Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson
CitizenLink.com ^ | 10-8-2007 | Jennifer Mesko

Posted on 10/08/2007 5:17:30 PM PDT by monomaniac

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-296 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2007 5:17:34 PM PDT by monomaniac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
what is this, a loss-leader to boost their credibility?

New York Times Poll: most people fall down, not up.

2 posted on 10/08/2007 5:19:04 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (are you looking at me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
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.

3 posted on 10/08/2007 5:23:20 PM PDT by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
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".

4 posted on 10/08/2007 5:24:01 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
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.

5 posted on 10/08/2007 5:24:57 PM PDT by jwparkerjr (Sigh . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

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.


6 posted on 10/08/2007 5:25:19 PM PDT by Nextrush (Proudly uncommitted in the 2008 race for president for now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
Sorry, I am very pro-life and think highly of Dr. Dobson.

That being said, if he continues with this insanity, he will surely get a true nightmare for president, one that will hand him his worst fears (3 more Ruth Ginsburgs?). In this regard, he should keep his powder dry rather than paint himself and others in a corner so soon.

7 posted on 10/08/2007 5:26:36 PM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
MSM strategy:

Divide and conquer.

It's that simple and they think nobody sees through it.

8 posted on 10/08/2007 5:27:13 PM PDT by capt. norm (Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

God
Family
Country

That’s just the way it is.


9 posted on 10/08/2007 5:31:38 PM PDT by donna (Perhaps if republicans would adhere to the Bible’s first 10 Commandments they wouldn’t need an 11th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
Majority only will support a presidential candidate who shares their values.

I actually plan to vote for someone who is diametrically opposed to my values so I can prove the NYT's wrong

" rolling eyes "

10 posted on 10/08/2007 5:31:48 PM PDT by Popman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac
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.

11 posted on 10/08/2007 5:38:52 PM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

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.


12 posted on 10/08/2007 5:38:58 PM PDT by Kevmo (We should withdraw from Iraq — via Tehran. And Duncan Hunter is just the man to get that job done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

With all due respect to Evangelicals...

If they keep going on like that, they’ll bring us president Hillary(TM).

*donning holy-water-enhanced fire-retardant suit*


13 posted on 10/08/2007 5:39:29 PM PDT by El Conservador ("Liberalism is the application of childish emotion to complex issues." - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwparkerjr
If you don’t want to split the coalition then do not nominate Giuliani. To most Evangelicals this is a core issue. There is no compromised here. I guess if the dems nominated a Klansman it would be the African American’s fault if they did not vote democratic and caused a Republican to be elected.
14 posted on 10/08/2007 5:40:12 PM PDT by gscc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

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.


15 posted on 10/08/2007 5:40:52 PM PDT by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donna
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.

16 posted on 10/08/2007 5:44:26 PM PDT by Lakeshark (Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: monomaniac

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

in other words they will only support a conservative candidate unless he actually has a chance of winning.


17 posted on 10/08/2007 5:50:38 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lakeshark

I think God wants you to stand up for the babies, too.


18 posted on 10/08/2007 5:54:20 PM PDT by donna (Perhaps if republicans would adhere to the Bible’s first 10 Commandments they wouldn’t need an 11th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gscc

I think there are a lot of secular repubs that really do want to change the party back to where it was before reagan.


19 posted on 10/08/2007 5:54:37 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I am for traditional moral values, a strong national defense, and free markets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

You’re exactly right about Divide and Conquer .
The MSM onslaught worked in ‘06 and it will work again , unless we stay united .


20 posted on 10/08/2007 5:55:15 PM PDT by Neu Pragmatist (Unite against Rudy ! - Vote Thompson ! - It's the only way to beat Hillary !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 281-296 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson