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?

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?

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

.

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.

.

If Hillary Clinton wins the 2008 Democratic nomination for president and has the tactical good sense to pick Governor Bill Richardson (NM) or Senator Barack Obama (IL) for her running mate (the former is a better choice), the next POTUS…

Talk about polarizing figures.

Dash on May 20, 2007 at 2:51 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.

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.

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.”

cmay on May 20, 2007 at 11:59 AM

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.

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

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.

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

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.

.

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.

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.

That all being said, Dobson, Robertson, Fallwell, and the like gave us Bush.

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.

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.

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

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.

IMO your fight should be in the primaries

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).

Bush 41 was undone by Perot and Clinton’s successful run to the middle.

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.

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.

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

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.

cmay on May 19, 2007 at 10:31 PM

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.