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%.
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 Next »
Christian conservatives need to rally behind the ideal candidate: DUNCAN HUNTER!
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I agree. Go for the certain defeat in 08.
lorien1973 on October 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Heh. LEAVE DOBSON ALONE!
HE’S A PRIVATE CITIZEN!
A CITIZEN!
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
Speaking as a Christian (and Republican too…shocking) I don’t see Dobson’s point.
These ARE the candidates. Does he think that putting his foot down for an ideological point is going to net him a candidate that’s going to kowtow to his point?
Is it more Christian to screw up the Republican’s chances so Hillary gets teh win?
Is he willing to support a Democrat candidate if they kowtow to his point?
Is he going to shutup and get somebody from his group to run?
Skywise on October 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
This is blatant encouragement to Ron Paul to run independent.
Anwyn on October 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
I don’t have any way of knowing if that’s Dobson’s intent, but that will certainly be the result.
Anwyn on October 4, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Couldn’t the Catholic church quietly chastise President Giuliani, after he’s elected? Who’s the Archbishop’s candidate?
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Why not Fred, then? Dobson hates him too, and Fred told him to stick it yesterday. And he can’t take communion in a Catholic church.
see-dubya on October 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Is this the same bishop who said the same thing to Kerry?
There is no religious litmus test for president save one, no Muslims. I wouldn’t want to take the risk of having the Commander in Chief suddenly get swept up in a jihad moment and take out both houses of congress during a State of the Union address.
No matter how low their approval rating is.
LakeRuins on October 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Dobson should keep his nose in the bible…he was chosen to be a teacher of the word, not a politician. He has to make a choice, lead people to Christ, or lead them to a political leader…he can’t serve two masters (I think that book he talks about says something about serving two masters).
right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Hunter is more than capable of beating Hillary, Obama Rama, Silky, etc … all he needs is the nod from the GOP and he’ll win the white house.
The only way a demonRat takes the white house is for a GOP frontrunner such as Guiliani to win the GOP ticket. Guiliani’s a RINO and Romney a flip flopper.
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 2:47 PM
I wholeheartedly support everything they want in the Republican candidate.
I don’t support throwing away this election if we don’t get exactly what we want.
Keeping Hillary and the far left out of the White House is far too important.
Hawkins1701 on October 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM
My Friends,
Reverend Dobson’s letter was never meant to be a letter of direct advocacy of candidates from a non-profit organization called a private message in a transparent attempt to not get in trouble with the FEC. You can continue to pretend that it was, but not for me, my brothers. Not for me!
With God’s love,
The Right Reverend BC
Bad Candy on October 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM
rudy has a huge ego and short temper
why are you considering him allah?
offroadaz on October 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Great.
We’ll shun the thief to make way for the rapist.
-T
The Therapist on October 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM
That’s cute and goes well with the DemonRAT mentality. :) He’s an American citizen and can be as political as he chooses. Last I checked, this was still a free democratic country.
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Only problem is, most people in the GOP seem to disagree, judging from his low standings and fund raising.
RINO is an interesting term here. 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?
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 2:50 PM
Nope
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Fred panders to them too. He just doesn’t pander well enough to suit Dobson’s tastes.
Allahpundit on October 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I gotta get back to work. You kids have fun. :)
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
You mean Focus on Fred Dobson?
saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Now there’s a surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 4, 2007 at 2:53 PM
So the Republican party is only the Republican party if it reflects the values of part of the coalition?
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
As long as the Reps stand for border security/fence then the Catholic church will run to the Dems. Gotta keep those collection plates heavy.
Limerick on October 4, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Christian and Jewish and Atheist conservatives need to rally behind the ideal candidate: DUNCAN HUNTER!
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 2:36 PM
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
He can’t get more than 2% support from Republicans but he’ll get 50% support amongst the general public if only the GOP waves it’s magic wand? You’re dreaming.
Hunter is a solid conservative, but he’s campaigned badly and just isn’t a compelling personality- his debate performances were the equivalent of a sleeping pill even when his message was spot on.
He’s no one to blame but himself for his poor standing- especially considering his failure to effctively use the New Media which offers a free platform and publicity.
I agree with him on a lot- but if he can’t run an effective campaign in front of a friendly audience, he’s not going to do in with a hostile one.
Hollowpoint on October 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
Where? Where?
JiangxiDad on October 4, 2007 at 2:59 PM
I guess I consider myself an evangelical and I like Dobson. But this is just stupid. This whole thing will be a moot point if Rudy has an anti-abortion VP. Who would stand as the go between Rudy and religious right. And I promise you that they are not considering Ron Paul as a third party candidate because he is anti-Israel and won’t do any thing about Iran which a majority of evangelicals care about. He even buys in to the AIPAC influence conspiracy theories. You know, no war for Israel.
Complete7 on October 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Ouch, but yeah. I think he could have been a potential veep for the nominee once, but his performances on the trail have been unimpressive.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:01 PM
hear hear… :)
Skywise on October 4, 2007 at 3:03 PM
rudy has a huge ego and short temper
why are you considering him allah?
offroadaz on October 4, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Maybe Rudy promised him an iPod?
Maybe it’s because Rudy looks best in a dress?
I’ll go with the iPod.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Objectively Pro-Hillary.
DrSteve on October 4, 2007 at 3:05 PM
A vote for a third Party Conservative equates to a vote for Hillary!
Oxybeles on October 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM
good, leave, we dont need you. take your values test and shove it.
ernesto on October 4, 2007 at 3:09 PM
AP is just leaning towards Rudy because he likes the idea of an excommunicated President committing mortal sin.
tommylotto on October 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM
They think they have a choice…and right now they do. Once the never ending nomination process is over, they no longer have a choice.
Well, technically they might have a few choices. But it’s going to be a two person race, just like always, and not voting for the Republican nominee is a defacto vote for the other party.
Asher on October 4, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Yeah, I have a democrat mentality…little early for you to be hitting the bottle?
Of course he is an American citizen, and he can say what he wants…how many drinks have you had?
He is a a proclaimed teacher and leader of God’s word (along with being an American citizen, he is a Christian leader), I will ask you…if you are sober enough to answer…can a teacher of God’s word serve two masters?
Is that what Jesus wants his teachers to do? Campaign for or against political people, or serve his congretation by teaching the “Word”? Did Jesus run around telling his followers to vote (yeah I know no voting) for someone? Or did He say, focus on the Word? (That is a play on the words of “Focus on the Family”, get it, or you will when you put the bottle down)
That is what I meant by serving two masters. Waiting for your answer.
right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Game over, man. Game over.
lorien1973 on October 4, 2007 at 3:12 PM
A vote for a third Party Conservative equates to a vote for Hillary!
Oxybeles on October 4, 2007 at 3:06 PM
What if a person who votes for a third Party Conservative would have stayed home otherwise?
What if a person who votes for a third Party Conservative would have voted for Hillary to get another chance at a better Republican nominee in 2012?
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM
Mr. Guliani is a liberal. No vote from me. If no conseravtive is running then no vote for ANY of them. The slow path to Socialism is STILL THE PATH TO SOCIALISM.
No more RINOs please!!
dogsoldier on October 4, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I’m actually a huge defender of the 2nd Amendment, and candidates such as Guliani and Romney concern me regarding this. Other than that, yes, values are what separate us from the Rats and I’m not willing to sell my values down the river for a meaningless victory. Thanks for asking.
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Note To Dobson:
What point is there in defending life in the womb if you can not defend ones borders?
We are facing a serious threat from radical Theocrats (currently in the form of Islam).
Dobson is so worried about protecting unborn children (a noble cause) that he forgets about the ones who escaped the womb and are walking about on US soil.
If we can not protect our own citizens from radical terrorists, then how are you going to protect those who have yet to come into this world?
A concerned evangelical, ~Darnell Clayton
Darnell Clayton on October 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM
I’ve always liked Duncan Hunter on several levels of politics, culture, and morality. My problem is his unelectability. He just isn’t getting the job done. Next I like Mike Steele, same problem. I don’t trust Mittens and Rudy is NOT a Conservative. Fred needs a taser treatment to wake him up and Ron Paul is a nut! McCain, I love ya brother and I honor your service, but I see a Rino lurking in there. I am going to vote but, right now, I have a humongous headache.
MNDavenotPC on October 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Only if the evangelicals decide to throw the election to Hillary. This is not news. The evangelicals only have the power to elect a Democrat!
tommylotto on October 4, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Well, the Supreme Court is going to take care of that for us, I think – District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia.
Whose values? Yours, or the more libertarian members of the coalition? Just because someone doesn’t share your particular values doesn’t mean they don’t have their own.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:16 PM
You get the government you deserve.
If 27% of Republicans are willing to hand us defeat, then we will have the government we deserve.
I hope, when it is all said and done, they will believe it was worth it.
Hawkins1701 on October 4, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Rudy or Hillary – 6 of one, 5.9 of the other.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM
Hey AP, what would you do without Dobson posts lately?
For all of you calling Dobson a Reverend or whatever, he isn’t one. He is a psychologist and runs a pro-family organization. He doesn’t lead any church and doesn’t preach at any church. At least get your facts straight.
In my opinion, all Dobson is doing is putting some pressure on the candidates to focus on issues Dobson considers important. When push comes to shove I don’t think very many Repubs of any type will vote 3rd party and let Hillary into the WH.
Snidely Whiplash on October 4, 2007 at 3:19 PM
well, they can actually turn Paul’s “pro-life” position, into a Pro-Choice position by showing his voting record. NARAL has rated paul as high as 75% on their side in 2005. Duncan Hunter gets 0% ratings consistently for reference.
not all Evangelicals beleive in the “we must protect Israel, its God’s land” stuff. Thats the Falwell wing. the reformed wing does not beleive that eschatology, they are either amillenial or Post-millenial, which is old-school. and many of them are flirting with Ron Paul, Douglas Wilson who wrote “letter from a Christian Nation” in response to Sam Harris book and recently Debated Christopher Hitchens on Theism, has a blog and has talked up Paul a little bit.
the reason is, biblical “Christian Theocracy” is actually a pretty Libertarian, actually extreme libertarian govt. Its why so many evangelicals are Republicans, because of the Small Govt. stuff, and the problem is Republicans have given up on that and so they are willing to look elsewhere.
jp on October 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I am an Christian who will vote for whoever our nominee is, but that poll makes it fairly obvious that without all the obnoxious Christians that many of you here can’t stand, Republicans don’t have a party.
Esthier on October 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Are you seriously countenancing spoiling the primary just to stick it to the religious right? That’s pretty rich, considering your heartache over the possible spoiling of the general by Christians voting their values. Is your despisal of religion really going to be that large a factor in your vote? I’d really like to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I really can’t seem to find an alternative way to interpret that paragraph.
Mob on October 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Except for, you know, taxes, the war, health care policy, fiscal discipline, judges and stuff like that.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
If you don’t think it takes a huge ego to be the President, as George Bush would probably say, “Use just ain’t thinkin’s.”
Allah, you are back in my blessings.
As for Catholics, we’ll happily vote for Rudy becuase he’s Italian! Abbandonza!
Vincenzo on October 4, 2007 at 3:21 PM
Thankfully the general election is a long way away, and these “evangelicals” have time to come to their senses. Whatever one thinks of religion, and religious people (and I’ve met more good than bad in that category, I’ll admit,) I just can’t believe they would be foolish enough to help the electorate perpetrate the nation suicide of another Clinton presidency.
Apparently it’s OK to elect an apostate, pagan, sinner, etc etc, just as long as one doesn’t vote for one.
Hannibal Smith on October 4, 2007 at 3:21 PM
The main question for the 2008 elections is whether or not the American people want to elect a socialist who will install a socialist government and implement socialist policies.
Three Supreme Court Justices are expected to retire during the next President’s term. That, you need to seriously think about when casting your vote in 2008.
If you want to elect Hillary Matters, be a tool for the leftists, go ahead Mr Dobson.
tarpon on October 4, 2007 at 3:22 PM
In all fairness, I’m sure every Republican has a different idea of what it means to be Republican. The very fact that you don’t think socially conservative views are important in the GOP shows you believe it only reflects the values of “part of the coalition.” That said, check out the Republican Platform. Among other things, support for the 2nd amendment and the defense of innocent human lives are mentioned. If the official platform doesn’t define the party, what does?
What are your sources regarding Hunter’s performances on the trail? I’ve heard quite the opposite. Sure, a lot of people don’t necessarily know him on name recognition, but once they meet him or hear him speak, I’ve heard nothing but praise. And don’t try to say he hasn’t campaigned well, as if the mainstream media don’t have anything to say about who gets covered / popularlized. Hunter has made a heck of a showing without their coverage, so imagine what he could do with a little more big name GOP support and MSM attention!
By the way, right2bright, your response to wytammic was absolutely insane. How mature to respond by implying that she’s drunk, really. I guess I missed the part where Jesus told us to stop voting, don’t be politically active, and don’t stand up for what’s right. Oh wait… I actually think he mentioned that we should stand up for what is right.
Finally,
tiekitwist on October 4, 2007 at 3:22 PM
Oh, great. That’s just terrific, guys, thanks. Because voting for Nader really made things work out so well for the social liberals on the other side. That’s why Howard Dean became the 2004 Democrat nominee — oh, wait. Well, it’s why Hillary and the DLC are in the dust in their party now — oh, wait. But all the major Democrats have vowed to pull the troops out of Iraq by the end of their first term — no, no, sorry.
Looks like the only hope is a double-Nader.
God, I hope Bloomberg changes his mind and runs.
Well-Armed Lamb on October 4, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Never said they weren’t important, only that they aren’t the only values. And I say that as a social conservative, gun-owning Christian.
Sources? Do my eyes and ears count? I like the message, but the messenger is unimpressive, to me.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Let’s be open here though. I know very few people who foresee a Republican victory in 2008 anyway.
This threat about going third party is really perfectly timed to make a point without having to give up anything.
At worst, they’ll give us someone to blame if we lose in 08, and at best, they’ll give a third party candidate enough of a vote as to get a third party involved in a presidential election, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Esthier on October 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
And growing old is STILL THE PATH TO CERTAIN DEATH, but I’ll take it.
saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I can’t shake the feeling I’ve had since the run up to last years election, that somehow, the religious right wants the liberals to have a super majority and the White House.
They seem to think it will create some sort of “Teachable Moment” for Conservatives. Maybe they think (4 years from now)it will recreate the Carter to Reagan phenomenon from 27 years ago.
It’s completely insane, this “Teachable Moment” will damage this Country more than anything in our history.
ChrisM on October 4, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Sure, socially conservative views aren’t the only ones in the party. Don’t you think, though, that the party should only endorse candidates who completely follow the platform? Why else would we even have a platform? Candidates like Duncan Hunter are 100% Republican – conservative socially and fiscally, small government advocate, pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, etc. Candidates like Rudy Guiliani are not – pro-abortion, anti-gun, etc.
tiekitwist on October 4, 2007 at 3:28 PM
You are saying that Dobson is not a Christian leader?
Interesting…
right2bright on October 4, 2007 at 3:29 PM
27% huh?
I wonder… if they could find a cross aisle issue to appeal to about 20% of the Dems… and form a party based on that…
Skywise on October 4, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Rudy or Hillary – 6 of one, 5.9 of the other.
Except for, you know, taxes, the war, health care policy, fiscal discipline, judges and stuff like that.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:20 PM
1)Taxes? Money can’t buy you love – Paul.
2)The War? If you mean Iraq, Rudy has said that Iraq was not all that important (or words in that direction, I have got the quote saved somewhere, maybe?). Hillary sounds like she will stay there.
3)Health care policy? Not a big priority to me. Probably wouldn’t be much difference anyway.
4)Fiscal discipline? Yup, we thought that Bush would have that too.
5)Judges? Look at the kind of judges Rudy went for before. Besides no Republican will be able to appoint conservative judges with a democrat majority in the Senate and the democrats are almost certain to increase their majority.
6)Stuff? You may have me there.
7)Borders? That’s right, you didn’t mention that. I wonder what Rudy “Sanctuary City Mayor” Guliania’s position on that would be? Golly, let me guess.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Fuggedaboudit. Deez Mooks tink dey know about politics.
All dair electoral votes is goin tah Clinton.
jaime on October 4, 2007 at 3:31 PM
And growing old is STILL THE PATH TO CERTAIN DEATH, but I’ll take it.
saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM
I’m still hoping that the Ancients ascend me.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 3:31 PM
You know, I am not a social con, but I have spent a fair amount of time defending christian conservatives, you know because I like freedom, but
just pisses me off BIG TIME. Look Social Cons – you can elect Hillary to prove your point, but you know you aren’t the only faction of the party so maybe you ought to return the favor and vote WITH the party.
Again, by boycotting Rudy you are electing Hilary.
Topsecretk9 on October 4, 2007 at 3:33 PM
MSNBC Poll today:
When it comes to deciding which candidate you are going to support, which ONE of the following areas is most important to you when it comes to the candidates’ stances on issues? (IF MORE THAN ONE OR ALL, ASK:) Well, if you had to choose just ONE, which area would you say is MOST important to you personally?
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE
National defense issues, such as Iraq and terrorism …..
32
[162-163]
Domestic issues, such as education and health care ….
25
Moral issues, such as abortion and gay rights …………..
23
Economic issues, such as taxes and trade ……………….
17
Other …………………………………………………………………
1
None (VOL) ………………………………………………………..
-
Not sure …………………………………………………………….
2
Vincenzo on October 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM
2% is “a heck of a showing”?
The media hasn’t given him much attention because he hasn’t done much to warrant much attention. After some 8 months of campaigning and numerous debates, blaming the media is little more than scapegoating at this point. There are plenty of ways he could’ve put himself out there- blogs, radio, cable news interviews, etc- but he hasn’t used those avenues effectively. And like I said, his debate performances were just plain dull.
I’d have liked to see him become one of the frontrunners instead of the likes of Rudy or Mitt but he just didn’t make it happen, so he isn’t and won’t be.
Hollowpoint on October 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM
oops, here’s the link:
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/071003_Released_NBC-WSJ.pdf
Vincenzo on October 4, 2007 at 3:35 PM
27%,,,,,,,,The Billary Machine at work. Her campaign is top notch….pure Heisman trophy winners. Now, let’s see, we are behind some 60% in fundraising……they get 8 minutes an hour of ads, we get 2. So glad I’m a glass is 40% full kinda guy.
Limerick on October 4, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I bet they sit in the 2004 “Kerry wins” bleachers.
tarpon on October 4, 2007 at 3:36 PM
I’m so sick of that line. By that logic, in that situation, it could just as well be the RINOs who nominated Rudy giving the election over to Hillary by not compromising with the social conservatives and selecting a candidate that actually believes the Republican Platform.
As a pro-life individual, I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. I may be willing to compromise on Mitt or Fred, but even if hell freezes over and pigs fly, I’m not going to vote for someone who has advocated tax-payer funds toward abortion, be they Republican, Democrat, or whatever the hell else.
tiekitwist on October 4, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Slublog,
Didn’t we hash out this argument ad nauseum already? As Misha mentioned, we haven’t even gotten out of the primaries yet. We have no idea who the nominee will be (although I’m thinking the short list includes a ticket of 2/3 of Thompson/Giuliani/Romney). Let’s save the “hold your nose and vote or you’re to blame” arguments until the general election season.
Physics Geek on October 4, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I was actually thinking more along the lines of winning the Texas GOP straw poll.
tiekitwist on October 4, 2007 at 3:39 PM
I don’t understand why a Christian conservative would cast their vote knowing it will mean a win for Hillary. If Rudy is the nominee, or Mitt, or whichever republican, wouldn’t it be better to have hope that the next SC justice nominated will be a strict constructionist instead of knowing without a doubt that if Hillary is the president, not only will Roe v Wade stand forever, you’ll also get partial birth abortion? And socialism out the wazoo.
Sue on October 4, 2007 at 3:40 PM
To the abortion hold outs…
Let’s put it in Republican numbers…
Now….lets say 1 in 50 get aborted.
Hillary it goes to 10 in 50.
Rudy it goes to 1.1 in 50.
Hardly a ‘choice’ is it?
Limerick on October 4, 2007 at 3:40 PM
I like Tancredo more than Hunter, though both would be more than acceptable for me. Unfortunately, neither one of them are very good speakers: Hunter tends to be a little bland and uninspiring, and Trancredo (God bless him) has a bit of a stuttering problem.
Still, at least they’re conservatives.
2Brave2Bscared on October 4, 2007 at 3:41 PM
While I’m a proponent of that particular viewpoint, I wasn’t making it in this thread. Why’s everybody always pickin’ on me?
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Maybe they’re taking revenge for that horrible Tay Zonday video you recommended to AP? ;)
2Brave2Bscared on October 4, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Like we give a crap about pissing you off big time! Whoop dee freaking doo!
If it was really that important to you, you might start campaigning for a Republican candidate that upholds the Republican party platform. Instead, you just limit yourself to who the MSM chooses.
Social Cons … that’s sweet!
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM
“Horrible?!?”
Do not diss the ZONDAY! :-)
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM
With all due respect … have you really heard Hunter speak? He is a dynamic speaker. With Wyoming fixed on being the first state to go in January, I bet Hunter takes it.
Check him out, for real. :)
wytammic on October 4, 2007 at 3:49 PM
You can be pissed off at reality all you want, but that doesn’t change it. Nothing you say here on hotair.com is going to “fix” reality.
And doesn’t nominating someone you know will be boycotted by millions of Republicans also have the effect of electing Hillary?
You have three choices with regards to Rudy in the primaries:
1. Vote for him anyways, and hope that the “moderate” voters he might pick up outweigh the social con vote.
2. Vote for someone else who doesn’t alienate a significant segment of the Republican voting population.
3. Nominate Rudy and whine endlessly about it if (when) he loses to Hillary due to lack of support by social conservatives.
Hollowpoint on October 4, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Don’t say I never told you so.
Rightwingsparkle on October 4, 2007 at 3:53 PM
You may not be voting for one, but you will be electing one. Hillary.
Topsecretk9 on October 4, 2007 at 3:54 PM
How do you justify giving the presidency to Hillary!? You are willing to give the presidency to her knowing full well that any chance of changing the dynamics of the SC are going to be gone, in our lifetime, anyway. By the time you have punished the republican party, looking towards that magic future date when a candidate that you approve of has a shot at winning, it will be too late.
Sue on October 4, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Who’s Duncan Hunter?
Lehosh on October 4, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Rudy isn’t the nominee yet. I understand busting your a$$ trying to get someone other than Rudy elected. I am doing the same with regards to John McCain. But at the end of the day, I will walk into that voting booth in Nov 08 and pull the lever for whichever republican survives the nominating process. Including John McCain.
Sue on October 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM
What is always missing from that sort of equation is the fact that some of us genuinely like Giuliani and believe he would be a good president. Our first choice is vetoed by the pique of others, and that’s what pisses me off.
From RWS’ site:
Then that makes you responsible for what happens during a Clinton presidency. Not those of us who like the guy, you.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Now you’re dipping into Ron Paul territory in citing meaningless, unscientific, pay-to-play straw polls that don’t reflect reality.
What next? Are you going to start spamming internet polls so you can claim that Hunter won?
Hollowpoint on October 4, 2007 at 3:59 PM
Very well said, Slu.
Topsecretk9 on October 4, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Where do I sign up?
Kidding. Does anyone know how much Hunter raised the past quarter?
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 4:02 PM
The last time republicans thought to be cute and prove their point, we got Bill. 8 years of him, to be exact. If you leave the republican party this time, you will be trying to prove another point that no one remembers 8 years from now. Other than a footnote in history that reminds us that your 3rd party votes gave Hillary the WH.
Fight during the primaries for your candidate. Fight tough. Fight hard. But don’t run off the reservation if your candidate doesn’t get the nod.
Sue on October 4, 2007 at 4:04 PM
Now….lets say 1 in 50 get aborted.
Hillary it goes to 10 in 50.
Rudy it goes to 1.1 in 50.
Hardly a ‘choice’ is it?
Limerick on October 4, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Actually I think that it is way more than 1 in 50 now. However that was probably not your point. But I see no reason to think that under Rudy or Hillary it would be any different and I am not going to take it on “faith” that it would be. Personally Rudy seems to be more pro abortion to me than Hillary is actually. Are there less abortions now under Bush than there were under Clinton? If there are was it just the trend or a sharp change between 2000 and 2001? And as I have said before no one is going to be able to appoint conservative judges like Alito and Roberts with a democrat majority in the senate. If Rudy becomes President we have got four years of him and then another four years of him or a democrat. If Rudy gets the nomination and does not become President we then get to try again in 2012 and if Hillary turns out so bad we will likely win then. If Rudy does not get the nomination in 2008 another Republican will and might win.
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Unfortunately, if it comes down to it, you could at least look at it this way: you could vote for the one who is certain to raise your taxes to allow government to pay for more abortions, or vote for the one who will lower your taxes and leave you more pocket money to devote to something else at your discretion.
And if Hillary wins, NARAL et al will claim that the nation clearly sent a message that America is pro-choice. They want her in office bad, and even a Giuliani victory will piss them off. Wouldn’t you like to piss them off?
I didn’t say it was noble, but someone’s going to be president whether you vote or not.
saint kansas on October 4, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Everybody who has their first choice not win can claim he was vetoed by the pique of others.
You can get mad all you want at the social cons for not being willing to vote for Rudy, but you can’t say you weren’t warned or didn’t understand the extent of the opposition to him in some quarters.
Nominating Rudy not only risks a loss by boycott, it also risks dividing the Republican party even further. If that happens, his primary supporters are just as much to blame as those who would boycott him.
Hollowpoint on October 4, 2007 at 4:07 PM
What he said. Stand on your “morals” and hand the Supreme Court to Hillary Clinton. That’s an impressive plan. You’ll show the Republican Party you mean business, oh yes you will. It’s called throwing the baby out with the bath water. The baby still dies, and you think your hands will be clean, but I imagine we are judged on the unintended consequences of our actions in the hereafter as well as the intended consequences. Get in the freakin’ game, people. Your self-righteous demagoguery is boring — and dangerous.
Rational Thought on October 4, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »