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: 1 2 Next »
Stick to your guns. I don’t agree with Rudy on abortion in the slightest way but I would rather have him tell me what he believes then what I believe.
WOT=1 issue. Period. We can talk about everything else later.
Limerick on May 17, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Why bother, government grows no matter who you vote for.
Valiant on May 17, 2007 at 5:31 PM
And Allahpundit has no axe to grind here?
Where’s the “threat”?
For the record, Rudy doesn’t get MY vote either, not just because of the abortion issue, gays, etc. although that is part of it but also because of Rudy’s anti 2nd amendment crapola.
Take all of it together and there is your real threat.
.
The Machine on May 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Now if we can Wayne LaPierre to say the same thing, then it will be Fred! time.
Bill C on May 17, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I like the (a) option.
Esthier on May 17, 2007 at 5:36 PM
given a choice between hillary and guiliani who will a conservative vote for? the answer is obvious.
i think the right learned its lesson by staying home in 2006.
lorien1973 on May 17, 2007 at 5:37 PM
My opinion hasn’t changed since James “Not Christian Enough” Dobson published this.
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:37 PM
I’ve been trying my hardest to support Giuliani, but he’s so tone deaf on the abortion issue that I can’t say I would get behind him. It’s not that he’s for legal abortion, it’s that from his statement he doesn’t understand the motivations of those opposed to abortion at all. I don’t trust him when he says he’ll appoint justices like John Roberts anymore than I trust him when he says he’s personally against abortion while donating to Planned Parenthood.
I want to say “Well, it’s all about terror, so it doesn’t matter,” but I can’t do that about the President.
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 5:38 PM
Yes, well, let’s keep in mind that Bush was opposed to Rudy’s position on all of those. What we get instead, is 12 million new welfare recipients, er, citizens, as of today.
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM
The threat is what he says about conservative voters and slim electoral margins, knowing full well how much political influence he has. He’s threatening to throw the election to the Democrats by encouraging evangelicals to stay home if Rudy’s the nominee. That’s the threat.
And my wish for you is to wake up in bizarro world someday where you’re in the minority and the libertarians own the party and see how you like crap like this being pulled.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Oh yeah, he’s just as tone deaf on the second Amendment issue. He thinks he’s trying to appease gun owners with his statements, but all he does is show how ignorant he is of our concerns and motivations.
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 5:40 PM
The question is purely academic after the amnesty.
He wasn’t making anything but a common-sense argument.
I think he’s talking about voting his conscience. When did he say he’s willing to throw the vote to hillary? If there’s no difference between the presidential candidates, what’s he supposed to do? Giuliani’s made a lot of promises, but so did GWB. He reneged on all of them. You might as well vote your conscience.
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 5:40 PM
And, again, President Bush is totally opposed to abortion. How much has he done to stop it, in the last 6 years? He appointed 2 judges, who the most they’ve done is hold up a ban that was already in place. Roberts will be there a lot longer than the next President, whoever that may be, will.
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:41 PM
All he says is that each city and state has to make their own decision. If citizens of a city want a gun ban in their city, can you force them to stop, no matter who you elect?
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Hmmm, what a tangled web we weave when we practice…err Lets see, the lesser of two evils comes to mind. Pragmatism dictates that when faced with an intractable situation that cutting ones nose off to spite their face is not a viable option. The whole concept of a political compromise is to accept a situation considered less than desirable to avoid being forced into an untenable situation. Another Klinton in the white house would be untenable where as Obama would be less than desirable. A vote for Fred would not be a throw away vote even if he isn’t the GOP candidate.
doriangrey on May 17, 2007 at 5:43 PM
For the record, I’m not a fan of Dobson, but I don’t see him telling evangelicals to stay home. Conservatives of all stripes should stay home if Giulianni is the Republican nominee.
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Also, I have trouble voting for anyone who would actually argue the Roe v. Wade has anything to do with the Constitution. How would he appoint good justices if he think that bench made legislation is okey dokey?
Why this sudden out-pouring from me? I feel like AP is a psychologist who got me to finally admit I hate my father.
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM
But, then you have a divided party, and no GOP candidate has enough votes to win. That worked swimmingly for the Dems in ‘00.
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:45 PM
I did that in 2004 and I’m doing it again in 2008. The WoT and border security are issues 1a and 1b on my list. All else is secondary. It wouldn’t have to be that way if so many candidates were so completely clueless on one or both of those issues, but alas.
World B. Free on May 17, 2007 at 5:45 PM
And then you have Clinton as President. Is she more Conservative than Rudy? Or are you better off taking the 1/2 Conservative, over the 100% Liberal?
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:46 PM
Your point is not complicated, and I understand it clearly. But you can’t possibly believe that a man who supports abortion on demand and gay marriage is going to appoint a Roberts or Alito to the court. Republicans like Rudy are the reason that we have had Stevens, Souter, Blackmun, O’Connor, Kennedy, etc., ad nauseum.
That said, I disagree with him at the end. He would be a fool to encourage voters to allow skankles back in the Oral Office.
Jaibones on May 17, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Wow. You really came out of your socks on that one, frankj.
Jaibones on May 17, 2007 at 5:51 PM
amerpundit,
Not necessarily so, the vast majority of the GOP are conservatives given the choice between a Reaganish Fred without the official GOP nomination and a Clintonish Rudy with the party nomination I see the vast majority going with Ronald Thompson…err Fred Reagan…eh you know what I mean.
doriangrey on May 17, 2007 at 5:51 PM
That’s OK, I would never vote for Dobson ina million years.
JayHaw Phrenzie on May 17, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Given the choice, I definitely will vote for Giuliani (SarahK says she’ll stay home), but I don’t expect him to be any different than Hillary on social issues. I expect him to be better on the war, but I don’t think current rhetoric will match action (for either Giuliani or Hillary).
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 5:51 PM
What do you think he means by saying he’s going to stay home if Rudy’s the nominee? He thinks he and his followers could be the difference between victory and defeat for the GOP. If Sharpton said, “I’m staying home unless a black candidate is nominated,” not a single person here would misunderstand the threat.
And yes, there’s a big difference between the candidates. Two very big differences, in fact: the war and judges. In fact, wasn’t the big knock on Instapundit the other day that he was supposedly hurting the war effort, not Christianity, in his comment that supposedly equated Christian fundamentalists with jihadis (and which really didn’t)? You guys were in high dudgeon over that. Now here’s Dobson threatening to essentially hand the reins of power to the Democrats because he can’t vote for a guy who personally supports abortion rights and you just can’t seem to see a problem with it. Fancy that. It’s almost like your opinion depends on whether the speaker’s a Christian or not.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:52 PM
So, are you suggesting that you could get the whole GOP to write in Fred Thompson? We’re lucky if we can get most of the GOP to pull a lever.
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:53 PM
It’s a Constitutionally protected right. I would say that yes, the president and congress fully have the authority to stop any city from hindering a citizen’s Constitutional rights.
Esthier on May 17, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Screw you Dobson, you want to threaten to take your ball and leave then do it. I’m voting Rudy in the Primaries and in the general election if it gets that far.
Dash on May 17, 2007 at 5:54 PM
What to do?
Don’t nominate Rudy.
arkansasmike on May 17, 2007 at 5:54 PM
And taxes. And education. And healthcare.
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Not getting my vote either.
americaslaststand on May 17, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Im sorry, but if Rudy is the best candidate the Repubs can come up with, then they’ve lost my vote for Pres as well.
He has too many stances that I don’t agree with, and I don’t buy into the idea of the lesser of two evils. Did that last election and we reelected Bush… which has turned out so well that we’re about to get about 30 million new Citizens, a mismanged war, an incredibly bad Justice Department, a horrible energy policy, no social security reform, and a government that has grown at historic rates.
I vote for individuals, not partys…. and about a third of the populace (independents or third party folks) are thinking the same way. In the past we’ve really only been given two choices because the parties have created a system where they control the money… but maybe… just maybe its really time for a change.
Romeo13 on May 17, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Brother, I hate to fact check you here but Ronald Reagan appointed O’Connor and Kennedy. And we’ve been paying for it ever since.
Yes, I do think Rudy will stick to his promise to appoint real conservative judges. No less a figure than Ted Olson, the former solicitor general for Bush and DOJ figure for Reagan, also thinks so.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Where’s the 1/2 conservative? He’s stated he will do thus and such to get into the White House. He’s lying. It’s the same thing GWB did. In retrospect, I’m not sure I would have been worse off voting for Kerry in 2004. I’ve still got 20 million Mexicans about to be made citizens. I’ve seen no progress on the border issue. I’ve seen Saudis being granted student visas to come over here. GWB represents only a slightly slower road to destruction than Kerry would have been.
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 5:55 PM
Thanks, Jim.
- Hill
Thanks, Jim.
- Osama
Halley on May 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
frankj,
And therein lays the rub. With Rudy we have a country 20 years from now in which we can argue over the basic issues of abortion and gun control, under Shillary all bets are off except our becoming an Islamic Caliphate.
doriangrey on May 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
Let me get this straight: One of the reasons Dobson thinks that Rudy is a bad candidate is because on occasion, in certain comic situations, he’s dressed in drag? Really? That’s something he feels worth mentioning? Usually you only get kind of understated gay-baiting from liberals toward Christian conservatives.
Frankly, if there actually are enough Dobson-followers out there to swing the election, then God help us all. (Using the term “God” loosely, natch.)
Enrique on May 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
I’m talking about if the citizens vote for one. If a majority do, are you seriously going to force them to stop?
amerpundit on May 17, 2007 at 5:56 PM
If he feels strongly on that issue (like many of us do), who are we question that? Some people are not going to vote for anyone okay with murdering babies (as I said before, I’m not that extreme), and that’s a risk with a Giuliani nomination.
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 5:57 PM
Do you actually believe that?
BTW, just for the record, the bringing up that Giuliani dressed in drag is pretty silly.
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 5:59 PM
But then the Christians will have won!
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Probably. But that might just be because we want to give Dobson some credit here. We’d like to believe he’s doing nothing but making a personal statement.
Though I shouldn’t lump myself in this. I couldn’t care either way on either of them.
I think it’s stupid to call up Christians as the most likely group to join the violent religious movement, but I’ve come to expect that and didn’t see anything strange in it.
And I guess I can see how Dobson can be seen as a political force, but as someone who grew up listening to him regularly on the radio, I never saw him that way. I never made a single political decision based on his decisions, especially not when it was clear to me that it was his personal decision.
Besides, isn’t Dobson saying what so many social cons have been saying all along anyway?
Even before Rudy threw his hat in, I was already sick of the social cons, specifically those who are serious about gun ownership, saying they’d rather stay home than give a vote to Rudy.
For me it’s simple. I love this country too much to let anyone who doesn’t take the war on terror seriously get the White House without trying to stop it. If Rudy’s our guy, I won’t be happy, but I’ll do what I can.
But Dobson isn’t the first person to say this. If he is making an implied threat, it’s feels very weak in my mind.
Esthier on May 17, 2007 at 6:00 PM
Well if he isn’t a private citizen he risks the wrath of the IRS and progressives and we know how gracious that combination can be. What’s your opinion of using the IRS to threaten churches that dare have a politcal opinion Allahpundit?
Theworldisnotenough on May 17, 2007 at 6:01 PM
We’re to question it on the basis that we’re constantly told the war is the paramount issue of our time, a civilizational conflict, and therefore the conservative coalition must be maintained at all costs lest the Democrats take it over and retreat. And now we’re being told it’s the paramount issue of our time except for abortion, notwithstanding the fact that Rudy is going to do the right thing on judges and the abortion laws aren’t going to change even if Fred is elected.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 6:02 PM
If the citizens vote to revoke our right to free speech would you force them to do otherwise?
To answer your question though: yes, I would certainly not allow a city, even if it’s people voted, to take away any Constitutional right.
Esthier on May 17, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Allahpundit,
Oh I see the threat all right, and while I admire many things about Dobson there is little doubt in my mind that he needs to be taken out to the woodshed for this. I understand his frustration regarding constantly being forced to swallow unpalatable compromises but surrender just isn’t a viable option if you don’t get everything on your Christmas list.
doriangrey on May 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM
You want my opinion of the IRS threatening to revoke the tax-exempt status churches enjoy because they can’t see fit to stick to religion?
You don’t really want my opinion on that.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Shouldn’t that wait until after we’ve picked our guy?
Esthier on May 17, 2007 at 6:05 PM
It depends on how you think the WoT should be prosecuted. I think GWB’s approach is abysmal. I think Giulianni’s approach would be as well. I think Giulianni won’t do a thing about border security and illegal immigration, which (according to Mark Steyn) pretty much brought us 9/11. Some of the hijackers on 9/11 were amnestied. How many more do we have now?
The judges? You believe Giulianni? Based on what? He’s also a gun-grabber.
We were in high-dungeon over the fact that Instapundit couldn’t tell the difference between the Qur’an’s claims and the Bible’s claims. This point of yours isn’t really worth me dignifying with a response. Suffice it to say, if you knew anything about Islam, you wouldn’t have made it. Bryan apparently felt the same way I did about the comment also.
He made a common sense argument, that’s all. He never said, ‘I’m going to switch parties because a Christian isn’t a candidate.’ It appears you’re going to go the jummy route on this one anyway. Why should I even bother?
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 6:05 PM
I certainly wouldn’t disagree with your position, but do you have any idea how those two churches Clinton and Obama went to were able to get away with it?
Esthier on May 17, 2007 at 6:05 PM
Bear in mind that Bush, whose social conservatism I don’t doubt, tried to get Harriet Miers on the bench, and allegedly wanted Gonzalez. Yet a rebellion on Miers and a pre-rebellion warning on Fredo put an end to that.
In other words, Giuliani would be blowing himself up if any of his SCOTUS picks wasn’t at least as conservative-seeming as Alito.
On the other hand, if Reagan can give us O’Connor, even the best of intentions don’t guarantee an originalist. Which is why I think GOP candidates need to come across as obsessive in their desire to get conservative judges passed. Since Giulalini seems to think a strict constructionist might be okay with Roe because it’s some kind of super-precedent, he’s a long way from convincing me he’s safe on this.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 6:07 PM
It appears you don’t follow many of Steyn’s arguments either. This ‘civilizational conflict’ is largely a demographic one. Why should I vote for a guy who doesn’t care if we abort our civilization, again?
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 6:07 PM
You know what would be awesome? Rudy gets nominated, and we have threads like this all the way through Nov. ‘08.
(And maybe he even loses to Hillary because of the social cons, and we get even more incendiary threads forever after)
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 6:09 PM
And I absolutely don’t believe him on that. I hear his rhetoric on Roe v. Wade and I think his statements about judges is pure appeasement of conservatives and he’ll do what he feels like in office.
In the end, it’s hard to trust someone who supported the reelection of Cuomo. I tried to forget that, but I can’t. Giuliani will buck everyone if he feels like it.
frankj on May 17, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I honestly don’t know this guy, but is he the type of guy that would make a statement like this to show other candidates that there is still a huge block of voters out there waiting for the right candidate?
It’s seems kinda silly to announce that you wont vote for Rudy because of his pro-choice stance when there is no way anyone could say anything that would make Rudy change his position. It just appears that this message is meant for someone else.
Hate to break this to ya AP, but ¿fred? isn’t in the race. He’s still talking about it.
csdeven on May 17, 2007 at 6:10 PM
If we’re going to get into all that, this civilizational conflct, to the extent that we are in an existential threat, is not about birthrates either. It’s about immigration. All the main candidates are hopeless about that.
Steyn just comes at it from the birthrate side because he can’t bear to criticize migration qua migration. But differing birthrates are harmless if we are protected by the tribe that outnumbers us by strong borders.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 6:12 PM
frankj,
Hillary is a socialist; she will weaken the democratic foundation of this republic because it is the only way to push her socialist agenda on the American people. With that foundation eroded for her agenda’s purposes Sharia will not only flourish but grow exponentially and with its growth the republic will die.
doriangrey on May 17, 2007 at 6:12 PM
What to do?
Don’t listen to James Dobson.
SouthernDem on May 17, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Don’t give up.
And understand that Christians with brains in their heads think for themselves rather than letting Dobson think for us.
infidel4life on May 17, 2007 at 6:14 PM
The point of the statement is to influence the votes of libertarian conservatives in the primary away from supporting Giuliani. If you didn’t think that Dobson would hand the Presidency to Hillary, would you think twice about a primary vote for Rudy? Of course not.
I suspect that there would be a different answer if the question were asked again should Rudy secure the nomination.
rw on May 17, 2007 at 6:14 PM
Thanks for the help, bro. Since Giulianni’s for open borders, why should I vote him to fight this ‘civilizational conflict’? Won’t I just be helping the other side?
PRCalDude on May 17, 2007 at 6:14 PM
I’m a committed evangelical Christian (no asylum jokes please), and have three points.
I agree with AP – Guiliani is better than Clinton or Obama for many reasons, not the least of which is he understands the global jihad.
Second, the idea that evangelicals will not vote their individual conscience is, well, personally insulting. I’m accountable to Christ, not Dobson, or any other evangelical leader.
I probably won’t vote for RG in the primary, but if he’s the repub nominee he has my vote.
But AP, give us believers a break. We may not be as sophisticated and worldly-wise as you atheists, but we are capable of independent thought.
aqvik on May 17, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Reading this (and similar blogs) really gives good insight into the systemic problem the Republicans have in elections. The Republican Party is not nearly as monolithic as the Democrat Party. It is composed largely of groups that were evicted from the Democrat Party in the 1970s (e.g., pro-lifers, supply-siders & neocons). Each of these (and several other disparate groups) vie for power within the party. Republican Presidential candidates win when they unite the base and differentiate themselves from the Democrats. Reagan was different than Carter and Mondale. Bush was different than Dukakis. Then he went and raised taxes and alienated the supply-siders. And lost to a nobody in 1992.
Dole ran as an incongruous lump of nothingness. He didn’t even try to appeal to the Christian Right or the paleocons. He relied on voters rejecting Clinton. And he lost.
Bush lost the popular vote to Gore but won the election. Social conservatives stayed away from the polls (up to 7.5 million of them) in 2000 because they thought, as Pat Buchanan put it, that Gore was on the wrong side of the culture war and Bush wouldn’t fight it. Many of those social conservatives came back in 2004 because of 9/11 and gay marriage.
2006 sucked for Republicans for several reasons. Out of control spending certainly didn’t help them retain a majority in Congress. Neither did the specter of “Speaker Pelosi.” Republicans don’t vote against candidates. They vote for them based on many different criteria: economics, foreign policy, social policy, etc.
In 2008, the Republican Party will lose big if they do not put forth a candidate that will appeal to the base. Duncan Hunter is strong on every issue (tax cuts, immigration, military experience, pro-life, etc.). He presents someone who is different than the Code Pink, MoveOn commie that the Dems will put up. Rudy will be the “lesser of two evils” candidate who will end up drawing the lesser number of votes. If you don’t believe me, just look at 1992, 1996 and even 2000.
Republicans can’t afford to tell their voters to “Get over it” and “Vote for me because I’m not Hillary or Obama.” And for those who deride “single issue voters”: Remember that those single issue voters gave Reagan a 49-state landslide in 1984. And the supply-side single issue voters stayed at home in 1992. But you never complain about them, just those pesky social cons.
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I do. Especially since I suspect that many Christians (including myself) would agree with you.
baldilocks on May 17, 2007 at 9:28 PM
right on.
it’s like assuming all those catholics that take their marching orders from the pope.
Mr. Bingley on May 17, 2007 at 9:32 PM
er, forget the ‘that’.
Mr. Bingley on May 17, 2007 at 9:32 PM
James Dobson is a bully. He would rather shatter a coalition that gives social conservatives much of what they want than “sully” himself by voting for Giuliani if he’s the nominee. In doing so, he shows nothing but contempt for the less conservative members of the Republican coalition who have compromised with his views over the years.
Compromise goes both ways, something Dobson has obviously never bothered to learn.
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 9:34 PM
I don’t claim to be sophisticated and I certainly don’t claim to be worldly wise. And I’m not accusing all evangelicals of blindly following Dobson. I know many of them won’t. But many of them will, and in a tight race that’ll swing it.
Allahpundit on May 17, 2007 at 9:36 PM
And the pro-Giuliani crowd is compromising what?
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 9:38 PM
Your verb tense is wrong – it should read “has compromised what?”
And the answer – much, my friend.
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 9:42 PM
I agree with you but I do know of many people who embrace your same principles and world view that look to people like Dobson for direction in voting matters. Having said that, I really have to wonder how much influence leaders of religious organizations and organizations such as the AFL/CIO, AARP and others have on their followers (for lack of a better word).
ulyses on May 17, 2007 at 9:44 PM
Dobson has a long history of resorting to threats over compromise.
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 9:46 PM
What a strangely vague answer. It should be easy to name a few if the list is really so long.
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 9:47 PM
Amen.
Stephen M on May 17, 2007 at 9:48 PM
The last time there was a Clinton in the White House and the Democrats had both houses the people were only able to handle two years and gave the Congress to the Republicans. Maybe it is time for history to repeat itself.
Rose on May 17, 2007 at 9:50 PM
BTW, you don’t negotiate by saying, “This is what I’m willing to give up!” You negotiate as if you have power. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Dobson has certainly made statements like those cited (and many others), but he also can be thanked for helping the Republican Party on the national and local level. You seem to be miffed that he offers help on his terms instead of gratis. Can I assume that your vote isn’t based on what you believe?
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 9:52 PM
If you wish. But you know what they say about assumptions.
As for what conservative principles have been compromised to keep Dobson in the fold?
I give you the Federal Marriage Amendment and the ban on internet gambling to start.
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 9:55 PM
I’m also not voting for Rudy.
For those wondering, I actually decided this before Dobson’s announcement.
I can debate against Rudy regarding the abortion issue. But if he takes away American guns (through “arms control”) then their will be nothing left for us to defend.
If Rudy wins the nomination, I am seriously going to vote for real Mickey Mouse (not to be confused with the Hamas one).
It’s either Fred? or Mitt! for me. I don’t see to many stars on the GOP horizon.
Darnell Clayton on May 17, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Heh. Mickey got my vote for Senate in 1996.
Go Mouse!
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM
I meant to insert a “the” in between real and Mickey.
My exit question: For the Fred? maniacs out there, if Fred? doesn’t run, who will you support for the GOP primary?
And if he does run (in which case I will call him Fred!) who would you suggest be his VP?
Darnell Clayton on May 17, 2007 at 10:01 PM
These were populist laws. Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The FMA is an extension of this. The ban on internet gambling was bipartisan (317 votes in the House). I guess all those Dems were trying for Dobson’s endorsement.
You said that you’ve compromised much and this is all you can come up with (neither of which are payoffs to social cons)?
So, if you vote based on what you believe, why are social cons prohibited from doing the same?
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 10:05 PM
What makes you think I’m not a social conservative? Is it outside your realm of possibility that an evangelical social conservative might be tired of Dobson’s nonsense?
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 10:07 PM
And the FMA is unnecessary. Enough states have passed defense of marriage acts of their own to make it irrelevant.
No, it means that Republicans have become just as big-government nanny-statish as the Democrats.
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Barring some unforeseen entry, Duncan Hunter whether Fred! runs or not (Fred voted “Aye” for McCain-Feingold).
And for those who say he doesn’t poll well, neither did WJC in 1991. Early polls are name recognition exercises. Most folks aren’t deeply interested in politics. As the time to vote draws closer, they start to get engaged.
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 10:10 PM
No, you shouldn’t. I’m not voting for him for the same reason. I just didn’t want to complicate the awesome social-con/libertarian-hawk feud going on here with distracting whining from the most marginal faction of all, the immigration-restriction-extremist. There’s no hope for us whatsoever, so I’m trying not to interject it into discussions of the candidates too much.
Alex K on May 17, 2007 at 10:11 PM
Actually, what this would do is prevent the SCOTUS from ruling that state laws are in violation of the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection). Between the 14th Amendment and the Commerce Clause, courts have gone stark raving mad removing any legislative control that states rightly have under the 10th Amendment.
Your point though is that the pro-Rudy crowd has compromised much. You still have yet to produce anything that they have compromised.
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 10:15 PM
I’ve not accused you of anything. I’ve only dealt with your argument.
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 10:21 PM
My point is that there are a number of Republicans who are moderately pro-choice, have no problem with civil unions and do not care about pornography and gambling. There is a libertarian wing of the Republican party that has, for the most part, allowed laws restricting all of these things.
I’m somewhat socially conservative. I hate abortion and think pornography demeans those who create it and those who use it. I’m agnostic on civil unions and think gambling is a tax on people who can’t do math. What Dobson ignores is that for years, he has gotten his way on these issues.
Again, when has Dobson ever shown a willingness to compromise and not threaten the party?
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Then I mis-read your comments and sincerely apologize for my harshness of tone.
Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 10:28 PM
Being out-voted is not “allowing.”
I would agree with you though that the Republicans are way too nanny-state-like for my blood. And thus they got their hats handed to them in 2006. Scandals aside, fiscal and legislative irresponsibility doomed this party.
He wasn’t wild about Bush in 2000, but he endorsed him nonetheless against the Gorebot. Like I said, he starts his negotiation with an attitude of power. In the end, though, he has delivered, except in 06 when he stayed out of it. For those who don’t think the social con vote is important, how’d you like the results last year?
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 10:33 PM
Considering the
amnestyimmigration bill just passed, I’m not sure those who stayed home last year are particularly popular at the moment.Slublog on May 17, 2007 at 10:35 PM
While I don’t consider myself an evangelical and 2nd amendment / illegal immigration rate a higher listing in my hierarchy of needs I have to wonder at the GOPs “kick a
Christianconservative in the teeth” policy for winning in 2008. All we hear is that people who feel strongly about abortion, 2nd amendment, illegal aliens need to “get over it” and vote for Rudy. Given that the GOP will not win the election without the evangelicals and / or the conservatives is this someones pipe dream of a political strategy? Neither the Christian Right nor conservatives “get over” these liberal social issues well at all. We have the recipe for a resounding loss in the making.Buzzy on May 17, 2007 at 10:40 PM
It’s way too early to think something James Dobson said today is going to have any effect on the election in ‘08. Even if he keeps saying it.
And it’s an incorrect assumption, I believe, to keep lumping social conservatives into a blind, unthinking organization just waiting breathlessly for someone to give us an opinion. If you think we think alike, come to my Sunday school class on any Sunday and you’ll hear opinions from every walk of life, strongly held — sometimes a little scarily held. Heh.
I can only speak for myself, but I do not see evangelicals speaking with one voice on anything but the ultimate authority of God. And I can tell you, again for myself, that I value my opinion more than I do James Dobson’s. Because isn’t that a trait of us social cons that we’re always right? At least my wife accuses me of believing that. Even though it’s true, of course. ;)
Tennman on May 17, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Popular or not, if you want to win in ‘08 and beyond, you’ll need their votes. Especially now that we have 12 million new Democrats to look forward to with the amnesty that Bush & McCain are shepherding through.
cmay on May 17, 2007 at 10:49 PM
To be honest, as an evangelical Christian myself, Guiliani’s stance on abortion and gun control would normally cause me to abstain from voting for President if he got the nomination as well.
However, the number one issue with me now is the war on terror. I truly believe that if the Democrats win the White House, our nation as we know it is in mortal danger of ceasing to exist. Watching the Dems in power in the House and the Senate has convinced me of that.
Jodella on May 17, 2007 at 11:05 PM
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Mark Steyn wouldn’t adopt something as irrational as what Dobson is talking about, there is a time for pragmaticism and 2008 may be it!
Rudy is also excellent in the area of Capitalism, which should be important to Christians who understand the relationship. Thiis an important area and one in which Hillary and all the major Dem contenders fail miserably in, the fact they all want Socialized medicine should send shivers down any freedom loving person’s spine.
jp on May 17, 2007 at 11:09 PM
I was fully aware of that when I said it, AP. Just tryin’ to keep it real: Kennedy’s a marginal judge without any consistency, and O’Connor was an affirmative action hire/stretch that didn’t work out all that well.
At the risk of a lynching, I don’t mind saying how bad he effed up illegal immigration, too. He passed a full-blown amnesty, and all we got for it was another 15 million Mexicans in 20 years.
On those counts, Reagan blew it. No one’s perfect.
I admire Olson a great deal more than Rudy; maybe he’ll run? The judges Rudy appointed in New York include a who’s who of the kinds of judges that are ruining this country. Actions, my friend, not words.
Jaibones on May 17, 2007 at 11:17 PM
I am not a Giuliani supporter but I think it is plain stupid to say that he would be worse than Hill/Billy II. I would happily vote for him in the general election if he wins the nomination.
For all the Giuliani supporters, I think it is equally ridiculous to argue that because the WoT is the number 1 issue then we must support Rudy. Mitt and Maverick are just as capable if not more so on the issue of terrorism. Be honest. YOu are socially liberal and want a socially liberal Republican. Fair enough. Just stop with the disingenuous outrage when someone can’t plays hardball with Rudy’s record.
Bill C on May 17, 2007 at 11:19 PM
It’s not a Constitutionally protected right. The 2nd Amendment is recognized by the U.S. Constitution as an inalienable right. That is, a pre-existent natrual right which can not be infringed upon by a government.
AZ_Redneck on May 17, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »