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.

[jwparkerjr]

Doing the right thing is not the right thing to do if does more harm to your cause than good in the long run.

I am saddened that you would use the word ‘lie’ to describe something another person feels to be true. You can reach your decisions, make up your own mind, explore your own options, but it’s not a lie if they believe what they are saying. A lie is when you voice an untruth with the intent of deceiving someone, of getting something from them that you couldn’t get without the deception.

You do the simple math yourself and see that not voting at all, or splitting the vote of your party has the same effect as voting for the other party. You can disagree with it all you want but that’s the way it is.

[EternalVigilance]

I refuse to be driven anywhere by fear.

[Manic_Episode]

Dobson is simply flexing his muscles.

He is in essence saying (well in advance mind you) that you can't possibly elect a Republican without us, so you had better represent us or else.

Anyone and everyone supporting Rudy is destroying the party, not Dr Dobson.

[dforest]

Dobson plays a good game of poker. And most people are falling for his bluff. Even Freepers. He’s not content getting a RINO as our primary winner. He wants a real conservative. Me too.

I totally agree with this post of yours. Politics are being played at this moment. Positioning is what is happening.

Fear of the Beast has taken over common sense.

I had to laugh at an earlier post where evangelicals were threatened by never getting a place in the party again. Duh? Thats what they are trying to prevent and they are doing with the power of votes.

In the end, I believe the GOP will get smart and push a uniter if they really want to beat Hillary.

Browbeating and hating the people who you need to vote for your party is not the way to win.

I look at it like this. We best find a way to have a fairly content and energized base.

I would not count on winning if I knew that people would not be motivated to get out and vote.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Anyone and everyone supporting Rudy is destroying the party, not Dr Dobson.

Not so. Because there are others who are also not acceptable to Dobson. He admitted he didn't vote for Dole. Maybe Dobson is on the side of the Clintons if he didn't vote for Dole and now likely will not vote Republican again.

[PrepareToLeave]

My dad used to sing a song that went like this...

"You got to walk that lonesome valley, you got to walk it by yourself, cause no'body else can walk it for you, you got to walk it by yourself."

When I have to stand before Jesus and He asks me if I voted for a baby-killer, I will say NO. That's it.

[gscc]

• I gave at the office.
• The check is in the mail.
• Rudy will nominate a "strict constructionist"

[Valin]

And do you think he wants to get anything done if he wins the election?

[Valin]

see reply 248

[W-Girl]

Ditto !!

These “preachers” collect so much MONEY that they begin to think they are GODs !! What business do they have in politics ??

In my opinion, ONLY the Rev BILLY GRAHAM, is a Holy Man !! Did Billy Graham ever endorse a candidate ??

I have lost all respect for Dobson, Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts ......even the Pope !! They are all corrupted by their POWER and THEIR MONEY !! They will all have to answer for more that Rudy ever will !!

[buck61]

Conservativegreatgrandma

Thanks for the re., keep up the investigating and, keep us posted.:-)

[MortMan]

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.

Bull. If you sell your soul to a demon so that you win an election, the devil still holds the deed, FRiend.

You folks that seem to think winning, with or wothout principle, is all that matters don't appear to understand that the choice to not vote or to vote away from the Republican party is a matter of conscience for some. It is a matter of sin. In this context, avoiding the sin of commission is what is important to many.

So, instead of railing about the devotion to core values of those who will not support a New York style liberal Republican, perhaps you should examine why you find your own core values expendable.

[Manic_Episode]

As far as I know Rudy is the only one mentioned by Dobson in reference to bolting from the party over.

[Valin]

He also dosen’t like Big Fred. That whole DOMA thing you know.
Intersting I don’t see Dr. Dobson getting all that much support, from the right.

[gondramB]

>>Very well stated. We’re worrying about the general election when the primaries haven’t happened. Of course, we work for the most conservative in the primaries but then become united in the general to defeat the evil RATS.<<

Its reassuring to see there is a decent portion who agree with us.

[elpadre]

“I believe in the right to life, but not at the expense of the greater good.”
You said, “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?”

the greater good is keeping any of the known running Democrats out of office. They and their positions are the antithesis of every thing good for us as a nation, IMHO.

[jwparkerjr]

You make some good points. But look at it this way. Let’s say we could accurately foretell the number of abortions that would take place under a Hillary presidency compared to the number under a Rudy presidency. You can choose any two candidates you want, the names make no difference. Let’s say that under Hillary there would be 1.5 million abortions, but under Rudy that number would fall to less than a million. How are you not in part responsible for the 600 or 700 thousand or so deaths of babies that would not happened if you had voted for Rudy instead of sitting it out.

If a Christian does everything in his or her power to get a true pro-life candidate nominated but the effort falls short and a Rudy is instead nominated I don’t feel the Christian has the luxury of not supporting the lesser of two evils in the general election.

I am not saying that YOU should or should not vote for Rudy if he’s the nominee, and certainly do not condemn you for whatever course you choose. But it’s the simple truth that if you sit out the election or vote for a third party candidate who has no chance of winning, you effectively voting for the greater of the two evils.

You are awfully loose with your accusations regarding my core values. Perhaps you should consider it more of a matter of me seeing it differently from you than a defect in my core values.

re: If you sell your soul to a demon so that you win an election, the devil still holds the deed, FRiend.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not selling your soul to win an election. When it comes down to the general elections or of the other of the two candidates is going to win. In my book I have an obligation to support the lesser of two evils, in essence to vote to save the lives of those half million or more babies.

Our task at this point is to stand up and support a pro-life candidate to assure that Rudy doesn’t become our nominee. Personally I think that would just about the worst outcome I can imagine. The only worse outcome would be to have Hillary elected.

[elpadre]

I am surprised that anyone on the site would support Hillary’s run for the WH, as you appear to do.(if G. wins the Primary)

[elpadre]

“As someone upthread said, some of God’s best servants were wholly imperfect”

Correction: all but one are/were imperfect - Jesus alone was/is perfect.

[prairiebreeze]

I’m with Dobson on this....I’m not going to decide or be bullied into believing that one of the top tier RHINO’s is the only candidate who can beat Hillary

Instead you're going to dig in your heels, cut off your nose to spite your own face, lose sight of the long term negative effects of a Hillary presidency for all the conservative causes you claim to so adamantly support, not to mention the negatives effects on our troops, our country and our standing in the world, and then disengenuously accept no responsibility for your actions.