Behind the Scenes, Christian Right Leaders Rally Behind Rick Perry

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Behind the Scenes, Christian Right Leaders Rally Behind Rick Perry
111
Tue, 07-05-2011 - 10:50am

I was wondering if there was still an active "Christian Right" they've been so quiet of late.

Does Perry stand a chance in hell of being nominated by the GOP?

http://swampland.time.com/2011/07/05/behind-the-scenes-christian-right-leaders-rally-behind-rick-perry/

In early June, TIME has learned, a group of prominent figures on the Christian Right held a conference call to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current GOP presidential field, and agreed that Rick Perry would be their preferred candidate if he entered the race. Among those on the call were Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; David Barton, the Texas activist and go-to historian for the Christian Right; and John Hagee, the controversial San Antonio pastor whose endorsement John McCain rejected in 2008.

Religious conservatives have often played a substantial role in choosing past Republican nominees, but leaders on the Christian Right have been conspicuously quiet so far in this campaign season. Privately, however, they are enthusiastic about Perry and are encouraging the Texas governor to throw his ten-gallon hat into the ring.

Perry’s favor with the Christian Right is relatively new, and he is their candidate of choice as much by default as anything. Many leaders had hoped that Mike Huckabee would make a second run for the nomination and give them a fellow religious conservative (and a Southerner) to support. When Huckabee chose to sit out the race and Haley Barbour stepped aside as well, some Christian Right bigwigs considered throwing their support behind Newt Gingrich.

The former Speaker has made religious freedom for Christians his signature issue over the past few years. And more importantly, Gingrich needs religious conservatives more than they need him — he might feel indebted to that constituency if he won, the thinking went.

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
I can't argue opinion. You will see it how you choose to.
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
What a bozo, comparing women seeking a legal medical procedure with criminals.

http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110707/NEWS01/107070327

""Women deserve to know their legal rights and the protections already afforded to them under the law," he said. "We are confident that the more they know, the more they'll choose life and alternatives to abortion."

Jindal said he couldn't understand why anyone would be opposed to such a law considering even criminals receive the same privilege.

"When officers arrest criminals today, they are read their rights," he said. "Now if we're giving criminals their basic rights and they have to be informed of those rights, it seems to me only common sense we would have to do the same thing for women before they make the choice about whether to get an abortion."
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002

I agree that people "should" educate themselves, however I don't agree they should be denied treatment if they choose NOT to, or be REQUIRED by law,



iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
I'm confused, are you saying that there are some arbitrary people out there that have said they want to see women humiliated when they seek an abortion, or are you saying that the purpose of lawmakers that have written and/or passed legislation requiring an ultrasound pre-abortion have pursued it with the intent of humiliating woman seeking an abortion. I have been under the impression that it was the latter since we've been discussing actual laws and legislation. You are now talking about the motive to change the woman's mind. I've been saying that from the get go. Was there any focus to this debate? Or was it just an exercise in attempting to demonize the right? These are all honest questions, no sarcasm intended, no snarkiness, no condescension, or any other negative tone that can potentially be read when someone asks many questions.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Thank you for the updated information, I don't know why I could only ascertain the older CDC stats.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
It really doesn't seem to me that he is comparing the women to criminals. It sounds more as though he is making a comparison of providing criminals with their rights when arrested (a form of informed consent) to providing women seeking abortions with information (informed consent). The comparison is on the information or lack of information required, not between women seeking abortion and criminals.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
So you were informed. Information, thorough information, is never a bad thing.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002

But I was not FORCED to be informed in order to recieve medical services. Do you not see the difference?



iVillage Member
Registered: 11-13-2009
Providing rights to criminals is NOT near the same as forcing it upon women. And it's free for inmates. It was a lousy analogy.

 

Pages