Posted on 10/15/2007 7:56:21 AM PDT by BigAlPro
James Dobson is a courageous leader and a battle-scarred warrior. He has gone head to head with the best of them and has done a wonderful job of defending Christian values in the political arena. He has earned our respect and deserves our prayers.
However, just as John Kerry's war record didn't make him a good president, Jim Dobson's record does not make him right about the 2008 presidential race.
Dobson has allowed his pride to cause him to publicly vow "never for the rest of my life to vote for anyone who would kill innocent babies." Making this a personal vow is not the problem. The problem is that he has tied his position to the front-runners for the 2008 presidential election and is publicly encouraging millions to follow his lead. If that happens, Hillary Clinton will most certainly be the next president.
According to most major polls, if the general election were held today, Rudy Giuliani would face Hillary Clinton for president. If this scenario becomes a reality, pro-lifers will be forced to choose which pro-choice candidate would be the best of the two to defend the sanctity of life. According to the Dobson plan, pro-lifers should not vote for either candidate.
Promoting our values can never be accomplished by refusing to vote. A non-vote for Rudy would be the same as casting two votes for Hillary.
American citizens not only have the right to vote, but the responsibility to vote. We have a duty to ourselves, our children and our country to make sure that the best candidates are elected. We never have the luxury of having "ideal candidates," who meet 100 percent of our expectations. In every election, we must choose the best person for the job, from the field of available candidates.
There are also times where we may have to set aside our pride in order to make sure the wrong person does not get elected. The 2008 election could present such an opportunity for the pro-life citizens of this country.
If Dobson wants to take a biblical approach to this situation, he should go back and study the books of Daniel and Esther in the Old Testament.
Daniel was taken captive to Babylon and forced into slavery as an assistant to some very evil kings. He did not refuse to work for them because their pagan practices clashed with his religion. Instead, Daniel held true to his faith and honored God as he worked directly with and for the evil kings.
Esther was chosen to be the queen of a pagan king. She could have gone out of her way to avoid selection, but instead, she gave her best for the sake of her Lord. In doing so, God used her to save his people from complete annihilation by having her convince the pagan king to change his position.
Neither of these Old Testament heroes wanted the task appointed them. Surely they would have preferred to remain with other godly people. However, when the time came, they did what they had to do for the sake of God's plan.
If God gives us a choice between candidates A and B, we do not have the option of choosing D, none of the above.
I would never vote for Rudy, or any other pro-choice candidate, in a primary election. However, once the lots have been cast and I am forced to choose between bad or worse, I will prayerfully make the godly choice.
Dobson's Option C is the promotion of a conservative third-party candidate. Unfortunately, there is not enough time to establish a viable third-party candidate for the 2008 election. First, we need to keep Hillary from becoming president. Then Dobson and company can focus on building a third party.
The solution to the Dobson problem is simple. Americans need to make sure that we don't have two pro-choice candidates on the presidential ballot next November. That battle can only be won in the primaries.
A liberal Republican is the greater of two evils.
Yup.
Duncan Hunter is the solution.
Stupid statement by the author. The writer is free not to agree, but to pretend to know motivations shows his bias.
First paragraph: great.
Second paragraph: great.
Third paragraph — he loses me.
Let me try putting the question like this, for Dobson-dissers:
1. Is there ANY ISSUE that would cause you not to vote for a GOP candidate?
2. If the answer is “Yes,” then why can you choose that issue, but Dobson can’t choose protecting our most helpless and most innocent Americans as his issue?
If Dobson is so against having a pro-choice candidate, WHY did he torpedoe the only pro-life candidate with a chance to win?(Thompson)
Thank you for pointing out that we go through a primary process before we get to the general election. We work like heck for our candidate in the primary and THEN vote for the Republican. Any Republican is far superior to any Democrat.
Is there ever a time not to vote for the GOP candidate? Absolutely! If the other "electable" candidate would be the better president.
Has that happened in my lifetime? NOT YET!
Doesn’t he say he’d vote third-party? That would almost certainly be a non-viable candidate, but it would be a candidate.
You may have a point but, I think by not answering my question, you miss my point.
Dobson is in favor of an amendment to the constitution that protects unborn children versus turning it back to the states. He probably thinks (and rightly so) that if it is turned back to the states, it will likely remain legal.
As we all know, Fred is in favor of turning it back to the states.
And, one could argue things have been better with gridlock and Republicans losing Congress. Suddenly, there is a lot less spending and Republicans and Bush are suddenly pushing for less spending. Funding for the Iraq war and even abstinence in public schools have continued. So, I see no negative results from the 2006 election except for the fact the Republicans have yet to learn conservatism wins elections.
No amount of demanding that everybody flush their values to support the GOP just so that we can help the GOP beat Hillary with their new, proven winning formula of nominating Liberals - a formula from which they will stray nevermore.
There is a difference between compromising to win, and compromising everything so that someone else can win. I am all for compromise, but I would no more vote for Rudy911 than I would vote for a Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Socialist who hated Israel - just because someone howls about Hillary winning.
Beat your breast, gnash your teeth, howl and cry, moan and demand all you want — Many of us will work for Rudy911’s defeat in 2008, not his coronation.
So, If we get 97% of what we want, thats not enough. Lets help elect Hillary by encouraging third party. I bet Hillary’s people Love Dobson for what he did. He’s a useful Idiot.
Given a Clinton/Guiliani general election we have to choose the best proabortionist. Thanks but no thanks.
It is called "principle" not "pride" that motivates him to take the position he does!
Dittos to your sentiments!
At that point in time, if the Republican Party has nominated Rudy, the party will have left me, I will not have left the party.
I will do everything in my power to make sure Rudy loses, including voting for the qualified Pro-Life candidate.
No more backing up on my principles.
Remember that it was the fiscal Conservatives, not the SoCons, who stayed home in 2006 over the spending - add to that the fact that Independents saw the party as corrupt and scandal-ridden. I think Rudy911 is just the Fiscal Cons’ way of “punishing” the SoCons and Second Amendment folks. Just listen to them on any blog, even FR, and you’ll think that the single greatest problem with America is the “iron grip” the Religious Right has on the GOP.
How better to marginalize the Cultural/Moral/Social/Gun Conservatives than to run an avowed enemy of theirs in the primaries - win the primary - and then win the Presidency?
No. There is far more need to beat Rudy911 than to beat Hillary. There is an entire movement at stake - not just the 2008 election.
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.