So Abortion Doesn’t Matter to the Religious Right Anymore?

In 2004, it was common to hear that people who voted for Bush were doing so “because of the abortion issue” (especially in Utah). Never mind anything else, that was the issue. After all, how CAN you vote for someone who kills babies? Now the Christian Coalition is backing Giuliani? What’s up with that? Where have your principles gone? I have to concede, however, that Pat Robertson does not necessarily represent all republican Christians. Apparently not all of them appreciate Robertson’s endorsement:

From the Times:
“It was the latest manifestation of the deep divide in the Christian conservative movement over how to balance politics and principle in the coming era after President Bush, who once so deftly brought it all together. Many former Christian conservative allies dismissed the endorsement as an inexplicable stunt. They noted that Mr. Robertson, 77, had lost much of his influence since the heady days of his second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses 20 years ago when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination. “What support he has left,” said Connie Mackey, a vice president of the public policy arm of the evangelical Family Research Council, “is obviously going to be eroded by this very strange endorsement.”

Robertson once claimed that America was not protected from 9/11 because of the acceptance of gays and abortion rights. Now he is saying that national defense is more important than gay marriage and abortion. I’m totally confused here…

Right now it looks like Giuliani and Clinton. I want to vote for Clinton because she would be the first female president. That would be absolutely historic. But I probably won’t because I’m sick of the royal families running the country. So that leaves me voting for the same candidate as Robertson? Is Nader running again?

Advertisements

About shenpa warrior

"Patience is not learned in safety." View all posts by shenpa warrior

15 responses to “So Abortion Doesn’t Matter to the Religious Right Anymore?

  • Salt H2O

    You’re going to give your vote to Hilary because it would be ‘historic’- that has got to be the absolute worst reason YET to vote for Ms.Rodham.

    Forget her flawed policies, forget her voting history, forget being able to form an opinion one way or another on any topic, she’s a woman and it would be ‘historic’ and the disaster she’ll leave in her wake, that’ll be ‘historic’ too.

  • Allie

    Why would she automatically leave a “historic” disaster. I agree, that voting for her simply because she is a woman is akin to voting for Mitt simply because he is a mormon.

  • adam

    First of all I did not say I was going to vote for Clinton–quite the opposite–in fact. I think you jumped on that because her very name is emotional. Secondly, I think we all need to stop using sexist language by referring to her as “Hillary” or “Ms. Rodham”. I have to admit that I used to call her “Hillary”. How lame is that? I was about to say we don’t call the male candidates by their first names, but then allie disproved that just now. : ) So, I guess my point is moot. Dang. Thanks a lot allie. : )

    I am intrigued by the emotional charge people feel about Clinton though… I’m still new to political topics, but when I ask people about Clinton I want information not affect-laden one-liners.

    Finally, how (in your opinion) would Clinton be a bigger “disaster” than Bush?

    Thanks for your comment!

  • adam

    OK I just read my post again. In the last paragraph I should have put “want” in italics.

    Just to be clear — currently my favorites are Obama (I have a ton of respect for how he actually THINKS about things before opening his mouth), and Romney (not because of his religion–and I don’t agree with his flip-flopping on issues, but I think his managerial skills excede any of the candidates, and that is a VERY important job-probably the most important job a president has IMHO). Obama probably has the edge in my book as he wants to get us out of the MESS in Iraq more than anyone else I think.

  • adam

    Allie–being a woman and being a mormon are the same thing politically? I disagree. Women have been so mistreated (and still are) because of their gender. I disagree that there has been ANYTHING comparable with mormons.

    salt h2o-one more thing–sorry : )–do you really not know anyone who is voting for Clinton? I guess living in Utah that would be the case so I can’t hold it against you… Also, I am proud that I have laid down the “absolute worst reason YET” to vote for Clinton. You really think that is the worst reason?

    In 2004 a fellow student told me he had to vote for Bush because he (the student) was an economics major, and a “fiscal conservative”. Wow. That turned out to be a mess. At least with Clinton she would be the first female president. How would that NOT help women? Half of our population? Do you like being ruled over only by white men? I really don’t think it’s the “worst” reason, because it would have a huge impact for women. And allie–Mitt winning may have an impact for some mormons, but it IS NOT the same to me. Mormons don’t need more equality. Women do.

  • Anonymous

    The absolute best reason to vote for Clinton is because she will bring with her a similar cadre of folks that President Clinton had when he was president.

    Compared to all the Republican and pseudo-Republican/Libertarian options on the table right now, I am fine with having another Clinton Era respite.

    q

  • Allie

    I don’t think being a mormon and being a woman are the same thing politically.

    I think that it is the same thing to base your vote on something outside of a candidates platform (like religion, gender, etc…).

    One thing that Hillary Clinton (is that better adam?) has going for her in my mind, is just what q mentioned.

    (and nice use of smiley’s adam)

  • adam

    I see your point but I still don’t think voting for someone because of their gender (in this case) is the same as voting for someone because of their religion.

    We all choose reasons why we want to vote for a particular candidate, but I don’t have a lot of faith that it makes much of a difference, unless it is something huge that the president has some significant control over, like the war, which is (one reason) why I like Obama.

    So, I think if one votes for Clinton because she is female, it is a worthy cause because of the significant gender issues in our country. I believe her gender alone as president would have a significant positive impact on the country. That is different than Romney’s religion. Her gender alon may have more impact than any “wake” she leaves behind–positive, negative, or otherwise.

    And salt h2o: considering the “favorite books” on your profile, you did not seem to be trying very hard to “Win friends and influence people”. : ) Just wondering…

  • Allie

    I can see your point Adam.

    I would imagine there would be a lot of other reasons you would choose to vote for Hillary.

    If it comes down to Gulianni and Hillary (or Mitt and Hillary), I’m voting for Hillary.

    (I’ve become a one-issue-voter)

  • Anonymous

    If one were so inclined to decide to vote for a candidate based only on either hir religion or due to hir gender, it seems to me that the former makes more sense than the latter.

    There seems to be a more unifying political philosophy between two individuals of the same religion than there is between two folks of the same gender.

    I think that if you have faith in a particular church, then a respected member of the church will have a significantly greater impact on making the nation how you want it to be than having a woman in the office for the sake of having a woman in the office.

    Why would you not want a Good Mormon in the office if he can make the nation better by making decisions using Good Mormon philosophies?

    q

  • Adam

    “Good Mormon” philosophies, I’ve found, are not readily agreed upon, nor easily applied to the political arena. In fact, my “mormon philosophy” is that they shouldn’t be. So maybe yir logic there applies to Evangelicals, but not necessarily to me.

  • Emily

    I think there should be a Scrabble tournament of all the candidates. That would be cool.

  • Steve

    For one, I DO refer to ALL the candidates by their first name. It makes for fun conversation at my house. Besides, they are on my tv and in my living room 24/7, so they are kind of like family, haha.

    Voting for anyone; male, female, mormon, jewish, catholic, pro-life, pro-choice, etc. is a very bad way to exercise your civic duty. It is b/c of this ‘logic’ that Bush won the White House twice.

    The whole idea of democracy is that you vote for the candidate that will do the best for you and/or society. One topic, no matter how ‘important’, isn’t going to make or break any candidate.

    And Adam, if you really want to vote for the most qualified manager or executive, then you should vote for Bill Richardson. He has way more political clout than Mittens. And running a business (or city) isn’t nearly the same as running the country.

  • adam

    I’ll have to look more at Richardson. I confess I really don’t know much about him, unfortunately. Still time I guess!

    “vote for the candidate that will do the best for you and/or society.”

    I can’t say I disagree with that, but I also don’t have much faith in it. How do I really know what is the best for me politically, and if the candidate I vote for will really do it? Right now the issues for me have narrowed quite a bit, actually…pretty much down to war and healthcare (I suppose that cuts “Mittens” as you say, out of half of it, although he does want healthcare reform).

    When we get down to the final race between two presidential candidates, it usually comes down to a few major issues. As in, in 2004, I didn’t vote for Bush because I felt lied to (and disagreed with in the first place) about Iraq.

    But for those who can way all of the issues a candidate puts forth and then actually expect said candidate to follow through, more power to you.

  • adam

    Giuliani apparently said recently that he would appoint “conservative judges” which implies that they would not try to overturn Roe v. Wade… So he’s not ‘pro-choice’ anymore? People accused Kerry (and now Romney) of ‘flip-flopping,’ but I think it is pretty much unavoidable in politics these days.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that little good comes from the few people who don’t seem to change their minds. Bush or Rumsfeld, anyone?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: