Dobson: Presidential selection process must begin with “the values test”; Update: 27% of Republicans would vote for pro-life third party over Rudy

posted at 2:34 pm on October 4, 2007 by Allahpundit

He’s speaking only for himself, of course. In the op-ed pages of the New York Times. In the context of describing a meeting of influential social conservative leaders.

After two hours of deliberation, we voted on a resolution that can be summarized as follows: If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor-party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand. The result was almost unanimous.

The other issue discussed at length concerned the advisability of creating a third party if Democrats and Republicans do indeed abandon the sanctity of human life and other traditional family values. Though there was some support for the proposal, no consensus emerged.

Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent or the other leaders gathered in Salt Lake City, I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed.

While he was writing this, the archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, was telling the hometown paper that he’d deny communion to Rudy over his pro-choice stand, a logical extension of the rumblings from the Vatican earlier this year about Catholic politicians whose wall between church and state is a little too high. Burke is no face in the crowd. According to the Post-Dispatch, he’s respected as one of the Church’s most brilliant legal minds and apparently authored a paper last year arguing that if a wayward Catholic politician had been formally warned not to receive communion, it would be a mortal sin for any priest or eucharistic minister to give it to them.

The more the religious establishment lines up against him, the more Rudy becomes the protest choice for conservatives who think the religious right has too much sway over the party. I’ve got to admit, for all the grief I give him, I’m starting to lean towards Rudy myself. Exit question: Is his lead solidifying?

Update: I guess this puts a bit of crimp in his “electability” appeal, huh?

If Rudy Giuliani wins the Republican nomination and a third party campaign is backed by Christian conservative leaders, 27% of Republican voters say they’d vote for the third party option rather than Giuliani. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that a three-way race with Hillary Clinton would end up with the former First Lady getting 46% of the vote, Giuliani with 30% and the third-party option picking up 14%.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3 4

America1st on October 5, 2007 at 11:44 AM

If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen! You call me narrow minded and foolish and when I expose you for the fool you are, you want to whine like a little 8itch? Cry me a river you pussy.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 12:44 PM

And in that context, Perot supporters are responsible for the conditions that allowed 9/11.

The conservative candidate should be supported regardless of who it is and what his social policy history is.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Uhhh… you do know it was Reagan who was first really confronted by Islamic terrorism, and fought it by invading GRENADA!

You do know that the Elder Bush did nothing to fight against these same groups, and in fact ARMED THEM! You do know that Perot hired his own Mercs to go and save his own people who were kidnaped?

Perot voters caused this??? The Perot vote was because the Republican party had lost its ideal of fiscal responsibility. AND IT WORKED!!! The budget was balanced because both parties saw Perot as a viable threat to their comfortable status quo…

Republicans lost the last election… right after they lost the ideal of fiscal responsibility… hmmm… see a bit of a pattern here?

The key to this whole debate IMO, is that many of you see if as only a choice between MY team, and the BAD guys… while many of us won’t be held to those choices…

Add in a bit of blaming others for your own failings as a party… demonizing those who “will waste their vote and get Hillary elected” instead of taking responsibility and choosing a candidate who actualy fits the party platform…

I, as a conservative independent voter, am NOT responsible for the collapse of the Republican party… its own failings are.

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 12:48 PM

America1st on October 5, 2007 at 12:02 PM

WOW! You’re about the biggest stupid a$$ I’ve read in here in a long time.

OK

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 12:52 PM

America1st on October 5, 2007 at 12:02 PM

WOW! You’re about the biggest stupid a$$ I’ve read in here in a long time.

OK, I’m gonna give you one last chance to get your head right about this.

The issue is Dobson and his stubbornness towards Christian values. He is refusing to consider the Justices that will be nominated by the next president and stupidly thinks the president can change the abortion laws all by his lonesome. Roe v Wade will be dealt with at the level of the SCOTUS and that means we need one liberal justice replaced by a conservative justice. Then Roe v Wade and a major potion of the single issue values voter will be fixed. A third party vote in the general will elect Hillary and she for sure will nominate liberal justices.

Now, if you’re too frapping ignorant to see that, then you aren’t really worth the time to try and enlighten.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:12 PM

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 12:48 PM

You are doomed to repeat the failures of the past. If the lesson was learned by the conservative party, we wouldn’t be dealing with socially liberal reps right now. The fact is that most people want a centrist representation and the party has gone that way. You are the minority and without you single issue voters, Hillary will be elected and you will be at fault for wasting your vote on a third party candidate that had zero chance of being elected. And worse than that, your ignorant refusal to accept that the SCOTUS is the single most important decision that a president can influence that will affect the fabric of our society, just reveals your shallow grasp of the depth of presidential politics.

Go ahead, vote for your single issue candidate and watch your precious single issue be attacked by Hillary. You know why? Because she will pander to the left and the centrists and your views are neither of those so your issue will be attacked.

Wise up.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:20 PM

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:12 PM

sigh…

Its not DOBSON. Dobson does not speak for me… crap, I’m not even a Christian. This poll was of 27% of the Republican party.

THEY are trying to send the Republican party a messege… stick to your platform, or you may loose the election.

It won’t be those who choose to vote for a third party candidates fault if the Repubs loose the election, it will be the fault of the GOP who chooses a candidate that is not in line with a large part of the voteing base of the party.

Right or wrong, this is a HUGE issue with a lot of conservatives. If you disregard it, even after they are telling you how they feel, don’t blame them for following through on the threat.

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 1:27 PM

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:20 PM

Sigh… wrong, as usual… I’m not, as you accuse me of, a single issue voter, and in fact you have in the past responded to some of my other problems with Rudi.

And please stop with the personal slanders… if thats the only way you can debate, and not stick to the issues… you are no better than the Kos’aks.

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 1:31 PM

I’m not, as you accuse me of, a single issue voter,
Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 1:31 PM

Then why are you defending the single issue voter argument in a thread that began as a threat from Dobson to vote for a candidate that doesn’t fit his single issue?

What you are advocating is giving the election to Hillary because you want to teach the republican party a lesson. We get it and we’ve seen it before. Your slavish devotion to that idea isn’t going to change the fact that most of America is centrist. And no matter how much you single issue voters complain, most Americans do not hold to the single issue mentality. They find a balance and vote that way. What will happen is that if Hillary wins the election and after 4 years of her crap, people like you will suddenly soften your hard nosed attitude and realize that any republican is better than what you get from any democrat. You keep up with this attitude and you’ll get more liberals on the supreme court and the liberals will take away your precious single issue through activist supreme court justices.

WAKE UP.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:41 PM

WAKE UP.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 1:41 PM

Quite awake, and even aware… and can read…

Once again you accuse me of being a one issue voter and “advocating giving the election to Hillary”.

And once again, you spout of with no evidence, and in fact, with evidence to the contrary.

You’re correct, most Americans are NOT single issue voters…

Problem is that Rudi is NOT a conservative, and is NOT representative of the party platform, or things which most voters want.

He is:
Protax- created, and then sued to keep the commuter tax in NYC.

Antigun- sued gun manufacturers for making legal products.

Anti free speech- supported McCain Feingold.

Anti Fiscal Responsibility- sued to get rid of Line item veto

Anti border control- Ran a sanctuary city.

Anti Conservative judges- appointed over 75% Dem judges..

These are all acts. And a man is judged by his acts, not his words.

Rudi is NOT a conservative. His ACTS show this…

Now, the above issues are ALL important issues to various voters, and are ALL issue where Rudi’s ACTS fail to match his Rhetoric…

And I might add, these are all things which are against the writen Party platform of the GOP.

If the GOP sends up a person, who does NOT fit their stated beliefs, and their ONLY reason for nominating this person is that they are not as bad as Hillary… the GOP will loose the next election.

And it will be the GOP’s fault.

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM

You can keep blathering on with your demand for a real conservative but you have yet to admit that you would rather have Hillary and two new liberal Justices running the supreme court than take a chance that Rudy will do as he promised and nominate conservative justices but still be a socially liberal republican.

You admit to that and I can respect your comments. But as long as you ignore the proven results of the mentality you are espousing we all should adopt, you don’t really have any credibility to support your position.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Its very simple. I reject your assertion thats its an either/or type of situation.

The PRIMARIES HAVE NOT EVEN STARTED YET!!!!!!!!

And based on Rudi’s track record, and past ACTS, I can’t trust him to appoint Conservative Judges!

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 2:31 PM

“And now you’re mad because the religious right isn’t all that happy about supporting you anymore because of all your anti-religion platforms?”

Who said anything about being mad? I think the religious right is a legitimate constituency engaged in a legitimate effort to influence the political process. As a minority interest, you have to choose between being part of a coalition, which demands some form of compromise from everyone, or being a spoiler. Threatening to ensure the coalition’s defeat if your demands are not met is a risky business. Simultaneously refusing to accept responsibility for the consequences of the very defeat you’re threatening to bring about simply adds insult to injury.

There is nothing anti-religious about conservative principles. The kind of federally sponsored social engineering the religious right stands for, however, is fundamentally anti-conservative. That’s the leftist approach to problem solving, and as far as I’m concerned, a parting of the ways can’t come soon enough.

JM Hanes on October 5, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Threatening to ensure the coalition’s defeat if your demands are not met is a risky business.

JM Hanes on October 5, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Maybe using the word ‘mad’ is a bit to strong.

I believe it is the non-religious republicans who have abandoned the religious ones, but it is always convenient to paint the relgious right as the fall-guy for wanting to support different candidates.

Your point about social engineering is a fair one. However, I’m not seeing much of a real difference right now between Hillary and Rudy regarding their greater views on society. And I not talking about what they are campaigning to do, I’m talking about what I think they will actually do once elected.

If we really want to make a difference, then maybe we really should vote for someone who isn’t so much like the competition.

I’m stuck in the middle. I don’t want the GOP to loose, but I don’t want to support a GOP hack like Rudy either.

Lawrence on October 5, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Religious conservatives have been very consistent in what they do and do not support. While the secular aspect of the Republican party vacillates on a number of politically correct issues.
Lawrence on October 5, 2007 at 7:37 AM

Are you joking? I think you have blinders on. The religous concervatives change thier mind at the drop of hat about if big government is good or bad based simply on if they happen to agree with what it is doing at the moment. Why do you think there are people who call themselves “libertarian” in both the Republican and Democrat party? This is why. Religious concervatives need stop thier vascillation and declare they are firmly in favor of limited government. The public hates faith based burecracy just as much as secular burecracy -maybe more- it is a political loser but you would throw secular concervatives under the buss and destroy the party trying to get it.

Resolute on October 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 2:31 PM

We heard that excuse in 1992 also.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Yep, and after 1992 they balanced the budget for the first time in many many years..

Your point?

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 7:51 PM

I love and admire Mr Dobson,, but I cannot agree with him about this issue at all. I would have liked to asked him this question,, and I would put this question out there to anyone to answer who agrees to vote for a 3rd party can’t win candidate. If this were prewar Nazi Germany and election laws were such that should the top candidates have a tie vote, the majority party would elect their leader, and the election were tied between 3 candidates,, Hitler at 50 votes, Rudy at 50 votes and a Christian conservative pro life candidate at 5 votes with the Nazi party being in the clear majority, I would like to know who these principled Christians would vote for?!! I am a Christian! But I think they are playing God as being stupid! They are acting RELIGIOUS IN THEIR VOTE!!! AS THOUGH THEIR VOTE IS AN ACT OF RELIGIOUS PURIFICATION! AS THOUGH GOD IS SO RIGID AND NARROW SIGHTED!! AS THOUGH GOD IS SENSELESS, AND UNABLE TO GRASP THE PURPOSES AND INTENTS OF A MANS HEART, OR THAT THE POLITICAL PROCESS IS JUST TO FAR ABOVE GODS UNDERSTANDING!
Dobson acts as though he should be commended,,, should he be entrusted by his neighbors with a set of keys belonging to their home,, that one day while they slept, he was forced to pass the keys on to another watchman,,, he hands them over to an invalid laying in the street as apposed to a much stronger, more capable, yet less religious friend,,, the invalid lays defenseless, without strength, surrounded by an angry mob waiting to steal the keys, tear him into pieces and murder the neighbors as they slept,,,, yet Dobson thinks he would be commended by God for choosing the invalid, while risking the murder of his neighbors,, Why???? Because the invalid was much more pure of heart,,, honest, kind and dear.

JellyToast on October 5, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 7:51 PM

And look at them today and the supreme court endured another 15 years of liberal bias. Great trade off.

csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:06 PM

So we are going to loose the election because a bunch of jesus worshipers want to stop democrats from killing their own young.

We are screwed.

I say let’em

What kind of off spring would be produced by a women that is willing to kill her own child?
I’ll tell ya, a bunch o’ lil’ Ward Churchills

TheSitRep on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 PM

So we are going to loose the election because a bunch of jesus worshipers want to stop democrats from killing their own young.

We are screwed.
TheSitRep on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 PM

No, we face the potential of losing because many are willing to overlook the fact that some of Rudy’s positions contradict the Republican platform, thus alienating a significant segment of Republican voters who hold those values dearly.

And the ironic part? The excuse they often use for overlooking his positions (pro-choice, ambiguous stance on Roe v Wade, pro-gun control, pro-amnesty, etc) is that his backers believe that he’s more electable.

Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 11:38 PM

And just in from Fox News:

One of Clinton’s line-item vetoes kept New York from raising taxes on hospitals. Giuliani filed a lawsuit resulting in the high court’s ruling.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299856,00.html

Texas Nick 77 on October 6, 2007 at 11:03 AM

So we are going to loose the election because a bunch of jesus worshipers want to stop democrats from killing their own young.

We are screwed.
TheSitRep on October 5, 2007 at 10:59 PM

You are going to lose because you are asking us to abandon our principles in order to support your desire for power.

What’s the difference between Democrats asking us to abandon our principles and the GOP asking us to agandon our principles?

In either case, no matter who we vote for, we have to sacrifice our principles. What choice is that?

Lawrence on October 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Religious concervatives need stop thier vascillation and declare they are firmly in favor of limited government. The public hates faith based burecracy just as much as secular burecracy -maybe more- it is a political loser but you would throw secular concervatives under the buss and destroy the party trying to get it.

Resolute on October 5, 2007 at 7:12 PM

You have it backwards. You are throwing me under the bus by abandoning principles. You are the one’s splitting the party, not us.

But Christians have historically made great skape-goats… so I’m not really surprised that the failure of the GOP here lately is being blamed solely on us.

Lawrence on October 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM

Follow the money! I betcha Dobson is on Cankles payroll.

TheSitRep on October 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM

There’s another conservative conference happening this weekend in Salt Lake City. The Mormons are having their world-wide general conference. Want to know what Mitt believes and what his church teaches without the spin or need to go to church or see missionaries? Don’t even have to leave your computer. Judge for yourself.

Dish Network BYUTV 9403
DirectTV BYUTV 374

Sat, 0ct 6, 10-12 am and 2-4 pm MST
Sun, Oct 7, 10-12 am and 2-4 pm MST

Sebastian on October 6, 2007 at 1:05 PM

Oops, tags killed the internet feed url.

http://www.byu.tv

Sebastian on October 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Other than Rudy not republican can stand up to the test. They don’t have the “there they go again” ability that Rudy has.

tomas on October 6, 2007 at 2:40 PM

But Christians have historically made great……………………… skape-goats… so I’m not really surprised that the failure of the GOP here lately is being blamed solely on us.
Lawrence on October 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM (revised)

…..The scapegoat mentality for Christians is a life boat of choice…. once, they have lost the argument for their moral authority in the realm of politics.

[...."poor me......you're just picking on me"...]

Jesus, never ONCE, had or took that kind of attitude.
And.. until you change your attitude, you shouldn’t fool yourself into believing that you have a once-and-for-all answer to the current political climate…..PERIOD!… END OF STORY.

The greatest weakness that such an attitude displays, is the fact that there are literally thousands of different and opposing interpretations of the Christian belief system……

…Thereby causing the opposite effect of your intended “moral authority teaching lesson”.

The result of this collective Christian moral authority in politics, has caused the celebrity status of Pip-squeaked Perot and the lexicon of: “It depends on what the word “is” is.”

.
.
Until the collective Christian belief system reveals in reality, the intention of Jesus’s prayer here…………………..:

v.20: I pray for these men. But I am also praying for all people that will believe in me because of the teaching of these men. v.21: Father, I pray that all people that believe in me can be one. (St. John 17:1-26)

…………….you really need to wake up and apply the same standard to candidates running for office, as you would your pastor who runs a successful church organization……but…..has and does things…..that you cannot comprehend nor believe in, but at the same time, does not interfere with the successful running of the organization that contributes to the greater collective good.

You can start throwing stones, now.

Mcguyver on October 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Hollowpoint:

“No, we face the potential of losing because many are willing to overlook the fact that some of Rudy’s positions contradict the Republican platform, thus alienating a significant segment of Republican voters who hold those values dearly”

The party platform is a moveable feast which gets rewritten every 4 years, and every 4 years, the pro-life/values component has been, famously, a singular cause of division and controversy when the planks are nailed together. Bush/Rove pushed a lot of issues of interest to social conservatives, which is probably why we’re seeing appeals to that authority here. If it hadn’t been for the war, however, Bush would have lost more ground everywhere else than he gained and we’d be talking about who we should be running against Pres. Kerry. In reality, the platform is part manifesto, part situational propaganda, and it’s the party’s nominee who gets the last word.

JM Hanes on October 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Mcguyver:

When you find yourself getting all the way to bracketed bold italics couched in multiple ellipses, you should back away from the keyboard and seek help for manic formatting immediately!

JM Hanes on October 6, 2007 at 8:39 PM

We know who the Dem candidate will be. The only question will be if the pubs split up thier majority and let her win.

paulsur on October 6, 2007 at 9:07 PM

JM Hanes on October 6, 2007 at 8:39 PM

Thanks for the compliment. [ ";-)" !]

Mcguyver on October 6, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Somebody decent better surface soon. If it comes down to Obama and Hillary, sorry I cant do Hillary. I’d pick Obama only becuase there would be no one else who knows Americans.
Hillary is not talking and that scares the hell out of me after all the crap she’s pulled when she was in the whitehouse the last time.

johnnyU on October 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

johnnyU on October 6, 2007 at 10:31 PM

Fear not, young skywalker. There is no way conservatives will have to pick between Hillary and Obama. One of them will be eliminated in the dems primary.

csdeven on October 6, 2007 at 10:35 PM

Mcguyver:

[....the PLEASURE was mine, I'm sure...]

JM Hanes on October 7, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Since it’s social conservatives who constantly threaten to bolt the party, isn’t it more accurate to call them the Republicans In Name Only?

Given that they’re the ones that rebuilt the party under Reagan? Um, no.

The Giuliani, center-left Republicans had their go under Nixon. What did we get then? An egomaniacal lefty hawk that failed to win a war he was given, ended up expanding the federal government several times over, introduced affirmative action, the EPA and other brand new bureaucracies to our political lexicon as well as unilaterally welshing on the Breton Woods agreement. Among other things.

I’m supposed to risk that, as well as consign millions of children to the certainty of publicly financed abattoirs, just so that I can get the off-hand chance of maybe getting a strict constructionist that might have an open mind on the validity of Roe v. Wade?

Considering that the author of Roe was appointed by, wait for it, Nixon, you’ll have to forgive me if I tell you to get bent.

spmat on October 7, 2007 at 1:52 AM

Fred is our 95% solution. Fear the Fred.

Mojave Mark on October 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Fred is our 95% solution. Fear the Fred.

Tell me what is Fred going to do about Jihad? And I mean the jihad right here in our own country.

paulsur on October 7, 2007 at 9:53 PM

Wonderful. Vote for some superchristian ubermoralist loser and bring the socialist idiotarian Killary-Billary to power.
That’s exactly what America needs right now, isn’t it ?

Syndic Nuruodo on October 7, 2007 at 10:19 PM

You can start throwing stones, now.

Mcguyver on October 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM

Normally I like you McGuyver, but this time you’re on the wrong side.

Who are the first the bluebloods blame for losing elections? The religious right.

Who do the Democrats claim are the easily led bubba dumbkins? The religious right.

Who is it that wins Republicans elections, despite being every social liberal’s whipping boy every time something goes wrong?

Think real hard about this one. Its the religious right.

Blue blood Rockefeller types are the most easily led constituency of Republicans. Show them some money, throw them some kickbacks and they’ll vote for wherever it came from. The only principle they care about is “what makes me more money.” I’d be a lot more concerned for the mammon followers than I would the “Jesus freaks.” At least the Jesus freaks can’t be bought-and-paid-for with temporal wealth.

Whenever the Republican party runs left, they lose. When the Democrats needed seats in ’06, they ran right.

Remember that McGuyver, the only thing stopping bluebloods from being bluevotes is if the Democrats don’t give them a cut of the socialist redistribution pie. They’d turn on conservative values in an instant if it fattened their wallet.

BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM

Fred is our 95% solution. Fear the Fred.

Mojave Mark on October 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM

This message brought to you by the Democratic National Committee with sponsorship from MoveOn.org.

BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Remember that McGuyver, the only thing stopping bluebloods from being bluevotes is if the Democrats don’t give them a cut of the socialist redistribution pie. They’d turn on conservative values in an instant if it fattened their wallet.
BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 9:50 AM

I’m sure if you have followed me, you did see my posts over on the other blog: (Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 2:27 AM)

And now to my pontifications, which is really, more of a dire and urgent warning…..

To all of you out there who read this, or comment here, who fall into any of these following categories:

a) The James Dobsons of the world, et al, who even think of SUGGESTING a third party candidate. (Even Matt Drudge said Sunday night, that this news made him SICK!)

b) Any, Rudy Guiliani shill, who absolutely DOES NOT WANT HILLARY IN OFFICE.

c) Anybody who chooses to sit out the primaries or the general election, who absolutely DOES NOT WANT HILLARY IN OFFICE.

To a), b, and c) YOU, HAVE ABSOLUTELY, LOST YOUR GOD-BLESSED MIND!

Go read all of my posts over there..and I do mean all of them…to the very last one at the bottom and then come over here and I’ll be happy to discuss it further with you..

Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 10:58 AM

Been reading them. Wish Ctrl+F was more effective, I can only seem tp pull up your first post so I’ve been looking down to see them, and hope I didn’t miss one in the middle. I actually do try and follow your posts since they’re usually witty or amusing.

Also:

Abstinence isn’t now, and I don’t think ever was, an effective form of birth control.
Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 6:09 PM
Right.

Watch for those flying tadpoles!

Mcguyver on October 2, 2007 at 6:26 PM

ROFL. Well, to Krydor’s credit, abstinence didn’t work for Mary. Although technically she consented to the whole business.

The next post was awesome. Next Krydor will be saying that railguards on cliffs aren’t effective at keeping people from falling because some people chose to jump over them, therefore we shouldn’t waste money on cliff railguards.

Anyway,

I certainly don’t want a third party candidate unless his name is Ralph Nader or AlBore and he’ll be pulling votes from Democrats. Dobson is an idiot if he tries to play 3rd party kingmaker, we’ll have Ross Perot all over again.

Should Guiliani be elected by the blueblood contingent, I’ll hold my nose for him and pray he gets a conservative VP to keep him in line. Hillary is so evil and crooked I’d even vote for Nader before her. I’d still much prefer not to have Socialist New Yorker vs. Blueblood New Yorker as my two POTUS options.

BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Dobson is an idiot if he tries to play 3rd party kingmaker, we’ll have Ross Perot all over again.
BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 1:50 PM

You are right in determining, that, this has been my main emphasis ever since my post linked above.
.
.

Abstinence isn’t now, and I don’t think ever was, an effective form of birth control.
Krydor on October 2, 2007 at 6:09 PM

And the irony of ironies here is that some left wing eco-kooks have the best plan in the world……?

And remember that the best form of birth control – the best form of ‘safe sex’ that is actually safe for the planet, too – is to have no sex at all. Eco-celibacy has a lot going for it.

……read the whole article……. some of the funniest stuff to date!

Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Dobson, “There are more important things then winning.”

Dobson said this in an interview with Sean Hannity. Sounds like a born loser to me.

If an Obama or Clinton gets in and we (conservatives) have no country, and the Supreme court are all activist leftists. What good are you legalistic beliefs on pro-life and anti-gay marriage?

americaslaststand on October 8, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Wish Ctrl+F was more effective, I can only seem tp pull up your first post so I’ve been looking down to see them, and hope I didn’t miss one in the middle.
BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Yeah you got them all… I double checked..
…choose “highlight all” after typing in your Find: “key word”

Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 2:37 PM

……read the whole article……. some of the funniest stuff to date!

Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 2:20 PM

See, now the selective nonreproduction liberals I actually like: they aren’t killing anyone else in their zeal to deal with “the population crisis,” nor are they trying to write off their inanity as “a woman’s choice.” They also aren’t getting tax dollars going towards the wholesale slaughter of innocent human life.

BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 3:06 PM

See, now the selective nonreproduction liberals I actually like:
BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 3:06 PM

They have a better, and cheaper, abstinence program than president Bush! Go figure!

Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 3:12 PM

And the irony of ironies here is that some left wing eco-kooks have the best plan in the world……?

ROFL McGuyver, I’m saving that link. That’s some of the most batshit insane crap I’ve ever had the pleasure at belly-laughing at.

Seriously, we should bring these guys into a Planned Parenthood office. LEFTY-FIGHT!

BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 3:12 PM

I think this one wins:

in other words, CHEMICALS – and we all know about the terrible threat posed by chemicals to nature and the animal kingdom.

Clearly there are no chemicals in nature. Like chlorophyll. Or brain fluid. Or stomache acid. Or snake venom.

BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 3:17 PM

You are the one’s splitting the party, not us.
Lawrence on October 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM

You do realize that comment is an outright absurdity since it is the “religious right” threating to leave the party here. Go ahead and foolishly argue that it is worth it, but don’t deny reality.

I think the real question here is if some like you are able to prioritize issues or if you prefer to lose 100% rather then compromise. I really see people like you as acting exactly like the far left. You both have an inablity to pragmatically evaluate reality and what should currently be a priority. Abortion is just like Darfur, sure it is awful but it is an idealogical tangent that has little to do with what is important in terms of the trends in the world right now.

Resolute on October 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM

………………….HEAR, HEAR, HEAR……..

…………….This is a public service announcement..

……….Dr. James Dobson will be on Hannity & Colmes tonight at 9:00 eastern

Mcguyver on October 8, 2007 at 7:33 PM

The New York Times published Dobson’s piece because Dobson appears intent upon helping to get Hillary Clinton elected.

Dobson is being really very stupid.

Phil Byler on October 8, 2007 at 7:55 PM

You do realize that comment is an outright absurdity since it is the “religious right” threating to leave the party here. Go ahead and foolishly argue that it is worth it, but don’t deny reality.

I think the real question here is if some like you are able to prioritize issues or if you prefer to lose 100% rather then compromise. I really see people like you as acting exactly like the far left. You both have an inablity to pragmatically evaluate reality and what should currently be a priority. Abortion is just like Darfur, sure it is awful but it is an idealogical tangent that has little to do with what is important in terms of the trends in the world right now.

Resolute on October 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM

Meanwhile in 1858 near the formation of the Republican party…

“I think the real question here is some abolistionists like you are unable to prioritize issues or and you prefer to lose 100% rather then compromise. I really see people like you as acting exactly like the Democratic slave beaters. You both have an inablity to pragmatically evaluate reality and what should currently be a priority.

Slavery is just like King George, sure it was(and is) awful but it is an idealogical tangent that has little to do with what is important in terms of the trends in the world right now.”

The Religious Right isn’t leaving, the Bluebloods who sold their souls and America’s values for some quick cash are pushing us out. The Bluebloods are the ones who always want to tack left to appease the socialists, the blueblood RINOS are the ones who want Bush to give illegal alien amnesty in the name of “doing something. And it is the bluebloods who are the first to blame the religious right for any loss because unlike the bluebloods, socially conservative principles aren’t for sale to the highest bidder.

We tolerate bluebloods because we hope eventually they’ll realize that while a capitalist economy keeps America from going bankrupt, conservative social values are what keeps that system and its members honest. A society with no soul is a dead one.

BKennedy on October 8, 2007 at 10:09 PM

I watched Hannity last night…sigh…it’s started! Hannity and the rest of the right have started remaking Rudy into a “conservative”… LOL! What an idiot! They did the same thing with GHWB and look what we have now. I’m not buying this time and Dobson is right! Rudy is a liberal and will NEVER get my vote! If he is the best the Republican party has to offer than they deserve to lose this election. Maybe they will finally get the message after they get slaughtered in 2008 which I believe they will!

sabbott on October 9, 2007 at 9:06 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4