Dr. James Dobson Caught Between a rock and the other Rock

You know full well how things work, and helping Hillary by refusing to vote for her opponent does not help your cause in any way.

I will take exception to this remark.

Your entire exception speech doesn't hold up IMHO. A classic case of mind made up long before the cards are on the table and the all in call is made. You and those like you on the "principled" side of the issue, sit in judgment based on the past present and future, long before the present and future are known.

Placing Rudy, and Mitt in a position equal or worse than the potential dem candidate whoever that might be. Worse, you leave yourself no room for change. Not a good or wise position for yourself, your fellow men, or the country you profess to love, that provides to this point the freedom for you to worship God after the dictates of your conscience.

I have to say that I've become quite cynical about Mr. Dobson of late .... his recent dalliance with Newt Gingrich, and his stupid (there's no other word for it) antics with regard to Mr. Thompson were quite an eye-opener for me.

Regarding Mr. Gingrich, We don't really know if it was the dog wagging the tail or the tail wagging the dog. What occurred may have come as a result of Gingrich trying to get himself ready to run... It is not unlikely that he would pick Dobson for his "Come to Jesus" moment because FOTF is just the biggest network. It could also be that they have a working relationship going back to the Gingrich Congress... Now I am not trying to paint Dobson lily white, I am not inclined to do so for anyone. but neither am I inclined to discredit him so easily without some proof.

Regarding Mr. Thompson, I see nothing wrong with Dobson's position, though I am absolutely opposed to Thompson myself, so there may be some bias involved in my opinion. I do wonder how much of this Dobson bashing is really stemming from his refusal to support Thompson, as there are a fair number of FredHeads driving these threads (honest question, not trolling).

Regarding write-in, sitting out, voting 3rd party, joining 3rd party:

I think a lot of folks aren't really stopping to count the cost here. And if they have, they're not admitting it.

In the interest of full disclosure, just in case you are unaware of my position, I will not vote Republican unless a Conservative is offered. I am also fully aware of the cost of that decision. It is a small price to pay IMHO, if one were to consider the alternative- That being electing a RINO anti-life, anti-family, anti-2a Republican. In regard to that position, I offer the following points for your perusal:

My primary objection (and no one has answered this point to date) is that if we allow an anti-life, anti-family, anti-2a candidate to win the election, The Republican party would know that it is possible or even suppose it preferable to do so again. These three major planks of the platform, having been violated, will never be visited again. If we are not willing to defend these issues now, it is my concern that we will never get a chance to do so in the future, because the defender, the Republican party, will have laid down it's sword.

This is the critical issue, and I cannot find reason to be appeased. As horrible as a Clinton presidency would be, at least we would live to fight another day. If the Republicans lay down the sword, they can never regain it. They will have truly lost their honor and will not be trusted again, so another defender will have to rise. I would be happy at that moment to support that rise against the Republicans.

My secondary objection is that a win for the RINOs leaves the RINOs in charge of the party. A loss this year would force a change in leadership in the party and put Conservatives in ascension. The shift of balance to the Conservatives would offer a principled opposition to immigration, globalism, and socialism. To leave RINOs in power assures advancement on all these fronts, not to mention the decline of those things we hold so dear.

Now, the way I would prefer to remove the RINOs from power is a popular Conservative uprising with a popular Conservative candidate providing coattails to Conservative Congressmen and Senators, but alas, the defeat in '06 seems to need repeating.

To conclude, While you may differ with my opinion, there is little doubt that these two objections are well reasoned and true. To me, the price of neglecting our noble cause is utter failure, and that is where the true cost lies. To be sure, a loss will do great injury, but in that injury I find solace as we can regroup and rise to defend another day. To surrender our cause for the win is ignoble and infamous and is, as always, the path to destruction.

Best regards,
Bruce

You and those like you on the "principled" side of the issue, sit in judgment based on the past present and future, long before the present and future are known.

If you don't make principled judgments, then what sort of criteria do you prefer?

If you don't make principled judgments,

My point precisely. You may think it principled, others may think otherwise. The election results and the following four years may provide some insight.

Naturally, people in the church are not perfect. It's silly to think they should be. After all, that's why Jesus came - because we need a Savior.

Yes, people who profess to be Christians can cause pain and heartache - they are people, and people do that kind of thing.

The Christian thing to do is to forgive and move on with life, not carry on about 'zealots'.

You may think it principled, others may think otherwise.

So I am "in the wrong" for requiring Republicans to stand for what they supposedly believe in?

And (assuming it's effective, which I don't think it would be) the cost of Dobson's stand will be reminiscent of another "principled stand." As a result of that one, we ended up with 8 years of Bill Clinton. So take the principled stand if you must. But count the cost, too -- because it's likely to be pretty steep.

In case you haven't figured it out yet, ol' roamer's got a man crush on Duncan Hunter (maybe roamy never have served in the military). That's why he gets so exercised about Dobson, even though he claims to have no special love for the former patron of "Haggard the Faggard". And don't let him wrap the flag around himself, and nail himself to the Cross, 'cause he has no special claim to either one. We took on Stalin's regime as an ally in WWII to get rid of an even greater tyrant; by roamer's logic, we should have stayed home so as not to pollute ourselves with the taint of Godless Communism. He's arrogant (thinks he can read minds) and judgmental (he actually claims the right to pronounce judgment in one of his posts, Jesus' warning against passing judgment notwithstanding). Most of all, and I would say this about anyone who would, by action or inaction, help Hillary Clinton get elected, doesn't seem to realize that "there's a war on", and what the stakes are.

I stated earlier, we have not even had the primary election yet. I’m fairly certain the party platform has something in it regarding the sanctity of life. I believe in that principle, and would never suggest anyone have an abortion, however, party platform and law, are two different subjects.

The Republican party is not responsible for the Supreme court decision, any more than you or I are. It is the law, and until it is changed, neither you nor I nor anyone else is going to be held accountable for something we do not have control over in the least.

Those who will be held accountable are those performing abortions, and the host of groups and individuals who deceive the public into thinking that killing generations of future population is a wise and good thing to be doing despite the fact that abortion has been made legal.

Reason and conscience say otherwise, but unless you are willing to stand up, gun in hand and sacrifice yourself in the name of stopping those who are carrying it out you are fighting against the entire democrat party, liberals and socialists, and their principle, the substitute for Christian doctrine. They just love to trample that which Christians regard as sacred. I think it is going to take a bit more than a principled stand to win the day.

Personally I think it far better to work within each state to get legislators to the point of banning the practice as the State of SD attempted to do. Enough legislatures come through with legislation that sticks Constitutionally and we are then on the road to actually doing something that will reduce the genocide of the countries future.

When it comes to principle, I feel the more important principles revolve around keeping the ten commandments, which man has sufficient difficulty with, instead of standing in judgment over those engaged in dubious legal killing of the future generation.

When and if God decides they have gone far enough he will provide the way for the system to right itself, without you having to make principled double think decisions, that could lead to a longer and longer wait for conditions and circumstances to be ready for the change you and I and millions of other faithful Christians seek.

Consider the time it took for the democrats to fully ingratiate themselves with enough of the American people for change to come about the last time. Wasn’t it forty years. I would not want to see Democrats in charge of this country for the next 40 years but that is certainly a distinct possibility with the 08 election.

Remember we haven’t even had the primary election yet. So this is all just a whole lot of speculation. I hope I was able to keep this within the rules of polite conversation. If anything pops out to you as personal or demeaning I didn’t mean it to be.

When and if God decides they have gone far enough he will provide the way for the system to right itself, without you having to make principled double think decisions[...]

True, but perhaps this is a part of that plan. I can understand your position, though I respectfully disagree. God has always called for us to be people of conviction. We are to do what is right, not what is easy or expedient. IMHO, I am following that precept, as I am sure you are doing in your own considered way.

While abortion is a matter of primacy for me, it is not the only objectionable thing... You may address the reasons to vote for an anti-2a and pro-illegal immigrant candidate as well, if you wish.

Or better yet, I had laid out my position to r9etb upthread on #194. My two overall objections are contained therein, and have never been answered. You are welcome to take a crack at those, if you wish...

Consider the time it took for the democrats to fully ingratiate themselves with enough of the American people for change to come about the last time. Wasn’t it forty years. I would not want to see Democrats in charge of this country for the next 40 years but that is certainly a distinct possibility with the 08 election.

I dread it as well, I really do. But I find the "Compassionate Conservatism" and Globalism of the Rockefeller wing to be equally as dangerous as Socialism (it is the same thing IMHO). It is our responsibility to clean our own house first, and that is my intention. The enemy is not at the gate, he is within us. To continue to be placated is not enough.

I would also repeat another thing I have said before. This election is about trust. If the Republicans lose this election it will be because they are found to be without honor, and unworthy of their charge. Look at how far we have strayed from what the "Conservative" party is supposed to represent.

Remember we haven’t even had the primary election yet. So this is all just a whole lot of speculation.

But after the election, those here who get their way will justify the actions of the future president with the idea that we should have "done something in the primary" which is precisely what I am doing now.

I hope I was able to keep this within the rules of polite conversation. If anything pops out to you as personal or demeaning I didn’t mean it to be.

LOL! ;) I recognize "wita" as being a very old name here, even perhaps "one of the ancients" as it were. You know your way around the protocols of decorum quite well, I believe. Your post is a well measured and thoughtful reply, and you need not worry that I might take offense at that.

Best Regards,
Bruce

“Your boy Rudy is toast.”

Rudy is not my boy; I am against abortion. He is what passes for a Republican in New York. If I were a New Yorker, I would vote for him for state office because the Democrats will be undoubtedly worse. The libertarian, theocracy or whatever 3rd party candidate will not have a chance.

“He will split the party right down the middle if nominated.”

And so, I hope that he is not. Hopefully someone like Sen. Thompson will be nominated instead. But Rudy Guliani is ten times better than any of the prospective Democratic candidates.

“But that really is the problem, isn’t it?! You really are not a conservative, and probably have a strong dislike for those who actually live their lives by their morals vs. pragmatism.”

You are free to browse the website in my sig to see where my principles lie. My concern is that this country cannot take another Clinton presidency. It was not only our security and international credibility that was damaged.

Having Bill Clinton in office during the ‘90s had a profound effect upon our culture. There is no doubt in my mind that the promiscuity at an earlier age, and the devaluation of our women as mere sex toys is a direct result of the permission that was given by having the President of the United States engage in such behavior and get away with it.

And yet, feminists rallied to his defense because they are Leftists first and advocates for women dead last.

Unlike Bill who craved power for mostly hedonistic reasons, Hillary is a hard-core elitist who feels duty bound to ram Marxism down our throats for our own good. She will attack the family by having it replaced with government institutions.

She will increase nationalization of our economy, and when it tanks as a result, she will call for more of the same as a cure.

She will increase the likelihood of a major war by giving our enemies the impression that we will not stand up for ourselves when threatened. Likely China will attack Taiwan if elected, and she will argue that it is not worth spending American lives defending one of the few democracies in Asia.

More terrorist attacks will occur, and we will go back to terrorism being treated as a law enforcement issue rather than a worldwide conflict for the survival of our civilization — which is what it actually is.

Just look at what’s happening to Europe to see what she has in store for us.

And this is the most important thing: those who come of age under a Hillary presidency will consider this to be the norm.

No, I cannot abide that and would indeed vote for Rudy if that is what it took to keep Hillary out. Why? Because that is what is best for our country — and possibly for Western civilization as we know it.

Those of you who imply that America deserves to be punished with Hillary if we do not vote for a Dobson-approved candidate baffle me.

You may address the reasons to vote for an anti-2a and pro-illegal immigrant candidate as well, if you wish.

I haven’t exactly come to terms with these two yet, they probably assume the dominant position in my play book, and someone better come through with what I’m wanting to hear, like no amnesty and throwing away the illegal gun laws. What are my chances with any party. Probably bad, but worse with the second and third parties.

I recognize “wita” as being a very old name here,

Speaking of decorum, who said old? I could easily take offense if I wasn’t so mature.

Speaking of decorum, who said old? I could easily take offense if I wasn’t so mature.

LOL! Perhaps I should have said "elder" instead. *pokes ribs* :D