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.

[MortMan]

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.

I need to apologize. From my post:

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.

I meant to speak with the editorial "you", being a generic, and not to make it sound like a personal accusation.

I agree we need to stand up and support a candidate that does not represent the core values of the democrat-lite party. Failing that, the party needs to understand that many of its voters stand with it only because of the party's positions, and that abandoning those positions is no different than abandoning those voters. Conservatives have long reminded certain minority democrat voting blocks that the dem party is all hat and no cattle, and these voters have been exhorted to vote with their feet if their consciences so dictate. The Republican party is in danger of putting some of its own in the same position, IMO.

At any rate, I apologize for appearing to impugn you as an individual, FRiend.

[jwparkerjr]

Certainly not a problem! I unloaded on some poor FRSoul Sunday when I responded to his post after suffering through the Bucs - Colts game that afternoon.

Somehow or another we’ve simply GOT to get the right person in there as our candidate. I would rather lose with the right candidate than win with Rudy. At least if we loose with Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter we did what was right.

Like so many things in life when you look this situation over carefully you find there are several aspects, not the two sides that would make it so much easier.

My prayer is it will become clear to those who would nominate Rudy that he is not the man for the job. If it comes down to defeating Hillary, he’ll do. But when it comes to putting a man at the helm of our country he’s not the man!

Many thanks!

[Grunthor]

Just how does helping to defeat a republican candidate who has said any number of times he would nominate “strict constructionists” (Code word for pro life) judges to the Bench hurt the pro-life movement?

The man would pay for the murder of his own grandchild but he’s too moral to lie, is that what you are telling me?

[Finny]

I'm not referring to Dobson. I am referring to pro-life Christians who insist that their candidate be for the Federal outlawing of abortion in all 50 states, which the majority of American voters would (sadly) not support. The smarter move for pro-lifers, Christian or otherwise, would be to seek and embrace the candidate who is for overturning Roe and returning it back to the states. THAT is something the majority of voters would accept, and it would be the first step in the important process of reducing the social acceptance of abortion and in eliminiating abominable tax-funded abortions.

Pro-lifers who equate "principled" with stubbornly settling ONLY for an anti-abortion candidate, are short-sighted and destructive to their own cause. Pro-lifers who insist that the Republican party "needs them" are worse. It's they -- and all yet-to-be-born -- that need the Republican party to be the party of smaller government. They should keep the focus on voting for the primary candidate who calls for SMALLER GOVERNMENT. Only then will headway be made in the fight against abortion, social normalization of homosexuality, a badly failing education system, and pretty much all of the other issues that concern social concervatives.

The bigger the government, the less its respect for personal beliefs. The smaller the government, the more it allows for the freedom of people to follow and live their personal beliefs.

ANY voting block, Christian or Pro-Life or Anti-Gay or anything else, concerned with having their personal beliefs respected are doing it WRONG when they seek candidates that also hold those beliefs. They are doing it RIGHT when they seek candidates who stand and push for smaller government.

[Finny]

Stopping the growth of government WOULD result in lower taxes, cutting spending, and probably the dumping of the U.N. — and it would also result in fewer abortions and lower social acceptance (let alone tax-funded!) of them. Use your head instead of your gut in assessing the true “greater good.”

[KC_Conspirator]

There is no guarantee at anything that you said, not a single shred of truth at all.

But only if you elect Hillary, you will GUARANTEE that you have no voice.

[roamer_1]

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

You must be kidding. Once elected he will be virtually unopposed.

[jwalsh07]

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)

My sympathies for your brain injury.

[roamer_1]

I refuse to be driven anywhere by fear.

Excellent. It is unfortunate so few have courage.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

If my wife has cancer and I'm looking for the best doctor, I am not going to ask whether their theology is biblical. I'm gonna look at their education, their credentials and their expertise. One could be a fine christian, but a lousy doctor. On the other hand, one could be a lousy christian, but a great doctor.

Similarly, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were members in good standind of Southern Baptist churches. Jimmy taught Sunday School for years. Bill walked into church with a big Bible in his hands. I would never want either of them to be in command of our military again. In contrast, we know nothing about Ike's faith and he showed himself to be a thoroughly competent commander.

[athelass]

Did Billy Graham ever endorse a candidate ?? Well, yes, he kinda did.

This is just one of hundreds of articles about Billy Graham saying Hillary Clinton would make a good president and Bill should become an evangelist. Does this make him any less a holy man? No. Does it undo all the good he has done? No. Does it lesson my respect for him? No. The same is true for Dr. Dobson.

[gscc]

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.

I prefer to think that those Republicans who are bolting from long held conservative principles to support a New York liberal are the element of the party that is causing a schism within the coalition.  If the democrats win it is because a phenomena that no one would have considered post Reagan - a pro-abortion, gay rights, cross-dresser Republican nominee - is being pushed by people like yourself.

[prairiebreeze]

Since I’m clearly a Fred Thompson supporter I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you overlooked my tagline.

And I have an expectation that people that call themselves either conservatives, evangelicals or both WILL NOT sell this country down the river to the likes of Mrs. Bill Clinton! Either directly or indirectly.

[gscc]

You apparently hold Evangelicals and conservatives to a different standard than Giuliani supporters. If the abortion/gay rights wing of the Republican party wins out and Giuliani gets the nomination it will be them that gives the election to the Democrats. I believe that the onus of division is on those that advocate that which is out of the mainstream of conservative thought.

[roamer_1]

Pro-lifers who equate "principled" with stubbornly settling ONLY for an anti-abortion candidate, are short-sighted and destructive to their own cause.

Your statement makes no sense. A "principle" is immovable by it's very definition. it is a foundational and fundamental item which cannot be compromised without destroying the said foundation inherently. To suggest that Christians destroy foundational beliefs to advance their cause is simply silly.

Pro-lifers who insist that the Republican party "needs them" are worse.

Perhaps, but it is true all the same. There is no way that the Republicans can make up the difference if the Right walks away. More to the point, we all need each other. To vote for a candidate that is not satisfactory to all of the factions of the party is to vote for losing the general election. If the Republican candidate is true to the principles of the Republican platform everyone should be happy to vote for him. When everyone votes for him, we will win. Simple as that.

The bigger the government, the less its respect for personal beliefs. The smaller the government, the more it allows for the freedom of people to follow and live their personal beliefs.

Agreed and accepted. However, small government relies on the righteousness of the governed. Without good people, government is obliged to write laws to control the unacceptable or diverse behaviors and thus is forced to grow, and exponentially at that.

This implies a unified sense of right and wrong without which the libertarian dream is made null. People are then "free to to follow and live their personal beliefs" within the confines of the common moral ethic. In America that ethic is intrinsically bound to the Judeo-Christian faith, regardless of whether each citizen believes or not.

My point in this regard is that one must have Christianity in order to obtain the small government you would desire just as much as the Christians must have a small government to remain free. To put one before the other in priority is the doom of them both, or at least from a political perspective it would be so.

[the808bass]

They will all have to answer for more that Rudy ever will !!

Take a Xanax. They have as much business in politics as any other American. It's call "voting."

[the808bass]

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.

Actions on both sides have consequences. Not just those of the social conservatives. If the Republican party nominates a person who differs drastically from we know to be Republican (don't play with definitions here, we all know what we're talking about), then they should be willing to accept that their social conservatives are not going to be gung-ho about their choice. You cannot say "compromise is part of politics" and then follow that immediately with "you do all the compromising" when addressing social conservatives. That's nonsensical.

[Valin]

Ok...if you say so

[prairiebreeze]

I’ve made no reference to Rudy on this thread or really anywhere else to speak of on this forum since this campaign season started, so I don’t know where you make that leap from.

There is plenty of opportunity to elect a nominee other than Rudy. Hunter is great but can’t and won’t get traction. I don’t trust Romney, but would support him over Hillary. If Rudy wins the nomination it will be without my vote but I’d probably hold my nose (once again) and vote against Hillary.

I won’t contribute to a party split by losing sight of the ultimate goal which is to keep Mrs. Bill Clinton out of the Oval Office. And I WILL NOT SLAP THE FACES of those who fought, sacrified, suffered and died to give me the opportunity to vote by throwing that vote away on a write-in or not voting at all.

Wanna talk about mainstream conservative thought....how about showing up at the polls to do your part in keeping a marxist out of the WH. Hopefully that alternative won’t be Rudy. There are better options available to us. If we will just be smart enough to employ them.

[prairiebreeze]

My post 279 this thread, meant to ping you.