Audio: Dobson on Giuliani, McCain, Romney
posted at 9:26 am on May 19, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
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 »
Bryan do you believe Giuliani would pick a Roberts or Alito type for the Supreme Court as he’s suggested? Wondering where that factors in for you.
Dash on May 19, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Who cares what Dobson thinks? He’s not a politician he’s the leader of Christian organization. In reality his opinion is moot except to those who can’t form an opinion on their own…..
Rudy is to liberal to me, that’s just MHO.
bentman78 on May 19, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Pretty good assessment B. War and Illegal Immigration are the issues. Whoever takes a strong stand for those 2 will be a conservative. Immigration could ruin this country with numbers approaching 2.5 trillion dollars, entitlements, losing the GOP forever, etc.
So I think my main issue IS illegal immigration first. It encompasses everything else, especially when packaged w/ ‘homeland security’. We’ve now been attacked from the inside by terrorist illegal immigrants, it’s just the beginning.
shooter on May 19, 2007 at 9:44 AM
~Dobson rushes forward to pick up Falwell’s baton…
locomotivebreath1901 on May 19, 2007 at 9:48 AM
And just to be clear, I’m not with Dobson on this but he’s obviously welcome to his opinion and to express it. But clearly… clearly, he’d rather concede the election to someone who would appoint a Ginsberg rather than vote for someone who at least says he would appoint a “Scalia type”.
It’s absurd to me.
Dash on May 19, 2007 at 9:48 AM
Me too.
Bryan on May 19, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Presidents don’t write abortion laws. Rudy says he’ll appoint constructionists, and I believe him. You know he’s the guy al-Qaeda fears most, and that alone gets him my vote, with relish.
The social con issues: look at what’s happened with W after 6 years. Is the country any more conservative now about gay marriage? Hardly. There is only so much a president’s personal values can do to change the general direction of a culture. It’s important, yes, but we’re mainly – at least in our lifetime – electing a commander in chief, not an arbiter of society’s morals.
The Dobsons of the world are going to split the GOP even more than it now is splitting apart with the illegal alien insanity. We might as well hand the key to the Oval Office to the Clinton/Obama ticket right now.
Halley on May 19, 2007 at 10:08 AM
For cying out loud Bryan, do you WANT no comment threads? You getting to be like Rush. Once you say something, there’s nothing left to be said.
That was a fair and accurate assessment of the race at this time.
csdeven on May 19, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I agree. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
ulyses on May 19, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Christians will never find abortion accceptable. Ever. Human life has value at any age.
Mojave Mark on May 19, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I also agree. Dobson apparently only likes the candidates who couldn’t win against Clinton or Obama.
amerpundit on May 19, 2007 at 10:36 AM
I’ve had it with quasi Conservatives and the fact is that unless we flat out demand a real Conservative candidate, we won’t get one.
The RNC will play fast and loose with Republican loyalty in a heart beat.
Speakup on May 19, 2007 at 10:38 AM
What Dobson thinks about politics is akin to what Madonna thinks about U.S. foreign policy. Who cares? They have opionions, as uninformed and tendentious as most of the 300,000,000 others of us. Anyone asking celebrities to comment on current events is killing time.
windbag on May 19, 2007 at 10:45 AM
I agree completely, except that I think McCain is arguably more of a liberal than Guiliani. McCain is pro-life, and strong on the war, but other than that he’s a disaster.
I think we could trust Guiliani not to be wailing about “torturing” terrorists, Guiliani would appoint conservative judges, and I don’t envision him creating unconstitutional legislation like “McCain Feingold”, or allying himself with the man who created the immigration mess in the first place, namely Ted Kennedy.
Buy Danish on May 19, 2007 at 10:58 AM
AHA! Something I can respond to!
I believe that Dobson is providing a valuable service to conservatives here. He is speaking for himself, not the organization, and if these Christians are as gullible as some claim they are (which I don’t believe), they are going to wait until the organization tells them who to vote for. I conclude that he is manipulating the remaining candidates by witholding a huge block of conservative voters over their heads. Even if conservative christians vote the one single issue of abortion, that stance is not at odds with conservative values and it is doubtful that any other stance a candidate can hold would scare them away. That leaves conservative candidates a lot of leeway to pander to the middle while not alienating their pro-life base. As long as they know abortion is a no go, the republicans can appeal to the middle with the extreme issues surrounding abortion. IE partial birth, stem cell, and using abortion as a means of birth control. All issues the middle are rue to support. The WoT, immigration, special gay rights, gas prices, the economy, taxes (especially!), and jobs are all issues that conservatives are strong on and appeal to the middle.
For the most part, conservatives have more than one core issue that they are passionate about. The democrats are not. They rely on several special interest groups to get elected. Gays, minorities, abortion, anti-war, etc. These groups can afford to be special interest because they take the freedoms they enjoy for granted. It a more important need is suddenly at risk, they abandone the previous want to secure the need. This is a function of Maslow’s Hierarchy. (those of you that may have never heard of this need to take a few minutes and read about Maslow’s Hierarchy)
A perfect example is the relationship between gays and pro-choicers. They rally together all the time, but in the mid 90’s there was a study that claimed that there is a gene that causes homosexuality. Well happy days for gays rights because they could finally prove that God made them that way and the religious groups had to shut up about their immorality. Then, a few days later, some scientists pointed out that since we can identify the gene, we could identify it pre birth and abort gay babies. You never seen a group that was pro-choice switch to pro-life so fast in your life.
If conservatives can bleed off a special intrest group with an issue that that is more important, say for example the war on terror, they can take support from the democrats on issues they are extremely weak on (the WoT). This fact makes it clear why the dems are trying to down play the WoT. If liberals do not feel their safety is threatened, they feel the security to focus on the silly social issues the dems support.
csdeven on May 19, 2007 at 11:04 AM
I won’t show up for any candidate who doesn’t take a strong stand on immigration at this point.
tommy1 on May 19, 2007 at 11:47 AM
That’s a very good point. A number of the Repubs running will get the true conservative vote but we won’t be workin’ the phones for ‘em. I’ve worked on a few campaigns and I MUST be enthusiastic about the candidate to go work a phone bank or pound pavement for them. Most of the quasi-conservatives running will not excite true conservatives enough to get us out there working for them. We may be converts but we won’t be disciples.
Mojave Mark on May 19, 2007 at 12:16 PM
In our efforts to secure a GOP win in 2008, let’s make sure we alienate as many conservative religious voters as we can.
{sarcasm intended}
Y’all keep poking this anti-religious stick in my eye, and pretty soon I’m going to get tired of it.
If you all want a GOP candidate who is almost exactly the same in ideology as the Democrat candidate, why vote?
Do we just want a Good leader? Then the GOP candidates really are better, in my humble opinion.
However, I see no advantage of placing a Good leader in charge of bad ideologies.
>>>
If Fred Thompson doesn’t step into the mix, I’m probably going to have to hold my nose and support Romney.
Lawrence on May 19, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I agree with a lot of what Dobson says on his radio blurb, and enjoy listening to it. But, while important, abortion is not the be all and end all of conservative politics, and has, in fact, been removed from the political arena by the ghastly decision of SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade. Rudy is right in his assessment that the way to revisit this issue is through the appointment of Originalist jurists. I don’t agree with Rudy on abortion, but I agree with his analysis.
Dobson is way off on his “doubletalk” talk. Rudy has never doubletalked. Dobson just disagrees with him. I would hope that Dr. Dobson would be intelligent enough to see that.
Rudy isn’t my candidate, but his presence in the race is a plus, and Dobson does no one any service with this rant.
HerrMorgenholz on May 19, 2007 at 12:39 PM
That’s like saying any bagel but a doughnut.
My feeling has always been. If you can’t vote’m down in the primary, vote for ‘em in the general.
- The Cat
P.S. If it would have been that way in 2006 things would have been different, because we all know that D.C. got taught a lesson that they obviously didn’t learn or even notice for that matter.
MirCat on May 19, 2007 at 12:40 PM
I’m getting really tired of this argument- “hey guys, the polls 18 months before the election say Hillary would win against candidate X! Oh no!”
Hillary and Obama are both easily beatable once the general campaign starts- they’re both empty shells. The only Dem worth worrying about is Richardson, and since he’s the most qualified and most electable candidate the Democrats naturally won’t nominate him.
Hollowpoint on May 19, 2007 at 12:42 PM
I don’t see why you’re acting like that. I mean there have never been good political leaders in the world that were also religious leaders. I mean unless you count Daniel, Joseph, Moses, David, . . . Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr . . .
- The Cat
MirCat on May 19, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Irrelevant, in this nation. The President is the President. He is not a monarch. How he feels about abortion or any other social issue is irrelevant–provided that he isn’t working with a Congress that feels the same way.
Social conservatives would be well advised to stop worrying so much about the Presidential candidate and spend most of their time on Congressional candidates. Congress makes laws. Congress affects all those social issues–not the President.
rightwingprof on May 19, 2007 at 12:47 PM
BINGO! Richardson would actually probably be OK. Darn sight better than the Clenis, Jimmah, “Light-Bulb” Johnson, or even John “American-Royalty” Kennedy (and I just threw up in my mouth a little).
You have to go back to Truman to see a competent Dhimmicrat, and before that there was Jefferson.
HerrMorgenholz on May 19, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Giuliani and judges:
While Giuliani says he will put a Scalia type on the SCOTUS. Will he come through? Two points against him.
1. He appointed a large number of liberal judges while he was the mayor of New York. The judges were not establishment, they were not political, but he didn’t fill the ranks with “Scalia types.”
2. His stance on abortion. How do you square the circle? He hates abortion, yet donates to an organazation that doesn’t need his money and is the face of abortion in America and wants Federal funds allocated to perform a thing he hates? I personally do not like ballet, and coincidentally I’ve never donated to an organazation that promotes ballet. Weird huh?
These two points create two very large looming questions:
1. How committed is he to appointing a “Scalia type” when he isn’t in the habit of appointing “Scalia types?”
2. If he can square the circle between his personal beliefs being at odds with the way he spends his money, and the way he would like the government to spend tax payer money, then he can reconcile that difference when appointing a justice that, thinks Roe is “okay” when having promised conservatives another “Scalia type.”
Rudy was my choice until I found out about his personal views on abortion and the funding of abortions with tax payer money. His belief that a poor woman needs to have federal funds so she can have the privilege of an abortion sounds alot like eugenics speak to me…
I’m Black and 60% of Black pregnancies are terminated. He cannot have my vote over Fred in the primary. Will I not vote for him in the general? *sigh* If I had to vote for Giuliani in the general I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror for a long time.
Theworldisnotenough on May 19, 2007 at 12:54 PM
I agree with this, but only in the reverse. I say concern yourself just as much with your Congressional Candidates just as much as you do The President.
- The Cat
MirCat on May 19, 2007 at 12:55 PM
I’ve a thought for those who are pro-life, but favor Giuliani because he claims he’ll nominate pro-life justices.
Bush thought McCain/Feingold was a bad, unconstitutional law, but signed it anyway because he was sure that the Supreme Court would strike it down.
Each branch of government has its own accountability and responsibility. In that instance, the President ceded his veto authority supposing another branch would have his back, and it turned out to be a fool’s move.
But I’m supposed to consider supporting a pro-abortion candidate because he claims he’ll get Roe overturned? Fool me once…
And then there’s always immigration and gun control.
Rudy is fit to be Attorney General, and would do an outstanding job in that role. He sincerely doesn’t care what people think of him, and his expertise is law and order.
I’m with Lawrence at this point. Sans Fred!, I’ll pray that Romney’s reversal on abortion is sincere, and back him.
Freelancer on May 19, 2007 at 12:59 PM
The knife cuts both ways. Dobson and social cons can accuse Giuliani and his supporters of splitting the GOP. Not to mention, Giuliani is on the wrong side of the immigration issue.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 1:00 PM
DITTO!!!
OBX Pete on May 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I like how you hedged your bet by admitting that Giuliani “says” he would appoint a Scalia type. He may say it, but like his new tougher stance on immigration, he has a history that belies this assertion.
Maybe the Dobsons of the world have been taken for a ride one too many times to buy the same old line from folks like Giuliani. For all of the praise of his candor, Giuliani has a very difficult time explaining how he could be “pro-life personally” but “pro-abortion politically.” Laura Ingraham drilled him and made him look so stupid that he just gave up trying to pretend he would appoint Scalia types to the bench. In fact, I haven’t heard him make this argument since Ingraham’s interview.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 1:12 PM
As I’ve pointed out before, Giuliani has a history of running from not against Clinton; in his home state, nonetheless.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 1:14 PM
“In reality his opinion is moot except to those who can’t form an opinion on their own…..”
bentman78 on May 19, 2007 at 9:41 AM
How condescending of you.
Not to mention downright prejudicial.
Sounds more like the accusations of the left who claim that everyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh is being indoctrinated into being dittoheads rather than simply finding someone to listen to that resonates with the opinions and ideas that they also endorse.
But what would I know about that, according to many of you, I’m just another stupid evangelical Christian who is obviously incapable of coming to any decisions on my own and must be told what to do and who to vote for by someone else. Two PhDs in the sciences notwithstanding.
Dr. Dobson is not a reverend, he is a Psychologist who also happens to be an evangelical Christian.
Dr. Dobson is all about the family.
I have read his books, listened to him on the radio and put his views under the microscope in many ways over the years, cannot find a single instance where what he has had to say was not in the interest of the family. Moreover, his fundamental teachings not only make sense, they work every time they have been tried.
As for Rudy Giuliani, I don’t trust him.
Forget the abortion issue, anyone who tries to mess with the 2nd Amendment in any way shape or form eliminates him or her self from The Machine’s list of possible candidates, and Rudy did that a long time ago.
BTW — Those talking about what is going on right now as an “election” should rethink. This is the runup to nomination.
.
The Machine on May 19, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I’m with you Freelancer. Romney has less baggage than Giuliani. He fought to get a marriage amendment on the ballot. Would not overturn a law that kept Massachusetts from being the gay marriage Las Vegas. He has some credibility on socially conservative issues. I was abe to support Giuliani because I am convinced that the Blue Dogs will hold the line on conservative issues. They have nuetered the liberals on their side of the aisle. Once his true feelings were revealed his appeal as a President that would appoint an originalist to the court was severely tarnished.
But all this his moot once Fred announces.
Theworldisnotenough on May 19, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Ugh, that paragraph is a glob of letters…
Theworldisnotenough on May 19, 2007 at 1:20 PM
At this point in timeI think people are gnashing their teeth and pulling out their hair over nothing. America is not going to elect a black man or a woman of any race to our highest office period. It aint gonna happen! Perhaps some day in the future but not right now. Publicly people may endorse a minority or a woman because it sounds good to their friends or makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside but when the curtain is drawn at the voting booth and they’re alone with their conscience and thoughts of their kids and mortgage… no way no how.
My gut feeling is Gore will be our next President. The Republicans were sent a message last November and it would appear they have chosen to ignore it. Right now the strongest argument to vote Democratic is coming from the GOP.
Just my 2 cents but I predict Gore with a moderate Dem as a VP vs Giuliani with a conservative as his running mate. Personally I’d like to see a Gingrich/Hunter ticket but that’s just as remote as President Hillary.
repvoter on May 19, 2007 at 1:23 PM
None of this will matter a doodlysquat when the jihad goes nuclear or bioweapon.
We will be electing a new Commander In Chief to crush, smash and otherwise annihilate the Islamofascists, both their networks and their regimes – all else is window dressing. I hope enough of us stay focused on that. Otherwise, we’re playing right into their hands, and the hands of their enablers to our left.
Halley on May 19, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Bryan, you did such a good job that you couldn’t even get an anti-Fred Saturday rant out of csdeven :)
Freelancer, the “Sans Fred!” will end this June.
I agree with those who believe that Gore will enter the race. It’s irresistible for him. It will cause the Glacier to have an attack. Don’t know of which kind but that animosity is real.
Entelechy on May 19, 2007 at 3:06 PM
As a practicing Catholic I do not take my political voting direction from Mr. Dobson. Does he know what “Judge not lest ye be judged” means?
I’m so sick and tired of these ministers trying to steer politics. What’s politics have to do with faith?
Vincenzo on May 19, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Dr. Dobson is a private citizen and has all the rights enshrined in the Constitution, just like you do. He can speak his mind, just like you can. He’s built a media company and he uses it. That is his right as a capitalist businessman.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 3:31 PM
So religious figures don’t get to make their opinions known? Like it or not, political issues often have relevance to religious issues.
You almost seem to be opposed to Dobson because he’s not Catholic- you’re aware that the Pope and other Catholic figures also frequently weigh in on politics too, right?
Hollowpoint on May 19, 2007 at 3:32 PM
A poster on Lucianne pretty much stated that the reason the moderates in the Republican party want Giuliani for president is that they believe it would signify the end of the religious right’s influence in the party. This was his personal desire.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 4:17 PM
So Giuliani’s good on the war and that’s it. Pretty damned feeble platform for Republicans. Why is he even a consideration?
Drum on May 19, 2007 at 4:24 PM
The bottom line is whomever is the Republican Party candidate, that person is much, much better than any of the Democrats. As for the candidates, they each have strengths and drawbacks. I think you have to consider what will really matter the most for the issues in the years ahead and, yes, who can get elected. The two candidates who are the best on the Iraq War and the war with the Islamofascists generally are McCain and Giuliani. They also do carry some drawbacks; Giuliani is the most liberal on social issues because McCain is pro-life; but both McCain and Giuliani say they will nominate conservative judges and that is what really matters on abortion.
Phil Byler on May 19, 2007 at 4:32 PM
If we don’t have the Senate no president will be able to get conservative judges. And it is more likely that a moderate president will cave than a conservative one. A moderate president is more likely to throw up his hands and say “I tried” and then nominate a moderate or even liberal one to get that person approved. A conservative president will just keep trying to put in a good one, even if the post stays empty.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 4:36 PM
Rudy is the best for security and the border
tomas on May 19, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Rudy is the best for security and the border
tomas on May 19, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Rudy is the best for security and the border
tomas on May 19, 2007 at 4:58 PM
tomas, kindly explain how pro amnesty Rudy is best for security or the border.
Buzzy on May 19, 2007 at 5:03 PM
I respectfully disagree with you on these two guys. Giuliani has no experience with the military of diplomacy. None. You’re asking us to go on a blind date with this guy. If these are important issues, how about Duncan Hunter? Military experience. Very tough on immigration. He beats these two bozos any day of the week.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 5:16 PM
It seems to me that you’re judging Dr. Dobson. What does that make you?
Actually you don’t seem to have a clue what this phrase means. It means that when Dr. Dobson goes in front of his Creator he will be judged on the merits and gifts he had been given. And how he used them to avoid evil and helped others to do the same.
In other words, we are supposed to discern right from wrong. And we are supposed to do right and oppose wrong.
Of course, you can go on judging for yourself.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 5:23 PM
First of all, we need to stop believing in the myth that Presidents don’t affect abortion law. Clinton vetoed PBA and Bush signed it. A horrid procedure that the vast majority of Americans abhor. From parental consent to 24 hour waiting period to miltary doctors forced to perform them (the Doctors refused during the Clinton years) These are not small things and a President affects them.
A Pres.Giuliani would be a disaster in this area. I don’t believe for a moment that he would nominate judges that value life. You are all fooling yourselves if you believe that. He didn’t just support abortion, he gave money to Planned Parenthood. He is obligated to it. There is no freakin way he will appoint judges who will overturn Roe V. Wade, which needs to be overturned so at least THE PEOPLE of America can finally have a say in what they believe should be law in this area. THEN, finally, it won’t be such an issue every Pres. election.
I completely agree with Dobson on this. Dobson is a man a great character and integrity and wisdom. Blowing him off as some religious fanatic with no education is just foolish. He was an Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine for fourteen years. He spent seventeen years on the staff of the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics and he is a licensed psychologist in California. He has served on several govt. advisory panels.
Yeah. So he knows he stuff.
Before you wonder why his opinion matters, you should know that he has 220 million listeners to his radio program. Millions receive his newsletters. These are people who are more interested in sprirtual and moral matters than political, so they look to someone like him for his valued opinion.
Ok, now that I have that off my chest….I will say that although I a
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Laura Anne Ingraham: “Rove v Wade took the choice out of the peoples hands.” -WTFreak?
Dobson: “I’m not talking for focus on focus on the family, I am talking for my self.” – Focus on the family is his tax exempt non-profit organization (which he makes lots of money from, nothing wrong with that just saying). He should lose his tax exempt status however. He said this so he could protect his golden calf, tax free money from the government.
Dobson: “We have to think about the sanctity of life?” – Yea like more War, but Dobson does not mention Iraq or what’s going on Darfur. A man of “God” who mentions Jesus so little if at all concerns me. He seems to be wrapped up in HIS agenda, obsession with gays and restricting woman from making choices about their body. He should stay out of people’s bed room and doctor’s office. It’s kind of perverted if you think about the control he wants over people.
Dobson: When a thank you call came from the White House (for helping Bush in 2000), Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush ‘needs to be more aggressive’ about pressing the religious right’s pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would ‘pay a price in four years.
- WOW Special interest of all special interest. What arrogance threatening the President. This is what is called Dominionism**. Almost 3/4ths of the nation is for the right of woman to choose. Evangelicals make up 0.7% of America. Dobson is drunk with power. Gays are a part of our society. What does he want, to stone them to death? Thou with out sin, cast the first stone. Go a head and damn yourself and throw that fist stone.
** “Dominionism” describes a movement among socially conservative Christians (Dobson) to gain influence or control over secular civil government through political action, seeking either a nation dominated by Christians or a nation dominated by a Christian understanding of biblical law. Basically he wants a theocracy. This is why the far left has gone crazy, and I don’t blame them. Most moderates don’t support this BS. I might vote for Rudy to spite Dobson.
He wants to spread Christianity thru Government and law! I say he can take his votes a shut up. As far as I’m concerned he’s engaging in voter tampering and fraud. Using religion and Jesus as a lobbyist to get votes for a party, is not what Jesus would do.
As a Christian I find this scary. Taliban in Afghanistan had a religious Islamic theocracy. How did that work out? We have freedom of religion, thought and speech in America. Does any of Dobson’s comments seem Anti-American? We have a government that is separate from religion, aka separation of church and state. Is there any doubt of the Founding Father’s wisdom? We should have laws to keep religious leaders from lobbying the government. In fact we do, but they are ignored apparently if it gets you votes.
Gays and Abortion, Gays and Abortions, Gays and Abortion………how about spreading Gods message of hope, love and forgiveness. How about lowering divorces, reducing poverty, charity outreach and health care for poor and protecting the environment (God’s creation). Even Dobson is anti-global warming. Who made him an expert? No doubt Quid pro quo for support on his anti-gay, anti-woman’s freedom to control their body agenda.
Look at what God actually says in the Bible. Don’t take Dobson’s word for it. His focus on wrath of gays and abortion is distracting from God’s glory and plan he has for all of us, including gays. Dobson’s focus on two divisive topics and focus on WRATH is hate mongering and un-christian. It’s like prove to ME, James Dobson, you love me by voting against freedom of choice and gays.
Dobson was born into the family “business” of evangelicalism. I am sure he makes some coin on his radio show, videos and tapes.
In a way Dobson damages more souls than helps. He holds himself up and the Focus on the Family crew as the defenders of perfect Christians, moral perfection, which is impossible. I have news for Mr. Dobson, he’s as BIG of a sinner as a gay dude in a San Fran leather bar or a woman that had an abortion. We are all sinners and are forgiven only by Gods grace. No one perfect or better than another in God’s eyes. You don’t earn brownie points with good works. It’s thru faith alone we receive forgiveness thru Jesus, not thru Mr. Dobson, who is irrelevent.
Dobson: “Babies are still dying and marriages are still falling apart.” - If every gay was gone tomorrow world wide, there would still be divorce, poverty, hate, crime, war and sin.
Gays are not going away. They are born that way. Dobson says they are not. Right, that is his opinion. I thought what Dobson thought once, gayness was learned. Like Ted Haggard is now cured and Mark Foley (R) went to rehab to not be a gay pedophile predator. Did not now booze made you gay? However hearing gays talk about when they knew I have changed my opinion. It’s in there DNA. Check the kid on TV’s “Ugly Betty”. He was on Jay Leno Tonight show this week. He is gay, gay, gay and is the way he is because of God. God created him so there. Gays have always been here and always be here. Its not learned. The kid is sweet and smart as a little kid can be, but he’s as gay as he can be. He did not learn that. I lust after woman, I was born that way and its my sin. I’m no better than a gay person. We are all sinners; we just sin differently. There is a fixed number of gays 4% to 10% depending on who you are. Gays are not going to make you or me or out kid gay. Most gays are not bad people. In fact they bring a lot of good to society. It would be a less “fabulous” place with out gays.
Outlaw Abortion? Its impractical to eliminate it. Who is going to adopt all the crack babies? YOU ARE? What are we going to do, jail woman for 9 months and ask woman for pregnancy test before leaving the country? In 10 years of no abortions it would cost the US about 36 trillion dollers. 2/3rds to 3/4th of the country want woman’s right to choose, including Christians. I bet if all conservatives, republicans and evangelicals stopped having abortions, abortions would go down by HALF! Don’t be a hypocrite.
I want my government strong not based on one small special interest group’s, special pet peeve topic, forcing weak politicians to pander for their votes. ITS WRONG. It’s undue manipulation. If you care than pray for them, gays and woman seeking abortions; that is the christian way, not politics.
Dobson is a radical, fanatical old blow heart. He got into politics for one reason, he was mad at Clinton for getting a BEEP in the oval office and getting a dress dirty. While people tried to impeach Clinton, those same people where out sinning, having adulterous affairs with their mistress (Nut Gingrich for one).
I like Dobson. His tapes on marriage are great, if you are christian as I’m. I’ve got some of his tapes, but NOW he’s more focused on involving religion in politics, not following God’s commandment, caring for the spiritual life of people, spreading the light, the word of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I rebuke Dobson for his arrogance and deception and distraction from the truth, forgiveness thru Jesus.
You can’t legislate faith or legislate against sin. Abortion is illegal? Than all pre-marital sex and fornication should be illegal. Drinking and Gambling ruins marriage, therefore outlaw that. While we’re at, if you are not Christian you have less rights in America; such as you can’t run for government office. WHERE DOES IT END.
Unlike Falwell and Pat Robertson, Dobson is smarter and understands the Republicans are disingenious and using him and Evangelicals for votes, but he’s still focused on wrath and hate instead of love, forgiveness, charity and salvation. NOT ONCE during the audio clip does he talk about poverty and spreading the gospel, just ANTI-ABORTION, ANTI-GAYS.
God Bless America, God, Country before Party and Politics, Amen.
gmcjetpilot on May 19, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Oops. Sorry. although I am a McCain supporter, I have been impressed in the debates with Romney. I also like what I see in Fred. We have some impressive candidates.
We need to stop fighting among ourselves and come together. Because if we don’t….we will have another Clinton in the White House.
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 6:55 PM
gmcjetpilot,
Sorry you are wrong:
- Focus on the family is his tax exempt non-profit organization (which he makes lots of money from, nothing wrong with that just saying).
Dobson makes NO MONEY off Focus on The Family. He lives off the profits from his childrearing books.
This is so typical of the misinformation that is out there about religious folk.
You are just so wrong on dobson on every point, I can’t go over all of it here. You need to know more about him before you rant. He would be the first to tell you that he is a sinner just like everyone else. (although he has lived a life of moral goodness imo)
And guess what? I am a devout Catholic. I don’t go to any kind of church that even mentions Dobson, but I am very familiar with him through the pro-life movement. He is a truly Godly man. Period.
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Basically he wants a theocracy. Sorry.
I just caught that. SO COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.
Good grief.
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 7:01 PM
One more thing. If you recieved his newsletters, which I have for years, you would KNOW that he address poverty and
ESPECIALLY spreading the gospel every single time.
Don’t speak to what you don’t know.
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 7:02 PM
I have to add one more thing. If you can’t see the difference between legislating a moral behavior that an ADULT engages which affects no one but themselves and the killing of an unborn child, then I can’t help you.
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 7:07 PM
Oh for crying out loud.
Pat Robertson or James Dobson may be hard to take sometimes, and both have been known to say foolish things, but neither of them has advocated laws that call for women to be stoned to death for showing their face in public, or justified beatings or executions of those who do not follow a strict code of behavior.
No religious conservative that I know has tried to outlaw kite-flying or ban all television and movies. When Dobson or another prominent religious conservative calls for the formation of a “ministry for the protection of virtue and prevention of vice,” then we can start justifying such a comparison. Until then, though, perhaps those on the left should hold off on maligning their fellow citizens to score cheap political points.
Slublog on May 19, 2007 at 7:09 PM
Where did you get this number? Do you realize that would be about two-thirds of the people in the United States?
Is that 220 million per day/week/month/year?
Maybe the number includes the listeners all over the world.
I didn’t know that anybody had more listeners than Rush but there is a lot I don’t know!
OBX Pete on May 19, 2007 at 7:13 PM
SLublog is exactly right. Comparing Christian leaders in the U.S. to Islamic theocracy is completely ridiculous.
I’d be the first in line to fight it.
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 7:14 PM
OBX,
I read it in a CNN story, but the only number I can find now is this:
Dobson’s daily radio broadcast can be heard on more than 1,000 radio stations and is listened to by 3.4 million listeners each week, according to Nima Reza, a spokesman for Focus on the Family.
So whatever 3.4 million X 48 weeks equals this, right?
Is my math right?
The numbers are bigger maybe because it is a short program that runs on all kinds of stations.
The reason for the
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM
I think the problem with your number is that you are assuming that it is a different 3.4 million listeners each week. That is not the case. Most of the 3.4 million are regular listeners. So the number would be closer to 3.4 million, not anywhere near 220 million.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Rightwingsparkle,
Don’t let him get under your skin. The rest of us just chuckle at his rants.
Listener numbers for talk radio are almost always based on a per-week figure. To take the 3.4 million number and multiply it by weeks per year wouldn’t be realistic.
Dobson cares about people, primarily children and families. He proves his devotion to his work all the time. He has as much right to state his political opinion as anyone, it just so happens that he has a large stage to state it from. Those that ridicule him do not know him or his work.
None of this is to say that he is infallible or that all of his opinions are perfectly correct. But I recognize that anyone who speaks from a Christian perspective will get far more opposition from the secularists than one of their own, even when making the exact same error.
Freelancer on May 19, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Whatever his numbers are in radio, there is no doubt that he does sway the evangelical vote. I don’t know if that is necessarily good or not, but my point is that I really grow tired of people tearing down someone just because they are in a Christian leadership position.
Say what you wish about Dobson, he practice what he preaches. He speaks from the heart and from Christian tradition and until he sways from that, I will respect him.
Rightwingsparkle on May 19, 2007 at 8:44 PM
People want be informed when they vote so it is only logical that they will look to people that they respect for their opinions on candidates.
Rose on May 19, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Did anybody see a point to gmcjetpilot’s seemingly ceaseless rant? Wow, there were so many errors and false assumptions in his diatribe it’s hard to start.
But here goes:
a) There is no conclusive study that shows that homosexuality is in the genes. There is quite a bit of evidence that it is a learned behavior. Every time a study has claimed to isolate the “gay gene” it has been scientifically invalidated (by, you know, scientists not theologians).
b) Who the heck brought up “dominionism.” It sounds like some paranoid fantasy that liberals cling to to motivate themselves and their mindless followers.
c) I wonder where he gets the stats that half of the abortions in the US are committed by conservatives. Sounds like a madman vacating the bowels of his mind.
d) Could anyone follow his line of logic about Dobson trying to stop abortion and the abolition of gays in the US? There seems to be a lot of missed steps in his logic.
e) Did he really say, ” like Dobson. His tapes on marriage are great, if you are christian as I’m”? Boy that was apparent by his kind praise for the man. And I always thought that Christian was capitalized.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 8:47 PM
BTW, I got a question. If there is a “gay gene”, how has it survived natural selection? Think about it. It can’t replicate because homsexual acts are infertile by their very nature.
There may be an answer. I’m just asking the question.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 9:13 PM
cmay you and Dobson are betting that Rudy is lying, that’s first of all. Second, his track record is mayor of New York, he’s as socially conservative as the town will allow. I have no reason at all to think he wouldnt appoint a Roberts type. Roberts is excellent, as is Alito, so why wouldnt he?
Finally, if social cons break the coalition and stay home it will be on your collective heads (figuratively of course)should Clinton get in and when she nominates those judges, you tell me how you feel about it. You’ll have a good long time to think on it too as they blow by the Dem congress.
As a non social con at least I get the abortion thing. i really sincerely do. If you believe it’s a life there is no compromise. I personally do not believe it’s life at conception. But beyond that as a more secular conservative I have to put up with the embarassing and completely weak argument of “gay marriage is ruining the fabric of our nation!” and add in the “moral majority” nonsense, on top of the “the pill is murder” … disagreement…. so dont think you’re the only ones compromising.
Dash on May 19, 2007 at 9:52 PM
I think Dobson is a decent enough guy…has a lot of good things to say through the years, has never been associated with a scandal, lives what he preaches, is a kind/loving guy…a few of you are a little out there in some of your comments about him..you really don’t know him do you? I understand why he would not want to vote for Giuliani…I personally don’t pick Giuliani as my first choice because he’s a softie on guns and border…and both of those ARE a part of the war on terror. Yeah yeah please spare me about Giuliani’s promises.
Having said that, what Dobson and others who threaten to sit home on voting day don’t realize is you ARE in fact voting…either way…go to the polls and vote or sit on the couch and give one to the dems. Only way protest votes mean anything is if voting is stopped.
Highrise on May 19, 2007 at 9:57 PM
From gmc at 6:54
On gays:
On abortion. A large number of Christians believe that after blood is formed in the fetus abortion “sheds innocent blood”
roydee43 on May 19, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Please read this article at NRO. His history makes me think he’s just telling us what he thinks we want to hear. Laura Ingraham also exposed how poorly thought out his position on judicial activism is. For a lawyer he sounded awfully inept when she asked him real questions especially about what a Constructionist was.
Once again, the knife cuts both ways. Will it be the social cons’ fault or the fault of those who alienated the social cons? Even so, I don’t think that I’ve advocated this strategy. I’m only warning folks that if they alienate their own voters, their voters won’t show up. It happened in 1992 (because of tax hikes), 1996 (Dole/Kemp just relied on anti-Clinton sentiment) and 2006 (scandal and fiscal irresponsibility). It will happen again.
Do you blame supply-siders for giving us 8 years of Clinton? They abandoned Bush41 because of taxes. In ‘06 the Democrats didn’t deserve to win, but the Republicans certainly did nothing to recommend themselves. Who are you blaming for that? It wasn’t just social cons but supply-siders too who got sick and tired of being taken for a ride.
Rather than pointing fingers at the groups that make up the Republican Party, I got an idea. Support candidates that everyone will like. Someone who is strong on 1st Amendment (not McCain), 2nd Amendment (not Giuliani), the War on Terror, immigration and social policy.
Otherwise, you can take solace that social cons are the fault of another Republican drubbing.
cmay on May 19, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Dash,
I don’t want to get into an abortion discussion, but I do tire of the “I don’t believe life begins at conception” argument when it comes to abortion. Guess what? No abortions happen at conception!
Do you believe that life exists when the heart is beating and brain waves are detected??? If so, then you are looking at a 6 week old unborn baby in gestation. The timeline of which abortions begin taking place. No abortion is performed before 6 weeks because it is too easy to miss it.
So whether you believe life begins at conception has nothing to do with abortion as it is today.
Rightwingsparkle on May 20, 2007 at 12:11 AM
If Guiliani ends up being the nominee, I think Dobson had better consider the full impact of what he’s saying. He’s telling people to stay home through all of 2008 over one issue. That’s illogical in addition to dangerous.
For the record, Guiliani has my vote as of today. If Fred! were in the race, Fred! would have my vote. I like what Romney says, but I don’t trust him yet. Also, I have great respect for Mr. Dobson except for when he enters the political arena.
If the Democrat running opposite of a Guiliani ticket were a staunch supporter of ending legalized abortions under normal circumstances, Dobson would have a logical argument to make, seeing as he seems to be a one issue mouthpiece politically. Name the donkey supporting the ending of such abortions, though. Man, those crickets are loud.
If Guiliani is in the race against a donkey who feels the same or even worse (Obama, for instance), the election will not be decided on the issue you desire it to be. Given that point of irrelevancy, what would be the greater sin, voting for someone who condones abortion but is good in many other ways, or staying home and risking the presidency of someone far worse otherwise?
Mr. Dobson, you’re sounding like a Pharisee. As I recall, Jesus healed someone on the Sabbath. The Pharisees confronted Jesus with the sin of doing work on the Sabbath. Jesus threw their point in their faces by saying that the real sin would have been not healing the man who needed his help. Mr. Dobson, by taking the position that you’re currently taking, you yourself are are saying that we should not do the right thing because of a technicality. I’m sure you roll your eyes over those stupid Pharisees when you teach on this passage I’ve referenced, but do you understand its implications regarding your own actions?
I’m not a perfect man. I’ll admit I’ve got plenty of specks in my eyes. Mr. Dobson, I hope you yank out the planks currently protruding from yours.
flutejpl on May 20, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Your analogy of the Pharisee doesn’t work. Jesus was angry with the Pharisees because of their hypocrisy. If Dobson were to support someone who believes something that he so strongly is against, then Dobson would be the Pharisee.
Rose on May 20, 2007 at 1:32 AM
Oh..and puleaze..some people need to realize that Dobson doesn’t run some cult. Christians by and large have a mind of their own that tend to like Dobson and they don’t follow everything that comes out of his mouth NOR does he expect them to or tell them to unlike islam. There are a few things I don’t follow of his yet other things he brings up, I’m like..oh thanks for the info..interesting stuff.
It’s not like he’s some imam that has his followers in a cult issuing fatwas if ye vote for Giuliani. A few of you are a bit over the edge with this guy and his impact in influencing Christians that can’t think for themselves..oh no!
Highrise on May 20, 2007 at 1:58 AM
In what way is Giuliani good? Abortion & gay marriage are only the tip of the iceberg. Anti-2nd Amendment. High amount of corruption both personal and political.
Oh yeah! I forgot, he’s going to win the War on Terror and Iraq despite having zero experience with the military or foreign policy! But trust him.
Or is your line going to be how he’ll beat Hillary in a general election. He ran from her in 2000 and didn’t run against her in ‘06. She’s from Arkansas/Illinois. He retreated in his home state for goodness sake. For some reason I don’t buy that line either.
So why again are we supposed to be in love with this guy?
cmay on May 20, 2007 at 8:08 AM
Without the evangelical vote, the GOP looses the next election for sure. Rudy doesn’t excite me either…however, I’d take him over a liberal Dummiecrat anyday. Understanding a Marxist outcome is what Dobson should be concentrating on….he is just not being logical.
lynnv on May 20, 2007 at 8:37 AM
Once again, the knife cuts both ways. Giuliani supporters should be thinking the same thing and find someone who they and the social cons can agree on.
Dobson actually makes a lot of sense in three ways. The first is that if he caves on this, he can expect the same treatment year after year. He is trying to drive the party right and giving in won’t help him in the long run.
The second should be obvious with Bush and immigration. The left is having a great time. Getting everything they want with a Republican President while his party crumbles around him. Dobson can read the tea leaves. If Rudy gets elected there will be no resistance to the leftward agenda at all because he will use “party over principle” on every Republican in office. After all, it got him elected. And thus the Republicans will just be another form of the Democrats. Don’t believe me? Look at California with its “Republican” governor. I don’t see any difference between him and Gray Davis except that Arnie has been more effective at enacting leftist legislation.
The third way is pragmatic. If Rudy wins the Presidency he will be the nominee again in 4 years. This means that we will have a minimum of 8 years of leftist governance. If he loses, at least the party will have a chance to make amends in 4 years and nominate a conservative.
cmay on May 20, 2007 at 9:24 AM
I wont get too into it either but I just got a missive in the Church bulletin yesterday which stressed to me that Plan B is indeed abortion according to the Catholic church. Unless I was misreading it which I dont think I was.
Dash on May 20, 2007 at 10:28 AM
And who is that candidate? It’s apparently none of the front runners, and I am not holding my breath for Fred to ride in on his white horse. IMO your fight should be in the primaries and then you have to hold your nose or not. We do with what we have. There is no Reagan this cycle, would that there were.
Whoever emerges from the primaries is your option against Hillary, so yes it is on social cons this year in all likelihood. Bush 41 was undone by Perot and Clinton’s successful run to the middle. Dole just wasnt a good candidate and couldnt beat the “things are going smooth why change” attitude of the less engaged voters.
Oh and I read your article, which links to the LA Times not NRO. I’m sure many are salivating over the Giuliani angst on the right, sad part is my liberal sparing partner predicted this months ago and I said he was wrong.
Dash on May 20, 2007 at 10:38 AM
That’s an interesting argument, but I’m not convinced. I’ll agree that the situation you’ve painted would make Dobson look even worse, but I don’t think that Jesus was mad at the Pharisees in that particular passage for hypocrisy. Bigger picture, other passages… yes, absolutely. In this particular instance, though, I think they were more guilty of being blind guides than hypocrites. They were adhering to a common law and were using it for their own purposes, but they in that instance, we will assume, were not breaking the law themselves by bringing up this issue.
My point is that, suppose it’s Guiliani vs. Clinton in 11/08. The abortion issue is totally irrelevant. Dobson can surely find another issue on which to draw a distinction between the two candidates. He has to realize that one votes whether he pulls a lever or not. Staying home is itself a form of voting. When one candidate will by logic have to be better than the other, not voting for the candidate that would be better is in effect saying that it’s okay for the worse candidate to win. That, in my mind, is the real hypocrisy here.
flutejpl on May 20, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I wont get too into it either but I just got a missive in the Church bulletin yesterday which stressed to me that Plan B is indeed abortion according to the Catholic church. Unless I was misreading it which I dont think I was.
Dash on May 20, 2007 at 10:28 AM
It is. But it is relatively new. We have been fighting abortion for over 30 yrs here. I think you are avoiding the question.
Rightwingsparkle on May 20, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Plan B is abortion according to medical literature, not just the Catholic Church. It prevents an embryo from implanting in the lining of the uterus or for the uterus to expel it once implanted. You don’t need a priest to tell you this is abortion. Yu can rely on a doctor or dictionary.
And that’s why the fight will be see brutal in the primaries. I think Giuliani’s strategy is to win the big liberal states in the primaries. CA, NY, PA and MA have a lot of electoral votes and would definitely help him get the Republican nod. But do you think he will win these states in a general election? NY and CA will vote for Hillary, Obama or nearly anybody else against Rudy. And so he will go on to lose the states that won him the nomination as well as the purple states like VA, OH, ND, SD, IA, NE, FL, NM, AZ, etc. And the Republican party will lose seats in both chambers because of the negative coattails associated with Giuliani. His nomination is a disaster in the making. And if he won the White House, his presidency would be a disaster too (for reasons I’ve stated above).
Nonetheless, my point is valid that the economic cons deserted the party because of taxes and NAFTA. Do you blame them for 8 years of Clinton?
Instead of threatening to blame the disparate groups within the party, find a reasonable candidate. I ask again, what’s wrong with Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo? They are not compromise candidates on any issue. And on immigration they’d put CA in play and solidify the South, AZ, NM and CO for conservatives.
cmay on May 20, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Look, I’m a very Faithful person. I attend Church every week. I believe in God. I belive in Jesus. I believe in Sin and redemption.
I also believe that the Holy Bible is not a book of science, or an exact word for word dialog from God on how to live. I do have faith that the right intent is in the Bible, but its written by men.
That all being said, Dobson, Robertson, Fallwell, and the like gave us Bush. I voted for him. I defended him. I backed him in the face of all logic from everyone I know. Yet here today, George Bush has sold us out to the Mexicans. He’s dumbed down our country, and potentially ruined our position as the #1 power in the world due to it. I can get thrown in jail for taxes, but his new Mexican Americans can’t. Now, I bought this all becuase everyone told me Bush would be great. Sorry, its not so great.
And I’m not going to let some big britched televangelist tell me like it is again. Sorry, Charlie. I’m a Jeffersonian. I don’t want my country being run from the airwaves of the supposed Christian leaders.
I do, however, want my family and my life to live by Catholic code and dogma. I won’t kill. I repent my sins. I kneel before God. I DONT HOWEVER KNEEL BEFORE THESE BLASPMERS THAT POSE AS GREAT MORAL LEADERS.
They are out of touch with reality, and wish to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us.
Vincenzo on May 20, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Uh, actually none of them were wild about him but admitted he was the better of the two candidates. It’s a little disingenuous to try to make it seem like the Religious Right hand picked him. They were wary of Bush from the get go.
cmay on May 20, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Perhaps I’m being a bit overzealous, but in the end the religious right was the decider between Bush and McCain in 2000. Now, I’ll always take the Republican candidate over the crazy liberal, but we got stinkfingered here. We got shafted.
I don’t want it happening again. To me, Giuliani is the smartest guy up there, and cares about our security and economy. He gets what it means to be a capitalist. I know he’s shaky on some issues, but we won’t get perfection. When we do get someone who says he is for EVERYTHING we believe(George Bush), they turn out to be sacks of doggy doo. Now we’ve been sold down the river over and over again.
At least with Rudy I know he’ll tell it like it is. That’s what I need. That’s what WE need.
Vincenzo on May 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM
For the last time, Dr. Dobson is NOT a minister.
He is not a reverend, he is not ordained as a minister of any faith.
He is a Christian Psychologist who studies and writes about the family.
Can’t take any criticism seriously when the person making the criticism doesn’t even know what and whom they are talking about.
.
The Machine on May 20, 2007 at 1:58 PM
So everyone on HotAir should vote for Guiliani because the moderates say we should but no one else’s opinion matters? I will vote for the person I trust on judges, and not because of the abortion issue. My issue is religious freedom and the ACLU with the help of liberal judges are doing their best to destroy it. I hate abortion but even if Roe is overturned we will still have it because the states will still have the right to decide. There are other things that the judges are dangerous on. Not only religious freedom but parental rights and property rights. We need judges who will respect the constitution and I just don’t think Rudy’s conservative enough to stick with his promise on judges. I think he will cave to pressure from the liberals in congress who he is more in line with philosophically.
Rose on May 20, 2007 at 2:34 PM
It’s funny because typically I’m arguing the other side of this to liberals, but here we go… Plan B is basically a high dose of the birth control pill to my understanding and will not work if you are pregnant. Regardless of any semantic argument you want to get into here about what constitutes “pregnant”, my point is it’s far earlier than the 6 weeks you asked me about. It’s 2-3 days after at most, not weeks. Hopefully we can at least agree there, if not no point going further.
As for your question, that was my response. I dont necessarily agree with your characterization of brain waves and heartbeat at 6 weeks, but lets accept that. I dont know if I consider that life. Thats my honest opinion and that’s my problem with the government mandating anything in this sphere beyond a federalist “We all voted and agree that XYZ should be the rules on abortion. Move to NY or SD if you dont like it”
I know I dont think life starts when the sperm hits the egg, and I know I do think it’s a life at the very latest when it’s viable, but between there I’m not sure.
Dash on May 20, 2007 at 2:38 PM
So you feel Giuliani is a disaster if he gets elected or not basically. Wins the primary and it’s a disaster because he’ll lose to Hillary anyway and even if he wins it’s a disaster because…. he might nominate a Kennedy or O’Connor like Reagan, not a Scalia type like he says he will. As opposed to Hillary who will assuredly nominate a Ginsburg.
Tancredo and Hunter would get curb stomped by any Democrat up there save Kucinich… maybe even by him. Talk about polarizing figures.
Dash on May 20, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Alright, I stand down from my position. In my own ignorance, I immediately understood this loon to be a minister. I was wrong.
OK, if he doesn’t want to vote for Giuliani that’s fine, so long as he’s not also saying he speaks for God.
Shows you just how much I know about the “evangelicals.”
Vincenzo on May 20, 2007 at 3:54 PM
I have many reservations about Rudy, but I’d vote for him in a general election against any dem so far presented with only a few qualms. Some things, in the big picture, trump some other things.
Arguing about abortion won’t mean a thing if we have radical islam calling the shots over huge swaths of this planet. Same with so-called “gay rights.”
I don’t see the second amendment being challenged in any substansive way no matter what the POTUS thinks, as the NRA and its ilk will take agressive action whenever the issue of limiting gun rights on a large scale even hints of coming up.
Immigration? Huge issue. But while I am not in agreement with Rudy there, at least he’s not going for out-and-out open borders, which is a start.
The SCOTUS is another huge issue, but I’d hope that we could get some good judges out of a Guiliani administration. That would help keep things on an even keel for the next 20 or 30 years.
The reality is that we are not going to get anyone with whom we agree 100% of the time…heck, I don’t even agree with myself 100% of the time. We’ve got to be realistic, boys and girls, and take what we can get. And having almost any repub in the White House is better than almost any dem.
I have a lot of respect for Dobson in many areas, but I’d hope that he would see reason here. He has a lot of sway in the Christian community, and if they don’t vote it could be disaster for more conservative candidates at all levels. To say that you don’t recommend voting for someone who does not agree with you 100% of the time is counter-productive. Standing up for principles is one thing, committing ritual seppuku is quite another.
Bob's Kid on May 20, 2007 at 4:04 PM
I’m not sure what’s so polarizing about Hunter. Tancredo seems like a single issue candidate, but what an issue! Plus he’s pro-life, pro-gun, etc. He and Hunter are honest and don’t have the corruption in their past like Giuliani.
Giuliani is very polarizing and he’s already run from Hillary twice (as I’ve said before). Oh yeah, I forgot. He’ll beat her this time because. . . . Actually, there’s no reason to think he will.
Not to mention, I’ve not advocated staying at home. Only pointing out that it’s happened before. It’ll happen again. And it’s not just social cons either. May I remind you the supply-siders do it also.
cmay on May 20, 2007 at 8:42 PM
If Clinton gets the Democrat nomination and she’s smart enough to pick Richardson as her running mate (and not Obama), she will be the next president of the US. IMO we cons (social or otherwise) might want consider what will happen after that.
baldilocks on May 20, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Neither Giuliani, McCain nor Romney will be able to beat the historical combo of a woman-minority ticket. Fred? Even money.
baldilocks on May 20, 2007 at 9:12 PM
“If Clinton gets the Democrat nomination and she’s smart enough to pick Richardson as her running mate (and not Obama), she will be the next president of the US. IMO we cons (social or otherwise) might want consider what will happen after that”
baldilocks on May 20, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Sure doesn’t sound like any conservative I’ve ever met.
As a rule, we generally tend to be optimistic.
Sounds like what Rush calls a “seminar caller”.
But thank you for playing.
.
The Machine on May 21, 2007 at 2:18 AM
“the NRA and its ilk”
Bob’s Kid on May 20, 2007 at 4:04 PM
There’s another one.
Can’t even hide their psychosis when desparately trying to pretend to be something they aren’t because they know they are so much smarter than us dumb conservatives.
.
The Machine on May 21, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Pardon me for piling on, Dash, but this point needs to be made. Will you agree that at the very best, what you just said above is the most honest position a secularist can take when asked when life begins? That you can’t be sure?
There is only one sane choice in that case. If you aren’t and can’t be certain if it is or isn’t life, why allow it to be destroyed in the name of convenience? How can anyone make a legal argument that the uncertainty if they are committing murder makes it acceptable?
And Plan B is designed PRECISELY to work including post-fertilization, that’s why such a massive dose of chemical is employed. And that’s why it is viewed as abortive.
Freelancer on May 21, 2007 at 3:27 AM
Well for me I can say I feel pretty certain a 1 day fertilized egg is not human life. I think the best you can say there is “potential” human life but then you get into too many abstracts. I grant that “err on the side of life” is a powerful argument, it’s why I take the pro-life position against rabid pro-choice folks. In fact other than here that’s the position I usually argue.
I’ve had long drawn out arguments with “Pro-choice” people (one in particular who defaces any pro life poster she sees) who will not even concede to me that aborting minutes before birth for no reason is murder and should be illegal.
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, or if she is raped and so on. 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.
Dash on May 21, 2007 at 7:41 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »