New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

A New York Times/CBS News poll shows white, evangelical Republicans agree with Dr. James Dobson.

Nearly 60 percent of those who plan to vote in the primaries said they could not support a candidate they didn't agree with on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Eighty-six percent said presidential candidates should be judged on both their political record and their personal life.

Dr. Dobson has taken a beating in the media for promising to vote only for a candidate who shares his basic values, even if that means supporting a third-party candidate.

Last week, he wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times to clarify his position: "Speaking personally, and not for the organization I represent, 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."

Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, a Texas-based group that has a network of 5,000 pastors willing to mobilize their churches to vote, said evangelicals are not bluffing.

“I am not going to cast a sacred vote granted to me by the blood of millions of God-fearing Americans who died on the fields of battle for freedom, for a candidate who says it’s OK to kill the unborn,” he told The Times. “I just can’t.”

WATCH DR. DOBSON ON TV
Dr. James Dobson will be a guest on Hannity & Colmes on the Fox News Channel tonight at 9 ET. The program re-airs at midnight ET. He will offer his views, as a private citizen, on the 2008 presidential election.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Read Dr. Dobson's op-ed that ran in The New York Times last week.

Why do we only hear about evangelical Christians when it is an issue that threatens to split them?

I am waiting for the article from anti war Cindy Sheehan types about it they can put their core issue aside and vote for Hillary.

It is amazing how the MSM is all of a sudden concerned about our morals. BTW.. This is one Christian who will vote for who ever the eventual nominee is.

The only surprise is that the number is but 60%.

Evangelicals are principled and will vote their principles, no matter what.

That's why they are not reliable PARTY voters. Never have been, never will be. They can and will vote dem (did in the 06 elections...dims who opposed abortion and gay marriage did very well with evangelicals), GOP or 3rd party if necessary.

However, it IS possible for the GOP to form a new majority. This can be done IF the evangelicals start their own, 3rd party right away. If they don't, the GOP will lose and lose big time in 08. It'll be the congressional mid-terms before any comeback can begin.

By then the fairness doctrine and federal funding of all elections will be in place. Of course, the govt will only fund those candidates who are "mainstream".

Bad choice. Not voting, or voting a third party candidate only helps the opposition. And if they think someone who differs with them on a few points isn’t better than someone who not only differs with them on every point but hates them too is not good stewardship of their vote.

It would be different if every time someone didn’t vote as a protest they took a vote away from the other side, but that’s not how it works. Failing to vote, or voting for a third party candidate is tantamount to voting for the other person. Every time I say this I get heat from those who try to explain how it’s not so, but I am not not convinced by their arguments.

No matter how much you disagree with Rudy if he’s the candidate of the party and you sit out the vote, or vote for a third party candidate, knowing full well he or she can’t win you are in essence casting a vote for the opposition.

The sanctity of human life is the genesis of “Christian involvement in politics.”

One can’t underestimate the seriousness of the issue to those who are deeply committed.

People who call themsleves “evangelical” or “Christian” can drift whatever way the wind blows, but for those of us including myself the “life” issue stands out.

Politicians know how to say what we want to hear, but actions are going to make the difference in the end.

How Roberts and Alito vote on the Supreme Court will say a lot about if this involvement in politics has meant any tangible results.

This is stupid, stupid politics by Dobson, almost breathtakingly childish and naive. Now don't get me wrong, I have my pet issues as well - gay marraige is an abomination and I have trouble with 2 of the candidates with their liberal past on it.

However, I do understand that the only realiable thing I will get if I vote 3rd party is Hillary elected and Ruth Bader Ginsberg redux. But I get a Republican elected, at least I will get a seat at the table.

Harriet Miers is a great example of where conservatives had a say in the process and won out. Hillary will have no reservations about sending a modern day Roland Frieseler to the Supreme Court.

I’m glad to see Dobson and the evangelical wing vetting Fred as a candidate. After what we went through here on FR when we filtered out tootyfruityRudy, we couldn’t afford an internecine war of social conservatives over Fred.

We’re in the same boat we all were when aRINOld jumped into the Kahleefornya race for guvernator. The solid, colorless social conservative, Tom McClintock had enough poll numbers and weight to win the race but the republican party abandoned him. And look what that got us in the sunshine state. So if we go for the electable name-recognition candidate, don’t be surprised if we end up with a wish-washy center-left presidency.

Pharisees killed Jesus. The NYTimes remind me of pharisical “group think” process. I would tell them that they should be ashamed of themselves.But they won’t.
I am an evangelical Christian, and a Pastor, and I won’t vote a third party at this critical juncture of the history of the Republic.
I guess if Dobson wants a Hillary Presidency he is likely to get it. He will have to live with two or three Supreme court justices who might be around for 30 years who not only will affirm Wade, but strengthen it.
Does that mean he should abandon his principle? Nope. Jesus said to give to Rome the things that belong to Rome and the things to God that belong to him. You sometimes have look at the broader wide scope. There is a theological term for it...”the teliological suspension of the ethical” it means for the greater good of society you temporarily change a course for the benefit of the society. The best known example of this was Dietrich Bonhoeffer who was a Biblical pacifist who left the security of teaching in New York to go back to his native Germany where he became involved in a plot to kill Hitler. He failed. Was arrested and was hung by the gestapo six weeks before the allies liberated his camp.

I have no problem with that formula.

Do you think God wants 3 more Ruth Ginsburgs on the court so we can forget overturning Roe v Wade and try to overturn things such as partial birth abortion restrictions? Do you think He wants to divide the church with Ms. Hillary and the Democrats because Dr Dobson can't understand that he is petulantly willing to elect another Clinton much like Ross Perot did?

I have been a big supporter of Dobson. In this he has simply gotten it wrong.

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.