James Dobson: “I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008″
posted at 5:26 pm on May 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Don’t worry, he’s not speaking on behalf of any group, just in his capacity as a “private citizen.” Much like, say, Al Sharpton does when he makes political pronouncements.
No implied threats in, say, this paragraph:
This self-styled defender of marriage says he is “proud” of having submitted, as New York’s mayor, a bill creating “domestic partnerships” for homosexual couples. Admittedly, many liberal Americans will agree with the social positions espoused by Giuliani. However, I don’t believe conservative voters whose support he seeks will be impressed. Presidential elections are won or lost by slim margins. Rudy has an uphill slog ahead of him, even though he is the darling of the media.
Big finish:
Shouldn’t the American people be able to expect a certain decorum and dignity from the man who occupies the White House? On this measure, as well, Giuliani fails miserably. Much has been written in the blogosphere about his three public appearances in drag. In each instance, he tried to be funny by dressing like a woman. Can you imagine Ronald Reagan, who loved a good joke, doing something so ignoble in pursuit of a cheap guffaw? Not on your life.
My conclusion from this closer look at the current GOP front-runner comes down to this: Speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of any organization or party, I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson’s – Dobson’s? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barrack [sic] Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else.
What he’s saying here, in no uncertain terms, is that he’s fully prepared to hand the war to Hillary Clinton to avoid having to vote for a guy who’s promised to appoint justices in the mold of John Roberts and Sam Alito to deal with abortion. He categorically refuses, in other words, to make the same basic compromise libertarian conservatives are asked to make routinely on behalf of the war effort — to throw in with people with whom we disagree on social issues to ensure robust prosecution of the war on terror.
There’s no good counterstrike, either. If he walks, in all likelihood he takes enough votes with him to swing the election. Which will make the party pander to social cons even more desperately in 2012. The only option is for libertarians to walk and leave the party to its fate without us. But (a) I like the social cons in the race, i.e., Fred and Mitt, (b) we’re few enough that they might still win without us, and (c) if they can’t win without us, then we have to accept, as Dobson does, four years of President Hillary.
Exit question: What to do?
Update: “James Dobson has made his choice. He’s influential for sure and believe me, there will be people who listen to his national radio show and decide not to vote for Giuliani just because Dobson won’t.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I can’t see myself pulling the lever for Rudy in 2008, should it come to that, and it has nothing to do with anything James Dobson or any other prominent Christian conservative has to say about it.
Once upon a time I was a pro-abortion Democrat who supported one who was staunchly pro-abortion: Bubba. I know my vote was just one vote, but nevertheless every vote for Clinton was one that helped put him in office. A few years after that I became pro-life and think back on my pro-abortion days with a great deal of shame, because I have felt responsible for contributing to the ‘culture of death’ with both my support for abortion ‘rights’ and my support of Bubba (the first time around, not the second).
While it was extremely liberating for me to go from being pro-abortion to pro-life, the level of guilt I felt for contributing in my own way to the ‘culture of death’ was/is great enough that I would be extremely reluctant to put someone back in office who is pro-abortion, even though that person is a member of my political party. For some of us, it’s not an issue where you really feel like there’s any room for compromise. In other words, it’s not an issue I can sacrifice (put on the back burner) just because there are so many other big issues at stake.
I think most Republicans have their hot button issues they won’t compromise on. Immigration is one of them. The Republican base has made it clear that they will under no circumstances support anyone who voices support or who voted for the Senate’s amnesty bill today. Heck, I know people who have unregistered (is that even a word?) from the Republican party over this issue out of sheer anger, and that was before today’s vote for amnesty. I’m not a hardliner on immigration – I see myself more in the middle on the issue, so there is some wiggle room for me and the Republican candidates on that issue, whereas other Republicans won’t give an inch on it. That is certainly their right to do so.
My “no-compromise” issue is abortion. Whoever I support will have to take a pro-life stand. One of the few things our current president has been consistent on is his commitment to life (with the nominees to the Supreme Court, as well as his stance on PBA, cutting funding of abortions overseas, etc) and I feel like a vote for Rudy would be taking a step back, because I simply do not trust him to nominate people to the USSC in the mold of an Alito or Roberts. I also don’t trust that he would push back on a Democratic Congress (assuming the Dems maintain or increase their control next year) trying to rewrite laws on abortion, including the PBA ban.
Having said that, though, I wouldn’t actively campaign against Rudy should he become the nominee. I just don’t think I can vote for him.
At the same time, I realize that if enough people felt like I do about Rudy, that if he ended up being the Republican nominee, not voting for him in substantial numbers would pave the way for a Democratic rout in the presidential race, which would take us back to square one on abortion because there is not a frontrunner in the Dem party who is committed to pro-life causes and in fact will pander like there’s no tomorrow to the likes of NOW, NARAL, appoint liberal judges to the USSC, etc, so not voting for Rudy would contribute to the election of someone who has an even worse record on abortion than he does …
In fact, as far as the “top tier” Republicans go, the only one who I feel is sincere on the issue of abortion is John McCain. I want to believe Romney, but I still have some doubts about his sincerity. But I’d have a hard time pulling the lever for McCain, because I disagree with so much of his platform and don’t view him as a genuine conservative.
So if you’re pro-life and are committed to keeping a pro-life type in the WH, there aren’t any good options. It’s incredibly frustrating, because I feel there is no one for me to turn to, outside of a staunch pro-lifer like Mike Huckabee, and I really don’t see his candidacy going anywhere.
SisterToldjah on May 17, 2007 at 11:52 PM
Oh man. I didn’t realize what I wrote was that long. Sorry ’bout that.
SisterToldjah on May 17, 2007 at 11:52 PM
He forgot to add McCain’s name to that list.
I’ll take Rudy over that dirt bag McCain.
Tim Burton on May 18, 2007 at 12:00 AM
Look, from where I sit in CA, another 4-8 years is enough to irreversible damage the nation. Just look at the 6 years Bush has been in office. I see pragmatism getting us exactly nowhere. It got us nowhere with Bush. Giulianni is even more liberal. I am interested in Steyn’s take however.
PRCalDude on May 18, 2007 at 12:05 AM
The only difference between Rudy and Hillary is – Rudy is a better speaker. Put him in office, and when the rubber meets the road, he will come out of the closet with his agenda. Then you won’t be able to tell Rudy or Hillary apart.
Rudy won’t get my vote.
If Fred! doesn’t run, I will be fishing during the next election.
Killing unborn children is right out the 3rd Riech playbook. Going after guns is wrong and going to start a fire fight. Amnesty stops now.
AZ_Redneck on May 18, 2007 at 12:09 AM
I never said I would stay home. I’ve never stayed home on election day, and I get irrationally angry at people who do such. But given the choice between Hillary and Rudy, I would write in Fred. Yeah, I get that it does as much good as staying home on election day, but I will not NOT participate in the election process, plus there are other offices besides president to vote for on election day.
When it comes down to it, between Hillary and Rudy, I see very little difference. Rudy is a complete social liberal, like Hillary. And Rudy talks big about war and recognizing the global jihad, but I have a hard time buying into the notion that he does actually recognize it given his stance on illegal immigration and amnesty. They go hand in hand. I don’t know how anyone can think that hard working Mexican criminals (yes, they’re all criminals when they don’t knock before they come in) are the only ones crossing the borders. Neither of these candidates will give a flip about border security.
Furthermore, if Hillary wins, she, as the first woman president (God rest our souls), will have something to prove: that her balls are just as big as whatever male contender she just beat in the general election. Not only that, she will also want to prove that she is running the Exec Branch and getting the blow jobs, not Bill. She won’t want to look weak on terror like him. Also, when we are attacked again, she is going to need to prove that she has what it takes to fight terrorism just like the men. And she’s power hungry, and she will know that there is no way she’ll get re-elected if she doesn’t retaliate quickly and forcefully.
So yeah. Little difference. I don’t believe Rudy on judges (he is simply not believable — he’s going to, in principle, appoint judges that will uphold laws that he doesn’t morally believe in?). He doesn’t even come across as believable when he states his pre-rehearsed speech about judges. He can say it all he wants, but he also says that he’s personally against abortion while giving money to PP.
Dang. I was going to rant about Rudy and guns, but it’s time for bowchickabowwow. Not that I’m complaining.
sarahk on May 18, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Between Hitlery and Rudy, Rudy gets my vote hands down. He would win in a huge landslide doing better than the more conservative Republicans given a Hillary/Giuliani fight. After all this is politics. We’re not electing a national chaplain.
Mojave Mark on May 18, 2007 at 1:29 AM
Well, THIS PRIVATE CITIZEN won’t be voting for RudyRudyRudy EITHER.
seejanemom on May 18, 2007 at 6:49 AM
ANd no, MojaveMark, were aren’t “electing a national chaplain”. But look around, Your Eminent Smugness, maybe we should be.
Don’t let the same moral equivalence that let us give a pass to The Clenis (because he made us feel better for our OWN shortcomings)lead us down the road to say, “Anybody but Hillary”.
The PRIMARIES are where we voice our opinions and if the Conservative Base of our party is constantly sidelined or worse, acquiesces, we will get a parade of ever increasingly VANILLA candidates with polls UP their @$$es, as well as on their minds.
GET A SPINE MOJAVEMARK….and all the rest of you, too.
seejanemom on May 18, 2007 at 7:00 AM
Hey, didn’t Rudy run from Hillary when she was carpet-bagging in his home state? That’s right, he did. And didn’t Rudy have a chance to prove he is the anti-Hillary last year and he chose to pass? That’s right, he ran from Hillary instead of running against her. So now I’m supposed to believe (against reason and the proof of his history) that Giuliani will be a small government, constructionist judges appointing, gun rights defending, Reaganesque leader who will beat the presumptive nominee from the other major party?
The prospectus in mutual funds always state the “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” But it is one heckuva indicator in politics.
Rudy fails every social test, especially if you’re really a libertarian and he hasn’t delivered against Hillary.
And what makes you think he’ll be great in the WoT? Is it his lack of military and diplomatic experience or his lack of any plan that is more compelling?
cmay on May 18, 2007 at 7:17 AM
Sitting out the election, or voting for Micky Mouse, is as complete cop out! Life is full of hard choices, and sometimes you don’t like any of the options presented to you, but that doesn’t mean you go live under a rock. Personally, I really hope Fred gets into the race, but if Rudy is the nominee, than I’ll vote for Rudy. You have to go with the lesser of two evils. You have to make a choice. If you don’t, then you have no business voicing your disgust and outrage on this site. You may as well just check out!
ritemama on May 18, 2007 at 7:53 AM
Putting aside whether you’re right or not, past elections have shown that voters do not vote for poor candidates (see Dole/Kemp ‘96). You may believe this (and it is a very logical and consistent position) but voters don’t behave this way.
“If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice” – Rush (the music group, not the talkshow host).
I must have missed that rule. I thought we were supposed to avoid using profanity, etc. Believe it or not, you have not been appointed dictator in charge of HotAir or election rules.
cmay on May 18, 2007 at 7:59 AM
In fairness to Rudy, I think he had cancer at the time.
Slublog on May 18, 2007 at 8:12 AM
The GOP is lacking true leadership. However, I will vote for the candidate with the (R) after his name as I fully understand the alternative. Vote for the lib, and you will have no second amendment for sure (and I am a staunch NRA member). I can’t help but hope and pray that Fred runs….but he needs to get out there soon.
lynnv on May 18, 2007 at 8:19 AM
That is true, but it was only after he was sinking in the polls against her that he dropped out. He was facing serious corruption allegations (like his good buddy Bernard Kerik) and a really ugly divorce. The divorce thing is behind him (unless Judy comes up with some weird stuff), but the corruption still lingers (once again, see his business relationship with Kerik).
In ‘06 (cancer-free) he had a chance to go beat Hillary Clinton in his home state. He took a pass. If he was serious about proving his electability he would have run against her.
cmay on May 18, 2007 at 8:28 AM
By ‘06, I’m sure he’d already decided to run for president, so what would have been the point of running for what would essentially be a one-year term?
Slublog on May 18, 2007 at 8:34 AM
cmay:
First of all, I don’t believe I said I was speaking for HotAir. These are my opinions. And I don’t believe I used profanity either. If you are referring to my “check out” comment, perhaps I should have used a different term. What I meant by that is that if you are going to go fishing on election day, why not just make it a permanent trip, because you’ve contributed nothing.
And Rush is right, not making a choice is still making a choice. But if you are not going to participate in the fight, I personally don’t want to hear you complain about the consequences. I understand the desire to stay home. I’m not exactly a fan of Rudy. But what does that accomplish? Send a message to the Republican party? That was tried, and now we’re stuck with Pelosi and Reed. What was gained?
ritemama on May 18, 2007 at 8:45 AM
He’s never been elected to anything above mayor and he hasn’t run for anything sine 2000.
He could have established a track record in the Senate of being strong on crime, the War on Terror, Iraq, taxes, etc.
Most importantly, he could have built up a lot of good will within the party by beating the Hildebeast. He would have proven that he could beat any Democrat because he could deliver NY in a general election. He polled poorly against Hillary and he sat this one out. Someone who can’t deliver their home state (like Gore in 2000) is going to have a lot of trouble in a general election.
He also had the chance to run for Governor against Spitzer, a race in which Giuliani was favored. He passed.
cmay on May 18, 2007 at 8:48 AM
Maybe, unlike Hillary, Rudy sees elected office as something more than a stepping stone and didn’t want to run for a term he had no intention of completing.
Honestly, though, no one can say for sure because this is an odd and speculative line of criticism.
Slublog on May 18, 2007 at 8:51 AM
I didn’t mean to imply that you had. Only that it is one of the rules (and one that needs to be better enforced) on HotAir.
There are different ways to fight. Social cons have made an impact by staying home. In 1980 it brought about the unlikely alliance between the Religious Right and the Neocons. It forced GWB to withdraw the Harriet Miers nomination in favor of Sam Alito.
Furthermore, I got to listen to Sean Hannity push for Schwarzenegger for Governor of CA. Now all he does is complain that Schwarzenegger is a liberal. Well, no kidding. We knew that before he was elected. But the star-struck Hannity doesn’t have more of a right to complain because he actively participated. The folks who warned him have even more of a right to say, “See, I told you so” (this quote is from Rush Limbaugh).
If you don’t want to hear people complain, you can choose to tune out like I’ve done with Hannity. You can’t expect others to be silent because you don’t like what they say.
cmay on May 18, 2007 at 9:02 AM
In this case, he is asking us to judge him on his body of political work, which is poor at best. He’s extreme left on every social issue, has a bad track record of appointing judges, has a record of corruption, is anti-2nd Amendment, poor on immigration, and ran away from (instead of ran against) the other party’s presumptive nominee. He has no track record on the issues that matter to Hawks, namely anti-terrorism, the military and foreign diplomacy.
Let his body of work stand for itself.
cmay on May 18, 2007 at 9:09 AM
okay, you have a point. Sorry to be so indignant. It’s just I really don’t want to see Hillary in office, even if it means voting for Rudy. And not to jump on the “feelings” bandwagon, it saddens me to think that people would stay home and let that happen.
ritemama on May 18, 2007 at 9:10 AM
ritemama,
I agree with you about Hillary. But the proper way to keep her out of office, in my opinion, is to give people someone to vote for. We got 8 years of Bill Clinton because the GOP twice relied on the anti-Dem vote.
cmay on May 18, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Why isn’t James Dobson allowed to vote his conscience?
elle_k on May 18, 2007 at 9:36 AM
This is no sucker-punch by Dobson. I predicted this exact problem for him just as soon as post-9/11 speculations started. Dobson has always been consistent on this position. If you want to be mad, be mad at the guys like Romney, who can’t seem to decide whether life is a wobbler issue or not.
The Therapist on May 18, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Big batches of organizations in this country that are tax-exempt, whether they stick to their stated purpose or not. And some of them have an overtly political purpose to start with.
Anwyn on May 20, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2