E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
TechnoratiJeffers: Number one, the litmus test is the abortion issue. There so many people that will not vote for anyone who is pro-choice. Even if you say you oppose abortion personally but you still stand on pro-choice, then you will not get a traditionalist evangelical’s vote. It is not going to happen. Like it or not that’s the truth.
Because the foundation of our country is life and the constitution protects life. Whether that is born or unborn it is still the same. That’s the first thing.
The same sex “marriage” issue is huge. If you don’t come out and stand up for traditional marriage, and I am not talking about civil union but traditional marriage, and stop the homosexual agenda then you are not going to get their vote. If you are not a friend of Israel (pause), well I think foreign affair there is probably a little more room and leniency.
Economic – I believe what the Bible says about if a man does not work he shall not eat. He doesn’t say if he can’t work, if someone is hurt or circumstances come. We understand they need help once in a while, but that is not the government’s job that is people’s job, churches should go and help.
The first and foremost is the abortion issue and some try to downplay that or get away from that but that is the bottom line.
CP: President Bush seems to have all these qualities. Why is it that some evangelicals are still apathetic or unhappy with him?
Jeffers: In 2004, he probably got one of the best voter turnouts in the evangelical group, so in fact, they are the ones that put him in office.
But in 2006, with the immigration issue, some of the Supreme Court justices nomination – primarily Harrier Miers – I would say those are the two big issues that really set folks off.
Evangelicals are conservatives. If you get behind a candidate that an evangelical would support, almost every conservative would support that person. Especially in 2006, people were fed up – you saw the revolt in May last year on the immigration issue. That was a large group of evangelicals that was part of those who called Congress and said, don’t you dare pass this bill.
I guess the thing is that we are tired of being lied to and told to us what smells is not smelly. We are common sense folk people and when you sit there and try to tell us something isn’t amnesty when it clearly is, not only are you not listening to what I’m saying but you are insulting my intelligence. Clearly that comprehensive immigration bill was amnesty.
The difference between Reagan – people argue that he had that [amnesty in immigration reform] – well Reagan called it amnesty. And he had conditions on it. And unfortunately Congress did not fulfill their duties in paying for all the measures that would keep immigration flow down. Then when they came out, including President Bush, and accused us of being bigots, that was like one of the last straw.
And so many folks were mad and stayed home in 2006. And I will tell you it shocked me. I really did not think that was going to happen. I actually believed that evangelicals and conservatives would still come and vote so we could keep both houses of Congress. I miscalculated the angst of evangelicals and the conservative base.
CP: There are some evangelicals who point to the Old Testament and its mandate to care for the aliens and strangers in the country. How would you respond to these evangelicals who hold the opposite view as you on the immigration issue?
Jeffers: They are misquoting it [the Bible] because when it was speaking about aliens and foreigners they were people who were allowed to be in their country. Also back then it is hard to say, “Ok, we have these clear borders.” A nation today has border and they have the rule of law. Continue »
