Christian Conservatives Consider Third Party
Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.
Well, I can’t say I’m entirely saddened by this move. Maybe it will expose the folly of Christians pursuing governmental evangelism. The thing that does sadden me a little is the fact that this third-party candidate will likely guarantee a Democratic president for the next four years.
I promise I’ll get to the blog-series soon. It’s been a crazy couple of days!

(link h/t: Hayley)
Leave a comment
Online reports have Daniel Imperato being the Candidate that they want to support
Josh Johnston
Monday, October 1, 2007
Wow. Are you serious? Where did you read that?
Todd
Monday, October 1, 2007
I think its freakin fantastic
Kolby
Monday, October 1, 2007
Remember Ross Perot? Got Mr. Bill Clinton elected.
Sam's Dad
Monday, October 1, 2007
Christians can’t even get those who voluntarily align with Christ to follow Christ, what makes them think they can legislate it from others?
Darin
Monday, October 1, 2007
“A revolt of Christian conservative leaders could be a significant setback to the Giuliani campaign because white evangelical Protestants make up a major portion of Republican primary voters. But the threat is risky for the credibility of the Christian conservative movement as well.”
1. This assumes that most white evavgelical Protestants will follow Dobson’s lead. Not THIS white evangelical Protestant! And I’m sure there are plenty more like me.
2. The second point about risking the credibility of the Christian conservative movement is valid. It angers me that as a Christian, I often get put in the same box as Dobson. Many people don’t distingish between the “Christian conservative movement” and simply Christian. My credibility as a Christian is at stake here too.
3. I’ve never agreed with EVERYTHING that any president stands for … and I doubt anyone has. In essence what they are saying is that they’d rather elect someone who compromises on many issues just to make their point about one issue. Very mature.
Becky
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
I say give the dems a chance at running the country. If I had an employee whose job was to “run a country” & they ran it as it has been done the last 8 years. I just can’t say that I’d feel real good about “extending their contract” for another four years. I’m not saying that it has been as terrible as the libs make it out to be, but it hasn’t been terrific either. I say let’s give a new party a chance & see how they handle it.
Sam
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Todd,
I want to thank you for the information.
I hadn’t heard this yet.
I still think it is early to tell what is going to happen in 08′ but we need to be fasting and praying that we pick the right person to lead our nation in the way God desires.
preacherman
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Todd I am grateful for your dropping by my blog and commenting. I read you on a regular basis but I suppose I should drop a line every now and then too.
Shalom,
Bobby Valentine
Bobby Valentine
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
I wondered what would happen when the lead candidate was “pro” the things that the conservatives were not. thanks for updating us.
Ryan English
Saturday, October 6, 2007
This is just asinine. Eight years ago I was registered republican, and now I an independent and willing to give the Dems a chance at running the country. The policies and agendas sent from the White house in the last eight years haven’t reflected Christian values. The more I think about the more I believe both sides are crooked. Thank God that we are saved through Christ and not our Government.
Tim
Monday, October 8, 2007
governmental evangelism…love that term. Government is about compromise…Christ is not. How could you ever blend the two?
Great blog…I’ll drop a link.
Vince
Tuesday, October 16, 2007