Posted on 10/11/2007 5:04:00 PM PDT by Victory111
In a surprising move Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family announced in an op-ed in the New York Times that he and some 50 colleagues met and discussed what position they would take in the upcoming Presidential race.
According to a report on Fox news October 9, 2007 Dobson said “If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand, and the result was almost unanimous.”
(Excerpt) Read more at crossactionnews.com ...
I will take exception to this remark.
It isn't a matter of who wins. It is a matter of what that win means. If Giuliani were to win the nomination and the election The Republican party would never again revisit the defense of the unborn, the sanctity of marriage, or the defense of the 2nd amendment for that matter. The ideology and power brokering of the party would be changed over night because the party would know they can win without these contentious issues. Thereafter, any pretense toward defending these issues would be simply that... pretense.
It is not Hillary we oppose, it is her ideology. We do not win by opposing her, but by supporting our own ideology which we believe to be superior to hers. To elect one of our own who is the antithesis of our ideology, who conforms in large measure to the ideology of our opponents not only defies good sense, it demonstrates an extraordinary lack of belief in those same ideals we supposedly rise to defend.
If Giuliani were able to win the day, it could only be because the Republican party is as vapid and without substance as Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize. People are not going to cling to such a party, it would be the doom thereof.
It will always boil down to principles. It is what we stand for that holds us together. Without support of those principles we fracture and fall apart. It is the very nature of what we are and is amply demonstrated by the vitriol on this and many other threads. While it does not bode well for this election, it does lend hope to the idea that Conservatism will survive to fight another day.
That says it all in a nutshell.
I guess you won’t mind the Fairness Doctrine being implemented then. You probably think the Internet and Talk Radio are just too unfairly conservative and that it will be ok for Hillary to stomp on free speech in America. And I guess you won’t mind all those extra tax dollars you will be paying so every kid in America can get a $5000 bond at birth. And of course you want health care as good as Canada....at much more the cost... with no options of a place to go if you are refused treatment. You’ll probably cheer when Sandy Berger who stole records from the National Archives becomes Sec. O State. Yep - You just sit this one out....
This election has more than one important issue.
It’s a hypothetical.
If you want me to answer your hypothetical, then answer mine.
I know a lot of Freepers have problems with understanding hypothetical logic. Perhaps one could start by looking up the definition of the word “IF” and “hypothetical”.
best of luck
No the biggest question is how many democrat trolls are running around FR arguing that people like me, who have taken a principled stand not to support Rudy Giuliani in the General Election, will drop our principles and vote for Rudy just to hold off a Hillary presidency.
I'm not willing to do that. Millions of pro-life people will not vote for Rudy under any circumstances. We are prepared to accept whatever judgment God will meet out upon our nation should we, as a nation, choose to put up two pro-abortion candidates in the General Election.
Keep that in mind before you pull the lever for Rudy in the primaries.
According to a report on Fox news October 9, 2007 Dobson said “If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor party candidate. Those agreeing with the proposition were invited to stand, and the result was almost unanimous.”
If you want to go comparing the size of your hypothetical with somebody, go do it with Mr. Dobson. He's the one who brought up the subject.
And since I generally try to limit my discussion to the actual topic of the thread, I see no reason to dance to your tune on this one.
Looks like my response was pulled. It was something from blogthings. You are simply too thin-skinned to be playing in this sandbox if you can’t handle a little bit of fun prodding from a Blogthings quiz.
Very well, then; I’ll answer that hypothetical.
If neither of the two major political parties nominates an individual who pledges himself or herself to the sanctity of human life, we will join others in voting for a minor party candidate.
***Yes I will join in those forces.
Well, yes, you say that, and I suppose I must believe you. And thus I will call on you also to acknowledge and affirm that you accept the consequences of your stand.
Just so we're clear: the net effect of Dobson's threat (if it's noticeable at all) will be to decrease votes to the Republican candidate. The Democrat will most likely not suffer any commensurate loss in votes as a result of Dobson's third-party strategy.
And thus the practical consequences of your stand will be to improve the chances of the Democrat (most likely Hillary Clinton). And her positions are uniformly worse, from your perspective, than those of Mr. Giuliani. The practical meaning of that is essentially to admit that you don't care if it's President Hillary, just so long as it's not President Rudy.
So, from a practical standpoint, your "principled stand" ends up making things worse, rather than better -- and not just with respect to abortion.
Now, hypotheticals aside, Dr. Dobson is not really making threats about the general election. Dr. Dobson's is trying to affect the Republican primaries by making a threat of "withdrawing support" unless the R's play along with him.
And when Giuliani doesn't get the nomination, Mr. Dobson can bask in the glow of his "successful show of strength" even though, in all likelihood, Dobson's threat will have had at most a second-order effect on the eventual outcome.
FWIW, I think this whole thing is an exercise in gum-flapping in any event. Fred Thompson probably ends up with the Republican nod, if only because he's "more presidential-seeming" than anybody else. I could be wrong about that, but I don't think so.
I was raised as a young person in a strict austere religious environment.
I have dealt with over zealous zealots and yes my FR friend they can hurt you with well intentioned meddling.
Just as the over zealous zealots of the Sanhedrin had Jesus hung on the cross, zealots in some current day churches can cause pain and heartache.
It is a great thing to be empowered with the spirit of our lord but it is another when that person elevates themselves above another human.
There is no greater feeling than to know Christ.
And thus I will call on you also to acknowledge and affirm that you accept the consequences of your stand.
***Again, I like how Cogamer had to say it, so I’m stealing it:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1909436/posts?page=158#152
some people on this board are PUSHING it. They not only expect us to grin and tolerate it, they expect us to help!! They see conservatives being marginalized, and then bash conservatives for not supporting the politicians who are marginalizing them. It’s insane!
Let’s look at this through the prism of other movements: Would pro-choice women vote for a politician who announced he wanted to make abortion illegal? Would black voters ever support a politician who wanted to bring back segregation? Would muslims ever support a candidate who was on the record as saying islam was evil?
Would their friends even TRY to tell them they HAD to vote for these candidates even if they didn’t want to?
No! But conservatives are expected to vote for anyone who has an R after their name, no matter how dangerous to the movement, just to avoid the ire of a bunch of wishy-washy phonies whose only brush with conservatism is the fact that they post to this website.
They need to understand - if they nominate Rudy, THEY are responsible for what follows. THEY know many will refuse to support him. So, turning their flawed logic on its head : If they support Rudy, they must actually want Hillary to win. Indeed - if Hillary changed parties they’d be telling us we had to support HER to stop OBAMA!!!!
152 posted on 10/10/2007 6:28:13 PM PDT by COgamer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Just so we’re clear: the net effect of Dobson’s threat (if it’s noticeable at all) will be to decrease votes to the Republican candidate.
***The net effect of the THREAT — it won’t have any effect on the election because it’s so far away. The net effect is zero, like you say, gum-flapping.
The Democrat will most likely not suffer any commensurate loss in votes as a result of Dobson’s third-party strategy.
***IF the 3rd party strategy becomes a reality. Let’s remember that we’re within a hypothetical, because so many freepers have trouble with hypotheticals. IF. The entire hypothetical neglects that a candidate with strong crossover appeal could be backed. So it’s a relatively useless hypothetical.
And thus the practical consequences of your stand will be to improve the chances of the Democrat (most likely Hillary Clinton).
***Actually, the practical consequences of the stand will be the formation of a new social conservative party. Just like what happened to the Whigs when the socons bolted and became the Republicans. Whatever is left of the republican party will fade into obscurity.
And her positions are uniformly worse, from your perspective, than those of Mr. Giuliani.
***No. Her positions are almost equivalent to Mr. tootyfruityrudy, from my perspective.
The practical meaning of that is essentially to admit that you don’t care if it’s President Hillary, just so long as it’s not President Rudy.
***I don’t want a pro-choice president. Given the choice between a kick in the nuts and a punch in the face, I’d say NO THANKS to both. “admit that you don’t care”... Baloney. I care. Do you care about 40M dead souls sacrificed to the god of convenience in our society?
So, from a practical standpoint, your “principled stand” ends up making things worse, rather than better — and not just with respect to abortion.
***It’s a distinct possibility. Was America better off when the Republican party formed and left the wispy Whigs to disintegrate in their own moral relativism?
Now, hypotheticals aside, Dr. Dobson is not really making threats about the general election. Dr. Dobson’s is trying to affect the Republican primaries by making a threat of “withdrawing support” unless the R’s play along with him.
***Probably. But keep in mind it’s not just Dobson. It’s Dobson + 50 EV leaders. I happen to be disappointed in them at the moment, but that’s because I think this little power play is too little too late. They should have done this 3 months ago.
And when Giuliani doesn’t get the nomination, Mr. Dobson can bask in the glow of his “successful show of strength” even though, in all likelihood, Dobson’s threat will have had at most a second-order effect on the eventual outcome.
***Doubtful. You don’t get influence by knocking out the loser, you get it by propping up the winner. That’s why these guys have been so wimpy about backing a 2nd tier socon like Hunter. They failed to live by their principles.
FWIW, I think this whole thing is an exercise in gum-flapping in any event. Fred Thompson probably ends up with the Republican nod, if only because he’s “more presidential-seeming” than anybody else. I could be wrong about that, but I don’t think so.
***I think you’re right, at least at this stage. Thompson has the name recognition wrapped up, and that counts for a lot in politics because parties are too lazy to build the name recognition of someone who fits the bill — they’d rather leverage existing name recognition and suck the candidate’s kneecaps for favors.
The President affects your single issue in just one way, nominating supreme court judges. Until Roe is turned over, nothing else matters.
Your choice is voting for someone whom you can influence on the issue of judges, and voting for someone who will do everything in her power to pack the court with Roe supporters.
Take your pick. But doing anything less than supporting a Republican candidate next November is a vote to guarantee the continuation of Roe vs. a shot at getting rid of it.
No Republican candidate, even Rudy, is a single issue pro-abortion candidate. They merely aren't going to work to overturn Roe. Hillary is an affirmatively pro-abortion candidate, and you can take that to the bank.
And then there are all those other conservative issues like taxes and fighting terrorism..... Think about it.
The net effect of those who insist on Rudy is that they will be responsible for electing Hillary.
You MUST understand this: We must choose God. And God in pro-life. To violate that is to go back on our faith.
What prevents YOU from voting for Thompson, Romney....anyone but Rudy?
If the Republican Party perceives that enough conservative voters would be serious in their refusal to support Giuliani, that would decrease the likelihood of them pushing through his nomination (unless the leadership is suicidal, in which case nothing matters). Some people think that the difference between Giuliani and his Republican competitors is sufficiently great that even a small reduction in the probability of Giuliani getting the nomination would be worth an increase in the relative probability that, if Giuliani is nominated, Hillary would beat him.
For example (choosing probabilities somewhat arbitrarily), conservatives may regard a scenario with probabilities:
But I don't insist on Rudy. He's not my first, second, or third choice.
I'm just actually looking at the underlying logic of Dobson's threat, in the one matchup where it makes sense ... a Rudy vs. Hillary election.
If you think Dobson is making a thread, you are wrong.
He’s explaining that he CANNOT support Rudy, that it would be a violation of his compact with God.
My other posts on this thread are based on the idea of taking Dobson at his word. In which case his threat seems more damaging than helpful to his ultimate goal.
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.