Posted on 09/30/2007 4:14:53 AM PDT by Man50D
WASHINGTON – Some of the top leaders in Christian pro-family activism – including James Dobson of Focus on the Family – met in Salt Lake City yesterday to plot a strategy if Rudy Giuliani or another supporter of legalized abortion is nominated by the Republican Party as its presidential candidate.
Not only was there a consensus among activists to withhold support for the Republican nominee, there was even discussion about supporting the entry of a new candidate to challenge the frontrunners.
It's no secret that Dobson, founder of one of the largest Christian ministries in the country, has no use for Giuliani.
In June, he said: "I cannot, and will not, vote for Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It is an irrevocable decision. If given a Hobson's – Dobson's? – choice between him and Sens. Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, I will either cast my ballot for an also-ran – or if worse comes to worst – not vote in a presidential election for the first time in my adult life. My conscience and my moral convictions will allow me to do nothing else."
Dobson reportedly drove from his headquarters Colorado Springs to the private meeting, held between sessions of the Council for National Policy in Salt Lake City this weekend, just to weigh in with other leaders of family groups, including the Family Research Council, Bott Broadcasting, Capitol Resource Institute, Salem Communications, Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
So true. I don’t know if DH has any heathenistic tendencies, but I imagine if the criteria were so rigid, divorce and the smoking of cigars would have doomed FDT a long time ago. I’m under the impression instead that while he did mention church attendance and FDT’s refusal, as a candidate, to publicly expound on his religious beliefs, Dobson’s objection had less to do with any personal judgment and more to do with significant Christian platform issues, like putting ‘federalism’ before ‘conservatism’ when it comes to the gay marriage and abortion issues.
I am going to try and say this in a way that does not get me kicked off this site. But I agree with you 100%.
I am a pro life Catholic, who, quite frankly gets sick and tired of being told I am not either 1) a "true" Christian, and 2) not a true Conservative.
Many, many conservatives are somewhat libertarian in their views. While I personally think that homosexuality is a sin, I think as long as no one else is being harmed, I could care less what someone is doing in their bedrooms. I, like I am sure the true majority in this forum, have friends and or relatives that are gay. I will not turn my back on them. Yet whenever a homosexual thread comes up here we are faced with so called "Christians" hurling ugly names and insults. That turns many away.
When Teri Shiavo was a huge issue here, I was called a death lover, and worse because I thought the Federal government had no place what so ever in the situation. Now with revisionist history many are changing their tunes, because it seems like a President Fred wouldn't have interfered under his Federalist leanings, but then it was ugly.
I am a very, very big fiscal conservative, and many of my decisions are based on that. But yet now a days that doesn't matter. If you are not a Fundamentalist Christian, you don't have any place in the Republican party according to many today.
We have had a socially conservative President in the White House for 8 years now, and abortion is still legal. Gay marriage is closer to a reality than it was 8 years ago, and we have a much, much more immoral country.
When the day comes that abortion is illegal, and gay marriage is no longer an issue, I want to be able to Thank God, and not praise allah. So this year, my vote will go to who I think will protect me, my Country, and my family the best. I 100% know that it is not Hillary, or any of the dem candidates, so my choice will be easy.
Smoking! I forgot about that! lol
So you would vote for an unnamed Globalist RINO who would put our ships at sea under the authority of the United Nations, grant amnesty to all the illegals currently in our country, and subsume our beloved nation into a greater North American Union, throwing our sovereignty out the window in the process? Because those are the things the Republicans are doing right now.
To allow these things to continue are every bit as bad as what the Socialists are trying to accomplish, in fact they are largely spun from the same cloth.
I am sorry if you feel I attacked you. All I said is that it is an extremely narrow view to vote for "Anything but Hillary". If one lets in a wolf just to stave off the bear, the result will be very much the same.
He is not a majority. Not even in the GOP. Sorry, but true.
After that there will be the choice of the Republican Party( of which Dobson is but a minority ) the Democrats and other parties. Dobson should then voice whom he supports.
Right now, like a gangsta playah, Dobson is sallying forth like an Arab and making pubic pantie hissy fit noises. Grow the F up. Dobby? Does ya know who you want, or are you rug merchant trading right now for better position, which means you are flexible, er, your values are flexible, that is depending on the best deal you get. Dobbson, the car shopper, tire kicker. What a punk. A white Jessie Jackson.
Say what you will about Dobson...on this particular point (Giuliani), I am in total agreement.
If the GOP nominates Giuliani, not only will I not vote for him, I will actively work against him for a third-party candidate.
Because, at that point, all bets are off, and the GOP as we know it will be history.
And it’s not just abortion...Giuliani is a pro-abortion, anti-gun, big-government authoritarian.
I thought the Giuliani issue had been settled here, but it looks like some still don’t grasp it.
I am a little confused by your statement. Even though our candidate will be chosen by the voters during the primary, are you saying the RNC should disqualify Rudy because he doesn't fit your ideal of true conservative?
What would you have the RNC do? This isn't the days of the smoky back rooms where they have much of a voice. In fact, from figures and donations, it seems that the RNC has much less influence than they used to. With this years compressed primary schedule, I venture to say, they won't have any influence. It will be up to who has the most money to continue, and who the voters vote for.
If Rudy becomes the nominee through the primary voters, what should the RNC do then, totally abandon the general election?
Yeah! I have to wonder along with you, why Dobson and friends don’t back Duncan Hunter. Yes, it does seem like a logical choice for them. I might even try to get a letter off to Mr. Dobson and ask him the question about Mr. Hunter.
Myself, I like Mr. Hunter very much. Why there are not some in the RNC upper echelon giving Mr. Hunter more time on the clock is a grief to me. He would represent a halt to the compromise. But it’s electability (they think) over sound principle. I believe that Mr. Hunter could beat anyone the Democrats could put up IF the RNC would pull out all stops and back him.
The way the RNC backs the compromise-electable candidate only lends to the conspiracy “theories.” Are they really only theories? I mean, now its a Democrat step closer to socialism, and then a Republican stepping in the same foot print only one term later. Then, another Democrat step toward socialism, and the Republican candidate tries to buy the same size shoe with the same tread design, and then measure the length of the pace. The Republican then matches the step, and the Democrat looks behind to giggle as the Republican is stepping on his heals.
The Democrat should ask, “Hey! RNC, would you like us to slow down just a year or two so that you can catch up with us. Next step: bowing at Marx’s mausoleum.
At the same time, Republicans are saying, “If we don’t vote for Mr. Electable Compromiser, we will terribly regret the next decade.” I really don’t see how the slide into the pit can be slowed down, unless a NON-Compromiser is placed at the helm.
Choice between Giulliani and Hillary? WHERE is the choice. That’s NO choice at all!
There are only two types of political parties - winners and losers.
"Getting elected" and "winning" mean the same thing.
What's the case for losing?
The "Giuliani issue" is going to be settled in the Republican primaries, and eventually in the general election, if he gets that far.
What people here grasp or don't grasp will affect the outcome to a degree, but probably won't be determinative.
GROW UP!@ in the real/adult world, OMMISION and COMMISION both exist and are choices! Not voting for X, which causes Y to get elected, is ABSOLUTELY no different from voting for the wrong candidate.
I hope these clowns are happy when they get Hillary elected.
An Amen to that. Hitlery can not be elected unless USEFUL IDIOTS split off the GOP vote. It's no different than in 92.
So what? I said that Christianity and the Republican party have nothing to do with each other, and in fact are not of the same nature in any respect.
I stand by that statement, and anyone who thinks that Jesus Christ would show the slightest interest in the outcome of contests among grasping. powerhungry men whose concern is an earthly kingdom is an idiot.
While it’s nice to have the so called Christian leaders on our side, I don’t need them. I’ll make up my own mind when I step into the booth to select my vote. They should not think they are J. Jackson nor should they want to be
I’m not talking about the outcome; I’m talking about some people here still pushing the liberal.
Ronald Reagan understood (and said so) that what you believed was just an exercise in futility unless you got elected and then did something about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.