Dobson Admits Third Party Might Help Clinton

The Christian Post ^ | October 10, 2007 | Ethan Cole

[Jim Robinson]

Rudy will never be president. Period.

[Jim Robinson]

B/S. Fred is pro-life.

[gidget7]

WHY on earth would you say that when the primary isn’t even over??

A lot may be willing to just go along with the “vote out of fear” and liberal promotion of the MSM etc, and thereby let the media choose their candidate for them. I can only pray a lot more will not.

[Kevmo]

I agree Fred is mostly pro-life.

And that issue is the one that’s most important to me, usually.

So, are you saying Spiff’s post contains falsehood?

[RightWhale]

• Rudy will never be president.

  He might if he takes off the mask and switches to his true party--Democrat.

[RC2]

It sure would. Now’s not the time to try and bring up a third party. The time to do that is right after the election. We don’t need Hillary in the Oval office at this time. It would take 100 years to fix what she screws up. Congress needs to look into her and her husbands activities prior to them being in the White House.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Most would not criticize a fine Christian moral leader for his views, since he is exactly that."

Why can't his views be criticized? Not all Christians agree with them.

As for him being a fine upstanding Christian moral leader, we shall see. We've seen a lot of those come and go. The trouble is when they go, it's always in shame.

[Kevmo]

JimRob, thanks for spurring me to check on this.

Spiff:

Please address this issue, because I moved forward on it without checking. When I click on the 33% figure, 2 of those votes are about Campaign Finance Reform, not Abortion. Fred voted 100% prolife on that 33% figure, so something is off.

http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=107&x=7&y=17

Tennessee 1 2 3 X O Score
Fred Thompson (R) O O X 1 2 33%

NRLC Scorecard
107th Congress
U.S. Senate

[sofaman]

thanks for trying to answer that...unfortunately, Dobson linked the two, and that steamed me. It plays into the stereotype that Jews have dual loyalty and therefore they are unfit to serve as POTUS...

But you are the first person in 4 days to have a go at that, and I appreciate it.

[dforest]

Fred will do. Rudy and Hillary both stink. It could be a matter of debate as to which one would be the worst.

Neither are conservative. Both are social libs.

If the Rooty toots don’t like that. Too bad.

[Logophile]

The influential pro-family advocate still contends, however, that he would rather vote following his values than compromise and be forced to choose between two pro-choice candidates.

Dr. Dobson can say all he want about his "values"; but how will electing Hillary Clinton advance the causes he says he believes in?

Talk is cheap. If Dr. Dobson and his colleagues want to get their man elected (whoever that might be), they need to convince the voters to vote for him. That requires organization and money. Are Dobson, et al. willing to pay the price?

By all means fight for your guy in the primaries. But when the general election comes, it only makes sense vote for the least objectionable candidate. Threatening to bolt the party if your preferred candidate does not win the primaries is petulant and childish. Dobson and his colleagues need to grow up.

[Route66]

I have no beef with Dr. Dobson, but why is he doing this now? It seems he is stirring the pot every couple of days and I can’t help but think that it is unnecessarily divisive at this stage of the election. Is it not it a bit premature to be talking about third party candidates? If the most important issue to him is abortion (important to me, as well), then it might be more productive at this point to simply encourage support of any of the acceptable pro-life candidates we already have so that we are not ultimately forced to choose between Rudy and Hillary or divide ourselves through third party vote to the point that Hillary will automatically win. Of course that means that he needs to stop declaring them all “unacceptable”. One of them WILL be the nominee and, while none is perfect, all our pro-life candidates are preferable to Hillary and Bill Clinton.

[FightforFreedomCA]

My hope is that Dobson somehow endorses Duncan Hunter.

Shoot, I'll endorse Hunter too, and it will make about the same difference. He's not going to be the nominee, so what's the point?

[sasafras]

“But the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat ...”

I wish that was the case, but it is not. Mel Zucker? (the guy who spoke at the 2004 GOP convention) was alot better than most RINOs. Not that Im backing any dem. There is no difference between bad and worse - its all bad. Jorge has gotten away with more leftest crap because of the R behind his name. No way in hell, a Dem would have gotten away with the crap that Jorge has done and continues to do secretly. We are in a world of hurt if you think that four more years of a Bushwannabe would be better than a conservative Dem (if there is such a thing). Either way were in for a rough ride, I suggest people start figuring out where they stand because the time is coming for you to either be silent or stand up. Soon your speech, thoughts, and freedoms will be removed. I’d just as soon do it at 100mph than limping along at 5mph. Either way were all passenger only some of us will take the precautions of buckling in.

[Jim Robinson]

xzins summed it up very well:

“If you will just agree to the murdering of your children, then we can win the presidency.”

[Kandy Atz]

I lived through the Ross Perot created Clinton fiasco. That situation should never happen again.

Mr Dobson, if you have a problem with the Republican nominees, work towards getting the one you want nominated. If your guy/gal loses, suck it up and support the candidate to prevent the greater evil from being in the White House! A 3rd party candidate helps nobody, but the enemy.

Besides every other issue is meaningless if the POTUS does not understand the importance of the WOT. That IS the most important issue for the next 4 years.

[Kevmo]

If Dobson did endorse Hunter, his 5M listeners would take a look and there would likely be a big boost in the next round of polls. Plus there’d be a lot of activist feet on the ground. So, it wouldn’t make the same amount of difference if it was just you endorsing him, unless you’re some kind of celebrity I’m not aware of.

[Nathan Zachary]

"But Dobson would lose his tax-exempt status if he actually came out and supported a candidate. Technically he should have lost it long ago, as should any church or religious organization that takes sides politically."

Why? I don't see why a church or a minister can't have political views. That's a bunch of B.S. and as far as I can see, there is no law against it.

[FightforFreedomCA]

I’d just as soon do it at 100mph than limping along at 5mph. Either way were all passenger only some of us will take the precautions of buckling in.

..and there it is, exactly what I responded to you previously. And by the way, I strongly disagree. Moving towards disaster at 5mph at least gives you the chance to recover and turn things around. Nihilistic, "it's all gonna burn anyway" thinking negates any hope of people changing or waking up to the reality of the situation.

[prov1813man]

I am a right-wing, heterosexual, white, evangelical Christian. This guy does not speak for me. I am given the gift of discernment by the spirit and am responsible to use it wisely. I will vote for the republican nominee because to do otherwise would be to, objectively, vote for our nations enemies, in accordance with the wishes of the father of all lies.

Yes, I want the most conservative, constitutionally fundamental, candidate possible. However, I will not let the sin of legalism blind me to the realities of the situation. Dobson becomes a tool of the enemy if he is not careful.