New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

CitizenLink.com ^ | 10-8-2007 | Jennifer Mesko

[monomaniac]

New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

by Jennifer Mesko, associate editor

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

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.

[bootless]

This is propaganda leafletting by the NYT, without making the effort to put the rag into an airplane.

[ejonesie22]

With his SCOTUS appointments, he has made a good start, far better than we would have had with Gore.

You think all this occurs in a vacuum, SCOTUS appointments take time, usually far beyond two terms now days.

[elpadre]

speaking as an evangelical Christian: if they don’t get behind whoever the Republican candidate is, I shall pray fervently that Almighty God will loose a good ol’ dramatic punishment on those so-called leaders for placing Hillary in the White House. They will lose all credibility and set Christianity behind many years because of such action. I believe in the right to life, but not at the expense of the greater good.

[jveritas]

Doing fine :)

[stevio]

Frankly, if God is placed second tier, I don’t think he cares. The Creator of the universe wants to be associated with a cross-dressing pro-abort because he can win? Look at the civilizations that had the moral code we have. Our time is limited.

[Stayfree]

Perhaps this king-maker wants to be king because he thinks he is pure enough? Not so, he is a spoiler for whatever egocentric reason that he is. The Christian movement needs someone who is more savy about the importance of political power struggles...he is a novice!

[jveritas]

Great post.

[SoCalPol]

Hunter, a Vietnam war vet, his son on his third tour in the war.

Former chairman and current ranking member of the Armed Services Comm.

He has more background than the others on National Security and the Military.

Also has done the most with legislation re illegals and the author of the legislation for the Border Fence .

-
http://www.house.gov/hunter/index.shtml

http://www.gohunter08.com/

[Shortstop7]

Thanks for the recap.

That is what gets me....that he lied about his staffer calling Fred’s staff. And when he said “he nearly bit the wall”....?? What was that about? Would it be so terrible for him to apologize for his lies about Fred? He sounded so angry and bitter about it.

I have no respect for Dobson at this point.

[engrpat]

That’s fine, stand on principal and someone else will eat your lunch. Decide what is important, half a loaf or no bread at all, you choice.

[gscc]

I believe in the right to life, but not at the expense of the greater good.

I believe that about sums up many in the Republican party - human life trumped by the "greater good".  What is that greater good?  Low taxes?  Cutting spending?  Stopping the growth of government?  Pulling out of the United Nations?

[donnab]

I have said before that Dobson is skilled in semantics.
He denied on Seans radio show ever having said that anyone was not Christian and said that he did not say that Dobson was not Christian. And that wasnt a lie per se. He did however say....
“Everyone knows he’s conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson said of Thompson. “I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression,” Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.”
If you ask me that implication was the same. Tonight I found it interesting as Sean brought it up yet again, that Dobson more or less refused to even talk about that little tidbit, saying there wasnt enough time. He left it saying he was grossly misquoted. Hmmmmmmm....seems to me to be a bit of a stretch and probably why it was an unaddressable topic. I am still uncomfortable with that.
He did admit contrary to what he said on the radio show that someone did in fact call Thompson from his office and although he would not qualify it as an apology, he said it was to explain what he had said and that he was misquoted.

I think his email against Thompson was puzzling at best for the language used, and the strength of animosity confounds me. Especially since he has never spoken to FT.

Those that follow Dobson to the letter seem to think those of us who dont are somehow less Christian or not Christian at all. I guess since their leader could suppose that of another I should not be surprised they would. Frankly only God can judge whether or not I am a good Christian or Christian enough. I will leave that in His hands. I do not like Rudy and I am trying to work hard so that he doesnt get the nod. But would I stoop to extortion type tactics? Instead ...I pray, and I have faith that God will lead me to do what I must do. And I will work hard toward that goal. That faith... makes strong arm tactics unnecessary from where I stand. Candidates need to be vetted before they are tossed away or irresponsible and foolhardy things are said about them.
I also am not so naive not to realize that there is any one candidate that is going to be perfect.
I do also know this...I do not want the lives of innocent babies on my conscience over a prideful display of what my principles are. And that might just be the price.

[ModelBreaker]

Are you telling me that Giuliani, who favors abortion, will nominate a Supreme Court Justice that will overturn Roe?

Noone actually believes that. It's red meat for the bubbas.

[roamer_1]

If God wants to stop it, He will.

Oh, indeed he will. But for our sakes, I would hope that national repentance occurs before that happens. God judges nations, and it is horrible to behold, not to mention being a participant.

[aruanan]

New York Times Poll: Evangelicals Agree with Dr. Dobson

I don't. A vote of "conscience" that enables a party that has proven itself over and over again to be an enemy of basic Christian beliefs and a friend of socialism to gain or consolidate power because a presidential candidate isn't sufficiently "Christian" is a self-indulgent vote.

[bootless]

Thank you! (I’m honored.)

I believe what President Reagan said was wise, and not foolishly pure. As someone upthread said, some of God’s best servants were wholly imperfect.

[tear gas]

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.

What will happen if Rudy gets the nomination and THEN it becomes known that he is, say, a bisexual?

Shouldn't we worry about things like that?

[bootless]

I do not want the lives of innocent babies on my conscience over a prideful display of what my principles are. And that might just be the price.

Worth saying twice.

[jwalsh07]

speaking as an evangelical Christian: if they don’t get behind whoever the Republican candidate is, I shall pray fervently that Almighty God will loose a good ol’ dramatic punishment on those so-called leaders for placing Hillary in the White House. They will lose all credibility and set Christianity behind many years because of such action. I believe in the right to life, but not at the expense of the greater good.

Well, you can loose the lightening on me right now because I'm not gonna vote for Rudy Giuliani, come hell or lightening while I'm in high water.

having said that, I think threats of a third party are dumb and I won't be voting for a third party either. If Rudy wins the Republican primary I'll writein the candidate of my choice which will probably be Duncan Hunter.

[Coldwater Creek]

With all due respect SIN is what killed Jesus!