint no one--this week they're anointing everybody (except poor Fred Thompson.)

The only explanation I can think of is Machiavellian; not a term usually associated with Christian faith. If they back all the horses in the race--one of them's got to end up as the nominee, right?

If they stuck to their "morality" pose and backed no one--they'd be shut out, once the nomination was decided.

So my guess is that what they are doing is splitting the endorsements between the various contenders--sending up them up as a series of trial balloons before their rank-and-file, and seeing which one of these candidates is least objectionable to the faithful. All the candidates have problems with this constituency--Giuliani's divorce and adultery history, Romney's Mormon faith (which evangelicals have been taught is a dangerous heresy), McCain's less-than-stellar reputation as a conservative. By sending forth different evangelical leaders to endorse them all, the EPM hopes to stay in the election game...

They know, and the GOP and the candidates know, that is well within the power of the EPM to doom a GOP candidacy to failure a year in advance. But doing that now, this early in the process, would cost the leaders of the EPM power and influence. And these particular "evangelicals" cannot face that--because for them, this has never been about Christ or Christian values. Their particular "Christianity" is all about money, political power, and directing America. If they lose access to the ultimate GOP nominee, they jeopardize that--and that is far more important to them than some "principled stand against abortion."


LOL, I can't help but laugh at these people. Everything is a conspiracy and they see a bogeyman at every turn. Being of the tin-foil brigade must be a miserable existence.

Bobby,

The radical right/Republican power structure is TOTALLY against McCain as a candidate for President because, as they say, he is a loose gun, a man who doesn't go along in lockstep with what they represent. They call him a maverick.

:) Choux

Funny you mention "lock step"

Isn't that what happened in 04 when the Dems went with Kerry after Dean's scream? :rolleyes:

Tom, while I do believe Giuliani would be strong for our national defense, what credentials does Robertson thinks Giuliani has that nobody else can acquire or already has? I mean the guy was a lawyer that many moons ago busted the mob and add to that he was a politician in NYC at the time of 9/11. So? How does that make him more qualified or have more insight or pull in our national government? I've got to go to work, just curious. Have a good day.


Obviously all I can do is take Roberston's word for it that he considers ERudy the most qualified. You forgot some important points of Rudy's resume. He was Associate Attorney General ,the third highest ranking member of the Reagan justice Dept. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised the U.S. Attorney Offices' federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service.
He was a Federal Prosecutor. You make it sound trivial that he busted the heads of the 5 Mafia families.He also busted some big time Wall Street characters like Ivan Boesky and Michel Milkin.

He did some really great things for NYC long before 9-11. Crime and taxes were the big issues in NYC when he took over and he was stellar at both issues.

I will get into more later . George Will has said Rudy ran "the most successful episode of conservative governance in this country in the last 50 years."
. That is a strong endorsement

Bobby,

The radical right/Republican power structure is TOTALLY against McCain as a candidate for President because, as they say, he is a loose gun, a man who doesn't go along in lockstep with what they represent. They call him a maverick.

Choux, McCain got the "maverick" label from the media (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/09/AR2006040901291.html) for daring to criticize his own GOP, folks like Falwell and yes, going against the grain on tax cuts and campaign finance reform - and we see how well that 'reform' has worked. But I tell you what, I'd take McCain any day over whichever Democrat they put up.

Continued from post #14

Running the city of NY is a lot different than running most other cities in the country . It has a budget and a bureaucracy that rivals many nations. The fact that the UN is there and it has been dubbed the world's capital gives it's mayor unique international experience. As mayor Rudy boldly had Yasser Arafat ejected from the city because he was a terrorist. He also got notoriety by refusing the contribution of a Saudi prince after the prince implied that the US should change it's policies in the ME to avoid another 9-11 attack.

Here is a Foreign Policy essay Rudy penned for Foreign Policy Magazine recently (Sept. ) About.com: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html (http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usforeignpolicy&cdn=newsissues&tm=447&gps=265_610_1020_571&f=00&tt=11&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html)

It is a worthwhile read (Foreign Policy has also published essays by Obama, Romney ,Clinton ,MCCain and Edwards in recent editions )

Does Robertson have any additional insight that the rest of us doesn't have ? I doubt it . But Rudy impressed him enough for him to make his endorsement. Can Rudy claim greater Foreign policy experience than McCain ? No ;but can McCain tout any executive or law enforcement experience ?

Besides ;I am very happy with Rudy's foreign policy team. JoinRudy2008 :: Rudy Giuliani Announces Foreign Policy Team Members (http://www.joinrudy2008.com/news/pr/416)

The Republican Corporate power brokers are AGAINST MCCAIN getting the nomination because he doesn't march in lockstep with their overt and hidden agendas... see Tex backing up my assessment... as Bush agreed to do in order to gain the Presidency... Bush had a lot of political debts to pay off which benefitted Corporations, rich people... oh, and the Iraq War with its mercenary Corporations(Halliburton) profiting by the Billions of Dollars... ENDLESS WAR---ENDLESS DEFFICITS---ENDLESS PROFITS FOR MERCENARIES(HALLIBURTON).

He was Associate Attorney General ,the third highest ranking member of the Reagan justice Dept. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised the U.S. Attorney Offices' federal law enforcement agencies, the Department of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Marshals Service.
He was a Federal Prosecutor. You make it sound trivial that he busted the heads of the 5 Mafia families.He also busted some big time Wall Street characters like Ivan Boesky and Michel Milkin.




Tom- I re-read my post and I can see how it came off sounding trivial. I'm saying he is a good lawyer and perhaps capable of being more taking on larger responsibilities. I do think for the most part lawyers have made decent politicians. Understand I'm not suggesting he couldn't be a productive president, but that's more than just prosecuting cases in a court of law. I'm an ex-Marine, my father was in politics, and even one time in law enforcement. I also worked as a clerk for a law firm about seventeen years ago. Six months ago at my current line of work (credit in the finance department for approx ten years), I was involved in busting a fraud ring that had already hit several places in Vegas and most recently, a week ago, saved the corporation 49k by exposing another fraud attempt. See my point is that even though obviously my resume' would be nothing compared to Giuliani accomplishments, I could build a case on Robertson's assumptions. My point to Choux was that if Robertson wanted to back somebody that's gritty, sure-fire strong on national defense, and willing to get his fingernails dirty, then back the Vietnam vet McCain. Of course, as the election unfolds the subject of candidates Giuliani or McCain may be a moot point. Although I did read somewhere of the possibility that Giuliani might run as an independent if he doesn't get the Republican nomination.



Bobby

I personally don't care who endorses who, I'm going to vote for MY choice, so do any of these endorsements matter?
I think that is how most people feel except for the *religiously zealous* Bushbots or the overly fanatic liberals.

Bobby
Presidents who were lawyers :John Adams ,Thomas Jefferson ,James Madison ,James Monroe, John Quincy Adams ,Andrew Jackson , Martin Van Buren,John Tyler ,James Polk,Millard Filmore ,Franklin Pierce,James Buchanan ,Abraham Lincoln, Rutherford Hayes ,Chester Arthur, Grover Cleveland,Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley,William Taft,Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolige, FRD, Richard Nixon ,Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton .
List of United States Presidents by previous occupation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_previous_occup ation)

I'd say there are great ,mediocre ,and bad Presidents in the list . So I don't think there is a connection between being a good President ,and their previous occupations .

Rudy ran a city that has a budget and bureaucracy larger than many small states . That makes him as qualified to be President as ;say a Governor from Arkansas.Now keep in mind ;Rudy ran an effective administration despite dealing with a NY City Council that was to the left of Vladimir Lenin ;and his hometown newspaper the NY Slimes. That shows that he can effectively lead in a divided government (and I see nothing that suggests the Republicans will regain the majority in Congress).

As to your question about McCain ; polling numbers already suggest that Republicans think Rudy has more leadership ability .The latest poll out of Florida ,which GOP officials tout as the most representative of the country as a whole may be following national trends : Rudy 36%, Romney 19%, McCain 12%, Huckabee 9% and Thompson 8%. Romney is the only candidate who challenges Rudy in some primary states. I'm watching Huckabee in some of the early primary contests also. But increased support for him appears to come for eroding support for Romney. Thompson is rapidly losing steam ,aparently from lack of interest.

People believe in their own best interest; which candidate they believe will best achieve their goals they will vote for. Given that that is the case I don't believe that any 'Block' votes as a Block, and therefore Pat Robertson's and the other endorsement will be meaningless when the vote is cast.

I like Huckabee, but I am not voting for someone that can't beat Evita.
Elections are about more than winning. Goldwater didn't win in '64 but his candidacy planted the seeds of the Reagan revolution. If we don't vote for the candidate who best represents our views, values and priorities we are no more honest than the politicians who pander to us.

What God told Pat (http://cartoonbox.slate.com/tonyauth/)

Close enough (http://cartoonbox.slate.com/tomtoles/)

Tom-

I do think Giuliani stands a better chance of getting the Republican nomination, but my point in the post was based on Robertson's assumptions, his reasoning. Currently I don't think I'll be supporting either Giuliani or McCain. Loosely tied into the subject I'll mention that last presidential election I actually thought Edwards, a Democrat, came off looking stronger than his senior pal on the ticket, Kerry. Edwards though was scrutinized for many things, one of those things that the Republicans hit upon was the he was a trail lawyer. I agree we have a lengthy history of presidents with law school educations, some better than others. Personally my favorite of the professions that has later produced politicians would be medical field backgrounds, military personnel, lawyers, and financial, in that order. Of course, a good college education and experience in multiple fields would make for a well rounded candidate.

Bobby

Update

National Right to Life is going to endorse Fred Thompson. This despite the fact that Thompson will not get behind a 'Right to Life Amendment' to the Constitution (on vague grounds of federalism ) ,and his rather muddled answers that he gave to Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago on social issues.Clearly there are candidates that represent their views better like Huckabee , and Hunter .But it appears they have backed a candidate who they think can win over one that best represents their single issue.

Update :

RedState blog has some interesting insight into the NRTL move :


Thompson apparently made the case that candidates saying they'd appoint originalist judges was not enough. Thompson said the President needed to make sure key executive appointments who could affect abortion policy did, in fact, embrace and believe in the culture of life (I'm told he listed several departments by name). Having said that for a good while, I'm glad to see a candidate make the case. Contrast that with Rudy who says he'd pick the most qualified people. Fred apparently indicated that key Executive Branch appointments need to be pro-life.

I'm also told that Thompson brought up Planned Parenthood's funding under Title X and said, in effect, he would cut it off.

What about Fred's controversial statement on the Human Life Amendment on Meet the Press? I'm told by multiple sources that Fred explicitly said he supported the party platform and would not get rid of that plank, but pointed out that even when the GOP controlled both houses of Congress and the White House there were not enough votes to pass the HLA and he'd rather spend his four years working to end abortion through means that would be successful, e.g. originalist judicial appointments and pro-life executive appointments and policies.

What you should know about Fred's NRLC endorsement (with highlights!!) | Redstate (http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/what_you_should_know_about_freds_nrlc_endorsement_ with_highlights)

His comments about the pro life amendment are still vague. All they are asking is that he put his name behind it. No one is asking him to use political capital to make it happen . He mumbles federalism as if that would or should preclude him from taking a position on the issue . That is a dodge.

update

National Right to Life is going to endorse Fred Thompson. This despite the fact that Thompson will not get behind a 'Right to Life Amendment' to the Constitution (on vague grounds of federalism ) ,and his rather muddled answers that he gave to Tim Russert a couple of weeks ago on social issues.Clearly there are candidates that represent their views better like Huckabee , and Hunter .But it appears they have backed a candidate who they think can win over one that best represents their single issue.

update :

RedState blog has some interesting insight into the NRTL move :

What you should know about Fred's NRLC endorsement (with highlights!!) | Redstate (http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/what_you_should_know_about_freds_nrlc_endorsement_ with_highlights)

his comments about the pro life amendment are still vague. All they are asking is that he put his name behind it. No one is asking him to use political capital to make it happen . He mumbles federalism as if that would or should preclude him from taking a position on the issue . That is a dodge.
The abortion "litmus test" is over; the war and taxes is the new test in both parties. This is quite a shift to the left for the far right. Giuliani, Clinton, and Thompson recognize this…just watch their strategy.

The abortion "litmus test" is over Perhaps as a single issue it is ;or perhaps the threats to life by jihadi terrorists are of an equal concern as the threat to life by the genocidal murder of the unborn. I on the other hand think that the reason that the social conservatives are not rallying behind a single candidate is that there is not one who both represents their collective interests and is still viable in a national election against Evita .

In short ; despite the appearance of a fractured party ;the bottom line is that there is a unifying banner to rally behind... the need to beat Hillary .

The abortion "litmus test" is over; the war and taxes is the new test in both parties. This is quite a shift to the left for the far right. Giuliani, Clinton, and Thompson recognize this…just watch their strategy.

I don't think it's quite a shift at all, I see it as a matter of circumstances. The abortion battle will still be fought in the trenches regardless of who is president. The litmus test is going to be who can beat Hillary.