Audio: Dobson on Giuliani, McCain, Romney

posted at 9:26 am on May 19, 2007 by Bryan

Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson appeared on the Laura Ingraham show to reiterate his stance with regard to Rudy Giuliani’s candidacy for the GOP nomination. Here’s the clip. Dobson also talks about McCain (unacceptable) and Romney (still on the list).

My thoughts on this are that at this point I haven’t made up my mind one way or another, but for me Giuliani cuts several ways. Good on the war on terrorism, bad on immigration, bad on gun control, good on law and order (except immigration, which is a pretty big hole), bad on abortion, and so forth. From a social con point of view he’s a decidedly mixed bag. From a straight conservative point of view he’s a decidedly mixed bag. Could I vote for him in the general election? If the choice is between Giuliani and Clinton or any other Democrat, yes I could. But it’s a tougher call than it ought to be, because as leader of the party he would move the GOP in directions it ought not go in my opinion, even while he’d be a stalwart ally in many respects. Did I mention that he’s a mixed bag?

For me personally, Guiliani is hands down better than any Democrat on the war, and that being the central issue of the time, he’d earn my vote against any Democrat. He’s also better on judges and on his approach to crime (except illegal immigration, where he’s awful). In the primaries, it’s a different story. I don’t know who I’ll support, but I doubt that it’ll be him. Both Romney and Thompson are just as good on the war and they’re more conservative on other issues. The same is true of all the other candidates except McCain and Paul. McCain it at least (mostly) good on the war. I am a little queasy about Romney’s evident flip-flopping and opportunism, fwiw. McCain is just as mixed as Giuliani for different reasons, but I trust him much less than I’d trust Giuliani. Giuliani is easily the most liberal GOP candidate in the race, so he starts at a disadvantage when it comes to earning my vote, as does McCain. But in the general election, I can’t write off either one. I don’t subscribe to the notion that losing is winning, not when there’s a war at stake. Any Republican but Paul would be better than any Democrat on the war, so the only Republican who’s unacceptable to me at this point is Ron Paul, which is too bad–he’s a crank in more ways than one, but at least he’s a crank who really wants a smaller government.

All of that is a long way to go to explain why I think it’s premature to dub Giuliani “unacceptable,” as Dobson has. But that’s what I think.

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Comment pages: 1 2

Well for me I can say I feel pretty certain a 1 day fertilized egg is not human life.

Dash on May 21, 2007 at 7:41 AM

I will assume you are talking about a HUMAN fertilized egg. So that means it’s human and it’s alive. So please explain to me why you don’t believe it’s human life ?

Maxx on May 21, 2007 at 1:32 PM

Problem is with the “when in doubt chose life” argument is it’s not just minor convenience if a mothers life is in danger, or if her health is at serious risk. . .

I know of no pro-life organization that thinks that a mother must die in tragic circumstances like what you’re putting forth. Plan B would be used long before health problems for the mother could be diagnosed, so you’re line of argument is disingenuous and wrong.

As for cases of rape and incest, you are sentencing an innocent to death because of the sin of his father. Rape and incest are a hard case and as the old saying goes, “Hard cases make bad law.” But the FDA wasn’t making Plan B over-the-counter for rape victims. They should go to an emergency room because there’s a lot more going on than risked pregnancy. So your argument is disingenuous again.

You’re basically arguing that a woman must do what you want because you feel there is life at conception (or whenever) and she cant prove to you there isnt, even though you cant prove to her there is.

Another disingenuous argument, Dash. This is really disappointing. If you agree to err on the side of life you wouldn’t require that we prove when life began. However, that logical fallacy aside, human life begins at conception because:

a) It’s human. Species do not produce other species within the reproductive process. We can tell from the instant of conception that the DNA is human, even if we can’t identify it with out eyes.

b) It’s alive because it passes every scientific and medical definition for life. It is highly dependent, you know, like an infant is highly dependent. But that does not negate the fact that the embryo is alive.

If you know that at 1 day it is not a human life, when does it become a human life and what is the characteristic that makes it obvious?

cmay on May 21, 2007 at 8:25 PM

If Giuliani is the pick, I’ll vote for him over any Dem. I’m a Thompson supporter. But I’m not dumb enough to think a straight conservative ticket will win. If I was, it would be Thompson/Hunter for me. I will support a Thompson/Giuliani ticket.

Connie on May 22, 2007 at 2:08 AM

But I’m not dumb enough to think a straight conservative ticket will win.

Only a conservative ticket will win. Republicans win (and win big) when they present clear alternatives to the liberals. The last election was lost because all the Republicans could come up with for a slogan is “You don’t want Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, do you?”

They had abandoned all pretense of conservative principle and got their hats handed to them. If you look at the make up of Congress now and in ’06, you’ll see that, although the leaders are much further left, Congress is actually more conservative. After the VTech shootings, there was no movement whatsoever of implementing more gun control laws. There is only a weak movement to increase taxes.

The Democrats won only by picking more conservative candidates. If it worked for them, how about for the Republicans?

cmay on May 22, 2007 at 8:34 AM

Comment pages: 1 2