# How will you vote in 2008?



## reformedcop (Jan 3, 2007)

If these are your choices .... Mitt Romney or Hilary Clinton?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 3, 2007)

reformedcop said:


> If these are your choices .... Mitt Romney or Hilary Clinton?



Someone else.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 3, 2007)

I'll vote for Ron Paul!!


----------



## Devin (Jan 3, 2007)

I'd rather have Romney, but I don't think I'd bother voting if only those two options were given.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jan 3, 2007)

Rudolph Giuliani


----------



## Ivan (Jan 4, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Someone else.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jan 4, 2007)

I know nothing about Mitt Romney...is there something big I should know?


----------



## Blue Tick (Jan 4, 2007)

houseparent said:


> I know nothing about Mitt Romney...is there something big I should know?



Well, for one he's Mormon and apparently on the abortion issue he's a flipper. One time for it, one time against it. Currently, he does not support abortion.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 4, 2007)

reformedcop said:


> If these are your choices .... Mitt Romney or Hilary Clinton?



Tanned, rested, and ready - Millard Fillmore in 2008!


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jan 4, 2007)

Someone else or not at all. Most likely it will be the latter.


----------



## providenceboard (Jan 4, 2007)

reformedcop said:


> If these are your choices .... Mitt Romney or Hilary Clinton?



Somebody Else


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 4, 2007)

I think I'll just stay home.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 4, 2007)

"Of two evils, choose neither." - Charles Spurgeon


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Jan 4, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> "Of two evils, choose neither." - Charles Spurgeon


----------



## blhowes (Jan 4, 2007)

Like many politicians, Romney is personally against abortion. Maybe he'll push the pro-life agenda for the country the way he has here in Massachusetts.

From an "Elect Romney in 2008" blog (http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/)
Here is some background. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a “flip flop” implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again.

(He's for state's rights. That'll give some in the south a warn-cozy feeling (?))

From the http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm website:
Now firmly pro-life, despite 2002 tolerance for abortion. (Dec 2006) 
Opposes Roe v Wade, but won't tamper with abortion laws. (Dec 2006) 
Anti-abortion views have "evolved & deepened" while governor. (Jul 2005) 
Vetoed emergency contraception for rape victims. (Jul 2005) 
Vetoed stem cell research bill. (May 2005) 
Endorsed legalization of RU-486. (Mar 2002) 
Personally against abortion, but pro-choice as governor. (Mar 2002) 
For safe, legal abortion since relative's death from illegal. (Oct 1994)


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 4, 2007)

Unless a true Born Again Christian were running,I will not vote.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jan 4, 2007)

what issue besides 'abortion' does he support that we as christians can agree with? Why does abortion seem to be the only reason we are supposed to vote for someone ignoring the total package ie bush...


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 4, 2007)

Bladestunner316 said:


> what issue besides 'abortion' does he support that we as christians can agree with? Why does abortion seem to be the only reason we are supposed to vote for someone ignoring the total package ie bush...



Just because somebody is against abortion doesn`t mean they are gonna do anything about it.


----------



## reformedcop (Jan 4, 2007)

I'll have to see how it plays out on this one, but I tend to agreee with Spurgeon on this one.

This guy gives some detail Romney's "policy changes"

http://www.observer.com/20061211/20061211_Steve_Kornacki_opinions_wiseguys.asp


----------



## blhowes (Jan 4, 2007)

Bladestunner316 said:


> Why does abortion seem to be the only reason we are supposed to vote for someone ignoring the total package ie bush...


As issues go, abortion is right up near the top of the list for me when considering a candidate. I may be wrong, but I think of it this way. A person who's pro-life, whose track record reveals more than just lip service, gives me reason to consider the total package. A person who's pro-choice, gives me reason not to consider the total package.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 4, 2007)

toddpedlar said:


> Someone else.



I will likely do the same. 

Romney has been far less conservative than John McCain on social issues. He is said to be a very impressive debater and people just assume b/c he is Mormon that he is a social conservative, but he is not. However he's trying to flip flop in time for the election. I predict he will not get the nomination and won't even come close. Looks like Rudy vs. McCain now. Who else will be able to raise the $$ needed? Ironically Mr. campaign finance reform (McCain) will apparently forego the spending limits to receive matching funds so he will be able to spend as much as is necessary.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 4, 2007)

This should be moved to the politics forum.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 4, 2007)

blhowes said:


> As issues go, abortion is right up near the top of the list for me when considering a candidate. I may be wrong, but I think of it this way. A person who's pro-life, whose track record reveals more than just lip service, gives me reason to consider the total package. A person who's pro-choice, gives me reason not to consider the total package.



The cynic in me tends to think that the Republicans (with some exceptions of course) don't want the abortion issue to go away because it's an effective wedge issue to get out the vote. What has really been accomplished in the past 33 years of electing "pro-life" Republican candidates? Not much, in my opinion. Not even a ban on partial birth abortion. The USA still has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jan 4, 2007)

Bladestunner316 said:


> I'll vote for Ron Paul!!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Jan 4, 2007)

*This from a third party candidate:*

Prostitutes In The Pulpit 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Chuck Baldwin 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Covenant News ~ January 04, 2007 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ted Haggard debacle is certainly a blight upon the cause of Christ. Unfortunately, it was not the first such embarrassment the Body of Christ has been forced to endure. Neither will it be the last. When it comes to sexual improprieties, there is no shortage of human frailty.

However, discernment and discretion teach us that not all sins are created equal. For example, one would be foolish indeed to compare King David to the sons of Eli. The character assassins in the media (and in some "Christian" periodicals) will never admit it, but we must acknowledge the difference between a good man "overtaken in a fault" and the discovery of a spiritual imposter.

We must also acknowledge the fact that even someone of the caliber of King David must suffer the consequences of adultery. It is a sad commentary on the spirituality of modern churches to see how many adulterers are allowed to remain in positions of leadership. The cover-up of adulterers, homosexuals, and even child molesters seems pervasive. In this regard, many ministers are no better than medical doctors in not being willing to demand personal accountability among their peers. This is a phenomenon that will certainly continue to bring additional embarrassment and consternation to the work of God.

That being said, it needs to be pointed out that sexual sin is not the primary problem in most churches today. There is another pandemic that is quickly destroying the modern church in America. Furthermore, this scourge is infinitely greater in destructive power than any of the sexual sins that the modern Pharisees seem to be consumed with.

The cancer that is eating the heart and soul out of the American church is the willingness of pastors and ministers to be bought, intimidated, or influenced by the purveyors of wealth and power. Too many pulpits have become little more than spiritual brothels where men are paid to provide pleasure for the rich and powerful. In the words of the Apostle Paul, they are "teachers, having itching ears."

Throughout America, pastors cater their sermons and writings to wealthy businessmen, politicians, celebrities, or other people of influence. Turn on the average "gospel" radio or television program. What do you hear? Prosperity theology. Entertainment evangelism. Positive Mental Attitude speeches.

In addition, most conservative Christian ministers would never dare challenge President George W. Bush or hardly any other prominent Republican, for that matter. Regardless of how unconstitutional or even unbiblical his policies and decisions might be, they refuse to address them. They either keep quiet or publicly support these fallacious decisions. What can such conduct be if it is not a deliberate attempt to grovel before power, to prostitute our message for the pleasure of men?

It seems that with far too many of today's pastors, the supreme desire is to be successful, to be popular, to be comfortable. Or worse, to accumulate money and wealth. We are looking for lavish lifestyles, opulent opportunities, or personal praise. And our preaching reflects it.

When is the last time you heard a sermon on hell or judgment? When is the last time you heard a preacher call sin by its first name? Most notable mega-churches proudly say that they never use the word "sinner." Lost, unredeemed souls are now called "pre-Christian" people. Words such as "repentance" have been removed from the vocabulary of the average pulpit in America today.

Yet, without sin and judgment, there is no grace and forgiveness. Without hell, there is no heaven. No repentance, no faith. No wrath, no mercy. No cross, no crown. No conviction, no Holy Spirit. No serpent, no Paradise. No transgression, no Gospel.

No, it is not physical adultery that is destroying our churches. The vast majority of America's pastors and ministers are moral men who are true to their wives and families. The problem is spiritual whoredom. Preachers need to renounce their friendship with the world (called spiritual fornication in Scripture), which includes the world's political and business leaders, and renew their vows to the God of the Bible. This, more than anything else, would bring true restitution and redemption to our nation.


Chuck Baldwin
[email protected]
Chuck Baldwin Live
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 4, 2007)

blhowes said:


> Like many politicians, Romney is personally against abortion. Maybe he'll push the pro-life agenda for the country the way he has here in Massachusetts.
> 
> From an "Elect Romney in 2008" blog (http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/)
> Here is some background. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a “flip flop” implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again.
> ...



The personally against abortion but pro-choice because it is existing law and it is the people's view approach was made famous by former N.Y. Gov. Mario Cuomo. 

I wonder if Romney would be flip flopping if it wasn't practically necessary to be seen as pro-life to get the GOP nomination?


----------



## Bandguy (Jan 4, 2007)

reformedcop said:


> If these are your choices .... Mitt Romney or Hilary Clinton?



Don't know enough about Mitt yet to say.


----------



## Ivan (Jan 4, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> "Of two evils, choose neither." - Charles Spurgeon


----------



## Swampguy (Jan 4, 2007)

in my opinion there are two kinds of politians, wolves and wolves in sheeps clothing. I like my wolves without disguise.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 4, 2007)

ChristopherPaul said:


>



Of course, the problem with staying home on election day is that, if enough people do that, you'd probably throw the election to the worse of the two bad choices.

That said, I'd never vote for McCain. Anyone who openly despises the free speech provisions of the First Amendent as much as he does doesn't deserve to be in Congress, much less the White House.

(Question: how much longer until the PC police decide it's racist to call it the "White" House?)


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Jan 4, 2007)

I too must agree with Spurgeon on this one.

Neither.....


----------



## blhowes (Jan 5, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> The cynic in me tends to think that the Republicans (with some exceptions of course) don't want the abortion issue to go away because it's an effective wedge issue to get out the vote.


The one-upon-a-time-youthful-idealism in me tends to hope there are some Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) running for office that actually want to change the abortion laws of the land.



Pilgrim said:


> What has really been accomplished in the past 33 years of electing "pro-life" Republican candidates? Not much, in my opinion. Not even a ban on partial birth abortion.


Nothing, in my opinion. I usually enjoy the debates, etc., and all that leads up to the election of the president of the US, but I'm really not looking forward to it this time. Who will be the first to say, "Personally, I'm against abortion, but..." or who will we see carrying their Bible under their arm as they're leaving church?

I'm seriously considering voting for a 3rd party candidate that really wants to change the abortion laws. I doubt one could be elected, but I'd love to admit someday that I had wasted my vote on a non-electable 3rd party candidate, and that the republican/democratic that was elected actually did something to change the laws of the land.


----------

