Christian Coalition voter guide update

Yesterday I posted that the GCC’s voter guide to the 10th CD special election had been released, and called attention to the two questions each (out of 46) on which three GOP candidates — Greene, Myers, and Underwood — had broken from their peers. One of these was the question of whether or not the candidates would “Vote to override a presidential veto of pro-life legislation,” a question to which only Bill Greene aswered “no.”

This morning, he made an appearance in the comments of that post to correct the record, saying:

I’m almost positive that on the GCC’s question, “Would you Vote to override a presidential veto of pro-life legislation?”, I answered Yes. However, they have me down as No. Since I didn’t keep a copy of the survey, I can’t be sure that I didn’t mistakenly mark it wrong; however, let it be publicly known (as far as posting on Peach Pundit is public 🙂 : I WOULD vote to override a presidential veto of pro-life legislation.

I am 100% pro-life, from conception to natural death.

Below is the question and the candidates’ responses, pasted directly from the GCC voter guide. As you see, Greene’s answer is, in fact, listed as “no.”

27.  The powers of the presidency include the right to veto legislation.  Would you Vote to override a presidential veto of pro-life legislation?
Jim Whitehead (R) Bill Greene (R) Erik M. Underwood (R) Jim Sendelbach (L) Nate Pulliam (R)
Yes No  Yes No Response No Response
Evita Paschall (D) Mark Myers (R) Paul Broun (R)  Denise Freeman (D) James Marlow (D)
Yes  Yes Yes No Response No Response

Whether the “No” answer, which he does not agree with, was Mr. Greene’s mistake or the GA Christian Coalition’s, we appreciate his taking the time to come to Peach Pundit to set the record straight.

powered by performancing firefox


  1. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Are you extrapolating from his answer that because he is pro-life from conception to natural death that it also means that he must be against the death penalty?

    Furthermore, are you suggesting that the death penalty is inconsistent with a pro-life position?

  2. Demonbeck says:

    “Furthermore, are you suggesting that the death penalty is inconsistent with a pro-life position?”

    I would suggest that a pro-choice position is inconsistent with an anti-death penalty position, but not the other way around.

  3. GOPGrassroots says:

    If Mr. Greene accidentally votes “NO” when he means to vote “YES” on a survey, I have to wonder if he has the mental capacity to vote correctly on actual legislation if he were to ever make it to Washington. God help us.

  4. jsm says:

    Fed, the death penalty is about punishment of hardened, vicious criminals who are of no benefit to society. Abortion kills innocent humans who had no control whatsoever over the circumstances of their conception.

    There is NO similarity between pro-life and anti-death penalty stances.

  5. Federalist says:

    I disagree. What type of punishment is death? It is revenge, not punishment. You cons have no respect for the law.

  6. jsm says:

    Really? Not a punishment? Would you willingly go take someone’s place on the lethal injection table? What’s in your head, man? You constantly astound me with these statements that make absolutely no sense.

  7. Federalist says:

    Maybe you should read a policy paper or two rather than advocate a policy based purely on your prejudices. The death penalty does not deter capital offenses.

  8. Federalist says:

    In 1910 Arthur MacDonald (a criminal anthropologist) wrote an article entitled “The Death Penalty and Homocide.” It has since been used as a foundation for the research on this topic. I chose to use this one because it was written at a time where society was closer to what you believe jsm. It is highly theoretical, but can be used to demonstrate modern trends with an eerie, almost prophetic presentation.

  9. Federalist says:

    In addition, the death penalty may be an effective deterrent to minor crimes, such as drug possesion and prostitution…but as a deterrent to murder it has proven ineffective; which is why most civilized nations have abolished its use. To prevent criticism, yes I know that capital punishment in those lesser crimes is cruel and unusual, but so is its use in capitial cases.

  10. jsm says:

    So you argue based on a “highly theoretical” article. Makes sense to you, I guess. I know enough about the human psyche to know that if a criminal knows he will be terminated swiftly once he is found guilty of murder, he will be less likely to commit the crime. Murderers know that they may not be sentenced to death. Those who are sentenced to death nowadays sit on death row for decades, knowing that they could possibly get their sentence changed through legal challenges. There is not sufficient fear of consequences.

    You can lean on your selected policy papers if you want. I can find numerous policy papers and articles ‘proving’ that the death penalty is a deterrent with a simple Google search.

    By the way, prejudice is an opinion based on insufficient knowledge of a subject. You should understand its definition before using the word again.

  11. Federalist says:

    Did you read the article, or my comment. google search’s do not mean sh*t.
    I know what the word prejudice means, and I used it correctly.
    I am not leaning on selected policy papers, I am leaning on credible policy papers.
    I am not insinuating causality in this example, but…when the death penalty was ruled unconsitutional in the early seventies…what happened with the murder rate? here is another question for you, what has happened to the murder rates in countries that have replaced capital punishment with life in prison? I think you will be shocked when you look up the results. I will provide them in a bit. But you really have no statistical proof that capital punishment is an effective deterrent to crime. The only articles that advocate a link do not provide comprehensive statistical analysis.

  12. Federalist says:

    Here is another analysis, this one is a scientific analysis rather than a theoretical explanation:
    “Murder and Capital Punishment in the Evoving Context of the Post-Furman Era.” by: Dr. Ruth Peterson and Dr. William C. Bailey. I know you probably do not believe in science, but I provided this anyways…you know, to enlighten the masses. I will give you some more if you like.
    “Murder, Capital Punishment, and Television: Execution Publicity and Homocide Rates” also by Dr. Bailey pulls your idea that public knowledge of the consequences of their actions into consideration, he found that homocide rates did not change before, during, and after the Furman decision.
    “Murder and Capital: A Monthly Time Series Analysis of Executive Policy” is a very comprehensive look at the lack of effectiveness of capital punishment detering capital offenses. I can go on and on. These are not selected articles…any analysis that uses advanced statistical methods will show this trend. I get that you like the death penalty, but you need to understand that it 1) does not accomplish its goals 2) is more expensive than life sentencing 3) and this is important to you neocons…it is un-christian.

  13. Federalist says:

    Just to clarify, the correction should be:
    “Murder and Capital Punishment: A Monthly Time Series Analysis of Executive Policy.” I apologize for the incorrect spelling.

  14. jsm says:


    “If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.”

    John McAdams – Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

    If you haven’t already, see the following from Isaac Ehrlich:

    “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death” (November 1973).

    “The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death,” American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(3), pages 397-417, June, 1975.

    “Capital Punishment and Deterrence: Some Further Thoughts and Additional Evidence,” Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 85(4), pages 741-88, August, 1977.

    and this:

  15. ConservativeCaucus says:

    Although the death penalty may (or may not) be a deterrent to other murders… I do not believe that deterrence should be the primary reason for exercising the death penalty.

    IMHO, how a society punishes different levels of bad behavior says what that society values. If someone steals my car, once found, he is punished for his actions and the car is returned to me. However, when someone steals a life, those who support the death penalty believe that he has forfeited the right to live.

    The most frustrating thing is to see someone who has murdered ever have the opportunity to walk the streets again. My parents, and no doubt many here as well, reared me to understand that although there may be personal forgiveness, that does not take away the consequences of my actions. It is my belief that someone who has willfully ended the life of an innocent has forfeited his right to live.

    If deterrence happens, great. At least we know the one who murdered will never murder again. However, deterrence is not the reason that I support the death penalty.

  16. Federalist says:

    I keep coming to the same conclusion with you cons…you are hypocritical barbarians. jsm, i wll read those articles later…John McAdams and the entire faculty of Marquette are morons. They only allow science to go as far as their religion, and that is very irresponsible. Particularly in matter of the law…and yes their law school “reflects” their Jesuit heritage. I know Isaac, we worked at UoC together after I recieved my PhD. Have you look at the time-series that he used. Even post-Furman, in his analysis he refused to use period information. Instead, he chose the 1940’2 and 1950’s, there is reason to believe that capital punishment worked then…only because of the other dynamics of this period and time. furthermore, the correlation between the two in any of Isaac’s analysis are very weak. I am not going to spend time trashing his name or method’s, I do have some respect for him given the dedication required to receive any advanced degree at that time…but let’s just say that Isaac would trash the statistical methods, time intervals, etc. that did not support his beliefs. His work outside of the realm of anything dealing with public policy is a lot more comprehensive, I will give him that much.

  17. Demonbeck says:


    “The death penalty does not deter capital offenses.”

    It deters the offending party from them permanently. It is the ultimate sentence.

    Regarding your other point, how is punishment different from revenge?

  18. jsm says:

    Fed, I could call you a “hypocritical barbarian” for supporting a murderer’s right to live in the absence of the victim of his brutality, but name-calling gets us exactly nowhere. We conservatives believe in taking responsibility for our actions, which includes punishment fitting of a crime. You socialists believe in letting people do whatever they want and then supporting them with government resources so that they never face the consequences of their actions. We’re obviously not going to agree. You’ve presented your supporting material, and I’ve presented mine. I’m going to go with what my conscience and my heart tell me based on what I have studied on this. You believe whatever you want to. Choices have consequences.

  19. Federalist says:

    I am not “supporting a murderer’s right to live in the absence of the victim of his brutality.” I support justice. Punishment fitting the crime? So what, you believe that eye for an eye bs. Come on. Should we rape rapists then too? I am not a socialist, “Name calling gets us exaclty nowhere.” We are not going to agree on this issue, you are absolutely correct. Being pro-life and pro-death penalty is hypocritical though. I imagine that you are pro-life because you think the bible says that is the right position…but isn’t there a commandment about killing people…thou shalt not do it. I know god wasn’t a lawyer b/c there were no clauses to this amendment that allowed exceptions. But I am sure a church or two told you it is ok, so that must work. Before you go on a tirade about that though, I am a nihilist and frankly do not care.

  20. jsm says:

    Fed, you have proven yourself to be a socialist by your own positions stated on this website. I’m shocked that you would openly call yourself a nihilist. How do you determine right and wrong without a moral basis? Nihilism is a detriment to society.

    And don’t define me based on your bigoted view of people who believe the Bible and go to church. No church tells me what to believe. God gave me a brain, and I use it. You should refrain from commenting on the Bible until you read, and most importantly, understand it.

  21. Federalist says:

    I did, I do. It was a decent work of fiction, I will give it that much. I have proven time and time again that I am a capitalist. Capitalism is the most compatible economy philosophy with my beliefs, on the other should ascribe to communism. I use reason and economic viability (aggregate not short term) to determine my position on issues, not some irrational religion or my “heart.” There is no place for that garbage in governance.

Comments are closed.