Christian leaders may back third-party candidate if Rudy wins GOP nomination
posted at 9:44 pm on September 30, 2007 by Allahpundit
They held a “private” meeting on Saturday in Salt Lake City to discuss the issue, according to Salon and WND. And as with all “private” political endeavors in which “private citizen” James Dobson is involved, the details ended up in the papers as a threat to party leaders not to defy the religious base. Think of it as the evangelical equivalent of Tom Friedman’s dopey “9/11 is over” column in the Times this weekend: social cons weren’t going to subordinate their domestic priorities to the war on terror forever, and so, ironically, with Mr. 9/11 himself possibly heading up the ticket, they’re ready to declare 9/11 “over” for them too by shattering the coalition of hawks.
Shrewd move. The GOP’s already looking at near-certain defeat so evangelicals can walk away without worrying overly much about costing Republicans the election. Plus, the fact that they’re willing to make good on their threat will put the, ahem, fear of God into the rest of the party ahead of 2012 and restore some of the emphasis on “values” that’s been lost in the jumble of terrorism and Iraq. In fact, if I were Dobson, I’d almost hope Giuliani wins the nomination just so I can play my trump. That sort of power play will inevitably and irretrievably alienate a few centrist conservatives like me but the GOP can afford to shed us. They can’t afford to shed Christians. That’ll mean leftist rule for awhile but eventually the MoveOn crowd will overplay its hand and alienate some centrist Democrats and things will even out. Let’s hope it doesn’t take too long.
Exit question: Who’ll be the “Christian nominee”? Forget Newt; he’s too much of a party man to play Nader to Rudy’s Gore. The WND article mentions someone named Foster Friess, but it’d be stupid to nominate a no-name like that who can’t attract any votes that aren’t being handed to him by Dobson et al. How about Alan Keyes?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next »
Any and all comments about some of us here being unrealistic for demanding everything we want in a candidate is a straw man as no one is demanding anything like everything.
Some of us just find a milkshake with one scoop of $hit in it to be little distinguishable from one with two scoops of $hit in it and frankly I do not even see that much difference between Rudy and HildaBeast ™,.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 2:05 AM
agreed
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:07 AM
If this is true, then Dobson is saying nothing other than “I’ll willingly help elect Hillary”. In which case, the GOP should distance itself right now and forever from this guy. Playing church politics with national security in wartime is as irresponsible as anything the Left is doing.
My thesis for 2008 stands strong: the Dem line-up is so utterly unqualified, uninspiring and unelectable that only stupidity within the GOP could get any of them into the White House. So far, the unearned swoon over Fred! and counterproductive attacks on Rudy are proving my point.
Halley on October 1, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Just to bring some of you up to date here, “Evangelicals”, by definition, do not have a Pope to tell us how we should vote….
Carry on.
TBinSTL on October 1, 2007 at 2:07 AM
Why is Thompson tanking and Mitt Romney now leading in South Carolina, according to americanresearchgroup.com? Maybe Dobson’s email had more effect than given credit for.
Sebastian on October 1, 2007 at 2:02 AM
Thompsons mopping the floor with Romney in South Carolina.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 2:08 AM
Metaphor of the day.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 2:09 AM
I’m not holding a gun to your head or anyone elses. Honestly.
MB4Moby on October 1, 2007 at 1:51 AMBut you certainly would if you could.
doriangreyScooby-Doo on October 1, 2007 at 1:56 AMI would do nothing of the kind.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 2:11 AM
If those are my only choices I don’t want two scoops. I think Dobson is playing a card now in an attempt to knock Rudy out. If that is the case, then more power to him. I’m not the biggest fan of Rudy, but I do think the U.S. would be very different, and better, after 4 years of Rudy than 4 years of Hillary.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:12 AM
Bull$h$t……..
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 2:12 AM
I believe MB4. I think you are reaching on this point.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:18 AM
You know, right after 9/11 would have been the perfect time to really educate the American people of the dangers that Islamic Jihad posed to our nation and the rest of the west. Instead Bush failed to properly educate himself, came up with some silly, mischaracterized slogan, and then rushed off to “spread democracy throughout the middle east.” To this day I still think the Bush Administration fully grasps the scope and full intent of our Islamic enemies.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 1:57 AM
Diana West had a great piece about this. It was the speech that Bush would give if she wrote it for him. I posted it on another thread a couple of days ago to not exactly rave reviews though.
If this were a sane world,
this is what we would hear during the president’s next address to the nation:
Scroll down a bit to – What President Bush should say to us -
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 2:21 AM
They’ll be no “no name” third party challenge. If some “evangelicals” don’t feel represented, they’ll just stay home. Too bad. Let’s hope the lefties feel betrayed when Hillary turns right ater getting the nod. Welcome back Ralph. Good Luck!
edgehead on October 1, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Bull$h$t……..
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 2:12 AM
I wouldn’t do that either.
You are just being silly.
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 2:23 AM
I believe MB4. I think you are reaching on this point.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:18 AM
Hopefully he is not reaching for his six-gun!!!
Was it something I said?
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 2:25 AM
Bravo! Diana West for President.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 2:32 AM
This fairytale is not to be believed. AllahP has bought this storyline hook, line and sinker but it is a product of the Clinton disinformation machine that has gone into full swing.
Gary Bauer issued an email plea on Friday to not believe any news story regarding dissension within the Christian community – including any news issued by “Christian” sources. He also mentioned disinformation regarding a 3rd party campaign: “In recent weeks, I have received a number of e-mails from fellow believers attacking me, and in every case it was based on false press reports. Some have written angry notes because they have heard that I want a third pro-family party, while others are angry because I don’t want a third pro-family party.”
Before anyone starts throwing snot in the air about GOP candidates or the political positions adopted by any personality, we need truthful information.
Promulgation of disinformation of this type is a blow to the conservative cause and a victory for Team Hillary. Propaganda and infighting we don’t need. And someone needs to rap AllahP on the knuckles for suggesting “the GOP can afford to shed us (i.e., centrist conservatives).” The defeatist hogwash Team Hillary is brewing should not be served on Hot Air.
T J Green on October 1, 2007 at 2:47 AM
If he is, I think you’re safe in Cyberspace.
dedalus on October 1, 2007 at 2:52 AM
But not nearly as well in Iowa or NH. If he loses those it could affect SC. With McCain surging a little that hurts fred the most.
but yes, his wife is the hottest of the candidate’s wives – i’ll cede that point.
Bradky on October 1, 2007 at 3:01 AM
It is true. RINO, CINO, or Dem in R clothing..moderate means unwelcome and it shows.
Bradky on October 1, 2007 at 3:03 AM
2Brave2Bscared:
“Gee, I don’t remember ever saying I wouldn’t settle for anything less than perfection. But you clearly know more about me than I do.”
I don’t need to know thing #1 about you to know that your perrrfect candidate can’t win, because — as my post pointed out — nobody’s perrrfect candidate can win.
MB4
Shitty arguments / strawmen. Whatever.
JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 3:58 AM
Allahpundit
“Plus, the fact that they’re willing to make good on their threat will put the, ahem, fear of God into the rest of the party ahead of 2012 and restore some of the emphasis on “values” that’s been lost in the jumble of terrorism and Iraq.”
Far from seeing a jumble of terrorism and Iraq, I, personally, have found those issues more clarifying than confusing when it comes to sorting out political priorities. The pretension that Republicans have a monopoly on self-styled values voters has always struck me as deliberately obtuse, and frankly, I think there’s a lot more values fatigue out there than social conservatives comprehend. “Values” has always been something of a euphemism for an evangelically generated stance on a limited set of social issues, and the emphasis you’re talking about — and certainly abortion in particular — has stood any ideologically consistent distintion between Democrats and Republicans on its head.
As for Dobson, himself, I’m not so sure that what he’s holding remotely resembles a trump card. Republicans from the Republican wing of the Republican party might just welcome the breather should he decamp, not to mention the opportunity to do some restructuring of their own. I’ve often thought that, in reality, it’s social conservatives like Dobson who are Republicans in name only, an impression which is certainly reinforced by what appears to be his current initiative. Considering the scale of ongoing losses in the center which Republicans have been racking up, courting the Christian right may actually be counterproductive. They were never a large enough constituency to actually deliver the Presidency to Republicans, they were just enough to put us over the top as long as moderates were not actually defecting, or sitting it out themselves, in large numbers.
It will be interesting to see what the conventional wisdom looks after the next election. Ironically, if any Democrat can siphon off the center, largely populated by social liberals & moderates, it’s Hillary. If she only turns out to be somewhat more hawkish than she can afford to admit right now, Republicans could lose their substantial home court advantage on Iraq as well. Political Conservatives are already laying the groundwork for claiming that only a muscular return to core principles will save the party come 2012. That argument will be harder to win if we lose with a conservative nominee next year — which would create a dynamic worth watching.
JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 4:21 AM
Apparently, I’ve got a post stuck in moderation too, for want of an $, I presume, so I’ll repost it here, and beg indulgence should it appear in the original.
2Brave2Bscared:
“Gee, I don’t remember ever saying I wouldn’t settle for anything less than perfection. But you clearly know more about me than I do.”
I don’t need to know thing #1 about you to know that your perrrfect candidate can’t win, because — as my post pointed out — nobody’s perrrfect candidate can win.
MB4
$hitty arguments / strawmen. Whatever.
JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 4:29 AM
True, until one tries to figure out how another Clinton White House is in their interest.
While I like the other top tier GOP candidates, it bothers me how so many on our side (supposedly) focus on a couple of Giuliani’s weak spots while totally ignoring his record of achievement, which is by far the moost impressively conservative of all the men running. Strategic, end-game thinking this is not.
Halley on October 1, 2007 at 5:29 AM
Bingo.
But regardless of who the Republican nominee is, I will be voting that way. The danger of “Madmadam” President scares the shi’ite out of me.
Texas Nick 77 on October 1, 2007 at 5:46 AM
Giuliani … … which is by far the most impressively
conservativeliberal of all the men and women running.Halley on October 1, 2007 at 5:29 AM
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 6:18 AM
that’s what Dobson and those types want, to use the gov’t authority as a sledgehammer against sin and vice.
Bad Candy on September 30, 2007 at 10:28 PM
I don’t much care for Dobson, but I also don’t much care who or why someone hits Rudy “Sanctuary City Mayor/partial birth abortion” Giuliani, just as long as the end result is that he is not the Republican nominee. Let him run for the democrats nomination.
“A fool gets less use from his friends than a wise man gets from his enemies.”
— Baltasar Gracian
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 6:26 AM
Dear Mr. Dobson,
Hillary just called and she has a message for you.
“Yesssss, yesssss! It is all going according to plan!”
Lehosh on October 1, 2007 at 6:31 AM
Dearest wife,
Can’t call on my cell phone, you know the one I use for my little routines, right now, the battery is dead, so just a quick email.
I have got those gullible conservative cracker fools eating out of my hands. They are so afraid of Hillary that they will vote for me no matter what.
Love Rudy
MB4 on October 1, 2007 at 6:43 AM
Rudy is a liberal RINO. I will not vote for him.
dogsoldier on October 1, 2007 at 6:50 AM
I am, quite possibly, the most “right-wing Christian radical” on here (although sometimes my vocabulary doesn’t show it–especially when talking about Geral-DOH!)
Part of me wants to say I will neither vote for any of the current candidates nor for Friess if he is nominated. If my party does not come up with someone acceptable to me, I may not vote either. But when push comes to shove I will support the nominee.
If Romney was a Christian and didn’t have some of his stupid vote/support baggage, I could vote for him. I think he’s the most “presidential”.
Dobson does not have much power over us. We vote for who we like. But don’t underestimate us. We are millions and millions of voters.
So far I am underwhelmed with all candidates. I would vote for Rush or AllahP if they ran. 8)
p.s. NO WAY for Keyes.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on October 1, 2007 at 6:59 AM
I’m still pulling for Richardson. Am I allowed to say that in here?
Is he Christian enough?
HeIsSailing on October 1, 2007 at 7:00 AM
Up to now, Dobson’s role has been mostly constructive (in the view of this agnostic conservative).
But if he splits the party and helps elect Hillary, he needs to go.
petefrt on October 1, 2007 at 8:33 AM
I still remember how surprised I was that Rudy was actually a Republican. Our Democrats down here are more conservative (and better looking in drag too) than he is. But yeah, I’ll vote for him over Hillary.
Buzzy on October 1, 2007 at 8:46 AM
It’s blackmail because they are threatening us if we don’t vote in THEIR interests too.
jeanie on October 1, 2007 at 8:49 AM
All these threats to “take my vote and go home” or Dobson’s threat to pick a third party candidate it is all posturing for the primary and really means nothing in the general. Of course you are going to say that Rudy is totally unacceptable as a candidate, if you prefer Fred or Mitt or whoever — because it might convince someone leaning towards Rudy that he is unelectable. We shall see how all this shakes out in the general. Those Rudy haters might just morph into Rudy cheerleaders.
To those evangelical Rebubbakins who are serious about splintering off … you are not a majority of this country — not even close. You are not even a majority of this party. If you leave you will just be some fringe group of little or no importance — sort of like the Green party. What influence you have is due to being a part of a larger party with a larger tent. If you turn away from a candidate that has impressive leadership qualities at a time of war, impressive executive and managerial powers in a time of government incompetence, with a history of obtaining conservative results (less welfare, less crime, more jobs, smaller government, less taxes) all while fighting a giant liberal machine, than you are not a valuable part of this party, not a reliable partner and need to find your own tent.
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Until “JC” shows up on the ballots one must at least vote for the lessor of evils. Not voting for the GOP presidential candidate will be purely and simply a vote for Hillary. Cutting off your nose to spite your face is not the solution. It’s an imperfect world folks so do what’s necessary.
rplat on October 1, 2007 at 9:03 AM
Ok so serious question that’s causing me some angst after reading this. Are 2Brave2Bscared and MB4 a majority of the Republican party? Or how big a chunk are we talking that think this way?
I cant imagine it’s too big since 2Brave2Bscared claims to be supporting Tancredo, who is polling below Ron Paul in republican circles and lower than zombie Hitler nationally.
I’m for Rudy, full disclosure, but I’m not claiming he’s the next Reagan. I dont see any better choices out there though.
Dash on October 1, 2007 at 9:06 AM
You all are making way too big a deal out of who Dobson endorses. If anything, Dobson’s endorsements are merely a reflection of what many Christians think not the cause of our thinking. And if that scares you, then maybe you have a reason to make a big deal of it. But mocking him isn’t going to win you any brownie points with those agree with Dobson.
Lawrence on October 1, 2007 at 9:08 AM
I bet you dollars to donuts that 2Brave2Bscared will end up voting for Rudy in the general — after his efforts to steer votes away from Rudy in the primary fails.
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 9:09 AM
I would not put it as strongly as rplat at 9:03 AM does as voting for the lesser of two evils, the point that practical politics must be considered is absoutely correct. Rudi Guiliani is infinitely better than Hillary. Rudi has some important strengths that he would bring to office and is conservative on economic issues; and while I don’t agree with him on some social issues, it would be far worse with Hillary, who is a left wing anti-military socialist.
Phil Byler on October 1, 2007 at 9:11 AM
Duncan Hunter.
Out of all the candidates he is about the closest in policy and record to Reagan. But he is not catching on with the voters. Why?
Lawrence on October 1, 2007 at 9:11 AM
In the interest of full disclosure, how much is Hillary’s camp donating to Focus on the Family and Dr. Dobson? He has to know that such a move will result in the last thing his interests would want, a Hillary win. Money would make these actions of his seem a bit more rational.
What’s worse, Dr. Dobson: any of the flaws of the leading Republicans or the good side of Hillary (if it even exists)?
I don’t think Alan Keyes has enough notoriety for such a run. I’m thinking that it’ll have to be Dobson himself.
flutejpl on October 1, 2007 at 9:12 AM
You know what, I’m going to go ahead and GO THERE:
Evangelicals = the conservative equivalent of the nutroots.
Less deranged and psychotic, of course. But they’re employing the VERY SAME tactic here that the nutroots has been employing, and which has been strongly criticized on this very board, which is this “follow our ideology on the issues, and if you don’t, we’re going to do everything in our power to destroy your chances in the election” mentality that has been put into play, most notably against Leiberman in 2006.
And now some of you are championing that same mentality.
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 9:12 AM
* dammit “Congressman zombie Hitler” would have been better. Next time.
Dash on October 1, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Please no more Perot-like spoiler which gave us 8 years of Clinton…please don’t give us another Clinton by doing this third party finger-in-his-face. Maybe someday when people have organized a strong third party alternative…it’s too late to just run someone, anyone to make a moral point. It’s a hard pill to swallow, but I’ll vote for anyone to keep Hilary out of the White House…pro-life principles be damned, sorry to say. If Rudy gets in, so be it…Hilary is worse for the unborn and already born children in ways too numerous to mention. The Soros forces get their victory and won’t stop marching until everything we’ve fought for has been dismantled.
deedledee on October 1, 2007 at 9:16 AM
Well said. I copied your entire comment. (And I agree, it’s about my kids. For myself, time’s running out anyway).
Do you have any ideas of good places in the U.S. to watch this play out that would be safer or bear the brunt less? What about weapons, provisions, etc.? City mouse here who needs to learn fast.
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 9:20 AM
I feel ya there but I dont want to paint with that broad a brush. Pisses me off when all Christians are lumped together so I imagine its the same for Evangelicals. Certainly those out to demonize Rudy and make it out to be casting a vote for going to hell, yeah absolutely.
Dash on October 1, 2007 at 9:25 AM
Rudy left NYC safer, cleaner, more orderly, more law-abiding and better functioning, than when he came. In that regard, he left it somewhat more “conservative.” He did NOT leave it more liberal.
The difference between Hillary and him is stark. To equate the two is glib.
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 9:26 AM
And how are you going to accomplish that by voting for a third party candidate who doesn’t stand a chance?
Seriously, anyone who is deluding themselves into thinking voting for a third party will do anything but put the Democrat into power is blind to history.
You aren’t making a stand that will get noticed anymore than the Nader voters were making a stand. The only outcome is that Rudy’s opponent will win.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Welcome back AP. I have to say that this sort of worries me. I foresee Ron Paul running as a 3rd party and picking up the slack from the Religious Right. On the plus, he may pick up a lot of the kook truther types. The Paul infection is spreading unfortunately and it may end up being a major outbreak in the coming months.
VT student article on Ron Paul *sigh*
zerodamage on October 1, 2007 at 9:28 AM
I agree. Just because some are trying to pull this bs, it doesn’t mean the rest agree with the concept.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 9:30 AM
I keep reading idiotic accusations like blackmail and power grab about Christian leaders like Dobson. Maybe they just love their country and want what’s best for it. And I agree w/ Dobson about what’s best for it.
jgapinoy on October 1, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Largest Religious Groups in the US
nottakingsides on October 1, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Why would religious righties vote for Ron?
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 9:36 AM
While Christians may account for 76% of the nation, it’s almost half and half as to which of them are Right and which of them are Left.
Despite the hype, Christians don’t all vote together.
A more relevant table would be one that divides up political groups by ethnicity, religion and any other qualifier.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Then perhaps Dobson should spend more time trying to convince others that his point of view and values are the correct ones instead of passive-aggressively threatening to take his ball and go home if he doesn’t get his way.
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Because he’s pro-life.
And sadly, that seems to be the only issue (well, that and gay marriage) that the religious righties seem to care about. God forbid Republicans be a big-tent party and include politicians who respect a woman’s right to choose as well as those who are staunchly anti-abortion.
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 9:44 AM
I’m a Christian,one with a long memory. Bclinton got in because Ross Perot split the Conservative vote. I don’t want any splitting of votes this time. If our best candidate doesn’t have Dobson’s approval, I’ll be voting for him anyway.
Dobson isn’t my “Christian leader”-we’re both sheep in Someone
else’s flock.
Doug on October 1, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Why do you think it’s 50/50?
nottakingsides on October 1, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Missed the whole thread, and don’t have time to read 250+ comments…
All I’ll say is: Ugh.
nailinmyeye on October 1, 2007 at 10:08 AM
Esthier, I’m not saying your wrong, like you said it would be interesting to see some stats.
The black/hispanic vote is a good example of groups that don’t necessarily vote along their religious principles, but moreso with their pockets. Hence, the Hillary pandering to them with the “giveaways” and her and other libs recent “godliness” in their speeches.
nottakingsides on October 1, 2007 at 10:09 AM
Right on.
nailinmyeye on October 1, 2007 at 10:10 AM
I grew up as an evangelical (I’m a Presbyterian now), so I’d like to speak Dr. Dobson’s language back to him.
Dr. Dobson, what does Romans 2:1-8 mean to you? Look it up. By saying a third party person must run, you’re effectively condemning both Rudy and Hillary; you’re calling them both unfit Christians. It seems pretty clear that you’re serving a self interest, though, by insisting that your voting bloc be recognized. How power corrupts! The point of these eight verses is that, when you condemn one for sins but you then sin yourself, nothing good can come of it. Is a Hillary presidency what you want?
Dr. Dobson, review 2 Samuel 11 and 12. David, the holiest of Israelite kings, broke four of the ten commandments, having a man killed in the process, to take a beautiful wife for himself. God still let David be king, though, because ultimately his heart was still well-intentioned. Dr. Dobson, look past what you see as Rudy’s flaws and examine his heart. Like David’s, I think you’ll find that it’s ultimately in the right place.
Finally, Dr. Dobson, does Romans 3:23 mean anything to you? “…All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Something is going to be wrong with any man or woman you choose. What’s more important, focusing all your efforts on one sin (abortion) or stopping the evil desires of a few fascists who really do have a chance to take over the world and suppress your right to gripe about that one sin?
Dr. Dobson, you’re missing the forest for the trees.
flutejpl on October 1, 2007 at 10:12 AM
wow nice
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Please….
I was refering to evangelical Rebubbakins, not generic Christians!!! Last time I checked, pro-choice Rudy is a Christian. Is he part of your solid voting block that controls our political process like a colossos?
tommylotto on October 1, 2007 at 10:30 AM
I don’t believe it’s 50/50. I believe it’s closer to 60/40, but that’s not a huge margin.
For one, minority Christians vote overwhelmingly Democrat. For another, there are plenty of liberal Christians who are more worried about the environment than other issues.
It’s possible that it’s more like 70/30, but even that pales in comparison to the voting blocks the Democrats have.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Welcome back, AP. I like that ticket, actually.
I think when it’s Hildebeast and socialism v the GOP nominee, the Christian right (me) will turn out really strong for the GOP. Politics is the lesser of evils all too often for social conservatives.
Jaibones on October 1, 2007 at 10:33 AM
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Let me import a comment from a different thread.
The question is, what’s wrong with David Duke? Now the obvious answer is that he’s a flaming racist. That pretty much just turns everyone off so that they can’t even get past it to see what he believes about anything else. I have no idea what he believes about anything else either. But let’s just say that he agreed with you about everything. Let’s just say that he was the perfect candidate in every area but that he was a racist. Let me ask you a question. Is he going to make racism more legal? Is it suddenly going to be more acceptable to be a racist if we were to elect a man to do a job which would have very little to zero impact on the issue on which you would stand against him. The answer is no. He wouldn’t make it ok to be a racist.
I hate it that I have to say this, but, “No, I’m not a racist and I don’t think we should elect David Duke.” I am creating a hypothetical illustration to prove a point.
So if we would not elect someone with whom we hypotheically agreed on everything, except the one area in which we disagreed he would have no power to effect that issue, what is it about that issue that is so repulsive? In this case, racism, it’s pretty obvious. That trait of being a racist pretty much destroys the man’s credibility in every other area. But doesn’t baby killing warrent the same kind of reaction from us? I mean really, Baby Killing.
I’m tired of this line of crap about those with standards selling out the Republican Party/selling out the country. Who gives a crap about the Republican Party? The only reason the Republican Party used to be worth something is because it used to stand for something. It doesn’t do that anymore.
I have no idea who I will vote for, except that it won’t be Rudy unless he does some serious splainin’.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 10:50 AM
0.7 x 76 = 53.2
Check your math.
For the record, all of these polls report rates of self-identification. The definition of “Christian” and “conservative” varies quite a bit, depending on who you ask.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 10:30 AM
Big S on October 1, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Dude, you’re confused.
You rhetorically asked if Dobson would want there to be a president Hillary. Answer my question and I’ll answer yours. If Dobson is supposed to stop discerning between presidential candidates, why wouldn’t he want there to be a president Hillary? Take your own advice and apply it to yourself. Are you going to hold Hillary’s faults against her? How un-Christ like of you. You know she is every bit as much a believer as you are, no matter how conflicted she is.
If Dobson is supposed to stop trying to use his influence to accomplish what he believes in, what would be the point of building a sphere of influence. Why hold any values at all, if none are any better than any others.
That whole line of reasoning is stupid.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:13 AM
You’re being intellectual dishonest. Nobody is asking for the perfect candidate, but it would be nice if the Republican party didn’t nominate the ‘R’ version of Joe Lieberman. Is it too much to ask to get a candidate with some decent conservative credentials?
Don’t put too many of those dollars and donuts on line cause you’re bound lose them.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 11:23 AM
I’m sorry to report that after reading or skimming about 270 comments on this thread, I’m more convinced than ever that Hillary will be our next president. Talk about circular firing squads.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 1, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I can’t believe that any republican or conservative would actually vote for a third party candidate and handing the presidency to a Democrat. I don’t give a rat’s behind who gets the GOP nod……..any one on our side is better than a Democrat in office. No, I’m not selling out, I’m being realistic. What the hell is wrong with some of you people!
Having been married to a minister for 13 years, divorced now for 20 years from said minister…..I’m sick and tired of the christian leaders blackmailing us into submission. Screw them. If Rudy gets the nod he has my vote.
Winebabe on October 1, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Of that I have absolutely no doubt, not the brightest light in the house or the sharpest tool in the shed, but you go ahead and vote your conscience, Hillary will thank you.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Somebody in my office building has a bumper sticker that reads “Proud Member of the Religious Left.” It’s about as clear a case I can imagine of two wrongs failing to make a right…
Blacklake on October 1, 2007 at 11:37 AM
And you go ahead and continue to follow the herd. Baa.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Hillary will thank you.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:44 AM
You guys just waste time arguing about evangelicals.
Evangelicals (and devout Catholics) will not vote for Rudy. Period.
Get mad, stomp your feet. Doesn’t matter. It’s just a fact.
Another fact? We can’t win without evangelical Christians.
Get mad, stomp your feet. Doesn’t matter. It’s just a fact.
The answer (which has been noted here) Don’t nominate Rudy. We have Thompson, Romney, and McCain. And THEY CAN get the evangelical vote.
So, let’s stop screwing around with “Mr. Tough Guy” who isn’t right on any of the issues you guys care about either, gun rights, gay rights, campaign finance reform, HE’S WRONG… and let’s nominate someone who can beat Hillary.
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Dang, I got my quotes finagled.
How about this…Instead of fighting an individual, let’s fight the beast that that individual is only the face for. That beast is Liberlism, and Rudy isn’t the magic weapon. He’s just not the scariest part of the beast.
There, fixed.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I would also like to add that as part of the only REAL Christian faith, Catholicism, I do not need some “evangelical” to tell me who to vote for or who is not godly enough for my vote.
If they would take tax emempt staus away from all these loons that are ripping people off in the name of God, we may be able to get back to true Christianity in this country, and quit the punditry from the altar.
Like I said before, I’m a devout Catholic, with plenty of sins and shortcomings. I leave my politics at the door when I pray, though.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I don’t think Fred Thompson is what this country needs right now, but I could definitely swallow my pride and vote for him it meant keeping Hillary out of office. But I can’t vote for Rudy.
One has to draw a line somewhere.
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Winebabe on October 1, 2007 at 11:34 AM
You wanna be a realist…
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 11:45 AM
There. That is realism The other just makes you sound like a whinebabe.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:48 AM
You couldn’t be more wrong. For starters, look at the polls. Plenty of chrisitans in those polls, wouldn’t you say?
Secondly, NJ and NY are massive Catholic states, and both are massively massively supportive of Rudy Giuliani.
You really don’t know much about Catholicism apparently. We don’t politik from the altar, like so many other contrieved “religions.”
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 11:48 AM
I don’t understand how you cannot see that your chances of someday seeing the kind of America you prefer are preserved better under Rudy than Hillary.
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Can we nominate you to write a really clear, tough letter to Dobson?
You write it up – insert here or at your blog – and we will give our final input, and then you email/certified snail mail it to Dobson.
How about it?
Bottom line…NO 3rd party nominee.. PERIOD!
Mcguyver on October 1, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I have been hoping and praying that the Pope will awaken the faithful in Europe and elsewhere, and revive a more muscular response to the Islamists. So far, not enough.
I do not want the Catholics or their Church out of politics. I want them in, and on my side.
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 11:53 AM
JiangxiDad on October 1, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Read here.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:46 AM
That’s why.
The only way that maybe your point is valid is because there is at least a chance, although in my view a very slim one, that Rudy would do somethings more conservatively than Hillary.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:54 AM
2Brave2Bscared on October 1, 2007 at 11:47 AM
yo no se.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:55 AM
How can you guys NOT love Rudy Giuliani. He’s in Philly tonight and doing a campaign stop at Geno’s Steaks, the landmark chessesteak joint that has a legal fight with the city over their sign that reads: “This is America. When ordering please speak English.”
Rudy will throw his support for Geno’s fight to display their sign, and support laws that all immigrants coming to America learn English.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071001/NEWS/71001028
Oh yeah, this is MY Giuliani. I couldn’t imagine any other legitimate candidate putting their face to a place like Geno’s.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 11:56 AM
You all may remember Geno’s from the Bush/Kerry election, when Kerry ordered a cheese steak with swiss cheese.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Rightwingsparkle on October 1, 2007 at 11:45 AM
I think he/she may have you there. Devout catholics are devout to catholicism and its rituals, thinking that will get them somewhere. You were talking about those catholics that actually believe in something, and who are actually more devoutly Christian than they are devoutly catholic.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Its this exact same arrogant mentality that put the Clinton’s in the WH to start with. Your smug superiority complex only shows your profound misunderstanding of politics. Politics isn’t about maverick cowboys riding the open range, its about cooperation.
The immortal Vince Lombardi summed it up perfectly when he said, any team can defeat any group on any given day of the week. Nowhere does this hold more true than in politics. As long as foolish self-centered ignorant people like you continue to vote “Your conscience” you aren’t part of any team, except most likely the “team” you least likely would be willing to be a part of.
So yes, you go vote your conscience, feel perfectly free to ignore history and feel no responsibility for the consequences of your actions. But make no mistake about this voting for anyone other than the party nominee is a vote for the other parties nominee.
Unless she is taken out of the race because of criminal campaign fraud charges Hillary will be the Democrat nominee. A vote for anyone other than the GOP nominee is a vote for Hillary. Remember this well, there are only two parties in the American political process when it comes to POTUS, there will be no third party candidate that is elected POTUS.
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I think I’m supposed to be offended at that post, but I won’t be. ;)
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM
If you really believed in anything you would.
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:04 PM
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:01 PM
I think you are wrong. But I have a real and probably stupid question. What does “POTUS” mean?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 12:05 PM
President of the United States
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Let me count the ways…… pro abortion, anti-second amendment, excessively authoritarian…
doriangrey on October 1, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next »