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
Share on Facebook | regular view
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%.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
BS alert.. BS alert…
Rudi is a strict constructionist? Is that why he’s anti Second amendment?
Is that why he’s Pro Roe Vs. Wade… which is Lousy constitutional law???
Is that why he was Pro McCain Feingold????
Color me just a bit confused….
Romeo13 on October 4, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Since the Republican party has become just another big spending, pork swilling, baby aborting, gun grabbing, criminal alien loving, elite globalist George Soros suck ups exactly why should I get out of bed and vote anyway. The choices SUCK folks.
I’m reminded of George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” where the animals end up looking in the window and discover they can’t tell the farmers from the pigs. Exactly what is going on when you have to read the fine print to determine the difference between Rudy and Hillary or Mitt and Hillary for that matter, or exactly what does Fred stand for? And exactly since when does anyone with a brain believe a politician who says he was pro abortion but promises to appoint anti abortion judges? Personally I’m more inclined to believe in death row conversions to Christ than political candidate conversions to conservative.
I figure Hillary will win in a landslide and then suspend all future elections just like Hugo Chavez. GWB’s legacy will be to have been the last Republican President.
Buzzy on October 4, 2007 at 7:07 PM
And in other news Dale Earnhardt Jr. says he can’t vote for a woman president. The Democrats are trying to bridge the gap between their disagreements and the Chevrolet driving voting block.
Hillary says, ‘well maybe I can have a gender change to appeal to the Chevrolet drivers’.
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM
No, you’re right, they do not. BUT the issue is AS IMPORTANT as it is in the Presidential (at least to those who mention it and all in this context, like Dobson, etc.) because of the Supreme Court nominations by…whoever’s in the White House.
And we’re looking at, perhaps, two, maybe three Supreme Court positions in need of being filled in the near-coming years so whoever wins in ‘08 is more than likely going to be in a position to make a huge change about this issue (also other important issues but abortion, via Roe v. Wade has hung around hugely problematic for a long time now and it needs work, especially since many people recognize the credibility of the legislation is dubious at best anyway).
THUS, abortion really IS a big issue for the 2008 Presidential election. Which is why people are now talking about it so much, not that we all go about our lives “thinking about it every day” (you’re right, most don’t).
S on October 4, 2007 at 7:10 PM
One of the things I expect out of my President is the truth, and consistancy… they need to have a consistant worldview… personaly, profesionaly, and philisophicaly.
Both Romney and Rudi SAY they are part of a Religion in which abortion is wrong and a sin…
And yet both were at least at one time Pro abortion.
I’m sorry, their stated religion is incompatable with their stated beliefs… when religion is all about beliefs…
I have a problem with that when we’re talking about the man with his finger on the button.
Romeo13 on October 4, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Third party candidate? Whatever. Larry Dobson might as well attach a Hillary Clinton bumper sticker to his car.
SoulGlo on October 4, 2007 at 7:16 PM
Zing! But as much as I decry Dobson as an intolerant bigot who casts Christianity in a negative light, I do have to agree with his point about not voting based on likelihood of election. It’s silly to call it a vote for the other frontrunner. It’s a vote for neither. There’s an assumption that everyone starts out supporting one of the two frontrunners and then “defects” to a “lesser” candidate. Candidates need to earn their votes — not expect to receive them because of the unthinkability of their opponent.
Mark Jaquith on October 4, 2007 at 7:18 PM
In which case, Dobson would be corroborating many of our assumptions about Paul that he is, indeed, not a Republican.
Dobson says he and his will go third party, you say he’s going to endorse Paul, thus, as I stated, Paul’s outed as being third party all along (he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in the past, thus, more evidence he’s using the GOP like some bandit uses an open door).
Paul’s “druggie” leniency if not indulgence makes him unbelievable to me as a Christian AND as a Conservative or Republican. That’s just for starters.
And I doubt Dobson would endorse him, if for that reason alone.
S on October 4, 2007 at 7:24 PM
A lot of people continue to misunderstand what both these guys have said about abortion on demand.
BOTH say they’re pro-life AS TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL BELIEFS and both of them appear to be saying that genuinely.
However, both as people holding elected office (wherein they’re charged with representing the public, upholding the Constitution, which means our laws), they’ve both had a history of “upholding the law” which is supporting in office the existing law of Roe v. Wade.
People in elected office can’t just determine their own laws, rewrite existing laws to suit or accommdate individual views and beliefs.
Thus, when a person’s in office (Governor, Mayor, President, Senator, etc.), they’re there to support and uphold local and federal laws, not to write them or rewrite them when they disagree with them.
In Giuliani’s case, he maintains his “in office” personna, so to speak, and maintains his original position: INDIVIDUALLY, he disagrees with abortion on demand but he supports a “woman’s right to chose” because that’s the law. And he doesn’t indicate he’s intent on modifying the law…which is a problem for me.
Romney admits he had that position previously but now reasons the issue of abortion differently, and indicates the intent and willingness to change the existing law/s about abortion, mainly Roe v. Wade affecting the nation.
So, thus, I think Romney’s offering a far more reasoned and reasonable (and believable) perspective on this issue. I don’t suspect him of being manipulative but of literally growing up, so to speak. He grew up, he changed his position.
My views, anyway.
But BOTH these two men have said that their INDIVIDUAL (or, “personal” as in, as to their own lives, their individual opinions) POSITIONS are pro-life. They just reason differently as to their political intents and what they’re willing to do about the problem of abortion and why.
S on October 4, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Many of you seem to think the R party has alienated the social conservatives but statements like this are an illustration of how social conservatives sometimes are not actually conservatives at all. When for you, there is absoutly no question that the government must enforce your social and moral values on society, then you are acting as a DEMOCRAT. Just because your values happen to be very different from current “progressives“, does not mean this is not so. If your goal is to avoid having progressive values forced on you and society you are fighting the wrong battle. Fight for the federal government to not be in control of social policy instead of trying to get to institute your policy. Otherwise the Republican party and your social values are both doomed.
Resolute on October 4, 2007 at 7:50 PM
You know what? Screw Dobson and Robertson. Whatever Rudy loses from the ideologue yahoos he will make up with Regan Democrats, white ethnics, and Lieberman type Democrats. Maybe even idiotic American Jews will finally see the light and support a friend (although maybe I should not be too optimistic on that).
Hilts on October 4, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Roe v Wade isn’t a law, it was an activist court decision. Support for Roe v Wade and being pro-choice are two seperate but overlapping issues.
Romney goes from being supporting Roe v Wade AND being pro-choice to being against Roe v Wade AND pro-life. He also claims that he’s pro-2nd Amendment while also being in favor of a federal “assault weapon” bill. This makes me highly skeptical his committment to a constructionist view towards the Constitution and the authenticity of his views.
Hollowpoint on October 4, 2007 at 8:01 PM
But he’s got great hair.
And that smile…
*sigh*
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 8:03 PM
I have no idea what that means. I guess it means that the failed war on drugs is more important to you than the sanctity of human life. I guess it also means that no Christian can ever have used drugs (some Christians don’t believe in medical treatment either because it is against ‘God’s will’).
I never have and never will understand the appeal of Rudy. He won’t beat Hillary. He won’t even beat her in his home state of NY. Hillary has a better record on the WOT than he does because she voted for the war.
I guess since he’s in the media capital, that makes him as viable as a Hollywood star (the only near reference to Reagan you’ll find with Rudy).
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 8:06 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.
Slu, I have no doubt that that is the case for a lot of voters. However, I think that there’s a large contingent who are trying to determine whether or not they can hold their noses long enough to pull the lever. And btw, I’ve never cast aspersion on the Rudy! guys. I may disagree with them on a lot of issues, but I think that we agree on things more than we disagree.
Physics Geek on October 4, 2007 at 8:09 PM
As much as I disagree with him, I like McCain a lot more than Rudy. If you have to hold your nose and vote for someone, at least vote for someone with character. McCain has it, Rudy doesn’t.
At the end of the day I’ll bet McCain wins the nom. . . I just hope you Rudy supporters will be able to hold your nose and vote for him. What if Dobson supports McCain?
ThackerAgency on October 4, 2007 at 8:09 PM
Agreed.
Over Hillary? It would take vise grips on the nose, but I’d vote for him.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 8:18 PM
sorry, but that is politician prattle…
Our government is there to CREATE and ENFORCE the laws. THEY make the rules… and then we expect them to enforce them.
You cannot go in as a legislator or Govenor (you know.. he signs laws for his state?) and use that as an excuse not to follow your personal beliefs.
If you believe somthing is WRONG, or even worse, sinful, but won’t stand by your beliefs when it gets tough? You are not someone I want as President.
Any fair reading of the Constitution and Roe V. Wade is done. To take the position of supporting Roe V. Wade when you personaly believe its wrong is a politicians cop out.
I don’t expect them to disobey the LAW, or even be active in trying to change it, but if the opportunity is given them then they should take it….
That is NOT the position they were taking.
Add in the whole religion thing… and you have hypocricy at its best.
Romeo13 on October 4, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Dobson is being typically short sighted just like every other single issue voter. The issue is supreme court nominees. Hillary gets you more abortion and any conservative gets you less abortion.
Dobson is cutting off his nose to spite his own face.
csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Finally. A voice of sanity.
>>>
I think this 27% number is a bit low. I don’t know anyone in my peer group who wants Rudy as our GOP candidate.
Lawrence on October 4, 2007 at 8:33 PM
Can you name the last president that fit that criteria?
And don’t say Reagan. He gave amnesty to 3 million illegals.
csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Yet it is not the voice of reality.
csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Im going to admit it
Im giving Paul a second hard look
offroadaz on October 4, 2007 at 8:39 PM
If I were you, I’d give him a hard listen.
Because he’s crazy.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Why do you think that?
offroadaz on October 4, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Uhhh… how about George Bush?
Or even Carter?
Don’t agree with a lot of what they believe, but once you get through the rhetoric, at least they are consistant in their beleifs… wrong as they may be.
Now if I could just find an honest candidate who was a real conservative… and not just becoming Conservative to get through the primarys…
You do know, that whoever wins the primary will move MORE towards the center in the general election?
Romeo13 on October 4, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Because he’s an isolationist Truther.
Slublog on October 4, 2007 at 8:49 PM
So Dobson isn’t allowed to have an opinion, but you are?
Short sightedness can be a two-way street sometimes.
Lawrence on October 4, 2007 at 8:52 PM
He is for a smaller military force abroad and for protecting our borders.
He wants America to stop being the worlds police but wants to continue foreign aid and diplomacy with other countries
I am in 100% agreement with him on this view “Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. ”
Im not able to find where he qualifies as a truther though… I do see some crazy conspiracy people supporting him but not reading where he says he agrees with them
offroadaz on October 4, 2007 at 8:53 PM
I hesitate to say you are wrong.
Lawrence on October 4, 2007 at 8:54 PM
But this isn’t why we went to war. U.N. resolutions help legitimize the war, but it was the legislative branch of our government okayed it.
Lawrence on October 4, 2007 at 8:56 PM
So if I’m reading this right, it’s all about them and their own salvation. I get it. I thought it was all lofty self-righteousness and moral imperative. But crass self-interest? Now that I understand.
Rational Thought on October 4, 2007 at 9:12 PM
Sure he can have an opinion. My only point is that we will not elect a third party candidate, thus any conservative vote for a third party is a plus one for Hillary.
Who will nominate the more liberal supreme court justices? Rudy or Hillary? If Dobson’s gaol is to strengthen traditional family values and lessen abortions in this country then the most effective way to do that is to swing the court to the right. The next president will probably nominate 2 Justices. One conservative justice will swing the court conservative and two will destroy the activist liberal hold on the court. The result? Bye bye Roe v Wade. Hillary will nominate two liberal justices and Roe v Wade will stay in effect and another 40 million human lives will be extinguished before we have the chance to swing the court conservative.
Dobson is cutting off his nose to spite his face.
csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 9:14 PM
What? Did they stand outside the parish hall and ask as they came out?
jeanie on October 4, 2007 at 9:22 PM
MB4, Rudy didn’t say Iraq isn’t important.
amerpundit on October 4, 2007 at 4:57 PM
I know, just not that important.
Actually his non Iraqi centric views are not too far from mine on this, but I still can not support a Sanctuary City Mayor and someone with a record of supporting late term abortion.
Giuliani’s Iraq Views May Provide Cover
“But in discussing the deployment of more troops, Mr. Giuliani has been alone in saying that such a strategy may not succeed, potentially providing him cover should the situation in Iraq deteriorate further. And he has put the strategy in a broader context that plays down the importance of Iraq.
Terrorists “are going to continue to be at war with us, no matter what the outcome in Iraq,” Mr. Giuliani said recently in New Hampshire. The night before, he said that “there are no sure things,” and that if the United States fails in Iraq, “we have to be ready for that, too.” In California a few days later, speaking of “the danger of focusing on Iraq too much,” he said that complete success there would not win the fight against terrorism, and that failure there would not lose it.”
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Cute soundbite but that’s a false analogy.
Growing old and death are inevitables, with no available alternatives. Socialism is neither inevitable nor is it the only game in town.
Unless we are agressive in our liberty, unless we go on the offensive in defense of our freedoms, then will the dedicated, patient, guileful creep of socialism wash away all that our unique country was founded on and for.
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” ~ Samuel Adams
Death before serfdom, my friends, and rebellion in the face of tyranny. I have tasted the sweet air of liberty and shall never choke willingly upon the sour stench of oligarchical oppression.
Harpazo on October 4, 2007 at 9:41 PM
Why doesn’t Dobson just run for the nomination? Eh, I guess that would stop the passing of the official collection plate.
SouthernGent on October 4, 2007 at 9:46 PM
Whatever others already said, and one more biiiiiig difference, CDS or GDS. I prefer the latter.
Entelechy on October 4, 2007 at 5:42 PM
OK, you have messed up my mind now!!!
MB4 on October 4, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Dobson is a prig.
Such types make lousy decisions about earthly matters because their heads are in eternity.
Survive, first.
Then worry about the unborn or debatably ethereal aspects of the Divine Mystery.
Hillary (or one of her dwarfs) is too great a threat to our national security to allow to squeak into power through the machination of such short-sighted uber-purists.
profitsbeard on October 4, 2007 at 10:01 PM
How about conservatives who think the religious right has too much sway but who also want gun rights protected. Oh right, Ron Paul.
Bill C on October 4, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Ron Paul asserted on the Alex Jones Radio Show (forget the exact date…was back in July), in the context of Cindy Sheehan talking about a modern day Gulf of Tonkin (or something), that the US gov’t was already blaming everything that was going wrong in Iraq (AQ in Iraq, etc) on Iran.
…which Gen. Petraus said is pretty much the case over there.
As I’ve said before, as a social-fiscal conservative, and not a moderate, I like Ron Paul a lot. My only real complaints against him are that, while I give him the benefit of the doubt that he’s not a Truther, he certainly seems content to be associated with people like Alex Jones. And who a person chooses to be associated with is certainly an insight into their character and their convictions — just watch look at the comments for the news that Hillary is connected to Media Matters. ;-)
The other complaint is that — while he has a long record of espousing conservatism and conservative principles — his conservativism is not dynamic like that of other contemporary conservative thinkers, most notable of those being (of course) Newt.
I think there is, there must be, a place at the table for the Ron Paul — but I don’t see “President” as that place.
Harpazo on October 4, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Here, here! I don’t share Dobson’s views on, well, anything, but it’s about time that people started voting for their ideal candidates, instead of their close-enough candidates. Maybe if more people did that, we could get some real debate going.
Besides, if Hillary wins, it just adds that much more fuel to start another Civil War. The sooner the better on that one, let’s just get it over with, already.
corbettw on October 4, 2007 at 10:25 PM
I’m starting to believe we are done for guys. I believe we are going to be faced with a far left socialist President and house and senate. The only upside is that after 4 or 8 years of this and our economy and national standing going to $hit, we may get our conservative revolution and begin to rebuild our system.
conservnut on October 4, 2007 at 10:25 PM
The down side is that in 4 or 8 years we won’t have a shred of national sovereignty or identity left and apparently it doesn’t matter which side gets elected anymore.
Buzzy on October 4, 2007 at 10:34 PM
On this we agree.
I do not advocating a third party candidate. But I’m also not convinced that Rudy is that much better in the long run than Hillary.
Lawrence on October 4, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Thing is that ALL Christians believe that God has already won. And the worldly nonsense we battle over now is merely academic. Some might even argue that Christians voting is a foolish attempt to control worldly issue, others would claim it is our responsibility to control national politics. But voting for a pro-abortion candidate just because we want to control national politics doesn’t really solve anything does it?
Neither Hillary or Rudy are going to fix our immigration problem, no matter what they claim. Neither one is going to be able to fix social security, health care issues, or balance the budget. Hate crimes will still occur, and our legal system is such a mess that neither Hillary or Rudy are making any claims to address those problems. And neither one is going to magically make Islamofasicst terrorists stop trying to kill us.
If this is the case, what’s the point in voting?
Why would I not want to vote for a third party candidate for no other purpose than to make a statement?
(I’m not advocating a third party candidate, I’m just illustrating a point.)
Lawrence on October 4, 2007 at 11:13 PM
That’s a fact. But if he’ll nominate and stick to his guns on conservative justices I can deal with the rest of it.
csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 11:33 PM
How much? I’ll take that action. It’s almost the end of the day…
Hollowpoint on October 4, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Bush and Carter?
Bush ran as a conservative, refused to enforce the laws at the borders, and tried to shove amnesty down our throats.
Carter negotiated the release of the hostages by paying them off.
We can do this all day long, but you will not find a modern day president that can stand up to your standard.
csdeven on October 4, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Sigh… well over 75% of the Judges he appointed in New York were Democrats.
He SUED gun manufacturers to get around the second amendment.
He created a “communter tax” in New York.
He ran a sanctuary city in New York, and invited Illegals to come to the city.
He helped sue to get rid of the line item veto…
He supports Roe V. Wade.
Why would you trust him to put the kind of judges YOU want into the Supreme Court?
As to my Bushy and Carter? Bush ran as a compasionate conservative… not a straight conservative. Carter was who he was… and never wavered on his liberal beliefs…
The standard was did they act on their stated beliefs… not whether I aggreed with them or not.
Romeo13 on October 5, 2007 at 12:25 AM
So is Dobson saying he’d vote for a third party candidate like Ron Paul before he’d vote for Rudy and thus promise the Democratic Party control the White House? Dobson certainly doesn’t speak for this Christian.
Joshua P. Allem on October 5, 2007 at 12:32 AM
The bottom line is that there will always be a “Hillary” running on the other side that will “require” such compromise. As long as that compromise is made, there is no need for a traditional conservative candidate.
True conservatives have already made compromises with their support and have very little to show for it. In fact, they have been scorned repeatedly by the party to whom they gave the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone who can dismiss the core of conservative philosophy in order to have a RINO “win” is not truly a conservative. Anyone advocating such behaviour for true conservatives is the enemy within.
It is time for Republicans to compromise their left leanings and dealings if they want to retain power. If they do not, they should pay dearly.
America1st on October 5, 2007 at 12:41 AM
I agree, which is why “true conservatives” shouldn’t wait until November to vote…that’s why we have the primary.
Joshua P. Allem on October 5, 2007 at 12:49 AM
I understand the emotion behind what your saying. But that thinking is what led to 8 years of Bill Clinton. The True Conservatives didn’t want to vote for Bush41 in 1992 and then they didn’t want to vote for Dole in 1996. So they either sat at home or tossed their vote down the toilet by voting for Perot.
Joshua P. Allem on October 5, 2007 at 12:52 AM
Just curious…….
Did you know, that, we are in the primary election season?
Because, if all Republicans/conservatives/absolutely-not-Hillary voters do the right thing NOW, and, nominate the candidate who is the most conservative, runs the best campaign, is the most qualified, and, – of whom Hillary can say the least smack about – then the nose holding would be a lot less painful, come the general election.
Then along with about 100,000 people calling/faxing/writing, when our elected president/officials attempt to legislate laws, that we the majority don’t like, we can truly have change.
In case you doubt our power….
……….remember how we shut down the Senate phone system during the immigration train wreck? ….and they listened to us because they were truly afraid of losing their jobs?
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 12:53 AM
I doubt it would be Ron Paul, but if he doesn’t speak for you, there are millions who apparently have the same view. All the whining in the world about it on blogs won’t change that. What are you going to do- go door to door and convince 5 million voters to try and change their mind, or instead consider the risk involved with voting for Rudy to be the nominee?
Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Well said.
Now if Dobson and et al could get it through their thick skull, and understand, that, progress in life is a process……
……….and having fallen hard during Roe v. Wade……..
………… perfection is fleeting…………………
…………….people are not perfect…………………….
…every leader, even Ronald Reagan himself had faults……………
which is WHY we HAVE A REPUBLIC……..
SO THAT WE CAN CALL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND REMIND THEM…
of why we elected them in the first place…………
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:04 AM
Someone using their head for something other than stumping for the perfect Biblical figure.
My assignment to you: Write James Dobson a letter.
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:09 AM
My assignment to you is: Ask Dobson.
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Your choice is to tell James Dobson (800) A-FAMILY (232-6459) now, or after Hillary is elected by default.
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:36 AM
James Dobson might remember.
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:39 AM
Are you one of those people that called/faxed/wrote, our elected president/officials and helped shut down the Senate phone system http://www.senate.gov during the immigration train wreck? – and they listened to us because they were truly afraid of losing their jobs?
If not…. then SHUT UP, ALREADY!
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:47 AM
.
.
Tell that to James Dobson at (800) A-FAMILY (232-6459)
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 1:53 AM
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:04 AM
We survived a Catholic (JFK) President.
People even then thought it would be a GREAT handicap as well, along with the usual lunatic conspiracy theories.
.
.
Then….
We survived evangelical, conservative-in-name-only Presidents………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:15 AM
I’ve got a PERFECT bomb shelter for sale………………
…..so that you can go live in your own little perfect world, come hell or hillary water.
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:21 AM
Is there a support group to help break the addiction to the bold tag?
Hollowpoint on October 5, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:26 AM
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:27 AM
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:32 AM
Some lunatics, which shall go unmentioned, may not be able to read as well as those who make hollow points.
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:33 AM
Well said.
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 2:34 AM
“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.”
I’d say it’s high time these single-issue voters formed their own party. Let them stop pretending to be Republicans and driving their co-opted political partners off a cliff. They can call themselves the 4th Railers, nominate a pro-life homophobe, and vote with a pristine conscience for the rest of their natural lives.
The other 73% can get on with the process of rebuilding a Republican Party which rejects religious litmus tests, attracts political and economic conservatives across the board, including social liberals, and nominates the man who is best prepared for leadership in economics, law enforcement, foreign policy & defense. Then Republicans can go back to fighting against governmental intrusions on private decision making and one size fits all remedies for every conceivable complaint. They can restore national focus on innovative problem solving and the kind of trial balloons that are only possible at a smaller scale. Perhaps, finally, they’ll recover from the crippling blow that Reagen dealt the term “States Rights” by turning it into a dirty word in public discourse for decades.
There are plenty of people who share that core conservative ethic and who are, in fact, pro-choice because they think a woman’s uterus is no place for the federal government. There are also plenty of people who are pro-choice within limits in the Republican base, despite the self-serving claims of the religious right. There is nothing fundamentally Republican or conservative in pro-life/anti-gay marriage positions, quite the contrary, they’re the mirror image of liberal social evangelism. To those who have watched the pro-life plank expand exponentially from one platform to the next with dismay, the clarity Dobson provides on pro-life priorities in contrast to Republican priorities is long overdue.
JM Hanes on October 5, 2007 at 2:53 AM
…………………………….HEAR, HEAR, HEAR,
………………….This is a public service announcement
::James Dobson will be on the Sean Hannity Radio show today::
……..sometime between 3:00 and 6:00 P.M Eastern Time….
Mcguyver on October 5, 2007 at 3:31 AM
I see the bad witch arisin’.
I see Hillary on the way.
I see HillaryCare and rationin’.
I see bad times today.
Don’t go stayin around in Iraq,
Well, it’s bound to take your party’s life,
There’s a bad witch on the rise.
I hear momentum ablowin’.
I know Hillay is comin’ soon.
I fear liberals on the court over flowin’.
I hear the shrill voice of tax and ruin.
Hope you got your $hit together.
Hope you are quite prepared to cry.
Looks like we’re in for Hillary weather.
One eye is taken for an eye.
- CCR
MB4 on October 5, 2007 at 4:08 AM
Good point.
Lawrence on October 5, 2007 at 7:23 AM
Funny thing is that the Republican Party was built on pro-life, religious-right, pristine-conscious priorities, just as much as conservative political priorities. (Regardless of Reagan, btw.)
I wonder if secular conservative support of religious issues in the past was more about embracing religious voter opinion, or simply using religious voters to advance secular conservative power in government.
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 is cutting off whose nose to spite whose face?
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.
I think the GOP has lost its identity in context of prioritizing power over ideology. In the end it is the secular side of the GOP that is splitting the party, not the religious side.
Lawrence on October 5, 2007 at 7:37 AM
As an Evangelical Christian I’ll be the first to say that some of us forget that the Republican party is a political entity.
Carter was a born again Christian and he was the worst post-war president in history.
If we lose this election due to “pure principles” we can look forward to ulimited abortion and socialism/communism as our form of government. The SCOTUS hangs on a knife’s edge; let’s not blow it.
Mojave Mark on October 5, 2007 at 7:38 AM
Hey, we have a bouncer that is defending the drunks. Where you hired by HA, or do you police others for fun. I guess you missed the comment of her/him calling me a rat.
This is what I said, and I am called a demorcRAT thinker. Think my accusation of her/him drinking is accurate, if not that than they are stupid.
So now I ask you, sounds like you may be a little sober, can you serve two masters? Where did Jesus say go ahead and vote, where did he say to be politically active?
Wasn’t there something about let the government govern, but keep your eye on Gods kingdom? How many of his (Jesus) diciples campaigned for a politico, or ran for office?
So there are just 4 questions for you to answer. Have at it, spend a little more time reading what people write, and less time be the “public defender”.
I have every right to defend myself against a verbal attack…especially against a drunk.
right2bright on October 5, 2007 at 7:42 AM
Am I wrong –or does it sound as if the GOP might be uniting spurred by part of it’s own?
jeanie on October 5, 2007 at 8:25 AM
I would trust Rudy because I have no better choice. I know what Hillary would do, so Rudy’s promise is a better bet.
I understand what you’re saying. My point is that Bush promised to uphold and defend the constitution. He refuses to defend our southern border and he did not run on that issue. Carter didn’t run on negotiating with terrorists but he did run on tax reform and never did that. And even if Carter did do as he promised, he was probably the worst president we’ve had in the modern era.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 8:45 AM
James Dobson, Hillraiser.
Way to go…now they don’t need Hsu anymore.
James on October 5, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Lt us not forget all the Federal judges that co-Presidents Clinton will be appointing as well.
Hilts on October 5, 2007 at 8:51 AM
I’m with you, and hence my analogy to death by old age. Rudy may be a slow cancer for all I know, but Hillary’s a gunshot to the head. I’d rather have a few more years of life to fight off the socialist onslaught than throw up my hands and let it happen. I still don’t get how staying home and letting Hillary win over Rudy will save a single unborn child, not to mention the other damage it will do to the country.
saint kansas on October 5, 2007 at 8:58 AM
This is the problem with all single issue voters. Their view of life is so narrow that they find it almost impossible to be pragmatic. And the insult is that in the end, their situation is worse, the politicians learn nothing, and they are viewed as fools because they are the only ones that learn anything. If anyone has any doubt, just ask the people who supported Perot over Bush in 1992 and as a result gave us 8 years of the Clenis. The years where he was more worried about getting BJ’s in the Oval office than he was about killing Bin Laden.
And in that context, Perot supporters are responsible for the conditions that allowed 9/11. And here we are 16 years later and I can’t help but wonder just what vileness Hillary will be doing in the Oval office, exactly how bad she will decimate the military, and create the conditions that will allow for a nuclear attack by terrorists. She clearly does not understand the danger or she does and is lying about it. That allows for only two scenarios. She will not fight the war or she will try to fight it and will alienate her base when she starts acting like a hawk. With the pressure of moveon.org and their ilk, the majority in congress will road block any attempts to fight this war as it should be fought.
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
What? Because I’m pessimistic about a Republican win that somehow translates into me wanting Hillary to win?
You’re full of it.
Esthier on October 5, 2007 at 9:38 AM
“This is the problem with all single issue voters. Their view of life is so narrow that they find it almost impossible to be pragmatic. ”
The Christian Right has multiple issues or dogs in this fight. Attempting to diminish them by misrepresenting them as being single issue makes anyone who does so look narrow minded and foolish.
Family Values touches on a broad spectrum of issues. Saying that they are only interested in abortion is liking saying that Democrats are only interested in health care.
They also are NOT contemplating staying home as so many erroneously state. They are discussing making their displeasure with the party that specifically sought them out, courted them and then completely failed them known.
Doing so by throwing the combined weight of their constituency behind a person who solidly represents what is important to them is the essence of what our system should be. They are not saying that they will throw behind ANY 3rd party candidate. They are saying we will find the one that represents US and give him all our support.
Slamming them for supporting Ron Paul is as bad as saying that they are single issue voters. If Ron Paul doesnt represent their values he will not get their vote any more than Mitt, Fred, or Rudy would.
Maybe, if they accomplish their stated objective we could wind up with a balanced ticket because the Republicrats could not afford to ignore.
America1st on October 5, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Can’t you do both? Clinton failed to kill bin Laden and could have done more, especially after the embassy bombings in 1998. Bush did little to address bin Laden in his first 8 months in office and he let bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora. Six years after 9/11 the guy is still posting videos on the Internet.
dedalus on October 5, 2007 at 10:16 AM
Dobson cited three issues, true…but then he went on to imply that not supporting them on any single issue of the three was a total dealbreaker.
Just because he couched their demands in more than one area doesn’t mean they aren’t, in the final analysis, multiple-choice single-issue voters.
James on October 5, 2007 at 10:34 AM
‘Scuze me . . . if I speak,out against what I consider murder, no one but my wife and friends will hear me. Dobson has a national following and anytime a person of notoriety speaks, they can’t not be heard.
The point is this: Are my feelings less genuine ’cause I don’t have a huge folowing? Is Dobson throwing his weight around just ’cause he can? NO! The real issue is what value we place upon human life and we must speak up, speak out and use what tools we’ve got to oppose those who (by outright actions or inactions) oppose our values.
least1 on October 5, 2007 at 10:36 AM
It was this mentality that lead to Bill Clinton getting elected over GHW Bush. We all know how well that turned out for the Pro-Life movement.
h0mi on October 5, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Since you have failed to stay within context, you look like the fool.
Dobson’s single issue is Christian values. Dobson suggested voting third party in the general to make some asinine point….that in the end will get Hillary elected and more liberals on the court. That means more attacks against these Christian values he is so stubbornly defending with stupid suggestions.
In the future, if you cannot stay within context when responding to me, just keep your mouth shut and use your straw man arguments on fools that will buy into it.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 10:54 AM
The point isn’t what Bush does. The point is that voting third party because your single issue isn’t addressed gets you someone who is worse than the conservative you despise. Hence the fact that Dobson is cutting off his nose to spite his face.
csdeven on October 5, 2007 at 11:00 AM
I have a few thoughts on some of the posts here:
1. Hunter is a GREAT candidate, but is not electable, he would be best to serve in a high cabinet position.
2. I love Tancredo he has no shot maybe head up I.C.E.?
3. A vote for a third party Christian candidate insures another Clinton Presidency with less than 40% of the vote (see 1992).
4. If Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas weren’t so retarded he would be the closest thing we have to Barry Goldwater.
5. Rudy does give us the best chance to win in 08. All Christian leaders should endorse him with the caveat that he must appoint strict interpretation judges on the Federal benches. The abortion battle cannot be won from the Executive branch.
6. I would vote for a republican abortion doctor giving free abortions on the campaign trail rather than have Hillary Clinton as president!!!!
Joey1974 on October 5, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I don’t have just one issue (though right now I’m having a hard time thinking about anything but lunch) and I doubt I’d vote 3rd party unless I thought that party could take electoral votes.
The point of my post above was that both Clinton and Bush failed to drop the hammer on Osama. I’ll be glad in 09 if the White House occupant isn’t named Bush or Clinton.
dedalus on October 5, 2007 at 11:16 AM
csdeven you are rude and offensive. If you cannot make a counter argument without resorting to insult you should keep your mouth shut to avoid displaying your limited intellect and grasp of the issues.
America1st on October 5, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Look, there are bigger fish to fry than “conservative social issues” We are at war. There are threats to this country. Take care of the social issues yourself.
If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a guy. If you believe in family values, be a good father.
Wait until the war is over and our country safe to resume your plan to foist your morals on the rest of the country.
Thank you, good night.
tommylotto on October 5, 2007 at 12:02 PM
BTW you look the fool, as I was never talking about Dobson. You raised the issue regarding single issue voters (Christian Right) I responded regarding single issue voters. If you cannot stay within the confines of the points YOU RAISE, you are the fool.
Although I did not make the point that Dobson is not a single issue voter, that point could be made as well. I was merely responding to a narrow minded classification of the entire voting block that, frankly, you and The Republicans only value at election time.
America1st on October 5, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Well, I have to say way to go, Dobson. If he’s trying to be a 21st century Wilberforce on the issue of abortion, he’s my man. I refuse to vote for any candidate that isn’t a staunch pro-life candidate, and if Giuliani wins the nomination, the GOP is over as far as I’m concerned. I’ll go independent or third-party.
Jared White on October 5, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »