I love these single-issue conservatives who threaten to bolt to a third party or stay home. If they listen to Dobson, we’ll get another Clinton presidency — as if two terms weren’t damaging enough.
Take a look at the percentage Perot won in ‘92 and then look at the margin that Clinton had in his plurality victory over Bush’s father. Will history repeat itself?
Let me be more explicit: A vote for a third party — or abastaining to vote — is a tacit vote for Hillary. Period.
Dobson and his likes make a lot of noise...but it falls on deaf ears except the fools who think in terms of single issues..and hopefully there is not enough of them to make a difference....except in their eyes!!
Let me be clear, W. A vote for Rudy is a vote for a split party; i.e., a vote for Hillary.
Dobson’s goal is not to destroy the country, but to force the Republican Party to behave honorably for a change, and quit drifting toward nominating someone not only the evangelicals, but the conservative base, will not support enthusiastically, someone who is pushed by the Leftmedia and the eastern country-club establishment so that the voters will have no real choice. It will not be easy to beat Hillary (or Obama), and not possible at all if all components of the conservative base are not fully mobilized.
Dobson will GUARANTEE a lib pres will appoint PRO-CHOICE judges to the SC. He is not doing the right thing. He should support the non-dim candidate and use pressure once that person is in office to achieve his goals.
Yeah, gee, you’re right. Completely blow off something that is so close to your core beliefs. Yep. Life. Who needs that to get in the way?
Glad we have your type around to keep us all straight.
LOL, already we hear the cry of the party faithful. The Framers did not intend for us to vote for a party, we were asked to vote for a candidate that represented our views. If Hillary wins it's not the fault of those that choose to vote in a different fashion, it's the fault of the candidate for not representing the views of those whose vote he seeks. And instead of the party faithful influencing their candidate, they blame those in the electorate for daring to think for themselves. The audacity!!
Now there are two problems here. First, the electorate is generally too stupid and too easily led to influence choosing the Senate or the Presidency. They vote for who promises the most. Or they see it as some sort of team sport and blame anyone who refuses to not play for their team. That's like asking someone if they want to be hit in the head or the gut. A sensible person will choose neither. And you're blaming them for it.
Second, whoever Dobson would suggest as a third party candidate would be just as much as a nanny statist as anyone the Republicans or Democrats would put regularly put up.
The candidates no longer debate on whether something should be done (i.e. federal control over a myriad of things) but what fashion it should be done in.
Excellent observation and true.
Well said!!
Let me be more explicit: I have crawled across the glass and held my nose for the last time.
If the Republicans don't have a candidate that I can support, I will vote for a candidate I can support.
If that puts Hitlery into the White House, so be it, at that point I won't care.
I would rather have an enemy in front of me that I can fight than an enemy behind me ready to stab me in the back.